Originally Posted by RobertR
Sounds like Amir is more interested in what used to be called "specmanship" than in what's actually audible.
Well, if you want to describe me, you should say I am interested in correct depiction of how audio systems *work*.
It is perfectly fine to say these things are not audible to you. I don't care much about what you believe. My interest is proper depiction of how audio systems perform. Say something wrong there and as you see from thread to thread, you will hear me speak out. This is the "theory" part of the forum. If you are not interested in theory of how our equipment works, then you are in the wrong subforum.
You may think I am doing damage to our "objectivity" cause. It is actually the opposite. I am trying to save us from embarrassment when we claim such things as "rebuffering and clock generation do away with jitter" and an audio designer hears it and puts you in your place. Sure, 99.99% of the time the recipient is a non-engineer who gets scared of those terms, thinking you know more than he does and won't counter. But there are other times, like the situation here, where you will be called to justify your claim. And lacking that, look really bad that we didn't present the true picture of the technology. That we spun it in our favor rather that being impartial and "objective" in our conduct.
Failing the technical challenge, we must not follow with, and I hope Arnyh forgives me for saying so, that the top experts in audio who design DACs for a living, are somehow salespeople whose authoritative writing is a sales pitch. We talk about how we are men of science. Men of science talk about science, not people. And that is unfortunately what you are doing. Instead of discussing the topic of the thread, you are choosing to discuss me. That is not science. That is politics.
I like to know what you get out of someone not correcting technical statements here. Why is it to so torturous to hear that message? Don't we want to learn how our audio systems really work as opposed to taking the word of someone on a forum who doesn't know what an FPGA is and references a hobby site as back up to their argument???
What is the crime in seeing real measurements instead of hand waving the performance of your audio products? That someone will take this and run with it? Sure, they can. And they should. What is fair is fair. If some part of audio equipment is poorly designed, we need to shine light on it so that manufacturers fix them. All of this protesting for sake of winning some online argument clouds that message and gets us stuck with these poor design into the future.
Ultimately it seems that we want a total surrender. I say HDMI distortion is "likely not audible" and that is not good enough. Worse yet, you go on to say I am not interested in "what's actually audible." I am interested in what is audible and that starts with correct assumptions of how the audio system works. If you don't have that foundation, you won't know how to construct the right tests to see if something is or is not audible.
Please allow me to quote one of the most fair objectivist members on this forum who had this to say in my very first back and forth on AVS with Arny:
Originally Posted by terry j well, in that case let me thank you [Amir] for your contributions. I KNOW I could not have kept my patience as you have, let alone maintained a sense of humour! It's funny how hard *we* can go to maintain our rightness, and how quickly that line is crossed where we no longer wish to learn (despite our objections to the contrary) where we fight tooth and nail...usually because we know our position is so tenuous that the slightest 'loss' means the whole game is over.
FFS, Amir has sat here page after page and SHOWN how, and under what possible conditions jitter may be audible. Hey, if it were a cable debate, and we showed with maths and sims that there could not possibly be a difference, well that would have proved it no? So why the **** in an 'argument' where the shoe is on the other foot does it suddenly become irrelevant what the science says??
My take on what the fear might be is the worry of what might happen if we concede a point of argument. The 'other side' will drive a frickin lorry thru the door if we do. I mean, there only has to be ONE person who hears a power cord (for sake of illustration) in what seems to be a proper test and the whole frickin lot of the rest of them will claim it as proof that they too can hear it.
No they can't, 'one in a million' means just that. But we KNOW every single one of them thinks they can hear it, using that person as proof, and even less urge to test the truth properly. After all it has been shown. So, we had better clamp down HARD on the one ever coming out, if only to keep the lid on the rest.
So, move on to something far less controversial than PCs, but as long as it falls into audiofool territory we had better clamp down on that too. It is just safer that way, keep each and every genie in the bottle. So the need to put amir in his place, and keep the lid hammered on tight. Because the ramifications of this little argument go waaaay past it's tiny borders.
""Oh, but amir has not given any evidence of audibilty"" (apart from the science you mean? The science that would be perfectly acceptable in a different argument, that the one we are talking about???).
Be totally honest here. If he told you that he had found, to his satisfaction, that turning the front panel on and off on his thingamabob had an audible difference, would you accept that? What then his findings of jitter? We know you would not accept his results, the genie is too terrifying to contemplate.
So don't come back at me with 'amir has yet to show audibility' ok? It is a definitional thing you know. Some things, by definition, are inaudible.
Bit like cancer, it cannot be cured hence any cure of cancer is untrue (why we are always then exhorted to donate to cancer research is beyond me). All of you could be right, it may be completely inaudible. But you sure as hell have not shown it by your arguments. Unless 'nanah nanah nah' counts as an argument.
I rest may case