Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[plissken]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

 

Probably should be true. In a one or two man firm it is probably not a priority to spend tens of thousands of dollars they don't have on testing equipment, before they design product. So they design by ear.

 

That's an oxymoron

1 hour ago, firedog said:

 

I see lots of audio product sold without any meaningful measurement data, even by not small firms.

That's a problem

[pkane2001]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Think mains filters for the moment. I think most would accept that components that have poor rejection of mains interference would likely benefit from such devices, in some instances. If I were to test every mains filter, designed for all sorts of situations, they could all be shown to have some impact on the signal passing through them, altering the frequency response of the mains line - so, they all have, easily measurable, electrical behaviour.

 

But were I to insert each of these units before a particular component, with some there would be zero audible impact, with others a positive impact, and yet others a negative impact - an example of the latter could be a power amplifier which has the current spike to top up its smoothing caps limited.

 

IOW, these are devices - the main filters - which are system dependent on their action - proving that they "have an effect beyond placebo" on the audio quality depends upon everything in the environment of a particular system - a completely different thing from proving they have some electrical behaviours, which may or may not be relevant.

 

So many of these tweaks fall into this camp - there is nothing intrinsically special about the the device in itself; its function is merely to help the audio system stop misbehaving in some fashion. Like a spring washer used in dozens of places on a mechanical device subject to vibration - accidentally leave one off, and it may make a zero difference - or the machine may catastrophically fail a couple of years down the track ... how do you measure the value of a particular spring washer?

 

 

Sure, I can envision all these noise paths through the system. But,  the result of these should be measurable. What is reported, instead, is that they are audible, but not measurable. That is a big red flag for me.

 

If noise we are fighting has an effect below the measurable noise floor of the whole system, and well below audibility, then what do these cleaner devices really do?

 

[plissken]

17 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Alex,

 

He doesn’t seem to be asking you to post measurements, rather John Swenson. The issue of John needing to post measurements for his claims has been brought up endlessly and John is very well aware. The delays are very understandable under the circumstances. AFAIK John is working on this.

 

I think there was s a general consensus that good low noise, low leakage power supplies are important. Lets keep the discussion rational.

 

Jonathan

 

It's been worked on for almost 3 years. I don't know if their measurements or Jud's paper is coming out first. 

[jabbr]

21 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

It's been worked on for almost 3 years. I don't know if their measurements or Jud's paper is coming out first. 

or my DAC ... I’m not throwing any stones — I’m also not selling anything so point well taken.

 

That said I’m sure he has measured the power supplies etc, it the claims of effect in DAC etc that are more complex to measure.

 

These effect of DAC debates are not settled and perhaps “researchy”

[89reksal]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

He doesn’t seem to be asking you to post measurements, rather John Swenson. The issue of John needing to post measurements for his claims has been brought up endlessly and John is very well aware. The delays are very understandable under the circumstances. AFAIK John is working on this.

 

Lots of measurements posted.

Edit: I forgot that his posts were spread over two different threads. John's is the second post on this page::

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

That's an oxymoron

 

No, just not the way you think it should be done. 

[firedog]

30 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Lots of measurements posted.

Plissken is referring to measurements of DAC output, with and without Regen type devices. 

These haven't been posted. 

AFAIU, JS says standard measurement equipment is very expensive and he didn't think it would measure what he wants to, so he bought parts and is building his own. 

I'd guess that we are going to see the results at some time in the coming months.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

Plissken is referring to measurements of DAC output, with and without Regen type devices. 

These haven't been posted. 

 

Some have been measured by others, but the results did not bear out the claims of the manufacturer.

 

[marce]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

The majority of members of Computer Audiophile are NOT E.E.s , so kindly stop expecting people posting subjective reports, in a forum other than the likes of Hydrogen Audio etc. , to post measurements.

You are the qualified people, so if you don't accept the validity of posted subjective reports, then make suitable measurements yourselves.

I come from a technical background from 43 years with Telstra, but I am not expert enough to do in-depth measurements, neither do I have access to suitable test  equipment either. That is precisely the reason that I involved Martin Colloms , who is a qualified E.E. and technical writer with my previous findings, and he performed POSITIVE DBTs on them, I also asked Barry Diament, who is a highly respected Recording and Mastering Engineer to check out a comparison CD that I sent him.

Barry confirmed that he did hear differences , despite the checksums being identical.

 

Perhaps you are in the wrong forum if you expect more than this from non qualified members ?

 

G'night from Sydney Au.

 

P.S.

 Attached is a link to previous experimentation in this area before John Swenson became involved

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/13905-continuing-pursuit-of-power-supply-improvements-and-improved-dac-performance/?tab=comments#comment-198412

 

We were talking about John Swenson, he's not a standard member, he has designed some gear, please try and stay on track Alex...

[marce]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Sure, I can envision all these noise paths through the system. But,  the result of these should be measurable. What is reported, instead, is that they are audible, but not measurable. That is a big red flag for me.

 

If noise we are fighting has an effect below the measurable noise floor of the whole system, and well below audibility, then what do these cleaner devices really do?

 

Its EMC compatibility engineering...

[marce]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Yes although anecdotes by established designers are valuable. I recall that I was initially of the opinion that USB cables couldn’t possibly have a “sound” until Gordon @Wavelength reported his own detailed experience (he has excellent equipment) that USB cables have readily measurable electrical transmission differences — IIRC there are some cheap cables that are as good as much more expensive but under the scope there are differences ergo there might be a sound.

 

Now my own scope is barely 2 ghz on a good day (4gsps) so not too eager to diagnose Ethernet but ...

 

( @crenca that was the single first piece of information that led me, personally, to doubt that all digital cables are the same — this info was reported a few years ago — is an observation under an oscilloscope by a highly qualified engineer subjective?)

I do remember this, have you any links please, I would like to re-look at it. I am aware that there are differences in USB cables and in any digital transmission. And on another thread did put forth some information regarding EMC issues etc. Even though I am doubtful of well engineered system showing differences in cables I am still looking at all the evidence, as I said on the other thread noise could account for the differences but no firm conclusion. In fact I put up quite a long proposal, giving some effects that could have an effect, it was ignored by many, but other short post's were jumped on by the believers and I was ravaged, as if I had fallen in a pit full of Chihuahua's.

Unlike you my scope and other kit is in a landfill site, when we last moved some boxes got mixed up! and got dumped

[marce]

27 minutes ago, firedog said:

Plissken is referring to measurements of DAC output, with and without Regen type devices. 

These haven't been posted. 

AFAIU, JS says standard measurement equipment is very expensive and he didn't think it would measure what he wants to, so he bought parts and is building his own. 

I'd guess that we are going to see the results at some time in the coming months.

A lot of the claims regarding the Regen (USB HUB) are referring to signal Integrity (made by Superdad), how can you make such claims without some data...

[pkane2001]

31 minutes ago, marce said:

Its EMC compatibility engineering...

 

Or perhaps it's audiophile-compatibility engineering?

[crenca]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

I would be happy to help you. First answer a question: What specifically brought you, personally, to the opinion that Etheet cables do not have a “sound”?

 

1) Something you read? 

— where?

— textbook

— article? who wrote it?

— an opinion piece or technical analysis?

2) Something someone told you?

3) The discussion here?

4) An analysis you did based on Maxwell’s equations?

5) A different technical analysis? What?

6) Your own listening tests?

7) Someone else’s listening reports? Whose?

8) Sonething else? What?

 

 

Common sense

 

Again, these alleged technical "unknowns" as a ground for the larger culture of radical subjectivism that is the ground for the confidence game  -  this is what I am pointing to with this thread.  It is natural (given the culture) that most posts are in fact simply a reflection of this internal tension, the eternal "subjectivist vs objectivist" debate, but that is not any kind of "analysis" I am interested in.  I am pointing to and analysing the larger issues.

 

I should be clear in that I don't believe Audiophiledom can or will be meaningfully shaped by someone "proving" the truth about Ethernet cables to yours, mine, or anyone else's satisfaction.  Rather, the conditions that allow for this and all the other cloud cuckoland crazy that is a systemic disease will change (in some way - maybe for the worse!).  Audio Neuro thinks it is just all par for the course because of the human condition, but I and many others note Audiophildom is a rather special case.  Esldude and others are talking about the history, the market, etc. that lead to this.  I am optimistic that their is a real (even "renewed") interest in "High Fidelity" as such and that a kind of split is coming or rather already here.  Perhaps I am just a crazy dreamer  

[jabbr]

@crenca answer the question : what caused you personally to believe that Ethernet cables dont/can’t have a sound. How did this enter your “common sense”?

[crenca]

17 minutes ago, jabbr said:

@crenca answer the question : what caused you personally to believe that Ethernet cables dont/can’t have a sound. How did this enter your “common sense”?

 

Nope.  This thread (or at least my participation in it) is not about how I in particular avoided the audiophile curse of radical subjectivism and cloud cuckoland crazy.  It does not matter how I in particular came to the objective truth.  "Fate was kind to me" is as good as answer as any.

 

I am interested in the larger questions of how this culture came to be, where it is going, etc.

[Allan F]

13 hours ago, crenca said:

Also I should note that "technically unexplainable" won't work because it takes the likely (granted, in almost all of this not "proven") cause out of the language, namely the delusional agent (no matter how self satisfied the agent is with their state of affairs).

 

To this objectivist mantra, with which I do not agree, the following reply is appropriate:

 

"Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted."

-William Bruce Cameron

 

By way of example, there was an interesting panel discussion at RMAF which included four well known designers of audio equipment. John Curl noted how, in his experience in designing and building amplifiers, he found that different brands of resistors that measured the same did not sound the same. Some sounded great while others sounded awful. Notwithstanding his background in physics, he was unaware of any "technical explanation". His mantra is, "Trust your ears".

[plissken]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

No, just not the way you think it should be done. 

 

I prefer most of what engineers do to be well instrumented. 

[vmartell22]

7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I agree ridicule is the intent or at least easily *misinterpreted* that way.

edit: my post crossed with vmartell22 who explained why it was misinterpreted.

 

perhaps it would help if audiophiles were not thought of as "the Taliban", and maybe audiophiles just learn to ignore it.

 

I don't even quite understand why the post was thought of as ridicule - it's very clear about the debate that ensues about digital cables  - the idea of burning-in digital cables have triggered some entertaining debates. On top of that there is the pop corn thing. That means it will be entertaining to read the debate.

 

From what I read people around here think they are really smart - I am amazed that interpretation is off the mark - I think people are reacting to me, my previous posts and my known stance. That is fine, just, well, reply to appropriate post.

 

if you read my other posts you will know my stance. However, if you really read and think about it, I oppose an idea, not people. I always phrase my posts so it always goes after the big picture situation. 

 

I know that is useless - once you challenge peoples beliefs (not the person even) many audiophiles, will take it personal - make sense to me, once the stance and idea is internalized and becomes part of someone, the line between challenging the idea and person blurs. They will get offended even if the challenge is not personal. Still offends me that my efforts to make it about the idea have been in vain.

 

v

 

 

[jabbr]

50 minutes ago, crenca said:

Nope.  This thread (or at least my participation in it) is not about how I in particular avoided the audiophile curse of radical subjectivism and cloud cuckoland crazy.

 

You are a radical subjectivist then. You can’t explain the basis, the simple rationale for a single belief. You are no rationalist, nor a real objectivist. You’re only relationship to objectivity is that you call yourself one.

 

Your beliefs are are as religious as those who hold idols sacred.

[lucretius]

35 minutes ago, Allan F said:

By way of example, there was an interesting panel discussion at RMAF which included four well known designers of audio equipment. John Curl noted how, in his experience in designing and building amplifiers, he found that different brands of resistors that measured the same did not sound the same. Some sounded great while others sounded awful. Notwithstanding his background in physics, he was unaware of any "technical explanation". His mantra is, "Trust your ears".

 

Did he measure the properties of the resulting sound waves?

[crenca]

Anyone ever seen anything like this for Audiophiledom?

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/20-tough-questions-about-the-auto-industry-in-2018-feature

[crenca]

10 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

You are a radical subjectivist then. You can’t explain the basis, the simple rationale for a single belief. You are no rationalist, nor a real objectivist. You’re only relationship to objectivity is that you call yourself one.

 

Your beliefs are are as religious as those who hold idols sacred.

 

 

Exactly!  Now you are getting somewhere!  Not being facetious here - this is the absurdity that this "debate" of "objectivist vs subjectivist" leads - some assertion of "religious" devotion on the part of the person.  Everyone involved seems to believe that this debate can be "resolved" with "science" properly understood, or a realistic understanding of human nature, etc. etc.

 

I am looking for the "transcendent third option".  What are we missing that the terms of the debate miss?  This is the analysis I am interested in...

[jabbr]

49 minutes ago, Allan F said:

John Curl noted how, in his experience in designing and building amplifiers, he found that different brands of resistors that measured the same did not sound the same. Some sounded great while others sounded awful. Notwithstanding his background in physics, he was unaware of any "technical explanation". His mantra is, "Trust your ears".

John is well aware of the technical explanations. He is also interested in promoting the idea that that his designs have been perfected down to the last detail. 

 

It is well known that different resistors have distinctly different nonlinear noise profiles. These are measurable and give each resistor brand a unique signature even though the measurable resistance is the same.

[jabbr]

31 minutes ago, crenca said:

Everyone involved seems to believe that this debate can be "resolved" with "science" properly understood, or a realistic understanding of human nature, etc. etc.

 

I am looking for the "transcendent third option".  What are we missing that the terms of the debate miss?  This is the analysis I am interested in...

 

You might consider starting with the Wikipedia entry for Pragmatism or http://www.petergodfreysmith.com/Quine_Pragmatism_PGS_2013_FD.pdf

because this was first proposed as a middle ground between a priori truth and sense data (ish)

 

You could answer my question, because the answer for each person may be illuminating.