pablolie wrote:
> isnt that why many DACs allow you to invert polarity, because the source
> material may be indistinct about it, and they let you find out if it
> makes a difference? I have never heard one, btw.
In the really old days you get that button on some analog preamps for
the same reas
The result should be that wav and flac sound identical for the obvius
reason that the electrical signal coming out of the Touch is exactly the
same .
It's not weird to -hear- a difference it's rather inevitable when using
some testing methods with humans involved . So your quite normal not
weird a
My setup is pretty basic. I'm running a crossover network cable form my
SBT to my Windows 7/64 PC. (No router). My SBT analogs plug to my
receiver. Awhile ago I was using TinySBS with SD Cards... I could also
tell the difference between FLAC and WAV with that setup as well.
-
isnt that why many DACs allow you to invert polarity, because the source
material may be indistinct about it, and they let you find out if it
makes a difference? I have never heard one, btw.
...pablo
Server: Virtual Machine running Ubuntu 12.04 + LMS 7.7.3 on VMware
Player
System: SB Touch --op
what is the rest of your setup like?
as a rule, either format ought to result in bit-perfect PCM out of the
Touch. so just curious about what components and setup are around it.
the config you talk about, is it standard or you modified it? i let
everything go in native format to the Touch.
.
Dusting off this old thread...
I'm one of those 'weirdo's that can hear the difference between WAV and
FLAC on the SBT. I have two units and I have confirmed it on both. I've
had a friend come over a few times and randomly play a WAV file and the
FLAC counterpart. For the first half hour I could
it comes down to separating topics that, in my opinion, are different,
namely
(1) basic engineering
(2) plausible optimizations
(3) personal "audio beliefs", personal taste
(4) purchasing preference
i just don't think (1) automatically results in a direct, linear (4)
choice.
i find it funny th
darrenyeats wrote:
> In my recent experience, this forum tends to be skeptics agreeing with
> each other and mocking "backward" individuals. It's all far too
> self-congratulatory and repetitive for my taste, which is why I'm not
> here that often.
>
> I think you guys need to be challenged a bi
darrenyeats wrote:
> In 2054 maybe someone will discover something about audio which changes
> the goal posts. Evidence-based reasoning isn't the same as turning out
> to be right in the end.
More than happy to be *proven* wrong. But just someone saying "but I
*know* it is so" doesn't cut it.
In my recent experience, this forum tends to be skeptics agreeing with
each other and mocking "backward" individuals. It's all far too
self-congratulatory and repetitive for my taste, which is why I'm not
here that often.
I think you guys need to be challenged a bit. That's healthy.
Nobody's goi
cliveb wrote:
> Audiophilia is nothing to do with rational or scientific debate. It is a
> religious belief system whose proponents' behaviour in audio forums is
> like Jehovah's Witnesses constantly knocking on your front door. They
> cannot be reasoned with. Engaging with them here is the equiv
Julf wrote:
> I have seen that happen on a bunch of forums. Almost seems like there is
> a small core bunch of hardcore audiophile foo-ists who feel the need to
> spread the message, and descend on forums as a group, supporting each
> other.
Audiophilia is nothing to do with rational or scientifi
darrenyeats wrote:
> Ralph,
> I was suggesting a mix rather than lurching from one extreme to the
> other!
Hey there Darren.
I think this forum has an interesting dynamic. From the start, it seems
to me that anyone getting into the Squeezebox system must have been
quite comfortable with compute
Mnyb wrote:
> But then something happened and the forum basically got "invaded" by
> some very confused people claiming just about anything like that LMS on
> different OS sound different ? Weird software mods etc the list of crazy
> stuff grew exponentially.
I have seen that happen on a bunch o
darrenyeats wrote:
> Ralph,
> I was suggesting a mix rather than lurching from one extreme to the
> other!
Well my perspective is that in some areas you can't do compromises
sometimes the " subjectivist " ( bad word IMO we ar all subjective when
we enjoy our music ) are simply wrong .
It s more
darrenyeats wrote:
> Ralph,
> I was suggesting a mix rather than lurching from one extreme to the
> other!
Good idea. Here's my suggestion - most of the digital side of audio
should be objective with healthy bits of subjective thrown in and most
of the analog side of audio should be subjective w
ralphpnj wrote:
>
> Speaking of subjectivists and their oh so lively and real forums have
> you checked out the ultra subjective Stereophile forum
> (http://forum.stereophile.com/forum) lately?
Ralph,
I was suggesting a mix rather than lurching from one extreme to the
other!
Check it, add to
ralphpnj wrote:
> What does a unicorn fart smell like
Less "digital"?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
-
darrenyeats wrote:
> Digital signals yes, audio isn't all digital though.
>
> To quote Julf, because of what you write?
Since you did mention things that I write then perhaps you somehow
missed all the times I've written that digital audio, by which I mean
the digital side of digital audio, as
darrenyeats wrote:
> Put down the burning torches and let the subjectivists back into this
> forum, or I predict you won't have a real forum anymore.
We aren't blocking them from the forum - but we do challenge unsupported
and unjustified statements. I find that that leads to a more real forum
t
ralphpnj wrote:
> Electricity and digital signals behave the same whether they are in a
> computer or a piece of high end audio equipment.
>
Digital signals yes, audio isn't all digital though.
ralphpnj wrote:
>
> Now how do you know whether or not I've listened to or owned other
> digital fro
21 matches
Mail list logo
