Computer Audiophiles Are Anti-Computer

[John Kenny]

Good. So you accept that an electrical defect or flaw in part of a system will alter the soundwaves emerging from the speakers, yes? Now, could you accept that there is a continuum of such issues, meaning that there is a range of audible misbehaviour, all the way from from "bleedin' obvious", to relative subtle, that is only picked up by people who have sensitised themselves to a particular aberration?

Oops, be careful with "bleedin obvious"- make it "as obvious as a dog's bollox" & you might get away with it?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

So you accept that an electrical defect or flaw in part of a system will alter the soundwaves emerging from the speakers, yes?

Possibly. For anything to be audible, it must be present in the soundwaves and thus measurable.

Now, could you accept that there is a continuum of such issues, meaning that there is a range of audible misbehaviour, all the way from from "bleedin' obvious", to relative subtle

Right. All the way down to inaudible. i.e., there can be electrical changes that are completely irrelevant audibly. Like 0.01% vs 0.001% THD. Measurable, but inaudible to ears.

that is only picked up by people who have sensitised themselves to a particular aberration?

Yes, that's why listener training is often part of professionally done blind testing. Sensitization and suppression of biases/self delusion.

And?

 

[fas42]

Right. All the way down to inaudible. i.e., there can be electrical changes that are completely irrelevant audibly. Like 0.01% vs 0.001% THD. Measurable, but inaudible to ears.?

Okay, so the issue now is what is audible - would you accept that a simple measurement of a particular type of distortion artifact may not tell the full story; an example of this is in regard to speaker driver evaluation, by say Klippel, where artifacts like buzz and rub, highly audible, are completely missed in THD testing?

 

[RayDunzl]

where artifacts like buzz and rub, highly audible, are completely missed in THD testing?

THD+N

or

https://www.klippel.de/know-how/mea...ortion/rub-buzz-and-impulsive-distortion.html

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Okay, so the issue now is what is audible

No Frank, that's always been the issue with audio.
The Achilles heel of the audiophile believer.

would you accept that a simple measurement of a particular type of distortion artifact may not tell the full story; an example of this is in regard to speaker driver evaluation, by say Klippel, where artifacts like buzz and rub, highly audible, are completely missed in THD testing?

Right, thats why Klippel developed a suite of measurements for the task.

You sort of left of what we were discussing above, listener training (Harman, Klippel, etc) for sensitization and suppression of delusion for valid data.
Where would that leave a believer?

 

[March Audio]

Of course. I do not think anyone here disagrees with that.

People can also reach any sonic conclusions or preferences they wish.

The problem is when they insist on scaling up from their own personal conclusions as universally "right" to an audience of others, when they make little attempt to provide any insight into how they reached those conclusions or how they controlled for the ever-present bias.

Biases can and do exist in perception, in measurement, in experimental design, in interpretation, etc., etc. It is part of the human condition, not just you. It is hard to overcome subconscious bias, even if you concede (which you do not appear to) the existence of such potential bias, which invalidates any conclusions you might reach as far as acceptability to other knowledgeable people is concerned.

In so many words, your method is to do sighted listening, influenced by certain design concepts or theories you favor. Then you search for affirmation in other sighted, subjective, non-bias-controlled audiophile opinions in web forums and elsewhere, cherry picking those that support your view of some positive benefit. And, viola, you have in your own mind demonstrated that you are right, once again, as usual. Then, you argue day and night, night and day, that your opinion is beyond reproach, demonizing any critics or their motives, vigorously dismissing any other approach that might be more rigorous or more convincing to skeptics, who realize you have done nothing whatsoever to control for your own biases.

Your "observations", your opinions may be "right" to you. Your stated reliance on logic is good, except you deliberately skip some huge blind spots in your logic related to control for bias. With your fierce, ever twisting, argumentative style you might even think you win in certain forums. But, that ain't happening here. We see right through you, no matter how pugnacious your arguments.

I do not have a problem with you presenting your own personal opinions up to a point. You are perfectly entitled to those. The problem is you argue and argue that those opinions are "right" universally for everyone when the case you make is so obviously flimsy given your biased, golden ears methodology.

This

 

[March Audio]

My "bleedin obvious" was the use of the same vernacular as BE718 when he stated this ridiculousness after I suggested that any audible changes with the Intona inline were as the result of noise removal "What if the Intona changes the sound for a reason totally unrelated to noise coming out of the PC?"A statement he won't defend despite being asked several times what else in the Intona can change the sound.
So I stated the bleedin obvious!

You know, Amir, when you feel sick after drinking too many Martinis do you blame a bad olive or the bleedin obvious?

I did defend and explain it, you just didn't listen. And it was an obvious point clearly evident to the other posters here.

 

[Opus111]

I did defend and explain it, you just didn't listen.

Comedy platinum

 

[fas42]

Right, thats why Klippel developed a suite of measurements for the task.

You sort of left of what we were discussing above, listener training (Harman, Klippel, etc) for sensitization and suppression of delusion for valid data.
Where would that leave a believer?

We'll leave the bling obsessed audiophile out of the discussion, ...

Listener training is good, and of course Amir has had excellent experience in the field of audio compression artifacts, which one can learn to recognise.

Just talking about my approach for the moment, what I do is the equivalent of the Klippel "suite of measurements" - I intentionally subject the system to material which I have learned tends to cause audible artifacts to occur - and then the measuring, which some here would be uncomfortable with, is done by ear; do I hear some "buzz and rub", of electrical origin - I have effectively trained myself to be sensitive to these, in the same way Amir would pick up on data compression artifacts if the codec was not competent enough.

 

[John Kenny]

I did defend and explain it, you just didn't listen. And it was an obvious point clearly evident to the other posters here.

Nope you didn't offer any explanation & the only poster, AJ stating that you don't have to defend it.
face it BE you said something stupid & now can't find your way to cover it up.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

what I do is the equivalent of the Klippel "suite of measurements"

No

 

[fas42]

No

Okay, we've lost you, because you can't accept that a person can assess whether a misbehaviour is occurring or not, simply through hearing.

We'll try a different route ... would you accept that some people can hear wow and flutter of a turntable, without needing instrument measurements, or DBTs to confirm it?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Okay, we've lost you, because you can't accept that a person can assess whether a misbehaviour is occurring or not, simply through hearing.

No, you can't comprehend you do nothing whatsoever like Klippel. Zero measurements, zero outside intervention to your closed loop delusions.

would you accept that some people can hear wow and flutter of a turntable

Yes.

without needing instrument measurements, or DBTs to confirm it?

No.

 

[March Audio]

Comedy platinum

I think the fact that so many posters have demonstrated they think JK is on another planet shows your attempts at defending and siding with him are the only comic thing going on around here.

 

[March Audio]

Nope you didn't offer any explanation & the only poster, AJ stating that you don't have to defend it.
face it BE you said something stupid & now can't find your way to cover it up.

So you don't understand the simple point being made. You are stupid one here, you must be a complete idiot not to understand what was said.

Opus and JK, Dumb and Dumber

 

[fas42]

Yes.


No.

Then we have no common ground - if an audible artifact exists you apparently believe that there must be a means at hand to easily measure it; if the latter is untrue then the artifact doesn't, can't exist ...

 

[John Kenny]

So you don't understand the simple point being made. You are stupid one here, you must be a complete idiot not to understand what was said.

Opus and JK, Dumb and Dumber

All you ever said was ""What if the Intona changes the sound for a reason totally unrelated to noise coming out of the PC?" - no explanation, despite being asked a number of times
So here's your chance - make me look even dumber by explaining how the Intona changes the sound if it's not reducing noise by isolation

 

[AJ Soundfield]

if an audible artifact exists you apparently believe that there must be a means at hand to easily measure it

Not necessarily easily, but measurable via soundwaves none the less, the only thing ears can hear aka, audible.

if the latter is untrue then the artifact doesn't, can't exist ...

Correct. Now a believer might still "hear" something, but if it is of psychogenic origin, then of course, measurements of the soundfield are pointless.
In any/every case, the onus is upon the "hearer"/believer to provide evidence, no one else.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Opus and JK, Dumb and Dumber

I'm deeply offended you would insult the words dumb and dumber this way.

 

[fas42]

Not necessarily easily, but measurable via soundwaves none the less, the only thing ears can hear aka, audible.


Correct. Now a believer might still "hear" something, but if it is of psychogenic origin, then of course, measurements of the soundfield are pointless.
In any/every case, the onus is upon the "hearer"/believer to provide evidence, no one else.

Okay, now we have a misunderstanding - when I say "measurable" I mean that there is a physical, actual instrument in the area that can take a reading, which fairly precisely shows an anomaly occurring. This differs from being theoretically measurable, as in, one could engineer a device which would be able to register what was happening, that the ear was picking up.

This was the point about wow and flutter, it existed from the moment the first device spun a medium that had a recording imprinted upon it; the fact that no-one could measure it at the time is irrelevant.