 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.79.86.51
In Reply to: RE: "Yes it can." posted by E-Stat on July 21, 2023 at 13:18:35
Well then why don't you explain in technical detail where I am wrong. I certainly explained the opposite.
Edits: 07/21/23 07/21/23Follow Ups:
I live in the real world devoid of what you don't assume.
These theories are highly published, practiced, and taught every day.
Who are you? If you want to challenge them then do so. That's what I asked in my last post.
All you do is say I'm wrong and you're right yet you offer nothing to back it up? It's quite obvious the technology is over your head.
Again tell us where and how my notes on noise with digital signals is incorrect.
to your heart's content! That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McD.
I base my opinion on empirical evidence based on decades of hearing lots of really nice systems.
That's not empirical evidence. That's anecdotal evidence. Also you and other audiophiles continue to ignore well known realities of human aural perception and memory.
In these hotly debated controversies as to what is and what is not audible you and other like minded audiophiles insist that you have extraordinary listening skills and hearing acuity that defies and discredits all the scientific knowledge that tell us what is and what is not audible to human beings and that human beings not only can perceive differences in sound where none actually exist in casual comparisons but almost certainly *will* perceive differences when looking for them even when none exist.
It is a magic (irony intended) combination of willful ignorance and unfounded arrogance. It's also the magic formula that allows shyster businessmen like Ted Denney to con audiophiles into spending tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars on pure snake oil products that make no difference whatsoever to the sound of an audio system.
I am often torn between feeling sorry for such audiophiles and feeling like they deserve what they get. It's the new audiophiles who are looking for guidance that I really feel sorry for. It's truly amazing how much belief in complete nonsense permeates this hobby comprised of so many self anointed gurus and experts.
Thank you very much!
I confess that when I was 18 and listened with my reviewer friends to their spectacular systems, I often did not hear some of what they were observing. That took time, guidance, repetition and more exposure to live music to fully grasp.
Decades later, I find myself extremely happy hearing the kinds of subtleties in the system I hear when wifey plays her baby grand. As does she. :)
Your self confidence in your hearing and listening skills is unquestionable.
Your beliefs about what you are actually hearing are quite dubious.
Are you familiar with the well established and tested reality of steered focus in aural perception? Are you aware of the data reduction that follows with the formation of short term and long term aural memories?
If you are actually familiar with all the science on those subjects that leads to another question. Do you think you have some sort of ability to bypass steered focusing and resist data reduction in the formation of human aural memories as a result of the time, guidance, repetition and more exposure to live music that made you the "skilled listener" you are today?
Sorry, never impressed with your theoretical rants.
Maybe both of you should find a room where you can get giddy together comparing notes! ;)
Electrical noise in audio systems is not really a "theory" except in educational usage. It is well understood for 100 years now and there are well researched and practiced methods to mitigate it.As I understand your POV, you heard something in your system's audio reproduction you didn't like. You had some basic knowledge of electrical noise, probably from audiophile articles. So you shot-gunned various fixes such as replacing switch mode power supplies, trying cables that are claimed to get rid of the problem. Black box products that are claimed to eliminate said noise.
And you then heard positive improvements, so in your mind the problem was clearly electrical noise.
However you have no direct evidence of that. Electrical noise is easily measured and quantified in several dimensions. Especially today. Yet you performed no such electrical measurements and compared data before and after your tweaks. You assumed it works because to you, the problem was minimized.
What you fail to acknowledge is the problem of human expectation bias. You went to some effort and expense to swap a switch mode power supply. You like any person expects positive results from your work and investment. So lacking knowledge of the science and physics at play, you hear what you expect to hear. Another known issue is audible memory. It takes at least 30 seconds or more to swap a power supply or interconnect. The mind cannot retain the level of detail you claim over that time period. This too is documented.
I am hardly immune either. As I have issues with many of these questionable audio tweak products, I would most likely not hear any improvement.
This is why all areas of science and engineering rely on machine measurements where there is no chance of personal bias. And it also makes it very easy to stand behind your results because if accurate, anyone else can duplicate them.
I don't see where anybody is telling you what YOU hear and don't hear. This issue is your steadfast rejection of well understood and practiced scientific knowledge and practice. Things you don't understand at the level required to make the hard fast claims you do. And you also offer no technical rebuttal to these facts either. That just further promoted by the childish "I'm right and you're wrong" debate. That makes one look like a fool so why put yourself in that position. Just acknowledge what you hear and it's quite OK to offer an opinion as to what is happening technically. But it's ridiculous to argue with people who truly understand and further practice the underlying technology.
Edits: 07/23/23
and won't. That's what comes with a life time emotional and financial investment in bullshit. Cognitive dissonance.
There was no theoretical rant there. You shouldn't even use words like "theory" until you actually understand what they mean. It's like when you call your anecdotal evidence empirical evidence. You don't know the difference, much less the significance of that difference.
I was just checking to see if you had even a very basic understanding of the subject of human aural perception. Clearly you don't. And that's why you believe so much audio bullshit including your own bullshit.
It's laughable that you wear your ignorance so proudly. It's a badge of honor shared by flat earthers and creationists.
Some day you should all have a willful ignorance pride day and have a parade.
I'm not drinking coffee when I read your posts - otherwise I'd spray it all over the monitor!
We're all familiar with your passion over BACCH signal processing. Their website is where you find all manner of "steered focus" discussion used to sell their $5000-$7000 software. Resale value is likely not good.
Reminds me of another time you swung your cucumber over another fancy concept: BS.1116-3 found here . When I asked you to provide even a single reference of that used in high end audio, your response was *crickets*. When I observed that I wasn't at all surprised you were unable to do so, your response was "Want to bet?" I just smile as all we continue to find is emptiness.
Then and now. Everyone knows that you'll be unable to cite even a single "scholarly" reference to its use in the audio word aside from products like what you purchased.
"We're all familiar with your passion over BACCH signal processing. Their website is where you find all manner of "steered focus" discussion used to sell their $5000-$7000 software. Resale value is likely not good."
The BACCH4Mac is a cross talk cancelation DSP. Essential for optimal stereo playback. But you wouldn't be familiar with that. The BACCH4Mac as ZERO to do with steered focusing. You really are remarkably clueless on audio and aural perception. Apparently you can't even decipher the plain English on the BACCH website.
Interesting that you would be concerned about resale value. They offer a full money back guarantee if someone fails to appreciate the vastly superior performance they get with the BACCH products. But hey, you think snake oil works. Maybe you also like added cross talk to fuck up your imaging and sound stage too. There is no accounting for taste.
I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain actual steered focus to you. It's a basic fact about how we perceive sound. All sound. But you aren't into facts so it would be a waste of time even if you actually managed to understand it.
"Reminds me of another time you swung your cucumber over another fancy concept: BS.1116-3 found here. When I asked you to provide even a single reference of that used in high end audio, your response was *crickets*. When I observed that I wasn't at all surprised you were unable to do so, your response was "Want to bet?" I just smile as all we continue to find is emptiness."
Crickets was what we heard when you ran out of excuses in your lame attempt to avoid taking any DBT challenges. Talk about blah blah blah. That's all ya got. You are a pure poser. You believe that power cords make a difference in the sound and you blow off real break throughs in audio like the BACCH's unique cross talk cancelation DSP.
Anytime you want to put your bullshit to the test I have a $20K bet waiting for you. And if you think DBTs are bullshit too I'd be happy to add an additional bet that I CAN actually hear a difference using an ABX DBT with my BACCH4Mac. And I won't look for any and every excuse not to take such a bet. Any old ABX DBT will do the trick. When things make an actual real difference in the sound there is no need to run away from an ABX DBT. ANY discerning critical listener will have no trouble demonstrating an ability to hear differences when there are real differences to be heard. So if you want to put my claims to the test let's do it. We already know you will make every excuse under the sun NOT to put your bullshit to the test.
Talk is cheap. $20K bets aren't. So keep talkin poser. blah blah blah blah. I'm here waiting with $20K for you to cut the talk and show us the goods. And an additional $20K if you are dumb enough to ask the same of me.
You are truly laughable. Maybe you should do another google search on steered focus and find out what it actually is before talking out your ass about the BACCH technology. This really is like talking to a flat earther about astronomy or a creationist about biology. By the way, the moon isn't made of green cheese either. Sorry to burst your bubble.
all we continue to find is empty posturing.
Talk is cheap. $20K bets aren't
Tell us once you're able to actually define what that means. Upon multiple requests and empty claims, you never have. Pathetic you don't have the foggiest clue how tests are actually conducted.
At least Captain Kirk arrived at a test procedure to compare DC power cords using my digital streamer. It just dumbs down the results by funneling everything through a $299 ADC that is known via measurements (and listening) to compromise signal quality. Michael Hobbs would never tell you his product was an attempt to do such. Duh.
1. Your claim that DBTs about high end audio using BS.1116-3 remains empty. Always will be.
2. Your inability to even define how to conduct such a test is pathetic. Always will be.
3. Your inability to reference any "scholarly" application of the product you purchased remains consistent. Always will be.
everything you said in your post is bullshit. No point in breaking it down. It literally was all bullshit. Any excuse to not face the music. Go ahead bro. Bet me $20K that I can't reliably identify the difference between the BACCH4Mac in an ABX DBT. I won't bog you down with stall tactics and dodges. I'll have no trouble agreeing to the same conditions I would offer you for an ABX DBT if you weren't so insistent on not answering basic questions about the conditions you feel you need.
If you really thought you could identify power cords in an ABX DBT you would have no problem coming up with an agreed upon ABX DBT and taking my $20K. That's the thing, no matter how the test is designed you won't accept it unless you can cheat.
Go ahead, you design the ABX DBT. You will use it on your power cords. I will use it on my BACCH4Mac. It just has to be double blind and level matched. Heck I might let you get away with single blind if it looks like it will still control biases. The rules are really simple. Same basic test design for both of our claims. The point being, I'm not afraid to take a DBT with money on the line. You are. There is no test you would accept that actually uses bias controls. But feel free to prove me wrong and tell us what DBT you would take.
Have you done a google search to figure out what steered focus actually is yet? blah blah blah blah blah.
Keep hiding in the dark.
Bet me $20K that I can't reliably identify the difference between the BACCH4Mac in an ABX DBT.
I have no doubt that anyone could hear the differences using an effects processor - even when you're unable to define test conditions!
If you really thought you could identify power cords in an ABX DBT you would have no problem coming up with an agreed upon ABX DBT and taking my $20K.
Based upon exactly what test conditions? You've never answered that question! Never will.
Have you done a google search to figure out what steered focus actually is yet?
As observed and linked to earlier (do you know how to follow a hyperlink?), there are no fewer than four references in the BAACH marketing page.
At the expense of continuing to observe the obvious, you have never referenced any "scholarly" use of this with high end audio. You never will.
I think it's time to leave your circus as well because all you do is deflect questions and posture angrily. Do you think anyone believes you?
> > If you really thought you could identify power cords in an ABX DBT you would have no problem coming up with an agreed upon ABX DBT and taking my $20K.> >
> Based upon exactly what test conditions? You've never answered that question! Never will.>
Name your own conditions. I tried to get you to answer some basic questions about your system so I could design a test but you refused to answer them. You were clearly posturing and dodging so you could reject any test I would design. So just tell us. What would you accept as an ABX DBT for your claim about the effects power cables have on sound? YOU WILL NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION
> > Have you done a google search to figure out what steered focus actually is yet?> >
> As observed and linked to earlier (do you know how to follow a hyperlink?), there are no fewer than four references in the BAACH marketing page.>
Yikes, maybe this is senility taking over? Nope. No hyper links to the BACCH webpage. No mention of steered focus in any of their promotional material. Cross talk cancelation DSP is no about steered focus.
You really have no clue what steered focus is as it pertains to aural perception. I'll give you a link to some scientific literature on the subject. I don't expect you to read it but what the hell. At least anyone else reading this can learn something if they don't know about steered focus in aural perception.
> At the expense of continuing to observe the obvious, you have never referenced any "scholarly" use of this with high end audio. You never will.>
Of course not. Actual researchers in psychoacoustics are not wasting there time testing power cords. I know you really hate science so it's probably hard for you to grasp the idea of inferred evidence. Here is the definition. :"Specifically, inference is a rule of logic that is normally used for evidence during a trial. Inference is used, or rather functions, when a fact is elucidated, or "proved" by examining other "facts" then then allow one lead to another fact, or reasonable conclusion."
It's how science works. Again this is like talking to a creationist about evolution. "We ain't never seen no animal turn into another animal! Evilution is BULLSHIT!" (said with the most ridiculous hick accent) And for the most part that is true. we never saw wolves evolve in whales. (they did) We know evolution happened through inferred evidence. In audio that happens when we take the mountain of evidence we have for human thresholds of hearing and applying it to "high end audio" claims of audibility. We can test the signals of the devices in question and measure how much the measurements are affected by the device and we can compare that to known human thresholds of audibility.
Scientific researchers have real work to do. They are not going to waste time and money catering to ignorant audiophiles and only to dispel their religious beliefs about what they can and can not hear. The true believers won't accept it anyway. What would be the point? If you don't understand how the inferred evidence does the trick that's your failure to understand it. Just like it is the creationists' failure to understand how the fossil record, genetic sequencing, and radiometric dating are all inferred bodies of evidence that support the fact that life on earth evolved. But clearly this is all way over your head. You won't get it. And even if you did you would find some excuse to reject it because of your life long emotional investment in audiophile snake oil.
What would it take to convince you that you are wrong about the sound of power cords, cables, optical disc transports etc etc? What would convince you that you are wrong and your non bias controlled comparisons were so flawed as to lead you to believe you can hear differences that never were actually there? YOU WILL NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION
> I think it's time to leave your circus as well because all you do is deflect questions and posture angrily. Do you think anyone believes you?>
So says the clown who rejects science. Clowns are good for a laugh. I look forward to your refusal to answer the two simple questions I have posed to you. It will pretty much prove my points. The rest will be more blah blah blah blah.
It's time to agree to disagree and move on.
> > > What would it take to convince you that you are wrong about the sound of power cords, cables, optical disc transports etc etc?
We've heard these opinions for years. If you believe there is no difference, so be it. I'm tried of hearing it.
Name calling is also not allowed and will result in banning in the future.
Thanks.
-Rod
Right, it's what you wish to believe.
Yet the legitimate scientific community disagrees with billions of working examples to back it up.
P.S. Shunyata is hardly part of that community. Again if I am wrong, show me.
The moderators feel that allowing this thread to continue, even though it may hold useful information, will wind up creating more trouble than it solves, and thereby detract from the purpose of this forum.This is not the appropriate venue for discussion of this matter, and we ask that those with an interest in the subject, take it elsewhere (e.g. private e-mail).
No further follow-ups will be considered.
Thank you for your support of the Asylum.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
