We have to be much more careful when it comes to put our own words to someone else's mouth. I don't know which psychological term to describe such behavior but this doesn't make my individual observation insignificant in scientific terms.
Last edited:
Please don't forget that listening to music should be a subjective pleasure, so no one is obliged to prove anything to anybody, especially in a way strictly fixed by others.
Luckily we live in a reasonably free world: anyone can like what he wants without being blamed or teased by others, as long as he doesn't harm anybody. No one can impose his point of view, even if he's sure it's correct: everyone thinks his point of view is correct...
We are Audiophiles, not scientists, we believe in our ears and if what we hear gives us pleasure, we don't care about theories and scientific explanations (they are means, not an end). Again, we're not obliged to prove anything.
This attitude has led to very good sounding hifi systems as much as scientific research (in facts, nearly 100 years old tubes technology still has an edge in sound quality despite many scientific discoveries).
Imho Science is an exceptional tool to discover reality, but it has to remain a tool, not the Absolute End of human life: as i said previously, this kind of thinking is proper of a medieval mind.
So please everybody quit this aggressive and presumptuous way of relating.
In this case I think Luca72c confirmed my synopsis:
Please don't forget that listening to music should be a subjective pleasure, so no one is obliged to prove anything to anybody, especially in a way strictly fixed by others.
Luckily we live in a reasonably free world: anyone can like what he wants without being blamed or teased by others, as long as he doesn't harm anybody. No one can impose his point of view, even if he's sure it's correct: everyone thinks his point of view is correct...
We are Audiophiles, not scientists, we believe in our ears and if what we hear gives us pleasure, we don't care about theories and scientific explanations (they are means, not an end). Again, we're not obliged to prove anything.
This attitude has led to very good sounding hifi systems as much as scientific research (in facts, nearly 100 years old tubes technology still has an edge in sound quality despite many scientific discoveries).
Imho Science is an exceptional tool to discover reality, but it has to remain a tool, not the Absolute End of human life: as i said previously, this kind of thinking is proper of a medieval mind.
So please everybody quit this aggressive and presumptuous way of relating.
Please do not confuse "listening to music" and "discussing (or making claims about) the design decisions that affect sound quality".
No one is obliged to prove anything, unless they want their claims to be taken seriously.
Careful about the "we" here. You might label yourself Audiophile, you might believe in your ears, and you might not care about theories and scientific explanations.
Fortunately some of us are electrical engineers (a form of applied science that is required to create the technology you enjoy listening to), and have to care about science - and you should be glad we do, as if we didn't, there wouldn't be any electrical sound recording and reproduction technology for you to listen to.
No, it hasn't. Even tubes were developed by scientists and engineers.
Please show me the sound recording and reproduction system that was developed purely by combining components and listening to the results, without understanding the functioning of the circuits, and without relying on technology developed by proper scientists and engineers.
After you, Sir! 🙂
But before that - how about you stop telling us what matter of discourse is acceptable and what isn't?
Just go back a decade or so and remember, digital and CD playback was considered near perfect for a time. Then a few companies started reclocking and focusing on the effects of jitter. Lots of you "scientists" made the same arguments about how it could not be heard and that the effects of such low levels of jitter were inaudible. Now everyone pays attention to reducing jitter reaching the master clock. And the test equipment firms came out with systems good enough to measure it.
Same for digital filters. Everyone used to use the stock, resource-constrained filters offered by the chip companies (either built into the DAC chip or with a separate chip--DF1704, etc. anyone?).
These days filter design--both in s/w and in hardware (including in large FPGAs) --and the fine tuning of their parameters is what separates a lot of DACs sonically. And the naysayers only recently settled down--some still have not and don't think DF differences matter much (probably those with ASRC DACs…).
And this past year my own small firm has endured ridicule (yet fantastic success and near universal acclaim) with a product that improves USB signal integrity and impedance match to the DAC (plus replacing dirty VBUS power), allowing the DAC's USB PHY chip to generate less of its own ground-plane noise and packet-jitter. Its effect at the analog output of the DAC is very hard to measure (but easy to see in input eye-pattern and with probes at DAC ground plane), so all the objectivists scoff and claim mass delusion. Yet the DAC manufacturers who have tried the REGEN are all quite intrigued and reconsidering former assumptions about the causes/effects of USB input sensitivity to upstream factors.
In a year or two this will all be accepted. And yes, people will learn to measure this as well.😉
--Alex C.
UpTone Audio LLC
Same for digital filters. Everyone used to use the stock, resource-constrained filters offered by the chip companies (either built into the DAC chip or with a separate chip--DF1704, etc. anyone?).
These days filter design--both in s/w and in hardware (including in large FPGAs) --and the fine tuning of their parameters is what separates a lot of DACs sonically. And the naysayers only recently settled down--some still have not and don't think DF differences matter much (probably those with ASRC DACs…).
And this past year my own small firm has endured ridicule (yet fantastic success and near universal acclaim) with a product that improves USB signal integrity and impedance match to the DAC (plus replacing dirty VBUS power), allowing the DAC's USB PHY chip to generate less of its own ground-plane noise and packet-jitter. Its effect at the analog output of the DAC is very hard to measure (but easy to see in input eye-pattern and with probes at DAC ground plane), so all the objectivists scoff and claim mass delusion. Yet the DAC manufacturers who have tried the REGEN are all quite intrigued and reconsidering former assumptions about the causes/effects of USB input sensitivity to upstream factors.
In a year or two this will all be accepted. And yes, people will learn to measure this as well.😉
--Alex C.
UpTone Audio LLC
Last edited:
That is not really an accurate description of the state of affairs. Jitter has been a well-understood (and measured) phenomenon for at least 30 years.
Jitter is easy to measure. If your device actually reduces jitter, that should be trivial to verify.
I could easily answer to your specious arguments, but i think this will be a never-ending discussion. Anyway, don't you understand the abbreviation IMHO i often used in my posts? I notice you never use it... that's a big part of the problem with you, imho.
Maybe you didn't notice we're writing in an audiophile forum, everyone is welcome here but he should respect other's point of view.
I take seriously every claim that i can reproduce by myself (be it a measurement, a scientific theory or even a simple non-technical experimentation) and if i like its effect i try to share it with all the others. I'm free to do so, even if you disagree.
All our opinions can be taken seriously or not, it's upon personal judgement.
But who are you to decide so peremprtorily if they're trustworthy or not?
Who are you to decide what is a "fooled perception" and what doesn't?
What can be called "fooled perception" if it's shared by many others? In our human world what has to be taken as a point of reference to define "pleasant", men or instruments?
What can define if a particular parameter is good or not to produce a pleasing sound quality? Isn't it human perception? Is human perception measurable?
So how are you so sure to know exactly one by one all the countless factors that can lead to perceived good sound quality? Isn't this called ARROGANCE?
Last edited:
Maybe you didn't notice that this *isn't* an audiophile forum. This is a place for all members of the DIY audio community to learn, share knowledge, and enjoy interacting with others interested in the design and construction of audio components.
It is something each one of us can decide for ourselves. Who are you to tell me what I can think or not?
Just because a majority at some point in time thought the sun rotated around the earth, did that make it true?
In many cases yes.
Arrogance is thinking that your own subjective perceptions are the measure of truth. I guess it is also a sign of solipsism.
Can we now please move away from silly insults and discussion about people, and instead have a fact-based discussion about the real issues?
Audiophile=person who loves audio. Isn't this an audiophile forum? You now want to tell us that this is a forum about construction of unpleasant audio devices?
I never told you what you can think or not. I'm trying to tell you that you (and some other users) can't insult, ridicule or attack other people's opinions.
Yes, and they were so sure about their thoughts, just like you!
Today a majority of people believes in scientific theories. Don't you understand that tomorrow they can be judged the same way, because what they now believe tomorrow could be found wrong?
If you have no doubts at all about your beliefs, then you're not different from those men who thought Sun rotated around the Earth...
Anyway, we're talking about what sound each of us likes, not about what other entities are doing in the sky. That's something about ourselves, so no one can say it is wrong.
Oh, yes! So you can measure what sound i like and what hifi system better suits my tastes. I have no doubt about it.
Are you talking about you? Didn't you say that many people believing something is true does not mean at all that it is really true? Why shouldn't it apply to your so-sure-about-it science? Where is your objectivity then?
I can find no reason why your decision about what to measure or check shouldn't be subject to be fooled as much as my perception. So why your subjective decision should be the measure of truth?
You too have to prove what you say. And you too have to prove it with objective facts, not with theories. Or maybe you, being an electrical engineer (do you?), are exempted? So why, after many days, didn't you test the proposed mods?
That is what me and other users are trying to do from some days now. But someone keeps telling us that what we are stupid and gullible. Then he says that WE are insulting him...
Last edited:
I was simply telling what the forum FAQ states.
Which is exactly why I am asking questions such as "*how* do you know what you think you know?". I believe in a process based on evidence. Of course our understanding will improve and our knowledge increase - but not by trusting what our senses tell us, but by questioning it. The people who believed that the sun rotated around the earth, or that the earth was flat, did so partially out of dogma, and partially because that is what their senses were telling them.
Yes, that is the standard subjectivist-solipsist view. I guess that means that you don't believe there is any sort of objective standard for sound quality?
I am doing my best to get away from talking about you, me or any other person, and talk about actual factual issues.
Who is saying that I am in any way sure about anything? remind me, what actual claims have I made?
Of course not.
Remind me where I have told anyone they are stupid or gullible (beyond the normal fallibility of the human sensory and perceptive system)?
If I state "you can't hear a frequency of 40 kHz" it is not an insult. It is a factual statement (that of course can be challenged).
This really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, so I will not continue the off-topic exchange any further. I think you have made your point and we know where you stand.
Last edited:
If they had trusted their senses, they would have discovered truth much earlier: even a kid notices that horizon is curved. Imho the dogma was the problem...
Didn't Galilei discover the truth of Earth movement using his observation?
Strange. You first say that what everyone else thinks is correct has not to be considered, then you talk about subjectivism-solipsism...
Are you kidding?
I agree. We lost too much time for nothing but surely everyone now knows who we are facing. Didn't you notice that other users blamed your aggressive posts?
Last edited:
Why is everyone still using the huge 9x14mm Crystek CCHD-957, when their 5x7.5 CCHD-575 has even lower phase noise across the band and is half the price? Makes no sense unless I am missing something.😕
Hehe, you're so funny, glad you're back with yet another intelligent comment. No thanks, I first want to see some nice looking spectrum graphs of it before buying. 😛
Please don't forget that listening to music should be a subjective pleasure, so no one is obliged to prove anything to anybody, especially in a way strictly fixed by others.
Luckily we live in a reasonably free world: anyone can like what he wants without being blamed or teased by others, as long as he doesn't harm anybody. No one can impose his point of view, even if he's sure it's correct: everyone thinks his point of view is correct...
We are Audiophiles, not scientists, we believe in our ears and if what we hear gives us pleasure, we don't care about theories and scientific explanations (they are means, not an end). Again, we're not obliged to prove anything.
This attitude has led to very good sounding hifi systems as much as scientific research (in facts, nearly 100 years old tubes technology still has an edge in sound quality despite many scientific discoveries).
Imho Science is an exceptional tool to discover reality, but it has to remain a tool, not the Absolute End of human life: as i said previously, this kind of thinking is proper of a medieval mind.
So please everybody quit this aggressive and presumptuous way of relating.
I totally disagree, we have to prove something works and why especially if it is being sold, that is the only way we move forward as a hobby, otherwise it is just a game. To many myths and guru based tweaks in audio as it is, a good does of reality is needed in some areas, again especially when people are making money out of it. Just my boring empirical view... especially when playing with digital side of things.😉
I have yet to see data that confirms your claims, as to signal integrity (signal integrity is not just a very fast rise time...) there is nothing wrong with the signal integrity of most USB outputs, all you have done is create a USB hub with a common USB hub device.... (there are only so many hub devices on the market). Jitter has always been known in digital, again it is used to scare many into buying add on clocks and other elastoplast fixes that in the case of clocks are more likely to cause problems than fix them...
Nice little advert for you USB hub though.😀
As I often state in these discussions, I, Julf and many others have actually open minds, that will if presented with fact will re-evaluate their views and beliefs... The arrogance in audiophilia is those who are so sure of their ineffable hearing ability, their subjective view and the fact that they have no need to confirm or question their beliefs....
Me I have to go to great lengths to confirm and study an effect, because I know I can be fooled as can my senses. I also work in an area industry where confirmation is a major requirements and everything we do is and can be questioned... We have major discussions on many aspects of a design and where possible will use simulation or prototypes to determine the best course of action... And where audio is involved listening tests form a part (but only a part) of the whole design cycle.