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
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
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
ralphpnj wrote:
> Question: does it sound better or does it just perform better, i.e. less
> buffering, or both?
And how was the "better" determined?
"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
OK, to provide some more meaningless numbers...
I took a 4-minute CD track ("Making plans for Nigel" by XTC), made two
copies, one flac and one wav, stripped all tags from the flac (so that
there wouldn't be a major difference in display activity during
playback), removed the wav->flc rule from
marcoc1712 wrote:
> I really don't think so, actually very poor 'measuring systems' could
> reach -140 db and more, actually -90 db is not a so good S/N ratio for a
> decent DAC.
Did you actually read archimago's conclusions?
> I've posted mine, if you don't believe they are true, is not up
marcoc1712 wrote:
> measuring Jitter and measurinng THD or others at the analog out is
> different.
How do you think jitter is usually measured?
"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
SBGK wrote:
> what's the chain ?
>
> flac -> sox -> aplay -> pcm -> kernel -> drivers -> device
>
> wav -> aplay -> pcm -> kernel -> drivers -> device
>
> so kernel and drivers see the same amount of data unless the sample
> rates and/or bit depth are different, but then you're comparing
yers playing longer as
> uncompressed.
As to he questions you didn't answer:
Julf wrote:
> So your load numbers are not total system load numbers? Are they the
> numbers just for the squeezelite process? Is kernel-side load included?
> How did you measure it?
>
"To try to jud
marcoc1712 wrote:
> I was the first asking not to open this can of worm , again...
Yes and no. Had you simply stated "I know there is no audible
difference, but I have other reasons", it probably would not have caused
any reactions. But instead you argued for the audibility of the
differences,
SBGK wrote:
> that's easy, just empty Loch Ness of water and if there's not a monster
> at the bottom then it doesn't exist. Though it could have gone to the
> pub that evening, I suppose.
Exactly - that is precisely the issue. Even if you managed to empty Loch
Ness, there would be someone that
arnyk wrote:
> You just spoke for yourself, whether or not you are self-aware to
> perceive it or not.
Of course.
"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" -
SBGK wrote:
> Or what ?
It was just a friendly suggestion to avoid the impression that you just
disappear off into silence whenever someone asks questions that shows
the errors in your arguments. All up to you if you choose to answer or
run away.
As it is off-topic to this thread, I'll leave
arnyk wrote:
> You've got to get over your apparent belief that you are as educated as
> anybody. You obviously aren't. That makes you an easy target.
A perfect example of the 'Dunning-Kruger effect'
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).
"To try to judge the real
User marcoc1712 started 'this thread'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104198-Disk-and-folder-browsing=828137=1#post828137)
in the developer forum. The tread is primarily about possible bugs
associated with trying to stream pure pcm or wav format files. In order
to keep that thread
SBGK wrote:
> Rather confused thinking there about extracting energy by making the
> wind turbulent.
Ah, nice to have you back! Now that you are here, how about the
'unfinished business'
ralphpnj wrote:
> there is no free lunch.
Except if you are a high-end audio reviewer...
"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
arnyk wrote:
Hiding a coil of wire attached to a power source under the table and
never revealing it seems to be a clear cut example of malice.
Some one is going to convince me that they were too ignorant to know...
??? Come on, did evil spirits make you construct the coil and hide it
I am sure this would have applications in audio too.
'Free Energy Over-unity Charging Circuit'
(https://youtu.be/VOAaFyv_shY)
Please watch to the end, or skip to 6:20 after watching at least the
beginning...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing
Mnyb wrote:
was it not some one who said that we should not invoke intent or agents
where normal stupidity is the likely answer.
Hanlon's razor - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately
explained by stupidity.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
, with the response above, why
do you think v69 had more clarity in physical / engineering terms?
Julf wrote:
So how does the speed of the render loop correlate with sound quality?
Or perhaps an easier question - How is the speed of the render loop
reflected in any way in the waveform coming out of the DAC
Mnyb wrote:
Yes but have the changed sponsor i cant find the shill article about AQ
cables he wrote ? who is CA's new pimp ?g
Don't know - I was banned from CA after pointing out that sgbk was in
violation of his own software license terms...
To try to judge the real from the false will
And how long before someone mentions quantum physics?
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
Wombat wrote:
No matter how correct you are, there are prayers to undermine all
obvious conclusions of experiments done the way Archimago does.
Here JS feeds the community with what they want to hear. Maybe now that
the Regen business started it becomes even more important.
ralphpnj wrote:
Even though the issues dealt with in this documentary (based on the book
of the same title -
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942)
are much more important than anything in the world of audio, watching
this film (it's a very
18593
+---+
|Filename: e1e934726a413b96b69081703632546d.jpg |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18593|
+---+
Mnyb wrote:
They also don't realise that archimagi have measured to a resolution
greater than CD (-112dB) his low end system is thus transparent to CD
resolution material , everything on A CD passes trough . So if some one
heard differences in this department when listening to CD standard
Archimago wrote:
Except in the case of audiophilia, science has been in retreat and we're
in the perverse and unenviable position of ending up being:
-*A bunch of assholes trying to DISPROVE shit.*-
Because evidently audiophiles don't drink their tea out of Russell's tea
pot...
18595
SBGK wrote:
I just recompiled mqn using vs 2015 and that made a difference to the
sq, another factor to measure.
Would love to see the results of your measurements.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
Archimago wrote:
I actually think the ultimate in tweakability is Bug Head Emperor -
MEGA tuning opportunities: 'http://orya.world.coocan.jp/bughead'
(http://orya.world.coocan.jp/bughead/)
Look at the description on that page and self-disclosure.
Well, at least the poor guy is
Archimago wrote:
Yeah. Plus he admits to having some kind of mental issue and finds
programming a source of comfort. That's cool. No need to stress the guy
out.
Indeed. But he does seem to exhibit the rather frequent combination of
unverified, non-scientific miracle audiophilia and other
arnyk wrote:
How is hearing a difference in a DBT really any different from hearing a
difference in any other context? It isn't.
Well, if you have drunk the cool-aid, the artificiality, forced
conditions and pressure of DBT makes you less sensitive to differences -
just like the bad
SBGK wrote:
Now what about answering my questions to you about how you can measure
something when you can't hear any differences, most people would hear a
difference and then investigate why.
And the investigation would follow the scientific method. First you
would verify that there really
SBGK wrote:
Well, the render loop takes 9 uops with no port pressure or register
stalls, that's the only measurement I've done recently, seems better
than the previous 13 and 11 uop versions.
So how does the speed of the render loop correlate with sound quality?
Or perhaps an easier question
SBGK wrote:
Most science was observed or theorized before actual measurements were
made, so I don't think I'm being unscientific in my discoveries.
I was talking about the scientific method, so confining myself to
empirical science. And you are definitely not following scientific
methodology.
arnyk wrote:
It's also false because it forces a false dichotomy between observations
and measurements when in fact they are the same thing.
I think the way SBGK uses the word observation is in the sense of
acquisition of information employing the senses, while you are using
it in the
Mnyb wrote:
Are we not making things to complicated in these cases archimago shows
with two methods that the output of the dac is the same hence no need
for DBT or other complex measures.
That is the whole point about the scientific method (especially
post-Popper) - any scientific theory
Archimago wrote:
Nonetheless, I do want to hear from folks like SBGK to make sure
verifiable claims are looked at. If claims are unverifiable; perhaps
better yet the beliefs unfalsifiable, then I think we can say clearly
we are not dealing with the scientific domain.
Yes, that is a very
Wombat wrote:
This is again a good one! This makes me wonder how far this OS
optimizing and the search for the perfect player got and why?
Wasn't the 'mqnplayer' (http://mqnplayer.blogspot.nl/) the ultimate
incarnation of this silliness?
To try to judge the real from the false will always
Archimago wrote:
Well folks, now that Windows 10 is released, I bet a number of folks are
wondering *yet again* whether the OS will make things sound better...
Just like people will be wondering if they might not see Bigfoot again
this year.
Thanks for the measurements and writeup - it must
Archimago wrote:
I guess that's that then.
For us, yes, but probably not for the crusaders who see it as the
ultimate (and only) proof that ABX doesn't work, and will keep quoting
it.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity'
ralphpnj wrote:
By the way a very similar argument can be used to prove how much better
pro-audio equipment is than any consumer grade audio equipment,
including high end audio equipment, by just quoting any professional
audio engineer.
Ah, but there is the word engineer in there. We all
Archimago wrote:
Oh my. Missed opportunity IMO...
Indeed. A shame.
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
arnyk wrote:
The evidence I see suggests that as my generation dies off, so will
vinyl. This time for real.
But fortunately there will be the hipster 8-track/c-cassette revival
(albeit short-lived, as all hipster trends are, by definition). :)
To try to judge the real from the false will
d6jg wrote:
I read somewhere that vinyl sales in 2014 had increased dramatically.
It is always easy to do dramatic increase from almost nothing to very
little :)
In November 2014, it was reported that over one million vinyl records
had been sold in the UK since the beginning of the year.
Archimago wrote:
I'm wondering in the DJ'ing community, what's the demand for traditional
turntables like over the years? I did a friend's birthday party with the
free 'Mixxx software' (http://www.mixxx.org/) a few months ago and I
think it came out sounding pretty good even though it was
DJanGo wrote:
did you (or some others) think that you can change someomes will to buy
a audiophile usb cable if he wants it cause he believes of it and he is
president in the more money than brain club?
Probably not. But we can perhaps help the ones who have a brain to make
more informed
Mnyb wrote:
Like that's not happening thousands of times for every track in a modern
DAW :D
Sssh! Don't tell them! :)
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
Archimago wrote:
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 facts and can be proud of why they love
their car...
Not really. A lot of Ferrari owners a) think
Mnyb wrote:
So the typical oversampling DAC with a filter thats not your ca 1986
brickwall filter does it roughly rigth ?
Indeed.
I not versed in the exact technical details . I'm certain that there is
some kind of group of good compromises that gets its done like the SoX
settings you
Archimago wrote:
That's a good point Arny. Because the idea of valuing audio equipment as
an investment bestows upon them a non-utilitarian mystique. The
problem is that many refuse to acknowledge the main reasons why this
stuff is expensive - they look good, impresses friends and family,
DJanGo wrote:
is your car audio system connected to the internet?
No - and fortunately the cars are old enough not to be easy hacking
vectors either :)
is there any connection to something like itunes or radiostream?
No - all the music is coming from a local hard disk, so I am OK running
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.
Unfortunately it seems they had a self-selecting test group, and saying
jh901 wrote:
Engineers who actually design audio gear for a living and who have
decades of experience will run circles around Hydrogen worshipers
So which ones have you talked with?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
bonze wrote:
This might be a good time to remind everyone to remember to bring their
soldering iron guards to forthcoming meetings.
To quote one of my t-shirts: If it smells like chicken, you are holding
the wrong end.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
arnyk wrote:
Watching it is IMO time well spent.
I agree. But so is watching the whole Penn Teller BS series...
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 -
ralphpnj wrote:
So when will the Pono store have the recording of your glorious singing
at 24bit/192kHz, of course, available for purchase and download?
I think that is banned by the Geneva Convention...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art
doctor_big wrote:
Very true. However, tube gear seems to hold its value better than solid
state. Probably due to the fact that the bog-standard EL34 pentode
circuit matured 50+ years ago, and the value is all in the transformers.
A 20 year old tube amp is going to hold more of its original
philippe_44 wrote:
Yes, thank you - not being English-native makes it extra-difficult
sometimes :(
I can relate to that - as I might have stated before, English is my
third language (the first and second were Swedish and Finnish), and I
have pretty much lost all my German since learning Dutch
RonM wrote:
Bear in mind he sometimes records in a phone booth and finds it
satisfactory.
Well, some of us sing in the bathroom...
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
philippe_44 wrote:
And frankly speaking, Swedish people are notably good in English while
French are notably bad - education
There is also the issue of need/motivation - French is spoken by
something like 100 million people as a first language, and another 200
million as a second language,
SBGK wrote:
what to call an anti audiophile?
I think this is one of the most fundamental fallacies - so if you are
against pseudoscience, you are automatically anti-audiophile?
Does that make audiophiles a cult - unless you buy into our faith
system, you are against us?
Anyone who has such
doctor_big wrote:
Go back and read my post again - at no point did I say that expensive
cables sound better. Only that I like having them in my system, and
that my system SEEMS to sound better. Just like wearing a nice suit
makes me feel more confident. The suit does nothing, but my
Gandhi wrote:
Snoilers?
A good one!
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
ralphpnj wrote:
To be fair to Mr. Young on many, if not most, of the free music
streaming services the sound quality leaves a lot to be desired since
they then to lossy files encoded at 128kps or less and these files often
sound inferior to higher bit lossy files (192kps and above).
And
ralphpnj wrote:
Young is just being a real audiophile in that he is comparing the sound
of something from his (distant) past to the sound of something in the
present.
But things *did* sound better back when I was young!
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
doctor_big wrote:
The neat part about this sighted test is that there's no way in hell
you'd have any sort of expectation bias for any result other than the
same null you'd get from that ABX test.
That is not really how it works. We don't control all our biases, and we
are usually not aware
arnyk wrote:
That seems like a concession that if tubed equipment has audible
distortion, then should be ignored because it is not High Fidelity.
No, I think what philippe is saying is I don't care if it is high
fidelity or not - if it is pleasing, it is pleasing.
To try to judge the real
philippe_44 wrote:
In the audiophile forum of LMS, where I hope people are usually
reasonnable, what would be your advice for a good pair of speakers and a
tube amplifier (I've always wanted to try one). Nothing extra fancy, but
a reasonnable budget. Please no fights here, my question is
arnyk wrote:
Why waste a set of good speakers on a tubed amp?
Subjective preference?
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:
Budget I don't have a precise idea, I just don't want to go ridiculously
high. Room is about 40m2 and listen to classical jazz
I would say Archimago's $1000 for the amp is probably near the sweet
spot. Sounds like you don't need super-deep bass or goes to 11 volume
levels.
arnyk wrote:
Singer-songwriter and musician Neil Young said on Wednesday he wont
allow his music to be streamed any more, not because of disputes over
royalties, but rather over poor sound quality.
While at the same time being totally OK with being played over vinyl, FM
radio and cassette,
jkeny wrote:
And Julf is still doing well on the troll table - unless Arny turns up
soon, I can see Julf's name being engraved on the Troll Trophy.
And I guess the voting/tabulating is actually for real on a certain
Irish forum... :)
I hope you, sbgk and a couple of others realize
SBGK wrote:
You guys have lost the plot, why are you attacking someone just because
they have a different viewpoint ?
I think you might want to go back and look at the messages, and see who
it is who attacks people who disagree with them.
Pointing out factually false statements is not the
toby10 wrote:
For which he and his completely bogus un-scientific study was
resoundingly refuted and discredited.
Exactly. Refuted and discredited based on facts and evidence - not
rhetoric, personal attacks and subjective anecdotes.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be
doctor_big wrote:
I've seen the tests you perform where you set up two utterly different
systems - one lo-fi, one upper-mid-fi, and abx them behind a screen. You
trot out a bunch of audiophiles who are utterly wamboozled and unable to
differentiate which one is X.
Not sure what test you are
18385
+---+
|Filename: Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18385|
+---+
Archimago wrote:
SBGK: Why do you continue to ignore my questions?
I guess for the same reason he carefully avoids answering my questions
as well...
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
Wirrunna wrote:
Should be interesting.
But as Lee Hutchinson writes, Realistically, we also know that this
test wont sway anyoneif for no other reason than that audiophiles tend
to discount the results of blind listening tests (especially A/B/X tests
like were planning on conducting).
To
SBGK wrote:
So these people have pretensions of being an audiophile and think they
are getting it from a $300 device.
And then there are those of us who just enjoy great sound without
pretentious audiophile snake oil. I guess that makes us second class
citizens.
It's also fun just to see
SBGK wrote:
some misguided people have been duped into using the squeezebox
So you aren't using a squeezebox?
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
jkeny wrote:
I'll PM Archimago about the Regen test - it makes no sense for this to
be where the details of that test the results are published as it will
only attract more troll infestation shit - not worth bothering with or
taking up any time on.
Does that mean that you a) are backing
doctor_big wrote:
Further, you (and this could be the royal -you-) harp on about
established science, as if you're a -scientist!-
Because some of us are. Even more of us are engineers. Engineering is
applied science - that is what audio is.
But you take this one little corner - ABX etc -
SBGK wrote:
See, you've quoted it out of context, well done. Which no tactic is that
from the troll manual ?
OK, I'll ask a direct question. Are you currently using a squeezebox,
and if so, for what, and so you feel that the sound quality of the
squeezebox is inadequate?
To try to judge
doctor_big wrote:
For crying out loud, why is YOUR so-called objective approach the right
one? who made you the arbiter of science?
Nobody. Feel free to refute any of his claims based on factual evidence.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing
doctor_big wrote:
A point - I like nice, thick, well-made cables, ones that cost a lot of
money (which I can afford). I liken it to putting proper P0 tires on my
Maserati. Would General tires from Green and Ross do just as well for
way less money? Probably. Would I notice a difference?
jkeny wrote:
I'm still trying to organise the test but not on this forum - as this
section is unmoderated populated by trolls - an example being the
immediately posted bullshit from ralphpnj - complete waste of time
So I guess that means b) want to restrict the distribution of the
results.
doctor_big wrote:
To follow up with your analogy regarding food. Say you spend $500 on a
hand-made, forged Japanese chef's knife. You buy high-end waterstones
to polish and refine the edge, which you get down to one molecule and it
glows blue when Orcs are around. You make a meal with
jkeny wrote:
I'm outta here.
I guess that proved to be as true as all your other claims. And not for
the first time...
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
ralphpnj wrote:
The way I see it is that the high end audio world is fighting an uphill
battle and losing. Today's young people have grown up surrounded by all
things digital and their belief systems have not been unduly influenced
by the old analog beliefs. They know from first hand
ralphpnj wrote:
One big factor in this evolution that has not been touched upon is
that the driving engine of high end audio is the sale of equipment and
in order to do that the manufacturers need to project onto the buying
public the idea that today's audio equipment is much, much better
Mnyb wrote:
I loved a brands such as QUAD before they where taken by Chinese
investors Peter Walker must be twitching in his grave , the fools
resurrected the QUAD 2 amp ?
They could go on producing the same model of amp for a decade or so and
then really just evolve the design when theres
Archimago wrote:
Finger pointing and insinuations I'm afraid have little chance of
convincing anyone, especially around here.
Careful! Before you know it, SBGK will threaten not to post anything
more unless the sceptics are removed from the forum. No, wait...
To try to judge the real from
doctor_big wrote:
Or like the wankers who troll the audiophile forum just so they can feel
self important as they set upon anyone who dares to try and talk about
AUDIOPHILE Stuff in the AUDIOPHILE forum?
How do you define AUDIOPHILE stuff?
To try to judge the real from the false will
SBGK wrote:
there is enough anecdotal evidence from people round the planet who have
changed buffer sizes in asio, wasapi, alsa to be certain that there is
an effect.
Just like there is more than enough anecdotal evidence that unicorns
exist.
The question I had was can this be measured?
Gandhi wrote:
Very interesting! You always link to such high quality articles. How do
you even find them?
Thanks - but they seem to find me :)
I guess I am lucky in having some interesting friends who forward/post a
wide variety of stuff - but I have to use google (or duckduckgo,
actually),
Julf wrote:
We are not genetically equipped to think logically or scientifically;
such thinking is a very recent tool of our species that must be learned
and, with great effort, overwritten. Furthermore, its likely that we
are programmed to identify and replicate the behavior of others
Mnyb wrote:
Yes I frequent sceptic websites to and are an active sceptic locally.
I was at the founding meeting of the Finnish association of sceptics
back in the day, but found them a bit too fanatical. I am a supporter of
CSI (the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), and do subscribe to the
jh901 wrote:
It makes more sense to you that any number of thousands of audiophiles
from Japan, Germany, France, UK, Canada, US, etc are brainwashed than
the far more obvious conclusion which is that you aren't interested in
understanding why the gear which I would likely buy reproduces
Mnyb wrote:
will[/B] believe in rubbish we are doomed to it by nature .
There is always faith and authority...
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
501 - 600 of 1245 matches
Mail list logo
