Everything sounds the same

[Superdad]

Speaking of--I take what is said in these forums with a grain of salt.  Sometimes a boulder. 

[Superdad]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

Why would anyone with qualifications in the applicable fields waste their time investigating the audio equivalent of the paranormal?  

 

Just remember that in the earlier days of digital, few engineers paid attention to jitter.  And there was a time in doctors who were concerned with sterilizing surgical tools were ridiculed.  Now look where we are.

 

I can also assure you that attention to detail in parts selection and circuit topology makes more differences in preamp/amp SQ than have been correlated by measurements taken (by either the designers or reviewers).

Such is only controversial to those who have neither designed nor experienced first-hand the differences that careful parts choices can make.  There are reasons why a Caddock MK132 resistor will sound different than a Holco, or why one film cap dielectric will convey the tune in a more natural way than another that leaves you cold.  But good luck trying to make such choices on the measurement bench.  Ask any successful speaker or electronics designer... 

[Superdad]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Conversely, anyone who investigates such phenomena is automatically disqualified.

 

Why?

[Superdad]

In 2012/'13 we changed winding vendors for our film-and-foil polypropylene capacitors (in continuous production since 1988).  [The winding house that closed--got bought out by a large conglomerate--quickly laid off the entire engineering and manufacturing staff.  This threw a lot of audio firms such as Audio Research, Conrad-Johnson, and Vandersteen into a panic as the same company had been winding different types of caps for them as well.]

 

In replicating the MusiCap recipe and sound with our chosen new winding house, it was far easier to get our "coupling" cap series (the 400V-1000V, 0.01uF to 3uF parts) right than it was to get our larger Speaker MusiCap series just right for our loyal OEM clients on several continents.  I had a LOT of samples made, and when it seemed we were close I sent multiple sets to 4 key speaker builders, each of whom had been using MusiCaps for 12-20 years (and while there was a year gap between MusiCap production under the Hovland Company name and under the UpTone name, they held on because they could not find better sounding parts to satisfy).

 

The sets sent to each of them were of the values they always used in their crossovers.  They each received 4 differing sets (with capacitance values measured and matched within +/-1%), and each set was marked with only the cap value and a letter code.  The differences between the sets were as listed in the table below.  Thermal/voltage burn-in is part of the production process at the factory--wherein the parts are lined up on pegboards with clips to the leads, a voltage is applied to the entire board of caps (about 30 at a time) and the board is placed in an oven at about 275F for some number of hours.  This is NOT some goofy-spoofy thing done just for boutique "audio" caps BTW.

Other variation included the use or not of a copper-enhanced end-spray for the lead termination (these are extended-foil type parts), and differing solder alloy used to tin and terminate the leads to the end-caps.

 

At the same time as I sent the sets of parts to the 4 clients, I e-mailed the below key to each of them as a password-protected PDF.  I did not give them the password until after their trials and reports.  Giving them the PDF before their testing gave them assurance that I would be honest about which variant they chose (I had discussed the variables we would be altering with some of them beforehand, and had preconceived notions about which would sound best.)  

 

After each client turned in their reporting about what they heard and how they ranked the versions--in what could not be more radically different speaker designs--I gave them the password to the PDF key.  

As it turned out, all 4 of them chose the same variant as their favorite, yet the ranked the other 3 slightly differently.  

While the reports by my clients were rather passionate, good luck finding measurement correlations between any of these parts.  

 

 

[Superdad]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I think she can switch branes with her brain:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lisa_randall-theories-of-the-brane-lisa-randall

 

She speaks of "extra dimensions of space."  That is what my wife is always looking for in her crammed-full clothes closet! 

[Superdad]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

Something tells me you didn't even attempt to measure whatever differences you imagined hearing.

 

See, even a blind test across 3 continents (where all 4 participants--not in any communication with each other--chose the same variant out of 4) does not register for folks like you.  There really is no point in trying to present anything here...

[Superdad]

53 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's not what anyone would call statistically significant.

 

Really?  The odds of 4 people randomly all making the same 1-out-of-4 choice is 0.39%.  

[Superdad]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

In normal science a phenomenon is observed and science works to explain that phenomenon with rational results through experimentation.

 

I'm all for that!  But a lot of people here prefer to deny that any audio phenomenon that can be observed with the ear is valid for study.

 

Sure a lot crackpot ideas were put forth by astronomers before they had the instruments to properly observe and measure, but an awful lot of correct science was conducted back then as well--based on observed phenomenon.  Same with medicine.

 

[Superdad]

4 hours ago, jabbr said:

Galileo brought the beginnings of mathematical rigour to astronomy that allowed Newton (and colleagues) to introduce the beginnings of modern science https://www.jstor.org/stable/27825986?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents -- before these three science did not exist regardless of man's observations.

 

Right.  And yet both Galileo and Newton were considered heretics at the time.  I think you are supporting my point.    The pioneers are the ones that end up with arrows in their backs.

I’m not in the least arguing against scientific rigor in audio engineering. There certainly are a lot of very questionable, overpriced products on the market—and not just in the space of tweaks and cables. But there are plenty of basic elements—including passive parts—that make distinctly audible differences which conventional measurements to-date have failed to reveal or show correlation.  I don’t think these are unmeasurable things, I just think that the tools and methods are not focused on the right factors.  Think basic microscopy versus genome decoding.

 

I encourage anyone to—at the next audio show attended—approach the chief engineer at any established and respected firm and ask them if they have made any parts selections or circuit topology decisions based on listening tests. I promise you will get quite a nice earful about such.

[Superdad]

15 hours ago, mansr said:

Something tells me you didn't even attempt to measure whatever differences you imagined hearing.

 

14 hours ago, mansr said:

That's not what anyone would call statistically significant.

 

13 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

Really?  The odds of 4 people randomly all making the same 1-out-of-4 choice is 0.39%.  

 

3 hours ago, mansr said:

The irrational claim is that the differences between components can't be measured.

 

You like to move the goal posts don’t you?  So which is it you can not abide?:

a) Four different speaker designers all preferred through listening the same slight metallurgical variant of end-spray (out of 4 secretly labeled versions; the odds for it happening by chance are minuscule);

or

b) That measurements to quantify the differences were not made.  (There are plenty of measures that have been made on our caps: DA, DF, inductive reactance curves, etc., but a change in end-spray or oven time, even if they registered slight measured difference would likely not correlate with what is heard.)

 

You continue to mistakenly think I am anti-measurement an/or anti-science.  However it seems it is you—and some of your brethren—who come across as anti-science with your steadfast dismissals of supplemental use of empirical observation via A/B/A/B comparisons with trained human ears.

 

 

[Superdad]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

One test with four participants, never replicated, means nothing whatsoever regardless of the outcome.

 

Well it meant quite a bit to the speaker manufacturers who participated since we moved forward with production of the variant that they all ranked as the best.

 

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

So you're saying that immeasurable differences result in readily audible changes to the sound. That is simply not plausible.

 

No. I am saying that none of the traditional parameters which could be readily measured would correlate or indicate the significant (to speaker designers who knew their crossovers well and to whom subltle differences matter) sonic variation between the variously built capacitors.  And I am saying that it was more efficient and effective for aural observations to be used to make final manufacturing process determination. (And you will hear this from the majority of successful high-end audio manufacturers.)

 

I still have some of the coded variant samples used in the test.  Would you like me to send you the best ranked and the worst ranked for you to see what differences you can measure?  See if you can tell by measurement which variant will perform best.

 

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

You are certainly not pro-science.

 

No, I just happen to hang about here so you like using me as a straw man for you snark. 

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

The idea that humans, of all animals, can hear things that elude the finest scientific instruments is nothing short of preposterous.

 

So if someone presented you with two complete sets of measurements of two DACs--say the full suite that John Atkinson runs on every DAC they review--but did not tell you which set came from which, you would confidently be able to tell us which one performs better subjectively?  Every time? One would be from a $200 cheap-as-chips DAC, the other from say dCS or Meitner.

[Superdad]

[Superdad]

22 hours ago, jabbr said:

I’m clarifying because unfortunately “I2S” is used to describe the external LVDS between boxes. We got on this because someone suggested replacing USB with I2S and I assumed that meant the LVDS/external variant.

 

And sadly, John tells me the LVDS chips used in most of the DACs and DDCs that offer I2S over LVDS/HDMI are really poor and add substantial jitter.  There are better ones for a couple dollars more, but no-one seems to be using those.

Of course such would still not address the shortcoming of the master clocking being at the source end.  As noted, virtually nobody does that right either.

[Superdad]

13 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

Are you sure that the DACs that use I2S over LVDS/HDMI all depend on clocks on the source side for timing?

 

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The DACs don't all use the same interface so the answer depends on the implementation. At least most implementations seem to be clocked on the source side.

 

Exactly.  What is lacking are DACs with LVDS/HDMI inputs which sent their master clock out on that line to the source.  Of course that too can have issues (jittery clock edges with long cables), but at least that's a differential line.

 

Some DACs--such as the PSA DirectStream--are completely tossing out incoming (over I2S) clock anyway, so for those the issue is not as critical.

 

[Superdad]

58 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Circuitry couldn't care less whether we label some part digital, and another part analoge; it's all a big electronic stew, which has to be designed and built well enough to do the job correctly.

 

Well there is one (rather general) statement that I think most here can agree upon. 

 

But deeper understanding of the issues at play in digital circuits does not come easily. And I see far too many casual judgements and generalizations coming from observational lay-folk.  JS talks to me all the time about the core considerations of high-speed circuits--and the many things that he sees (by looking at their layouts and topology) which a lot of engineers get wrong.  Yet I admit that I can fully comprehend only about half of what he says (and then I retain only about half of that half). 

 

I think it is fine--and valid--for people to experiment and report sonic differences (very much including in the realm that skeptics here who wrongly think we are delusional about).  But I bristle a bit when observationists (I use the term to give a bit more respect than the maligned "subjectivist") venture too far into the intersection of digital circuit design and performance without having real background in it.  Down at the board level, things are generally not what they seem, and there are a significant number of factors in signal transmission, power network induced jitter, and forms of noise that can cross barriers (both flip-flops and isolators) which do not readily yield their secrets.

 

And to those engineers here who believe they understand and know all there is to know: Let's see you produce some real products or put forth innovative circuit ideas to solve the issues that limit audio advancement (as evidenced by the tweaks so many currently use and report about).  Oh, that's right--to many of you these issues don't exist at all.   That being the case, we'll just keep innovating along our own path...

[Superdad]

26 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Given the sophomoric post in this thread by many people, I don't always believe people think their posts are important for the hobby but rather more important for their egos. not saying this is you, but many posts in this thread are more about the person posting than this wonderful hobby.

 

Well given that mansr’s opening post falls squarely into that category, is the tone and snark of most responses surprising to anyone? 

[Superdad]

19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I guess I must admit to not being surprised but also not understanding. I don't understand why people feel the need to read and respond to people they believe are trolls. There are so many other fun things about this hobby to enjoy. Why waste time "trolling a troll" as other people put it? Doesn't that make both sides trolls? 

 

 

 

I think I know the answer to that valid question (I’ll be brief as I hate typing on phone).  Two reasons:

 

1) Threads like this are an outlet—for both the OP and people he likes to make fun of—to engage in debate/combat/banter (whatever each perceives it as) without distracting from other threads on a specific hi-fi system topic.  A number of people have noted that when a thread such as this is active, their other threads of interest do not attract the usual detractors as much.

 

2) Threads like this—which are general with a provocative premise—can be a healthy outlet both to vent and to bring up broader issues that might be on our minds.  Seems okay until it gets personal or completely mastabatory.

[Superdad]

51 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Possibly this is the Waffle House way, but not everybody is like that.

 

Oh god Peter—I nearly spit up my coffee when I read that!  You’re not an American, but clearly you have spent time here.  

[Superdad]

57 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Today at first Hockey tournament of year ... 

 

Opportunity to hear realistic stick slaps and applause (should not sound like rain--remember those old Kenwood speaker ads?).  We expect you to post a binaural recording of the game.  Be sure to hold your head still the whole time.  

 

But seriously, have fun and I hope your son does not get injured.  (Oh wait, am I making a false assumption that you are going to a game he is participating in?  Referring to it as "first tournament of year", that's where my mind went.)

[Superdad]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I live in (Holland in) a village with 1800 people. It is the very village where the mad mad cow disease emerged. Am I famous or what. Notorious me.

 

Maybe it’s time for the name Phasure to be put out to pasture Peter.  Mad Cow Audio might suit better.  

[Superdad]

2 hours ago, lmitche said:

What happened to this thread? I've been away. Did someone say "All pizza tastes the same"?

 

There are no differences between a $5 clock radio and the finest pizza.  But you guys are making me hungry for some--and the only pizza place in my tiny town is crap.  

[Superdad]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

You have to DIY your own temperature compensated oven

 

Yeah, I don't think John would let me back pizza in his vapor phase reflow oven.  Galden fluid infused pizza does not sound appetizing anyway.  

[Superdad]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

 ...somewhere in Turin, but the name remains shrouded...

 

Haha...

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

Any food that Charlie Parker was named after is OK with me.

 

You may enjoy Bird, but will you eat crow?