And oh, I forgot to say that I put myself to college for four years repairing all manner of audio equipment and RF electronics. And this is before the age of Internet where you had to figure things out without a schematic.
And oh, I forgot to say that I put myself to college for four years repairing all manner of audio equipment and RF electronics. And this is before the age of Internet where you had to figure things out without a schematic.
Disagree with you here. I have been upgrading for 20 years and I spend an intense period on usually 6 tracks to consistently compare before and after a change in my system. In each case I CAN detect a change, sometimes better, other times not. In some cases some things about the sound improved (timbre, bass dynamics etc) but other areas stayed the same. The human ear is incredibly sensitive, and aural memory is IMO very good. In fact I would say aural memory in an audiophile is along the level of sight in most people, possibly better. Remember the courts use an identity parade (sight memory) as part of legal case, and that is normally quite some time after the event.
If we bring the A/B demo down to hours, maybe minutes apart and with well known tracks IMO we are talking microscopic levels on audio detection here. I would challenge you to provide measurements of an analogue signal that demonstrates a better sound than another signal that doesn't. We have to use tech specs as background data, but listen to the effect of any device in the real world (use your ears).
I would also say to you you are trolling Uptone Audio in a smear campaign that has gone well beyond audio related opinions. I think it is high time the moderators stepped in....
Indeed & Amir is ignorant & remains stubbornly so, of how auditory perception actual works & the active research on it - preferring instead his simplistic & mechanistic world view of how/what we hear. We are much more sensitive of changes in pattern - when we conscious focus on a particular piece of music or sound stream, we seem to lay down a pattern (a statistical analysis, if you like of that pattern which gets strengthened, refined by continuous exposure/focus on this sound stream). This is often why we choose a favourite piece of music to compare new audio replay devices. It's also why we know our spouse's/children's voice & the nuances we pick up on, seemingly without focus on A/Bing any difference!
I'm afraid the A/B mafia have developed & pushes this mechanistic view of hearing as it suits their agenda/ world view
This is the other point which Amir is constantly challenged to - does he believe that there are audible differences which are not measureable & please no BS about placebo. it's a bit like trying to get an answer out of Trump about whether he believes in global climate change
Bob..................
What does it have to do with Isolation and Regeneration in audio? That's why I'm here to find out, to get 'grounded'.
Highest respects,
And oh, I forgot to say that I put myself to college for four years repairing all manner of audio equipment and RF electronics. And this is before the age of Internet where you had to figure things out without a schematic.
... efflorescing ... Concretely ...
I know what you meant, but the juxtaposition above still made me chuckle.
The medical science does because we want to determine what drug is really effective as opposed to ones that might work due to power of suggestion.
If you were faced with heaven forbid, terminal disease, would you want to rely on placebo effect of a drug or one that has shown outcomes outside of that influence?
And why is it that as a medical doctor, you have no respect for audio science/research using similar methodology in controlled test?
If you are agreeing with him, I will pay your loved one $100 to run the same test. Doesn't have to be regen. Can be any digital audio tweak or most analog ones. You just have to publish the final outcome and copies of the two logs. Are you game?
The ears are the acid test. But you have to know how to isolate the ear and keep out all other factors. I much prefer a controlled test using ears and only ears over measurements. But that is far less forthcoming than measurements. I have made offers up to $10,000 I think for folks to use their ears and not only their ears to demonstrate their subjective evaluations but they won't go for it. In this thread I offered $100 and still no takers.And?
Still say the use of ears is the acid test. Tech specs are back-up. They don't replace or prove what we can hear. Can't see the point you are making hammering away on this?
You have a very wise father. Thank you for participating as long as you did. Take care.I will simply say this before I exit. I think there are biases in audio as in everything else. I think our whole country suffers from expectation or what some call normalcy bias."It's always been this way when I awake each day and I expect it to be this way tomorrow/forever. That being said, I choose to follow my dad's advice: Don't ever wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty ....and the pig likes it. I'm done. Carry on.
I actually have hopes that the ISO Regen has value in the isolation it provides. There are DACs out there that don't do that. Here is an example, Schiit Modi 2: http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/budget-dac-review-schiit-modi-2-99.1649/
Bob, is there any need to post this long quote from another site - without any comment of your own?
What is meant by your post?
BTW, I don't get the 'joke', either?
Sure I can. After all the lies, insults, distortions, and other venom you have spewed towards my partner John Swenson and me, you are the last person on earth I would want to sell one of our products too.
[...]
P.S. Since I accused you of lying and I am sure you will ask, I'll give you one example: Somewhere on WBF you said that you "met and spoke extensively with John Swenson." That's only if you count 15 minutes of casual conversation (with you doing most of the talking) outside the elevators when we ran into you at RMAF 2015. Plus plenty of misquoting and other distortions of the truth.
Some people are rather stuck in the camp of "If it can't be measured, it can't be heard." I think more open and scientific minds would think "If it can be heard, then perhaps we are measuring the wrong things." Yet anytime that is brought up--as I did when we met Amir (who is actually a VERY nice fellow!)--the argument turns to "Well you have not proven that people are hearing anything" (ABX testes, etc.). That's where I get off the merry-go-round. Most designers get off there too. Ask any if they needed definitive measurements or a full double-blind ABX study to choose the film capacitors or resistors they use in their speakers or preamp, or if that wonderfully measuring OPAMP conveys music the way their refined-for-years discrete stage does.
I only make measurements because manufacturers refuse to do so and their customers want them. It costs me money to buy these devices and time and energy to make measurements and post them. So by all means, go ahead and make your own measurements if you think you can do a better job. But if you don't, know that I will be if there are user requests. And there are user requests for this device.
As for "claims" that is what the people wanting measurements don't want to hear. Anyone can claim any audible difference. We can't verify that. What we can verify and duplicate are measurements. On that note, no manufacturer has yet produced their own measurements to counter mine. They spend pages and pages protesting but they either don't know, are not capable of, or willing to make their own measurements.