docbob wrote:
> If you would call on all members uniformly to attack myths, wrong
> beliefs or fallacies, rather than the holders thereof, this would be a
> better place.
Julf wrote:
> Point taken.
:-) I just realized that I offered to give my path (high road vs. low
road) to
Julf wrote:
> Could we please keep the discussion factual instead of descending into
> silly ad hominems?
First, ad hominems -can be- factual.
But I get your point that you want the thread to focus on the facts of
the topic, not fact or fiction about members. Your request would be so
much more po
arnyk wrote:
> Trying to make a big show out of correcting someone doesn't buy you
> much if they already admitted their mistake which of course I did some
> hours ago. Do try to keep up!
Gracious acceptance of your own fallibility is not your strong suit on
any forum, is it?
I always respond
To refresh your memory...
docbob wrote:
> Uh, 44100Hz * 2 bytes * 32 channels * 3600 sec / 10^9 = 10.16 GB per
> hour. You are off by a factor of 8. Did we forget the difference between
> bits and bytes? That's okay though, we're all human, we all make
> mistak
arnyk wrote:
> Incorrect. You might want to get up to speed with a thread (especially
> one this short) before making mistakes like that. Please see post 8.
I saw post 8 and answered in post 9 with my calculation for 1 hour
(=10.16 GB). Where's the error?
-
drmatt wrote:
> Yes this is correct. Uncompressed.
I meant: is 8 hours a realistic recording time to worry about file
manipulations (copying, etc)? I don't file size as a compelling reason
to avoid hi-res.
docbob's Profil
arnyk wrote:
> 81 GB is the size of the file if it were 16/44.81 GB is the size of what
> file? 32 channels for 8 hours? Is that
realistic?
docbob's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64780
View this
arnyk wrote:
> To make the absurdity of this suggestion more clear, why not master at
> 48 bits?
Without discussing audibility at all, one can say about 24/96: it is a
standard format, audio software deals with it, and as drmatt points out
humans can sometimes make mistakes. If your amp is exactl
arnyk wrote:
> If sincere it clearly identifies its creator as being anti-remain.
No, you are jumping to conclusions here. I didn't read it that way at
all. He said both sides are behaving badly.
arnyk wrote:
> IOW, it was not sincere, but rather designed to give a false impression.
You misinte
Julf wrote:
> Sure, but my point was also about the tendency to ignore or deny any
> contrary evidence, and only focus on "data" that supports one's beliefs.
Good point. But isn't that true for many people on _all_ sides of _any_
argument?
And since we want to display the benefit of rational th
arnyk wrote:
> Letsee, the files would be identical but the sound would be different?
I don't stick a USB stick in my ear: there is a set of systems to
convert the files to sound. Just as the 8kHz USB packet noise Archimago
-measured- shouldn't be in his system, it is. If (hypothetical! - I've
ne
arnyk wrote:
> Interestingly enough, I never mentioned ABX, but you did quite
> gratuitously - so now we know your agenda.
>
> Reality is that its all about the right tool for the purpose at hand,
> not the anti-scientific, suspend all possible disbelief posturing that
> some promote for fun a
Julf wrote:
> There are widely accepted design rules, but yes, engineers are free to
> make mistakes, knowingly or not. It is still important to differentiate
> "wav sounds better than flac" from "this piece of gear is so badly
> designed that the CPU load affects the sound". Yes, I agree and I t
ralphpnj wrote:
> By moving all equipment evaluation into the world of opinion, i.e. this
> piece of equipment sounds better than that piece of equipment, all the
> evaluations become equally valid and thus beyond criticism. In other
> words, all the evaluations are equally point
ralphpnj wrote:
> First what I meant by "deemed irrelevant" is that the measurements as
> taken and presented by the high end audio magazine are dismissed by that
> very same magazine whenever those measurements run counter to the
> opinions being expressed. For example the measurements for two D
ralphpnj wrote:
> Quite true but where does one draw the line?
It's pretty arbitrary, right? 16 years for driving. 18,000 ft for Class
A airspace... In our context, I think the arbitrary choice is up to the
person spending time and/or money. My line may be different from yours.
My own cost/benefi
pippin wrote:
> The biggest pitfall obviously being that you might not get the result
> you want to get.
Is that the -biggest-?;) It certainly may be the least desirable for
some. I meant technical, procedural pitfalls, but...
-touche!-
-
ralphpnj wrote:
> By moving all equipment evaluation into the world of opinion, i.e. this
> piece of equipment sounds better than that piece of equipment, all the
> evaluations become equally valid and thus beyond criticism. In other
> words, all the evaluations are equally pointless.
It's needn'
Julf wrote:
> But do we really need to evaluate the person (as opposed to the gear)?
You are right that my wording was poor. I meant "evaluation of the gear
by the person", and changed it. Thanks.
docbob's Profile: http:/
arnyk wrote:
> There's a point here which is that not all opinions are respectable.
Agreed. And you have reached that point. Maybe it's time to give it a
break.
> If a person bases his opinions of audio gear on sighted evaluations, it
> is really about the same thing.
Your analogy is disgusting
20 matches
Mail list logo
