advertisement


Audiophile Network Switches for Streaming ... really ?

chiily said:
So, it is dependent on the character now?

Funny, though no one wants to measure the change. One wonders how far scientific progression could have come on believing something true cos the chap was decent that said it...

"Be a decent chap and take your pill. Do you feel better? Yes?", mark that as a successful medical trial then...sheeezz...

And back on my ignore list...
Click to expand...
I think you’re confused. It’s not that no-one “wants to measure the change. It’s probably one of the following (other options are available, check local stockists for details, terms and conditions apply):
- they don’t see the actual point in the actual world where people actually listen to stuff rather than measuring it
- they’re lazy
- they don’t have the measuring equipment to hand
- if they did, they can’t guarantee the sufficiently consistent and quiet environment to render the results valid beyond question

Apart from that, its a great idea.

Kettle on. Bring music. Bring ears. Bring mind.
 
:D Still the stiff "subjectivists" rely on science and measurements in most of their lives...both sad and funny
 
chiily said:
In the review it is still back to us chaps "accepting" that there is a change because a decent chap reviewed the switch. I know you probably can't see it the way I see it, but truthfully, and I'm not being sarcastic, I can't see it your way until there's some imperical evidence, rather than somebody says. Only because I would rather have something that "genuinely" changes the music signal rather than something that is perceived to do so. I know that sounds quite foolish to say and you would say have a listen and I should have a listen, but as soon as someone says "have a listen cos it is better than the one before" there is an immediate expectation of improvement. As would a favourable review, an advert, an unfavorable review, whatever the cue is it will influence. Some people I'm sure some people can control that in themselves (really?), by measuring all that influence is removed.

It is as simple as that. :)
Click to expand...
I type this without seeing the review in question.
It’s really not about accepting. You don’t have to accept anything if you’re willing to hear for yourself. If you insist (one insists, it’s not personal) on refusing to do so from behind a keyboard, you can hardly be surprised if no-one plays along.
For the same reason, it doesn’t sound foolish.
You say “if someone says … there is an immediate expectation of improvement”. Well this is a surprise. I thought there would be an immediate suspicion of being manipulated!

I can’t offer measurements. I can offer coffee, company and music. Sorry, I’m falling short I know.
 
miktec said:
My pleasure ;)
Click to expand...
Has anyone suggested recently that you need to get out more?

Team buddy? Petulant childish playground stuff.
I’m as cynical as you about gold-plated anything but there’s no point in trying to engage you in adult conversation as you started playing the player rather than the ball many pages and posts ago.
 
Zombie said:
:D Still the stiff "subjectivists" rely on science and measurements in most of their lives...both sad and funny
Click to expand...
It’s a tribal thing then. Badge people as subjectivists and then you can dismiss anything they say without really considering it.
Not sure what you mean by stiff, sounds like you’re mixing up your posts with another forum I really don’t want to know about :)
 
TheFlash said:
I type this without seeing the review in question.
It’s really not about accepting. You don’t have to accept anything if you’re willing to hear for yourself. If you insist (one insists, it’s not personal) on refusing to do so from behind a keyboard, you can hardly be surprised if no-one plays along.
For the same reason, it doesn’t sound foolish.
You say “if someone says … there is an immediate expectation of improvement”. Well this is a surprise. I thought there would be an immediate suspicion of being manipulated!

I can’t offer measurements. I can offer coffee, company and music. Sorry, I’m falling short I know.
Click to expand...
The accept was from the review that is us objectives can't accept that a switch makes a change.

Well I did try it...and the undisputed fact is if the effect is not in the sound pressure meeting your ear then it ain't real, cos that's how we hear stuff. :)
 
On the other hand, I don't doubt that there are some circumstances in which the presence of a switch can make an audible and easily measurable difference.

Its just that i think the difference could be similarly created by the addition/ removal or something elsewhere. Maybe a decent quality dc blocker, sensible mains filter, a nice rf blocking circuit.

I don't see the improvement as as a feature of using a switch, it's a bug.
 
"Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein’s view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion.
The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.
These propositions may seem mild, yet, if accepted, they would absolutely revolutionize human life.
The opinions for which people are willing to fight and persecute all belong to one of the three classes which this scepticism condemns. When there are rational grounds for an opinion, people are content to set them forth and wait for them to operate. In such cases, people do not hold their opinions with passion; they hold them calmly, and set forth their reasons quietly. The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction.”
(Bertrand Russel, Sceptical Essays (1928), Introduction: On the Value of Scepticism, p. 12)
 
sq225917 said:
On the other hand, I don't doubt that there are some circumstances in which the presence of a switch can make an audible and easily measurable difference.

Its just that i think the difference could be similarly created by the addition/ removal or something elsewhere. Maybe a decent quality dc blocker, sensible mains filter, a nice rf blocking circuit.

I don't see the improvement as as a feature of using a switch, it's a bug.
Click to expand...

This is what TheFlash has reported in this thread, an audible change achieved by adding a network switch to his system.

I don’t find it beyond the realm of possibility that adding different components to a audio system can bring about unexpected results in ways that won’t be easily explained, possibly adding to the output in a pleasing way to the person who experiences it?

It might not be a improvement from a objectivist slant if indeed it would show up in measurements but that’s not to say that the effect wouldn’t be regarded as a improvement by TheFlash or others that try it out for themselves.
 
The trouble is for the most part people associate different with better and jump on any change as being an improvement even when it can clearly be shown to be nothing more than the addition of noise.
 
sq225917 said:
The trouble is for the most part people associate different with better and jump on any change as being an improvement even when it can clearly be shown to be nothing more than the addition of noise.
Click to expand...

In general I agree with you with everything you say there and certainly in the context of the digital source chain. “Bigger, wider soundstage”, probably more noise in the digital chain. “More detail and leading edge definition to notes”, probably more noise in the digital chain. “Percussion has more attack and is more lifelike”, probably more noise in the digital chain.

However in the context of this thread I’m not quite sure where you are coming from. It appears you are now saying sometimes there is an audible difference when adding a switch but that it is more likely to be due to added noise?
 
chiily said:
"Well, we think this car will survive a headlong crash, but we've not measured it. You'll be fine!"

Indeed.....:)
Click to expand...

Have you personally measured the impact safety of your car to satisfy the skepticism of people online? Or would you rather that a trained professional with the appropriate equipment do it for you?
 
Zombie said:
"The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."
Click to expand...
(Bertrand Russel, Sceptical Essays (1928), Introduction: On the Value of Scepticism, p. 12)[/QUOTE]
Yes quite. Russell's general and polemic writing have survied rather better than the technical stuff.
Pretty much all one needs to know about this thread is contained in one word.
Fourlegs said:
Anyway, this is an extract from HiFiPig.

CONCLUSION
“Following my previous reviews of audiophile network switches, I have seen many, sometimes heated, comments on social media from people who are unable to accept such devices can make any difference, even suggesting it’s all in the mind. I challenge anyone to listen to what the Melco S100 or the combination of S100 and ADOT MC-01 can do, in a system like mine, and not hear the improvements I have described. These two products have really improved my enjoyment of my system to a significant degree."
Click to expand...
That word is "even". I don't think anyone involved in the business of perceptual testing would think anyothing odd in suggesting "it's all in the mind". (not that they would necessarily put it that way, but let's not go there). It's more like the null hypothesis; certainly so if the physical effect is likely to be tiny if existent. You either get that or you don't: there isn't any point shouting over the fence.
 
Zombie said:
"Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein’s view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion.
The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.
These propositions may seem mild, yet, if accepted, they would absolutely revolutionize human life.
The opinions for which people are willing to fight and persecute all belong to one of the three classes which this scepticism condemns. When there are rational grounds for an opinion, people are content to set them forth and wait for them to operate. In such cases, people do not hold their opinions with passion; they hold them calmly, and set forth their reasons quietly. The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction.”
(Bertrand Russel, Sceptical Essays (1928), Introduction: On the Value of Scepticism, p. 12)
Click to expand...
Well, he has a point. But in this case, who are the 'experts'? And as we know, not all the genuine experts agree on all of this - Rob Watts, for example, is clearly an expert by any definition, but ploughs a different furrow to many in some aspects. I'd include Wadax' Javier Guadalajara in this list, too.

And let's observe from this thread that there's a certain amount of 'passion' from the technical side too, so opinions are not always 'set forth calmly and quietly, content to wait for them to operate' (I paraphrase). Are we to infer that those who don't do that are not, by Russel's reasoning, truly expert, and lack sufficient rational conviction?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Well, he has a point. But in this case, who are the 'experts'? And as we know, not all the genuine experts agree on all of this - Rob Watts, for example, is clearly an expert by any definition, but ploughs a different furrow to many in some aspects. I'd include Wadax' Javier Guadalajara in this list, too.

And let's observe from this thread that there's a certain amount of 'passion' from the technical side too, so opinions are not always 'set forth calmly and quietly, content to wait for them to operate' (I paraphrase). Are we to infer that those who don't do that are not, by Russel's reasoning, truly expert, and lack sufficient rational conviction?
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. Some of those on the technical side on this thread are quite content to make their reasoned point and sit back. Others on the technical side continue to post with ever increasing amounts of passion and derision. The question is which of these two approaches indicates the a poster with genuine, extensive technical knowledge. Mind you, quite a few people from both “sides” seem to be here just for a good bun fight! ;)
 
I guess how I respond depends on what you mean by 'this sort of bullshit'. But, in general:

  1. There's no compulsion to participate or even read threads like this;
  2. The aggression and personal remarks come, IME, rather more from the technical side than from the subjective side;
  3. It's an internet forum, we're here to chat about stuff. Banning topics just suppresses the ability to do so, and any decision to ban needs to be thought through;
  4. If the reason for the ban is the unpleasant tone and direction such threads often take, see 2) above.
 
camverton said:
That’s a good point. Some of those on the technical side on this thread are quite content to make their reasoned point and sit back. Others on the technical side continue to post with ever increasing amounts of passion and derision. The question is which of these two approaches indicates the a poster with genuine, extensive technical knowledge. Mind you, quite a few people from both “sides” seem to be here just for a good bun fight! ;)
Click to expand...
Does that cut the other way too, applying to those of the non technical side?

To explain the phenomenon then probably someone technical is needed. To prove the presence of the effect doesn't need someone particularly technical. Yes they need to understand experiment procedure and good practice, but they don't need to understand what causes the effect. I think it is incorrect to confuse the two.

Anyway, you mentioned buns, and I have a cup of tea here... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top