[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif In your example, in what way has he been fooled, and how do we know he has been fooled? I'm not sure what the "wheat" and the "chaff"is, but I don't agree that this is a reasonable conclusion at all. In any event, I suspect what you're saying applies to the same extent for the objective view (assuming arguendo it has any validity).

Phil, I wish you'd be serious, but apparently you choose not to be....

It's all well and good to sit back and pick at my example, when you know exactly what I'm talking about....

It's a shame you've taken this route rather than to try to sort through it with me. You've taken the approach of someone who has no substantial data to support their position and is attempting to fudge along with semantics.

But maybe I'm wrong, and you deserve the benefit of the doubt, so, why don't you let us see some of your "reasonable evidence" for the subjective view........... if you have any.

USG

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Phil, I wish you'd be serious, but apparently you choose not to be.... It's all well and good to sit back and pick at my example, when you know exactly what I'm talking about.... It's a shame you've taken this route rather than to try to sort through it with me. You've taken the approach of someone who has no substantial data to support their position and is attempting to fudge along with semantics.

I think you're being rude, or at the least, unfair. I am trying to have a serious discussion with you, and I asked a legitimate question. If you read the post I was responding to, it is unclear whether amps A, B, and C actually sound the same, whether A and B actually sound different, whether C is actually better than the other amps, etc. And I am also trying to explore your assumptions regarding these matters, because I think they are critical to understanding your reasoning, and I believe I am doing so in a polite manner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif maybe I'm wrong, and you deserve the benefit of the doubt, so, why don't you let us see some of your "reasonable evidence" for the subjective view........... if you have any.

I don't understand this question. I already answered it several pages ago by telling you that listener's observations are reasonable evidence for the subjective view. You seem to be intent on persuading me that this is not the case, but I am not following your attempts at logic, and you appear to be getting frustrated. I'm sorry about that, but I'm doing the best I can to understand your points.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you're being rude, or at the least, unfair. I am trying to have a serious discussion with you, and I asked a legitimate question. If you read the post I was responding to, it is unclear whether amps A, B, and C actually sound the same, whether A and B actually sound different, whether C is actually better than the other amps, etc. And I am also trying to explore your assumptions regarding these matters, because I think they are critical to understanding what your reasoning, and I believe I am doing so in a polite manner. I don't understand this question. I already answered it several pages ago by telling you that listener's observations are reasonable evidence for the subjective view. You seem to be intent on persuading me that this is not the case, but I am not following your attempts at logic, and you appear to be getting frustrated. I'm sorry about that, but I'm doing the best I can to understand your points.

I'm sorry you're having difficulty understanding me.

I tried to simplify it the best I could.

But I have a better idea Phil, why don't you recount some of your "listener observations" so we might dissect them and delve into what happened.

USG

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I have a better idea Phil, why don't you recount some of your "listener observations" so we might dissect them and delve into what happened.

Ok, I'll give you two, in the interest of brevity, that were meaningful to me:

1. When I was building my headphone-based system, I was using a copper interconnect from Better Cables to connect my DAC to my amp. I was thinking about moving the BC cable to another system, so I decided to try some other interconnects on a trial basis. I bought a higher-priced silver interconnect (about 4 times the cost of the BC cable) from a company I can't recall. I put it in my system one day before I went on a business trip, listened for a little bit, and then went to bed.

A few days later when I got back, I sat down for an extensive listening session. After a while, I noticed that my system sounded more harsh or sibilant that normal. I could not figure out what the problem was, but something was noticeably wrong. (I am pretty sensitive to sibilance.) I tried several of my favorite musical selections to make sure I wasn't hearing things, and was really annoyed at what I was hearing, especially because I had been spending a lot of time and not an insignificant amount of money trying to achieve a sound that I liked and could listen to for hours without fatigue.

I started eliminating possibilities, one by one, wondering if I was using my EH tubes in my tube amp instead of my NOS 6SN7's, etc. Finally, I decided to check the connections (my equipment is in a cabinet) to see if something was loose, or whatever, when I saw the silver interconnect I had put in before I left for my trip. I had completely forgotten about the change I had made.

I removed it, replaced it with the BC cable, and everything was fine again. No more harshness. I returned the silver cable for a refund.

2. For a long time, I owned the Bel Canto DAC 2. A really good DAC that I really liked. I came across a used Electrocompanient DAC, the ECD-1, at a small audio dealer's place when I was purchasing something else. I bought it on trial and spent some time listening to both DAC's. The ECD-1 sounded better overall to me. It had a better midrange and high end than the Bel Canto. However, the Bel Canto definitely had a better lower end, which I missed on several songs in particular. Indeed, a couple of songs which were my favorites when I had the Bel Canto were not nearly as fun with the ECD-1. There is no way the bass on the Bel Canto was precisely the same as the ECD-1. Overall, though, I preferred the ECD-1. In any event, I am as positive that the two DAC's sounded different as I am that the K-701 and HD-650 sound different.

Several months later, I had the ECD-1 modded. A definite improvement that anyone who had been listening to the stock ECD-1 for several months could not miss (most noticeably on piano). I don't think the THD or S/N ratio changed on the ECD-1 after modding, but the sound definitely changed.

There are other experiences also that have informed my viewpoint, but these are two that jump immediately to my mind.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ok, I'll give you two, in the interest of brevity, that were meaningful to me: 1. When I was building my headphone-based system, I was using a copper interconnect from Better Cables to connect my DAC to my amp. I was thinking about moving the BC cable to another system, so I decided to try some other interconnects on a trial basis. I bought a higher-priced silver interconnect (about 4 times the cost of the BC cable) from a company I can't recall. I put it in my system one day before I went on a business trip, listened for a little bit, and then went to bed. A few days later when I got back, I sat down for an extensive listening session. After a while, I noticed that my system sounded more harsh or sibilant that normal. I could not figure out what the problem was, but something was noticeably wrong. (I am pretty sensitive to sibilance.) I tried several of my favorite musical selections to make sure I wasn't hearing things, and was really annoyed at what I was hearing, especially because I had been spending a lot of time and not an insignificant amount of money trying to achieve a sound that I liked and could listen to for hours without fatigue. I started eliminating possibilities, one by one, wondering if I was using my EH tubes in my tube amp instead of my NOS 6SN7's, etc. Finally, I decided to check the connections (my equipment is in a cabinet) to see if something was loose, or whatever, when I saw the silver interconnect I had put in before I left for my trip. I had completely forgotten about the change I had made. I removed it, replaced it with the BC cable, and everything was fine again. No more harshness. I returned the silver cable for a refund. 2. For a long time, I owned the Bel Canto DAC 2. A really good DAC that I really liked. I came across a used Electrocompanient DAC, the ECD-1, at a small audio dealer's place when I was purchasing something else. I bought it on trial and spent some time listening to both DAC's. The ECD-1 sounded better overall to me. It had a better midrange and high end than the Bel Canto. However, the Bel Canto definitely had a better lower end, which I missed on several songs in particular. Indeed, a couple of songs which were my favorites when I had the Bel Canto were not nearly as fun with the ECD-1. There is no way the bass on the Bel Canto was precisely the same as the ECD-1. Overall, though, I preferred the ECD-1. In any event, I am as positive that the two DAC's sounded different as I am that the K-701 and HD-650 sound different. Several months later, I had the ECD-1 modded. A definite improvement that anyone who had been listening to the stock ECD-1 for several months could not miss (most noticeably on piano). I don't think the THD or S/N ratio changed on the ECD-1 after modding, but the sound definitely changed. There are other experiences also that have informed my viewpoint, but these are two that jump immediately to my mind.

I didn't mean personal experiences....

It gets too "personal" when we investigate them.

But be that as it may, I had a similar experience with an old ferrite USB 1.0 cable. It sounded brighter and clearer than any of the new USB 2.0 cables I wanted to replace it with. I posted about it but the prevailing opinion was that frequency response can't be affected by a digital cable.

But let's see what happened to you. You report that the silver cable boosted the upper registers of your system to a noticeable level so that they sounded harsh and sibilant relative to the copper cable. Is that correct? Roughly, how many times did you go back and forth to double check yourself? Certainly a noticeable treble boost would be recordable. Did you record any WAVs of the event so you could compare them later?

My DAC experience is similar to yours, with the Neko having the big mid-range and the Stello having the much better bass..... As you know, I used two identically configured computers for my comparison.

What was your procedure for comparing DACs? Which DAC was louder?

How long did it take to mod the ECD? After you got your modded DAC back , what was your procedure for comparing it to the unmodded version? What were you using as a control? Did you still have the Bel Canto to compare it to? Were you able to regulate the volume on either of the DACs?

USG

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm sorry you're having difficulty understanding me. I tried to simplify it the best I could.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif [W]hy don't you recount some of your "listener observations . . . ."

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't mean personal experiences....

And I'm at fault for not understanding you?

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif You report that the silver cable boosted the upper registers of your system to a noticeable level so that they sounded harsh and sibilant relative to the copper cable. Is that correct? Roughly, how many times did you go back and forth to double check yourself?

I didn't go back and forth. Based on what happened, as I described above, I did not feel the need to. Why would I want to keep listening to that sibilance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you record any WAVs of the event so you could compare them later?

No, of course not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif What was your procedure for comparing DACs? Which DAC was louder?

My procedure was that I was intimately familiar with the sound signature of the Bel Canto DAC when I initially switched to the ECD-1. When I switched back and forth, it was only after lengthy listening sessions with each DAC taking place over several days. The volume on the DAC's was the same, and the differences (e.g., less bass in the ECD-1 on several song) was not volume dependent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif After you got your modded DAC back , what was your procedure for comparing it to the unmodded version? What were you using as a control? Did you still have the Bel Canto to compare it to? Were you able to regulate the volume on either of the DACs?

My procedure for comparing the modded DAC was listening to it, being intimately familiar with what the unmodded version sounded like on songs I know like the back of my hand. The Bel Canto had been sold by that time.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif My procedure was that I was intimately familiar with the sound signature of the Bel Canto DAC when I initially switched to the ECD-1. When I switched back and forth, it was only after lengthy listening sessions with each DAC taking place over several days. The volume on the DAC's was the same, and the differences (e.g., less bass in the ECD-1 on several song) was not volume dependent.

This is one aspect of subjectivism that I haven't discussed much, but it is common: the idea that we are really familiar with the sound of our rig, and when something changes it stands out.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is one aspect of subjectivism that I haven't discussed much, but it is common: the idea that we are really familiar with the sound of our rig, and when something changes it stands out.

I would describe it as being intimately familiar with what certain recordings sound like on your rig, to the extent that you know every nuance of a particular song and every precise tone, so that when something changes, you notice it. For example, a cymbal at one part of the song sounds a certain way, and when it changes, you say: "What?"

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif And I'm at fault for not understanding you?

Lol, sometimes this medium is tough.........

What I meant was the body of evidence you've accumulated, the way objectivists bring up DBTs, the Carver amp challenge, various cable tests, the work done by David Clark and Richard Clark, etc.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I meant was the body of evidence you've accumulated, the way objectivists bring up DBTs, the Carver amp challenge, various cable tests, the work done by David Clark and Richard Clark, etc.

Sorry, I'm not following you again. These are not listener observations or reasonable evidence for the subjective view.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif My procedure for comparing the modded DAC was listening to it, being intimately familiar with what the unmodded version sounded like on songs I know like the back of my hand. The Bel Canto had been sold by that time.

Hi Phil

When you got the modded DAC back, how long had it been since you listened to the unmodded DAC? How many months did it take to mod the DAC?

USG

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Phil When you got the modded DAC back, how long had it been since you listened to the unmodded DAC? How many months did it take to mod the DAC?

I can't remember precisely. I would estimate three weeks to a month.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't remember precisely. I would estimate three weeks to a month.

OK, thanks.

Do you have, or know of, any other experiences that have lead you to be a subjectivist?

USG

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you have, or know of, any other experiences that have lead you to be a subjectivist?

Yes, quite a few others, but another significant one would be related to my trying to resolve problems with sibilance and listener fatigue in my headphone system. When I first started putting together a higher end system, I got to a point where it sound pretty good, but I could not listen to it comfortably for more than an hour or 90 minutes, without significant listener fatigue, due to what I perceived as a harshness in the system. After about an hour or 90 minutes, I just couldn't take it anymore.

Without boring you with all the details, I ended up changing the power cord to my amp, changing the interconnect from my DAC, and changing the DAC itself. The headphones, the amp, and everything else remained the same. After these changes, the harshness disappeared, and I could listen for many hours with no listener fatigue whatsoever. I am confident that this was not a placebo effect. In my view, this change in harshness and the ability to listen for an extended period of time is different in character from such matters as a "wider soundstage," "more pleasant midrange," etc.

If you look at the only items that changed, none should have made an audible difference, if you accept the hardcore objectivist view. And yet they did. That indicated to me that somewhere in the change of the power cord, the interconnect, and the change in the DAC, or perhaps in combination thereof, there was an obvious audible change in my system. I have never heard that harshness, or had listening fatigue again.