Post research here that casts doubt on ASR objectivism

[BluesDaddy]

Part of my point is that we don't fully understand how placebo works, and there are plenty of studies regarding sham surgery where there are lasting effects even after it has been revealed. We simply do not fully understand how the mind works and how it shapes what we perceive as reality. I simply think its unfair to judge people with absolute certainty as "audiophools" when we don't have all the answers.

More audiophoolery. We have enough answers from DBT regarding audio equipment. You just adjust your argument to present another fallacy. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know a lot of things. This is especially true for audio.

 

[Deleted member 31910]

If we are designing the electrical functioning of the equipment, we need to understand what elements of signal processing will make a difference. If we are designing something so that it influences the listener through some other means than the electrical signal, then by all means your questions are valid, but understand you are answering a completely different sort of questions with different measurement tools (and a lot of research there as well).

I don't intend or suggest that my ideas or my personal point of view applies to audio and electronics engineers, designers, etc. as they have the ability through their own personal experience, tools, and expertise to validate the conclusions and results they reach. I'm simply suggesting that for most people they believe in measurements and are therefore subject to similar placebo effects as people who buy into the more subjectivist approach and believe what they are hearing.

 

[Deleted member 31910]

you cannot afford a Topping DAC?

I own a Topping D50 and enjoy it and find it to be a good pairing with some of my speakers. However, I also own a Denafrips Ares II, which I prefer over the Topping especially with some of my speakers.

 

[BluesDaddy]

I don't intend or suggest that my ideas or my personal point of view applies to audio and electronics engineers, designers, etc. as they have the ability through their own personal experience, tools, and expertise to validate the conclusions and results they reach. I'm simply suggesting that for most people they believe in measurements and are therefore subject to similar placebo effects as people who buy into the more subjectivist approach and believe what they are hearing.

But this is demonstrably wrong in that NO ONE demonstrates through DBT they they hear a difference, much less determine what is "better". You're turning the burden of proof upside down. Plus, placebo effect is not all that is at work in audio listening, there are MANY psycho acoustic aspects that even those who are "objectivists" are subject to. The rational mind can do only so much and most of us are susceptible to pretty gear and audio jewelry as the true believer.

 

[Deleted member 31910]

Au contraire. The only way to find "true hi-fi gear" is via trusted measurements. There is a lot of new and used, good-measuring, and reasonably-priced hi-fi gear available around the world. Measurements can weed out much of the distorted and overpriced gear, still leaving a very large selection of equipment that both measures and sounds excellent - and satisfies many different tastes in appearance.

I recently purchased a new preamp that supposedly measures well and should be transparent but I found it to be veiled and noisy compared to the preamp it was intended to replace. So, my experience, which informs the basis for a lot of my beliefs, leads me to a different conclusion. And no, I did not listen to, or compare the devices under extraordinary conditions because that is not how I listen to my music.

 

[BluesDaddy]

I recently purchased a new preamp that supposedly measures well and should be transparent but I found it to be veiled and noisy compared to the preamp it was intended to replace. So, my experience, which informs the basis for a lot of my beliefs, leads me to a different conclusion. And no, I did not listen to or compare the devices under extraordinary conditions because that is now how I listen to my music.

"And no, I did not listen to or compare the devices even with generally simple controls because I don't want to know the truth." There, I fixed it for you. Not all critical listening has to be "difficult" or "extraordinary". Even a simple single blind with some basic level matching would be informative.

 

[Jimbob54]

@mistermuddles appears to be a distillation of every subjectivist argument one encounters on 99% of audio related forums and groups. I'm not sure that he is not, starting with his User ID, a very subtle and imaginative troll. If concrete reality is immaterial to perceptual experience, then why not simply take hallucinogens whenever listening to music? And reliance upon the placebo effect to improve the audio experience (or any experience for that matter) is no better than the charlatan "faith healers" and televangelist who promise healing to those who will "only believe". It is the very definition of being a con artist and abusive.

Also, over the years what has dawned on me, and why audiophools seem so adverse to the concept of Benefit Cost Ratio - it is because they are not really music lovers first, but they are gear collectors. They don't listen to music, they listen to their "systems" and they don't put together a system to enjoy the music (though they may tell themselves they do) but because they love the gear itself. Like a car collector who can't actually drive all the cars he owns, it's not about the driving but about the THING itself. And collectors really don't care about the cost of something as long as they can afford it and get it. I'm on a number of groups where people brag regarding having not just every release an artist has put out, but every PRESSING of each release as well. Arguments ensue on what pressing is "critical" to own and which sound the best. It's not about the music, but about owning something. It is, perhaps, a relatively benign form of OCD though it can become far less benign when people start spending money they don't have in the pursuit of their "hobby".

The thought had crossed my mind.

 

[Deleted member 31910]

Again, the attitude and smugness of some members of this forum would benefit from some humility. I don't claim to know the answers and certainly am not positing any of my thoughts or ideas as fact. Yet many here are. I understand they may be able to support their beliefs within the current understanding of western science and through scientific methodology/principles, but I am not arguing against that. I'm simply suggesting that there is still more to learn and it might be wise to have a level of agnosticism regarding things as there is undoubtedly more to learn and our understanding of the world and how we perceive it will continue to grow and evolve.

Until we know more about how the mind perceives and shapes our reality, and have a deeper understanding of how placebo works, I don't think its fair to say someone's perception of reality is invalid simply because they cannot prove it under extraordinary circumstances.

 

[Jimbob54]

Again, the attitude and smugness of some members of this forum would benefit from some humility. I don't claim to know the answers and certainly am not positing any of my thoughts or ideas as fact. Yet many here are. I understand they may be able to support their beliefs within the current understanding of western science and through scientific methodology/principles, but I am not arguing against that. I'm simply suggesting that there is still more to learn and it might be wise to have level of agnosticism regarding things as there is undoubtedly more to learn and our understanding of the world and how we perceive it will continue to grow and evolve.

Until we know more about how the mind perceives and shapes our reality, and have a deeper understanding of how placebo works, I don't think its fair to say someone's perception of reality is invalid simply because they cannot prove it under extraordinary circumstances.

Do those to the East know something different?

 

[BDWoody]

I'm simply suggesting that for most people they believe in measurements and are therefore subject to similar placebo effects as people who buy into the more subjectivist approach and believe what they are hearing.

It isn't about believing in measurements, it is about believing the math and science behind it that gives the measurements meaning.

Generally speaking, this site tries to rely on demonstrable reality. If something can't be backed up with more than ' because I say so,' it isn't going to gain traction.

'Buying into' (very literally, far too often) the 'more subjectivist' approach seems to mean that we have to leave the foundation of reality, and indulge uncontrolled claims from anyone who wants to make them.

There are plenty of sites that absolutely encourage the rejection of physics, as does much of the 'high end' propaganda out there with all the obfuscation and mixed up nonsense at every turn.

This place intends to be a refuge from that. If it makes folks uncomfortable, they are welcome to either prove that physics as currently understood is missing something, or find somewhere else to explore all that we don't seem to care about.

 

[RayDunzl]

I don't claim to know the answers and certainly am not positing any of my thoughts or ideas as fact.

Seems like it, sometimes, even if the "fact" is only pertinent to you.

I recently purchased a new preamp that supposedly measures well and should be transparent but I found it to be veiled and noisy compared to the preamp it was intended to replace.

Are you saying you did not factually report the above?

(I'm outahere)

 

[Deleted member 31910]

Do those to the East know something different?

Maybe? I don't know. I do respect the beliefs of those who have come before us and those who believe differently than we do presently, and do not suggest that my perception of reality is more real than theirs. Again, I think it has more to do with the effects of placebo and what we don't currently understand about how the mind works, rather than specific ideas or cultural/spiritual biases.

 

[Deleted member 31910]

Seems like it, sometimes, even if the "fact" is only pertinent to you.



Are you saying you did not factually report the above?

(I'm outahere)

I found is different, to me, then saying it is. Are you questioning my perception of reality? Of course you can, but to do so with certainty, that would imply that you are in some way omniscient.

 

[BluesDaddy]

What's humorous is people who don't deal at all with the discussion but simply keep presenting their same BS, just in different formats. "Placebo effect" is NOT changing what is actually heard or your ability to hear; perception is NOT reality, despite the "hipness" of saying that over and over again (ever been with someone tripping on LSD whose "perceptual reality" was they could fly? Scary shit.) - some things ARE immutable; and justifying the BS, even indirectly, that is spewed almost universally by cable manufacturers and "high end" electronics manufacturers with "we don't understand everything about placebo effect" is supporting rank hucksterism. What a joke.

 

[Deleted member 31910]

It isn't about believing in measurements, it is about believing the math and science behind it that gives the measurements meaning.

Generally speaking, this site tries to rely on demonstrable reality. If something can't be backed up with more than ' because I say so,' it isn't going to gain traction.

'Buying into' (very literally, far too often) the 'more subjectivist' approach seems to mean that we have to leave the foundation of reality, and indulge uncontrolled claims from anyone who wants to make them.

There are plenty of sites that absolutely encourage the rejection of physics, as does much of the 'high end' propaganda out there with all the obfuscation and mixed up nonsense at every turn.

This place intends to be a refuge from that. If it makes folks uncomfortable, they are welcome to either prove that physics as currently understood is missing something, or find somewhere else to explore all that we don't seem to care about.

I understand and I agree with what you are saying. I'm simply having a discussion. If you feel it is unwelcome or out of place, then let me know and I am happy to withdraw my engagement.

Personally, I think for someone who is not a scientist/engineer/etc. buying into something they don't really understand requires belief.

 

[BluesDaddy]

I found is different, to me, then saying it is. Are you questioning my perception of reality? Of course you can, but to do so with certainty, that would imply that you are in some way omniscient.

If you said you "found" the sun to have risen in the west and we all reject it does NOT imply in any way any kind of omniscience. You engage in fallacy after fallacy with no shame.

 

[abdo123]

It isn't about believing in measurements, it is about believing the math and science behind it that gives the measurements meaning.

Generally speaking, this site tries to rely on demonstrable reality. If something can't be backed up with more than ' because I say so,' it isn't going to gain traction.

'Buying into' (very literally, far too often) the 'more subjectivist' approach seems to mean that we have to leave the foundation of reality, and indulge uncontrolled claims from anyone who wants to make them.

There are plenty of sites that absolutely encourage the rejection of physics, as does much of the 'high end' propaganda out there with all the obfuscation and mixed up nonsense at every turn.

This place intends to be a refuge from that. If it makes folks uncomfortable, they are welcome to either prove that physics as currently understood is missing something, or find somewhere else to explore all that we don't seem to care about.

This response is really uncalled for, and doesn't really 'respond' to the point made in the comment you're quoting.

there are many posts here with people claiming 'better soundstage' and whatever audiophile blurp you can think off once they bought that DAC (of all things) that has 120 SINAD as opposed to 115 SINAD they had with their previous DAC. Alongside with your reply it really makes this forum look like 'just one more audio cult on the internet'.

This forum still fuels pointless consumerism in audiophiles and provides a convenient justification for their placebos other than 'a random guy on Youtube said so'. It is an improvement; However, it's like taking someone off heroine and getting them on alcohol instead.

But also it's too much to ask from a single person or even an entire online community to slow down the wheels of consumerism and uncontrolled capitalism.

 

[RayDunzl]

there are many posts here with people claiming 'better soundstage' and whatever audiophile blurp you can think off once they bought that DAC (of all things) that has 120 SINAD as opposed to 115 SINAD they had with their previous DAC.

Can you point one out?

 

[BDWoody]

Personally, I think for someone who is not a scientist/engineer/etc. buying into something they don't really understand requires belief.

It is certainly easier to just believe unsupported claims. Nothing really needed other than...belief in their ears?
Why believe anyone else's individual listening experience report, when we all seem to agree on how personal hearing/listening is?

You don't need to be a scientist or engineer to understand this stuff, you just have to actually want to, then put in the time to do it. It isn't hidden behind quantum magic or golden ears, it is accessible to everyone who cares enough to bother.

 

[abdo123]

Can you point one out?

Sure, i went to the two reviews of the most popular DACs on this forum and got some replies for you.

"So, I am a lurker but just joined to pop into this discussion. Just received my X26 Pro today, which I upgraded from the X16 I received less than a month prior... I may be foolish and irresponsible with my money, but I'll be damned if I can't hear a huge differece already in the first few tracks I'm listening to that I know well. There is simply more detail. But I also notice that it is slightly softer, almost warmer or more musical (**I'm sorry, I am new and don't know better adjectives at this point) than the X16. It almost sounds flatter. It is brand new and still cool to the touch, although she is heating up quick I will report back after further burn in."

He also continues to say in a following comment

"I really should have added that the bass slam is SO much more.. this thing hits."

Both DACs are absolutely transparent.

Another comment by another user:

"I would like to share my thoughts for the Gustard X16 in combination with Bluesound node 2i , I purchase it through audiophonics , I had already changed the power supply with a linear supply from PD creative (Poland] , all these components together create a “package” that has exceptional value for money audio quality, clarity , soundstage everything is clearly enhanced , if the brand name of this dac was some well known European brand easliy the asking price could be well over 1.000 € , bravo Gustard , bravo audiosciencereview for making these products well known to the public , otherwise I wouldn’t have bought this product from a company I never heard before !"