[RRod]

I echoed pretty similar sentiments in one of the Pono threads, and the thread-marm didn't take to kindly. I feel pretty much the same: every page of BS that can be filled with at least one scientifically-backed counterargument is a good deed done, and there are so many pages on these forums. People scoff and say just to go to sound science, but they don't get the lurker aspect that you mention. It doesn't have to be a lurker, even. It can be someone like I was not long ago, coming off a Google search, trying to buy his first set of nice gear for improving their music experience. I wish I could have ended up where I am now much faster, and that would have happened if more factual stuff was allowed to float around outside of this sub-forum.

 

[Steve Eddy]

What does everyone else think?

Yes, if it were a private conversation I'd just hang up. But on public forums such as this, there are others reading and hopefully trying to learn something. That's why I bother.

se

 

[StanD]

Yes, if it were a private conversation I'd just hang up. But on public forums such as this, there are others reading and hopefully trying to learn something. That's why I bother.

se

It's a serious undertaking as the "Believers" circle their wagons and throw rocks at you. It's truly amazing when I ask for just one of them to identify how is that their claim is true, I usually get no meaningful response just petards.

 

[Steve Eddy]

It's a serious undertaking as the "Believers" circle their wagons and throw rocks at you. It's truly amazing when I ask for just one of them to identify how is that their claim is true, I usually get no meaningful response just petards.

As Joe said in his original post, you just do what you have time for.

As for the rocks, they can't hurt you. The important thing is not to reciprocate. That's what creates the Schiitstorms and gets threads closed.

se

 

[SunTanScanMan]

I think the majority of arguments in sound science presented in a coherent and mature manner.
It is not difficult to see when some members appear to be deliberately 'provocative' (for lack of a better term), with some of their questions and responses. Sometimes a quick glance at their previous posts will bring their positions to an even clearer focus.
 
At the same time the manner of responses to such members (sometimes justifiably) appears to step over the line at the expense of the thread, members, and the valuable arguments and knowledge contained within. Focus shifts to a few individuals, and leaves behind the readers who are most likely laymen, with the science getting too complicated/muddled/contradictory. It shuts out space for others to ask questions, and instead of science taking the centre stage, it is the drama.
 
Wherever the blame may lie, IMO that is a detriment to 'science' and the reputation of an invaluable and enlightening section of this site.
 
IMO the solution has been here all along, and followed by the majority of the thread members: That they take as much responsibility in the posts they write, as they take when motivated to 'spread science'.
-----
From a very grateful 'lurker'
 
Edit: typo

 

[sonitus mirus]

The few controlled tests that I have read about, the Ethan Winer videos and "The Audio Expert" book, my own ABX tests between lossless and well-encoded lossy formats, and the rig I use to volume match any of my amps has led me down a particular path with regards to audio quality.  I generally do not believe there is any significant difference between a well-encoded mp3 or aac file played over an inexpensive DAC and amplifier when compared to the same material in a high quality format using top-end audio gear, provided the design of the equipment is to achieve audio transparency and not some boutique sound.
 
I do not adamantly refuse the notion that there are some limitations with the mp3 codec that could create audible differences.  I also do not believe that every DAC or amplifier sounds exactly the same.  
 
When someone brings forth ideas that challenge my current position on these topics, I'd like to see some information to back up their claims.  To this point, I've not been shown much that would convince me that my current opinion is incorrect. 
 
I didn't always have this opinion, but I wanted to learn.  I still want to learn.  I'm thrilled that I can achieve great quality at such an affordable price.  I feel like I know a secret and I want to share it with anyone that will listen; but I try not to get wrapped-up in the petty quarrels and gobs of misinformation being slung around.  Time to head home, crack open a cold beer, put the ball game on mute, and crank up the tunes. 
 
Thanks to many of you for the wonderful contributions you have made to the Sound Science forum.  
 
Cheers! 

 

[castleofargh]

ok so let me put clearly where I stand and what needs solving first IMO.
 
if this is a section for science, then let science rule. we are forbidden to use sciencyAladeen words in the rest of the forum with a TOS, even if it is to explain something 100% true. it's sad but it's the law, so be it.
but then in sound science, give us the same power! that's really all we want and need.
make it officially forbidden in the sound science section to post nonsense, unsubstantiated claims, straw-man arguments and any form of demagogy. there isn't one audio or science subject that could ever make constructive use of those stuff, so away with them I say.
that's equal treatment, it's reasonable, and it would stop good motivated people from being pushed at the end of their rope by silly trollz.
 
if the staff really wishes for that section to be about audio science instead of being about petty fights saying the same incomplete stuff again and again all year long, because the only way to stop nonsense is to pray for the guy posting to get bored and stop coming; then give us the proper tools to stop that before it goes into bad blood. and those tools are a law.
when talking to currawong, it really always felt like he wished for a better science in the sound science. IMO that's how we do it. balance a strange law outside of sound science, by the opposite law inside sound science. we don't end up with something really right, but at least it's balanced and we stop feeling like sound science is the leprosarium of headfi where objectivists are quarantined until they die or get killed. because that's really how it felt those last years and I doubt many people can deny it. people outside sound science even tell us to go back in it... so let's make it really a place of science, where scientific methods are recognized as the methods.
 
 
 
I think my wish is very simple, very fair, and would indeed change the face of the sound science section and the quality of the debates. a TOS for science in the sound science section, the same way there is an anti science TOS outside of it.
 
please if you agree with me, and even if you don't, let's all clear this out once and for all, hopefully some staff will take interest in it. I'm a dreamer today, and I'm also at the end of my rope with headfi in general. so for me it's a constructive change or I'll just give up on it entirely. 
enough with a section called sound science where facts have the value of an old zimbabwean dollar in 2008. did you guys read the last topics? buy one topic, get a free troll! offer limited to forever if nothing changes!!!!
my idea may not be the right one, I'm not the brightest kid in the block, I'm not even a scientist. but something needs to be done so that we can make some matter of progress in here. I'm not talking about making science advance obviously we often don't have the means. but simply learn from other members and ask our questions without the need for an advanced BS filter. so that other members coming to read would actually learn something even if those are only rational theories, instead of just watching a battle of rhetoric about a nonsense subject.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Sound Science is just a ghetto that HeadFi could really care less about. It's just an attempt to keep certain people from mixing with the general population.

The DBT-Free Zone was taken from Audio Asylum and its been as poorly implemented here as it was over there.

Bottom line, they just don't give a Schiit about what anyone here thinks or says. I've talked to Jude a number of times about these issues. It's a ghetto. Get used to it.

se

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Besides, you wouldn't have much of an argument / discussion if everything the other guy says is banned material. :rolleyes: Thankfully, the block on your speech in the rest of the forums is a leaky filter.

Does the link in my OP work? Some of the things you guys are trying to discuss are, well...

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I think another brick in the wall against you guys is that your position comes off as so "negative". Cables don't make a difference, players don't make a difference, amps don't make a difference, then what does?

I think, rather than banging on how the things they are going on about don't matter, you may put the emphasis on giving them something that DOES matter to try out. Heck, if the audiophiles are so open-minded about something like "cable burn in" making a change for the better, who knows if they won't give something like this a serious try?

 

[maverickronin]

Does the link in my OP work? Some of the things you guys are trying to discuss are, well...

 
Wouldn't know.  It insists I sign in but I haven't taken the Mark of the Beast yet.
 

I think another brick in the wall against you guys is that your position comes off as so "negative". Cables don't make a difference, players don't make a difference, amps don't make a difference, then what does?

 
Sometime the truth hurts, especially if you're heavily invested in falsehood, especially if the entire forum we're discussing it funded on is as well.
 
About the most positive I can get is explaining to newbies how get the most for their money.
 
DSPs are great, but they're not plug and play enough for widespread use.  Pretty much everything I know of more complicated than a parametric EQ only runs in software on specific platforms and really ties you down.  I use TB Isone and Voxengo GlissEQ with foobar, and ffdshow's DSP suite for locally stored videos but that's far from everything.  I still need a hardware crossfeed for anything streaming or for PC games w/o a headphone mixer and a hardware EQ won't play as nicely with that.  I also use my headphones with game consoles and other random sources as well.  Consequently, I can only really use EQ or other DSPs to improve a 'phone I already like instead of using to fix a mediocre one.  It's easier for me just to buy something that will sound good now matter what I plug it into into rather than being limited to a specific piece of hardware, or even worse a specific software player.
 
I'm sure there are plenty of people who would still benefit from the current state of affairs, but since I'm not one of them I've never looked into anything like a convolution DSP to improve a mediocre headphone.  I'd just have no use for it so I haven't looked into it and thus can't recommend it.
 
If someone made something like a DEQ2496 that you could load arbitrary VST/AU plugins on to and had less than 30ms latency it would be easier to recommend that kind of thing

 

[Joe Bloggs]

You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry.

-Abraham Lincoln​

--A quote a head-fier from AAMML puts in his sig. Thought it's a nice quote that could give some of us here some perspective on what we need and need not do with head-fi.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

If someone made something like a DEQ2496 that you could load arbitrary VST/AU plugins on to and had less than 30ms latency it would be easier to recommend that kind of thing

This (and a dozen variations for headphone and speaker listening alike) works on any and all audio going through my PC, with ASIO-level latency, with the help of Virtual Audio Cable and ASIO4All: (the VST Host itself being VSTHost)


For mobile I have Viper4Android processing all audio too.

That covers 99% of what I listen to.

 

[Ruben123]

Hello everyone!

 

[arnyk]

I think another brick in the wall against you guys is that your position comes off as so "negative". Cables don't make a difference, players don't make a difference, amps don't make a difference, then what does?

I think, rather than banging on how the things they are going on about don't matter, you may put the emphasis on giving them something that DOES matter to try out. Heck, if the audiophiles are so open-minded about something like "cable burn in" making a change for the better, who knows if they won't give something like this a serious try?

 
Two comments:
 
(1) Raw sound quality isn't everything. I admit it, I married what I thought was a nice looking lady, and I think she still is (and more). I don't want stuff that disturbs my tastes with poor appearance. Looks aren't eveything, but they matter. Particularly with regards to headphones, earphones and portable players, things like comfort, unobtrusiveness, battery life, and durability matter a lot. None of those things are very ABX-able although some of them may have been subject to some kind of a controlled test during their development.
 
(2) The problem with a lot of audiophile SQ evaluations is that they are highly prone to both false positives and false negatives. There is a lot of focus by rationalists on the false positives, but the false negatives are there by the boatload, and they matter just as much if not more. The congenital absence of level matching, time synching the media, and allowing sighted bias which includes both sight and life's experiences, (many or all of which are irrelevant to everybody else), can easily be shown to mask audible differences that are really there!