Something I would add is something from an email I received.
We've all played around with PSU's, Yes? Heard the differences a good one can bring (A salas shunt for instance, used by many here, and also by myself). Think about the improvement a good clean supply can bring to a USB's oscillator and controller, over the noisy 5V line from the PC.
We've all played around with PSU's, Yes? Heard the differences a good one can bring (A salas shunt for instance, used by many here, and also by myself). Think about the improvement a good clean supply can bring to a USB's oscillator and controller, over the noisy 5V line from the PC.
Will, funny you should mention this particular use of a clean 5V supply on USB improving it. I got embroiled in a similar thread as this one, a while ago when the original poster asked how to splice into a USB cable to provide a cleaner 5V supply. After I & some others gave the o/p advice, it was pounced upon by the gang of fundamentalists that I alluded to who stated that the PS in a USB supply was good-enough for the task - again the bits is bits argument, etc. Funny how the whole thing comes full circle 
Last edited:
Only this argument is not really applicable in case of USB audio. The fact that some serious manufacturers also use USB port power doesn't prove anything but their desire to save every last penny.
Again, a total lack of understanding of how the system works. This is not a pure analog system, PSU problems do not have the same effects here as in a 100% analog system.
If 2 files that have identical checksums sound different, there can be only 2 reasons.
If 2 rips have the same checksum, then they ARE the same. Ergo, there has been no power supply pollution of one file. The files (the rips) are identical. That is all, there is no other choice no matter how you protest.
Since NO ONE who has claimed to hear differences in identical files has come forward with even a theory has to were these differences may reside, the case is closed. If someone can propose where these differences may be hidden that a checksum or bit comparison can not find them, then the subject may be open again.
All else is useless arm waving. Period.
Claiming some sort of objevtivist blindness or lack of understanding is simple nonsense. And profound ignorance.
Note:
Personally, I don't understand why there is a worry over this. This is a part of the system that actually works! We should be happy. It is now easy to get an exact copy of what is on the CD. There is so much else that can go wrong, why worry about a part that actually works?
If 2 files that have identical checksums sound different, there can be only 2 reasons.
- There is a problem in playback.
- It is your imagination
If 2 rips have the same checksum, then they ARE the same. Ergo, there has been no power supply pollution of one file. The files (the rips) are identical. That is all, there is no other choice no matter how you protest.
Since NO ONE who has claimed to hear differences in identical files has come forward with even a theory has to were these differences may reside, the case is closed. If someone can propose where these differences may be hidden that a checksum or bit comparison can not find them, then the subject may be open again.
All else is useless arm waving. Period.
Claiming some sort of objevtivist blindness or lack of understanding is simple nonsense. And profound ignorance.
Note:
Personally, I don't understand why there is a worry over this. This is a part of the system that actually works! We should be happy. It is now easy to get an exact copy of what is on the CD. There is so much else that can go wrong, why worry about a part that actually works?
I'm not claiming objectivist blindness or lack of understanding - just a rush to always look for blind testing, proof of the mechanism of action, etc. rather than doing a quick test themselves when it is within their capabilities & finances! This applies to more & more threads here & is becoming a theme that is occurring over & over.
wrong-o
no... it's about unfathomable insistance on claiming perception as fact. I believe you hear a difference. It's when you state that the difference has a factual existence beyond your (and some other subjective saints) perception that realists object.
get real... many of us supposed objectivists have actually listened to ripped vs. virgin (or whatever) sources and not heard a difference...
maybe we need better cables, eh... maybe Nordost roentgenium/gold clad or some such, eh??
or perhaps we're nazi's Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
no... it's about unfathomable insistance on claiming perception as fact. I believe you hear a difference. It's when you state that the difference has a factual existence beyond your (and some other subjective saints) perception that realists object.
get real... many of us supposed objectivists have actually listened to ripped vs. virgin (or whatever) sources and not heard a difference...
maybe we need better cables, eh... maybe Nordost roentgenium/gold clad or some such, eh??
or perhaps we're nazi's Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I don't reject anybody's opinion. That's none of my business. As long as we are clear it's just that, an opinion. I have lots of them myself, but I try not to sell them as facts.
jan didden
If someone popped up here and said that painting his room blue definitely improved the sound, and what is more a CD once played in the blue room then sounded better in all other rooms (with other colours) would you expect us to take him seriously and engage in dialogue? That is the sort of 'debate' we seem to be having.
This is not the same as cables, SE vs. PP etc. etc. We can argue about those, because at least there is a possibility that the truth does not wholly lie on one side.
This is not the same as cables, SE vs. PP etc. etc. We can argue about those, because at least there is a possibility that the truth does not wholly lie on one side.
Auplater, if you have tried it already, why not just state that & let the body of evidence build up to the point where the Nays outnumber the Yeas? This continual argumentative stance to make someone prove the "unfathomable" is what I'm reacting to.
Jan, - I don't know if anybody is trying to "sell anything as fact" - this is just your adversarial way of putting it. As far as I can see, it was put forth as a suggestion of the findings of a few people, for others to try. Why this is so abhorrent to some is beyond me? What's to fear in trying something out? I would say the same to you as to Auplater above!
Ditto, DF96
Jan, - I don't know if anybody is trying to "sell anything as fact" - this is just your adversarial way of putting it. As far as I can see, it was put forth as a suggestion of the findings of a few people, for others to try. Why this is so abhorrent to some is beyond me? What's to fear in trying something out? I would say the same to you as to Auplater above!
Ditto, DF96
I think you may be John - I think (but I'm not entirely sure) that you and others reject the possibility that the difference you pereceive when listening is the result of your expectation to here a difference ie placebo.
If that is the case, then that is surely subjective short-sightedness? Subjective lack of peripheral vision?
I have always stated that I am sure you and others percieve a difference. I am just unsure what the mechanism is and where no mechaism can be proven the possibility of placebo HAS to be accepted and explored.
The only sure way to exclude placebo as causal is rigourous DBT.
As such, its not an article of faith - its a scientific reality.
With simple ABX testing being relatively easy to self administer now, it seems somewhat churlish and, lets face it, arrogant, to continue with a line that its too hard, and anyway I don't need it - I know better.
If truth is what you are after, then best to use tools designed and proven ot deliver it. If righteousness is more your bag, continue with faith.
Best not to suggest these ideas. There's an endless supply of gullibility, and like a good game of Telephone, it will mutate quickly into, "A physicist in England claims this works!" For which I will never let you live it down.
And so on it goes, you want me to do DBTs & I want you to do a listening test of whatever form you want. You see what annoys me somewhat is that even when tests are presented to your group (let's call it that for brevity), they are rejected.
For instance, I presented scope shots of the effects of a device on a SPDIF line (with/without shots), done not by me but by two different people. No, these weren't acceptable as proof of the fact that this would have any audible effect - tests of analogue signals would have to be done.
BTW, SY you still refuse to communicate when you are going to post these out - it's well over a month now & people are waiting for them
Later when someone else posted that they had done blind tests (two identical cables, one had the device in it, the other not) the tests were rejected. What was suggested was bringing it to a university department for testing. Are you guys for real?
For instance, I presented scope shots of the effects of a device on a SPDIF line (with/without shots), done not by me but by two different people. No, these weren't acceptable as proof of the fact that this would have any audible effect - tests of analogue signals would have to be done.
BTW, SY you still refuse to communicate when you are going to post these out - it's well over a month now & people are waiting for them
Later when someone else posted that they had done blind tests (two identical cables, one had the device in it, the other not) the tests were rejected. What was suggested was bringing it to a university department for testing. Are you guys for real?
Last edited:
yep. I'm for real. If someone makes a claim for anything that improves performance - be it for magnetic devices that clamp on the fuel line of my car to improve consumption, to magnetic devices that I sleep on to improve my health, to plasitc baggies of stones I tie to my cables to improve the sound of my audio gear, to special power supplies that do the same - I expect them to back it with coherent factual information that I can reasonably expect to verify.
"I notice I get better mileage" or "I feel like I sleep more soundly" or"I heard the soundstage widen dramatically" or "I heard the dynamic range extend noticibly" are opinions, not facts. And contrary to popular belief, the plural of opinion is NOT fact
"I notice I get better mileage" or "I feel like I sleep more soundly" or"I heard the soundstage widen dramatically" or "I heard the dynamic range extend noticibly" are opinions, not facts. And contrary to popular belief, the plural of opinion is NOT fact
Look at what we've got here.
There's a claim that identical files sound different, depending on whether they're written to moving or stationary media.
Nobody with an education in digital electronics thinks this is possible.
People nevertheless claim to hear a difference.
Those who hear one are mistaken.
There IS no difference.
It's a classical example of people allowing their senses to deceive them.
There's no other explanation.
It actually proves what all the test advocates have been suggesting.
That's why, when people make extraordinary claims, other people want tests.
w
Can you see why I might be sceptical of your demand for tests - they turn into ever spiralling demands for a different one. Veracity & intent come into question in this scenario!
I'm also very wary of people who try to save me from my delusions - I find it self-delusional on their part & usually dangerous
I'm also very wary of people who try to save me from my delusions - I find it self-delusional on their part & usually dangerous
Last edited:
Wrong - again.
When my niece scolds her mother for changing clothes in front of the tele because "The people on the TV can see you!" I do not for a second want to run out and test her belief. Not matter how funny or cute or intuitive it is, it is simple wrong. She does not understand the system.
Believing that the people on TV can see you reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of how the TV system works. Anyone with a passing knowledge of television will understand it and not need to test it. (even my Luddite mother). That is the level of this argument. A fundamental lack of understanding of how the system works. No matter what your belief, the system works the way it works. Not understanding how it is the problem here.
When the lack of the functioning of the system is so profound, there is no need to verify some strange belief arising from that misunderstanding.
When my niece scolds her mother for changing clothes in front of the tele because "The people on the TV can see you!" I do not for a second want to run out and test her belief. Not matter how funny or cute or intuitive it is, it is simple wrong. She does not understand the system.
Believing that the people on TV can see you reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of how the TV system works. Anyone with a passing knowledge of television will understand it and not need to test it. (even my Luddite mother). That is the level of this argument. A fundamental lack of understanding of how the system works. No matter what your belief, the system works the way it works. Not understanding how it is the problem here.
When the lack of the functioning of the system is so profound, there is no need to verify some strange belief arising from that misunderstanding.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.