CHORD ELECTRONICS DAVE

[GuiltyRocker]

If you're on the designing/production end, measurements are vital.

But from the audiophile consumer side, while both measurement and listening 'matter' in a technical sense, the importance ratio is probably at most 10%/90%.

This is evidenced by the fact that probably 95%+ of satisfied audio equipment buyers have never measured a single thing or even looked at measurements and are perfectly happy. And even if they did measure things, if their ears preferred something that "measured worse", they would still go with it.

Because the point of owning audio gear is not to the own gear that measures best, it's to enjoy what you hear. And we all are perfectly capable of knowing whether we do or don't. I never did a double blind anything on M-Dave, nor laid a tester across its terminals because I love every minute of it and could care less if something else measures better. And I suspect if you tell anyone who loves the sound of their equipment that the whatever doesn't measure as well as the whatever, they'd just say "get a life".

Well said.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

But please GuiltyRocker, screen must be OLED

But, do remember that OLED still suffers from burn-in, even though I do love OLED.

 

[chesebert]

If you're on the designing/production end, measurements are vital.

But from the audiophile consumer side, while both measurement and listening 'matter' in a technical sense, the importance ratio is probably at most 10%/90%.

This is evidenced by the fact that probably 95%+ of satisfied audio equipment buyers have never measured a single thing or even looked at measurements and are perfectly happy. And even if they did measure things, if their ears preferred something that "measured worse", they would still go with it.

Because the point of owning audio gear is not to the own gear that measures best, it's to enjoy what you hear. And we all are perfectly capable of knowing whether we do or don't. I never did a double blind anything on M-Dave, nor laid a tester across its terminals because I love every minute of it and could care less if something else measures better. And I suspect if you tell anyone who loves the sound of their equipment that the whatever doesn't measure as well as the whatever, they'd just say "get a life".

Sounds like dealer speak me or someone from the industry.

 

[ZappaMan]

I went to the shop to listen to mojo years ago. In the shop I couldn’t really tell if it was better than just using a phone directly or not. But when I got it home and relaxed with it more, then I was able to appreciate why people says it’s one of the best dacs at the price point.
I suppose the point is, a listening test isn’t even good enough, you need to spend time with it, hopefully bond with it in some way.
Measurements don’t really have a part to play in the bonding, they’re more about marketing I would say.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

Sounds like dealer speak me or someone from the industry.

I went to the shop to listen to mojo years ago. In the shop I couldn’t really tell if it was better than just using a phone directly or not. But when I got it home and relaxed with it more, then I was able to appreciate why people says it’s one of the best dacs at the price point.
I suppose the point is, a listening test isn’t even good enough, you need to spend time with it, hopefully bond with it in some way.
Measurements don’t really have a part to play in the bonding, they’re more about marketing I would say.

And when you switch back and forth, your brain can also make up information to restore what you heard with the better DAC, A lot of these objectivists nut jobs know this and that's why they push the Blind test and all the other "Objective" testing

 

[GuiltyRocker]

And before you ask where I got this information, plenty of books that talk about it, find them.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

You know what is also an amazing "objective" test, not getting ANY ear fatigue, Rob's DACs do that for me.

 

[Kentajalli]

My general issue with a lot of the discussion on ASR is that whilst the core of it is objective information, there's a huge amount of subjective influence that gets mixed in and which you're seemingly not allowed to debate. . . .

I did not mean to praise or criticize either forums. It just seemed that recent "talk" about objectivism and subjectivism, and which side one belongs to, stems from the usual "Us & Them" between here and there. So I decided to tell it as I saw it.
Was I wrong?

My general issue with a lot of the discussion on head-fi is that people take an almost polar opposite approach. With a huge number of people scoffing at the mere mention of any sort of measurement or test, and a huge number of people seemingly completely unwilling to accept that our hearing is fallible and no one is immune to factors like expectation bias and placebo.

Well said.
I see posts about changing the PSU on some very expensive DACs (hint hint), to make them sound better! no testing, no measurements, and even though the book says it wouldn't, it shouldn't, they can still hear the benefits. A cheap or atleast easily reversible mod. is one thing, but this is . . . .

Other things like audiophile fuses, ethernet cables and quantum stickers though which not only have never been able to show any difference whatsoever let alone any improvement, but also quite simply go against the fundamental way in which these things work, I cannot really understand.

On one hand you can call these snake-oil, but if cheap enough, they can be fun!
Snake-oil is when someone is being taken advantage of, but if the client is aware that something like a green pen, really doesn't make CD's sound better, but hey let's try it and see - then it is just fun.

(Also, GoldenEars is a different user, My username is GoldenSound/GoldenOne)

I apologise. You are still golden.
Noted

 

[griff500]

I see posts about changing the PSU on some very expensive DACs (hint hint), to make them sound better! no testing, no measurements, and even though the book says it wouldn't, it shouldn't, they can still hear the benefits. A cheap or atleast easily reversible mod. is one thing, but this is . . . .

Still reversible.

Are you saying that improving a power supply cannot improve the sound of components or only for the Dave?

 

[GoldenSound]

I did not mean to praise or criticize either forums. It just seemed that recent "talk" about objectivism and subjectivism, and which side one belongs to, stems from the usual "Us & Them" between here and there. So I decided to tell it as I saw it.
Was I wrong

Not at all! Sorry, wasn't meaning to argue your post was more just expanding on it.

Apologies, tricky to convey tone over text sometimes

 

[Kentajalli]

Still reversible.
Are you saying that improving a power supply cannot improve the sound of components or only for the Dave?

I think I already have stated my position.
"Improving" is very debatable.

 

[griff500]

I think I already have stated my position.
"Improving" is very debatable.

Ok, changing.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

My general issue with a lot of the discussion on head-fi is that people take an almost polar opposite approach. With a huge number of people scoffing at the mere mention of any sort of measurement or test, and a huge number of people seemingly completely unwilling to accept that our hearing is fallible and no one is immune to factors like expectation bias and placebo.

I don’t know about the rest, but I often mock DBT adherents simply because I’m too lazy to write a normal answer. After all, in order to explain all the inferiority of the ASR-style "tests", one has to start with the basics of neurobiology. In other words, it is very easy to say that the earth is flat, but it takes a lot of effort to prove the opposite. Moreover, flat-earth theorists are usually simply not educated enough to understand any scientific evidence that the earth is spherical after all. The same happens with audio. It is very easy to declare any incomprehensible technology "marketing", and some measurements "inaudible". But in order to reasonably refute this, considerable efforts will be required. Maybe someone wants to spend their lives educating people who actively resist this, but definitely not me.

The phrase 'just use your ears' is not a good method unless you're going to follow it up with proper controls. Sighted listening tests are NOT reliable and whilst there are many situations where it's impossible or just very inconvenient to conduct a properly controlled test, it doesn't mean that people should have the mindset of 'well I hear something and the measurements don't show it so the measurements must be useless'.

I'd say that "use your ears" is the only reasonable method for any hobbyist. It does not matter if the dopamine release in your brain is caused by quality of reproduction, or cool looking gear because the main purpose of the hobby (to experience pleasure) is achieved. Of course, some common sense (matching volume level, etc.) won't hurt, but hearing is enough to understand if you need something or not.

 

[Somafunk]

In other words, it is very easy to say that the earth is flat, but it takes a lot of effort to prove the opposite.

No, not at all, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth back in 200 BCE using a stick in the ground and his method is taught in primary schools. It’s very easy to prove the earth is not flat but unfortunately some folk prefer to wallow in their ignorance

 

[Ragnar-BY]

No, not at all, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth back in 200 BCE using a stick in the ground and his method is taught in primary schools. It’s very easy to prove the earth is not flat but unfortunately some folk prefer to wallow in their ignorance

Oh, that's perfect example of what I was talking about

It is very easy to take out of context a phrase that was used in a metaphorical sense in the original post and make a joke out of it. To explain why this is incorrect, I would have to explain long and tediously that by the word "prove" I did not mean proving something in the scientific sense, but "to prove to these people that they are wrong so that they understand it".