[bigshot]

I love my media server. It makes me not care about shiny little discs any more.

 

[Steve999]

I thought they had progressed to putting tansparent DACs on mass-produced small microchips.

 

[Steve999]

I did five minutes of looking around. So they use his name in marketing Chord $2,000 portable headphone amps.

https://www.moon-audio.com/chord-electronics-hugo-dac-headphone-amp.html

 

[ZappaMan]

Imagine talking about someone like this... do the moderators condone this?

Surely this is bringing the head-fi website into disrepute.

Some of the contributors to this thread need to take a step back, and treat other website members as real people, and show a little common courtesy, even if you find it difficult to accept their stated research.

There’s nothing scientific about speaking about others like this.

 

[Steve999]

No offense intended. Truly, you are very free to disagree with anything I said. Or if you feel anything I said was inflammatory I will take ownership of it or even tone it down upon your request if you would like. I actually tried to be understated in my language but I will try to do better next time, sincerely. I'll leave it up for now so that if you want to call me on it or let the mod decide if it's appropriate I won't be playing cat and mouse, or being disingenuous. If you want me to revise it and get the same meaning across I will do so as soon as I get your request. You could even private message me and ask me to do so, and I will honor your request. Sincerely, it's not aimed at you, and I'm truly sorry if my language was too strong. I'm good with language. I can scale it back and get the same meaning across if it's better for everyone.

You took the high road here and I respect that. I've had enough of the flame wars here so I'm willing to step back in my language if that will help and extend my apologies to you.

Actually I'm really sorry if I offended you so I will tone down the language right now. Again, it was quite understated compared to what I was feeling, and intentionally so, but I get where you're coming from.

Imagine talking about someone like this... do the moderators condone this?

Surely this is bringing the head-fi website into disrepute.

Some of the contributors to this thread need to take a step back, and treat other website members as real people, and show a little common courtesy, even if you find it difficult to accept their stated research.

There’s nothing scientific about speaking about others like this.

 

[ZappaMan]

No offense intended. Truly, you are very free to disagree with anything I said. Or if you feel anything I said was inflammatory I will take ownership of it or even tone it down upon your request if you would like. I actually tried to be understated in my language but I will try to do better next time, sincerely. I'll leave it up for now so that if you want to call me on it or let the mod decide if it's appropriate I won't be playing cat and mouse, or being disingenuous. If you want me to revise it and get the same meaning across I will do so as soon as I get your request. You could even private message me and ask me to do so, and I will honor your request. Sincerely, it's not aimed at you, and I'm truly sorry if my language was too strong. I'm good with language. I can scale it back and get the same meaning across if it's better for everyone.

You took the high road here and I respect that. I've had enough of the flame wars here so I'm willing to step back in my language if that will help and extend my apologies to you.

Fair play to you, I know I’m being a bit over the top when I say, if we talk about others like this, it can quickly get out of hand, abd creates a bad environment.
But again, fair play to anyone who’ll take some feedback positively.

 

[Steve999]

There, I revised it to straight-up facts. My opinions are not worth all that much anyway.

Peace out. I won't post to this thread anymore.

Imagine talking about someone like this... do the moderators condone this?

Surely this is bringing the head-fi website into disrepute.

Some of the contributors to this thread need to take a step back, and treat other website members as real people, and show a little common courtesy, even if you find it difficult to accept their stated research.

There’s nothing scientific about speaking about others like this.

 

[Steve999]

No, you're not being over the top. You're right.

Fair play to you, I know I’m being a bit over the top when I say, if we talk about others like this, it can quickly get out of hand, abd creates a bad environment.
But again, fair play to anyone who’ll take some feedback positively.

 

[bigshot]

Claiming that human ears can hear a difference in anything because of something at -200dB is bogus. I'll call that claim bogus, and I'll point out that high end audio is rife with bogus claims like that. Bogus claims are a tool used to sell products in a disingenuous manner.

 

[ZappaMan]

Claiming that human ears can hear a difference in anything because of something at -200dB is bogus. I'll call that claim bogus, and I'll point out that high end audio is rife with bogus claims like that. Bogus claims are a tool used to sell products in a disingenuous manner.

Are you aware of falsification theory?
That all through the history of science, the predominant view was that X is true, and Y cannot be true. Like the black swan, it is shown that, X is not true in all circumstances. The paradigm shifts.

I think you’ve misinterpreted what rob is saying, but also, you seem so dead set in seeing bogus claims everywhere, you’ve lost your ability to be objective, and so to understand what was being said.

I don’t understand the science, I’ll be the first to admit it. But I really think if you wanted to understand what rob is saying, you’d ask him in a more courteous fashion, rather then slinging mud.

So if he’s bogus, your set in your ways, the whole ability to discuss is lost, this forum is just an echo chamber, from what I can see.

 

[bigshot]

Does he or does he not say that he can hear a difference when something is different at -200dB? Because that is patently absurd. All you need to do is understand how the dB scale works to know that. No one is going to come up with some brilliant new discovery to tell us we can hear something at -200dB because that's several orders of magnitude below the threshold of human hearing. It's so far below it, it's self evident that we can't hear it.

If he isn't saying that, then fine. Let me know the clarification and I'll agree that he isn't saying anything wrong. But he sure appears to be saying that.

 

[ZappaMan]

Wouldn’t that have been a good question to start with? I’ll get back to you as just in the middle of something.

 

[bigshot]

At 12:15 his graphic says that distortion at -130 to -150 is clearly audible. It isn't. He says immeasurable levels of noise affect what we hear. He's wrong. We can measure far beyond the threshold of audibility.



In this video Ethan Winer shows where the threshold is for low level noise.



The noise disappears between -40 and -50dB, which is massively louder than -130dB. The dB scale is logarithmic. So the difference between 40 and 50 is many times less than the difference between 130 and 140. By the time you get up to those kinds of numbers, you're talking about a difference in scale between the music in your living room at a healthy volume like 70dB versus the area beyond the threshold of pain where you will probably incur permanent hearing damage at 130dB.

I would really like to hear an explanation of how noise or distortion at -130 to -150 is clearly audible. I would love to hear audio tracks that prove that, like the ones Ethan Winer presented to the AES.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Imagine talking about someone like this... do the moderators condone this?
[2] Surely this is bringing the head-fi website into disrepute.
[3] Some of the contributors to this thread need to take a step back, and treat other website members as real people, and show a little common courtesy, even if you find it difficult to accept their stated research.
[4] There’s nothing scientific about speaking about others like this.

1. I would hope so but many don't. Many are fully supportive of those trying to feed us BS!
2. Yes, I agree with you, indeed it is bringing head-fi into disrepute. IMHO, people making ridiculous, bogus claims just to sell their products should be banned from Head-Fi, so as not to bring it into disrepute but for obvious reasons that's not going to happen.
3. Those who make ridiculous, bogus claims just to sell their products are NOT treating us "other website members" as "real people", they are treating us as morons, too ignorant or stupid to see through their marketing BS. They should show us "other website users" a "little common courtesy" by not trying to feed us BS in the first place!
4. Yes there is. Science and scientists have a very long history of discrediting the purveyors of snake oil, superstition, myth and completely made-up nonsense!

G

 

[castleofargh]

Wouldn’t that have been a good question to start with? I’ll get back to you as just in the middle of something.

come on, Rob suggests impossible hearing after the first minutes of that vid. and if you wish to call proper science methodology on this discussion, maybe you'd like to start where any science approach should start, by not accepting anything he says as a new fundamental theory.

he has his sighted impressions and self confidence to conclude something totally extraordinary. and he recognizes himself the extraordinary nature of his statement, but instead of looking into where he probably messed up, he just goes on to make a nice marketing thing out of it.and perhaps he's right, seeing how you so readily accepted it(and of course you're not alone).
on the other side of the argument we have about everything that researchers have agreed upon so far when it comes to human hearing abilities. and the all thing very strongly suggests that perceiving changes -200dB below music is bollocks. not challenging, or requiring training or really special hearing, just bollocks. so when he adds that the perceived changes are obvious, that's really the last nail on the coffin for that anecdote.

a proper experiment would reveal that he can't hear crap. or that what he calls a change at -200dB ends up creating much louder changes at the output signal, and that's why it sounds audibly different. one or the other would still clearly disprove his statement. which is probably why he didn't rush to go demonstrate his extraordinary groundbreaking "discovery" through rigorous experiment to the scientific community.