Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
pablolie wrote: i do believe these days one can put together a very, very nice sounding system with a few basic and quite cost efficient devices. I fully agree; we are living in good times ... pablolie wrote: but i also immensely enjoy the exercise of being a tad irrational here and there. passion is always an irrational choice, but how tragic is a life that only and exclusively sticks to rationality alone... :-) Of course there are siutations in life where irrationality, opinions, chance, mood etc. play an important role and listening to music clearly belongs here. As an example I cannot tell why I sometimes prefer say Tingvall Trio over Esbjörn Svensson Trio or Trombone Shorty over Nils Landgren; this is clearly a question of opinion, 'emotional state' and mood. To me it seems important to realize when to apply rationality and when to allow yourself to be a bit more irrational. 'High fidelity' music reproduction, i.e. faithful recording, storage, transmission and play back of audio is purely an egnineering discipline where science and measurements apply - there is simply no room for opinions and irrationality here. Of course everyone is free to decide that he likes the design or sound of a specific piece of equipment (and to pay whatever amount of money to get it); this is clearly the domain of personal preference, taste and opinion, though. And of course one can post his personal preference or expierence with this equipment and the personal sonic impression - but this will be no more than a personal 'testimonial'. This especially means that it is not 'transferable', i.e. does not translate to others. The beauty of the scientific approach (and actually one of its constituting features) is that results hold true anywhere, anytime and for anyone (to the same extent as they did initially). So just as it makes no sense to argue that Tingvall Trio is 'better' than Esbjörn Svensson Trio it is pointless to argue that a piece of equipment is better than another one based on one's personal sonic impression alone. It does make sense to argue that an audio component is better suited to reproduce sound more faithfully than another one if it measures better or if this improvement can be backed up by double blind testing, though. Whether this component 'sounds better' to someone or not again is a different story (of personal preference, opinion and taste). If I were to summarize the criticism of the 'audiophile sceptics' here (and on other fora) I'd say that they (rightly) question the habit of 'audiophile apologists' to argue in the vein outlined above. So instead of expressing their personal impression or preference they try to 'prove' that some component is objectively better (in a scientific or engineering sense) without applying the necessary scientific means to do so. Just my two cents. superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: Wait. Everyone accepts current loudspeakers have various audible compromises. True. darrenyeats wrote: Of course, designing and building speakers is a scientific and engineering discipline [...] Correct. darrenyeats wrote: [...] but human perception and opinion is at its very heart. No. I'd rather say that (assumed) imperfections of human audio perception might be played on to adjust compromises one has to make while designing audio equipment in a way that minimizes their audible consequences. This does not imply by any means that one could'nt tell (at least in principle) by well understood scientific criteria if some component is better at faithfully reproducing (recording, storing, transmitting) audio than another. darrenyeats wrote: Everyone would say the same about audio tape engineering before digital came along. These spheres do NOT automatically exclude one another. If people can hear a difference, then the kind of difference they do/don't like is very relevant to audio gear, given that its purpose is human enjoyment, and it will inform and direct the science and engineering. What you mean to say is, that audibility limits have been achieved with certain types of audio equipment, or that you believe this to be the case, or that current scientific evidence indicates this. That's a very different matter IMO. Thanks for trying to interpret my post, but I was perfectly meaning what I was writing (quite literally). To extend my original post I'd like to point out that whenever someone claims that a component or tweak (e.g. 'magical cable lifters') provides an objective audible improvement (i.e. comprehensible and meaningful to others) he has 'the burden of proof ' by equally comprehensible and meaningful (i.e. scientific) means. If he can't or does not want to provide such proof he is of course free to state this claim as a belief or personal opinion, but it then just does not qualify as an objective, provable fact. You can exchange opinions and personal impressions (about whatever topic) endlessly with only little to no progress. We do have high quality (affordable) audio reproduction equipment today (that is better than years or decades ago) thanks to factual, i.e. comprehensible and measurable progress based on science and engineering. I do admit that there is a very interesting scientific discipline of human audio perception. While current science seems to have a quite good understanding on how humans (and other animals) hear, the different processes involved are complex. Also scientific analysis mostly relies - by very definition - on empirical research and as such isn't as 'seizable' as for example the sampling theorem. So I (as well as most of the other 'audophile sceptics' I assume) would be happy to discuss the _relevance_ of construction compromises (e.g. jitter) or deliberate (mostly well thought-trough) design decisions (e.g. red book sampling frequency of 44.1 kHz) for human audio perception. But even with these topics rational argumentation is necessary; if you cannot (yet and/or fully) explain an audible effect systematically, blind testing is an approved method to scrutinize/validate such a claimed effect. superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
You seem to have edited your post while I was typing ... darrenyeats wrote: What about loudspeakers, venue acoustics. In terms of recording technology, analogue tape? People's opinions about what sounds better or worse are very important, but this doesn't diminish the science and engineering aspect at all. Yes; I think I appreciated this context in my orginal post by saying that superbonham wrote: It does make sense to argue that an audio component is better suited to reproduce sound more faithfully than another one if it measures better or if this improvement can be backed up by double blind testing, though. Whether this component 'sounds better' to someone or not again is a different story [...] It's just a matter superbonham wrote: [...](of personal preference, opinion and taste). darrenyeats wrote: Why should proper engineering and human opinion automatically exclude one another? They don't. They do exclude one another in the sense that they address different questions. There is no scientific way to address 'human opinion' [preference, taste, mood], because it's just not a scientific category. There is simply no scientific way to tell whether some audio equipment or tweak sounds better [right, more intensive, ...] to someone - it's just not he right question asked.* At the same time it's inadequate and useless to tackle the 'ability to reproduce audio faithfully' by opinion or (sighted) personal listening tests. Of course one can express his personal preference and suggest an (unproven) tweak to others, but what exactly is the point? On what basis should I trust him (especially if he sells this tweak for hundreds or thousands of dollars)? * Of course there are various methods (e.g. statistics or analysis of historic evidences) to address scientific aspects of personal opinion (e.g. distribution of a certain opinion in a group of people, development of opinions throughout human history) - but that's not meant above. superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: It might be the wrong question if we're writing a scientific paper. But it's the right question for many people in practice. Yes, agreed; but then the question rather refers to a) (side) constrains like available budget, practicability of the solution and the like b) personal preference/taste again darrenyeats wrote: This brings us back here. superbonham wrote: 'High fidelity' music reproduction ... is purely an engineering discipline where science and measurements apply - there is simply no room for opinions ... There is plenty of room for opinions in hi-fi music reproduction. Many would say there's room for opinion in most things audio - but even the most hardened skeptics would acknowledge there is room for opinion when it comes to things like loudspeakers. So your statement over-steps the mark. This time *you* didn't take my intended meaning and not even the literal meaning of my posts; from the way you are citing them it even looks a bit like on purpose ;) darrenyeats wrote: If there is no room for opinion, then please tell me which loudspeaker science says is the best. The question of the 'best' loudspeaker for a given set-up/environment is a difficult 'optimization problem' that has to take various (scientific and non-scientific) constrains into account. As such there might not be a simple 'scientific' answer to it. Again this still does *not* mean that there wasn't (in principle) a proven scientific methodology to assess a component's (say loudspeaker's) ability *to reproduce sound faithfully*. This is because *faithful reproduction* (i.e. reproduction without distortion, colorization and the like) can be very well measured and compared (unlike reproduction that someone personally prefers). Still the result might not be simple to rate, since one would expect that given two components (say again loudspeakers) of a similar quality, each one might outperform the other with respect to a certain aspect (e.g. overall linearity, faithful and powerful reproduction of very low frequencies, ...) - so one would again have to choose based on personal preferences. But there is a difference between 'I chose this pair of speakers because they (measurably) provide more faithful reproduction of frequencies between 40 and 100 Hz than the other pair [in the same price segment]' or 'I prefer this pair of speakers because they (subjectvely) sound better to me and they also look nicer' and 'these cable lifters improve the sound of every sound system, believe my - I tried it and it worked for me' ... superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
pablolie wrote: I like faithful reproduction, never quite got into the whole tube thing, and i was glad when i got rid of my turntable. :-) i also think one can indeed measure many things quite well and that they provide a reliable indication of the design intent of the engineers, which for me ideally is quite a linear response across frequencies and loads... but we also all know that the *ideal* response can not be achieved yet, even though several designs come quite close. i thoroughly agree a bit is a bit, and jitter discussions over USB or Toslink focus on the wrong side of the issue. when it comes to the analogue side, even within the DAC, more so in amplification, and especially with loudspeakers, wow, there are quite a bit of elements at work. one of the reasons i think one day active loudspeakers will rule the world is because it eliminates a lot of guesswork with matching stuff up. sometimes components don't mix well even when they are all well designed and on paper look like they should sound awesome. analogue is treacherous, and manufacturing tolerances can add up to the point where something is audible even when it comes to 2 amplifiers of the same kind (i did so with MusicalFidelity M1PWR, one clearly noisier than the other, but i would have never known if i'd only received the bad one, because it still sounded very good). Many thanks for this post - I couldn't agree more. As a 'rudimentary informed layman' I also expect active speaker designs (with crossovers before amplification) to be the most promising speaker concept. If we only had a more fact-based discussion within the so-called 'audiophile' segment, progress would be even better than it is already today, because effort spent on developing improved designs need the consumer's acceptance (any money) in the end. (This - by the way - also holds true for other areas of potential progress slowed-down by false beliefs like in medical care [e.g. homeopathy], or an up-to-date continuation of Darwin's evolution theory [e.g. creationism]). pablolie wrote: and speakers... wow. when someone said that models are flawed they were RIGHT. we engineers work with models, and they are quite awesome, but they never reflect a TRUTH. witness speakers. when we measure them, we ultimately measure them by modeling the human ear. does anyone think we have a perfectly accurate model for that? that's why it's important to involve some trained ears in the design of good analog audio equipment. i could download a circuit design for an amp on the internet, go buy the best batch of everything parts, put it together, and still come up with something underwhelming. i have actually done it, albeit many years ago in University. :-) it is not as simple. it is not just a formula. and the reason for that is that there is stuff we don't know about how our hearing works. it is most certainly NOT linear at all. it is hard to model. hence, it is hard to cater to that perfect sound production model that is being advanced here, at least as far as the analog part of the design goes, that is, where the soundwave leaves the membrane. and btw try to model the latter perfectly... and you'll prolly win a Nobel. :-) I still think engineering and the audio equipment industry should strive for the most transaparent music reproduction öpossible. 'Shortcuts' based on (assumed) imperfections of human audio perception should be the 'last resort'. Practically I think we all cannot live without them for mere practical reasons, though. Cheers Ben superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: Very good. Science being very mathematical, his argument is unsurprisingly maths-based and he quantifies how successive theories get less wrong. Also he picked really simple things like the shape of the earth, and indeed this has been refined over time. Sadly, Relativity and QM marked a complete and utter throwing out of prior classical -concepts-. But because mathematically their equations give similar (just slightly more accurate) answers than classical physics in most normal situations, would the author want us to think they were merely refinements? I can't see it. IMO they were refinements based on revolutionary but somewhat inevitable concepts. darrenyeats wrote: But Relativity and QM are extremely rare events in science. I can't think of any revolutions that compare since. I'm not quite sure. Of course it's very hard to decide what constitutes a (scientific) revolution. Even though the entries of the following list might not have the same momentousness as (general) relativity theory or QM, they are amongst my 'personal favourites': - Watson's an Crick's work on the structure of the DNA molecule (might be practically even more important than QM) - Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (even though the conjecture is not very notable the proof is) - The invention of Public Key Cryptography (Ellis, Cocks, Diffie Hellman and [potentially many] others) darrenyeats wrote: If there were no future revolutions I'd be disappointed! Me too! superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
Julf wrote:
But the audiophile segment is a tiny fragment of the consumer
category.
You are of course right.
Julf wrote:
Yes, it is a very cash-loaded segment, but it is very irrational and
fickle. Ask any luxury good company.
This is unfortunately also true. Still I think the 'cash-loaded' segment
could contribute to progress in audio engineering if ('Modus Irealus'?)
it was more fact-based.
superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: Let's agree to disagree on that one. I am willing to disagree but I still would be happy about a reason to do so ;) darrenyeats wrote: IIRC Fermat claimed he had a really simple proof, that would be a cracker if true. Yes, he purportedly did have a proof and yes, it would be a cracker if it was true. Based on the enormous mathematical 'treasure chest' of methods (from various mathematical disciplines) - of which some have been fully developed only lately - it is quite common understanding that he was wrong (even though he might not have been aware of this fact). superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
ralphpnj wrote: Wow my head is spinning with all these detailed and well reasoned posts. However everyone fails to address the core issue and the one that really gets me upset with the world of high end audio. The issue being the use of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) by industry insiders, which includes manufacturers and the high end audio press, to drum up new business. [...] The latest audiophile craze of DSD is a fine example of the use of FUD since to date there is no clear evidence that a DSD offers any sonic advantage over high resolution PCM (which is also guilty of the same, since there is no clear evidence that high resolution PCM offers any sonic advantage over standard resolution (16bit/44.1khz) PCM). And as I've stated more than once - many DSD recordings currently available were at one time or another converted to PCM - edited - converted back DSD - which makes them basically PCM recordings. Given the questionable sonic benefit of DSD audio and the fact that the SACD (which still might be the most common transport medium for DSD) seems to have quite an effective 'copy protection' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Copy_protection) the goal of promoting DSD seems pretty obvious to me: The 'audio content industry' wants to re-establish their former status quo that stood out by ridiculously high margins (for only little 'added value'). If you can sell expensive players (necessary for enforcing the copy protection) it's also interesting for 'high end audio' device manufacturers (and consequentially mandatory for the 'high end audio' press to rave about DSD). superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
I was unhappy with the somewhat narrow and nasal sound of my squezzeboxes for a long time. Inspired by this thread I changed the language setting of my music server from German to English and - to my utter surprise - the music instantly sounded better: somehow broader, more open (in a very cosmopolitan way); this must have been the German umlauts I suspect. Still there was some harshness left, mainly in soft vocal music. Then the scales fell from my eyes: I was still using a German keyboard (how could I have been so careless?). I changed it immediately and was awarded with silky smooth music filling my living room. The good thing about this revelation for us audiophiles is that there are of course endless combinations ahead of us wating to be tried out. Lately I worried that we might run out of server tweaking options, having to simply enjoy music without being able to fiddle with OS settings - but now I am confident that the journey has just begun ... -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
... using Russian/cyrillic keyboard (borrowed from a friend) and Konkani (#2325;#2379;#2306;#2325;#2339;#2368;) language setting now ... best sound so far: beautiful balance, tone, soundstage, depth, timing, feels like you can reach into the music, fantastic, never heard anything so good. I think I can get used to the cyrillic letters on my keyboard but the Konkani language setting is giving me a hard time. But hey - it's all about the audiophile music reproduction after all ... -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
@ cunobelinus, adamdea and chill: I think we are making good progress now. My own tests slowed down a bit, though (ever tried to type in Mkhedruli using a chinese keyboard?). At least I figured out why this DBT thingy everyone is talking about is so important: I would not be able to get any further without Double Blind Typing for sure. Also found a solution for the cold angular sound I sometimes get (especially with brass instruments): +---+ |Filename: round.jpg| |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13028| +---+ -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
... I used SBGK's Win 7 optimisations, set the OS language to Bikol and hacked my SBT to display Klingon language ... the sound is so vibrant and colourful now but also a bit aggressive ... I am lost in the Klingon menu and cannot stop the music ... it is so LOUD ... unplugged my server and the SBT but it keeps on playing ... the sound pervades me ... it is coming right out of my head now ... the taste is so intensive ... I am shivering ... finally I know what SBGK and MCR were talking about all the time ... they are right ... I can feel it, too ... this is beyond everything I ever encountered ... truth ... beauty ... infidels repent ... I can see the bits' shape while I am travelling whith them through space and time ... words fail me ... I am transmogrifying into sound myself ... +---+ |Filename: sound2.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13029| +---+ -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
... and make sure to always use proportional spaced fonts otherwise the music will sound dreadfully unbalanced. Also I discovered that serif fonts add amazing and unheard detail to the music - just tried with Gould's Goldberg Variations: now I can clearly hear mordents and trills that I swear were impercetible before ... -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Everything is possible, but nothing is real, Living Colour, Type HumanMedia;688251 Wrote: What is obvious is also subjective and may be completely contrary depending on which viewpoint you hold. This might apply to personal opinions and beliefs. The benefit (and for some folks obviously also the burden) of a domain based on science and engineering (as audio reproduction) is, that claims can actually be right or wrong and that there is a huge (and growing) body of agreed and proven facts. If I read statements like the one above I wonder how some people can get along in real life. I assume that you also ... ... expect things (with mass and without flotation) to fall down rather than to rise to the ceiling or the sky ... expect your car to get slower and not faster when you break ... be sceptical if someone offers you a money investment with 200% return within one week ... etc pp Now ask yourself why you do so without having to try everything out (once more) for yourself? HumanMedia;688251 Wrote: And no one has to prove any claim. Or alternatively differing parties have equal responsibility (or no responsibility) for proving or disproving anything. No, of course no one has to prove his claims, but he ought to in order to be taken seriously and if the claim should be of any relevance for someone else. I don't have to prove that things (with mass and without flotation) fall to earth (because there is a lot of evidence that this is true and therefore it is considered obvious) - the one claiming the opposite certainly has to, though. A lot of people come here to seek advice and to spend their time and money wisely to improve their listenting experience. There is a plethora of potential tweaks (most of them being useless). What about the headstand-kiwi-magic I mentioned here for example: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=686698postcount=35 Does this qualify as a useful tweak. If not, why not? Most of us only have an endless amount of time and money to spend and that's why one should stick with the optimizations that are more likely to improve the sound than others. Would you take an obscure substance (or potassium cyanide) just because someone asserted that it helps against a headache? No, you would ask for evidence that it does (and that it is not harmful). Why should we reject this kind of reasoning here? Just because the harm is only (massive amount of) wasted time and money? Of course anyone is free to post his personal experience, opinions and beliefs (if they are clearly displayed as such) - but what's the point then? The tweaks mentiones here (and other similar questionable ones in other threads) are clearly stated as being (potentially) helpful for others, too. That's why there should be some evidence provided to support them (and not only personal assertions). I am looking forward to your feedback. Cheers superbonham P.S.: Please bare with me if the above is written a bit choppy - English is a foreign language for me after all. -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Gazjam;688326 Wrote: Question for the guys who are demanding Soundcheck prove his no claims made contribution to the Community and be honest ;) You running TT3 with your Touch setup? Of course I am using TT3 with my Touch. I also put the Touch in a wooden box (using hand-selcetd bubinga) lined with blanket fish skin (very exclusive). To even further improve the listening experience I am wearing a tin foil hat (see http://bilearninglab.no/wp-includes/js/tinymce/langs/foil-hat-i10.png) not to mention the headstand-kiwi-trick (see above) ... This all really makes a difference ... for real ... I promise ... -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Soundman;688316 Wrote: First we listened several songs with each device to get used to the sound. Then, for the test, we switched back and forth after rather short times (10 secs up to 1 minute). The effect was instantly noticeable. And in the end we all agreed that we prefer the sound with TT3. Hi Soundman, How did you manage to do the 'blinding'? I am asking because I found this to be rather difficult with the tests I tried myself (switching between two synced receivers with different loudspeakers in this case). Any suggestion on how to set up a blind test in this (and similar) settings is appreciated. Thanks superbonham -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Gazjam;688373 Wrote: loosten your sphincter, you'll live longer :) Thanks for the anatomical tip. Also got one for you: ever thought about breast or butt implants made of your own brain tissue? Your life will be a lot easier if not distracted by thinking :) Gazjam;688373 Wrote: Was a genuine question btw, DO you use TT3 with your Touch? No. Should I? Don't know why, but I kinda foresee an answer along the lines of ... then how can you rate these tweaks at all without first hand experience ... - I am glad that there is (at least so far) no reason to do so ... Did you try the blanket fish skin tweak? -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Gazjam;688390 Wrote: Sorry, I've no idea what you just said. Dont bother re-explaining though. Can i ask how old you are? 41. Why? Was a genuine question btw, did you try one of the tweaks I suggested? -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Gazjam;688373 Wrote: loosten your sphincter, you'll live longer :) Was a genuine question btw, DO you use TT3 with your Touch? So just in case this might be a misunderstanding due to differences in language: translating the above statement into my native language would give a very rude insult and would make me wonder about your age actually. -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Gazjam;688411 Wrote: Whoa easy there fella... Apologies if your native language isn't English, the comment was meant light heartedly.(hence the smiley) That's the problem of a foreign language not well enough spoken - one just does not get the subtleties. So please accept my apologies if I overreacted ... The starting point was your question Gazjam;688326 Wrote: Question for the guys who are demanding Soundcheck prove his no claims made contribution to the Community and be honest ;) You running TT3 with your Touch setup? which sounded to me as if you wanted to say do not demand prove for this claims before trying it out for yourself. I do not intend to try it out unless there is at least some basic indication that justifies it - and until then I actually don't have to try it out because it simply seems to be very unilkely or even plainly stupid (depending on the actual claim). On the other hand I do ask for evidence whenever someone claims something that is not obvious (or generally accepted as part of the body of knowledge called science as darrell put it so aptly) - the more outlandish the claim the more convincing the evidence has to be. Gazjam;688411 Wrote: Did you genuinely mean me to try tweaks you suggested? I'm all for simple and cheap tweaks that work, but putting the Touch in a wooden box and wearing a tinfoil hat is fucking stupid. ;) No, of course not - they are indeed stupid. But while they might seem to be a bit more farfetched than the original claims by soundcheck and others in this thread, I wanted to illustrate that they are in fact just as plausible (or implausible for that matter). Think about it for a minute: on these 150+ pages with more than 1500 posts there is _not a single reasonabble argument_ supporting these claims. Directly asked for some verifiable evidence, soundcheck (and others) evade these questions and finally talk their ways out of it by saying no claims made - 150 pages is a lot of (wasted) space for no claims if you ask me ;) That being said, I fully endorse darrel's point of view stated in post #1553 above. Cheers superbonham -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Sorry guys but I have to leave this thread. There is no help in arguing here - these server tweak folks just are not receptive to reason. While I think that this nonsense should be refuted whenever possible (for truth's sake and to prevent further harm) we all have only limited time to spare. I did my best, but now Cassandra Wilson's sweet dark voice is calling me for other duties ;) Thanks to all the advocates of scientific reasoning and especially to darrell, Phil and TheOctavist for their interesting contributions. Cheers superbonham -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Dear soundcheck, this is REALLY getting annoying - and I have to admit that's not easy for me to stay polite (but I will try my best). It is really like talking to a 1-year-old that does not understand the basic concepts of reason-based discussion. It also seems that it won't ever be possible to convince you because you are just imprisoned by your quasi-religious belief that these things must make a difference. Let's sum it up again: - You belief that server tweaks and/or ethernet cables (beyond correct transmission of the digital data) have an influence of the SBT - There is not a single reasonable and verifiable argument in this whole thread that supports this claim - There is a rather simple test (pull the damn cable) that hepls to validate those claims, because IF THE CABLE IS UNPLUGGED (and the SBT plays from its internal buffer), NEITHER THE SERVER NOR THE CABLE CAN POSSIBLY HAVE ANY INFLUENCE. - You questioned the test and were subsequently provided with a detailed explenation why this test works NOW IT'S YOUR TURN TO DISPROVE THESE EXPLANATIONS AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO YOUR CLAIM THAT THE TEST WAS IRRELEVANT. Please stop the useless chatter and make a point. Cheers superbonham -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
rgro;688112 Wrote: There was an article on the CNN website the other day about Neil Young and his quest for hi-def music re. Apple. http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/31/tech/web/neil-young-apple-high-def-music/index.html According to the article (and I have no verification of this), Industry-standard MP3 files have only about 5% of all the sounds that were contained in the original recording. That's a pretty amazing numbera LOT of compressionand we know that, in addition, there's some data loss going on. ... overlapping posts ... If you take a high-definition master recording at 96kHz/24 bit stereo (~ 4,600 kbit/s) and compare it with a 256 kbit/s mp3 (which you might consider industry-standard these days) this actually holds true (at least approximately). But as already said: a lot of this data can be omitted without having (too much) of an audible effect. mp3 compression is based on (rather well understood) psycho-acoustic phenomena (e.g. masking just to name one of them) to reduce the data rate. Personally I am - at least for the vast majority of my own music collection - not able to tell the difference between the CD source and a mp3 file with 320 kbit/s encoded from this source (using a decent hifi system - that won't perhaps qualify as audiophile, though). -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
RGibran;688060 Wrote: You want to hear differences? Then you will! You don't want to hear differences? Then you won't! It works both ways folks. Just sayin' RG Totally agreed. That's why one should actually strive for a reasonable comprehensible explanation or meaningfull empirical support (e.g. controlled blind test). The pull the cable test (if not performed in a controlled fashion) won't ultimately help here. It is merely meant as a service for soundcheck and others not being receptive to reasoning. And - at the risk of repeating myself - it's actually not us being sceptical about influences of server tweaks or ethernet cable magic that have to prove anything. The one claiming something that is not obvious has to provide evidence; the less obvious (or the more outlandish) the claim the more evidence must be provided to support the claim. These are just simple rules of logical/scientific reasoning. no claims/no promises (as put forward by soundcheck) is btw a common excuse of the esoteric. I hope I do not have to comment on how improper this is - but will if I have to ... Cheers superbonham -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
musicom;688106 Wrote: If one were to compare based on the data rate alone, CD beats mp3 as it has a data rate of 141 kbps vs 128 k for the mp3. Just a small correction (might have been a typo): CD has a data rate of 1411 kbit/s (44100 x 2 x 16 bit per second); that's the effective data rate for the music encoding excluding error correction information. This hence is more than 10 times the data rate of a 128 kbit/s mp3 file. Not everything of this additional information is audible (also depends on the material) - that's why mp3 compression is working in the first place. -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
Dear soundcheck, SBGK and all the others willing to take hifi to the next level, you are so right! I also experienced the astonishing positive effect of an optimized ethernet connection on the sound quality of my sequeezeboxes (and other audio streaming devices in general). I invested quite some time into own investigations and came up with an own audiophile ethernet cable design. I am willing to sell these special handmade cables for only 10 US$ per inch (plus shipping) - and even offer a 10% discount to members of this forum (incredible bargain). Please contact me for further details. As usual I cannot provide a comprehensible explanation why these cables sound so much better, but they really work for me (promised) - and I am sure they will also improve you listening experience above expectations. I spent hours with evidentiary personal listening tests (controlled A/B/X test are for wimps); I also performed numerous measurements (including thermal coefficient, moonlight reflection ratio, etheromorphic energy fluctuation and the like) - and they all look promising. I am convinced that these cables will help you on your endless and rocky road to the holy grail of high fidelity (and at such a reasonable price this is money well spent). Cheers superbonham P.S.: I will also include detailed instructions on how to tweak your server OS settings for free with the first 10 orders! -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
soundcheck;686682 Wrote: A comment to cables and connections: It doesn't matter if we talk USB/SPDIF/Ethernet/Power/RCA cables, or even board traces they all show filter and antenna characteristics and also can cause nasty groundloops. Innappropriate connectors or connections are causing impedance mismatches thus reflections or crosstalk. Poor grounding and decoupling inside the equipment won't get rid of conducted or radiated noise properly. All that gets a big mess. @soundcheck: yep, I certainly know what you are talking about. That's why my special ethernet cable design also inhibits most of these nasty groundloops , reflections and radiated noises. They are of course all known to degrade the digital data transmission and even (quite magically) manage to generate a frame check sequence (32 bit CRC) that matches the modified package data! So don't worry - the problem is already addressed properly! Cheers superbonham -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
soundcheck;686693 Wrote: Boys. It's weekend. Do me a favour. [...] Server: 1. Install TCPOptimizer with optimum settings (free of charge) 2. Install and Run Fidelizer (free of charge) Touch: 1. Install my Toolbox. (Free of charge) and listen. It's that easy. I can't do more for you than that. Enjoy. I also have some suggestions to improve the audio quality: 1. Play some music on your squeezebox (does not have to be a Touch) 2. Get completely naked 3. Do a headstand 4. Balance two kiwi (fruits) on your bare feet (one each) - make sure that they are ripe but not too squishy 5. Enjoy the very audible improvement of the music reproduction Cheers superbonham -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
evdplancke;686711 Wrote: [...] For unicorn, I believe like you probably that there are enough scientific evidence they don't exist so we are not in any of above categories. Just being curious: what was the difference between unicorns exist and server tweaks and ethernet cables have an influence on the sound quality of the straming client again in your opinion? Cheers superbonham -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
evdplancke;686732 Wrote: No difference. But claiming these statements are false without evidence of it is no genuine wisdom. evdplancke Wrote: For unicorn, I believe like you probably that there are enough scientific evidence they don't exist so we are not in any of above categories. So what makes you so confident in this case and so undecided in the cable and server tweak voodoo case? What kind of scientific evidence that there are no unicorns are you referring to? It's not our task to prove that there is no such cable/tweak voodoo, because common sense at least suggests it does not exist. This thread still contains some counter arguments as well as a simple test set up (pull the damn cable) for further assessment. Everyone claiming facts that contradict common sense is - in contrary - deemed to provide verifiable evidence for his claim. The more outrageous and quixotic the claim is, the more supporting evidence it needs. If not, we just end with the simple ... there are unicorns, because I've seen one ... aka ... there is cable voodoo because I can hear it ... Cheers superbonham -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
evdplancke;686782 Wrote: Some evidences that unicorn does not exist: nobody did never attest to have seen a unicorn dead, alive or fossile or any track of it. What if I claimed that I have seen a unicorn? And what if I claimed that a farfetched server tweak improved the sound of my streaming client because I can hear the difference? Right, both do not provide any meaingfull evidence. If we followed your argumentation à la you cannot exclude that there is some influence by noise hitting the touch, one could also say that you cannot exclude that uicorns are just hiding themselves very well (they are knwon to be shy) and they do not leave fossiles because they immediately fall to dust if they die ... Common sense is not factual and might be wrong. Common sense believed the earth was flat a few centuries ago. And with common sense, nobody would have ever found the law of relativity or quantic physics. True, but that doesn't have anything to do with my post. I said that every claim must be supported by evidence (unless it is about a purely subjective topic like personal taste) if it shall be of any use. The more farfetched and outlandish it is, the more evidence is needed. Groundbreaking ideas of course often contradict common sense but they withstand only because there is evidence that supports them. Why don't you admit that there is no definitive answer to the questions I raised? I don't ask anyone to give evidence but without evidence don't claim other's belief is false as you do. I did not say that there is a definitive answer; I also do not categorical exclude that there might be an influence of ethernet cables or server tweaks - it's just unlikely (and in this case even very implausible). It's generally hard to prove the non-existence of something, but there are a lot of arguments in this thread that exclude at least the most obvious ways of possible influences and that qualify for being reasonable and verifiable. On the other hand, there was _not a single_ argument supporting these outrageous claims that would qualify for this category. I do ask everyone to give evidence if he claims something to be true that is not obvious. And instead of saying I don't know (as you suggested) setting the stage for further subjectivism, I follow the discussion, evaluate the arguments and decide for the position that is well supported by qualified evidence. It's that simple. Cheers superbonham -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Need advice on budget active stereo speakers
... I will certainly take the M-Audio Studiophile AV40 into consideration and may be have a look at the Genelec, too (though I agree that they are rather ugly). The Quad 11L and 12L look beautifull, but they seem to be too expensive for the price range I am looking at; maybe I get a pair of used ones instead?! Thanks again for your help! Greets superbonham -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57516 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Need advice on budget active stereo speakers
Hi there, I recently bought a Squeezebox Duet (one controller, two receivers) and am looking for decent and affordable (active) speakers. I am aware that the price range of 150 - 250 US$ won't qualify for audiophile - still I think it is the most adequate sub-forum, since the others tend to focus on the respective device they are targeted at. I've read a lot about the different suggestions within this forum, but I did not manage to get to a final conclusion. So here are my requirements: In need two sets of active speakers (either 2.0 or 2.1) for my bedroom and the kitchen; both rooms are approx. 4x5 m each and have wooden floors. The speakers will have to be placed rather near to the rear wall (or even be attached to it, if possible). I listen to rock, pop, vocal and instrumental jazz and occasionally to classical music. My current list includes the usual suspects: - Acoustic Energy Aego M - Audio Engine A2 - cheap nearfield monitors (Alesis, Behringer, Fostex, Genelec, et al.) I can try out some of the common studio monitors in a near music store, but was not able to find a store that sells the Aego Ms or the A2s. Since hearing distance will be around 3 m, I am unsure if nearfield monitors will do the job; additionally I do not like the somewhat sterile reproduction of studio monitors that much. So what would you suggest? Any hints will we appreciated! Kind regards, superbonham -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57516 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
