Archimago wrote: > Keaton's reply: > Yes Mr. Ralph, indeed the depth of Minoeall-san's words of wisdom > suggest truth incarnate and have made humble many a fellow. The years of > meditation have obviously produced a gentleman of great intellect and > transcendence. > > I suggest you also visit and experience the achievements of his cousin > at Sakura Systems for more ethereal audio philosophy and products: > http://www.sakurasystems.com/ > > Best regards on your journey, > Keaton I G-E III, Esq.
Thank you Keaton for your kind words and the link to Sakura Systems. The money in my wallet needs to find a new home. Archimago wrote: > Over the years I have never seen any audiophile magazine publish the > graphs I've shown - ie. exactly identical graphs for various digital > cables - has anyone? Maybe an independent publication like 'The Audio > Critic' may have. > > It's of course not in the interest of advertisers / manufacturers but I > assume also the readership hasn't been demanding for it either... I > wonder do most people accept the idea that measurements are worthless, > or that the "sound of music is too complex" to be correlated to > measurements, or maybe most audiophiles just know intuitively the truth > and just don't want to know. > > Sorry to hear about your experience with high-priced-defective-by-design > cables. Just terrible. And I assume the reviewers must have just loved > those cables. Mnyb wrote: > Exactly +1 don't fel sorry for me :) > > These Magazines are spreading the idea that measurements are worthless > ( go figure ) . > There is a kernel of truth in this as always but widely overused by > audiophiles. > > In the 70's there was a "spec" war focusing on certain aspect but > neglecting others . This have giving rise to the myth the negative > feedback is bad and that certain details would dissapear ? Of course by > unknown mechanism that no audiophile has to explain because it just is > so ;) > > There is sometimes not a very clear correlation to what some > measurements tells us vs audibility . But something's are clear and > proved ,like with modern well designed equipment with very tiny amount > of distortion and noise ,no one can tell them apart . > A fact that Audio critic used to piont out , very good magazine btw . > > But in the case of these digital cables you have a situation where there > is *no* difference , if the magazines did these kind of measurement they > would give away mathematical proof that they are lying , and it would be > possible to sue them . > If they claim that a more perky midrange and firmer bottom is the case > on the latest forgettable jazz Muzak girl record . > > That don't stop audiophiles , must be the ether or flogiston that > transports these signals directly to,the brain as they electro > acoustically don't happen at all :) I beg to differ. Remember it was the measurement of higher jitter in non-asynchronous USB that directly lead to the recent asynchronous USB DAC craze. So it's not that the clowns in the audio press don't use measurements but rather that they gladly cherry pick among measurements and use only those measurements that prove most beneficial to their puppet masters. oops, I mean advertisers. Amazingly in the course of a single review you will read about how measurements show how "bad" the jitter is in non-asynchronous USB and also how a $500 USB cable (from one of the magazine's major advertisers) is way better than a $10 USB cable, in spite of the fact that tehy measure EXACTLY the same. And that's why I call them CLOWNS. But I really should be calling them LIARS. They are, quite simply, disgraceful and never to be believed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98620 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
