[bluenight]

I don't think you watched the video because it doesn't talk about that at all. It's talking about reconstruction errors which becomes noise during reconstruction. This error happens for all digital audio. The case it's making for 192kHz audio makes sense - less aggressive filters can be used if your bandwidth is 192kHz to prevent the filters for leaking over to the audible range.

No, nothing is perfect except digital: it either is all right, or all wrong. That's why CRCs exist - if it's wrong, you let the sender know so they resend.

Are you being daft on purpose?

No it doesn't - there's a buffer. Ethernet does not work in real-time. No digital signals can work instantaneously since there's discrete time for information sent. In fact, for low-latency applications, that actually is a problem.

https://www.presonus.com/learn/technical-articles/Digital-Audio-Latency-Explained

Also, you're misapplying what the video is talking about completely, so that's a complete non-sequitur.



Did you watch the video? Doesn't talk about transfer at all - he's assuming that the data has already arrived perfectly, and is talking about reconstruction.

I actually watched his other videos, and they seem to be fairly objective and accurate. Some of the titles are a bit out there, but the explanations themselves are quite rational. Was there anything of him that contradicts this?

Maybe this post was missed? I dident receieve alert of gregorios post last sunday. Shows data errors acure but has maybe something to do with the maintanence of site.

Old post below

Some more why it can sound different.



Also i think this has something to do with it. Inspired by tellurium q cable aproach. Basicaly the chemical mixture on atom level in signal path can influence the electricitys movement influencing sound. If i understand it right.
https://telluriumq.com/our-focus/

"When Tellurium Q® was set up the focus was primarily on the idea of phase distortion and minimising this problem inherent in all cabling, whoever makes them and wherever and however they are made. The reason it is a problem is simple, all materials (not just cables) in the path of a signal will act as an electronic filter according to the definition in the box below, whether you want it to or not. This is undeniable. It is obvious from research that there is an impact of the “naturalness” of vocals for instance.
We think about cables as a filter as outlined by its scientific definition and not necessarily as something being “filtered out”, like with a mechanical sieve. According to Bell labs way back in 1930 working on phase distortion and its impact on speech, they found that when comparing a system that had negligible phase distortion with one that had, “it is noticed that the distorted speech is accompanied by certain audible effects which appear to be extraneous to the speech and transient in character”.
This is the definition of an electronic filter:
“A filter is an electrical network that alters the amplitude and/or phase characteristics of a signal with respect to frequency. Ideally, a filter will not add new frequencies to the input signal, nor will it change the component frequencies of that signal, but it will change the relative amplitudes of the various frequency components and/or their phase relationships.”
Source: National Semiconductor Corporation
N.B. This is true of all speakers, amplifiers, DACs, CD players, cables etc…in fact anything in the signal path.
Once you accept the fact that your audio system is acting as multiple electronic filters smudging your music, then you have a choice:
a. Forget the cable is an electronic filter (completely in the face of science) and compromise by having a smeared sound or
b. Do something about it and try to engineer as clear a path for the signal as possible to get the most natural sound that current technology will allow. Although it is not possible to get perfect signal reproduction with current technology (that we are aware of) to completely negate the effect of capacitance, induction etc on phase relationships in a signal."

 

[dazzerfong]

Maybe this post was missed? I dident receieve alert of gregorios post last sunday. Shows data errors acure but has maybe something to do with the maintanence of site.

Old post below

Some more why it can sound different.



Also i think this has something to do with it. Inspired by tellurium q cable aproach. Basicaly the chemical mixture on atom level in signal path can influence the electricitys movement influencing sound. If i understand it right.
https://telluriumq.com/our-focus/

"When Tellurium Q® was set up the focus was primarily on the idea of phase distortion and minimising this problem inherent in all cabling, whoever makes them and wherever and however they are made. The reason it is a problem is simple, all materials (not just cables) in the path of a signal will act as an electronic filter according to the definition in the box below, whether you want it to or not. This is undeniable. It is obvious from research that there is an impact of the “naturalness” of vocals for instance.
We think about cables as a filter as outlined by its scientific definition and not necessarily as something being “filtered out”, like with a mechanical sieve. According to Bell labs way back in 1930 working on phase distortion and its impact on speech, they found that when comparing a system that had negligible phase distortion with one that had, “it is noticed that the distorted speech is accompanied by certain audible effects which appear to be extraneous to the speech and transient in character”.
This is the definition of an electronic filter:
“A filter is an electrical network that alters the amplitude and/or phase characteristics of a signal with respect to frequency. Ideally, a filter will not add new frequencies to the input signal, nor will it change the component frequencies of that signal, but it will change the relative amplitudes of the various frequency components and/or their phase relationships.”
Source: National Semiconductor Corporation
N.B. This is true of all speakers, amplifiers, DACs, CD players, cables etc…in fact anything in the signal path.
Once you accept the fact that your audio system is acting as multiple electronic filters smudging your music, then you have a choice:
a. Forget the cable is an electronic filter (completely in the face of science) and compromise by having a smeared sound or
b. Do something about it and try to engineer as clear a path for the signal as possible to get the most natural sound that current technology will allow. Although it is not possible to get perfect signal reproduction with current technology (that we are aware of) to completely negate the effect of capacitance, induction etc on phase relationships in a signal."

You are mixing up analog and digital principles. While you may have a point about analog cables and filters, this is completely a non-sequitur for digital cables, especially since if you have a filter in it you have just ignored the standards the cable's supposed to follow.

With Tellurium, those guys are bunk. Know how I know? They're using completely valid scientific facts, with proven metrics on objectively characterising them, and providing none of those metrics. That's like saying 'our product is a good paperweight, but we're not gonna tell you how heavy it is'.

Thing is, cables are a filter, they're not wrong. What they're wrong about is the degree to which cables are a filter.

Also, thanks for showing me that video - that one completely invalidates my earlier remarks about Hans. The reason he 'supposedly' sees changes comes back to my point - poorly engineered products that are susceptible to outside influence. It's got nothing to do with data transfer.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I dident receieve alert of gregorios post last sunday. Shows data errors acure but has maybe something to do with the maintanence of site.
[2] Old post below ... Some more why it can sound different.

1. What data errors? Was the message I posted or the alert you received garbled or different from what was sent? So, not only don't you know what digital data actually is, by YOUR OWN ADMISSION, but unsurprisingly you don't know what data errors are either. What is surprising (ridiculous even!), is that you continue to argue about something you admit you don't know about!

2. How does repeat posting the same marketing BS show "why it can sound different"?

[1] "According to Bell labs way back in 1930 working on phase distortion and its impact on speech, they found that when comparing a system that had negligible phase distortion with one that had, “it is noticed that the distorted speech is accompanied by certain audible effects which appear to be extraneous to the speech and transient in character”."
[2] This is the definition of an electronic filter:
“A filter is an electrical network that alters the amplitude and/or phase characteristics of a signal with respect to frequency. Ideally, a filter will not add new frequencies to the input signal, nor will it change the component frequencies of that signal, but it will change the relative amplitudes of the various frequency components and/or their phase relationships.”
Source: National Semiconductor Corporation
N.B. This is true of all speakers, amplifiers, DACs, CD players, cables etc…in fact anything in the signal path.
[3] Once you accept the fact that your audio system is acting as multiple electronic filters smudging your music, then you have a choice:
a. Forget the cable is an electronic filter (completely in the face of science) and [3a1] compromise by having a smeared sound or
b. Do something about it and try to engineer as clear a path for the signal as possible to get the most natural sound that current technology will allow.

1. So the OBVIOUS question is: Are generic cables producing "negligible phase distortion" (and therefore NO audible effects) or significant amounts of phase distortion? Why don't you measure and find out for yourself and/or look-up the measurements others have posted?

2. Wow, you've actually posted some correct information from a reliable source for a change! Unfortunately though, the correct information was contained in a page of marketing BS which LIES about it!!!!

3. Correct, "you have a choice":
a. This is a LIE, "the face of science" in fact states the exact opposite!! You can indeed forget the cable is a filter, unless the filter effects are significant (not negligible).
3a1. "Having a smeared sound" is NOT a "compromise", it's actually called "high fidelity"!! As National Semiconductor Corp states, "anything in the signal path ... will change the relative frequency components and/or their phase relationships", so in addition to those items mentioned it obviously must also include: Microphones, mic pre-amps, all the countless meters of various (non-audiophile) cables and all the numerous processes applied during mixing; EQ, compression, reverb, etc. (which result in a massive amount of "smear" relative to what occurs in cables). So, the music recordings you buy are "having a smeared sound" to start with! A cable OBVIOUSLY can't remove that and even if by some magic it could, why would you want it to? Don't you want a high fidelity reproduction of what the musicians/engineers created, heard themselves and intended?
b. No, you do NOT have to "try to engineer as clear a path as possible", just a signal path as clear as is audible! Such a signal path would be audibly transparent and "trying to engineer" beyond that point is, by definition, "inaudible". If you want to pay 10 or 100 times more for an inaudible difference, that's up to you ... but of course you can't claim that an inaudible difference is audible! (unless apparently you're the person responsible for making-up Tellerium's snake-oil marketing BS!)

What you've quoted and stated, AGAIN demonstrates absolutely no understanding of digital audio. In fact, you've demonstrated that you think digital audio is actually analogue audio. If that were true, then there is only analogue audio and digital audio doesn't exist. Is that really what you're claiming?

While you may have a point about analog cables and filters, this is completely a non-sequitur for digital cables, especially since if you have a filter in it you have just ignored the standards the cable's supposed to follow.

Actually, this isn't really the case, in fact it's rather the other way around. At the extremely high frequencies of digital data signals (100 MegaHertz and higher in the case of ethernet), the cables (and the signal transmitter) DO have a significant filter/distortion effect! However, in the case of digital data signals, there is a third (and this time true!) choice/option that Tellurium doesn't mention:

c. Design the system/protocol to specifically operate with a filtered/distorted digital signal to start with!

Theoretically, the digital signal is a square wave (on/off or high/low voltage pulses). In practice though, the filter/distortion effect of the cable (and other components) results in the square wave actually ending up looking like this (when superimposed):

That's significant distortion, it doesn't look like square waves at all, it looks more like the shape of an "eye". However, what actually happens is option "c.". The ethernet, USB and other digital signal protocols specify the reception of an "eye-pattern", NOT a square wave! So, there's two huge problems/fallacies with the assertions of @bluenight :

Firstly, none of the audiophile companies provide the measurements which would prove/demonstrate their cables actually result in less filter/distortion effects to start with (I wonder why?), AND Secondly, even if we assume their cables DO result in significantly less filter/distortion (and therefore less of an "eye pattern" and more of a square wave), that would obviously be a bad thing (or at very best, no better), because the ethernet and other digital signal protocols don't specify/require a square wave, they specify an "eye pattern"!

G

 

[bluenight]

You are mixing up analog and digital principles. While you may have a point about analog cables and filters, this is completely a non-sequitur for digital cables, especially since if you have a filter in it you have just ignored the standards the cable's supposed to follow.

With Tellurium, those guys are bunk.

They said all cables maybe they express it sloppy so there claim could be for digital cables too. And i know they make digital cables too.
Also they mentioned dacs which is digital but maybe they thought about the analogue domain in the dac after it done its job.

"This is true of all speakers, amplifiers, DACs, CD players, cables etc…in fact anything in the signal path.
Once you accept the fact that your audio system is acting as multiple electronic filters “smudging” your music, then you have a choice:"

 

[TiJo]

Why do you trust them, but not the @gregorio who demonstrates to be knowledgeable and moreover provides facts that can be verified more or less easily?

 

[gregorio]

[1] They said all cables maybe they express it sloppy so there claim could be for digital cables too. And i know they make digital cables too.
[2] Also they mentioned dacs which is digital but maybe they thought about the analogue domain in the dac after it done its job.
[3] "This is true of all speakers, amplifiers, DACs, CD players, cables etc…in fact anything in the signal path. Once you accept the fact that your audio system is acting as multiple electronic filters “smudging” your music, then you have a choice:"

1. Yes, a filter effect does happen in "digital cables too". The fact you're ignoring is that it's required to; Ethernet, USB and the other digital signal protocols ALL REQUIRE that filter effect to occur, to change a square wave into an "eye pattern". Didn't you read the last message I posted?

2. Yes, it occurs in the digital signal that enters the DAC chip and in the analogue signal that exits the DAC chip. In the case of an analogue signal, you have to ask if the filter effect is negligible (inaudible) or significant (audible), as Tellurium themselves quoted from Bell Labs in 1930!

3. Here, Tellurium is obviously talking about analogue signals because a digital signal does NOT represent "music". There is no music that contains only a 100MHz square wave because firstly it wouldn't be music, Secondly, no audio DAC, amp, speakers or HPs can reproduce anywhere near a 100MHz square wave anyway and Thirdly, as a human being, you can't hear anything beyond about 20Kilo-Hz, let alone 100Mega-Hz. If Tellurium were also talking about digital cables, then they failed to mention choice "c.", the actual choice taken by the Ethernet design engineers (and ratified by the ISO), as explained in my previous post!!

G

 

[bluenight]

That's significant distortion, it doesn't look like square waves at all, it looks more like the shape of an "eye". However, what actually happens is option "c.". The ethernet, USB and other digital signal protocols specify the reception of an "eye-pattern", NOT a square wave!

It looks like its mirroring the
movement. And how doesent it get confused whether its a one or a zero it looks like they become one and zero at the same time?

It cant become one and zero at the same time can it without error?

 

[bluenight]

Hans thought this was the best sounding switch he have tried better and cheaper then sotm switch. I like the internal pics of the parts he shows often in his reviews. It looks well designed to minimise noise creeping in the system.

Also whoever took the time to design it cant be a loony wasting time and effort on designing it if it wouldent result in an audible difference i think.

Hans admitetly said the sotm $1000 switch and some power suply changes maybe was not worth paying for though for little sound improvement.

 

[gregorio]

[1[ And how doesent it get confused whether its a one or a zero it looks like they become one and zero at the same time?
[2] It cant become one and zero at the same time can it without error?

1. You have failed to read what has been written! The "eye pattern" is a measurement of several/many bits (pseudo square waves) SUPERIMPOSED on top of one another, so that differences between them can be measured/observed, differences in timing, rise time, eye height, etc. Hence the different colours, representing the distribution of the measured bits. The purple colour for example, shows the greatest but least common variation. And, how do you think that ethernet can't work with the "eye pattern" that the ethernet standard itself specifies ... why would they specify it in the first place? This doesn't make ANY sort of sense, let alone common or simple logical sense!

2. Even if you personally don't know and can't be bothered to read or don't have the modicum of intelligence required to understand the basic facts of digital signalling, think about the SIMPLE LOGIC: If what you are suggesting were true, there would be constant errors, which would make every ethernet network (and every other digital transfer protocol on the planet) effectively useless, so no one would buy ethernet networks or any digital device that relies on transferring digital data (which is ALL of them)! How is it possible that not only don't you understand the basic facts of digital signalling (even AFTER it's been explained) but that you ALSO can't grasp simple logic???

[1] Hans thought this was the best sounding switch he have tried better and cheaper then sotm switch.
[1a] I like the internal pics of the parts he shows often in his reviews. It looks well designed to minimise noise creeping in the system.
[2] Also whoever took the time to design it cant be a loony wasting time and effort on designing it if it wouldent result in an audible difference i think.
[3] Hans admitetly said the sotm $1000 switch and some power suply changes maybe was not worth paying for though for little sound improvement.

1. And clearly he's delusional because an ethernet switch isn't carrying any sound. How many times?
1a. And again, you are contradicting even the sources you YOURSELF have quoted! Mark Jenkins stated "It is true that transporting bits data from one storage medium in one place to another storage medium in another place is easy. What is stored at the destination is only the data, no noise or jitter."

2. You have that backwards! Designing a piece of equipment with a component cost of probably less than $20 and then suckering people into paying $1000 for it, is NOT a "loony wasting time", it's a potentially lucrative use of time! In addition, there have been countless audiophile products over several decades which even the audiophile world itself managed to recognise were/are snake-oil (no audible difference). So AGAIN, using SIMPLE LOGIC, either there are obviously loonies designing audiophile products which result in no audible difference OR, contrary to even the audiophile world, you believe no audiophile product is ever snake oil.

3. Why do you insist on repeatedly trying to support marketing BS by quoting marketing BS? Would you try to support an argument that the original snake-oil actually worked by quoting the marketing BS of those who made snake-oil and those deliberately promoting it? Hans states that he's been in the audio business for several decades. If that's true, he must know that a "Null test" is a precise measurement of ALL differences and be able to perform one (as it's cheap and relatively easy). As he doesn't even mention a null test, let alone provide the results of one, he is DELIBERATELY ignoring the actual (objective) facts and promoting marketing BS!

How is it possible to keep: Contradicting the simple basic facts, contradict even those you yourself have quoted, contradict even the most simple logic/common sense and instead, rely on marketing BS? There's only two possible answers I can think of!

G

 

[bluenight]

1. You have failed to read what has been written! The "eye pattern" is a measurement of several/many bits (pseudo square waves) SUPERIMPOSED on top of one another, so that differences between them can be measured/observed, differences in timing, rise time, eye height, etc. Hence the different colours, representing the distribution of the measured bits. The purple colour for example, shows the greatest but least common variation. And, how do you think that ethernet can't work with the "eye pattern" that the ethernet standard itself specifies ... why would they specify it in the first place? This doesn't make ANY sort of sense, let alone common or simple logical sense!

2. Even if you personally don't know and can't be bothered to read or don't have the modicum of intelligence required to understand the basic facts of digital signalling, think about the SIMPLE LOGIC: If what you are suggesting were true, there would be constant errors, which would make every ethernet network (and every other digital transfer protocol on the planet) effectively useless, so no one would buy ethernet networks or any digital device that relies on transferring digital data (which is ALL of them)! How is it possible that not only don't you understand the basic facts of digital signalling (even AFTER it's been explained) but that you ALSO can't grasp simple logic???



1. And clearly he's delusional because an ethernet switch isn't carrying any sound. How many times?
1a. And again, you are contradicting even the sources you YOURSELF have quoted! Mark Jenkins stated "It is true that transporting bits data from one storage medium in one place to another storage medium in another place is easy. What is stored at the destination is only the data, no noise or jitter."

2. You have that backwards! Designing a piece of equipment with a component cost of probably less than $20 and then suckering people into paying $1000 for it, is NOT a "loony wasting time", it's a potentially lucrative use of time! In addition, there have been countless audiophile products over several decades which even the audiophile world itself managed to recognise were/are snake-oil (no audible difference). So AGAIN, using SIMPLE LOGIC, either there are obviously loonies designing audiophile products which result in no audible difference OR, contrary to even the audiophile world, you believe no audiophile product is ever snake oil.

3. Why do you insist on repeatedly trying to support marketing BS by quoting marketing BS? Would you try to support an argument that the original snake-oil actually worked by quoting the marketing BS of those who made snake-oil and those deliberately promoting it? Hans states that he's been in the audio business for several decades. If that's true, he must know that a "Null test" is a precise measurement of ALL differences and be able to perform one (as it's cheap and relatively easy). As he doesn't even mention a null test, let alone provide the results of one, he is DELIBERATELY ignoring the actual (objective) facts and promoting marketing BS!

How is it possible to keep: Contradicting the simple basic facts, contradict even those you yourself have quoted, contradict even the most simple logic/common sense and instead, rely on marketing BS? There's only two possible answers I can think of!

G

Simple logic is i dont need to listen to your bs!

All i need to listen to is my system to hear that its much less sibilant sounding and more grain free and more analogue sounding and more fuller/musical sounding since i replaced my cheap old generic cat5 utp cables to supra cat8 and added the netgear gs108 switch in between instead of ethernet cables straight from router. Most switches apparently has galvanicaly isolated ports rejecting more noise from router.

I can say this is an overlooked area to get great sound in streamed audio. I say and hear its one of the importent foundations to get great sound in streamed audio.

I post whatever video in my own thread as i like, dont come to my thread and tell me what to post fool. Whatching audiophile videos like that and similar is my hobby and i get a joy out of it if you dont like it get out of this thread then and find your own hobby. Also i dont like your soul less facts only aproach to hifi it does not apeal to me. Also uptone audio is a respected company known for great sounding products they dont make "snake oil"products.

 

[F208Frank]

This thread was both entertaining and painful to read. To the user, G I do not disagree or agree with you but how do you find so much energy to continue this rant/debate?

I would not waste my time and just let people have their own opinions. People hear differently, and have different experiences. Even if they are "imagining things" that is their experience so you can not take that away from them.

With that said, I hate MQA, left Tidal today for Qobuz. I do not like supporting companies that peddle/promote/support MQA.

 

[Mikem53]

So if I upgrade my Ethernet network to high quality wire and switches, do I get better bank account balances too ? Most likely
the opposite will certainly occur..
At that stage of the digital network, its ones and zeros, CRC checks and retries ensure data is sent and received as expected. its just digital data.. Now.. if you’re talking about USB cables and streaming.. then the quality of the cable will impact the sound.. as there is no CRC checking during streaming of music.. errors and missing data will be guessed at, etc.. different protocol than backing up data or moving data along through the OS for checking.

 

[bluenight]

With that said, I hate MQA, left Tidal today for Qobuz. I do not like supporting companies that peddle/promote/support MQA.

Whats wrong with mqa? Sound that bad?
I guess i am lucky mine streamer dont suport mqa then. I get 16bit 44,khz from tidal. Sadly qobuz isent suported in my country yet.

 

[F208Frank]

Whats wrong with mqa? Sound that bad?
I guess i am lucky mine streamer dont suport mqa then. I get 16bit 44,khz from tidal. Sadly qobuz isent suported in my country yet.

I hate MQA for many reasons. It is trying to solve a problem that does not exist as it is compressing a file to be streamed using an unfolding process. It is trying to resell music twice and trying to charge different brands the right to be MQA compliant. The whole thing seems like a money grab and I find that a Qobuz sounds better than Tidal.

If you can access Tidal, do not worry over it as it does sound good. I just refuse to support a company peddling MQA.

Also you still want your software to do the 1st unfold for their MQA files even if your streamer is not MQA compliant, another reason why MQA is dumb is because conversations like this need to happen to explain their complicated processes. Quite disgusted to be honest.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Simple logic is i dont need to listen to your bs!
[2] All i need to listen to is my system to hear [2a] that its much less sibilant sounding and [2b] more grain free and [2c] more analogue sounding ...
[3] I can say this is an overlooked area to get great sound in streamed audio.
[4] I post whatever video in my own thread as i like, dont come to my thread and tell me what to post fool.
[5] Whatching audiophile videos like that and similar is my hobby and i get a joy out of it if you dont like it get out of this thread then and find your own hobby.
[6] Also i dont like your soul less facts only aproach to hifi it does not apeal to me.
[7] Also uptone audio is a respected company known for great sounding products they dont make "snake oil"products.

1. That's not simple logic, it's simple and deliberate ignorance! Is it really beyond any adult's intelligence to go to Wikipedia (or pretty much any source other than audiophile marketing) and find out whether what I'm saying is BS?

2. So your test for differences between ethernet cables isn't to actually test for differences between ethernet cables but to test something else entirely (your perception). In one sentence you talk about "simple logic" and the very next sentence you do the exact opposite of simple logic!
2a. Do you even know what "sibilant" means? "Less sibilant" requires a significant change in the frequency balance, which in digital audio therefore requires a complete change in a large number of zeros and ones. As NO change in even a single zero or one is possible in an ethernet network, let alone a large number of zeros and ones, what you are claiming is IMPOSSIBLE!!
2b. There is no "grain" in digital audio, so how can something that's grain free to start with be made "more grain free"?
2c. How can a digital cable sound "more analogue" when it isn't carrying an analogue signal? After all this discussion, how can you still believe that an ethernet cable is carrying analogue audio signals rather than digital data?

3. Sure "you can say" that ... but the question is, why would you want to? Why would you want to publicly say complete BS, what do you gain from spreading BS and how is it of any benefit to the community you profess to be a member of?

4. Who's the fool, the person who learns the facts and applies simple logic or the person who deliberately remains ignorant of the facts, defies simple logic and instead believes marketing BS? And, I have NOT told you what to post in your thread! Obviously though, if you're going to post videos that promote BS in a public forum then I've got every right to point out that it's BS and you've got no right to "tell me what to post fool"!!!

5. You've got to be joking? I have found my own hobby (I'm an audiophile), hence why I'm posting here. You've found your own hobby too, which according to you is watching videos (so you're a videophile). Unfortunately for you, this is a forum for audiophiles, not videophiles and "if you don't like it get out of this" site!!

6. And your approach of ignoring all the facts, believing all the marketing BS, aiming for Lo-Fi and then falsely calling it Hi-Fi, who does that appeal to (apart from you)?

7. Are they more or less of "a respected company" than Chord?

Every post just gets more and more ridiculous as you dig yourself deeper!

[1] I would not waste my time and just let people have their own opinions.
[2] People hear differently, and have different experiences. Even if they are "imagining things" that is their experience so you can not take that away from them.
[3] With that said, I hate MQA, ... It is trying to solve a problem that does not exist ... The whole thing seems like a money grab

1. I've got absolutely no problem with bluenight having his own opinions. He's completely entitled to own opinions, even if they're completely wrong. However, if he's going to post those completely wrong opinions in a public forum and falsely claim that they're correct/valid, then I'm just as entitled to point out that they're completely wrong and the claims are false.

2. I'm not taking their experience away from them. As it's my job is to create aural experiences, why would I want to take them away from anyone? I'm just pointing out that aural experiences are not reality, they're illusions.

3. I agree but how is that any different to ethernet cables? Ethernet is specifically designed to operate perfectly with cheap (unshielded, twisted pair) cables and provably achieves that goal, which is why it still exists. So what problem exists that audiophile ethernet cables claim to solve? The whole audiophile ethernet cable thing is just a money grab!

G