Jeff07971 wrote:
> Well we can change that !
> I can put it in a CNC'd case with an OTT analogue psu if you want, I'll
> charge $4000, OK :)
Throw in a couple of bamboo fibre capacitors and a bit of silver wire,
and we have a killer! :)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Oh No No NO !!!
>
> You have to galvanically isolate it and power the device itself from a
> linear psu !
>
> Otherwise you won't hear any difference !
I guess we better stop - somebody might think we are actually serious...
"To try to judge the real from the false will
d6jg wrote:
> I think you will find that the UCA202 is 16/44.1 not 16/48.
The hardware is capable of 32, 44.1 and 48 kHz. Perhaps the drivers for
your OS limit it to 44.1, but I have not had any issues with 48 kHz
under linux.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
Mnyb wrote:
> Funny enough i suspect a phone can best many DAC's in this regards as
> they seems to have some really cool DSP onboard (in fact i think my
> phone beats my first DAC in every other aspect as well ... )
Indeed. Many of the more advanced DACs have pretty good DSP capabilities
these
Mnyb wrote:
> Do you remeber our tread about "intersample overs" not many DAC
> especially older ones shave not acounted for this effect
Indeed, and yes, intersample peaks are an issue with older DACs, but I
would expect modern designs to deal with it - it is pretty easy to do,
after all.
darrenyeats wrote:
> Julf, I have a DAC1. Set up the right way anyway, it's still a good
> DAC.
> http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=137152
I have to agree with the comments from Werner in that thread.
"To try to judge the real from the false will
Mnyb wrote:
> A guess 80-90 volume is ok for the best recordings ever made?
Pretty much, yes. So far I haven't come across a single recording going
beyond 90 dB or so.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
darrenyeats wrote:
> BTW I'd avoid above 90 in any event to give my DAC DSP headroom for
> upsampling/ASRC.
So you suspect your DAC hasn't been designed with enough headroom?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
sckramer wrote:
> Almost want to try & set up a good stereo mic to try & catch the
> difference, even thru video-- I keep the touch around as reference / a
> controller & at my computer desk now
>
If you are prepared to go through that effort, how about also measuring
the difference?
"To
sckramer wrote:
> Yeah no, I'll invite you over, your ears can tell :D don't have that
> kind of measuring equipment.
All you need is a computer with a halfway decent sound card.
> The 5V supply however *does*
A linear supply only makes sense if you can feed the analog stages and
the computer
sckramer wrote:
> Well, the spdif square wave, is an analog signal
Have you measured the difference in jitter or noise?
"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
sckramer wrote:
> There are no analog stages
Ah, should have re-read the thread. Was assuming that there had to be at
least a DAC involved, otherwise a linear +5V supply makes no sense.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity'
darrenyeats wrote:
> Julf, for me the money shot is here:
> http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1990168=11
>
> It is far from a single cycle in the example given. It's a macro-effect
> easily seen even at whole-track scale. It also happens to be one of my
>
sckramer wrote:
> The fact that it sounds better (and not in a "I just bought some audio
> jewelry, it must sound better :D) --> compels be to like to be able to.
>
Would love to see your double-blind ABX logs... :)
> I'm researching how good an oscilloscope I should get... (of course I'm
>
sckramer wrote:
> To prove if noise is effecting the digital, you'd need to compare 2
> signals & look for bit errors, or differences (and depending on where
> the bit error happens in the "16-bit" binary word... can translate to
> big audio blip, or nothing at all)
>
> ..then on top of that
sckramer wrote:
> What's the soundcard/software you use?
For general measurements (speakers etc.) I use a cheap Behringer UCA202,
but it is only 16 bit/48 kHz, so somewhat limited. For high-frequency
stuff I use a 'redpitaya' (http://redpitaya.com/), and for high-SNR
stuff I have been using an
Mnyb wrote:
> Yea but is it ? that would be something for audiorags to actually test?
If they actually cared about real differences - but that would scare
away advertisers. Remember it is the advertisers, not the subscribers,
that pay for the audiorags.
> But imho stuff should have healthy
sckramer wrote:
> So are you asking me to prove to myself I'm not hearing anything?
I am asking you to verify 1) that the things you are hearing correspond
to objective differences, and 2) if so, what kind of differences.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
darrenyeats wrote:
> utgg, do you know where and how could one invoke this function?
> >
Code:
> >
> --provide hook for applets to modify the gain curve
> function overrideDefaultVolumeToGain(self, value)
> _defaultVolumeToGain = value
> end
>
garym wrote:
> Looks like it doesn't even have built in DAC. So you'd pay $6500 for
> essentially the same thing you get with a $50 garage sale PC with free
> Vortexbox installed? Both would produce bitperfect output to a USB DAC
> into your stereo.
But everybody knows it sounds better when
SBGK wrote:
> At least the regen has some relevance to a lot of peoples experience of
> digital music and has changed perceptions that digital doesn't need to
> sound second rate.
While the rest of the world had realized that long ago...
"To try to judge the real from the false will always
Archimago wrote:
> For my part, I try to get my kids involved every time I open up a device
> so it's not all literally that "magic" black box.
Yes, that is definitely a good thing to do. But... Back when I was a kid
(when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and communicated by morse code), there
were
Archimago wrote:
> Sure... You could be right. However, have a gander at the average age at
> these audiophile shows. I do have hope that as the Baby Boomers fade out
> and the Gen-X'ers take over the hobby, we'll bring with it a new kind of
> sensibility - born of geeks raised on sites like
Archimago wrote:
> Although perhaps early days, I believe and hope that what we're
> witnessing are hints of a change in the audiophile hobby for the better.
We said that in the 80's too :)
There will always be people who want to believe - be it homeopatic
"medicine", tha dangers of vaccines,
jkeny wrote:
> Oh, I see - John Westlake is a very well known audio designer & E'ee
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Westlake
Even the Pope is fallible...
> I had similar thoughts about USB cables - lots of people reporting
> audible differences with different cables - the ones I tried,
jkeny wrote:
> Funny you equate a belief system to a measurements system :)
That is all in your interpretation. Replace "Even the Pope" with
"Everyone" if that works better for you.
> I didn't
I thought the discussion was about hearing differences that can't be
measured. So unless you
jkeny wrote:
> I'm not interested in the trivial arguments
Really? Actions speak louder than words... :)
"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
This morning's ornithological observation: seagulls. Make a lot of
noise, enjoy shifting garbage, shit all over the place, and fly away
when confronted.
"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
Pascal Hibon wrote:
> To be honest, I only follow a couple of threads over there. The main
> thread I follow is the one on JohnW's new DAC (the new M-DAC); but just
> out of curiosity. I stumbled upon the Jitterbug / Regen thread by
> accident. Funny how the manufacturer of one of those devices
Pascal Hibon wrote:
> Very funny. John Westlake has posted a reply on pink fish media about
> the jitterbug. He wanted to do some measurements on it and it turns out
> that the jitterbug drops the 5 volt supply too much for the bus powered
> DAC to operate. Wasn't the jitterbug trying to clean
SBGK wrote:
> Are you saying uptone are lying snake oil merchants ?
I was referring to this:
Julf wrote:
> "The person that I spoke to told me that the owner of the company
> confided in him that he simply lies about the sonic improvements and his
> ability to hear the diffe
jkeny wrote:
> Well as a measureist/objectivist you should have no problem with the
> 8KHz & harmonics spikes
What I do have (and as myself, not as any -ist label you might want to
try to stick on me) I have a problem with you suggesting added noise,
albeit inaudible, is proof of the
SBGK wrote:
> Are you saying uptone are lying snake oil merchants ?
With regards to uptone, all I am saying is that I would love to see
actual evidence to support the claims.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
jkeny wrote:
> Amir, BE718 insist that DAC analogue output is the only place to do
> measurements & have shown higher amplitude 8KHz spikes (& their
> harmonics). This is exactly what is to be expected when the jitter of
> the USB frames & microframes is reduced. Microframe timing of 125uS
>
jkeny wrote:
> Already answered, no need to flog it to death.
Indeed. Considering it was dead in the water from the start, any
flogging would be over the top.
"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
Wombat wrote:
> All of this is has a lower chance to alter the sound as some minimum
> phase upsampling.
Good point.
"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"
jkeny wrote:
> Sure, but your characterising it as noise is disingenuous - it's a
> hint/trace of what's happening at the USB receiver - if you understand
> how USB high-speed protocol works & you understand LIM, you can
> understand this.
I guess using the proper technical term is disingenuous
SBGK wrote:
> Still, I'm reminded of Kevin Keegan's rant at Alex Ferguson when I read
> the comments about regen in this thread, it's definitely the
> objectivists who are getting emotionally fraught.
So any reaction to snake oil merchants being caught lying is being
"emotionally fraught". Yes,
sckramer wrote:
> I prefer feeding the client PCM (WAV) only, for all file types, even for
> mp3, then the CPU is practically idle, it just has to read it out to the
> PCM->i2s chip
It might minimize userspace CPU load, but it increases I/O load due to
having to transfer and load double the
netchord wrote:
> i did a little comparison on one track, and felt there was a small, but
> subtle difference...
Sounds like it was a sighted comparison - you knew which file was which,
right?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
SBGK wrote:
> So sad. Where did it all go wrong for the regen folks, 2500 sales and
> now they'll probably have to return all the money as people realise the
> measurements prove they are hearing imaginary improvements.
That is the beauty of snake oil - you are trading on faith and
gullibility,
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Those are not 'small' task at all, so cpu load is decresed by almost 70%
> in the server and by 50% on the client.
Is that user-mode CPU, or does it also include time spent in the kernel
and device drivers?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
marcoc1712 wrote:
> That's not comparable, have you tried?
Yes, and I think I reported my results earlier.
"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
marcoc1712 wrote:
> I Already know you are going to say this is a too naife way to take
> measures, but You could measure only the encodind and decoding in flac
> of an Hirez flac file and get an Idea of what are you saving here.
Well, you knew I was going to say it, but I will still say it
ralphpnj wrote:
> Would someone please be kind enough to explain to me is a clear and
> concise matter how the server CPU load can possibly have any effect on
> the sound quality of any Squeezebox player, considering that the player
> is playing back the file from a buffer?
I think marcoc1712
netchord wrote:
> yes, but see my earlier posts where i stated AIF sounded superior to
> APL, so if anything the result is contrary to my previously stated bias.
It is not contrary to a (potential) bias towards the existence of a
difference. What you are saying is basically "I saw a black
marcoc1712 wrote:
> I've just reported both...
Indeed. And the total cpu numbers might actually give a reasonable
picture. What tool did you use to get the numbers? Top?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery
wortgefecht wrote:
> Who cares about cassettes 'now that one can buy this'
> (http://www.musicstore.revox.com/index.php?lang=en)? :cool:
Ah, yes. Because we all know analog is good and digital is bad. But I
guess my problem is the same as my problem with vinyl - as I know each
time I play it
wortgefecht wrote:
> Ah, since when is "serious collecting" about actually using it?
> :rolleyes:
Good point :)
"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" -
And incidentally Paul McGowan of PS Audio just praised the jitterbug,
purely based on subjective listening. :)
'Paul's Post: Jitterbugging/'
(http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/jitterbugging/)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
Mnyb wrote:
> Another one the paradigm of passive speakers have lingered far to long
> in audiophile circles . Its there to promote excessive gear swapping of
> multiple separate boxes...
>
> Amplification is a solved problem , put it in the speakers and you can
> start to adress the real
Mnyb wrote:
> One of my personal fools errand in all discussion here is to get more
> people to understand how much product development is crippled by the
> audiophile mindset . Even working good products with sensible measured
> data can have elements of cargo cult designs to them . The
ralphpnj wrote:
> While the high end audio world wrings their collective hands over things
> like DSD vs. PCM, standard resolution vs. high resolution, USB vs
> asynchronous USB, flac vs. wav, etc. the consumer audio world listens to
> mp3s of dynamically compressed music on their smartphones
Mnyb wrote:
> Yes like gold plated biwiring terminals on every passive loudspeaker ?
> Even quite modest ones , yes now you can sell two sets of expensive
> speaker cables :)
Or, as you mentioned, the totally unnecessary DSD capability (that often
requires petty much doubling the complexity of
Ouch. Can't believe I missed that when I read the blog posting. Yes,
Kunchur is simply wrong in the stuff about sample rates, and basically
just shows a lack of understanding of Nyquist-Shannon. Archimago, please
don't propagate his error.
Let's reiterate what Shannon-nyquist implies - as long
ralphpnj wrote:
> Remember that it can rather easy to con someone if you know the right
> buttons push and audiophiles seem to have lots and lots of very big
> buttons.
They can't help it - we are all genetically programmed for it. It takes
serious, hard intellectual effort to overrule your
Archimago wrote:
> A few thoughts on the physiological and cognitive domains of
> hearing/listening.
>
> Hopefully put together in one place some of the discussions we have had
> here and maybe anticipate some of the "time domain" stuff which we might
> see down the line with Meridian and
ralphpnj wrote:
> Julf, I have one question: when are you going to be banned from
> whatsbestforum.com? :)
I decided to stop questioning the statements of certain posters, so I
should be OK. :)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing a
One more data point on the "USB conditioners" here: 'Whats Best
Forum:Science Thread-Review of Audioquest Jitterbug and Uptone Regen USB
Conditioners'
(http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18580-Science-Thread-Review-of-Audioquest-Jitterbug-and-Uptone-Regen-USB-Conditioners).
Remember
Archimago wrote:
> The funny thing is that jkeny said 8kHz PHY noise wasn't the point of
> the Regen here a couple months back... Now he suggests to look for it?
I don' t think we take him very seriously any more (if we ever did). I
think he is the perfect proof of how some audiophile
Wombat wrote:
> Ops, the thread at WBF grew fast.
Remember that one of the most important rules of the Web is "don't read
the comments" :)
"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
SBGK wrote:
> Always interesting to hear what the holy monks of objectivism are
> currently paranoid about. You forgot to mention glossy magazines full of
> advertorials giving everything 8 gold stars or more.
>
> The only bullies I've come across are objectivists who just can't
> tolerate
SBGK wrote:
> The only bullies I've come across are objectivists who just can't
> tolerate anybody reporting differences in digital playback.
18859
+---+
|Filename: keep-an-open-mind-but-not-so-open-that-your-brain-falls-out.png|
SBGK wrote:
> why would they do that if the dac was immune to any gremlins fed to it ?
Probably for the same reason they already do all kinds of tweaks and add
all kinds of accessories that have no effect.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art
arnyk wrote:
> Key to the audiophile credibility for such weirdness is the fact that
> audiophiles in general rarely hear live music, they avoid good listening
> tests, and that they can never properly audition the live feed from a
> good microphone or the console at a live performance.
You
Archimago wrote:
> Julf. You should know better than to drink and type on an audiophile
> forum. :-)
I agree with not drinking and typing, but how can you *read* an
audiophile forum and not drink?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-
ralphpnj wrote:
> What they said.
Well, except... My point was that true audiophiles tend to declare
asynchronous sample rate converters Truly Evil - probably because they
make the whole jitter discussion a non-issue, and in a simple way, so
that can't be good.
The answer to by SBGK's
poing wrote:
> I wouldn't say a subjectivist point of view is necessarily unscientific.
We might be getting into semantics, but I would definitely not call them
scientific.
> I understand that some of the posters in this thread are engineering
> guys. It kind of makes sense that you take a
netchord wrote:
> i'm not testing. i'm listening, and enjoying the music.
We weren't talking about you.
"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
Archimago wrote:
> Here's Ethan Winer and discussion of jitter manifesting in the analogue
> output as FM modulated sidebands:
> http://ethanwiner.com/audibility.html
Uh, but Ethan is a well-known "bits are bits" preacher - and what would
he know, anyway, he's just an acoustics engineer and
Archimago wrote:
> Good!
>
> Everyone should work hard for the money... Especially professional
> journalists who should be striving for the basic ethical foundation of:
> "truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public
> accountability" as per Wiki. I'm sure these men
Archimago wrote:
> What does -**that**- guy know!? Although, I seem to recall 'he wrote a
> book'
> (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0240808371/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8=1789=390957=0240808371=as2=archsmusi-20=5HW2G5GGOHMC6FOX)...
So did Ethan, and Mark Waldrep is doing one too... :)
"To try to
netchord wrote:
> you misstate what I, and likely most other subjectivists believe: "If I
> hear it, I hear it." i can then decide whether to spend the time/money
> to address what i've heard. in the specific instance mentioned here,
> there's no time difference, and the money (in storage) is
ralphpnj wrote:
> And finally: Is some amount of jitter always present regardless of
> connection type?
There is always some jitter on the DAC output, because there are no
perfect clocks.
In some cases that jitter is affected by the connection, in others it
isn't.
In many systems/players/DACs
netchord wrote:
> do you enjoy the music more, constantly checking your audio privilege?
I suspect those who live in the wonderful make-believe world of unicorns
and fairies enjoy their music more than I do, but then again, there is
more to life than just audio...
"To try to judge the real
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Sure, doing what you are doing here, as an example.
Good point. It also leads me to ask if the subjectivists view of "if I
hear it, it must be The Truth" is either the ultimate in solipsism, or
just extremely arrogant.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Sure if I heard it it's real for me using my system
I guess that then comes down to your definition of "real". It still
assumes your senses are infallible.
You are the only one using absolute terms here, pretending to know "The
Thruth".
That is actually pretty much
philippe_44 wrote:
> large part of my academic background is in correction codes theory ...
But that only means you think you understand the theory. Science can't
explain everything, the theory is only a theory anyway, you can't
measure art, and music behaves differently from data. :)
"To
netchord wrote:
> on my system, AIF sounds better.
Did you listen with your ears or your eyes?
"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
netchord wrote:
> i don't suffer from yours.
I guess not - another difference is that I acknowledge and account for
mine.
"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
netchord wrote:
> i don't have synesthesia.
Unfortunately we all suffer from cognitive bias.
"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
netchord wrote:
> yes, it does.
If it makes you happy...
"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
philippe_44 wrote:
> Just for curiosity, for you, if I stream a file from Paris to New York,
> once in flac and once in wav and if that file is processed by LMS in New
> York before being sent in PCM (both cases) to a transporter on the New
> York kcal home network, will it sound different
I
Archimago wrote:
> Fascinating denial of human perception as being fallible?
I assume these people build their houses without using measuring tapes
or straight edges - as their eyesight provides an absolute reference
too...
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
Archimago wrote:
> Fascinating denial of human perception as being fallible?
That is the point where you know any logical or factual arguments are
useless. If somebody is firmly convinced their perception is infallible,
trying to reason with them is about as useful as trying to reason with a
Peter Galbavy wrote:
> So, if I fill two bottles, one clear and the other green glass, from the
> same tap - which one tastes better?
'Penn and Teller Water Bottle Survey'
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFKT4jvN4OE)
But which type of water hose improves the taste the most?
"To try to
arnyk wrote:
> It seems a shame that some seem capable of only personal attacks, logic
> and reason have long escaped them in a storm of denial...
Indeed. Unfortunately it seems that those who have been repeatedly been
shown to be wrong only have two ways to respond - either man up and
admit
ralphpnj wrote:
> And what other forums would that be?
The only ones I can think of right now are one for-profit computer
audiophile site, and a certain Irish audiophile site. In both cases, the
reason for being banned seems to be questioning the claims of one
specific user. I leave it to the
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Who is deciding witch one is strong or weak?
We all do. If there is enough evidence, stuff becomes "accepted fact".
> The only evidence about perception one could give is "I fell" or "I
> can't feel". The last is weak, becouse if you - or eve majority cant'
> fells
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Then I loose you, when you say that since we don't have a clear pattern
> in people preferring DACs with better isolations, we should argue that
> isolation does not have any matter in sound quality.
>
> In main stream market, sound quaility is not the priority, price (and
>
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Again, Who decide when evidence are enougth do become "accepted fact"?
> Oh, yes...Always You.
No, not me at all, except as a tiny part of the scientific and
engineering community. The people who design the gear you use.
> Sure, but here is not the same, I say I heard it
SBGK wrote:
> It's like the 3 Billy Goats Gruff story.
Thanks for dropping in and providing the troll part!
"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
marcoc1712 wrote:
> And how, de gratia, could one be informed by the "accepted fact" state
> of the art, are we supposed to join a mailing list? Ore listening to
> Julf is enough?
At this point it seems clear that you either don't want to understand or
simply haven't re
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Crazy audiophiles believe NOS ladder R2R DAC sounds better. Unless you
> think all dacs sound the same, in that case no way you could heard
> wav/flac differences, no ASRC here, sure.
>
> Noise (yes, rumor was a naive translation from italian) come from signal
> line but
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
You might have noticed that I followed up with:
Julf wrote:
> And open eyes, I assume?
>
> What did you do to maintain an open mind (as opposed to one affected by
> cognitive biases)?
So yes, I was actually interested in hearing if it was purely a
subjective opinion, or if there actua
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
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
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,
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
401 - 500 of 1245 matches
Mail list logo
