Archimago and the TLS DS-1

[Albrecht]

8 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

I read Archimago’s critique and was reminded of something Danial Boorstin wrote; “ the greatest enemy of progress is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge” 

People cease to look for further information if they are arrogant enough to believe that they have all they need. 

 

Its very clear from his own writing that Archimago doesn’t know what he doesn’t know...the so-called state of ‘unconscious ignorance’. During my career in high tech, critics like Archimago were ten-a-penny.....very vocal but virtually zero actual contribution. Its the experimenters, innovators and inventors that are the rarity and that drive progress, despite the critic’s best efforts to negate their work. 

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.

[Albrecht]

9 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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

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

[Albrecht]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Pseudo science and bad science are easy to refute. Please provide your scientific evidence that contradicts Archimago's results.

And that refutation comes quite frequently from folks who are conducting better tests. The fact that Archimago uses cheap software tools and conducts no tests on high performance "high-end" equipment; then draws conclusions about that equipment is contradiction enough. There doesn't need to be ANY counter evidence produced, when criticizing the testing METHODOLOGY, - which is of course, - conducting tests on low-fi equipment, - and making the false conclusion that those tests apply to ALL equipment.

[Albrecht]

15 minutes ago, firedog said:

Context is everything. You are looking at the one blog post and missing the context. He wrote an opinion piece based on years of extensive testing of a lot of these specific issues. The device in question is just another device - there's nothing magic about it. So he has a basis for his opinions/doubts that some audio magic is going on. Basically, instead of subjective impressions, he's saying a) show me a measurement backing up what you subjectively hear; or b) explain (not just speculate) on what is happening that could cause the differences you are hearing. Vague descriptions of noise and phase without anything behind them mean nothing.

Hi,

Yes, - and this is why any "objective" testing is going to not be representative. It's why the review magazines always have as the main part of their review subjective testing, - (Not enough comparisons though), - as there are no adequate objective tests, (or body of tests), that in any way represent what one is hearing...

[Albrecht]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Who didn't see that coming?

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

[Albrecht]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

And if his measurements are confirmed with much more expensive, lab-grade equipment, then you'll change your mind?

 

1. Archimago would never do so, - because his intention is to deceive and rig the tests to his desired outcome/conclusions.

 

2. It isn't only about the test equipment, - but 1. above, - and the choice of what is being measured.

 

3. The performance (accurate or pleasing sound) of a system, and even individual components cannot be determined by any series of measurements. When we judge performance, - it is a SUBJECTIVE judgement.

 

I am not making any claims.

 

And, - what we hear through our SUBJECTIVE experiences and the  SUBJECTIVE goal of those experiences occur throughout an entire system in a room. No MEASUREMENT or series of measurements on ANY one piece of audio gear will reflect the sum total of the experience of a system in a room. When you conduct a cursory jitter measurement of a DAC's chips, - it has no bearing on the quality of the speaker in a system, - or that speaker's performance. It's possible to use a great DAC in a boombox. How the violin ends up sounding in a system, isn't due entirely to the DAC.

 

[Albrecht]

10 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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

I don't think so, - if you do not believe that you can have good tests and bad tests, - then you cannot have a scientific investigation.

[Albrecht]

12 minutes ago, firedog said:

His equipment isn't junk and is perfectly adequate for proper testing. Your post is the psuedo science and refutes nothing. He doesn't say his testing applies to ALL equipment. He shows that many scenarios that audiophiles trot out as making a significant difference appear to do nothing of the sort when objectively evaluated.

Whenever he concludes through bad tests that different digital file players do not sound different, - he's making a statement about the performance of ALL digital file players.....

[Albrecht]

14 minutes ago, firedog said:

His equipment isn't junk and is perfectly adequate for proper testing. Your post is the psuedo science and refutes nothing. He doesn't say his testing applies to ALL equipment. He shows that many scenarios that audiophiles trot out as making a significant difference appear to do nothing of the sort when objectively evaluated.

I am not conducting any testing when I am criticizing Archimago's poor testing methodologies. I know that I am not "refuting" anything.

 

""trot out as making a significant difference appear to do nothing of the sort when objectively evaluated.""   (I also dispute that Archimago does any objective evaluations).

 

That is not true, - actually patently false. It is ABJECTLY impossible to predict how an objectively evaluated component will sound with 6 others, in a room, without actually being there. For example, A Meitner DAC would make a significant difference to a $350 Sony in a system with commensurate components and make NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever when plugged into the auxillary input of a Sharp boombox.

Archimago's tests are equivalent to plugging Meitner's into boomboxes.... the essence of bad science.

[Albrecht]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

The below wasn't a claim?

 

 

Not a scientific one.

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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

[Albrecht]

44 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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.

Did not claim a scientific foundation, - a reasoned critique of bad science does not make it a scientific investigation of (an alleged) scientific investigation....

 

And... it is possible to conduct a good scientific investigation into subjective phenomenon by engaging in good and thorough scientific methodologies. To conduct NO thorough comparative (subjective) tests while drawing subjective conclusions, -- will lead any investigator to point out that the investigations are indeed poor and conclusions will be drawn on the basis of insufficient evidence.

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Say you measure the output of a DAC when 2 different devices are attached to it over USB: a) a high powered PC running many processes that according to audiophiles is electrically noisy and an inadequate source; b) a purpose made ethernet to USB streamer that is supposedly running few processes and is elecrically quiet.

Results: close to identical measurements of jitter, nose, distortion, and dynamic range. Blind listening fails to show an ability to tell the devices apart in playback.

That's essentially the kind of stuff Archi does. How is that non-objective and illegitimate?
 

Sorry,

 

What I wrote was poorly said. What I should've wrote was even his objective evaluations are cursory and poor in the context of a lack of a number of testing samples.

 

"Blind listening fails to show an ability to tell the devices apart in playback."

 

Yes, - they are out of context by design.

[Albrecht]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

@The Computer Audiophile, don't you think Albrecht's attacks on Archimago have gone far enough? Three pages of accusations as relentless as they are baseless is more than anyone should have to endure.

Since when are criticisms of someone's (poor) published scientific investigations constitute a baseless attack? Especially when you do the same to published reviews and reviewers in say Audiostream for example.

 

Pot meet Kettle.

 

If reading a well reasoned opposing viewpoint offends you so much, - you can block my posts. And, - likely, - (as a self proclaimed troll), - that sounds like a wise course, - since my content is just so much for you to "endure."

[Albrecht]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I only see a single statement that is out of bounds. The rest are assertions about his tests, not him as a person. I'd say "attacks on Archimago" is a mischaracterization of what's happening here.

 

While you aren't the pot calling the kettle black, you're pretty close. You've dished out plenty of criticisms that fall inline with what's going on here. 

 

Can't people just let others communicate without incessantly attempting to prove something or right some wrong they believe has been committed?  Can't people say their piece and get on with life? File your disagreement, state your facts, and call it a day.

 

 

 

 

 

@Albrecht You statement above is over the line and addresses @Archimago personally. Please stick with addressing his work, not him.

 

 

 

 

Hi, @TheComputerAudiophile

 

You are understood, and you are correct. I will stick to his work.

 

Thanks