• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

"I have confirmed - numbers mean nothing."

delta76 said:
If it is said by some notable people, sure. but if it is just some average Joe, then why?
Click to expand...
Because this is how all of these ideas became mainstream in the first place: because nobody questioned them. The average Joes started parroting whatever the so-called "notable people" said without ever asking if any of it made any sense.
 
No, D76, there is nothing compelling you to discuss anything you do not wish to discuss. I was confused by the FB post as I actually interpreted it as the guy was maligning a brick wall filter, when it actually seemed like he was describing the reasons he preferred a brick wall filter, so I was confused. I can only compare it to being in school and feeling like I understood a certain concept, then someone asked a question that made me feel like I did not understand it at all. It is my own lack of knowledge and probably lack of confidence in my quantitative analysis skills, nothing more. As with much of the information one can find on the internet, I do not know to any degree of certainty whether this person actually knows what they are talking about, but I trust that others might.
 
Last edited:
Since I'm way too lazy to debunk the whole thing, here is what my AI friend came up with:
Oh boy indeed. This is the full “time-domain smear” audiophile script with citations taped on afterward.

He’s making a few distinct claims, and nearly all of them fall apart.

The big errors​

1. He assumes the conclusion​

He hears a difference, then declares the cause to be:
  • brickwall filtering
  • temporal smear
  • pre-ringing
  • lack of “stop”
  • loss of black space
  • elevated noise floor
None of that is established. It’s just post-hoc storytelling.

2. He treats standard reconstruction as a flaw​

A DAC reconstruction filter is not “adding energy that wasn’t in the recording” in the way he implies. It is reconstructing the band-limited analog waveform represented by the samples.

That waveform is the target.

The idea that a competent DAC “can’t stop a note” because of linear-phase filtering is just nonsense. A transparent DAC does not add an audible temporal tail.

3. He confuses impulse response plots with audible errors​

Yes, a linear-phase filter has pre/post ringing in its impulse response.

No, that does not mean:
  • smeared imaging
  • woolly bass
  • higher audible noise floor
  • reduced instrument separation
  • loss of microdynamics
Those are giant leaps.

4. “Higher noise floor”​

This one is especially funny.

If he means actual noise floor, it is measured.

If he means “perceived haze,” then he is no longer talking about noise floor.

You don’t get to rebrand “I feel less blackness” as an objective noise-floor increase.

5. “10 µs timing cues” abuse​

He is dragging in localization literature and acting as if that means a DAC reconstruction filter with normal audibility-safe behavior destroys imaging.

That does not follow.

Interaural timing sensitivity:
  • is about binaural localization cues,
  • not “my DAC’s generic FIR filter ruins music.”
Completely different context.

6. “128-tap generic filters cannot resolve…”​


This is more technobabble than argument.

A DAC filter does not need to “resolve 10 µs timing cues” the way he imagines. It needs to correctly reconstruct the band-limited signal. If it does that transparently in the audible band, the job is done.

7. “No-filter mode sounded better”​

That is the funniest part.

So the DAC with:
  • more HF droop
  • more imaging
  • less correct reconstruction
sounds “better” to him.

Fine. That’s preference.

But that directly undermines the claim that he’s reporting pure fidelity rather than liking coloration.

The practical reality​

If the Loxjie really had:
  • less low end
  • higher noise floor
  • harsh highs
  • less separation
then one of these should be true:
  1. it measures that way,
  2. there was a level mismatch,
  3. some settings differed,
  4. expectation bias / uncontrolled switching dominated.
The last two are by far the most likely.

What’s really going on​

This is the classic pattern:
  • prefers an older colored device
  • dislikes a transparent one
  • interprets neutrality as sterility
  • invents a time-domain theory afterward
That’s not engineering. That’s narrative repair.
Click to expand...
 
voodooless said:
Because this is how all of these ideas became mainstream in the first place: because nobody questioned them. The average Joes started parroting whatever the so-called "notable people" said without ever asking if any of it made any sense.
Click to expand...
I get your points but there are countless number of posts made everyday on FB and elsewhere. If we are discussing claims made by GR-Research or similar, sure, because those discussions will have better outreach than a random post like that
burrow.russet.4z said:
No, D76, there is nothing compelling you to discuss anything you do not wish to discuss. I was confused by the FB post as I actually interpreted it as the guy was maligning a brick wall filter, when it actually seemed like he was describing the reasons he preferred a brick wall filter, so I was confused. I can only compare it to being in school and feeling like I understood a certain concept, then someone asked a question that made me feel like I did not understand it at all. It is my own lack of knowledge and probably lack of confidence in my quantitative analysis skills, nothing more. As with much of the information one can find on the internet, I do not know to any degree of certainty whether this person actually knows what they are talking about, but I trust that others might.
Click to expand...
I see, I thought this is another "this person made a ridiculous claim, let's make fun of that". My advice for you is to stick here rather than Facebook. I joined a few FB group because of shared interests (Denon, Focal). Found myself nope out quite quickly. Simply put, those are places where subjective, baseless, nonsense claims posted non stop. it quickly becomes an echo chamber where people who spent thousands if not more just trying to justify/strengthen their beliefs/purchases.
 
delta76 said:
I get your points but there are countless number of posts made everyday on FB and elsewhere. If we are discussing claims made by GR-Research or similar, sure, because those discussions will have better outreach than a random post like that
Click to expand...
Well, ASR is proof that pushback works. Besides, this is AudioScienceReview, credentials are irrelevant :)
 
I took a quick look. Didn't read all of it. This person's knowledge of audio apparently consists of buzzwords they picked up from subjectivist reviews and marketing copy. It's sad because it seems like they take it seriously, feel like they actually know something, and believe they have valuable listening experience. A genuine interest corrupted by commercial interests unconstrained by fact. Maybe they don't even know they're repeating buzzwords and not standard technical terminology.

This is an odd phenomenon, when you think about it. People can walk around believing they are experts in audio without apparently knowing much of anything about how audio actually works, and they even seem to be AWARE that they don't really know how audio works. Even so, they have been conditioned to believe that all you need is to listen and describe what you hear to make valuable contributions to the field, and furthermore, this somehow proves that science is wrong. I wonder where they got that idea... surely not the subjectivist reviewers who thumb their noses at science.

delta76 said:
they know a lot. just not correct
Click to expand...

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so." - Quote Falsely Attributed to Mark Twain
 
Last edited:
kemmler3D said:
I took a quick look. Didn't read all of it. This person's knowledge of audio apparently consists of buzzwords they picked up from subjectivist reviews and marketing copy. It's sad because it seems like they take it seriously, feel like they actually know something, and believe they have valuable listening experience. A genuine interest corrupted by commercial interests unconstrained by fact.

This is an odd phenomenon, when you think about it. People can walk around believing they are experts in audio without apparently knowing much of anything about how audio actually works, and they even seem to be AWARE that they don't really know how audio works. Even so, they have been conditioned to believe that all you need is to listen and describe what you hear to make valuable contributions to the field, and furthermore, this somehow proves that science is wrong. I wonder where they got that idea... surely not the subjectivist reviewers who thumb their noses at science.
Click to expand...
In our field we call them expert beginners, and they usually do more harm than good. Like they heard this or that will make it run faster (software) but not fully understand the implications and in the end make it worse, sometimes much worse.
In audio world it is even worse when you have the subjective non sense comes into play
 
delta76 said:
In our field we call them expert beginners, and they usually do more harm than good. Like they heard this or that will make it run faster (software) but not fully understand the implications and in the end make it worse, sometimes much worse.
In audio world it is even worse when you have the subjective non sense comes into play
Click to expand...
1776184102914.png
 
kyuu said:
The old "ringing" and "smearing" chestnut. I'm unaware of any actual evidence that the minor ringing necessarily introduced by a filter is at all audible. It seems to be entirely a post-hoc rationalization for hearing a difference in a sighted listening test which would almost certainly disappear in an blind listening test.

If that wasn't enough to disregard this person's pontificating, they also plainly don't know what a brick-wall filter actually is.
Click to expand...
Well, it's made out of bricks and they're rough, so it makes the sound rough . (Just in case someone misconstrues this, it's sarcasm, hahaha).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom