BowsAndArrows
Senior Member
@harkpabst 100% agree with you. i was simplifying my ideas trying to be brief. i was drawing our attention the the more ignored part of the "equation" of sound reproduction... i never meant to claim that timing is more important than accuracy frequency response (in fact i belive the opposite is true, clearly because what you alluded to - the cochlea is a frequency detection apparatus). what is missing from routine measurements done by the so called scientific side of audiophile literature is the role of the pinna in the equation. it's the exact reason why no headphones can replicate the realistic stereo imaging of a proper loudspeaker setup. this is because the sound waves aren't allowed to be shaped by the pinna and middle ear apparatus - that's why listening to headphones always sounds like the sounds are inside our heads or just outside the ears... because the brain is missing localising information from the summation of neural information it's getting from the auditory nerve. (i, and many others believe that smearing of this stereo image can occur because of timing issues in the DAC that can be caused by common mode or differential mode interference in the chain).
i also agree 100% that my shoddy level of A/B testing doesn't account to something worthy of publishing results formally in a scientific paper. but, due to limitations, i can't test all the hypotheses i have to that level. i mean, marie curie did not discover radiation by diligent, directed, formal investigations. she stumbled upon an interesting set of observations, and then formalised the study of it. if you want to be pedantic about it - the reason why mine and Hans' line of thinking is ultimately truly scientific is because we are proposing falsifiable hypotheses that can be disproven with the kind of rigorous experimentation you are talking about.
what i'm proposing is some sort of method for detectnig timing accuracy - just spitballing here - for example maybe a setup with two extremely sensitive mics set up far apart (opposite each L-R channel) and a central mic + each clocked with a picosecond-accurate timer (all within an anechoic chamber). then we hook up all the heavy hitter streamers to the rig - from budget golden oldies like google chromecast audio, Wiims, bluesounds, cambridge audio all the way up to a $900k fully quantum shielded
streamer from @Tweaker 's basement... and then measure the differences in the waveforms in the time domain.
once again, i agree that yes indeed i may not know what is causing a reproducible audible difference due to a change made in a system. but the reason it's scientific once again is because i'm trying to understand the limitations of the current approaches we have to understand SQ, the way the ear-brain axis works, and finally possibly lead to a point of enlightenment where we can make the subjective observations more objective.
sorry for the long-winded rant, just trying to be complete this time so my points are not misunderstood. i think you'll find that we have way more common ground than you'd think
i also agree 100% that my shoddy level of A/B testing doesn't account to something worthy of publishing results formally in a scientific paper. but, due to limitations, i can't test all the hypotheses i have to that level. i mean, marie curie did not discover radiation by diligent, directed, formal investigations. she stumbled upon an interesting set of observations, and then formalised the study of it. if you want to be pedantic about it - the reason why mine and Hans' line of thinking is ultimately truly scientific is because we are proposing falsifiable hypotheses that can be disproven with the kind of rigorous experimentation you are talking about.
what i'm proposing is some sort of method for detectnig timing accuracy - just spitballing here - for example maybe a setup with two extremely sensitive mics set up far apart (opposite each L-R channel) and a central mic + each clocked with a picosecond-accurate timer (all within an anechoic chamber). then we hook up all the heavy hitter streamers to the rig - from budget golden oldies like google chromecast audio, Wiims, bluesounds, cambridge audio all the way up to a $900k fully quantum shielded
streamer from @Tweaker 's basement... and then measure the differences in the waveforms in the time domain.once again, i agree that yes indeed i may not know what is causing a reproducible audible difference due to a change made in a system. but the reason it's scientific once again is because i'm trying to understand the limitations of the current approaches we have to understand SQ, the way the ear-brain axis works, and finally possibly lead to a point of enlightenment where we can make the subjective observations more objective.
sorry for the long-winded rant, just trying to be complete this time so my points are not misunderstood. i think you'll find that we have way more common ground than you'd think
Last edited:
Some of us I guess enjoy the pursuit... 
crazy how they might be an important part of the equation. 
i love those extravagant audiophiles that try/own everything on the market. usually the ones i end up learning a thing or two from...
i've tested these in my system and the cheese sounds the best - expansive soundstage like you're in the middle of a lush, green meadow in the hills!! WAY better than a copper slug, i promise!! 
)
it's the top of the line from audioquest right? comparable to the wireworld supernova 