Connect no longer bit-perfect?

We are talking about differences that, if they exist, are extremely subtle and are likely to suffer from a lot of noise and error (statistically speaking).

No, we're not... We're talking chalk and cheese differences in sound quality...

Or, put another way, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof".

The claim is being made that Sonos kit can equal the performance of high-end hi-fi - that is indeed an extraordinary claim, and it certainly does demand extraordinary proof - from the person that made the claim.

The claim is being made that Sonos kit can equal the performance of high-end hi-fi - that is indeed an extraordinary claim, and it certainly does demand extraordinary proof - from the person that made the claim.

Why? This is a purely subjective opinion, Kumar has repeatedly said it is purely subjective and, depending on one's taste, could very well be perceived as the opposite by others. One should not have to "prove" their opinion, especially if they specifically deny they are making some kind of universal truth.

The claim is being made that Sonos kit can equal the performance of high-end hi-fi - that is indeed an extraordinary claim, and it certainly does demand extraordinary proof - from the person that made the claim.

Why? This is a purely subjective opinion, Kumar has repeatedly said it is purely subjective and, depending on one's taste, could very well be perceived as the opposite by others. One should not have to "prove" their opinion, especially if they specifically deny they are making some kind of universal truth.

A number of the statements that Kumar makes are not subjective opinions, they are stated as fact. If they were qualified (e.g. 'in my personal opinion') then I wouldn't be raising this - as you say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

A number of the statements that Kumar makes are not subjective opinions, they are stated as fact. If they were qualified (e.g. 'in my personal opinion') then I wouldn't be raising this - as you say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Kumar replied to your accusation of this with the following:

Particularly when I have also often said that speaker selection is a subjective matter of preferences between one good and another just as good, best done by listening to it in the kinds of environments that it is designed for, and when it is set up to deliver all of its designed performance.

Time to drop the cudgel.

One should not have to "prove" their opinion, especially if they specifically deny they are making some kind of universal truth.

How does this apply to those who have other possibly controversial opinions about audio matters? For example, that MQA sounds better to them, or an external DAC sounds better to them than the internal DAC on a Connect, or that 24 bit sounds better to them?

Do we not need a consistent standard here?

I was specifically referring to ABX testing of formats like MQA, rather than Kumar's personal opinion of Sonos speakers against high-end hifi systems.

But even in that case, I would argue that if one were to take a fully scientific view, ABX testing always starts from the principle that the two sources are indistinguishable and tries to prove otherwise. no other approach is valid. In some cases proving otherwise is easy.

Regarding MQA, here is a rather interesting article on the subject: http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/measurements-mqa-master-quality.html

Cheers,

Keith

How does this apply to those who have other possibly controversial opinions about audio matters? For example, that MQA sounds better to them, or an external DAC sounds better to them than the internal DAC on a Connect, or that 24 bit sounds better to them?

Do we not need a consistent standard here?

As stated, opinions are fine. It's once someone starts making definitive claims that they need to start giving proof. But that's not really an apt description of what happens. What really happens is this:

Hi-res sounds better to me, it's night and day!

Well, that could be due to remastering, because biology, physics and math states it isn't possible for the Hi-res to sound better. Have you done an ABX with a downsampled version from the same master? Any time this has been tested in the past, the results pointed to the differences being in the mastering, so if you really can tell the difference, that would be a very big thing.

I don't have to, I know what I hear! Hi-res is better! Who are you to question my ears? Are you telling me my $$$ system is no better than your crap? Are you a trained listener? I have golden ears! People once thought the world was flat! Go away, you old know it all!

Compare this with Kumar, who fully admits that bias, $$$, expectations, shiny dials, and even a dram of tipple can can color one's opinion vs reality. Put another way, Kumar's claims are not extraordinary, it is perfectly possible for one to subjectively like the sound from Sonos over an audiophile system. Even so, Kumar makes no claim that his views are universal, he expressly states they are subjective.

Most Hi-res fans, on the other hand, make extraordinary claims which violate known laws of math, physics, and biology, yet they refuse to accept there may be other factors at work. No bias, no placebo effect, no mastering differences, it's all in the higher resolution.

See the difference?

PS - I deliberately used Hi-res and not MQA in my examples. I fully believe anyone who states MQA sounds superior. I'm also aware that given the MQA specs, it's more than likely this is due to remastering by Meridian than anything in the codec. However, since Meridian conveniently doesn't allow stripping out the raw data for downsampling to CD quality, it is unfair of me to request an ABX test. Meridian is the high-end of snake oil. Kudos to them.

Let me see if I can summarise your post:

If anyone states that, in their opinion, they prefer A over B, you are fine with this.

You would be more comfortable if they also stated that they understood the various subjective factors that could influence their opinion.

You are skeptical if their opinion conflicts with your understanding of the laws of biology, physics and maths.

If anyone makes a statement of fact, they need to back it up with acceptable evidence or it remains as opinion.

No-one should call you old 🙂 (I am with you on this wholeheartedly).

That's about right. Except change "your understanding of the laws" to "the laws", unless you have examples of where my understanding is incorrect? This stuff is not really up for debate, it's established science. By very definition, it would need scientifically rigorous proof to overturn it. Hence why we insist on it.

As for the old part, I couldn't care less. If they stoop to that childish stuff, I know I've won.

Good, I'm glad we essentially agree. I will, however stick with "your understanding of the laws". None of us has perfect knowledge of the laws that apply here. We can only judge someone's opinion according to our own understanding of the biological/physics/maths laws. There might be some real-world physics that complicates an otherwise ideal picture, and there might be gaps in our understanding. I'll give you two examples:
From my limited reading, I understand that DACs don't theoretically need to apply a low-pass filter prior to output. In practice most or all do. I'm yet to fully understand this.
The dithering plot on Monty's xiph web page is for a single frequency, and only goes up to about 9kHz. What happens beyond that, and what happens for multiple frequencies? Stay tuned for more on this.

Thanks for the discussion.