[Gilmai]

I thought the article was an interesting read, but my issue with it is along the lines of what Currawong alluded to. It is hard for me to appreciate the presented data as proof because I have verified neither the data nor the principals of science applied to obtain it. I must take both on faith. Unless I personally validate every principle applied with instruments I personally validate using principles and instruments I personally validate etc. and then personally apply those principles in the given test to obtain the data, I must take his word for it. The problem with science then is that it is far too complex for any given person to personally verify it all; consequently, science relies greatly on faith. This is especially true for those like me who study literature and such rather than physics and chemistry. This doesn't make science useless, but it does make it hard to use, and virtually impossibly so in regard to verifying truth claims.

Perhaps it’s just my existential bent, but this is why I more readily trust my experience. After all, subjective as it may be, it is no more so than the faith I might place in data on a graph or the reading of an instrument. In other words, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and tastes like a duck, I am likely to call it a duck even if Dr. Genius Scientist publishes a study of its DNA that claims otherwise. It makes me think of Cypher's steak in The Matrix.

My practical application of this in the context of audiophile gear is meets. I am extremely new to this game and have been overwhelmed by the variety of claims made about all kinds of gear. I have absolutely no idea who is right. Therefore, I have determined to make every effort to attend some local meets in order to experience or not experiences the differences or lack thereof between gear for myself before I invest my money. Since for me this is a hedonistic hobby more than a cerebral one, if I enjoy what I hear, then the reasons or absolute lack of them be damned!

 

[Audio-Omega]

I buy cables because I can.

 

[oatmeal769]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilmai /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is hard for me to appreciate the presented data as proof because I have verified neither the data nor the principals of science applied to obtain it. I must take both on faith. Unless I personally validate every principle applied with instruments I personally validate using principles and instruments I personally validate etc. and then personally apply those principles in the given test to obtain the data, I must take his word for it.

Precisely why the methods and results are posted publicly - so that others may replicate the test and confirm or refute one opinion. 1 person showing he can or can not hear a difference means nothing. Many people who reach a consensus of the same result is how a 'theory' is 'proven'. All you need is a decent sound card, foobar2000 and freely available audio editing software. Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilmai /img/forum/go_quote.gif Therefore, I have determined to make every effort to attend some local meets in order to experience or not experiences the differences or lack thereof between gear for myself before I invest my money.

The whole point is that you will hear exactly what you want (or are told) to hear with much of the gear at these shows. If it were a couple bucks, I wouldn't even care, but before I bust out a couple grand, I want to know for sure, and not just take the advice of the converted.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilmai /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perhaps it’s just my existential bent, but this is why I more readily trust my experience. After all, subjective as it may be, it is no more so than the faith I might place in data on a graph or the reading of an instrument.

Look at it this way. Before you bought a car, who would you rather have check it over for you; A qualified mechanic, even if he were an amateur, or a holistic psychic car healer who will light some candles and place some magic stones on the hood and call it good.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Before you bought a car, who would you rather have check it over for you; A qualified mechanic, even if he were an amateur, or a holistic psychic car healer who will light some candles and place some magic stones on the hood and call it good.

That's a good analogy. No, really.

EDIT: Actually, a better analogy would be, if you saw some guy at the dealership who you didn't know but he was wearing a mechanic's uniform and he said that the car you were looking at had a really bumpy ride, but then you test drove it, and you felt that the ride was smooth, would you go by what the unknown guy wearing the mechanic's uniform said, or what you felt when you test drove the car.

 

[oatmeal769]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is it possible you could give us the Reader's Digest version, so people don't have to go to the other post (which is somewhat lengthy) and so that the discussion that is relevant to the present topic can be found on this thread? That way, it will make it easier for everyone to understand what we're talking about.

Sure!

First I tested each DAC with RMAA software, where I saw clear and large differences - I thought to myself, "Well duh, it's because the PSA is better... "

Caveat: This next paragraph describes that of which we may not speak. I think it's relative, without endorsing or condemning, so I hope Mods will overlook it in this case.

Then I made six recordings of three songs. The one and only variable was the DAC. (I even used the exact same cables, in the same positions, LOL) I set them so that they were exactly time synched with each other, and that they were exactly the same in volume. Then I play them so that I could easily listen and compare two samples against two others, all of the same song. I then try to identify two that are the same. It's like a game basically, and kind of fun. I record my results, and take an average of my score. that's it.

The review is a long winded way of saying "I've done all the hard work of recording and setting the files to be identical in all ways except sound, please have a listen and tell me what you think" Because my results in isolation prove nothing, only by having several people compare the same things can I possibly reach a consensus.
Using that consensus, I can better answer my initial question: Based on sound alone, is the PSA worth the extra cost?

I'm not going to post my results just yet, I will in a couple days.
It is relevant here because I know I could hear a difference between a cheapie Chinese DAC, and a PS Audio DL-III with Cullen Mods, and I set out to prove it. I posted song samples for others to download and listen on their own gear as well.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure! First I tested each DAC with RMAA software, where I saw clear and large differences - I thought to myself, "Well duh, it's because the PSA is better... " Caveat: This next paragraph describes that of which we may not speak. I think it's relative, without endorsing or condemning, so I hope Mods will overlook it in this case. Then I made six recordings of three songs. The one and only variable was the DAC. (I even used the exact same cables, in the same positions, LOL) I set them so that they were exactly time synched with each other, and that they were exactly the same in volume. Then I play them so that I could easily listen and compare two samples against two others, all of the same song. I then try to identify two that are the same. It's like a game basically, and kind of fun. I record my results, and take an average of my score. that's it. The review is a long winded way of saying "I've done all the hard work of recording and setting the files to be identical in all ways except sound, please have a listen and tell me what you think" Because my results in isolation prove nothing, only by having several people compare the same things can I possibly reach a consensus. Using that consensus, I can better answer my initial question: Based on sound alone, is the PSA worth the extra cost? I'm not going to post my results just yet, I will in a couple days. It is relevant here because I know I could hear a difference between a cheapie Chinese DAC, and a PS Audio DL-III with Cullen Mods, and I set out to prove it. I posted song samples for others to download and listen on their own gear as well.

Sorry if I'm being slow, but did the DAC's sound different to you or not?

 

[oatmeal769]

I could do exactly the same type of "Shoot-Out' with cables, only this time I know with far more certainty what the result will be, because thousands of comparisons have already been done.
However, I'm like Fox Mulder -
I WANT TO BELIEVE!
If someone wants to lend me their expensive boutique cables, I will run the same test and post the samples. Frankly I hope I'm wrong about all this, because I love all the gear! I don't mind spending righteous bucks if there's a difference beyond eye candy. But if it's just eye candy, I can make it far more inexpensively. I know no one knows me, but I promise to be impartial and fair.

 

[oatmeal769]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry if I'm being slow, but did the DAC's sound different to you or not?

I wasn't going to post my results yet, but It's not getting a lot of traffic, so why not.
Yes, I could reliably tell a difference.
AND There are a couple VERY interesting oddities and observations also, which I will post later.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I could reliably tell a difference.

Interesting. Well, I would assume you think that your test is valid, in terms of drawing conclusions that are meaningful to you. I wonder if those who are skeptical about DAC's sounding different would question your methodology or conclusions, or suggest that the test is of no significant value to others because it wasn't published, peer-reviewed, or even observed by others. I don't know.

 

[oatmeal769]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's a good analogy. No, really.

I laughed because I pictured some shaman dude in a lotus position on top of a car saying (in sharp Hindu accent) 'Hey buddy, wanna buy a ride'?
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif if you saw some guy at the dealership who you didn't know but he was wearing a mechanic's uniform and he said that the car you were looking at had a really bumpy ride, but then you test drove it, and you felt that the ride was smooth, would you go by what the unknown guy wearing the mechanic's uniform said, or what you felt when you test drove the car.

Heck no, because it would be PLAINLY obvious that the mechanic must be on some good drugs. All of these arguments exist well within the realm of diminished returns. We are talking about barely perceptible differences. Many Audiophiles think they have 'golden ears' and have trained themselves to hear what ordinary people cannot.

I think it would be the mechanic saying, "Nice looking car, in great shape! But it has the same engine and transmission as that '72 Dodge over there, which is also in fine shape. Both will get you where you're going equally well. But the one you want to buy costs 20 times more. It sure looks nice though."
If the nice looking car cost a bit more, I'd totally spring for it. But if it cost 20 times more than the Dodge, well I think I'd be driving a perfectly good Dodge, and buying a TV, a Stereo, some furniture, and a vacation to Fiji.

 

[oatmeal769]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting. Well, I would assume you think that your test is valid, in terms of drawing conclusions that are meaningful to you. I wonder if those who are skeptical about DAC's sounding different would question your methodology or conclusions, or suggest that the test is of no significant value to others because it wasn't published, peer-reviewed, or even observed by others. I don't know.

I think you're missing the point - and getting the point all at the same time.
It is precisely BECAUSE my test by itself means nothing. I WANT people to question it, replicate it, try it themselves and either confirm it, or say it's wrong. It is only by vast consensus that a scientific theory is proven or not - and that proof is always open to more testing.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you're missing the point - and getting the point all at the same time. It is precisely BECAUSE my test by itself means nothing. I WANT people to question it, replicate it, try it themselves and either confirm it, or say it's wrong. It is only by vast consensus that a scientific theory is proven or not - and that proof is always open to more testing.

I don't get this. If you confirmed for yourself, by a method you consider valid, that the DAC's sound different, why do you care what anybody else thinks? That's somewhat of a rhetorical question, of course, as you can do whatever floats your boat.

I guess, to put it another way, I would say that it's fine for you to be interested in the scientific theory and whether it can be proven conclusively that the two DAC's sound different. Many of us on this forum are not interested in taking the matter that far. We are interested in what sounds better to our ears, because we are pursuing musical enjoyment in its own right (the "hedonistic" pursuit that someone referenced above). And if we conduct a test that is valid for us that convinces us that there is a difference in terms of our enjoyment, that's where our inquiry ends.

To each his own, I guess. I won't criticize your pursuit of science and say you're a nut case because you want to establish a scientific proposition for the sake of science, if you won't criticize me and others and say we're nut cases for pursuing our enjoyment of this hobby and sharing our experiences (subjective though they may be) with others.

 

[Gilmai]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1 person showing he can or can not hear a difference means nothing. Many people who reach a consensus of the same result is how a 'theory' is 'proven'. Look at it this way. Before you bought a car, who would you rather have check it over for you; A qualified mechanic, even if he were an amateur, or a holistic psychic car healer who will light some candles and place some magic stones on the hood and call it good.

That is a fair point except for two things: if I were a mechanic, I would test it myself and not being a mechanic it is a question of who do I trust more, who do I have more faith in. A qualified mechanic can misdiagnose a car (as I have been unfortunate enough to experience).

A better analogy would be before buying car A over car B I test drive them both and conclude that I much prefer the way that car A shifts. However, our qualified mechanic friend insists that is impossible because both cars have exactly the same parts and many other qualified mechanics have tested and found this to be true and during consumer testing no one could tell the difference. Clearly any difference I feel must be in my head, not the car. Now it is a question of which I trust more, my senses or my mechanic friend and his mechanic buddies' studies. In this case, since it is my senses that I am trying to please, I would still buy car A. Looks like Phils beat me to the point.

Also, your argument about consensus smacks of Ad Populum. How is it any different from 100 headfiers coming to the consensus that their is an audible difference between cables? Although, clearly no such consensus exists.

I haven't heard or tested enough cables to have an opinion on this specific issue but to disregard one's subjective experience in favor of presumably objective evidence (I contend that no such thing exists) when the subjective experience of music enjoyment is the point just seems foolish to me on principle.

 

[oatmeal769]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilmai /img/forum/go_quote.gif A better analogy would be before buying car A over car B I test drive them both and conclude that I much prefer the way that car A shifts. However, our qualified mechanic friend insists that is impossible because both cars have exactly the same parts and many other qualified mechanics have tested and found this to be true and during consumer testing no one could tell the difference. Clearly any difference I feel must be in my head, not the car. Now it is a question of which I trust more, my senses or my mechanic friend and his mechanic buddies' studies. In this case, since it is my senses that I am trying to please, I would still buy car A.

If the car which you perceive to shift slightly better, even though no one else can feel that it shifts slightly better, also cost 20 times more than an identical car, without a barely perceived shifting difference, would you still buy it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilmai /img/forum/go_quote.gif How is it any different from 100 headfiers coming to the consensus that their is an audible difference between cables? Although, clearly no such consensus exists.

If a bunch of H.F. folks come to that consensus subjectively, that's great, and what we're here for. If some of those people however recommend that I go out and spend $2500 on a set of cables over my $25 off the rack ones, because I will also hear a difference, I will say not only can I prove to myself that there is no difference, but I defy you to prove to me that you can hear any difference at all - let alone which is better - before I take your word and spend 20 times the difference on snake oil. The difference does not in fact exist. Spending a couple extra dollars because you 'like' it is fine and great. Telling someone else they should go broke for a lie is unethical and wrong. Those people need to be called out to prove their claims, the same as someone selling a miracle cure for cancer at $50K a pop would need to be called out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilmai /img/forum/go_quote.gif I haven't heard or tested enough cables to have an opinion on this specific issue but to disregard one's subjective experience in favor of presumably objective evidence (I contend that no such thing exists) when the subjective experience of music enjoyment is the point just seems foolish to me on principle.

Spend your money however you want. I'm calling these shams out, because maybe some new guy with a budget is reading this and might say to himself, "Maybe I don't need that $600 cable to hear more 'shimmer, clarity and air' on my 'soundstage'. Maybe I can just imagine it, and in fact hear exactly the same thing."
I wish I knew what I now know and had all the facts before I wasted my money. If it had been a couple bucks, no worries, but to spend upwards of 200 on interconnects that are no better other than looking than some from Radio Shack was kinda lame. I love how my Zu Gede's look and feel, but I can make equals to them - even in looks - for $20.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If some of those people however recommend that I go out and spend $2500 on a set of cables over my $25 off the rack ones, because I will also hear a difference, I will say not only can I prove to myself that there is no difference, but I defy you to prove to me that you can hear any difference at all - let alone which is better - before I take your word and spend 20 times the difference on snake oil. The difference does not in fact exist. Spending a couple extra dollars because you 'like' it is fine and great. Telling someone else they should go broke for a lie is unethical and wrong. Those people need to be called out to prove their claims, the same as someone selling a miracle cure for cancer at $50K a pop would need to be called out. Spend your money however you want. I'm calling these shams out, because maybe some new guy with a budget is reading this and might say to himself, "Maybe I don't need that $600 cable to hear more 'shimmer, clarity and air' on my 'soundstage'. Maybe I can just imagine it, and in fact hear exactly the same thing."

I think, once again, you're exaggerating and overstating the problem to a substantial extent. People are not telling newbies or uneducated members to go out and spend $2500 on cables. Most of the discussions involving very expensive cables are few and far between, and involve knowledgeable people with sophisticated systems discussing upgrades that many other users are not in a position to even consider. (Some people I know routinely discuss some of the attributes of very, very expensive wine. None of the unsophisticated wine drinkers in such discussions are duped by such discussions into going out and buying a $2000 bottle of wine just because someone else with a very sophisticated palate and lots of money makes such a purchase from time to time.)

In fact, most of the cable discussions on this site involve fairly reasonably-priced cables, i.e., they are in the range of $100 to $300. (Not that $100 to $300 is an insignificant amount of money to some, but compared to $1400 headphones and $3,000 CD players, it can be relatively inconsequential.) And almost every one of these cables can be bought on 30- to 60-day return so people can try them for themselves.

In addition to all this, nobody is going to be duped by lack of knowledge, as the "skeptics" position on this is as readily available on this forum as the air we breathe. It is everywhere. You can't miss it (or get away from it).

So, I don't think it is at all fair to suggest this is a scenario where you and few others are saving ignorant newbies who are about to spend $2,500 on a cable and get ripped off as a result of a "sham." I think this is a scenario where most people consider upgrading cables only after they have constructed the basic components of their system. And people can read the arguments pro and con. In this context, I don't think it's the end of the world if someone reads a subjective (i.e., unscientific) review of a cable on this forum, and decides to spend $200 on the cable to try it out in his or her system on a 30- to 60-day return, so that they can determine whether it makes a beneficial audible difference in their system (and can send it back and be out $10 shipping if it's not worth it to them).