Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Archimago's Musings: Computer audio mythos? A comment on The Linear Solution's DS-1
#1
Archimago's latest musing: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/02/mu...mment.html might be of interest.
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Sonos ZP90 (Cullen modified), Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
Reply
#2
(10-Feb-2019, 11:32)thumb5 Wrote: Archimago's latest musing: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/02/mu...mment.html might be of interest.

Another really interesting read - he has a good style. Shame he didn’t get hold of one and do measurements though. Probably a bit contraversial to say and a generalisation I admit, but imo Devialetchat users are aligned more towards ‘Audiophyle style’ and Zeus, than archimago, so I’m not sure it will change many minds.

What caught my eye towards the end was a link to an anonymous online ‘blind test’ he’s devised which is open until the end April. I’m definitely going to do it, and looking forward to the results! A perfect test for owners of the most transparent and perfect DAC/amplifier in the world!

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/01/in...o.html?m=1

Roon lifetime > Mac mini (RoonServer) > Eth > Allo DigiOne* > BNC ( >AES via Neutrik) > Devialet 250 Pro CI > PMC fact.8
‘Normal’ cables. *eBay LPS on the Allo, no discernible SQ change over Pi supply.
- London, UK -
>>> Devialet ‘EPO’ System - Expert Planned Obsolescence! <<<

Reply
#3
Glad you found it interesting. I think it's always helpful to have some balance to the "Audiophile Style tendency", if I can call it that without raising any hackles.

I'd read the post introducing the digital audio player blind test a while ago, and downloaded the files yesterday to try out - hopefully will get round to it today.
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Sonos ZP90 (Cullen modified), Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
Reply
#4
That’s the typical Archimago type of proza, dismissing anything and everything to delusions and false beliefs since there’s no proof. As always the truth is somewhere in between.

I will not participate in his blind testing experiment. Not because I’m angry or offended but I’d rather do something that’s actually fun to do. Blind tests are not fun nor useful, for me. I also need to pray to Zeus that my NUC7i7DNHE and fanless case will arrive coming Wednesday as announced by the vendor. Big Grin
PS Audio P3, Shunyata ΞTRON Alpha Digital/Lessloss DFPC Signature/Furutech power cables, Paul Hynes SR7EHD-MR4, Roon, SoTM sMS-200, Curious USB cable, Audioquest Diamond RJ/E ethernet, Mutec MC-3+ USB, Shunyata ΞTRON Anaconda Digital XLR AES/EBU, Devialet Expert 250 Pro, Nordost Tyr Reference LS cables, Von Schweikert VR-5 SE Anniversary Edition, Anti-Mode Dual Core 2.0, JL Audio Fathom F112. More detail here.

The Netherlands


Reply
#5
I agree that doing blind tests is not a lot of fun.  But I think there are at least two good reasons for going through the exercise in this case:

1) to contribute to a well thought-out and genuine experiment that aims to answer an interesting, oft-debated question

2) as a kind of calibration of one's own listening ability (or resistance to kidding oneself, if you like)

It's a bit like other forms of physical and mental exercise: it might not be pleasant at the time, but it brings longer-term benefits.

Another good thing about this experiment is that there is nothing "at stake" insofar as any differences that might be heard are not to do with one's own system.
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Sonos ZP90 (Cullen modified), Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
Reply
#6
You’re right, as always Ian Smile, but at least I won’t do it. Of course anyone else should do exactly as he pleases.

I feel no obligation to myself or anyone. I’ve always ‘hated’ doing AB(X) tests, blind or sighted. They don’t work for me, I need to “live with” changes for some time whether they are or seem obvious from the start or not. This is ‘hard enough’ when it’s for a good cause (progressing my own system) now there’s no incentive in it at all for me.
PS Audio P3, Shunyata ΞTRON Alpha Digital/Lessloss DFPC Signature/Furutech power cables, Paul Hynes SR7EHD-MR4, Roon, SoTM sMS-200, Curious USB cable, Audioquest Diamond RJ/E ethernet, Mutec MC-3+ USB, Shunyata ΞTRON Anaconda Digital XLR AES/EBU, Devialet Expert 250 Pro, Nordost Tyr Reference LS cables, Von Schweikert VR-5 SE Anniversary Edition, Anti-Mode Dual Core 2.0, JL Audio Fathom F112. More detail here.

The Netherlands


Reply
#7
Understood, Antoine.
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Sonos ZP90 (Cullen modified), Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
Reply
#8
austinpop does a product review and reports that a particular streamer sounds great, is better than some other streamers in certain ways, and then does a thought dump on what he thinks may be producing the benefits he hears without doing anything to test whether the things he says are contributing to the differences actually are contributing. The listening comments have value because they tell us one person's experience, the thought dump on what's causing the benefits isn't much use.

Archimago ignores the listening comments, doesn't do any listening of his own, and spends his time pulling the thought dump to pieces. He may be right about the thought dump but that has no implications for the listening comments austinpop made. They could be a totally accurate report of the products actual performance.

Back in 1903 there was argument about whether powered heavier than air flight was possible. There was scientific dispute and no proven theory. The Wright brothers made an airplane and flew it as a proof of concept. The how's and why's of how it worked were not established or accepted at the time it took to the air. Respected scientists, on hearing about the flight, took to print with elegant scientific proofs of why the flight was impossible and claims that it was a hoax. They didn't bother to go and see whether the plane could do the things it was claimed to have done, they just spent their time demolishing the reasons given for how and why the thing worked.

Do you see a parallel?

The review isn't brilliant and contains more supposition than observations. The critique isn't brilliant and contains nothing more than criticism of suppositions and that criticism has no relevance at all to the correctness or other of the listening observations. Neither austinpop nor Archimago produced a really useful or informative document in my view. austinpop's suppositions tell us nothing useful and Archimago's demolition of them is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether the streamer works as claimed. There's too many wasted words in both articles and the only one with any actual observations is austinpop's. Those observations need verification to be accepted.

What scientists said about powered flight before the Wright brothers succeeded didn't mean it couldn't be done, and pulling the accounts about how and why the flight worked apart after the event didn't prove that the flight hadn't happened.

Too many errors on both sides in my view.
Antipodes DS, Devilalet Expert 140 Pro CI, Focal Sopra 2, PS Audio P12, AQ Vodka ethernet, Kimber Select speaker cables, Shunyata Alpha NR and Delta EF power cables power cables, Grand Prix Audio Monaco rack, RealTRAPS acoustic treatment.

Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Reply
#9
@David A, your analogy is thought-provoking but flawed: it was an objective, reproducible fact that the Wright brothers' aeroplane flew, whether or not people believed it at the time.  Anyone else could have built a 'plane to the Wright brother's design and made it fly -- I dare say some did.  On the other hand there is no analogous objective content in austinpop's review: if he says "it sounds better" (to him) then no-one can argue with or falsify that statement.  Actually no-one else can reproduce the experiment, because they aren't austinpop.

While reporting the subjective experience is all well and good, and makes interesting reading, austinpop goes on to attribute sound quality improvements to specific technical factors, for example:

Quote:Clearly the OCXO is the reason for the bulk of this improvement

If someone makes a definitive statement like that, without some proper evidence and justification it's just speculation and I think a degree of tyre-kicking should be expected.  It doesn't in any way upset science and engineering as we know it, because it's no more than a statement of personal opinion.

In short: I think we're agreeing about this... Smile
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Sonos ZP90 (Cullen modified), Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
Reply
#10
(10-Feb-2019, 23:35)thumb5 Wrote: @David A, your analogy is thought-provoking but flawed: it was an objective, reproducible fact that the Wright brothers' aeroplane flew, whether or not people believed it at the time.  Anyone else could have built a 'plane to the Wright brother's design and made it fly -- I dare say some did.  On the other hand there is no analogous objective content in austinpop's review: if he says "it sounds better" (to him) then no-one can argue with or falsify that statement.  Actually no-one else can reproduce the experiment, because they aren't austinpop.



In short: I think we're agreeing about this... Smile

You're right that austinpop is reporting his own experience and others can't hear exactly what he heard, but others can hear what they hear and their observations may support austinpop's experience or not. Other people could have built a working plane but it may not have delivered the same result in terms of flight time and distance as the Wright's plane did, and that's regardless of whether they built it to the same design as the Wright's plane or to a different design. A different plane wouldn't necessarily have reproduced the Wright;s experiment and actually one reason why it wouldn't reproduce the Wright's experiment is because it would have a different pilot with a different weight, affecting flight time and distance, and possibly the different pilot in a different design would have altered the aerodynamics of the plane because of body shape, how they sat/lay in the plane, and how much air resistance they provided. You actually don't need to produce exactly the same result to verify another experiment's result, you just need to produce results consistent with the first experiment. Yes, austinpop's better/worse assessments are subjective and can't be confirmed. 2 different observers can argue about which of 2 devices sounds better while both agree about what the differences are. Replication only has to confirm the existence of the differences, it doesn't have to confirm austinpop's subjective assessment of the differences. 

If your view is that Archimago's post does nothing to confirm or disconfirm austinpop's post, we're in total agreement on that point and if your view is also that austinpop's review contains more supposition than actual observation then we're also in total agreement on that point as well.

In order of value my view is that austinpop's observations are potentially valuable but they need confirmation and they have no value if they can't be confirmed, his suppositions as to cause are less valuable than his observations, and Archimago's attack on those suppositions has less value than the suppositions. At best (the observations of difference are correct) that's a progression from doubtful value to even more doubtful value to no value in my view. At worst (the observations of difference are mistaken) then the observations, suppositions, and the attack on the suppositions all have absolutely no value at all.
Antipodes DS, Devilalet Expert 140 Pro CI, Focal Sopra 2, PS Audio P12, AQ Vodka ethernet, Kimber Select speaker cables, Shunyata Alpha NR and Delta EF power cables power cables, Grand Prix Audio Monaco rack, RealTRAPS acoustic treatment.

Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)