subject:"\[SlimDevices\: Audiophiles\] Audio Myths\!"


A simple question:

What you buy a $5,000 power amp designed by someone with no formal
training in electrical and audio engineering and who believed that
placing a small stone on top an amplifier drastically improved the
sound? 

I didn't think so.


-- 
ralphpnj

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2 (oops) - Touch

'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)

ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-18 Thread rgro


adamdea;684750 Wrote: 
 Obviously a little introspection is required before making bold claims
 on any side. But that is exactly what is lacking in the subjectivist
 blather which has fogged up several threads on this forum. 
 
 In reality all that has happened in response has been some more or less
 terse reminders that most of this is probably imaginery, and none of it
 constitutes a compelling reasopn for a rational person to wish to apply
 the changes to which the imagined effect are attributed.
 
 There isn't really an epistemological middle ground. That is to say if
 you take these things seriously, ie if you actually care whether they
 are true, and if you consdier that they deserve serious discussion, you
 cannot avoid analysing the reliability of the evidence presented and the
 conclusions which can be drawn from it.
 
 Aside from the really extreme and egregious examples (most of which
 come from one source), the ad hominems and the more or less insulting
 ways of putting things are largely irrelevant: The essential points
 remian and can't be evaded
 1. there does exist a body of science about audio principles, audio
 engineering and what human beings can hear.
 2  it requires cogent evidence to make a rational person accept a
 proposition which appears to contradict the body of knowledge at 1
 3 a sensible person who thought he had experienced something which
 appeared to contradict that body of knowledge would think again; he
 might still conclude that he really had experienced what the thought he
 had, but if he didn't think long and hard about it then he would be
 showing extraordinary and possibly pathological self-belief.[it's not a
 question of demadning scientific evidence from people- if you point out
 that it exists it is up to them to consider it and explain it away]
 4 there is a considerable body of evidence within psychoacoustics
 (summarised in the poppy crum/ethan weiner talk)which points to the
 conclusions that non abx subjective experience is very unreliable.
 5 even if the subjective experience *were* reliable in general as with
 all evidence one has with each piece of evidence to consider what
 weight is to be attributed to it including especially the reliability
 of the witness and the internal coherence of the evidence. 
 
 Now all the appeals to calmness and not being rude etc are largely
 largely beside the point if you consider  the real complaint by
 twaekers on this forum. The complaint is that they think it is rude or
 arrogant not to think that what they expereince is true real and cogent
 (if not irrefutable) evidence that fiddling with psus/cables/shakti
 stones makes your hifi sound
 a) different
 b) better.
 
 They think this is rude and arrogant irrespective of how politely or
 otherwise it is put. The cries of foul are disngenuous and amount to a
 sort of desperate procedural wrangling in a losing case. I have wasted
 time politely dealing with certain people's arguments, and in cetain
 cases I can;t really be bothered because it ends up the same no matter
 what. 
 
 If a point is well made whether with or without the odd calumny thrown
 in, it can usually be identified and can still be distinguished from a
 point which simply consists of insults, suggestiones falsi and
 sophistry.
 
 If people don;t want to have their reports evaluated and considered
 then why do they make them? Why do they advise people as to what to do?
 Why do they *state* that blah blah blah makes the squeezebox touch into
 a much better trasnport? Who are they talking to and why are they doing
 it? Plainly they want people to listen and take note.
 
 In which case what could be wrong with replying thank you for the
 information but, having considered it, it appears to provide no
 reasonable ground for altering the view that [blah blah blah] is
 unlikely to make any differnece, and no reason to spend any money or
 time on a [blah blah blah.] And that will be just as unwelcome as
 saying Having consdiered your latest posting you still seem to be a
 fuckwit.
 
 Now one could stop at point 4 above but it would be disingenuous to
 ignore point 5 if the argument is really being taken seriously. In fact
 the tiresome subjectivist/objectivist argument on this forum rarely gets
 to the interesting point about the way in which value judgments are
 assessed. People who are interested in the arts certainly do hold
 ex[press and trade subjective opinions; the fact that these opinions
 are subjective does not mean that they can;t be evaluated. There are
 more and less rational, cogent and deep reasons for admiring one
 painting or preferring it to another.   
 
 And it is therefore quite reasonable to point out that, even if
 subjective reports which don't make any technical sense are *in
 principle* to be taken seriously, some reporters have excluded
 themselves from being taken seriously by writing bizarre, hyperbolic,
 contradictory crap day in day out. You don't really have to get into
 the

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-18 Thread adamdea


rgro;684807 Wrote: 
 Thank you.  I have a couple very minor quibbles with what you wrote, but
 they're really not particularly relevant to this forum.  On the
 wholewell done!!

You are too kind. But thanks.


-- 
adamdea

adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


steveinaz;684693 Wrote: 
 I think everyone would agree (and what I preach w/my 37yrs in this
 hobby) is that you need to start with good base components. While I do
 believe cables can make a difference(as an example)---it is IMO,
 extremely subtle; and there are far more important things to address
 first.
 
 The important thing to stress to new audiophiles, is that tweaks should
 be done last; as a fine tuner. No cable, pebble, brass cone, special
 spray, or demagnetizer is gong to address system deficiencies/lack of
 synergy due to poor integration. You'll do nothing but chase your tail
 with that approach--
 
 Save the experimentation/tweaking for the 99yd line, then bring it on
 home with specific cables, your favorite magic rock whatever it is
 that turns that final screw for you--just don't ever kid yourself that
 you can cure real system problems with these nth degree approaches.

One could argue, equally forcefully, that the exact opposite approach
would be more prudent. Waiting for the time when we're 99% there to
turn our attention to experimentation/tweaking would invariably mean
that we've already spent copious amounts of money. Many of those
expenditures could've easily been avoided if only we had prudently
applied some experimentation along the way.

For example, room treatments. If we're just starting to build a high
quality audio system, and had reached a point where we feel that the
sound of our system is lacking in bass and is at the same time having
too much glare in the upper mids, we could, following your advice, work
on upgrading one or more major components. We could for example upgrade
our integrated amp to a much pricier pre-amp/power-amp separates, or
maybe upgrade our lowly $500 DAC to a more esoteric $8,000 DAC etc.
After doing that, we may still feel that the bass is a bit shy and
muddy, and that there is still some remaining glassiness and shrill in
the highs. There goes another round of very expensive upgrades; maybe
we upgrade our Totem speakers to much more expensive Willsons, and so
on. You get the general idea.

But what if many of these expensive upgrades could've been avoided if
only we paid more attention to experimenting a bit with speaker
placement, room treatment, or even just purchasing a $100.00 power
conditioner?

I'd encourage people to start experimenting and tweaking early on in
the game, especially with free or cheap tweaks (in the range of $10 to
$100). We've all been there at one point or another, and discovered
that by replacing the noisy switching wallwart with a $65.00 linear PSU
introduced more order and musicality into our system than buying a
$1,500 preamp could ever do.


-- 
magiccarpetride

magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


magiccarpetride;684877 Wrote: 
 One could argue, equally forcefully, that the exact opposite approach
 would be more prudent. Waiting for the time when we're 99% there to
 turn our attention to experimentation/tweaking would invariably mean
 that we've already spent copious amounts of money. Many of those
 expenditures could've easily been avoided if only we had prudently
 applied some experimentation along the way.
 
 For example, room treatments. If we're just starting to build a high
 quality audio system, and had reached a point where we feel that the
 sound of our system is lacking in bass and is at the same time having
 too much glare in the upper mids, we could, following your advice, work
 on upgrading one or more major components. We could for example upgrade
 our integrated amp to a much pricier pre-amp/power-amp separates, or
 maybe upgrade our lowly $500 DAC to a more esoteric $8,000 DAC etc.
 After doing that, we may still feel that the bass is a bit shy and
 muddy, and that there is still some remaining glassiness and shrill in
 the highs. There goes another round of very expensive upgrades; maybe
 we upgrade our Totem speakers to much more expensive Willsons, and so
 on. You get the general idea.
 
 But what if many of these expensive upgrades could've been avoided if
 only we paid more attention to experimenting a bit with speaker
 placement, room treatment, or even just purchasing a $100.00 power
 conditioner?
 
 I'd encourage people to start experimenting and tweaking early on in
 the game, especially with free or cheap tweaks (in the range of $10 to
 $100). We've all been there at one point or another, and discovered
 that by replacing the noisy switching wallwart with a $65.00 linear PSU
 introduced more order and musicality into our system than buying a
 $1,500 preamp could ever do.

MCR: You are the living embodiment of an enigma - you can write
something very useful and by all accounts quite reasonable, as the
passage quoted proves, and then you can also write something so
outrageous and far out that one can think you completely insane. In any
case, until Mr. Hyde resurfaces, well done Dr. Jekyll!


-- 
ralphpnj

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2 (oops) - Touch

'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)

ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


ralphpnj;684891 Wrote: 
 MCR: You are the living embodiment of an enigma - you can write
 something very useful and by all accounts quite reasonable, as the
 passage quoted proves, and then you can also write something so
 outrageous and far out that one can think you completely insane. In any
 case, until Mr. Hyde resurfaces, well done Dr. Jekyll!

The reason I appear so baffling to you and to other people like you is
that, horrors, I ALWAYS use my own independent thinking faculties.
Unlike many brainwashed people who have been programmed since early
childhood to only regurgitate what's already been said, or what some
imaginary 'top dog' of the pack is currently peddling, I don't give a
shit about what others think, prefer, like, or dislike. Nor do I give a
shit about what they might think of me.

I know it is a hell of a challenge for you to digest this, but you can
never experience the joys of free thinking so long if you stay enslaved
inside the groupthink, pecking-order-driven matrix, where butt sniffing
is the most important duty and everyone is obliged to toe the party
line.

What you may think is a quite reasonable or completely outrageous
content posted by me is for me one and the same thing. The dirty brain
is yours, not mine.


-- 
magiccarpetride

magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-18 Thread jfo


magiccarpetride;684900 Wrote: 
 The reason I appear so baffling to you and to other people like you is
 that, horrors, I ALWAYS use my own independent thinking faculties.
 Unlike many brainwashed people who have been programmed since early
 childhood to only regurgitate what's already been said, or what some
 imaginary 'top dog' of the pack is currently peddling, I don't give a
 shit about what others think, prefer, like, or dislike. Nor do I give a
 shit about what they might think of me.
 
 I know it is a hell of a challenge for you to digest this, but you can
 never experience the joys of free thinking so long if you stay enslaved
 inside the groupthink, pecking-order-driven matrix, where butt sniffing
 is the most important duty and everyone is obliged to toe the party
 line.
 
 What you may think is quite a reasonable or completely outrageous
 content posted by me is for me one and the same thing. The dirty mind
 is yours, not mine.

For someone who claims not to care what others think of you, you sure
do get your underwear in a knot quite easily!


-- 
jfo

jfo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1135
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-18 Thread jfo


ralphpnj;684891 Wrote: 
 MCR: You are the living embodiment of an enigma - you can write
 something very useful and by all accounts quite reasonable, as the
 passage quoted proves, and then you can also write something so
 outrageous and far out that one can think you completely insane. In any
 case, until Mr. Hyde resurfaces, well done Dr. Jekyll!

Just the characteristics of a sophisticated troll


-- 
jfo

jfo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1135
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


magiccarpetride;684900 Wrote: 
 The reason I appear so baffling to you and to other people like you is
 that, horrors, I ALWAYS use my own independent thinking faculties.
 Unlike many brainwashed people who have been programmed since early
 childhood to only regurgitate what's already been said, or what some
 imaginary 'top dog' of the pack is currently peddling, I don't give a
 shit about what others think, prefer, like, or dislike. Nor do I give a
 shit about what they might think of me.
 
 I know it is a hell of a challenge for you to digest this, but you can
 never experience the joys of free thinking so long if you stay enslaved
 inside the groupthink, pecking-order-driven matrix, where butt sniffing
 is the most important duty and everyone is obliged to toe the party
 line.
 
 What you may think is quite a reasonable or completely outrageous
 content posted by me is for me one and the same thing. The dirty mind
 is yours, not mine.

Okay I'll accept your explaination but in the future please use one
rather than you in your diatribes since you don't know me from Adam.


-- 
ralphpnj

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2 (oops) - Touch

'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)

ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


ralphpnj;684906 Wrote: 
 Okay I'll accept your explaination but in the future please use one
 rather than you in your diatribes since you don't know me from Adam.

Deal.


-- 
magiccarpetride

magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


jfo;684905 Wrote: 
 Just the characteristics of a sophisticated troll

There was a time back in ancient history when Newtonian physicists
roamed the earth. Then one rainy day along came a guy named Albert
Einstein and proceeded to kick some Newtonian ass. He continued messing
with the feeble Newtonian minds by proposing some ungodly thing called
Theory of Relativity. They, of course, thought that was the stupidest
thing ever.

I can't help but wonder if all those petty Newtonian physicists were at
that point tripping over themselves in the race to label Einstein as
'sophisticated troll'?


-- 
magiccarpetride

magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


magiccarpetride;684926 Wrote: 
 There was a time back in ancient history when Newtonian physicists
 roamed the earth. Then one rainy day along came a guy named Albert
 Einstein and proceeded to kick some Newtonian ass. He continued messing
 with the feeble Newtonian minds by proposing some ungodly thing called
 Theory of Relativity. They, of course, thought that was the stupidest
 thing ever.
 
 I can't help but wonder if all those petty Newtonian physicists were at
 that point tripping over themselves in the race to label Einstein as
 'sophisticated troll'?

There is one major thing wrong with the above statement: Einstein's
Theory of Relativity does not nullify Newtonian physics, it just adds
to mankind's overall knowledge. I am a mechanical engineer and the laws
of Newtonian physics are still very much in effect and remain basically
unchanged in the normal everyday world we live in.


-- 
ralphpnj

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2 (oops) - Touch

'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)

ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-18 Thread jfo


magiccarpetride;684926 Wrote: 
 There was a time back in ancient history when Newtonian physicists
 roamed the earth. Then one rainy day along came a guy named Albert
 Einstein and proceeded to kick some Newtonian ass. He continued messing
 with the feeble Newtonian minds by proposing some ungodly thing called
 Theory of Relativity. They, of course, thought that was the stupidest
 thing ever.
 
 I can't help but wonder if all those petty Newtonian physicists were at
 that point tripping over themselves in the race to label Einstein as
 'sophisticated troll'?

Well Albert, what you don't seem to get (or perhaps you do) is that by
ranging from thought provoking comments to profane, meaningless rants
and over-the-top meaningless claims, is typical of a troll. As much as
I have tried, it's impossible to take you seriously.


-- 
jfo

jfo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1135
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-18 Thread Mnyb


Is it indipendent thinking to swallow the audiophile mythos whole sale
?
That if anything is group mentality ?

The main stream of audiophilia has gone very far in the obscure cultish
direction.
i think people trying to keep a sane evidence based pow is in minority
.
just visit your dealer almost everyone he sells to buy into the fancy
cables bs .
So not drinking the cool aid is going against the stream and stand out
in the crowd ?

This forum is unique in it's composition of really extraordinarie
people and a high percentage good at critical/sceptical/scientific
thinking . This is probably why the same people can help my figure out
things when my server malfunctions and when my tags aint rigth, kudos
.

Btw.
Wonder when all sane EE is gone in high end and virtually all products
are cult objects.
Has it already happened ? Did I just miss the anoucement ?

I think ralphpnj q re 5000$ amp designed by morons have an answer , yes
it happens all the time this is exactly what many people are throwing
money at !

Then I have to buy pro products despite the ugly utilitarian design and
rack handles and large backlit 
buttons etc .
Hey that migth be much cheaper :)


-- 
Mnyb


Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
Misc use: Radio (with battery)
iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD  SqueezePad
(in storage SB3, reciever ,controller )

Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-18 Thread castalla


- quote

Originally Posted by magiccarpetride  
There was a time back in ancient history when Newtonian physicists
roamed the earth. Then one rainy day along came a guy named Albert
Einstein and proceeded to kick some Newtonian ass.

- unquote

One thing AE wasn't - he wasn't a proto-member of the US Marine Corp
going around 'kicking ass'.


-- 
castalla

1 Touch - Muse M50 EX TPA3123 T-Amp Mini - Acoustics Q10 speakers - 2
duff ears - purfek!
1 Logitech Radio + remote - purfek!

castalla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15624
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


Mnyb;684935 Wrote: 
 Is it indipendent thinking to swallow the audiophile mythos whole sale
 ?
 That if anything is group mentality ?
 
 The main stream of audiophilia has gone very far in the obscure cultish
 direction.
 i think people trying to keep a sane evidence based pow is in minority
 .
 just visit your dealer almost everyone he sells to buy into the fancy
 cables bs .
 So not drinking the cool aid is going against the stream and stand out
 in the crowd ?
 
 This forum is unique in it's composition of really extraordinarie
 people and a high percentage good at critical/sceptical/scientific
 thinking . This is probably why the same people can help my figure out
 things when my server malfunctions and when my tags aint rigth, kudos
 .
 
 Btw.
 Wonder when all sane EE is gone in high end and virtually all products
 are cult objects.
 Has it already happened ? Did I just miss the anoucement ?
 
 I think ralphpnj q re 5000$ amp designed by morons have an answer , yes
 it happens all the time this is exactly what many people are throwing
 money at !
 
 Then I have to buy pro products despite the ugly utilitarian design and
 rack handles and large backlit 
 buttons etc .
 Hey that migth be much cheaper :)

Wow calm down there Mnyb, high end audio equipment is still being
designed by highly qualified and very competent individuals. Not sure
about all cables but many of the high priced cables are quite well made
even if one doesn't agree with their high cost.

Sure some people get carried away with tweaking and trying to squeeze
that last ounce of performance from their stereo system but they by no
means make up the majority of the high end audio buyers. I'm sure
pretty that if we set up a poll we would that a majority of the members
do not believe a lot of these audio myths, oh wait we can't do polls on
this forum so I guess it can never really be proven which then makes it
100% true simply by believing it, based on audiophile approved out of
the box thinking. God, I just love being an audiophile.


-- 
ralphpnj

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2 (oops) - Touch

'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)

ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-18 Thread Mnyb


ralphpnj;684944 Wrote: 
 Wow calm down there Mnyb, high end audio equipment is still being
 designed by highly qualified and very competent individuals. Not sure
 about all cables but many of the high priced cables are quite well made
 even if one doesn't agree with their high cost.
 
 Sure some people get carried away with tweaking and trying to squeeze
 that last ounce of performance from their stereo system but they by no
 means make up the majority of the high end audio buyers. I'm sure
 pretty that if we set up a poll we would that a majority of the members
 do not believe a lot of these audio myths, oh wait we can't do polls on
 this forum so I guess it can never really be proven which then makes it
 100% true simply by believing it, based on audiophile approved out of
 the box thinking. God, I just love being an audiophile.

I think a have a piont seriusly, actually look at any hifi mag read
what the mfg claims about the products some design considerations are
clearly inspired of this kind of thinking for example bi-wiring or
triwirng terminals on speakers silver speaker binding posts , you have
very over engineered chassis as some believes in mechanical grounding
or some such nonsense .

And all the tube gear , any modern OP surpase those for small signals
and for power amps the high distorsion and transformer coupling ? Don't
get me started on 3w single ended triode amps with 5% thd and no ability
to drive speakers that isnusually explained away with that itnis
something  wrong  with modern multiway speakers ?

There are also some very poorly performing solid state stuff due to
overbelief in no feedback designs or some other obscure detail that
preocopy the designer.
Or early musical fidelity stuff before the current sometimes very well
designed stuff, where crossover distorsion and high thd was on the menu
even if it was  class A , aha the class A myth migth have been valid
at some piont with silicon from the 60's - 70's not as linear as todays
trannies.

you mean they really know thier stuff, but are complete cynics and
designed to met target audience 
expectations , clearly believ target audience wont regognise sq if it
bit them in thier behind ?
they may actually have the formal training and some design skills but
do they really understand ?
Just like some doctors can make it trough med shool and open practice
but still believ in healing ?
Or like some people both you and i know from shool that actually passed
exams in both basic physics 
and nature subject but still believes in strange stuff that counter
this education ?

i think hi end would be a lot cheaper and perform better if more
objective thinking went in to it.
Thats the piont, and the belief that is must be expensive to be any
good is also most damaging.
The high prices have other explanations too this is high risk bussiness
what if the audiophile read the latest hifi+ and sudenly wants another
cult object this year you must plan for this and charge for the meager
years next time your product is the winner ?


-- 
Mnyb


Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
Misc use: Radio (with battery)
iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD  SqueezePad
(in storage SB3, reciever ,controller )

Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-18 Thread Mnyb


And what about overdesigned psu's there is god practice to overdesign
this to some extend for stability and peak demands.

But sometimes it seam like they really want to impress by how
overdesigned your psu is especialy in preamps and small signal stuff
that have psu's that could feed a small power amp.

Here i start to wonder if the actual circuit design does not have very
good psu noise rejection due to some other obscure design goal  in some
cases ?

And what about those mythical components likenpaper inoil capacitors,
or transformers woundnwithbsilver wire ?

Sorry for the long rant, but I do actually think this kind off thinking
creeps in to the design of many hifi components.
It can be a very good amp/speaker/cd but some design element is clearly
not there for any good reason.


-- 
Mnyb


Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
Misc use: Radio (with battery)
iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD  SqueezePad
(in storage SB3, reciever ,controller )

Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread adamdea


magiccarpetride;684454 Wrote: 
 I agree. I am an audio aficionado, meaning I enjoy good, pleasant sound.
 Toward that end I'm constantly upgrading and tweaking my audio system,
 because I truly enjoy the changes these upgrades are bringing me.
 
 Where things become illogical is when I read how many people spring
 into action and organize impromptu witch hunts the moment someone logs
 in here to report some improvements to the sound. For example, if I
 upgrade my speaker cables, or my mains power conditioner, and report
 back how I truly enjoy the changes it made to my system, I invariably
 get a lot of angry replies, sometimes even right down hostile, with
 some people foaming at their mouths and claiming how I'm a troll or a
 moron etc.
 
 Why such hatred? Where is that coming from? I could understand the
 hatred if, by me purchasing some audio accessory, I'd rob some member
 here of their hard earned cash. But that's not the case -- I'm paying
 everything with my own money.
 
 Consider wine aficionados, for a contrast -- if I'm into enjoying a
 good bottle of wine, and I'm discussing various brands and years etc.,
 no one is going to start threatening me if I report back how I went and
 bought a $500.00 bottle and how it was, to me, moneIy well spent.
 
 So why are people getting so riled and upset if I do the same on the
 audio font (i.e. I spend $500.00 on upgrading my mains conditioner)?
Entirely missing the point:-
People communicate for a purpose. On an audiophile website they wish to
exchange information as to how to improve the sound of their system.
When someone reports an improvement, others ask implicitly or
explicitly whether whether the reported improvement is a real one, and
whether they would be able to experience a similar improvement
themselves; or whether the improvement may only apply to particular
systems; or whether the person reporting the improvement is likely to
be mistaken or simply unreliable
If people report in exaggerated terms improvements based on things
which are unlikely to make a difference then others are entitled to
question ( or simply ignore) their findings

Whats so difficult to grasp about that? As for anger and rudeness- !


-- 
adamdea

adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


adamdea;684534 Wrote: 
 Entirely missing the point:-
 People communicate for a purpose. On an audiophile website they wish to
 exchange information as to how to improve the sound of their system.
 When someone reports an improvement, others ask implicitly or
 explicitly whether whether the reported improvement is a real one, and
 whether they would be able to experience a similar improvement
 themselves; or whether the improvement may only apply to particular
 systems; or whether the person reporting the improvement is likely to
 be mistaken or simply unreliable
 If people report in exaggerated terms improvements based on things
 which are unlikely to make a difference then others are entitled to
 question ( or simply ignore) their findings
 
 Whats so difficult to grasp about that? As for anger and rudeness- !

Since this is what this thread is all about, I'll interject.  In
general, I tend to come down more on the objective than the subjective.
All the time, I think disagreements should be respectful and civil.

Only because it leapt out at me and not directed at adamdea as an
individual, I excerpt the following quote from you on another thread:

Not all recordings have information below 45Hz but some do. Some of it
is muscial and some merely ambient, but there is information. Some
people go as far as to say that it makes a very significant difference
to the impression of reality of a recording through spatial cues; I
myself use a sub with my proac tablettes (nominal frquecny range 38Hz
upwards) and found that they gave a very definite improvement both to
the indivual sound of certin instruments (from cellos down) and to the
sense of space in the recording as a whole.

Whilst the frequency numbers you mention are most certainly measurable,
the rest is
listener opinion.  Today, many of us would be in general agreement
that a sub gives the kind of result that you talked about.  But, even
now, I'd guess that some people might question this, and 30 years
ago.I daresay some folks might have ridiculed you and demanded some
sort of objective measurement (which is essentially impossible) to
support that opinion.

Again, I write this not to single out any individual but to point out
that most of us---while we may or may not be entirely conscious of
it---have a line where science and faith cross and that line may well
differ from decade to decade (or even week to week!) and from person to
person.  It's nice to remember that and be gentlepersons when having
even the most spirited debate.


-- 
rgro

Rg

System information

Main: PS Audio Quintet  Vortexbox  Touch (wired) via optical  Rega
DAC  LFD LE IV Signature amp  VA Mozart Grands  REL Acoustics R305
sub.  

Home Theatre:  Duet/SBR (Wired)  Pioneer VSX 919  Energy Take 5
Classic 5.1.

SBS 7.7.1 r33751 on a Vortexbox Appliance, V 2.0.  Touch w/Hardware
V.5.  Touch: FW 7.7.1 r9558.  Duet: FW 7.7.1 r9557.

rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread magiccarpetride


adamdea;684534 Wrote: 
 Entirely missing the point:-
 People communicate for a purpose. On an audiophile website they wish to
 exchange information as to how to improve the sound of their system.
 When someone reports an improvement, others ask implicitly or
 explicitly whether whether the reported improvement is a real one, and
 whether they would be able to experience a similar improvement
 themselves; or whether the improvement may only apply to particular
 systems; or whether the person reporting the improvement is likely to
 be mistaken or simply unreliable
 If people report in exaggerated terms improvements based on things
 which are unlikely to make a difference then others are entitled to
 question ( or simply ignore) their findings
 
 Whats so difficult to grasp about that? As for anger and rudeness- !

It must be nice to occupy a space where everything is simple and plain
and as easy as 1-2-3. You don't seem aware of this, but setting up an
audio system and then working on improving it/tweaking it is a game
that is many orders of magnitude more complex than a game of chess. And
yet you demand simple, straightforward proofs that the claimed
improvements are real.

If by real you mean measurable, riddle me this: how does one go about
measuring the depth/width/height of a soundstage? If I make a
change/upgrade and report on this forum how that upgrade extended the
soundstage by at least five feet into the depth, where I can now
pinpoint cellos as they're playing three to five feet behind the
vocalist, how to measure that and provide a reality check?


-- 
magiccarpetride

magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread adamdea


rgro;684596 Wrote: 
 Since this is what this thread is all about, I'll interject.  In
 general, I tend to come down more on the objective than the subjective.
 All the time, I think disagreements should be respectful and civil.
 
 Only because it leapt out at me and not directed at adamdea as an
 individual, I excerpt the following quote from you on another thread:
 
 Not all recordings have information below 45Hz but some do. Some of it
 is muscial and some merely ambient, but there is information. Some
 people go as far as to say that it makes a very significant difference
 to the impression of reality of a recording through spatial cues; I
 myself use a sub with my proac tablettes (nominal frquecny range 38Hz
 upwards) and found that they gave a very definite improvement both to
 the indivual sound of certin instruments (from cellos down) and to the
 sense of space in the recording as a whole.
 
 Whilst the frequency numbers you mention are most certainly measurable,
 the rest is listener opinion.  Today, many of us would be in general
 agreement that a sub gives the kind of result that you talked about. 
 But, even now, I'd guess that some people might question this, and 30
 years ago.I daresay some folks might have ridiculed you, considered
 this an audio myth,  and demanded some sort of objective measurement
 (which is essentially impossible) to support that opinion.
 
 Again, I write this not to single out any individual but to point out
 that most of us---while we may or may not be entirely conscious of
 it---have a line where science and faith cross and that line may well
 differ from decade to decade (or even week to week!) and from person to
 person.  It's nice to remember that and be gentlepersons when having
 even the most spirited debate.
I wrote a fairly long response to this but for some reason the browser
crashed as i pressed submit.

I'm sure that your let's all be nice point was well intentioned, but
the example you used was very badly chosen.

In the post which you quoted I was making the specifc point that it
makes more sense to concentrate on areas which can objectively be shown
to make an imporvment in fidelity as opposed to getting a better
ethernet cable. It is common knowledge and has been for decades that
the human hearign range goes down to 20Hz.  

I have no ideas why you think that in 1981 or so people did not know
that, or did not realise that (for example) an large organ can make a
note just over 20Hz. I have no idea why anyone would have thought that
extending the bandwidth to 20Hz was a waste of time. This rather
removes the force of your point: what i was suggestign was a change
which any audio engineer in recent history would have seen would have
at least potentially produced an audiable benefit

I can't help thinking that you have confused sub-wooffers which extend
frequency range to that of human hearign with super tweeters which
extend it beyond human hearing. Had i extolled the virtues of the
latter I would have expected eye brows to be rasied. Had I done so, you
would have had a point.

Now it is true that I gave examples of what i think the subjective
effects were of this objectively verifiable change; but so what? Of
course the point this that we listen to hifi in order to hear things.
There would be no point making the change if it had no subjective
effect. 

But that is not that same as saying that you have to make a change just
becasue I say there's a subjective effect; it is not the same as
thinking that we must take seriously whatever subjective effects
someone reports, irrespective of whether they are unsupported by
objective data or even contradict any technical understanding of the
system.   

It seems to me that whether you point was addressed to me as an
individual or not, the example you chose did not really support it.
Perhaps if it did leap out at you, it still missed.


-- 
adamdea

adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread adamdea


magiccarpetride;684612 Wrote: 
 It must be nice to occupy a space where everything is simple and plain
 and as easy as 1-2-3. You don't seem aware of this, but setting up an
 audio system and then working on improving it/tweaking it is a game
 that is many orders of magnitude more complex than a game of chess. And
 yet you demand simple, straightforward proofs that the claimed
 improvements are real.
 
 If by real you mean measurable, riddle me this: how does one go about
 measuring the depth/width/height of a soundstage? If I make a
 change/upgrade and report on this forum how that upgrade extended the
 soundstage by at least five feet into the depth, where I can now
 pinpoint cellos as they're playing three to five feet behind the
 vocalist, how to measure that and provide a reality check?

You don't measure a subjective effect as such, you measure things which
may correspond to it. Obviously you (ie the hypothetical rational
person; not you, clearly!) don't measure a soundstage in feet, with a
tape measure. But there are other things which can be measured in a
signal. If there is no measurable change in a system then little weight
can be attached to subjective reports even of reliable witnesses. 

I already have all the data i need to assess your subjective reports:
1 You believe that shakti stones make a positive difference
2 I have read the first paragraph of your post.

I could go on. The only remotely interesting thing about your posts is
the ever present question of whether you believe them yourself.


-- 
adamdea

adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread magiccarpetride


adamdea;684618 Wrote: 
 You don't measure a subjective effect as such, you measure things which
 may correspond to it.

So you claim the knowledge that unerringly maps this correspondence?
That's pretty haughty, if you ask me. How did you come to such
heightened knowledge? And more importantly, please do explain which
measurable things correspond directly to deepening the sound stage by
two feet? If I change the capacitors in my amp, is there a direct
correspondence between these new capacitors and the depth of the sound
stage? How so? What other objective factors do you pull in when
attempting to draw a correspondence between them and a subjective
effect?

adamdea;684618 Wrote: 
 Obviously you (ie the hypothetical rational person; not you, clearly!)
 don't measure a soundstage in feet, with a tape measure.

How do you know that I was measuring the soundstage with a measuring
tape? Are you stalking me?

adamdea;684618 Wrote: 
 But there are other things which can be measured in a signal. If there
 is no measurable change in a system then little weight can be attached
 to subjective reports even of reliable witnesses.

Interesting. How do you measure the signal? At which point? Frankly, I
think you're making this up.

adamdea;684618 Wrote: 
 I already have all the data i need to assess your subjective reports:
 1 You believe that shakti stones make a positive difference

I would be prepared to bet large sums of money that you've never
listened to audio with Shakti stones fitted in. Be honest and admit
this fact. As such, you're claiming to know something that you have no
experience in. Sad.


-- 
magiccarpetride

magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread cliveb


There is a scientifically rigorous tool to establish whether a change
makes an audible difference: the double blind ABX test. Any other kind
of comparison cannot be taken seriously, because we all know that
non-auditory clues cause the brain to change its perception of the
sound. The video that began this thread included Poppy Crum's
demonstration of this.

If any of the subjective tweakers claim that they heard no difference
between the audio-only and audio+visual clues playback in Poppy's demo,
then they are either deaf, can't read English, or lying. If they agree
that they DID hear a difference, then they have to accept that
non-blind testing of audio components cannot produce reliable results
about the sound produced.

So: when someone makes a claim about the effects of a tweak that goes
against the established body of audio engineering knowledge, and we
also know that the results were not blind-tested, then we must
necessarily respond that the cause of the perceived audible difference
is overwhelmingly likely to be due to non-auditory influences, which
past studies have shown WILL influence what you hear.


-- 
cliveb

Transporter - ATC SCM100A

cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


The bigger question is: Why are people so pre-occupied with the
decisions of other people? Is hi-fi not a hobby? What fun is it to have
a hobby---and then sit in the box never trying anything new? Where's
the passion in that?

Experiment gents. Let the lab rats be lab rats, let the nut jobs be nut
jobs. If hi-fi was all about: buy this, this, and this; you're done.
Where the hell is the fun in -that-?

Lighten up, and enjoy the music baby. If that exotic cable blows up
your skirt---I say go for it. If tweaking that Touch to perfection
gives you a woodie, woodie it up man. Hobbies are suppose to be fun,
no?


-- 
steveinaz

- transport: squeezebox touch / ci audio ps
- dac: benchmark dac/pre
- linestage: placette passive
- power amplifier: parasound hca-1500a
- speakers: fritz speakers carbon 7 monitor
- cables: kimber hero/8tc v.2, belden 1694a

steveinaz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34707
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread darrenyeats

chill;684657 Wrote:
I considered starting a new thread for this, because I promise you, I'm
not raising it in a thread entitled 'Audio Myths' because I think it
falls into that category. But since the subject of the soundstage was
raised here I thought it could make an interesting aside to the main
topic, and I think it DOES pertain to the question of objectivity
versus subjectivity.

I've often wondered how our brains construct a soundstage from two
channel reproduction, so I thought I'd get input from those here with
more experience than me.

In every day situations we are able to place sounds using various cues,
such as relative volume (both left/right and near/far), and probably
slight differences in arrival times. If a sound comes from a point on
my left, for instance, then the sound in my left ear will be lounder
than that in my right ear, and it may be that the arrival time in my
left ear will be sufficiently ahead of the arrival time in my right ear
to aid me in placing the source. Similarly, sounds, such as voices,
that are close to me will be louder than those further away, so I can
use my experience of how loud a voice should sound to estimate a
distance. Nevertheless, there have definitely been occasions when a
sound that is directly behind me, for instance, has sounded as though
it's directly ahead of me, or more accurately, it's source has been ill
defined, and I've put that down to the fact that the locus of all points
where the source would have equal volume and time delay in both ears
would be a vertical circle with me at the centre. I have to turn my
head to resolve this ambiguity. This is probably what a bird digging
for worms is doing when you see it cocking its head to one side.

Similarly, our ability to place the height of the sound source seems to
me to be difficult to explain - I assume it is something to do with the
shape of our ears.

So when the sound source is PHYSICALLY in various places our anatomy
and our experience allow us to determine the location of the source.

However, when it comes to sound reproduction from two speakers, I can
easily see that relative volume and phasing can help me to locate a
source laterally (left/right), but I'm not so sure about how our brains
allow us to construct height and depth. I suppose relative volumes in
the mix can give cues about near/far, and maybe minute phasing
differences among voices and instruments can create the impression that
some sources are nearer than others. But the real physical differences
in the live sound are, for the most part, lost if you put a microphone
in front of each voice/instrument. The relative volumes and phasing
differences are lost, except maybe if each instrument bleeds into the
neighbouring microphones, but in the case of multiple tracks recorded
at different times then even this is lost. Unless a performance is
captured live by a couple of microphones representing our speaker
locations then it seems to me that the sound stage, such as it exists
in the recording, is something that the mixing engineer has created
after the event.

And for the life of me, I can't see where the height of the soundstage
comes from. Since the sound all comes from two point sources, rather
than being physically at different heights, the anatomical shape of our
ears can't come into play - that just allows me to work out where my
speakers are. What if I was to lean my speakers backwards to lie on
the floor - would the sound stage rotate backwards as well? I don't
think so.

So I don't deny that the sound stage in two channel music reproduction
cannot be experienced - far from it, it is what contributes to our
enjoyment of well reproduced music - but I suppose my question, after
all that rambling, is how much of the soundstage actually exists in the
recording, and how much is down to our powerful imaginations.

Interesting questions. I am of the belief that certain equipment can
create or at least enhance a soundstage, much like you can have
equipment with a warm bass or tizzy treble.

For example, on my current system, some tracks don't image well. Some
image very well. On my previous system, almost EVERYTHING imaged well.
I put it down to the above effect - my current system uses all
pro-audio type equipment which might have something to do with it.
Darren

--
darrenyeats

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503.

SB Touch

darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


adamdea;684613 Wrote: 
 I wrote a fairly long response to this but for some reason the browser
 crashed as i pressed submit.
 
 I'm sure that your let's all be nice point was well intentioned, but
 the example you used was very badly chosen.
 
 In the post which you quoted I was making the specifc point that it
 makes more sense to concentrate on areas which can objectively be shown
 to make an imporvment in fidelity as opposed to getting a better
 ethernet cable. It is common knowledge and has been for decades that
 the human hearign range goes down to 20Hz.  
 
 I have no ideas why you think that in 1981 or so people did not know
 that, or did not realise that (for example) an large organ can make a
 note just over 20Hz. I have no idea why anyone would have thought that
 extending the bandwidth to 20Hz was a waste of time. This rather
 removes the force of your point: what i was suggestign was a change
 which any audio engineer in recent history would have seen would have
 at least potentially produced an audiable benefit
 
 I can't help thinking that you have confused sub-wooffers which extend
 frequency range to that of human hearign with super tweeters which
 extend it beyond human hearing. Had i extolled the virtues of the
 latter I would have expected eye brows to be rasied. Had I done so, you
 would have had a point.
 
 Now it is true that I gave examples of what i think the subjective
 effects were of this objectively verifiable change; but so what? Of
 course the point this that we listen to hifi in order to hear things.
 There would be no point making the change if it had no subjective
 effect. 
 
 But that is not that same as saying that you have to make a change just
 becasue I say there's a subjective effect; it is not the same as
 thinking that we must take seriously whatever subjective effects
 someone reports, irrespective of whether they are unsupported by
 objective data or even contradict any technical understanding of the
 system.   
 
 It seems to me that whether you point was addressed to me as an
 individual or not, the example you chose did not really support it.
 Perhaps if it did leap out at you, it still missed.

I hate it when that happens---you write something brilliant that, in an
instant, evaporates!

Yes, we can measure that a sub can extend the audible bass response
down to 20 hz and we can measure, that in a perfect world, human
hearing can hear down to that frequency.  That's probably been around
for many decades, indeed, and your point is taken.  And I certainly and
wholeheartedly agree that just because someone says I HAVE to make a
change for some reason doesn't mean anything whatsoever--either
way---regarding the validity or effect of that change.

My point was that before subs came into existence, if you'd kludged one
together and, on some yesteryear forum equivalent, said that you'd
invented a bass enhancement device that had the effect of changing
the ambience and making cellos sound better, a lot of people might have
dismissed you as a nutjob, irrespective of your pointing out the science
of what it actually did.  The vast majority of folks would (and probably
still do not) not equate the addition 20 or 25hz of bass to better
cellos and increased ambience.  

My other point, however, is that the reflexive dimminution and/or
dismissal of the effect simply because the scientific cause cannot be
immediately produced is somewhat arrogant.  It is, indeed, possible
that the subjective effect has, in fact, preceded the identification of
the objective cause.  Much very excellent science has been done in that
fashion.  As has been pointed out, myth--audio or otherwise---has had a
historical habit of sometimes becoming science and vice-versa.

Att least as arrogant and the somewhat more evil mirror image of the
above is that which uses the lack of objective proof to promulgate
falsehoods and outright dangerous dis/misinformation.  I readily admit
that it is more than possible that any particular effect is complete
nonsense, only in someone's imagination or, worse yet, an utter and
blatant (and contemptible) attempt to profit off someone's ignorance.

Demanding the immediate production of a scientific basis for someone's
subjective hearing of a change is, IMO, mostly admirable, but I suspect
that 98% of us don't have the education, time, or wherewithall to find
that specific research much less do that sort of science and analysis
oneself if it hasn't yet been done.  

And so we're left the problem that there is much that we know, much
that we don't know, and much in between.  IMO, because of that, hubris
and ad hominem attacks really should have no place here as we're so
often left to (if we are really honest and humble with ourselves) our
own incomplete knowledge to try to figure out what is what.


-- 
rgro

Rg

System information

Main: PS Audio Quintet  Vortexbox  Touch (wired) via optical  Rega
DAC  LFD LE IV Signature amp  VA Mozart Grands

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


steveinaz;684656 Wrote: 
 The bigger question is: Why are people so pre-occupied with the
 decisions of other people? Is hi-fi not a hobby? What fun is it to have
 a hobby---and then sit in the box never trying anything new? Where's
 the passion in that?
 
 Experiment gents. Let the lab rats be lab rats, let the nut jobs be nut
 jobs. If hi-fi was all about: buy this, this, and this; you're done.
 Where the hell is the fun in -that-?
 
 Lighten up, and enjoy the music baby. If that exotic cable blows up
 your skirt---I say go for it. If tweaking that Touch to perfection
 gives you a woodie, woodie it up man. Hobbies are suppose to be fun,
 no?

Heheheheh, I like this point of view!


-- 
rgro

Rg

System information

Main: PS Audio Quintet  Vortexbox  Touch (wired) via optical  Rega
DAC  LFD LE IV Signature amp  VA Mozart Grands  REL Acoustics R305
sub.  

Home Theatre:  Duet/SBR (Wired)  Pioneer VSX 919  Energy Take 5
Classic 5.1.

SBS 7.7.1 r33751 on a Vortexbox Appliance, V 2.0.  Touch w/Hardware
V.5.  Touch: FW 7.7.1 r9558.  Duet: FW 7.7.1 r9557.

rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread Ron Olsen


steveinaz;684656 Wrote: 
 The bigger question is: Why are people so pre-occupied with the
 decisions of other people? Is hi-fi not a hobby? What fun is it to have
 a hobby---and then sit in the box never trying anything new? Where's
 the passion in that?
 
 Experiment gents. Let the lab rats be lab rats, let the nut jobs be nut
 jobs. If hi-fi was all about: buy this, this, and this; you're done.
 Where the hell is the fun in -that-?
 
 Lighten up, and enjoy the music baby. If that exotic cable blows up
 your skirt---I say go for it. If tweaking that Touch to perfection
 gives you a woodie, woodie it up man. Hobbies are suppose to be fun,
 no?

True. Do what floats your boat. But don't foist off voodoo science on
unsuspecting newbies looking to use a SB Touch in their music system as
required mods to get the best out of your Touch.


-- 
Ron Olsen

Ron Olsen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9233
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread garym


Ron Olsen;684670 Wrote: 
 True. Do what floats your boat. But don't foist off voodoo science on
 unsuspecting newbies looking to use a SB Touch in their music system as
 required mods to get the best out of your Touch.

Yes! Recent example, someone wants to customize info shown on screen of
Touch (similar to how they were able to do it on their old SB3). One of
the first few posters said basically first do all the TT3.0 mods!  The
guy wants to change the info displayed, and he's being told to do mods
that turn OFF the display entirely!


-- 
garym

*Location 1:* VB Appliance 6TB (1.10)  LMS 7.7.1  Transporter, Touch,
Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio)
*Location 2:* VB Appliance 3TB (2.0)  LMS 7.7.1  Touch  Benchmark
DAC I, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio)
*Office:* Win7(64)  LMS 7.7.1  SqueezePlay
Retired: SB3, Duet Receiver
Controllers: iPhone (iPeng), iPad (iPengHD  SqueezePad), CONTROLLER,
or SqueezePlay 7.7 on Win7(64) laptop
Ripping (FLAC) - dbpoweramp, Additional Tagging - mp3tag

garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread magiccarpetride


Ron Olsen;684670 Wrote: 
 True. Do what floats your boat. But don't foist off voodoo science on
 unsuspecting newbies looking to use a SB Touch in their music system as
 required mods to get the best out of your Touch.

Why is it that in here we find so many bleeding hearts and an endless
parade of do-gooders whose only worry in life is to protect some
unsuspecting 'newbies' from being fed unreliable info? As with anything
else in life, grownups should know to take everything with a pinch of
salt. Buyer beware is a constant, universally applicable mantra. You
always get what you pay for, and on this forum, all you get is a whole
bunch of free advice. So, do the math yourself.

And please, can we now stop, once and for all, with the el cheapo
sentiments and the lame attempts at protecting the 'endangered'
newbies?


-- 
magiccarpetride

magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread ralphpnj


garym;684673 Wrote: 
 Yes! Recent example, someone wants to customize info shown on screen of
 Touch (similar to how they were able to do it on their old SB3). One of
 the first few posters said basically first do all the TT3.0 mods!  The
 guy wants to change the info displayed, and he's being told to do mods
 that turn OFF the display entirely!

True but if the screen is turned off then there would be no need to
customize it and the problem would be solved. So in a strange way they
did actually address the screen customization issue.


-- 
ralphpnj

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2 (oops) - Touch

'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)

ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread ralphpnj


rgro;684668 Wrote: 
 Heheheheh, I like this point of view!

+1 (which is why I don't read the soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0 thread
- I happen to think that the Touch sounds wonderful right out of the
box.)


-- 
ralphpnj

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2 (oops) - Touch

'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)

ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


I think everyone would agree (and what I preach w/my 37yrs in this
hobby) is that you need to start with good base components. While I do
believe cables can make a difference(as an example)---it is IMO,
extrememly subtle; and there are far more important things to address
first.

The important thing to stress to new audiophiles, is that tweaks should
be done last; as a fine tuner. No cable, pebble, brass cone, special
spray, or demagnetizer is gong to address system deficiencies/lack of
synergy due to poor integration. You'll do nothing but chase your tail
with that approach--

Save the experimentation/tweaking for the 99yd line, then bring it on
home with specific cables, your favorite magic rock whatever it is
that turns that final screw for you--just don't ever kid yourself that
you can cure real system problems with these nth degree approaches.


-- 
steveinaz

- transport: squeezebox touch / ci audio ps
- dac: benchmark dac/pre
- linestage: placette passive
- power amplifier: parasound hca-1500a
- speakers: fritz speakers carbon 7 monitor
- cables: kimber hero/8tc v.2, belden 1694a

steveinaz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34707
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


garym;684673 Wrote: 
 Yes! Recent example, someone wants to customize info shown on screen of
 Touch (similar to how they were able to do it on their old SB3). One of
 the first few posters said basically first do all the TT3.0 mods!  The
 guy wants to change the info displayed, and he's being told to do mods
 that turn OFF the display entirely!

True. Do what floats your boat. But don't foist off voodoo science on
unsuspecting newbies looking to use a SB Touch in their music system as
required mods to get the best out of your Touch. 

First of all, I agree with both of these.  But, and I ask this in all
seriousness:  

Can one or both of you tell me what exactly is considered voodoo
science?  Is I tried  in my Touch and my music sounds better now
defined as voodoo science?  

Since I see a lot of this sort of thing and, due to my vast lack of
knowledge in this field, I'm often totally confused by the responses. 
It seems that some folks consider this type of statetment as just one
individual's opinion (the try it, YMMV idea) and others see it and
react as if it were heresy/voodoo science (the without DBT and/or
published, peer-reveiwed research, etc. to back it up then it should
not be stated at all idea). 

Is it more in HOW it's stated (as in this'll change your life/you MUST
do this!!), or is it just the notion that anything at all that is
stated without objective substantiation is, by definition, categorized
as voodoo?

I get that there are some things that just fly completely in the face
of current physics and acoustical science.  But it'd sure be nice for
us numpties to have some objective measure of what's generally
considered merely opinion (and left at that) and what's generally
considered total b.s.!


-- 
rgro

Rg

System information

Main: PS Audio Quintet  Vortexbox  Touch (wired) via optical  Rega
DAC  LFD LE IV Signature amp  VA Mozart Grands  REL Acoustics R305
sub.  

Home Theatre:  Duet/SBR (Wired)  Pioneer VSX 919  Energy Take 5
Classic 5.1.

SBS 7.7.1 r33751 on a Vortexbox Appliance, V 2.0.  Touch w/Hardware
V.5.  Touch: FW 7.7.1 r9558.  Duet: FW 7.7.1 r9557.

rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


ralphpnj;684688 Wrote: 
 +1 (which is why I don't read the soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0 thread
 - I happen to think that the Touch sounds wonderful right out of the
 box.)

Agree--I have an upgraded power supply (CIA), and I run into a
Benchmark DAC--I'm very pleased with the performance. I have no
justification to phutz with my Touch any further.


-- 
steveinaz

- transport: squeezebox touch / ci audio ps
- dac: benchmark dac/pre
- linestage: placette passive
- power amplifier: parasound hca-1500a
- speakers: fritz speakers carbon 7 monitor
- cables: kimber hero/8tc v.2, belden 1694a

steveinaz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34707
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread ralphpnj


steveinaz;684693 Wrote: 
 I think everyone would agree (and what I preach w/my 37yrs in this
 hobby) is that you need to start with good base components. While I do
 believe cables can make a difference(as an example)---it is IMO,
 extrememly subtle; and there are far more important things to address
 first.
 
 The important thing to stress to new audiophiles, is that tweaks should
 be done last; as a fine tuner. No cable, pebble, brass cone, special
 spray, or demagnetizer is gong to address system deficiencies/lack of
 synergy due to poor integration. You'll do nothing but chase your tail
 with that approach--
 
 Save the experimentation/tweaking for the 99yd line, then bring it on
 home with specific cables, your favorite magic rock whatever it is
 that turns that final screw for you--just don't ever kid yourself that
 you can cure real system problems with these nth degree approaches.

Wow what a great breathe of fresh air and much needed sanity. Thank you
very much for your words of wisdom - typed with tongue NOT in cheek,
just to clear.


-- 
ralphpnj

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2 (oops) - Touch

'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)

ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!


Hi-fi is about TRUTH. If you sincerely want truth in your system, you
have to understand both the science of electronics/sound, and the
psyhcoacoustical (sp?) properties. Now, you can kid yourself all day
long--but that's no way to get at the truth. So ask yourself, what is
it you want to accomplish? And it's OK if you don't want total
neutrality--it's YOUR system. There's nothing wrong with adding some
flavor (tubes anyone?).

It's like calibrating an HDTV. Either your goal is to meet cal
standards, or it's -not-. Just don't kid yourself (or others) if you
choose to deviate from the standard, because personal preference is
factoring in. Let's face it, current/past mastering techniques work
against us, no doubt; and I think this plays a big role in system
dissatisfaction. This is turn leads to tail-chasing...so be careful,
and don't forget that a truly good system is not going to fix poorly
mastered music.


-- 
steveinaz

- transport: squeezebox touch / ci audio ps
- dac: benchmark dac/pre
- linestage: placette passive
- power amplifier: parasound hca-1500a
- speakers: fritz speakers carbon 7 monitor
- cables: kimber hero/8tc v.2, belden 1694a

steveinaz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34707
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread Ron Olsen


rgro;684692 Wrote: 
 True. Do what floats your boat. But don't foist off voodoo science on
 unsuspecting newbies looking to use a SB Touch in their music system as
 required mods to get the best out of your Touch. 
 
 First of all, I agree with both of these.  But, and I ask this in all
 seriousness:  
 
 Can one or both of you tell me what exactly is considered voodoo
 science?  Is I tried  in my Touch and my music sounds better now
 defined as voodoo science?  
 
 Since I see a lot of this sort of thing and, due to my vast lack of
 knowledge in this field, I'm often totally confused by the responses. 
 It seems that some folks consider this type of statetment as just one
 individual's opinion (the try it, YMMV idea) and others see it and
 react as if it were heresy/voodoo science (the without DBT and/or
 published, peer-reveiwed research, etc. to back it up then it should
 not be stated at all idea). 
 
 Is it more in HOW it's stated (as in this'll change your life/you MUST
 do this!!), or is it just the notion that anything at all that is
 stated without objective substantiation is, by definition, categorized
 as voodoo?
 
 I get that there are some things that just fly completely in the face
 of current physics and acoustical science.  But it'd sure be nice for
 us numpties to have some objective measure of what's generally
 considered merely opinion (and left at that), what's generally
 considered total b.s., and what is considered good science!  Thanks.

Good audio science = validated by blind listening test.


-- 
Ron Olsen

Ron Olsen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9233
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!

2012-01-17 Thread garym


rgro;684692 Wrote: 
 True. Do what floats your boat. But don't foist off voodoo science on
 unsuspecting newbies looking to use a SB Touch in their music system as
 required mods to get the best out of your Touch. 
 
 First of all, I agree with both of these.  But, and I ask this in all
 seriousness:  
 
 Can one or both of you tell me what exactly is considered voodoo
 science?  Is I tried  in my Touch and my music sounds better now
 defined as voodoo science?  
 
 Since I see a lot of this sort of thing and, due to my vast lack of
 knowledge in this field, I'm often totally confused by the responses. 
 It seems that some folks consider this type of statetment as just one
 individual's opinion (the try it, YMMV idea) and others see it and
 react as if it were heresy/voodoo science (the without DBT and/or
 published, peer-reveiwed research, etc. to back it up then it should
 not be stated at all idea). 
 
 Is it more in HOW it's stated (as in this'll change your life/you MUST
 do this!!), or is it just the notion that anything at all that is
 stated without objective substantiation is, by definition, categorized
 as voodoo?
 
 I get that there are some things that just fly completely in the face
 of current physics and acoustical science.  But it'd sure be nice for
 us numpties to have some objective measure of what's generally
 considered merely opinion (and left at that), what's generally
 considered total b.s., and what is considered good science!  Thanks.

You raise a very good question, and a difficult one to answer (a good
answer to this question could end all this discussion!).  Some things
are hard to validate. But many things discussed on this forum are EASY
to test with a simple blind comparison.  e.g., Tell me how many times
you could identify which CABLE was being in the system out of N trials.
90% of the time? 50/50 (guessing). Or simply report that I like Cable X
better in my system. If you report that Cable X gave much better quality
audio than Cable Y, then you should be willing to report a simple blind
test result.


-- 
garym

*Location 1:* VB Appliance 6TB (1.10)  LMS 7.7.1  Transporter, Touch,
Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio)
*Location 2:* VB Appliance 3TB (2.0)  LMS 7.7.1  Touch  Benchmark
DAC I, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio)
*Office:* Win7(64)  LMS 7.7.1  SqueezePlay
Retired: SB3, Duet Receiver
Controllers: iPhone (iPeng), iPad (iPengHD  SqueezePad), CONTROLLER,
or SqueezePlay 7.7 on Win7(64) laptop
Ripping (FLAC) - dbpoweramp, Additional Tagging - mp3tag

garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!