Objectivists/Subjectivists

[Music Enthusiast]

4 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Give my special regards to AmirM.

According to Amir, if the USB cable makes any difference connected to your DAC that only means your DAC is poorly designed. 

[Music Enthusiast]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Subjectively ?

Honestly ?

I think so. Now what.

Yes subjectively. If so does that mean you did a good or bad job on the design?

[wgscott]

5 minutes ago, Music Enthusiast said:

According to Amir, if the USB cable makes any difference connected to your DAC that only means your DAC is poorly designed. 

 

That doesn't sound quite right.  

 

I am pretty sure you can easily measure a difference between a USB cable connected to your DAC and one that isn't.

[Rt66indierock]

6 minutes ago, Music Enthusiast said:

According to Amir, if the USB cable makes any difference connected to your DAC that only means your DAC is poorly designed. 

 

I used play golf with a couple guys from Intel who were responsible for the USB standard. They would agree with Amir.

[Rt66indierock]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

That doesn't sound quite right.  

 

I am pretty sure you can easily measure a difference between a USB cable connected to your DAC and one that isn't.

 

Read his article. 

[crenca]

Just now, Rt66indierock said:

 

Read his article. 

 

The humor is subtle...sort of "objectivist"... ?

[Music Enthusiast]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Read his article. 

Unless of course there's other phenomena going on that his simplistic test isn't picking up on. 

[crenca]

13 hours ago, diecaster said:

Okay. I wasn't going to weigh in on this as it got rather messy....but I think it can still be constructive.

 

I am part subjectivist and part objectivist. Which side dominates depends on how illogical the subjective side becomes.

 

For example, if you tell me that one USB cable used between your computer and your DAC sounds better to you than another, I have no problem wrapping my head around that as I have experienced it as well. The logic is that different USB cables present a different set of electrical signals to the DACs USB PHY which in turn generate different types and levels of noise in the DAC. Those differences can change the sound change the sound coming out of the DAC. The level of illogical is quite low so it is much easier to accept subjective reports.

 

Another example is the idea that a general purpose computer with standard clocks, numerous expansion ports, and RAM slots running a low latency OS in RAM can be better sounding than a purpose built computer that has only the necessary ports with ultra quiet USB and Ethernet implementations, better clocks, and cleaner power. The level of illogical rises too far here. It prompts me to ask questions.

 

If I tell the forum that my system sounds much cleaner with a much improved soundstage if I put several hockey pucks on the floor to the side of each speaker, I suspect average forum member would not accept my subjective opinion . If I told the forum that NOS tubes sound better in my amp than current production Chinese tubes, I suspect average forum member would accept my subjective opinion.

 

If the forum members accept all subjective opinions, no matter how illogical, we, as a group, lose all credibility as audio enthusiasts. If our positions and opinions cannot withstand inquiry, what good are they? If you say all opinions and positions posted here are valid no matter what, the opinions and positions posted here cannot be trusted to contain real and useful information.

 

 

This is a good post.  Using the examples (more can and will be added of course) gives us a reference, a "continuum" in which to put ourselves.  As an objectivist, I admit that most of this hobby & audio is 80, 90% "subjective".  Yet, when it comes to gear and engineering I acknowledge its objective character.  

 

Using dicasters examples, I acknowledge the PHY layer, but to his logic I add both our natural capacity for bias and the industry "voodoo" factor.  So while it may be "logical", I find the likelihood that much, most, of the reports of "sound" (using the usual audiophile descriptors of "fatter bass", "soundstage", "PRaT") of digital cables, digital decrapifiers, etc. to be bias, marketing, and the like.  

 

So on the continuum, I end up being farther on the "objective" side than diecaster.

[plissken]

18 hours ago, fas42 said:

The heavy handed application of "attitude" is what disturbs many ... like in a post just above, "(forums) dedicated to group stroking of delusional hearing."

 

Here's the issue. There is no 'The heavy handed application of "attitude" '.  What you just did was paint the honest question I asked with the color of it having attitude.

 

Bottom line is if you don't trust your ears, why should I?

 

[Allan F]

24 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Read his article. 

Read his post again, slowly, and you may get it.

I'll give you a hint: ...a USB cable connected...and one that isn't

[wgscott]

31 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Read his article. 

 

I did, and I fully agree with it.

 

It was a small attempt at levity.  

 

(The same joke was made in the article you told me to read.  Did you read it?)

[Rt66indierock]

4 minutes ago, Allan F said:

Read his post again, slowly, and you may get it.

 

I did. I rarely comment on cables since I've tested enough of say USB cables with known issues (most fun iron impurities) to have satisfied myself that an on spec USB copper cable is all I will ever need. And all that is necessary for high performance audio. 

[audiobomber]

24 minutes ago, crenca said:

So on the continuum, I end up being farther on the "objective" side than diecaster.

You also like to argue and push peoples' buttons, so there's that.

[Rt66indierock]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I did, and I fully agree with it.

 

It was a small attempt at levity.  

 

Appreciated thanks

[wgscott]

3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Appreciated thanks

 

But hardly original:

 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-usb-audio-cables-make-a-difference.1887/post-56607

 

[Rt66indierock]

31 minutes ago, Music Enthusiast said:

Unless of course there's other phenomena going on that his simplistic test isn't picking up on. 

 

I've tested a lot of USB cables over the years. To me "other phenomena" is just fear, uncertainty and doubt unless you can give  me an example of what Amir's  test is missing so I can test it myself. 

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I've tested a lot of USB cables over the years. To me "other phenomena" is just fear, uncertainty and doubt unless you can give  me an example of what Amir's  test is missing so I can test it myself. 

 

A subjectivist will of course say that their position vis-a-vis "other phenomena", "the unknown", "what has yet to be measured" - is not negative (i.e. FUD) but positive.  It's the undiscovered country, the universe of infinite possibilities, "not all is known and thus there is always room for improvement", etc.

 

In my opinion and using diecasters continuum, this assertion is on the extreme - its like a magnet that is all the way on the subjectivist side that tries to pull everything in that direction.  

[Music Enthusiast]

8 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I've tested a lot of USB cables over the years. To me "other phenomena" is just fear, uncertainty and doubt unless you can give  me an example of what Amir's  test is missing so I can test it myself. 

How did you conduct your testing?

[Allan F]

31 minutes ago, crenca said:

In my opinion and using diecasters continuum, this assertion is on the extreme - its like a magnet that is all the way on the subjectivist side that tries to pull everything in that direction.  

 

And IMO your assertions tend to the opposite extreme, magnet or no magnet, but usually with attitude. Does it really upset you as much as your posts suggest? (rhetorical)

[Rt66indierock]

Just now, Music Enthusiast said:

How did you conduct your testing?

 

Simple answer the way the way I was asked to test.  My USB  testing was for manufactures and  I was generally encouraged to include music in them. We learned a lot about heat and noise issues with USB ports as an example. 

[Music Enthusiast]

16 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Simple answer the way the way I was asked to test.  My USB  testing was for manufactures and  I was generally encouraged to include music in them. We learned a lot about heat and noise issues with USB ports as an example. 

Ahh so this didn't consist of controlled listening tests with ultra high fidelity audio systems. 

[Rt66indierock]

1 minute ago, Music Enthusiast said:

Ahh so this didn't consist of controlled listening tests with ultra high fidelity audio systems. 

 

USB cables were tested on on my home and office systems. High enough fidelity for the purpose and if I'm doing the testing they were controlled. I my case you are having someone who testing is part of the entry requirements of their profession and in was paid to test and be tested in the broadcasting industry for 15 years as a moonlighting consulting job. 

 

 

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, Music Enthusiast said:

Ahh so this didn't consist of controlled listening tests with ultra high fidelity audio systems. 

 

But it has already been established that differences revealed by a low-end DAC disappear when the quality is improved:

 

 

vs

 

 

 

Of course, the "ultra-high-end" might actually be inferior, in which case it could help reveal a problem.

 

 

Source:  https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-usb-audio-cables-make-a-difference.1887/

[Ralf11]

To answer a question a few pages back...

 

everything relating to the science of electronics is already known as far as audio goes

 

That does not mean all technological implementations have been made, or that new materials or processing will not occur in the future.  I started a thread 1-2 days ago for just this question.

[Norton]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

This is a good post.  Using the examples (more can and will be added of course) gives us a reference, a "continuum" in which to put ourselves.  As an objectivist, I admit that most of this hobby & audio is 80, 90% "subjective".  Yet, when it comes to gear and engineering I acknowledge its objective character.  

 

Using dicasters examples, I acknowledge the PHY layer, but to his logic I add both our natural capacity for bias and the industry "voodoo" factor.  So while it may be "logical", I find the likelihood that much, most, of the reports of "sound" (using the usual audiophile descriptors of "fatter bass", "soundstage", "PRaT") of digital cables, digital decrapifiers, etc. to be bias, marketing, and the like.  

 

So on the continuum, I end up being farther on the "objective" side than diecaster.

 

But again you describe youself as being further towards the “objective side” wholly in terms of being critical of what others claim or hear.  You have gone to the trouble of labelling yourself as an objectivist in your signature, but I see nothing yet by way of explanation or illustration as to how you apply that objectivity in a positive form to your own audio choices.  As an objectivist are you able to outline what you like and the measurements and testing that got you there?  Alternatively,  would “Junior Skeptic” be a more accurate self-description ?