If you want the amount, Bear, then you'd better be one of those people that you claim not to be. Quantifying that specifically is non-trivial, and probably less useful to a designer than "hey, these are the things are important".
Rather than claiming it's very strange, why not be the person that does it? Or go find the info out there.
Rather than claiming it's very strange, why not be the person that does it? Or go find the info out there.
Derf, old boy, ur right on target as usual.
What sort of confounding do you need?
Is the proposition now that every difference heard by someone on their system is due
to a form of self-delusion?
Really? I bring someone into a room who has heard the system before and I ask, "how does it sound" and IF they say that it sounds the same then perhaps it does. But if they say, it doesn't sound as good, or it doesn't sound the same (and they have NO CLUE what is playing and what isn't as far as gear) then what? What if I do that 6 times with different people and they all say essentially the same thing? What is that??
Have I mentally altered their thinking patterns with actinic rays??
Surely, they are all confounded and simply biased (by what, I dunno).
...and thanks much on the advice on the reading matter.
----------------
Wait!
"All DACs sound the same" assuming they have less than 0.007% THD.
Yes, or No???
Everyone agrees then, about DACs sounding the same??
Raise ur hands!!
What sort of confounding do you need?
Is the proposition now that every difference heard by someone on their system is due
to a form of self-delusion?
Really? I bring someone into a room who has heard the system before and I ask, "how does it sound" and IF they say that it sounds the same then perhaps it does. But if they say, it doesn't sound as good, or it doesn't sound the same (and they have NO CLUE what is playing and what isn't as far as gear) then what? What if I do that 6 times with different people and they all say essentially the same thing? What is that??
Have I mentally altered their thinking patterns with actinic rays??
Surely, they are all confounded and simply biased (by what, I dunno).
...and thanks much on the advice on the reading matter.
----------------
Wait!
"All DACs sound the same" assuming they have less than 0.007% THD.
Yes, or No???
Everyone agrees then, about DACs sounding the same??
Raise ur hands!!
Mr. Bybee allegedly said:
As I have said before, some people should say less about their products as the more they say the more they alert people that the product cannot work as claimed. Better to stay mysterious. Mystery and nonsense can be equally effective as wallet openers, but nonsense is easier to disprove with facts.
Is Teflon not a carbon-based compound? Is there a chemist in the house?
Is this evidence for a multiverse? But surely, even in a multiverse, the same laws of physics hold everywhere? Or can he modify the laws of physics as he appears to be able to modify the laws of chemistry?john curl said:
As I have said before, some people should say less about their products as the more they say the more they alert people that the product cannot work as claimed. Better to stay mysterious. Mystery and nonsense can be equally effective as wallet openers, but nonsense is easier to disprove with facts.
Bear, I'm not sure what question you're asking that hasn't been asked already in a more concise fashion, tbh. If you're trying to lead the reader in some cryptic fashion, then please don't.
So let's ask ourselves (playing that pesky scientist), what factors are common among all those people? Can we tease the real (if present) component (i.e. the signal) from noise? What about the room, what about how the way you present it? Is there a way that I can to the experiment in a manner that mitigates that factor? Can I design a complementary (orthogonal) experiment that would be subject to different biases/confounding factors, such that, when the data sets are combined (not usually directly as that might result in GIGO or watering down the true signal), a null hypothesis can be disproved?
We (pesky scientists) have to ask ourselves these questions with every experiment we do, at least once we've done the scabbing around experiments that lead us to go, "wait, huh, that's interesting".
As to the bottom part of your post, this is more strawman building and burning down.
So let's ask ourselves (playing that pesky scientist), what factors are common among all those people? Can we tease the real (if present) component (i.e. the signal) from noise? What about the room, what about how the way you present it? Is there a way that I can to the experiment in a manner that mitigates that factor? Can I design a complementary (orthogonal) experiment that would be subject to different biases/confounding factors, such that, when the data sets are combined (not usually directly as that might result in GIGO or watering down the true signal), a null hypothesis can be disproved?
We (pesky scientists) have to ask ourselves these questions with every experiment we do, at least once we've done the scabbing around experiments that lead us to go, "wait, huh, that's interesting".
As to the bottom part of your post, this is more strawman building and burning down.
My electrical model of skin effect. Easy to explain and understand..... without the field theory and eddy currents etal.
View attachment Skin effect.pdf
THx-RNMarsh
View attachment Skin effect.pdf
THx-RNMarsh
Yes, that quote also triggers my amusement with "organic" produce. Yes, my usual fare of food is silicon based.
Teflon = PTFE = polytetrafluoroethylene. Ethylene is one of those nice things we have to learn about in Organic Chemistry class.
Yes, I've tried asking for inorganic food... Not received any yet...
Mr. Wurcer, come now, you know very well that the gross margins of the medical industry don't even make 1st leap to the quantum galaxy.
Well I am happy now...
...sitting in my listening room breathing that mixture of rarefied air and that special compound of Nitrogen + Oxygen.
The question is what % of that Nitrogen + Oxygen is going to be noticeable??
I think this thread is fun to read, but essentially devoid of concrete correlations between real world equipment, circuits and systems and what is or can or may be audible/heard.
Why, I don't know... let's argue instead about topics like "is there carbon in PTFE and does Bybee know this or not?" Yeah... that's a good plan.
So, it's good that the $30 DAC board from "asia" is all the same to you folks as the more expensive maybe $1000+ commercial offerings... good thing, I can save a whole lot money. Which receiver or integrated amp would be a good bet??
...sitting in my listening room breathing that mixture of rarefied air and that special compound of Nitrogen + Oxygen.
The question is what % of that Nitrogen + Oxygen is going to be noticeable??
I think this thread is fun to read, but essentially devoid of concrete correlations between real world equipment, circuits and systems and what is or can or may be audible/heard.
Why, I don't know... let's argue instead about topics like "is there carbon in PTFE and does Bybee know this or not?" Yeah... that's a good plan.
So, it's good that the $30 DAC board from "asia" is all the same to you folks as the more expensive maybe $1000+ commercial offerings... good thing, I can save a whole lot money. Which receiver or integrated amp would be a good bet??
Dunno for the most but for the least below 18% of oxygen we are no more capable of noticing anything...
Really who said that? Replace your #10 zip cord with 12' of some exotic cable at 500pF/ft. OK right it doesn't sound the same is the amp oscillating, is there simply 3dB roll-off at 10kHz, my general experience is that the general public and especially the rabid audiophile community DON'T CARE at all, they have ZERO intellectual curiosity about how the audio signal chain actually works. I have witnessed it in person, audio reviewers for a major mag actually doing reviews, while amps oscillated (you can't hear 60MHz) and house wiring so bad the bass modulated the room lights.
Perhaps, but FWIW my attitude regarding this Bybee thing matches my attitude to many sports teams or rock bands: that is to say, that Mr. Bybee isn't nearly as stupid and annoying as his disciples.
That's for sure, the usual reaction is a glance toward the sky and some propeller-head gesture if folks don't have a clue they should at least have the common sense to admit it.
Somebody has a company called Solyent like in the movie and is pushing inorganic food substitutes, not something I think I want for dinner. Perhaps one day the replicator from Star Trek won't seem so strange but for now I'll eat something that came out of the ground or was running around with a few legs.
Dear Scott,
I read that #12ga "zip cord" is the best compromise.
I imagine you are having difficulties due to the use of #10?
(seriously did read this, after it was tested, but that was likely two decades back or more - did it change?)
Who CARES about the general public or the rabid community - with or without their treatment or rabies shots? What does that have to do with the scientific question as to where the thresholds - ANY thresholds, defined any way you wish, etc... - lie in terms of audible/inaudible??
So, which integrated amp/receiver ought I consider??
Forget about highly questionable situations, amps oscillating, house lights dimming (how much freakying current could have been drawn to make the house lights do the "light organ" bit??) situations that are RED HERRING, since they distract from the basic idea??
So, Scott, since you jumped in, in your personal opinion, "all DACs sound essentially the same for all practical situations"??
Or another way, which DACs may not sound the same as the VAST MAJORITY that do sound the same?? Why pick one over the other? Looks? On paper specs? Trends? Reviews? Why would YOU pick one over the other??
Brass tacks here.
And why shouldn't any audio gear be designed with a 709 or 748 opamp today? Not good enough? Why?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.