Bybee's Lament - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: ztatic
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 11:05:41 am
content: "These unique devices are at the heart of every Bybee Slipstream and Golden Goddess plug-in “Instant Upgrade” product."Bybee Quantum Purifiers operate on the quantum mechanical level to regulate the flow of electrons that make up the signal (picture a metering light regulating freeway traffic flow). Current flow within the Quantum Purifier is unimpeded and ideal (think of the unencumbered flow of traffic on a lightly traveled expressway). During transit through the Quantum Purifier, quantum noise energy is stripped off the electrons, streamlining their flow through ensuing conductors. Unwanted quantum noise energy dissipates as heat within the Quantum Purifier rather than emerging as a layer of contamination residue over the audio/video information."http://bybeetech.com/Hmm. Looks to me like a snippet of wire running through a quantum of epoxy. Only $200 each.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 11:22:11 am
content: No.It's a rat hole filled with bullshit and no matter how hard you try they'll weasel word you to death with 'non ideal testing conditions', 'obvious sceptic with an agenda', any number of BS reasons why you're wrong and all the audiophools who want to believe will just take it as 'proof' that they know better.

author: borjam
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 11:25:24 am
content: Quote from: CJay on September 21, 2017, 11:22:11 amThe question here is, what kind of bullshit? Is it a premium Kobe bull or any other garden variety?

author: andtfoot
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 11:50:32 am
content: If I remember correctly, there's already a tear-down on diyAudio. I think it was just a low value standard resistor, possibly surrounded by some fluff (fibreglass or cotton or something).

author: Rbastler
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 12:08:29 pm
content: Quote from: andtfoot on September 21, 2017, 11:50:32 amWhen I saw the image, I immediately thought of a 2W resistor covered in black epoxy or thin heat shrink. Possibly a low value wire wound one, because I think I saw the wire on it.

author: ElektroQuark
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 12:40:47 pm
content: Does it work?Are free samples available?

author: f5r5e5d
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 12:41:05 pm
content: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/172673-bybee-quantum-purifier-measurement-analysis-89.html#post2379936Quote

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 12:45:33 pm
content: It would just be ten minutes of Dave saying "idiot" and wouldn't changeanything.Inside audiophile brains those things genuinelydowork (just like crystal peoplecanfeel the energy and electrosensitivesdoget ill).

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 01:02:27 pm
content: QuoteThat component got resistance -> no unimpeded current flowQuoteThat's great! The heat increases the Johnson–Nyquist noise. OopsOh my! They can't even get their audiophoolery BS right.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 01:19:56 pm
content: This sort of rubbish isn't worth the time.Doesn't matter how much technical review, testing or measurement is done to demonstrate how useless this thing is, there will still be "believers".I can't condone charlatans for this sort of practice, but they're like cockroaches - and exterminating them is nigh unto impossible as long as there's someone who will let themselves get sucked in.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 01:21:56 pm
content: Quote from: madires on September 21, 2017, 01:02:27 pmNow,thatis some A1, premium grade, top quality bullshit!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 01:26:07 pm
content: Not with a 10ft barge pole

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 01:27:28 pm
content: I bet it's just a carbon power resistor.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 01:34:44 pm
content: Quote from: EdoNork on September 21, 2017, 12:40:47 pmTrust me, when you pay good money for audiofool stuff like this, it works, and youwillhear the difference!

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2017, 02:15:03 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 21, 2017, 01:34:44 pmoh, but does it work if you were to get one for free?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 22, 2017, 02:40:54 am
content: Certainly ...... if youbelieveit does.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2017, 02:51:19 am
content: Usually this sort of rubbish is at least packaged to give the audiophool buyer the feeling it's "special properties" are contained within. I'm very disappointed with the blandness of the package.

author: neotesla
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 22, 2017, 12:52:12 pm
content: Plug-in speaker bulletsmust be the holy grail of audiophoolery. And they have a price to match.(The only slight problem is that they need 100-200h of "burn in" time before their full effect shows)

author: ztatic
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 22, 2017, 01:19:08 pm
content: I noticed just now that Bybee guards against debunking by declaring, in a sort of twisted/reverse proof, that the noise that his sheep-dipped resistors remove is undetectable to begin with:"Originally developed (and still used) for military applications, this quantum purification technology has proven that eliminating sub-audible noise—i.e., noise unmeasurable by typical test-bench instruments–at the quantum mechanical level produces previously unattainable resolution and beauty in home audio and video. "I wasn't aware the recipe for sheep dip was in the public domain.http://www.geniuskitchen.com/recipe/sheep-dip-sheep-dip-289431Anyway, I just thought it would be nice if there were an easily accessible, video take-down that audiophiles could find before letting their wallets be drained for intangible benefits.Hopefully, Dave will oblige, and he has access to a GC, so the the claim that this particular dip is not just epoxy can be peeled away once and for all.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2017, 01:40:21 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 21, 2017, 01:26:07 pmI vaguely recall you saying something about audiophoolery in the video you did together with Shariar.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2017, 01:53:38 pm
content: AND...if anyone actually performed a controlled experiment (A/B/X) followed by detailed measurements and a comprehensive teardown debunking the bullshit, the believers would still label it: "Fake News".

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2017, 02:03:06 pm
content: Quote from: ztatic on September 22, 2017, 01:19:08 pmIf you can't measure the noise with audio T&M you won't hear the difference unless the cognitive dissonance kicks in

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2017, 02:43:10 pm
content: Quote from: ztatic on September 22, 2017, 01:19:08 pmOnlya listening test is valid and Dave doesn't have Golden Earsora real audiophile HiFi setup to test them with, so...

author: ztatic
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 23, 2017, 12:59:40 am
content: Quote from: schmitt trigger on September 22, 2017, 01:53:38 pmWell, that's true, but if he were to prove that the sheep dip is nothing more than some common material, like epoxy, and under it is nothing more than a common resistor, then there's no electrical measurement or listening test needed. Bybee opened himself up to this when he claimed that the only way to identify the magical coating is by using a GC. The juicy conclusion would be something like, "So here's an ordinary resistor dipped in epoxy (or whatever it is). The seller charges and apparently gets $200 for it, and audiophools buy bunches of these things to stick just about anywhere in their audio and video equipment. Unless the movement of cash leaving the buyer's wallet has a magical and sustained effect on audio and video reproduction, then this item does absolutely nothing but add a tiny amount of noise."

author: ztatic
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 23, 2017, 01:01:06 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 21, 2017, 01:26:07 pmAw. please?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 23, 2017, 03:24:15 am
content: Quote from: ztatic on September 23, 2017, 01:01:06 amDon't hold your breath.I was actually surprised when Dave mentioned the 10ft barge pole. I thought for sure that he would have referred to the 20ft one - just to keep that much further away.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2017, 12:27:48 pm
content: Quote from: ztatic on September 23, 2017, 12:59:40 amYou mean like people have been doing with speaker cables for the last 40 years?There's amillion dollar prizefor anybody who can hear the difference between a $7000 speaker cable and a piece of Walmart lamp cord. Nobody's even tried to claim it yet (where are all the golden ears?)That challenge was posted on many big web sites, including the exchanges with the CEO of the company first accepting then chickening out, etc.Has that made any difference whatsoever? Nope. None at all. The company is still selling cables, people are still buying them.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2017, 07:12:13 pm
content: And once upon a time, there was the Tice clock

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2017, 08:10:08 pm
content: Abx tests don't work for quantum related audiophoolery stuff, the tester influences the experimentAnyway there is so many audiophools garbage out there, even stuff you have to stick on all wires, transformers and speakers and looks like womens pantyliners and they should clear up and improve the audio.Best thing to do is leave it as is, it is a can of worms and almost religious of nature, if you go to a de o and tell them you hear no difference it is you who is to blame, your ears or yourbrains, your sceptism whatever but not that sacred pantyliner they are selling

author: ztatic
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 23, 2017, 08:59:25 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on September 23, 2017, 08:10:08 pmSacred pantyliner! I love it.The reason I was thinking physical proof of ordinariness might help at least some borderline audiophools steer clear is that they don't trust A/B/X, and if they're smart, for good reason. Subtle audio effects are hard to tease out using even the most carefully arranged A/B/X, a problem apparently caused by plain old fatigue from the listening effort. (Of course, if something isn't relatively obvious, like the effect of moving the speakers an inch or two, then it isn't worth bothering with to start, but this isn't about reasonable expectations.) Snake oil dealers sometimes try using the fatigue effect to discredit negative A/B/X results, not seeming to get their own joke/koan that an improvement can be heard only when not trying to hear it.Anyway, the usual audio voodoo crap takes too long to switch in and out while maintaining otherwise identical conditions, so false positives are more likely than false negatives. How are you going to quickly A/B/X a box of panty liners scattered all around a system? As snake oil goes, panty liners are genius.About this having been done ad nauseam with wire, well, measurable wire differences exist, even to the point of low inductance speaker cable causing some poorly designed audiophool amplifiers to oscillate, an obvious effect indeed, but these Quantum Purifiers are something else.Even if panty liners, binding post antennas, tiny wall badges, and so on make a nice sound in the heads of the bamboozlable, I still think it's possible that the particular variety of pseudo-science incantations published by Bybee are vulnerable to pointing out that the basis is just a plain lie, from which no effects can evolve.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 24, 2017, 01:18:09 am
content: Quote from: ztatic on September 23, 2017, 08:59:25 pmWhile I fully appreciate your objective, the proof of "ordinariness" is something you can never achieve. No matter how thorough your argument, the snake oil merchants will simply create some mystical parameters that have no real meaning and wrap these in bullshit that makes them sound credible. Furthermore, since these mystical parameters have no actual physical presence, they will be impossible to empirically disprove.I could go on .... as we all could .... but it's a no-win battle - and I don't think there are many "borderline" audiophools. Any "reservations" about a particular product or claim would hint at some engineering reasoning - and as soon as that puppy is in play, all the smoke and mirrors begin to clear......

author: ztatic
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 24, 2017, 06:14:48 pm
content: It is a fact that there are people with technical acumen, who are nonetheless involved in the audiophool religion -- these people approach snake oil with a grain of salt, but tend to try it anyway.I know a bright and capable molecular biologist who, many years ago, before the days of YouTube, bought that green magic marker you might remember for the edges of his CD's to smooth the sound, and speaker cables that were made from coax suspended in oil-filled tubing. He said the marker was cheap enough to throw away, and he knew the cables might be BS, but got a "good deal" used on Audiogon. He couldn't say for sure that he heard a difference with the cables, but didn't see the harm in using them anyway.These people need reliable resources to refer to that serve to reinforce their better judgement. It's not a matter of fighting a quixotic battle against BS. It's a matter of providing defensive tools to the not entirely converted.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 24, 2017, 11:58:57 pm
content: While you might think someone with the nous to be a molecular biologistcouldunderstand why audiophool products are a waste, unless they have some fundamental understanding of the engineering involved, they are as clueless as the masses.While it is heartening to see their BS radar twitch a bit, the fact that they exchanged money for the possibility of a "better experience" still supports an industry that needs to lay down and die.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 01:29:22 am
content: The green marker pen would be plausible if it was an analog signal on the CD.People don't seem to get that $20 CD drives can read disks perfectly (at 56x normal spin speed no less!) and that bit errors would cause audible clicks, not reduced bass.I once tried to argue this point to a guy with an $8000 CD player. It was like talking to a brick wall.Also: Jitter is a myth. It's based on real math, yes, but any stray harmonics caused by jitter in the nanosecond range will be completely inaudible.(And that's using theexact same mathas the math you're using to prove that jitter is bad, mmmmkay. If my math is invalid then so is yours!)

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 01:57:40 am
content: In the countless audiophool threads, I'm sure it's been said before that we should probably jump in and take some of this money with our own BS audio device.I have one that could might actually have some merit and it involves no soundGiven the money paid by audiophools to extract every ounce of sound goodness from their systems, a quality pair of noise cancellation headphones to wear when you are not listening to your system will protect your biological aural system. This will preserve your ears so that they may be in a pristine state and can truly appreciate music at its molecular level

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 03:38:24 am
content: They're always after more "air", right?Let's sell something to pressurize the listening room. Denser air also gives more bass. Who doesn't want that?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 03:49:45 am
content: Why not combine that requirement with, say, habitat sales?The perfect solution would be underwater habitat. Naturally pressurised by the water above with the bonus of ambient noise suppression without all that dust-collecting anechoic material.Next comes along some entrepreneur who will sell you a water bubble you can install in your land based listening room, with all the equipment - and the listener - inside, giving you the same effect as the underwater habitat.The next evolutionary step would be for the "microcosm" solution involving a pair of waterproof headphones and a bucket of water to stick your head in.... and I fear somebody would actually do it.

author: Blocco
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 08:28:46 am
content: This thread wouldn't be complete without mentioning Peter Belt:http://www.pwbelectronics.co.uk/images-of-our-products

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 09:21:39 am
content: Quote from: Blocco on September 25, 2017, 08:28:46 amPleasetell me that's a piss take.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 09:24:44 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 25, 2017, 01:29:22 amYou are actually wrong on almost all counts (except, perhaps, the brick wall expression as it is subjective).1) The signal recorded on the CD is obviously analogue, it is read in an analogue way and then the digital information is recovered from it.2) Reading errors do not produce audible clicks and pops unless there is enough of them to overcome both the in-built error correction and the interpolation mechanism.3) Jitter is not a myth. Timing errors (=jitter) do reduce the resolution directly and 350ps jitter is roughly equals a 1 LSB error in 16bit 44.1kHz sampling.I did design several CD players in the past, and did some interesting investigation work on the subject of various influences on the sound quality, which resulted in a player which was mostly immune to the disk variations, green pens, recorded CDs etc from the sound quality point of view. There is a perfectly valid physics involved, no voodoo.CheersAlex

author: woody
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 09:48:57 am
content: I think that a $7k speaker cable will sound better, due to psychology. Listening to music involves much more than the technical voodoo used to get the signal from the source to its destination. Your brain plays the most important part in that. Your state of mind influences whether you like a particular piece of music, or not.I recon that having shelled out big money for a cable programs your brain to make it sound better, while this is not measurable in any way. Same effect goes for scopes, multi meters, signal generators, soldering irons and what not

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 11:29:57 am
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 25, 2017, 09:24:44 amMy $20 CD-drive can usually read an entire CD at full 56x speed without a single C2 error report (ie. that no error correction was necessary).If there's an error report it can always go back and retry at lower speed.Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 25, 2017, 09:24:44 amJitter will be down to whatever oscillator drives the DAC. It will be audible in even a $2 oscillator.What does 1 LSB error equate to in terms of noise floor?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 01:14:54 pm
content: About the size of a speck of dust between the granules in the grout between the tiles of that floor.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 03:53:10 pm
content: QuoteYep, that's the point.The statement "$7k speaker cable" simply sounds better than the statement "Piece of walmart lamp cord". That's it. The sound coming from the speaker is not better in any way.

author: medical-nerd
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 10:21:12 pm
content: I have to get one of those pwbelectronics 'spiratube' devices, they are well known to improve the aura of negative electrons - changing them to the more satisfying phase coherent positive electrons, so improving the immersion of the listener in the hyperspatial quantum environment, essential for appreciating the macrosonic nuances of 6th dimensional sound echos.Cheersedit : from the comments below , I don't think you realise this was a joke.......

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2017, 10:36:13 pm
content: Quote from: medical-nerd on September 25, 2017, 10:21:12 pmThat appears to be an off the shelf spiral wire wrap, available from several manufacturers for $0.25 per foot.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 01:14:04 am
content: Quote from: medical-nerd on September 25, 2017, 10:21:12 pm"well known" ? .... I must be living under a rock."positive electrons" ? .... Forget fusion! The solution to our power needs rests right here in antimatter!!!!

author: ztatic
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 01:36:35 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 24, 2017, 11:58:57 pmYou seem not to be a scientist, but don't you know any? Even a mere biologist has to take a semester or two of physics in college, never mind the usual year of physics in junior high school that everyone takes, or possibly high school.You say the industry should lay down and die, but argue for abandoning the hapless victims to the siren song of fraudsters' bullshit. You appear to wish that the tug from this revolting industry is left without a challenge that might reinforce the tug from the potential victim's better judgement.And the rest of you having fun imagining new forms of bullshit are no better. Anyone can do that. That's not what this thread is about. What the F. Is any of you over the  age of 14? I am out of here.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 03:06:24 am
content: its quantum mechanical guys remember? its quantum mechanical... btw quantum mechanical claim needs quantum mechanical proof (instrumentation)... and you can only find that instrument on the belt of this guy... so dont miss the opportunity if you happens to meet him...

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 03:43:04 am
content: @ztatic ... Did I touch a nerve?Doing a semester or two of physics does not guarantee any understanding of the engineering as implemented in real world technology. The fact that this molecular biologist even contemplates there might be some benefit is, to me at least, an exceptionally strong indicator of precisely that. Referring to High School physics is an even less compelling argument - unless you have a student who really grabs the subject by the throat - and they will be the ones that are not likely to fall for the BS.If anything, High School and physics courses that are not majors, simply provide the opportunity to present terminology - or should I say more specifically, words and phrases - that allow the BS spruikers to present a lexicon that sounds impressive. If you have someone with little interest in physics and has not bothered to follow that through to engineering and product design, then their "understanding" of physics is unlikely to help them with audiophoolery.Please understand, I am not saying that this is the situation for all such technical specialists - or even a majority of them. Far from it. I fully expect the majority to be well grounded enough to detect the BS a mile away. What Iamsaying, is that this is no guarantee.Quote from: ztatic on September 26, 2017, 01:36:35 amYour view on this is simplistic and naive.The whole spiel that the fraudsters put together is based on two fundamentals - provide enough technobabble to make it sound convincing to the victims and wrap it up in enough camouflage so that it's immune to debunking. The fraudsters are simply following a basic marketing ploy, with an added layer of self-preservation.I think you should pay more attention to the bullshit that is being rolled out - and come up with a definitive, categoric and authoritative test that can unequivocally debunk the claims from some of these products. You do that and I can guarantee that someone will take it up and do the test - but I put your chances of success so close to zero that it doesn't matter (Please ... prove me wrong!!)For whatever reason, the victimwantsto believe. Whether it is through something lacking in their life or they have just been convinced by a con artist or any one of a dozen reasons, theywantto believe. To make any progress with a victim's perception, you are going to have to introduce some doubt. Since, really deep down in their heart, they want to believe - and they have a "guide" who is ready and willing to cultivate that belief - you have an uphill battle to even gain credibility, let alone be able to present concrete evidence.Any attempt to challenge BS claims that does not clearly succeed - and this includes the BS suppliers conceding - doesnothingto defeat them. What itdoesdo is raise the visibility of the so-called "product". This falls under the heading of "there's no such thing as bad press". More people are going to know about it and that just increases the size of the pool from which victims can be drawn. If anything, challenges which fail to defeat the claims - as measured by the people who are selling them - will just result in them holding up such "failed" efforts asendorsementsof the validity of their BS claims.Quote from: ztatic on September 26, 2017, 01:36:35 amI thought this thread was about putting BS "products" in their place.Since direct confrontation has been explicitly planned for, ridicule is one avenue that is still available.QuoteI am sorry you feel that way, but this whole arena has been explored, discussed and analysed many times - and the only real progress has been made by the fraudsters as they have found ways to better "pad up" (a cricketing term) to face their enemies.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 06:06:24 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 26, 2017, 03:43:04 amYep. The really compelling argument (IMHO) is the "Here's $1,000,000 for anybody who can hear the difference in a blind test" argument.As noted earlier: The prize is still unclaimed after a decade.Conclusion:The "blind" part is 100% of the difference in sound.ie. The pretty cables sound just like Walmart lamp cord when you cover them up with a cloth.More importantly: If removing a cloth can improve sound thenso can wrapping bread bag ties around the cables.Quote from: ztatic on September 26, 2017, 01:36:35 amNot me!OTOH I'm of sufficientphysicalage to know that what you want has been done many times before, always with zero results.Reason: Bread bag ties really do work!Quote from: ztatic on September 26, 2017, 01:36:35 amG'bye!

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 01:01:01 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 26, 2017, 06:06:24 amAnd here we have exactly the same game as all these fraudsters from audio use (which makes you one of them). Your "conclusion" is false, as youassumedthat a blind test is a valid tool to use. Imagine that you measure a 9V battery with a 1000V scale needle voltmeter. Both fresh and almost discharged battery would give the same "0" reading, and you would safely conclude that there is no difference between them. That is exactly what you (and the rest of DBT crowd) do with the "blind test " argument. Blind tests are notoriously insensitive, especially if you try to build up a reasonable number of tries to make it statistically viable. Almost the only difference reliably noticed in these tests is "sound/no sound". I am exaggerating but please point me in the direction of astatistically validDBT with apositiveresult (that is, where a subjective difference was confirmed) in the sound quality area.Actually , the "blind test argument" in audio is one of the biggest frauds, forget all these snake oil salesmen, their tricks only work on idiots with deep pockets.CheersAlex

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 01:26:46 pm
content: Sorry - but all that ^ ^ ^ ^ makes no sense.The purpose of a double blind test is to prove theisno subjective difference.Your 1000V meter on a 9V battery is ridiculous as well. The audiological equivalent would be having a listener sit 1000 feet from the speakers with the volume set for a listener at 9 feet.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 01:40:01 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 26, 2017, 01:26:46 pmIt makes perfect sense. It is obviously very convenient to use a tool thatalwaysgives a negative result to prove that there is no difference - if that is the result you want. Same with a 1000V meter and 9V battery - if you want to prove there is no difference between batteries (for whatever reason) . If you prefer a more accurate analogy, you can use a broken meter, which always shows zero volts, no matter what the input is.CheersAlex

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 01:48:18 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 26, 2017, 01:40:01 pmUmmm... it doesn't always give a negative result.If you want a stupid hyperbolic example: Do you think nobody would be able to A/B test the difference between $3 bluetooth speaker and the $250k HiFi mentioned earlier in this thread.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 01:51:09 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 26, 2017, 01:48:18 pmYou've just proved my point, didn't you?CheersAlexP.S. - on a more serious note - you can not use a tool with an unknown sensitivity. It needs to be calibrated - and it is not possible withoutstatistically valid positive results. My guess is that you've tried to find some already and drawn blank... .

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 01:51:56 pm
content: Quote from: medical-nerd on September 25, 2017, 10:21:12 pmI did get it!A related story, from the place I work.We were having network errors at certain building locations. A lot of people were involved, because one of those locations was the General Director's office.Long story short; one of the engineers assisting the troubleshooting found the root cause: tight cable ties were slowing the current flow on the CAT5 cable!I'm not making this up.Of course, the fault was somewhere else.

author: woody
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 02:09:51 pm
content: Please tell me that was a bank and not some tech companyI worked at a bank in another lifetime where we had a problem with an incoming serial datafeed. So a 20k+ HP datascope was inserted in the link to look at the problem. The problem went away. When it was taken out again the problem re-occurred. Management solution: leave the datascope in. After some weeks someone with brains replaced a modem which really solved the problem, to free the scope for some other job.

author: xani
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 02:12:25 pm
content: It's always something wrong with "the network"... then it's some firewall on user side... or they just typed a wrong address... or forgot to set something up... or didn't RTFM

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 02:23:25 pm
content: Quote from: schmitt trigger on September 26, 2017, 01:51:56 pmCat5 (especially if it was 5, not 5e and had gigabit Ethernet running over it) is sensitive to crush and over-tight bends as both disturb the twist and therefore impedance thus causing reflections.Don't forget that 1000mbps Ethernet involves sending a 250MHz signal down twisted pair, it does get a bit tetchy sometimes.

author: Don Hills
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 10:21:10 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 26, 2017, 01:51:09 pmCalibration of a DBT is essential. You have to have positive and negative controls.You could have just said that instead of getting folks riled up.Maybe you could redeem your reputation by suggesting how this could be done for Bybee testing.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 10:31:42 pm
content: Quote from: Don Hills on September 26, 2017, 10:21:10 pmMaybe you could provide a link to a paper that describes a DBT (for audio) withstatistically valid positive results?CheersAlex

author: ztatic
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 11:18:43 pm
content: NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator Simon for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.An optional additional explanation is:

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 11:28:53 pm
content: Quote from: ztatic on September 26, 2017, 11:18:43 pmOK now that's really out of line.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 11:47:33 pm
content: Quote from: ztatic on September 23, 2017, 08:59:25 pmWell, let's get the Streisand effect started, shall we?This above sentence is utter bullshit. The whole point of ABX testing is to determine if the subject can tell a difference. If a supposed audiophile can't tell the difference, it's because there is no discernible difference. Chalking the lack of result up to "listening fatigue" is bullshit - that's saying "I was trying so hard to notice the difference that I couldn't notice the difference". It's circular bullshit logic at it's most laughable.So audiophools are not smart to distrust ABX testing. They are idiots for distrusting it.And it seems like you have an ulterior motive... there always seem to be people who bring up audiophool bullshit, then give some passing compliments to the industry or make some accommodations for it... like "well, you can't trust ABX testing, though" above. People who understand logic and science and know audiophoolery is BS wouldn't waste time debunking it anymore than they would waste time "proving" to someone that their faith in some phantom god is equally foolish. Because those people don't want to know the truth - they want to believe.Dave doing a whole series of videos isn't going to change these people's minds because their minds are defective from the start. They lack logic and reasoning power so how can you use logic and reasoning to convince them? You can't.Anyone who loses money due to this audiophoolery stuff is pretty much a victim of their own stupidity. The only exception I'd make is the crap being sold at Best Buy or other major retailers... those consumers have a legitimate reason to believe the products sold are vetted and not outright scams, and they are also generally unsophisticated consumers. But I still have little sympathy for them.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2017, 11:50:38 pm
content: Quote from: ztatic on September 26, 2017, 11:18:43 pmWow.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 07:48:54 am
content: Quote from: ztatic on September 26, 2017, 11:18:43 pmNo, that's nowhere near enough, sorry.

author: woody
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 08:30:29 am
content: You can checkout any time you like, but you can never leave

author: polli
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 08:41:51 am
content: I'm not sure all this hate and ridicule is warranted. Not only you're being way more aggressive than him, but you're also a lot of people ganging up on one. I can understand why he would like to unregister from the forum.@ztatic: one way to avoid the notifications would be to flag them as spam in your mail client. That usually stops them from getting in your inbox. If it doesn't, maybe see if your client has some sort of blacklist.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 09:18:02 am
content: Nobody was 'ganging up' on him.He was told - repeatedly - why trying to debunk this sort of rubbish is pointless. He refused to listen to the reasons and took exception to that.I'm sorry - but to be blunt, he has shown all the immaturity of an 'entitled' teenager who cannot accept criticism nor accept that there are things he doesn't know and/or understand.Either that, or there is a real problem closer to home that he did not share.

author: xani
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 12:28:32 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on September 26, 2017, 11:47:33 pmI wouldn't call it all "stupidity", just ignorance, you need technical knowledge to know why a lot of audiophool bullshit is ridiculous, and audiphool industry goes a long way to make their magical boxes appear highly technical, and to mix some truths into the lie to make it seem more believable.Of course, when someone says that double blind tests, used in every other science are "not to be trusted" then they are utter idiot, but customer with zero EE knowledge will just go "well my $30 cable is better than $3 (even if it because someone didn't bother to make good connectors on $3 one and it crackled), clearly the $300 one will be even better"

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 12:35:08 pm
content: Quote from: xani on September 27, 2017, 12:28:32 pmAnd why double blind tests should be trusted in audio? Just because many people say so? It is not science, it is a pure BS, essentially the same as all these snake oil products sellers use. So far not even a single link to a paper describing a DBT (for audio) with statistically valid positive results was posted here. Perhaps you can post one?CheersAlex

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 12:42:52 pm
content: Any real world science argument can not stand ground with the folk that believe they can hear something that others can not even measure.Anyone here with a scientific mind will probably not even be able to watch this short 5 min video through to the end. And then, it seems people are spending money on this stuff.LessLoss Cables Models and how they sound.mp4

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 01:05:21 pm
content: Quote from: HighVoltage on September 27, 2017, 12:42:52 pmYea I've seen his "reviews". Utterly delusional.Quote from: xani on September 27, 2017, 12:28:32 pmI know lots of people who are smart but don't understand electricity or electronics. That's totally OK. When they come over here and see my ham shack and test equipment they are totally lost. Again we all have our areas of expertise, and they probably know things that I don't have a clue about ...But we are here to talk about a very technical thing which demands expertise and measurements. If a non-technical audio geek goes to these websites and "studies" the claims and reads paragraph after paragraph of bamboozlement, they will then begin to think they "understand" why these items are better, such reading the descriptions of products here -Less LossSo they end up with a false sense of knowledge. Their technical knowledge - or what they think of as knowledge - isn't knowledge at all. It's basically, well, like religion. It's simply indoctrination - inculcation - and had no actual basis in real physics. If you hang out with true believers and study their texts for long enough, get reinforecement from your peers, you will believe. It's a belief but has no justification based in reality, But, they believe and so the market exists ...

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 01:15:30 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 27, 2017, 12:35:08 pmWhat you're saying is thatallspeakers/amps sound exactly the same. Nobody can hear any difference at all in any test.Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 27, 2017, 12:35:08 pmAnd then you act all smug because nobody goes and researches that for you??

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 01:58:55 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 27, 2017, 01:15:30 pmOh, I did my research alright , after all I was in the industry for many years. I mean, how difficult it could be to find one paper, after all it is an industry standard, isn't it?CheersAlex

author: f5r5e5d
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 02:02:18 pm
content: Fastl, Zwicker "Psycho-Acoustics Facts and Models"http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540231592#aboutBook463 pages, 313 figures, 53 Psychoacoustics Demos on (downloadable) CD-ROMSøren Bech, Nick Zacharov "Perceptual Audio Evaluation - Theory, Method and Application"http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470869232.html

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 02:04:49 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 27, 2017, 01:58:55 pm"Standard"?I thought it was just something that audiophools run screaming from. It's the monster under their beds.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 02:13:38 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 27, 2017, 12:35:08 pmI am having trouble with your statement, but before I go any further, can I please ask what you mean by "positive results"?Please do not talk about "statistically valid". I think most of us understand what that means ... just let us know what you mean by "positive results".

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 02:19:16 pm
content: Quote from: f5r5e5d on September 27, 2017, 02:02:18 pmYes, a good book. Perhaps you can point me to a page where a blind test or a double blind test described? Or at least mentioned?CheersAlex

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 02:33:28 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 27, 2017, 02:13:38 pmBy "positive results" I mean that the difference in the sound with a change in (the system, the source, etc), was actually reliably detected rather than not detected in a double blind test. Only a "positive" result could provide a step in establishing the sensitivity of the procedure.CheersAlex

author: f5r5e5d
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 02:55:08 pm
content: are you just trolling? (as if I have to ask)every human hearing result, figure is based on blind listening tests as documented in the bibliography, simply can't get Psychoacoustic results published in peer reviewed journals without adhering to blinded test protocols, showing statistically significant positive resultsits just weak rhetoric if you are going to try to peel off AB/X from related Triangle, MUSHRA, ect.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 03:24:19 pm
content: Quote from: f5r5e5d on September 27, 2017, 02:55:08 pmDid I say anywhere that the positives do not exist? I just think it would be very educational to show on an example what kind of differencescanbe reliably detected in a DBT. Audio industry is forced to use a bad tool as there is no known alternative. It does not make the tool any better.CheersAlex

author: f5r5e5d
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 03:58:56 pm
content: Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338JND Loudness vs FrequencyI occasionally get push back when showing this from 'audiophiles' that don't believe you have to match to 0.1 dB to avoid this blinding protocol 'leak'some bragged that ~"we matched the preamps to 1 dB"

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 03:59:33 pm
content: Oh there are plenty alternatives and the great advantage is that there is objective test equipment that can detect differences better than humans. Try that with for instance wine tasting where such devices can only detect alcoholpercentage and colour but no sensor to objectively measure taste.The huge problem is that equipment that measures objectively better for instance less distortion and bandwith of 0-100kHz vs 0-22kHz does not necessarily sound better to a human.But to get back on topic those objective measurement devices do not detect any difference when an audiophoolery accesory is used. None, nada zero. So the main question is then do we know and understand all essential parameters that contribute to audio perception and is the accesory indeed fraude or is there more that meets the ear?

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 04:09:48 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on September 27, 2017, 03:59:33 pmI would agree on all points, it is not a problem to measure differences, the problem is to correlate these measurements with the listening experience. As I did design equipment for mass production I could not afford any of that voodoo stuff, so I had to find definite hardware reasons for variations in the sound quality. In most cases it was possible even if sometimes with quite unexpected results.CheersAlex

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 04:25:24 pm
content: And as with other human sensory stimulants such as beverage, food etc, do these experiences not vary with the mood you are in and experiences prior to this one? Is it possible for a human being to be absolutely objective?I have listened to quite some setups in my lifetime but I find it impossible to "store" the experience to compare it later on. There might be persons in this world that do, as there are persons with for instance absolute hearing that can 100% positively say which note is played at any time (a human frequency counter)I am neither and have sold and changed setups till I was happy and now stick with it.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 05:09:17 pm
content: Quote from: f5r5e5d on September 27, 2017, 03:58:56 pmYes, that's a well known problem. Easy to avoid with passive components though, eg. cables, magic rocks, etc.The Audiophools will just say the cables aren't properly burned in though, or that too much skepticism sucks all the energy from the magic rocks.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 05:13:51 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on September 27, 2017, 04:25:24 pmOf course.When you last had lunch has a far greater influence on the sound than any cable ever could.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 27, 2017, 06:34:53 pm
content: Quote from: ztatic on September 26, 2017, 11:18:43 pmWish granted

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 12:54:28 am
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 27, 2017, 02:33:28 pmTo take this on face value, it would seem that you are saying that the only way a DBT could be considered valid is if there were positive statistically significant results identifying a difference that we are saying cannot objectively exist. If this be the case, then - by definition - it cannot ever be demonstrated.However, in trying to place what you are saying into a scenario thatcanachieve the desired result, I have this proposal, assuming we have the ability to switch configurations in a suitable manner:- That instead of changing just one parameter - the audiophoolery device being in or out - we have a second parameter that is also changed. The change in this second parameter would need to be subtle, but one that would beexpectedto be detectable, especially in a statistically significant sample.- The test would be run, varying both parameters and the results analysed.- For the results to be valid, the variation of the secondary parameter should be clearly identifiable. If not, then the whole test should be dismissed. With a valid test, if the audiophoolery product were actually making a difference, then this, too, should be clearly identifiable - but if there is no statistically significant differentiation, then the audiophoolery product can be said to have no effect.@Alex Nikitin - is this the sort of thing you meant?There are two questions, though. The first is "What should this secondary parameter be?". To be appropriate to the test, I imagine it should probably produce an effect that is the same as the audiophoolery product claims. That, in itself, would seem to be a challenge - but considering the claimed effects of these products are so indefinite, does it really matter?The second question is: Do you have a 3 state test or a 4 state test? In a 3 state test, the configurations would be: (i) Vanilla (ii) with Audiophoolery device (iii) with secondary parameter change. A 4 state test would have one extra state: (iv) with Audiophoolery deviceandsecondary parameter change. (Not sure which way to lean on this one.)Just putting this out there...

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 07:13:12 am
content: @brumby perhaps you should read the arguments against abx first.The most given arguments are that humans have no audio memory to compare two sources in different times. Others are that listening to audio is fatigueing the ear and influencing what comes next.Let alone differentiate three, four etc. perhaps try an abx test yourself first a couple of times there are some online to differentiate between 128kb mp3 and wav for instance.I have done a few in my time and failed them all even between sacd and cd, only the last one on tv between a new violin and stadivarius i had right, but since that were only two samples it could be luck , statistics remember?

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 07:49:36 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on September 28, 2017, 07:13:12 amWe don't have a very good color memory, either. You can perceive subtle differences in color (each Munsell color coordinate is perceptually distinct) but remembering specific colors over any timespan is nigh impossible. The same is likely to be true for all subjective experiences.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 08:01:13 am
content: I've had a lot of critical experience with colour on a day-to-day basis - not so much with audio. I'm also aware of the impact proper statistical analysis can have against common beliefs.The point is well taken - but that leaves us with the question: How do you demonstrate audiophool products to be the fraud that they are?

author: Rbastler
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 08:18:15 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 28, 2017, 08:01:13 amWy do you need to demonstrate they are a fraud ? Who demonstrated with what that they are legit in the first place ? No need to disproof something, that wasnt proven in the first place.Just making claims isnt a proof. Thats what those who make audiophool stuff so, making claims or getting some dubious certificates and fancy brouchures. Which reminds me of Daves "White van speaker scam" video, where he mentions they showed you fancy brouchures.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 08:19:49 am
content: @color: nice experiment take two lightsources with different colortemperature for instance 2700K and 4000K, put a red cocacola can in a dark room only light the 4000k source wait and look at the can for two minutes, switch light off and light the 2700K light, the can color looks totally different more orangered, wait two minutes and your brain adapts so it is red again. You can switch back again and have the same effect.The brain is very tricky.Quote from: Brumby on September 28, 2017, 08:01:13 amGood question, personally my answer would be if the objective measurement devices can not detect any change, there probably is no change ( in the known parameters as volume, frequency spectrum etc.)Let the audiophool sellers explain why something would make a difference and make a fool of themselves with their unscientific mumbojumbo.And as a last remark before i am going to continu enjoying my vacation in the lovely tuscan landscape why should we try to prevent fools for buying this stuff anyway?I mean it is surely noble to protect people from fraude but as can be seen with Dave and the batteroo case it takes infinite more energy to counter a false claim then to make a false claim, and those arguments were compared to audio rather easy to contradict and proof wrongly.A lot of buyers from audiophoolery are rather happy with their purchase, i think the same for homeopathic medicine, where one molecule of active medicine is present in 5000 litres of flyid, making the odds that this molecule is in your bottle of 10ml very tiny.Do we have to do this for everything everywhere?

author: xani
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 08:46:11 am
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 27, 2017, 04:09:48 pmSo what you are really saying is "we make audio equipment perform objectively worse so it is perceived as subjectively better" ?

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 08:53:51 am
content: Maybe it helps to distinguish different types of claims, because I don't think they are all scammy or at least not in the same way:Type 0: Certain components have audibly distinct characters, which is consistent with their measurements and theory of operation. Type A/AB/D amplifiers, DHTs, etc. Different loudspeakers and headphones.Type 1: Claimed differences in sound which have measurable differences, but no reason to believe one is the cause of the other. Rolling different opamps. Fancy (>$10,000) turntables. Isolation transformers. High-end CD players.Type 2: Physical differences may be present, but measuring them is extremely difficult and the likelihood of audible changes is very remote. Boutique capacitors. Contact enhancing liquids. OFC cable?Type 3: No measurable difference exists, and the suggestion of audible changes is laughable. "Audio grade" solder. Special power cable. "Quantum" anything.One problem with using instrument measurements as a proxy for subjective hearing is that you need the right measurement, and the corresponding instrument might not exist. I think this is the distinction between Types 2 and 3: OK, I'll grant that it is possible that there is some harmonic microphonic effect or magnetostriction or something that is better or worse in a $600 capacitor. I don't know how you'd go about proving it but the remote possibility is there. It does seem like a real engineer would design the system to not be so sensitive to that slight difference, making the overall effect negligible. But it's totally clear that "quantum purifiers" do nothing; there isn't any conceivable instrument that would show an (electrical) difference from an off the shelf resistor.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 09:03:19 am
content: Quote from: xani on September 28, 2017, 08:46:11 amNo, never in my designs. I do not believe in introducing crap into the signal for subjective purposes (except when dithering a digital already crappy signal). However a budget design is always a compromise, so you have to balance the limitations to get the right sound - without sacrificing the technical performance. There isa 2001 review of one of my designsavailable on-line from Stereophile website, including measurements, you can see for yourself.CheersAlex

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 09:09:14 am
content: Quote from: Rbastler on September 28, 2017, 08:18:15 amThis is a perfect question for the Op ... pity he's not around any more.For the rest of us, I would say it's a simple matter of seeing engineering used to dress up cow dung and selling it as perfume.It stinks.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 10:00:57 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on September 28, 2017, 07:13:12 amThat's because SACD is audiophoolery.CD's 41kHz@16bit is about as much as humans can hear, there's simply no need for more.You couldmaybeargue the case for 48kHz@16bit but not for 96kHz or 24 bits.(for playback purposes - mixing/recording is another matter)

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 10:02:22 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on September 28, 2017, 07:13:12 amSo how do golden ears know the magic stones have improved the sound?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 10:17:28 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 28, 2017, 10:00:57 amWorse that that, it's a con.SACDs have normal CD audio on the same disc, the high-def SACD audio is in a separate layer of metal underneath that.I once ripped the ordinary CD audio off a SACD disc because it was supposed to be a newMFSL"gold" remaster using all sorts of fancy equipment to get the best possible sound. I wanted to see if it was better than the standard CD.Guess what? It was massively low pass filtered. Not subtly,massively...I'm guessing there's a button on the SACD player to switch between CD and SACD audio so they low pass filtered the CD version to make the SACD sound better when the salesman presses the button "for comparison".Here's a GIF of the two versions:

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 11:27:10 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 28, 2017, 10:00:57 amThe argument for faster sample rates is for easier filter topology (3dB/octave from 20ish kHz rather than needing a brick wall anti-alias filter). I don't think there's any argument for 24bits playback.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 12:01:12 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 28, 2017, 10:00:57 amWasn't that 44.1kHz?And for some music, especially classic, 18 or 20 bits would be great.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 12:17:21 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on September 28, 2017, 11:27:10 amSure, hence the case for 48kHz - to allow some wiggle room in less-than-ideal hardware reconstruction filters.OTOH this is the 21st century and we live in a world of $2 audio DACs with integrated DSPs. If the DSP inside the DAC can do sin(x)/x reconstruction on the 44.1kHz data then higher bitrates simply aren't needed. You have a perfectly reconstructed signal inside the chip which can be 'resampled' methematically at any bitrate you or your output hardware could possibly desire.nb. For this to happen the signal on the CD needs to bandwidth limited to about 20kHz at the mixing/mastering stage (hence the justification for higher bitrates there).

author: polli
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 12:17:51 pm
content: Quote from: madires on September 28, 2017, 12:01:12 pmThe quieter parts might need more bit depth if they were on their own, but if the whole piece is normalized, at what volume are you listening that you can hear the quantization on the low volume parts?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 12:19:33 pm
content: Quote from: madires on September 28, 2017, 12:01:12 pmOops, brain fart...Quote from: madires on September 28, 2017, 12:01:12 pmTime to repost this?(bonus: Lots of analog test gear porn...)

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 01:14:45 pm
content: Quote from: helius on September 28, 2017, 07:49:36 amI think this [colour memory] is one of those things where there is a lot of variation in human abilities and, as with pitch, some outliers where there are some people with uncannily accurate colour memory, just as there as some people with perfect pitch. I used to know a printer who could, maybe 7 times out of 10, name a Pantone colour just from looking at a sample swatch. If he didn't get it exactly right he'd still have named one of the adjacent colours in the Pantone book.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 01:51:50 pm
content: Quote from: polli on September 28, 2017, 12:17:51 pmIf you hear rustling in the bushes behind you sometime in the next few days, it's a classical music recording engineer sneaking up behind you to garotte you with a mic cord because he's taken deep offence at the suggestion that a classic recording engineer wouldevernormalize the levels on a recording.I can't think of an actual piece where this happens, but it's quite plausible that there exists a piece of music that has both a solitary piccolo solo and full orchestra playingfortissimo[For the non music readers that's the Italian notation forvery loud]. Under those circumstances it's quite plausible that the noise floor becomes audible during the piccolo solo.Lets see how that pans out in numbers.You can debate the dynamic range of human hearing, but it's at least 120 dB. The dynamic range of a full orchestra is about 50 dB (again, open to debate). Domestic background noise when it's 'quiet' is usually around 40 dBA SPL. 16-bit SNR is 96 dB, 24-bit SNR is 144 dB.So 16-bit with a 50 dB orchestral dynamic range would leave that theoretic piccolo 46dB above the recording noise floor, for 24-bit it'd be 94 dB above the noise floor. It's quite clear that 94 dB SNR is a non-starter, you'd never hear the noise. What about 46 dB SNR? If you set up so that the piccolo was clearly audible, let's say 60 dBA SPL (quiet speech) the noise floor of a 16-bit recording would be -26 dB to the noise floor of the listening room and the full orchestra would be at 110 dBA SPL, just 10 dB shy of most people's auditory pain threshold.Conclusion: 16-bit is adequate for even the widest dynamic range of orchestral music when listened to in domestic surroundings with 40 dBA SPL background noise. Even in a music studio listening room (typical background 20 dBA SPL) it would still be acceptable. If you wish to listen to full dynamic range orchestral music in an anechoic chamber,thenyou will need 24-bit encoding.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 02:09:45 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 28, 2017, 01:51:50 pmAnd IMHO it is a wrong conclusion, at least for the "CD standard" 44.1kHz sampling rate. We are not normally using audio equipment to listen for some noise or continuous tones, we usually listen to music, human voice or a combination of both (I am discounting special effects in movies as these can be generally put into the "noise" category). It appears however that we use "noise, distortion, dynamic range" as relevant values where in practice they are not the most relevant, otherwise I wouldn't be able to hearmoremusic (meaning more details, more ambiance) from a good cassette recording (inferior on all these points) than from a (properly made) CD recording (assuming a quality hi-res or analogue master recording is used to create both). For me it means that we are missing something in the usual way we evaluate the audio equipment quality.CheersAlex

author: newbrain
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 02:22:59 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 28, 2017, 01:51:50 pmAnd that conclusion is drawn with the very conservative 96dB estimation (6dB/bit) for the noise floor.If (shaped) dithering is used, that figure goes up a lot, allowing resolve signals with amplitude of 1/4 of a bit.From Monty's video:https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM?t=814

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 02:54:35 pm
content: Quote from: newbrain on September 28, 2017, 02:22:59 pmTo be more precise, I'm assuming an Effective Number Of Bits of 16-bits. ADC/DACs being what they are, and data sheet specsmanship being what it is, most 'audio' ADC/DACs are a good couple of bits worse than what they claim. To be realistic, you'd have to run my numbers again substituting something closer to the ENOB actually achieved.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 03:06:33 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 28, 2017, 02:54:35 pmYep. There's nothing technically wrong with using 192kHz @ 24bit for recording/mastering.(although finding a microphone with that much sensitivity will be challenging)

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 03:13:32 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 28, 2017, 10:00:57 amWell there have been new developments (couple years back) backed by experiments and published by the AES that (sample)time is crucial for pinpointing the source of a sound signal and that humans are able to go as low as 10us. That would mean a samplerate of 200kHz not for frequency but for correct timealignment.Part of this is now used for MQA which I personally find also audiophoolery since they use filtering and folding and copy protection so they can get license fees for their drm while a native wav sample of 255kHz would be far superior but that aside.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 03:20:43 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 28, 2017, 12:17:21 pmIn 1979 there was a song called "video killed the Radio star", by the one-hit-wonder group The Buggles.The parody most likely today would be named: "MP3 killed the SACD"

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 03:30:10 pm
content: There is an obvious reason quantum physics and effects are mentioned so often in product descriptions concerning these kinds of products. It's how they make something that's amazing to some, but sucks to other. It's Schrödinger all over again.

author: f5r5e5d
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 03:39:19 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on September 28, 2017, 03:13:32 pmnot right, 10 us iatd resolution has nothing to do with hearing or needing to record > 20 kHz or sample at more than just adequate by Nyquist ratesit is a remarkable result but it relies on the power of our neural nets for doing correlation of entirely 'in band' 'conventional audio frequency' 20 - 20 kHzas for encoding fractional sample time differences in digital audio, Monty shows, and its trivial to do yourself with a Spice with wavefrom analysis - make a raised sin envleoped tone burst, define a 2nd with fractional sample delay, pass thru .wav i/o @ 16/44 - you can then see in the fft analysis nanosecond resolution of the tone fundamental phase delay after the 16/44 step

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 03:40:47 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 28, 2017, 02:09:45 pmOh Alex, now you've gone and torn it. I was with you on the whole Double Blind thing, I got what you were on about even if it seems to have passed over the heads of a number of people.But now I think that you're heading off into the audio la-la land of the purely subjective. As a man who used to sit somewhere between a dirty great 24 track Studer A800 and a thumping great pair of Lockwood monitors and thus has quite some experience of really, really listening to what is going on I have to take issue with the claim that a cassette tape recording somehow contains "more music (meaning more details, more ambiance)" than a CD. I've listened to the 'detail' disappearing from what I heard in the studio as it's gone off to the pressing plant (yup, my era was vinyl and a completely analogue signal chain*) or cassette duplicating plant. Beyond a shadow of a doubtmyimpression is that a well recorded CD retains much more of the character of what I've heard first hand than a well recorded cassette ever could. Yes, that is a subjective judgement, but it's based on experience of hearing every part of the reproduction chain from the actual music, through the reproduction of that in the monitoring room, the master tape, the mixed master tape and the finished LP/cassette.And "ambience"? There's an airy fairy audiophile word if ever I heard one. Unless one means it in the strict sense of 'ambient sounds' it's a pretty useless term that seems almost to be picked for the difficulty in pinning down what it means. If it is meant in the strict sense then it's very difficult to see how 'ambient' and 'direct' sounds are conceivably processed differently by a cassette or a CD. How will a CD "know" that a particular sine wave is 'ambient' or 'direct'? The only place in the reproduction chain where there is a real difference in ambient and direct sounds is at the microphone.I'm sorry if that all sounds a bit harsh, but you can't flip from raising (entirely justifiable) concrete, quantifiable, concerns about objective test methodologies to using phrases like "more music" to support a position. The subjectivity of latter completely undermines your taking an objective point on the former.*We had one bit of outboard equipment that was digital, an Eventide Harmonizer.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 04:00:06 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 28, 2017, 03:40:47 pmI can understand your position very well, however I also have many years of experience in the sound equipment design, as well as in the sound recording and reproduction, and what I say, I am not saying lightly. I wish (with all my engineering background and experience) that I could make more sense out of it and find a way to measure directly what my ears tell me, however I've found so far no way to do it. On the other hand, if I would not follow my ears and my "instincts" on the sound quality, I would never be able to design some pretty decently sounding electronics. I've spent countless hours trying to measure things and even more time trying to make sense out of these measurements. But at the end it was a simple choice - either I do follow what I hear with a hope to get a good result, or I don't - and make useless crap.And I fully agree, that the majority of cassettes, especially mass produced, did sound pretty bad. You are quite welcome to visit my home and listen to a cassette made right.CheersAlexP.S. - I agree that the term "ambience" is ambiguous, and would for the purpose of this discussion to define it as background sounds which can be easily masked by loud sounds.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 04:21:25 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 28, 2017, 04:00:06 pmIt's OK I don't need to, got rid of the Nakamichi years ago (when it was still worth something) and somewhere, under a layer of dust, there's still a quite decent 3 head Teac that hasn't been used in more years that I care to remember. I might drop in sometime to compare our ideas of what 10V looks like, but that's a completely different topic.OK. Here's what I don't get. How can youdesignsomething to 'sound right' if you don't know what, technically, 'sounds right' equates to? Randomly drop components in, randomly adjust values, randomly substitute semiconductors? At what point does that become indistinguishable from sacrificing chickens and goats?I do understand that the latter is standard, accepted RF design methodology, as are the chanting and the black robes.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 04:24:01 pm
content: Quote from: f5r5e5d on September 28, 2017, 03:39:19 pmSo the whole multimillion dollar MQA story that they need parts of the 255kHz sampling in order to reproduce the original sample timing within 10us is a hoax?

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 04:36:58 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 28, 2017, 04:21:25 pmWho said anything about Nakamichi (or Teac for that matter)?!And on the design side - let's say, it requires a combination of knowledge, experience, good ears and a sizeable amount of luck. And all the measuring equipment you can afford, borrow or steal .CheersAlex

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 05:14:00 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 28, 2017, 04:36:58 pmAnd there's the nub. If you don't know what 'sounds right' equates to in objective terms, what good is the measuring equipment doing you? (Beyond allowing you to design for mundane things like distortion, transient response etc. etc.)

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 06:35:19 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 28, 2017, 05:14:00 pmMeasurements are essential. Practically all changes can be traced to a measurable difference, and especially in production it is important to be consistent. When a design is competed, accurate and extensive measurements allow for a tight quality control. Without measurements you are blind and it is not possible to rely only upon your ears all the time. You learn to check and double check your listening experience, but without measurements it is easy to make a crap design from a technical point of view. I always put the technical excellence first - unfortunately, it is not enough to produce a good sound. So normally you get the measurements right and only then "tune" the design by ear. And after that you measure the differences (usually small) and do a second round of listening. And third, and so on. You can easily make a mistake in one session, for a variety of reasons, but usually a long term listening, in various situations and conditions, is the best bet to get things right.CheersAlex

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 07:32:00 pm
content: Right, so you don't design it to sound 'right', you design it to work right and then fiddle. As you don't know what, in a technical sense, makes it sound right, that fiddling is just random. If that fiddling isn't just random, then you do know what makes it right, in a technical sense, and thus ought to be able to measure that. What I'm chipping away at here is the claim to 'designing' the sound. If itisdesign, then itisquantifiable and, by corollary, if you can't quantify it then it isn't design it'ssomething elsewhich I don't have a name for.What differentiates thissomething elsefrom audiophoolery? I'm not trying to be insulting by asking that, I'm inviting you to offer a reasoned defence of your methodology that differentiates it from all the other unquantifiable arsing around much beloved of the audiophool community.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 08:17:19 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 28, 2017, 07:32:00 pmIt is not as simple as this. The base design gives you a platform to work on. The tuning is not random, it is quite targeted, as listening usually gives you a pretty good idea where to look and what to try and change - it comes from experience. It may involve changing the time constants in various places, DC operating points, sometimes the layout, power supply parameters, thermal constants and arrangements. Usually these changes do not involve a substantial change in overall measured performance, if the base design is correct. Sometimes this kind of search can be guided by measurements (for example, when I did design a CD-player with CS4396 DAC chip in it, just released at that time, I was not happy with the sound the chip produced and discover that lowering the DAC reference voltage by about a volt, from 5V to 4V, and substantially increasing values of some capacitors around the chip gives considerably better measured performance and somewhat unsurprisingly, a better sound to boot). In some of my designs I did include a user accessible tuning knob, as I've found that a certain parameter can be changed in a particular system for the best performance.My approach is quite straightforward, actually. Even the very best technically (and expensive) designs are not perfect, what matters is how the electronics reacts to a musical signal going through it. The footprint of the system can be benign from the music perception point of view, and can be unpleasant even if all usual technical parameters are very good. The idea of tuning is to make the system's signature as benign as possible so it does not interfere with our perception. For that reason I do not believe in deliberate lowering the performance, "colouring" of the sound and all that crap. The system should be as transparent as possible, and as technically perfect as possible (for a given budget), and these two sides are not mutually exclusive.CheersAlex

author: kalel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 08:20:51 pm
content: I have no experience whatsoever in audio design, nor do I own any high end audio equipment.But the problem with listening based adjustments could be that every person hears things differently (or one problem at least).Not only the "built-in lowpass" that changes over time (this is probably accounted for by simply not using the high end when recording/mixing songs), but other factors that may be present in how someone perceives sound.I usually listen to sound on my computer, mp3 player or phone.With different devices, I can usually hear a difference, mostly because they are (most likely) measurably different.With different earphones (usually cheap ones) I can also hear a difference. E.g. on one set there is more bass, on another there is more treble and the bass is quite difficult to hear at all. I'm almost sure these differences could be measured and displayed with FFT using even quite low quality measurement gear.Different music genres (or specific songs) can have different levels as well. For example, some will be more bassy or mostly bass, others might have a focus on mid-treble.So, the first type might sound better on one set of earphones/headphones/speakers and the second type might sound better on another set (or even device that outputs it).I think it's quite complicated to find "the best" gear for either all types of music or all people. While more than one person might agree on a cheap/awful set of earphones (that has a significantly limited range) compared to decent more expensive ones. I wish that all earphones could/would be comparatively measured, so that one could look at a "frequency response chart" to find the differences. That would surely make some cheap hidden gems easier to find.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 08:59:46 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on September 28, 2017, 03:13:32 pmWhat happens if you move your head 3mm to the left when listening to stereo speakers?

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 09:03:13 pm
content: Sounds pretty normal to begin with but then we get to:Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 28, 2017, 08:17:19 pmAre we to take it from that, that you believe there is some difference between a "musical signal" and a sine wave? That one can somehow design objectively for good performance with a sine wave but that a "musical signal" is somehow ineffably different? I'll telegraph the punchline here, it's 'superposition'.QuoteAnd at that point, I've got to say, what you've said doesn't sound any qualitatively different from the kind of language I've heard artists use to describe their painting, drawing, installations or whatever. What it doesn't sound like is engineering. To quote Monkey from the TV ads, "I say keep it TEA". (This is an obscure joke, that only watchers of UK TV ads who are also member ofTEAwill get.)

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 09:07:09 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 28, 2017, 08:59:46 pmThat is a very little deviation, for me personally nothing really changes.

author: Don Hills
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 09:14:04 pm
content: About time to repeat this:"The time resolution of a 16 bit, 44.1khz PCM channel is not limited to the 22.7µs time difference between samples. The actual minimum time resolution is equivalent to 1/(2pi * quantization levels * sample rate). For 16/44.1, that is 1/(2pi * 65536 * 44100), which is about 55 picoseconds. To put that in perspective, light travels less than an inch in that time.Shannon and Nyquist showed that as long as you keep all components of the input signal below half the sampling frequency, you can reconstruct the original signal perfectly - not just in terms of amplitude, but in terms of temporal relationships too. They only addressed sampling, and assumed infinite resolution in amplitude. With a digital signal the precision is limited by the number of amplitude steps, leading to the above formula. "

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 09:21:26 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 28, 2017, 09:03:13 pmI am disappointed with this reference to a "superposition" . It is substantially different. A continuous sine wave or even a number of sine waves do not represent it accurately, neither does a noise type signal. Music has a number of qualities which distinguish it from other sounds. Music contains transients and these transients contain the information - which is perceived up to a large degree on a subconscious level, producing emotions. Large part of musical perception is down to its rhythmical structure, which is positioned well below the audible frequency range and thus can be affected by a low frequency time constants, including thermal behaviour of a circuit - in seconds and tens of seconds time frame. And so on. On a simple level it looks simple. If we talk about the best achievable quality of reproduction - not so simple.CheersAlex

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 09:40:37 pm
content: Quote from: Don Hills on September 28, 2017, 09:14:04 pmI believe you but do not understand unless this is valid for audio only. So how can I reproduce two dirac pulses one on the left channel and one on the right channel from 0 to max (65535)with a raise time of 10ns each and a time difference between the two of 5us with a sample frequency which is timealigned between the two channels (same clock) of 44,1 kHz

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 09:42:50 pm
content: Quote from: kalel on September 28, 2017, 08:20:51 pmLOL really. There is no doubt that the mechanical parts of each individual person's ear - hammer, anvil, stirrup and cochlea are not exactly identical. So when the audiophiles rant on about how a power strip encased in granite and filled with a rare gas (hey neat idea!) makes the music sound better, how can they claim that it will be better when they don't know who's receiving the signal?So when you think about the minute flaws each individual's ear - who can really say what minutia each of us hear. Perhaps there should even be a hearing test to determine if a person can evenbean audiophile.It might save people a lot of money not having to buy the best gear.

author: Don Hills
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 11:41:33 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on September 28, 2017, 09:40:37 pmSee the part I bolded above. Your example violates that requirement. If you were to start with the pulses as analogue signals and digitise them with an ideal anti-aliasing filter (as required by the Theorem), then convert back to analogue with an ideal anti-imaging (reconstruction) filter, you would see a time delay between the channels of 5us.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 12:57:27 am
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 28, 2017, 09:21:26 pmI'm sure you are, because it falls into the category of inconvenient facts. Everyone here who didn't sleep through "signal and systems" willknowall music is, is a rather odd collection of sine waves in superposition. Although music in itself might be viewed as special, mystical or magical,as a signalthere is nothing special, mystical or magical about music, it is at the end of the day, just another signal. If you can reproduce a sine wave accurately you can reproduce music accurately. If a reproduction system has properties that genuinely affect the music being played though it that effect will be measurable with test equipment just as it will with non-music signals.QuoteOh c'mon. Perceiving rhythmical structure is not going to be affected by a ten second thermal time constant. I can perceive a tarantella rhythm out of my speakers, respond to it emotionally, dance down the stairs (in time) and be ten feet up the road well out of ear shot before 10 seconds have passed. If a long time constant was going to have an effect on my emotional perception it'd have to chase me down the street, something that does not come as second nature to electronics unless it also happens to contain the additional elements propulsion, guidance and warhead. Engineering has definitely left the building and wo-wo, or at best conjecture, is being offered up in its place.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 02:42:01 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 29, 2017, 12:57:27 amSo in summary, you are basically saying thatTHEORYandPRACTICEandREAL-LIFEare allEXACTLYthe same.Let's throw away all our real life musical instruments, such as Pianos, and give all the musicians all sine wave function generators, with knobs to twiddle.tl;drReplace all Orchestras with some sine wave oscillators. They will soundEXACTLYthe same.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 02:59:55 am
content: ExampleIntheory, an old 2 watt resistor, selling for $200, with a highly suspicious technical explanation on how it works. WouldNOTwork.But inpractice(because of the Placebo effect), with some people, if you are persuasive enough. ItCANwork and improve the sound quality (in their perception/opinion).There are limitations, in real audio systems, such as distortion and other (usually) undesirable effects. Which we as humans can usually perceive. So using various electronics techniques, (such as filtering, etc etc), are legitimate ways of improving the perceived sound quality, of audio systems.Even if intheoryit should not be necessary, or would even make the sound worse.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 03:05:46 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on September 29, 2017, 02:42:01 amPianosaresine wave function generators.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 03:09:58 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on September 29, 2017, 02:42:01 amGiven enough sine wave oscillators and the ability to adjust them as quickly as necessary - then yes they will.What fails here is thepracticalityof doing so.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 03:13:51 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 29, 2017, 03:05:46 amYes, it is. But it also adds all sorts of resonances and other effects to the sound. Making it (for some people), an enjoyable experience to listen to someone playing music on it.I have one or more function generators, capable of producing, nice sine waves. For some mysterious reason, nobody has asked me to play music on it for them, by twisting the frequency dial, up and down.Maybe I should contact my nearest Orchestra and offer to play my function generator, as part of their Orchestra ?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 03:16:24 am
content: Call it a Theremin and you might get a gig.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 03:18:12 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 29, 2017, 03:16:24 amTrue.If we were back in the 1960's, we could probably make lots of money, with electronically generated music.Or play lazy, and buy shares in Microsoft, when 1975 arrives.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 03:19:21 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on September 29, 2017, 02:42:01 amLet me guess, youdidsleep through "signals and systems", that or you've no formal electronics training. It is possible to createanyarbitrary waveform by simply summing the right set of sine waves at the right amplitudes - ask Monsieur Fourier. Further, it is a fundamental property of linear systems that you get the same result if you process all those summed sine waves through them at once as you do if you process all those sine waves individually and then add them together afterwards. That's the superposition theorem and that's what means a bode plot produced from a swept sine wave is equivalent to a bode plot produced by feeding broadband noise through a system, or even feeding music through. All of which is a long winded way of saying that there is nothing special about music as a signal, it's just another signal.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 03:21:10 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on September 29, 2017, 02:59:55 amYes.Quote from: MK14 on September 29, 2017, 02:42:01 amYes, but the limitationsaren'twhere the audiophools tell you they are. The limitations aren't in the source so 24bit sampling or 192kHz sample rate won't make any difference. They aren't in the cables or interconnects, they're not really in the amplifiers (not once you get past a few hundred $), they're mostly in the speakers and listening environment.nb. An ideal speaker doesn't (and cannot) exist. An ideal speaker is a tiny point source but a point source would have very little low frequency response. Speakers with low frequency response have large transducers so they lose stereo image. It's a tradeoff between the two.You can either:a) Use large, powerful speakers in a larger, anechoic room and stand well back (so the speaker cones look tiny to you).b) Use smaller speakers and sit very close to them (near field listening).c) Use headphones. This is really just 'b' taken to the extreme.All methods have their pros and cons.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 03:24:45 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on September 29, 2017, 03:13:51 amThis is the practicality issue.You will need quite a few oscillators to mimic a piano - and that will be for just one note. You will also have to be able to make hundreds of adjustments per second to get that note sounding right. Add some chords and you're really going to be working hard. Put that into a score and a hundred people would not be able to create enough for one instrument.It is not impossible ... just completely impractical.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 03:32:22 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 29, 2017, 03:19:21 amI agree with that part of your argument, in that asignalis a signal. Even if one of the signals, has been created/made/transferred in a different or complicated way. Such as by using multiple sine waves.Assuming that all the necessary features of the original sound signal, have been reproduced, correctly. As necessary.But humans perception of sound (music), is probably significantly influenced by all sorts of things. Some of which, are probably nothing to do with sound at all. Such as lighting, smells, ambiance etc.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 03:41:21 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 29, 2017, 03:21:10 amI agree.I think, to an extent, improving the sound quality of things (i.e. quality Hi-Fi systems with quality speakers), is good and useful. But audiophools can take things too far, and as you have just been saying, they are worrying about things which scientifically will (in theory and practice), make absolutely no difference/improvement, whatsoever. (Ignoring the Placebo effect, which is another matter).

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 03:46:50 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 29, 2017, 03:24:45 amThat makes a lot of sense.In the same way that ray tracing can make great 3d graphics. I think there are similar systems, for creating sounds, just using pure computation. They are called Physical modeling synthesizers. So nowadays, we can use such methods to create sounds/music, if you want to.I.e. Because it is being created inside a computer, it does not matter if you need hundreds or thousands of sine wave generators, as they are essentially free, will take up no physical space, and stay perfectly in sync and in tune.Unlike real life analogue function generators (without PLL or other tricks, up their sleeve).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_modelling_synthesis

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 07:16:25 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 29, 2017, 12:57:27 amYou are saying "engineering has left the building ". Let's see, who's building it is.1) Superposition works only in a completely linear system. Find me one.2) You resort to a subjective claim when saying that "Perceiving rhythmical structure is not going to be affected by a ten second thermal time constant". Ten seconds is a long time but the effects of that time constant could be noticeable (and measurable) at much shorter intervals.CheersAlex

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 10:04:06 am
content: I think we're missing one important point in this discussion: dynamic range != SPL. With environmental noise at about 40dBA and a reasonable upper limit of maybe 90dBA (we don't want to become deaf) we have an usable range of 50dB for the SPL. That means the CD's dynamic range of 96dB has to be "compressed" into 50dB for the SPL and also shifted to start at about 40dBA, ideally.

author: medical-nerd
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 10:43:50 am
content: HiyaRegarding audiophoolsNot trying to be controversial and in no way supporting people that fleece others - but - If they have the money and it makes them happy what is the problem? It may be a purely placebo subjective experience that there is an improvement, but so is appreciation of art.Show me the Mona Lisa - just a picture of a woman, so what.Show me a Henry Moore sculpture or a vintage variable capacitor and I could wet myself!!Just my opinion...Cheers

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 11:11:38 am
content: Those things don't pretend to be something else.They are not "sold" as being anything other than what they are.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 11:47:42 am
content: Quote from: medical-nerd on September 29, 2017, 10:43:50 amAudiophoolery in itself might not be (very) harmful but if people start believing in one flavor of woo-woo then it's a slippery slope to them believing all sorts of other woo-woo.Remember: The woo-woo believers have the same voting power as you. To me it seems logical to try to keep their numbers as low as possible.You'll also be doing them a favor: A dollar spent on better speakers or room conditioning instead of magic rocks is a dollar well spent.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 11:55:00 am
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 29, 2017, 07:16:25 amOh look mummy, a man made completely from straw.You know very well that that is a classic strawman argument. Because you can't answer the point you create a new spurious question. You know such a thing, a completely linear system, does not exist except on paper; I might as well say "If you know so much, show me a completely perfect amplifier" knowing that such a thing is not possible. You also know that the absence from reality of ideal,completelylinear systems doesn't mean that the practical linear systems that do exist suddenly stop obeying the laws of physics.QuoteI respond to a subjective claim from you in kind, and you suddenly treat subjective claims as somehow "off the table"? Again, "move the goalposts" is another classic technique deployed when someone has nothing of substance left to their argument.It's at this point that I bow out. When one side of the argument starts scraping the bottom of the barrel with logical fallacies like strawman arguments and moving the goalposts you know that they have nothing of substance left to support their position and any further disputation is just going to be unenlightening. If there was anything of import to debate here, that actually mattered in the real world like slavery, it would be worth the effort to keep 'pricking the bubble' until you gave in, but a little bit of minor grade audiophoolery is not worth the candle.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 12:07:57 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 29, 2017, 11:55:00 amOK, see you around!Alex

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 12:12:18 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on September 29, 2017, 12:07:57 pmOh, I'm sure you will.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 12:20:31 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 29, 2017, 11:11:38 amIt's sold as a collection of pigmented paints on a stretched canvas, not as a depiction of a woman

author: medical-nerd
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 08:15:22 pm
content: JeezeWhat extremes people will go to.Just found these cables - dare you to look at the price...especially the 1.25m mains cord.Cheers

author: kalel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 08:37:50 pm
content: Quote from: medical-nerd on September 29, 2017, 08:15:22 pmThey are obviously targeted at specific people. But if you want to hear a real performance, perhaps go and listen to an orchestra, it will have all the nuances possible. Otherwise even with the perfect gear, you're limited to their recording gear. This must have its limits and the microphones must have a characteristic frequency response (with whatever adjustments are applied later it's not going to be a 1:1 reproduction in any case).I guess you could invite people over to play for you as well. That should have all of the bass and treble and subtle textures and feel like you're hearing the actual instruments, or will it instead be inferior?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 08:37:58 pm
content: Quote from: medical-nerd on September 29, 2017, 08:15:22 pmWhy would they even bother selling them? They can't possibly make a profit at that price.The should grab a pair of cables and go directly after the James Randi million dollar challenge instead.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 08:53:03 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 29, 2017, 08:37:58 pmThey may use marketing tricks to sell them.E.g. Email a special offer, whereby you can get the $29,999 cables for the bargain price of only $7,499 if you buy in the next two days.Or they can include (4 lots of them) $120,000 worth of cables (i.e. 4 free cables if you buy the Hi-Fi), with theirwildly over-pricedHi-Fi unit, which is only $79,000 (I just made up that price, for illustration purposes).Just selling one of those cables, they may be able to make a profit at that price. ($29,999 each).

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 11:13:41 pm
content: Quote from: medical-nerd on September 29, 2017, 08:15:22 pmYep - it's all about what the buyer can see. It makes them feel good. Look how beautiful they are. But let's suppose we remove the cover from the amp, or look inside the speakers the person that buys those would have. What would we see? A continuation of that type of wiring? I don't think so. It's more than likely plain old copper wire. Probably a nice large gauge, but just regular wire. So between the plain wire of the amp and the plain wire of the speaker, that cable makes all the difference?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 11:20:11 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on September 29, 2017, 11:13:41 pmBut you're forgetting about the magic psi-o-oscillating quantum cry-o-rock, crystal. Which harnesses the tiny cosmic phantons, to reduce the signal to mythicalness ratio, by a full quarter moon cycle. Thus enhancing the natural psi of the music.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 10:02:03 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on September 29, 2017, 11:20:11 pmThey're the 50 Ohm terminators of the audio world. Absolutely necessary to avoid reflections in the wires.Quote from: xrunner on September 29, 2017, 11:13:41 pmYes, see above.

author: xani
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 11:05:22 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on September 29, 2017, 11:13:41 pmOh, I'm sure that on inside it also uses some pretty looking wires too, in case someone opens it

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 08:12:35 am
content: Quote from: medical-nerd on September 29, 2017, 08:15:22 pmI did look at the prices ....Well, whatever expectation one has it is not enough.My first reaction: this must me a joke, really, may be the decimal point is miss-printedWOW!Hmmm .... may be I am in the wrong business..... But then, how many can they sell for this price? May be none?UNREAL !

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2017, 07:06:08 pm
content: QuoteExcept that 50 Ohm terminators are really useful, don't mix them with Audiophoolery...Yeah, ok, you have some for 1$, and some for 1000$, with a fraction of a dB calibration, etc.....But both actually have a legitimate use ! (terminating an open cable vs. calibrating or referencing a fine instrument)

author: bloguetronica
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2017, 11:42:35 am
content: These guys should be in jail. Not worth to buy one, even if it is to do a bad review. You are paying them when you do.Lets say that it is a crock of s**** outright, without even testing the physical thing. "No proof" requires no proof. They can't prove it works, so Dave doesn't need to prove it doesn't.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2017, 12:47:51 pm
content: Mein Got !!!!!!("Bybee Quantum Purifiers operate on the quantum mechanical level to regulate the flow of electrons...")I thought, (and know) Pedophiles are bad, but these damn so called purist "Audiophiles" are something else......Maybe we should talk about 'SnakeOil', or humor "Flat-Earthers".... sigh..... :-)

author: bloguetronica
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2017, 01:09:46 pm
content: It occurred to me that, besides being audiophoolery, this is audiophillery.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 16, 2017, 12:04:26 am
content: It is pointless trying to take on these snake oil peddlers.They just change the "operational parameters" (as we would call them) to circumvent or at least obfuscate any disproving argument.They prey on the gullible and uninformed - and as much as we might want to educate their target audience, they will run their con-man play book and, if they are "good", can even turn our efforts into an endorsement of their flim-flam.This emoticon doesn't come close to the futility involved: