[bigshot]

I'm only interested in differences that exist under normal use and that are big enough to be heard and matter. Differences at the bleeding edge of audibility aren't what make one audio system in the home sound better than another one. My purpose is to make my sound systems sound better. When someone describes a difference between DACs as "clearly audible" or "not at all subtle", they get my attention. I'm not interested in noise floors at -65dB as opposed to -70dB or response deviations of less than a dB above 17kHz. I have a good idea of what "audible" means and how it measures. Not everyone in Head-Fi does, so they rely on rhetorical and theoretical arguments that make no impact on the way a sound system actually sounds playing music in your living room.

Too many people use the difficulty of tighter and tighter control over minute theoretical differences as an excuse to not control at all. Or they get all invested in obtuse theoretical concepts that make absolutely no audible difference (like jitter). Or they throw their hands in the air and let a salesman convince them that if they throw more money at it, they will solve all their problems. All that stuff is a waste of time. We want to play music. We want the music to sound good. I focus on what makes music sound good. I do that by listening and analyzing and applying scientific principles to see if they make an improvement or not.

 

[KeithEmo]

As a philosophy, that makes perfect sense, however science is not always limited to practicality.

I can't order a new "Fusion Man" to power my electric car, so LASER triggered fusion doesn't matter much to me as a car owner.
And, if someone were to offer to sell me one for $500, I would be quite doubtful of their honesty.
However, as someone interested in science, I still find articles about the latest CERN project on controlled fusion interesting.
(And the fact that I can't do any fusion experiments, because I lack the proper permits, and a few billion dollars, doesn't change that.)

What you're talking about I would term "consumer product science" or perhaps even "practical science".
However, we need to always make it clear that's what we're talking about.

For example, I very much doubt I could hear a 0.1% speed error on a turntable...
But I'm told that, to some few people who have "perfect pitch", it can be quite annoying.
So, if someone were to claim that they could hear it, I might doubt their claim, but I would not assume they were wrong.
I would probably respond with something like:
"Most people can't hear that, and most records aren't recorded that accurately anyway, but you may be one of the few who can."

Likewise, you may not notice a noise floor at -65 dB, but that doesn't mean that it won't annoy someone else.
I've spoken to plenty of customers who were quite disappointed at how "noisy" their amplifier was with a S/N of "only" 105 dB.
(Because they actually heard some hiss, when they put their ear six inches from their speaker, which was 103 dB efficient.)

Personally I'm always very careful to say exactly what I mean.
And that does include the difference between stating something as an absolute or not.
That's why I use words like "most", and "usually", and "probably" so often.
Educating the less knowledgeable is a laudable goal.
However, you need to be careful to avoid "easy generalizations", which can sometimes do more harm than good.

Being taught in school that: "we have high tides because the oceans are attracted towards the moon" was a nice generalization.
Of course, as soon as you realize that there is also a high tide ON THE SIDE AWAY FROM THE MOON....
You start to wonder how much of the other stuff they taught you isn't strictly true.....

I'm only interested in differences that exist under normal use and that are big enough to be heard and matter. Differences at the bleeding edge of audibility aren't what make one audio system in the home sound better than another one. My purpose is to make my sound systems sound better. When someone describes a difference between DACs as "clearly audible" or "not at all subtle", they get my attention. I'm not interested in noise floors at -65dB as opposed to -70dB or response deviations of less than a dB above 17kHz. I have a good idea of what "audible" means and how it measures. Not everyone in Head-Fi does, so they rely on rhetorical and theoretical arguments that make no impact on the way a sound system actually sounds playing music in your living room.

Too many people use the difficulty of tighter and tighter control over minute theoretical differences as an excuse to not control at all. Or they get all invested in obtuse theoretical concepts that make absolutely no audible difference (like jitter). Or they throw their hands in the air and let a salesman convince them that if they throw more money at it, they will solve all their problems. All that stuff is a waste of time. We want to play music. We want the music to sound good. I focus on what makes music sound good. I do that by listening and analyzing and applying scientific principles to see if they make an improvement or not.

 

[bigshot]

I don't have any particular interest in abstract theories and "what ifs". You can entertain them if you like, but I'm going to move on and just wait for someone to do a decent listening test that indicates that some DACs sound different. I've done dozens of tests myself and I know what my results are.

If I wanted vague subjective impressions and people claiming to be able to hear the inaudible while steadfastly refusing to do a careful listening test, I could get my fill of that outside of Sound Science. I have other things to do than to waste my time with that BS.

 

[Phronesis]

I don't have any particular interest in abstract theories and "what ifs". You can entertain them if you like, but I'm going to move on and just wait for someone to do a decent listening test that indicates that some DACs sound different. I've done dozens of tests myself and I know what my results are.

If I wanted vague subjective impressions and people claiming to be able to hear the inaudible while steadfastly refusing to do a careful listening test, I could get my fill of that outside of Sound Science. I have other things to do than to waste my time with that BS.

Theory is a part of science, and all observation is theory-laden. Data without a context of theory isn't really even data.

I don't think you're really interested in science, you're interested in practical ways to make your gear sound good to you - i.e., practical ways to use technology. That's fine, but then don't limit "science" to that.

 

[bigshot]

There are things that make a difference to stereo systems and things that are just mental monkeyshines. I leave armchair science to people who own smoking jackets and ascots. I'm more interested in applied science. Especially when the theoretical concepts being mused upon have never proven themselves to make any difference in the real world and only end up costing a lot more money.

There's a fine line between theoretical science and snake oil. Jitter is a perfect example of that. It's entirely possible to be a very smart person and still be a total fool.

 

[Jaywalk3r]

Theory is a part of science, and all observation is theory-laden. Data without a context of theory isn't really even data.

This is not only not right, it is not even wrong. -Wolfgang Pauli

 

[Zapp_Fan]

One thing we struggle with on here is varying levels of interest.

Bigshot's threshold for interest: A phenomenon that can reliably be heard by a normal adult, under normal listening conditions, listening to normal recordings of rock / classical / jazz music.

My threshold for interest: A phenomenon that can be heard by a slightly-above-average adult under strictly controlled, near-ideal conditions, listening to edge-case audio.

Some people's threshold for interest: A phenomenon that probably can't, but might be audible to an ideal-hearing adult under theoretically perfect conditions, listening to nothing but the phenomenon itself.

Audiophool's level of interest: A phenomenon that doesn't even have an intelligible theoretical link to actual audibility, and may not actually exist in the first place.

It's maybe worth pointing out that the 3rd and 4th levels of interest are very different. One person is interested in the outer limits of science, another has left the science building entirely. In these discussions I think there is a tendency to attribute "type 4" interest to someone who is merely in the "type 3" camp.

One reason for my lower threshold for interest is it's personally interesting to me, one is that I listen to "edge case" audio for enjoyment, and one is that part of my job is to look into the overlooked areas for improvement in audio. Just because something doesn't show up in a given null test or THD measurement doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So I like to take a broader view to make sure I haven't missed an actual business opportunity. You don't make progress without walking down a few dead ends.

While it's fine to be uninterested in a certain maybe-audible-maybe-not phenomenon, I don't find it helpful when discussions get shut down because the effect in question is of questionable relevance to everyday use cases.

 

[Phronesis]

This is not only not right, it is not even wrong. -Wolfgang Pauli

Well then, you just discredited yourself in my eyes. I don't know your background, you seem to be more interested in numbers and stats than science.

 

[Jaywalk3r]

you seem to be more interested in numbers and stats than science.

The numbers and stats are not easily removed from science, as anyone familiar with science would tell you. Mathematics is the language of science, and statistics is the language of scientific research.

The part of your post that I quoted was nonsensical, self-inconsistent gibberish.

 

[Phronesis]

The numbers and stats are not easily removed from science, as anyone familiar with science would tell you. Mathematics is the language of science, and statistics is the language of scientific research.

The part of your post that I quoted was nonsensical, self-inconsistent gibberish.

Again, you misunderstand. I didn't dismiss numbers and stats, I noted the role of theory. Regarding what you quoted, "if I have to explain it, you wont understand."

 

[Jaywalk3r]

Again, you misunderstand. I didn't dismiss numbers and stats, I noted the role of theory. Regarding what you quoted, "if I have to explain it, you wont understand."

Since what you wrote contradicted itself, we can safely dismiss it as nonsense.

 

[Phronesis]

Since what you wrote contradicted itself, we can safely dismiss it as nonsense.

Where is the contradiction?

 

[bigshot]

I listen to "edge case" audio for enjoyment

You listen to square waves and test tones for enjoyment?!!

My point of view is that home audio electronics solved the problems of sound reproduction as far as DACs and amps and players go with the refinement of digital technology in the mid 1980s. Since then, the industry has been pushing the boundaries further, doubling down on specs and pushing to improve them far beyond the threshold of audibility. That would be fine if we were talking about edge case applications, like communication with the Mars rover or sending the London Philharmonic through the trans-Atlantic cable, but for the purposes of the portable rig in your backpack or the stereo in your living room it's about as useful as teats on a bull hog.

Manufacturers have been forced to differentiate themselves from the competition by arguing that things that don't matter at all just MIGHT matter in SOME extreme circumstances. People with OCD grab onto that and just to be safe, they add a little noodge to their requirements, and then another, and another... The manufacturers happily go along with this game of diminished returns upon depleted returns as long as the money keeps rolling in. They use testimonials from clueless people in advertising to justify the pointless charade. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

That is the road that leads to audiophoolery, and we are all soaking in it. The truth is that you don't need any more sound quality than your ears can hear, and a $40 Walmart DVD player can produce that just as good as a high end SACD player. The cables that came with your player sound exactly the same as the 14K unobtanium cables that cost a fortune. And as long as your amp has enough power to push your transducers, it doesn't have to be a $10K liquid cooled monoblock. This whole hobby is a big mass of BS and the irony is that the victims of all this- the consumers who are being misled- are complicit in misleading others by repeating the BS they were told to other potential victims. Clueless individuals in internet forums convince other clueless individuals that if they want to sleep well at night and not worry about the potential theoretical sound that they might be missing, they had better buy the latest and greatest... To me, self abuse is still abuse. Even if someone says they enjoy it.

It isn't a "gimme" that if you go out and buy something it will sound great. There are things people really need to know and priorities that really matter. But that isn't what gets discussed in internet forums. People are too busy arguing about things that just don't matter at all like cables and DACs and amps.

I try to be patient with all this stuff, but I get to the point where I can't suffer fools gladly any more. Everyone gets a chance to be practical, straightforward and truthful and share what they know about. When they prove themselves incapable of that, then I move on and try to find someone who doesn't have their head planted quite that deep.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

You listen to square waves and test tones for enjoyment?!

Damn close. I have listened to entire Ryoji Ikeda albums straight through. And a favorite tune of mine, The Rub Off by Plump DJs features a lot of unipolar impulse-like sounds. They actually really suffer from lossy encoding and the song quickly (and audibly) loses its unique snap if played on less-than-amazing equipment.

I don't do this all the time, but in general I have always enjoyed some relatively extreme types of electronic music that make artistic use of signals that are a whole lot more like a test tone than a piano.

And as a synth / music hobbyist, I have probably spent enough time listening to tones to technically qualify myself as an honorary oscilloscope. So to me, the idea of listening to pure tones and caring about my gear's performance in that context is totally sensible.

I'm not saying everyone needs to make that a priority, but I do have my reasons.

 

[Jaywalk3r]

Where is the contradiction?

"Data without a context of theory isn't [sic] really even data."

Data without the context of theory aren't really even data. Well, what are they, because you declared that they are data in the subject of your sentence. So they are data, while simultaneously being not-data? What, exactly, are data that are not data? In science, logical consistency is highly valued.

The first part is in dire need of definitions for your new terminologies. It's presently too ambiguous to mean anything at all.