Is it worth it?

[botrytis]

@March AudioIt happens on every board and every objective discussion , it seems, I have been involved with. One has to just be above the fray. Sometimes, it is damn impossible to ignore too. 

 

Carry on! 👍

[The Computer Audiophile]

38 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

First, it's a fun. Secоnd, I am merely reflecting... 🙃

 

This is not only against the rules of the forum, but against the spirit as well. Trolling brings the entire community down. 

[AnotherSpin]

32 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

This is not only against the rules of the forum, but against the spirit as well. Trolling brings the entire community down. 

 

What's wrong with having fun with diversity of human behavior? Or I should cry and run to fill a complain?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, AnotherSpin said:

 

What's wrong with having fun with diversity of human behavior? Or I should cry and run to fill a complain?

 

You may see it as fun and the only other option is to "cry and run to fill (sic) a complaint," but it isn't allowed here. If the below definition is something that pleases you and you feel the need to do it, I suggest you find a new site on which to engage in this behavior. If, on the other hand, there is some miscommunication, please let me know.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet. This is typically done by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion.[3] This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process. Even so, Internet trolling can also be defined as purposefully causing confusion or harm to other users online, for no reason at all.[4]

[manisandher]

On 6/6/2021 at 5:03 PM, PeterSt said:

Although this is the other way around, this sprung from a customer wondering what was the matter (for odd sound) with a certain DAC with a certain D/A chip used in there.

 

Haha...

 

And what a polava that caused 😜.

 

Mani.

[AnotherSpin]

OK, English is not my native language, and it is quite likely that I may not understand some of the nuances of using a particular word, in this case it was the word "fun". Nevertheless, it's not the word that's important, but a certain way of behaving. I don't think I've started a flame war here or anywhere else. And if my word has upset someone who well ahead of this complains about everything and everyone, it's probably not my fault either. 

[fas42]

On 6/7/2021 at 2:03 AM, PeterSt said:

 

This is always about noise, but with the "noise" between quotes because it is not noise but some discrete signal element.

People with a bit less knowledge will tell us that backgrounds are darker and that kind of thing. This indeed tells me nothing except that something will be different.

 

 

 

Peter is one of the very few who understands how pernicious this noise/interference thing is - nearly all rigs, no matter how ambitious, how expensive, have lots of audible artifacts in the sound; experience allows one to almost instantly identify these degradations - but, unfortunately, this is a long, long way from getting them fully under control ... some means of measuring it happening is but a tiny part of actually solving it ...

[March Audio]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Peter is one of the very few who understands how pernicious this noise/interference thing is - nearly all rigs, no matter how ambitious, how expensive, have lots of audible artifacts in the sound; experience allows one to almost instantly identify these degradations - but, unfortunately, this is a long, long way from getting them fully under control ... some means of measuring it happening is but a tiny part of actually solving it ...

In an objective forum thread that "understanding" has to be demonstrated to have an actual effect in the audio output (dac/amp/whatever).

 

As I mentioned earlier saying "I hear it therefore it is" counts for nothing.

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, March Audio said:

In an objective forum thread that "understanding" has to be demonstrated to have an actual effect in the audio output (dac/amp/whatever).

 

As I mentioned earlier saying "I hear it therefore it is" counts for nothing.

Yes. The Objective-Fi sub forum exists for this reason. 

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, March Audio said:

In an objective forum thread that "understanding" has to be demonstrated to have an actual effect in the audio output (dac/amp/whatever).

 

As I mentioned earlier saying "I hear it therefore it is" counts for nothing.

 

So, if I stated that I believed that noise was degrading the audio output in some way, to a point where it was audible, how should I measure it?

[March Audio]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, if I stated that I believed that noise was degrading the audio output in some way, to a point where it was audible, how should I measure it?

Im actually going to start another thread that sort of covers some of this. There are a number of measurement techniques, but it depends what you are looking for what you might do.  On some measurements we can actually dig way below the levels of audibility.

 

However, the first and most fundamental thing to do is establish if are you actually really hearing something?  That means, as far as possible, removing those bias inducing clues and factors.  Putting controls in place so that you are not influenced by price, brand, aesthetics, what the reviewer, your mate or the "technical expert" said etc, etc.

[Racerxnet]

2 hours ago, March Audio said:

Im actually going to start another thread that sort of covers some of this. There are a number of measurement techniques, but it depends what you are looking for what you might do.  On some measurements we can actually dig way below the levels of audibility.

 

However, the first and most fundamental thing to do is establish if are you actually really hearing something?  That means, as far as possible, removing those bias inducing clues and factors.  Putting controls in place so that you are not influenced by price, brand, aesthetics, what the reviewer, your mate or the "technical expert" said etc, etc.

This may include techniques that others may not subscribe to. I am looking forward to this new thread.

[Summit]

On 6/7/2021 at 2:00 AM, fas42 said:

It's pretty clear that most people haven't experienced a setup that is so 'transparent' that it becomes easy to hear the individual tracks that were laid down in a complex mix - the acoustic of each of say a dozen different sound elements sits in the space in front of you, all on top of each other; completely different, individual, unique - but easily identifiable and standing out clearly from the others. Almost certainly not what the mastering engineer wanted - but that's what's there, on the recording ... and that's one of the signatures, of accuracy ...  🙂.

 

Only you have experienced a transparent setup. We get it, but don't buy it. 

[Summit]

On 6/8/2021 at 4:09 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes. The Objective-Fi sub forum exists for this reason. 

 

I have no problem with that. It's the lack of showed correlation between what's measured att the output of DAC or amp and actually SQ that's rarely presented objectively in those so called objective threads, IME.

[The Computer Audiophile]

16 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

I have no problem with that. It's the lack of showed correlation between what's measured att the output of DAC or amp and actually SQ that's rarely presented objectively in those so called objective threads, IME.

You are free to start such a thread :~)

[cab33]

5 hours ago, Summit said:

 

I have no problem with that. It's the lack of showed correlation between what's measured att the output of DAC or amp and actually SQ that's rarely presented objectively in those so called objective threads, IME.

 

those are called speakers

[fas42]

8 hours ago, Summit said:

 

Only you have experienced a transparent setup. We get it, but don't buy it. 

 

With a bit of effort one can find, on audio forums, etc, a number of instances of people who have experienced high levels of transparency - that's why I used the term, "most people"; rather than, "no-one else" 🙂.

[botrytis]

Again Frank is talking subjectively in an objective thread. One cannot actually do that as it confuses and doesn't really add to the discussion.

 

One of the things, that should be discussed is a proper setup for a double blind test, for audio. The Boston Audio Society did a bunch of ABX testing and they have some information, on their site aboot (I guess I am turning Canadian - 🤣 ) how they do it.

 

Boston Audio Society - ABX Testing article

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys, please remember to use the report post function for off topic stuff.

[The Computer Audiophile]

@manueljenkin you are now banned from this thread. 

[jabbr]

On 6/5/2021 at 8:16 PM, pkane2001 said:

 

If one has to work this hard to get an objective discussion going, then this is just not the place for it. And again, I've tried, probably harder than most, and still failed. Hence my answer to @idiot_savant: it's not worth it. IMHO, IME, and YMMV.

Paul, it *is* worth it but the discussion has to be two ways. Create the tools, and make the suggestions, and give people ways to discover the answers for themselves. This is a hobby. If people like twisted blue wires or silver wires its ok.

[pkane2001]

Just now, jabbr said:

Paul, it *is* worth it but the discussion has to be two ways. Create the tools, and make the suggestions, and give people ways to discover the answers for themselves. This is a hobby. If people like twisted blue wires or silver wires its ok.

Hi Jon,

 

Why is it worth it, in your opinion? I'm finding it harder to find the motivation to engage here, simply because I’m not getting much value from the constant bickering and arguing.

 

Create tools and let others discover answers for themselves? I may have tried some of that ;)

 

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

Hi Jon,

 

Why is it worth it, in your opinion? I'm finding it harder to find the motivation to engage here, simply because I’m not getting much value from the constant bickering and arguing.

 

Create tools and let others discover answers for themselves? I may have tried some of that ;)

 

Keep up the great work. Stay objective about the arguments -- objective in the sense that if people don't care to listen, then their loss, who cares?

[plissken]

On 6/5/2021 at 8:05 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

If you want an objective discussion, then work toward that goal and surprisingly you’ll get there. 

 

Tried that in another thread in the objectifi-forum where someone could hear differences in CPU load (subjective) and when I offered up a headless, remote controlled, computer that could be place in their setup and cpu load varied without their knowing (objective) a few things happened:

 

1: They were able to just post about tweak after tweak of subjective improvement

2: You called me condescending (also objective 😉)

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Tried that in another thread in the objectifi-forum where someone could hear differences in CPU load (subjective) and when I offered up a headless, remote controlled, computer that could be place in their setup and cpu load varied without their knowing (objective) a few things happened:

 

1: They were able to just post about tweak after tweak of subjective improvement

2: You called me condescending (also objective 😉)

 

 

I have zero reported posts in the queue, so I can only assume everyone found them OK within the context of the thread.