[kwkarth]

Quote:

duno where to start
 
whether any powered component in existence doesn't exceed the maximum slew rate required for audio,
 
or the fact u think the required rate is dependent on the number of frequencies or density of frequencies present and not the maximum frequency
 

Apparent objectivist though you appear to be, you're going to have to concede that regardless of incomplete "scientific" explanations, to some, there are audible differences when listening to complex music.  We haven't yet learned how to adequately objectify these differences.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I'm up for suggestions. I've got like, a month to come up with something?

 
If I come up with something good I'll be sure to tell you.
 
Quote:

Apparent objectivist though you appear to be, you're going to have to concede that regardless of incomplete "scientific" explanations, to some, there are audible differences when listening to complex music.  We haven't yet learned how to adequately objectify these differences.

 
We haven't even demonstrated that these differences exist.  I think psychology and neurology are usually better explanations for that kind of thing given the current state of the evidence.

 

[mikeaj]

Between two devices, there is a difference in sound (or for an amp, DAC, etc., even simpler: a difference in the electrical signal) that can be measured, in theory and in practice using current technology, to a high precision.  You can quantify this in many ways.  Differences might be small or large, depending.
 
People also perceive differences in sound, sometimes between devices with very small measured differences.
 
 
Possible explanations:

• Extremely small differences in sound are audible to humans (but how small?  how golden are the ears?)
• The wrong measurements were taken, and something else would have revealed some relatively large differences that most everybody agrees should probably be audible
• There are some mysterious properties at work that nobody has measured before, responsible for the difference in sound people hear
• The difference in perception is caused by something other than the actual difference in the sound

 
 
A whole lot of tests and anecdotal evidence show that people readily perceive differences in sound, even between samples that are identical (where no such difference actually exists, and even for well-trained listeners).  That means #4 is very plausible for any scenario, hence why it would be good to see clarification and demonstration of extraordinary claims and scenarios outside of what is expected.

 

[kwkarth]

If I come up with something good I'll be sure to tell you.


We haven't even demonstrated that these differences exist.  I think psychology and neurology are usually better explanations for that kind of thing given the current state of the evidence.

Not trying to prolong the arguement, just trying to quell the turmoil and prevent us having to close this thread.

Remember, don't take yourselves too seriously...

 

[kwkarth]

Between two devices, there is a difference in sound (or for an amp, DAC, etc., even simpler: a difference in the electrical signal) that can be measured, in theory and in practice using current technology, to a high precision.  You can quantify this in many ways.  Differences might be small or large, depending.

People also perceive differences in sound, sometimes between devices with very small measured differences.


Possible explanations:

1. Extremely small differences in sound are audible to humans (but how small?  how golden are the ears?)
2. The wrong measurements were taken, and something else would have revealed some relatively large differences that most everybody agrees should probably be audible
3. There are some mysterious properties at work that nobody has measured before, responsible for the difference in sound people hear
4. The difference in perception is caused by something other than the actual difference in the sound

A whole lot of tests and anecdotal evidence show that people readily perceive differences in sound, even between samples that are identical (where no such difference actually exists, and even for well-trained listeners).  That means #4 is very plausible for any scenario, hence why it would be good to see clarification and demonstration of extraordinary claims and scenarios outside of what is expected.

Given that even the adoption and understanding of a given objectivist viewpoint is, in and of itself, subjective, if my preferred audio world view is subjective, it follows that it is my choice. I respect your choice or world view, and would hope you respect mine. That being so, we can potentially learn from each other.

 

[scoopbb]

preordered from jds for standalone odac. cant wait for it. 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Given that even the adoption and understanding of a given objectivist viewpoint is, in and of itself, subjective, if my preferred audio world view is subjective, it follows that it is my choice. I respect your choice or world view, and would hope you respect mine. That being so, we can potentially learn from each other.

 
What you prefer is subjective.  I'm not trying to tell anyone they they can't like something because it doesn't conform to someone else's standard.  OTOH whether two pieces of equipment can actually be differentiated by sound alone is objective.
 
That's all I'm saying.

 

[mwilson]

My personal view is that objective or subjective, real or placebo, as long as it's to my liking, I have no problem. Shouldn't the end result matter the most, regardless of the path? After all, gear is just the means to an end. 

 

[kwkarth]

What you prefer is subjective.  I'm not trying to tell anyone they they can't like something because it doesn't conform to someone else's standard.  OTOH whether two pieces of equipment can actually be differentiated by sound alone is objective.

That's all I'm saying.

Subjectively speaking, of course...

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

My personal view is that objective or subjective, real or placebo, as long as it's to my liking, I have no problem. Shouldn't the end result matter the most, regardless of the path? After all, gear is just the means to an end. 

 
How much does that path cost?
 
If you're overflowing with disposable income and/or too busy with your high stress high paying job to spend valuable leisure time on a little research then it might make sense to not worry about the details of why you like something and just buy it.  The time you'd spend figuring out the how and why could cost you more in enjoyment then you'd get from spending any potential savings on something else.
 
Most people aren't in that situation though.  If you happen to have something resembling a budget then doesn't it make sense to research how best to spend it?  Isn't it a good thing to help others with that sort of research?
 
If you've got the disposable income there's nothing wrong with buying what you like for your hobby and there's nothing wrong with liking something just because it doesn't measure up to someone else's standards.  Everyone has different personal preferences and that's a good thing.  I'm live and let live as long as those kinds of things are expressed as preferences.  I'm like that about headphones myself.  My headphone preferences aren't for any kind of perfect neutrality and I don't try to pass them off as such.
 
What I feel a need to respond to are statements which I feel are misleading, demonstrably false, or simply unsupported by evidence but presented as fact.  (I'm not saying you're doing that mwilson.  I'm just explaining where I'm coming from.)  If I feel that a person is being intellectually honest I usually enjoy a discussion of the issue in which hopefully both sides will learn something.  If I feel someone is being dishonest then my scorn is limited only by the TOS.  If someone says something ridiculous then the response that best make my point may simply be some form of ridicule.  I do my best to limit such attacks to the ideas themselves and not the people presenting them but I'm only human so sometimes I slip up.
 
No single debate is likely to change the mid of any of those debating as beliefs usually change over a longer period of time so I participate in these engagements mainly for the benefit of the audience so they can hear both sides and make up their minds.
 
EDIT:  Forgot a very important negative...

 

[kiteki]

 
I'm going to buy one of these, then fail the blind test against my sound card/phone/fisher price radio using my Stax rig.
 
No, seriously, I can't even tell sources apart sighted. I've tried really hard too.

 
Look, if the difference between my sound-card and the Sabre DAC into my stereo receiver is ~10%, then MP3 320 versus FLAC would be ~0.1%.
 
You talk about the significant differences you hear between MP3 320, V0 and FLAC, I really don't think I could directly identify any of them blind, if I could it'd require a hell of a lot of practice first.
 
 

Originally Posted by mikeaj /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
The system of voltage input sound output is very complicated and clearly extremely nonlinear.  Because of the way acoustic geometries work (think folding), a small deviation in the signal can cause a very significant difference in the output.  Swap some of those voltage levels, or remove or add some, and you can end up with structures of different form.  Also obviously there's a lot more inputs that go into a speaker than just the voltage— resonance, crossover, etc.
 
For DNA and animals we're looking at chemical systems for which very small changes in input (source to materia) cause very small changes in output (animal produced).  This is pretty obviously true because the systems are pretty much time-invariant and reasonably close to linear.

 
That's interesting theory, yet I currently have no reason to believe in it apart from intuition, like going to the Zoo.
 
 

Originally Posted by maverickronin /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 

Apparent objectivist though you appear to be, you're going to have to concede that regardless of incomplete "scientific" explanations, to some, there are audible differences when listening to complex music.  We haven't yet learned how to adequately objectify these differences.

 
We haven't even demonstrated that these differences exist.  I think psychology and neurology are usually better explanations for that kind of thing given the current state of the evidence.

 
Maverick, if there was an immense data set of failed blind tests indicating that the difference hasn't been demonstrated, then your comment would be valid.  As it stands there is no data like that (if there is, then please link it), so all you're doing is asking for evidence before you believe in something, and until then, writing it off as psychoacoustics.  Have you even tried listening to a NOS DAC?
 
If you believe only in evidence published in peer-reviewed journals, then I'll assume you believe in parapsychology and precognition, too, and next time, don't answer with a picture of fractals within 5 minutes of coming online. 
 
 

Originally Posted by mikeaj /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Possible explanations:

• Extremely small differences in sound are audible to humans (but how small?  how golden are the ears?)
• The wrong measurements were taken, and something else would have revealed some relatively large differences that most everybody agrees should probably be audible
• There are some mysterious properties at work that nobody has measured before, responsible for the difference in sound people hear
• The difference in perception is caused by something other than the actual difference in the sound

 
A whole lot of tests and anecdotal evidence show that people readily perceive differences in sound, even between samples that are identical (where no such difference actually exists, and even for well-trained listeners).  That means #4 is very plausible for any scenario, hence why it would be good to see clarification and demonstration of extraordinary claims and scenarios outside of what is expected.

 
I think this is very true, however correlation != causation.  Just because some people hear phantom differences in identical sound since our minds are susceptible to that (like Winamp versus Foobar), and the internet is littered with glossy reviews... doesn't correlate to that legitimate differences don't exist.
 
(translation ->) "Just because shark oil marketing and human fallacy has played the boy cried wolf so many times, doesn't mean the wolf isn't actually there, this time".

 

[kiteki]

Originally Posted by maverickronin /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
OTOH whether two pieces of equipment can actually be differentiated by sound alone is objective.

 
Exactly, that's all this boils down to in the end, so why is there so much attitude?  If you actually look at the links I posted, the inaudibility of a certain codec was 'proven' with ABX over two years with 20,000 evaluations and 60 listeners, then later quickly disproven.  Likewise parapsychology and precognition are currently statistically proven.
 
There is still a long way to go in proving total transparency of audio, especially since the listening equipment (speakers, IEM etc.) isn't transparent either.  I don't see any evidence supporting the total transparency of this DAC, so [a lot] of experimentation is required, that's pretty much it, in my view.

 

[Tronz]

Quote:

I don't know whether to laugh at this thread or ban you all. I'll decide tomorrow morning (it's 11pm here). 

 
Some things to consider: Measurements are almost all made using sweeps, tones and impulses. This is not the same as playing music.  Also, while it's easy for a lot of gear to sound good with a lot of music, try playing very complex and dynamic orchestral music (I use Eiji Oue's Bolero! Orchestral Fireworks) and see if the sound doesn't compress or blur. Cheap gear usually fails this for much the same reasons in a source as an amp -- both contain amplification stages of some kind and if they are insufficient, can't keep up with the continual rapid changes in voltage. The DX100, since you guys have been mentioning it, sounds a bit blurry playing complex classical. I know though that if I were listening to a simple jazz piece using the DX100 as a source and comparing it to my main DAC connected to my Stax rig, it is much harder to tell them apart. The difference in detail compared to an Esoteric K-01 is much more apparent, however.
 
Oh, by the way, that Linn amp ruined me. I want it more than a Blue Hawaii. It is that good. There are almost none available second-hand anywhere.

The best way to test a car is to put it on a controlled track ( sine waves ) vs. a public street with other cars ( music ). All of that can be measured to see if the gear would fail during intense voltage swings and impulse. The O2 amp has extensive documentation on it's specs that show that it's "audibly transparent". It's easy to say gear A sounds better than gear B when you see what you're listening to. Try blind testing the DX100 to your main DAC playing a complex song with all the instruments you can cram in and let's see if you would even know what gear is playing...

 

[Currawong]

Tronz: Switch "documentation" for "marketing". 

 

[bellsprout]

and yet Currawong was attempting to objectify these differences. and the hypothesis that "complex music" requires voltages to rise faster is false. you only need to open a music track and a 20kHz sine wave in Audacity to see which voltage rises faster.
 
 
i find the subjective position to be irrefutable, and im as subjective as anyone when it comes to what i don't know. but if u want to objectify your subjective observations, there's plenty of science out there that's going to tell you you're wrong if you misapply it.
 
as i explained previously, sound and hearing falls in different categories of science. sound is a completely defined entity. what constitutes "complex music" is dependent on your hearing. but as a sound, whatever you constitute to be complex music falls in the same mechanical constraints as any other sound.
Quote:

Apparent objectivist though you appear to be, you're going to have to concede that regardless of incomplete "scientific" explanations, to some, there are audible differences when listening to complex music.  We haven't yet learned how to adequately objectify these differences.