[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomcat If there is one thing you aren't, it's open minded, my friend. One: You have never heard the sub in question and you have no basis to refute the reviewer's claims.

Uh, that's why I started the thread. To get other people's opinions on this tweak. So far no one's come forward seriously claiming to hear differences with odd numbers (I think ooheadsoo was pulling our legs), but I still have hope.

Quote:

Two: Do you have anything else with a digital volume control to test his observations with?

Of course -- the Sharp SD-SH111, one of the popular digiamps on Audiocircle. I haven't heard the odd/even difference personally, but I can't open it up to reverse the fuses, so they may not be in the right orientation.

Quote:

Three: You didn't quote the rest of the paragraph. That's understandable, it could have spoilt your joke. Quote: Then in August, I had an opportunity in Taipei to meet digital guru Thierry Heeb of Anagram Technology. We had a long chat on this interesting observation by Yamada-San. Thierry believes such subtle changes are real because the digital coding of even and odd numbers is different. But I don't want to further expound on my ignorance in these matters for which there are many technically sophisticated explanation beyond my ken.

I didn't quote Heeb-san because his "theory" makes no sense and I didn't want to bias the thread. Digital volume controls for devices without DACs are implemented as either R2R networks of trimmed resistors or digitally controlled variable resistors (more expensive). In neither case does the digital coding of numbers come into play at all relative to the signal path.

And even if you don't buy my take on it, Heeb-san's "theory" doesn't explain why Yamada-san thinks odd and even airline channels sound different.

Quote:

I have never heard the subtle difference the reviewer (I guess his pen name is Linnman?) describes. But I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. While jefemeister may find it ridculous, Yamada-San and Thierry Heeb obviously don't.

6moons reviewers have historically found no idea ridiculous enough not to believe in. In fact, if you visit their website, you'll find that's their official editorial policy. No negative reviews. So I don't really put any stock in what they claim to believe at any given time.

Quote:

Ridiculing one's observation just because it challenges our understanding of reality isn't exactly scientific. It's ignorant.

Up to a certain point, I agree with you. After that point, open-mindedness turns into ignorance as people refuse to think at all and fall victim to hucksterism.

But hey, would you like to try the Clever Little Clock?
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm
I've been wanting to try it. Find out how it can affect my audio gear even when it's outside in "the family car." I'm tempted to ridicule this device, but that would be ignorant, right? There are some great reviews of it on Audioasylum. Those reviewers couldn't be delusional, could they?

 

[Born2bwire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy But hey, would you like to try the Clever Little Clock? http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm I've been wanting to try it. Find out how it can affect my audio gear even when it's outside in "the family car." I'm tempted to ridicule this device, but that would be ignorant, right? There are some great reviews of it on Audioasylum. Those reviewers couldn't be delusional, could they?

Ultra Tweeters!!!!!!

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy Now I have to admit that I personally think 6moons is basically trash, with their space cadet reviewers and "no negative reviews" editorial policy, but I'm open-minded and thought I'd ask if anyone else has noticed that odd numbers sound better than even ones. (...) Do amplifiers with an odd number of tubes tend to sound better than amps with even numbers of tubes?

Wodgy,

At the very least you tried to have it both ways. You asked for a discussion about this idea but just in case anyone might take it seriously you poured your derision over it. An "even number of tubes", Wodgy? What does that have to do with the issue of digital volume control? What is that irony good for? Other than inviting high fives from those always willing to flaunt their narrow-mindedness. Sure. Many posters had a good laugh, right? Quote:

I didn't quote Heeb-san because his "theory" makes no sense and I didn't want to bias the thread.

"Heeb-san". There's that defensive irony again. I thought the whole point of your thread was to find out whether there was a perceivable phenomenon -- and whether there was a theory to explain it? Why censor the best attempt at an explanation the reviewer did come up with, however rudimentary this theory might be (or the reviewer's understanding of it)? If Kazutoshi Yamada and Thierry Heeb both think there's something to it, they just might be right. I'd consider the possibility.

 

[tkam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomcat If Kazutoshi Yamada and Thierry Heeb both think there is something to it, they just might be right. I'd consider the possibility.

There is an equal possibility that they are also both wrong and from my experience with digital volume controls I can easily say that they are indeed wrong.

 

[bigshot]

I'm sorry, Tomcat. But if Albert Einstein himself had expressed the concept that the even or odd number on the numerical display of a volume pot had something to do with the quality of the sound beyond just volume, I would still call it a "road apple" of a theory.

Too many people in audiophilia take published specifications (read: sales pitch) and "expert" testimonials on web sites as gospel. It all comes down to not trusting yourself and your own ability to perceive and understand something. It's easier to let someone else do your thinking for you. I hate to break it to you, but experts are wrong a lot of the time too... particularly when 1) their quote is taken out of context, 2) they are speaking about an area outside their area of expertise, or if 3) they've been drinking heavily that day.

I would normally suspect that Yamada and Heeb are full of hot air. But when it's a quote published on that particular website, it's so blustery, it's difficult to tell which direction the hot breeze is coming from. That makes me give them the benefit of the doubt that it's number 1. When it comes to "rudimentary theories" as you so delicately state it, that seems to be that site's stock and trade.

But who knows... maybe it's the sake talking.

See ya
Steve

 

[jefemeister]

Tomcat,

although I wasn't specific, my objection was that odd/even numbers are attributed to certain settings on a relative basis. Saying gain "9" is better than gain "8" on an amplifier is idiotic because you have no reference as to what true mathmatical gain is being assigned to that number. Some engineer just decided where the mark on the dial should go. Saying volume 99 is better than volume 98 in a digital volume control is dumb too because you have no way of telling what these numbers actually mean. For all you know the system employs dither and these lower bits are being randomized anyway.

But yes, there is a technical difference between odd and even numbers digitally--odd numbers will have a "1" in the Least-significant bit, while even numbers will have a "0" here. Is there a difference? No more than if this 1/0 situation is in the middle of the word somewhere. For example, the numbers 9 and 13 are 1 bit different from each other too. And, egads!, they're both odd! It's just pure nonsense.

 

[Publius]

Totally with born2bwire on this one.

"What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?"
"Put it up to eleven."
"Eleven. Exactly. One louder."
"Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?"
"... These go to eleven."