cliveb wrote:
> OK, we're going a bit off-topic here.
>
> I wasn't sure exactly what you were saying. (I thought perhaps you meant
> that only 10% of creationists believed in the young Earth, and assuming
> that creationists are themselves a small minority, things aren't too
> bad)
>
> So I ski
bonze wrote:
> I thought all audiophiles loved jazz and the more obscure the better,
> preferably on the original vinyl.
Partly correct...
We all love -female vocal- jazzy -standards- (like Krall, Barber,
Stanley, Pidgeon, Gardot, etc...). Yes, we all love original vinyl from
the 1960's, rarely
Julf wrote:
> Not really. A lot of Ferrari owners a) think Ferraris are actually
> better than other cars, and b) think Ferrari is a car company (as
> opposed to a brand).
>
I shall have to go for lunch with the Ferrari guy at work and see how
delusional he is. I have a feeling though that he's
Mnyb wrote:
> Horoscopes is so silly , what about newer objects that was not
> discovered in the antique ;) have any one ever had the positions of
> vesta Pluto Charon or Kerberos in their reading . Not to mention the
> probably billions of undiscovered Kuiper Belt Objects out there and the
>
Julf wrote:
> We all know that people buy Ferraris for the reliability, great fuel
> economy and ample luggage space. :)
Well. Nothing wrong with Ferraris! But when was the last time a Ferrari
afficianado claims better MPG than a Honda Civic :confused:? At least
they concede to the objective fac
Mnyb wrote:
>
> Ok .
>
> So some minimum phase filters have the frequency response slope before
> 20k not good if it start way before 20k.
>
> My concern is thats all there is to it , it's gets slightly softer and
> whiz bang it's the next big thing for audiophiles ?
Yes. IMO, it looks like
arnyk wrote:
> I sense a big confusion about the purpose of having an audio system.
>
> Some appear to judge the value of an audio system as a pure financial
> play. For them sound quality need not mean anything at all, it seems.
>
> Others judge the value of an audio system based on its abilit
Mnyb wrote:
> ...
>
> I think some have actually misunderstood the whole concept a hifi system
> con not really sound "good" it can sound "less bad" . It's not an
> additive process where you simple add more goodness with each multi
> thousand dollar purchase .
> Instead the system sounds less a
Mnyb wrote:
> What did you actually test was it a preference with listeners for a
> certain filter ?
>
> Is it addressed what filters gives inaudible differences when
> downsampling from a hires original ?
>
> As we before have reached the conclusion that hires can't be heard over
> CD-res of w
Wombat wrote:
> Nice we come to a similar conclusion. I suggest SoX -b92 -a for some
> years now :)
Good stuff :cool:
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile:
ralphpnj wrote:
> The Audiostream blog offers this little "pre" takedown of the Ars
> Technica Ethernet cable test:
>
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/trouble-audio-tests#5WUtFUSgOOb0s7uL.97
>
> A few comments:
>
> First if I remember correctly did no
Lavorgna posted on this test...
Perverse that the guy bothers to comment on my blog contents yet I've
been banned from responding on his comments section. I guess he and
Plaskin had to resort to censorship at that place.
No choice but to leave a response on my blog: :)
'MUSINGS: Digital Filters
Wombat wrote:
> Now that the test is over the only report i found is on another forum
> here:
> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295995
> Not much info but the testers seem to have failed very quick.
> Anyone more googleluck?
Interesting but sparse information... Gues
arnyk wrote:
> An interesting tie-in with James Randii foundation:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/ars-prepares-to-put-audiophile-ethernet-cables-to-the-test-in-las-vegas/
>
> This is to some degree history repeating itself:
> http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/97-swi
ralphpnj wrote:
> ...
> No idea why you have been left out of our weekly meetings, I will send
> you a PM with all the info about the next meeting of The Proudly
> Objectivist Society (no anonymous business for us, we proudly wear our
> objectivity right on our sleeves) meeting :)
Thanks for the
doctor_big wrote:
> Arch,
> Thanks for a well-thought-out, reasoned, sensible response. I agree
> with almost all of what you've written. However, I do think there is in
> fact an Objectivist's Guild, I'm sure you all wear the same garnet ring,
> and you meet monthly in Arny's wood-paneled base
RonM wrote:
> Bear in mind he sometimes records in a phone booth and finds it
> satisfactory.
> http://consequenceofsound.net/2014/03/neil-young-confirms-new-album-was-recorded-in-jack-whites-1947-voice-o-graph-booth/
Not only satisfactory... It's in 24/192 baby! That's as good as it get!
;)
htt
doctor_big wrote:
> No buts, Arch. Of course, what you've stated is a given, and backs up
> Ralphy-boy's explanation as to why he still owns the Simaudio stuff.
> Fair is fair. However, your gang is forever harping about how
> audiophile stuff specifically, totally doesn't at all sound any be
doctor_big wrote:
> Hey Ralphy-baby, sez down there in your sig line that you use a Simaudio
> pre-power combo. That's mighty high-rent gear you've got there! Could
> you fill us in on how come you're using something so expensive and
> audiophile-like when good old ABX testing would likely PROV
Wombat wrote:
> I ask for a quick verify measurement because lately i did read about an
> ethernet cable was "proven" to be better with hum/noise in the output of
> a system.
> Can't find it anymore. This is a very weird way of reasoning because any
> component that produces audible noise in the
Wombat wrote:
> It should be verified with a simple measurement if the grounding is
> correctly done before listening. Shieldings of ethernet may play
> together with a wrongly done connector.
As you know Wombat, measurements mean little to nothing to the religious
audiophiles.
Point taken howe
Fizbin wrote:
> There's a thread here as well...
>
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?103970-Neil-Young-pulls-his-music-out-of-streaming-sevices
I definitely think this topic belongs here given the fact that Young's
"message" has taken so much foothold in the audiophile world... Ama
arnyk wrote:
> I followed up on the mention of Michael Lavorgna in that article
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/ars-prepares-to-put-audiophile-ethernet-cables-to-the-test-in-las-vegas/
> and found this article:
>
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/daniel-j-levitin-your-brain-music#c4H
Well, a few years ago I bought my dad an Onix Melody SP3 tube amp
(~40Wpc) for a present. It goes for about $1000 - not sure if still in
production. Here are a couple reviews:
'Audioholics review'
(http://www.audioholics.com/amplifier-reviews/onix-melody-sp3-tube-integrated-amplifier-review)
'6moo
Wirrunna wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/ars-prepares-to-put-audiophile-ethernet-cables-to-the-test-in-las-vegas/
>
> Should be interesting.
Oh yeah...
Time for the Golden Ears to get ready and win a cool 7-figures in Vegas
baby! It might be worthwhile asking Ars what gear they
told bits are
> bits and abx is
> incapable of discerning a difference and Archimago says they all
> sound/measure the same.
>
> So these people have pretensions of being an audiophile and think they
> are getting it from a $300 device.
>
> It's also fun just to see ho
SBGK wrote:
> You guys have lost the plot, why are you attacking someone just because
> they have a different viewpoint ?
Archimago wrote:
> H Hold your horses there buddy in terms of bringing up the Regen
> -yet again- and your presumptions about the "objectivist
Julf wrote:
> Careful! Before you know it, SBGK will threaten not to post anything
> more unless the sceptics are removed from the forum. No, wait...
Yes good point.
*-SBGK: No not disappear here like you have so many times before when
challenged. If you are willing to accuse me of somehow pois
SBGK wrote:
> some misguided people have been duped into using the squeezebox as a
> front end to multi thousand $ systems because they've been told bits are
> bits and abx is
> incapable of discerning a difference and Archimago says they all
> sound/measure the same.
>
Well Arny,
All I can say is, it looks like you dodged a bullet... Serinus didn't
call you a "pathetic girly man". :-)
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile: h
arnyk wrote:
> A criticism of the common audiophile definitions of objectivist and
> subjectivist was the opening shot in my HE2005 debate with Atkinson.
>
> Hey, its only 10 years later and Atkinson's disciples are beginning to
> understand my schtick!
>
>
>
> I remember its current propriet
Mnyb wrote:
> Just saying that his most silly stuff is couple of years back nothing
> else, take my word for it it would be utter waste of anyone’s time
> to go back and read that . Agree about the rest .
>
> Computer Audiophile is even worse than delusional I've seen some article
> shilling a c
rgro wrote:
> I'm mostly with you guys, but wouldn't it be interesting to have a
> really well-educated audiophile priest or rabbi chime in here with some
> balancing thoughts on the place of faith in human societies? It's not
> all just one big high-functioning computer out thereor is it?
Julf wrote:
> The Flynn effect? Unfortunately it seems to have reversed in the 1980's,
> and average IQ has actually gone down since. This could partially be
> explained by the fact that natural selection isn't working any more (or
> doesn't select for intelligence) in a society where we aren't c
jkeny wrote:
> Ah, if only life were that black & white - the Regen does what you say
> but it isn't the perfect solution - the upstream USB signal still has an
> influence on the final audio outcome. Consider the Regen like a filter
> that has 90% effectiveness -what is fed into the filter still
rgro wrote:
> Forgive me if I don't understand what the REGEN does, but as far as I do
> understand, differences in the USB ports may not matter as the REGEN
> takes the USB signal, does some kind or other type of processing and
> then regenerates a brand new, cleaned up signal of its own making
jkeny wrote:
> Just looking at the PSaudio Perfectwave DAC & I don't think this will be
> suitable as a DAC - you can try it but it has digital lens technology -
> "The Digital Lens takes any digital audio signal and regenerates a new
> and jitter free version to listen to." ::This, I suspect, is
jkeny wrote:
> I expect Archi will be careful in usual level-matching, etc. & I'm sure
> he will do some informal blind listening too so I'm pretty sure he wont
> go ahead with statistical blind tests unless he is sure about these
> listening impressions.
Of course.
>
> No, it's more than this
of reasonable quality:
>
> These points are also addressed to the wider forum readers other than
> Archi
>
> - Archimago & friends listening impressions will not be dismissed out of
> hand.
>
> - He can do blind tests if he wants to but unless a definite audible
> differenc
jkeny wrote:
> So, Archi, if I can send you the Regen what I expect is a fair analysis
> of your subjective listening experiences from both you & your friends
> BEFORE you do any measurements, OK?
>
> I also would ask you to open up a discussion about measurements & what
> ones you could do with
jkeny wrote:
> OK, PM me your address & I'll see what I can do.
Done. Thanks. See what you can do.
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slim
jkeny wrote:
> OK, same question to you - what USB audio device would you be using it
> with?
Sure.
My TEAC UD-501 connected to Windows 8.1 Pentium G3220-based HTPC for a
typical TI PCM1795 chip-based solution with up to DSD128 capability.
My friend (last I checked 3 months ago) has PS Audio D
jkeny wrote:
> What country are you located in? What if I can get a Regen sent to you
> to listen, would you be interested?
I would also. Vancouver, Canada.
I'll even invite a couple of audiophile friends over or take it to their
place to listen. Plus of course a few measurements with my DAC an
arnyk wrote:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20050207234315/http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/reports/index.htm
>
> More specificially:
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20050210151051/http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Sony_CDP-101/index.htm
>
> More specificially:
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/2
arnyk wrote:
> The DACs in the Sony CDP 101 and the Philips CD 100 (the first
> generation CD players) were almost sonically transparent. The similar
> parts in the second generation CD players were sonically transparent.
>
> Some contemporaneous amps and preamps would pass similar listening
>
jh901 wrote:
> I'd still like to know if DACs were perfected prior to the Transporter.
> This notion that there is a singular perfected sound ("transparent") is
> interesting. I do appreciate the logic that either universally accepted
> "transparency" has either been achieved or else there is d
jkeny wrote:
> Archi, I guess you didn't look up my posts from 2009/2010 on this forum?
> A fair bit of information & DIY advice given to Duet owners in
> 'those posts'
> (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?55044-Would-it-make-sense-to-mate-a-Duet-rcvr-w-external-I2S-DAC&p=498668&viewfu
jkeny wrote:
> And why would you think it won't? Didn't I say more music-like, which
> implies not just realistic crest factors but multi-tone signals as well.
> Notch filtering becomes a bit more difficult but probably not
> impossible. Now that you have figured it out maybe you can advise Archi
Wombat wrote:
> This looks like a lot of work again Archimago and i will read it
> carefully.
> Thank you very much btw. for mentioning me in the former article ;)
> The spectral pics you offer are nice. Audition color sheme seems more
> clear as the Audacity pics i tried.
jkeny wrote:
> You really think that my correcting Archi's mistaken idea that measuring
> 8KHz noise spike for the Regen was trying to "shut any dissenting voices
> down"?
>
> Here's fact based discussion which I attempted to engage bot you & Archi
> in but you both failed to participate - looks
jkeny wrote:
> Right, that's my website & for full disclosure here's my previous
> website https://sites.google.com/site/hifacemods/home-1/press
>
> I can understand why Archi doesn't like my asking him questions which
> point to flaws in his approach to measurements & blind tests.
> ...
Why do
Results out!
'Part I: RESULTS'
(http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/07/the-linear-vs-minimum-phase-upsampling.html)
'Part II: ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS'
(http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/07/the-linear-vs-minimum-phase-upsampling_10.html)
Thanks to all who participated. :cool:
Archimago's Musings
jh901 wrote:
> Let's be fair though. The ridicule may be more subtle from the
> uber-objective members, but it's there in any number of posts. I've
> been insulted to one degree or another in a decent number of posts. The
> underlying theme is pretty clear even if rarely flat out stated.
But
jkeny wrote:
> Oh, I thought 6 samples were downloaded - with 3 of them being 24bit & 3
> being 16bit randomly distributed in the sample set? The task then being
> to choose each of the 3 files of 24bit from the 6.
> So your test was 3 pairs of files a 24bit & 16bit file in each pair.
Yes.
So w
jkeny wrote:
> Great, thanks for the link.
> But reading it I see you only did further analysis of those 20
> respondents results - you didn't do any further testing using a more
> controlled environment as suggested by Solderdude to analyse if these
> results were not just the expected number of
rgro wrote:
> I was going to ask a question which mnyb has touched on. It sounded a
> bit to me like Toole was saying that room correction for frequencies
> below 200 hz or so would be quite effective. Which made me wonder if
> something like the DSpeaker Anti-mode subwoofer equalizer
> (http:/
jkeny wrote:
> ...
> [/COLOR]In the comments Solderdude (a well known objectivist) said
> "Playing the role of 'subjectivists advocate'
> _the_conclusion:_'there_was_no_evidence_that_24-bit_audio_could_be_appreciably_differentiated_from_the_same_music_dithered_down_to_16-bits_using_a_basic_algori
rgro wrote:
> Cool video--very educational. Thanks, Archimago. After watching it, I
> looked up the Spinorama (love that moniker) chart form my F208s and it
> made me VERY happy!
Yes, those Revels are excellent. I heard a pair about 3 months back and
for the $5000/pr they'
jh901 wrote:
> Off topic request, but could I get the very, very short list of
> specialty hi-end audio products which produce no audible change in sound
> quality. Specifically, I'm only interested in those products which are
> _widely_accepted_ amongst audiophiles, yet are understood by
> obje
jkeny wrote:
> And home administered blind testing is no better than subjective
> testimony (in fact I would say worse), yet, on your website, you foster
> the misconception that it has some worthwhile value.
Depends on the question being asked, doesn't it? Plus it's fun getting
folks involved i
jkeny wrote:
> Yes, there's no point in doing JUST ANY measurement - measuring the
> length of the device will give absolutely no information about the
> workings of the device. What I would find objectionable would be someone
> presenting this length measurement as some evaluation of the device'
Nice video of a talk at CIRMMT Distinguished Lectures in Sound and
Technology in Music - May 2015 (McGill University).
Good discussion of speaker measurements and matching of "subjective
measurements" with the objective.
https://youtu.be/zrpUDuUtxPM
12:00 - chart of blind test vs. sighted test
garym wrote:
> edit: and to those viewers following along with their popcorn, thinking
> 'how did garym get drawn into this classic troll game', you're right.
> I'm ashamed. No excuse except too much time to kill this afternoon. I'm
> done.
Good insight.
:rolleyes:
Go have a beer.
Archim
jkeny wrote:
> My statements are more rooted in fact based discussion than half-cocked
> measurements which have the veneer of being facts but are bullshit
My my, there it is again... Flame bait.
Repeated enough times, do you think it becomes truth?
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.c
Gandhi wrote:
> Still not a fact-based discussion.
>
> If the manufacturer is working on it I suggest we all wait for it.
Sounds good to me...
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
---
jkeny wrote:
> OK, this is the first sign that you actual accept what I have been
> saying - thank you!
Graceful willingness to not engage in fruitless arguments should not be
misconstrued as concessions.
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
--
jkeny wrote:
> Indeed & we see why on this thread - they simply don't know enough or
> aren't interested enough to try to envisage what measurements are neeed
> & how to go about doing these measurements. Hence we see Archi clinging
> to 8KHz noise measurement.
>
> 18362
Beautiful example of "h
jkeny wrote:
> Sure, it's simple, Mnyb :) This is the type of statement that reveals
> just how far you guys are from actually understanding measurements -
> it's very representative of Archi's fan base - people playing at science
> & engineering, not really knowing what they are doing but acting
jkeny wrote:
> Oh, I do have a better idea of what's involved than you appear to have.
> So, go on & suggest a way you would measure this!
>
> Firstly, it's not "packet noise" - it's noise due to SI issues - still
> don't understand, eh?
>
Please, elucidate.
jkeny wrote:
>
> If you knew any
jkeny wrote:
> I've already explained it many times - you simply don't understand.
>
> And another "objectivsit/measureist" asking how this might be measured -
> hilarious!!
>
> As I said to Julf - have a shot at suggesting how fluctuating noise
> might be measured?
>From your statements, this
Julf wrote:
> As you clearly understand the engineering concepts, how about explaining
> what measurements would make sense, and would show how the Regen
> improves audio quality?
Exactly. And I have no issue with this NOT being the 8kHz packet noise
which Swenson clearly devotes a lot of his wo
jkeny wrote:
> Good, at least it seems you have _*now*_ read the material. Now let's
> see if you understand it.
>
> There is no logic shift here, except from you.
>
> He is saying that weak/worse signal integrity of the USB signal causes
> the PHY in the RECEIVER to generate extra noise. Th
jh901 wrote:
> '
> JOHN SWENSON BIO'
> (http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-1-what-digital#GPpAKlVDW76l4dwV.97)
>
> If you would like to discredit Swenson's work, then just get right to
> it. Why bother with member jkeny? You are capable of much more.
>
> -"After a while I
.php?103684-uptone-audio-regen&p=819129&viewfull=1#post819129)
> "Similarly, Archimago might care to answer why he wants to borrow a
> Regen, to measure it's reduction of the 8KHz spike when this is not the
> target of the device?
> A typical red-herring measurement,
jkeny wrote:
> Absolute bullshit that I already corrected you & Arny before. You either
> purposely misrepresent what noise the Regen is addressing in the USB
> signal or you just can't comprehend the technical aspects of it.
> Whichever is the case, your continued pushing of this 8KHz noise as t
jh901 wrote:
> I ditched CD spinning altogether many years ago upon buying my first
> Duet. Those were great times! I definitely credit Slimdevices for
> rejuvenating my interest in this hobby. I upgraded to a Transporter at
> some point and then began to take a serious interest in building a
jh901 wrote:
> Did you test the UpTone Audio USB Regen Amber? 'Swenson link'
> (http://uptoneaudio.com/pages/j-swenson-tech-corner) <---
Thanks for the note JH. No, I have not tested the UpTone but I have
demonstrated a way to reduce the packet noise in my system 'using the
Corning Optical USB
jh901 wrote:
> Indeed.
>
>
>
>
>
> The hi-end "server" market continues to work itself out. For me, I want
> most of what you suggest except that I want internal storage and a USB
> output for use with a USB DAC. The wi-fi would only be used for tablet
> functions. Seems that Aurender and
arnyk wrote:
> It also matters: "When"
>
> Snake oil audio cables entered the audio marketplace about the same time
> as we developed the first ABX Comparator - late 1970s.
>
> The first such product that showed up on my personal radar was Polk
> Cobra speaker wire:
>
> 18356
>
> Another con
SBGK wrote:
> It seems that the digital sq is improved by those working on the
> margins, so upscale inc and jplay are important to those seeking an
> improved sound.
>
> Still think you must be measuring the wrong things to arrive at some of
> your findings. Will be interesting when you tell th
SBGK wrote:
> and if the market is always right then the abx objectivists are
> increasingly like the loon shouting the world is going to end while the
> likes of jplay, regen, cable manufacturers etc walk away with the
> spoils.
Doesn't this depend on who and where you ask? Do you think the mar
darrenyeats wrote:
> I'm pretty sick of this forum, which is why haven't posted here for a
> while. This thread is an apt time and place to express my feelings.
>
> A while ago I wrote here
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?100440-Anyone-used-this-AudiophileOptimizer&p=773022&viewfu
Thanks for the notes guys... Appreciate the knowledgeable input based on
experience! Sounds like quite the undertaking to graft the DSP
processing in.
philippe_44: you may not consider yourself an "audiophile", but I do
think there are many kinds of audiophiles. And you're the kind that this
hobb
Gandhi wrote:
> I have often wondered if it could be done with Cygwin. It would seem
> reasonable, but I have not found a port yet and my skill set does not
> include such matters. Cygwin gurus! Do ya thang!
>
>
>
> http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=87579.0
> "There is a descrip
Interesting this discussion about Inguz after all these years and the
link between this and the other discussion regarding the future of
digital audio and DRC...
-How I wish there was a way to integrate the DSP engine (eg. Inguz) into
LMS itself.- A way to have access to EQ (maybe just a simple l
krzys wrote:
> It definitely can. I saw discussion about it in the Acourate Yahoo
> discussion group. One of the treads is : Getting best reproduction from
> 5.1 setup using Acourate
> My best advice is to contact Uli from his site
> http://www.audiovero.de/en/contact-form.php
> Chris
Sounds goo
krzys wrote:
> Archimago first I want to thank you for your work comparing different
> equipment and samplings and I followed it since I'm an early SB
> user (from SB2) but not anymore now.
>
> There is so much to say on that subject. I will try to summarize.
> I sw
krzys wrote:
> Hi guys, I tried DRC and used Audiolense and now Acourate. I never had
> success with DRC with my horn system. It is very complicated to get it
> right even with DRCdesigner. There is so many variables
> Do you really think that Acourate is expensive at about 450 CDN? I don't
>
Gandhi wrote:
> Drawing the target curve is a nice way of creating it. It's hard to
> understand the effect of the custom filters without trying them ears on,
> but it seems you find them helpful. As far as I understand it, it would
> be far more difficult to do that in REW.
>
Drawing the targe
Gandhi wrote:
> Hello Archi!
> I have never tried DRCDesigner and only just now checked the how-to on
> their website. But I'm not sure I understand the benefit of using
> DRCDesigner instead of for instance REW (which is incredibly
> comprehensive). Does it make better measurements or calculatio
jh901 wrote:
> Would it matter? If I cite various links, then you know what will
> happen. We could hold a conference call with a bunch of Phds who
> actually design cables and there would nothing said which a few of you
> wouldn't declare marketing or otherwise BS.
>
> The hardcore self-procl
SBGK wrote:
> just relating my experience, think that's allowed on this forum.
Of course. However it's important to remember that objective testing
will show inadequacy of poor quality wires with high resistance. No
magic there.
While I can appreciate your hearing acuity to tell the difference
SBGK wrote:
> In the early days I tried bell wire, 1.5 mm and 2.5 mm 2 core and earth
> cable as speaker cable, they all sounded different. Guess I must have
> golden ears.
Bell wire? What is that 20AWG or thinner? I did say a "decent" length of
copper did I not as speaker cables?
As for golden
jh901 wrote:
> I intend to avoid your pitfalls, so it doesn't make sense that you have
> such passion for your faith.
>
>
>
>
> Pseudoscience is dangerous, but declaring "science" as if you are GOD is
> also wrong.
>
> None of you can explain how the laws of physics are being violated.
Good
Gandhi wrote:
> Yes, REW and BrutefirDRC are surprisingly efficient. I would never have
> imagined. I would actually have paid a lot for a commercial solution to
> get this result, but as I didn't know the power of DRC (and I'm also
> cheap), I figured I'd try free software first. Sometimes you'r
Gandhi wrote:
> In my case I have tamed the bass in my too small room from -1dB ... +6dB
> to a quite flat one, +/- 1dB. It would be very hard not to notice the
> improvement. And it's interesting to see it quantified.
Wow. Fantastic results Gandhi!
Likewise, although not to +/-1dB, more like
jh901 wrote:
> I don't necessarily have an argument against the notion that DSP+DRC can
> deliver good sound that is affordable to nearly everyone. I can tell
> you for sure that I wouldn't anyone to believe for one second that it
> takes the investment I've made in order to create a rather spec
jh901 wrote:
> Now that I think about it, I still have my Zu Audio Wax cables, which
> have a copper conductor. I'm not sure what gauge or if there are any
> specs which would create a problem. Anyhow, I've made the switch. I'd
> intended to do so anyhow after several months with the Analysis
jh901 wrote:
> Noted. Appreciated. Here comes the credit card. My first gear
> purchase in about 10 months.
BTW. 2x12G runs is 9G so if you have biwire inputs on the Diablo, you
could do this and twist the 2 wires on the amp side together... You can
have fun braiding the cables together as we
jh901 wrote:
> Sure would be interesting if any number of bickering audiophiles lived
> near one another! Well, southwest PA isn't what I'd call audiophile
> country, but we do have about the hottest new food scene in the US
> (subjectively speaking). Perhaps we'll find a well regarded member w
201 - 300 of 1074 matches
Mail list logo
