Article: The Value Proposition In Computer Audio: Nuts, Bolts, and Building Blocks - Building a Home for Your Player Software

[mentt]

Audiolinux, Euphony truly works. On the same HW it truly sounds way better than optimized Windows 10 with Roon. Music sounds very natural and musical. Noticeably better than allo digi one signature powered by good power supply. This is the first time I enjoy using PC as transport component.

[mentt]

15 hours ago, bluesman said:

That’s great to hear, and your feelings are shared by many. My point about this example is only that there are dramatic interpretations on all sides of all such comparisons, and the superlatives used to describe each are pretty strong (e.g. “way better”).  The SQ gap between any two would have to be wide to go from “way better” on one side to “way better” on the other.
 

Given the close to equal opinion split between any two, I believe that these gaps are probably 90+% personal preference driven by confirmation bias, selection bias, etc and <10% real ordinal differences in SQ.  There are so many confounding factors that we can’t possibly control for them all, e.g. minor deviations from flat frequency response combined with nonlinear listener hearing sensitivity across the audible spectrum.

 

So I believe that listeners have definite and valid preferences and should use the systems they find most pleasing.  I just don’t believe that most of these differences are objectively as dramatic as the chosen descriptive terms suggest.

 

Well the last 3-10 % of SQ is usually the difference between enjoying the listening to music and not enjoying the music at all. And that is in the end the most significant difference...

[mentt]

1 hour ago, bluesman said:

You quoted me correctly but ignored what I said, which is that

 

"I believe that these gaps are probably 90+% personal preference driven by confirmation bias, selection bias, etc and <10% real ordinal differences in SQ."

 

I was only referring to the described differences in SQ between alternatives (the "gaps"), not SQ itself.  When one group of audiophiles describes the SQ of a component, system, etc of known high quality as "fabulous" and "heavenly" and another equally adept and experienced group says it's "horrible" and "unlistenable", there simply cannot be that much objective difference between the alternatives.  Had I chosen to shed all pretense of being PC, I'd have said that it was 50+% personal preference, 49+% semantic hyperbole, and SQ that's QNS.

 

If there were a system that truly reproduced and presented a recorded source exactly as it was performed, and if audiophiles were all equally able to both detect sonic differences and evaluate them totally without bias, almost everyone within a given budget would have the same system.  When a roughly equal number of audiophiles seem to prefer either of any two alternatives neither of which is perfect, the most logical conclusion is that the alternatives differ minimally and that listener-related factors are driving that decision rather than objective variance.

 

Parenthetically, I find it hard to understand how a music lover could "...not [enjoy] the music at all" because of SQ differences or deficiencies.  Most of us listen throughout the waking day on a variety of devices and systems that are suboptimal, e.g. smartphones, car systems, portable players, etc.  When SQ is marginal, most music lovers subconsciously apply "neural filters" that let us hear the music as it is despite sonic aberrations, so we can we can enjoy it even though reproduction is flawed.  Listen to a talented amateur string quartet play on student-quality instruments, or a concert in a venue sufficiently large &/or designed poorly enough to require sound reinforcement - the musical content is a joy despite its flawed presentation.  When you listen to the equipment, you hear the equipment.

 

Seems that  you’re man with issues. Not sure why they let you post your stuff here in the first place. This website is getting desperate I guess...