I don't see any mention of that either. It would be nice to have a lab full of equipment, but its only a hobby. None the less, people generally are telling the truth when they say the sound of something changed. Doesn't matter if it was from switching a cable, doesn't matter if quickly thinking about what's in a cable can't account for it being a distortion generator. Its always the stuff we fail to think about, the EMI/RFI, grounding with multiple pieces of equipment, etc. In a real world environment things interact in ways that weren't planned for, and sources of problems exist that haven't been brought to mind. That doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions swapping a cable can't affect sound. It can. Not that cable is a distortion generator, but something is a distortion generator and it's possibly complicated mechanism is somehow correlated/influenced with cable choices.
Last edited:
Yes, generally there's an obvious AND significant electronic mechanism behind every perception change. RIGHT.
Mark, maybe you need to read my previous quote about validating your world view versus informing hypotheses to test. That's such a gigantic statement to make based on *what* evidence?
Moderators, please??? Insults and argumentum ad ignorantiam should not be allowed here. It is up to the person making the claim to provide the proof. This demeaning statement is the oldest misdirection in the audiophile canon...'if you can't hear it, I am better than you' is the implication.
Instead, take the initiative and try to prove all DACs sound different. How do they sound different? Can you think of a measurement that shows the difference? Let's start there, that would be a useful contribution to the discussion.
Any other approach is a waste of time and ruins the S/N of the group.
Howie
Howie, if IIRC you once described hearing noise floor modulation in dac, is that correct? If so, please post PROOF you can hear it.
Thank you for meeting the same standards you set for others.
So, now you feel validated? Or, it only applies to people you disagree with?
Oh, I don't know. How about a peer reviewed study published in the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research?
Does everyone feel that would sufficiently convincing, or should we say it should be the level of proof you would have to give to PROVE you can can see grass growing in real time (and no tricks!!!) ?
Personally, I was always willing to take Howie's word for it. But then, maybe some think I am too gullible that way.
Last edited:
Yes, I understand people want to see proof. But, we haven't even been able to come to any agreement on proof people can be realistically expected to provide.
When someone does post a report of finding an audible problem (such as RFI affecting I2S before a dac) that doesn't show up well on an FFT, its automatically rejected as marketing BS.
How would one prove that RFI effects ARE audible, AND the effect doesn't show up well on an FFT, AND quantify the actual level of RFI in some meaningful way, all using only a DVM and 100MHz scope (okay, sometimes I use a shortwave radio too)?
Last edited:
Sorry, but the word proof is not used anywhere in DPH’s posting.
So you really completely missed the point.
Hans
That's for the claimant to figure out. If he can't, then the mental hygiene says he should refrain making bold statements until he can figure it out. Otherwise, expecting anybody to take them seriously is not something he should hold his breath for.
Last edited:
I don't think I was the one who originally brought up the noise floor modulation issue, but I did indeed comment I had heard it a while back. Unfortunately since it was in a historical context it cannot be replicated for measurement or recording.
You missed my point, or likely I did a bad job of making it...words are slippery devils! I have no objection to someone saying they had heard something, but then effectively challenging another to disprove it or be held inferior is wrong.
The point (I was trying to make) is if one does indeed hear something it is only really useful to try and figure out what is causing it and leave person asides out of it.
Howie
He did not use the word proof, that is correct.
Regarding what you quoted, "one has to ask themselves, "are you trying to validate your perceptions or are you using your perceptions to create a hypothesis and actually test that?"
Latter feeds progress; former feeds regression and polarization. Unfortunately humans are flawed towards needing validation."
DPH's first quoted paragraph suggests that people aren't careful to make sure if they are hearing a real effect before they talk about it here. I am very, very careful, including using multiple independent listeners to make sure. There is no shooting from the hip in my case, but having said that, it doesn't prove anything to you or to DPH. You can believe or not on your whim.
The second para is an example of amateur psychology which is not helpful. By his reasoning my very careful listening impressions should result in progress. It doesn't because it doesn't prove anything to people who don't want to believe it.
So, it always boils down to needing to show extremely convincing proof. That and allowing some funerals to happen so science can progress.
@syn08, quote mixup?
RFI is not that hard to detect: Gate the RF with 3kHz or something and look for demodulation 3kHz products in the FFT. The nature of the RF of course may be important but a wideband comb generator should do for a quick test. In the EMC test labs they often do a very slow RF sine sweep with 3kHz gating while acoustically monitoring the DUT output (which of course is crude, better look closer with a high resolution FFT).
RFI is not that hard to detect: Gate the RF with 3kHz or something and look for demodulation 3kHz products in the FFT. The nature of the RF of course may be important but a wideband comb generator should do for a quick test. In the EMC test labs they often do a very slow RF sine sweep with 3kHz gating while acoustically monitoring the DUT output (which of course is crude, better look closer with a high resolution FFT).
Whoosh. Flew straight overhead.
My point was if you have an observation, the problem solving process should take you towards forming a hypothesis about the mechanism and testing it. Like classic Bayesian analysis and stuff.
And amateur psychology? C'mon, you're better than that. Motivated Reasoning - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Starting with a presumption as the truth and then carefully seeking out crumbs that validate it is on full display here. I'm as guilty of it as any.
Not cool to paint such an interesting caricature of me as well, as I said nothing about how careful/not careful you are nor whether I've jumped to a conclusion. I have reiterated multiple times that I believe you are sincere and careful about what you do. I also have said that stopping at that point means you have zero mechanism to describe the observation. Ranting that is a demand for extreme evidence seems, well, a pretty extreme stance to take.
Last edited:
