Mushroom_3 wrote:
> Archimago,
>
> The cheapest cable was QED Performance @ £18/m. The best "value for
> money" was Chord Silver Plus @ £55/m.
> The other prices were: £48; £139; £182; £60; £95; £70; £125
>
> From what was stated the slowest was 13.5. There were some graphs that I
> couldn't un
Mushroom_3 wrote:
> Maybe he writes for Hi-Fi News and Record Review (the self proclaimed
> oldest hi-fi magazine in the world).
>
> This month's issue has a group test of USB cables. Needless to say the
> most expensive cable, Crystal Absolute Dream (a snip at £6480/m) came
> out top.
>
Indee
Archimago,
The cheapest cable was QED Performance @ £18/m. The best "value for
money" was Chord Silver Plus @ £55/m.
The other prices were: £48; £139; £182; £60; £95; £70; £125
>From what was stated the slowest was 13.5. There were some graphs that I
couldn't understand that may have shown other
Mushroom_3 wrote:
> Maybe he writes for Hi-Fi News and Record Review (the self proclaimed
> oldest hi-fi magazine in the world).
>
> This month's issue has a group test of USB cables. Needless to say the
> most expensive cable, Crystal Absolute Dream (a snip at £6480/m) came
> out top.
>
> Some
Mushroom_3 wrote:
> Maybe he writes for Hi-Fi News and Record Review (the self proclaimed
> oldest hi-fi magazine in the world).
>
> This month's issue has a group test of USB cables. Needless to say the
> most expensive cable, Crystal Absolute Dream (a snip at £6480/m) came
> out top.
>
> Some
Maybe he writes for Hi-Fi News and Record Review (the self proclaimed
oldest hi-fi magazine in the world).
This month's issue has a group test of USB cables. Needless to say the
most expensive cable, Crystal Absolute Dream (a snip at £6480/m) came
out top.
Some extracts from the review:
Inserted
SBGK wrote:
> Don't think there are many people who would say that JRMC sounds the
> same as JPlay so there must be something that is not being measured that
> affects the sound.
>
> I don't have any view on different lossless formats, I use Wav files
> because I don't want the noise associated
JerryS wrote:
> Well, good place to leave it I think? I can't think of an easy way of
> demonstrating whether the two methods do or do not give identical
> results and I am not convinced that you have demonstrated that they
> theoreticaly should give the same results. Doesn't matter that much
>
Well, good place to leave it I think? I can't think of an easy way of
demonstrating whether the two methods do or do not give identical
results and I am not convinced that you have demonstrated that they
theoreticaly should give the same results. Doesn't matter that much
anyway, given my cloth ea
JerryS wrote:
> I don't want to turn this into an argument because I just don't know
> enough about it. My point is that if the brain knows that A and B are
> different file types then it is going to be working pretty hard to
> detect audible differences. If it finds such differences then it is
SBGK wrote:
> Interestingly this is the methodology used by JRMC to prove that JPlay
> has no affect on the sound.
>
> Don't think there are many people who would say that JRMC sounds the
> same as JPlay so there must be something that is not being measured that
> affects the sound.
>
> I don'
I don't want to turn this into an argument because I just don't know
enough about it. My point is that if the brain knows that A and B are
different file types then it is going to be working pretty hard to
detect audible differences. If it finds such differences then it is
easier to discern them
SBGK wrote:
> Interestingly this is the methodology used by JRMC to prove that JPlay
> has no affect on the sound.
Which methodology? ABX or the difference tests of Archimago?
> I don't have any view on different lossless formats, I use Wav files
> because I don't want the noise associated wit
Interestingly this is the methodology used by JRMC to prove that JPlay
has no affect on the sound.
Don't think there are many people who would say that JRMC sounds the
same as JPlay so there must be something that is not being measured that
affects the sound.
I don't have any view on different
JerryS wrote:
> Lots of references to ABX testing in this forum. Is there any
> theoretical reason why this should be more robust than triangle testing?
> i.e. picking the odd one out from 3 unknowns played in random order,
> two are A and one is B or one is A and two are B. Somehow, this makes
Why is there any expectation bias because you know that A and B are
different? That they are different is a given in ABX testing, so that
"expectation" is always correct. The task is to determine whether X is A
or B, and whether X is A or B is completely random.
ABX is very simple. Listen to A,
aubuti wrote:
> I'd be interested to see the science behind it, because there is a
> subtle difference in the methodology. But either way you're picking the
> odd one out. The only difference with ABX is that the randomness is
> limited to third sample (X). You're always getting either ABA or ABB
JerryS wrote:
> Lots of references to ABX testing in this forum. Is there any
> theoretical reason why this should be more robust than triangle testing?
I'd be interested to see the science behind it, because there is a
subtle difference in the methodology. But either way you're picking the
odd
Julf wrote:
>
>
> Lots of references to ABX testing in this forum. Is there any
> theoretical reason why this should be more robust than triangle testing?
> i.e. picking the odd one out from 3 unknowns played in random order,
> two are A and one is B or one is A and two are B. Somehow, this m
netchord wrote:
> your title is very odd. how does one apply definitively objective
> criteria to an inherently subjective phenomenon?
It is subjective, and it isn't. You can use objective criteria to show
that the resulting sound waves in your listening room are exactly the
same, but how you h
Hi net chord,
You may think you can hear a difference but can you prove it? this
thread tries to proves you can't. You can try and prove you can by doing
a double blind test and publishing the results. Are you up for it?
CW
--
your title is very odd. how does one apply definitively objective
criteria to an inherently subjective phenomenon?
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.s
Archimago wrote:
> Yes. There will always be a bit of noise measuring the analogue signal.
> I'll update with ReplayGain as well...
But it is great that you actually try , and this with playback
environments that sometimes seriusly are considered sub optimal :) not
like a squeezebox that is furt
Mnyb wrote:
> ... And your "diff" is very likely limitation in the test method and
> some random noise.
>
> You forgot to mention one cause of confusion in the blog , replay gain
> tags ! WAV does not have but other formats can have it .
Yes. There will always be a bit of noise measuring the an
... And your "diff" is very likely limitation in the test method and
some random noise.
You forgot to mention one cause of confusion in the blog , replay gain
tags ! WAV does not have but other formats can have it .
Mnyb's
Julf wrote:
> I am relieved to see that Claude Shannon (and pretty much every
> information scientist after him) was right after all. News at 11... :)
Claude Elwood Shannon (April 30, 1916 February 24, 2001), RIP.
Hey, it's 2013 we need to be reminded of first principles once awhile.
:-)
--
Archimago wrote:
> A straight forward DiffMaker test... I think the conclusions are quite
> clear!
I am relieved to see that Claude Shannon (and pretty much every
information scientist after him) was right after all. News at 11... :)
A straight forward DiffMaker test... I think the conclusions are quite
clear!
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-do-lossless-compressed.html
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?user
28 matches
Mail list logo
