Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Although the article itself contains at least one patently absurd statement ... posted by John Atkinson on April 06, 2017 at 04:22:26
... is that all these subjectivist audiophiles, including folks who don't hesitate to publish (eg) cable and power cord reviews claiming big changes with no technical evidence--not even a convincing theoretical rationale--suddenly crave objective evidence and rigorous testing. Was that power cord review double-blind? Please explain your level-matching scheme for that preamp review. Were levels matched within 0.1dB? 0.5? Can you prove it? I've got a strong technical bent but I'm a subjectivist reviewer. This is the world we live in.
For what it's worth, I've studied MQA quite intensively and read many of the theoretical critiques. I've engaged in long discussions with digital designers and come to understand their criticisms. I'm not going to waste all that work by posting detailed conclusions here--but I will say that it all convinced me, tentatively, that MQA is valid tech, an interesting thing to try.
I DO suspect that much of the improvement I've heard in, eg, MQA streams on Tidal has to do with the fact that the MQA files are derived directly from "master" files; who knows where those CD-resolution files came from? "Mastered for iTunes" maybe? Compare a 24/96 stream instead (if it existed) and probably the differences would be more subtle. So on the one hand that validates Doug's comments about the problem with direct comparison--but on the other it's an example of MQA delivering on its most basic promise.
Congratulations. Your first hedge against MQA. Clap clap clap....
So after discussing with digital designers and reading all the valid critical analysis, which Stereophile has not published one iota of (not your fault), you are still convinced MQA is a valid tech good for consumers. Is that just doubling down?
As far as the subject of power cords. Pretty remarkably you brought that up, since your magazines and it's print competitor have published tons of power cord reviews, and one of your senior writers, Michael Fremer, has written pages and pages of the "big" changes he has heard cycling through power cords, and conditioners, for that matter.
Pretty rich for you to drop this at the door step of "all these subjectivist" audiopiophiles.
As far as some "claiming big changes with no technical evidence--not even a convincing theoretical rationale-"...utterly disingenuous.
It has been a LONG proven theory that power cords, when designed in certain ways, refejt EMI/RFI, and provide current more efficiently. This
established beyond doubt.
Here is what Mr. Fremer said about Shunyata test method:
"The graphs at www.shunyata.com/Content/DTCDmeas.html
provide a visual explanation. They show measured
current-delivery differences between AC cords with
molded plugs that have a thin blade contact and those
with higher-quality, screwed-on or soldered plugs that
provide better contact. You can see measured differences
between wires of different thicknesses, and between cords
configured with various geometries. The DTCD tosses
out the window claims that differences among power
cords can't be measured."
So, EH, try again. This was an attempt at false equivalency that took
> > Congratulations. Your first hedge against MQA. Clap clap clap.... < <
What cynical bullshit. This has been my position for months at least, possibly a year. People are arguing that the tech is invalid; my research says it's valid enough to deserve an audition. MQA has put out far more info than most proprietary technologies; I make my judgment based on that (which many critics obviously haven't read). It's not enough to absolutely validate the technology, but to me it seems interesting--legit. Ultimately it comes down to how it sounds: The tech is interesting enough to earn an audition. So far I like what I hear, very much. That's my position, unchanged.
As for the rest: EMI/RFI is the best explanation I've seen for what power cords do, but its effects on audio--via power cords--is unproven. And that's fine; as I've said, this is a subjectivist business. MF OUGHT to be describing what he hears. That's his job. Mine, too. The problems come 1. when subjectivists become objectivists when it suits their needs, and 2. when people who don't understand the technology proclaim that it's bullshit.
I'm about to board a plane for a long flight, and anyway have no interest in continuing this discussion. Don't expect any more from me.
To bolster your argument you made two incorrect statements...there is no accepted theory as to why power products can affect the sound, and there is no testing.
"This has been my position for months at least, possibly a year."
You certainly have been silent about any doubts.
"The problems come 1. when subjectivists become objectivists when it suits their needs, and 2. when people who don't understand the technology proclaim that it's bullshit."
Sorry, but THAT is cynical nonsense. Sujective or Objective, everyone should question a technology that takes digital files and adds generations and removes them further from their origin, not to mention claims to solve problems that absolutely do not exist, all from a company with a history of catastrophic business decisions. Yeh, not swallowing wholesale the flights of fancy of audio magazines is good for one's wallet. Every one is still waiting for those tens of thousands of DSD downloads, right?
...when I wrote "people who don't understand the technology" I was NOT referring to Doug Schneider, who, although we disagree, has earned my respect.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: