What happened to diyaudio?

[DigitalJunkie]

What I see is a growing anti-hearing faction in many forums. I simply do not understand why the demands for DBT testing when all that it takes is the willingness to try to hear.

One word: Psychoacoustics
If you *think* it will sound better,it probably will. If you paid $1500 for a power cord,it Darn well better sound good! Right?

Faith? Maybe,Maybe not.

I'm highly skeptical of everything,but even I have been surprised on occasion.
I'm a hard-core 'science first' type of person,testing,measuring,etc. That said: Spec's aren't always everything-something can measure very well,and sound like crap,or vice-versa..One example,I like the sound of tubes.
Alot of the time it comes down to personal preference.What sounds really good to one person,might sound horrible to another.

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by svejkovat

Very poor choice of words I'll admit. I should have reckoned that "faith-based" was going to be troublesome . I'm sorry.

But propose me an alternative. There is still a majority of my neighbors in this country that will brook no question in the matter of the efficacy of prayer. Do I argue with this? Of course not. I've learned the hard way. I've honestly come to realize that it is so unassailably meaningful to them, as meaningful as anyone's certainty that he hears differences that are otherwise irreduceable, incalculable, that I am compelled to respect that. Some of my own friends quite literally feel Jesus in their lives. I'm fine with that. They remain my friends despite my personal struggle not to condescend (my problem, not theirs), but I'm getting better at it.

Curly woods, you may doubt this, but I DO respect the fact that you hear the differences you do. But until you, anyone else, can demonstrate those differences, according to scientifically acceptable standards, for peer review and repeatablilty, they ought not to be weighing in on the design of mechanical devices such as aircraft (for instance again). All audio components, as much as bridges and aircraft, I hope we can agree, are merely machines. The teaching you describe involves psychoacoustics and has it's place, but only if it's introduced as such right up front. Introduce it as such, and let's discuss it.

I only thought that at one time diyaudio was a more dependable source of trustworthy, repeatable, design ideas. If such assertions of 'facts' cannot be labeled 'faith based' then is there another useful (i don't know, is faith-based offensive somehow?) way to put it?

Am I just digging myself deeper?

I was not trying to belittle your views, just wanted you to think about what you said. What you said was well put and I totally understood what you were trying to say. What I do find appalling is the outright slurs and innuendo to many of us that do hear differences by many members here. Why is it that people here have to belittle the other side of the group? Does that make them feel superior? It is what comes to my mind when I see people try to talk down to others. I guess it makes them feel superior. I feel sorry for anyone that feels the need to act this way. It just shows that they have major insecurities. Are those insecurities being brought to the surface by the many that do hear the differences? It does make one wonder.

I would hope that the slings and arrows might be sheathed. It would certainly make for a better place and less mudslinging sessions that have erupted of late.

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by DigitalJunkie

One word: Psychoacoustics
If you *think* it will sound better,it probably will. If you paid $1500 for a power cord,it Darn well better sound good! Right?

Faith? Maybe,Maybe not.

I'm highly skeptical of everything,but even I have been surprised on occasion.
I'm a hard-core 'science first' type of person,testing,measuring,etc. That said: Spec's aren't always everything-something can measure very well,and sound like crap,or vice-versa..One example,I like the sound of tubes.
Alot of the time it comes down to personal preference.What sounds really good to one person,might sound horrible to another.

I am a skeptic! I worked in the high end industry for over 20+ years. You get to the point that you don't want to deal with another vendor with the greatest new products. Most never sound worth a damn or looked horribly built. Then on occasion, something shocks you back into reality. A piece of equipment does what it is supposed to do. SOUND GREAT!

Why is it that many people think that just because you can hear stuff, that everything sounds good to you if it costs a lot? Far from it in my experience. There are far more worthless things in audio than there are good ones. That is why customers would shop stores all across the US sometimes to make sure that they had exposed themselves to every thing possible.

I just wished that people would stop the "if you think it will sound better" arguments. I never enter into any listening session with the thoughts that "it" will sound better. The opposite is more like the truth as I am jaded and experienced far too much fluff in this industry over my years. Far too much is great on the bench, but horrible when attached to a stereo system.

[planet10]

Originally Posted by DigitalJunkie

One word: Psychoacoustics
If you *think* it will sound better,it probably will.

The reverse ofthat is also true.

The big problem is designing, executing, & paying for a valid DBT.

A good one is a thing of beauty. The others (most of what gets passed off as DBT) is just as useful as the "i wax poetic" statements.

We are still in our infancy as far as capability to measure stuff that correlates with what people hear.

And the tests to test what we hear are tricky (and usually expensive) to set up.

Each needs the other... No-one has a really useful yard-stick... what are we to do?

dave

[Bas Horneman]

So I guess in a few years all we'll see here is full range loudspeakers on an open baffle running off of a SE triode fed by a NOS DAC, that's basically throwing about 60 years of audio engineering and innovation out of the window ...

Next thing you're going to tell us is that CD sounds better than LP. Or the compact cassette or DCC/minidisc sounds better than open reel tape.

[peace brainerd]

I claimed that I wasn't trying start a fight, but rereading my original post I guess I ought to own up to mischief. "loopy esoterica", "commercialeze", and putting the word "ideas" in quotations is not exactly walking in hat-in-hand. I was clearly picking a fight and I apologize.

No real good can come of this so If the mods might wish to close it it is with my complete agreement, and my apologies to anyone that was offended.

[DigitalJunkie]

Originally Posted by planet10

The reverse ofthat is also true.

The big problem is designing, executing, & paying for a valid DBT.

A good one is a thing of beauty. The others (most of what gets passed off as DBT) is just as useful as the "i wax poetic" statements.

We are still in our infancy as far as capability to measure stuff that correlates with what people hear.

And the tests to test what we hear are tricky (and usually expensive) to set up.

Each needs the other... No-one has a really useful yard-stick... what are we to do?

dave

The reverse is indeed true.
My yard stick-My ears. If I like it,I go with it.
Like I said,measurements/spec's don't always tell the whole story..As much as I would like to believe they do. It's quite subjective.

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by SSassen

The issue with finding the gems unfortunately is the fact that many of the esoteric types will generally qualify a design merely by the amount of parts used and will be very proactive in venting that opinion. So I guess in a few years all we'll see here is full range loudspeakers on an open baffle running off of a SE triode fed by a NOS DAC, that's basically throwing about 60 years of audio engineering and innovation out of the window ...

Cheers,

Sander.

Sander,

Why do you think that anyone that truly cares about audio is ready to throw the knowledge gained out the window? I loves tubes, as they sound alot more like real unamplified music to me. I am also aware that modern designs have allowed my beloved tubes to gain in what they do best too. I will not apologize for my dislike of about 99% of SS circuits that I have heard. They are lifeless, dry and lack proper sound staging abilities overall. There are a few designs that have changed my mind over the years, but I could count them on one hand. Is it that to you people are turning their back on technology because SS does not move them like tube circuits do? There are a great many like me and a great deal of SS designers that agree to, but commercial designs with tubes also introduce more maintenance and warranty issues also, that a great many companies just simply do not want to deal with today and I understand that too. If you like SS that is your right and i would never tell anyone that they do not have that right.

[Bas Horneman]

So I guess in a few years all we'll see here is full range loudspeakers on an open baffle running off of a SE triode fed by a NOS DAC, that's basically throwing about 60 years of audio engineering and innovation out of the window ...

Or maybe you are even going to say that Tony Gee (an audio friend of yours?) is a nutcase for saying that the Duelund capacitor is his reference (because the Duelund uses paper!!!! ) Paper has been around for 2000 years therefore a teflon cap should be his reference. mwahahaha, muwhahaha, muahahaha....

[rcw]

Researchers such as Floyd Toole established long ago that what people see has as much influence upon what they hear, as what they actually hear has, and every social scientist knows that about ninety percent of a population will assert that this sort of thing does not apply to them.

This is why such things as double blind testing are needed, in audio just as in life, non are so prejudiced as those that deny they have prejudice.
rcw.