Archimago and the TLS DS-1

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Not a scientific one.

 

We agree

 

[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.

[firedog]

16 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

""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).

 

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?
 

[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.

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, 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.   

 

Your own ears were used in a blind test, right????

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, spotforscott said:

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

 

My preferred method is to put the piece of equipment in my system for at least a couple of weeks, sometimes longer. Through that time, I listen casually as much as I can while it settles in. I pay a lot of attention to any changes in my ability to connect with the music. My ultimate reference is the emotional connection to the music. More toe-tapping? Want to listen longer? Looking more forward to next listening session? Mood changes affect my musical enjoyment, so this longer-term assessment is key for me personally.

 

After this I listen more critically to a handful of songs and then take the unit out of the system and listen to original piece of equipment. I sometimes repeat the cycle if I am not sure. Ultimately though, if I do not enjoy the music more with the new piece of equipment, I do not keep it.

 

 

Nothing wrong with this for enjoyment/esthetics, but you are not testing for SQ.

[mansr]

@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.

[spotforscott]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

 

Your own ears were used in a blind test, right????

As I mentioned, I don't do blind tests. But I do use my ears

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, Albrecht said:

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...

 

 

[Ralf11]

4 minutes ago, spotforscott said:

As I mentioned, I don't do blind tests. But I do use my ears

 

It is obvious that you do not understand how hearing works.

 

OTOH, the claim that Archimago did not use a high enough quality back end (or was it source material) could have some merit, providing specifics were given.

 

Who would like to offer those specifics?

[spotforscott]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

 

Nothing wrong with this for enjoyment/esthetics, but you are not testing for SQ.

Well, if sound quality does not raise emotional engagement with the music, I would have to agree. I think this is where subjectivity really kicks in. However, I do honestly believe there is a strong connection between sound quality and musical engagement, they really go hand in hand. There are those though that pursue things like hyper detail or excessive richness that I do not subscribe to.

[spotforscott]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

It is obvious that you do not understand how hearing works.

 

Wow, troll central

[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."

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Albrecht said:

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

...

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

[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

[Ralf11]

2 minutes ago, spotforscott said:

Well, if sound quality does not raise emotional engagement with the music, I would have to agree. I think this is where subjectivity really kicks in. However, I do honestly believe there is a strong connection between sound quality and musical engagement, they really go hand in hand. There are those though that pursue things like hyper detail or excessive richness that I do not subscribe to.

 

No, that is not the problem at all.  It is indeed an issue of how hearing works (rather than trolling).

 

The real problem is that multiple things can produce a perceived increase in emotional engagement with the music.  As it's Val's Day I am tempted to offer some ideas on how to do this using tantric yoga... but instead, things like a nice Scotch,  or a pretty case to look at will most certainly do it.

 

This has been shown thousands of times by scientists and there is even an entire laboratory dedicated to cross-sensory perceptual alterations at one of the high end Brit. Univ.s

 

Of course, there is nothing at all wrong with using any of the above to enhance one's emotional engagement with the music.  But it is not SQ that is doing it.  So test blinded - (I do both short term and long term tests) - and THEN use the 30 year old Scotch in your tantric yoga listening.

[rickca]

Time to tune this thread out.

[spotforscott]

Just now, rickca said:

Time to tune this thread out.

Agreed, a complete waste of time.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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.

 

Which are the actual qualities of 'raw' recordings - strange that people might like to access that, rather than the murky view that most playback setups afford ...

 

The tainted perspective that flawed systems present is the problem, and all the current, conventional measuring and technical assessing are highly flawed as an approach - because they always miss what the ears can clearly hear.

 

The long list are just a good sampling of worthwhile tweaks and optimisation which could go a long way towards making a rig audibly transparent to the recording - of course, if one doesn't believe recordings have any decent quality in themselves, and require 'prestige' components to mold the sound to suit the listener, then indeed that list is just a waste of time and effort, .

[Ralf11]

3 minutes ago, rickca said:

Time to tune this thread out.

 

Pearls Before Swine - great album

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Albrecht said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Currently, the value of subjective assessment is determining how close the complete system is to actually doing the job of being 'invisible' - objective measurements are merely a way of putting numbers to attributes that may, or may not, have bearing on that. In the world of car making, a new product is used by an employee as the drive home and back to work unit for a day - his seat of the pants verdict means everything; if he hears a noise that shouldn't be there or finds something doesn't work right, then the vehicle is sent back into the works ... all the prior quality control has 'failed', irrespective of how sophisticated it was.

 

Amusing, personal real world exanple of this: a relative bought a new performance small BMW, and brought it up to show it off straight after ... hmmm, very nice ... . OK, let's see the donk, the engine! Ten minutes later, the beast still lay hidden ... yep!! The bonnet catch was faulty - apart from sticking a crowbar under the metal and wrenching it up there was no way of seeing the goods ... nice one, BMW!

[audiobomber]

I enjoy reading subjective reviews of audio gear. I enjoy reading reviews from pro audio websites. I like to see measurements, wherever and whenever I can. Anti-audiophile sites like Archimago's blog, Audio Science Review, Hydrogen Audio, etc., are worth consulting, because they lead me to question subjective reviews, user opinions, manufacturers' claims, and even my own impressions.

 

I haven't found much of a correlation between measurements and sound quality. I am more comfortable when gear earns praise on both audiophile and pro sound sites. In the end, I can only determine value through longer term listening in my own system. 

[plissken]

6 hours 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.

 

That which is claimed without evidence is just as easily dismissed without evidence.

[jhwalker]

53 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I enjoy reading subjective reviews of audio gear. I enjoy reading reviews from pro audio websites. I like to see measurements, wherever and whenever I can. Anti-audiophile sites like Archimago's blog, Audio Science Review, Hydrogen Audio, etc., are worth consulting, because they lead me to question subjective reviews, user opinions, manufacturers' claims, and even my own impressions.

 

I haven't found much of a correlation between measurements and sound quality. I am more comfortable when gear earns praise on both audiophile and pro sound sites. In the end, I can only determine value through longer term listening in my own system. 

 

How is Archimago's blog "anti-audiophile"?  Surely, the quest for the best possible playback is INHERENTLY "audiophile" - else, why are we here?