netchord wrote:
> open ears, open mind.
And open eyes, I assume?
What did you do to maintain an open mind (as opposed to one affected by
cognitive biases)?
"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
Julf wrote:
> You might have noticed that I followed up with:
>
>
>
> So yes, I was actually interested in hearing if it was purely a
> subjective opinion, or if there actually was some sort of formal
> listening test that attempted to address the issues associated with
> sighted listening.
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Better is a even more personal opinion based on each one perception,
> culture and individual preferences, are you going to debate also this?
> Hope you are not.
>
> Here you and I could not listen to his system, so please respect his
> opinion, unless you are meaning it
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Are you really asking this? What's means Monna Lisa is beautiful, how
> was determined? Are you going to measure this?
If I ask "Do you think Mona Lisa is beautiful or not?", I am asking for
a subjective opinion (that can only be measured statistically over a
large group
arnyk wrote:
> There's a point here which is that not all opinions are respectable.
Agreed. And you have reached that point. Maybe it's time to give it a
break.
> If a person bases his opinions of audio gear on sighted evaluations, it
> is really about the same thing.
Your analogy is
docbob wrote:
> Sighted evaluations have flaws, but they are not worthless. They provide
> the evaluation of the person- in situ-, i.e. as he/she will actually be
> listening.
But do we really need to evaluate the person (as opposed to the gear)?
"To try to judge the real from the false will
Julf wrote:
> But do we really need to evaluate the person (as opposed to the gear)?
You are right that my wording was poor. I meant "evaluation of the gear
by the person", and changed it. Thanks.
docbob's Profile:
Julf wrote:
> And how was the "better" determined?
Are you really asking this? What's means Monna Lisa is beautiful, how
was determined? Are you going to measure this?
Better is a even more personal opinion based on each one perception,
culture and individual preferences, are you going to
marcoc1712 wrote:
>
> Here you and I could not listen to his system, so please respect his
> opinion, unless you are meaning it could not be, because they are
> exactly and obviously the same, in that case state it directly and be
> ready to prove that the difference - that indeed are in
marcoc1712 wrote:
> You missed the point, different could be determined by an ABX or other,
> better could not! Better is a personal opinion, you are allowed to
> disagree, sure, but You have to respect the fact that is his true,
> honest, personal, opinion.
>
> Arguing on that matter is
ralphpnj wrote:
> By moving all equipment evaluation into the world of opinion, i.e. this
> piece of equipment sounds better than that piece of equipment, all the
> evaluations become equally valid and thus beyond criticism. In other
> words, all the evaluations are equally pointless.
It's
pippin wrote:
> The biggest pitfall obviously being that you might not get the result
> you want to get.
Is that the -biggest-?;) It certainly may be the least desirable for
some. I meant technical, procedural pitfalls, but...
-touche!-
arnyk wrote:
> What if you went to a doctor's office and your exam started with the
> slaughtering of a live chicken, followed up by a wild dance around the
> room swinging the bleeding carcass?
>
> I'd hope that you would find that a little distrurbing and leave before
> anything else
The biggest pitfall obviously being that you might not get the result
you want to get.
---
learn more about iPeng, the iPhone and iPad remote for the Squeezebox
and
Logitech UE Smart Radio as well as iPeng Party, the free Party-App,
at penguinlovesmusic.com
*New: iPeng 8, the Universal App
docbob wrote:
> It's needn't be all or nothing. Some evaluations are naturally opinion
> and some are better presented as facts (e.g. measurements, presented
> with the test conditions)
Quite true but where does one draw the line?
In the case of measurements, often times the measurements
marcoc1712 wrote:
> That was a little paradox, but what if you go to the doctor with
> toothache and after some serious examination he said 'it's impossible
> you have toothache, go home and stay well"?
What the doctor has determined is that there is no physical reason (as
far as his/her
marcoc1712 wrote:
>
> That was a little paradox, but what if you go to the doctor with
> toothache and after some serious examination he said 'it's impossible
> you have toothache, go home and stay well"?
>
As of my experience doctors do that all the time.
>
> At the end, how I have to judge
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00125KZN4
Used it this morning and EVERYTHING sounds better. WAV's and FLAC's
*Vortexbox LMS 7.8 music on QNAP TS419p via NFS* -
iThingys/iPeng/Tablets
*Living Room* - SB3 -> Onkyo TS606 connected Digitally - > Celestion
Ditton F20s - and connected Analogue for
ralphpnj wrote:
> Quite true but where does one draw the line?
It's pretty arbitrary, right? 16 years for driving. 18,000 ft for Class
A airspace... In our context, I think the arbitrary choice is up to the
person spending time and/or money. My line may be different from yours.
My own
ralphpnj wrote:
> First what I meant by "deemed irrelevant" is that the measurements as
> taken and presented by the high end audio magazine are dismissed by that
> very same magazine whenever those measurements run counter to the
> opinions being expressed. For example the measurements for two
ralphpnj wrote:
> By moving all equipment evaluation into the world of opinion, i.e. this
> piece of equipment sounds better than that piece of equipment, all the
> evaluations become equally valid and thus beyond criticism. In other
> words, all the evaluations are equally pointless.
docbob
arnyk wrote:
> Interestingly enough, I never mentioned ABX, but you did quite
> gratuitously - so now we know your agenda.
>
> Reality is that its all about the right tool for the purpose at hand,
> not the anti-scientific, suspend all possible disbelief posturing that
> some promote for fun
arnyk wrote:
> Letsee, the files would be identical but the sound would be different?
I don't stick a USB stick in my ear: there is a set of systems to
convert the files to sound. Just as the 8kHz USB packet noise Archimago
-measured- shouldn't be in his system, it is. If (hypothetical! - I've
docbob wrote:
> Agreed. And you have reached that point. Maybe it's time to give it a
> break.
>
Maybe its time for being open minded without requiring that people act
like they have holes in their head.
>
> Your analogy is disgusting and wrong.
>
In your opinion, of course. Maybe this is
docbob wrote:
> Yes, I agree and I tried to by saying the -files- would be identical,
> but the sound may differ (due to bad design, even if unlikely). But I
> agree with your post.
Letsee, the files would be identical but the sound would be different?
So that could happen to anything, right?
Argh...
18788
+---+
|Filename: 7278ee08a84cd42968aed4ff493bbd24.png |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18788|
ralphpnj wrote:
> Quite true but where does one draw the line?
>
> In the case of measurements, often times the measurements presented in
> high end audio magazines are deemed irrelevant, especially when the
> measurements run counter to the opinion.
>
> Well if the differences are there
docbob wrote:
> It's pretty arbitrary, right? 16 years for driving. 18,000 ft for Class
> A airspace...
Those two are arbitrary in the sense that they could equally well be 18
years (as in most European countries) or 5,500 metres (as it was in the
bad old, purely metric, Soviet Union). But,
Do they have an printed arrow showing which way round they should be
used?
I'd hate to use the wrong end :rolleyes:
LMS Version: 7.9
TranquilPC T2-WHS-A3 - WHS 2011
2x Touch, 3x SB3
bonze's Profile:
Julf wrote:
> There are widely accepted design rules, but yes, engineers are free to
> make mistakes, knowingly or not. It is still important to differentiate
> "wav sounds better than flac" from "this piece of gear is so badly
> designed that the CPU load affects the sound". Yes, I agree and I
bonze wrote:
> Do they have an printed arrow showing which way round they should be
> used?
> I'd hate to use the wrong end :rolleyes:
No. But someone will doubtless invent a DIY upgrade that will involve
replacing the heads with a different material. Wire wool perhaps ?
*Vortexbox LMS 7.8
docbob wrote:
> Other than standards (like red book), there aren't "agreements" for
> proper design, and engineers are free to make mistakes... and they do.
> I'm not intending to disparage all, most, or even many current designs.
> I just point out that design mistakes occur, even when the
marcoc1712 wrote:
> What's a decent evidence in this regards? Could you better explain what
> we have to present as a proof we do heard some difference in our system
> when playing flac or wav?
There is no single criteria - some evidence is strong, some evidence is
weak, but any evidence is
Scotch can do wonders in supporting open minded daydreaming!
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
Wombat's Profile:
docbob wrote:
> I merely object to the pretentious "it *can't* happen" attitude by some.
Fair enough, and not an unreasonable reaction - but I do have to point
out that with some of us, it is not "it *can't* happen", it is "unless
there is decent evidence, it didn't happen" (a slight variation
Julf wrote:
> And open eyes, I assume?
>
> What did you do to maintain an open mind (as opposed to one affected by
> cognitive biases)?
drank scotch.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Primare 30.3
netchord wrote:
> drank scotch.
Single malt or blended?
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1
& Energy sub
Bedroom:
pippin wrote:
> As of my experience doctors do that all the time.
>
>
>
> We have two different topics at hand here.
>
> 1. How does a specific setup sound to someone.
> This is of course obvious and if your massive gold-plated power cable
> sounds better to you because you know how
marcoc1712 wrote:
>
>
> 2. Again, I Agree, but... I only think that measure (at least as we
> today intend them) should be integrated by listening, because the violon
> made by Val di Fassa threes do sound better than the other, to the
> majority of educated to music people. If someone or even
ralphpnj wrote:
> What the doctor has determined is that there is no physical reason (as
> far as his/her medical knowledge goes) for you to have a toothache. So
> if your tooth still aches then you need to look elsewhere for the
> reason.
>
> Applied to audio, what Julf is saying is that there
ralphpnj wrote:
> "Better" is a huge, gaping rabbit hole into which many audiophiles fall
> and on which much of the high end audio business is based.
>
> By moving all equipment evaluation into the world of opinion, i.e. this
> piece of equipment sounds better than that piece of equipment, all
arnyk wrote:
> Val de Fassa is a place where among other things fir trees sometimes
> used to make violins grow, not a person.
It's my fault, forgive me, I'm from Italy (not too far from Val di
Fassa), but what you explained so well was exactly what I meant, tanks
for your correction.
By the
arnyk wrote:
> Letsee, the files would be identical but the sound would be different?
>
> So that could happen to anything, right? You could write a post
> praising your new amplifier but if give your opinion enough credibility,
> I could run right out and buy it but the one I obtained would
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Jitter means nothing to you? Rurmor coming by interferences?...The final
> stage of a dac Is nothing different from any analog device in that
> matter.
Most modern DAC designs have an ASRC or at least fifo buffer at their
input that isolates the rest of the DAC from timing
Julf wrote:
> Fair enough, and not an unreasonable reaction - but I do have to point
> out that with some of us, it is not "it *can't* happen", it is "unless
> there is decent evidence, it didn't happen" (a slight variation of 'pics
> or it didn't happen'
>
ralphpnj wrote:
> Single malt or blended?
Balvenie Double Wood. one wood for flac, one wood for AIFF.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Primare 30.3
Primare-->Ocos--Vienna Acoustics Beethoven/Maestro
Julf wrote:
> Most modern DAC designs have an ASRC or at least fifo buffer at their
> input that isolates the rest of the DAC from timing variations in the
> input, so jitter is less of an issue than it was 20 years ago. I assume
> your "rurmor" is hum and noise, and if that was an issue, we
47 matches
Mail list logo
