Archimago and the TLS DS-1

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

How is Archimago's blog "anti-audiophile"?

Only in the GUTB sense.

[Sonicularity]

51 minutes ago, mansr said:

Only in the GUTB sense.

 

If it's not expensive it's reprehensive. 😄

 

This thread is great for Archimago.  At least the attacks are concerning the content of his blog and not the fact that he largely remains anonymous.

[plissken]

3 hours ago, audiobomber said:

I haven't found much of a correlation between measurements and sound quality.

 

You should read up with Floyd Toole and Sean Olive then.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Floyd-Toole/e/B001JS2MQ2/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

 

Toole has empirically proven with a large enough sampling size listeners with speakers that produce sound that line up with measurements and the overwhelming evidence of the preference lining up with the measurements.

[audiobomber]

6 hours ago, jhwalker said:

 

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

By "anti-audiophile", I mean sites where audiophiles are dismissed, ridiculed, treated like dupes or marks, etc.. Archimago is pretty cautious with his verbiage, but the message is clear, and made more clear when you look at the comments below his articles.

 

I don't see why you mentioned "best possible playback". That is clearly not what the site is about. It's about "bits are bits" and debunking audiophile claims of better sound from usb enhancements, linear power supplies, higher quality streamers, etc. 

[audiobomber]

3 hours ago, plissken said:

 

You should read up with Floyd Toole and Sean Olive then.

https://www.amazon.com/Floyd-Toole/e/B001JS2MQ2/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

 

Toole has empirically proven with a large enough sampling size listeners with speakers that produce sound that line up with measurements and the overwhelming evidence of the preference lining up with the measurements.

I know of Floyd Toole's work. My last speakers were one of the first designed with the assistance of the NRC. 

 

Note though that I said "much of a correlation between measurements and sound quality." I certainly did not imply that there was no correlation. Frequency response of loudspeakers is a rather blunt measure. There's no surprise that it correlates with perception of SQ. I don't recall hearing of Toole testing the effects of Lynk vs. Caddock resistor, or Solen vs. Auricap capacitors, or air coil vs. ribbon inductors. You know, audiophile stuff; no difference in FR, but different sound. 

 

Mostly though I was thinking about electronics and digital audio, where everything measures great, but not everything sounds good.

[Fokus]

51 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

By "anti-audiophile", I mean sites where audiophiles are dismissed, ridiculed, treated like dupes or marks, etc.. Archimago is pretty cautious with his verbiage, but the message is clear,

 

Funny. I am an audiophile. Have been since I was 13 or so. I don't consider Archimago's writings threatening or ridiculing for audiophiles. Quite the contrary.

 

But then what I am not is an audiophool ...

 

[Blackmorec]

Here’s the problem imho.

 

I presume everyone is familiar with the concept of the self fulfilling prophecy.

When one doesn’t believe in all the audiophile set-up, tweaks and improvements and seriously believe that bits are bits then one doesn’t implement any of these tweaks in one’s system obviously. As a consequence the system is at a level where its unable to resolve the differences these tweaks make thereby confirming the prophecy and creating the assumption that they’re all expensive snake oil created solely to rip-off audiophiles.

The problem with this self fulfilling prophecy is that it entirely kills any progress, at least on the part of the prophet and his acolytes and leaves them bogged down with a low resolution system and their beliefs.

 

In my experience, the better my system has become the more it has readily revealed differences. For example, replacing a very cheap and horrible SMPS with a well designed and built LPS brought a major step-up in SQ, once the LPS had traversed an extended burn-in period. A website or blog that denies the efficacy of LPSs and the need to allow time for burn-in flies directly in the face of my own experience and that of other hi-fi enthusiasts whose ears and opinions I trust is almost always built around the same self-fulfilling prophecy. 

[diecaster]

2 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

When one doesn’t believe in all the audiophile set-up, tweaks and improvements and seriously believe that bits are bits then one doesn’t implement any of these tweaks in one’s system obviously. As a consequence the system is at a level where its unable to resolve the differences these tweaks make thereby confirming the prophecy and creating the assumption that they’re all expensive snake oil created solely to rip-off audiophiles.

 

This is massively flawed logic. Just because a system does not have tweaks does not mean it is not resolving enough to hear real differences tweaks might make.

[Blackmorec]

3 minutes ago, diecaster said:

 

This is massively flawed logic. Just because a system does not have tweaks does not mean it is not resolving enough to hear real differences tweaks might make.

Set up, tweaks and improvements was what I actually said.  Nevertheless, take some good components, place them on some convenient shelves or furniture, connect them up with some generic cables and plug them into the wall with a generic extension block and I guarantee you it will not produce a highly detailed, refined and problem-free sound capable of revealing subtle changes to its eco-system. Take that same system, plug it into a dedicated mains radial, add some well designed cables and power cables, place the components on a rack designed to isolate and ground vibration and supply it with a fully optimised network stream built around LPSs and you’ll scarcely believe the transformation.  

 

I didn’t reach the conclusion I did without at least a little evidence. When I lived in Germany `I worked for a major US technology company that employed a large team of R&D engineers, a few of whom were hi-if enthusiasts, including a couple of “Bah, humbug, its all audiophile snake oil” proponents. I was invited to listen to their systems, so naturally took along some CDs that I believed demonstrated things like atmosphere, emotion, rhythm and timing, imaging, excitement etc.  I was actually hoping that their solid engineering approach would prove that my expensive power cables, racks and other audiophile accoutrements were unnecessary (I don’t really like spending lots of money on interconnect cables, power conditioners etc) and still resist spending big ££££ on fuses because even I can see the poor value for money they represent. 

So how did my CD’s sound?  In a word, boring.....the attributes that caused me to select those particular CDs were entirely missing. In fact some of the tracks sounded so average, unremarkable and bland  I was quite embarrassed and spent most of the track wishing it would end. 

[Miska]

3 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

So how did my CD’s sound?  In a word, boring.....the attributes that caused me to select those particular CDs were entirely missing. In fact some of the tracks sounded so average, unremarkable and bland  I was quite embarrassed and spent most of the track wishing it would end. 

 

Sometimes the content is just that, really boringly produced. And some colorful coloration device makes it sound less boring. However, it doesn't mean it is more resolving, more correct, or more accurate...

 

That's why I find measurements as a good baseline check, that things are at least not wrong in any big way. Then from the well measuring devices one can pick up the ones that also sound good... Similar thing for tweaks too, it is good to check that they don't make things actually perform worse...

 

So in my opinion both measurements and listening are very important. Measurements don't tell it all, neither do listening. My opinion is also that if you can measure differences (and in many cases you can), those are the ones that could be more likely ones accounted for the heard differences, not something that eludes the measurements. Not always though, because some measurement could be missing.

 

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

When one doesn’t believe

Things that go away when you stop believing in them are generally not real.

[audiobomber]

7 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

Funny. I am an audiophile. Have been since I was 13 or so. I don't consider Archimago's writings threatening or ridiculing for audiophiles. Quite the contrary.

But then what I am not is an audiophool ...

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. 

[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.

 

[audiobomber]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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

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).

[plissken]

7 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Here’s the problem imho.

 

I presume everyone is familiar with the concept of the self fulfilling prophecy.

When one doesn’t believe in all the audiophile set-up, tweaks and improvements

 

Audiophile tweaks I've tried to date:

 

Wall outlet

Ethernet Cables

MIT speaker interface cables

Isolation cones

Special Magic Marker for CD's (didn't work on DVD's either 😉)

Pangea and Nordost Power Cables

Cable Burn in

[Sal1950]

9 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. 

My definition of a true audiophile is one that backs up what he "thinks" he hears with bias controlled and peer reviewed DBT's, measurements, and other scientific procedures before he falls into the trap of using the weakest of all evaluation methods, his ears.

Human perception can be proven over and over to be easily fooled.

[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.

 

[audiobomber]

1 hour ago, Sal1950 said:

My definition of a true audiophile is one that backs up what he "thinks" he hears with bias controlled and peer reviewed DBT's, measurements, and other scientific procedures before he falls into the trap of using the weakest of all evaluation methods, his ears.

Human perception can be proven over and over to be easily fooled.

Really? That's your honest definition of "audiophile"? Your signature line is a quote from a well-known anti-audiophile, regarding the gullibility of audiophiles. It's fairly obvious that Aczel's definition of an audiophile is closer to mine than yours. I don't know what he calls himself, but I doubt he considers himself an audiophile.

 

I don't have time or interest in peer-reviewed DBT's and I am highly suspicious of DBT and ABX testing due to the many, many false or null results these sorts of tests have produced over the years. There was a famous example from decades ago, the subjects couldn't tell an expensive tube amp from a Pioneer receiver. This theme has been repeated ad nauseum. To some it shows that all properly designed amps sound the same. To me it says that the testing is bogus.

 

Music reproduction is a combination of art and science. Just because it measures better doesn't mean the music is better. My test is listening to a component or change in my system for an extended period and cross-checking when possible by undoing the change. There is no better method than me listening to my music, through my system, in my room, for as long as I like.

 

Is the music demanding my attention, or am I reading or thinking of what change to make next? Accurate sound is science, but the art is in the music and how compelling the reproduction. Linn championed this many years ago with their toe-tap test. Getting lost in the performance is FAR more important than measurements. Come back when you can measure how much I love how a system sounds.

[audiobomber]

49 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

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.

I said the brands were illustrative but I guess that wasn't sufficient. The brands I mentioned are well-known entry-level audiophile makes. If I saw someone with this system, I would assume they are audiophiles. Had they chosen components based on measurements and price, they would likely have chosen more generic brands. 

 

I don't jump on every audiophile bandwagon. I certainly don't use cable lifters, you should see the ball of snakes behind my stereo cabinet. My main distinction would be does one listen critically and try to match components based mostly on sound, or based mostly on measurements?

[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.

[spotforscott]

1 hour ago, Sal1950 said:

...using the weakest of all evaluation methods, his ears.

Human perception can be proven over and over to be easily fooled.

 

OMG, this is so ridiculous. So tell me, if your ears are not the ultimate judge of sound quality, why do anything. After all, you clearly won't be able to hear a difference or if you do, you are just being fooled, right? You keep staring at your data while I listen to music

[audiobomber]

21 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

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

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

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? Just read @Sal1950 's signature for proof.

[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.

[mansr]

1 minute 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?

On the flip side, suppose Sal, plissken, and I are audiophiles. After all, we value good sound. Then people like you are the anti-audiophiles constantly trashing audiophiles.

[plissken]

17 minutes ago, spotforscott said:

OMG, this is so ridiculous. So tell me, if your ears are not the ultimate judge of sound quality, why do anything. After all, you clearly won't be able to hear a difference or if you do, you are just being fooled, right? You keep staring at your data while I listen to music

 

Trust me, my side of the camp don't mind the ears being the ultimate judge of what suites you, it's just the eyes that can present a problem 🙂

 

I had one subjectivist audio-phile that was a huge believer in his custom Ethernet Cable. Using his setup and one of his favorite tracks that was 11 minutes long streamed from Tidal, he utterly could not tell what Ethernet cable was plugged in. It was a 10 foot custom, cryo-treated, with TeleGartner terminations (~$500) vs my 100 foot $13 Amazon special. This all happened when he didn't know what cable was which.

 

He was on average across 3 sets of 10 possible changes, 40% correct.

 

I honestly wouldn't have minded if he was 90% correct as I would have tried to delve deeper. At the end we were playing another favorite track of his off of Tidal where I had removed the cable after 30 seconds of playback. About the 5 minute mark I showed him the cable was in my hand and the look on his face when I told him I removed it 4 and 1/2 minutes earlier was priceless.

 

He figured out that everything he thought he knew about playback was incorrect.