Soulkeeper;691559 Wrote: > There is no logical reason to believe HD fragmentation will have > anything more than a negligible effect on ground plane noise (unless > possibly if the HD is extremely fragmented, but then the user wouldn't > need to turn on the sound in order to notice it). > > > Not even at 120 fps? ;) > > But seriously, if you transfer video via HDMI, it is not time > sensitive, but if you transfer audio via HDMI, it is? Please explain? > > > Actually, these statements hardly make sense. If you connect your > printer to a 10 kV line, you'll see just how voltage sensitive it is. > ;) > > But seriously, the ink nozzles of most inkjet printers are voltage > controlled, and laser printers work by very accurately charging > different parts of a rotating drum. If that isn't voltage sensitive, > nothing is. > > > You're giving me no reason to believe your assertions are true. I can > give you several examples of environmental variables that a PC's > "playback" (whatever that's supposed to mean) would be sensitive to. Do > I really need to do that? > > > Still, 99% of audio equipment is made without vacuum tubes. Not -that- > good an idea, in other words. > > > Often, yes, 'but not always' > (http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-tech-10-most-expensive-laptops/20111014.htm). > > Some products are made to get the job done as well as possible, as > cheap as possible. Others are made to be expensive and exclusive. > > And that is where the difference lies; There's no magical divide > between audio equipment and all other electronic equipment. They all > work by the same principles, and they're all sold by the same > principles.
+1 to each response. Well done SK! I really like all those ultra-expensive laptops but why no Macs?? Mnyb;691562 Wrote: > that does not explain such pure idiotic conclusions that wav-flac-wav > should sound different, this is not a real time problem you can copy > and move around those files and play them later but still TAS claims > that a identical copy (thats the definition of copy, it is really the > same and in the computer world a copy really is a copy ) somehow sounds > different . > > This conclusion are reached with the same methods they used for their > other computer audio tests That clearly idicates that no other > conclusion reached by their methods can be trusted , they have not > accomplished anything but fud . > > They are a lot of things we don't know why not focus on them. TAS is > trying to cast fud on things we actually do know for certain . > > It's where the honesty comes in to play . > > A much simpler and straightforward method would be to measure the > different outcome via traditional methods and/or ADM discard the nulls > and things that should really be inaudible by what we already know > about human perception , but keep the dubious cases in the Grey area. > > The remaining cases could then could be subjected to ABX testing . > > 99.998 of thier BS would disappear in round one as the connected DAC > would have identical output so there is no need to listen if the output > is exactly the same . The remaining dubius cases would be impossible to > tell apart during controlled listening . > > If you don't do rigorous controlled testing (ab and abx and similar ) > your results is not considered data, they just don't carry any > information at all about what you are trying to test, placebo and other > kinds of bias is overwhelming any real result even if it's there in the > noise somewhere. > > I'm assuming DAC here no true believer in audiophilia would use the > analog out from a PC :) but the result would hold true for the better > of todays soundcards Mnyb - you hit the nail on the head with "They are a lot of things we don't know why not focus on them. TAS is trying to cast fud on things we actually do know for certain." The answer is that by using FUD the high end audio industry, along with their enablers in the press, are able to create a need where there wasn't any and then produce overpriced "solutions" to a "problem" that doesn't even exist. For example, now that the utterly worthless series on Computer Music published in The Absolute Sound has completed how long do you think it will be before we start seeing audiophile DVD/CD drives along with audiophile CD ripping software? Audiophile power supplies for computers? Audiophile blank CDs, flash drives, hard drives, etc.? Remember there was no market for high end USB DACs until the industry created it by falsely declaring all the other valid and less troublesome (than USB) digital data transfer methods somehow terminally flawed. You may also notice how, in spite of the fact several high end magazines have praised the Squeezebox Touch and Transporter, these two devices are NEVER used when testing the latest and greatest DAC. Or how when the Touch or Transporter is mentioned, it always seems to be along the lines of "I love my SB Touch, I use it to listen to Internet radio in the background". And of course throw in the fact that both the Touch and the Transporter are now officially non-starters since neither one goes above 24/96 and the new high resolution standard is now the absurd 32/384. Plus the only recordings available at that resolution are insanely expensive and happen to be the usual sub-par audiophile dreck. I am so glad that this forum exists and is frequented by well informed members who understand that something does not need to be expensive to sound good nor does something being expensive mean that it will sound good. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93549 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
