Article: SOtM Launches sMB-Q370 Motherboard

[botrytis]

I am sorry but for a generation or two behind, that is Apple pricing.

 

Intel has already pulled the plug on making the 8th and 9th gen CPU's and this was from last year. That also means the chip sets will not be made any more either.

 

9th Gen Intel CPU's discontinued

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Newegg has plenty of CPUs, all the way back to 1st Gen Intel. Not sure what discontinuing a Gen actually means if one can still get them from 13 years ago.

 

Yes, but Intel doesn't support them anymore. Drivers, etc. That IS the point.

[botrytis]

It has been shown Linear PS are as noisier as a well-designed regular ATX PS. They are also way less efficient, meaning heat,

 

I have been building my own PC's since I-486 days. Much of what is reported by audiophiles about 'noise', etc. from PC's is more urban legend than anything else. The reason being, to a PC - data is data - if noise affects digital music, it will affect other data as well. Also working with scientific analytical instruments, more data is there than any music file could possibly have. Noise would affect it all.

[botrytis]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Both data and power ride along the USB connection to a DAC. The data can remain perfect while at the same time dirty power can have averse effects on the audio component. This is partially why some companies use optical isolation between the USB input and the rest of the DAC. 

Which has been shown to be nonsense, sorry to say.

 

A well designed USB chip and USB input does not let noise through.

 

If you believe it, go forward and enjoy. But it makes absolutely no sense.

[botrytis]

20 minutes ago, MarcelNL said:

this is a similarly pointless debate as all others about 'blind listening''versus 'show me the measurements' etc, but I'll humor one fact....the VAST majority of cars that had their suspension 'designed on the Nürburgring' supposedly to create fast lap times are being found far too lumpy during reviews by well respected car journalists and professional drivers.

 

Just like training AI facial recognition, which was shown to be trained with only certain types of faces., namely Caucasian faces (not trying to be racist, just explaining a fact here). This is why, many people of colour have issues with facial recognition. Same thing.

[botrytis]

As firedog and others have stated, our hearing can be manipulated very easily. Expectation bias is a very real thing and very powerful. So, really the only way to judge, besides measurements, is a DBL blind test.

 

 

[botrytis]

More than likely another company is building the board for them, and they are just a reseller. This is a common practice. Look at the big producers of boards, like Foxconn (they make the MB's for Apple M1's), ASUS, etc.

[botrytis]

Mitac is a 4th tier producer of MB's, like Foxconn.

[botrytis]

47 minutes ago, bbosler said:

I agree you can fool me with quick comparisons, but over the long haul I trust what I hear  ... no need for DB testing here, or hear

 

As a person, who does science day in and day out, trust but verify. I do that with everything. 

 

[botrytis]

5 hours ago, MarcelNL said:

You should let the objectivist come up with a statistical justification for which measured parameter he thinks to differs across MBs is detectable at what threshold of change and then throw enough MBs with identical parameters at a crowd to see if that is true....

 

Correlating measurement data POST facto to an observation is not how science works. The scientist comes up with an a priori hypothesis and designs the experiment 

 

 

In Non-science world, a theory is considered a guess. In science it is based on fact and is reasoned by logic.

 

Hypothesis = Theory for non-scientists.

[botrytis]

23 minutes ago, MarcelNL said:

fact in your science therefore cannot be overturned by new information ? There are quite a few examples that have proven to be wrong, let's start with the 'fact' that the earth is flat, that the logic by which it was kept in place was flawed was not discovered until (much) later but flawed it was.

 

please read up on how science works before writing such nonsense

You misrepresented what I was saying. I was just talking of the use of terms, nothing more.

 

I have a Ph,D in fungal biochemistry and have been working in science since 1984. I know what I am talking about, do you? In fact, my handle is what I worked on for my PhD.

[botrytis]

On 1/14/2022 at 2:44 AM, MarcelNL said:

In daily life I try to keep a couple of scientist on track by making sure they don't get lost in the corridors of the things that happen in real life. If you want a pissing contest please organize it in a brewery of your choice, I have no issue with folks not believing there is more than what can be measured but I hate the pointless I am more right than you debates over this, especially when folks start  to throw in the their heritage as a justification for being right. 

 

 

I worked in a big-name distillery as the 'grand pubah' of analytical and fermentation for 2 years. Trying to get management to get their heads out of their asses was the toughest job I had. It never worked and they had no clue what they were doing.

 

Been there done that. I also worked in the corn ethanol industry for many years.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

“Lab” tests, such as blind testing for audio, have the potential to demonstrate statistically significant differences between levels of independent variables; e.g., Amp A vs. Amp B. Such tests are “conservative”. If statistically significant differences are established, we are justified in having confidence in replicability. Of course this standard is necessary/a pre-requisite for medical treatments etc. The absence of such tests, or the absence of statistically significant effects when such tests are undertaken, does not mean that no differences between levels exist. Increasing the sensitivity of tests – whether formulation and specificity of the proposal, attendant design, adjustment of apparatus, rigour of procedure – may yet yield differences that might otherwise have been discarded with unwanted bath water. The call for DBTs is understandable – but failure to implement, conduct and report a “successful” DBT is never proof of the absence of an effect.

 

 

 

Only the ignorant deny that cognitive biases and dissonance are a partial explanation of what audiophiles experience subjectively. Yet how much more foolish and disagreeable the sceptic who insists that no SQ deltas bar those demonstrated in the lab are permissible to the audio hobbyist.

 

 

There was a study, a DBL test, done by the Boston Audio Society in the 1970-80's time frame. They showed that people, in this study all audiophiles, COULD NOT tell the difference between amps.

 

Then there was a recent Archimago column that talked about how some audiophiles are more about the equipment than actual sound. This also colours the view.

 

People underestimate how much our emotions and memories affect what we hear. Hearing has been shown, in psychological studies, to be one of the senses that is affected the most by our emotions and memories.

[botrytis]

57 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Well - as argued, null results aren't proof of no difference - whatever that difference may be - should it exist at all.

 

Yep - familiar with the adage that audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment and not vv. I'm not one!

 

Yes - as already agreed, "Only the ignorant deny that cognitive biases and dissonance are a partial explanation of what audiophiles experience subjectively." I agree with you even more wholeheartedly. The realm of "brain" we barely touch upon in our conversations. Understandable for the most part. Nobody on the planet truly has much of an idea how to fathom the human brain and its capabilities.

 

Perhaps what's lurking here is not so much whether what audiophiles say is "legitimate" (and according to who) - but whether manufacturers should be obliged to back up all their assertions empirically. Not practicable for many reasons - expense being not the least. Nobody would agree with their Method anyway. We hobbyists can't even agree on the parameters of a valid blind test.

 

I can think of better ways to lure audiophools out of their delusions than attack, belittlement, insistence on "science" and blind tests.

 

Not referring to your good self of course. Just the general run of polarised debate.

 

Agree - both have to be done.

 

ASR seems to be the flag carrier, but they also seem to have a blind reverence that is as bad as some subjectivists.

 

People have to learn to agree to disagree - that is the best way to continue civil discourse and prevents the 'armed camp' mentality,

[botrytis]

59 minutes ago, bbosler said:

somewhere back around page three I pointed out that any "discussion" about double blind tests in audio or the topic of measurements vs. listening tests is endless and  fruitless. So much so that many forums ban them outright or only allow it in one room of the forum.

 

the endless, fruitless "debate"  going on here that is basically repeating what has been  stated many, many times in the past on many forums pretty much proves my point. 

 

so... has anybody bought one of these boards and tried it?

 

 

sMB-Q370 (artiz.info)

 

It is $550.00 for the board alone and more if you want the external clocks. If you add the clocks the board goes up to 3K in price.

[botrytis]

The other thing is this MB is for Gen 8-9 Intel CPU's not the 14th gen that just came out.

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, Crwilli57 said:

Is that a problem?

 

It is to me since, the newest processors from Intel are fairly efficient and even new MB's for that CPU are not that much. Better data transfer, faster memory, etc.  I need to correct 12th Gen is the newest.

 

[botrytis]

31 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Note, the first consideration is that a, as yet not specified, MB which is particularly noisy can impact some combination of audio components; this would be verified by comparing another MB, most likely this one, in that same audio setup.

 

 

Well, if you want to really explore this, take several units of a well designed, say, amplifier; leave one alone, and in the others remove various levels of all the the electrical parts which serve no purpose other than to attenuate the impact of noise - and run a DBT as to whether the standard, and degraded units all sound identical, having made sure that there is a lot of electrical noise present externally. If not detectable, advise all manufacturers to forget about including this in the manufacture; it reduces the profit margin having unnecessary bits inside .

 

 

The point here is that no-one questions the concept that a car can break down on a bad road, because of engineering not up to the task; so, why should less than best engineering of the parts that make up an audio system not cause audible anomalies?

 

 

My point would be, that if it's better for a certain proportion, even if that's just 5 out of 100 people, then its existence is justified. That the other 95 won't benefit is irrelevant - if curious, they can trial it; and return it, or sell it to someone else who is curious. Which of course is exactly how the audio community works ... .

 

 

And most tweaks, like this MB, are aimed to "reduce the risk" of sub-optimal SQ. If at least someone, most likely the manufacturer, can verify that the spectrum of electrical noise is significantly less for this unit, then we do have useful information. But consumers, and manufacturers, learn this is not how it's done in the audio world - hype is the name of the game, if you want to sell product.

 

 

Personally, I was way past anything like DBTs decades ago - either a system sounds 'right', or it doesn't. What the latter means is that one becomes irritated while listening; there is something disturbing in the sound which prevents one from being "in tune" with the music. The excuse many use is, "It's a bad recording!!" - this is an easy out, meaning that one doesn't explore further, to determine if there are, say, noise interference factors ... when you accept that such is possible, then you stand an excellent chance of extracting more, from any rig .

 

Personally, I believe you never been in a properly DBT, as they are hard to do and setup.

 

The phrase 'garbage in, garbage out' comes to mind. There are bad recordings, it happens. That is the way they wanted them to sound.

 

I don't think you understand that digital data is just digital data, whether it be music (which is very simple, btw) or mass spec/NMR data. Both the latter are more susceptible to noise than music is. Audiophiles think music is some special case, it is not.

 

 

 

 

 

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I have zero evidence to suggest that my brain operates this way but I'm happy that yours does.

Brains don't work that way, it is funny he thinks his does...

 

Our ears are more attuned to midrange than anything else.

 

http://umdberg.pbworks.com/w/page/131541489/Frequency response of the human ear

 

This is the best of human hearing and most of ours are degraded from there.

[botrytis]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

Most audiophiles who have evolved their systems through various standards of resolution are familiar with how this occurs - take a very busy recording, where there are multiple sound elements, which all contribute to the overall sense and 'picture' of what is being created. Starting from a low resolution setup, this all blends together, has an overall feel; but it's difficult to pinpoint what the individual instruments are doing at any particular moment. As the standard of the chain improves, the definition, the 'imaging' of each sound element is enhanced; you begin to 'see' each instrument operating within the soundscape, and can track what it's doing. At the top of the tree, the layering of what was recorded is completely exposed; it becomes effortless to focus on one specific sound - this is like the documentaries on how "famous recordings" were made, when someone associated with the production moves the volume sliders, to expose the contribution of a single track. Also, here, the acoustic of each sound element has its own identity, often unique compared to any others - contributing to the sense of layering of the sound.

 

A good recording of a stage production does this is a very dramatic, and impressive way - "The Phantom of the Opera" is an excellent example of this - this is so, vastly, vastly superior to listening to a live production, there's no comparison ... .

 

 

You take too many liberties to when you say, 'Most Audiophiles'. I don't think audiophiles think the way you do. If that were the case most of the high-end companies would have disappeared as we would be buying and modifying Edifier self-powered speakers like you have and claim it is nirvana (to you, they are - great - I am happy for you).

 

I think most audiophiles base it on experience and decide what they want form that - plain and simple,

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, internethandle said:

Nobody should have to wade through pages upon pages of rehashed, ultimately pointless “debate” (read: entrenchment/tribalism) over objectivism in digital audio to get to any relevant information about the original topic, especially when that topic is a specific product. There’s a whole sub-forum to do that. Start a thread there, if you want.
 

Any assertions that the forum has historically operated any differently is ahistorical at best. The forum’s very former name is “Computer Audiophile” and was built in part on providing audiophile computer build recipes - what did you think was largely discussed here, foobar plugins? When a thread gets overly derailed with this kind of discussion, it’s usually reigned in. 

 

 

Every discussion is that way on the internet, PERIOD. Very few people listen to others and just want to spout what they believe and move on.

[botrytis]

Most of those Core 7 Gen 9 are closer to 125 watt tdp - Intel has been shown to way underestimate power usage.

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, Gavin1977 said:

Yep - without it we’re clueless and the review has no meaning/insight

 

Well, remember this chipset/CPU is 8th generation and we are currently at the 13th Gen of Intel CPU's. Just saying old tech, with old issues, that were fixed in the up-and-coming generation of CPU/Chipsets.

 

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Which issues were fixed?

It has to do with the BIOS used in that and 9th generation CPU' motherboards.

 

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/high-severity-bios-flaws-affect-numerous-intel-processors/

 

There are still Spectre and Meltdown flaw issues with these CPU's. Also, nothing earlier is supported by Win 11.