External DAC with Connect

Whether or not "two sounds really are different" is completely moot.

It isn't when people or companies are making claims about equipment sounding different. That is totally relevant.

It's also something which is something which can be scientifically tested.

Cheers,

Keith

"So what you are saying is that when someone claims that a particular component (cable, amplifier, DAC, etc.) sounds better to them, that is a purely subjective view that doesn't apply to anyone else."

Of course.. unless they have also listened to it and come to the same conclusion.. at that point there are two folks who agree..

"In other words, those sort of opinions aren't worth a damn?"

Depends of who's opinion it is and how it's derived..

"The question then becomes, why are people who hold such opinions so keen to share these worthless views, and are so often so insistent that their own subjective views will apply to others? And why they insist that anyone who doesn't share such views must be defective or delusional?"

I don't know. Maybe the same reasons that the hard core Objectivists feel the need to rant that their view is the only right one and that the Subjectivists are all audio-fools..

Seems to me that this accomplishes nothing for anyone..

The Objectivist gets so locked into thinking that the only thing that matters is specs or DBT, or that listening is a flawed way to evaluate a component.

The Subjectivists won't consider that specs do matter, or that sometimes things do sound the same, or that maybe they are fooling themselves into hearing things that aren't there..

No one wins, and everyone is the less for it.

It isn't when people or companies are making claims about equipment sounding different. That is totally relevant.


When people (individual listeners) claim that equipment sounds different surely it must be interpreted as "sounds different [to me]" which is inherently subjective.

When companies make such claims that might be a different matter, I agree, since the implication is that it "sounds different [to anyone]".

Probably for the same reason that "objectivists" tend to suppress any discussion of effects that can't be reliably detected by DBT/ABX. That is, everyone likes to put forward their point of view and influence others.

The difference is one is based on Science and Engineering, and the other is based on pseudo-science and old-wives tales.

There's an obvious parallel with medicines (hence the "snake oil" phrase often used).

By the way, not all people who believe in audible differences that don't satisfy objective criteria insist that their subjective views must be shared by others, or that others are defective or delusional.

Live and let live, is all I'm saying. Put another way, it would be nice not to have potentially interesting discussion suppressed. Surely everyone can put forward their point of view on the basis that that's exactly what it is, not some absolute notion of "the truth"? Otherwise it will all get very boring very quickly.

But there are very many people who like to make these claims. Words like "night and day" are bandied around for things which could, at best, have a very subtle difference.

And these sort of claims tend to escalate and be amplified and become desired by people who are suggestable and who lack the knowledge or skills to critically assess these claims. This is the essence of how confidence tricks work.

It's really guerilla marketing used by the snake-oil salesmen because there is a risk of being sued for false advertising when they make these claims themselves.

If you want to buy a cable, or component, or whatever and you believe it to be superior in whatever fantastic way you want, that's up to you. But the moment you start propagating such claims, that is the moment I have the right to challenge it.

Live and Let Live works both ways.

Cheers,

Keith

When people (individual listeners) claim that equipment sounds different surely it must be interpreted as "sounds different [to me]" which is inherently subjective.

When companies make such claims that might be a different matter, I agree, since the implication is that it "sounds different [to anyone]".

I disagree.

When someone (for instance) extols the benefits of (say) cables, equipment brands, or hires audio, they are acting as an advocate for the companies that are selling such things. They become an extension of that corner of the industry's marketing in a form that is much more potent than anything the company could produce themselves.

"Word of mouth" marketing is a huge deal for companies. It is far more effective than almost anything else because:

a) It leverages the personal trust relationships we have with others

b) It isn't subject to the same regulation and scrutiny that direct marketing is.

In addition, such advocacy is rarely without vested interests. For example, hires supporters have been trying to bolster support for hires for years because, if successful, it benefits them directly in the form of new shiny stuff to buy.

This advocacy seems to be at any cost, even lies of omission: for instance, I have seen several threads about hires audio where some pro-hires participants have grossly misunderstood the nature of hires audio, but none of the advocates corrected them. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that the advocates are happy to allow false information and misunderstandings in order to drive the market in the direction they want. Their focus is on satiating their own desires, not on helping or educating others.

Another example: when an article was produced which, quite scientifically, described why hires audio was actually more likely to degrade audio, instead of applauding it for helping them to avoid a costly mistake, it was widely derided by audiophiles because it was contrary to their "more is better" belief system. The same people will often gladly accept the flimsiest of explanations for something that involves paying more.

If the audiophiles were (in general) prepared to take a more balanced and considered view; if they were prepared, for instance, to recognise that DBT/ABX testing of equipment has a valuable role to play rather than inventing reasons to attack it's efficacy; if they were will to acknowledge that the human brain is poor at remembering and good at inventing sounds (especially when influenced by external factors); if they were prepared to acknowledge that the decades of scientific study and understanding of the human auditory system might, perhaps, trump the glossy marketing brochures from their favourite vendors, perhaps then we could have a more balanced discussion.

Cheers,

Keith

Keith - I completely understand the points you're making and can see the danger of unsupportable claims becoming accepted as fact. I suppose the point where I might disagree with you is what should be allowed or encouraged as a topic of discussion on the forum - which is of course a matter of balance. Since you are a moderator your point of view naturally takes precedence.

For the record, I have a science/engineering background and a natural tendency towards rationalism, reductionism and objectivity. However I also realise that not everything that goes on in my head - for example, when I'm listening to music - is deterministic or repeatable. Speaking for myself, if I describe the results of equipment changes, I try to do so in measured language, making it clear that it's my personal experience and without the intention of convincing others that they would or should hear the same things.

However, if I understand you correctly, you'd prefer not to have any subjective comments in the discussion. I'll try to bear that in mind in future.

Can someone please explain why the advocates of DBTs, which is the purest form of "listening" there is, can be accused of stating that listening is somehow "flawed""? Objectivists are actually begging you to listen! They just want you to listen without any other input affecting your evaluation.

Keith - I completely understand the points you're making and can see the danger of unsupportable claims becoming accepted as fact. I suppose the point where I might disagree with you is what should be allowed or encouraged as a topic of discussion on the forum - which is of course a matter of balance. Since you are a moderator your point of view naturally takes precedence.

Actually me being a moderator (which is largely an administrative task) should have any bearing on this. What matters is what the community wants.

Of course, opinions will be divided, but the majority of the community (or maybe the most vocal) seems to favour rationality over blind faith (which, at the moment, seems to be the only alternative being offered).

For the record, I have a science/engineering background and a natural tendency towards rationalism, reductionism and objectivity. However I also realise that not everything that goes on in my head - for example, when I'm listening to music - is deterministic or repeatable. Speaking for myself, if I describe the results of equipment changes, I try to do so in measured language, making it clear that it's my personal experience and without the intention of convincing others that they would or should hear the same things.

I would suggest you are unusual.

Most of the time it starts along the lines of "night and day" differences than even a profoundly deaf person could hear and, when challenged, gradually retreat. In one case what started as "night and day" differences gradually eroded to the point where I was told I would need to be training my ears for weeks on end, on equipment and in surroundings I was comfortable with, in order to hear the difference.

And then the implication was that if I couldn't, it was the fault of my ears or that I hadn't spent enough on equipment.

The rational, scientific viewpoint is, in my view, straightforward: if you make whacky, unconventional, or illogical sounding claims, you need to support that with evidence; real evidence.

Anyone who claims that "it sounded great to me" is evidence is inherently untrustworthy, because that is anti-science. Equally anyone who avoids or advises to avoid scientific methods like DBT/ABX when judging the comparative audio quality of equipment cannot be trusted because, in all likelihood, their views are completely false.

Of course a lot goes into the enjoyment of audio, and knowing you spend a lot on kit, or that you are using a trusted brand, or that the cables are sexy looking, can definitely enhance your enjoyment. In fact, it's fairly clear these things enhance many people's enjoyment far more than any real audio differences.

The problem lies when people claim real audio benefits where there are none, or none that can be proven, and where these claims can negatively impact the people they are advertising these claims to.

However, if I understand you correctly, you'd prefer not to have any subjective comments in the discussion. I'll try to bear that in mind in future.

I'm happy to have rational debate on it and, if the community wants it, I'm happy to have irrational debate on it too, as long as people realise it goes both ways: If you make an subjective comment on how good something sounds to you, expect some other member of the community to point out if that observation is contrary to known Science and Engineering, and that a proper assessment isn't complete without a meaningful scientific study.

Such arguments should, ideally, be accepted as the other side of the coin, and without claims of "bullying", or "closed-mindedness" or "science isn't always right", etc. that always accompany such responses.

Alternatively, be open-minded and conduct ABX testing before making such claims. As a student of Science and Engineering, you will know that (contrary to a lot of popular opinion) Science is largely all about being open minded, of coming up with different hypotheses and trying to prove or disprove them.

Of course it's not always easy to do this with full scientific rigour, but a number of people I know who have then done personal tests have been surprised at the results.

I agree that, at the end of the day, what matters most is personal comfort, but I am a strong advocate of the view that one's belief systems should not be foisted on others, and a lot of audiophilia is driven by unsubstantiated belief systems that have been cultivated by the marketing departments of audio equipment vendors.

Cheers,

Keith

Objectivists are actually begging you to listen! They just want you to listen without any other input affecting your evaluation.
Precisely - and listen using your ears, not anyone else's. Why this point gets missed where DBTs are concerned is a puzzle even to me, a non engineer.
What my brain makes of what my ears pass on is coloured by:
1. Expectation/Confirmation Bias
2. Louder - as little as 0.2 dB - sounds better effect
3. Other non auditory inputs
All that a level matched DBT seeks to do is eliminate to the extent possible, the effect of the above on the brain, leaving the input from just my ears to be the guiding criterion.
The idea behind propagating this view is to assist people that are new to this subject, to give them a rational way of assessing things for themselves rather than following a herd instinct.

It is also very possible that I may not hear the same improvement that someone else hears in a properly set up level matched DBT. All ears are not created equal, and some age faster than others.

I haven't however come across any such responses/ discussions here or elsewhere by anyone in response to a level matched DBT finding - if there are, it would be interesting to read them.

All the conversation seems to be about improvements found, assessed to be so on evidence of brain processes involving many inputs outside those from just the ears. And questions from people pointing this out.

SSDD.