darrenyeats wrote:
> $500 USB cable is foo, therefore all audiophile claims are foo?
Surely, Darren, you know exactly the kind of foo-lishness we're talking
about...
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
-
darrenyeats wrote:
> $500 USB cable is foo, therefore all audiophile claims are foo?
Darren I've stated this several times before but it bears repeating.
Not audiophile claims are foo however the audiophile claims that go
completely against known science and that cannot or refuse to be backed
u
$500 USB cable is foo, therefore all audiophile claims are foo?
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503.
SB Touch
---
Clowntime is -never- over in audio-tard land. BTW, -even if- the
ludicrous "rest of the world" claim were true, it's -argumentum ad
populum- anyway.
andy_c's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3128
Vi
SBGK wrote:
> or maybe you guys are wrong and the rest of the world is right. Is that
> a possibility ?
Of course it's a possibility. Just not likely based on well understood
science and the fact that the science was used to create our electronic
gadgets and the lack of evidence for many of thes
castalla wrote:
> Ahem - it's the love of money actually. As I said earlier it's a
> sort of wealth distribution - there are better ones, but that's for
> another argument.
Yup... Love of money... The point I think still applies (perhaps even
more so for the snakeoil salespersons).
Arch
Ahem - it's the love of money actually. As I said earlier it's a
sort of wealth distribution - there are better ones, but that's for
another argument.
Touch - Muse M50 EX TPA3123 T-Amp Mini - Acoustics Q10 speakers
Logitech Radio
Logitech UE Smart Radio
Raspberry Pi + Squeezeplug LMS + Sq
SBGK wrote:
> or maybe you guys are wrong and the rest of the world is right. Is that
> a possibility ?
Not even remotely since there is no money involved for us guys but lots
of money involved for the clowns, as in the writers and editors of the
high end magazines. And remember money is the roo
or maybe you guys are wrong and the rest of the world is right. Is that
a possibility ?
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
SBGK's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52003
View t
Interesting discussion boys & girls.
Posted a little something on Audio PCs this week for the blog.
A few months ago, I think it was Mnyb who suggested I have a look at one
of the audiophiles' "cherished" products. Managed to track "one" down
:-). Look for some interesting pictures and results i
Let's say that I'm in the audiophile accessories business and that I'm
selling 4" diameter blue plastic discs that one sticks on the walls of
listening room and I claim that these magic blue discs, when placed in
the proper place, will improvement the sound of one's audio system to a
very noticeab
darrenyeats wrote:
>
>
> My point stands, absolute statements should be toned down a bit.
indeed.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Primare 30.3
Primare-->Ocos--Vienna Acoustics Beethoven/Maestro
---
The point is that it still does not cost more than a small fraction of
those high end $$$ to make a properly functioning cable so they are
still shilling bunk :)
cables are an interesting case as for analog signal cables where can
measure small differences but not hear them ( because the diff is
You can measure as much as you want, gold-plate as much as you can
afford, etc. the end result depends on the psychophysiological
characteristics of your auditory apparatus - what we doctors call your
'lugs'. At current medical fees you could easily spend a banker's bonus
on trying to achiev
darrenyeats wrote:
> Ralph, the test demonstrates a difference in performance given the
> particular gear, cables and test analyzer used.
>
> Since a mechanism for impact on an audio system has been demonstrated to
> exist, it is not unreasonable to suggest different gear or more accurate
> test
Ralph, the test demonstrates a difference in performance given the
particular gear, cables and test analyzer used.
Since a mechanism for impact on an audio system has been demonstrated to
exist, it is not unreasonable to suggest different gear or more accurate
test equipment could demonstrate oth
darrenyeats wrote:
> Agreed.
>
>
> Ralph, "put down the sceptre"!
> http://movie-sounds.org/fantasy-films-sound-bites/the-avengers-2012/put-down-the-sceptre
>
> Chill dude, he-he. Check out the results especially for 24/96 here
> http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/measurements-logitech-touch
JJZolx wrote:
> Personally, I'm firmly in the middle on this debate. I don't have golden
> ears, but I can believe it when someone tells me they hear something.
>
> No offense, but I think the real clowns are people who tell others what
> they can or cannot hear.
Agreed.
ralphpnj wrote:
>
> W
HeadBanger wrote:
> I agree with Julf - I don't think they are lying; they genuinely do
> believe this because of their own subconscious bias.
> It's very hard to get someone to admit otherwise unless you manage to
> get them to do a true blind ABX.
Remember we are not talking about an audiophil
HeadBanger wrote:
> It's very hard to get someone to admit otherwise unless you manage to
> get them to do a true blind ABX.
Which they will avoid like the plague!
Mike Sargent's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/memb
I agree with Julf - I don't think they are lying; they genuinely do
believe this because of their own subconscious bias.
It's very hard to get someone to admit otherwise unless you manage to
get them to do a true blind ABX.
2 x Duet, 2 x Radio, Touch & Receiver with iPeng 7 & SqueezePlayer
serv
ralphpnj wrote:
> deceitful industry shill that they really are.
That's free-market modern capitalism for you, then!
Touch - Muse M50 EX TPA3123 T-Amp Mini - Acoustics Q10 speakers
Logitech Radio
Logitech UE Smart Radio
Raspberry Pi + Squeezeplug LMS + Squeezelite - Logitech Mini Boombox
spe
Julf wrote:
> Of course they are hearing what they are claiming they are hearing -
> they are not lying. The issue is that what they are hearing might not
> correspond to differences in physical sound waves. Ever heard the term
> "pycoacoustics" or "perceptual bias"?
I don't agree. They are flat
JJZolx wrote:
> Personally, I'm firmly in the middle on this debate. I don't have golden
> ears, but I can believe it when someone tells me they hear something.
Of course they are hearing what they are claiming they are hearing -
they are not lying. The issue is that what they are hearing might
bonze wrote:
> Interesting that they only ever have a problem with FLAC, do they ever
> mention the "failings" of other lossless codecs?
>
> Would they print similar articles for ALAC, for example?
They can be sued by Apple. FLAC, inc. is less likely to sue.
"To try to judge the real from th
Interesting that they only ever have a problem with FLAC, do they ever
mention the "failings" of other lossless codecs?
Would they print similar articles for ALAC, for example?
LMS Version: 7.8
TranquilPC T2-WHS-A3 - WHS 2011
2x Touch, 3x SB3
---
Peiter wrote:
> 4givme but ur spelling seems a bit weird ;)
;) ;) yes multiple languages on an iPhone does that to you !
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200
Mnyb wrote:
> Yrs tve advertksers usually pays more per magazine than you ( forany
> magzine noy judt audio ) so it not hard to figure out.
4givme but ur spelling seems a bit weird ;)
Peiter's Profile: http://forums.slimde
Yrs tve advertksers usually pays more per magazine than you ( forany
magzine noy judt audio ) so it not hard to figure out.
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP520
Mnyb wrote:
> No it did not make sense 20 years ago either, if the cpu fan do it your
> fine.
>
> TAS is completely dishonest and repaets these fairy tales because this
> is what the audiophool culture wants to hear and creates the rigth
> environment to place ads in.
riffer wrote:
> Interesti
riffer wrote:
> Interesting take. Could TAS be printing this nonsense only because that
> is what their readership demands?
Actually i think it a circular argument, its a feedback loop started in
the 70's :)
But i think some got cynical and see trough it all but still prints this
nonsense and m
Mnyb wrote:
> No it did not make sense 20 years ago either, if the cpu fan do it your
> fine.
>
> TAS is completely dishonest and repaets these fairy tales because this
> is what the audiophool culture wants to hear and creates the rigth
> environment to place ads in.
Interesting take. Could T
ralphpnj wrote:
> This an old complaint and made some sense back when CPUs were much
> slower and much less powerful. Today's computers and computers made
> within the last 5 years are all quite capable of handling flac to wav
> on-the-fly decompression without any loss in sound quality. Besides
I tend to think the debate is over when for example our friend archimago
( he is no alone in this ) can measure that the output from a DAC is
electrically identical :)
The question then becomes more of applied psycology and antropology ?
People are people and will " hear " difference when there
Personally, I'm firmly in the middle on this debate. I don't have golden
ears, but I can believe it when someone tells me they hear something.
No offense, but I think the real clowns are people who tell others what
they can or cannot hear.
---
JJZolx wrote:
> This isn't new. It goes back years. There have been many people who
> claim to hear a difference in sound quality between playing WAV and FLAC
> files. Has nothing to do with the concept of lossy compression.
>
> There are a number of theories as to why there may be a difference.
This isn't new. It goes back years. There have been many people who
claim to hear a difference in sound quality between playing WAV and FLAC
files. Has nothing to do with the concept of lossy compression.
There are a number of theories as to why there may be a difference.
Could be noise caused by
jimbobvfr400 wrote:
> Semantics maybe but FLAC is compressed as per my understanding of the
> term, the difference being lossy vs lossless.
>
> So is this Muppet saying that real time uncompressing of the FLAC ruins
> the SQ and yet doing it faster than real time and saving the WAV is
> somehow
Semantics maybe but FLAC is compressed as per my understanding of the
term, the difference being lossy vs lossless.
So is this Muppet saying that real time uncompressing of the FLAC ruins
the SQ and yet doing it faster than real time and saving the WAV is
somehow different. What an arse.
Sent fr
callesoroe wrote:
> It is because the audio fools don't understand the difference between a
> COMPRESSED audio file(mp3) and a PACKED lossless file(flac). Sad but
> true
Oh no, Harley clearly knows the difference because he explains the
differences in that same sidebar. Why he chooses to re
ralphpnj wrote:
> So Robert Harley, the clown in chief over at The Absolute Sound, is at
> it again in the latest issue (Feb. 2014, Issue 240) of TAS. In a sidebar
> to his review of the Naim NDS Network Player he discusses why one should
> wav files as opposed to flac files:
>
> "The term '
So Robert Harley, the clown in chief over at The Absolute Sound, is at
it again in the latest issue (Feb. 2014, Issue 240) of TAS. In a sidebar
to his review of the Naim NDS Network Player he discusses why one should
wav files as opposed to flac files:
"The term 'lossless' refers to the fact
42 matches
Mail list logo
