Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[mansr]

And then there's Hitchens's razor:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[mansr]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Good point fellas, if there is an attempt to date women, you will hopefully learn that listening to opinions unsupported by mathematical proof, will go a long way.

What if you're dating a mathematician?

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Even more so, If she shows you a proof she’s excited about and you call her an idiot you ain’t gettin any. Trust me.

If the proof is correct, she's obviously not an idiot.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Another one for you: What is the proper answer to question: “Honey, does this dress make me look fat?”

Easy: "Dear, it's not the dress that makes you look fat."

[mansr]

22 minutes ago, jabbr said:

@Tony Lauck's argument is no red herring. He has disproven an assertion with an example. It is clearly stated and real. There simply *are* conditions where bit identical/same checksum files "sound" different.

I always took it as implied that we were discussing differences in output from the DAC or, if you prefer, the speakers. Anything else renders the entire discussion meaningless.

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

Copying the file to memory for playback would also eliminate any "embedded electrical differences".

Indeed, and any computer based playback involves at least a dozen different memories between storage medium and DAC. Even if the magnetic pattern on a hard drive is subtly different between two files, it is simply preposterous to think that this difference should somehow make its way through all the layers and affect the DAC to any measurable, let alone audible, extent. Those promoting such notions simply have no clue as to how things actually work.

[mansr]

9 hours ago, jabbr said:

What are the conditions under which you are willing to be proven wrong,

Randomised plays. You pick the correct file, either by ear or by measurement, with a minimum confidence level of 95%.

 

9 hours ago, jabbr said:

and are you willing to pony up some real cash if proven wrong?

So poor people are by definition wrong? Interesting notion, though hardly surprising from an audiophile.

 

9 hours ago, jabbr said:

I pick the hardware.

It has to be unmodified off-the-shelf components connected in a typical fashion. Otherwise you can probably rig some pathological setup where there really is a difference.

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The scope would look at the pattern of HDD seeks as evidenced by power draw.

You may only analyse the analogue output of the DAC or downstream components.

[mansr]

21 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Most audiophile companies come from a low speed analog expertise. Digital and high speed digital is relatively new. The digital interfaces eg USB typically come from small third party companies eg DIYINHK, Amanero etc. Do you have any idea what percentage of these small firms (producing $50 boards) use the design methodology you’ve outlined?

 

I think  if there is a widespread belief that “bits are bits” then folks won’t see the imperative of proper high speed design (audio is only 20-20k). Yes it’s possible to allow bits to be bits when properly designed (of course) but in consumer boutique audio how often is it done?

So let's say they've botched the USB input on the DAC. Why would you then trust these very same companies to produce a magical de-eviliser to fix it?

[mansr]

36 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I'd still like an answer to the minimum buffer size needed

Which buffer?

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

What I’m more interested in are examples more analogous to those articles about how people prefer modern violins to those made by Stradivarius.

That's not an electronic engineering matter.

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Ethernet (or perhaps a new networking transport layer?  NVMe?) packet noise will replace USB packet noise as the current bugaboo.

One difference here is that Ethernet frames don't have a fixed timing like the 125 μs USB microframe interval. This means any associated noise will be spread over a range of frequencies resulting a lower peak amplitude. That said, I doubt USB packet noise is actually audible in any halfway decent DAC.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

the entire song can be slurped across the network between songs

I like my albums played gapless. Many require it.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I remember Barry D saying that he could hear differences between CDs pressed at different plants

Seems highly plausible to me. Perhaps on a terribly designed CD player some noise from the tracking servo might become audible. Nobody in their right mind would use such a poor device.

 

Quote

but that these differences disappeared when the CDs are ripped to a hard drive. Makes sense to me. 

Yes, that makes sense. It also makes the original claim even less plausible.

[mansr]

47 minutes ago, Jud said:

Is there a compelling reason differences in manufacturing tolerances could not create differences in playback jitter levels, which would vanish when the contents were stored as files on a hard drive?

Playback is controlled by a crystal oscillator. The CLV servo spins the disc at whatever rate keeps the fifo buffer from emptying. Minor imperfections in the pit pattern do not affect the readout rate from the buffer. In fact, the regulation of the rotation rate is anyway far less precise than the pit placement on the disc. The raw bit rate from the optical pickup is simply irrelevant.