Do high-end streamers make an audible difference?

[StereoNET]

2 hours ago, aussievintage said:

 

Quite a big claim.  Any research backing it up?

 

This is not ASR. My vision for StereoNET was that we would absolutely never require every post/opinion/thought to be backed up by science and research. Wouldn't present a welcoming, engaging and friendly community if we allowed our forums to head in that direction.

[Almaz]

Honey just listen for a couple more minutes.

[Chigurh]

16 minutes ago, Almaz said:

I laughed when you said she can do the CD and cable swapping.

Lost count of how many times over the years I asked my wife to come and listen and tell me what she thinks, or can she hear the difference. I think she has wised up and just says “ sounds good Love “ Or I might start talking tech,

and she give me that strange look. What would I do without her.

 

Edited January 31 by Chigurh

[Satanica]

9 minutes ago, StereoNET said:

This is not ASR. My vision for StereoNET was that we would absolutely never require every post/opinion/thought to be backed up by science and research. Wouldn't present a welcoming, engaging and friendly community if we allowed our forums to head in that direction.

Are there any written conditions on the Audio Science Review (ASR) forum/website that says observations must be backed up with science?
It may encourage questioning of observations without backed up science, but that's another matter.

[StereoNET]

Just now, Satanica said:

Are there any written conditions on the Audio Science Review (ASR) forum/website that says observations must be backed up with science?
It may encourage questioning of observations without backed up science, but that's another matter.

 

I wouldn't know as I stopped visiting a long time ago. However, and regardless if they do or don't, it's commonly understood that the focus of that particular site is science, measurements and objective views (it is the name of their site, after all).

 

That is not the case here, and we welcome objective and subjective views. What was perhaps not clear enough in my post is that subjective views do not require measurements, science, or being called out for not backing up those views, thoughts or opinions.  Thanks.

[The Mad Scientist]

 

1 minute ago, StereoNET said:

 

I wouldn't know as I stopped visiting a long time ago. However, and regardless if they do or don't, it's commonly understood that the focus of that particular site is science, measurements and objective views (it is the name of their site, after all).

 

That is not the case here, and we welcome objective and subjective views. What was perhaps not clear enough in my post is that subjective views do not require measurements, science, or being called out for not backing up those views, thoughts or opinions.  Thanks.

So if I subjectively declare that the world is flat, that's OK and immune to objective and scientific challenge?

[Satanica]

4 minutes ago, StereoNET said:

I wouldn't know as I stopped visiting a long time ago. However, and regardless if they do or don't, it's commonly understood that the focus of that particular site is science, measurements and objective views (it is the name of their site, after all).

 

That is not the case here, and we welcome objective and subjective views. What was perhaps not clear enough in my post is that subjective views do not require measurements, science, or being called out for not backing up those views, thoughts or opinions.  Thanks.

 

Well I did a quick look an I can't find anything that dictates that observations must be backed up with science.

Is it Stereonet policy that one cannot question observations?
I take it that posts such as "Quite a big claim.  Any research backing it up?" are allowed and if this is not the case can you please clarify that now.

[StereoNET]

 

[StereoNET]

6 minutes ago, Satanica said:

 

Well I did a quick look an I can't find anything that dictates that observations must be backed up with science.

Is it Stereonet policy that one cannot question observations?
I take it that posts such as "Quite a big claim.  Any research backing it up?" are allowed and if this is not the case can you please clarify that now.

 

The world is not black and white. I've seen enough comments in this thread, and others of late, where one can not have an opinion on any matter of audio without it being challenged by those who want facts, measurements or research. If a subjective comment triggers you, then I refer you to our Website Guidelines, which suggest that sometimes it's OK to just ignore a comment and move on.

 

I maintain that ASR is an absolutely welcoming environment for that manner of thinking. My point is simply this, not every subjective comment or thoughts on these forums should be challenged with demands of research to back it up. 

There is a lot of knowledge to be had here on these forums, and while some discussion threads have become very advanced in nature over the years, we are welcoming of those with all ways of thinking - subjective and objective, and at various stages of their journey. There are other more technical forums with more members who are solely focused on science and research, if that's your thing - and that might appeal more to some.

 

Not here to argue (quite the opposite of my role) - Only here to suggest that anyone who dares offering an opinion simply does not need to be told they are wrong unless they cite research, measurements or previous studies. Keep an open mind, respect other's opinions, or simply move on - again, as suggested in our Website Guidelines.

[The Mad Scientist]

1 minute ago, StereoNET said:

 

The world is not black and white. I've seen enough comments in this thread, and others of late, where one can not have an opinion on any matter of audio without it being challenged by those who want facts, measurements or research. If a subjective comment triggers you, then I refer you to our Website Guidelines, which suggest that sometimes it's OK to just ignore a comment and move on.

Historically, learned individuals were persecuted for "beliefs" that we now know are factual and scientifically proven. So what you're saying is that any individual is free to define their own reality in their own terms and be immune to question?

 

If that's the case, then I'm done here.

[playdough]

Stealthily the better half was introduced to the hobby,,,in the thinly veiled hope of getting a dream kitchen and a new stereo upstairs. Stereo is in, among other things to make the area better acoustically and the kitchen is mostly finished,,,,she, is a professional scientist at work, inquisitive, likes a good stereo, I can't really deny her fact. I might question her about it though, sets off the scientist,,,    

[aussievintage]

11 minutes ago, StereoNET said:

My point is simply this, not every subjective comment or thoughts on these forums should be challenged with demands of research to back it up. 

 

Slight difference here though.  It wasn't a subjective comment per se.  It was a statement of supposed fact. Nothing about "I believe" , "I hear"  "I would think", or that sort of statement. 

 

However, if I was wrong I apologise.

[sir sanders zingmore]

Honestly everyone just needs to get off their high horses and cut everyone else a bit of slack. 

Are we really going down the path where instead of saying:

”Most can hear differing character between 2 types of CD players”

 

we require people to say:

“in my admittedly anecdotal and non research backed opinion, most people under casual non double blind conditions, claim to hear differing character between two CD players”

 

[Satanica]

20 minutes ago, StereoNET said:

My point is simply this, not every subjective comment or thoughts on these forums should be challenged with demands of research to back it up.

 

My common sense says that doesn't happen here.
Also, I think there is some confusion over what can be posted and what is accepted by the moderators.
Nobody here has suggested that moderators should start removing posts that aren't backed up with research, and I've never read that at Audio Science Review (ASR) either.
Audio Science Review (ASR) seems to me to be an overly easy target here for criticism; perhaps it is time for some to cut it some slack.

[playdough]

4 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Honestly everyone just needs to get off their high horses and cut everyone else a bit of slack. 

Are we really going down the path where instead of saying:

”Most can hear differing character between 2 types of CD players”

 

we require people to say:

“in my admittedly anecdotal and non research backed opinion, most people under casual non double blind conditions, claim to hear differing character between two CD players”

 

Must apologise, sorry (to the forum) for that statement, my bad.

I never knew what would happen, when quietly just checking out the new CD player,,,,and a rank amateur audiophile Family member chimes in 

 

 

 

 

[The Mad Scientist]

12 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Honestly everyone just needs to get off their high horses and cut everyone else a bit of slack. 

Are we really going down the path where instead of saying:

”Most can hear differing character between 2 types of CD players”

 

we require people to say:

“in my admittedly anecdotal and non research backed opinion, most people under casual non double blind conditions, claim to hear differing character between two CD players”

 

Obfuscation of fact with opinion is a very dangerous thing. If we all just cut it a bit of slack and let it slide, what becomes of truth?

[StereoNET]

The irony here ....

 

Some would really benefit from heading over to the New Member Introductions forum and reading some of the intros from new members to our community. The passion, the genuine curiosity about the products and combinations, the interest and passion for the very thing that brings us to this hobby in the first place - the music and its enjoyment. When something is no longer enjoyable or rewarding .... you know what they say.

 

For the record, I am not speaking ill of ASR. In fact, I believe they play a very important role in accomodating certain members and their way of thinking within this hobby/industry. I have often encouraged some members to join up there, in fact.

 

Abiding by the very guidelines that govern this community, I'll bow out having iterated my stance on the subjective being as welcome as the objective, and leave the following reminder:

 

Quote

Respect other viewpoints, and avoid circular and repetitive arguments.
Discussion, by its very nature, consists of varying viewpoints. It's OK to disagree, but be constructive with your arguments. 

[NonPlayableCharacter]

30 minutes ago, The Mad Scientist said:

Historically, learned individuals were persecuted for "beliefs" that we now know are factual and scientifically proven. So what you're saying is that any individual is free to define their own reality in their own terms and be immune to question?

 

I think it comes down to the circular nature of these exchanges of opinion. Once it goes beyond the point of incremental refinement of the relative positions held and descends into repetition, or stubbornness on the other party ("the science says so" or "I agree with my mate who says we just need to listen" - rinse and repeat either ad nauseam), then it is time to disengage and move on.

 

For the purposes of facts and science versus experiences and subjectivity, once an exchange reaches a point of being circular, parking it and moving on does not mean that the content of the exchange is now null-and-void and that stubbornness has won the day regardless of who stood their ground and who decided to move on and do better things with their time. The content of the exchange still stands for posterity and readers will be able to discern which, on balance, holds greater reason - their reactions to posts speak volumes even if they do not reply to a thread. I believe we need to give readers the respect to work that out for themselves after the fact; we do not need to continue to beat that dead horse to get the message over.

 

6 minutes ago, The Mad Scientist said:

Obfuscation of fact with opinion is a very dangerous thing. If we all just cut it a bit of slack and let it slide, what becomes of truth?

 

Absolutely. But StereoNet is not a scientific journal. It's a hobbyist forum. One is absolutely free to cite sources and make a point; but to distill an exchange through reductive iteration in order to prove who is right and who is wrong is not the approach when one is fully aware of the disconnect that already exists with the person one is addressing. It is worth saying that the flip-side of that coin is not a desirable situation either; in the face of well-reasoned and cited content, it is unacceptable to keep responding with the same repetitive subjectivism. People need to put much less stock in having the last word; the mods have more respect for seeing someone going high and moving on (yes, we do notice), than we do for inevitably handing out sanctions for a member who absolutely has to have that last word.

 

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

This should be compulsory viewing (and I don’t even eat lamb)

 

 

[Satanica]

36 minutes ago, Hydrology said:

What IS truth?

 

I'll properly try and to get this thread back on topic.

There has never been a non-sighted demonstrated audible difference between a "high-end streamer" and a "low/mid-end streamer" with the condition that they are bit perfect.

 

If anyone has something to otherwise report on the topic (synchronous or non-synchronous transmissions) and change this truth, then please post it now.

[Steff]

1 hour ago, El Tel said:

I think it comes down to the circular nature of these exchanges of opinion.

 

2 hours ago, StereoNET said:

Some would really benefit from heading over to the New Member Introductions forum and reading some of the intros from new members to our community.

 

Where this gets outright problematic for me is when new members are looking for information or purchasing advice and may not be able to distinguish between (passionately held) beliefs, hearsay, and facts.

 

Where passion, facts and money expenditure meets, I would argue that "opinion" is not a great criterion to go on, even more so since these opinions are often not declared as such. IMO a disclaimer of that kind helps immensely.

 

But the term "opinion" does produce a false equivalency between facts and individual experience.

 

There are many "homeopathic" solutions for audio fidelity problems (some imagined) out there.

Homeopathy is perhaps a good analogy - you go online for some medical facts and find a forum where people advise you to exercise caution and visit a medical professional - while other people advise you to mix x, y, and z because it has helped them. Might work, might not, might be expensive, might be unhealthy, might cause false beliefs.

 

[muon*]

6 minutes ago, Steff said:

 

 

Where this gets outright problematic for me is when new members are looking for information or purchasing advice and may not be able to distinguish between (passionately held) beliefs, hearsay, and facts.

 

Where passion, facts and money expenditure meets, I would argue that "opinion" is not a great criterion to go on, even more so since these opinions are often not declared as such. IMO a disclaimer of that kind helps immensely.

 

But the term "opinion" does produce a false equivalency between facts and individual experience.

 

There are many "homeopathic" solutions for audio fidelity problems (some imagined) out there.

Homeopathy is perhaps a good analogy - you go online for some medical facts and find a forum where people advise you to exercise caution and visit a medical professional - while other people advise you to mix x, y, and z because it has helped them. Might work, might not, might be expensive, might be unhealthy, might cause false beliefs.

 

But putting faith is bogus medical treatments can lead to in some cases serious health problems.

 

I can't see that happening because some purchased x, y or z audio component based on subjective evaluations.

[ENIGMA]

1 hour ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

This should be compulsory viewing (and I don’t even eat lamb)

 

 

Gold, 

 

Cracked me up and a must watch.

[PKay]

29 minutes ago, muon* said:

But putting faith is bogus medical treatments can lead to in some cases serious health problems.

 

I can't see that happening because some purchased x, y or z audio component based on subjective evaluations.

It won't hurt their health but it could unnecessarily damage their wallets (which could cause upset at a future date).

 

[aussievintage]

42 minutes ago, Steff said:

Where this gets outright problematic for me is when new members are looking for information or purchasing advice and may not be able to distinguish between (passionately held) beliefs, hearsay, and facts.

 

Where passion, facts and money expenditure meets, 

I would argue that "opinion" is not a great criterion to go on, even more so since these opinions are often not declared as such. IMO a disclaimer of that kind helps immensely.

 

 

 

Exactly.  It really is wrong to let opinion appear to represent fact.

Edited January 31 by aussievintage