Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[plissken]

On 10/1/2017 at 2:24 PM, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

I've written 3 cable reviews in 6 years. Two of those were published in 2012/13 and the most recent was in 2015. Steve Plaskin has written a number of cable reviews.

 

In terms of your Schiit test (wink), why does Schiit make different models at different price points of the same device?

 

 

 

When 'reviewers', 'journalist', 'whatever', make up shit about cables effecting real time analog properties when those said cables are part of a hugely buffered, asynchronous, system with multiple clock domain boundaries between the RJE and the DAC.

 

Differences were none can exist.

 

Where none will sit down and do bias controlled evaluation to validate their claims of 'readily apparent' and 'easily discerned'. 

 

Everything else you have to say about anything audio is then made up of the same bullshit. 

[plissken]

On 10/1/2017 at 7:17 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

On 10/1/2017 at 7:47 PM, sandyk said:

 Chris

 There is no excuse for the message that Michael sent, but I hope that the guys who provoked Michael don't get off without even a warning ?

Reviewers and some well known designers often seem to be targeted by some members as fair game, often either being driven away or ceasing posting for quite a while.

 

Regards

Alex

 

 

Yep. Like JRiver.

[plissken]

2 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

Michael Lavorgna, with whom you have a long history of antagonism, which is not, imo, onesided, steps in to say that this industry is far from unique in its problem with corruption...and the battle ensued.

 

I would say the Lavorgna is a primary antagonist it many a conversation. When people rebuttal his reviews with hard hitting fact's he tends to get nasty (I have an email from him at one point that told me to eat shit) when they don't go his way on a forum that he can't control.

 

Now if it's Audiostream he just bans them. Archimago, I believe KirkMC was also banned, also John Sully. If you look at the back and forth you will see all three presented sound factual, technical arguments. 

 

just hit google and input: john scully site:audiostream.com and look through the results. It's all the proof you need for who is the instigator. 

[plissken]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

 

plissken, this may very well be the case. I don't like the way ML escalates tensions by being confrontational in a very blunt way. I can't excuse his PMs here and this was not the first time that he's sent PMs like this. Really wrong IMO. But I followed Audiostream from early on and my own take is that there has been quite a bit of mutual antagonism as well. Just as there has been here.

 

From my perspective everything would be fine if ML would validate his ears by removing his sight from the evaluation equation. ML, Darko, Van Es, Plaskin, Hall, aren't being asked to do anything that they already aren't doing except the caveat: They don't get to know the item under evaluation. 

 

You can't trust someone that makes up stuff about Ethernet cables. And yes it IS made up. It's delusional to think they sound different.

 

If your willing to make stuff up about Ethernet then you are willing to fabricate on any other component. 

[plissken]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

 

What about Connaker? I believe that Chris has the AQ Vodka ethernet cables installed in his network, that a very recognizable AQ Rep assisted in installation, and that Chris had the impression that they improved the sound, but that he had no idea how that worked. Chris does not test blindly to my knowledge, but prefers the long-term listening approach. Part of this Chris has explained by noting the expense, difficulty and time intensiveness of doing proper testing. Have you suggested that Chris change his approach? I would think given your perspective you would be insisting on it.

 

I have a sense that the more empirically based reviews by Mitchco have placated some here.

 

I've never seen that post.

[plissken]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

None of this is delusional. I can envision real situations, and could very likely construct a situation where different Ethernet connections sound quite different. I could certainly go out if my way to fashion Ethernet cables in a certain way. Of course you don’t mean that — the point is that folks at home might have “edge” cases where there are differences. The problem is generalizing individual listening tests even ABX verified, with one system in one electrical environment, to all situations. The generalization is wrong.

 

Now there are also people with the intention of selling mundane cables at grossly inflated prices: nor is that delusional it’s something else

You've hinted at this in the past, but I've yet to see you materially represent 'envision real situations, and could very likely construct a situation where different Ethernet connections sound quite different'. What are those situations and what is the construction?

 

I'll say this plainly:

 

You cannot concoct a scenario where using a super expensive boutique RJE 8P8C cable, that passes spec, that I couldn't tone out with a MM and right there in front of you create a cable for pennies on the dollar that would, when you are blinded, leave you flipping a coin. 

 

I've offered $$ in the past, I'll offer it again. 

 

I'm not debating making a contrived cable. I stating that spec meeting cables are spec meeting cables. Doesn't matter if it's $700 for 3 foot or $7 for 3 foot. 

 

It's delusional. No one could tell the difference in the tracks I posted of a 98 meter generic CAT5e at $0.30 a foot and 1 meter CAT7 at $233 a foot on a $4000 streamer when blinded. 

[plissken]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Very simply I would create a gigantic leakage current signal in the network switch. eg a really bad SMPS supply.

 

Then I would amplify this at the receiver.

In certain scenarios the Ethernet cable shield would modulate the “ground loop” 

 

Ok, this is simply a construction issue. In some cases no shield is preferred. 

 

This isn't a boutique cable scenario fixing the issue. It's utilizing a properly engineered cable. Pennies on the $. 

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Of course the “solution” is not to “perfect” the shield. But I imagine people have this situation and are trying to correct

 

The solution is to understand the equipment you have connected.

 

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Also the Ethernet isolators are used in the medical & lab environment where leakage currents are actually measured and efforts to lower are required so this isn’t just a theoretical issue

 

Ethernet isolators are KVA rated. Why do you think that is? Where have I said anything negative about an Ethernet isolation device? 

[plissken]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

It’s not delusional — delusional is a very specific and overloaded term. Your single setup does not generalize to other people nor what is possible.

 

Just like ML and others, I've done all sorts of setups. My last setup involved 2500 foot of CAT6, another 200 feet of HDMI, a 24 port HDMI matrix router, 18 displays,   AES67 18 channels of distributed audio, Netgear M4300 L3 switch, 14 Crestron Touch Screens. I did the Switch VLAN's, QOS, AES67 and punched down 40 runs. 

 

The main conference room with a 70" display and JBL and it sound's great (whomever set up that room did a really good job). 

 

 

Quote

 

I don’t advocate audiophile Ethernet cables and have stated this on numerous occasions. For copper, I don’t know of anything better than Belden’s 10g using their latest REVConnect connectors.

 

Me either. And I've never seen a scenario that I couldn't do with pennies on the dollar what a $30/$115/$299 a foot cable did. 

 

I'm not arguing cable construction doesn't matter. It most certainly does. What I am arguing is that even in your SMPS leakage current scenario, given the fact that I can tone out a boutique cable will allow me to construct a like cable that will give the same performance envelope where both cables hit spec. 

 

 

Quote

From a technical perspective it is entirely possible, even most likely, that measurable leakage currents pass through parasitic capacitances in the Ethernet PHY. Parasitic capacitances in cables can affect these. This is physics. 

 

I agree this is physics. It's why I'll put $$ on where my mouth is. 

 

 

Quote

 

Calling people delusional is simply rude. If you are going to be rude best not to also be wrong.

 

What is delusional is taking two like constructed cables, especially when they are typically 1-3% of the allowed length of the TIA/ISO spec, and attributing all sorts of real time attributes to it. 

 

I've money to anyone else's that I'm correct. 

 

 

[plissken]

2 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

My account from memory was off.  https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/ca-academy/Network-Audio-Refresher/

 

 

 

My take away:

 

1. Unsighted Chris doesn't hear a difference

2. Sighted as it currently sits, Chris thinks he hears a difference

3. Why discount the potential of cabling simply being properly routed and correctly terminated/punched down( I don't know if these were pre-terminated)

4. Just as easily STP CAT6 could have netted the same exact result

 

My read is the determination is simply anecdotal. 

[plissken]

4 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You must by now know, unless just returned from another planet, that a huge number of people  find such comments oscillating between ignorance and arrogance.

 

I can't control a persons impressions in a sighted evaluation. I can't control how they are going to perceive the papers, the videos I've posted. I can count on the tracks I've made available (so far no one can hear the difference when I randomly label the tracks or switch cables while capturing uninterrupted audio). Interesting how the inability of people to hear the differences in 98 meters vs 1 or 3 meters tracks with my claims of INAUDIBILITY vs their's of audibility.

 

And I don't care if someone doesn't like being called delusional because they think they are hearing all these readily apparent and easy to discern differences then I'm willing to pay them $2000. I only ask my expenses to be paid after I've shown them they are hearing things of imagination.

 

Ethernet is a DATA cable. Not an Audio cable. This is a line in the sand for me and I'm not going to step away from it one inch.

 

Also of note: It's not arrogance if I can back it up.

 

 

 

Quote

 By the venom spouted about ML I gather his banning was a much desired bonus ! 

 

Yep.

 

Quote

feel that their knowledge base and expertise is being threatened by people who dare to see it or hear it differently.

 

I don't feel anything. I give the framework, and I think it's WAY more than generous, under which I'm willing to be proven wrong. What framework are you willing to have your mind changed on some myths in this hobby?

 

 

Quote

People, including Michael L *are entitled* to say exactly what they want about their  experience even if you suspect there is an ulterior motive or concoct some other conspiracy theory, with no more proof than you purport is lacking in those you attack. No, the facts behind your theory are not proof.

 

I would say that all the times that I've offered $$ and all the times no one would take it up is proof. I can provide links.

 

Quote

Blinded evaluations have been debated ad nauseam. Are you *really* going to fall back on that sword as the proof or denial of your arguments? As said by others, it appears the founder of this forum, which you take part in,  doesn't evaluate blindly.Does that make him a con artist too?

 

Bias controlled evaluation is one of many standard bearer of scientific inquiry. Here's the funny thing, in my offerings of testing some of the claims out I've yet to actually have anyone dismantle my protocols including ML.

 

Doesn't make Chris a con artist. Now if he's making direct comparisons of equipment then doing it sighted or otherwise uninstrumented means I have to take it with a grain of salt.

[plissken]

17 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Putting aside resorting to insults, it is not delusional if they hear something you cannot, however much you believe that impossible. There is a rational argument for and against. What is required is proof, not conjecture.

 

It's delusional because they are hearing things that aren't there. I posted two tracks were I swapped out 98 meters of cabling that cost $0.30 a foot and 3 meters of cabling that cost $27 a foot. No one that attempted could get the number of changes or the time of the changes for the two tracks.

 

I agree proof is better than conjecture.

Quote

 

What framework am I willing to have my mind changed on some myths in this hobby? When I get reliable evidence one way or another. In the meantime I say  I have an opinion.\

 

My methods of how I captured the tracks and kept the cabling blinded from listeners is well documented so others could do their own. I've even make the layer 3 switch configurations available for download to make it even easier.

 

Quote

 

For you the line was apparently crossed with ML's claims of hearing differences in Ethernet cables, which you claim is not possible.

 

You refer to your test protocol and  "then I'm willing to pay them $2000." So, if you are *so certain*, I offer *you* a challenge. Increase the payout to $20 million dollars, or your salary for the rest of your life, whichever is greater. How certain are you of your "proof"?

 

Funny that for a clinician you don't ask nor poke holes in the protocol. So are you saying you want to put some salaries on the line?

 

 

Quote

 

No its not arrogance if you can back it up. You yourself say “I would say that all the times that I've offered $$ and all the times no one would take it up is proof. I can provide links.” People declining *your* test is NOT proof. Clearly it is not proof. If ML hasn’t even taken the test then tell me how you deem to know the result?

 

The result is that both He and Steve Plaskin won't sit for a bias controlled evaluation. That IS the data point.

 

It's like people insisting they can flap their arms and fly: You take them up to a cliff and tell them to start flapping. The data isn't in how many people jumped. It's in how many WALKED back down.

Quote

You have accused ML of “making stuff up” and “willing to fabricate”. Things that may have consequences for a professional audio reviewer.This is speculation based on your subjective belief system without *actual proof* and despite invoking science there is no conclusive evidence yet provided.

 

 

Wait... What? Re-read what you just typed:

 

The only claimant IS ML. I hope you realize that the absolute defense against me calling him a liar is the truth. All he'll ever have to do is sit in front of his speakers without knowing what is in the chain and repeat his 'readily apparent' and 'easily discerned' powers of aural observation.

 

And you are 100% correct that their should be consequences for a professional audio reviewer that just blatantly lies. 

 

Any way I believe I am going to a believers setup and setting up a switch and cabling with a Client/Server and their DAC in the next month. I'll keep you updated.

[plissken]

21 minutes ago, mav52 said:

And whom decides what volume level. The Manufacturer of the equipment, the owner of the equipment, the listener or the engineer of the music being listened to.

 

You unity gain the entire system and then give the listener the ability to control the volume. 

[plissken]

12 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Plissken you just don't get it. I have NIL "confidence" in any test you make up unless you show me that the test itself is validated. NOT just that *you* think so or your mates do, or because it suits you.Supply me ALL the criteria I asked, as evaluated by a credible research team that has done a proper evaluation and testing against a gold standard and then we will talk. I will also be the first to participate.

 

Until, then you are talking nonsense IMO. You could choose to use a long flat stick as a test of the Flat Earth, if that turns you on - it doesn't make it valid.Yes, blinding is valid as one criteria of a research design in which a validated test is applied.

 

If I have a person that states they can from a stand jump straight up and have their feet clear a 10 foot bar you want a $500,000 grant to generate a study?

 

Good for you.

 

 

Quote

You either don't get it or are being evasive. It's *your* unproven test, YOU PUT YOUR MONEY where your mouth is. I am certainly not that stupid.  You have declared  $,2000 worth of "confidence" in *your* test. Up the ante to $20,000,000 if you are sure of yourself - as you say you are. I think not!

 

If you can hear the difference in Ethernet cabling that is so 'readily apparent' why don't you put up $20,000,000 to another persons and take their money?

 

Quote

Yes I specified ML, so?

 

So let's get this straight, you are now flat out calling MICHAEL LAVORGNA from Stereophile and Audiostream a BLATANT LIAR?

 

Yes I am. Sorry I thought I was quite clear on that matter: In the realm of Ethernet cabling I think he's a liar. Therefore everything else he renders an opinion on is tainted food.

[plissken]

40 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

plisskin, If there are gnd loops, couldn't there be a SQ difference in Ethernet cabling?

 

Have you ever had  a system with ground loop hum where one three prong AC cable solved it vs another three prong?

[plissken]

12 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

nope - are all Ethernet cables the same configuration as are the AC cables?

 

when one is removed & another re-connected, could a corrosion barrier be broken up?  (how likely is that indoors and less than say 10 years old?  seemingly, not very likely but I list it as a possibility)

 

STP Ethernet have either floated shield, partially tied (chassis), fully tied (chassis + premise). I can tone out a boutique cable and construct a like cable on the spot. 

[plissken]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Plissken, you're arguments in this matter are specious, at best sophism, but mostly full of another word beginning with s. But you already know this. You're evasiveness and unwillingness to back your assertions are quite evident. I might add, that at least holds some glimmer of hope, that you realize your stance on this matter is likely indefensible monetarily, legally and intellectually.

 

 

I'd be willing to show up and see if you can hear the difference. Just pay my travel expenses when you can't. 

 

 

Quote

As you well know we are NOT talking about jumping over bars or racing against speeding trains. We ARE talking about hearing differences in audio playback .

 

No I don't know, nor believe that. I sincerely believe the same delusion point is being made. Audibility of botique Ethernet vs like constructed, pennies on the dollar, spec passing, generic Ethernet is right up there with Spoon Bending and Memory water. 

 

Quote

Yes you were quite clear about calling Michael Lavorgna a Liar repeatedly and with claims of proof.

 

As you very well know, what you are evading and NOT "quite clear on the matter" is calling him a liar in a way that holds you *accountable* for your repeated assertions. In a way that would put your "proof" and your methods to the test. Perhaps a court of law would see it differently to you? Go figure.

 

I have zero issues being held accountable. 

Quote

I suggest you just stop digging a trench for yourself and stop posting on this matter. I am sure ML is having a good laugh at your wriggling (or maybe with his finger poised on the phone number of his lawyer).

 

The bottom line: If you call Michael Lavorgna a Liar one more time without revealing your identity, I believe their is a name for this.

 

He can call all the Lawyers he want's. 

 

 

Quote

 

You have stated you have PROOF already by virtue of YOUR test. You have the audacity to challenge people to *your unproven test* and then call them *blatant liars* when they quite legitimately and intelligently tell you to jump in the lake. You further fumble and make what can only be described as folly even worse by suggesting no validation of *your test* is required.Not worth the money, you say.

 

My test protocol is out there. You can take a crack at it's shortcomings all you want. I hear there are grants out there for that sort of thing. 

 

Quote

Huh? As you know, I never said I could hear Ethernet cable differences. As you know, I said It's *your* unproven test, YOU PUT YOUR MONEY where *YOUR MOUTH* is. I am certainly not that stupid.  You have declared  $,2000 worth of "confidence" in *your* test. Up the ante to $20,000,000 if you are sure of yourself !

 

I've more than a few CA'ers here that can't hear the difference between a $700 1 meter and a $90 98 meter cable. 

 

Quote

You will get lots of takers! What you of course fear is that they will be *taking* your money.

 

You found me out 

 

We can continue in this thread:

 

 

[plissken]

The only way my expenses would be covered is if you fail to hit a 90% threshold. If you hit it I give you $2000 and pay.

 

But honestly you seem to be foaming at the mouth a bit. So on my ignore list you go.

[plissken]

Here is what I would consider a piece of evidence:

 

Create 0dBfs wav file of silence (yes it's a thing). Play back that wav file over a network and capture the output and inspect it. 

 

While playing back that file swap out two, like constructed, spec passing, Ethernet cables and show me the difference in the capture. 

[plissken]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

There is a huge difference between proving that two things are the same and proving that they are different.

 

To prove A and B different, all I need is one verified datum of difference. To prove the same I need all possible data.

 

If the above test shows a difference, then there you go -- the cable makes a difference when connected. If not, the above test doesn't prove anything.

 

For example, this test could possibly only work with a wave file of pure 1kHz?

 

The reason for the 0dBfs silence is to expose the noise that is not part of the wav file. A sample rate doesn't apply here. 

[plissken]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Okay, can't go through all this, but the leakage current of Ethernet is known not to be 0 A. It has been measured in medical environments and that's why isolators are made. Right there -- connected vs unconnected will give a measurable difference in leakage current.

 

 

There are many many variables. You'd need to systematically go through and test against each of the known variables and then you'd simply be left with the variables you haven't tested for.

 

 

Ok. So does a boutique Ethernet cable obviate the need for a KVA rated isolator?

 

All the absence of leakage current will show is when we disconnected the cable if it's showing up in the output of the DAC.

[plissken]

I've offered, in the best faith I know how, to explore this in a transparent fashion that asks neither party to participate without some recompense for their time *if* the respective claims don't hold up to scrutiny. I've even taken that rather extraordinary step of going and doing this on the claimants own setup. When I offered this to ML with an increase to $10,000 to his $2,000 he told me to eat shit. 

 

What I've seen to date:

 

1. No technical counter-argument that dismantles my suggested testing rig that is based loosely on Rene van Es's documented setup. 

 

2. No takers for what should be an easy $2000. 

 

My conclusion thus far has been singly that people are deluding themselves based on the above. It is what it is. It's a bit of rationality kicking in as to why no one will take me up on the offer. 

[plissken]

Just now, jabbr said:

I also can say that what you are testing wouldn’t come out the way you claim.

 

What am I testing? and I'm surprised that you are clairvoyant. 

[plissken]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I'm testing claims. 

[plissken]

53 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Ok, scientifically the term “published” means something else: published in a peer reviewed journal

 

I would call that a “report” not a publication. This isn’t “established science”

 

also so the term “there are” as opposed to “there is a” implies that there are more than one publication. So far you have no publications. Let’s not overstate the evidence.

 

Could you, one time, just one time, find an error in the testing method? This rebuttal of 'it's not peer reviewed' is tiresome.

 

You're smart enough to either tear down Archimago's method or repeat it and post contrarian results.

[plissken]

19 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I said that I would not refer to it as a publication because it is not peer reviewed, I’d call it a report.

 

its generally easy to find fault with any testing method —

 

Great. Then either get to finding fault or stop saying things that come across as easier said than done.

 

Sorry but your position doesn't help move the marble down the road.