Apple Snow Leopard.. A cheap hi-fi upgrade?

[lovejoy]

Can someone come on here and say that if they call their Hampster "Norman" then their hifi sounds better, but if he's called "Gerald" then it doesn't. And we have to believe them? Come on, there has to be limit as to what's credible and you have to have the right to question things.

So my saying that I *BELIEVE* that a re-write of the core system of dealing with audio in MacOS has made a difference to audio quality has as much technical plausibility as changing the name of my hamster?

It's the wrong time of year but I'm sure I just heard a cuckoo!

[Dave Cawley]

Art of Sound is a subjectivist forum, and members are encouraged to trust their ears over anything else.

I stand by what I said. But I have learnt never ever to argue or discuss anything with the many moderators of this group. So please don't encourage me to engage. I have read the above and although I think it is wrong, I will work with it. Great shame though!

Dave

[Chippy_boy]

So my saying that I *BELIEVE* that a re-write of the core system of dealing with audio in MacOS has made a difference to audio quality has as much technical plausibility as changing the name of my hamster?

It's the wrong time of year but I'm sure I just heard a cuckoo!

I never said that mate, and you know it.

I merely said that we must have the ability to question things, because if we do not then totally ridiculous claims can go unchallenged.

Had you made any claims relating to your hampster, I would have flat out called you barking mad, and you will have noticed I have not.

[Chippy_boy]

Dave why should this have the effect you suggest/hint at. Marco does not say here that measurements don't have a place in audio or AOS, but just that so far (Note the words So Far)they don't and can't explain all the things that many (not all) hear. It would be very interesting and valuable if audible effects could have a corresponding measurement and in many cases that is the position we are at but not with everything. The problem here on AOS is when those come on and post black and white comments which don't allow for what people (including me) hear. I feel pity for the black and white brigade, the world, the universe is far from a black and white place, there is much to discover and learn and an arrogant closed mind means to much is missed. If objectivism alone floats peoples boats they can post on ZG and other places to there hearts content and learn nothing. I have an open mind and yearn for the day when audible effects can be explained, however until that day comes I will trust my ears first.
Regards D S D L

Neil, with the greatest respect, I think you COMPLETELY misunderstand.

I am all for things that sound better. Of course, why wouldn't I be???? It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

But if we are to agree that something sounds better, then surely the most basic fundamental test is that we should be reliably able to say that it does actually sound better! Not with instruments, but with our own ears? We should be able to listen to "A" and compare it to "B" and be able to

(i) reliably tell the difference! and
(ii) reliably prefer one to the other

Is that too daft an aspiration? Surely no-one can think that it is?

No-one can claim that mp3's sound better than cd's because they just don't. And we can test it. You can play a whole bunch of mp3s to a whole bunch of people and *reliably* people can tell that the cd sounds better. It's a testable, verifiable fact. With peoples' own ears.

That's really what this is all about. Not scientific measurement.

[Alex Nikitin]

I personally cannot see any problems with a preference for a subjective evaluation. It is most certainly my preference too. At the end of the day it is our subjective perception that matters - it is the essence of a high quality audio reproduction. As much as I love measuring things I learned hard way to trust my ears more than my measuring equipment when it comes to the sound quality. Measuring is a great fun and can be very informative in many cases however it does not (and can not in a modern state of science, IMHO) offer a final judgement on the sound quality, for a number of reasons.

Now about the subject of this thread. Without actually looking at the hardware of the Mac in question I would not be so easily fooled by a "bit-perfection". The jitter on the SPDIF output may easily be dependant on the way the software works with the hardware. It is tempting to assume that the hardware is perfect in this respect but it is most likely a wrong assumption. That is why I find it much easier to believe lovejoy with his subjective evaluation, than Chippy_Boy with his pseudo-scientific speculation.

Alex

[lovejoy]

But if we are to agree that something sounds better, then surely the most basic fundamental test is that we should be reliably able to say that it does actually sound better! Not with instruments, but with our own ears? We should be able to listen to "A" and compare it to "B" and be able to

(i) reliably tell the difference! and
(ii) reliably prefer one to the other

Now we're on the same wavelength.

Amen to that.

[Mike]

I am all for things that sound better. Of course, why wouldn't I be???? It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

But if we are to agree that something sounds better, then surely the most basic fundamental test is that we should be reliably able to say that it does actually sound better! Not with instruments, but with our own ears? We should be able to listen to "A" and compare it to "B" and be able to

(i) reliably tell the difference! and
(ii) reliably prefer one to the other

Is that too daft an aspiration? Surely no-one can think that it is?

No-one can claim that mp3's sound better than cd's because they just don't. And we can test it. You can play a whole bunch of mp3s to a whole bunch of people and *reliably* people can tell that the cd sounds better. It's a testable, verifiable fact. With peoples' own ears.

That's really what this is all about. Not scientific measurement.

I'd have to agree with that.

But... sometimes things sound great even when they measure poorly. It's a funny old game!

[Alex Nikitin]

Now we're on the same wavelength.

Amen to that.

Agreed.

Alex

[Marco]

Hi Dave,

Art of Sound is a subjectivist forum, and members are encouraged to trust their ears over anything else.

Unfortunately the above statement, although well-meant, is somewhat misleading and doesn't tell the whole story; ironically rather like some measurements in relation to hi-fi!

I see no reason, mate, to add anything further to the text Neil quoted from Our Ethos. Having read that, my position on this matter, and in this instance that of AOS, should be crystal clear to everyone.

Hi Chippy,

In all seriousness, if my point is "you're fooling yourself", how would you suggest I make that point?
I did say to the OP that the sound differences could be down to settings etc. But genuinely if both OS's are working properly and streaming an unmodified stream of bits, then a "you're fooling yourself" option surely has to be considered?

Surely we should *ALL* have open minds. This means ALSO being open to the idea that some effects maybe are just not there at all.

If that's off the agenda even for discussion, I don't know where it is to end.

Can someone come on here and say that if they call their Hampster "Norman" then their hifi sounds better, but if he's called "Gerald" then it doesn't. And we have to believe them? Come on, there has to be limit as to what's credible and you have to have the right to question things.

I read your ethos pages before I started posting and again after Marcos pointed me at them. If my posts contravene anything (and I do not believe they do) then I suggest the terms of reference for the forum should be looked at.

Surely, it's about healthy debate, where points of view can be questioned? If not, what's the point?

Please read the bit that I've highlighted in bold.

The *point* is that, however well-intended or how much you think you're right, telling someone "you're fooling yourself" is unbelievably arrogant - and 99% of the time it is liable to get someone's back up. Even if you don't mean this to happen, trust me, as sure as eggs is eggs, that's exactly what will happen... It's human nature.

With the best respect in the world, who do you think you are to judge people in that way??

People hear what they hear, whether it's genuine or not - and providing that what is heard is backed up by some credible listening experience, they should simply be left to believe what they feel is justified and genuine.

This arguably illogical and 'simplistic' approach may not appeal to your mentality and healthy scepticism of what cannot be scientifically proven, but the fact is (and evidence on numerous audio forums backs this up) that trying to 'prove' that what someone hears is 'wrong' only leads to tears and a whole load of bad feeling. This is not something we welcome or tolerate on AOS, hence our primarily subjective stance on matters pertaining to audio.

We enjoy debating many assorted issues very robustly indeed, and there's plenty of evidence of this throughout the forum, but after a certain number of exchanges when it becomes obvious that your 'opponent' is convinced that he or she is as 'right' as you are, that's the time to bow out gracefully from the debate and respect the other person's opinion, no matter how much you may disagree with it. It's not always easy to do, and I myself sometimes struggle with this, but I'm afraid it's the only way if fights and ill-feeling are to be avoided.

I therefore suggest that you digest the above and think hard about whether your style fits in with what is required here. Your contributions have been fine so far, but if you continue insisting on 'poking' people who think differently to you, then perhaps AOS isn't quite suited to you.

I trust that you don't mind me being frank. However, if you wish to be a part of this community, it's better that this is tackled out in the open now, so that you know the score and accept it or not (the latter would probably involve you leaving), rather than this sort of situation raising its head again in future

Marco.

[Chippy_boy]

Hi Dave,



Unfortunately the above statement, although well-meant, is somewhat misleading and doesn't tell the whole story; ironically rather like some measurements in relation to hi-fi!

I see no reason, mate, to add anything further to the text Neil quoted from Our Ethos. Having read that, my position on this matter, and in this instance that of AOS, should be crystal clear to everyone.

Hi Chippy,



Please read the bit that I've highlighted in bold.

The *point* is that, however well-intended or how much you think you're right, telling someone "you're fooling yourself" is unbelievably arrogant - and 99% of the time is liable to get someone's back up. Even if you don't mean this to happen, trust me, as sure as eggs is eggs, that's exactly what will happen... It's human nature.

With the best respect in the world, who on earth do you think you are to judge people in that way??

Marco, I think perhaps you should read these posts and comment on what's actually said, rather than what you think might have been said. It's you who brough this whole "you're fooling yourself" statement into the thread, not me.