Jump to content

firedog

Members
  • Content Count

    9592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by firedog

  1. I guess that's all fine. I try not to be an attacker. But most of your posts have a bit of finger wagging in them, and in spite of what you write here, you've often sided with the "if it isn't civil or is under a pseudonym, I don't have to relate to the merits of the argument" camp. And your various friends' professional competence has rarely been attacked: what's been attacked are positions they take, and marketing spin being presented as truth and fact. Even some of the most professionally competent people in the world can be guilty of that.
  2. Maybe it is. But that doesn't mean I should go around telling little kids that he doesn't. There's a time and a place for everything. I am not a radical objectivist, but I also think some of the radical subjectivist threads here are a little nuts. So I just ignore them and let the people who enjoy them have their fun - even if, IMHO, they are a bit wacko. What I think doesn't always matter.
  3. And you still don't get the basics. Many of Arhcimago's/Mansr's conclusions were based on disprovable analyses/conclusions/understandings that he and Chris invited others to disprove. No one disproved what they said on it's merits. And they still haven't, till today. Lots of people tried to say that if the source of a fact is anonymous, then then the fact itself is wrong. You seem to be implying that here. That of course is a logical fallacy. In fact, among the people who engaged Archimago's assertions on their merits, he only received backing. The same can't be said for Lee. The fact is that you either can't - or refuse - to see the difference.
  4. Does "audibly transparent" mean all DACs that fit the criteria sound the same? If so, then is the position that there's pretty much no reason to spend more than about $500 on a DAC - as there are full featured DACs at that price that are considered "audibly transparent".
  5. Well there are other alternatives to your example. There is Bluejeans cable and a couple of other online vendors who make quality cables of all types to order. More expensive than cheap clam shell stuff, but only tens of dollars instead of hundreds. BlueJeans even measures every cable to prove it 's up to spec and include the measurement with the shipment. No "silver" or "quantum" cables need apply. Based on stock like Belden and a few other reputable types.
  6. I also have a later model, but I'm happy with them. Haven't compared them to earlier firmware, but I don't care. The ANC is fantastic, and as far as SQ they are fine. Not great, but fine. I'm happy with them the way they are.
  7. And this has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. What is acceptable as an "observation" in one situation isn't in another. Experimental design matters. And btw, how about the "sets of data" showing how all human beings are subject to expectation bias, and specifically in audio comparisons? Did you go the link posted above from Harman about expectation bias? Did you happen to see the recent experiment showing that users perception of loudness changed acc'd to the color of the loudness knob? The actual volume didn't change, only the color of the knob. Yet users reported certain colors had louder volume, and others has softer volume. Until subjectivists are willing to acknowledge the role of expectation bias, there isn't much hope for this discussion. That's the big truth being ignored here. Just because 200 or a thousand users of a product report they heard something in sighted listening, it doesn't prove anything. The number of people reporting it isn't relevant. Each one is an individual reporting under conditions of expectation bias - their collective biases don't make each individual response more accurate.
  8. Nope. He continually obfuscated, ignored direct questions, quoted marketing speak as fact, opinionated on technical issues he clearly didn't understand, and when specific points of his were successfully challenged - he simply ignored it and created a new argument. I don't think his participation in that particular thread was in any way thoughtful, serious, or in good faith - it was simply (for whatever reason) an attempt at propaganda/influencing.
  9. Sorry Andrew, false analogy. "The Magazines" and some of the writers insist on repeating corporate claims they know have been shown to be false, or at least extremely dubious. And often with no caveats. The Magazines and the writers are operating in a commercial arena with profit motives. Most individual posters here are not. So I'd say repeating such claims in a magazine is clearly unethical, and in some cases crosses the border into lying.
  10. Sorry, your post is just a bunch of baseless stereotypes. Plenty of objectivists enjoy their music and their systems. Reality? You mean the false reality people fool themselves with? Btw, I can make up stereotpes too: "Objectivists are able to calmly enjoy their systems that cost them less than what subjectivists spend, and objectivists don't suffer from all the audiophillia nervosa that subjectivists do. Those poor subjectivists, always looking to spend their money on the next tweak that will 'totally transform' the sound of their system". Do I actually believe that? No, but it's about as close to the truth as the string of stereotypes that you wrote is. And what you think is conclusive, a "massive amount of anectdotal evidence" is something they understand to not really be evidence at all. And why would they have confidence that their truth will come out? Based on what? The massive amounts of people who won't even consider the idea that their perceptions are clouded by expectation bias? The same way the climate change deniers, Kennedy assassination conspiracy buffs, Holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and anti-vaxxers have all come to their senses when confronted by facts? But according to your approach, we should all just accept all those ideas because then we will accept the "reality" that doesn't conform to "our" truth.
  11. Yes, but that's about the only thread here like that, AFAIR.
  12. But do you think that's what's going on here? It doesn't appear to me that the arguments here have much to do with the commercial interests of the posters. Most are just hobbyists having a discussion.
  13. I'm perfectly willing to accept what anyone else says they hear. My only issue is when they present their individual experience as somehow applying more generally, or as "proving" something. Just as I'm willing to accept what they hear, I expect them at a minimum to acknowledge that they may be subject to expectation bias during sighted listening. I think I've succeeded in the more recent past in not arguing with anyone's perceptions, but rather with how the personal perceptions are presented in some cases. That at least is my intent. I also realize that very few of us can reliably conduct a DBT or even an SBT at home; so the most practical fallback is to audition stuff in the best way we can and then make a decision on what we hear. That's what the vast majority of us do most of the time. And if that's expectation bias coloring our perceptions, that's also okay. After all, just like the placebo effect can sometimes cure disease, what we hear and enjoy is what we in reality are hearing, no matter the reason. My problem in the more recent discussion here is not so much with listeners as it is with manufacturers. Many audio manufacturers make claims about their devices that defy known engineering and scientific principles. Could they be telling the truth? Yes, and certainly some of them genuinely believe they are. But those extraordinary claims should be backed up by more than anecdotal sighted evidence. If you want me (us) to spend big bucks on a device that costs 2X, 5X or 50X, the price of a "conventional" equivalent, shouldn't you have an ethical obligation to base those claims on more than sighted and - by definition biased -listening? Isn't that, for instance, one of our gripes about the MQA fanboys and their claims of vastly improved sound - that all those claims are based on sighted listening, manipulated shows, groupthink, etc? Why is it okay to doubt those claims, but not the claims made about "Device X", when the claims about "Device X" are fairly outlandish, according to accepted engineering/scientific norms? But that (MQA directed) skepticism isn't seen as something illegitimate, for some reason. And as far as manufacturers measuring devices, I also get that some of these very small operations can't reasonably be expected to shell out multiple tens of thousands for testing equipment - at least not until they've been in operation quite a while. But they could pay a much smaller fee to someone else to measure/test their products. (And if they didn't like the results they could always not publish them, anyway). So I find it very telling that we almost never see such measurements. Even from some of the bigger operations that certainly know how to do them and can afford to. Again, get some testing that backs your claims up and publish them - it will only enhance your reputation and increase your sales. Doubters, and maybe even some of the ASR crowd will buy your stuff.
  14. Who's listened to it? What did you think? My 2 cents: it's pretty good, but nothing special. It reminds me a lot of several of Paul McCartney's recent albums: It's well done - performance, writing, production, and arrangements are all good. BUT.....it's just not memorable. You don't remember the songs after they are over. They sound fine, but ultimately are forgettable.
  15. The market has clearly established that very few people are willing to pay more than $9.99 a month for streaming music, and also not for quality above 320k mp3. Spotify premium sounds fine to them, and they see no advantage in anything else. This includes most well off people, even those with good playback systems. The audiophile streaming segment is a niche. Time will tell if it can be sustained at all. Even at CD quality.
  16. That test would be a lot more useful if more info about the data was available. It's not clear if their conclusion is really backed up by the data. It depends how you compile and analyze the data. But it's a good start. We could use some more tests like this.
  17. Funny, I use "Words of Love" from the same album - the handclaps (do they sound like real claps or just percussion?) and the ringing of the guitar are great ways to test how good a system is.
  18. That's great. The difference between you and many other posters is that you are willing to admit you may be fooling yourself, and you also don't claim that your listening results have any broader meaning that applies to others or the device in general. But you are probably right that it's a useless argument.
  19. Coordinated attack? Really? It's a review, done the way Amir does every review about every device. You can say lots of stuff about Amir, but he calls them as he measures them. He didn't even procure the ER, a reader sent it to him for testing, as often happens. He sometimes reports on multiple devices in a day. I'm not sure why you jump to conspiracy theories. Send him a SOtM switch or whatever, and he will measure it. He measures all sorts of stuff from all sorts of companies, but rarely super expensive stuff, as he can't afford to buy it and owners of such stuff usually don't send him such devices. Either Amir's measurements are relevant or not; either done properly or not. All the rest is just nonsense speculation and conspiracy theories.
  20. Don't agree at all. The ER and all similar devices make the claim that they improve SQ by reducing "noise" going into the DAC which then improves the audible output at the DAC. If the output at the DAC isn't improved, it's irrelevant what the device "does", as it isn't making any difference to SQ, at least not in any audible way ("improvements at -130db don't count). Amir's test is correct in concept - testing how the ER effects the output of the DAC, which is what it claims to do. If you test the ER on it's own and it "reduces noise", that doesn't prove what we need to know. What if the existence or non existence of that "noise" has no effect on the functioning of the DAC, in spite of what Uptone and others claim? What if, as many claim, all well designed modern DACs are basically immune to the effects of the noise Uptone claims the ER reduces? Note Amir also tested a second DAC which he knows to have issues and that even he says was helped a bit by the USB Regen; this DAC also showed no difference in output with the ER attached in the chain. If what you are saying is true, how come manufacturers of such devices can't find DACs that show improvement when these devices are in line? If the devices do what they claim, it should be easy to find multiple DACs that have an output improved by the device.
  21. Again, you talk without having a clue. First, I don't live in the States so shipping is more. Second, I'd have to pay about $225 customs and VAT when it arrives, which is non-refundable. Third, I never said anyone who loves it is wrong. I said their sighted, biased listening results have no relevance to anyone but them. If they think it improves their listening pleasure - great. I just don't think their results have relevance to anyone but them, and certainly prove nothing about what the device does or doesn't do. Finally, unlike many audiophiles who have such fragile egos that they are unwilling to accept that sighted bias can fool them, I know that it can fool me, just like it fools others. I have lots of difficulty setting up a proper listening test (if I can at all), so I don't feel like spending close to $1k (or even half that) for the pleasure of auditioning the device in a faulty listening test that will only prove to me how my expectation bias works (either good or bad results from the device, either would be a result of bias).
  22. Nonsense. I have a great system that I enjoy listening to. I like to spend my money on products that have demonstrable benefits. I'm perfectly capable of buying the ER or any other add on product and "hearing" an SQ bump in sighted listening. I prefer not to spend my money just to engage in self deception. And don't misunderstand: if reputable measurements come out showing what the ER does, I'd be glad to buy it. I'd also probably buy it if several well run/designed blind listening tests showed it to make an audible difference. I am willing to entertain the possibility that there are aspects to audio we don't know how to measure. I'm just not willing to use that catch all explanation for every sighted (and by definition) biased listening test.
×
×
  • Create New...