Archimago and the TLS DS-1

[pkane2001]

3 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. 

 

Interesting. Probably the complete opposite of what I see @Archimago as doing. Unlike most here, he conducts thoughtful, objective, repeatable experiments to prove his points. Does he have an opinion and a bias? Sure, like most of us humans. But he spends his time testing and documenting real evidence to back it up. His contribution is the result of many tests, with published data and measurements. These include many internet blind tests with good, well-documented statistical analysis at the end. IMHO, he is one of very few who actually does real experimentation. Sure, that linked article was just an 'opinion' piece, but it's based on the totality of his published results and shouldn't be taken out of that context.

[pkane2001]

11 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.

 

Take a look at the rest of his blog.

 

[pkane2001]

12 minutes 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.

 

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

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

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.

 

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

 

[pkane2001]

17 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I am not making any claims.

 

The below wasn't a claim?

 

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

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

 

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Not a scientific one.

 

We agree

 

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I see like many of the objectivists around here, you have not posted your system. Have you upgraded power supplies, added USB enhancement, installed vibration control under components, do you use audiophile cables? If not, you would not meet my definition of an audiophile. 

 

Are you in charge of defining audiophiledom? I thought that job was already taken by GUTB.

 

[pkane2001]

31 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I clearly said "my definition". You are free to call yourself whatever you like, but I don't have to agree.

 

The difference between my definition and GUTB's is that my definition makes no reference to component cost. An NAD amp, Cambridge CD player, some mini-monitors, PBJ cables, speaker stands or isolators and you're there (I should clarify that these component brands are illustrative only).

 

So you are defining an audiophile by the specific type of components they use? Seems like a very narrow definition. I'd rather include anyone who is interested in building a better quality audio reproduction system. If it happens to include a generic USB cable and no myrtle wood cable lifters I would still consider them an audiophile, as long as they are interested in optimizing their system.