SBGK wrote: > no, I think the tirnahifi ban was for trolling and the CA was for > promising not to troll after the first ban and then continuing to troll, > facts is facts, doncha know.
Facts for facts the tirnahifi ban was because you demanded my removal. Anyway, no big loss, and I am glad you changed your license to reflect reality. But thanks for dropping back in - seems there was some unfinished business: Archimago wrote: > Excellent points and discussions folks... I wonder if this is also the > point at which SBGK typically bows out of these discussions. > > SBGK: Stay and talk if you're seriously committed to your findings. > Speaking about the theory is good but it would truly be great if there > is a way to discuss how you think your theories can be verified. Archimago wrote: > Hi Mnyb. Yes, I agree :-). I think the tests speak for themselves in > capturing all I think can be captured in a way that would encompass what > we can hear... Differences beyond the core finding of the tests as far > as I can tell would be inaudible. > > Nonetheless, I do want to hear from folks like SBGK to make sure > verifiable claims are looked at. If claims are unverifiable; perhaps > better yet the beliefs "unfalsifiable", then I think we can say clearly > we are not dealing with the scientific domain. > > SBGK: here's a thought. Since you have developed the software over > years, maybe you can give us 2 versions. One that sounds 'good', and one > 'bad' (early version? Poor compilation settings?). No messing around > with bitperfect of course. Surely with all the incremental improvements, > differences would be additive and at some point measurable, right? > > If not, then what physical characteristics do you think should be looked > at / measured? Or do you believe it's just not measurable? bonze wrote: > So can we take it [...] that you no longer have a squeezebox product? Archimago wrote: > Have you tried to measure the sonic output from the various iterations > of your program? Can you identify what component of high fidelity > improves with each iteration? For example, with the response above, why > do you think v69 "had more clarity" in physical / engineering terms? Julf wrote: > So how does the speed of the render loop correlate with sound quality? > Or perhaps an easier question - How is the speed of the render loop > reflected in any way in the waveform coming out of the DAC? "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 that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=104136 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
