ralphpnj wrote:
> I read this and thought "Didn't I post something similar a while back?"
> And yes I did. My apologies to Mr. Kloss but I was unaware that I was
> paraphrasing his original statement.
>
>
>
>
>
> Excellent example of using measurements to distort what are basically
> inaudib
mlsstl wrote:
> Then shouldn't you qualify your statement that it is your opinion? You
> didn't. Does everyone really need to spend time explaining, in every
> single post they write, that our opinions are our opinions?
>
>
>
> Interesting - you find time to lecture someone about the need to c
dyohn wrote:
> In the wise words of Henry Kloss, "Everything that is audible is
> measurable, but not everything that is measurable is audible."
I read this and thought "Didn't I post something similar a while back?"
And yes I did. My apologies to Mr. Kloss but I was unaware that I was
paraphras
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
> We did this at one of my previous jobs occasionally (company founded in
> France :-) ) . Mostly people were able to rate down the low quality
> wines, but at the upper-end there was a variance (which is my point as
> well with audio).
> I know people are saying here "can
garym wrote:
> .., he now holds a small dinner/wine tasting a few times a year for
> friends and he's incorporated a double-blind test aspect of the
> tastings. He has found the results of these "fun" tests to be quite
> interesting and surprising.
We did this at one of my previous jobs occasio
kidstypike wrote:
> I have a Touch analogue out into a couple of EVE SC207's and I can't
> hear any jitter. Do I need better speakers?
Your speakers operate in the digital domain (PWM - just like my system).
There is an D-A in the SB and another A-D in the speaker. I would try to
avoid this, bu
jh901 wrote:
> Do you guys hang out at wine forums to tell them they aren't tasting
> right? Good grief.
sort of. I have a good friend who is very into his wine collection. He
travels the world and wine is his primary hobby. After me bugging him
for 25 years about his wine comparisons/prefere
garym wrote:
> Huh? I've read this entire thread and no one has suggested even close to
> the above. Virtually everyone has noted that many things you mention can
> make a difference. And the question has never been whether jitter
> exists.just on whether it is audible at the levels seen in m
jh901 wrote:
> All sound quality is the same. All of it. Boom box or Wilson Audio
> with all uber hi-end electronics. The power supply designs don't
> matter. The digital circuitry doesn't matter. The analog stage, fully
> balanced or not, has no impact on sound quality. Jitter doesn't exis
jh901 wrote:
> Do you guys hang out at wine forums to tell them they aren't tasting
> right? Good grief.
No. Some of us, in addition to loving good music reproduction, actually
understand electronics, digital systems and audio, and resent the
voodoo, superstition and pseudoscience rampant in hi
jh901 wrote:
> All sound quality is the same. All of it. Boom box or Wilson Audio
> with all uber hi-end electronics. The power supply designs don't
> matter. The digital circuitry doesn't matter. The analog stage, fully
> balanced or not, has no impact on sound quality. Jitter doesn't exis
All sound quality is the same. All of it. Boom box or Wilson Audio
with all uber hi-end electronics. The power supply designs don't
matter. The digital circuitry doesn't matter. The analog stage, fully
balanced or not, has no impact on sound quality. Jitter doesn't exist.
All power amps sou
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
> @Mynb - why do you keep forgetting you have so much jitter reduction
> built into every equipment in your chain and assuming that the sources
> will not matter to other people's systems ? Only in DACs above thousand
> dollars I have seen some good jitter reduction
> (htt
@Mynb - why do you keep forgetting you have so much jitter reduction
built into every equipment in your chain and assuming that the sources
will not matter to other people's systems ? Only in DACs above thousand
dollars I have seen some good jitter reduction
(http://www.anedio.com/index.php/articl
maybe I'm at the ods with the -audiophile- world ,but that is because
they are mostly wrong in most cases .
Thinking that different metals sounds different or use shakti
hollographs , I'm also at odds with homeopaths et al .
just point me to a well conducted controlled test ( dbt ) where people
Archimago wrote:
> Not saying I like MP3 by any means, just that here's an example of a
> technique which throws out tons of samples and creates quite a lot of
> variance in the audio signal, yet human perception is mostly UNABLE to
> detect the difference (not "mostly right"). If this is the cas
SBGK wrote:
> Don't know why you don't believe the thousands of Touch owners that have
> improved the sound via upgraded power sources, hardware mods (both diy
> and professional), software mods and system tweaks both on server and
> Touch
Uh... Thousands? Where?
> If you can't measure the chan
Archimago wrote:
> A link but only to the 1st bit:
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/28/130128fa_fact_gopnik
>
> Did he say anything surprising / new / controversial in the article?
Can anyone write about such topics without being at least a little bit
controversial?
Guido F.
SBGK wrote:
> think you should qualify that by saying it's your opinion.
Then shouldn't you qualify your statement that it is your opinion? You
didn't. Does everyone really need to spend time explaining, in every
single post they write, that our opinions are our opinions?
> Do you not have any
guidof wrote:
> A very interesting article by Adam Gopnik in the current issue of The
> New Yorker on the quest for 3-D sound reproduction, MP3, the meaning of
> music, and other musical questions.
>
> Guido F.
A link but only to the 1st bit:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/28/130128
Mnyb wrote:
> Ok nice total jitter examples . but was not this tread about digital
> sources . ? more precisely a digital *transport* or we also having
> discussion about said source analog performance .
>
> It is the dac that sets the performance not the source , so we can have
> a tread about
21 matches
Mail list logo
