Topic: "Audiophoolery"? (Read 10932 times)

schiit · « **Reply #130 on:** July 15, 2015, 07:29:36 PM »

Quote from: Deep Funk on July 15, 2015, 07:12:32 PM

Nwavguy is worse than Snowden if you ask me. A serious intelligence scandal was only a matter of time. Snowden was not playing some sort of "messiah."

Nwavguy was worse as he fully indulged in his "messiah complex." If you want to call me out on my choice of words do know I come from a religious family with Bible and church (idiots). I have been a bystander in the proceedings but the behaviour displayed by Nwavguy was cult-ish to say the least and the attitude and impression given of "I have all the answers, I know the truth" was appalling.

It's odd that many of the "pure objectivists" feel it their duty to insert themselves into subjective discussions and as The One and True Authority, actively belittling and disparaging any opinion that doesn't agree with "measurements--the ones I deem important, anyway--are everything." See my comments here on this site on Doug Self, and the *extremely* loaded language he uses to discount and slander any approach that isn't his his own, and does not hew to the credo that "low THD is your god."

Edit: actually found the comments on Self:

---

Let me highlight the inflammatory and judgmental aspects of this quote:

"With horrible inevitability, the very popularity and excellent technical performance of the 5532 has led to it being criticized by subjectivists who have contrived to convince themselves that they can tell op-amps apart by listening to music played through them. This always makes me laugh, because there is probably no music on the planet that has not passed through a hundred or more 5532s on its way to the consumer."

Does the above do anything that this impartial rewrite does not--besides incite anger?

Although the 5532 delivers excellent measured performance, and has been used widely in mastering consoles, some listeners believe that it is not a truly transparent device, and is bettered by other op-amps."

DaveBSC · « **Reply #131 on:** July 15, 2015, 07:33:12 PM »

Quote from: schiit on July 15, 2015, 07:29:36 PM

It's odd that many of the "pure objectivists" feel it their duty to insert themselves into subjective discussions and as The One and True Authority, actively belittling and disparaging any opinion that doesn't agree with "measurements--the ones I deem important, anyway--are everything." See my comments here on this site on Doug Self, and the *extremely* loaded language he uses to discount and slander any approach that isn't his his own, and does not hew to the credo that "low THD is your god."

Yes! I can't count the number of discussions about sources or DACs where somebody just HAS to barge in and go, "don't you guys know!? It's DIGITAL! Bits are bits! It's either a one or a zero, it will either work or not work!"

As if we're all just going to go "OHHH I HAD NO IDEA! THANK YOU SO MUCH. Your incredibly limited, infantile understanding of digital audio is a revelation to us all!"

Anaxilus · « **Reply #132 on:** July 15, 2015, 07:36:55 PM »

On that note, a link to Jason's indirect response to the NWhatevers and Ethan Weiners.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/6990#post_11763661

Yeah, an engineer with real world experience versus talking out your ass.

Marvey · « **Reply #133 on:** July 15, 2015, 07:38:48 PM »

Audiophoolery goes both ways. Too tight (nwavguy and his master Doug Self) and too loose (magic stones).

schiit · « **Reply #134 on:** July 15, 2015, 08:00:25 PM »

Quote from: marvey on July 15, 2015, 07:38:48 PM

Audiophoolery goes both ways. Too tight (nwavguy and his master Doug Self) and too loose (magic stones).

Absolutely agreed on this.

One of the most interesting comments I've gotten is that "we need to decouple ourselves from the Big Crazy." The problem is, I haven't been able to figure out how to do it, without architecting a whole new testing principle (fuck ABX, fuck throwing out the people who can tell the difference because they're off the big part of the bell curve, just A/B blind with complete control over music and switching time and tell me if you like one better, if it's statistically significant to one side or another, then hey, there is *something* going on) and taking it on the road to get real numbers.

Then if it works on amps, try it on DACs. Then if it works on DACs, try it on cables. And if that works, try it on magic stones. And to be clear here, "works" means there is a small but reproducible subset of people who will reliably pick one over the other.

And yeah, this isn't "hard" science and it won't be published in the AES journal, but that's not what I'd be shooting for. Maybe this is something we need to do in the future. But the resources and time aren't here right now.

Sorrodje · « **Reply #135 on:** July 15, 2015, 08:33:54 PM »

Quote from: schiit on July 15, 2015, 08:00:25 PM

(fuck ABX, fuck throwing out the people who can tell the difference because they're off the big part of the bell curve, just A/B blind with complete control over music and switching time and tell me if you like one better, if it's statistically significant to one side or another, then hey, there is *something* going on) and taking it on the road to get real numbers.

Absolutely! Definitely! +1 ! I cant' agree more! WOW are you the Messiah ? Fuck yeah that's the Messiah !!! Where's the like Button ?

Deep Funk · « **Reply #136 on:** July 15, 2015, 08:39:13 PM »

I am obliged by my common sense to add silliness.

ultrabike · « **Reply #137 on:** July 15, 2015, 08:43:09 PM »

IMO NwAvGuy possitive contribution was to bring to light some important audio design fundamentals. He appears to have done so under the pretense to "fix" the audio industry.

However, he did not go against the magic stones, the crazy cables, and things like that. He went after companies and topologies that IMO are valid under certain design restrictions or goals. Furtheremore, he did so in a witch-hunt and show-like expose fashion, which seemed to have more of a destructive goal than a corrective one.

It is a shame because I do value some of the things that he brought to the table.

I also do not give much credit to the terms "objectivist" or "subjectivist". Electrical Engineering does not have "objectivist" or "subjectivst" camps. There are requirements and design goals. And there is usually many solutions to a problem, all of which will more than likely have trade offs.

schiit · « **Reply #138 on:** July 15, 2015, 08:55:12 PM »

Quote from: Sorrodje on July 15, 2015, 08:33:54 PM

Absolutely! Definitely! +1 ! I cant' agree more! WOW are you the Messiah ? Fuck yeah that's the Messiah !!! Where's the like Button ?

Of course I'm not the messiah, of any stripe.

I simply tire of the endless black and white arguments—hardcore objectivists saying there is *no possible way* there can be anything beyond the measurements, and everything that isn't broken or badly designed sounds the same, vs the hardcore subjectivists saying that *everything must matter,* including cable elevators, magic clocks, rocks in bags, etc, ad nauseum.

From personal experience (both on the "engineering requirements" side--thanks, Ultrabike--and on the subjective experience side), I believe there are small differences in electronics which are perceptible to, and matter to, a small portion of listeners. I also believe there is no value judgement implied if you can't hear these differences, or (much more likely) do not care.

I also believe that this can be debated endlessly, and I'll leave it at this: I came into this business almost 30 years ago thinking exactly the same thing as NwAvGuy--that the only thing that mattered were the numbers, that all non-broken equipment sounded the same, etc...but that didn't last long in the real world. Perhaps this is only delusion, but if it is, I am OK with that.

Anaxilus · « **Reply #139 on:** July 15, 2015, 08:55:36 PM »

Quote from: ultrabike on July 15, 2015, 08:43:09 PM

Electrical Engineering does not have "objectivist" or "subjectivst" camps.

Correct, but an EE could choose to belong to one or the other 'camp'. This is why I refer to both as belief systems. As empirical as some certain extreme objective would like to appear, they are still choosing to follow their own belief set just like a magic rock person would. The difference lies in what they value the most personally.

Author Topic: "Audiophoolery"? (Read 10932 times)

schiit

Re: "Audiophoolery"?

DaveBSC

Re: "Audiophoolery"?

Anaxilus

Re: "Audiophoolery"?

Marvey

Re: "Audiophoolery"?

schiit

Re: "Audiophoolery"?

Sorrodje

Re: "Audiophoolery"?

Deep Funk

Re: "Audiophoolery"?

ultrabike

Re: "Audiophoolery"?

schiit

Re: "Audiophoolery"?

Anaxilus

Re: "Audiophoolery"?

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Author Topic: "Audiophoolery"? (Read 10932 times)