Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

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.

I get what you are thinking in a sense.  In another sense, if once we remove labels, and we have trouble distinguishing a $3 million device from a $10,000 device we already know something important.  The method of testing would need to be horribly mangled for that result to be misleading.  It wasn't that badly mangled.  One could quibble with the specifics, but the over-arching idea that the aura of the Strad is partly myth looks very likely at that point. 

[crenca]

3 hours 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.  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.

 

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

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. 

 

 

55 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

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

 

 

 

Again (and again) it is important to point out that the Audiophile culture does not rest on the resolution of these sorts of things.  Even if the Scientific Industrial Complex were to throw real money (billions) at digital cables, boxes of rocks, etc. Audiophildom would still be what it is.  In this it is like the herbal supplement market, where some real money has been spent at testing and yet it is as vibrant as ever.

 

The culture of Radical Subjectism and confidence goes deeper than this...

[esldude]

Just now, crenca said:

 

 

 

Again (and again) it is important to point out that the Audiophile culture does not rest on the resolution of these sorts of things.  Even if the Scientific Industrial Complex were to throw real money (billions) at digital cables, boxes of rocks, etc. Audiophildom would still be what it is.  In this it is like the herbal supplement market, where some real money has been spent at testing and yet it is as vibrant as ever.

 

The culture of Radical Subjectism and confidence goes deeper than this...

Ouch!  Goes to the bullseye of the confidence game aspect. 

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Tony Lauck said:

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.)

 

Yes. The problem being solved is that the complete system should work to a level where the human hearing system can adapt to any remaining, measurable imperfections, and is only aware of the 'illusion' of the music event that was captured at some point in time - the playback mechanism should be 100% "transparent". No one knows how to measure this yet, which makes it all so hard ...

[Samuel T Cogley]

28 minutes ago, jabbr said:

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.

 

 

In 2005, I might have agreed with you.  But much of the "problems" you're highlighting are becoming less and less an issue in digital audio state of the art.  What you call "bulletproof", I call, "competent".

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

 

Again (and again) it is important to point out that the Audiophile culture does not rest on the resolution of these sorts of things.  Even if the Scientific Industrial Complex were to throw real money (billions) at digital cables, boxes of rocks, etc. Audiophildom would still be what it is.  In this it is like the herbal supplement market, where some real money has been spent at testing and yet it is as vibrant as ever.

 

The culture of Radical Subjectism and confidence goes deeper than this...

 

Don’t know if that’s the case.  I would be very happy to have more information with which to make reality-based decisions.  People like @jabbr and @barrows who design and build (and measure) their own components would I assume be similarly pleased.  Most of the audiophiles I run into are pretty smart and very intellectually curious.

 

Of course there are always those for whom nothing’s sufficient, but I think you’re painting with rather too broad a brush.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Don’t know if that’s the case.  I would be very happy to have more information with which to make reality-based decisions.  People like @jabbr and @barrows who design and build (and measure) their own components would I assume be similarly pleased.  Most of the audiophiles I run into are pretty smart and very intellectually curious.

 

Of course there are always those for whom nothing’s sufficient, but I think you’re painting with rather too broad a brush.

+1

 

The efficacy of herbal supplements is a uniquely subjective experience.  With audio, if we're in the same room hearing the same speakers at the same time, there is some common frame of reference.  With supplements, it's all subjective.

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Don’t know if that’s the case.  I would be very happy to have more information with which to make reality-based decisions.  People like @jabbr and @barrows who design and build (and measure) their own components would I assume be similarly pleased.  Most of the audiophiles I run into are pretty smart and very intellectually curious.

 

Of course there are always those for whom nothing’s sufficient, but I think you’re painting with rather too broad a brush.

 

 

I wonder if my brush is not too narrow.  The good intentions of some certainly don't somehow cancel out the reality of the whole culture.  Again (and again) it must be said that this culture does not rest on the lack of information (for which "more information" is the antidote).  The confidence game can not be reduced to the (unresolved) dialectic of the "subjectivist vs. objectivist", and even if there was wholesale change/resolution to this debate tomorrow it would not change the culture fundamentally.

 

Whatever @jabbr or @barrows personal position is (or mine), the cultural fundamentals remain the same...

[jabbr]

28 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

In 2005, I might have agreed with you.  But much of the "problems" you're highlighting are becoming less and less an issue in digital audio state of the art.  What you call "bulletproof", I call, "competent".

No question things are vastly better that 1990, 2005 etc. They may be “good enough” for most purposes. 

 

I believe there is still room for improvement

[barrows]

32 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

The efficacy of herbal supplements is a uniquely subjective experience

Not much difference with many of the pharmaceuticals pushed an us...  Specifically so called anti-depressants are a good example.

[fas42]

Just now, jabbr said:

No question things are vastly better that 1990, 2005 etc. They may be “good enough” for most purposes. 

 

I believe there is still room for improvement

 

Most of the room for improvement is to make "competence", "bulletproof". I can achieve competence in a system, but it's hardly robust - that is, I have to take very great care in ensuring that every aspect of the environment is as benign as possible for this level to be maintained. This is a huge pain, of course - and a lot of my efforts over the years have been trying to get a handle on this - with only some success.

 

Until one can throw up a system in any location, just install it like moving furniture in place, power it up - and in 5 minutes it delivers the full experience, irrespective of what's going on around it, then we're not there yet ...

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 minutes ago, jabbr said:

No question things are vastly better that 1990, 2005 etc. They may be “good enough” for most purposes. 

 

I believe there is still room for improvement

 

Me too.  And in 10 years, there will still be room for improvement, etc.

[barrows]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Me too.  And in 10 years, there will still be room for improvement, etc.

Of course, there will always be room for improvement: this is like the tangent line (is that what it is called, forget my math), which gets closer and closer to the axis, but never actually meets: same thing as diminishing returns...

 

For each individual, where they might stop, on this pursuit, will be different.  If they stop at all...

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, barrows said:

Of course, there will always be room for improvement: this is like the tangent line (is that what it is called, forget my math), which gets closer and closer to the axis, but never actually meets: same thing as diminishing returns...

 

For each individual, where they might stop, on this pursuit, will be different.  If they stop at all...

 

As media becomes more ethereal, networking will necessarily have to creep into audio gear.  Ethernet (or perhaps a new networking transport layer?  NVMe?) packet noise will replace USB packet noise as the current bugaboo.  There will always be spinners, just as 78s survive today, but they will be outliers down the road.

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, barrows said:

Of course, there will always be room for improvement: this is like the tangent line (is that what it is called, forget my math), which gets closer and closer to the axis, but never actually meets: same thing as diminishing returns...

 

asymptote ?

[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.

[marce]

11 hours 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?

Not many...

[marce]

6 hours ago, Tony Lauck said:

  It is only after my post that people dissed it,

How could we diss it before it was posted...Though I wouldn't have used the term dissed, it was a totally different situation to the phenomena being discussed.

[marce]

5 hours ago, Tony Lauck said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

What are they if they are not bits, they represent one of two states only...

[jabbr]

34 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

As media becomes more ethereal, networking will necessarily have to creep into audio gear.  Ethernet (or perhaps a new networking transport layer?  NVMe?) packet noise will replace USB packet noise as the current bugaboo.  There will always be spinners, just as 78s survive today, but they will be outliers down the road.

 

Packet noise is a special case of digital switching noise. There are techniques to minimize particularly careful attention to the high-speed design techniques discussed above. There are additional techniques as well including constant current switching designs as well as perhaps 10 gbe transfers such that the entire song can be slurped across the network between songs eg network and audio not active at the same time. These are things that FPGA and custom network drivers could employ.

[marce]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

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. 

We are mainly discussing commercial audio though, DIY is different ball game, done on a budget.

[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.

[marce]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

Of course

 

Certainly possible that two CD ROMs might sound different.

 

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

 

 

 

No... The DAC converts the numerical data transferred in those bits to an analogue signal. As I stated previously look at the eye diagram for an interface, that shows the deviation of signals from a perfect mathematical signal, providing the opening of the eye is within tolerance then the numerical data gets to the DAC and is converted to the correct analogue signal.

[jabbr]

Just now, marce said:

No... The DAC converts the numerical data transferred in those bits to an analogue signal. As I stated previously look at the eye diagram for an interface, that shows the deviation of signals from a perfect mathematical signal, providing the opening of the eye is within tolerance then the numerical data gets to the DAC and is converted to the correct analogue signal.

I’m not much of a CD rom person — and rip all my music to my NAS, but @alfe who used to participate here is a real laser/CD/DVD/Blu-ray expert had posted some links to measurements etc that indicate otherwise — I’m not prepared to debate this beyond what he would say, and I trust him. Unfortunately he’s under very strict NDA at work and was not able to speak as directly as would be ideal.

[jabbr]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

I like my albums played gapless. Many require it.

Yeah there are many many different issues and ways that things could be done but assuming you are just transferring an entire CD 700 Mb so about 5.6 Gbits / 9 Gbs = about 0.6 sec for an album so options.