Archimago;691859 Wrote: > Perhaps I should qualify what I said about the bit perfect part as per > the TAS article. They were saying bit-perfect sounds different on the > exact same equipment depending how it was ripped/processed... Surely > you didn't think I was referring to bit perfect sounding same on all > equipment... > > Anyway, I stand by the assertion of TAS being intellectually dishonest. > As for your comments, they seem again to refer to lack of discernment > between performance variations and what may be actual technical > engineering problems.
I'm with you up to a point: I don't see any mechanism by which different ripper could impart characteristic differences to files. I'm not even aware of a mechanism that's plausibly been proposed to support such an idea. But that was kind of their position too: they're looking at each other and wondering what could be going on to explain what they're hearing. They're portraying themselves as confused, not hucksters. In that, they're being intellectually candid, not dishonest. I've been wrong too many times before when my imagination failed me and I 'couldn't see how X&Y was possible' before learning later how it was very much possible, and in fact inevitable. It seems smart to keep an open mind: we're not omniscient. -- item_audio ------------------------------------------------------------------------ item_audio's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=51315 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
