This philosophy seems to be an logical extension from the so called "precautionary principle." We are often told it's better to be safe than sorry. We are told that if we just take care of everything, our system will sound great. We see this philosophy penetrate all professions. Fear seems to be the genesis for this philosophical approach. For example, fearful physicians seem to order more tests and the outcomes don't seem to be improved with all of the testing done in the hospital. Is this really a meaningful philosophy? Does this approach help anyone make their system more musically engaging?
The Everything Matters philosophy manifests itself in ways which make some logical sense. We read arguments and assertions made to support claims which lack any data to support those claims. It's one thing to say it. It's something totally different, to back it up with some actual data. I have been an avid computer audio listener for years. I've tried numerous tweeks, cables, DACs, amps, speakers, room treatments and softwares and spent a lot of cash doing it. What I've learned is that these logical assertions will never die because they seem logical and are supported with an army of self-affirming subjective experiences. This is no different from the assertions we often read about cables, stones and other strange tweeks. In the past, I fell for this philosophy. For me, I realized I was getting caught up in something which didn't further my musical enjoyment. My pursuit of music lost it's focus and meaning.
In terms of objective data related to computer audio, there ARE some measurements I've seen provided by Exasound George which can demonstrate how a good USB implementation can improve noise measurements from the analog outs of the DAC. That's somewhat helpful and I wholeheartedly agree with his USB design. But, unless there can be some objective data measured from the analog outs of a DAC, I place Swenson's claims and his assertions squarely in the category theorizing and not actual useful knowledge.
On this forum, I know I've seen Amir post analog measurements before and after the insertion of a Berkeley USB to AES converter. The evidence in that case seemed pretty clear that the Berkeley does exactly what it claims to do.
Is there any downside to taking on the precautionary strategy to computer audio? What if it weren't really true? What if "everything matters" is a vacuous truism used to support pursuits which simply waste money and, more importantly, time. Time which could have been better spent listening to awesome music! Time which could have better spent focusing on things which really DO improve playback performance. The truth I've learned is that some things REALLY matter and some thing do NOT matter. I was only able to fully understand this discovery when I pursued those items which I previously avoided. (eg. room construction, room treatments, seating position, speaker performance and DSP) Since adopting this philosophy, I've spent more time listening to much better music and less time worrying about the stuff which doesn't matter. Since adopting this strategy, I've noticed that the little computer audio tweeks I used to think so important, really don't make any difference at all. Some folks like to say things like; "you could only hear it, if your system was up to par." My experience is exactly the opposite. The more advanced and accurate a system becomes, the less the above mentioned tweeks make ANY difference to the music. I don't know why that is the case, but it's been my clear observation having tried just about everything.
I think it's much better to live one's life in pursuit of excellence, rather than avoiding the "what if" fears in life.
Thoughts and criticisms are certainly welcome.
Michael.
The Everything Matters philosophy manifests itself in ways which make some logical sense. We read arguments and assertions made to support claims which lack any data to support those claims. It's one thing to say it. It's something totally different, to back it up with some actual data. I have been an avid computer audio listener for years. I've tried numerous tweeks, cables, DACs, amps, speakers, room treatments and softwares and spent a lot of cash doing it. What I've learned is that these logical assertions will never die because they seem logical and are supported with an army of self-affirming subjective experiences. This is no different from the assertions we often read about cables, stones and other strange tweeks. In the past, I fell for this philosophy. For me, I realized I was getting caught up in something which didn't further my musical enjoyment. My pursuit of music lost it's focus and meaning.
In terms of objective data related to computer audio, there ARE some measurements I've seen provided by Exasound George which can demonstrate how a good USB implementation can improve noise measurements from the analog outs of the DAC. That's somewhat helpful and I wholeheartedly agree with his USB design. But, unless there can be some objective data measured from the analog outs of a DAC, I place Swenson's claims and his assertions squarely in the category theorizing and not actual useful knowledge.
On this forum, I know I've seen Amir post analog measurements before and after the insertion of a Berkeley USB to AES converter. The evidence in that case seemed pretty clear that the Berkeley does exactly what it claims to do.
Is there any downside to taking on the precautionary strategy to computer audio? What if it weren't really true? What if "everything matters" is a vacuous truism used to support pursuits which simply waste money and, more importantly, time. Time which could have been better spent listening to awesome music! Time which could have better spent focusing on things which really DO improve playback performance. The truth I've learned is that some things REALLY matter and some thing do NOT matter. I was only able to fully understand this discovery when I pursued those items which I previously avoided. (eg. room construction, room treatments, seating position, speaker performance and DSP) Since adopting this philosophy, I've spent more time listening to much better music and less time worrying about the stuff which doesn't matter. Since adopting this strategy, I've noticed that the little computer audio tweeks I used to think so important, really don't make any difference at all. Some folks like to say things like; "you could only hear it, if your system was up to par." My experience is exactly the opposite. The more advanced and accurate a system becomes, the less the above mentioned tweeks make ANY difference to the music. I don't know why that is the case, but it's been my clear observation having tried just about everything.
I think it's much better to live one's life in pursuit of excellence, rather than avoiding the "what if" fears in life.
Thoughts and criticisms are certainly welcome.
Michael.
