[jamesjames]

The difficulty with this thread, I think, is that an essentially interesting idea is relentlessly swamped by preposterous monologues. I think the only real solution is to leave. And I shall take my own advice!

 

[gregorio]

The difficulty with this thread, I think, is that an essentially interesting idea is relentlessly swamped by preposterous monologues.

That’s virtually inevitable in an audiophile forum. As audiophiles are routinely exposed to pseudoscience and other preposterous marketing but rarely to the actual facts which contradict that preposterous marketing/pseudoscience, then obviously you’re going to get a considerable amount of preposterous monologues and assertions.

I think the only real solution is to leave.

Yep, if you can’t or don’t want to deal with preposterous monologues or assertions then an audiophile discussion forum is one of the last places you should stay.

G

 

[castleofargh]

And that’s exactly the reason, why those short A-B-X pieces confuse it and interfere with the perception of the sound of the recording.

You have an excellent description of how we perceive what we see in the new room. Will it work if a person begins to put his head in one, then another, then a third room for a couple of seconds? Will his ability to notice small details improve from this? And if we tell this person in advance that, as a result of repeatedly sticking his head into a different room, he will have to guess what door X corresponds to ... Will this make the task easier or harder?

If we want a person to notice the difference between two rooms that are furnished in a similar way, but differ in details, what is the best way to proceed? Stick his head in the room for a couple of seconds, or let him come in and calmly look around?

Real science says that under the influence of stress, human brain tends to discard everything that it considers to be secondary tasks. And in my opinion, this perfectly explains why the anti-audiophile "science" is so desperately holding on to its short A-B-X. Because these are perfect conditions to make it extremely difficult to hear the difference even where it is.

Casual listening only gives you a feeling of change(or not), it lacks the substantiated evidence that your feeling was all about sound. You can’t prove you really heard something, which is the problem that gets us all in those endless discussions. Why should we trust people on the internet who make claims they can’t begin to demonstrate as true?
And as you always reference that inconclusive experience against abx, we have and apple and oranges situation.

When @GoldenOne shows his little circuitry voodoo for blind test and gives a result, I am more inclined to trust his conclusion than if he just claimed he heard stuff in a sighted impression. It’s still just one guy and his system could have issues. So I’d refrain from calling anything a conclusive proof. But his method and will to control non audio variables give me more confidence in the results compared to putting no effort whatsoever to control or verify anything(aka just listen).

Sound, as @gregorio explained, is said to be first stored/treated in one area of the brain. We need some sort of buffer to make up the waves changing over time. It’s not the state of the sou d but the change that has meaning for us. And after a few seconds, another area of the brain seems to handle the long term storage of whatever interpretation we made of the experience(typically the memory of the event or how it felt, instead of the sound itself that seems to be what the echoic memory handles). That first buffer area is as accurate as a human can be, while long term memory is, well, not what we’d like it to be.
Experiments support that. The model is only a model, but the degrading accuracy over time has been tested in at least 2 papers strictly on auditory memory that I recall reading, there is probably more.
Rapid switching and short samples have great success in discriminating sound differences if done fast enough because the memory of the first sound sample is still pretty much as we heard it. You may think they don’t, but as you’re pitting that against your uncontrolled feelings, instead of an actual alternative test protocol with verification of the results, you don’t even know or can prove that short samples and rapid switching is causing issues.
When looking for facts about audible sound differences, some supporting evidence should be a low bar to set and yet here we are, with most people apparently arguing that it’s not needed to know facts.
If you can never demonstrate anything, who cares that you weren’t stressed while achieving nothing? Suggest a test method, one where by the end of it we can tell made up differences from perceived sound differences. If that method is more accurate, practical and less stressful, I’ll immediately sign up for it and throw abx away with great pleasure.


For visual differences, I guess a good start would be to have both rooms right next to each other, go get a rapid general look of both, see if something pops up, then check the concerned small areas where you feel something is changed, and go rapidly in the other room to look at the same area.
The very best visual method would be to have pictures from the very same position, angle, lighting, showed on a screen with the ability to switch between 2 views almost instantly with a scrolling of the mouse. Then we’d use the movement detection part of our vision(which is pretty good) to have any change between the picture almost magically become obvious to us without a need for training, to know the rooms, or anything special. The only requirement would be for the differences in the pictures to be large enough to be detected on the screen.
But so far none of those methods would let us confirm/demonstrate that we found the real differences. All that is still just casual observation with no system to validate or invalidate the results.
One method I suggest(no matter how we work out our observation phase or how long we spend in a given room), would be to have someone else with the details of the differences already referenced, and have us(the test subject) place a little marker over the pieces of furniture we find different. That way we could concretely confirm when our impression were correct and when they maybe weren’t. Like if we place a marker in an area that’s in fact identical, we can know we failed instead of proudly thinking we found something other people missed.

 

[castleofargh]

In my experience, people that use the word 'honest' a lot are actually quite dishonest.

Thank you for that interesting contribution. Last post I was too dumb to get your point as it went over my head, and now I’m dishonest. Solid rebuttals.

 

[r343]

Did brief comparison if i could hear difference between two Dacs

Source PC

Dac 1 Chain
Topping D10s RCA ouputs-> Liquid Platinum RCA inputs

Dac 2 Chain
Topping D10s Spdif-> Schiit Modius E-> Liquid Platinum Balanced Inputs

This way both Dacs input simultaneusly.

Liquid Platinum doubles RCA input signal so volume is matched between balanced and RCA inputs, used balanced headphone output to listen.

Amps source switch button works instanteously, there is zero audible indication or delay to indicate that source is switched, could verify playing source by disconnecting it's cable.

Listened troughfully and there was no difference i could hear between these Dacs, no matter if did longer parts or rapid switching by spamming source button.

I think this is efficient way to compared Dacs because there is no delay in source switching and music playing at all.

 

[REXNFX]

Here's a review that supports my theory that most DACs sound good with good recordings and expensive DACs are only required to make poorer recordings sound better:

https://www.soundstagehifi.com/inde...ical-fidelity-m6x-digital-to-analog-converter

 

[gregorio]

Here's a review that supports my theory that most DACs sound good with good recordings and expensive DACs are only required to make poorer recordings sound better:

Firstly, not only is it just a “review” but it’s a review of audiophile equipment in a magazine that receives it’s income from audiophile equipment manufacturers.

Secondly and more importantly, the review does not state that expensive DACs make poor recordings better, nor does it state that there’s some sort of unmeasurable distortion that’s baked into recordings or even that expensive DACs filter out any sort of distortion baked into the recordings.

So how exactly does it support your “idea” (which flies in the face of the actual facts), even in the slightest?

G

 

[jamesjames]

Firstly, not only is it just a “review” but it’s a review of audiophile equipment in a magazine that receives it’s income from audiophile equipment manufacturers.

Secondly and more importantly, the review does not state that expensive DACs make poor recordings better, nor does it state that there’s some sort of unmeasurable distortion that’s baked into recordings or even that expensive DACs filter out any sort of distortion baked into the recordings.

So how exactly does it support your “idea” (which flies in the face of the actual facts), even in the slightest?

G

Well, I think you and your accomplice have succeeded by relentless combative and dismissive contributions in creating a rather poisonous environment. I certainly won't be back.

 

[OnlySoMany]

In my opinion, the higher end the components get, the more obvious the difference becomes. For example, I can immediately tell the difference when using the Naim as the dac, and using the Dave as a preamp. And also tell the difference when the Dave is used as the dac.

I can also tell the upgrades as I went from the TT, to the TT2, to the Dave, etc. TT to TT2 was the most obvious. Big jump. TT2 to Dave was just loads more delicate. I hate to sound like a reviewer, but I really did "hear things in my music I didn't before."

Better dacs seem to reach deeper into a recording and allow the subtleties to show through. Also more control over fast and slow transitions.

Edit - I also want to add that amps also play a huge role in this.

 

[OnlySoMany]

Here's a review that supports my theory that most DACs sound good with good recordings and expensive DACs are only required to make poorer recordings sound better:

https://www.soundstagehifi.com/inde...ical-fidelity-m6x-digital-to-analog-converter

It's been my experience that this is the opposite. The better the dac got, the more flaws it highlighted in poorly recorded audio. It made me seek out better music and recordings of it. I started doing cd rips in wav and also looking for higher bits.

 

[gregorio]

Well, I think you and your accomplice have succeeded by relentless combative and dismissive contributions in creating a rather poisonous environment.

I don’t have an accomplice but regardless, what do you mean by “poisonous environment”? Is a “poisonous environment” one where marketers, reviewers, shills or anyone can make-up virtually any assertion/“fact”, regardless of whether it contradicts the actual facts, and it’s just accepted on trust and goes unchallenged? Or is a “poisonous environment” one where falsehoods are politely challenged/explained, in order to help avoid the “environment” being poisoned by misinformation, misunderstanding and false marketing?

Do you really want the former, an environment rife with (poisoned by) misinformation because any factual explanations which contradicts it are blindly condemned or banned?

G

 

[paulrbarnard]

I don’t have an accomplice but regardless, what do you mean by “poisonous environment”? Is a “poisonous environment” one where marketers, reviewers, shills or anyone can make-up virtually any assertion/“fact”, regardless of whether it contradicts the actual facts, and it’s just accepted on trust and goes unchallenged? Or is a “poisonous environment” one where falsehoods are politely challenged/explained, in order to help avoid the “environment” being poisoned by misinformation, misunderstanding and false marketing?

Do you really want the former, an environment rife with (poisoned by) misinformation because any factual explanations which contradicts it are blindly condemned or banned?

G

A poisonous environment is one where people are not permitted to hold or express alternative views without being “challenged” relentlessly.

If you don’t agree with someone for sure tell them, that’s informative. If they still don’t agree with you then live with it. Relentlessly persuing an argument becomes poisonous in the context of a thread like this. It’s a thread for perceptions not absolutes. The clue is in the title “can you hear a difference”. Nothing about are there measurable differences.

 

[gregorio]

A poisonous environment is one where people are not permitted to hold or express alternative views without being “challenged” relentlessly.

People can obviously hold whatever views they wish. If someone wants to hold the view that say the earth is flat or 1+1=3, that’s entirely up to them but if they’re going to express that on a public forum as a fact, then why should it be unacceptable to politely explain that 1+1=2 and challenge that incorrect view for the benefit of the “environment” (including those who may want/prefer the correct facts)?

You seem to also prefer the former option, not caring whether the “environment” is poisoned by false information, only about an environment “where people are not permitted to hold or express” the actual facts if they falsify, contradict or challenge an alternative/incorrect view.

G

 

[Corti]

Thank you for that interesting contribution. Last post I was too dumb to get your point as it went over my head, and now I’m dishonest. Solid rebuttals.

This scene perfectly summarizes the patience you will need to have with audiophiles in threads like this.

With you being Peter and the frog being the usual audiophile’s slippery mind that you are trying to talk some sense into. Start at 0:22, End at 1:02.

 

[paulrbarnard]

People can obviously hold whatever views they wish. If someone wants to hold the view that say the earth is flat or 1+1=3, that’s entirely up to them but if they’re going to express that on a public forum as a fact, then why should it be unacceptable to politely explain that 1+1=2 and challenge that incorrect view for the benefit of the “environment” (including those who may want/prefer the correct facts)?

You seem to also prefer the former option, not caring whether the “environment” is poisoned by false information, only about an environment “where people are not permitted to hold or express” the actual facts if they falsify, contradict or challenge an alternative/incorrect view.

G

“Relentlessly” was the key word.
I completely support debate and free exchange of ideas. It’s the life blood of the forum.
There should come a time where people on both sides of a discussion reach the conclusion they won’t change the other persons opinion and move on. Unfortunately too many have the tendency to want to “win” any debate they participate in.
FWIW I completely agree with your technical arguments but also acknowledge that I experience music differently with different equipment and in different environments and states of mind. Some days I can’t be in the same room as a Jazz recording but other times find it totally immersive. The ‘science’ of it is the music is identical but my perception of it is completely different.