[gregorio]

[1] Spoken like someone who believes they have all the answers and is interested in debating and 'winning', rather than in discussing in good faith with an open mind and possibly learning something. [1a] I don't waste time on such debates.

[2] Just because you missed my points, that doesn't mean everyone else did, and that's good enough for me.

1. True, I do not have an open mind that your intuition/belief could be correct while 70 years of proven maths is incorrect and none of the billions of devices which rely on it therefore work, but that's just me, I'm a bit close minded that way!
1a. That's exactly what your are doing and wasting our time as well!

2. Really, do you honestly think "everyone else" is agreeing with you? Maybe you need to try a more open minded forum, one which doesn't place any value in the most demonstrated of facts/science.

G

 

[bigshot]

Not that it counts as "an amp" but I'm sure you could hear what's wrong with the headphone output on my laptop. It's pretty shockingly bad.

I totally believe you on that. All computers don't sound the same. Some are just designed for being computers and the sound aspect is just an afterthought. Playing music isn't their intended purpose. However my experience tells me that all Macs sound the same. I've had a few dozen Mac products over the years, and all of them are audibly transparent. I also can see how high end woo woo audio might have colored sound to create a "house sound". I'm most interested in finding a plain vanilla midrange solid state amp that doesn't sound like every other plain vanilla midrange solid state amp. I'm not convinced that animal exists. It seems to me like most solid state consumer equipment is made with the same basic designs and the same basic off the shelf parts to produce a product that performs in the same basic range... below the level of audible transparency.

 

[castleofargh]

I'm amazed that people believe that a finite set of standard measurements is guaranteed to tell you everything about a physical system that could ever possibly be known about it. That's incredibly naïve.

Maybe this forum should be called Sound Ideology instead of Sound Science.

you keep steering the discussion toward circumstances where our knowledge might not be enough or where we didn't test enough, or where we might misinterpret data. which looks like what @KeithEmo says from afar, except he clearly states that the alternative should be better tests and better standards to improve our interpretation of the results. while you only seem to care about saying that basically we never really know anything for sure. and while true most of the time, it's also uncomfortably similar to the argumentation some random audiophile would use to discredit the test methods which have previously discredited his own empty claims.
you've been clear about your message from the start, I don't think anybody misunderstood the general idea. but now IMO you need to be clear about where you're trying to go with it. something is flawed, sure, how do we improve on it? what would be the better alternative? just saying it's not reliable enough when everything else is way worst, that's not helping anybody and it looks pushed by some agenda.
don't get me wrong, I'm not one to oppose skepticism, if anything I want more of it, all the time. but you do need to look at the whole picture. the big problem in this hobby isn't excessive confidence in scientific methods and controlled data. this can only be read as a sarcastic joke. instead the big problem in this hobby is that we can't even get professional reviewers to consistently match volume levels or to simply use a damn switch. and just forget about conducting a blind test, you can count audiophiles doing it on a regular basis on your fingers.
we're facing a quasi systematic rejection of controlled listening tests. just talking about blind test outside of this section or in many audio forums is frowned upon or plain forbidden. keep that in mind.

 

[bigshot]

"We don't know everything, so we can't know anything."

"Science doesn't know everything, so just trust your feelings."

"You don't know everything, so I am right."

"My subjective opinion is just as valid as your supported opinion."

"All opinions are equal."

 

[Phronesis]

Really, do you honestly think "everyone else" is agreeing with you?

You just illustrated my point. I said "just because you missed my points, that doesn't mean everyone else did ..." I did NOT say or imply that everyone else agreed with me. The fact that you missed this obvious distinction illustrates that you're not trying to understand, you just want to debate. It's unfortunate, because you're obviously smart and knowledgeable, and could be even more knowledgeable if you took a different attitude and considered that your understanding might be wrong or incomplete in some areas.

 

[castleofargh]

Right, it can't be emphasized enough that if you're talking recorded sound, the performance of equipment relative to the signal can be characterized exhaustively, because the signal itself is *created* using similar equipment. To put it another way - if measurement equipment misses some potentially audible phenomenon - so does the recording equipment. They're basically two names for the same thing. So if it's audible but not measurable, it's also not record-able. Oh well.

There's a lot of uncertainty about the exact amount of water in the solar system, there is some uncertainty about the exact amount of water on earth, but there is no uncertainty about how much water is in your glass, because you put it there. It's like that.



Not that it counts as "an amp" but I'm sure you could hear what's wrong with the headphone output on my laptop. It's pretty shockingly bad. Run a 50hz sine through it and see if you can keep your lunch down. I can PM you the model if you want.

And I still agree that tube amps *ought* to sound markedly different, like Keithemo said, otherwise what's the point? Maybe they don't, but that would be pretty disappointing.

Also, I just remembered, I had an old Radio Shack amp that was rated for about 50 watts or something. It sounded like hell. I am not sure if it was even meant for normal listening. But it clearly exhibited a lot ( A LOT) more distortion than the other amp I used for the application. Quite possibly not a 'properly designed' amp, and definitely not from this century. Oh well.

my laptop's headphone out is above 50ohm. it's easy to have unmistakable differences on more than half of my IEMs and headphones between it and a more typical low impedance amp. also I measure a crosstalk close to -40dB even when testing it unloaded, that's crap is no joke.


@KeithEmo, you quoted my post but wrote nothing. was it a mispost? I actually care about what you think about my extreme "we ain't got no time for empty claims" post. so if the answer got lost, I'd appreciate a rewrite please .

 

[Phronesis]

you keep steering the discussion toward circumstances where our knowledge might not be enough or where we didn't test enough, or where we might misinterpret data. which looks like what @KeithEmo says from afar, except he clearly states that the alternative should be better tests and better standards to improve our interpretation of the results. while you only seem to care about saying that basically we never really know anything for sure. and while true most of the time, it's also uncomfortably similar to the argumentation some random audiophile would use to discredit the test methods which have previously discredited his own empty claims.
you've been clear about your message from the start, I don't think anybody misunderstood the general idea. but now IMO you need to be clear about where you're trying to go with it. something is flawed, sure, how do we improve on it? what would be the better alternative? just saying it's not reliable enough when everything else is way worst, that's not helping anybody and it looks pushed by some agenda.
don't get me wrong, I'm not one to oppose skepticism, if anything I want more of it, all the time. but you do need to look at the whole picture. the big problem in this hobby isn't excessive confidence in scientific methods and controlled data. this can only be read as a sarcastic joke. instead the big problem in this hobby is that we can't even get professional reviewers to consistently match volume levels or to simply use a damn switch. and just forget about conducting a blind test, you can count audiophiles doing it on a regular basis on your fingers.
we're facing a quasi systematic rejection of controlled listening tests. just talking about blind test outside of this section or in many audio forums is frowned upon or plain forbidden. keep that in mind.

My issue is with people making sweeping and absolute claims that they "know" that every non-defective DAC, amp, cable, etc. "must" produce objectively equal sound for "all" listeners under all conditions on the basis of assumptions, theoretical arguments, and limited and/or flawed testing. It's on record that such claims have been made countless times. Yes, we should ideally do testing to determine objective differences, but there are issues with designing tests and making inferences from test results, not to mention paying for the tests. Yes, the answer is to do a lot more and better testing, but much easier said than done. I'm all for skepticism, and that skepticism should include skepticism about our own beliefs and understanding!

 

[colonelkernel8]

My issue is with people making sweeping and absolute claims that they "know" that every non-defective DAC, amp, cable, etc. "must" produce objectively equal sound for "all" listeners under all conditions on the basis of assumptions and theoretical arguments. It's on record that such claims have been made countless times. Yes, we should ideally do testing to determine objective differences, but there are issues with designing tests and making inferences from test results, not too mention paying for the tests. I'm all for skepticism, and that skepticism should include skepticism about our own beliefs and understanding!

This is getting tiresome. You claim our position is dogmatic, yet you can never supply the evidence that our easily falsifiable positions are incorrect. My claims aren't that sweeping. It boils down to this: devices that measure the same will sound the same. End of story. Prove me wrong. You can either specifically state what is missed in the measuring process (let's assume a full gamut of FR, THD+N, IMD, impulse response, output impedance, power, etc) that affects the audible range, or you can provide a DBT that proves audible differences. One doesn't need to perform a DBT in order to prove that a device is audibly transparent to everyone. It's why we measure things in the first place.

 

[bigshot]

My issue is with people making sweeping and absolute claims that they "know" that every non-defective DAC, amp, cable, etc. "must" produce objectively equal sound for "all" listeners under all conditions on the basis of assumptions, theoretical arguments, and limited and/or flawed testing.

Who is saying that?

I'm saying that for the purposes of listening to music in the home, you can go to Amazon and buy just about any regular amp, DAC or player they have on sale there and it will be audibly transparent. The best part of shopping at Amazon is if it isn't audibly transparent, returning it is a breeze. I've bought dozens and dozens of consumer audio products in the past decade or so, and I have checked every one of them out and they are audibly perfect for my purposes, which is listening to music in the home.

Transducers are a different story. Speakers and headphones are all over the map, and really good ones aren't necessarily cheap. Thankfully, I have made smart choices and I'm happy with my speakers and headphones now. A little EQ and they are perfect for my purposes.

When I first started out in this hobby it was different. Amps made noise. LPs had surface noise. Tapes had noise. Generation loss made noise. All of that noise stacked up and frequently crossed over into being audible under normal listening conditions. Digital has solved all those problems. We're living in a golden age of consumer electronics. You can go out and buy a $40 Walmart DVD player and it will produce sound that is audibly transparent. That is a thing to be celebrated!

The first post in this thread should be liberating to audio fans. It gives them a clear path to figuring out what they should worry about and what they shouldn't bother with. Sales pitch looks to magnify differences that don't matter to make one brand look better than another. When you know how to read specs, you have access to solid information, and you know the lay of the land quality-wise, you are armed and ready to make good decisions.

 

[Phronesis]

I will add, as I said in another thread, that I've heard significant differences in the sound of my DAC/amps, using various headphones and various tracks on many occasions. This surprised me and was against my expectations. Nor do I understand the reasons why. I was as skeptical as any of you before those listening tests. No, I haven't done blind testing for these particular comparisons due to difficulties in setting that up, but I intend to try. I'm open to the possibility that none of the differences I've heard are real. But I'm also open to the possibility that they're real, because of the consistency of my comparisons based on repeated listening. I also don't automatically dismiss reports by others of the differences they hear, though I certainly don't automatically accept them either. Hence my skepticism about some of the absolute claims made in this forum.

I'm not to trying to convince anyone that my observed differences are real, I'm just reporting my personal anecdotal experience. Meanwhile, until I gather more evidence, I intend to keep an open mind about those apparent differences being objectively real or not. For people who've done blind tests to make these types of comparisons, and haven't observed differences, I can understand that their skepticism would be heightened. But there are plausible reasons why one person might hear real differences that another person doesn't.

Maybe this will at least better explain where I'm coming from. If I had never heard the differences I did, I expect that my assumptions would be different.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I did NOT say or imply that everyone else agreed with me.
[2] The fact that you missed this obvious distinction illustrates that you're not trying to understand, you just want to debate.

1. I know you didn't, that's why I used a question mark, I was asking a question! If I were quoting you there would be no point in asking the question because you've already stated it. If everyone else is getting your points differently to me and no one else is agreeing with you either, then that's two sets of your point's everyone disagrees with. And you stated about that, "that's good enough for me". Impressive!

2. I didn't miss that distinction and so it does NOT illustrate what you are asserting. Furthermore, it's clear you being hypocritical because you are the one who is just using debating tactics, misrepresenting what has been stated, misrepresenting the context of what is being measured and/or ignoring the basic facts and carrying on anyway.

G

 

[bigshot]

Let us know what you find out when you find out when you start adding controls to your comparisons. And let us know how you plan to set up your tests. We can give you tips to avoid pitfalls. Bias is real and it’s powerful. I think you’re going to be surprised at what you find.

 

[Phronesis]

This is getting tiresome. You claim our position is dogmatic, yet you can never supply the evidence that our easily falsifiable positions are incorrect.

Why is it "our" position? Do you guys agree on everything, and are reluctant to challenge each other because you're members of a group which must adhere to a dogma, lest you'll be banished from group? In the world of actual science, real scientists challenge each other all the time, and that's part of how science evolves. Same thing in applied fields like engineering and medicine. Why should audio be different? I've read through some of the other threads in this forum, and it's indeed telling how rarely you guys challenge each other an anything.

Yes, it's tiresome engaging with people who's real goal is just to debate with newcomers who don't agree with their dogma.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Why is it "our" position? Do you guys agree on everything, and are reluctant to challenge each other because you're members of a group which must adhere to a dogma, lest you'll be banished from group? In the world of actual science, real scientists challenge each other all the time, and that's part of how science evolves. Same thing in applied fields like engineering and medicine. Why should audio be different? I've read through some of the other threads in this forum, and it's indeed telling how rarely you guys challenge each other an anything.

Yes, it's tiresome engaging with people who's real goal is just to debate with newcomers who don't agree with their dogma.

Ok, substitute in "my" and then try not to deflect. We do challenge each other all the time. There're just certain items we have a consensus view on. This is one of those things. The reason that we don't argue too much on these cases is that there is usually a rock in the shoe, you in this case, trying to stir up a debate without providing evidence aside from subjective experience. In these cases what value would we bring to the table if we started arguing about something that we generally share a 99% consensus view on?

You aren't challenging my position without providing evidence and just saying "it could be that way".

 

[Zapp_Fan]

I will add, as I said in another thread, that I've heard significant differences in the sound of my DAC/amps, using various headphones and various tracks on many occasions. This surprised me and was against my expectations. Nor do I understand the reasons why.

Hey just want to say I think this is turning more argumentative than it needs to be and you've been pretty reasonable so far IMO. Thanks for being open-minded and being willing to actually discuss.

The sound science folks can get touchy because it's very common for "subjectivity > science" folks to swing through here and stir up resentment, toss around old, bogus arguments, get personal about it, and the leave. So many of the regulars are in defense-mode a lot of the time, because a lot of defending needs to be done as a rule. I have found that most of these folks are pretty nice once they are satisfied you're not here to discredit the scientific method and prove the existence of magic.

As far as hearing differences among dacs/amps, the most likely culprits that jump to mind would be impedance mismatches or not level-matching to a high standard (i.e. within a decibel or so). Even positioning the headphones on your ears slightly differently could cause an audible difference - which highlights the difficulty of doing a "proper" test in a casual setting.

I say you deserve credit for any serious testing you're willing to do, it puts you ahead of 99% of people who treat audio as a hobby.