Schiit, interesting name...more interesting products!

[DaveyF]

So, let's see what the reader base thinks of your lack of level matching?
Is it a grave sin in the world of audiophiles?
Is it excusable & how?
Vote now when the buzzer sounds

Let's give Amir some slack...if for no other reason than he is person who has an interest in audio; even if it is not on the same level as a lot of us on this forum. On his AVS forum, i was flamed because I happened to post a thread about the Shakti Hallograph's. The members on that forum were completely blinkered in regards to any possible audio improvement that didn't meet their "understanding". Here, Amir comes across as a less than seasoned a'phile who wants to deflect anytime anyone asks about his system or how he actually comes to his conclusions.
IMHO, it's ok if Amir wants to hold on to his beliefs about audio, we should all realize that he has the right to believe as he does...and we have the right to disagree with him...it's all good!

 

[jkeny]

Let's give Amir some slack...

Do you mean let's give him enough rope?


Would it seem hypocritical to anyone to find out that he doesn't use level matching in his listening tests?
Does this remind anyone of catholic priests sermonising from the pulpit about sex while ................

 

[Don Hills]

Why not let Amir answer?

How could I stop him from answering? You're just trying the old "when did you stop beating your wife" line.

Or am I sensing that you don't defend or approve of this?

Come on Don, take a position before Amir answers or are you waiting for your guru's deflections?

Your senses, as usual, have deceived you. I neither approve nor disapprove. I'm only interested in facts. You have provided none. So: quotes, or it didn't happen.

 

[amirm]

Would it seem hypocritical to anyone to find out that he doesn't use level matching in his listening tests?

From a post a couple of days ago:

The point was not EQ but that your brain makes up things that are so large audibly such as EQ. If we are susceptible to such bias, then you need to take actions against it.

I will give you a non-EQ example.

I bought some high res music in PCM from Blue Coast music. Cookie, the owner/founder followed up with me and sent me the original format which was DSD. In other words, the PCM version I bought was originally converted from DSD. Since my DAC doesn't play DSD, I had set Roon to covert it on the fly to PCM at 96 Khz. I set up an AB test and was surprised that the DSD converted files sounded so much better. There was more detail, air, analog-like sound, etc. in DSD version that was being converted to PCM. I was surprised there was so much difference between off-line converted files I had bought in PCM versus on the fly conversion by Roon.

Right then I noticed that the on-the-fly converted version was a bit louder. I go in settings and noticed Roon by default was applying a +6db gain in format conversion from DSD to PCM. I dialed that down by 2 db and by then, they were subjectively as loud as each other. The moment I did that, all the sonic differences disappeared! The two had same detail, same air, same analogness, etc. I was being fooled by simple level difference between the two playback chains.

Now let's talk about DACs. These devices have analog outputs with no standards with respect to level. As such, every DAC puts out a different level. See this example review I did on Behringer DAC against iFi: http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/budget-dac-review-behringer-umc204hd.1658/

As the graph indicates, the iFi DAC is 4-5 db louder than Behringer. If this level difference is not compensated for, you could easily think the iFi has more detail, air, analog-like, etc.

Unless you study and go through such experiences you simply are not well positioned to make strong statements about fidelity of DACs. You just can't especially when your view is so opposed to many others.

Do you level match John?

 

[amirm]

Let's give Amir some slack...if for no other reason than he is person who has an interest in audio; even if it is not on the same level as a lot of us on this forum. On his AVS forum, i was flamed because I happened to post a thread about the Shakti Hallograph's. The members on that forum were completely blinkered in regards to any possible audio improvement that didn't meet their "understanding".

We understood it fine Davey. I even explained it here that we can fully simulate its acoustic effect in a room using computation fluid dynamics. There is no mystery there. The device simply has infinitesimal acoustic effect akin to you moving your body parts when listening to music.

I know your feelings were hurt there but please consider that you went to a convention of steak eaters, asking them if they appreciate certain brand of tofu. You can ask about that device here and get confirmation that it does something. There, we have a guiding principle that says before you insist a device does something, you need to show something that the audio/medical science/engineering accepts as proper evidence. Alternatively you can send the device to me or others there and we can measure its effect to produce the same. That is what ASR Forum is about.

Please note that we know you perceive and improvement. We have simple explanations for why that is. It does not at all rely on mysteries of human body, physics of sound in a room, not yet being understood. We may be wrong there but we have incredible body of evidence behind us vs this device.

Here, Amir comes across as a less than seasoned a'phile who wants to deflect anytime anyone asks about his system or how he actually comes to his conclusions.
IMHO, it's ok if Amir wants to hold on to his beliefs about audio, we should all realize that he has the right to believe as he does...and we have the right to disagree with him...it's all good!

Less than seasoned? How is that again? I have been an audiophile for nearly 50 years now. My system is in my profile. My conclusions about audio is an open book, having explained countless audio experiences I have had. I have tried it your way. But I no longer believe in taking on audio science because I hate losing .

Now maybe you mean I don't throw a social party every time I buy an audio cable for thousands of dollars. That is fine for others. It is who they are. What I am is a private person. I am here to share my experience of merging understanding of audio science and being an audiophile. My conclusions are not beliefs to be put down with words because I can back them with tons and tons of research and independent work. And my beliefs can trivially be shown to be true for you and rest of subjectivists just as well. The trick is doing the test where we only measure what we hear and nothing else. The effect of Shakti device for example will disappear completely from your mind if you don't know if it is there in your room or not. It has to because it can't cheat the physics of sound propagation.

On a personal level, must be degrade these conversations constantly and make them personal this way? People come to this thread to read about a DAC and what they find is a handful of people having nothing better to do than to bickering with no information conveyed. You have an issue with what I am saying, put some data forward. Don't go after me. And for Pete's sake, show some levity and humor. 'cause we sure as heck have lost the full idea of what being an audiophile means: joy through a hobby.

 

[jkeny]

Duckin' & Divin'
Bobbin'& Weavin'

Anything but answering the question

Maybe you can explain the following quotes of yours:

"I am telling you that once you are trained, you can easily look past most if not all volume differences. A trained listener is not easily fooled by loudness differences because he can focus and identify real issues."​

Still your view & do you not level match in listening tests?

 

[steve williams]

Duckin' & Divin'
Bobbin'& Weavin'

Anything but answering the question

Maybe you can explain the following quotes of yours:

"I am telling you that once you are trained, you can easily look past most if not all volume differences. A trained listener is not easily fooled by loudness differences because he can focus and identify real issues."​

Still your view & do you not level match in listening tests?

as kids we would call this a "gotcha"

 

[jkeny]

as kids we would call this a "gotcha"

Oh, there's plenty more of the same but I'll let Amir come clean even though he hasn't done so upto now & his poor acolyte, "Donny the disciple", needed a quote because Amir wasn't saying anything. The more I see of this, the more it reminds me of the Trump fiasco government with Donny as Spicer (believing everything his guru says & defending him to the hilt no matter what, even when he is treated like a mushroom - kept in the dark & fed sh1t)

 

[DaveyF]

We understood it fine Davey. Really???
I know your feelings were hurt there but please consider that you went to a convention of steak eaters, asking them if they appreciate certain brand of tofu. You can ask about that device here and get confirmation that it does something. There, we have a guiding principle that says before you insist a device does something, you need to show something that the audio/medical science/engineering accepts as proper evidence. That is what ASR Forum is about.--Not really, they seem to be all about 'disbelieve and insult'

Please note that we know you perceive and improvement. Yes, and so do numerous professional recording studios wo happen to also utilize the very same Shakti's. We have simple explanations for why that is Simple, yes...they don't work because we say they can't..why because they look like they can't!!. It does not at all rely on mysteries of human body, physics of sound in a room, not yet being understood. We may be wrong there---How could that be true, when no one at AVS even has even listened to these devices...and never will! but we have incredible body of evidence behind us vs this device. Please present that!


Less than seasoned? How is that again? I have been an audiophile for nearly 50 years now. My system is in my profile. My conclusions about audio is an open book, having explained countless audio experiences I have had. [B]Unfortunately, it would seem that your conclusions about audio are constantly tied to a very small concept...and that is: unless it measures well, it cannot sound good---regardless of what my ears are telling me!.

Now maybe you mean I don't throw a social party every time I buy an audio cable for thousands of dollars. That is fine for others. It is who they are. What I am is a private person. I am here to share my experience of merging understanding of audio science and being an audiophile. My conclusions are not beliefs to be put down with words because I can back them with tons and tons of research and independent work. And my beliefs can trivially be shown to be true for you and rest of subjectivists just as well. The trick is doing the test where we only measure what we hear and nothing else. The effect of Shakti device for example will disappear completely from your mind if you don't know if it is there in your room or not And you know this how??? It has to because it can't cheat the physics of sound propagation. Agreed, but according to the manufacturer it has plenty of science behind it, you and the other members of AVS just choose to ignore it or to belittle it. I also noticed that the well respected mastering engineer, Steve Hoffman, was also belittled because he happened to think highly of this device!

On a personal level, must be degrade these conversations constantly and make them personal this way? People come to this thread to read about a DAC and what they find is a handful of people having nothing better to do than to bickering with no information conveyed. You have an issue with what I am saying, put some data forward. Don't go after me. And for Pete's sake, show some levity and humor. 'cause we sure as heck have lost the full idea of what being an audiophile means: joy through a hobby.

Please see my highlighted replies.

 

[amirm]

Please see my highlighted replies.

That makes it hard to respond to you Davey. Wish you had separated them.

Anyway, when you say this, "Yes, and so do numerous professional recording studios wo happen to also utilize the very same Shakti's. " It doesn't mean a thing. First of all there are not numerous studios that use them. Second, professionals are not audio engineers. They don't know more about audio science than audiophiles. Their speciality is creating recordings. That they can do without understanding of audio science/research.

Anyway, plurality of usage is not evidence of efficacy.

"How could that be true, when no one at AVS even has even listened to these devices...and never will! "

There is no obligation for anyone to go and listen to any random voodoo audio product to say that according to audio science, it doesn't work. If someone digs a rock from their garden and says it makes the sound better, does that obligate you and I go and buy it to say anything about it???

That side, I have already shown you that I did listen to a room with it in it: http://audiosciencereview.com/forum...e-aficionado-and-audiophile-john-brooks.1325/

Soundwaves above 200-300 Hz act like rays of light. Do you see them having an optical effect at the seating position?

Do you think if you turned your back against your devices you can still tell they are or are not there? If so, I am game coming down to San Diego at my expense and test your ability to hear their existence. You are game?

 

[DaveyF]

That makes it hard to respond to you Davey. Wish you had separated them.

Anyway, when you say this, "Yes, and so do numerous professional recording studios wo happen to also utilize the very same Shakti's. " It doesn't mean a thing. First of all there are not numerous studios that use them. Second, professionals are not audio engineers. They don't know more about audio science than audiophiles. Their speciality is creating recordings. That they can do without understanding of audio science/research.

Anyway, plurality of usage is not evidence of efficacy.

"How could that be true, when no one at AVS even has even listened to these devices...and never will! "

There is no obligation for anyone to go and listen to any random voodoo audio product to say that according to audio science, it doesn't work. If someone digs a rock from their garden and says it makes the sound better, does that obligate you and I go and buy it to say anything about it???

That side, I have already shown you that I did listen to a room with it in it: http://audiosciencereview.com/forum...e-aficionado-and-audiophile-john-brooks.1325/

Soundwaves above 200-300 Hz act like rays of light. Do you see them having an optical effect at the seating position?

Do you think if you turned your back against your devices you can still tell they are or are not there? If so, I am game coming down to San Diego at my expense and test your ability to hear their existence. You are game?

Well since I listen mostly in the dark, and the effect was quite obvious...
Yes, come on down.

 

[amirm]

Well since I listen mostly in the dark, and the effect was quite obvious...
Yes, come on down.

Great. Maybe I come down when the orange county audio show is going on. Let's coordinate in PM.

 

[DaveyF]

Great. Maybe I come down when the orange county audio show is going on. Let's coordinate in PM.

Sure.

 

[amirm]

as kids we would call this a "gotcha"

It is for somebody but I am not sure it is for me.

First here, is the thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...ifferences-10-volume-method.html#post16216419

As you see, it is NOT about ignoring level differences. It is however a method to solve a tricky problem which I asked you about Steve. How do we level match DACs without having to insert a multi-channel gain control on their outputs? We had such a gain adjustment in our lab at Microsoft but it was pretty noisy. I wanted to avoid the so called Heisenberg principle where you want to avoid changing things while conducting an experiment.

The method I used was to first test the DACs without volume leveling and see which one sounded better. Then, I would lower the volume of that DAC to see if the improvement I found still remained. Hence the "+-10%" method. The idea was that if the winning DAC still remained superior even after its level was adjusted below of the others, then it would reason that the improvements hear were still there.

It is poor man's level matching aimed to solve a problem. It by no means ignored the importance of levels or I would not have attempted any of it to deal with the differing levels.

It is not a perfect method. And I am sure if you read the entire thread and post things, especially without context, it would cause me to cringe at times.

Here is an important point related to you Steve though. I remember that thread distinctly not because objectivists use it to fight me for not being objectivist enough (imagine you two now taking their side!). But rather a conversation you and I had. You were disgusted with AVS Forum and had left to be a moderator at Frank's forum. You then asked me to come and be a moderator there. I was puzzled that a bunch of subjectivists would want me in their forum. So I asked you why you would approach someone like me.

Your answer will forever stay in my mind. You said that you were impressed that no matter how contentious, how personal, how stressful the battles were on forums, I kept my cool. And that this was an asset that doctors would try to convey to their interns. That no matter what, they had to remain professional and calm. So I came. Became a moderator there until you and Frank had a blow up and you came to me asking if I would partner with you to create a new forum. And we did, calling it Whats Best Forum.

Now I am sitting here seeing you ignore the very asset that you thought was good for the interns. Another example of putting aside your training in your professional life when it comes to audio. Instead of working to keep Al's thread clean of infighting, you are joining John in destroying it.

You need to remember that training Steve and set the example for professionalism. Not flush it in the toilet at every chance to see people fight with me.

Gotcha? I don't think so.

My apologies to Al for attracting this type of discourse.

 

[jkeny]

So, let me just get this right, Amir - you claim, because of your 'training', are able to ignore the level bias that is a well known bias affecting everyone's listening preference?
Do you have anything to back up this claim apart from your anecdotes?
Nobody else you know of follows this, right?
It's not part of accepted audio science, right?

Your method seems to be to listen blind & then increase the level of the least preferred device i.e. you are now no longer listening blind as you have knowingly adjusted the least preferred device.

So you are now claiming that it is possible to listen sighted without the bias of knowledge effecting your listening?

Interesting!

At the same time you maintain others are the slaves of their biases & unable to overcome them without stringent adherence to bias elimination?

Interesting!

 

[jkeny]

..... It is however a method to solve a tricky problem which I asked you about Steve. How do we level match DACs without having to insert a multi-channel gain control on their outputs? We had such a gain adjustment in our lab at Microsoft but it was pretty noisy. I wanted to avoid the so called Heisenberg principle where you want to avoid changing things while conducting an experiment.

So apart from the previous inconsistencies to which I would appreciate an answer, let's have a look at the inconsistencies in the above:
"having to insert a multi-channel gain control on their outputs" - makes no sense - you only have to adjust one of the DAC's level to match the other - no need for multichannel level control - most everybody uses this single adjustment to match output levels. So how d you adjust the volume level of the least preferred DAC that now doesn't introduce the 'noise' you are so concerned about? Please tell us why you didn't just use this apparently transparent volume control to match levels, in the first place & avoid all this performance art?

"I wanted to avoid the so called Heisenberg principle where you want to avoid changing things while conducting an experiment.!
Again makes no sense - you are saying that a volume control is going to introduce noise on the outputs which upsets the test - are you seriously saying you can't find a volume control without audible noise?
Secondly, using your technique, you do exactly what you claim you want to avoid "changing things conducting an experiment" By adjusting the volume of the lesser DAC you are doing exactly this & furthermore you are introducing knowledge of the devices under test - you now know which DAC is which i.e. it's sighted - the very type of listening you denigrate

 

[amirm]

So apart from the previous inconsistencies to which I would appreciate an answer, let's have a look at the inconsistencies in the above:
"having to insert a multi-channel gain control on their outputs" - makes no sense - you only have to adjust one of the DAC's level to match the other - no need for multichannel level control - most everybody uses this single adjustment to match output levels. So how d you adjust the volume level of the least preferred DAC that now doesn't introduce the 'noise' you are so concerned about? Please tell us why you didn't just use this apparently transparent volume control to match levels, in the first place & avoid all this performance art?

"I wanted to avoid the so called Heisenberg principle where you want to avoid changing things while conducting an experiment.!
Again makes no sense - you are saying that a volume control is going to introduce noise on the outputs which upsets the test - are you seriously saying you can't find a volume control without audible noise?
Secondly, using your technique, you do exactly what you claim you want to avoid "changing things conducting an experiment" By adjusting the volume of the lesser DAC you are doing exactly this & furthermore you are introducing knowledge of the devices under test - you now know which DAC is which i.e. it's sighted - the very type of listening you denigrate

So looks like you had not read the thread in question after all as the answer is right there. The first phase of the test is blind. If I don't reliably identify one DAC is being better, I never get to stage two of compensating for volume.

"The tests were double blind because at no time did I as the operator know which source was which, nor did I know which source I was listening to. Admittedly it is the poor man's version of it. But was still a blind test with no stake in the outcome."

If members here did just this much in evaluating equipment, they would be way ahead of the game especially since a lot of products don't change volume anyway such as the tweak Davey mention.

 

[jkeny]

So looks like you had not read the thread in question after all as the answer is right there. The first phase of the test is blind. If I don't reliably identify one DAC is being better, I never get to stage two of compensating for volume.

"The tests were double blind because at no time did I as the operator know which source was which, nor did I know which source I was listening to. Admittedly it is the poor man's version of it. But was still a blind test with no stake in the outcome."

If members here did just this much in evaluating equipment, they would be way ahead of the game especially since a lot of products don't change volume anyway such as the tweak Davey mention.

I read it & just wanted you to say it
Here's what you state "Pretty simple. I took advantage of old age and what it does to memory . Seriously, I would grab the RCA cables and plug them into the back without paying attention to which input was which. After the test, I would then trace the cable to the source."

You really want to call this "double blind", Amir? Your corruption of the terminology is as bad as when you abused the terminology in another instance & claimed oversampling in FFTs.

So, lets' just stick with this a minute before you get onto answering the other inconsistencies - apart from the outrageous claim that the above is double blind, let's say you don't know which DAC's RCA cable plugs into which channel of the preamp/amp - you are now saying that you adjust the volume of the lesser DAC - how do you do this?

Here's what you say but it lacks detail "I did not level match anything. However, once I found one source was worse than the other, I would then turn up the volume to counter any effect there."
What are you using to turn up the volume & why didn't you just use this volume control in the first place to level match?

If you are saying that the vol control introduces noise then using this vol control on the lesser DAC will add noise to this DAC & add another variable apart from vol level into the experiment.

Apart from that - you now know which DAC is which because of the difference in volume so it's no longer blind - not double blind, not even single blind, not blind whatsoever - it's sighted/with knowledge

 

[amirm]

I read it & just wanted you to say it

Yeh right. Asking me questions whose answers were clearly in that thread. Half a dozen objectivists grilled me in that thread. People can read it for themselves.

As for you, I banned you from ASR Forum for your non-constructive, antagonizing, personal bickering and fighting style. I am not going to now sit here and answer you back and forth when you are not forthcoming with a single thing I asked you.

Go outside and enjoy the weather. And by chance if you actually listen to a stereo system, do as I am doing right now and listen to some music. Otherwise, unless someone wants to ask me about the same thing, I will leave you to yourself to suffer from lack of answers from me.

 

[jkeny]

Yeh right. Asking me questions whose answers were clearly in that thread. Half a dozen objectivists grilled me in that thread. People can read it for themselves.

As for you, I banned you from ASR Forum for your non-constructive, antagonizing, personal bickering and fighting style. I am not going to now sit here and answer you back and forth when you are not forthcoming with a single thing I asked you.

Go outside and enjoy the weather. And by chance if you actually listen to a stereo system, do as I am doing right now and listen to some music. Otherwise, unless someone wants to ask me about the same thing, I will leave you to yourself to suffer from lack of answers from me.

Aha, you run when you have no answers & the inconsistencies pile up - your technique here is shot full of holes which I'm exposing & rather than face up to this you become ad-hom as a means of avoiding answering these.

So what we see demonstrated here, Amir (apart from your usual tactics) is:
- A claimed technique for dealing with level matching which has no basis in audio science - which you pretend to be a stalwart of.
- has no evidence to support your claim that it does what you say it does - deal with level matching bias
- is shot full of inconsistencies & logic flaws - like your claim that you need a multichannel volume control for level adjusting two DACs
- inconsistencies like your claim that it is double blind - it's not even blind never mind single blind - it's basically a sighted test which you denigrate - you are self scoring, Amir as you claim others are doing
- inconsistencies like your claim that you didn't want to change "things while conducting an experiment." - you are introducing multiple variables instead

It's a regular occurrence now, Amir that your efforts fail to pass muster when examined - evident here & evident in your many measurement fiascos.
You present many graphs & measurements (but none in this case) which you use & which fool some people, some of the time.
On closer inspection, when your mistakes are exposed, you avoid explanation - instead using ad-hom tactics as a deflection & avoidance - this is just another example