I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

If you are making excuses for racism, you need to be looking in the mirror. I found at least 4 people making this accusation of racism of said poster. 1 would be unexpected, 4 is more than a trend.

I really start to question mental health with the tin-foil olympics that goes on. I looked at some of the other accounts I am supposedly and analog to. Other than we both have a technical background, there are obvious differences in that technical background. If we are both a single person, then that is an impressive set of capabilities in a single person in which case you probably should sit back, be quiet, and listen.

To exaggerate for framing and parallax depth of view creation..... this is why ASR is not about creative people, at all.

I would estimate that overall the intelligence of ASR posters is above average. As opposed to typing unfounded meritless attacks that further the divide as opposed to bridging a gap which you claim to want to do, how about spending 5 minutes on Google? The correlation between intelligence and creativity is well known and researched. The relationship breaks at about 120, i.e there is no additional advantage but even studies show it may extend.

Product, process and device physicists and engineers are literally tasked with doing what has never been done before, or doing it cheaper, more efficiently, etc. They spend much of their working life creatively applying the knowledge they have obtained. Knowledge is their tool just like a guitar is a tool to the musician. It is not their failing that you do no not see the creativity in what they do.

Tin hat Audiokaren?

@sns 

I expect the only reliable measurable trait you will find that differentiates O and S is STEM education level. You view their views as indicating a deficiency. Without adequate validation they are wrong, that is hard to support that view.

If it sounds good and measures bad, we must be measuring the wrong things.

We also used to think the sun was the center of the universe.

Why is it so hard to accept people like different things and even what they like changes? If you have become accustomed to a certain sound, that is what you may prefer even if it does not measure well. Someone else may have become accustomed to and like a different sound that measures well.

@onhwy61 

I think the implication is that some people like the sound of audible artifacts. I think I may have in the past. If you make them measure well you lose the artifacts.

Nobody commented this flabbergasting video and genius idea... 😁😊

I am leaning towards the total irrelevance in relationship with the topic for the lack of interest.  It's akin to all the factual but irrelevant science often brought up in audio. First start proving a change is really heard. Otherwise it is just flights of fancy.

I found this mindset short sighted and shallow  when advocated by the late Julian Hirsch decades ago and certainly even more so more so today.

 

Things change. I think that was the 70s? We didn't have cell phones, or even personal computers.

I hear noise raised as an issue but to me it's a false issue for me and likely most. My system is dead quiet during silent portions of tracks. Other system issues? What are they if inaudible?

The camps are not as you describe them in your case and this topic. This is not about measurements defining a sound which I don't see anyone saying in this topic. It is about measurements being able to test the lumits of what is audible. As most audiophiles never test their claims of what they can hear, I see little reason to believe them.  If you want to define camps, I see the camps, primarily, as those that accept humans are fallible, variable, and whose perceptions are hence also fallible and variable, and those that do not.  

@realworldaudio I will interpret your response to indicate my post was correct.

@russ69  thank you. Some seem pretty worked up here.  I cannot speak for Amir and he does come across to me as unjustifiably arrogant, but I expect most who use measurements in audio use them more for relative comparisons than absolutes. It's why I tried the IEMs though I didn't know if I would be happy. I do expect there is more truth to DAC measurements than many audiophiles want to accept, but human interpretation of say a tube amp is also part of the science so to ignore that is not "audio science" either. There needs to be more acceptance and less animosity on both sides.

Also mentioned but it's 80 and 90 db down, you are not going to hear it. 

 

Those are peaks. The total noise level from the power supply would be much higher. In 2022 that does not seem acceptable. Is it audible? I expect at high volume in quiet passages it may be.

Now let's play devil's advocate. When it suits you you will claim -80db is not audible but if a cable was tested and it showed nothing at greater than -90db and Amir said that's totally inaudible then a 100 audiophiles on this site would be losing their minds. You can selectively accept the measurements you want especially when they are measuring the same thing.

 I noted that ASR seems to measure THD from very low power to high power at several frequencies but it does not seem to be consistent for all products

In this case low frequency spuriae due to class D design.

 

Can you explain what class D has to do with low frequency spurs?

I don't think anything can make it worse than -66.1db. That seems pretty bad. I did a search on Sphinx. Several users noting noise issues. I did not find anything on the V3.

May have to rename the site Audiokarens.

It's a measurement. It has no emotion. Amir didn't call your favorite piece of audio equipment ugly, the measurement did.

I ordered a pair of the Fiio 5 IEMs that he reviewed with very low distortion. So far I am impressed. I have also owned tube amps. I liked them too. I am not emotionally attached to any of it.

The acoustic engineer who did my listening room took a ton of measurements. It sounds fantastic. Well worth the money.

His measurements seem competent. Not scientific lab quality but competent. It's unemotional. It just is. I am sure many of you have been in a room where the person said "this sounds great" and you were thinking "this sounds awful". Do you need another person's opinion that is not your own? Why does Amir's opinion matter so much?

Let it go.

I personally find some of the measurements fascinating on speakers and headphones/IEMs. It is interesting to see the measurements and try to relate that to what I hear. They got me into equalizing headphones and IEMs too. What a difference!

Yet, using such tricks skews other performance parameters, that ARE NOT MEASURED as pat of the standard measurement sets, yet still COUNT. We are routinely testing maybe 1-5% of all the parameters that are needed for accurate sound reproduction, and eve those measurements are MASSIVELY FLAWED

@realworldaudio , I feel most of what you wrote is made up. I don't think you will be able to clearly articulate what is missing from the measurements and certainly not 95% of the things that are missing. Perhaps this is the issue. This sounds more like outrage mob mentality that reasonsed criticism. I am welcome to be proven wrong.

I am certain I asked the question of @realworldaudio . Would it not be appropriate to let him/her answer?

You can take several examples of audio components that are capable of performing this unaltered waveform function. Yet when listened to, it’s clearly recognized that each of them have their own sonic signature or fingerprints.

This is impossible with a proper measurement set.

If they measure so close, I personally would not trust user listening tests unless they don't know what they are listening to. The potential to fool ourselves is too high.

When I performed the measurements of the original Rogue Sphinx integrated amplifier to accompany Herb Reichert's review in the August 2014 issue of Stereophile, I was impressed by what I found. "Even without taking into account its affordable price, Rogue Audio's Sphinx offers excellent measured performance with little sign of the usual compromises made in class-D designs,"

@russ69 

That quote you made from Stereophile is from the 2014 review not what ASR reviewed. Stereophile tests appear to show high noise one phono input, high power supply noise, and does not meet 4 ohm power spec. Did ASR note any different?

@russ69 

 

Those are peaks.

Yes, that is db down, it gets better from there.

It appears it does not get better from there.

But if you happy with it it does not matter. I would be surprised if this was not audible in some manor.

 

Returning to the V3's performance at the loudspeaker outputs, channel separation (not shown) was the same as before, at 60dB in both directions below 1kHz and around 40dB at the top of the audioband. The V3's unweighted signal/noise ratio in the audioband, taken with the line input shorted but the volume control at its maximum, was also the same at 67.7dB left and 66.1dB right, both ref. 2.83V into 8 ohms. This was primarily due to full-wave–rectified, supply-related spuriae (fig.2), though the random noise floor components were also relatively high in level.

 

We appear to be measuring the right things, some people like less perfect reproduction. They like the imperfect artifacts. That is not bad.

Back in the day amps strived for THD of .001. You can achieve that number by adding negative feedback, sometimes lots of negative feedback. But it turns out that amps sound better if negative feedback is reduced or eliminated. Just one example of a measurement that hurts sonic performance. 

@atmasphere was kind enough to talk about this in detail in another topic. Paraphrasing, if the distortion is low at high frequency, then the issue you have described is not an issue. It seems many amplifiers have lots of negative feedback and they have low distortion at 20Khz.

I don't think it is back in the day any more. There are lots of amplifiers on Stereophile and ASR that have very low distortion at 20Khz. Lower than this Rogue at almost any frequency.

@onhwy61 people are emotionally attached to their purchases. I work in batteries. Look at how emotional people get in defense of internal combustion.

I had tube amps in the past. They are neither good nor bad. They just are. I have no doubt it was less accurate but I still enjoyed it at the time.

Tube parameters change significantly over their life. Put in a new tube it sounds like a different amplifier. It’s not the reliability that I had issue with, it was that I never knew whether my amp was operating at its best.

I enjoyed it at the time. Pick what works for you.

Superior sound is subjective. What you like someone else may hate. Many roads to the same place.

What does "real music" sound like. I don't remember my tube amps sounding any more real or less real just different. The bass was less real.

Many amplifiers on tested on Stereophile and ASR meet those criteria @atmasphere .  By low, I don't mean only low at 20KHz, but low at all frequencies, <<0.01% at all frequencies. I don't think distortion has any particular meaning at >10KHz as the distortion is >20KHz. I assume the measurements are using an extended bandwidth beyond human hearing.  ASR shows distortion from low to high power at a range of frequencies in their reviews.

@sns @charles1dad 

Would the issue be that you don't want accuracy?  You want artifacts?  I think that is the conclusion that can be drawn.  I don't think Mahgister is remotely accurate in this regard, not regarding electrical signals. Those we can measure with extreme confidence fortunately, or my job would be impossible.  If you do not want accurate, I doubt there is 100% correlation from human to human, so the only way to know what artifacts you like is for you to listen.

I can run pure 2-channel, or through the AV processor. Depending on my mood, I will listen using the AV processor and ambience surround settings. It is not accurate, but often is a more pleasant listening experience. It is more alive, with all those buzz words that audiophiles like; wide sound-stage, presence and sounds more like a live performance. It is obviously artificial though.

@realworldaudio , I am not an EE, but my I have an advanced physics degree, and have worked in semiconductors, batteries, and development and measurement of those a long time. I have gotten pretty good with metrology out of necessity. Hence I don’t claim to be an expert, but I think I have a good grasp of what is being communicated in the measurements:

*all parameters tested on non-inductive perfectly passive extremely simplistic loads, while the loudspeakers are highly complex live loads affected by the room

Stereophile specifically mentions they use for some of their tests a synthetic speaker load that models a real world speaker. This appears to negate some of the above statement. Testing into 4 ohm is standard. Testing in 2 ohms seems common. This will provide insight into more reactive loads. Testing with worse case synthetic loads is common and harsher than real world conditions. For characterizing semiconductor devices we test with synthetic loads to find the "corners" for stability.

*Only additive distortion is measured, subtractive distortion is not.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by subtractive distortion. Are you stating that the interaction of a particular amplifier with a particular speaker may result in lower overall distortion? This seems possible. I will note that @atmasphere who seems to know his stuff stated most (not all) speakers are designed to be driven with a voltage source which may negate the advantage you may perceive for most listeners. This would be dependent exclusively on the load (speaker) so I don’t see how this could be tested.

*Change of THD in function of output level and frequency are no paid attention to, while these are strong determiners in relation whether the sound is perceived as natural VS manufactured.

This is purely false. Read any of the more recent reviews on ASR. THD and SINAD is tested from very low power to very high power across a range of frequencies from I think 20Hz to 15KHz. I am too lazy to go verify the exact frequencies used.

*Amplifier behavior is tested with constantly repetitive primitive signals, while the music output is a highly variable extremely complex waveform.

This is also purely false. ASR tests with a 32 tone IM signal. This is 32 tones from low frequency to high frequency. That would result in a signal that is complex and varying in amplitude as the frequencies add together.

*It is not examined how an amplifier deals with small signals following a large pulse at the frequency extremes.

I will not call this false, but I think you are not interpreting what the other measurements will accomplish. The 32 tone IM signal will vary from large to small. The THD stimulation also transitions from a very small level to very large. If the measurement is -100db in both cases then that would also be the case for the special condition you are theorizing.

What may be missing is testing if the distortion rises under continued heavy load causing device heating. I do not know if that is a valid real world condition.

I have listened to Nelson Pass. He strikes me as very much a heavy measurements guy. He may tune intentional artifacts in his designs, but what I have read and what I have been on Youtube indicates he is very much measurement oriented.

Are you any better @sns , insisting on magic because you won't accept your own infallible and easily influenced hearing?  I replied to @realworldaudio's post, objectively, with no idea or care for his qualifications. Some of the things he said are wrong. Some of the things he says seem relevant, and some are likely outside the scope or even capability of any viable test regimen but does not make them irrelevant, just impractical.

@rudyb 

You can't compare the frequency response of a headphone to speakers.

I simply don't understand why some have need to assign some reference sound quality based on present rather primitive measurement regime.

When I look at the measurement regimen for electrical products, for audio, it is not something I would call primitive. THD and SINAD tests from mW to 100's of watts at multiple frequencies in the audible range. IMD tests with 32 tones across multiple frequencies from low to high. Instruments that have noise and distortion 120db below signal levels. What is primitive about this?  In my response to @realworldaudio , his impression, and possibly yours is based on perhaps not understanding the measurements.  What is missing is how a particular speaker responds to a particular amplifier, but that is a system issue, and would appear to to be more relevant to certain amplifiers such as tube amplifiers, with high output resistance.

I personally am quite impressed with the technology of the Klippel speaker measurement system. There is nothing primitive about that. I see tests also include distortion at several volume levels, and impulse responses. I expect someone skilled can understand a lot about how that speaker will sound and how it would interact with a room and how it would respond to being turned up.

I think what irks some audiophiles is that sites like ASR declare that some equipment will sound the same, or that some equipment, will make no audible difference. I see that statement made with amplifiers, but it always has qualifications. I my mind there has not been anything convincing that proves them wrong.

@mahgister 

I did not not answer. I simply did not read your post.  Your posts for me, are excessive in number, take too long to make a point, and are filled with information that is extraneous.

Fourier transform cannot explain the hearing process which is non linear...

As our discussion is about audio equipment, not the human ear, it is relevant to keep the discussion at this point to equipment.

Many dac technology are based on this flawed assumptions ...

This statement is not correct. There in an inherent lack of understanding in that statement that I don't even know where to start unpacking. However, I will say two things. The goal of signal recreation is linearity. Testing for non-linearity is the purpose of THD measurement. It is an inherent feature of performing Fourier analysis. Our hearing having non-linear processing elements has nothing to do with analog to digital and digital to analog conversion and Shannon-Nyquist theorems. The two are totally unrelated.

Are you trying to imply that there are some timing limitations in DACs that are not sufficient for audio reproduction? In the articles it talks about 10x the Fourier uncertainty limit. That will still be a very very large number compared to the timing precision that digital audio must have to support the THD numbers I see quoted. I am sure you can research this and prove that to yourself.

@clearthink

Let me restate. You can compare the frequency response of headphones to speakers. You can also jump off a tall building. Doing the latter without a parachute and the former without applying appropriate corrections are both bad ideas. Are you advocating bad ideas?

I really got into headphones when travelling extensively pre-Covid.

The graph above, the Harmon Preference curve, is based on in-ear frequency response of over-ear and in-ear head phones. If your headphones match this response tested with a dummy head, then they will approximately match the response of a good flat on axis speaker in a room.

Perhaps you should not make insults like this,

I suggest you familiarize yourself with these common practices so as to avoid your misinformation.

when it implies you are providing accurate information, when what you were doing is misleading due to inaccurate or insufficient information.

It’s curves like this (there are several variants) that headphone designs nowadays target. Maybe we should do something similar for Amps plus speakers.

To the original posts author, I think we do that already. It is called flat though it may relate back to the Harmon in room preference curve. That would be worth checking out again.

I wonder if megadollar car owners spout the same stuff when a Tesla 3 (properly equipped) dusts them at the light.

I don't think an accurate amp is expensive to make.  Technology progresses. Pay more and you pay for different or more power.

@sns 

I contend all audio reproduction components have colorations, with neutral being our closest conception to what would be accurate. But then one person's perception of what is neutral may not correlate with another's.

I think that is both true and false. With all the variability in humans I have to expect we each have our own unique frequency response. I have to expect that varies even more with speakers where our body can play a part.  Our frequency response is not the same as the person putting the music together for us. The system they used to do that has a frequency response.

I can agree that frequency response tuning to personal preference is as much about personal preference as it is for compensating for unknowns.

Non-linear colorations, distortion and noise, are artificial colorations. I have no basis to disagree with Mahgister that some level of noise may assist in hearing detail when our listening levels are typically below live levels. I am at a loss for distortion. This appears to be purely a pleasant artifact, though I can accept Atmasphere that this could assist in masking worse distortion if that was to occur.  Purchasing an amplifier without these "worse distortions" is not difficult or expensive now. 

The other issue is how do we prove which exact component is in fact the objectively accurate one. Wouldn't we have to prove that component exactly replicates what the engineers/producers of any particular recording heard when mixing that recording?

Only a system could be deemed accurate. That would by necessity require the same speakers and room to be absolutely accurate.

At a single component level, the only applicable measure would be whether that component faithfully (accurately) outputs whatever it is input. The DAC or Amplifier with the lowest noise and distortion (across a complex set of measurements -- which do seem to be done now), would be as a component the most accurate.

From what Atmasphere has written, there is potential with some speakers, where the speaker is designed to be used with an amplifier with a high output resistance. This brings in a system level accuracy that could not be determined by measuring a single component. Components such as DACs, Pre-amps, and interconnects could be tested in isolation for accuracy. For speaker cables, I don't think accuracy is a relevant measure. They do what they do. R, L, C, and perhaps skin effect. Everything else is just marketing.

• In SS or Class-D amps one wants pretty stunning measurements.
  • Otherwise even 90-100 dB+ SINAD can sound distressing depending on the TYPE of distortion.
• In a tube amp, one could have a SINAD of say 60 and it would sound pretty likeable and musical if the lower order distortions are masking the higher order harmonics.

I think the comparison was feedback and no feedback not tubes and no tubes specifically. I think the critical element was low distortion at all frequencies and at low to high power.  I did not find the use of the 90-100db term well defined. Perhaps @atmasphere can expand on that.

Well, deludedaudiophiles stated the divide quite clearly and repeatedly, the measurement crowd doesn’t believe we can trust in our individual sensory perceptions to make best decisions.

You misinterpret what I am saying. Sensory perception is important. You may prefer the artifacts in a tube amplifier. The output resistance of a tube amp may provide a pleasant change to the frequency response of your speaker and atmasphere has suggested some speakers prefer this. Turntables can have color in addition to the fact the mastering is different. These are significant changes for which preference is relevant.

Where the differences are extremely small, at least from an extensive measurement set, then preference is either a very questionable or false premise. Without testing if your brain is playing tricks on you I place little validity in it.

I wish I could be fooled into believing a system sounds good when it sounds bad. I'd save a lot of time or money. It's easy to "fool" oneself on a blind or short-term listening session. That is why the gold standard is long term evaluation. It's very hard to convince yourself somethings sounds good after you have experienced all it's flaws. 

This "the gold standard is a long term evaluation" was a lie started by people trying to extract money out of your wallet. I have been into audio like everyone else here for many decades. I don't remember exactly when this lie started, but I think in the 90s.

You also though are misinterpreting what I am saying. You will not be fooled into thinking a bad system. You could easily be tricked or trick yourself into believing that given two systems -exactly the same-, that one of them is better. That is not a minor distinction.

So, prescribe to everyone components, or a set of components making up an entire system. I'm sure you guys could come up with a number of systems meeting your objective criteria to prescribe to us subjectivists. We then could have face offs between the objective systems and any number of subjectively chosen systems.

This is not at all what I am saying.  No one knows whether you personally like your bass a little heavy, your treble rolled off, or perhaps what I have been told a warmth that can come from certain distortion artifacts. Any components or set of components that can cause these changes will be subject to subjective evaluation for your personal preference.

What I am saying, is that it is highly unlikely to the point of improbably, that given two components not easily effected by system level interactions, say two DACs, or two interconnects, that measure very close in their performance (and in the case of DACs make sure the settings are the same), that you will be able to differentiate them without visual clues. I am also saying it is quite evident that audiophiles rarely test their claim that they are capable of this.

The current type of measurements as practiced over at ASR and similar sources just are not predictive of how a product will sound. This is patently obvious,  no correlation to subsequent sound quality at all.

How can you possibly state this with such confidence without proving that you or anyone can reliably detect differences after 2 components have been tested by a sight like ASR or equivalent.

- THD+N from 100mW to max power at 20Hz, 500Hz, 1-5-10-15KHz.

- Power versus distortion single frequency from 10mW to max

- Frequency response at 4R, which would allow extraction of output resistance

- 32 tone inter modulation tests. This would represent real music.

- I saw a 2 ohm test on a recent amp from 50mW and up

ON DACs add:

- frequency response at various input sample rates and with the different filters the DAC offers.

- jitter test

- usually tests all the input types, but not consistent

I am aware of some videos highlighting some potential corner conditions (at least with DACs) that ASR does not test for, but which may also not be an issue with real music. This still brings me back to my first paragraph. With real music can you detect issues?

Most of the differences we hear between amps is their distortion signature, to which most audiophiles refer to as the ’sonic signature’. I’ve described how the distortion affects the sound of the amp earlier.

Based on my newfound expertise wrt speaker cable resistance (or at least unusual speaker cable resistance), can I surmise with some accuracy that high output resistance of the average tube amplifier compared to the average solid state amplifier with typical speakers will be the dominant contributor to "sonic signature". It is able to make significant changes in system frequency response which I do not think anyone will argue with would be audible.

On the other issue, for all the paragraphs written, I do not perceive that O telling S what sounds best is the dominant issue or even much of an issue beyond some zealotry (much of that on both sides). I see that more as a deflection of the real issues of whether S can really hear the differences they claim exists and that O says do not exist.  I think the average O may have some thoughts on what is "likely" to be pleasing to a wide audience based on tests by respected O's, but would accept that not everyone has average preferences.

Amp and speaker interaction cannot be simulated in lab amplifier measurements. Most all loudspeakers vary dramatically in load to an amp. Testing the amp and speaker separately is not an accurate measurement of how the components work together. Some speculation can be made sometimes but not always. So the method used is measuring with a simulated 4 ohm load and a simulated 8 ohm load but that is not how the system is operating.

My EE circuit skills at this level are not superb, but my expectation would be this is a factor of the stability of the amplifier which could be impacted by the impedance of the load compared to a pure resistance. I would expect amplifier designers such as Atmasphere consider this, and also that for most standard speakers (not electrostatic for instance), they expected range of speaker reactance is not so great they cannot account for it. When I was researching speaker impedance after discovering the high resistance cable, I noted that the phase angle seemed to be bounded though my research was not extensive.  It seems an inherent element of most speakers is some significant series resistance.

This is a good point but not the nature of my question. If the amplifier has a characteristic output resistance that is significant, then knowing the characteristic input impedance of the speaker, we can simulate/model how that will change the frequency response. This has been validated by an EE strong in circuits so I am confident that is correct. I believe that would be dominant over distortion, but I am not fully confident in that belief.   I do understand that high output resistance would also impact woofer movement which may not be easily modelled.

I have already coined Audiokarens. That’s for audiohiles who tie their self worth to their equipment purchaes and get bent out of shape when measurements show it’s not as perfect as they told everyone or it is of questionable benefit.

That brings me to another point about the products reviewed by ASR and their ilk. Why the obsession with what other people spend on gear and their insistence that anything over $1500 is just wasted money? 

I would be more concerned with why it bugs you so much when all they do is measure equipment and publish results. It's a rather unemotional thing.

Thus it draws the linear minded conservative types to it like a zealot is drawn to correcting error as it sees danger to itself in those differences. This mind type will NEVER stop trying to kill it off with all the force of it’s being.

Really now. I have read some of the political discussions here. Pretty conservative bunch.

Your post, a hostile diatribe at best, at worst is ultimately an attack meant to silence an opposing view while disguising it as freedom fighting. Your post lacks humanity, understanding, and most of all shows a lack of creativity of thought in your inability to understand an opposing view.

If I tried to post at ASR, similar to how I post here at audiogon.....I'd be removed in almost seconds.

 

What I see being unapologetically not accepted is posts regarding listening reports where any difference by nature of the component changes must be very small, and the listening test is done with full knowledge of what is being listened to.

I will ask, do you have proof that their insisted methodology is wrong. Not feelings, not personal experiences, not unsubstantiated articles, but solid proof their insisted methodology is wrong?

I get the impression that if I demonstrated to them that things they did not accept were audulible are, they would be amenable to the idea especially if they participated. They would then analyse it 10 ways from Sunday and figure out why.

I am coming to the conclusion the opposite is not true. Even if it was shown that you could not hear a difference you are certain exists I don't think you would accept the results.

@teo_audio ,

It took me about 5 minutes to find other academics to call out Peterson on his limited interpretations of creativity not to mention method errors in assuming even for simple creativity tests that test subjects are levelled in their existing abilities. I will leave it to you to look up what that means. I will give you a hint it is related to cultural influences on IQ tests.

However, it is best to simply use Jordan’s own words at 3:31 in this video, "The CAQ is also potently predicted by IQ as expected". CAQ is a creativity score.

https://m.facebook.com/drjordanpeterson/videos/did-you-know-that-creative-people-have-less-death-related-thoughts/500540930657554/

Jordan is well known and I even agree with many things he says including the need for creative people to have some other grounding. This is often an issue with high academic performers in physics, chemistry and engineering due to the creativity of their divergent thinking having the potential to make multiple focuses challenging.

He is well known but his ideas are not all universally accepted. Previous to his gender stance he was a known but not exceptional academic.

And in a funny twist, my personal lawyer is a former professional musician.

They have an official policy (not kidding), a narcissist procedure of “cat and mouse “ sort of game. They will play you from a position of competence and utmost superiority.

 

Official policy huh? :-)

I said Audiokarens as a joke. Now I am not so sure.

I accept it is possible, however, having participated in blind tests where I was previously convinced there was a difference and then couldn't detect any, I did the calculations and realized there should not be a difference. In another topic, I dissected a marketing page for a cable and was able to determine only from that that it would have high resistance (and was correct) and I have no doubt that cable is audibly different. I have no doubt there are other cables that are audibly different. I have even wrote that in other posts. However, I am quite certain this has nothing to do with all the questionable science communicated by vendors and users alike, but by simple parameters we are all familiar. The claims of exotic science and justified by exotic materials and exotic construction do not hold up to scrutiny.

By the way, innovations in all human endeavors come from both STEM and non-STEM educated individuals. Innovation comes from those with curiosity and imagination. One must ask the right questions, or even what at time posed,  considered silly questions by some. To believe there are no more known unknowns is sheer lunacy.

While there is still some truth to this, the truth in this declines year by year. Most of the low hanging fruit was long ago discovered. As we progress, advancements and discoveries get harder and harder, hence it takes a lot of existing knowledge and skill to add anything.

The only thing we're really arguing about is whether we have settled science or not in regard to s claims.

I disagree. I think the argument is whether what is claimed to be heard is really true. If it can be proven that the audible claims that audiophiles make about many products is true, the result will be technical types dissecting what is happening and why. There is obviously a group who will always chose pure precision to an arbitrary measure no matter what and claim it is superior, but they are a minority, even on sites like ASR. I believe even Mahgister agrees with this view, as he felt there were a few "zealots". Part of the issue is even understanding "the language". It took me a bit to review the measurements, do some reading, etc. before I felt comfortable engaging.

Did you consider yourself the arbiter of the matter of this thread because you are a scientist? If so you are wrong....My post is related to this useless debate...

The horse is dead. Long live the horse. You seem at a loss for why no one commented. I am taking a stab at the likely reason. Even the most ardent tweakaholic has lost interest.

I didn’t arbitrate anything. I just stated rather clearly that until you either prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claims are really heard or provide some relevant scientific basis for differences to be heard, then the posts are simply self indulgent.

How our brains work or our auditory system works is not even relevant. This is all external observation. From my reading there is a large body of work in what is audible, whether level, distortion, frequency response, noise, phase, and I am sure a large number of other factors that could define audio, primarily electronics as this appears to be the topic under discussion. These tests all appear to be done under special conditions meant to give us poor old humans every chance at success, as opposed to music for which it will be harder.

Your posts do nothing to advance whether what is perceived as being heard is really being heard, nor that there is a real physical mechanism for the difference, nor whether the tested limits of human audio perception for measurable differences is significantly better than already shown by those working in the field. I suggest starting with the first as it will require by far the least experimental rigor or knowledge to accomplish.