[castleofargh]

If we're talking CanJam and science, I think that video is a more fitting example:

 

[bigshot]

Still waiting to be told that the AES seminars "aren't scientific enough". Maybe it's easier to just ignore them.

 

[BS5711]

I would not pretend to be knowledgeable enough to argue with Rob Watts content in that video but I have seen comments from him and had direct interaction with him regarding Mojo 2 and he certainly seems to place a great deal of importance on subjectively being able to assess aspects of his designs, aspects that, as I understand it, are not able to be demonstrated by measurements as being within the realm of human audibility.

He seems to have the idea that there are things going on with our perception of sound that don't fit within normal audible frequencies and are not directly measurable in a manner that can be proven to have any affect on audibility.

I don't want to cast aspersions but that is a very convenient place to be when you are selling audiophile DACs to audiophiles who often have the same belief about their hearing versus that of most of the human race.

I queried him about why other folks go on about how amazing the Mojo 2 is and how it was leagues ahead of other competing products meanwhile I didn't hear differences with any of the several similar DACs that I have, including the original Chord Mojo. I didn't have a Mojo 2 to compare because by that stage I had accepted that it was very unlikely going to do anything for me except empty my wallet a bit more and I had five or six other options already.

His response to that was that some people are simply better able to hear differences and apparently I was in the group that are less able. Am I legitimately missing something here, I figured that while peoples hearing abilities will certainly vary the range, assuming normal healthy hearing, is relatively narrow, defined and measurable. Additionally I figured that science understood how our perception of sound works, is that not true or do audiophiles know something that science associated with human physiology doesn't ?

He seems to have design theories the audio benefit of which can't be demonstrated as audible by science, that rely on his/our hearing to assess but are at a level such that many people can't hear the benefits because that requires a degree of hearing that appears to be outside what science indicates are normal human limits.



I dug up the specific comment from that thread:

" People have very different sensitivities. My wife can not localise sound at all, and has poor sensitivity and discrimination. My sons on the other hand go nuts over the sound of guitar pick-up internal wiring... So to some listening to DACs is a small difference, but to others it certainly is a night and day difference. Nobody is right or wrong in this - but it is wrong to say that because an individual can't hear a difference, or that that difference is small, certainly does not mean that individuals opinion applies to everybody as it does not. I don't think you even need to agree to disagree on this - just accept that people have different tastes and sensitivities, and actually enjoy differences. The World would be truly awful if we were all the same with the same tastes.

That's why readers should make their own minds up and listen for themselves. You may end up saving cash, or transforming your musical life and enjoyment - which outcome depends upon you, and what works for you - and you will only find out by listening and making your own mind up. "

 

[Davesrose]

His response to that was that some people are simply better able to hear differences and apparently I was in the group that are less able. Am I legitimately missing something here, I figured that while peoples hearing abilities will certainly vary the range, assuming normal health hearing, is relatively narrow, defined and measurable. Additionally I figured that science understood how our perception of sound works, is that not true or do audiophiles know something that science associated with human physiology doesn't ?

That's the go to audiophile snake oil when first presenting pseudoscience fails. That was what an audiophile was claiming to me when we were discussing a valid blind test sample for validating LAN silencers doing anything for sound. He maintained the equipment had to be top tier audiophile gear (even though the claim is that a PC has the worst noise), and that the listening subjects had to be the brand's designers (as he claimed they had golden ears). Why, if there are audible differences, is there suddenly excuses about how we shouldn't do blind testing? Or that a larger sample of "regular" people, musicians, audio engineers, etc is not valid?

 

[BS5711]

That's the go to audiophile snake oil when first presenting pseudoscience fails. That was what an audiophile was claiming to me when we were discussing a valid blind test sample for validating LAN silencers doing anything for sound. He maintained the equipment had to be top tier audiophile gear (even though the claim is that a PC has the worst noise), and that the listening subjects had to be the brand's designers (as he claimed they had golden ears). Why, if there are audible differences, is there suddenly excuses about how we shouldn't do blind testing? Or that a larger sample of "regular" people, musicians, audio engineers, etc is not valid?

Yep .... I have gone from reading on Head Fi to learn about the electronics associated with headphone audio, because the transducers are clearly subjective, to now reading to learn only about transducers and being amazed at the blather about DAC, amplifiers, cables and all manner of other stuff that to me makes no difference so far as I can tell.

The number of people that yap about this cable and that synergy astounds me.

It astounds me to the point I honestly second guess what I thought I had learnt, I mean all these hundreds of people talking here about stuff that to me is utter nonsense can't all be wrong can they !!

 

[Davesrose]

Yep .... I have gone from reading on Head Fi to learn about the electronics associated with headphone audio, because the transducers are clearly subjective, to now reading to learn only about transducers and being amazed at the blather about DAC, amplifiers, cables and all manner of other stuff that to me makes no difference so far as I can tell.

The number of people that yap about this cable and that synergy astounds me.

It astounds me to the point I honestly second guess what I thought I had learnt, I mean all these hundreds of people talking here about stuff that to me is utter nonsense can't all be wrong can they !!

I don't know, I thought the Watts presentation itself says a lot. . I did waste a lot of my time watching it to see what he gets into. So much of his claims are about human perception that I know are utterly wrong. Then, while I don't design audio gear, I know enough about computers and network/USB connections to also see where some of his arguments fail. But really, we don't have to go very far into the video. He starts by claiming he got into the business because the first digital audio gear he had didn't sound right until he listened late at night while all the lights were out. That really just gets to the point in which his followers believe: noise is the enemy in any system, and you've got the golden ears to hear it when you buy the audiophile gear that addresses it. I do think that audiophile network devices is the height of snake oil. Linus Tech Tips had a video about a $1000 network switch, which when actually examined was a rebadged $40 D-Link switch. But you know, add some marketing about ours is specially designed to reduce noise and your audio (and video) will be clearly better...and you'll find some people to buy it. Same goes for crystals or stones helping with your audio connections too.

When all is said focus of transducers would be the main audiophile item that is valid discussion....especially with headphones and IEMs. People having different HRTFs, and especially now that headphones are getting more DSPs for spatial audio.

 

[bigshot]

Consider his purpose in speaking, and the audience he’s addressing. He’s presenting himself as an authority to sell his product, and he’s speaking to potential customers. There’s nothing sinister about that. It makes total sense that he would play to subjectivity and feelings instead of technical specs and audibility. His audience is audiophiles, so he speaks like an audiophile, fills out the invoices and cashes the checks. That’s his job.

I actually have a certain respect for salesmanship. But I get frustrated when people who aren’t on the sales staff take it upon themselves to memorize the pitch and present it themselves as if they’re an authority. They’re just slitting their own throat and encouraging others to do the same. If you want to be an authority, you have to do your own homework and research. Simply aping a salesman only makes you look stupid to people who have some sense of how things work. But Internet forums are packed with duffer “experts” like that.

 

[Davesrose]

Consider his purpose in speaking, and the audience he’s addressing. He’s presenting himself as an authority to sell his product, and he’s speaking to potential customers. There’s nothing sinister about that. It makes total sense that he would play to subjectivity and feelings instead of technical specs and audibility. His audience is audiophiles, so he speaks like an audiophile and fills out the invoices. That’s his job.

And being a business, you find the "audiophile" price point in which you can price your product for smaller number of units compared to mass market.

 

[BS5711]

And being a business, you find the "audiophile" price point in which you can price your product for smaller number of units compared to mass market.

To a certain extent the more expensive the better, especially with the glowing balls !

 

[gregorio]

For anyone interested in the science of what things can affect sound quality and why (the "all properly-functioning DACs/amps/cables sound the same" clique might better use their time elsewhere).

That “anyone” is all of us here, as this is the Sound Science discussion forum. But then after you state it’s “for anyone interested in the science”, you don’t post anything to do with science! What you actually post is effectively a marketing video, a video of Rob Watts giving a talk/presentation which in large part is the exact opposite of science, because it actually contradicts the facts/science and is unsupported. That’s just insulting!

[1] So, your answer is just to insult.
[2] Without of course any science to refute one thing he says.

1. Duh, if you post something insulting then what on earth do you expect as an answer? As it somehow never seems to register with you; if you post marketing BS and falsely imply/claim it’s science, in a science discussion forum, that’s INSULTING! In fact, in science (or a science discussion forum) that’s pretty much the MOST insulting thing possible!
2. Not again, how many times?! What “he says” is not science just because “he says” it. You complain that our responses are “without of course any science” but what you’ve posted is without any science. Not only don’t you seem to even know what science is, you also don’t seem to know some of its basic tenets, such as the “burden of proof”, which is even listed in bold on this subforum’s landing page!

Not that we require any science in response to marketing BS (because “burden of proof”) but there’s been plenty presented in threads in which you’ve participated. The issue of jitter audibility for example: This BBC paper from 1974, this Benjamin & Gannon paper from 1998 or this NHK (Ashihara, et al.) paper from 2004. Plus, a rudimentary knowledge of some basic scientific facts, such as the absolute limit of sound (in air) of around -24dBSPL, proves that noise/distortion “hundreds of dBs down” cannot even exist as sound at any reasonable listening level, and obviously it cannot be audible if it doesn’t exist! And Rob Watts’ explanation for how on earth it could be audible is quote: “I don’t know”! There’s so many falsehoods and lies of omission in what “he says” it’s difficult to know where to begin but then of course we don’t need to, we can just call it out as BS, because the “burden of proof” is his (and your’s as you’re presenting it as factual) and he’s been spouting this BS for years, with still no shred of reliable supporting evidence.

The funny part is when you insult back, you're labeled as the aggressor.

If you post something highly insulting, such as marketing BS falsely asserted as science, which is called-out for the BS it is and then you “insult back” AGAIN, then DUH, of course “you’re labelled as the aggressor”, what on earth do you expect to be labelled as? The really “funny part” is those few who still don’t understand this obvious fact even after it’s been explained to them numerous times!!



G

 

[bigshot]

Watts is modeling the sort of belief system he wants his customers to adopt. By presenting himself as an authority, he’s inviting people to not explore or think for themselves and just absorb his sales pitch unquestioningly. The fact that some audiophiles listen to his boloney and repeat it… and POST it in a Sound Science forum as an example of science… just shows how well trained certain audiophiles are. And the stubborn determination of these audiophiles to be wrong is testament to his salesmanship. If he was a tailor, he’d be making invisible robes for the King.

 

[gregorio]

I would not pretend to be knowledgeable enough to argue with Rob Watts content in that video but I have seen comments from him and had direct interaction with him regarding Mojo 2 and he certainly seems to place a great deal of importance on subjectively being able to assess aspects of his designs, aspects that, as I understand it, are not able to be demonstrated by measurements as being within the realm of human audibility.

He seems to have the idea that there are things going on with our perception of sound that don't fit within normal audible frequencies and are not directly measurable in a manner that can be proven to have any affect on audibility.

From the claims I’ve read and the posted video, he’s not suggesting there’s something outside of normal frequencies, he’s suggesting noise/distortion (IMD) caused by jitter and RF interference that is within the range of audible frequencies (roughly 20Hz - 20kHz) but is so low in level that it cannot be measured and yet is somehow still audible by some people. However, among specialist testers fairly standard measuring equipment (the AP555 for example) can measure noise/distortion down to around -170dB. Therefore, at a fairly loud but reasonable listening level of say 85dBSPL with HPs that just measurable noise/distortion will be at -85dBSPL (85 - 170 = -85). The problem is that no sound at all (in air) is around -24dBSPL, so this noise/distortion is just over 1,000 times lower than the threshold at which noise/sound can exist, so obviously it cannot exist as sound and therefore obviously could not be audible even to someone who had hypothetically infinitely sensitive hearing. But it’s even worse than this, because Rob Watts is claiming it’s due to noise/distortion that is beyond measurable (even lower than -170dB), in fact I’ve seen him claim that he can hear noise/distortion at -300dB, which is of course not only utterly ludicrous but self-contradictory!

G

 

[BS5711]

From the claims I’ve read and the posted video, he’s not suggesting there’s something outside of normal frequencies, he’s suggesting noise/distortion (IMD) caused by jitter and RF interference that is within the range of audible frequencies (roughly 20Hz - 20kHz) but is so low in level that it cannot be measured and yet is somehow still audible by some people. However, among specialist testers fairly standard measuring equipment (the AP555 for example) can measure noise/distortion down to around -170dB. Therefore, at a fairly loud but reasonable listening level of say 85dBSPL with HPs that just measurable noise/distortion will be at -85dBSPL (85 - 170 = -85). The problem is that no sound at all (in air) is around -24dBSPL, so this noise/distortion is just over 1,000 times lower than the threshold at which noise/sound can exist, so obviously it cannot exist as sound and therefore obviously could not be audible even to someone who had hypothetically infinitely sensitive hearing. But it’s even worse than this, because Rob Watts is claiming it’s due to noise/distortion that is beyond measurable (even lower than -170dB), in fact I’ve seen him claim that he can hear noise/distortion at -300dB, which is of course not only utterly ludicrous but self-contradictory!

G

Thanks for the clarification, appreciated, and frankly it makes the claims possibly even more ridiculous.

 

[bigshot]

I think he knows better. He just wants to see what he can get away with.

 

[BS5711]

Hard to believe, well I would have thought so a few years ago ! After spending a little time in the main populace of Head Fi and reading the very genuine discussion about warm this and analytical that and all the marketing BS not a lot would surprise me.

On a connected topic. Some time back I had a private message conversation with a DAC and amplifier designer that used to be involved with a company that is somewhat well known. I didn’t know any different to think to query the comments but he talked about tuning a certain DAC/Amp for a “brighter” sound than their usual “house sound” to suit the needs of a certain asian market. Seems like Mr Watts is not alone.