Golden Earring wrote:
> At 14,000,000 to 1 odds or worse, your lottery statement is a fact.
It is a fact because it is based on some reasonable assumptions. Just
like my assessment of your observations.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of
drmatt wrote:
> Does any conversation on the internet, ever, result in people changing
> their minds? I don't think so.
>
> Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk
No. Never in the history of the internet has anyone replied with a
sentence like... "You know what? You're absolutely right. What was I
On reflection, I'll leave you guys to agree with each other...
Bye for now.
Dave :)
Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthrea
Julf wrote:
> Have I? Please explain...
"It's unlikely to justify... "
Dave :)
Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.ph
alfista wrote:
> Who knows, but he obviously knows how to cater to a specific market.
> Granted he did quite a bit more than just add bling to the product, but
> a shiny box, some fancy interfaces and, just as important as the
> engineering, a rather obscene price tag is what made it sell to that
Does any conversation on the internet, ever, result in people changing
their minds? I don't think so.
Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with
Debian+LMS 7.9.0
Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k
alfista wrote:
> Who knows, but he obviously knows how to cater to a specific market.
> Granted he did quite a bit more than just add bling to the product, but
> a shiny box, some fancy interfaces and, just as important as the
> engineering, a rather obscene price tag is what made it sell to that
Has anybody who hasn't already made their mind up got anything to say?
Dave :)
Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?
Golden Earring wrote:
> Sean has never struck me as a Vauxhall Astra 1.2 type of guy
Who knows, but he obviously knows how to cater to a specific market.
Granted he did quite a bit more than just add bling to the product, but
a shiny box, some fancy interfaces and, just as important as the
engine
Julf wrote:
> So if someone ask me about the lottery, and I say "it is unlikely that
> you will win", is that prejudice?
At 14,000,000 to 1 odds or worse, your lottery statement is a fact. An
opinion is something you believe that may or may not be true. This of
course applies equally to my own o
Golden Earring wrote:
> It's prejudice...
So if someone ask me about the lottery, and I say "it is unlikely that
you will win", is that prejudice?
"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
arnyk wrote:
> So you can't think of any purpose for an external word clock connection
> except to reduce jitter? OK.
>
> Here's a little studio craft for you.
>
> In a situation where there are a lot of devices with their own clocks,
> the slight differences between those clocks can cause au
arnyk wrote:
> If so, you must be highly pained by your energetic arguing on the side
> of audio mysticism.
>
>
>
> Well then you have contradicted yourself, because the simplist thing is
> what I do - listen to music for pleasure. Thing is, from time to time I
> may inadvertently hear new det
arnyk wrote:
> What's foregone is your ability to read.
>
> Here's what was written: "All I can say is that the differences you
> report are unlikely enough that it justifies verifying them with
> controlled double blind listening."
>
> Your false transformation of that into a "foregone concl
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm not on here to argue with anyone.
>
If so, you must be highly pained by your energetic arguing on the side
of audio mysticism.
>
> I use my music system simply to listen to music: but I am consistently
> hearing new detail in familiar
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Julf.
>
> I think that your second sentence justifies my comment.
>
> Properly conducted scientific enquiry frequently produces unexpected
> results: this is how we gradually increase our imperfect understanding.
> How else could there be any progress?
>
>
That's f
Golden Earring wrote:
> I was hoping that someone would be able to at least come up with a
> plausible hypothesis for the phenomenon: I would be delighted to assist
> in rigorously testing any decent suggestion.
First we need to find out if there really is a need for a new hypothesis
- and you h
Golden Earring wrote:
> I think that your second sentence justifies my comment.
Ah, yes. So the fact that I know the physical reality of the situation
biases me?
> Properly conducted scientific enquiry frequently produces unexpected
> results: this is how we gradually increase our imperfect und
Golden Earring wrote:
> I wholeheartedly agree with the methodology of double blind testing.
>
> However you have already persuaded yourself that the result would be a
> foregone conclusion. That is hardly a scientific approach, is it?
>
> Dave :)
What's foregone is your ability to read.
Her
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I know that Sean worked hard in 2005 to keep the jitter on the
> Transporter to a minimum, but if you think he thought 20ps was
> sufficiently low to be inaudible you might ask why he then also gave the
> Transporter a word clock in connection.
>
So you can'
Hi all.
Just to be clear, I'm not on here to argue with anyone.
I use my music system simply to listen to music: but I am consistently
hearing new detail in familiar recordings, which is in a real sense
quite sufficient for me.
It's simply that having an enquiring mind, I am curious why this is
Julf wrote:
> Have I implied that you are deluded? All I can say is that the
> differences you report are unlikely enough that it justifies verifying
> them with controlled double blind listening.
>
> Unfortunately I live in the home country of Golden Earring (the band) so
> it is a bit impracti
Golden Earring wrote:
> However you have already persuaded yourself that the result would be a
> foregone conclusion.
Have I? Please explain...
"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 t
Julf wrote:
> Have I implied that you are deluded? All I can say is that the
> differences you report are unlikely enough that it justifies verifying
> them with controlled double blind listening.
>
> Unfortunately I live in the home country of Golden Earring (the band) so
> it is a bit impracti
Golden Earring wrote:
> With respect, I did ask for explanations which did NOT imply that I am
> deluded.
>
Have I implied that you are deluded? All I can say is that the
differences you report are unlikely enough that it justifies verifying
them with controlled double blind listening.
Unfortu
Hi guys.
With respect, I did ask for explanations which did NOT imply that I am
deluded.
If you have no explanation, there is little point in posting.
I don't know if either of you are anywhere near the south coast of
England, but if you are you're welcome to come & listen for yourselves
before
alfista wrote:
> Probably because it's a checkbox item for a purported audiophile
> product. I have no idea where Sean stands on the audibility of jitter in
> that region, but he clearly understood what constitutes "street cred" in
> this niche of the market. A rear wing does nothing for the hand
Golden Earring wrote:
> I am not aware of any scientific principle that establishes a minimum
> jitter threshold of inaudibility...
>
There is a scientific process - it is called double blind testing. But
you can also analyse the noise/distortion that the jitter adds (very
similar to intermodul
Golden Earring wrote:
> If anyone can offer an alternative explanation to my jitter suggestion,
> other than that I am completely deluded, I should be most interested to
> hear it. Is it possible that jitter in an incoming digital signal to a
> DAC has more significance than jitter in an analogue
arnyk wrote:
> Note the recommendation of magic cables from Canford Audio. Note that
> Canford cables sell many different kinds of audio cable. Which one,
> specifically? Why not any of the many other sources of pro audio
> cables?
>
> Just another friendly post encouraging you to do a sighted
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi all.
> I know that Sean worked hard in 2005 to keep the jitter on the
> Transporter to a minimum, but if you think he thought 20ps was
> sufficiently low to be inaudible you might ask why he then also gave the
> Transporter a word clock in connection.
>
Probably becaus
RonM wrote:
> I suspect that the impacts of climate change will be the BIG THING over
> the near future.
>
>
As is probably well known, the current US President is a global warming
denier, and is deconstructing our environmental regulatory
infrastructure.
One of his major properties which h
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> This has certainly been an interesting thread with a lot of
> spleen-venting!
>
> As I have detailed in my own thread which started as "Unused Transporter
> SE's on eBay.com" but continued into recent changes to my own system, I
> am now using a Mytek Brookly
Hi all.
This has certainly been an interesting thread with a lot of
spleen-venting!
As I have detailed in my own thread which started as "Unused Transporter
SE's on eBay.com" but continued into recent changes to my own system, I
am now using a Mytek Brooklyn DAC with my own Transporter. I don't
34 matches
Mail list logo
