(09-09-2019, 05:12 PM)fmaxwell Wrote:

(09-03-2019, 09:21 AM)Vhond Wrote:

(09-03-2019, 04:24 AM)energyi Wrote: I like 3.8.4 also. Might just be psychological because it was better than the previous versions. I've been updating but still saved the older IMG. Gogo Penguins sounding great with 4.4 right now. Have 5.? On another box. Hard to judge even swapping out ssd cards.

Don't think it was psychological, I agree with Kent it's not the RT kernel as is but the optimization of specific processes and parameters (e.g. for latency).

Same experience with Rune and optimization of specific parameters.

But can you identify the supposedly better sounding version in a blind test?  

Most audiophiles will be convinced that they hear a difference between two amps even if the person conducting the experiment just pretended to switch amps.  That's expectation bias.  It's why it's so important to follow the scientific method.  We're all prone to hearing differences if we are convinced that something has changed.

People see these objects as being different, but they are identical in both size and shape:



Your hearing is no more immune to being deceived than are your eyes.

(10-01-2020, 05:00 PM)LtMandella Wrote: re: expectation bias. 
And what do you say when there is a expectation prior to listening that a change will sound _worse_ but after careful listening the evaluation is that the change improved the sound quality?

Seems to throw a monkey wrench into a blanket statement about expectation bias always discrediting listening  evaluation, no?

(10-03-2020, 04:38 AM)LtMandella Wrote: maybe, but it would take some very careful research and testing for me to buy that.

Quote:Basically what you are saying then is that no matter what, people will often hear improvements with any change, regardless of their expectation about the change.

Quote:This is inconsistent with my personal experience, and I have seen no emperical evidence to back it up.

Quote:And if it were true, we would all hear that a $20 DAC sounds better than a $2000 DAC. Makes no sense...

Quote:HEAR WRONG: Just like with taste and vision, our hearing is heavily and involuntarily filtered. Only around 0.001% of what we hear makes it to our conscious awareness. This is hardwired into us for survival. We would go crazy from sensory overload if this filtering didn’t take place 24/7. Studies show you can play the identical track, on identical equipment, two different times, and the odds are good people will hear significant differences if they’re expecting a difference. This is called expectation bias and it’s the brain “helpfully” filtering your hearing to match your expectations—just like wine tasting. I reference the auditory work of James Johnston and more in the Tech Section. (photo: JustinStolle CC)

THINK YOU’RE EXEMPT FROM HEARING BIAS? People who have made a career of studying the human auditory system have yet to encounter anyone who can overcome their sensory bias. If you have any doubt I challenge you to watch this video and try to overcome your listening bias. If you can’t reliably do it here with a single syllable, even when you know the exact problem, it’s safe to say you don’t have a chance with the much greater complexity of music and a wide range of expectations:

• McGurk Effect Video – A 3 minute BBC non-technical BBC video that allows anyone to experience how our brains involuntarily filter what we hear based on other information. (courtesy BBC TWO).
  

Quote:THE TIME FACTOR: Our brains are like leaky sieves when it comes to auditory details. We can’t possibly remember the massive amount of data contained in even one song (roughly equivalent to one million words!). So, here again, our brains out of necessity heavily filter what we remember. The students in the sight example above thought they had accurate memories of the thief but they turned out to be very wrong. The science shows our audio memory starts to degrade after just 0.2 seconds. So if switching from Gear A to Gear B requires more than a fraction of a second you’re losing more information. The longer the gap, the more you forget and the more bias distorts what you do remember.

WHAT WE HEAR: Neurologists, brain experts, hearing experts, and audio experts, all agree the human hearing system, by necessity, discards around 99.99% of what arrives at our ears. Our “reptile brain” is actively involved determining what gets discarded. For example when you’re listening to someone at a noisy restaurant, the brain does its best to deliver just their voice. And, multiple studies demonstrate, when you’re listening to audio gear the brain also does its best to filter your hearing in the way it thinks you most want. If you’re expecting Gear A to sound different from Gear B the brain filters each differently so you indeed hear a difference even when there isn’t one. This auditory issue has many names. I generally call it “Subjective Bias” but it’s what’s behind “Expectation Bias”, “The Placebo Effect”, and “Confirmation Bias”. I highly recommend the book Brain Rules by John Medina and there are more resources in the Tech Section.

(10-03-2020, 03:52 PM)LtMandella Wrote: You first said that people will hear an improvement when they expect one. 

Quote:Most audiophiles will be convinced that they hear a difference between two amps even if the person conducting the experiment just pretended to switch amps.  That's expectation bias.  It's why it's so important to follow the scientific method.  We're all prone to hearing differences if we are convinced that something has changed.

Quote:And what do you say when there is a expectation prior to listening that a change will sound _worse_ but after careful listening the evaluation is that the change improved the sound quality?

Quote:When the brain can't confirm an expected degradation, then it often imagines an improvement -- even when there is no sonic difference whatsoever.

Quote:So what's left? Will people also hear an improvement when they expect no difference at all?

That covers all cases I guess.  People will always here an improvement with a change.

Quote:And I will let you have the last word...

(08-14-2020, 12:36 PM)zOr7gA8 Wrote: Had time to do some testing of several configs of my setup - NOS AD1865 DAC (hat) on RPI3A+ without special PSU.
Could use the amp Marantz PM6006 with speaker B&W CM6, what is better than my setup at home.
I will share my personal experience.

I tried to compare different settings of tweaks with moode version 6.7/6.7.1 also comparing to version 6.4.2 with tweaks made. In 6.4.2 I used
underclocking of PI, 64bit kernel, phils version of edwards tweaks and also some cmdline-adds.

Like other users described sound was more balanced in version 6.7 without tweaks than in 6.4.2 with tweaks on, what has over exaggerated highs.

Only playing with configs of moode 6.7 I avoid to use the script of edward. I used slightly underclocking and isolated cores for mpd and changes on mpd.service (schedule/priority/nice)

kernel:                32bit vs 64bit
CPUschedule:       other vs fifo
MPD-version:       21.24 vs 22.0
changes of NICE and CPUprio

My results are: most differences in sound are quite small. can't say if really better or just in my head ;-)
32bit>64bit
64bit sounds better with mpd-version 22.0.
21.24 <-> 22.0 sounds slightly different, but couldn't say that one is better
CPUschedule other>fifo, fifo sounds better with 64bit, but also 'other' is better than 'fifo'
with fifo - i prefered CPUpriority=60
with other - i prefered  nice=-13

also I realized that RTPRIO of MPD is fixed to 40 when using version 22.0.
with version 21.24 it is set to 50.

Would like if you can share your experiences. And thanks to Tim and everybody supporting the moode-project!!!!