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

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

the noise "could" be carried into the buffer.

Not so. The buffer stores digital sample values as received over the wire. There is no mechanism by which it could store anything else, including noise.

4 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

No one is attaching audio qualities to CAT7 Ethernet. They are attaching the OSI model and data transmission qualities to the cable. CAT 7 IS higher bandwidth than CAT5.

Yes, 10G Ethernet requires Cat 6 (for short distances) or Cat 7 (up to 100 m) cabling. The 1G Ethernet most common in domestic networks is perfectly fine over Cat 5e. Also, the required cable quality depends only on the link speed, not on the actual utilised data rate. A saturated link is just as reliable as a barely used one.

[mmerrill99]

21 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Last I understood, this "hobby" was about obtaining High Fidelity

If you circumscribe 'high fidelity' by what limited testing reveals then I don't agree.

If you describe high fidelity as better perceived realism & insight into the music reproduced then I would agree & last I understood, that seems to be what most audio forums are about - people stating what they hear & others using this information & evaluating it themselves by their own listening.

 

What's your definition?

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

If you circumscribe 'high fidelity' by what limited testing reveals then I don't agree.

 

If you describe high fidelity as better perceived realism & insight into the music reproduced then I would agree & last I understood, that seems to be what most audio forums are about - people stating what they hear & others using this information & evaluating it themselves by their own listening.

 

Do you see how you resist Sal's attempt to circumscribe in your first paragraph, and then in your second paragraph make your own attempt to circumscribe?

[mmerrill99]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Do you see how you resist Sal's attempt to circumscribe in your first paragraph, and then in your second paragraph make your own attempt to circumscribe?

I was circumscribed when I was young - nothing I can do about it

I'm giving my impressions of what the 'hobby' is about - sure there are 'audio forums' that don't fit my definition, I confess!

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

Not so. The buffer stores digital sample values as received over the wire. There is no mechanism by which it could store anything else, including noise.

 

As I've said from time to time, you could handwrite the values (might take a while), transcribe and input them via keyboard into a buffer, and it would work perfectly well.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, mmerrill99 said:

I was circumscribed when I was young - nothing I can do about it

 

Where is that "rimshot" emoji when you need it?

[Jud]

32 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Last I understood, this "hobby" was about obtaining High Fidelity

Not just "sounds good to me"

 

Ah, sorry.  Here I thought the point, as with any hobby, was enjoying yourself, in which case "sounds good to me" is pretty much a requirement.  Teresa's got there, so kudos to her.

 

Hey, I've got there too, so kudos to me too!    And to all of you who enjoy your music, and your audio system's contribution to that enjoyment.

[semente]

5 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

By banning that one individual, Chris reduced my ignore list by 50%

 

 

Idem

[firedog]

27 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Ah, sorry.  Here I thought the point, as with any hobby, was enjoying yourself, in which case "sounds good to me" is pretty much a requirement.  Teresa's got there, so kudos to her.

 

Hey, I've got there too, so kudos to me too!    And to all of you who enjoy your music, and your audio system's contribution to that enjoyment.

No, Jud, you have it wrong. The point of the hobby is to listen the way a chosen few listen. Only they actually know how audio works and how to choose what sounds good.

[Jud]

15 hours ago, plissken said:

 

If the preference is for loudness then it's legit.

 

I believe in one instance it removed bias for/against gender from the equation. Were they trying to control from something else?

 

Hi plissken -

 

- Regarding preference for loudness, here are the headline and lead sentence for the cited article:

 

Quote

 

Million-dollar Strads fall to modern violins in blind ‘sound check’

 

Perhaps no name conveys superiority quite like Stradivarius.

 

 

Do you think this was about loudness, or superiority?

 

- Regarding the auditions: These are auditions for jobs.  Blinding the auditions removed gender bias from the situation, which is a very good thing.  If you were interviewing someone for a job, would you be concerned about anything other than gender bias?  I certainly would.

 

Taking the specific example of an orchestra, playing in coordination with others is essential.  At one time (don't know if they still do), the Vienna Philharmonic required all its violinists to use the same bowing when playing in unison (in other words, upstroke at the same time, downstroke at the same time - kinda like absolute polarity  ).  So if you were setting up the auditions, you might want to set up a one way mirror or video feed to test the auditioner's ability to play in coordination with other orchestra members, while maintaining the blinding.

 

Blinding the audition certainly makes it better at determining who's the superior player regardless of gender.  But there are other qualities you want in a new hire besides gender neutrality, and so there are better and worse blind audition setups to get the results you want.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, Jud, you have it wrong. The point of the hobby is to listen the way a chosen few listen. Only they actually know how audio works and how to choose what sounds good.

 

"But I'm not bitter!"   

[mav52]

6 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, Jud, you have it wrong. The point of the hobby is to listen the way a chosen few listen. Only they actually know how audio works and how to choose what sounds good.

So if people do not listen to music the way a "chosen few listen " do, so its your opinion that those people are just wasting their time listening to music or in some psycho fashion are not really enjoying their music they actually hear ?  

[firedog]

10 minutes ago, mav52 said:

So if people do not listen to music the way a "chosen few listen " do, so its your opinion that those people are just wasting their time listening to music or in some psycho fashion are not really enjoying their music they actually hear ?  

Ever heard of sarcasm? Do we really have to put emoji's with every sentence we write? Or are you just being doubly ironic and sarcastic?

This thread has lost it anyway and should be closed.

[mmerrill99]

21 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, Jud, you have it wrong. The point of the hobby is to listen the way a chosen few listen.

I would put it differently - there are a chosen few who insist on others conforming to their biases when listening (of course they try to insinuate that they don't have biases - they like to think of themselves as objective)

[semente]

44 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Ah, sorry.  Here I thought the point, as with any hobby, was enjoying yourself, in which case "sounds good to me" is pretty much a requirement.  Teresa's got there, so kudos to her.

 

Hey, I've got there too, so kudos to me too!    And to all of you who enjoy your music, and your audio system's contribution to that enjoyment.

 

I thought people were listening to soundstage...

(just kidding) 

 

In my view, the problem starts when people discuss "sounds good" instead of discussing performance or accuracy because it is impossible to express "sounds good" in a way that is really meaningful to others.

This is why "tasting" reviews, professional or amateur, are worthless.

 

The way I see it, system performance can only be achieved if we can recognise shortcomings, identify possible causes and look for replacements that improve on what we currently have.

This requires unbiased or emotion free listening performed from an observational perspective with adequate methodology supported by measurements.

Upgrading or system building through "tasting" is a trial and error affair and good results are accidental.

[mansr]

23 minutes ago, Jud said:

At one time (don't know if they still do), the Vienna Philharmonic required all its violinists to use the same bowing when playing in unison (in other words, upstroke at the same time, downstroke at the same time)

I thought, based on personal observation, this was the norm among professional orchestras.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, semente said:

I thought people were listening to soundstage...

I listen to veils. I especially like the sound of them being lifted.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

As I've said from time to time, you could handwrite the values (might take a while), transcribe and input them via keyboard into a buffer, and it would work perfectly well.

 

Good point, but perhaps not "perfectly well". You might encounter just a few buffer underruns, unless of course, you are a really fast typist

 

[mav52]

24 minutes ago, firedog said:

Ever heard of sarcasm? Do we really have to put emoji's with every sentence we write? Or are you just being doubly ironic and sarcastic?

This thread has lost it anyway and should be closed.

 

Got ya, I didn't see a smiley face etc.. so I didn't know.  Yep we need emoji's

[mmerrill99]

13 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Good point, but perhaps not "perfectly well". You might encounter just a few buffer underruns, unless of course, you are a really fast typist

 

Not sure what buffers are being talked about here but does the input to & output from buffers happen concurrently or does the buffer get filled & then filling is turned off while emptying happens?

Just a consideration about the electrical noise happening while filling & emptying are happening & whether the concomitant electrical noise can have any subsidiary effect?

[Jud]

50 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I thought people were listening to soundstage...

(just kidding) 

 

In my view, the problem starts when people discuss "sounds good" instead of discussing performance or accuracy because it is impossible to express "sounds good" in a way that is really meaningful to others.

This is why "tasting" reviews, professional or amateur, are worthless.

 

The way I see it, system performance can only be achieved if we can recognise shortcomings, identify possible causes and look for replacements that improve on what we currently have.

This requires unbiased or emotion free listening performed from an observational perspective with adequate methodology supported by measurements.

Upgrading or system building through "tasting" is a trial and error affair and good results are accidental.

 

I'm not so "down" as you are on reports of items of equipment being to someone's taste.  With all the factors affecting taste, it's somewhat difficult for me to determine from specs and the usual measurements whether a component will help my system make things sound more like "real life" to me, or at any rate, do the best job possible at not making everything sound the same.  The less sound of its own a system has, the more it should allow the sound of the recording to come through.  How we each perceive whether this happens is a topic of great interest to me.  (As I've mentioned to you several times, I like the job my speakers do of this, while for you their frequency response *would* make everything sound the same to you through them.)

 

So while I do pay attention to any objective reports of relevant facts about equipment I'm interested in, I also pay attention to whether people whose tastes seem to coincide with mine like that equipment.

 

Edit: A good example is music.  I certainly pay attention to DR ratings when available.  On the other hand, if the DR is middling, not awful, but someone whose tastes seem similar to mine says it sounds good, then I'm more likely to consider buying it.

[Ralf11]

10 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

No, it proves what I have been saying for decades that AB’ing either sighted or blind doesn’t work.

 

Floyd Toole and others have proven it works.

 

What is your def'n of "work"?

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

As I've said from time to time, you could handwrite the values (might take a while), transcribe and input them via keyboard into a buffer, and it would work perfectly well.

 

good example

 

lots of people don't understand digital electronics... this should be scribed on their foreheads

[Albrecht]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Not so. The buffer stores digital sample values as received over the wire. There is no mechanism by which it could store anything else, including noise.

Yes, 10G Ethernet requires Cat 6 (for short distances) or Cat 7 (up to 100 m) cabling. The 1G Ethernet most common in domestic networks is perfectly fine over Cat 5e. Also, the required cable quality depends only on the link speed, not on the actual utilised data rate. A saturated link is just as reliable as a barely used one.

""The buffer stores digital sample values as received over the wire. There is no mechanism by which it could store anything else, including noise.""

However much ground loop noise, & poorly timed those digital samples are....

""A saturated link is just as reliable as a barely used one.""

Reliability is not the issue, - timing is. It may be why people with sensitive systems report an increase in SQ with devices with "better" clocks.

[Albrecht]

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

So while I do pay attention to any objective reports of relevant facts about equipment I'm interested in, I also pay attention to whether people whose tastes seem to coincide with mine like that equipment.

 but someone whose tastes seem similar to mine says it sounds good, then I'm more likely to consider buying it.

The owner of Jadis talks about his amps making violin concertos, strings, & small orchestras sound "right" to him. He is not interested in making Radiohead, rock, or jazz music sound good. He doesn't like trap drum-kits. He says that if you want an all around amplifier that handles chamber music and techno music well, - then go elsewhere. He's not building gear for dance music. The speakers that he "shows" with are indeed, big, & lumbering.