Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 142

post #2116 of 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizz View Post

Talking of which mikeaj, did you intend the pun in "without using some sound science"? wink.gif

 

Pun intended, of course. You're welcome. wink.gif

 

 

And as pointed out above by nick_charles, there are plenty of successful DBT trials for certain things: this ranges from slight FR tweaks, artificially created (relatively very high in magnitude) jitter, noise levels, harmonic distortion levels, etc. Note that some studies like Meyer and Moran also include some supplemental results of conditions where differences were heard and so on. There may be some meaningful context for a null result, even if it's not one that you are expecting or that you don't want to see.

 

Anyhow, the better studies are ones where a threshold is established. e.g. how many cheap op amp buffers in series can be strung together before there's audible degradation (which was done)? A null result in a vacuum could just be an insensitive testing procedure, but they're not all like that. Yes, it could be that a listener or whatever else isn't sensitive enough, and a threshold that's too high gets established by a study. That's why some audibility thresholds tend to be based on multiple studies if possible and generally quoted pessimistically to give some margin for error.  w.r.t. jitter, nick_charles has covered it very well


Edited by mikeaj - 8/4/13 at 11:39am
post #2117 of 2903
Why aren't audiophiles happy when they find out that stuff they worried about and considered spending a lot of money to correct turns out to be a non-issue? What makes them want to cling to trouble that doesn't exist?

I would think that finding out midrange gear sounds just as good as high end gear would be liberating.
post #2118 of 2903

Bigshot, you really have to get rid of that rational thinking to understand what's going on. tongue.gif

 

It's like a threat to the(ir) hobby. Like an enemy taking away an important (<- irrational) part.


Edited by xnor - 8/4/13 at 11:56am
post #2119 of 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Bigshot, you really have to get rid of that rational thinking to understand what's going on. tongue.gif

 

It's like a threat to the(ir) hobby. Like an enemy taking away an important (<- irrational) part.

lol, the "sacred cow" tongue.gif

post #2120 of 2903
Think of how many wars have been started by people invested in deeply held belief systems that can't be verified by objective testing. At least we're only spending our own money and we aren't harming anyone else who doesn't agree!
post #2121 of 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post
 
The signal is oversampled for the jitter simulation (which is a variable delay modulated by a mix of filtered noise and several sine waves), to minimize aliasing and interpolation artifacts. Components are indeed produced above the original Nyquist frequency (e.g. 22050 Hz), but the downsampling process filters them out.

 

Thanks. So it's not exact, but "close enough for rock'n'roll".

post #2122 of 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by teb1013 View Post

At least we're only spending our own money and we aren't harming anyone else who doesn't agree!

I'd consider something like recommending a cable upgrade when it really isn't needed as harmful. Harmful to the poor guy's wallet. tongue.gif

 

There are also people who cannot sleep well while breaking in their headphones day and night in a nearby drawer. That also seems a bit obsessive and harmful. I'm not making this up, that's what someone wrote in the break-in thread.

post #2123 of 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Bigshot, you really have to get rid of that rational thinking to understand what's going on. tongue.gif

I reserve my irrational thinking for other subjects... like girls.
post #2124 of 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by teb1013 View Post

Think of how many wars have been started by people invested in deeply held belief systems that can't be verified by objective testing. At least we're only spending our own money and we aren't harming anyone else who doesn't agree!

You are spending your money and that's the danger. This is the land of the Audio Science Templars and they have a diligent and stedfast code, a magnanimous message of danger and rebuke for the symphony of promising epiphanies intended to steal your cash with slippery oils and mystical witchcraft of delusional placebo. They mean well and are a noble bunch. Controlled DBT, electro-mechanical sciences and human physics, this is the world of the Audio Science Templars.

I sleep well at night knowing they have our backs. They travel a thankless and lonely road for the good of the unaware. Bless their heart.
post #2125 of 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by teb1013 View Post

Think of how many wars have been started by people invested in deeply held belief systems that can't be verified by objective testing. At least we're only spending our own money and we aren't harming anyone else who doesn't agree!

It is harmful! Audiophiles inevitably end up influencimg each other and creating a general consensus regarding audio components that is complete BS. We must all stop the BS indoctrination!
post #2126 of 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Camper View Post


 This is the land of the Audio Science Templars and they have a diligent and stedfast code, a magnanimous message of danger and rebuke for the symphony of promising epiphanies intended to steal your cash with slippery oils and mystical witchcraft of delusional placebo. 

Just beautiful.  Brings a tear...and I may just rip it off for my sig!

post #2127 of 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizz View Post

 

No kidding? biggrin.gif

 

I think this shows that any "discussion" with you is actually impossible. There is no discussion.

 

You're basically giving us the old "brick wall" monologue: I trust my senses, I know what I've seen/heard, I'm not a fool you know, I can't be fooled easily, I'm special, there is no need to question my senses cause I know they're reliable, I'm impervious to the imperfections coming with human nature that you guys are talking about, evidence don't count, subjective observation is superior to evidence etc... and just don't even try to understand the points already made by some posters, and this despite the brillance of some of these posts (I'm not referring to mine at all).

 

You "have no idea why.."? Either you're so caught up in your own rethorics that you don't even read (consciously or not) the numerous posts giving you perfectly sensible explanations and enlightements, or you're simply full of it (I don't know how to put it nicer) and are just coming up with pseudo-arguments just to keep the conversation going because it gives you kicks.

 

Or maybe you're just trying to convince yourself, so to release the tension of cognitive dissonance. This I can certainly understand, and even relate to. Oh wait, no, this is human too, doesn't apply to you, sorry, you're special, you never feel cognitive dissonance I guess.

 

Either way, IMO this is a waste of time and from now on I won't even read your posts. Replying to you is like trying to explain the Dunning-Kruger effect to those who are directly concerned by it, or the Milgram experiments to people who cling to the idea that such things are impossible or would only apply to others, never to themselves.

 

I for one, accept that I'm human and thus full of imperfections, including all sorts of biases, irrationalities and illusions. My opinion (you like opinions, right?) is that the only way to "counter" these imperfections (more or less) is through knowledge and science. Not throught "clever"' intuition, casual observation, trusting one's senses and refusing that actual evidence has validity if it happens to refute what my senses are telling me.

 

This is not your opinion, OK, we got it.

 

Are we talking about me or audiophile theories?

post #2128 of 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

 

Are we talking about me or audiophile theories?

Short reply, so I read it.

Interesting question. I'll have to check again. Sometime.

post #2129 of 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by uchihaitachi View Post


It is harmful! Audiophiles inevitably end up influencimg each other and creating a general consensus regarding audio components that is complete BS. We must all stop the BS indoctrination!

 

A noble quest whose execution proves elusive.....

post #2130 of 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

 

Are we talking about me or audiophile theories?

Think of it this way.  The people who post here are pretty sure that electrical theory can explain the sound that comes out of our speakers or our headphones.  What electrical theory cannot do is explain what audiophiles sometimes claim they can hear.  Often, what audiophiles claim they can hear and what is actually coming out of their speakers or headphones are two different things.  Electrical theory is insufficient to account for that.  The people who post here will do their best to explain to you what to expect from your stereo and why, but they can't really help you when you keep insisting that things that aren't there really do in fact exist.

 

My advice?  Don't take yourself so seriously.  Accept the fact that you are human and that humans can indeed be fooled.  When you see a magician pull a rabbit out of an empty hat, do you really think that magic is involved?  Or can you grasp the idea that the magician created an illusion that deceived you?  One part or your mind is fully capable of tricking the rest of your mind into thinking something is true which is not in reality true.

 

No one who posts here is saying that this is unique to you and that they are exempt from it!  The fact that those who post here insist on actual, neutral, verifiable evidence is because we all understand how easily we can be fooled.  Audiophiles like to portray "objectivists" as being arrogant, but really, it's the other way around.  Objectivists are the ones who acknowledge their fallibility and who therefore look to objective tests to help them in understanding how audio works.  It's the audiophiles who think that they are infallible and that their opinions should therefore be dispositive, and who cares what the test results show.     

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths