Avoid the snake oil

Unfortunately I agreed Mike and MEP; "Troll Alert"....

As someone who is a software engineer (among other things) I was in the camp of 1's and 0's... and as long as these are all lined up correctly....

Boy was I wrong....

I am also in the camp that I would love a Taiko but know I could never afford one. However, I do subscribe to their general path of using high quality Window machines. Even though I could not own a Taiko I can do my best with a quality computer fine tuned to the best of my abilities and running Roon Server and HQPlayer. I am very happy with the results.

Only one "correction" in what Mike said in that the server would not be running the "Heavily graphic intensive software like Roon" in that the GUI portion of Roon should never be installed on the server, only the the controller machine (iPad, Android tablet, or what I use a Microsoft Surface). The server is only running the Roon engine, or what they originally called Roon Server, now I believe they refer to it as the Roon Core.... but the bottom line is the graphical portion does not get installed or ran on the server machine :).

With that said you really picked the wrong person to point your comebacks at. Mike runs this board, which may very well be the most knowledgeable forum for high end audio that exists. He also owns one of the most highly regarded high end audio stores that exists... I assure you not for the money but for the love of audio and music. Therefore experience and knowledge wise he may very well be the best source there is.

You really should make sure you know and understand who you are responding to before throwing out snarky comments. Mike has been the single best source of knowledge that I have ever encountered. For this, and much more, I thank him.
 
I'm more on the side of MattHooper in this argument. That being said, I don't think all types of resources found online are necessarily good resources for this debate. Particularly resources that are primarily from consumer audio industry members or from people who can perform measurements but aren't necessarily fully read on the science behind audio or audio measurements. I would rather reference, for example, measurements from Canada's National Research Council, peer-reviewed publications from the Audio Engineering Society, and reference books from authors like Toole and Waldrep.

Like MattHooper says, "pro audio people" do not think all things sound the same. You only need to read pro audio magazines, forums, or attend a pro audio conference/show to see that. Or to talk to pro audio equipment engineers.

But I think what's being lost in the crosstalk is that many times the measured differences that purport to result in audible differences are not in the audio signal fidelity but rather in the sideband noise. Things like jitter, DC offset, shield or ground noise, etc. that could result in measured differences in the final analog output, but that would be completely irrelevant when discussing a system that is purely digital end-to-end. It is also fair to argue (backed by scientific evidence) whether or not those measured differences are indeed audible. You can absolutely find scientific research on the audible threshold of jitter, crosstalk, etc. It should be noted that studies are typically done with a general population, as opposed to a qualified category of people. Although I have seen studies done specifically with musicians.

There are absolutely differences in what two people can hear. Some of that is a result of education, training, and practice. Some of that is just due to physical differences (e.g. hearing loss). But this is also something that a Golden Ear person can prove, by participating in and examining the results of double-blind testing for specific types of differences. These Golden Ears are who you will hire and use for audio research when you can.

With respect to the use of music servers, sideband noise that does carry through the equipment chain could eventually influence the final analog output. One should still try to support any claims of that sideband noise resulting in audible differences with scientific evidence. Although the reality is that data on this is pretty much unavailable to the consumer. But such noise should absolutely not influence the fidelity of the digital data itself, otherwise you either have too much noise which you should fix or workaround, or you are using an unreliable digital transmission protocol (e.g. S/PDIF or USB Audio) that is _also_ operating in a seriously poor environment resulting in frequent and regular signal errors.

I do think many times one concept can be incorrectly transferred from a context where it matters to one where it doesn't. Most people understand that a DAC that galvanically isolates, buffers, and re-clocks the incoming S/PDIF signal should prevent incoming jitter and noise from affecting the analog output. This also means that any jitter on the digital audio data signal between components upstream of the DAC are inconsequential as long as the digital data fidelity is preserved. The same concept applies in other contexts, such as the network.
 
NekoAudio said:
...But this is also something that a Golden Ear person can prove, by participating in and examining the results of double-blind testing for specific types of differences...One should still try to support any claims of that sideband noise resulting in audible differences with scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

Scientific evidence is infinitely more valuable than anecdotal data and opinions, when and where it is available. As one who has helped design and has participated in some audio DBT's (many years ago, when my hearing was really really good), though, I can say with some degree of authority that it is very difficult to design and analyze a valid DBT for the kinds of audio differences being discussed here. Roger Skoff goes too far the other way, though; audio DBT's can certainly detect differences in subject matter well beyond pure tones.

However, ultimately all that matters is what the listener/purchaser values, as I suggested way back in post #10. If you don't think anything beyond a Mac Mini and a Blue Jean USB cable to a Benchmark DAC (and this is certainly a reasonably cost-effective setup) sounds better to you, then be happy with it, but it's silly for you to criticize those who don't share that opinion.
 
Everybody looking for all these scientific studies to prove a negative are fooling themselves. Independent scientific studies cost money, and since this isn’t life or death research, but rather a small hobby, nobody gives a crap enough to invest the money and time in your studies.

If you don’t hear a difference, awesome! Stick with the apple airport express. They’re super cheap on eBay and even found at Goodwill. Save the money. Buy stocks. Eat fine steak. Drink fine wine. But for those of us with highly resolution systems who can hear the differences between network servers and even software on the same server (look at all that’s been written comparing roon Vs TAS on the exact same server!), we will continue to enjoy our servers and enjoy our music to its fullest.

I would ask this about servers however: why do widely priced servers with wide performance differences confirmed by the vast majority, even exist if they all measure the same? Because they don’t sound the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Funny things this hobby, back when I first started into computer audio I was coming from a cd player. I built myself a little fanless Windows machine, and was running J river. I then went all in on computer audio and sold my CD spinner, buying an audio research DAC. Then one day I went to sell my DAC and a friend brought over his cheaper DAC… I was surprised how much different it sounded. How could the ones and zeros sound so different? Both DACs processed the files just fine, and fed the signal through the rest of my system.

I moved up to a dCS Rossini DAC, it was a big improvement in the musicality of the music. Same ones and zeros. And I fed this DAC via a ROON Rock on a little Intel NUC. I continued to improve my analog because I thought my digital side was at least OK. Then I added a TAIKO Extreme, and my digital sound changed dramatically. Same ones and zeros, same music, but it sounded so much more musical, more engaging, easier to listen to for long periods. This was a major improvement because previously I would get digital fatigue within a couple of hours.

But what I have found most interesting having added the extreme server, is that the blog posts of those folks owning the extreme represent many different brands of DAC. In every case they swear adding the extreme greatly improved their digital sound. So how is it this computer/server is making all these high end systems sound so much better? And there was a recent small software upgrade On the server that everyone swears also greatly improved the sound of their system.

Ones and zeros, it’s all the same music yet it all sounds different. Not everything in this hobby makes rational sense yet we can hear differences. If your brain is locked into the mechanical Newtonian paradigm, you might miss a lot.

It reminds me of the time I put some little footers underneath my racks so the spikes wouldn’t go through the carpet and mark up the hardwood beneath. My wife came downstairs and listened and looked at me and asked what changed? I told her about the little footers and we both agreed all of the sound was there but the music was missing. How the hell are you gonna measure something like that? It is a crazy hobby and once you recognize everything makes a difference and then you open your brain to hearing things differently. Not everything means improvement, that is always for you to decide for yourself. But hell, if you’re happy with some Best Buy speakers, raspberry pi, and some lamp cord for speaker wire more power to you — you will save yourself a bank full of money.
 
This website and the business behind it are dedicated to the proposition that there are things we experience that defy the conventional wisdom that we can measure everything we see and hear with numbers. That’s a view that discounts the richness of experience that defines high end audio. If what I experience in my cerebral cortex is so unique and specific to only me, why are so many other people experiencing the same thing? Hmmmmm.
 
mep said:
Troll Alert.
Click to expand...

Sigh. That didn't take long.

I'm not a "troll," I'm a sincere and passionate audiophile who...gasp!...might not share all your opinions, and in this case I have a different opinion of the merits of that Positive Feedback article (which is why I commented on a thread devoted to that article). It's simply lazy to yell "troll" instead of responding to arguments (it's called Ad Hominem attacks).

Let's look at the description of an internet Troll:

Internet troll - Wikipedia


In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory,

What would be "inflamatory" about giving a skeptical take on an article, and providing the reasons for that opinion? If it is "inflamatory" in this forum to merely voice dissent this way, that would say more about the dogmatism of a forum than about the person with the heretical opinion. I am hoping this forum is not dogmatic in this way.



insincere,

All my posts have been perfectly sincere. They represent the views I really hold, and the actual reasons for my skepticism.


digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, online video game, or blog),

My response was directly to the article posted, hence not off topic. As the article made claims about blind testing I addressed those claims, including examples of my own. You then started questioning the example of comparing servers and thus started that digression. A troll would ignore any such replies - in fact it's the mark of a troll to ignore the arguments given by others or responses to his post. Just the opposite: I have responded as much as I could to the various claims people have made in response to me, and in depth giving arguments and reasons for my response.

Note also that several people agreed with my take on the article!

Your reply suggests that my simply not taking your (or other people's) word for things, and explaining my own reasons for skepticism, WHILE politely asking relevant questions that have gone unanswered by you, is somehow inflammatory. I would hope you would be open for discussing different opinions here (?)

with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others' perception.

^^^^ I would think it more likely someone who quickly abandons responding to an argument in favor of calling someone a "Troll" might fit that description better.

If you disagree, why not provide the argument for why I'm wrong? If you are too "tired" of these discussions, why not abstain rather than respond by name calling?

I would have hoped for better from a Reviewer.
 
rbbert said:
Scientific evidence is infinitely more valuable than anecdotal data and opinions, when and where it is available. As one who has helped design and has participated in some audio DBT's (many years ago, when my hearing was really really good), though, I can say with some degree of authority that it is very difficult to design and analyze a valid DBT for the kinds of audio differences being discussed here. Roger Skoff goes too far the other way, though; audio DBT's can certainly detect differences in subject matter well beyond pure tones.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that. It's why I wrote:

Before that is interpreted as claiming nobody should rely on his perception in evaluating gear, it's not. Few of us have the time, ability and inclination to get scientifically rigorous about everything we buy. I certainly don't. There's nothing wrong with approaching, say, a magazine like Positive Feedback with the understanding "These are all subjective impressions...the reader is free to put as much stock in the reports, or not, as he wants."

So there is a strawman implied in some of the posts that someone like myself is advocating we all ought to purchase equipment based merely on measurements or blind testing.

rbbert said:
However, ultimately all that matters is what the listener/purchaser values, as I suggested way back in post #10. If you don't think anything beyond a Mac Mini and a Blue Jean USB cable to a Benchmark DAC (and this is certainly a reasonably cost-effective setup) sounds better to you, then be happy with it, but it's silly for you to criticize those who don't share that opinion.
Click to expand...

But this seems to be just the type of conflation that runs these discussions off the rails: the conflation of "being skeptical of a claim" or "criticizing an argument" with "criticizing a person."

If someone takes a critique of their argument or claim as some personal attack THAT is a problem. THAT is what makes things unnecessarily heated. I have been critiquing the argument in the Positive Feedback article, and also responding to the claims made in other posts with reasons why I don't automatically accept those claims, and giving arguments for my skepticism. If people take THAT as "criticizing the PERSON who doesn't share the opinion" then that seems to be ripe for arousing negative emotional responses, wouldn't you agree?

Wouldn't it be more conducive to civil discussion to refrain from whipping out the epithet "troll" for those who don't just fall in line with the viewpoint of some others here, even the forum owner? If not, it comes across as a place of dogmatism where alternative viewpoints are not countenanced. I hope it's not really like that here.
 
Mike said:
If you prefer to look at meters which only tell part of the story (see Nelson Pass’s comments) rather than trust your ears, than may I suggest:

Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
Click to expand...

I'm a member over on ASR.

But before you draw an assumption: I'm also a long time member on a great many other forums - AVSFroum, AVforums, Audiogon, Audio Asylum, Steve Hoffman, What's Best Forum, Canuck Audio Mart forums and plenty of others. I started on the Usenet audio forums, so been around the block. I'm a long time audiophile, have owned and listened to countless amounts of high end gear, and have worked in post production sound for 35 years.

I'm not some strawman objective dogmatist who "only looks at measurements." Far from it: I am often fighting for the worth of subjective reports, even at odds with some at ASR in this regard. But I do recognize the relevance of measurements and that of the scientific method. Audio is not some magic bubble where measurements cannot help rule on the answers to some questions, and where human bias suddenly has no influence on our perception so we can just ignore it for any claim a marketer or audiophile will make.
This isn't muckraking; it's entirely reasonable and defensible.

Mike said:
For what actual engineers say:

“If it measures good and sounds bad, — it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, — you've measured the wrong thing.”

Here’s how good relying on measurements can be (they measured incorrectly and slammed a product for their bad measurements!!!):

EarMen Tradutto DAC - Good Measurements Gone Wrong - SoundStage! Real Hi-Fi (Ep:29) - YouTube

Measurements vs listening - YouTube

Podcast: Beware the measurements! | Darko.Audio

Meet the Stellar Phono Preamp – PS Audio

If it quacks like a duck… – PS Audio
Click to expand...

Ok, took a look. A link to a discussion among some audio reviewers...and a lot of Paul McGowan.

First, McGowan, as i understand it, is not a trained engineer. (I'm happy to be corrected if those credentials can be pointed to). I already find Paul makes plenty of dubious arguments to begin with, and the gulf between what he says, and what his marketing claims, and the objective performance of his products seems only widening - see the recent ASR measurements of the P12 power re-generator.
(But, I infer from your replies that measurements won't sway you).

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-audio-p12-review-part-2-power-testing.31432/

So on one hand I can see an engineer providing objective, measured data in support of his claims (Amirm). On the other hand, the lead of a company who is not providing such evidence, and who of course has the incentive of selling the product.

I think this is reasonable grounds for not just accepting McGowan's views as authoritative...and keeping my skeptical hat on in regards to the claims of someone looking to sell a product. Until McGown perhaps starts producing more objective evidence than claims.

In either case, I directly addressed some of your remarks about "what can not be measured" and I don't see a direct response back on this. I don't think it's fair to just post a bunch of links, as if I should spend my time going through all of them hunting for where my questions may or may not be answered. It would be better if you quoted whatever is directly relevant to what I've written, please.

But...just a word on the fact you seem to have already diagnosed me as a "meter reader" and a "Troll."

Is it your position that I ought to simply accept whatever claim you make as true?

I understand you run the forum, but is that a reason to just accept "you are right, I am wrong"? I understand you have experience with lots of audio gear. But so do countless audiophiles (myself included). Is that a reason? Plenty of experienced audiophiles can be wrong about all sorts of things, don't you agree?

As far as I can see, the only "sin" I've committed here is not just automatically genuflecting to having received wisdom from above: to not just accepting your and other people's claims outright, to daring to give reasons for why I don't automatically accept the claims and giving the justifications for my own views.

To take offense at this, or to just presume someone advancing an alternative position is a "Troll" is a way of not brooking dissenting opinions - it smacks of a type of dogmatism, and it seems THAT response is more responsible for turning threads sour than anything else.

Again, I have been earnest and conscientious in my replies to you and others, and it doesn't help to throw labels like "troll" around without having justified it.
 
rbbert said:
And yet in post #18 you describe yourself as doing just that...:dunno:
Click to expand...



1.

I said few of us use blind testing. That would be true even IF I were one of the few. Right?

2.

And when I wrote few of us have the inclination to get "scientifically rigorous about EVERYTHING WE BUY" I fit that category too. I do not blind test everything I use or buy. In fact I do not bother with this for the vast majority of what I buy. It's just not practical, and I often don't have the interest. That's why I said I am happy to have blind testing in my tool box. It's there when it's practical, but it doesn't mean I constantly use it, or have to use it.

I don't think any audiophile ever has to engage in blind testing...or looking at a single measurement ever. If he doesn't want. It's understandable. That doesn't mean some of us don't find these tools can't have relevance or some usefulness.

I hope that clears things up?
 
MattHooper said:
Sigh. That didn't take long.

I'm not a "troll," I'm a sincere and passionate audiophile who...gasp!...might not share all your opinions, and in this case I have a different opinion of the merits of that Positive Feedback article (which is why I commented on a thread devoted to that article). It's simply lazy to yell "troll" instead of responding to arguments (it's called Ad Hominem attacks).

Let's look at the description of an internet Troll:

Internet troll - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

That's just one general definition - Online Troll or Provocateur - A Necessary Evil? - Bang The Table. " Trolling in a community lead forum may involve simply disagreeing with the predominant opinion of participants in the forum." Nothing wrong with what you want to believe. Mike already indicated in post number 41 (which was a response to the person who indicated troll alert) "Agreed. I think he would be much happier at Amir’s forum with the other meter readers."

Then why continue with the same stuff? ASR members would likely share most if not all of your opinions. Many, if not most of the people here believe in the evaluation a product that involves listening in the context of a particular system vs. other pieces of equipment. That's why we go to shows and dealers or solicit opinions from people who own or have owned items or look at reviews to see what was in the system used to evaluate the piece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top