Thread: Interesting info re: digital cable "deniers"

"It's interesting to watch on the forumspeople who have never actually used their ears say digital cables CAN'T make a sound difference as they are "only 1's and 0's" and any who claims there can be a difference is a "fraud."

Well, most of the vast majority of those folks are amateurs and have virtually no professional education, scientific or engineering training and domain expertise with respect to digital audio (or 'analog audio' as well, for that matter). If you asked them what a "transfer function" was, they would look at you blankly, let alone understand that EVERYTHING is a transfer function.

Charlie, Gordon, and Steve are 100% correct, and these guys have the domain expertise to actually know what they're talking about. Gordon, in particular, is one of the "luminaries" of digital audio.

As is John Swenson, who has designed the UpTone products, e.g. EtherREGEN. John worked for over 40 years as a professional Ethernet enginerer for Broadcom and Cisco. He also really knows WTF he's talking about.

Again, I really encourage folks here to read John's white paper. He discussses the impact of low- and high-source leakage impedance current, threshold jitter, and phase noise. ALL of these have a discernable and audible impact on audio quality.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/06...f?v=1583429386

Some folks think the Universe is simply f=ma. It isn't, it's Ĥψ=Eψ. Just ask Sean Carroll.

And it doesn't care one bit about people's...feelings.

In the decade since that 'conversation', I hope that some of those gentlemen have learned more about how digital audio works.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

Here's one dated 2020. Tough to argue with his background re: what he should and shouldn't know on the topic.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/06...4bbFh6JIJUhPfg

Yup! John has got it goin' on. One of the most knowledgeable and truly experienced people I know of in this domain. His expertise come from...>40 years professional experience in this domain. Funny how that works....😜😎

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

It's interesting to watch on the forums people who have never actually used their ears say digital cables CAN'T make a sound difference as they are "only 1's and 0's" and any who claims there can be a difference is a "fraud".

I know I've been on the receiving end of plenty of "professional A/V installers" on my steaming test videos claiming they are experts and there simply is no difference.

Puma Cat has shared a link to a white paper that was very interesting and explained the concept of ramp up time and noise.

I came across this the other day and felt it was another great short explanation that unfortunately many will still choose to ignore. I know so very little about the true technical of digital (other than it does NOT all sound the same), so appreciate easy explanations like below:

From "There's no Such Thing as Digital: a Conversation With Charles Hansen, Gordon Rankin, and Steve Silberman" by Michael Lavorgna, AudioStream June 24, 2013.

Michael Lavorgna: It's common for people to envision and represent a digital signal as a series of 1s and 0s. As such, there's really no room for error, at least according to this binary theory. Is a digital signal simply a series of 1s and 0s?

Charlie Hansen: Unfortunately not. The "1"s and "0"s are just abstractions that are easy to think about. But in the real world, something real needs to represent those two abstract states. In modern digital electronics, we have almost universally chosen a voltage above a specific level (that varies from one "family" of electronic parts to another) to represent a "1" and a voltage below a different specific level (that again can vary) to represent a "0".

In the real world, those two voltages are not the same, so there is a "grey" zone between the "black" of the "0" and the "white" of the "1". Also, it takes time for the signal to change levels, and the time required to do so can depend on dozens (or even thousands) of other external factors.

All of the problems with digital are analog problems.

Are you open to the counter-argument on this issue? If so:

Is Digital Audio Transmission Really Analog? - YouTube


The thing is, beyond the technical back and forth, someone could actually demonstrate a sonic difference between a boutique digital cable and a properly functioning cheap cable, by seeing if...only using their ears not their eyes...they can reliably identify between them in blind test.

For some reason this type of evidence seems to be lacking...which is further grounds for skepticism.

It reminds me of before we made the change to HDMI for TV and home theater equipment. There were lots of purely subjective "reviews" of analog video cables, naturally things like Component cables by Nordost claimed to "make obvious differences in color saturation, picture sharpness and contrast."

But those are eminently measurable qualities. Increased sharpness/resolution effects would show up on resolution test patterns, and any decent calibrator has equipment that would immediately detect changes in color saturation/gamma/contrast. And more reliably than the human eye. That's why, after all, they use such equipment. And yet those claims were NEVER accompanied by the type of objective evidence one would expect. And you don't see professional calibrationists saying they had to compensate their calibrations for the "obviously different contrast/color/sharpness" in higher end video cables.

Similarly, recently on another forum an audiophile swore his new $1,000 HDMI cable improved the color/clarity/contrast of his image over his previous HDMI cable. It didn't matter how many technical explanations were cited showing the type of changes he felt he saw was literally impossible, even quotes from the technical head of the HDMI committee, nothing could budge his view "I know what I see!"

This is essentially where one gets stuck when one party is completely committed to the truth of their subjective impressions. No counter evidence need apply.

(BTW, I thought I was seeing differences in high end video cables too, e.g. Nordost vs cheaper cables. But understanding the nature of sighted bias I managed to blind test between them and then...no discernible difference. As technical theory would predict. It's sobering to really put one's perception to such tests).

Personally, I would welcome a digital cable that improved the sound of my system. But...I prefer to wait for better evidence than audiophile anecdotes before I spend time and money on such a purchase.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by ADCO

Ugh…. This topic.

I applaud anyone who wants to go toe to toe with the na-sayers because, and frankly their obstinance obfuscates the basic reality that everything matters.

Everything doesn't matter. It really doesn't. Ask any good engineer. There will be a point at which "doing more" will not get you "more."

"Everything" can't matter, unless human perception was infinite in it's sensitivity. But it's not. We know we have limitations, that's why humans invented instruments to see/hear/detect things our senses can not and/or with better reliability. You really can't see X-rays with your naked eye. And you really can't hear some levels of distortion once low enough (even though it can be measured). We don't have Super Hearing.

What IS closer to "infinite" is our imagination. That really is the only thing that could make sense of the "everything makes a difference" mantra, since we can always imagine a difference.

No, that all doesn't mean "every audiophile is just imagining things." Obviously not. But rather, some audio claims (like in most hobbies) veer in to the Extraordinary Claims side of the ledger. It's no problem for any individual audiophile if he/she wants to ignore measurements or the relevance of blind testing or the fact we really can imagine differences pretty easily and that's a variable to consider (especially with technically dubious audiophiles claims). But, lots of audiophiles (it seems a growing number) are ok being a bit more demanding of evidence for some of the stuff often taken for granted in high end audio.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by mep

Time to put on your asbestos underwear.

I hope you aren't implying the nice people here can't encounter an alternative point of view without flaming someone?

I have more faith :-)

Originally Posted by mep

Did you read the first paragraph in the OP?

Yes. Could you explain the relevance, please? Should that paragraph alert me that people here will flame me?

Thank you for such a nice reply!

I'm also not here to convince you of anything. I truly believe we should all approach this hobby in the way that suits us and allows us to find our bliss. I mean to simply present my view and how I look at justifying my beliefs and purchases.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

Hi Matt,

I respect everyone's opinion. Unfortunately it is the Anti-Ear crowd that attacks those with ears with a vengeance and viciousness. I've had to block quite a few of them from my channel (I'm not saying you are like them - I'm just having a polite conversation with you).

I'd just like to point out, that while take your response in good cheer, it could be seen as poisoning the well somewhat to start with declaring some crowd "anti-ear" insofar as it means to demean others as "not having MY hearing abilities."

It would be like me using the term the "anti-science crowd" or something like that. Most of us have more nuanced views.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

When it comes to weighing who has more credibility, knowledge, and a clue, I'm going with John Swenson who worked for over 40 years as a professional Ethernet engineer for Broadcom and Cisco,

I can understand why you would find Swenson compelling.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

and not ASR which openly advocates NOT using your ears to decide what you like and bans people from their site who actually choose to use their ears.

It depends what you mean by that. If you mean that Amir would recommend seeking speakers that tend to measure in a certain way, I'd say that's true to a degree. Though he also listens and reports on listening impressions in his reviews.
Also, some people seem to think that ASR isn't about listening or trusting one's "ears." They certainly advocate listening, but also recognize the validity of tests (and research based) using blind testing, when one is really trying to get reliable knowledge. It's really in blind testing that you are REALLY "using JUST your ears," and not your eyes as well (or that is, your knowledge of which gear you are listening to). That's really when the rubber hits the road, but few audiophiles are willing to truly put JUST their ears to such tests. (I've done it fairly often).

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

I'm not going to be one of those people who has his ASR buddies over and says while listening to my system "I know it sounds like crap, but MAN you should see how great it measures!"

I don't recognize that as a realistic characterization of ASR folks or...audio gear in general. So for instance, take gear that measures fantastic in terms of low distortion, like Benchmark preamps/amps/DACs. Perhaps you would listen to such a system and not like it. But that wouldn't mean it "sounds like crap" as many other audiophiles would think it sounds amazing.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

This is not aimed at you and respect your differing opinion. But I again would suggest people use their own ears and not allow others to tell them what sounds good and what doesn't.

I'm sympathetic to that and in fact I wouldn't go telling anyone what they ought to do. In fact over on ASR I often explain why, for speakers, I find the measurements only "so" helpful and I will ultimately go with what I perceive in sighted speaker auditions. I have preferred a number of speakers that do not measure like, for instance, a Revel speaker (Revel epitomizing the type of measurements seen as most desirable on that forum, at least by some members).

However I think where you and I would part is that I would not rely strictly on what I think I can hear when it comes to determining more controversial claims in audio, or what many cite as technically dubious claims. Like...super expensive servers sounding better, expensive USB/digital cables etc. Completely relying on what one believes to hear can lead to imagined differences, which isn't as helpful if you really care about understanding what is going on.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

I would never be so arrogant to tell someone what they can and can't hear.

In some cases there really isn't any arrogance in telling someone what they can and can not hear. Human hearing, like sight, has limits. You can't see X-rays, whether you thought you could or not. You can not, in all likelihood, hear up to 30kHz, whether you thought you could or not. In fact if you get your hearing tested, that's a type of blind test. If the test shows your hearing drops off like a rock at 14kHz, then you can protest all day long but your test shows you can't demonstrate you can hear any higher than that. And it would be right for the audiologist to tell you "sorry, you can't hear beyond 14kHz.

Similarly, there really is all sorts of research regarding the limitation of our hearing in terms of dynamic range, distortion thresholds, masking effects etc. If two cables measure distortion below the known hearing threshold and you still claim to hear a difference, there is every reason to presume you really aren't hearing a difference and are imaging it. Of course, you could demonstrate otherwise by submitting to a blind test, but again...most audiophiles who "Trust Their Ears" won't bother with that.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

I challenge anyone who says they can't hear a digital difference to actually tell us what their system is. It's amazing when I've got them to finally admit to it in the past how incredibly low-resolution it is.

I honestly think the whole " you need a super high resolution system to hear X changes" tends to be a red herring. The first thing is that claims about, for instance, cables changing the sound are made by all sorts of audiophiles, from those with low priced systems up to sky-high priced. That is consistent with both the idea cables make significant differences OR with the idea many people can imagine these differences. And the sonic differences often claimed for cables are significant enough they would show up on any decent speaker system (even cheap types).

I work in post production sound. I have to have very acute hearing to do my job. I'm literally doing things like matching the "air tones" of a room - literally just the slight barely noticeable rush of air a microphone captures in an empty room. And I'm juggling sometimes 40 tracks of sound or more at a time, so I have to be able to hear when I'm making slight changes to even one of those tracks. And yet I have been able to do this on a whole range of systems, many of which I have no doubt you would judge "low resolution."

As for my own experience with equipment, I used to do reviews for a while and have been in the audiophile game for a long time, having owned speakers such as MBL, Thiel 3.7s, various Audio Physic, Von Schwiekert, Waveform and many, many others. Right now I have (among my speakers) Joseph Audio Perspective2 speakers, which are very "high res."
My main amps are CJ Premier 12 monoblocks, though sometimes I use a Bryston 4B3 (borrowed). I use a Benchmark LA4 preamp (among the most transparent you can buy), a CJ Premier 16LS2 tube preamp, Benchmark DAC 2L, Transrotor Fat Bob S turntable/Benz Micro Ebony L cartridge etc.

I also have used all sorts of cables in my system, because I know other audiophiles who can lend me some when I need it. So for instance for a while I've had a pair of XLR cables that cost a little under 5 grand. I didn't need them anymore because I bought some basic Audioblast cables (which I believe use Mogami cabling) for about 50 bucks. I detected NO sonic difference when I replaced the expensive cables, as cable theory predicts. I hear every iota of detail still. I've also sold speakers I own to another audiophile who put around $50,000 of cabling - much of it the highest end Nordost.
There wasn't anything I heard on those speakers with that cabling that I didn't hear at home with standard Belden cabling.

Now, the inclination might be to say "well, I guess you must have poor hearing abilities, not like ours." But, if we wanted to talk challenges, I would challenge anyone here to try doing my job - if your ears don't perform picking up the most minute defects in sound, you are out of a job!

But that's the thing: If we stick to a purely subjective paradigm, in which the audiophile's ears are Always Right, then none of these issues can ever be settled. If I use exactly the same method you use and don't hear a difference, that can never be taken as counter evidence because you can always say "Well, so what? I hear a difference so that's that."
It's unfalsifiable.

This is why I don't mind REALLY putting my ears to a test when I want to know what is going on. I thought I heard a difference between two music servers, even though I knew it shouldn't be the case. But when a friend helped me do a blinded shoot out, where I couldn't know which was which and ONLY had my ears to rely on, well the "difference" vanished. I find that not only sobering in terms of accepting the liabilities of uncontrolled listening, I also find it enlightening and helpful. YMMV. No one else has to engage in such tests who don't want to.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

This is not a flame war - just stating my personal experience and again I respect yours. I know you "prefer to wait for better evidence than audiophile anecdotes before I spend time and money on such a purchase", but I think you misunderstood my post if you think I was in any way trying to sell you anything.

Have a great night and thanks for sharing your opinion - differing opinions and hearing is what makes this hobby so great.

Have a great night right back! And thanks. Sorry for blabbering on...

Cheers.

Wait...AJ Soundfield posts here?

Must be an..."interesting"...fit for this forum ;-)

Originally Posted by mep

It's a "polite" knife fight for now.

Even so, there's something I don't understand about audiophiles "deniers"...
I think that, we audiophiles, go through the forums to share our toys and report the progress we are making as we move along this labyrinthine path of audio. And naturally, we are also here to learn from others and from the different paths they have followed, hoping to skip a few steps and be able to make better choices.
What I ask is, what do "deniers" do on the internet audio spaces? What do they have to share/teach? The dangers of being deceived by the sense of hearing, which is responsible for hearing and enjoying listening to music so much?
Sometimes I wish that the "deniers", along with the warnings for all the dangers and idiocy in which we "audio fools" let ourselves get caught up, had the intellectual honesty to invite us so that we could listen to their systems and confirm the performance they achieved to reach. Not being fooled by marketing gimmicks, esoteric science or neuroacoustics mistakes, they certainly achieved superlative performance in their systems.

Originally Posted by mep

Not sure why you addressed your question to me.

Is nothing with you Mep.
I just found your statement funny!
My point is, even in a polite discussion, deniers always tell us: "don't go there", "don't go there"
But they never say which way to go...

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

Hmmm, not sure if as an educated adult who doesn't believe people actually hear Santa Claus, that I qualify as a "Denier", but I've been publicly demoing for well over a decade (note date). Does that count?

AJ
I still don't understand what you believe and don't believe. But for me there are basic things, without them, those who don't believe cannot build a good system. It may be good in one aspect or another, but it will fail somewhere. A detailed system for example. The detail is of no interest if you turn up the volume and the transition between mids and highs hurts your ears, a sign that there is a lot of garbage in the signal...
So, rhetorical question: does electricity count?

Hi Spock!

Originally Posted by Spock

Even so, there's something I don't understand about audiophiles "deniers"...
I think that, we audiophiles, go through the forums to share our toys and report the progress we are making as we move along this labyrinthine path of audio. And naturally, we are also here to learn from others and from the different paths they have followed, hoping to skip a few steps and be able to make better choices.

I agree!

But a problem here is I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "deniers." I don't know how broad a brush you are painting with there and who would or wouldn't fit in that category. So for instance there are audiophiles who rely so much on measurements they wouldn't even trust another audiophile, or reviewer, or even their own ears necessarily, to choose a speaker. Likewise they are likely to be highly skeptical of the audiophile items that usually cause arguments (cables etc). I presume this person would fit your description of a "denier". (?)

Then on the other hand there can be an audiophile who happily uses regular auditions of equipment and testing stuff in his home, who believe speaker cables make a difference, maybe AC cables, but might be skeptical about *some* audio tweak that maybe you happen to believe in. Does a person go in to the "denier" category if they are skeptical of even one thing you believe in?

My own position is I rely on normal auditioning for speakers (we know objectively they measure and sound different), and turntable gear (same), and I use tube amps because they seem to me to sound different in a way I like (objectively speaking, given how tube amps work, this is at least plausible), and for things like cables..DEPENDING on the type of cable and claim.... I'm more skeptical and since I know how easily we can imagine differences I'd prefer to see strong evidence (e.g. that an AC cable actually measurably alters the music signal output, or that someone has passed blind tests to actually identify between AC cables). I might doubt some of these claims (especially claims related to digital cables/servers/transports), but I'm quite open to good evidence for them. Does that put me in your "denier" category?

Originally Posted by Spock

What I ask is, what do "deniers" do on the internet audio spaces? What do they have to share/teach?

I have a feeling you might see people like Amir from the ASR forum as a "denier." If so, such "deniers" offer a heck of a lot. Amir regularly educates as to how audio equipment works, regularly tests manufacturer claims among a range of equipment, which many find extremely helpful. If you go through the many comments under his testing and explanation videos you will see countless people thanking him for putting out this information and testing claims, so that they can have a better idea of what they might be spending their money on.

I'm among those thankful people.

While you may only see a negative if someone is skeptical of something you believe in, very often these people have good technical chops and offer plenty of positive information as to how electronics really work.

Though I'm no electronics expert, I've also done a bit of this myself, for instance on another forum (now years ago) detailing my experience comparing a range of video cables (some very expensive like Nordost) and providing a type of blind test for people on the forum. Many were very thankful for finding out they didn't really have to worry about spending extra money on boutique video cables.

Of course, you don't have to listen to a thing Amir, or anyone like him, or anyone who might be a regular at ASR or of a similar mindset has to say. But...many appreciate audiophile ideas and marketing claims coming under higher scrutiny than the old "I'm an audiophile and I feel like I heard a difference."

Originally Posted by Spock

Sometimes I wish that the "deniers", along with the warnings for all the dangers and idiocy in which we "audio fools" let ourselves get caught up, had the intellectual honesty to invite us so that we could listen to their systems and confirm the performance they achieved to reach. Not being fooled by marketing gimmicks, esoteric science or neuroacoustics mistakes, they certainly achieved superlative performance in their systems.

Well inviting some person over the internet to listen to one's system is a practical matter, isn't it? Not sure exactly how often that would work.

But you can always listen for yourself to gear that such people think highly of. Make your own decisions.

My personal view/experience is that the sound quality of a system - at least in terms of what would impress ME - isn't tied to someone having followed every "best technical practice" in putting together their system. Nor do I dismiss a system which may have all sorts of tweaks that I am skeptical about. I've heard systems set up by audiophiles who I may disagree with on some audio ideas, but their system has blown me away. In my view, even if someone is going in for SOME aspects I might think to be dubious, it doesn't mean they can't be very perceptive in putting together a system to come out with great results.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

I think it falls back on a very simple premise: either they have tried and they are unable to hear a difference with their hearing, or their hearing is fine and they have a system that isn't good enough.

Yes, that is the usual (forgive the phrase) "Golden Ears" response to skepticism. It is to disparage either the skeptic's hearing or his system.

What responses like yours virtually never contain is the admission your strongly held belief based on your own perception could be wrong, unfortunately. It can only be "the other guy" who is wrong. This is what you get with a purely subjective paradigm.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

I just can't understand why anyone would refuse to use their own ears. And if they have and can't hear a difference, that's fine but leave the rest of us alone.

What this misses is a huge variable: The way our biases affect our perception. This is a very well known, highly studied issue. What you call the person "refusing to use their own ears" is simply someone who is aware of this variable. Our "ears" are not perfect detecting machines. Together with our brain, they are fallible and we can "perceive things" that are not there. It can be due to an expectation effect (e.g. "the more expensive item will sound better") or to all sorts of influences, even the mere act of listening to see if there's any difference can change how you listen, and you can perceive a "difference in the sound" when there is no difference in the sound.

Unless you recognize these facts, you will never understand objections to some audiophile/high-end marketing claims.

Also, it's one thing to take on board such variables intellectually, it's another to experience it. That's when it can really sink in to your bones. If I compare different AC cables in my system I'm just as vulnerable as anyone else to hearing a difference. That's being human. Yet I've had 'obvious sonic differences' vanish when I set up blind tests, for instance between AC cables (or video cables...or music servers). When you experience how fallible your own perception can be, it's a good Life Lesson to take on board. But those audiophiles who believe only a purely subjective impression can possibly determine the truth tend not to be interested in alternatives to that viewpoint, and never truly put their hearing to the real crucible: whether you can detect a difference between A and B WITHOUT knowing which is which before-hand. THAT is truly "relying on what you can REALLY hear."

Again, as I often emphasis, neither you nor any audiophile HAS to care a thing about measurements or blind tests to enjoy the hobby. But at the same time, without grappling with these issues, you will likely continue to put forth question-begging claims where you have simply presumed you "hear" a difference that others "can not" without ever questioning yourself on the matter.

I hope I'm wrong, though. A good question to always ask yourself "How would I learn that I was wrong?" If you have made your position unfalsifiable, others are justified in being suspicious of your findings.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

Simple - it's my ears, my money, my system. Therefore I can never be "wrong" if I like it. It's literally that simple.

I think you are seeing only one side of the equation...if audiophiles such as yourself ONLY made assertions like "I believe I hear a difference so that's why I'll buy X"...no problem. But you don't stop there. These don't stay personal claims - they presume those claims to be The Truth. If that weren't the case, you wouldn't have been implying that the reason skeptics don't agree with you is because they have poor hearing or poor audio systems.

This is a blind-spot I so often see in these conversations. An audiophile says "I can hear differences between X and Y cables" and if another audiophile gives this opinion "I doubt there is a sonic difference because..." then the first audiophile leaps on the skeptic, as if only the skeptic is making "truth" claims. In other words "your" opinion is fine, even if it's making broad truth claims, but an alternative opinion is an "attack" and dirty pool. No, if you are saying "there are sonic differences between cables and IF you don't hear this then you have poor hearing or a poor system" then you've thrown down a gauntlet and you can't just pretend it's the "other guy" who is doing the "attacking" just because he has a skeptical position.

The other thing is, anything we post in public forums becomes some claim that many others will see. So for instance if a bunch of audiophiles are saying "I bought X tweak and it transformed my system" then it can influence other audiophiles to spend their money that way. That can be FINE in the sense that we can all buy whatever we want.
But it is ALSO worthwhile to have other people examine those claims and if it's the case they are dubious claims, to point out why. THAT gives another point of view for other audiophiles to consider, who may appreciate seeing the skeptical case as well, in terms of how they will spend their money. Just like some audiophiles can say why they would disagree that Wilson Audio speakers are the most accomplished speaker design in the world.

Nobody learns too much in an echo-chamber.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

Cable deniers simply need to butt out, stop attacking us and trying to convince us we are the wrong ones. It frankly doesn't concern them whether we are wrong, right or in between.

The real question is why are cable deniers obsessed with attacking and forcing their dogma on others and can't simply let it go?

It's literally that simple.

I'm not attacking you. Who is?

If you see an alternative viewpoint as "attacking" you, then it's probably a good idea to become less sensitive. Again, on such a view, aren't you "attacking" others by "attacking" their poor hearing/systems?

What happens if we flip your position around and say: "Cable believers simply need to butt out, stop pushing their cable-beliefs on other audiophiles!"

That only sounds weird if you just presume your own position as the default truth, and any other position as an "attack."

How about: you buy what you want, for whatever reason you want, and I'll do the same. But since audio forums are about discussing gear, if someone is making some claim for a piece of gear "Wilson speakers are the BEST in the world" or "USB cables all sound different" then since audiophiles have different viewpoints on anything, we can discuss those viewpoints civilly without presuming we are being "attacked."

Cheers.

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

C'mon down, can't bring it to you. Despite what you've heard, I don't bite believers. Or I can arrange a trip to Redmond.
As I've said, its the folks who have zero trust of ears who fear trust your ears, just listen listening. Rightfully so, as JGH said above ;-).

cheers,

AJ

Oh I've always been happy to visit other audiophile dens.

But just in case you might have misinterpreted me: I wasn't implying that someone taking a more objective approach to putting together a system can't end up with a terrific sounding system, one that I would enjoy. I was just pointing out that I have found systems put together by what some prickly "objectivists" might term "audiophools" to have sounded fantastic too. As I've argued over on ASR, even if we presume there are aspects of a system chosen by a purely "subjective" audiophile that may be voo-doo, that doesn't mean the audiophile hasn't a good sense of sound, hasn't paid attention also to what does make sonic differences, and hasn't arrived at a good sounding system.

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

That's a bit of a strawman.

Not really. It's fairly common on ASR for the opinion of anyone who might buy in to some audiophile "voodoo" to be discounted. This is especially true on the attitude towards purely subjective audio reviews, which are often dismissed on the site. "That nutjob talks up expensive cables" or "believes something idiotic" so "his reviews can be dismissed as poppycock."

This is where I tend to bring up the point I had just made: the fact a reviewer, or any audiophile, can imagine sonic differences doesn't mean they can't also be pretty good at identifying sonic differences that ARE there. That biases exist doesn't mean they are responsible for making all our perception inaccurate or unreliable (otherwise...how would we find the front door everyday, or recognize our family's voice on the phone...or...). If my audio pal says he hears a difference with his new expensive USB cable, yes I'm going to don my skeptic's hat. If he tells me he's having trouble with exaggerated bass response with his big new speakers, then that's entirely plausible so I can accept his claim and try to help out.

So it's really, for me, a point to make about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I can in fact understand someone saying "I'm looking for more reliable, objective information on audio gear than typically supplied in a subjective review." I get it. It's just when this crosses over to "therefore such reviews are useless" that I push back. I have been led to plenty of gear that I've loved via the reports of subjective reviewers or other audiophiles, including those with whom I may disagree over certain audio tweak stuff. One can learn to weed through the more obvious B.S. IMO.

I have little doubt your systems sound very impressive!

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

Right, but this is what I responded to you saying

Which is not the same thing.
If someone claims that what I bolded doesn't exist, they're an idiot. ASR is full of them, but I've yet to see such a claim. Feel free to link.
Or not. Life is too short to fret over audio silliness.

cheers,

AJ

I wasn't arguing that the ASR folk don't believe a purely subjectivist or voodoo-believing audiophile can't somehow arrive at a good sounding system. I bring up that example to remind, or illustrate, that "being subject to bias effects" is not an automatic reason to reject someone's subjective ability to discern real sonic effects. So an audiophile may hear imaginary things between his expensive new AC cable and a stock cable, but he may also be quite perceptive in detecting the qualities of his speaker, it's positioning in the room, how it's working with an amp etc, to still arrive at good sound. It's just an example to make a larger point. I've known audiophiles who think their cable risers change the sound of their system. I'm skeptical. But they have also been bang-on in describing the overall sound of their system, or of describing the sonic characteristics of their speakers, once I heard it. (Not always, but often enough).

Fremer, for instance, is regularly castigated on ASR for propounding B.S. regarding vinyl and other things, so you get "the guy imagines things so I'm going to discount all his opinions and reviews." But that doesn't mean Fremer hasn't been quite perceptive in, for instance, many of his speaker reviews. (I have found him to be so, whenever I've compared what I hear in regards to speakers that he has reviewed).

why waste your time with deniers if you are sure about your own experience?