[bgentry]

maybe few of you have had the experience but I would think it might help to consider the expected interaction between gray bearded engineers at a industry seminar on Mixed Signal engineering

I'm trying to follow you, but it's incredibly difficult to figure out what you're even trying to say. If you want people to actually consider your opinions, maybe try being more clear. Write complete sentences. Use punctuation. Maybe explain what you mean, instead of condensing 4 sentences worth of thought into one sentence.

Or just keep doing what you're doing.

Brian.

 

[bgentry]

What I mean is sitting in your home listening to music is a holistic experience, it is not just done with your ears.  All of your senses are in play, as are all of your moods, feelings, fatigue level, etc.  Everything that makes up your personal perception system.  If you "like" the looks of something, if you sit and admire its beauty as you listen, if you "believe" in your system, this can actually affect your perception more than specific subtleties in the audio reproduction.  It is about being happy and satisfied with the overall experience.  So what I mean is an A/B test can certainly help a designer or an experimenter determine a possible cause for an audio anomaly, but it is often unimportant to the actual overall experience of enjoying your music system in your home

Hmm. I understand your core points. I agree with most of them. But here's the thing: When one argues against A/B testing, it's usually in the context of "how do I find what sounds better?" A/B testing is said to reveal which component, or other variable under test sounds better, or at least different. Your ideas don't answer the question of "how do I find what sounds best?"

So in that way, your comments may be valid, but I'm not sure they really have much of a place in a discussion about A/B testing. Because what you appear to be saying is, what sounds best is what you think sounds best at that moment. Which isn't much of a guideline. Unless I've missed something you were trying to say?

Brian.

 

[GearMe]

Hmm. I understand your core points. I agree with most of them. But here's the thing: When one argues against A/B testing, it's usually in the context of "how do I find what sounds better?" A/B testing is said to reveal which component, or other variable under test sounds better, or at least different. Your ideas don't answer the question of "how do I find what sounds best?"

So in that way, your comments may be valid, but I'm not sure they really have much of a place in a discussion about A/B testing. Because what you appear to be saying is, what sounds best is what you think sounds best at that moment. Which isn't much of a guideline. Unless I've missed something you were trying to say?

Brian.

His logic certainly works for me.

Some days (or listening sessions, or music, etc.) I enjoy T1's, some days/etc. 400i, some days/etc. HD650 or IE80s or Grados or....

SO -- on that given day, at that moment, that's the set of headphones that sounds the best to me!

And...if it doesn't, I'll switch headphones. To me this is a major benefit of headphones over expensive 2 channel audio systems...which I had for over 30 years before we downsized from a house to a townhome.

 

[Ableza]

Ok so I really shouldn't fan the flames here but, really …

Yes t he science has been understood for decades. With a little training and access to equipment, you can too!

 

[jcx]

there is also a fair bit known about Psychoacoustics - not to the level of predicting musical enjoyment, emotional response - but enough to pare down some speculations, make certain patterns of reasoning more plausible, others appear less useful
 
as an example of what I consider "reasonable argument" - when someone relates a anecdote that they heard clear evidence (and that so would any who cared to listen) that "proves" "ultrasonic hearing" then they are dismissing serious Psychoacoustic researchers as bumbling fools - seems unlikely
 
especially added to the decades of high motivation to prove Redbook CD 16/44  "clearly inadequate" with only a handful of unreplicated peer reviewed papers hinting in that direction
 
if you can do it, then do it where it would count, and put the question to rest - Meyer & Moran issued a standing invitation to any "Golden Ear" who wanted to visit their lab, show their chops under controlled conditions
 
 
my argument with one such anecdote of Mike's was that I could positively AB/X the described test signal when filtered, converted to a 16/44.1 .wav - so no hearing a "50 kHz component" is needed to explain hearing that difference

 

[Currawong]

My speculation, from experience, is that the whole issue with arguments about Redbook being inadequate has been the fault of digital filters being inadequate, and not the format itself (ignoring, for the moment, bad mastering or bad down-sampling). This became quite clear when I was able to, say, use iZotope to up-sample to 384 kHz to feed a few common DACs, versus using their built-in filters, resulting in sonic improvements (at least to me). Likewise, Mike's work, as well as that of RW* have both, in their own unique ways, re-enforced my thoughts on the matter, as they have both gone about solving the actual problem at a reasonable cost to our wallets (ie: Without having to buy an MSB DAC).
 
*Whom I don't want to trigger off and drag in here by writing his full name and putting both him and Mike in a possibly awkward position.

 

[jcx]

I have no problem with that line of reasoning.  From my reading I expect the effects to be small, demonstration in controlled listening to be difficult and likely beyond ears of my age.
 
I will happily incorporate into my arguments, begin relating any peer reviewed evidence that convincingly demonstrates which of Bob Stuart, Charles Hansen, Bruno Putzeys, Rob Watts, Mike Moffat, ect. is "more nearly supported" by the Psychoacoustic Listening data
 
And while I like Monty's presentation I also have no problem with people just deciding 2x sample rate makes a great deal of argument moot.

 

[Torq]

  I have no problem with that line of reasoning.  From my reading I expect the effects to be small, demonstration in controlled listening to be difficult and likely beyond ears of my age.
 
I will happily incorporate into my arguments, begin relating any peer reviewed evidence that convincingly demonstrates which of Bob Stuart, Charles Hansen, Bruno Putzeys, Rob Watts, Mike Moffat, ect. is "more nearly supported" by the Psychoacoustic Listening data
 
And while I like Monty's presentation I also have no problem with people just deciding 2x sample rate makes a great deal of argument moot.

When I'm at an engineering conference, (I am an engineer, both hardware and software, incidentally), I might care about how closely I can make a DAC, amp or headphone reproduce a sine wave or follow a square wave.  Measurements are gospel there, for those specific purposes, as they should be.
 
Otherwise, since experiences are not usefully quantifiable or measurable, when the chaps publishing their nice, academic, peer-reviewed, engineering/physical/psychoacoustic papers start writing the cheques for my audio gear then, maybe, just maybe, I'll worry about the numbers.  Until then, I'll spend my money with whomever gives me the broadest smile, the most goosebumps and surges of adrenaline, that gets my foot tapping and head bobbing, and makes me want to keep listening the most consistently.
 
And that's how I determine what "sounds best" (to me!): listening over several days, with a ton of music, letting my mood and mental/physical state shift with the rigors of a week or two of "life" ... the stuff that keeps drawing me back is what gets my money.   I openly acknowledge that my decisions or perceptions might be entirely different if the same evaluation were conducted a couple of weeks later, but that's part of what makes life so interesting.
 
Even as an engineer, I don't need numbers, theory or proofs to tell me what I enjoy.
 
And the more I enjoy something the better it is for me.
 
[size=x-small] [/size]

 

[7ryder]

   
...they try and force on others what is "true" and what is "not true". 
 

 
Exactly. For some reason they are intent on saving "us" from ourselves. They remind me of missionaries coming to the new world to tell the savages that what they believe is wrong and there is only one God, religion, etc. -- and we all know how that turned out.

 

[jcx]

Where did anyone say you can't enjoy that cuz AB/X sez...
 
Early 128k MP3 coder tunings artifacts were easily heard on a wide variety of music - but I'm pretty sure many still tapped toes, danced to the music.
 
 
In many hobbies there are those interested in the enabling tech - in audio many are advertising their tech features with some making audibility, superiority claims outright or by inference.
 
When these "techy" "stories" diverge from established EE, Physical Acoustics, Psychoacoustics I do think a consumer forum should allow people to point out the possible problematic claims, illogic.
 
Schiit, Mike are very much using tech buzz words, stories about the tech in their product advertising and here in head-fi forums where they are making a effort to have a outsized and personable presence compared to many other manufacturers.
 
On the whole I would say they have been superior in the reasonableness of their presentations, stories, Jason in particular seems to have opened the scope of discussion about Schiit wide with his Schiit Happened posts.
 
I have only pointed to, presented arguments against some points in a very few of their anecdotes, stories that I feel have questionable elements given my understanding of the subjects.
 
I expected reasoned discussion on the merits of the arguments from 2 guys who were trying a new microsocial approach, repeatedly claimed not to take themselves seriously here.
 
What I got was "tetchy" not "techy".

 

[wink]

 

maybe few of you have had the experience but I would think it might help to consider the expected interaction between gray bearded engineers at a industry seminar on Mixed Signal engineering

I'm trying to follow you, but it's incredibly difficult to figure out what you're even trying to say. If you want people to actually consider your opinions, maybe try being more clear. Write complete sentences. Use punctuation. Maybe explain what you mean, instead of condensing 4 sentences worth of thought into one sentence.

Or just keep doing what you're doing.

Brian.

'Can't find anything wrong with the post by jcx..
 
Perhaps, a longer attention span is indicated........    

 

[taxiq]

  'Can't find anything wrong with the post by jcx..
 
Perhaps, a longer attention span is indicated........    

On the other hand, if your post requires a longer attention span, then most likely if was result of poor composition which was the case here.    Why blame the reader for the writer's  being inconsiderate?     

 

 

[macon]

Thank you Mike (Baldr) for old and new moments worth recalling in my life.
 
Reading your original posts brought this photo to mind. 
Thank you for including the manual in the YGGDRASIL at no extra fee.

 
 

 
To those of you who insisted the YGGDRASIL (even single ended) was worth the while.  She is breaking in nicely. Thank you all.
 


A Moljinar is ready email is due any day. 
 
I have SE and Balanced connected Silver and Black 10m  Dragons in the drawer for my well listened to HD-800, LCD-2 and the new HE-1000 are due in a day of so. 
 
For now I must sufferer the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune and listen to single ended mode.
 
I am a lucky man.  

 

[Saraguie]

On the other hand, if your post requires a longer attention span, then most likely if was result of poor composition which was the case here.    Why blame the reader for the writer's  being inconsiderate?     :wink_face:  

SNAP

 

[jacal01]

Like most other mammals, monkeys that lived 30 million to 60 million years ago had just two opsin genes encoding the photopigment proteins that tune cone photoreceptor cells in the retina to absorb light in a range of wavelengths. Then, an allele of one of the opsin genes mutated, producing a pigment protein that responded to previously unseen wavelengths of light. Later, a region of the allele duplicated and inserted, creating a third opsin gene" (see this link and/or work by Jay Neitz of the University of Washington concerning development of color receptors).

 

 
I read or heard somewhere that the color vision enjoyed by primates is actually an unmasking of a formerly dormant gene that was active during our reptilian evolutionary phase.  Since the preponderance of our DNA is dormant vestigial accumulated genetic material that we have inherited through time from our earliest unicellular existence, anyway, a reverse mutation 'switching on' the color perception gene made imminent sense, and may actually have be easier to access that a 'first time ever' genetic mutation, probability wise. 
 
So to speculate further, the color reverse mutation may actually have happened multiple times among the various other mammalian species that all have this dormant gene, but then there had to be an inherent advantage to selecting for it, survival wise, like recognizing when fruit and berries ripen for full nutritional value (and seed dispersion) or recognizing poisonous varieties (e.g. red), whilst living among the trees.
 
Aand the reason we (mammals) lost the color receptors in the first place is in all probability because the only survival niche open to us during the age of those brutish dinosaurs was nocturnal feeding, where the cone color receptors don't work to well in darkness, as we can still attest. 
 
[Still playing catch-up on this thread.  Props to the op. 

]