A proposal: the Objectivist Audio Review magazine

[jabbr]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

Measurements, of course, are something else, but they don't give us scientific evidence of such things as audibility of various types and levels of jitter.

Of course. This is my rough breakdown:

 

Let's say you and I disagree on what is heard ie A and B are the same, vs A and B are different.

 

Is there a measurable difference between A and B?

a) YES: I'll look more carefully to see what's going on

b) NO: I'm not as interested in anecdote

c) Measurement hasn't been done

--- 1) is there a plausible mechanism?

   ------ a) YES, maybe I'm interested in doing a measurement

   ------ b) NO, not so interested in anecdote

[Jud]

37 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Interesting statement, care to explain?

 

 

Because blind testing is not objective?

 

 

That's silly. Many people can claim objective scientific knowledge. Nobody can claim absolute knowledge of the Truth, at least not here on earth. This includes every last scientist that has ever lived. But that doesn't mean scientific and/or objective knowledge is somehow impossible to achieve.

 

Maybe you should begin by defining what the word 'objective' means to you, as it appears you imbue it with a meaning that I'm not familiar with.

 

 

 

Hi Paul.  Nothing so strange as a redefinition of "objective."  I just explained to @jabbr what I meant regarding "objective scientific evidence" in the note you quoted, in the context of my previous note - sorry if I wasn't clear it was to be read in that context.  I was speaking of knowledge about something quite specific (audibility of some of the audio phenomena we discuss here), not about the ability to attain objective scientific knowledge in general.

 

Blind testing can be quite objective (though guarding against a predisposition that there will be no difference is important).  But whether the sorts of informal blind tests commonly conducted in audio are sufficiently sensitive, I have some doubts that I've expressed at length, so no need to go into that here.  By the way, have you read the speaker review working with blinded panel listening impressions that @semente linked earlier in the thread?  I thought it in no way raised the level of the review above the usual boring stuff that wouldn't help me if I were shopping for a speaker (sorry, Ricardo).

 

One other thought regarding blind testing: in the whole long portion of whatever thread it was discussing echoic memory and blind testing, while numerous people made arguments pro and con, only one person cited a scientific source to me regarding the issue - the scientist I referred to earlier.  To paraphrase @wgscott, that one scientific source was worth more than 30 or 60 opinions.

[crenca]

25 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Thank you for venting at me. I hope you feel better now.

 

I know I do ?

 

Seriously though, could it be the way your framing the objectivism, and then simply proposing the same old subjective "answer"?

 

jabbr said that he had "no doubt" that your personal confidence in and practical application of a very anecdotal method of improving your system will lead to "light year" gains in your system just another short year from now (and, in the next year will be a similar gain, same for the one after that, etc.).  He did not say it, but I will - do you know why your method can only lead you to such gains - it can't be any other way?  To put it another way, do you know why subjectivism leads to its own confirmation, and can never lead to anything but its own confirmation?

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Of course. This is my rough breakdown:

 

Let's say you and I disagree on what is heard ie A and B are the same, vs A and B are different.

 

Is there a measurable difference between A and B?

a) YES: I'll look more carefully to see what's going on

b) NO: I'm not as interested in anecdote

c) Measurement hasn't been done

--- 1) is there a plausible mechanism?

   ------ a) YES, maybe I'm interested in doing a measurement

   ------ b) NO, not so interested in anecdote

 

Yes, particularly regarding the "plausible mechanism" (scientifically plausible, not layperson-plausible), since that may go to whether any measurement that has been done was or was not likely to show the issue.

 

Edit: In fact, that very "plausible mechanism" language has been used in determining whether petitioners have met the reduced standard of evidence in Vaccine Court.  (Yes, the US has such a thing.)

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

But note that my last comment means approximately zero people on this site have objective scientific evidence with regard to the existence or non-existence of the audible phenomena we discuss.

 

Maybe there is a misunderstanding. Kinda "Science 101" for learning how to write a scientific article is the "Review of the Literature" in which the author (who is trying to put forth an argument) quotes and attributes prior relevant work. So I you make empirical observations and publish these in a paper, this data provides the reader with "objective scientific evidence" ... and as a reader (particularly one with access to a library of papers) has this objective scientific evidence regardless of whether they personally made the empirical observation. I'd encourage folks to get access to AES and IEEE libraries if interested.

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

By the way, have you read the speaker review working with blinded panel listening impressions that @semente linked earlier in the thread?  I thought it in no way raised the level of the review above the usual boring stuff that wouldn't help me if I were shopping for a speaker (sorry, Ricardo).

 

Hi Jud,

 

Just looked it up. Yes, pretty boring. But, assuming the testing was done properly (didn't read it in detail), this type of review would be much more valuable to me than 50 or 100 subjective reviews posted here or in a magazine. I don't trust subjectivists opinions having been one myself and having been sure that I heard all kinds of differences that in retrospect made no sense at all and, that I have since proven to myself, existed only in my imagination. So, boring? -- yes. Extremely valuable? -- absolutely!

 

[Jud]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

 

Maybe there is a misunderstanding. Kinda "Science 101" for learning how to write a scientific article is the "Review of the Literature" in which the author (who is trying to put forth an argument) quotes and attributes prior relevant work. So I you make empirical observations and publish these in a paper, this data provides the reader with "objective scientific evidence" ... and as a reader (particularly one with access to a library of papers) has this objective scientific evidence regardless of whether they personally made the empirical observation. I'd encourage folks to get access to AES and IEEE libraries if interested.

 

If there is work on sensitivity of the type discussed in other threads (at what point may our ear-brain be capturing some auditory phenomenon, but it hasn't risen to the level of conscious awareness), nothing of it was cited to me in those threads.  I would be very happy to have such references.

[lmitche]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

 

If you believe truth is established by social consensus or a popularity contest, don't be surprised if you find other people who disagree.

Agreed, there will always be others that disagree. I wasn't talking about social consensus or a popularity contest as there is more then one way to find the truth, especially with a group of experts.

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/527506/how-statisticians-found-air-france-flight-447-two-years-after-it-crashed-into-atlantic/

 

I contend that our experimentation here on CA is a search working through combinations and permutations of hardware and software variables to find the optimal configurations. It is great to have knowledgeable people that I respect, with me on the hunt.

 

By the way, I usually find reviews in websites very useful when searching for things to purchase especially in unfamiliar product categories.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

47 minutes ago, crenca said:

Indeed in this instance I have a "what the h#$l are you talking about?!" reaction

As many have toward you frequently ?

[Jud]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

that I have since proven to myself, existed only in my imagination

 

Interesting word, "proven."    My point is that I think there is reason to be hesitant to finally conclude a negative subjective result "proves" a phenomenon didn't exist, in the absence of scientific rigor.  I absolutely do not dispute that there is even greater reason to be hesitant to conclude a positive sighted result proves a phenomenon does exist.  It may raise interesting questions, but that's about all that can be said.  But no reason to be bothered that anyone who wishes to bases decisions on these things, eh?

[jabbr]

21 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

If there is work on sensitivity of the type discussed in other threads (at what point may our ear-brain be capturing some auditory phenomenon, but it hasn't risen to the level of conscious awareness), nothing of it was cited to me in those threads.  I would be very happy to have such references.

 

Ok I think I understand what you are getting at. Personally trying to "prove" that someone has a sensory experience is very hard. You could start sticking electrodes into monkey brains but that's really difficult and your question needs to be important.

 

There's a lot of stuff that I put into an intermediate category where there isn't enough information to decide one way or the other.

 

Each person should consider what they'd like to see to be convinced that their hypothesis is wrong: for example you hear a dramatic difference with a particular brand of shield ... what will convince you that this is an illusion? If you answer that you just don't care then you aren't being scientific nor objective. Conversely you may have a hypothesis that cables don't matter: what information will convince you that you are wrong?

 

Everyone needs to decide how high their own bar for belief is. For me I don't want to throw out false negatives that have a reasonable chance of being real, nor do I want to chase down too many false positivies ... so I maintain a broad category where I'm skeptical but willing to listen to/view/read new information.

 

For me anecdotes don't sway me one way or the other regardless of their number.

 

Generally I like to see two independent confirmations: let's say two entirely different types of measurement, or a measurement and a controlled listening test.

 

 

[pkane2001]

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Interesting word, "proven."    My point is that I think there is reason to be hesitant to finally conclude a negative subjective result "proves" a phenomenon didn't exist, in the absence of scientific rigor.  I absolutely do not dispute that there is even greater reason to be hesitant to conclude a positive sighted result proves a phenomenon does exist.  It may raise interesting questions, but that's about all that can be said.  But no reason to be bothered that anyone who wishes to bases decisions on these things, eh?

 

In the context stated, 'proven' as for my personal consumption, only. I require a lot more evidence than a subjective opinion as proof, but not even close to a truly scientific-level evidence that is often required by the hard-core objectivists.

 

I don't dismiss subjective opinions out of hand, but if I can't corroborate them with some objective evidence, and especially if they contradict well-established science, I tend to ignore them. A measurement or a well conducted blind test is much more valuable to me, because it can be repeated by others. In cases where I can't find objective evidence but have an interest, I spend more time and try to do my own investigations. None of these rise to the level of hard-core science, but still good enough for me, and keep me entertained 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

24 hour cool off period required. This topic will reopen Thursday. 

[Jud]

On 8/15/2018 at 5:50 PM, pkane2001 said:

None of these rise to the level of hard-core science, but still good enough for me, and keep me entertained 

 

As Commander Adama on Battlestar Galactica used to say, "And so say we all!"

[fas42]

On 8/16/2018 at 9:50 AM, pkane2001 said:

I don't dismiss subjective opinions out of hand, but if I can't corroborate them with some objective evidence, and especially if they contradict well-established science, I tend to ignore them. A measurement or a well conducted blind test is much more valuable to me, because it can be repeated by others. In cases where I can't find objective evidence but have an interest, I spend more time and try to do my own investigations. None of these rise to the level of hard-core science, but still good enough for me, and keep me entertained 

 

 

I'm intrigued that the human hearing system can manifest such a convincing illusion, inside one's head, when the SQ is good enough. Even though I have heard this transition occur endless number of times, I still find it fascinating - the skill of the consummate magician still holds one's attention, even when you know exactly how the trick works.

 

What I don't know is what percentage of listeners would have this happen for them - would some hear nothing alter at all? I suspect all would note the "naturalness" of the presentation, that it's easy to listen to even at very high SPLs - but would the mechanism of the playback be completely invisible to them, as it is for me?

[jabbr]

On 8/15/2018 at 7:36 PM, Jud said:

But no reason to be bothered that anyone who wishes to bases decisions on these things, eh?

I'd like to keep the hobby inclusive and welcome in a younger generation -- I try to give affordable recommendations for that reason -- sometimes (but certainly not all times!) there can be a certain snobbery whereby a very expensive piece of wire seems like the defining mark of a certain group of audiophiles -- I think that such jewelry does get the enthusiastic "SQ" mark from its proponents, but doesn't tend to be marketed with objective data. 

 

In that vein its good to have opposing voices so that folks who don't have excess $$$ for bling don't feel left out. @Teresa is a great example of someone who states she is on a budget -- she is clearly capable of making sensible decisions for herself but I wonder how many "lurkers" are looking for practical advice. No not bothered but willing to put up an alternate viewpoint

 

That said, I'm personally a sucker for a rare, hard to get, no longer made chunk of silicon, or silicon carbide, or an exotic ...

[asdf1000]

On 8/16/2018 at 2:27 AM, jabbr said:

The Lush doesn’t attenuate volume which is essentially a function of the bits. My prediction is that it alters the eye pattern— but I’ll leave it at that.

 

Why is everyone so secretive with their guesses/theories about what they think is happening.

 

@Superdad too ?

 

Surely technical discussion (guesses/theories) can happen without hurting Peter's feelings ?

 

[beerandmusic]

5 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

Why is everyone so secretive with their guesses/theories about what they think is happening.

 

@Superdad too ?

 

Surely technical discussion (guesses/theories) can happen without hurting Peter's feelings ?

 

 

+1 I agree, i wish the "magic" of usb cable improvement could be unleashed.  From things i have read the double-shielding is the biggee...

 

the things i have read...

jabbr guessed the lush has something to do with "eye pattern", which is same thing suggested simply using a double shield does...superdad said the lush made piano sound wrong and others have said the lush attenuates something so you have to turn it up.  Peter asked that superdad send samples of piano music and if i read correctly Peter suggested he may have an idea as to correct the piano sounds?  superdad also said that implementing jssg360 on the lush improves it....audiomart post stated, that the jssg360 improves only a VERY SMALL %, and that doubleshielding is a LOT more effective....after everything I have read, .i personally am interested in an inexpensive off the shelf double shield cable if one exists?

 

edit to add: i just googled "double shielded usb" and found this? 

Superdad, can you tell me if either of these "double shielded" cables Would come close to what the jssg360 does for those that don't want to DIY?  The post from audiomart suggested the double-shielding is more dramatic than the jssg360 by itself and even lemitche suggested his solution uses double shield.

 

They both say they are double shielded...and the latter has 2 chokes said to help eliminate rfi?...reading the comments, someone said they used with dac and it stopped dropout issues he was previously having?

 

https://prod-www-origin.belkin.com/usb2_cables.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Tripp-Lite-Hi-Speed-Ferrite-U023-006/dp/B003MQ29B2

 

[beerandmusic]

caught myself replying again off topic...hey don't blame me, if i just respond to someone elses OT...anyway, i will start a new thread.

[asdf1000]

39 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

+1 I agree, i wish the "magic" of usb cable improvement could be unleashed.

 

No, I'm different. I don't need to hear from Peter what he's done - that's his business and he doesn't need to give anything away. He has many MANY happy customers and I'd it to remain that way.

 

I'm just interested in those who say they have an idea/guess/theory about what's happening, to share their thoughts/guesses/theories.

 

Mainly jabbr and superdad ?

 

[beerandmusic]

18 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

No, I'm different. I don't need to hear from Peter what he's done - that's his business and he doesn't need to give anything away. He has many MANY happy customers and I'd it to remain that way.

 

I'm just interested in those who say they have an idea/guess/theory about what's happening, to share their thoughts/guesses/theories.

 

Mainly jabbr and superdad ?

 

 

I didn't mean i was interested in the "magic" of the lush...i was more interested in finding an off-the-shelf cable that does similar "magic" to what the lemitche cable does for those that don't want to DIY or know someone that DIY....anyway, i started a new thread.