Jump to content
Computer Audiophile
Jud

Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Superdad   
1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

if a double blind test is needed to determine which is better....it's not worth the upgrade and really is not needed.

 

If something is worthy of an upgrade, it will smack you in the face.

 

Easily the most spot on post in today's arguments here!  

 

(Also the entire reason why our products have been so successful--with zero advertising and near zero returns.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jabbr   
11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

adopted (some of) it and had created fields like "Evolutionary Psychology" making the biologists aghast at the proliferation of untested and untestable BS.

 No way. Evolutionary psychology is practicing genetics with a cute post-doc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Jonathan,

All interfaces including Ethernet have a problems. Ethernet 1000 and higher especially have problems. Because unlike 10/100 were you have a dedicated differential pair of transmit and receive. You now have bi-directional 4 bit data and things get a lot more hairier!!!

 

Thanks,

Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jabbr   
1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

actual event - you triggered an old memory trace

 

Environmental Biophysics was involved

 

I take it that if you had the presence of mind  not to be too critical of any particular field of study, that a good memory trace was laid down...?

 

(gulp)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

Easily the most spot on post in today's arguments here!  

 

(Also the entire reason why our products have been so successful--with zero advertising and near zero returns.)

 

I haven't tried your products, but have been intrigued.  But I was also of mind, that i don't want to daisy chain things more than already necessary.  It was actually your product, that got me to trying a dac with galvanic isolation....I got the TEAC dac, and i was happy with it, but it still didn't "float my boat" like take me to a new level....It is also because of your invention, that I think that once i do decide on spending bucks for a dac again (once things settle), I really am of the belief that I will want a dac that has a network port.  I hear much about needing a "certain quality" and "certain length" usb cable for optimal results.  I hear about needing software to stop services to minimize noise.  I hear about needing linear power supplies...just seems to go on and on, that I am now of belief that once i buy a new dac it will have an Ethernet port, so i don't have to even worry about all that usb noise.....so what will be the next cheap dac that is good and does Ethernet....once there is some consensus that there is such a dac with great reviews in the $1K range, i will probably buy one....

 

So do me a favor and team up with a dac manufacturer make a quality dac that has network port that supports native DSD and that gets great reviews and under $1K and i will buy it....until then, i will stick with the "lowly delta sigma trash"....today i think one of your products (sorry i dont remember the names of your products), paired with a 2qute  may make a worthwhile buy....put it in one box and sell it for $1K.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jabbr   
9 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

Jonathan,

All interfaces including Ethernet have a problems. Ethernet 1000 and higher especially have problems. Because unlike 10/100 were you have a dedicated differential pair of transmit and receive. You now have bi-directional 4 bit data and things get a lot more hairier!!!

 

Thanks,

Gordon

Gordon,

 

As far as I can tell the Ethernet cables themselves are generally proper impedance (100 Ohm) and I see much more cable testing data. Harder to find that for USB ... maybe I've seen TE Connectivity and surely some others but much more difficult to find than Ethernet e.g, Belden mediatwist etc...

 

Oh and I really meant fiberoptic Ethernet ;)

 

That said, somehow this makes it through the DMA/FIFO/reclock? Implementation dependency in the interface?

 

Jonathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
plissken   
1 hour ago, semente said:

 

I am all for blind testing, just not of the AB type.

 

Sometime ago I had some time to waste and gave Philips' online Golden Ears Challenge a try (the test was later pulled down).

It was very educational in that I was taught to recognize specific qualities in sound, but a very tiring effort ("stressing"?), so much so that I gave up halfway.

I also learnt that I tend not to focus on the same aspects of sound for A as I do for B.

 

 

Funny, I completed the Phillips Golden Ears Challenge successfully, was never stressed out, quite enjoyed the process and the learning, and came out of it with a better appreciation for this hobby than when I started it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

So your products make "smack you in the face" audible differences...that are unmeasurable and/or disappear completely when no peeking allowed.

Interesting.

although i never tried his products, it certainly seemed like it made sense to remove the noise to improve the SQ....i just felt that should be in the DAC circuitry....and said so when he first publicized it.  I said back then i would wait until DAC technology caught up..  I would rather spend more on a dac that had necessary circuitry.  The 2qute supports DSD, has galvanic isolation, but doesn't have network capability...it's also too expensive.  Another year or so, we should be there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Funny, I completed the Phillips Golden Ears Challenge successfully, was never stressed out, quite enjoyed the process and the learning, and came out of it with a better appreciation for this hobby than when I started it.

 

Just goes to show ya, people are different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

it certainly seemed like it made sense to remove the noise to improve the SQ

Since it's objective metric "noise" related, then it's both measurable and creates soundwave changes audible to ears, which would require no peeking.

Unless it isn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Yes they are and semi-intensive, completely blinded, audio evaluations are 100% doable.

Yeah, I have no idea how they sit through those orchestra player auditions without a few Valium.

OMG, the sound of a oboe, I can't take it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jud   
7 hours ago, plissken said:

You are missing the point about bias controlled evaluation. Sorry you don't get to pick and choose here.

 

I’m not sure he’s the one missing the point about bias controlled testing.  Since when is testing with  some samples louder than others bias controlled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ralf11   
1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

I take it that if you had the presence of mind  not to be too critical of any particular field of study, that a good memory trace was laid down...?

 

(gulp)

 

one was at Stanford, the other at Berkeley & while both were physiologists*, I tried to convince the Stanford one to revisit the old saw established in the early 1900's that fat is only burned in the flames of carbohydrates - but must have decided that would be a career killer...

 

 

* so it's not like they were chemists in drag or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jud   
9 minutes ago, patagent said:

I tend to be sympathetic to "objectivists."  But speaking as someone who studied physical sciences - any study that involves testing human response or behavior seemed like pseudo-science or soft science at best.  Physicists look down on chemists who look down on biologist who all look down on psychologists.  

 

JMO, a listening test on a group of individual should really be the last confirming piece of evidence after the proper measurements have been taken and interpreted.  Even then I'd take it with a grain of salt.

 

As I've said before, I always prefer the particular to the general.  Specifically with respect to human audibility, appropriately designed listening tests are the second best way to determine this I'm aware of.  (fMRI is the best I'm aware of, as it avoids the "Iowa gambling task" problem, which is the fact that human sensory apparatus and some parts of the brain can react to inputs before we become consciously aware of them.  This is a known problem that experimentalists attempt to take account of if possible.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jabbr   
26 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

fat is only burned in the flames of carbohydrates

 

I'm sure that at Berkeley in the 1970s-1980s that fat was burned in the presence of other than carbs... in New England we made the discovery that the effect of EtOH on the nervous system is enhanced in the presence of a hot tub ;) Red and white wine were equally effective that day but red had residual effects the following day. We did careful blind testing that involved many many many samples ;) and the testing was replicated many times... thankfully we had a large student population.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jud said:

As I also noted in my response, the problem of unequal loudness has to do with your single blind test example.

So again, your claim is that blind auditions are invalid, thus the resulting large shift is gender is from flawed non-level matched testing, women having played louder than men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×