Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted February 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 14, 2019 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. Blackmorec, Ralf11 and jhwalker 2 1 Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 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. Link to comment
Popular Post Albrecht Posted February 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 14, 2019 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. Ralf11, tmtomh, jhwalker and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted February 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 14, 2019 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. Ralf11 and jhwalker 2 Link to comment
vmartell22 Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 3 hours ago, JoeWhip said: I have had two high end streamers in my system for a test. I won’t mention names though to protect the innocent. My Macbook with usb out sounded better imho. I used the usb out on each one. Took one to a friend who has the Senore. The Senore killed it. His Senore sounds wonderful. So, I have heard these fancy streamers sound better and worse than my laptop using A+. It would be nice to be able to try before you can buy. right - that is the big question - my practical/skeptic heart tells me that a laptop with no iron HDs + JRiver would do as much if not more - BUT well - for example right now the laptop I use has been nagging me to update to mojave - and I am terrified that it won't work - sound quality opinions aside - the convenience of those dedicated boxes is alluring... v Link to comment
vmartell22 Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 3 hours ago, LTG2010 said: Sure but the topic is specifically about the article regarding the TLS - DS1which he and all of those in agreement with his comments have not heard. Two reliable sources who have the unit, confirm it offers an improvement over the basic machine. There is as always a diminishing return in audio a $1500 unit will rarely sound 3 times better than a $500 one. It really depends on the input to those streamers as to wether any improvement will be heard. Right - wish there was an easy way to test DS-1 against a regular NUC with audiolinux... man - this digital thing is hard - starting to think I should rather use the money to upgrade my turntable! v Link to comment
spotforscott Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said: Ok. You enjoy your gear and that's what's important. Exactly, after all, why pay more for a piece of equipment if it does not lead to more enjoyment. I do not judge others on how they test gear or their listening preferences. But true "enjoyment" is a universal truth in all of us Link to comment
Albrecht Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 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." jhwalker, mansr and Ralf11 1 2 Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, Albrecht said: Me too, - Archimagos tests are so blatantly unrepresentative, - & such bad science, - that they are "faith based tests." jhwalker 1 Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted February 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 hour ago, spotforscott said: The context of this thread is about the DS-1 and he offers absolutely no value in that regard. I am not saying anything about his body of work or him personally. 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. jhwalker, pkane2001 and Don Hills 3 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post pkane2001 Posted February 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 14, 2019 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. Sonicularity, jhwalker and Ralf11 3 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Albrecht Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 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. Ralf11 and jhwalker 2 Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted February 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Albrecht said: There doesn't need to be ANY counter evidence produced Who didn't see that coming? Don Blas De Lezo, jhwalker and Ralf11 3 Link to comment
Albrecht Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 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... Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 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? jhwalker 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Albrecht Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 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. Link to comment
firedog Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 4 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. 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. jhwalker 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 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. Link to comment
Popular Post Albrecht Posted February 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 14, 2019 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. spotforscott, jhwalker and Superdad 1 1 1 Link to comment
Albrecht Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 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. Link to comment
Albrecht Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 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..... Link to comment
Albrecht Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 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. jhwalker and spotforscott 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post pkane2001 Posted February 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 14, 2019 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. Sonicularity, Samuel T Cogley and jhwalker 3 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Albrecht Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: The below wasn't a claim? Not a scientific one. Link to comment
Albrecht Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said: TFW: there's no cogent argument against your position and your critic resorts to bad, sarcastic memes.... Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now