Circular argumentation 😀
Circular argumentation everywhere 😀
Circular argumentation isn't science.
So that's true: scientific approach is useless when you use a circular argumentation 😀
Deal with it 😛
Selfreferential thread 😉
Circular argumentation everywhere 😀
Circular argumentation isn't science.
So that's true: scientific approach is useless when you use a circular argumentation 😀
Deal with it 😛
Selfreferential thread 😉
I'd suggest multi-generational testing for exactly this reason. Loop it through 3 times with/without the additional filter (and, as SY alludes, a third test with the same filter placed downstream the IV opamp). Yes, the ADC will influence the sound, but with several generations, you're really amplifying the effect. If you cannot hear the effect (and doubly versus downstream) with 3 generations, then you probably aren't going to hear it.
Joe--as the champion of this filter, the onus is really on you to do less blathering and more validating. And way, way, way less claiming the victim, please.
Breaking the Circle
I don't see a circular argument occuring, although it's easy to understand why somone would feel it to be circular. What I see occuring is simple and linear, as follows:
1. Joe reports an interesting and unexpected sound quality results by capacitively loading a DAC's outputs beyond what is usual.
2. Joe discovers that the resulting FR droop can be EQ'd back to flat while retaining said interesting sound quality.
3. Joe provides all the details so that anyone can freely and successfully reproduce the listening experiment and assess the results for themselves, rather than just take his word for it.
4. Some experienced members disbelieve the interesting sound quality anecdotally reported by Joe and by others who have conducted the experiment. They require scientific listening test proof before accepting the anecdotal reports. Which, of course, is their prerogative, and, I think, is a perfectly legitimate and valid perspective.
5. That is the state of the discussion. Simple and linear.
Therefore, as I see it, to avoid continued heated amd unproductive discussion, each person following the thread has three reasonable choices:
1. Should they be intrigued enough by anecdotal reports to conduct the very inexpensive DIY experiment, they may do so, and freely evaluate the results for themselves. Which no one should object to.
If there's concern that inexperienced members and lurkers need vigilant protection from snakeoil exploitation, there shouldn't be in this case. Joe has freely provided all modification details, the required parts are very inexpensive, and all work is DIY. Exploitation risk is nil.
2. Should they be somewhat intrigued by anecdotal reports, but first require scientific listening test proof before conducting the DIY experiment, they are free not to until such time as scientific listening proof is presented to them. Which no one should object to.
3. Should they not be intrigued, they are free to simply ignore the subject altogether. With no hard feelings. Which no one should object to.
That said, I see no reasonable basis for anyone to demand that Joe first provide a conclusive theoretical basis for what he and others claim to hear, nor scientific listening test results because this is DIY. Everyone should feel free to decide what experiments they will or won't try. I'll take an experiement which I can perform myself, over someone else's theory or listening test.
I don't see a circular argument occuring, although it's easy to understand why somone would feel it to be circular. What I see occuring is simple and linear, as follows:
1. Joe reports an interesting and unexpected sound quality results by capacitively loading a DAC's outputs beyond what is usual.
2. Joe discovers that the resulting FR droop can be EQ'd back to flat while retaining said interesting sound quality.
3. Joe provides all the details so that anyone can freely and successfully reproduce the listening experiment and assess the results for themselves, rather than just take his word for it.
4. Some experienced members disbelieve the interesting sound quality anecdotally reported by Joe and by others who have conducted the experiment. They require scientific listening test proof before accepting the anecdotal reports. Which, of course, is their prerogative, and, I think, is a perfectly legitimate and valid perspective.
5. That is the state of the discussion. Simple and linear.
Therefore, as I see it, to avoid continued heated amd unproductive discussion, each person following the thread has three reasonable choices:
1. Should they be intrigued enough by anecdotal reports to conduct the very inexpensive DIY experiment, they may do so, and freely evaluate the results for themselves. Which no one should object to.
If there's concern that inexperienced members and lurkers need vigilant protection from snakeoil exploitation, there shouldn't be in this case. Joe has freely provided all modification details, the required parts are very inexpensive, and all work is DIY. Exploitation risk is nil.
2. Should they be somewhat intrigued by anecdotal reports, but first require scientific listening test proof before conducting the DIY experiment, they are free not to until such time as scientific listening proof is presented to them. Which no one should object to.
3. Should they not be intrigued, they are free to simply ignore the subject altogether. With no hard feelings. Which no one should object to.
That said, I see no reasonable basis for anyone to demand that Joe first provide a conclusive theoretical basis for what he and others claim to hear, nor scientific listening test results because this is DIY. Everyone should feel free to decide what experiments they will or won't try. I'll take an experiement which I can perform myself, over someone else's theory or listening test.
Last edited:
I see a few problems with your view though. Firstly in order to compare before and after you either need 2 identical units, a spectrum analyser or have a proven to you neutral AD/DA chain where you can record before and after output. Not all DIYers have this, but Joe bl**** well ought to as he makes some of his living from modifying units for people. No proof=belief so homeopathic hifi.
Secondly an experiment, in order to be able to be replicated should follow a testing protocol that shows the RESULTS so that someone else can copy it and check they get the same results. So this is in no normal way an experiment.
Both of the above are easy for Joe to fix and so we are waiting. But its' been rather a long wait.
EDIT: quick check shows the Joe and Coris team talking about this 'non-subtle effect' for at least 20 months. And still No measurements or proper comparative testing. So one can understand the push back.
Last edited:
Hi, Bill,
I think that those protocols and philosphies are well and good for someone selling a product in a commercial context. I suppose, that the main objection I have with that view is that the context here is DIY. It is targeted to the audio hobbyist experimenter, not to making a profit from the commercial sales of some product.
As you correctly point out, Joe has a commercial audio business, however, why should that automatically place especially stringent demands upon his freely offered DIY contributions? I don't see why the required standard of effort and rigor should automatically be greater for Joe Rasmussen, or for Nelson Pass for that matter, within a DIY context. Audio professionals who contribute here must make a living by spending time in their commercial audio operations. I, for one, appreciate that they all so freely share their experience, expertise and time with the DIY hobbyist. Don't we all want them to contribute and to not set up special barriers to their participation? This behavior seems rather rare in the audio industry. Let's not lose sight that this is not an A.E.S. level resource, nor do I think it should aspire to be. Honestly, I don't understand the basis for the concern over this particular DIY experimental modification suggestion.
Last edited:
Joe DOES sell mods for money. If you check back he did even try and license the capacitor mod at one point. Nelson does MEASURE everything he offers so not sure why you are dragging him into this. anything NP offers is a real contribution. What Joe has spent the last 2 years offering is no more than a giant trolling. None of the believers has offered anything that can be analysed. Homeopathic hifi(tm)
But a search does show you were posting similar tripe on the original (closed) thread on this, so I mark you as a believer and ignore you. saves electrons being needlessly slaughtered.
But a search does show you were posting similar tripe on the original (closed) thread on this, so I mark you as a believer and ignore you. saves electrons being needlessly slaughtered.
Good day and good bye
First, please calm down. I had hoped that we were going to have a mutually respectful discussion, but that obviously didn't happen. The source of the hostility toward this topic and toward anyone associated with it is truly perplexing. Rather than responding to your offensive post point by point, which, believe me, I could very effectively do, I'll instead simply bid you good day and and good bye. I'll leave it at that.
First, please calm down. I had hoped that we were going to have a mutually respectful discussion, but that obviously didn't happen. The source of the hostility toward this topic and toward anyone associated with it is truly perplexing. Rather than responding to your offensive post point by point, which, believe me, I could very effectively do, I'll instead simply bid you good day and and good bye. I'll leave it at that.
hi Ken,
My position exactly. I wish I could present my thoughts as clearly as you.
I also believe Joe is playing fair regarding his commercial interests.
regards
I think the main problem ... it is implied said DAC modification will work on all kinds of designs. So the ppl interested and have big$ machines and little skills or time want to believe this too.
IMO after reading The Joes cap " thread Joe doesn't care he will mod whatever and probably make some other claims about better parts options during his "service consultation". He is merely using these threads to troll for new victims err biz. Every city had these one man "audio dealers" offering Audio repair / upgrade its just reached the internet age and intl shipping. ive usually run into them in the past locally looking at replacement cartridges, they all have their unique pitches, I reckon they had to move on to digital sources.
IMO after reading The Joes cap " thread Joe doesn't care he will mod whatever and probably make some other claims about better parts options during his "service consultation". He is merely using these threads to troll for new victims err biz. Every city had these one man "audio dealers" offering Audio repair / upgrade its just reached the internet age and intl shipping. ive usually run into them in the past locally looking at replacement cartridges, they all have their unique pitches, I reckon they had to move on to digital sources.
Last edited:
Let's not go to motivation. I think that encouraging Joe to get data is a more useful and productive path.
I am with Ken here. I wish all of you the best in your pursuits. I don't believe I can add any more value to this discussion
Peace
Peace
I understand what you are saying, but also that is rarely going to happen. But that doesn't mean that it is without value. You can still make an objective judgement when you hear something you have not heard before.
An recent example, you hear a familiar piece of music that features double-tracked acoustic guitars, only to later realise that you can now here that it is triple-tracked and it came as a surprise to hear that, does that have no value at all? Of course it does. It qualifies as data.
There is something to say about objective listening - because you have discovered a value. If the improved resolution of a lens reveals an object not seen before... you cannot ignore.
The ear is an instrument too - and like other instruments, needs to learn how to use it. Just because you have expensive test gear on your bench, doesn't mean anything, how are you going to use it? Besides, the decision made as to what to measure is a subjective value judgement. It is still subjective.
But we are really just rehashing... soon we will get feedback about what works or does not. That cannot be easily dismissed with the wave of a hand.
Let's just get on with it, one side has one view and the other side has theirs, it is a free world, we can do and think what we like.
Can we now stop the rehashing? Or it becomes rebashing! 😀
Cheers, Joe
Last edited:
I've deleted a couple of posts as being completely OT (and trollish). BillShurv play nice or don't play at all!
Joe,
I know you've been spending your time marshaling proof for those who believe you and others who have tried this alternative filtering have lied to yourselves and to them... and want you to provide them with evidence to convince them to their standards EVEN though you and the others are totally convinced to your standards... doesn't seem very friendly or sensible to me, but be that as it may, I still have the following questions outstanding:
Also, for users of the Buffalo ESS DACs with their shunt AVCC & Trident regs, wouldn't the .33F caps at the DAC voltage inputs (I assume that for an ESS DAC you should also put one on the 1.2v core supply line... I guess that's another question!) cause those regs to fail as they don't have any current limiting, AFAIK? Isn't that worth a caution to those users? I remember a discussion by the TP guys where they cautioned about adding much capacitance on the output of their shunt regs.
I'd planned to try that add-on cap using different regs, such as the TPS7A4700 and ADM7150/ADM7151 that do have current limiting (I'm using the latter in my HAPZ mod), so assume they will be ok there.
Please answer!
THANKS!
Greg Stewart
P.S. I'd guess the .33F on the regulator output caution might also go for the non-current-limited Belleson, and Hynes, Dexa, and Sparkos Labs regs (where I'm not sure if they have current-limiting or not).
I know you've been spending your time marshaling proof for those who believe you and others who have tried this alternative filtering have lied to yourselves and to them... and want you to provide them with evidence to convince them to their standards EVEN though you and the others are totally convinced to your standards... doesn't seem very friendly or sensible to me, but be that as it may, I still have the following questions outstanding:
Also, for users of the Buffalo ESS DACs with their shunt AVCC & Trident regs, wouldn't the .33F caps at the DAC voltage inputs (I assume that for an ESS DAC you should also put one on the 1.2v core supply line... I guess that's another question!) cause those regs to fail as they don't have any current limiting, AFAIK? Isn't that worth a caution to those users? I remember a discussion by the TP guys where they cautioned about adding much capacitance on the output of their shunt regs.
I'd planned to try that add-on cap using different regs, such as the TPS7A4700 and ADM7150/ADM7151 that do have current limiting (I'm using the latter in my HAPZ mod), so assume they will be ok there.
Please answer!
THANKS!
Greg Stewart
P.S. I'd guess the .33F on the regulator output caution might also go for the non-current-limited Belleson, and Hynes, Dexa, and Sparkos Labs regs (where I'm not sure if they have current-limiting or not).
Last edited:
What does that mean? Yes, I have been very busy as I have sickness in the family with an elderly Mother - so no marshaling going on. None needed.
As for proof, I am not fretting at all, in fact quite pleased because now the info has been posted, the initial heat, which I suppose was to be expected, has run out. Now people are doing things and I always said my role was to become more background when that happens. So time is on the right side. Proof is not a problem at all. In fact, things are going according to plan.
I think I have said everything I need to, no need to add fuel to a non-existing fire, except please read the first six posts, it's all there and now will be permanently. That was the plan. Anybody can now test it and I can sleep well. 😀
Cheers, Joe
I'm observing for now and best wishes that you will achieve some outcome that satisfies you. My only comment is that your approach generally is high energy and full of expectation bias and does not take into account categorical elimination of all possible explanations for observed or not observed effects.
I've been doing some testing on this and so far haven't been able to do anything other than increase distortion at the top end. 🙁
Will keep trying and report if there are any interesting results.
Will keep trying and report if there are any interesting results.
Hehehe...
If I try to guess what is going on in this approach done by Joe, can any of you experts put your [technical] thoughts on my logic?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.