Schiit, interesting name...more interesting products!

[jkeny]

So, yes Amir's claim

"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."

Is a gotcha as it exposes his lack of logic & his hypocrisy.

 

[Al M.]

My apologies to Al for attracting this type of discourse.

Don't worry, Amir, I am entertained. You're doing fine, I think others are over the top. Just my two cents.

 

[DaveyF]

S
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.

Why would you believe that in order for the Shakti Hallograph's to be effective that they would need to change volume??? Here is the white paper on the Hallograph's: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Hallograph-white-paper.pdf
This was immediately frowned upon and ridiculed at the ASR forum...

 

[853guy]

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

Hello gents,

My preference has been to be part of a forum in which things are called out for what they are.

To me, there’s a significant difference is using observation in the facilitation of hypothesises, experimental methodologies and data to explore phenomena that are not well understood (neurobiological perception of a time-based modulating art form), versus using observation in the facilitation of hypothesises, experimental methodologies and data to explore phenomena that are well understood (the human hearing mechanism) solely in order to avoid potential cognitive dissonance apropos nascent phenomena that are currently not well understood (i.e. the former).

The latter is an example of what Daniel Kahneman calls “fast thinking” and the way consciousness is wired toward producing instantaneous responses to problems - not because they are the most appropriate or valid response, but because they are responses that most closely meet pre-existing systematic biases that are then justified via a process of selective rationalisation, and then often given alternative monikers such as “truth”, “facts” or “science” in order to double down on that bias. Nevertheless, that such bias exists, and has been extensively documented and researched for over a thousand years (1) prior to Peter Watson first coining the term “confirmation bias” in 1960 (2), fundamentally negates any pretension to credibility, no matter how emphatically those who adopt its pretence may claim otherwise.

My observation of Amir here on this forum, and indeed, many others he’s been a part of, is that his conduct, like many if not all of us, is governed primarily by inherent biases that are often neither acknowledged nor eliminated (3). Let’s be clear: Acknowledging and eliminating our biases is not easy, especially when dealing with a complex subject that encompasses a hugely broad and interdependent matrix of well-understood phenomena (say, the Laws of Thermodynamics) and not well-understood phenomena (say, why our brain has specific, independent neurobiological pathways for music that do not interact with pathways for other sounds nor speech). We are constantly attempting to articulate a phenomena suspended between these two realities, and our perception of those phenomena is ultimately what we bring to any discussion here. The results? Well, we can all see for ourselves.

Like I say, I’d prefer to be part of a forum that uses all the research available - the stuff that’s well-understood and documented and the stuff that’s not well-understood and documented that gets discussed and debated with as little bias as possible, as much as that may cause the sort of gaps we occasionally plunge into. But, in my perspective - limited as it is - no-one “wins” when not well-understood research is rejected a priori simply because it causes cognitive dissonance for those whose preference is to hang onto pre-existing biases, and especially, those who when challenged choose a path toward deflection, re-framing of the argument and/or forms of personal pettiness and cries of victimhood.

But that’s just me.

853guy


(1) "...for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy.” Thucydides (460 - 400 BC)

(2) “Cognitive bias” was coined by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1972.

(3) Notice I write that my comments relate to my "...observation of Amir here on this forum, and (...) his conduct...", not of him personally, whom I have never met, and only ever related to via this forum.

 

[jkeny]

Great post as usual, 853guy
Your elegant prose says so much that needs to be said & frames the scenario beautifully - as you say, most involved in this hobby are struggling with expressing our perception of what we hear & my particular focus, why we hear what we do.

I come to this from the knowledge & surety of what I & others hear & that the stock answers & stock measurements are no longer sufficient to explain this.
As 853guy says we are "suspended between" what is patently audible & what the stock answers to these reports of audibility are.

People who use the phrase "audio science" for these stock answers fail to see that it has nothing to do with "science" which is about the ongoing discovery of the true workings of the natural world which includes our perception of it.

There will always be this conflict between the 'old' viewpoint (that all is explainable using current thinking/models) & the newer viewpoint which challenges this.

 

[amirm]

Why would you believe that in order for the Shakti Hallograph's to be effective that they would need to change volume???

I am sorry but I did not mean that at all. What I said was that many audio tweaks do not change volume and hence their testing does not require volume equalization. And I used the Shakti as an example of a device that doesn't change volume. Not that this characteristic makes it ineffective.

Here is the white paper on the Hallograph's: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Hallograph-white-paper.pdf
This was immediately frowned upon and ridiculed at the ASR forum...

I can see why . It is has a ton of mistakes regarding sound acoustics and physics of sound propagation in the room. He could justify them with listening tests, research references, measurements, etc. but none of that is present. As such it is a technical marketing collateral and not any kind of white paper. Anyway, I prefer that we don't discuss it here in Al's thread as it has nothing to do with his topic.

 

[Al M.]

I can see why . It is has a ton of mistakes regarding sound acoustics and physics of sound propagation in the room. He could justify them with listening tests, research references, measurements, etc. but none of that is present. As such it is a technical marketing collateral and not any kind of white paper. Anyway, I prefer that we don't discuss it here in Al's thread as it has nothing to do with his topic.

Actually, Davey started the thread, so I don't really care *). I enjoy the debate anyway. Good point about the "white paper", Amir.

________

*) thanks again, Davey, for starting this Schiit thread (or Schiit of a thread ). Result: I have an Yggy at home

 

[amirm]

Hello gents,

My preference has been to be part of a forum in which things are called out for what they are.

I will do that for you below.

My observation of Amir here on this forum, and indeed, many others he’s been a part of, is that his conduct, like many if not all of us, is governed primarily by inherent biases that are often neither acknowledged nor eliminated (3).

First of all, your observations are very much incomplete. For almost a decade, I fought objectivists in the interest of subjectivists. You would have loved me then. Indeed I used to enjoy broad and great support from subjectivists to the point where Steve approached me to be his partner in creating this forum. You really think the person that you are painting me to be would have managed that?

Take John. He could not smell enough of my poo and praise it while I was battling diehard objectivists. Here he is parading the results of me passing ABX tests in forums (pinkfishmedia) that I did not participate in:

"Credible conclusion!" Now that I act fairly criticising some of the mistaken things subjectivists believe in, all of sudden I am a no good SOB. Who do you think has the bigger bias for you to battle?

I am and have been an equal opportunity audio critique. Whether you are objectivist or subjectivist, if you take me on, then you need to do some homework and make sure your biases, like John's wish to sell products, or in your case, personal animosity, are put aside. Otherwise I will call you on it mixing it with what the reality of the situation is.

Let’s be clear: Acknowledging and eliminating our biases is not easy....

A fact that you demonstrate in all of your posts about me. This thread is about a DAC and we are discussing ways to compare such products where all that we judge with is our ears. You contribute nothing to that other than more rock throwing from bushes toward me. Think about why you can't shed that emotional need. Think why it is eating you up as to raise the noise floor of this and other thread with posts that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. That would be taking your own lesson.

 

[amirm]

Actually, Davey started the thread, so I don't really care *). I enjoy the debate anyway. Good point about the "white paper", Amir.

For Pete's sake and my benefit, you could have played along and not make me look wrong.

My apology to Davey.

 

[DaveyF]

Actually, Davey started the thread, so I don't really care *). I enjoy the debate anyway. Good point about the "white paper", Amir.

________

*) thanks again, Davey, for starting this Schiit thread (or Schiit of a thread ). Result: I have an Yggy at home

Al, I am very happy that you decided to go with the Yggy...and if this thread had anything to do with it..that's great. ( BTW, i have no affiliation with Schiit...although I suspect that some people think I may have been one in the past) I do think that if you like the sound of this device ( The Yggy) and you are happy with it, that is all that matters. Measurements and all of the other 'BS' be darned. White papers, graphs, biases, build quality ( although that does tend to imply longevity), value ( in this case...seems to be pretty high) are irrelevant. IMHO, if it floats your boat and hasn't broken the bank account while doing it...that's what it is all about. Enjoy in good health!

 

[Al M.]

For Pete's sake and my benefit, you could have played along and not make me look wrong.

Hehe

 

[Al M.]

I will do that for you below.


First of all, your observations are very much incomplete. For almost a decade, I fought objectivists in the interest of subjectivists. You would have loved me then. Indeed I used to enjoy broad and great support from subjectivists to the point where Steve approached me to be his partner in creating this forum. You really think the person that you are painting me to be would have managed that?

Take John. He could not smell enough of my poo and praise it while I was battling diehard objectivists. Here he is parading the results of me passing ABX tests in forums (pinkfishmedia) that I did not participate in:

"Credible conclusion!" Now that I act fairly criticising some of the mistaken things subjectivists believe in, all of sudden I am a no good SOB. Who do you think has the bigger bias for you to battle?

I am and have been an equal opportunity audio critique. Whether you are objectivist or subjectivist, if you take me on, then you need to do some homework and make sure your biases, like John's wish to sell products, or in your case, personal animosity, are put aside. Otherwise I will call you on it mixing it with what the reality of the situation is.

Aah, that clears up a lot. Thanks, Amir!

 

[Al M.]

Al, I am very happy that you decided to go with the Yggy...and if this thread had anything to do with it..that's great. ( BTW, i have no affiliation with Schiit...although I suspect that some people think I may have been one in the past) I do think that if you like the sound of this device ( The Yggy) and you are happy with it, that is all that matters. Measurements and all of the other 'BS' be darned. White papers, graphs, biases, build quality ( although that does tend to imply longevity), value ( in this case...seems to be pretty high) are irrelevant. IMHO, if it floats your boat and hasn't broken the bank account while doing it...that's what it is all about. Enjoy in good health!

Thanks, Davey!

 

[jkeny]

I will do that for you below.


First of all, your observations are very much incomplete. For almost a decade, I fought objectivists in the interest of subjectivists. You would have loved me then. Indeed I used to enjoy broad and great support from subjectivists to the point where Steve approached me to be his partner in creating this forum. You really think the person that you are painting me to be would have managed that?

Take John. He could not smell enough of my poo and praise it while I was battling diehard objectivists. Here he is parading the results of me passing ABX tests in forums (pinkfishmedia) that I did not participate in:

You were a useful tool in exposing the hypocrisy of objectivists - those who swear by ABX tests & then run from the results when they're not to their liking - this quote is from a thread I started probing whether "objectivists" were driven by beliefs or facts - the answer was amply proved on that thread to be beliefs (not unlike what we see here from you under the guise of audio science)

The thread is called " Sorting out evidence-based from faith-based" here

I find the image conjured up by your phrase "could not smell enough of my poo" to be stomach churning - please don't use it again

"Credible conclusion!" Now that I act fairly criticising some of the mistaken things subjectivists believe in, all of sudden I am a no good SOB. Who do you think has the bigger bias for you to battle?

I am and have been an equal opportunity audio critique. Whether you are objectivist or subjectivist, if you take me on, then you need to do some homework

You run when it's obvious that you are wrong so your claim of taking you on is empty of evidence - stand & answer the questions I asked of you or run away again.

and make sure your biases, like John's wish to sell products, or in your case, personal animosity, are put aside. Otherwise I will call you on it mixing it with what the reality of the situation is.

And I will call you on the reality, Amir but you run away - usually for a 2 week break

As to my biases you have demonstrated your measurement bias again & again in the past - you presented measurements of a schiit DAC your son bought but it was only when I probed you recently it was discovered that your measurements were using the SPDIF out of a PC. This was never revealed prior to this & you ran away from that discussion.

I just revealed your methodology of dealing with volume bias to be inconsistent & illogical -& you ran away from that discussion

 

[Al M.]

I find the image conjured up by your phrase "could not smell enough of my poo" to be stomach churning - please don't use it again

Hehe, but after all, this thread is called Schiit...

 

[jkeny]

Hehe, but after all, this thread is called Schiit...

Too true

 

[amirm]

Aah, that clears up a lot. Thanks, Amir!

My pleasure. It is so odd to be sitting here and having people act night and day different depending on which religion I go after. Here is John again:

Remarkable how these people sell their old pals the moment their audio beliefs/commercial interest become subject of discussion.

 

[Al M.]

My pleasure. It is so odd to be sitting here and having people act night and day different depending on which religion I go after.

Hehe. I'm a religious person (or at least try to be), but this is too funny. Yes, high end is a religion alright .

 

[jkeny]

Remarkable the lengths some people go to avoid answering questions about their inconsistencies & lack of logic & yet boasting "if you take me on, then you need to do some homework"

Still deflecting & avoiding

 

[Al M.]

Remarkable the lengths some people go to avoid answering questions about their inconsistencies & lack of logic & yet boasting "if you take me on, then you need to do some homework"

Still deflecting & avoiding

Oh boy. You can never let it go, can you?