rgro wrote:
To those who prefer to jump all over somebody in the process of
genuinely attempting to learn and figure out some things for themselves,
please give 'em a break once in a while.
There was a great posting from I fucking hate pseudoscience today that
I think is very relevant:
Mike Sargent wrote:
Don't worry. Although they will have your name, address and a photo,
that's empirical evidence which they won't believe. Eventually, one of
them will point to a fire hydrant and say I think that's him! where
upon they will string that poor hapless hydrant up and tar and
To be fair, rgro did write that there was a *measured* difference in
channel balance - but we don't know if something else has changed since.
I agree that it is somewhat hard to imagine a mechanism that would
affect the gain of only one channel - unless the USB cable was doing
some pretty smart
arnyk wrote:
The only difference that a USB cable can possibly make would be
something gross, like both channels not working.
Ah, that is because you haven't yet experiences my $4999 audiophile USB
cable utilizing advanced DSP technology... :)
To try to judge the real from the false will
Scott Crawford wrote:
I'm curious if anyone has experimented with these settings as a way to
optimize network settings for large files such as the Lossless WMA.
I have had a tiny bit of a buffering issue sometimes when playing the
very first song on the local database.
The basic tradeoff
Well done! You do realize that one day there will be a bunch of
industry representatives at your door, joined by huge crowds of
audiophiles with torches and pitchforks...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
jkeny wrote:
I won't pursue this debate any more as it is, as usual, detrimental to
the forum.
That seems to be jkenyspeak for I will still keep on repeating my
beliefs, I just won't answer any questions.
The funny thing is that you still expect us to answer your questions.
To try to
jkeny wrote:
It appears to me that what is being demonstrated here is an attempt at
supporting Cliveb's conclusion based on a blind test that would hardly
be considered in any way reliable or scientific.
Interesting statement considering the fact that Cliveb started with Let
me pass on a
jkeny wrote:
The moral of the story is - do a proper blind test!
Why do I feel we are about to go down a long, dark alley about what
constitutes a proper blind test?
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'd love to hear under what philosophical principle a subjectivist feels
it's justifiable to call objective thinking flat earth...
The I am right and you are wrong principle, perhaps? :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art
Gandhi wrote:
I think this way of thinking often stems from a social inheritance.
Or intellectual laziness. But it is very much like the confirmation bias
effect seen in politics and religion - the more wrong you are, the
stronger your belief in it. And the complementary I read what I
believe
'Pseudoscience and conspiracy theory are not victimless crimes against
science'
(http://theconversation.com/pseudoscience-and-conspiracy-theory-are-not-victimless-crimes-against-science-42630).
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
Some of you might have seen the most recent blog posts from Mark Waldrep
(who runs AIX Records). He showed an open mind and tried to evaluate the
offering of an Australian outfit called 'CD Illumination'
(http://www.cdillumination.com/cd-illumination-1.html) promises to
vivify your CD collection
Mnyb wrote:
Yes they moved on to la la land :) , but why even try the site just
screams scam at you.
Indeed. But that's kind of the point - even when you try to approach
with an open mind, you will be accused of being a flat earther as soon
as your results don't agree with the claims.
To
SBGK wrote:
See Uptone are endevoring to produce their own measurements to counter
some of the degenerate attacks from Archie Kruger
Then we can at least have a rational, fact-based discussion about the
results, instead of having to resort to name calling.
To try to judge the real from the
jkeny wrote:
Now when the next batch of Regens are shipped reports of their
improvement on the Touch are reported (as they will be) - (I think at
least one person here is getting one) what will your position be?
If the reports are anecdotal and subjective, they will not be of much
value
Mnyb wrote:
Sadly most recordings aviable does not even challange the CD systems
resolution.
So far I haven't found a single one (and I have looked at quite a few).
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
arnyk wrote:
The thread shows that it got derailed with this irrelevant
post:http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?103684-uptone-audio-regenp=819095viewfull=1#post819095
Another case of cargo cult science?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
jkeny wrote:
However, if you are struggling to understand what problems using
asynchronous USB solved then you really are dumber than I thought
further strengthens my viewpoint that you are measurebators who twiddle
with your instrument but don't really know what it's for or how to use
it.
ralphpnj wrote:
Julf please see my prior post about the audiophile fixation with
asynchronous USB DACs, aka Snake Oil Marketing 401 (101 deals with
speaker wire and interconnect cables, 201 deals with power conditioning
and 301 deals with power cables).
Sure - I would like to hear what
JK, how about addressing the actual questions instead of all the inane
and childish name calling?
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
jkeny wrote:
I'm not even going to link to the many, many reports of an audible noise
on the output of a non-asynchronous USB DAC - noticeable when mouse
movements, HDD access, keyboard activity, etc. If you want to deny this
reality then it will not surprise me.
How about if you instead
jkeny wrote:
You mean how using a local clean clock in the USB receiving device to
time the USB signl is better than timing it with a derived clock running
in a computer powered by electrical noisy PS sharing a an environment
bathed in emi RFI? Why a stable clock would be better at timing
Jkeny, I know you are the master of avoiding questions you don't like to
answer, but just to remind you, how about actually answering these?
Julf wrote:
So please tell us, in your own words, what problems using asynchronous
USB actually solve in modern DACs?
Julf wrote:
You keep ranting
USB interface.
How many use a separate independent clock, I'm unsure but my USB devices
do any devices using the XMOS chip also do
And no ASRC?
jkeny wrote:
julf wrote:
So how about explaining your actual position regarding ABX?
Nope, it's just a deflection from oe of the army
doctor_big wrote:
So ralph, julf et all, your cult leader is now amongst us, and you're
saved.
One of the problems with faith-based approaches is that they make you
think everybody that disagrees with you is part of the same global
conspiracy against you.
In reality
ralphpnj wrote:
Pardon my ignorance but what is CA?
Computer Audiophile. A site that might have started off with good
intentions, but once the owner started trying to make a living out of
running it, being paid for by advertising from audiophile product
vendors, it become an on-line version of
SBGK wrote:
don't thing uptone are a sponsor on that site, so usual misdirection
tactic.
Speaking of usual misdirection tactics, isn't that like saying he
didn't inhale?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery
jkeny wrote:
OK, let's clear something up - what is being tested here - pre-echo on
all frequencies in the audio band or the Gibbs effect which only results
in ringing at frequencies around 22.05KHz?
Seems you don't really understand the Gibbs effect either.
To try to judge the real
doctor_big wrote:
As an aside from all this nastiness, an observation - I honestly think
that ABX is the tipping point on the seesaw between the Os and the S'.
Audiophiles mightily distrust ABX, and with good reason, I think. I've
taken part in two of those hateful experiments, and found
SBGK wrote:
then you and JULF would step in and shout about audiophoolery and how
the manufacturers were ripping off the poor innocent customers, but as
it doesn't cost $1750 the only contribution is to imagine if it did.
Boy do you seem to be carrying a grudge. I guess you really don't like
Perhaps we should ask a question that a reasonable person who knew very
little about digital technology could still answer, such as What is
unclear about the above paragraph?
Indeed, but I would also love to hear how the Gibbs effect only results
in ringing at frequencies around 22.05KHz...
arnyk wrote:
Is Archimago a pariah around here?
Just as much as anyone else who dares to use evidence-based and
audiophile in the same sentence...
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
ralphpnj wrote:
Actually Archimago is more like a hero, since he proves that there is
such a thing as an evidence based audiophile.
What I wonder is if Archimago's blog continues to get the attention it
so richly deserves will Archimago resist the efforts to co-opt him and
turn his blog
doctor_big wrote:
It's the same group - some in fact, some in spirit - from the
rec.audio.high-end days, probably still sitting in their wood-paneled
basements, listening to Ohm speakers and Sansui amps run through zip
cord, because hey - ABX tests obscure any differences that could
Wombat wrote:
Welcome Mr. K. :)
This is turning into a rather remarkable sub-forum. :)
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
Mnyb wrote:
i think my own involvement in the general sceptic movement actually made
me see the errors in my own ways .
Audiophilia is just a smal part of more general problem . Alternative
medicin and other healt scams are the big ones you have billions of
dollars sunk into these so it's
philippe_44 wrote:
But, when you do the D/A conversion, this is where shit happens and this
where also noise can be re-injected by some proximity interferers - but
this is very close proximity, not the ethernet cable between my computer
source and the next switch.
But you can't *prove*
Gandhi wrote:
Such a splendid showcase! If this doesn't eradicate audiophoolia,
nothing will! (And my money is on the latter...)
Unfortunately I have already come across audiophiles arguing that the
demonstration is pointless, as the intermediate digital steps don't
matter - the point of the
Brilliant! I feel proud for being part of creating those cables many,
many years ago... :)
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
Mnyb wrote:
Back from my trip to Finland
I hope you didn't take the boat. I still remember the times I did the
crossing in the cheap cabins at the water line back in my student days -
those ships are class A1 ice breakers, but the noise of the ice hitting
the hull right at where your bunk is
Archimago wrote:
Hey, considering the number of northern European players we get around
here, I believe it!
But when they play in NHL, there isn't that old don't mention the war
tension...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
Archimago wrote:
Hey, since I'm located on the W. Coast of N. America, maybe one of you
Europeans would like to open up your LMS for me to stream the test
signals over and I can put up a fun post looking at measurements from
audio streamed from the other side of the world.
I am actually
Archimago wrote:
Yeah, the speed of NHL hockey is phenomenal. I love the live
experience and excitement of being at hockey than any other sport.
You should see the Finland-Russia (or even Finland-Sweden) games... :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
Mnyb wrote:
Wonder how the poor sod's using wimp/tidal are having it . We must
insist that they wire up with those silver ethernet cables :rolleyes:
and change their SATA cables .
I am thinking about starting an audiophile internet service provider,
where all cables and routers are proper
Mnyb wrote:
Include free streaming of jazz at the pawnshop and i'm on .
I'll throw in some Diana Krall, but only in DSD!
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
philippe_44 wrote:
Having said that, if they want to believe that the sun rotates around
the earth ...
In their belief system we are the flat-earthers who blindly believe
scientific dogma and don't see the reality with an open mind. Another
case of the 'Galileo Gambit'
-approved hardware like 5V PSU, USB cards, ethernet cables,
USB cables. Even SATA cables.
Then we have our occasional friend with his 'MQn player'
(http://2channelaudio.blogspot.nl/2014/02/mqn-minimalist-pc-music-player-king-of.html)...
See Julf, that's the kind of hardware you need
Gazjam wrote:
I say big as in I'm a fan of computer audio as opposed to physical
media like CD or minidisk.
(Though Vinyl is better...infinite samplerate :))
Can't let this pass... :)
Maybe infinite samplerate (for whatever that means), but a definite
upper frequency limit of maybe 24 kHz,
Gazjam wrote:
Built one and all the faffing about with linux aside, sound quality
isn't quite there yet.
Even when using an external DAC?
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
darrenyeats wrote:
It depends probably. I use encrypted wi-fi so the reduced size of FLAC
compared to WAV is probably a benefit - unpacking FLAC is not too hard a
task.
I agree. Probably best to have everything in FLAC, and pre-downsample
anything above 96k to avoid resampling on the fly.
Mike Sargent wrote:
I think I'm off to the patent office.
'iZotope vinyl'
(https://www.izotope.com/en/products/effects-instruments/vinyl/)
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
Archimago wrote:
It'll be interesting how this gets addressed since it's such a flagrant
deficit! I mean, taking the 16-bit file, amplify by 0.1dB in a 24-bit
container to make it sound a little louder and better!? Add a little
temporal misalignment to we can't directly compare without a
Archimago wrote:
how can anyone in their right mind even declare this kind of hypothesis
with a straight face and consider himself educated as an audio
reviewer!?
I don't think educated as an audio reviewer implies actually having to
know or understand anything... :)
I don't know what to
philippe_44 wrote:
this is math, not black magic and not open for opinion.
Ah, but what do scientists think they know about art, music and
enjoyment? :)
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
paulster wrote:
True, but look at the example I posted. Unless there's a different MP3
master, you can see the small difference in DR between the vinyl and the
MP3 because of the differences in the media types, but you can also see
that they are both manifestly different from the CD.
Sure,
philippe_44 wrote:
this is what enjoyment should never be: rationalized. Try, experience
and the 'good' thing is what you like, at the end
Indeed. No need to try to rationalize it with pseudoscience, voodoo and
mumbo-jumbo.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
paulster wrote:
But, and here's the but, check out the dynamic range comparisons of
modern CD releases versus the vinyl releases at
http://dr.loudness-war.info/ and you'll see why vinyl can be a source of
much better recordings these days.
*Can* be. Often isn't. Exactly the same master will
paulster wrote:
This is a great example of a record company really getting it wrong
And for an example of a company really getting it wrong, how about Neil
Young and his Pono claiming that dynamic compression and the loudness
wars are caused by mp3?
To try to judge the real from the false
ralphpnj wrote:
One thing that has been touched upon but not delved into is the fact
that many of the high resolution downloads available on both HDTracks
and Pono are labeled as remastered when in actual fact they are not
really remastered but just repackaged versions of previously
Archimago wrote:
Plus there's *no way* I can honestly let Michael Fremer and Lavorgna
drag up the ghost of the Oohashi paper after a decade and a half or just
declare the Meyer-Moran stuff debunked like this as if they know what
they're talking about!
Good luck with that - they seem to
Archimago wrote:
Still no street date for that Amused To Death Analogue Productions 5.1
SACD it appears... Tempted to pre-order but given how long it seems to
be dragging out (I thought it was supposed to come out September 2014),
I really hope it will see the light of day soon!
And it is a
Archimago wrote:
Which reminds me of the 3.0 albums like the Analogue Productions' Nat
King Cole SACDs and Living Stereo classical SACDs... Great sounding
replicas of the way these were recorded on 3-track tapes before stereo
mixdowns. The Nat King Cole vocals in the center channel sounds
Archimago wrote:
I'm looking forward to another Roger Waters favourite - Amused To
Death coming out in discreet multichannel
Me too!
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
And the human ear-brain chain is pretty good at compensating for room
oddities...
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
rgro wrote:
A devilish combination...master of both elegant compensation and
subliminal deceit!!
That doesn't of course apply to people who *know* what they hear... :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
rgro wrote:
I suspect the easy solution is to simply move the right speaker a bit
closer. However, my anal-retentive side is interested in precision and
am wondering if, somewhere (can't find anything using a google search)
there is a conversion table that would tell me how many inches
Archimago wrote:
I'm wondering, if you've ever attended these kinds of
talks/presentations? I know that in my field, sometimes criticisms and
arguments can get quite intense even in formal presentations when the
results look questionable and the paper/research appears inadequate.
philippe_44 wrote:
I don't remember the exact number, but any decent player have a bit
error rate, after use of error correction code, of less than 10^-10.
Good enough for my ears ;)
But isn't the audiophile mantra everything matters?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be
Wombat wrote:
They could have just dropped the volume by -0.3dB like elsewhere but
forgot it on that one.
Sean Rowe - Madman, track 08 The Real Thing, qobuz STUDIO MASTER
Others are similar, 24/88.2
17156
Gain is not to be wasted! :)
To try to judge the real from the false will
The latest HiFi News had a 3-page test of a 6000 GBP audiophile NAS
against a standard NAS box. Are we surprised that the subjective
differences were small but audible?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
ralphpnj wrote:
Julf wrote:
Because even scientists admit they don't know everything!
Absolutely true. However one should keep in mind that within the
scientific and engineering there are ways to indicate just how sure
they are of what they know. So there are theories, theorems
Gazjam wrote:
BNC connection sounds noticeably more focussed and (weirdly) more
relaxed but with more detail.
Not tried glass toslink, but this is the best sofar.
Were you able to compare side-by-side, or are you relying on auditory
memory?
To try to judge the real from the false will
markiii wrote:
there is an argument that sending PCM already decoded is less work on
the player CPU
though it is more work for the server and burns more network bandwidth
I did also point out that it was unlikely to make an audible difference.
To try to judge the real from the false
Because even scientists admit they don't know everything!
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
probedb wrote:
We just need them to make a comment like the Birmingham is a Muslim
only city on Fox News, and then have to apologise about all their BS
over the years ;)
They seem to get away with much worse gaffes all the time (especially
when talking about digital audio).
To try to
And do we actually have any evidence that this wonderful thing makes any
audible difference?
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
soundcheck wrote:
Every (radio) engineer (1 semester) knows about EMI/RFI effects.
Of course. Every engineer also knows that there is a level that is low
enough that the noise doesn't have any effect.
There's nothing to prove here.
Except that the USB termination actually makes an audible
soundcheck wrote:
Hmmh. Define: Noise
No need to. The important criteria is audible.
I do know one thing - the lower, the better - over the entire bandwidth.
No. Good engineering means optimizing what is relevant, not what is
irrelevant. You can spend an endless amount of time and money
Gazjam wrote:
But I am playing through the Transporter Dac...that's the confusing
thing! :)
I'm using the TP analogue outputs to play into my amp, NOT an external
Dac (or word clock)
Right. So your transporter is either ignoring your setting,
synchronizing (poorly) to your disc player, or
Grumpy Bob wrote:
Amazing stuff.
Can't make it up...
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
Gazjam wrote:
Wondering what digital passthrough relates to in the context of
running the transporter solely as a dac with no external clock fitted.
That is indeed the question. The only ones that would know for sure are
the people who wrote the firmware.
To try to judge the real from
Gazjam wrote:
Ps Digital Passthrough sounds better.
Have you connected anything to the Word Clock input? In Digital
Passthrough, the internal clock is replaced by an external clock signal.
I have no idea what the Transporter does when nothing is connected to
the Word Clock Input and
pablolie wrote:
i don't get the creationist metaphor. creationists chose to *believe*
something childish and naive, rather than confront evidence and find a
pragmatic path that -magically- even the pope embraces. personal belief
doesn't have to lead to ignorance.
Go check out any proper
pablolie wrote:
so the other question becomes - if you're hung up on tests, is it to
justify to yourself and others that you made a superior choice?
I think that works the other way too - some audiophiles dislike blind
tests and measurements, because they have a fear of the tests somehow
of testing the
hypothesis.
Did you read any of the documents I linked to in this posting:?
Julf wrote:
Indeed - no joke. For anyone seriously interested in listening tests, I
really recommend 'ITU-R BS.1534'
(http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1534-2-201406-I/en) and 'ITU-R BS.1116'
(http
doctor_big wrote:
I completely disagree. Abx is good for determining if a subject can
identify X.
Just not sure why that would be useful information. If you can identify
X, it means you can tell a difference between A and B.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
johann wrote:
Isn't Is there any difference a good start?
Absolutely.
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
doctor_big wrote:
Have there been instances of two different amps that measure the same
being reliably shown as sounding different via ABX?
Have there been instances of two different amps that can't be told apart
in an ABX being reliably shown as actually sounding different?
To try to
doctor_big wrote:
Jesus Christ - It's like trying to nail jello to a wall. That's the
type of behaviour I see on fundy Christian websites. Never a straight
answer.
Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster! Maybe it is because you are trying to
nail things to the wall that makes your questions be
darrenyeats wrote:
I'm betting your definition of 'actually sounding different' makes this
a circular argument.
Not necessarily. What is your definition for actually sounding
different?
A lot of these discussions are predicated on ideas like: there is the
right way to do it and by
johann wrote:
I'd say it takes a way the expectation bias for those who think there is
a difference but not necessarily if you think there is no audible
difference.
Fair enough - but what method would do that? You can't really make a
person hear a difference if they don't hear a
johann wrote:
They should simply not take part in such tests. :)
Indeed - no joke. For anyone seriously interested in listening tests, I
really recommend 'ITU-R BS.1534'
(http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1534-2-201406-I/en) and 'ITU-R BS.1116'
I agree there is definitely the danger of test fatigue. That is why,
for a proper test, you need enough test subjects so that no one subject
needs to do it for too long in one go.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
pablolie wrote:
i fundamentally disagree with the premise that, from a certain point
on, gear tends to sound the same provided it is good enough. not at
all.
gear sounds vastly different. the million dollar question is to
ascertain whether it merely sounds *better* or more *accurate* or
doctor_big wrote:
How much would you think it reasonable to spend on a pair of
floorstanding speakers for a medium-sized (say, 16x20ft) room?
That is a hard question, because it really boils down to how much would
you think it reasonable to spend on your hobby?. How important is
listening
doctor_big wrote:
With regard to choosing a pair of speakers, if the room is a constant
then wouldn't measurements of the speakers tell you how they'd sound?
IE: two speakers that measure the same should sound the same in the same
listening room?
As Darren pointed out, no two speakers
doctor_big wrote:
Are measurements important when it comes to speakers?
Does size matter? :)
I would say that measurements are really important when it comes to
speaker-room interaction. It is very hard to achieve a decent frequency
response without nasty room resonances unless you use
darrenyeats wrote:
In that case the alternative would be the 1.5V input. I'm guessing you
meant ... and feeling it is still too loud ...
No - the 1.5V input is more sensitive, so would make it louder. As far
as I understand, the issue the OP has is that the 1.5V input setting is
too
darrenyeats wrote:
Grab the stick from the other end. It's not how quiet you need to have
it, but how loud.
Exactly. I have to repeat my earlier advice:
Julf wrote:
Indeed. Try 4.8V (it is only 3.5 dB from 3V), and only if you find
yourself turning volume up to full, and feeling
701 - 800 of 1245 matches
Mail list logo
