Article: SOtM Launches sMB-Q370 Motherboard

[bbosler]

On 12/17/2021 at 5:17 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have no idea what that means. 

I have no idea what most of Rando's posts mean. Is it an issue with English as a second language or an attempt to sound intelligent by constructing convoluted sentences? In any case, Me scratching my head since it sounds like yoda speak to me, most of what he posts leaves.     

[bbosler]

On 12/22/2021 at 7:56 AM, botrytis said:

It has been shown Linear PS are as noisier as a well-designed regular ATX PS.

 

15 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

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.

 

This boils down to the age old listening versus measuring conundrum. If you are a fan (cult member) of Audio Science Review then you believe that the only thing that matters is measurements, but just because you can't explain it with a set of measurements doesn't mean it doesn't exist.. He often doesn't even mention that he listened to a device that he "reviews," he only posts measurements. However, if you believe as I do that measurements only tell part of the story, then the aforementioned noise measurements are not conclusive.

 

And yes, there are many things in audio that "make no sense" from a measurement perspective, but that assumes we have identified everything that can be measured, are measuring it properly, and have identified an exact correlation between what we measure and what we hear. Just because we have some measurements doesn't mean we are measuring everything that is relevant.

 

To assume that we have  positively identified exactly how our body reacts to the sounds around us and can measure everything that affects us  is ludicrous. We have no more positively identified how our brain processes sound than we have sight, smell, or touch. Again, just because you can't explain it with a set of measurements doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bbosler]

19 hours ago, Archimago said:

That is quite well defined and certainly measurable beyond any science we know to have significance for human hearing abilities

Do you seriously think that we can explain everything we sense with electronic measurements?  I use the word "sense" on purpose because we definitely sense vibrations that we don't "hear" in the conventional use of the word. 

 

To be true, your statement means that we have  defined exactly how we hear and that we can precisely measure everything that pertains to it. It implies our knowledge is so far advanced that we understand precisely how the human body senses vibration and exactly how our brain processes this information, and beyond understanding how all of that happens, we have electronic instruments that are capable of precisely measuring everything that pertains to this process... . ..... dream on. 

 

19 hours ago, Archimago said:

To speculate that there's "something else" out there is fine but this cannot really be taken seriously unless there's some hint of what we're talking about. That's like saying "it's possible" that the Boogeyman lives under my bed. As adults I trust there's no need to be concerned, right?

 

No, definitely not.. .. sorry, your analogy is humorous but meaningless.  You imply that science is so far advanced that we not only understand everything, we can also measure  everything .. ... again.. dream on. Much of what we are discovering today was not even conceived of several years ago. I have an electronics and scientific background, but I'm not so delusional to think that mankind has reached the point that there is nothing left to discover or that we even have the vision to know what these things might be. 

 

I know you are deeply involved in using measurements to explain outcomes. I respectfully suggest that your desire to be able to explain everything with measurements has clouded your ability to think beyond what your instruments are capable of measuring or the possibility that you aren't even measuring everything things that matters

 

I also respectfully suggest you head over to Audio Science Review and join the "if I can't measure it you can't hear it" cult (that is an attempt at  sarcastic humor and I hope you take it as such)

 

“Everything that can be invented has been invented.” Charles H. Duell , Commissioner of US patent office. 1889

 

[bbosler]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Your response is irrelevant to Archi's post. Archi and others have measured the output from DACs fed a signal from devices with and without all the various audiophile "noise reducers" and "jitter reducers". The result: basically no difference in the jitter output, distortion, or noise floor of the DAC. 

this is the Audio Science Review position. "I see no difference when I measure these 3 things. these 3 things are all that matter,  so therefore these devices are identical." Once again, and then I will drop it since you are not "hearing" what I am saying. You and others have decided what the relevant parameters are and that nothing else matters. The ASR guy has also decided that even though some things do measure differently, these differences are beyond what a human can detect. 

 

1 hour ago, firedog said:

And look, in the end, if you want to buy this MB, and "feel" that it actually does something - go right ahead. Just don't make unsubstantiated claims for it.

I made no claims about this device. Please quit putting words in my mouth

 

 

1 hour ago, firedog said:

You can claim all sorts of things are going on

 

I did no such thing. Again, please quit putting words in my mouth. I said the idea that we completely understand our sense of hearing and that we can definitively measure everything that is relevant is a dream.

 

the end of my story

 

 

[bbosler]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

If you want to make such claims, then it has to be on the basis of some other, as yet unknown or unmeasured type of difference.

If you want to claim they have some broader basis, you have to know what they are so they can be evaluated by others 

 

which is impossible.. How does one make a claim based on an unknown then say what that unknown is so it can be evaluated? 

 

 

6 hours ago, firedog said:

these same vanishingly small measured differences that have actually been shown in listening tests to be undetectable by listeners

 

6 hours ago, firedog said:

Have it properly tested under blind conditions and show us that listeners can actually hear a difference when this product is installed.

 

 

and so ends the discussion at least from my end... you seem to believe that tests have been designed and carried out that prove what can and cannot be detected . I have no faith that these tests are valid nor does a large % of the audiophile community The blind listening debate is so endless and pointless that some forums have simply banned the subject. I won't go down that rabbit hole. 

 

 

 

 

[bbosler]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Just do unsighted comparative listening.

 

5 hours ago, firedog said:

The rabbit hole is your creation.

 

and therein lies the crux of the matter....  "just do" as if it is a simple matter. It is not.

 

unsighted = blind listening which you obviously believe to be valid. I do not.  Many do not. People who believe measurements tell everything like the ASR cult do. As I said,  the debate about blind testing is endless and pointless. It is such  a huge bone of contention that many forums ban even mentioning it. 

 

this is probably one response too many since that is the rabbit hole you are apparently unaware of. We are on the edge of it and  I will not go down it.. .I certainly did not create it .   ........ so ....... good day

 

[bbosler]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

So what is a question of "belief" here?

 

as I said

 

23 hours ago, bbosler said:

the debate about blind testing is endless and pointless. 

 

Answering your question will continue yet another endless, pointless debate. If you care to look into it you will find a multitude of them Here are a few links to get you started although it is by no means exhaustive. . enjoy.. 

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/#:~:text=Blind tests mean the listener does not know,image%2C product reputation is hidden from the listener

 

https://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-listening-letters

 

https://www.pooraudiophile.com/2014/08/blind-audio-testing.html

 

 

[bbosler]

11 hours ago, firedog said:

Thanks. Your articles acutally back up my point, and not yours. I suggest your read them again.

 

My point for the links was simply that their is a lot of debate about the topic which will never be resolved ... my links clearly show that.... which is obvious if you had actually read them. The first link is a forum thread with 990 pages and  about 15,000 posts. You responded in about an hour that it backs up your point,  but no way you read it. If you had you would have  read there is passion on both sides. The second is in part Atkinson saying he has been fooled by these tests. You can read the others if you care to.

 

BUT, that was not my initial point, which was  "Just because we have some measurements doesn't mean we are measuring everything that is relevant." You then started down the blind listening rabbit hole and here we are, which pretty much proves my point that it is a rabbit hole.

 

I do agree with the poster who said another thread should be started that consists of actually reporting results of it in use. That seems to me more useful than just speculating like you are that it will not have any effect. As a serial poster I'm sure you have another tact to take so have at it. 11,000 posts in 12 years  is an impressive feat, my 300 in 3 pales in comparison. 

 

11 hours ago, firedog said:

The same thing would probably happen with the MB described here if people compared it unsighted. 

 

 

On 12/25/2021 at 11:59 AM, firedog said:

any broader claim that it actually has some more universal application to SQ for any other listener or that it "really" does something is baseless. 

 

[bbosler]

 

 

 

4 hours ago, extracampine said:

Having the source and endpoint separated by ethernet cable seems to negate the need for an "audiophile" motherboard in the source PC. Or am I missing something?

There are 2 types of people in this world - those who understand binary and those who don't

 

 

On one side are the scientists who say it is all bits, it is all asynchronous  binary data, so sources, servers, re-clockers, cables, motherboards, and so forth don't make any difference since they all deliver the exact same data to the endpoint. "You can't provide me any measurements that show any difference in the data stream from a $26,000 Taiko Extreme and a $100 Raspberry Pi."

 

On the other side is the crowd who claim profound differences with different servers. That a USB cable or even the power cord to the computer makes a significant difference. "I don't care about measurements. I hear what I hear and I hear a difference."

 

So no, you aren't missing anything as that is the crux of the debate. It is ongoing and seemingly endless. My only advice is try it for yourself and decide. You are certainly not going to find the answer by reading about it on internet forums. 

 

 

BTW the joke is actually there are 10 types of people in this world - those who understand binary and those who don't

[bbosler]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The situation is remarkably simple ... any sort of electrical activity in the vicinity can generate electrical noise; that noise can make its way with the greatest of ease to where it becomes a nuisance; and most audio components are not engineered well enough to reject the impact of that noise, to below the level where its effect is audible - the more 'transparent' the replay chain, the worse the problem most likely will be.

 

and the scientists will say this is hogwash. "That is all just guessing. Show me how this noise affects the circuits? Show me how this "can" happen", show me your proof that most audio components are not engineered to reject noise, and show how this is "most likely" with transparent components, whatever that means."

 

Don't attack me... I'm just playing devil's advocate because as I said, the debate is ongoing, endless, and I'm pretty sure... pointless.

 

 

[bbosler]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Show me how bad road surfaces affects the ride and handling of vehicles.

 

your analogy is flawed. It is very easy to show how road surfaces affect car handling. I have yet to see where anybody has shown that electrical noise generated in a server is affecting sound quality. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, maybe I missed it, but as far as I know nobody has proven that to be the case,  so if I am correct it is far from being the "remarkably simple" situation you described above. 

 

So even though it may be logical to assume that this noise would,   if you can't prove it we end up with the same endless,  pointless debate I've been reading since the advent of digital audio. 

 

 

[bbosler]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

if it is easily audible, then it must leave signatures in the waveform.

 

So you are saying if you hear it (if it is easily audible) you must be able to show it with a measurement (must leave signatures in the waveform)

 

Can you not see how futile this discussion is ? (if you want to call it that)  That is the Audio Science Review position. If I can't  measure it you can't hear it. The other side says you obviously aren't measuring everything there is to measure because I hear it.

 

I look forward to somebody actually buying one of these boards and reporting back that they hear an improvement... then the ASR crowd can jump in say they are obviously delusional because what they hear can't possibly be explained with measurements. 

 

Feel free to state it another way, use another analogy, or propose another thought experiment, but you are wasting your time.

 

The debate is endless and futile..........................................................................................

The debate is endless and futile..........................................................................................

The debate is endless and futile..........................................................................................

The debate is endless and futile.........................................................................................

The debate is endless and futile.......................................................................................

The debate is endless and futile.........................................................................................

The debate is endless and futile.........................................................................................

The debate is endless and futile..........................................................................................

 

goodbye

[bbosler]

1 hour ago, Crwilli57 said:

Why do people feel the need to crap all over a thread on a new MOBO with the same endless arguments that have nothing to do with the original post?

 

nothing to do with the original post is debatable 😜

 

So tell us, what is the intent of the original post? What is a "proper " response? What would not be "crap?"

 

On the one hand you can argue that the thread should be limited to MOBO functions and implementations, but other than inputs for external clocks this one seems to be pretty much like all other MOBOs. 

 

On the other hand, this web site is about how things sound, or at least I think it is, so why is it crap to discuss how it may or may not affect the sound? And that's where all threads have the potential get "crapped" on. People talking about how it might affect the sound, people chiming in that it can't possibly affect the sound which can be easily shown with blind tests, people stating that it won't measure any different than any other MOBO so it is snake oil, people using analogies to try and prove a point when there is no adequate analogy.. etcetera. 

 

so here we are.... again

 

 

 

 

[bbosler]

37 minutes ago, botrytis said:

More than likely another company is building the board for them, 

 

https://www.onlogic.com/computers/components/motherboards/mitac/

 

I think pretty much a given that SoTM is not building mother boards

note Mitac logo on the picture that was posted earlier.

[bbosler]

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

[bbosler]

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?