The Audio Science Review Manifesto???

[nintendoeats]

I've looked at you latest examples of a FAQ. I would suggest that you either start each point with a correct statement, as in number 1. Or, you give an incorrect commonly held belief and then correct it, which you've done for points 2 to 4. Doing both is a bit confusing.

I'm not sure I follow. In each case I have a fallacious statement in bold, then a response in unformatted text. Some of them also have sub-fallacies (and I grant you, the specific structure of 1 is slightly different because the parent fallacy is not a full sentence). I'm not sure how to map your comment on to that.

 

[zermak]

@zermak was the first one to (jokingly) mention this example to me, on a different thread. Ever since then I've noticed it pop up around ASR with some newer members ..... and they're 100% serious.

Ahah and well I heard it here too and used it on you; it's kinda a thing XD

Sorry for the OT.

 

[nintendoeats]

I added a few more items to the FAQ (items 1, 6 and 7). Do people like the flow of it? Is it uncontroversial in its reasoning?

 

[k3nb5t]

As a newer member, I think this would be helpful to prospective members. I lurked about for several months to take a measure of the community before joining up. I think I would have approached the community with less caution if provided with a concise "core beliefs" statement like this.

I think it would be good to add a statement highlighting the exploration and learning aspect of this forum. I really appreciate the knowledgeable people here who are willing to explain and teach. There's a wealth of approachable information on psychoacoustics, signal processing, room correction and many other topics. Despite all this depth of technical knowledge, I don't recall seeing a thread where someone was ridiculed for their lack of knowledge without first demonstrating an unwillingness to learn or advance their own understanding. IMO this makes the community very approachable for the ignorant (such as myself). You can learn a lot by just being a "fly on the wall" while knowledgable people discuss something.

 

[nintendoeats]

I think it would be good to add a statement highlighting the exploration and learning aspect of this forum. I really appreciate the knowledgeable people here who are willing to explain and teach. There's a wealth of approachable information on psychoacoustics, signal processing, room correction and many other topics. Despite all this depth of technical knowledge, I don't recall seeing a thread where someone was ridiculed for their lack of knowledge without first demonstrating an unwillingness to learn or advance their own understanding. IMO this makes the community very approachable for the ignorant (such as myself). You can learn a lot by just being a "fly on the wall" while knowledgable people discuss something.

I like this. I tried to write it in such a way that it would be as unconfrontational as possible, and I think emphasizing the positives more would really help with that.

 

[nintendoeats]

I slightly revised the opening to highlight learning, including splitting it into two paragraphs.

 

[nintendoeats]

Another thing I would like to say, I know my argument for digital cables not mattering is not strictly correct (because HDMI and SP/DIF have a discrete clock which introduces jitter issues). If anybody can present a better argument I'd be happy for it.

EDIT: I suppose the best argument is simply a repeat of the basic argument for audio cables don't matter. It's copper. It transmits a signal. Who cares if it's a digital or analog signal. On the other hand, digital signalling is arguably more susceptible to timing-based errors because useful data is being sent at much higher frequencies.

 

[DownUnderGazza]

I like where this is going.
Now we may need (unless I missed it) a "Just arrived? Please start here..." thread that's pinned at the top and includes some of the other brilliant overviews and summary efforts of others, such as this one: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audibility-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/
D'oh, just checked, there are already extremely helpful starter threads for newbies in their respective places across the various forums... as you were...

 

[garbulky]

Everybody is terribly convinced that somebody they've never met has been fooled by subjective bias (with no evidence or testing that person). At least that's how it comes across reading this. You heard different because your brain lied to you. Except that's just a guess said with a lot of conviction.

Also I think we can all agree that subjective listening is flawed for scientific purposes - yes even the subjectivists like me.
Also digital signals can introduce jitter. And Amir has measured a cable that does produce a measurably better signal albeit the comparison signal was very low in distortion.

 

[Thomas savage]

I like where this is going.
Now we may need (unless I missed it) a "Just arrived? Please start here..." thread that's pinned at the top and includes some of the other brilliant overviews and summary efforts of others, such as this one: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audibility-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/
D'oh, just checked, there are already extremely helpful starter threads for newbies in their respective places across the various forums... as you were...

That's probably the best member thread ever created at ASR ..

A @flipflop master stroke.

 

[Thomas savage]

Everybody is terribly convinced that somebody they've never met has been fooled by subjective bias (with no evidence or testing that person). At least that's how it comes across reading this. You heard different because your brain lied to you. Except that's just a guess said with a lot of conviction.

Also I think we can all agree that subjective listening is flawed for scientific purposes - yes even the subjectivists like me.
Also digital signals can introduce jitter. And Amir has measured a cable that does produce a measurably better signal albeit the comparison signal was very low in distortion.

Your human, there's your evidence .

 

[RayDunzl]

And Amir has measured a cable that does produce a measurably better signal

Wasn't that result obtained with a DAC already overly susceptible to problems?*

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...le&c[title_only]=1&c[users]=amirm&o=relevance

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/budget-dac-review-schiit-modi-2-99.1649/

"For DAC, I used our perennial favorite, the Schiit Modi 2 DAC. Of course I say that in jest as this is by far the worst DAC I have tested. It seems to be highly sensitive to power and USB conditions. I figured if there is one DAC that can show differences in USB cables, this would be it."

*thinks yes

 

[garbulky]

Wasn't that result obtained with a DAC already overly susceptible to problems?*

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...le&c[title_only]=1&c[users]=amirm&o=relevance

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/budget-dac-review-schiit-modi-2-99.1649/

"For DAC, I used our perennial favorite, the Schiit Modi 2 DAC. Of course I say that in jest as this is by far the worst DAC I have tested. It seems to be highly sensitive to power and USB conditions. I figured if there is one DAC that can show differences in USB cables, this would be it."

*thinks yes

Not just with that. Also with a Topping DAC and an RME. The RME exhibited the least differences but still had some. Actually the Modi I believe produced no difference.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ents-of-wireworld-starlight-7-usb-cable.6599/

 

[garbulky]

Your human, there's your evidence .

Humans came up with subjective bias!

 

[KSTR]

And Amir has measured a cable that does produce a measurably better signal albeit the comparison signal was very low in distortion.

This was system setup thing, not any actual change at the output of a DAC. See my post here : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...starlight-7-usb-cable.6599/page-4#post-147934
Note: In the meantime I've thoroughly tested the RME Adi-2 Pro and found that this piece of equipment has the highest possible rejection of cross-current flowing through/accross the PCB (from USB GND to Audio Output GND) ever measured. Even currents as large as 1 Ampere (this is astronomically large compared to real-world currents) don't affect the output. All the disturbance happens in the interconnect from the DAC to the analyzer/amplifier and when GND loop impedance changes -- from different USB cables -- then induced error voltages do also change.

 

[nintendoeats]

Everybody is terribly convinced that somebody they've never met has been fooled by subjective bias (with no evidence or testing that person).

That's pretty much correct. When somebody claims that they can hear differences not backed by measurement, we need to account for that claim. Either our tests were inaccurate, there is something we didn't measure, testing conditions were not comparable, or the person heard something that didn't exist. I'm not aware of any other possibilities.

EDIT: Also note that in FAQ#1, I suggest that the reader to do an ABX test. Implicit in that recommendation is that we need to test the person making this statement to get a better idea what's going on.

 

[nintendoeats]

I have revised the item on digital cables to be a bit softer. @KSTR raises what to my eye looks like a valid objection to the linked article, so if there is a more concise reference I can give, I am all ears.

 

[garbulky]

That's pretty much correct. When somebody claims that they can hear differences not backed by measurement, we need to account for that claim. Either our tests were inaccurate, there is something we didn't measure, testing conditions were not comparable, or the person heard something that didn't exist. I'm not aware of any other possibilities.

It's "we don't know because no test was done." It's not "we know your mind made it up." Perhaps it's something you didn't measure or perhaps you did and the person was fooled by subjective bias OR the person actually did hear it or really a whole variety of reasons like setup. We just don't know.

 

[garbulky]

This was system setup thing, not any actual change at the output of a DAC. See my post here : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...starlight-7-usb-cable.6599/page-4#post-147934
Note: In the meantime I've thoroughly tested the RME Adi-2 Pro and found that this piece of equipment has the highest possible rejection of cross-current flowing through/accross the PCB (from USB GND to Audio Output GND) ever measured. Even currents as large as 1 Ampere (this is astronomically large compared to real-world currents) don't affect the output. All the disturbance happens in the interconnect from the DAC to the analyzer/amplifier and when GND loop impedance changes -- from different USB cables -- then induced error voltages do also change.

That's an assumption you made in your post unless you got Amir to re-test and change his findings.
(Having said that, I have never heard a difference in cables).

 

[nintendoeats]

It's "we don't know because no test was done." It's not "we know your mind made it up." Perhaps it's something you didn't measure or perhaps you did and the person was fooled by subjective bias OR the person actually did hear it or really a whole variety of reasons like setup. We just don't know.

Is there anything specific I have written that you would you say is contradicted by that? There is nothing you say here that I disagree with in particular.