Hardware Mods - the ugly story

[SIY]

Unfortunately it is a given that audible differences existed in players then.

Cite? Or is this just "everyone knows"?

 

[Sal1950]

Just curious, do you own now or have ever owned any equipment that you have done this type of testing before purchase, or after purchase?

Yep, I have. How bout you?

 

[Sal1950]

It's nonsense, always has been. Great margin products for retailers however. That's how it all started, products we could stock, in order to claw back GP$ after discounting. Started with speaker cables, green pens, isolating feet, clock 'upgrades', special optical cables, magic rocks, cable elevators etc.

The entire segment is a pathetic joke.

I second that.

Actually the discussion and arguments remained the same for the last 40 years but the topics do change. I remember the first CD player tests describing sonical differences despite quite similar measurements and the angry reactions by EEs who pointed out that it wasn´t possible that any audible difference exists.
Quite the same a couple of years before that when especially japanese amplifier manufacturers started the so-called numbers race. Ultra low distortion numbers but sometimes/often mediocre sonical results.
Later, again with digital, we got rumors that optical S/PDIF didn´t sound as good as "coax S/PDIF", a lot of rants were written why that ulitmatetly couldn´t be.........
And while there is overall a constant lack of published controlled listening test results to back the audibility claims, there were a lot of technically differences found that at least could explain why audible differences might exist.

What was your point? You bought up different examples than restorer-john, who is perfectly correct in stating his examples as snake-oil.

 

[sergeauckland]

Unfortunately it is a given that audible differences existed in players then.

I disagree. In the 1980s I had a LOT of CD players as I was a dealer and in sighted tests they were all different, and of course, the more expensive ones sounded better. When I got my staff to do some blind, level matched tests, all the players were indistinguishable.

S

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Yep, I have. How bout you?

Have from time to time, but not to make a purchase decision.

 

[Sal1950]

Later, again with digital, we got rumors that optical S/PDIF didn´t sound as good as "coax S/PDIF", a lot of rants were written why that ulitmatetly couldn´t be.........

Examples of controlled listening tests confirming audible differences?

And while there is overall a constant lack of published controlled listening test results to back the audibility claims, there were a lot of technically differences found that at least could explain why audible differences might exist.

There are many components that measure THD in the .000x range and some in the .0000x range, think you can hear the difference? Components measure differently, if you think you can hear the differences, it's up to you to prove it.

 

[Sal1950]

Have from time to time, but not to make a purchase decision.

So you weren't interested in using the results of blind testing to make purchasing decisions?

 

[Jakob1863]

I disagree. In the 1980s I had a LOT of CD players as I was a dealer and in sighted tests they were all different, and of course, the more expensive ones sounded better. When I got my staff to do some blind, level matched tests, all the players were indistinguishable.

S

But with what do you disagree?
At least it is known that CD players using only one DAC ic intermittently for both channels were audible different.
An no,that does not mean that _everyone_ could reach a positive "blind" controlled listening test result under all conditions.

Unfortunately it is also a given that getting negative results in "blind" controlled listening tests is quite easy, which should be known after all the informations posted.
So if you are not able to show that your experiments were valid, reliable and objective, it is impossible to draw any further conclusions (beside the obvious) from the results.
Were you accounting for statistical power or did you use positive controls back then?

Edit: added "further" and "(beside the obvious)"

 

[sergeauckland]

But with what do you disagree?
At least it is known that CD players using only one DAC ic intermittently for both channels were audible different.
An no,that does not mean that _everyone_ could reach a positive "blind" controlled listening test result under all conditions.

Unfortunately it is also a given that getting negative results in "blind" controlled listening tests is quite easy, which should be known after all the informations posted.
So if you are not able to show that your experiments were valid, reliable and objective, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from the results.
Were you accounting for statistical power or did you use positive controls back then?

Is it known? By whom, certainly not by me. Those early CD players that shared a DAC were no different to those that didn't sonically. The only difference was the fixed interchannel time difference, which was comparable to moving one's head a few millimeters.

I am very suspicious of any claim of 'everybody knows that' Cables sound different, amplifiers sound different etc etc. No they don't generally, and if they do, the measurements show clearly why.

S

 

[Sal1950]

I am very suspicious of any claim of 'everybody knows that' Cables sound different, amplifiers sound different etc etc.

But everyone does know that Believers Believe. LOL

 

[Jakob1863]

@Sal1950,

What was your point? You bought up different examples than restorer-john, who is perfectly correct in stating his examples as snake-oil.

That was exactly my point. (The argumentation remains the same but the topics do change)

Back in the beginning of the so-called "great debate" and in the following discussions the "non golden ears" always thought that their counterparts were selling "snake-oil" although they might not having used the term explicetely.
That´s is the crux i was talking about, if you pretend to know already what the "TRUTH" is without accepting that you might be in error (i.e. setting the prior probability at zero) then it gets difficult.

Examples of controlled listening tests confirming audible differences?

That misses the point. The point was the argumentation based on the known thresholds of hearing and on an overestimation of the importance of a restricted set of measurements.

Edit: see for example the assertion of audible differences between optical S/PDIF and coax S/PDIF. Opponents were arguing that it can´t be because of the obviously given data integrity and measured low THD numbers. Later analysis showed that the technology used led to significantly higher jitter numbers via the optical route.
So the basis for the inaudiblity assertion was simply lack of knowledge.

There are many components that measure THD in the .000x range and some in the .0000x range, think you can hear the difference? Components measure differently, if you think you can hear the differences, it's up to you to prove it.

Which illustrates the same problem. singling out a certain number does not help. You most likely will not find real components only differing in just one specific measured number and the hunt for the lowest THD+N number was exactly the basis for the so-called "numbers race" in the past.
I´ll try to be (even) more specific; this same argumentation was often based on a lack of knowledge wrt specific properties of measurements, audio gear and human hearing.

Of course if one group always maintains the same assertion of "impossible audible differences" over the decades it will most probable became true sometimes, but you should be able to acknowledge the weak points in the argumentation and consider the premises that _must_ be true .

 

[Jakob1863]

But everyone does know that Believers Believe. LOL

And some Believers even believe that the don´t believe.....
Maybe we should lieve...eh leave ..eh drop joking

 

[Sal1950]

Of course if one group always maintains the same assertion of "impossible audible difference" over the decades it will most probable became true sometimes, but you should be able to acknowledge the weak points in the argumentation and consider the premises that _must_ be true .

You maintain what I perceive as a circular argument using any excuse not to be held to any scientific standard. That anything is possible and just because you can't prove you can hear X doesn't mean it can't be heard?????
The fact is that if YOU claim that X is aubible, it is in your ballpark to supply proof for the SOTA to advance.
That's the bottom line.

 

[Jakob1863]

Is it known? By whom, certainly not by me.

If you say so, how could i disagree?

Those early CD players that shared a DAC were no different to those that didn't sonically. The only difference was the fixed interchannel time difference, which was comparable to moving one's head a few millimeters.

And now you´re posting categorical assertion about everyone´s listening abilities.
Not meant offensive, but do you really feel competent to do so?

I mean, a couple of days ago you were admitting having missed the statistical subtleties (it aren´t subtleties but who´s counting?) and now you are presenting an assertion that must be based on sound experimental data and competent statistical analysis. Imo there exists a slight misconception.

I am very suspicious of any claim of 'everybody knows that' Cables sound different, amplifiers sound different etc etc. No they don't generally, and if they do, the measurements show clearly why.

S

Nothing wrong with being very suspicious about these claims. but i hope we can agree that i didn´t claim it .

 

[amirm]

No, Clark´s test couldn´t show that as he only used (imo) one specific kind of controlled test protocol and failed to properly consider statistical power problems of this test protocol.

If the difference was so readily available as you implied, there better be no complaining of "statistical power" or any other excuse like that, whatever it may mean.

Unfortunately it is a given that audible differences existed in players then.

Then you would be posting the result of a controlled test to demonstrate that in your next post, yes?

 

[Jakob1863]

You maintain what I perceive as a circular argument using any excuse not to be held to any scientific standard. That anything is possible and just because you can't prove you can hear X doesn't mean it can't be heard?????
The fact is that if YOU claim that X is aubible, it is in your ballpark to supply proof for the SOTA to advance.
That's the bottom line.

Which unfortunately is a completely different topic.
But, that anything is possible (or might be) is exactly the bottom line of science (beside mathematics), and if you think about "just because you can't prove you can hear X doesn't mean it can't be heard?????" you´ll notice (beside the semantics point of "impossibility of proof" in these matters) the statement is correct, although i didn´t post it afair.

You asked what my point was and i tried to explain. If you now insist that everyone _must_ be able to deliver evidence for their assertion, that is exactly my point.
Edit: To be clear, if someone asserts "impossibility of audible differences" he must be able to deliver evidence for this assertion, otherwise he has to drop it.

 

[sergeauckland]

If you say so, how could i disagree?



And now you´re posting categorical assertion about everyone´s listening abilities.
Not meant offensive, but do you really feel competent to do so?

I mean, a couple of days ago you were admitting having missed the statistical subtleties (it aren´t subtleties but who´s counting?) and now you are presenting an assertion that must be based on sound experimental data and competent statistical analysis. Imo there exists a slight misconception.


Nothing wrong with being very suspicious about these claims. but i hope we can agree that i didn´t claim it .

I'm not making any claims about 'everyone's listening abilities, but the measurements made at the time indicated that those shared DACs players were no worse than separate DAC players, except for the tiny interchannel time difference, which, as I said above, was comparable with moving one's head a few millimeters. Frequency response, noise and distortion were quite satisfactory, so no reason there for any sonic difference.

S

 

[Jakob1863]

If the difference was so readily available as you implied,......

I didn´t imply that, but was just pointing to the fact that the typical group of EEs (not to be taken literally as other people claimed the same) back then claimed the impossibility of audible differences.

...... there better be no complaining of "statistical power" or any other excuse like that, whatever it may mean.

Nice try on the eristics though.

Then you would be posting the result of a controlled test to demonstrate that in your next post, yes?

As usual i´ll try to provide corrobation but i hope we can agree that i´ll decide when _exactly_ , mhm?

 

[amirm]

As usual i´ll try to provide corrobation but i hope we can agree that i´ll decide when _exactly_ , mhm?

No we don't agree. You can't say multiple times there were audible differences and then finish by saying you will provide evidence when you are good and ready. We don't waste forum member's time here with empty debates. Where is the data?

 

[Sal1950]

If you now insist that everyone _must_ be able to deliver evidence for any assertion, that is exactly my point.

Yes, if you make claims, you must supply evidence.
If you can't or won't your most likely FOS