Avoid the snake oil

[Mike]

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.



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).

PS Audio P12 Review Part 2: Power Testing | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

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.

You are simply looking for an argument which is based upon measurements instead of experiences and actual LISTENING. I have no interest in measurements or studies when even those designing the products will tell you they only tell part of the story.

Enjoy your Raspberry Pi vs Apple Airport Express shootouts.

I’m not going to spend five more seconds with this topic. You haven’t even spent time comparing proper audiophile level servers. When you tell me you’ve LISTENED and compared these servers like I do daily, then I will be interested in reading it.

But I’m sorry, I’m far too busy. Bye bye.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[MattHooper]

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.

Thank you for the civil response Phil.

I visit tons of forums including AudioShark because I enjoy the exchange of opinions on audio. And I'll do my research on what other audiophiles think of certain gear. So I've visited AudioShark on and off for years. Admittedly I can not remember precisely the views of every forum, and as you see I have rarely posted here.

In this case on visiting I noticed this post about the Positive Feedback article, one I'd just read and disagreed with, and so it seemed a good chance to discuss the article and why I felt it was poorly argued.

So, in reply to your question "why post your view here?" I guess my question back to you would be: Why not?

You say: 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.

Does that mean that all such members do, or should, automatically agree with everything written in that article? Is the view here so uniform that an article like that merely posted as a sort of sacrament where people are expected to just nod their heads in agreement?
What happens if someone doesn't agree and give his reasons? Should he keep silent? Go away? Is that really the character of the forum?

I'd hope not. I'd hope a place like this could encompass audiophiles who may share the love of gear, and exchange our reports on gear, but who aren't in lock step with every claim someone makes.

And my post immediately had a couple members agreeing with it. So clearly I'm not alone.

So, again, I'd ask about the implication of what you mean to say. If I post in this forum, ought I just keep my opinion silent if it's not the same as perhaps a majority here?

(There seems to have been something of a knee-jerk bunch of inferences about my position, and treating my arguments as if they are not anything of worth; that of a naive know-nothing. Who is setting the tone here?).

 

[MattHooper]

You are simply looking for an argument which is based upon measurements instead of experiences and actual LISTENING. I have no interest in measurements or studies when even those designing the products will tell you they only tell part of the story.

Yes, I was inquiring about the technical claims and asking for evidence for the claims. (E.g. why server A will sound different than server B).

That's fine if objective-evidence based stuff doesn't interest you. I'm not forcing you to do anything. I've simply responded to the claims you've made to me here. The fact that YOU may have no interest in such a discussion doesn't give you or others the right to call me a "Troll" though.

Isn't that fair to point out?

Again, note that more than one member acknowledged I had made some fair criticisms.

Enjoy your Raspberry Pi vs Apple Airport Express shootouts.

I’m not going to spend five more seconds with this topic. You haven’t even spent time comparing proper audiophile level servers. When you tell me you’ve LISTENED and compared these servers like I do daily, then I will be interested in reading it.

And, again, if I listened to those expensive servers and reported no sonic difference would your response more likely to take it as some reason to re-think your own view? Or is it more likely you would just dismiss it as my inability to hear what you can hear? I'm pretty sure the latter, wouldn't you agree? This is why my own subjective reports are no good for getting further in any such discussion: There is only ONE answer that will be accepted: If I heard a difference, it confirms the beliefs here. If I didn't hear a difference, it's just rejected as a failing on my part.

This is why being able to appeal sometimes to objective evidence (or controlled listening tests, when practical) actually have some use. Otherwise we are trapped in a sort of subjective dogma - your word against mine and that's that. And then people take skepticism of their "personal experience"...as a type of personal attack. Emotions get heated, unnecessarily. That is mostly how audio thread death spirals occur. (See how quickly I was called a "Troll.")

Again, if you don't agree, fine. If you don't even want to discuss such things, cool, no worries at all! But it doesn't help the tenor of any forum to imply someone who dares hold that these things have relevance, or who does not automatically take all the claims made in an article or by the owner of a forum as true...as just being a Troll.

 

[u-sound]

i agree, nobody should call you a troll for your very own perspective, especially you explained it well.

 

[rbbert]

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?

Not really; you posted "I certainly don't" and proceeded to describe doing just that for some major purchases! (I have to assume that even you wouldn't subject speaker systems or phono cartridges to DBT)

I also wonder exactly how you went about DBTing your server and power cord investigations. I suspect it would be fairly easy to identify methodological and/or data analysis errors which would invalidate any conclusions. If you have ever participated in a "journal club" you would know how that process works...

Just to be clear, I think DBTs (randomized, prospective, well-designed DBTs) can be very useful in perceptual sciences, but just as in all sciences (including "hard" sciences) the more variables that are involved the greater the risk of those pesky methodological and data analysis errors. And for complex musical signals there are many variables involved.

Also, FWIW, if you look back at my first post in this thread I also criticized most of the Positive Feedback column, and what I thought was worthwhile may not have been what the author thought important.

 

[Randy Myers]

Yet Mr. Hooper responds with no less than five long long long diatribes claiming that he is not a troll.

Another accepted definition in audiophile circles is someone who drones on and on trying to convince everyone else that they are right and everyone else is wrong... and even more accepted criteria is to write unnecessary long posts after posts when the majority of the forum has already put forth the proposition that they are not interested in what you are posting since you have already proven to not be comparing equipment on audiophile levels....

"Raspberry Pi vs Apple Airport Express shootouts" really, I mean really.... next thing you know Radio Shack speakers are going to be mentioned or BSR turntables maybe a great Crosley you might want to compare.

Maybe, just maybe you may want to consider actually participating in various threads on a forum before posting 18 replies on a single thread and picking a fight with the forum owner... smart, really smart sir.

 

[stereogeek]

I'm not touching this thread with a 10 foot pole (oops, guess I just did).

I knew it.....Troll City, USA

 

[Phil A]

Thank you for the civil response Phil.



You say: 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.

Does that mean that all such members do, or should, automatically agree with everything written in that article?

I think you already answered the question. 'Many' does not equate to all. No one is telling anyone what they should believe. I was merely indicating that many (with tons of actual experience both inside and around the business) have adequate experience vs. those who base their opinions on someone without experience and often a sample of one (which is not scientific at all and the product did not come from the manufacturer and it seems to be coincidental that some things, which are not ASR sponsors, seem to mysteriously have problems). Amir's ex partner actually commented about what goes on in an Audiogon thread which got canned due to someone trying to post his listening impressions in his system vs. what he had before. If one does not have direct experience with the product it really isn't of much value what they have to say. It is heresay based on a website known for these things.

A few examples. Here is one by someone with long time experience in the audio field - EarMen Tradutto DAC - Good Measurements Gone Wrong - SoundStage! Real Hi-Fi (Ep:29) - YouTube Here is another one - We should stop trusting Audio "Science" Review : headphones and it talks to what Amir's ex partner said in the thread on Audiogon that is now gone - "The lack of scientific rigor goes on when he makes the measurements: he often omits to measure a criterion or two (especially when they don’t play in favor of one of his favorite brands)" There are other instances where a brand of particular non-sponsor mysteriously had some sort of problem similar to the YouTube video above (in two instances I own the products as I have multiple systems and in another a friend of mine owns it). So it is either extremely coincidental almost beyond the realm or probable statistical possibility or people and sponsors are happy with sending ASR money and it is their money and it's OK they do that.

There would be nothing wrong if you took Mike up on his offer and found little or no difference between the expensive music servers and whatever you have. No one can tell anyone else what they can hear or not hear or what they believe is of little or no value to them. Here's a thread on a different forum - Has anyone heard a Class D Audio "Mini Gan 5" amp? Note the title of the thread - "Has anyone heard a Class D Audio "Mini Gan 5" amp? The key word is emphasized. Why would anyone throw crap out that means nothing to the question posed (it would be different if the question involved anyone who measured the amp and then anyone interjecting something about heard would be considered the troll) unless they are an absolute troll? Note that one of the typical ASR member comments is "Subjective reviews tell me nothing as far as how something will sound to me." Really? Not even a small fraction of a percent? Note that under the cons for the unit I listed "I believe the case is made of steel. It is magnetic." In ASR's so called review, it was noted something to the effect of that there was no output at all and then magically a bit later measurements were obtained. There's another thread somewhere else (and I'm going to take the time to dig it out) where I referred to those comments as the magnetism could have caused problems with the scope reading (and someone who knows how to use a scope really well would understand it).

So, in summary, when dealing with any issue (audio or not), it is always good to look for people with vast experience in the area. Quoting someone else is not vast experience. Let alone a someone who appears to have some the issues highlighted in comments and videos posted above. It is condescending in a way (and not really possible to really have a meaningful exchange with someone without the requisite knowledge and/or experience) to basically insult people with such vast experience. One can measure and listen and come to their own conclusions and that's great. Many years ago, I did the SBT/DBT thing and I learned back then once someone latches on to the wrong thing it is a waste of time. My main system is an integrated AV system (in my old house it took me a bit to finish the basement in my old house so that's the way it ended up). I decided to do a little experiment as the Proceed AVP I used (at that time) as a Pre/Pro easily allowed the comparison of two digital connections. I had someone else switching the cables and I used the remote (with no idea what was plugged into what input). Probably over a dozen of the engineer measurement types insisted there were 1s and 0s floating down the cables (which is not the way it works) and there couldn't be a difference. When they identified differences from what they heard, it had to be something else. The most common thing suggested was the pre/pro inputs had differences and when I showed them the results that that already was eliminated in what we did, they still didn't accept it. When one isn't willing to even listen (regardless or what conclusions or preference they have), it is basically not something worth continuing a discussion on.

 

[Mr Peabody]

Matt, you profess to be so innocent in your postings, your tone has changed some from your initial posts. You sort of went from everything sounds the same to maybe accepting that a human has the ability to detect differences in audio gear presentations.

If you want to know how something works maybe ask the manufactuer or an engineer of the topic. Most of us ar audio enthusiasts who know what we like and aboutcertan products but not skilled enough to discuss what goes on under the hood. The fact we can't explain every detail how something works does not void our experience with these products.

When you claim someone can't hear something they say they can, you are calling them a liar. When you say it's imagination, that's inflammatory and insulting, hence, troll. The first sign of a troll on an audio forum is thrusting DBT out at every opportunity. Yes, DBT may be a ool but even you admit it's notsomethng that we at home often do, so I on't uner

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.



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).

PS Audio P12 Review Part 2: Power Testing | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

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.

 

[Mr Peabody]

Matt, you profess to be so innocent in your postings, your tone has changed some from your initial posts. You sort of went from everything sounds the same to maybe accepting that a human has the ability to detect differences in audio gear presentations.

If you want to know how something works maybe ask the manufactuer or an engineer of the topic. Most of us ar audio enthusiasts who know what we like and aboutcertan products but not skilled enough to discuss what goes on under the hood. The fact we can't explain every detail how something works does not void our experience with these products.

When you claim someone can't hear something they say they can, you are calling them a liar. When you say it's imagination, that's inflammatory and insulting, hence, troll. The first sign of a troll on an audio forum is thrusting DBT out at every opportunity. Yes, DBT may be a ool but even you admit it's notsomethng that we at home often do, so I on't uner

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.



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).

PS Audio P12 Review Part 2: Power Testing | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

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.

 

[Mr Peabody]

I'm not sure what happened to my post. I ended up with a duplicate and neither are complete or edited.

Shadowfax does Matt remind you of Terrence? The way he responds and even says he is a sound engineer.

 

[mep]

I'm not sure what happened to my post. I ended up with a duplicate and neither are complete or edited.

Shadowfax does Matt remind you of Terrence? The way he responds and even says he is a sound engineer.

Is Terrence super verbose?

 

[Mr Peabody]

Oh yeah. he addresses posts just like Matt, taking it sentence by sentence with a retort.

Is Terrence super verbose?

 

[mep]

Oh yeah. he addresses posts just like Matt, taking it sentence by sentence with a retort.

Then your suspicion could be true.

 

[Shadowfax]

I'm not sure what happened to my post. I ended up with a duplicate and neither are complete or edited.

Shadowfax does Matt remind you of Terrence? The way he responds and even says he is a sound engineer.

I was thinking the same thing. I thought I saw a similar handle on another site recently

 

[MattHooper]

Not really; you posted "I certainly don't" and proceeded to describe doing just that for some major purchases! (I have to assume that even you wouldn't subject speaker systems or phono cartridges to DBT)

Again, I'd written: "Few of us have the time, ability and inclination to get scientifically rigorous about everything we buy. I certainly don't."

Why do you think I qualified "about everything we buy?" and then "I certainly don't."

It's because I actually know my own position. As I just explained, I "certainly do not" blind test everything I purchase, far from it, and I gave the reasons.

It's up to you if you want to understand my position, or to keep assuming an inconsistency that was never there.

I also wonder exactly how you went about DBTing your server and power cord investigations. I suspect it would be fairly easy to identify methodological and/or data analysis errors which would invalidate any conclusions. If you have ever participated in a "journal club" you would know how that process works...

Just to be clear, I think DBTs (randomized, prospective, well-designed DBTs) can be very useful in perceptual sciences, but just as in all sciences (including "hard" sciences) the more variables that are involved the greater the risk of those pesky methodological and data analysis errors. And for complex musical signals there are many variables involved.

Also, FWIW, if you look back at my first post in this thread I also criticized most of the Positive Feedback column, and what I thought was worthwhile may not have been what the author thought important.

I absolutely agree with the points you made there. Blind testing is NOT necessarily easy and it is tricky to do it to real scientific standards. I don't even purport to have reached such standards. This is why I hold that it can be a real hassle that no audiophile "needs" to engage in. But that's different from waving away the idea that blind tests...properly conducted...are of no consequence (and this also goes back to part of the poor argument in that article).

(BTW, when I blind tested DACs I did so consulting the methodology suggested by some with scientific and engineering training, so we randomized switching (coin flips), ensured ho possible cues were being given, used voltmeter at speaker terminals to ensure precisely matched levels, etc. Same for my server. It was more difficult for the AC cables for some obvious reasons. The best I could do was, with the help of a friend, randomize the switching, I had a blindfold on so he could switch without me seeing. We did pre-tests to determine if I could guess which cable was being used simply by hearing some cue in the physical switching and I could not, hence we proceeded with the comparisons. I don't submit that to anyone else as rigorous science, only that it was my own modest attempt.
But it's all far more hassle than I want to get in to and the vast majority of gear I've owned has not been subject to any such shenanigans).

 

[MattHooper]

I think you already answered the question. 'Many' does not equate to all. No one is telling anyone what they should believe. I was merely indicating that many (with tons of actual experience both inside and around the business) have adequate experience vs. those who base their opinions on someone without experience and often a sample of one (which is not scientific at all and the product did not come from the manufacturer and it seems to be coincidental that some things, which are not ASR sponsors, seem to mysteriously have problems). Amir's ex partner actually commented about what goes on in an Audiogon thread which got canned due to someone trying to post his listening impressions in his system vs. what he had before. If one does not have direct experience with the product it really isn't of much value what they have to say. It is heresay based on a website known for these things.

A few examples. Here is one by someone with long time experience in the audio field - EarMen Tradutto DAC - Good Measurements Gone Wrong - SoundStage! Real Hi-Fi (Ep:29) - YouTube Here is another one - We should stop trusting Audio "Science" Review : headphones and it talks to what Amir's ex partner said in the thread on Audiogon that is now gone - "The lack of scientific rigor goes on when he makes the measurements: he often omits to measure a criterion or two (especially when they don’t play in favor of one of his favorite brands)" There are other instances where a brand of particular non-sponsor mysteriously had some sort of problem similar to the YouTube video above (in two instances I own the products as I have multiple systems and in another a friend of mine owns it). So it is either extremely coincidental almost beyond the realm or probable statistical possibility or people and sponsors are happy with sending ASR money and it is their money and it's OK they do that.

Thank you, I think I've seen some of that before but I'll check out those links.

Also, please note what I'd written earlier: I'm not just some ASR fan-boi who takes everything Amirm says on faith. I have crossed swords pretty heavily with Amirm, where I have defended for instance subjective reviewing.

Further: The objective data Amirm supplies is discussed and vetted by plenty of other ASR members (and on other forums) who have deep technical knowledge. Sometimes they agree with his conclusions, other times not. The data and testing and conclusions get batted around quite a bit. So whatever inferences I draw there don't just come from Amirm, but from observing the analysis from many others (and again, that can include analysis on other forums where ASR reviews may get posted).

There would be nothing wrong if you took Mike up on his offer and found little or no difference between the expensive music servers and whatever you have. No one can tell anyone else what they can hear or not hear or what they believe is of little or no value to them.

*emphasis mine*

But that last sentence is part of the problem I was getting at.

In a purely subjective paradigm - and by that I mean the view held by a significant number of audiophiles that "My ears are the final arbiter of reality - If I think I heard something then I heard it, and if this disagrees with measurements or theory, then the measurements or theory are wrong, NOT my perception." That's why you get so many "I don't care about measurements" and "BUT have YOU had EXPERIENCE LISTENING TO X?" replies even when theory is being discussed.

This view is not satisfied simply with "I had a subjective experience." It presumes the subjective experience vetted some claim about reality. In other words "The reason I heard better sound with AC cable A over B is because cable A did indeed alter the sound." And this subjective "truth" is often used to tell other people they are "simply wrong" if the other person does not hear the difference.

As I said, this creates an epistemic locked door. Just subjective opinion against subjective opinion yet still making truth claims. That's why I pointed out that nothing would actually be settled in terms of the TRUTH of the matter if I listened to Mike's servers and found no audible difference. My subjective impression wouldn't act as a data point against his...it would just be dismissed because "He can hear the difference even if MattHooper or someone else can not."

As intuitively satisfying as this approach may feel...it also happens to be the approach that ratifies virtually every dubious belief system in the world, from healing crystals to psychic readings to new age religions and all manner of pseudo-sciences.

So the point is not whether someone has A Lot Of Experience (tm). What matters is their methodology and how their experience coheres with knowledge gained via sound methodologies. Tarot card readers, flat earthers, dowsers, people praying all have Tons Of Experience...but that doesn't mean they are RIGHT if sound theory doesn't back up their claims nor if they are using methods of inference that are easily contaminated by run of the mill human biases!

So, sorry, when I give reasons for skepticism about the "sound" of different servers, and give a number of arguments for that skepticism, I do not feel remotely cowed in to awe if I'm shown photos of a bunch of expensive servers and asked "but do you have MY experience with all this stuff?" No more than a Tarot Card reader opening up a trunk of tarot cards to show her experience. What I've been asking for is some objective evidence for the claims...not more claims!

Some of the replies here suggest I've entered the Vatican where I've dared to challenge The Pope or something.

So, in summary, when dealing with any issue (audio or not), it is always good to look for people with vast experience in the area.

See above. In particular if we are dealing with a controversial claim that is disputed among the relevant experts...the TYPE of experience - the expertise! - matters.

If Mike has "vast experience" as a trained technician or expert in regards to digital information and server technology THEN it would make sense for me to take his view seriously.

But if the "vast experience" is really just Mike "having listened to lots of gear" then...sorry...plenty of audiophiles including myself fit that description. And if the methodology admits of biased results, then I am right to care about that in the case of a disputable claim such as we are talking about.

And certainly if Mike produced reliable results from blind testing the servers, my ears would perk up. But I hadn't even been asking for that. At this point I was inquiring on the theory and objective evidence that would support the claims.

But, if I infer correctly from his posting the article and other comments here, that Mike doesn't believe blind testing would help vet the matter, then it just leaves us in the "he said/she said" version of audiophile debates.

Once again: I don't think ANY of us need engage in blind testing or even bother with measurements to enjoy the hobby or to buy whatever we like. But once you start making OBJECTIVE CLAIMS - e.g. "it's TRUE that an expensive server will sound better than a cheaper one" etc, and especially if this is in a disputed area among experts, THEN it's reasonable to start asking for more than just "Because I Say So...I HEAR IT."

 

[MattHooper]

Matt, you profess to be so innocent in your postings, your tone has changed some from your initial posts. You sort of went from everything sounds the same

No I never said any such thing.

to maybe accepting that a human has the ability to detect differences in audio gear presentations.

Of course people can detect audible differences. Plenty of audible differences obviously exist in audio gear.

It depends on the claim though. Some claims are very plausible...others not so much. Or at least, for some claims it's sensible to ask for some objective substantiation.

Please understand: I'm not expecting anyone here to be an expert in the relevant field (e.g. digital sound or whatever). I am certainly not an expert. I USE digital sound for my work, but that doesn't mean I'm en electronics engineer. But I do know enough to know when to start asking for more evidence for some claims. And when I voice reasons for skepticism about certain things, being patted on the head with "there, there you have a lot to learn" doesn't cut it for me. I'm afraid I don't take things on faith. ;-)

When you claim someone can't hear something they say they can, you are calling them a liar. When you say it's imagination, that's inflammatory and insulting, hence, troll. The first sign of a troll on an audio forum is thrusting DBT out at every opportunity. Yes, DBT may be a ool but even you admit it's notsomethng that we at home often do, so I on't uner

^^^ This is precisely the misunderstanding that sends these conversations down the sink hole.

It is NOT calling somebody a "liar" to point out that their methodology allows for variables like common bias effects in OUR perception.
It's simply acknowledging well known reality. Mature people accept reality. They don't stamp their feet and yell "Insult!" when it is raised as a problem.

Why do you think blind testing and very careful fact checking from independent parties ever became so important in science?
Why do you think one of the greatest physicists and scientific educators, Richard Feynman, said of science: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."?

It's because we are all imperfect, and subject to biases that impact our perception and inferences. Are YOU somehow perfect and above Making A Mistake?

My son was involved as a subject in research for a peanut allergy treatment. It was conducted double blind. We didn't know if he was getting the placebo or the active ingredient, NOR did the researchers know. Why? Because KNOWING which was which is well known to be a variable that can skew the outcome and lead to false inferences. Should we have stamped our feet and yelled "How insulting that you want to do this test blind. Do you not TRUST US TO TELL THE TRUTH? ARE YOU CALLING US LIARS?"

Does THAT sound like a reasoned, mature response? I hope you agree: no.

Why in the world, then, would you treat any skepticism of un-controlled listening tests especially in regards to a technically controversial claim to assume lying and get all insulted? It doesn't. It is simply to point out why a certain claim seems technically dubious, and that if the claim was vetted only by sighted listening tests, then there can be some good old human error involved in the results.

But, first off, once the discussion turned to servers, though I did some blind tests on what I own, I hadn't even been asking for DBTs for the other claims. I was simply giving reasons for skepticism about the technical basis for why servers would sound different, and asking for the theory and objective evidence for why they would sound different (or for instance why Mike's Super Expensive Stuff would sound different, when sent to a competently designed DAC).

 

[MattHooper]

Then your suspicion could be true.

More versions of ad hominem?

Don't you care at all about the tenor of conversations in an audio forum? How do you think pot shots and gossip about trolling and secret identities move a conversation forward, rather than addressing the points made? Hint: they don't.

Can't a Reviewer For Positive Feedback show more care than that?

Yeesh.

 

[Randy Myers]

Jesus... you guys had to mention him, so we get another 4 long ass posts... really???... quotes, capital letters, bold faces, etc., etc. Damn... I have never seen a first-time poster that has 22 posts in one thread, and all but one (ok, maybe two) are long (and very argumentative) ... sorry, but this is just over the top ridicules... simply wow.