magiccarpetride wrote:
OK, I guess I've misread Phil's reply. My point was why toss the baby
out with the bath water?
On the topic of hyperbole, I think many here are making a mountain out
of a molehill. Taking someone's attestation of a subjective impression
and attempting to twist it
I wont post them publicly as the artists had said that I should be very
, very selective with whom I give them out to..
but id be glad to share them with a few folks, so long as noone promises
to torrent the damned things.
it is chamber music. made with a HQ pair of stereo microphones, a
I am running Airplay using Airport Express into Transporter's
digital-in. I wanted to do room correction on Airplay. Currently, room
correction is applied using Inguz. I am thinking of buying DEQ2496 or
something similar to insert it in the digital loop. Will this work?
grego.speiser wrote:
Grooveshark files are max 128 kbps mp3s.
See
help.grooveshark.com/customer/portal/articles/2130-audio-format-and-bit-rate-on-grooveshark
Despite this limitation, I would welcome the possibility of accessing
grooveshark through our squeezeboxen.
This is a
TheOctavist wrote:
bad analogy.
he isn't adding anything.
he is , at best, changing the wallpaper in the restaurant.
That too could be a minor change that can produce a big difference in
the subject's experience. No matter how much you try, you can't wiggle
out of the subjectivist
magiccarpetride wrote:
That too could be a minor change that can produce a big difference in
the subject's experience. No matter how much you try, you can't wiggle
out of the subjectivist hellhole.
Personal experiences are just that - when a wallpaper change in a
restaurant improves the
A few days ago our esteemed senior member Triode created quite a stir
when he published his Enhanced Digital Output App for SBT
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?94512-Announce-Enhanced-Digital-Output-app-USB-Dac-and-192k-Digital-Ouput).
The app is awesome, as it very efficiently and
mlsstl wrote:
Personal experiences are just that - when a wallpaper change in a
restaurant improves the perceived quality of the food, that is likely to
be a one-off experience unique to an individual. Same thing with
improving the sound of one's stereo by putting photos in the freezer ala
magiccarpetride wrote:
Just because someone discloses their impressions to other like-minded
people doesn't automatically imply that the person who chooses to
confess feels entitled to be respected or endorsed. Humans like to
share, sharing is the spice of life, and people should not be
magiccarpetride wrote:
Good point. I have no problem agreeing that facts are facts, and that
bits are bits and so on. But the fact remains (and it's also a cold hard
fact) that many people I know are hearing differences in the resulting
sound quality. How to reconcile these two bundles of
ralphpnj wrote:
Once again you act like the master politician, who when asked a direct
question gives a totally unrelated answer. The issue at hand is whether
or not the bit perfect digital audio data stream which goes from a stock
SB Touch to an external DAC can be somehow improved so that
magiccarpetride wrote:
...and people should not be afraid or feel stultified when it comes to
enjoying life.)
I understand there are cultural niceties one normally follows in casual
social settings - you don't tell a new mother that her baby is ugly,
even if it is - but that is not the
ralphpnj wrote:
One could use a little something called a double blind test to prove
that the differences do not exist. And let's be very clear here, there
are not two bundles of facts but only one set of facts (bits are bits)
and one set of highly subjective assertions (hearing
I agree. Forming an opinion based on one's experience and then insisting
that others be equally impressed and convinced is highly uncivilized.
It's a form of asocial behavior, and is never going to be met with
enthusiasm.
But it cuts both ways, though. Forming an opinion based on cold hard
magiccarpetride wrote:
Double blind listening tests are tricky at best because they tend to
deliver a lot, and I mean a lot of false positives. There are well
documented cases where sufficiently large population of double blind
testers were reporting significant differences in the sound
magiccarpetride wrote:
There are well documented cases where sufficiently large population of
double blind testers were reporting significant differences in the sound
quality while in reality the experimenters were merely playing an
identical configuration over and over and over.
Please,
darrenyeats wrote:
lol!
A much better response than the long winded one I wrote.
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread:
darrenyeats wrote:
The interesting thing IME is when you have a blind test and sighted test
where everything else is the same...same tracks, system, loudness, A/B
switching, snippet length etc and yet the impressions feel so different
when listening blind. I think this is something that has
A minor point: I've noticed many references in these forums and
elsewhere to blind testing as if the participants in the test need
blindfolds during the test. This is rarely the case. A double-blind
test is one in which the subject doesn't know which stimulus is being
applied (e.g., they don't
garym wrote:
A minor point: I've noticed many references in these forums and
elsewhere to blind testing as if the participants in the test need
blindfolds during the test. This is rarely the case. A double-blind
test is one in which the subject doesn't know which stimulus is being
applied
that grooveshark playlist is now a spotify one, courtesy of moi(and I
added hundreds of tracks)
http://open.spotify.com/user/129670382/playlist/7pDMb5UMTZubiFmAgZ2tAP
TheOctavist's Profile:
aubuti wrote:
Please, name at least one such study. I would be interested to see what
the variables were, and if there were no variables (eg, everything
constant except the listeners' psyches), how they did the statistics.
I have done this often to bands I record(or to myself). I do a take,
magiccarpetride wrote:
Yes, that's a good correction. By 'blind' testing I mean subjecting the
testers to some sort of a harness. In other words, placing them in some
kind of unnatural situation where they tend to lose their sense as to
which way is up. Often times such testers pretty much
magiccarpetride wrote:
This is why blind tests are of little value, overall -- they just create
a lot of stress and trepidation.
Classic subjective response featuring the selective use of psychological
issues in audio testing.
Our poor, frightened test subjects are cowed into helpless
24 matches
Mail list logo
