On this small scale, yes, agreed - who really cares about a network switch? - but these discussions point to a much broader division in the ways that people approach the world and conduct themselves within it, and that does bother me. For example, does it matter that some people believe the world is flat? Does it matter that some people don’t believe in vaccines? Does it matter that some people won’t wear masks? I think the reason that people get so het up in any discussion, on any sort of forum, is that discussions about the small stuff are often underpinned by much broader philosophical concerns. In this case, science versus belief, subjectivity versus objective reality, and so on. And those debates are important.
8 Likes
Could there be another rational explanation? that IF you hear a difference / improvement, contrary to measurements, then something else we just don’t know and it is worth investigating, is going on? Isn’t this approach after all the basis of scientific research that makes things move forward?
Keeping an open mind is fundamental to achieving progress. Unfortunately, I don’t see that quality in either camp - objectivists or subjectivists. In fact IF I was required to make an observation on this specific issue I would say that the objectivists are somewhat less open minded, when in fact the very foundation principle of Science is just that: observe and question everything, even your own findings!
3 Likes
Science would have no foundation at all if everyone with a spirit level and a pair of eyes could keep dragging us back to discussing the shape of the earth.
If you watch a magician do you assume they’re adept at illusion, or do you wonder if their assistant has a scarred belly?
3 Likes
That seems a fair point. In order to start investigating whether there is something to be explained beyond psycho-acoustic effects, there needs to be a repeatable observation that a difference can be heard when steps are taken to avoid the possibility of bias, etc. As far as I know, no one has carried out that experiment and come out with a positive result, so there is as yet no observation calling for new science.
Boom - roasted. End of debate.
Fair observation. However, If I may add, you (we) are making a huge extrapolation here. I explain: there has been a small number of blind or double blind tests for specific products and proved that listeners could not hear in a consistent way the said “difference”. BUT, this was true for the specific products used, under the specific circumstances of the test.
There are thousands of products though and one cannot safely assume that what was true in those tests will be necessarily true for all the rest.
I have been an avid reader of Stereophile magazine 10-20 years ago. Most reviews had two sections: the reviewer’s subjective findings followed by measurements conducted by John Atkinson. His measurements and comments were trying to explain what the reviewer has reported subjectively. Sometimes the measurements did not agree with the subjective results and that was clearly stated. At no time however, there was any hint of dismissal of the subjective opinion because it contradicted the measurements. This approach, I liked and respected.
What I find disturbing in the “Amir” approach, is not the measurements per se. It is the notion, implied or otherwise that “If it is not measured, it does not exist”. Although the measurement approach IS scientific, the position taken especially by the “followers” of ASR, is definitely UNSCIENTIFIC. Believing that “you” are the owner of truth, is NOT scientific.
P.S. Please note I do not make any reference to specific products especially the one in question… In the long years of my involvement with hi-fi I have seen and owned many snake oil products, as well as excellent to my taste ones. I do not belong to either camp - I respect and trust measurements as I respect and trust my long term pleasure from my equipment.
7 Likes
For what it’s worth, I agree with everything in your post. The first point you raised is a danger of these discussions which ask rather general questions and then tend to get bogged down in details of specific products. Your point about ASR is well taken: I feel that the objective measurements Amir makes are rather de-valued by ASR’s dismissal of any subjective experience that doesn’t match their interpretation of the measurements. The hostile and “holier than thou” attitude on ASR to any criticism of their approach is also decidedly unscientific.
6 Likes
Need to pull out my Uriah Heep Live January 1973 vinyl and give it a listen. As per your experiment, well done.
No one knows yet everything that needs to be measured. That’s for the audio scientist to research, and discover. That is what science is all about, continually studying and looking for what we do not yet know, and using that newly discovered information to better understand that particular field. Think about if physicists stopped at the electron, and hadn’t found about all the subatomic particles like quarks. They are continually researching. Just last week, they found new, unexpected behaviors from one of those particles. Science, be it in audio, physics, or whatever is about finding and understanding the unknown, to discover the undiscovered, to learn all we can about our field.
Yep, you’re absolutely right, and I didn’t mean to suggest that science should remain static. That’s clearly not how science works. However, I think you’re overreaching when you suggest that “science is all about, continually studying and looking for what we do not yet know, and using that newly discovered information to better understand that particular field.”
Up to a point, yes, and quantum theory is a good example of how scientists continue to explore the fundamental nature of reality. There’s clearly more to learn, and more to understand.
Does the transmission of data in a network require the same sort of scientific effort or attitude? Not really. There’s nothing contentious about the theory, no empirical or verified evidence to contradict it, and no suggestions as to what else could be measured. Until one of those facts change, network data transmission is nothing more that the practical implementation of accepted theory - there’s no more science to be done, for now.
When confined to a discussion of expensive network gear it doesn’t really matter that people have subjective opinions that don’t fit with the measurements. Who cares? It’s a low stake issue. Either the measurements are wrong (unlikely), something else needs to be measured (though nobody has any suggestions as to what), or the subjective opinions are wrong (expectation bias etc). Again, it’s no big deal, but I can see why people get upset - nobody likes to have their personal beliefs challenged. In this case then it’s tempting to say - ok, I respect your beliefs, carry on - but as I mentioned earlier, there’s more at stake in discussions about science and belief than showing respect and not wanting to hurt people’s feelings.
4 Likes
Uh, yeah, it’s very needed. You just need to know where it’s needed. It this particular instance, it is finding better ways of transmitting the data to achieve higher transmission speeds, new and improved protocols, etc. We didn’t get up to giga networks by accident. Through network science, maybe we can get up to tera networks while I’m still alive.
OK, so let’s backtrack a bit. When network speeds increased from 10 Mbps to 100 Mbps, and then again to 1 Gbps, was any change in theory needed? Did anything else need to be measured? Did subjective opinions need to be taken into account? Increased network speeds were achieved within an existing paradigm (as far as I know, but I’m happy to stand corrected). As for tera networks, maybe this will be the same - a technical/engineering problem rather than a scientific one.
It may sound as though I’m splitting hairs here, but I think it’s important in the context of our current discussion that we’re clear about how we use the term ‘science’. In short, there’s no scientific explanation as to how an audiophile network switch can increase SQ. If we transition to tera networks at some point down the line we may discover some new science along the way that, coincidentally, helps to explain why an EtherRegen works … but I doubt it.
1 Like
Science is in no way, shape or form limited to theory. Any study of a field, whether it be theoretical, behavioral, practical, or whatever is science. And for technological advancements to happen, science on that field has to be done first.
1 Like
I said “it’s important in the context of our current discussion that we’re clear about how we use the term ‘science’. In short, there’s no scientific explanation as to how an audiophile network switch can increase SQ”. That doesn’t preclude alternative definitions of science, e.g. as a body of knowledge, but it does clarify how we should use the term when discussing whether or not an EtherRegen can have any effect on SQ. So again - just to be clear - no matter which definition of science you use there’s no scientific explanation as to how or why it would work, no suggestions to explore (either practical or theoretical), and no new measurements (nor indications as to what might be measured).
David, David, David… it (etherRegen etc) has nothing to do with the speed of the transmission, or the integrity of the data, but all about mitigating spurious electrical noise over the ethernet lines and reclocking the signal (again i don’t own one but there are people I trust on other forums, Naim esp, that do and swear by it - I own the similar FMC’s by Sonore, opticalModules). In fact the output side is only 10/100 on the eR because many mfg have found 10/100 to be less ‘noisy’ than current 1000 receivers.
BTW you brought up Amir’s credentials the other day - do you really think that the chief designer John Swenson of Uptone/Sonore is just some dude that was delivering pizzas one day and then thought hey, I’ll get rich fleecing people by designing complex circuit boards from the ground up for a boutique audio company? No, he’s got a long pedigree in the telecommunications industry so knows just as much if not way more than the holy Amir does. He’s also not in the business of selling high end hifi - how many $199 Topping DACs do you think Amir suggests to his clients? Hypocritical much?
I suggest you try some listening. In fact even the type of SFP used in a fiber bridge can make a difference. This is new territory - none of the network EE gospel being touted here was predicated on LISTENING to what was coming through a network, not the missile guidance, Word files, stock trades, or other misplaced analogies. You might want to actually try it before totally dismissing it. You and others on here would have a lot more weight (to me at least). If you don’t hear anything (and remove the expectation bias that you won’t) then that’s great - you’d have a lot more leg to stand on with your arguments.
2 Likes
I’m on it! I have a few of those spirit levels. Catch you at the edge! 
Two questions. Can you point me at any measurements of how “spurious electrical noise” impacts SQ? Second, can you explain why reclocking an asynchronous signal makes any difference?
Yet there is no measurable difference in noise. Odd 
I really don’t know. He did mention he would post some confirmatory data, but that was 13 months ago now.
Data?
Now, you know that isn’t true. All that would happen is that someone would comment about faulty hearing, or a system not being resolving enough, or any number of other arcane explanations. And, just to repeat this - for what feels like the millionth time - I might well hear a difference. Yes, I might hear a difference, but in the absence of a rational explanation grounded in physical reality I think a psychological explanation would be more appropriate.
2 Likes
All right you win. Have a great day.
Interestingly, I don’t think either of us can win as neither of us are sufficiently qualified to make any definitive claims one way or the other. I’m tending towards trusting the (electrical engineering) science of others and my understanding of psychology, while you’re favouring the evidence of your own ears and some alternative (possibly) scientific statements regarding noise and reclocking.
So, no, it’s not a win. I hope you have a good day too.
1 Like
Agreed. I guess crying uncle is more what I meant. I trust electrical engineering as well - myself that of Uptone/Sonore that I’m currently listening to some glorious Vivaldi on. So we’ll just have to trust different sources and leave it at that. But if anyone compares me to an anti-vaxxer or climate change denialist I do get livid as that is patently unfair in this back and forth on what is merely a luxury hobby as it is.
2 Likes