[eric343]

DBT-free forum.

 

[ChaosCow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric343 There is a reason why so many high-end audio products are either strongly grounded in tried-and-true designs (e.g. Ray Samuels, Rudistor) or created by engineers with decades of analog experience (HeadAmp, LaRocco) -- and so few true high-end products by people like this guy.

While I'm certainly careful to lump anybody in the same category as this guy (although I would lump myself), seeing as everyone seems to have taken serious offense to his comments, I think Xin Feng is an example of an actual scientist making headphone amplifiers. He looks for quantifiable results, and boy howdy, does he get them.

 

[JJ15k]

Quick question, why is it a DBT-free forum?

 

[crazyfrenchman27]

This thread was originally in a non-DBT-free forum, so I think it's pretty lame that we can't talk about DBT like adults.

The only reason why they don't want to talk about DBT is that they don't want to reach the startling conclusion that some of the things they believe and spend thousands of dollars on are, in fact, untrue.

-Matt

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB. Um . . .I don't think that you think that I am as smart as you think I think I am.

LOL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB. I’m also not claiming to have any special knowledge here- I’m just sick of the continual retreat of reason in high-end circles.

I'm not sure what this refers to. I understand if by "continual retreat of reason" you mean some of the ads you reference. But many objectivists seem to think that "reason" absolutely refutes what people claim to hear, and it does not. It may be evidence to be weighed against what people hear, but it is not absolute truth -- in the sense that we can't say with absolute scientific certainty that the things we are talking about don't result in audible differences. Thus, for example, I don't ignore the science (and I doubt that many other believers ignore it). I don't say that science or measurements don't play a role in all this, nor I am saying that the "scientists" are possessed by Satan, etc. It's just that I find my actual listening experience to outweigh what I understand about the science, even considering the "placebo effect," etc. I suspect that many other "believers" have "reasoned" to a similar conclusion.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyfrenchman27 The only reason why they don't want to talk about DBT is that they don't want to reach the startling conclusion that some of the things they believe and spend thousands of dollars on are, in fact, untrue.

Yeah, that's it alright. You figured us out. But now you ruined it for us by reminding us of how we are fooling ourselves. It's going to be real hard to put on the delusion again.

Seriously, the reason it is a DBT forum, I suspect, is to provide a place where people can seek helpful advice about cables, power cords, and other audio tweaks without every thread turning into a discussion about the issues we are discussing now. These issues are interesting and fun to discuss (most of the time), but they don't need to overrun every thread.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerius Article on THD and measurements Excerpt: New Methodology for Audio Frequency Amplifier Testing (PDF File) Excerpt: Read both articles in their entirety.

Thanks a million!

The thesis you linked is the most interesting article written about audio I have EVER read--no kidding.

The theory being proposed is very interesting, and he has provided enough evidence to make me think that it might be right. Admittedly, I don't have a whole lot of knowledge in EE, hi-end audio and human auditory system. But his knowledge of hi-end audio seems to me quite spot-on. His description of human hearing, at for least the parts that I understand, is consistent with what I learned in introductory neurobiology classes. His experimental design, methods and data analysis, which are far beyond my limited knowledge of circuits and electronics from undergrad classes, appear to me as sound and credible. His style of writing appears sincere and strives for rationality and accuracy (this is a degree thesis). His explanation of why conventional THD and IMD measurements correlate poorly with perceived quality is very elegant, IMHO. If all the research advances presented in this thesis is his original idea, I think this person may some day revolutionize how we measure audio equipment. His conjecture on why CD may sound no better than LP is very intriguing. I am ultra impressed by this thesis. If his theory can be verified by more measurements and listening tests, we might see a major leap in our understanding of music perception and audio equipment design.

I wish I could meet and talk to this person about audio someday--seriously. Aerius--is there any chance this person may be a registered member on head-fi?

BTW, the fact that the author may not have designed a great amplifier himself does not reduce his credibility. Most science/engineering professors in top research universities today do not conduct experiments at all. Students and postdocs do the actual work requiring hands. Besides, experimental methods change so much every ten years that many senior professors do not have any idea about how to do a simple experiment using today's lab equipment. Yet these professors talk/write brilliantly about their research and are considered the foremost experts in their discipline. Lots of hands-on experience is not required for establising credibility and authority, although some degree of it is probably necessary. Hey, this author has built an SET class A amp himself--that's probably good enough.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosCow You guys are missing the point. The author probably could go for pages backing this stuff up. He wants you to ABx everything you buy. BE SKEPTICAL. Don't just say "I disagree, I'm gonna go buy some $2000 cables now." Double-blind test them. His inflammatory tone should make you mad. So DO something about it. Don't sit about hopelessly moaning "I swear I can tell a difference. Really." Go test your beliefs! The audio critic challenges you - prove him wrong! He's asking for it! Boy, what a jerk! Show him who's boss! And, if he's right, he's right. You've rationally done a double-blind test. It's an experiment. It's fun. You're a scientist, without any technical mumbo-jumbo!

Just for the record: This is a DBT-free forum. And with good reason. I keep my own audio world DBT-free as well.


Quote:

But at times, I feel the crux of the subjectivist argument is this: «...science and data can never explain the world, so don't give them too much power!» Yes, it can. Science is doing amazing things that one never thought possible. Some day, science WILL understand the world, as long as we have enough time. For every effect, there is a cause - things don't just "happen". Naturally, that creates a problem for "the beginning", but I'll think about that later. But I can guarantee that if you demonstrate to me any, ANY phenomenon, there is a cause. So believing good sound just "happens" with magical (and coincidentally expensive) components for no real reason is insane.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying things happen magically. Of course there's cause and effect. And science is fascinating and useful. That doesn't change the fact that it will never be able to explain the world. Like measurements don't do Brahms' piano concertos or Dante's «Divina Commedia» justice.

 

[majid]

1. I agree most esoteric cables are snake oil. The quality of the connectors and soldering can make a difference, though. If you really are paranoid about your interconnects, you should use balanced cables like professionals do, not precious moebius-braided unobtainium cables sheathed in virgin llama hide insulation jackets...
2. Irrelevant - tube vs. solid state is a subjective preference, mostly a matter of personal taste
3. Mostly agree. Your DACs have to be good, though, and ultimately DACs are analog components.
4. Agree for purposes of comparison, but there is a difference between short-term auditions and extended ones. My first audiophile gear had very sharp impulse response and sounded great at first, but the punchiness became tiresome during extended listening, and I had to switch to a more mellow amp.
5. Agree, from my long-forgotten classes in op-amp circuit design. Negative feedback keeps circuits stable.
6. Agree for solid-state, not for tubes.
7. Agree
8. Decent equipment should cope with the vagaries of mains power, but the ever deteriorating quality of the US' power grid may in places yield atrocious brown-outs and spikes that may need to be corrected. There is no point in highly regulated power supplies, that's the jobs of the AC/DC circuitry in your amp.
9. Agree. In theory, some compounds can compensate for gouges in an optical medium, and are in fact commonly used to mask scratches in film prior to scanning. That said, the ECC in CD-Audio is redundant enough to compensate for any scratch fine enough to be masked by wet-mounting oil.
10. Disagree. If nothing else, our ears' high-frequency sensitivity decreases with age, so a younger listener will probably catch more nuances, if he or she hasn't shot his or her hearing from too much loud rock at too high volumes...

 

[aerius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose Thanks a million! The thesis you linked is the most interesting article written about audio I have EVER read--no kidding.

No problem! Glad someone took the time to read the articles and think about them.

Quote:

If all the research advances presented in this thesis is his original idea, I think this person may some day revolutionize how we measure audio equipment. His conjecture on why CD may sound no better than LP is very intriguing. I am ultra impressed by this thesis. If his theory can be verified by more measurements and listening tests, we might see a major leap in our understanding of music perception and audio equipment design.

A lot of what he presents is based on ideas which were aborted when the specifications race started. He's taken those ideas, expanded on them, and used modern equipment and science to investigate and try to understand them.

Quote:

I wish I could meet and talk to this person about audio someday--seriously. Aerius--is there any chance this person may be a registered member on head-fi?

Likewise. No idea if he's a head-fi member, I don't think so but you never know.

 

[meat01]

Quote:

I keep my own audio world DBT-free as well.

I think that is obvious, or else you would realize that most of what this author is saying is true

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meat01 I think that is obvious, or else you would realize that most of what this author is saying is true

Interesting contention. So what's your experience with the items referenced in the article, both in terms of long terms use and comparisons between specific equipment or devices?

 

[JB.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS Interesting contention. So what's your experience with the items referenced in the article, both in terms of long terms use and comparisons between specific equipment or devices?

This effectively gets at the heart of the discussion; the preference of anecdotal evidence over quantifiable knowledge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Just for the record: This is a DBT-free forum. And with good reason. I keep my own audio world DBT-free as well.

I'm not sure how DBT could be so stigmatized that a person would prefer anecdotal evidence. The methods of “science” are not only available to aliens in lab coats operating in isolated research environments. A small collection of equipment can yield valid and meaningful data, even in your own living room.

In order to break out of tautological constraints, it is necessary to test things.

Accept no eternal verity; change and be ready to change again; experiment.

 

[geardoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haydenlake ..snip What interests me the most are the topics of cables, power conditioners, and burn in. ..

What they said about cables and power conditioning make perfect sense. Anyone with a modest education in electronics would agree. (I stay quiet on cable discussions mostly because of my amusement of the sophisticated sonic descriptions ascribed to certain cables, all of course, not ABX tested)

Burn-in, however, they made exception of it being a lie in the case of mechanical devices like speakers. Presumably this applies to headphones too. I guess it makes sense to remain open minded on this one.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB. This effectively gets at the heart of the discussion; the preference of anecdotal evidence over quantifiable knowledge.

No, it says nothing about a "preference." That is not in issue yet. I'm just asking for the actual listening experiences of those who are the skeptics. Once we are told what it is, we can decide how to value it. I am even willing to assume for the sake of argument at this point that the listening experiences of the 'believers," including mine, are entirely irrelevant. But notice that I haven't yet been provided with any substantial listening experience from the skeptics or DBT propooents or those who "think" this or that doesn't make a difference. Fact is, you can never get this on any of these threads. Why?

EDIT: And for a moment, assume that I and other "believers" have a preference for what you say is "anecdotal evidence." At least we are willing to consider the other side of the coin. It is the skeptics who will only consider one type of evidence, which is rather ironic for those who favor the scientific disciplines. Frankly, the position of anyone who advances an absolute position without obtaining some knowledge based on their own experiences is, in this context, worthy of no serious consideration.