arnyk wrote:
> Some references:
>
> http://www.mixonline.com/thewire/new-subjective-tests-challenge-claimed-benefits-high-resolution-audio/426946
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQzNPAdF4aI
>
The files that you can download to do your own listening tests can be
downloaded (full set for 3
Mnyb wrote:
> Then just accepts what reasonably can be concluded by others that have
> done proper ABX .
> That line level equipment with flat frequency response 20-20kHz with low
> noise and low distortions ,can't be told apart .
>
> Some references:
>
>
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
cliveb wrote:
> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
>
IOW, it was not sincere, but rather designed to give a false
impression.
No time for that sort of thing, today.
arnyk's Profile:
arnyk wrote:
> Is this post sincere or a put on? If sincere it clearly identifies its
> creator as being anti-remain. This seems to be consistent with the rest
> of the post.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. I happen to be (at this time)
strongly in favour of remaining in the EU. But if
Seems like a bad case of thread drift is underway
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105572
cliveb wrote:
> Not just the leave campaigners. Both sides are behaving equally badly.
> The remain camp is playing the fear card so much they could well end up
> alienating some of their natural supporters.
>
Is this post sincere or a put on? If sincere it clearly identifies its
creator as
arnyk wrote:
> When I listen to them speak, they sound a lot like Trump supporters here
> in the US.
Not just the leave campaigners. Both sides are behaving equally badly.
The remain camp is playing the fear card so much they could well end up
alienating some of their natural supporters.
arnyk
arnyk wrote:
> I bet! Its an illusion based on wortheless anti scientific experiments,
> unfortunately right down some people's alley.
So glad I didn't use those dull sounding SSDs when I was modelling the
forces on a satellite. I need my bits to be nice and sparkly.
arnyk wrote:
> Its always a struggle to...
Apparently you couldn't read it when I said it the first time so I had
to help you out. I'll write in a larger font next time.
> Perceiving audible differences among good electronics and cables is all
> due to choosing bias and illusion over reliable
Brexit in the media ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9MFho7Rju4
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
Wombat's Profile:
drmatt wrote:
> I did enjoy that recent article about how different hard drives in a NAS
> altered the sound of the streamer..
I bet! Its an illusion based on wortheless anti scientific experiments,
unfortunately right down some people's alley.
drmatt wrote:
> Yes. And?
Its always a struggle to get to to clearly admit what you believe, and
it is often so flawed and illogical that I can see the reason why.
Perceiving audible differences among good electronics and cables is all
due to choosing bias and illusion over reliable facts.
cliveb wrote:
> Are you referring to Peter Belt? Yep, he is a certifiable fruitcake.
>
>
> Now you're on very shaky ground. Are you suggesting that anyone who
> thinks Britain should leave the EU is stupid?
>
When I listen to them speak, they sound a lot like Trump supporters here
in the US.
arnyk wrote:
> I thought you clearly said that you accept it as an acceptable tradeoff
> for yourself.
Yes. And?
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread:
drmatt wrote:
> No, doesn't ignore those things, just accepts that for some people that
> is an acceptable trade off.
I thought you clearly said that you accept it as an acceptable tradeoff
for yourself.
arnyk's Profile:
arnyk wrote:
> In fact, if someone in the US wants to find the really outrageous audio
> anti-science, he need only look to Europe, the UK, and Asia. One word:
> Belt.
Are you referring to Peter Belt? Yep, he is a certifiable fruitcake.
arnyk wrote:
> Again, people in the US don't have the
ralphpnj wrote:
> Squeezebox Touch I realize that your point about fantasy audio rings
> quite true with respect to the high end audio world's flat out rejection
> of streaming audio.
I did enjoy that recent article about how different hard drives in a NAS
altered the sound of the streamer..
arnyk wrote:
> Ignores the fact that an even more powerful salesperson is present in
> the room - you, yourself.
>
> Ignores the warning that you have already received that this is at best
> a highly misleading procedure, and you've been given the scientific
> reasons why.
No, doesn't ignore
ralphpnj wrote:
> Arny, I believe that this forum is based in the USA and as things now
> stand in the USA important things like facts, science and scientific
> reasons have been deemed totally worthless.
> > > >
> >
> > A situation that is not unique to the US, and not the only viewpoint
> >
arnyk wrote:
> Ignores the fact that an even more powerful salesperson is present in
> the room - you, yourself.
>
> Ignores the warning that you have already received that this is at best
> a highly misleading procedure, and you've been given the scientific
> reasons why.
Arny, I believe
drmatt wrote:
>
> Well yes and no, it depends what you want, really. If what you want from
> the experience is a few hours playing with gadgets and you aren't being
> "led" by a dealer towards something that costs the earth that you can't
> really afford then there's not really any harm to it.
arnyk wrote:
> Just a little memory jog for the hopelessly deceived - there is such a
> thing as audio without the trappings, myths, taboos, and totems of
> audio's golden ears.
>
> Unfortunately there is no known way to accurately discuss what these
> charlatans do without sounding negative.
>
arnyk wrote:
> I apologize for the representatives of the DBT thought police that I
> have stationed near your house to make sure that you don't try to do any
> proper experiments. They are obviously acting in a too heavy handed way
> if you can detect them.;-)
Hah, it's the neural damping
drmatt wrote:
> Sarcasm? Always a good way to stave off an impending flame war. ;)
> I would like to see people allowed to experiment for themselves without
> being flamed to death around here.
>
I apologize for the representatives of the DBT thought police that I
have stationed near your
drmatt wrote:
> Not "avoid", just don't have contacts who could help me achieve that
> locally. Where do you start? Have you done a proper ABX test to see if
> you can tell the difference? How did you arrange that? Getting it right
> is hard and I don't think you learn anything if it isn't done
arnyk wrote:
> Yeah, yeah someone gets caught repeatedly making up false claims about
> what someone else writes, and poof! it is just a misunderstanding, much
> of it not even his fault.
>
> Friendly advice, people who can't comprehend other people's posts should
> save themselves a lot of
drmatt wrote:
> See this is the problem.. I write some words, you take one set of
> meanings from it.
Yeah, yeah someone gets caught repeatedly making up false claims about
what someone else writes, and poof! it is just a misunderstanding, much
of it not even his fault.
Friendly advice,
arnyk wrote:
> For the record, I think that every thing I post should be compared to
> the relevant findings of science, and if it does not conform, it should
> be pointed out and let's find a better answer. Believe it at your own
> risk!
Glad to hear it. Note that not everyone takes this hobby
arnyk wrote:
>
>
> Good science is based on gathering evidence and forming hypothesis that
> are based on it.
>
> Everything is at least a little doubtful. Ever hear of skepticism?
>
> As usual you have made up yet another false claim, and attributed it to
> me. I never said that everybody
drmatt wrote:
> Why.. ? because I actually think going to a shop and playing about with
> different HiFi gear is *fun*.
>
I have to admit that I outgrew that sort of thing before I became 35. I
obviously thought it was fun before that because I used to visit audio
shops all over the world.
>
drmatt wrote:
> Isn't that what "prove" means?
>
Proving is not what science does.
Prove = your word.
Good science is based on gathering evidence and forming hypothesis that
are based on it.
>
> Beyond any doubt?
>
Everything is at least a little doubtful. Ever hear of skepticism?
>
>
arnyk wrote:
> What I see is a recitation of many of the false claims and pseudoscience
> that are commonly used by high end audio journalists and salesman. When
> disemboweled by scientific arguments, there is generally no attempt to
> overcome the arguments and facts that falsify them.
What
arnyk wrote:
> I'm not sure your previous comments agree with this.
>
> You said:
>
> "Even if you're kidding yourself that it sounds better but you enjoyed
> the process, what does it matter? This is an entertainment system after
> all not a system of record."
>
> If it is indeed an
StephenPG wrote:
> As I can see from your reply to arnyk, always looking for a loophole to
> avoid actually testing your hypothesis...
What I see is a recitation of many of the false claims and pseudoscience
that are commonly used by high end audio journalists and salesman. When
disemboweled
arnyk wrote:
> As usual wew have a post that makes false claim and then assumes that
> everybody agrees with it.
>
> You've invented a highly narrow criteria which is impossible, namely:
> "You can't prove that holds true for all people at all times and under
> all circumstances." , and then
drmatt wrote:
> I disagree that you can conclusively prove anything about perception. I
> agree that you can statistically prove that there is a "most likely"
> answer in a given test scenario but you can't prove that holds true for
> all people at all times and under all circumstances.
>
As
drmatt wrote:
> Just like lots of things can be proven with infinite time and patience.
> In the meantime I'd like to enjoy my life. :)
I'm not sure your previous comments agree with this.
You said:
"Even if you're kidding yourself that it sounds better but you enjoyed
the process, what does
StephenPG wrote:
> As I can see from your reply to arnyk, always looking for a loophole to
> avoid actually testing your hypothesis...
Not "avoid", just don't have contacts who could help me achieve that
locally. Where do you start? Have you done a proper ABX test to see if
you can tell the
drmatt wrote:
> Just like lots of things can be proven with infinite time and patience.
> In the meantime I'd like to enjoy my life. :)
As I can see from your reply to arnyk, always looking for a loophole to
avoid actually testing your hypothesis...
StephenPG wrote:
> You could prove it easily by using, and I quote, "Level-matched,
> time-synched, bias controlled listening tests".
>
> But that's not going to happen any time soon, is it?
Just like lots of things can be proven with infinite time and patience.
In the meantime I'd like to
arnyk wrote:
> False claim- we can conclusively prove to reasonable persons which
> so-called audible effects are self-deception, and which are not.
>
> Just thinking about all the anti-scientific claims that have been been
> shown to be false here lately. Then the source of them says "Ignore
arnyk wrote:
> Well, it already happened.
>
> We invented ABX in the late 70s, and proceeded to test everything that
> interested us, particularly amplifiers, CD players, and phono
> cartridges. Throughout the 80s, various individuals including some of
> our number did additional tests whose
StephenPG wrote:
> You could prove it easily by using, and I quote, "Level-matched,
> time-synched, bias controlled listening tests".
>
> But that's not going to happen any time soon, is it?
Well, it already happened.
We invented ABX in the late 70s, and proceeded to test everything that
drmatt wrote:
> Well I know some people think that's what it is. I don't, but none of us
> can conclusively prove it either way so who gives a c**p? Just have fun
> with it.
You could prove it easily by using, and I quote, "Level-matched,
time-synched, bias controlled listening tests".
But
drmatt wrote:
> Well I know some people think that's what it is. I don't, but none of us
> can conclusively prove it either way so who gives a c**p? Just have fun
> with it.
False claim- we can conclusively prove to reasonable persons which
so-called audible effects are self-deception, and
StephenPG wrote:
> So, self deception ftw then?
Well I know some people think that's what it is. I don't, but none of us
can conclusively prove it either way so who gives a c**p? Just have fun
with it.
drmatt's
drmatt wrote:
> Ignore the other comments... If you're interested in trying it out then
> try it out. Even if you're kidding yourself that it sounds better but
> you enjoyed the process, what does it matter? This is an entertainment
> system after all not a system of record.
So, self deception
Fizbin wrote:
> Yeah, I figured the DAC's -alone- wouldn't be make or break. It would
> still be interesting to compare the two. I mean, if the Transporter
> sounded better, I'd have to give the ex-guys at Slim Devices some major
> credit.
Ignore the other comments... If you're interested in
arnyk wrote:
> Did I say that the analog parts of digital music players cause them to
> sound different? No memory of ever making that mistake!
You're right I interpolated from what you /did/ say..
drmatt's Profile:
Fizbin wrote:
> Yeah, I figured the DAC's -alone- wouldn't be make or break. It would
> still be interesting to compare the two. I mean, if the Transporter
> sounded better, I'd have to give the ex-guys at Slim Devices some major
> credit.
Level-matched, time-synched, bias controlled listening
Yeah, I figured the DAC's -alone- wouldn't be make or break. It would
still be interesting to compare the two. I mean, if the Transporter
sounded better, I'd have to give the ex-guys at Slim Devices some major
credit.
drmatt wrote:
> No, but I'd agree with Arnyk that any differences will most likely be in
> the analogue components of the two devices. How does the sound from the
> Transporter compare to other SBs?
Did I say that the analog parts of digital music players cause them to
sound different? No
Fizbin wrote:
> Slightly OT but has anyone ever compared the Oppo 105 vs the
> Transporter? I'm curious how the older DAC of the transporter holds up.
No, but I'd agree with Arnyk that any differences will most likely be in
the analogue components of the two devices. How does the sound from the
Fizbin wrote:
> Slightly OT but has anyone ever compared the Oppo 105 vs the
> Transporter? I'm curious how the older DAC of the transporter holds up.
You want to talk about older DACs? The DACs in good quality digital
players such as the Transporter or a mid-priced CD player have generally
Slightly OT but has anyone ever compared the Oppo 105 vs the
Transporter? I'm curious how the older DAC of the transporter holds up.
Fizbin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58734
View this thread:
The DAC in the Touch is an AKM4420.
Thanks for that Info.Its interesting to see what were used in other
models to..,
btw. My Confusion with 16/24 bit came from the rega Dac/s. I read the
MK1 was only 16 bit-the M2 24 BIT.However, reading the small print tells
me Iam wrong. tHE mK 1 IS 24BIT-But
The DAC in the Touch is an AKM4420.
You can check the others here:-
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/Hardware_comparison
StephenPG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=48249
View this thread:
StephenPG wrote:
> I've had a Touch and a Duet for a few years now, and have yet to find a
> DAC that sounds different, let alone better, than the analogue outputs
> of either.
theres NO question the dac (anyone know what the DAC in SBT Is..???) in
the SBT ia very good.But I would still reckon
I've had a Touch and a Duet for a few years now, and have yet to find a
DAC that sounds different, let alone better, than the analogue outputs
of either.
StephenPG's Profile:
Mnyb wrote:
> Yes the filter less NOS DAC a very audiophile solution to the
> "everything sounds the same" problem ;) ok enjoy the artifacts if you
> fancy.
>
> But as usual there are "explanations" that these things in some magical
> ways really is "better" than a regular well designed DAC .
>
drmatt wrote:
> I had a lot of those too.. but wouldn't go back.. they were pretty bad.
I guess that is precisely why the hipsters like 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
I had a lot of those too.. but wouldn't go back.. they were pretty bad.
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105572
drmatt wrote:
> I think there's a great deal of nostalgia in HiFi. And I wonder if there
> will be another vinyl revival when the pre-CD-buying generation finally
> dies off.
I understand that the cool hipsters have moved on to cassette tapes.
"To try to judge the real from the false will
sckramer wrote:
> Hmmm, maybe the single chip version has a very specific sound that
> sounds "vintage" -- so a nostalgia thing for people, dunno :D
I think there's a great deal of nostalgia in HiFi. And I wonder if there
will be another vinyl revival when the pre-CD-buying generation finally
Mnyb wrote:
> Yes the filter less NOS DAC a very audiophile solution to the
> "everything sounds the same" problem ;) ok enjoy the artifacts if you
> fancy.
>
> But as usual there are "explanations" that these things in some magical
> ways really is "better" than a regular well designed DAC .
>
Archimago wrote:
> Hey Sckramer, cool man! A single chip version :-). I guess ya gotta save
> on the power usage with batteries.
>
> Well, I do have a 4-chip TDA1543 I measured awhile back (bought for $60
> on eBay):
>
Yes the filter less NOS DAC a very audiophile solution to the
"everything sounds the same" problem ;) ok enjoy the artifacts if you
fancy.
But as usual there are "explanations" that these things in some magical
ways really is "better" than a regular well designed DAC .
Honestly , I think we are
sckramer wrote:
> Hi Archimago,
>
> I ran across those strange TDA dacs, based on that old chip also --
> here's the one I saw:
>
> what do they sound like?
Hey Sckramer, cool man! A single chip version :-). I guess ya gotta save
on the power usage with batteries.
Well, I do have a 4-chip
Hi Archimago,
I ran across those strange TDA dacs, based on that old chip also --
here's the one I saw:
what do they sound like?
+---+
|Filename: tda_dac.jpg |
|Download:
drmatt wrote:
> "Audiophiles" are people too... ;)
>
> I had a couple of old Philips players once, and subsequently an Arcam
> player with a 16 bit DAC. Enjoyed the Arcam but I wouldn't call it
> uniquely capable versus newer 24 bit systems. I would say it had a
> particular type of distortion
Archimago wrote:
> Yeah, the only 16-bit DACs you're likely going to find "new" these days
> are based on old NOS DACs like the old Philips TDA154x designs.
>
> Some audiophiles seem to like them... Certainly "different" rather than
> "better"!
"Audiophiles" are people too... ;)
I had a couple
garym wrote:
> is it even possible to find a 16 bit DAC anymore?
>
For example they can be found in some portable players. When power usage
is an issue, why waste it on useless hardware?
Furthermore, a lot of so-called 24 bit DACs perform like they are 16 (or
fewer) bit DACs front-ended
Yeah, the only 16-bit DACs you're likely going to find "new" these days
are based on old NOS DACs like the old Philips TDA154x designs.
Some audiophiles seem to like them... Certainly "different" rather than
"better"!
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile
What everybody has already said - DACs tend to be 24 bit by default
these days, but I have not come across any commercial recordings that
would use more than a 16-bit range (even if the recording is 24 bits, it
won't gain you anything if the extra 8 bits are simply noise). For
digital volume
Even a 5$ DAC today would be 24 bit .
16 bit may be much more expensive ? Because it's some kind of special
audiophile design .
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200
daleyb wrote:
> if I was to buy a DAC for my SBT (Not that the DAC in the SBT Is bad..)
> Is it really worth going for a 24bit one.?
> First off, most of my Rips Courtesy of DBPA Are flac from my CDs. I have
> no 24bit tracks fro any sites (Thats not to say I will never download
> any in the
if I was to buy a DAC for my SBT (Not that the DAC in the SBT Is bad..)
Is it really worth going for a 24bit one.?
First off, most of my Rips Courtesy of DBPA Are flac from my CDs. I have
no 24bit tracks fro any sites (Thats not to say I will never download
any in the future..) ..
I kinda get
78 matches
Mail list logo
