[Phronesis]

but if the experience isn't controlled, how are we supposed to know that it's not placebo? not that I'm against placebo or whatever other variable coming into play, but statements are being made about sound, so they better be about sound.
how do we know somebody's impressions are about sound in a non controlled situation? do we ask the guy "hey did you experience placebo?"? ^_^

I don't know if we can ever know for sure. Maybe the best we can do is to conduct lots of large well-designed studies with careful interpretation of the results, though we know that won't happen. When the 'measuring instrument' is the subjective, unreliable, and time-variable perception and reporting of a person, I think we inherently have a tough nut to crack.

That's why instead of searching for a 'truth' which may be unattainable, I try to take a pragmatic situational approach. When I bought the $500 Mojo, I didn't need to scrutinize the purchase much (bought it without even hearing it), because the cost wasn't too high, I was confident the sound at least wasn't significantly worse than other products in the price range, and I like the portability, power, looks, and functionality. I plan to try the $10K Dave, and there the bar will be set VERY high in terms of the level of scrutiny and skepticism - even if there seems to be a SQ difference I accurately perceive, it would need to be substantial to justify the cost.

 

[sonitus mirus]

I don't know if we can ever know for sure. Maybe the best we can do is to conduct lots of large well-designed studies with careful interpretation of the results, though we know that won't happen. When the 'measuring instrument' is the subjective, unreliable, and time-variable perception and reporting of a person, I think we inherently have a tough nut to crack.

That's why instead of searching for a 'truth' which may be unattainable, I try to take a pragmatic situational approach. When I bought the $500 Mojo, I didn't need to scrutinize the purchase much (bought it without even hearing it), because the cost wasn't too high, I was confident the sound at least wasn't significantly worse than other products in the price range, and I like the portability, power, looks, and functionality. I plan to try the $10K Dave, and there the bar will be set VERY high in terms of the level of scrutiny and skepticism - even if there seems to be a SQ difference I accurately perceive, it would need to be substantial to justify the cost.

You're skepticism is channeled in the wrong arena to be of much use to you when comparing equipment. It seems like you are trolling. Seriously. How would you know any difference would not be substantial to somebody, if not you. Why would you risk the Dave not sounding significantly superior? You may as well just get it. You don't know all there is to know, better be safe and just get the more expensive DAC that many claim to be spectacular.

 

[gregorio]

[1] No, I am not going to contradict anything any of the supercar makers did get right ...
[2] Regarding multimiking : yes, I have been to a live amplified gig - once or twice - hundred or thousand times. It is, unfortunately, inavoidable as far as the public adress system ...
[3] Unfortunately, it usually IS subject to total carnage trough multimiking - on the request of the performers themselves.

1. Then it's an utterly invalid analogy because you are not only contradicting the audio facts, you're actually completely inverting many of them!!

2. So if you know multi-miking is unavoidable at live gigs and multi-miking causes "carnage", why did you state ".. instead of the real sound as would be heard by a person attending the real music event played live." - A person attending a live gig will also hear this multi-mic'ing carnage. Your statements don't even make any logical/rational sense relative to each other, let alone to the facts! Either you're trolling or the alternative is worrisome/sad.

3. Clearly, you're in severe need of some basic education on mic'ing! Firstly, it does NOT cause "total carnage" it causes some relatively minor timing issues. Secondly, ALL mic'ing techniques have their advantages and disadvantages. Multi-miking schemes are chosen because it's advantages outweigh it's disadvantages and the advantages/disadvantages of other schemes in a particular circumstance. Also, it is NOT on the request of the performers themselves, unless maybe they're dealing with a complete noob engineer! And, why would the performers employ an engineer who knows less about engineering than they do? Again, what you're saying doesn't even make sense with itself, let alone the facts.

Acoustic music recordings do not necessitate ANY multimiking as default - which came into being simply because "artist man hour" costs can be appreciably reduced by using the usual "minefield" of many microphones/channels ...

Again, not only complete nonsense which you've just made-up but the exact opposite of the actual facts! How does a "minefield of mics/channels" reduce time and costs? Whether you've got 1 mic or 30 mics makes no difference whatsoever to the amount of time required of the artist but OBVIOUSLY, it requires a great deal more time (and equipment) to setup, test, record, edit and mix 30 mics than it does 1!! There are many reasons we use milti-mic'ing but reducing cost is NOT one of them, because it costs more. You plainly don't even know the fundamental basics of recording/mic'ing, you must be aware you've got little/no experience or knowledge and I'm obviously aware you don't, so what do you hope to achieve? Why keep posting nonsense, here of all places, that we both know you're just making-up and why argue with someone who deals with mic'ing for a living. It doesn't make any sense unless you're trolling or are very seriously delusional, what other option is there?

G

 

[gregorio]

I don't know if we can ever know for sure.

Again, you're just going round in circles. Before you used the term "settled" and now you're just saying the same thing again with the term "know for sure". You never answered my question, do you know for sure that someone can't run 100m in say 0.09secs? If so, how?

G

 

[skwoodwiva]

G

"
1. Then it's an utterly invalid analogy because you are not only contradicting the audio facts, you're actually completely inverting many of them!!

2. So if you know multi-miking is unavoidable at live gigs and multi-miking causes "carnage", why did you state ".. instead of the real sound as would be heard by a person attending the real music event played live." - A person attending a live gig will also hear this multi-mic'ing carnage. Your statements don't even make any logical/rational sense relative to each other, let alone to the facts! Either you're trolling or the alternative is worrisome/sad.
"

If I may venture, I am sure P meant a non amplification setting of passive instruments .


You need to be less accusatory , Sir

 

[Phronesis]

Again, you're just going round in circles. Before you used the term "settled" and now you're just saying the same thing again with the term "know for sure". You never answered my question, do you know for sure that someone can't run 100m in say 0.09secs? If so, how?

G

I'm extremely confident that no one can do it. That's as close to "sure" as I need to be on that question. I'm a lot less confident that there are no differences between 'decent' DACs which could make real audible differences that some people would consider significant. See how that works? We don't actually have to have certainty to make decisions and function in the world.

There was a time when everyone thought time is absolute in the universe, and passes the same way for all observers. It was quite a leap for someone to imagine that the observed passage of time could be relative in a way that respective clocks wouldn't remain synchronized. Sometimes things which seem impossible based on our current understanding turn out to be possible when we have a better understanding. Audio isn't necessarily an exception.

 

[bigshot]

I try to take a pragmatic situational approach. When I bought the $500 Mojo, I didn't need to scrutinize the purchase much (bought it without even hearing it), because the cost wasn't too high, I was confident the sound at least wasn't significantly worse than other products in the price range

So in other words you took it on faith.

 

[gregorio]

I'm extremely confident that no one can do it. That's as close to "sure" as I need to be on that question.

Thanks for answering, now what about the second question: How/Why are you extremely confident and as close to sure as you need to be? The 100m world record (9.58 secs) is not conducted under the most favourable conditions (unlike many audibility tests), say with a very strong following wind and a downhill course and not everyone has been tested, so why do you feel "sure" 100m in 0.09secs is impossible?

G

 

[bigshot]

I'm extremely confident that we are being trolled.

 

[Phronesis]

Thanks for answering, now what about the second question: How/Why are you extremely confident and as close to sure as you need to be? The 100m world record (9.58 secs) is not conducted under the most favourable conditions (unlike many audibility tests), say with a very strong following wind and a downhill course and not everyone has been tested, so why do you feel "sure" 100m in 0.09secs is impossible?

G

It's a quick intuitive judgment. I didn't try to construct a rational argument for it.

 

[Phronesis]

So in other words you took it on faith.

Partly. The consistently glowing anecdotal reports/review also tipped me in favor of the Mojo over other products in the price range.

Even science relies to some extent on 'faith' by making working assumptions which can't be 'proven'. Nothing wrong with that, we don't really have any other good choice.

 

[bigshot]

This is turning into a Monty Python sketch!

 

[Phronesis]

A hypothesis: one of the key factors which segregates people in this forum is tolerance for uncertainty. Some people often refer to facts, logic, proof, objectivity, etc. Others think and talk more in terms of evidence, complexity, uncertainty, limits of knowledge, evolution of ideas, subjectivity, etc.

IMO, each mode has situations where it should be the dominant mode, but of course there will be disagreement about that when it comes to audio, along predictable lines ...

 

[bigshot]

Do you try to dominate the discussion like this at the dinner table too? What does your family think of that?

 

[gregorio]

It's a quick intuitive judgment.

So, you've made a quick intuitive judgment that it's impossible for someone to run 100m one hundred times below what has ever been measured under non-optimal conditions but your same intuitive judgment is that you're not sure if someone can hear one THOUSAND times (or more!) below what has ever been measured under OPTIMAL conditions. How do you explain that? Seems to me you must have a problem/contradiction with your intuitive judgment.

G