2. digital
  3. 161839-17750

Why are digital streaming equipment manufacturers refusing to answer me?

I have performed double blind tests with the most highly regarded brands of streamers and some hifi switches. None have made any difference to my system on files saved locally. I have asked the following question to the makers of such systems and almost all have responded with marketing nonsense. 
My system uses fiber optic cables. These go all the way to the dac (MSB). Thus no emi or rfi is arriving at the dac. On top of this, MSB allows me to check if I receive bit perfection files or not. I do. 
So I claim that: if your dac receives a bit perfect signal and it is connected via fiber optic, anything prior to the conversion to fiber optic (streamers, switches, their power supplies, cables etc) make absolutely no difference. Your signal can’t be improved by any of these expensive pieces of equipment. 
If anyone can help explain why this is incorrect I would greatly appreciate it. Dac makers mostly agree, makers of streamers have told me scientific things such as “our other customers can hear the difference” (after extensive double blind testing has resulted to no difference being perceived) and my favorite “bit perfect doesn’t exist, when you hear our equipment tou forget about electronics and love the music”!
mihalis

Showing 2 responses by cleeds

cleeds
6,089 posts
 
audio2design
And there is it folks, can’t win an argument based on facts, or truth, so must resort to an insult and labelling.
Nope, I offered no insult. There’s no need for you to pretend you’re insulted simply because someone disagrees with you.
Hate to break it to you "cleeds", but ABX has absolutely nothing to do with measurement.
That’s correct, of course. The only function of an ABX test is to determine if the listener - under the test conditions - can reliably distinguish whether "X" is either "A" or "B".
... in another thread, you used as an argument, Wireworld coming up with a "Patented" device to improve their ability to do double blindtesting. Cake and eat it too? Do please try to be consistent.
No, I never, ever said that. Ever. Please try to be accurate when you make claims. It’s bad enough when you use illogic to make an argument, but it’s worse when you fabricate claims made by others.

I have pointed out that Wireworld offers a comparator to use in evaluating cables. It’s a little odd that you seem to insist that others do this experimenting for you, but I understand that if you were to actually conduct such testing you fear the results might conflict with your fundamentalist beliefs.
Lot’s of people have lots of "beliefs" ... Does not change the lack of evidence that ABX works and hence is the "gold standard" or as close as we have to one.
Yes, and your measurementalist "belief" is that ABX is the gold standard for audio testing. As I’ve noted many times previously, it’s a very useful tool, and I’ve been an ABX test subject and found the results v-e-r-y interesting. It absolutely has a place in audio testing.

But ABX testing is just a tool - a single, solitary tool. It is not a path to Absolute Truth. That apparently offends your belief system.

Taken to the extreme, there are those who actually believe  "if you didn't hear it blind, you didn't hear it." Obviously, many sighted people can hear just fine.
cleeds
6,089 posts
 
audio2design
... double blind ABX testing is considered the gold standard ...
Not everyone shares your measurementalist’s belief that ABX is the "gold standard" for evaluating audio equipment. Not even close. It appears that really upsets you.

That doesn’t mean that ABX is useless, of course. But it’s just a tool - a single, solitary tool.
More to discover