@billshurv,
there is a common factor, means being overoptimistic about ones own knowledge and the urge to draw far ranging conclusion without accepting the uncertainty.
As an example from this thread, if it is now accepted that newer opamps are audible better (assumed in a nonpathologically behaving circuit) than older ones (which obviously means that some sighted listening must have been correct), what is the basis for any conclusion about the audibility of differences between cables (under sighted -but otherwise controlled- listening conditions)?
there is a common factor, means being overoptimistic about ones own knowledge and the urge to draw far ranging conclusion without accepting the uncertainty.
As an example from this thread, if it is now accepted that newer opamps are audible better (assumed in a nonpathologically behaving circuit) than older ones (which obviously means that some sighted listening must have been correct), what is the basis for any conclusion about the audibility of differences between cables (under sighted -but otherwise controlled- listening conditions)?
Sorry, Bill. I don't decide what is/isn't okay here. Things were generally more gentlemanly before syn08 returned. Then dirty-fighting became the only way to survive. So that's what we do now. It's even affecting Wurcer.
Last edited:
Not obvious to me, how did you reach to this concluion? It appears to me that the premise "newer opamps ar audible better" is fuzzy (what is "audible better"?) and the conclusion "some sighted listening must have been correct" is an assumption, not necessary logically resulting from the premise. A statement like "newer opamps are audible better (assumed in a nonpathologically behaving circuit), therefore today it will snow in Toronto" could be equally true or false.
And now, the previous fuzzy/illogical statement is extrapolated to a non related domain(cable audibility). Flash news: cables are not opamps, not even close, opamp technological development has nothing to do with cables manufacturing. I fail to see any logical connection between the two statements (opamp properties and cables audibility). To add insult to injury, the answer is simple: since there was never a serious blind test proving that non pathological cables have any audible effect; even worse, sighted cable tests "audible differences" magically vanish under blind test conditions. As such, we can safely ignore sighted cable audibility reports (not that I've seen any "controlled ones", anyway) and classify such claims as extraordinary, requiring extraordinary evidence, until such evidence is provided.
I took the time to dissect this Jakob(x) comment only to illustrate a few, otherwise well known, tactics of spreading misinformation: take a bit of truth, twist and distort the reality, draw unwarranted conclusions, extrapolate them to unrelated areas, build a FUD case based on this. A mental sanity exercise, otherwise, I wasted yet another 5 minutes in this stupid debate against God knows what agenda one may have.
Last edited:
I don't assume that, and the tests that were done a couple of years ago tend to back that up.
As for cables there are issues with screening and EMC I will accept but these are oddly not looked at by in these comparisons or any normalisation attempted. With a balanced interconnect there are few parameters to play with and we could have a sensible engineering discussion on what is worth investigating and measuring. no measurements, no discussion.
That's a good idea, save a lot of repetitious blah blah blah. A picture of something might catch my eye.
No stationary THD, no FFT measurements. Doesn't mean there isn't something audible that is difficult/complicated to measure. Maybe posting anonymized recordings so people can judge for themselves would be an acceptable alternative?
EDIT: Also, something interesting about AP measurements of dacs: In another thread someone just announced that disabling the 8x oversampling filter in an ESS dac improved measured THD to -125dB, which is 5dB better than ESS quotes for ES9038Q2M (and getting down into AK4499 territory). So, shall we conclude sound quality is more accurate with no oversampling filter? So much for absolute reliance on FFT measurements IMHO.
Last edited:
Scott gets grumpy once in a while. It's all in the archives. It's possible to rise above everything, just not normal human reaction. I'm sure one of your books explains that better than I can. I just step away from the lounge for 24 hours if I feel I am getting in a fight. But I have poor self control so need to.
.
No, Bill, not everything. If someone with bad intentions corners you with a knife you better be prepared to fight. The only safe things to say here are the ones syn08 agrees with. Not that he corners people with a knife, he attacks the from the side or back while one is talking to someone else in a gentlemanly manner. I am not willing to be constrained by his personal preferences.
Last edited:
Control is everywhere, sometimes very subtle, and the person doing the controlling doesn't always know or do it consciously.
Then it would be a good idea to ask PMA if the circuits were from the "pathological" ensemble when he was listening and drawing his conclusions about the audibility.
But usually it is argued that landing on the moon would have failed and the LHC could not work as intended if audible differences between cables (beside the most basic cases) would exist.
Don't want to be overly sarcastic but as nobody questioned the ultimate screening abilities of potatoes/mudd/whatever in the according listening tests , it isn't IMO so oddly that nobody especially looked at these possible issues.
Isn't it usually almost guaranteed that the best implementation, where real screens are just extensions of the cases, never carry any signal current, all connections (nearly) perfectly balanced wrt impedances and no interference due to EM fields happening, is not taking place in reality?
Pano's mud test was fairly well controlled and the outcome was along the lines that a banana is audibly indistinguishable from silver as a conductor of line level audio signals.
I think you are talking about something completely different to what I am talking about.
Mark, the fight against intellectual sloppiness is tiresome and frustrating. All the more so when pecuniary promoters of said sloppiness are suspected.
In the light of this, please show some understanding for Sinboy's modes of expression. He acts from pure motives. And, with considerable background in the disciplines that are relevant for the issues we discuss. Plus he tends to give rational and verifiable explanations for his statements.
I'm talking about PMA's statement about the audible better performance of a modern opamp in comparison to an AD711; to my surprise nobody objected and I've quite regularly asked in the past couple of weeks for the reasons and the new arguments to allow predictions about the audibility of effects. As stated before, no answers yet.
I'm lousy at fighting so don't bother. I'd get stabbed. A good debate about a science or engineering matter I do enjoy though.
Ah I was talking about the opamp test where you were asked to rate them by distortion. But I might be getting confused with the test Karl did...I'd have to check back. Either way even with the limited sample size there was no clear pattern and the usual after the event posturing by a couple of the usual suspects (none of whom post here).
Same applies if one tries to scam you, isn't it?
Anyway, I have to admit I feel a sense of accomplishment for making you feel uncomfortable
.
That's often a problem when people only react to trigger phrases/words instead of reading the whole ......
I'd give the same advice; it could be a good idea to ask PMA what he has done....
Yep, totally unrelated. 🙂
Fortunately that you've now revealed the hidden secret of sighted listening; sighted is mandatory because otherwise listeners would not know when to use their "opamp hearing sense" and when to use their "cable hearing sense" . 😎
- Status
- Not open for further replies.