Archimago and the TLS DS-1

[Samuel T Cogley]

Any critic of Archimago that doesn't bring their own data can be safely ignored.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, rickca said:

I'd like to see Archimago review the 20K euros SGM Extreme.

 

That's easy!  Just buy him one!

[Samuel T Cogley]

9 minutes ago, spotforscott said:

What data? All he wrote was a bunch of "musings" on the DS-1. Jibberish with nothing to back it up. This whole discussion thread is ridiculous.

 

To some, perhaps.  Archimago has put a lot of effort into his tests and data analysis.  It looked to me like he was picking apart a long list of what many believe are audio myths having to do with " airiness, big/deep soundstage, micro-details, "refined" treble, and of course "better" bass definition/clarity", among other things.

 

I totally understand that this vernacular is sacrosanct to some.  I personally think it's good for audiophilia to look at it with a critical eye.

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, spotforscott said:

The context of this thread is about the DS-1 and he offers absolutely no value in that regard.

 

Clearly, no value to you.  That doesn't mean there isn't value to others.  Some people like the idea that technical "solutions" to "problems" with computer audio are being challenged.  I certainly believe there is value in Archimago's post and any civil debate that springs from it in this thread.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, spotforscott said:

Personally, I have an open mind and readily listen to opinions of those that have heard a piece of equipment. I readily mute anyone who has not heard a piece of equipment and offers opinions on it.

 

I have done a lot of A:B testing in my own system because what I hear is all that matters in the end. BTW, my ears tell me that the TLS DS-1 is a top performer. If you truly care about getting the most out of audio streaming, you should give it a listen.   

 

I applaud your attempts at (hopefully blind) testing.  Can you share your testing methods?

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Seriously Sam, what would be the point of Spotforscott blind testing? To save himself from himself?Who are we trying to please when we buy a new piece of kit. Ourselves or a bunch of entirely anonymous forum members?

In general science works based on the observation of an unexplained phenonemon, the formulation of a hypothesis that could explain the phenonomenon and some rigorous experimentation to confirm or deny the hypothesis.

What we have here is Austinpop making the observations and formulating the hypotheses based on his experience and education. Then along comes Archimago and rubbishes the whole thing because Austinpop’s hypotheses fly in the face of Archimago’s personal beliefs.  So where does that leave us in terms of explaining what’s behind Austinpop’s (and others) observations?  NowhereI Zero progress

F

 

Having been a regular in audiophile forum for many years, antipathy towards an objectivist worldview is pretty easy to spot.  And there's probably gigabytes of keystrokes already out there of the back and forth.  So it's pointless to flog that horse carcass any further.

 

I will just say that what you characterize as "personal beliefs" cuts both ways.  And I only spoke up because some feel this thread is something like useless.  It is not in my opinion.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, spotforscott said:

I have nothing against blind testing but that is not how I test.

 

Ok.  You enjoy your gear and that's what's important.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Albrecht said:

Many trues above: Archimago's work is best summed up as "psuedo science" through straw man tests that are always designed to produce a pre-determined outcome.

 

And I would characterize that as more an article of faith than a statement of fact.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Me too, - Archimagos tests are so blatantly unrepresentative, -  & such bad science, - that they are "faith based tests."

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Albrecht said:

There doesn't need to be ANY counter evidence produced

 

Who didn't see that coming?

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Albrecht said:

Yeah, - there are several unreasonable anti-science/anti-reason naysayers here.... who will not be swayed,  and/or refuse to listen.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree that you're arguing on behalf of science.

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

TFW: there's no cogent argument against your position and your critic resorts to bad, sarcastic memes....

 

No, that facepalm meme was a reaction to you simultaneously claiming a scientific foundation for your argument while offering nothing actually scientific.  But shame on me for engaging you in the first place.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I'm always perplexed by this notion that "true believers" are the real audiophiles and skeptics are "anti-audiophile".

 

Seems like a meaningless tribal distinction to me.  I subscribe to the notion that *anyone* who cares about sound quality is an audiophile.  Based on what I've seen around audio forums, there is a constituency that looks to someone's system (brands, the presence of boutique accessories a.k.a "tweaks", etc.) to confirm or deny their tribal membership.  And it's not lost on me that those who revel in their upmarket brands and pricey "tweaks" the most are typically also the most militant about who should be designated an "audiophile".

 

But they don't get to decide who is and is not an audiophile, sorry.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I refer to Peter Aczel, Arnie Kruger, and the rest of the Borg collective as anti-audiophiles because they constantly trash audiophiles. On anti-audiophile websites and message boards, the term "audiophile" is a pejorative, intended as an insult. Surely you don't deny this?

 

Assuming you care about sound quality, we're both audiophiles.  If tribal memberships weren't important, those skeptics wouldn't bother you.