Expectation Bias

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

The original file can only be listened to through a system... 

 

Let's say you play a music file through a DAC and record it using an ADC. Then you listen to the resulting file, and compare it by listening to the original music file. You are listening through a system, and cannot make any assumptions on any subjective differences (or the lack thereof). 

 

It's probably a fun tool to play with, but I don't see what conclusions you can come to in terms of DAC performance and subjective results. Especially not the ones you  made above (no jitter issue with USB, or no jitter issue with an on-board clock). 

 

Sorry, didn't finish typing the response. You listen to the null/difference file which is the difference between the original and the loopback.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Sorry, didn't finish typing the response. You listen to the null/difference file which is the difference between the original and the loopback.

 

Even worse! You listen to noise (or it's absence). What does that tell you? Nothing really. And anyway you are back to listening to a system. 

 

As I said, this is certainly fun but I don't see how you can come to any serious conclusions regarding DAC accuracy. 

[pkane2001]

Just now, hopkins said:

 

Even worse! You listen to noise (or it's absence). What does that tell you? Nothing really. And anyway you are back to listening to a system. 

 

As I said, this is certainly fun but I don't see how you can come to any conclusions regarding DAC accuracy. 

 

Hmm? It tells you how audible the difference is. If you can't hear it on your system, then the difference is not audible. On your system.

 

[Kimo]

So, what is it called when I insert a new component into the system, with the expectation that it will sound a certain way, as based on the wordy, but oh so boring review of Dr. Longwood, Chief Reviewer for The Absolute Snob, and it sounds nothing like Dr. Golden Ears says it should?

 

Unexpectation bias?  

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Hmm? It tells you how audible the difference is. If you can't hear it on your system, then the difference is not audible. On your system.

 

 

No, you cannot reach any conclusions on DAC accuracy. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

No, you cannot reach any conclusions on DAC accuracy. 

Perhaps a thread in the Objective-Fi forum isn't the place you should hang out. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps a thread in the Objective-Fi forum isn't the place you should hang out. 

 

So we cannot provide technical data in the objective-FI section? And if we do, we cannot discuss it? 

 

Nonsense... 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

So we cannot provide technical data in the objective-FI section? And if we do, we cannot discuss it? 

 

Nonsense... 

Nobody said that, except you. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Nobody said that, except you. 

 

So what are you saying exactly? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, hopkins said:

 

So what are you saying exactly? 

I'm saying that @pkane2001is providing objective information, but after posting to links to some info, you're back on your subjective train. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm saying that @pkane2001is providing objective information, but after posting to links to some info, you're back on your subjective train. 

 

I am just reacting to his claims. I am pointing out what I see are the limitations of this tool - I am sure it has some use cases, but vis à vis my original post it cannot be used to confirm/infirm these hypotheses. 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, hopkins said:

 

I am just reacting to his claims. I am pointing out what I see are the limitations of this tool - I am sure it has some use cases, but vis à vis my original post it cannot be used to reach an objective conclusion.

 

 

 

You're saying his objective information isn't valid, but for subjective reasons. Either provide an objective reason why he is wrong, or move your comments to a subjective thread. Appealing to the ECDesigns authority doesn't count.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You're saying his objective information isn't valid, but for subjective reasons. Either provide an objective reason why he is wrong, or move your comments to a subjective thread. Appealing to the ECDesigns authority doesn't count.

 

Listening to delta files recorded with an ADC is not an "objective" way of evaluating DAC accuracy. Period. There is no need to provide "objective" data to understand that something makes no sense... 

 

If you don't see the value of providing expert's information on audio "mechanisms" in this forum, fine. 

 

I was curious to see what another "expert" thought about it, but his comments on those technical aspects were off topic, and the discussion on the deltawave tool is secondary. 

 

Goodnight. 

 

 

[pkane2001]

56 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

No, you cannot reach any conclusions on DAC accuracy. 

 

Right. Feel free to ignore it then.

[The Computer Audiophile]

45 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Listening to delta files recorded with an ADC is not an "objective" way of evaluating DAC accuracy. Period. There is no need to provide "objective" data to understand that something makes no sense... 

 

If you don't see the value of providing expert's information on audio "mechanisms" in this forum, fine. 

 

I was curious to see what another "expert" thought about it, but his comments on those technical aspects were off topic, and the discussion on the deltawave tool is secondary. 

 

Goodnight. 

 

 

Your appeal to authority of ecdedigns at every turn is a bit misguided. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Your appeal to authority of ecdedigns at every turn is a bit misguided. 

 

a) it's not an appeal to authority. These are genuinely interesting considerations, and food for thought

 

b) I'd be happy to quote any other engineer offering a semblance of explanation for some of the aspects of digital audio that practically every audiophile experiences daily (whether they know it or not) 

 

c) I'll agree that AS is most probably the wrong place to discuss the inner workings of audio. Most people here don't care. The resident experts are more interested in promoting their products than getting involved in these discussions 

 

d) your point of view is completely irrelevant to me.

 

Feel free to block my account if you wish. AudiophileStyle no longer offers much content of interest to me. 99% of the posts are written by the same 1% of contributors, and frankly most of them have little value. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

16 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

a) it's not an appeal to authority. These are genuinely interesting considerations, and food for thought

 

b) I'd be happy to quote any other engineer offering a semblance of explanation for some of the aspects of digital audio that practically every audiophile experiences daily (whether they know it or not) 

 

c) I'll agree that AS is most probably the wrong place to discuss the inner workings of audio. Most people here don't care. The resident experts are more interested in promoting their products than getting involved in these discussions 

 

d) your point of view is completely irrelevant to me.

 

Feel free to block my account if you wish. AudiophileStyle no longer offers much content of interest to me. 99% of the posts are written by the same 1% of contributors, and frankly most of them have little value. 

Ok. Bye. 

[semente]

On 9/28/2022 at 7:34 PM, pkane2001 said:

 

Is it naive to expect some validity to the claims made about often very expensive pieces of equipment?

 

 

No but how many audiophiles expect that?

Most are willing to have their expectations modelled by the reviews they read, and they're in it for the journey not the destination thus rarely out for a one time buy.

The ASR Church of thought fails on three accounts: audiophiles don't care about budget plastic gear that you buy off Amazon, they enjoy box-swapping (you can call it degustation) and each of us has a particular preference so the idea that we will all enjoy the "sonic presentation" of a pair of all-in-one Genelec or an entry-level DAC is too absurd to take seriously. Cruzades are rarely selfless and the outcome is likely to be a bad one...

[semente]

9 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Listening to delta files recorded with an ADC is not an "objective" way of evaluating DAC accuracy. Period. There is no need to provide "objective" data to understand that something makes no sense... 

 

If you don't see the value of providing expert's information on audio "mechanisms" in this forum, fine. 

 

I was curious to see what another "expert" thought about it, but his comments on those technical aspects were off topic, and the discussion on the deltawave tool is secondary. 

 

Goodnight. 

 

 

 

Any kind of material or listening session can potentially be objective. Perhaps you mean free-of-bias?

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, semente said:

 

No but how many audiophiles expect that?

Most are willing to have their expectations modelled by the reviews they read, and they're in it for the journey not the destination thus rarely out for a one time buy.

The ASR Church of thought fails on three accounts: audiophiles don't care about budget plastic gear that you buy off Amazon, they enjoy box-swapping (you can call it degustation) and each of us has a particular preference so the idea that we will all enjoy the "sonic presentation" of a pair of all-in-one Genelec or an entry-level DAC is too absurd to take seriously. Cruzades are rarely selfless and the outcome is likely to be a bad one...

 

The first part of this is true, most don't care how or why something works or doesn't. They are willing to swallow the blue pill and ignore reality for the experience, or the journey. That's OK with me, what's not OK are the manufacturers making money off of the ignorance of their consumers, sometimes based on their own ignorance. To continue the analogy, I don't have a problem with people living in the Matrix, I have a problem with the Matrix itself and those who maintain it ;)

 

The second part about ASR is a bit of a straw-man argument.  Maybe you can make that argument against Amir and his crusade, but not about ASR as a community. There are plenty who argue for listening, some who argue against measurements, and some that disagree with the measurements as they are and some who are innovators and come up with new ways and new methods. 

 

What's funny to think about is that the majority of ASR members were subjective audiophiles at some point in their lives and some still are. Many have equipment totalling well over $10k, some over $50k (this is based on a survey). Some enjoy swapping, some enjoy discovering, and others want to tinker. This is no different than any other online community, except, most would like to find out a bit more about what really works and what doesn't and why. Maybe their journey doesn't match yours, but this is no reason to crusade against them. This is really not "us" against "them", although many want it to be positioned that way.

[Iving]

10 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

The first part of this is true, most don't care how or why something works or doesn't. They are willing to swallow the blue pill and ignore reality for the experience, or the journey. That's OK with me, what's not OK are the manufacturers making money off of the ignorance of their consumers, sometimes based on their own ignorance. To continue the analogy, I don't have a problem with people living in the Matrix, I have a problem with the Matrix itself and those who maintain it ;)

 

If your issue is with "manufacturers making money off of the ignorance of their consumers", why not pick your fight there, instead of being preoccupied with other people's "medication" or their own private "matrix".

 

Your reference to "reality" here is mis-footed. The hobbyist's "experience" and "journey" are legitimate realities.

 

19 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

The second part about ASR is a bit of a straw-man argument.  Maybe you can make that argument against Amir and his crusade, but not about ASR as a community. There are plenty who argue for listening, some who argue against measurements, and some that disagree with the measurements as they are and some who are innovators and come up with new ways and new methods.

 

The ASR community is not open-minded. Unless you are in tune with the ASR "bench measurement" culture, you will be harried out of that Forum for mere attempted participation - and treated as an object of ridicule before you leave. That Forum has nothing to do with science. The ASR community is exclusive because it is afraid of Science.

 

26 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

What's funny to think about is that the majority of ASR members were subjective audiophiles at some point in their lives and some still are. Many have equipment totalling well over $10k, some over $50k (this is based on a survey). Some enjoy swapping, some enjoy discovering, and others want to tinker. This is no different than any other online community, except, most would like to find out a bit more about what really works and what doesn't and why. Maybe their journey doesn't match yours, but this is no reason to crusade against them. This is really not "us" against "them", although many want it to be positioned that way.

 

I doubt that the majority of ASR folks are refugees from subjectivism (no matter what they say). Probably many like the belonging aspect, and become "converts" after the fact. I think that what ASR people (who lurk and then stay) have in common is a blend of human personality dispositions. In that respect they aren't much different to folks who flock together at other places. The ghetto is a somewhat regrettable component of human existence.

[pkane2001]

Just now, Iving said:

 

If your issue is with "manufacturers making money off of the ignorance of their consumers", why not pick your fight there, instead of being preoccupied with other people's "medication" or their own private "matrix".

 

Your reference to "reality" here is mis-footed. The hobbyist's "experience" and "journey" are legitimate realities.

 

 

The ASR community is not open-minded. Unless you are in tune with the ASR "bench measurement" culture, you will be harried out of that Forum for mere attempted participation - and treated as an object of ridicule before you leave. That Forum has nothing to do with science. The ASR community is exclusive because it is afraid of Science.

 

 

I doubt that the majority of ASR folks are refugees from subjectivism (no matter what they say). Probably many like the belonging aspect, and become "converts" after the fact. I think that what ASR people (who lurk and then stay) have in common is a blend of human personality dispositions. In that respect they aren't much different to folks who flock together at other places. The ghetto is a somewhat regrettable component of human existence.

 

Your view is noted. I don't pick fights, I just share my views and experience.

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, Iving said:

Your reference to "reality" here is mis-footed. The hobbyist's "experience" and "journey" are legitimate realities.

 

The irony is that this is posted in the "objective" part of the forum. Reality isn't what you think or believe. The objective approach is to try to learn about the reality despite the limitations of our senses and our biases.

 

Quote

What does objective mean?

In most of its common uses, objective is contrasted with subjective, often as if it’s the opposite. Objective most commonly means not influenced by an individual’s personal viewpoint—unbiased (or at least attempting to be unbiased). It’s often used to describe things like observations, decisions, or reports that are based on an unbiased analysis.

 

Something that’s truly objective has nothing to do with a person’s own feelings or views—it just deals with facts. When someone says “Objectively speaking,” they’re indicating that they’re going to give an unbiased assessment—not one based on their personal preferences.

 

[Iving]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Your view is noted. I don't pick fights, I just share my views and experience.

 

Thank you. I don't mean to provoke with "pick your fight there". I could just as well have said "campaign where it counts". I'm happy to pitch in here wrt mQa, and on sh.tv regards MoFi. Caring about consumers getting a fair crack of the whip is a good thing.

[Iving]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

The irony is that this is posted in the "objective" part of the forum. Reality isn't what you think or believe. The objective approach is to try to learn about the reality despite the limitations of our senses and our biases.

 

OK. I haven't said much in this thread. It didn't look much like a strictly Objective conversation!

 

My remarks a page or two back, about fitting experimental designs as an advance on DBTs, are relevant.