Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[Tony Lauck]

On 10/18/2017 at 8:14 PM, lucretius said:

 

I don't know about your CDs, but there is no electricity hidden in mine.

Actually, your CDs have various bit errors encoded into the stream of pits.  This is almost certainly the case.  There are various levels of errors that can occur.  Some are eliminated by the first order error correction, C1 errors, some are eliminated by the second level of error correction, C2 errors, and if your disk is defective or damaged some may not be correctable and result in masking the error (by interpolating a bad sample).  If a disk is really damaged then playback will audibly glitch or even stop.

 

I have tools that work with my CD player to assess the quality of CD-R disks that I have burned.  This is basic QC that mastering engineers must do when they deliver physical disks to the pressing plant.  (This has largely been superseded by sending the bits to the pressing plant over the Internet, during which, FWIW, the encoded samples will be subject to various stages of compression and expansion.)

[Tony Lauck]

On 10/18/2017 at 8:45 PM, Speed Racer said:

 

Of course I have. In digital electronics, a 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0. You are talking about how these 1's an 0's are represented on the wire which can vary quite a bit and still be read as a 1 or a 0. You are confusing analog with digital here. The reason computers work is because the signals representing 1's and 0's can vary in amplitude and STILL be identical as far as the digital electronics are concerned.

There is a big difference between introductory study of a technology and getting into the actual theoretical and practical details involved in engineering cost effective products with state of the art performance.  Based on reading your few posts, my conclusion is that you don't know what you don't know.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

[Tony Lauck]

On 10/19/2017 at 2:46 AM, marce said:

Not really we all know the real claim, Tony's answer is not based on the real claim, so is nul in this instance, even though it stands on its own.

My point was to illustrate the necessity of extreme precision in what is being claimed in these discussions.  It is only after my post that people dissed it, saying of course we don't want to count acoustic noise coupling, only electrical noise coupling.  And then, that is not enough either, because is it electrical noise at the speakers or electrical noise at the output of the DAC. 

 

Amirm has given an example where one particular USB "cleaning" device affected the measured output of a DAC, when the DAC was connected to his particular test equipment.  (In this case the device was measured as actually degrading the output signal of the DAC, not improving it.)  As it happened, this DAC had two output modes, single ended and balanced.  The degradation was observed only in the case of the single ended outputs, not when balanced outputs were measured.  So even something as specific as "output of the DAC" is not sufficient to define the experimental conditions. 

 

The subjectivists are right when they focus on how the system sounds.  This is the end goal.  The narrow minded objectivists who focus on one component at a time will never succeed in getting to the bottom of the problem because they have not properly defined the problem they are solving.  (And this certainly includes all of the people who post on either side, just for the sake of argument.)

[wgscott]

Since everyone else is doing it wrong, could you help all of us idiots out by defining the problem properly?

[crenca]

14 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Since everyone else is doing it wrong, could you help all of us idiots out by defining the problem properly?

 

He already did with the standard subjectivist view:

 

"The subjectivists are right when they focus on how the system sounds.  This is the end goal.  The narrow minded objectivists who focus on one component at a time will never succeed in getting to the bottom of the problem because they have not properly defined the problem they are solving.  (And this certainly includes all of the people who post on either side, just for the sake of argument.)"

 

But again, none of this matters because it is not at this level that the Audiophile Confidence Game rests - this is rather the symptoms of a deeper issue...

[Tony Lauck]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

It is not a "view" caused by or circumscribed by a technical reality, it is a culture & a confidence game (perhaps "confidence market") which begins with a "art & wine" radical subjectivity.  The technical reality is simply something to be manipulated, affirmed, ignored, etc. at the pleasure of other things...

The culture and confidence game, with regard to digital audio, began with the adoption of the 44/16 PCM standard for CDs.  It was already known empirically that this format was inferior to formats with higher sampling rates, such as the 50 KHz rate used by the Soundstream recorder.   And yet we got the lying marketing, "Perfect sound forever".

 

In the all analog world everyone knew that analog devices were imperfect.  The objectivist vs. subjectivist split became possible once the technician quality engineers latched on to the phrase "bits are just bits" and started calling the people who listen and heard differences delusional.

 

There were scammers from the very beginning of audio.  And since the very beginning of people trading goods and services.  Nothing new here.  The most common technique used to be arranging the equipment being pushed to play back music at a louder volume, thereby sounding better.  Other techniques included playing different program material with different products.  Nothing new here.  These techniques are still being used today.

 

[crenca]

21 minutes ago, Tony Lauck said:

The culture and confidence game, with regard to digital audio, began with the adoption of the 44/16 PCM standard for CDs.  It was already known empirically that this format was inferior to formats with higher sampling rates, such as the 50 KHz rate used by the Soundstream recorder.   And yet we got the lying marketing, "Perfect sound forever".

 

In the all analog world everyone knew that analog devices were imperfect.  The objectivist vs. subjectivist split became possible once the technician quality engineers latched on to the phrase "bits are just bits" and started calling the people who listen and heard differences delusional.

 

There were scammers from the very beginning of audio.  And since the very beginning of people trading goods and services.  Nothing new here.  The most common technique used to be arranging the equipment being pushed to play back music at a louder volume, thereby sounding better.  Other techniques included playing different program material with different products.  Nothing new here.  These techniques are still being used today.

 

 

I don't usually say things like this, but who do you think you are kidding?

 

Yes, you point to a significant nexus of the "subjectivist vs objectivist" dialectic, but it in no way "started there".  ANY standard (pick any) would have revealed this dialectic because the dialectic does not rest or originate on this level.  

 

Also, it is not just that scammers exist - it is a culture of scam that contrasts Audiophiledom with other markets.

 

Also, real bits are just bits.  Chew on that for a while.

[wgscott]

There is another aspect to the confidence game.  Perhaps it might be best to make the analogy to the M.D. who, for example, decides to take up the mantle of the anti-vaccine movement, or the molecular biologist who endorses Creationism as a viable alternative to evolution.  If they favor the dominant position in their field, it is hardly newsworthy, but if they endorse the "maverick" or "anti-establishment" "alternative" view, they instantly become a hero with a cult following. Likewise for engineers or computer scientists etc. who legitimize what they doubtless privately and cynically recognize as the palpably absurd. It likely provides a real ego boost.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

There is another aspect to the confidence game.  Perhaps it might be best to make the analogy to the M.D. who, for example, decides to take up the mantle of the anti-vaccine movement, or the molecular biologist who endorses Creationism as a viable alternative to evolution.

Interesting analogy. On one hand there is a vast compendium of peer reviewed published literature regarding both the efficacy of vaccines and the biology behind evolution. Vaccines have saved millions if not approaching billions of lives and cured diseases such as smallpox and polio. 

The scientific evidence behind evolution as you know cannot be overstated.

 

on the other had the beliefs which folks hold regarding what might be considered “absurd” regarding consumer audio has no such scientific backing. Indeed no one has been able to provide a single peer reviewed published article regarding the “SQ” of Ethernet cables. 

 

Ive asked before and no one has been able to answer: on what basis, specifically, did you personally determine an audiophile belief to be absurd or delusional? No doubt there are edge cases but what about some common ones? 

 

Can you articulate why you consider certain things so absurd that they are not in need of detailed analysis and investigation?

 

How would you treat a freshman biology student who stood up in class and asserts: “it is well known that enzymes are made of proteins and absurd to consider that RNA acts directly as a catalyst”?

 

...

 

”Yeah but can you prove that’s necessary?”

[Ralf11]

17 hours ago, jabbr said:

* * *

 

But yes good buffers help a great deal. Cheaper devices tend to skimp on buffer sizes.

Do you agree with mansr's buffer size criteria?  He gave a very small size...

[Jud]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

Likewise for engineers or computer scientists etc. who legitimize what they doubtless privately and cynically recognize as the palpably absurd. It likely provides a real ego boost.

 

But on the basis of what expertise on your part (or that of others on which you rely) does this “doubtless” rest?  Sure, there’s stuff that’s obviously absurd just for normal reasoning humans.  But on some of these topics engineers disagree, and they both/all Know More Than I Do.

[jabbr]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

Do you agree with mansr's buffer size criteria?  He gave a very small size...

I like big buffers, I cannot lie...

 

 

[wgscott]

39 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Interesting analogy. On one hand there is a vast compendium of peer reviewed published literature regarding both the efficacy of vaccines and the biology behind evolution. Vaccines have saved millions if not approaching billions of lives and cured diseases such as smallpox and polio. 

The scientific evidence behind evolution as you know cannot be overstated.

 

on the other had the beliefs which folks hold regarding what might be considered “absurd” regarding consumer audio has no such scientific backing. Indeed no one has been able to provide a single peer reviewed published article regarding the “SQ” of Ethernet cables. 

 

Ive asked before and no one has been able to answer: on what basis, specifically, did you personally determine an audiophile belief to be absurd or delusional? No doubt there are edge cases but what about some common ones? 

 

Like the box of dirt that serves to ground audio equipment?  There is not a single peer-reviewed article in the literature I am aware of that says that grounding your stereo to a box of dirt won't work, so therefore we should take it seriously?

 

 

Quote

 

Can you articulate why you consider certain things so absurd that they are not in need of detailed analysis and investigation?

 

Because the proponents of these "certain things" are unable to articulate a testable hypothesis and to state under what experimental conditions they might be willing to accept that their prediction is incorrect.

 

Quote

 

How would you treat a freshman biology student who stood up in class and asserts: “it is well known that enzymes are made of proteins and absurd to consider that RNA acts directly as a catalyst”?

 

I would first acknowledge that the assertion is completely reasonable and consistent with what (almost) everyone believed until the mid-1980s, until they were confronted with compelling experimental evidence to the contrary.  See the difference?  

 

Note also that the proposition that RNA might also have catalytic activity violated no laws of physics or chemistry.  It required no revision of physical theory.  The idea that a box of dirt can work as a ground is fundamentally different.

 

Quote

 

...

 

”Yeah but can you prove that’s necessary?”

 

Huh?

[jabbr]

11 hours ago, marce said:

This is why we use software such as in my case:

https://www.zuken.com/en/products/pcb-design/cadstar/products/pcb-analysis-and-verification

Cadence:

http://www.flowcad.ch/cms/upload/ds_pcb/Allegro_PCB_SI_Datasheet.pdf

etc.

You’ve got that at work but it’s really expensive (Zuken didn’t even reply when I asked for a research nonprofit license)

 

What % of projects on DIYAudio use this type of design? I am seeing these evolve into commercial products that are incorporated into surprisingly high end audio equipment. 

[wgscott]

25 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

But on the basis of what expertise on your part (or that of others on which you rely) does this “doubtless” rest?  Sure, there’s stuff that’s obviously absurd just for normal reasoning humans.  But on some of these topics engineers disagree, and they both/all Know More Than I Do.

 

It isn't a question of expertise.  It is a question of whether the proposition is testable, repeatable, measurable ...

 

Donald Trump, by virtue of his current job, which includes access to highly classified intelligence, knows much more about what is going on in the world than you do.  Do you give his tweets the same benefit of the doubt that you do the statements of engineers disagree upon? Or do you apply a wee bit of common sense?

[jabbr]

14 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Like the box of dirt that serves to ground audio equipment?  There is not a single peer-reviewed article in the literature I am aware of that says that grounding your stereo to a box of dirt won't work, so therefore we should take it seriously?

 

Totally agree with that. But are there any real EEs who are saying this works?

 

Quote

 

 

 

Because the proponents of these "certain things" are unable to articulate a testable hypothesis and to state under what experimental conditions they might be willing to accept that their prediction is incorrect.

 

So we have 2 categories. I entirely agree that if a testable hyp can’t be developed then it’s garbage.

 

There is an entirely different category of audiophile products for which that isn’t the case. Power supplies, SI widgets etc can all be tested. Cables can be tested. eg USB cables are said to be measurably different so ...? (The fact that this is the case actually bothers me a great deal but I can’t dismiss)

 

 

Quote

 

 

I would first acknowledge that the assertion is completely reasonable and consistent with what (almost) everyone believed until the mid-1980s, until they were confronted with compelling experimental evidence to the contrary.  See the difference?

 

Yes, a single well done study can contradict a dogma.

 

I am specifically referring to the “bits are bits” argument here which is a nice tidy mathematical construct that allows software to mostly work based on hardware. The apparent belief that each bit is electrically identical to every other bit remains a dogma despite measurable details to the contrary. 

 

Quote

 

 

Huh?

 

Many times when a plausible measurable electrical difference is demonstrated or the path to this is demonstrated, certain objectivist have the fallback position that it’s not audible. For me personally, if it is measurably different then it’s plausibly audible. I was making an analogy.

[Ralf11]

the real problem isn't so much that a test cannot be done; it is that tests are not being done

 

I'd still like an answer to the minimum buffer size needed (despite my appreciation for the humor).  Assume files are spread all over a single HDD, but do not have sectors stored near neutron stars, etc.  Estimates are fine.

[kumakuma]

47 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The apparent belief that each bit is electrically identical to every other bit remains a dogma despite measurable details to the contrary. 

 

I think you will find few people here who believe this.

 

Also, the fact that they are not electrically identical provides no useful clues to solving mysteries such as bit identical files sounding different on a consistent basis after being transferred over to the Internet or after being compressed and uncompressed as the electrical state of the underlying bits has changed multiple times during these operations.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Trillions of dollars in the global economy hinges on data integrity (i.e., "bit accurate" data).  The mere notion that data integrity is itself some kind of dogma is absurd at a level that defies definition.

[mansr]

36 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

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

Which buffer?

[jabbr]

39 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

However, the fact that they are not electrically identical provides no useful clues to solving mysteries such as bit identical files sounding different on a consistent basis

Of course

 

Certainly possible that two CD ROMs might sound different.

15 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

The mere notion that data integrity is itself some kind of dogma is absurd at a level that defies definition.

 

As long  as you display the hex codes on the screen and convert that into music in your head you should be fine — wait, you want to listen to those bits? In that case you need a bulletproof DAC that can ensure that any variation in the bits voltages and currents will not have an effect on the electrical output. 

 

At some point in your DAC that bit of yours becomes a voltage or a current and that’s where your dogma dies

 

racking my brain for the name of this type of fallacious argument you just made but the fact that trillions of dollars of stock trades depend on digital integrity has no bearing on a DAC

 

 

 

[Jud]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

 

It isn't a question of expertise.  It is a question of whether the proposition is testable, repeatable, measurable ...

 

Donald Trump, by virtue of his current job, which includes access to highly classified intelligence, knows much more about what is going on in the world than you do.  Do you give his tweets the same benefit of the doubt that you do the statements of engineers disagree upon? Or do you apply a wee bit of common sense?

 

Sure, as I mentioned earlier there’s plenty of stuff, like the “box of rocks” (or dirt) where the bafflegab smells to high heaven.  That to me is something we can easily all agree upon, and to me not terribly interesting.  

 

What I’m more interested in are examples more analogous to those articles about how people prefer modern violins to those made by Stradivarius.  There, the efficacy and accuracy of the test procedure seems to me to be perhaps as much in issue as whether those who spend incredible sums on a Stradivarius are being hoodwinked.

 

There are questions in audio like that, where whether the testing is effective may be in issue as well as whether people are being hoodwinked.

[crenca]

15 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Trillions of dollars in the global economy hinges on data integrity (i.e., "bit accurate" data).  The mere notion that data integrity is itself some kind of dogma is absurd at a level that defies definition.

 

 

You know, there must be REAL $money$ in the financial markets leveraging the idea that the bits are not really bits (resting as they do on eletronics that have not been "proved" to be accurate)...

[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.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's not an electronic engineering matter.

 

Acute observation.