jkeny wrote:
> I won't pursue this debate any more as it is, as usual, detrimental to
> the forum.
That seems to be jkenyspeak for "I will still keep on repeating my
beliefs, I just won't answer any questions".
The funny thing is that you still expect us to answer your questions.
"To try to
That USB device what has it to do with these two DAC chips ?
What do you mean by dismissed as inaudible btw .
Most measurements of current equipment is measuring inaudible levels of
everything no one dismisses these measurements ?
If they are correct they simply presents some facts about the dev
Mnyb wrote:
> Foo measurement ?! Of course you must asses product performance even if
> they happen to perform beyond human capability of hearing ? And
> measurmant functions as sanity checks, if for some reason design errors
> would creep into the project .
>
> (snip).
I used the term Foo-meas
Foo measurement ?! Of course you must asses product performance even if
they happen to perform beyond human capability of hearing ? And
measurmant functions as sanity checks, if for some reason design errors
would creep into the project .
Sadly voodoo thinking has permeated in the brains of many
jkeny wrote:
> I have corrected your post by putting quotes around the piece that you
> extracted from my site to differentiate it from your own comments -
> otherwise it is somewhat confusing.
>
> That piece you quoted from my site is from a review of my devices which
> you will find '_*here*_'
I won't pursue this debate any more as it is the usual detrimental to
the forum
To answer questions about my SB device uses - look into my posting
history here to see my SB devices & what I have tried to bring to the SB
community.
Those posts also have some bearing on the OP question in that I
add
jkeny wrote:
> Squeezemenicely, got grilled by Arny for his post & yet cliveb's post
> sails on by without comment on the "moral to be learned" from his post -
> a far greater attempt at making a claim & generalising his personal
> experience into a claim that applies universally.
It is worth no
Wow, what happened to this thread? What started with a simple question
and was answered with simple PERSONAL observations, turned to huge
battle about nothing at all.
Mainly a new platform for a person desperately trying to prove how
utterly right he is and and how ignorant everybody else is.
We
Julf wrote:
> Interesting statement considering the fact that Cliveb started with "Let
> me pass on a personal anecdote". Has anyone made any claims based on
> that anecdote? It is understood by all who have no crusade that people who
> post are
talking about their personal experience & posting
arnyk wrote:
> > jkeny wrote:
> >
> > Jkeny unveils his new deflection strategy - call every question a
> > personal attack.
> >
> > OK, I can work with that.
> >
> > Let's take a little look at some of jkeny's marketing materials:
> >
> > https://sites.google.com/site/jkciunas/press
> >
>
jkeny wrote:
> It appears to me that what is being demonstrated here is an attempt at
> supporting Cliveb's conclusion based on a "blind test" that would hardly
> be considered in any way reliable or scientific.
Interesting statement considering the fact that Cliveb started with "Let
me pass on
jkeny wrote:
>
> Jkeny unveils his new deflection strategy - call every question a
> personal attack.
>
> OK, I can work with that.
>
> Let's take a little look at some of jkeny's marketing materials:
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/jkciunas/press
>
> "
> April 18th 2014
> The Ciunas is a
arnyk wrote:
> Do you know what reliable and scientific means?More personal insults
> Do you know why "Blind test" is a phrase that golden ears commonly use
> as a deflection?And again
> Yes, the serious failings of the grotesquely flawed evaluations that you
> have based your commercial future
arnyk wrote:
> Google says that I made that post on 6/3/2015. They say that mimicry is
> the most sincere form of flattery. I'm flattered! ;-)
I'm so happy for you. And, to continue along those lines, along with
your other remarkable qualities and exceptional skills, your facility
with Google
jkeny wrote:
> It appears to me that what is being demonstrated here is an attempt at
> supporting Cliveb's conclusion based on a "blind test" that would hardly
> be considered in any way reliable or scientific.
>
Do you know what reliable and scientific means?
Do you know why "Blind test" is
It appears to me that what is being demonstrated here is an attempt at
supporting Cliveb's conclusion based on a "blind test" that would hardly
be considered in any way reliable or scientific.
And yet we hear such phrases as "violently anti-scientific" being
paraded for the reader
If you continue
jkeny wrote:
> I don't see how correcting someone making a mistaken conclusion based on
> an ill-conceived test, is an area of darkness - I rather believe it
> would throw more light on the issue.
So Jkeny when are you going to admit to the foul sad truth about casual
audiophile listening evalu
Julf wrote:
> Why do I feel we are about to go down a long, dark alley about what
> constitutes a "proper" blind test?
Because of our correspondent's lengthy track record for utter denial and
hypocrisy when it comes to his preferred but violently anti-scientific
(on many grounds) format for list
Julf wrote:
> Why do I feel we are about to go down a long, dark alley about what
> constitutes a "proper" blind test?
I don't see how correcting someone making a mistaken conclusion based on
an ill-conceived test, is an area of darkness - I rather believe it
would throw more light on the issue.
jkeny wrote:
> The moral of the story is - do a proper blind test!
Why do I feel we are about to go down a long, dark alley about what
constitutes a "proper" blind test?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
cliveb wrote:
> Be careful before you dismiss Michael's inability to hear a difference
> as being down to age.
> You say you hear clear differences between DACs, but have you made that
> comparison blind? Until you've done that, the results of your comparison
> really don't count.
>
> Let me pas
arnyk wrote:
> The problem is that the science of making technical measurements and the
> performance of digital converters has never been well-informed by the
> findings of psychoacoustics (because the developments in psychoacoustics
> lagged), and we are therefore surrounded with a lot of hardw
22 matches
Mail list logo
