I thought I'd branch a thread off the Peter Aczel topic and quote something ralphpnj said since I'm concerned about what seems IMO to be total intellectual dishonesty in the audiophile media and a recent assault into computer audio. I guess this is a "coming of age" for computer audio now that the "big league" and boutique manufacturers are wanting a piece of the action:
ralphpnj;689792 Wrote: > I agree but it's not that the audiophile community is still debating the > same issues but rather with the introduction of and acceptance of > computer based digital audio the high end cable market has only gotten > much, much worse. As I pointed out in one of my prior posts in thread > (post #9) the great cable scam (I refuse to call it a debate since > there is no debate when one side is dead wrong) has now moved into the > area of cables used for digital data transmission. > > Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't part of the idea > behind using digital rather than analog as a recording and storage > medium is that digital "solves" many of the problems inherent in > analog. Problems like generational losses when copying, the negative of > cables and a whole list of other things. Now we have almost all of the > major high end manufacturers and their enablers in the high end press > trying to impose the problems of analog audio systems onto digital > audio systems. I for one am not buying it. > > A digital copy is an exact copy of the original if the checksums are > equal. Any cable used to transmit digital data which meets the minimum > specifications for that type of cable, whether it is an ethernet cable, > HDMI cable, fiber optic cable, coax cable or USB cable, will transmit > the data exactly the same as any other cable, regardless of price and > material. There is simply no room for debate just has there is no for > debate in the statement 2+2=4. > > Frankly I'm sick and tired of having to repeat and defend these simple > truths. so now it's back to the music. At the moment I'm listening to > the new 4 disc set called "Chimes of Freedom: The Songs of Bob Dylan > Honoring 50 Years of Amnesty International" which features 73 tracks by > different artists all covering Bob Dylan songs. Fantastic! This was my opinion and conclusion when arguing about the "Computer Music Audio Quality" series of articles by Charles Zeilig (PhD in what exactly?!) & Jay Clawson published recently in The Absolute Sound on the various audiophile forums including this one. Although I don't completely disagree with some of their assertions, there are also a number of conclusions I find questionable either through experience or my understanding of the matter. Some questionable findings from "Part Two" (Jan 2012 issue) wherein I learn: - Upsampling 176/24 --> 176/32 sounds better! (not sure what 32-bit DAC they're using) - Odd upsampling from 44/16 & 176/24 --> 192/24 sounds better! (hmm, maybe their DAC can't handle the family of 44kHz rates properly!) - Huge variation in sound from playback software - Audition 3.0.7283.0 ($200) scores a paltry 85 while iZotope RX Advanced ($1000) with fancy 192/32 upsampling leads to a subjective improvement to 145 - almost 2x as good! - If you're gonna downconvert from 176/24 --> 44/16 - you need iZotope again cuz it scores 150, lowly Audition can't convert worth a darn resulting in 85. - CD Ripping software makes a difference! Nero scores 60 while dbPowerAmp 140! Forget the fact they're bit-identical with EAC at 110! - Ripping read SPEED matters! Again they're bit identical! 1x with JRMC = 135, 16x = 115 - Burning software matters! JRMC CD-R scores 130 vs. Nero sucking it at 70! - CD-R brands matter (don't know what transport they used) - Mitsui MAM-A Gold 130, TDK Sivers 85. - Burn speed matters - 4x JRMC scores 120, don't even think about burning at 16x - 75! Incidentally, the original WAV file only scores 100 played back on PS Audio PWT-PWD. The bottom line folks, as they say on page 50: "Although JRMC reported an accurate rip for all the speeds, and are bit-for-bit identical at all read speeds, we are still able to detect sonic differences in the resulting file. We know these results drive engineers crazy. We would love it if someone could come up with a definitive explanation that could provide input to software developers." There ya go... There is indeed a "ghost in the bit". A bit is not a bit, copies of files are just approximations, inexplicable differences exist, ergo, digital is like analog - you can experience potentially huge losses *everywhere* (herein lies the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt so they can sell you something). Since "they" experience it, it must be true right? No need to talk about the possibility that they erred in their perception especially with the bit-perfect tests? To think that this is just ONE of the articles in the series in a print magazine of relatively large distribution (this is the only issue I bothered to buy for the "Best Gear of 2011"). I wonder if these articles can ever be retracted since presumably the authors have no financial interests (surely this cannot be the only criterion for adequacy to print). I really do hope many of the readership can see through this nonsense; at least inundate TAS with letters if not boycotting the purchase of such intellectually questionable print rags since ultimately "money talks" and as far as I can tell, that's all they care about (nothing wrong with capitalism, just don't defraud me!). BTW: I'm enjoying "Chimes of Freedom" as well :-)... Hopefully get through the 3 CD's this weekend. -- Archimago ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93549 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
