|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.85.148.50
In Reply to: RE: Thank you posted by Sordidman on July 07, 2014 at 11:16:02
Yes, totally agree. But it still amazes me how many are willing to indulge in endless tail chasing. I find it mind boggling how many absurd devices are out there to "purify" the USB pipeline, and bases to kill RFI/EMI, magic USB cables that promise to cure all USB evils, and worse of all, software to "optimize" processes.
How about a device that has NO OTHER processes but to render audio?
Follow Ups:
The both of you are real funny. Same thing over an over. How do you really know it is any different with the often over priced music servers that you know and love. The things that are being discussed are often small improvements that can get the last few percent that some enjoy trying to achieve.
Maybe you can change you names to Moe and Larry... :)
Oh and let's not forget Curley who just had to have something to say. Unless he would prefer to be Shemp...
... jerking(-off) in circles, and whacking(-off) his little mole.
Edits: 07/07/14
There is nothing about the angst of computer audio that I see ANYBODY enjoying. It is nothing but constant workarounds to fix a flawed approach.The streamers I have heard, and perhaps YOU should make an effort to hear them as well, from Naim, Bryston, Marantz, Auraliti, and host of others cost no more, some times a bit less than a Mac Book Pro, the darling of most here.
Don't tell me about expensive boxes, as many are taking their off the assembly line computers whining about all its flaws, but connecting to DACs that cost many, many multiples of the computer and paying for silly software updates.
I've seen that side and it is garish. Sooloos was right ten years, ago, although their original approach is now outdated, no true music lover wants to put up with the crap that a computer brings to the table.
Edits: 07/07/14
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Whack A Mole method of computer audio tweaking
But it still amazes me how many are willing to indulge in endless tail chasing.
It's basically a few in the lunatic fringe who are endlessly tail chasing and unable to get the level of performance they desire. You'll see the same characters posting regularly about their latest 'discovery' but I would bet that the largest majority here are pretty happy with their setups and don't spend every waking moment of their lives 'discovering' new questionable tweaks. It's one thing to try and advance the hobby but a shotgun approach that isn't documented with any proof and isn't repeatable by others is just a circle jerk IMHO.
"It's one thing to try and advance the hobby but a shotgun approach that isn't documented with any proof and isn't repeatable by others is just a circle jerk IMHO."
It seems that by far the majority of the claims of "discovery" in this hobby have become non-falsifiable.
Almost certainly no measurements will be posted to show a difference in the signal, or if one is posted, then the differences will be trivially small. Instead, the only "proof" of the discovery will be the tweaker's claim to hear a difference and as we all know, claims of hearing a difference are unassailable. If another person does not hear a difference then they lack the necessary hearing acuity, or their stereo is not sufficiently "resolving," or they're not an EE, or any other fatuous point that can be made to discredit and reject the data point represented by the person who does not hear a difference.
Since these claims are not falsifiable, at least in this forum, they are not testable. Since they are not testable, they move from the realm of science to the realm of faith. Faith is simply not a good model for advancing science. Any advances will be random and the result of serendipity rather than plan. Along the way though, all sorts of wacky things can be asserted and accepted on faith that in reality do little or nothing at all. Now that may be fun for some people, but it has little to do with musical playback.
JE
1. The course of all scientific investigation & discovery is one of hypothesis and testing.
2. Investigations are qualitative: you can have good tests, & bad tests. Incomplete testing, poor testing, can still be a scientific investigation. One can engage in poor science.
3. Because one may engage in "bad" science, or use poor testing methodologies, does not mean that what they are doing is faith based or the opposite of science.
Listening tests and multiple experiences, are just one form of investigation. BETTER tests come about by combining many experiences, and many types of tests, including, (for example), accurate measurements derived from good measuring tools. Some tests are better than others.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Your comments are right on the mark.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"The course of all scientific investigation & discovery is one of hypothesis and testing." I agree. For a test to be valid, it has to allow for a negative result. The test must allow the possibility the hypothesis is wrong.
My point is, on this forum at least, only positive results are accepted. That is not "testing." If anyone were to repeat the OP's original "experiment" but then reported a negative result, they would be dismissed as being deaf or having an "unworthy" stereo, or somehow not doing the job right. So long as the inmates on this forum insist on acknowledging only one type of result pretty much zero "testing" will occur. As you yourself point out, without testing there is no science.
NO ONE IS INSISTING on one type of result: that is your unfounded extrapolation.FMAK's reported tests were pretty good, and he offered no "crazy" claim. Plus his history of conducting & subsequently reporting on similar experiments/tests show not perfect, but achievable results when repeated.
No one made any claim that changing out a simple, (and incredibly easy to perform), SATA cable created any kind of major "game changer."
If someone conducted similar tests and did not hear a difference, they would likely get a "fine" from the rest of the community, - along with a possible explanation of why they did not hear a difference.
It COULD POSSIBLY be difficult to repeat the same test, - as few have the exact same equipment as FMAK.
A BETTER test would be to try it on 3 different levels of system(s).
But, that does NOT mean that FMAK wasn't making a "scientific" investigation. Obviously, - for him, - it wasn't worth it to test on 9 different systems.
The fact remains that some systems are better at producing low level detail, and are more "accurate" sounding than others: if you do not believe that going into any SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY: then it's you who will not be open to a range of possibly conclusions and not engaging in "good" science.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 07/09/14
"FMAK's reported tests were pretty good"
The OP built a PC but had vague, audiophile type complaints of the sound it had: "have been really dissatisfied with the defocussed and over smooth sound quality" whatever that means. The OP read somewhere on the internet that SATA cables might affect sound quality. He examined his SATA cables and was dissatisfied with their construction. He eventually replaced them with completely different cables that looked nicer to him and then listened to his system to check his results. Can you say "expectation bias?" Can you say "lack of controls?" If this is your idea of a "pretty good" test I'd hate to see what you call a bad test.
"No one made any claim that changing out a simple, (and incredibly easy to perform), SATA cable created any kind of major "game changer.""
Are you serious? The OP said: "Presto, sound stage, focus, as well as hf and lf balance have come back and I am a lot happier." Apparently this tweak has remastered the OP's entire music library. That sounds like a major "game changer" to me.
"If someone conducted similar tests and did not hear a difference, they would likely get a "fine" from the rest of the community, - along with a possible explanation of why they did not hear a difference."
Ah, yes, the explanation of why they did not hear a difference. Because, as I pointed out before, claims of hearing a difference are unassailable on this forum. I'd bet that none of the possible explanations would be that the tweak didn't actually do anything.
"It COULD POSSIBLY be difficult to repeat the same test, - as few have the exact same equipment as FMAK."
Isn't repeatability one of the hallmarks of a good experiment? If it only works on the OP's system then who else cares?
Now I'm not saying that the OP's tweak didn't work, but I am saying that he hasn't sufficiently demonstrated to me that it's likelihood of working is enough to get me to experiment.
And I still say, however well meaning the OP is, and he does seem sincere, or plausible his explanations may be, and they do sound reasonable, no actual "science" was performed here.
You forgot to add, - "to my satisfaction."Obviously, you are not in agreement that "science" is qualitative. (And although you appeared to agree with statements above regarding science being qualitative; you now are ending your post in the contrary).
Tell us then, (and please be specific if you could), what other things FMAK could've done to move it from the realm of (whatever you call what he did), to "science" as you so narrowly define it?
Also, without doing any testing, (just speculate), can you foresee any "modifications" to any PC making any kind of SQ change whatsoever? (power supply, separate USB bus, SSD hds)?
Do you view science and technological development(s) as something that "changes" & advances due to experimentation; bringing to light more knowledge and "better" explanations than occurred previous?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 07/10/14 07/10/14
"Obviously, you are not in agreement that "science" is qualitative."
It's possible to believe both that science is qualitative and that this is not an example of science.
"Tell us then, (and please be specific if you could), what other things FMAK could've done"
How about at least single blind testing? How about more than one test? How about a before and after recording to demonstrate the change? I see fmak as at the point where he is trying to form a hypothesis. I do not see a single experiment on a single machine evaluated only by a sighted listening test as in any way "proving" his hypothesis.
I can hypothesize that putting a plate of broccoli in my PC will improve the sound. If I told you I did it and it worked, (music is now more "organic" and "earthy" with a sense of "freshness") would you call that science?
"can you foresee any "modifications" to any PC making any kind of SQ change whatsoever?"
Of course. But that's not the claim at issue here.
"Do you view science and technological development(s) as something that "changes" & advances due to experimentation; bringing to light more knowledge and "better" explanations than occurred previous?"
Sure. On the other hand, making a claim with no controls over the experiment is not going to do much to actually advance science overall.
I get the sense this sub-thread is going nowhere fast. I worry our debate will turn into a dispute and I don't want that. If you'd like, I'd be happy to drop it.
JE
You may want to think about the ridiculousness of the broccoli comment.
(see also Tony's comment (right on) below in this thread).
No point in me repeating what I said above, as you are just repeating that you do not see science as qualitative.
""It's possible to believe both that science is qualitative and that this is not an example of science.""
No, it meets ALL of the criteria of the definition!! All of it. It might be poor science, - but it meets all the criteria.
The fact that FMAK conducted 3 different tests, and the corroboration from several other people who've experimented and tested cables from external hard drives, AND the explanations offered; all point to a preponderance of evidence that points to the likelihood of a SQ difference in context: and is indeed a scientific investigation.
The fact that you stand against this, and are closing your mind to the possibility of any SQ change, shows that you're the one who has determined that there can only be one outcome: this makes you a naysayer. There will never be any test or "science" that will be adequate for your position.
Quite simply, the end result of what you ultimately hear/interpret in a music playback system interacting with your room is indeed a complex process. And our hearing/minds are capable of distinguishing subtle differences in timing and pitch of music. People who have built up, tons of experiences, and have performed testing largely agree. You can NEVER get an accurate indication of how a component behaves in a system without actually hearing it. Almost no one with experiences makes assertions and hangs on to these naysaying positions like yours: it simply does not happen.
From my perspective, it is clear: you are unwilling to garner any experiences for yourself, coupled with an unreasonably strident "burden of proof" when interpreting the results of others investigations clearly shows that you choose to remain ignorant: and further engagement would be a fools errand.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
'And I still say, however well meaning the OP is, and he does seem sincere, or plausible his explanations may be, and they do sound reasonable, no actual "science" was performed here.'
As fmak would say, this is just semantics. The value of the OP and the subsequent discussion comes from the information transmitted to lurkers and participants in the thread. It can be summarized as follows: The sound quality of your system may change if you substitute different SATA cables. This is easy and inexpensive to try. This is a cheap tweak and it's quite plausible that the sound would be altered in some systems.
I would not be concerned with hyperbolic exaggeration of benefits. This is of no import for those who enjoy their time tweaking and evaluating cheap tweaks. Hyperbolic exaggeration may be harmful when it is used to sell expensive gear of questionable value, but that's not the case in this thread.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"As fmak would say, this is just semantics. The value of the OP and the subsequent discussion comes from the information transmitted to lurkers and participants in the thread."
So you are saying that the transmission of information to others is conducting science? By writing an article on chemistry, the author is conducting science? Somehow I would have thought the science would have been conducted long before the article was written. I'm the one playing semantic games here?
"I would not be concerned with hyperbolic exaggeration of benefits."
Why on earth not? That is the core of my argument. If the OP had said he heard noise in his system and swapping out an unshielded SATA cable for a shielded one fixed the issue, you would not have heard a peep out of me. But that's not what the OP said. Instead, the OP said that swapping SATA cables virtually remastered his entire music library. Now that's a pretty big claim, and a far cry from your mild assertion that "the sound quality of your system may change if you substitute different SATA cables." The OP's claim, if credible, is revolutionary. This would be a huge breakthrough in audio. However, before we all run around and jump on this revolution, wouldn't it be prudent to have a little acutal science to back it up? And by science I don't mean churning up guesses as to how something might possibly make a trivial difference that could conceivably cause a difference in sound. I myself am intensely interested in how a cable could do what the OP claims.
"Hyperbolic exaggeration may be harmful when it is used to sell expensive gear of questionable value, but that's not the case in this thread."
This reminds me of the old joke:
"Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price."
People are either bullshitting or they are not. What difference does price make?
All the Best!
JE
Using one's mind and senses to ascertain truth is what the scientific method is about. As to Science, it has become an organized religion, which is to say it has become corrupted. Science is now concerned with career and profit ahead of discovering truth.
John Swenson and others have given perfectly good explanations as to how changes to a SATA cable might affect sound. If one adapts the attitude of an experimental physicist one can get to the bottom of these issues if one wants to spend sufficient time and money. The general problem of high end audio is that it lacks sufficient money to attract the necessary talent and conduct the necessary research. There is much more money for good electrical engineers to work in the computer industry, telecommunications or military electronics.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
N/T
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: