I recently came across this Post on the DIY audio website. I tried ticking the items on the list and was astounded to discover how confused and unsure I was on several points on this list. While the list is far from complete, it’s a good start to those of us interested in trying it out and pondering on the findings (even those left un checked/un ticked)
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/groundside-electrons.102180/
You claim that an
(x) audible
( ) measurable
(x) hypothetical
improvement in sound quality can be attained by:
( ) upsampling
( ) non-oversampling
( ) increasing word size
( ) vibration dampening
( ) bi-wiring
(x) litz wire
( ) replacing the external power supply
( ) using a different lossless format
( ) decompressing on the server
( ) removing bits of metal from skull
( ) using ethernet instead of wireless
( ) inverting phase
( ) reversing “polarity” of resistors
( ) ultra fast recovery rectifiers
( ) installing bigger connectors
( ) installing Black Gate caps
( ) installing ByBee filters
( ) installing hospital-grade AC jacks
( ) defragmenting the hard disk
( ) running older firmware
( ) using exotic materials in cabinet
( ) bronze heatsinks
( ) violin lacquer
( ) $₹$ power cords
Your idea will not work. Specifically, it fails to account for:
( ) the placebo effect
(x) your ears honestly aren't that good
( ) your idea has already been thoroughly disproved
( ) modern DACs upsample anyway
( ) those products are pure snake oil
( ) lossless formats, by definition, are lossless
( ) those measurements are bogus
( ) sound travels much slower than you think
( ) electric signals travel much faster than you think
( ) that's not how binary arithmetic works
( ) that's not how TCP/IP works
( ) the Nyquist theorem
( ) the can't polish a turd theorem
( ) bits are bits
You will try to defend you idea by:
( ) claiming that your ears are “trained”
( ) claiming immunity to psychological/physiological factors that affect everyone else
( ) name-calling
( ) criticizing spelling/grammar
Your subsequent arguments will probably appeal in desperation to such esoterica as:
( ) jitter
( ) EMI
( ) thermal noise
( ) quantum mechanical effects
( ) resonance
( ) existentialism
(x) nihilism
( ) communism
( ) cosmic rays
And you will then change the subject to:
( ) theories are not the same as facts
( ) measurements don't tell everything
( ) not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
( ) blind testing is dumb
(x) you can't prove what I can't hear
(x) science isn't everything
Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:
(x) room acoustics
( ) source material
( ) type of speakers
(x) speaker placement
( ) crossover points
( ) equalization
(x) Q-tips
( ) psychoanalysis
(x) trepanation
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/groundside-electrons.102180/
You claim that an
(x) audible
( ) measurable
(x) hypothetical
improvement in sound quality can be attained by:
( ) upsampling
( ) non-oversampling
( ) increasing word size
( ) vibration dampening
( ) bi-wiring
(x) litz wire
( ) replacing the external power supply
( ) using a different lossless format
( ) decompressing on the server
( ) removing bits of metal from skull
( ) using ethernet instead of wireless
( ) inverting phase
( ) reversing “polarity” of resistors
( ) ultra fast recovery rectifiers
( ) installing bigger connectors
( ) installing Black Gate caps
( ) installing ByBee filters
( ) installing hospital-grade AC jacks
( ) defragmenting the hard disk
( ) running older firmware
( ) using exotic materials in cabinet
( ) bronze heatsinks
( ) violin lacquer
( ) $₹$ power cords
Your idea will not work. Specifically, it fails to account for:
( ) the placebo effect
(x) your ears honestly aren't that good
( ) your idea has already been thoroughly disproved
( ) modern DACs upsample anyway
( ) those products are pure snake oil
( ) lossless formats, by definition, are lossless
( ) those measurements are bogus
( ) sound travels much slower than you think
( ) electric signals travel much faster than you think
( ) that's not how binary arithmetic works
( ) that's not how TCP/IP works
( ) the Nyquist theorem
( ) the can't polish a turd theorem
( ) bits are bits
You will try to defend you idea by:
( ) claiming that your ears are “trained”
( ) claiming immunity to psychological/physiological factors that affect everyone else
( ) name-calling
( ) criticizing spelling/grammar
Your subsequent arguments will probably appeal in desperation to such esoterica as:
( ) jitter
( ) EMI
( ) thermal noise
( ) quantum mechanical effects
( ) resonance
( ) existentialism
(x) nihilism
( ) communism
( ) cosmic rays
And you will then change the subject to:
( ) theories are not the same as facts
( ) measurements don't tell everything
( ) not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
( ) blind testing is dumb
(x) you can't prove what I can't hear
(x) science isn't everything
Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:
(x) room acoustics
( ) source material
( ) type of speakers
(x) speaker placement
( ) crossover points
( ) equalization
(x) Q-tips
( ) psychoanalysis
(x) trepanation
