Another playback software to argue over

[jkeny]

You have to wonder if some of these people are actually interested in better sound or if they just like to discuss (and second-guess) the motivations of other people here.

QED - a master debater (don't say that too quickly)

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I can't speak for anyone else but I believe these debates persist because there is a fundamental difference in the points of view of the two sides that cannot be resolved. One side believes, as John said a few posts ago, that the evidence is all there if you just listen. The other side believes that the probability of expectation bias in sighted listening far outweighs the probability that someone has managed to affect an audible change at the analog output of the DAC with a bit of code manipulation in a digital player. Now I only speak for myself on this part, but Archer is right - I have no intention of downloading this player. Why? Because I've read about similar evidence (sighted listening) of the audible improvements of audiophile digital players, I have downloaded them and tried them, and I have been disappointed. And, I completely disagree that the evidence is right there. If you have measured no difference at the output of the DAC, if you have run no statistically valid blind listening tests, you have no evidence worth downloading this software over. YMMV, of course, but there are your reasons why someone might question this, and not test it personally.

Tim

 

[Julf]

QED - a master debater (don't say that too quickly)

Just a reminder:

Please don't hit the Reply button if your post is about a person rather than a technical point.

 

[Julf]

Then why the constant cry for DBTs, measurements, etc. or are you saying that there are enough observations confirming the audible difference of this software & now it's time to move to the next phase - looking for more evidence?

"constant cry", may I respectfully call hyperbole?

I, among others, am asking for the existence of evidence because a bunch of people, including the author of the software we are discussing, have made claims about correlation between minor changes in software and sound quality despite the fact that there is nowhere near enough verified observations to support making such claims.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

"constant cry", may I respectfully call hyperbole?

I, among others, am asking for the existence of evidence because a bunch of people, including the author of the software we are discussing, have made claims about correlation between minor changes in software and sound quality despite the fact that there is nowhere near enough verified observations to support making such claims.

I, for one, don't require DBT. Measurements at the output of the DAC would be sufficient. Would they show anything?

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Except "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If your claim is well supported by existing scientific theory, it requires slightly less strong evidence than something that goes against it (such as cold fusion).

true enough. Science has an impressive list of failures. Often the contradiction already existed but science refused to accept it. Let's take the curve ball. It was considered impossible by science. We know have technology where the path of the ball can be easily tracked. So objectivists have the same problem as clearly contradicted by reality..

Hp claims to be an audio observationist. Not a scientist.H He is going to come up short when his opinions are held to a scientific standard.

 

[Gregadd]

Edit: I believe it would be a good idea to create a debating section on the forum to allow those so inclined to indulge their want & not pollute every thread with their tiresome arguments"

We did have such" a section with good results. It did prove to be to rigorous for laymen like me.

 

[jkeny]

I can't speak for anyone else but I believe these debates persist because there is a fundamental difference in the points of view of the two sides that cannot be resolved. One side believes, as John said a few posts ago, that the evidence is all there if you just listen. The other side believes that the probability of expectation bias in sighted listening far outweighs the probability that someone has managed to affect an audible change at the analog output of the DAC with a bit of code manipulation in a digital player.

So what's stopping you to do your listening blind!!! This is just a false barrier/division that you are trying to create as it's easily overcome, if you ACTUALLY/REALLY have a desire to overcome what you consider is the main problem - sighted test .

Now I only speak for myself on this part, but Archer is right - I have no intention of downloading this player. Why? Because I've read about similar evidence (sighted listening) of the audible improvements of audiophile digital players, I have downloaded them and tried them, and I have been disappointed. And, I completely disagree that the evidence is right there. If you have measured no difference at the output of the DAC, if you have run no statistically valid blind listening tests, you have no evidence worth downloading this software over. YMMV, of course, but there are your reasons why someone might question this, and not test it personally.

Tim

Yes your expectation bias prevents you from trying it. It's the ultimate expectation bias - you don't hear any difference because you don't try it

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Except "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If your claim is well supported by existing scientific theory, it requires slightly less strong evidence than something that goes against it (such as cold fusion).

true enough. Science has an impressive list of failures. Often the contradiction already existed but science refused to accept it. Let's take the curve ball. It was considered impossible by science. We know have technology where the path of the ball can be easily tracked. So objectivists have the same problem as clearly contradicted by reality..

Hp claims to be an audio observationist. Not a scientist.H He is going to come up short when his opinions are held to a scientific standard.

And what we have here is a similar theoretical impossibility, but no one has tracked the path of the ball, they've just insisted that it curves and dismissed anyone who questions that. If someone can track the ball, lots of others will rush in to figure out how they did that. It could be quite exciting.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So what's stopping you to do your listening blind!!! This is just a false barrier/division that you are trying to create.
Yes your expectation bias prevents you from trying it. It's the ultimate expectation bias - you don;t hear any difference because you don;t try it

What's stopping me from listening to it blind is a desire not to waste my time. Given any good reason to believe this one is any different than the three or four I've already tried and I'd give it a shot. But no one has come up with that reason in this thread.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

What's stopping me from listening to it blind is a desire not to waste my time. Given any good reason to believe this one is any different than the three or four I've already tried and I'd give it a shot. But no one has come up with that reason in this thread.

Tim

Yes, I remember you using the same reason on the Jplay forum. Audirvana, Pure Audio & something else were the 3 fails that you mentioned. So you do realise that you are a prime example of expectation bias, right & not a good candidate for any audio testing? i.e. you would be filtered out in any well-run DBT

 

[Groucho]

You have to wonder if some of these people are actually interested in better sound or they just like to debate?

We have a perfect example in another thread of why it's necessary to have these debates: Windows 8 is bad for audio, apparently. Such an assertion could go unchallenged, or confirmed by sighted 'listening tests'. The objectivist pariahs bite their lips this time and don't bother to comment, the rumour spreads, and suddenly there are masses of audiophiles hearing grainy harsh sound from their PCs, dancing around in panic, buying Apple Macs, learning Linux. I'm running XP on my system, and Microsoft are stopping support in April, so I have to upgrade. If I was susceptible to the new rumour about Windows 8, I'd be in trouble!

 

[jkeny]

What's stopping me from listening to it blind is a desire not to waste my time. ...

Tim

But what I can't understand is your wasting more of your own & others time posting about your desire not to waste time!

 

[jkeny]

I can't speak for anyone else but I believe these debates persist because there is a fundamental difference in the points of view of the two sides that cannot be resolved. One side believes, as John said a few posts ago, that the evidence is all there if you just listen. The other side believes that the probability of expectation bias in sighted listening far outweighs the probability that someone has managed to affect an audible change at the analog output of the DAC with a bit of code manipulation in a digital player........
Tim

So this depiction of the difference in viewpoint is false as it is easily resolved for anybody who believes sighted expectation bias skews the results - just do your listening blind.
But according to your following post, this isn't really the issue as you refuse to "waste your time" doing any blind listening.
So you cite expectation bias of sighted tests as the flaw on one side but are completely blind to your own expectation bias (blind or sighted) of not hearing any difference.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, I remember you using the same reason on the Jplay forum. Audirvana, Pure Audio & something else were the 3 fails that you mentioned. So you do realise that you are a prime example of expectation bias, right & not a good candidate for any audio testing? i.e. you would be filtered out in any well-run DBT

I do realize that, actually. It was Amarra, Pure Audio and, I believe, an attempt at audirvana that failed to even install. There might have been another. But yes, at this point I expect to hear no difference, so I would need to be tested using a method with a control, and in which I did not know what was being tested. Always a good idea, anyway. Or I need to wait for the believers to show some evidence. A measurable difference -- in noise, distortion, dynamics, amplitude, FR...anything substantive...at the output of the DAC would be a great start. Then we could discuss audibility.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

I do realize that, actually.

If you do realise this, then your original depiction of the difference between the sides is incorrect. According to you - It is now the difference between sighted expectation bias skewing the results towards hearing differences & the other side having a hidden expectation bias (in their heads) that affect both sighted & unsighted listening which skews the results towards hearing no differences.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If you do realise this, then your original depiction of the difference between the sides is incorrect. According to you - It is now the difference between sighted expectation bias skewing the results towards hearing differences & the other side having a hidden expectation bias (in their heads) that affect both sighted & unsighted listening which skews the results towards hearing no differences.

You can only come to that conclusion if you either don't understand or are choosing to misrepresent what I said. Here's the post:

I can't speak for anyone else but I believe these debates persist because there is a fundamental difference in the points of view of the two sides that cannot be resolved. One side believes, as John said a few posts ago, that the evidence is all there if you just listen. The other side believes that the probability of expectation bias in sighted listening far outweighs the probability that someone has managed to affect an audible change at the analog output of the DAC with a bit of code manipulation in a digital player. Now I only speak for myself on this part, but Archer is right - I have no intention of downloading this player. Why? Because I've read about similar evidence (sighted listening) of the audible improvements of audiophile digital players, I have downloaded them and tried them, and I have been disappointed. And, I completely disagree that the evidence is right there. If you have measured no difference at the output of the DAC, if you have run no statistically valid blind listening tests, you have no evidence worth downloading this software over. YMMV, of course, but there are your reasons why someone might question this, and not test it personally.

Tim

Nothing has changed. I still believe there is a much greater probability that believers are experiencing expectation bias than there is that the output of a DAC has been changed by minor code changes in a digital player. The fact that I believe in expectation bias enough to see it in myself only reinforces the point.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Nothing has changed. I still believe there is a much greater probability that believers are experiencing expectation bias than there is that the output of a DAC has been changed by minor code changes in a digital player. The fact that I believe in expectation bias enough to see it in myself only reinforces the point.

Tim

Ah, so your admission of your own expectation bias somehow reinforces your argument??
You seem to be able to cite the bias on one side & it's effects but not for the other side - it's interesting.
As you say, "Noting has changed"

 

[microstrip]

We have a perfect example in another thread of why it's necessary to have these debates: Windows 8 is bad for audio, apparently. Such an assertion could go unchallenged, or confirmed by sighted 'listening tests'. The objectivist pariahs bite their lips this time and don't bother to comment, the rumour spreads, and suddenly there are masses of audiophiles hearing grainy harsh sound from their PCs, dancing around in panic, buying Apple Macs, learning Linux. I'm running XP on my system, and Microsoft are stopping support in April, so I have to upgrade. If I was susceptible to the new rumour about Windows 8, I'd be in trouble!

Groucho,
Do you get peace of mind participating in or reading internet debates?

 

[microstrip]

(...)
As you say, "Noting has changed"

And will never change ...