Julf wrote:
> Yes, analog stages of DACs definitely differ, and some are more
> susceptible to noise than others. But would that noise depend on the
> data format?
>
> This is where science and engineering comes in. Let's take the two most
> common "theories" (I'd rather call them
Julf wrote:
> There is no single criteria - some evidence is strong, some evidence is
> weak, but any evidence is better than no evidence at all. You present
> your evidence, others question it and try to replicate it - if questions
> and concerns are addressed, and others reach similar results,
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Who is deciding witch one is strong or weak?
We all do. If there is enough evidence, stuff becomes "accepted fact".
> The only evidence about perception one could give is "I fell" or "I
> can't feel". The last is weak, becouse if you - or eve majority cant'
> fells
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Then I loose you, when you say that since we don't have a clear pattern
> in people preferring DACs with better isolations, we should argue that
> isolation does not have any matter in sound quality.
>
> In main stream market, sound quaility is not the priority, price (and
>
Wombat wrote:
> With audio you can claim anything especialy on the internet and always
> find people daydreaming the same.
> Now add terms "uncompressed" and "compressed" and you have a perfect
> trigger.
> No surprise.
And of course there are always the fancy magazines with glossy pages and
arnyk wrote:
> If you read both articles, Lavorgna cites Atkinson as his unimpeachible
> authority, and Atkinson cites Lavorgna.
>
> Proof by authority is a well known error, and now you've two of them.
>
> This is just a game of audio publication 3 card Monte.
>
> Next!
Yes but they failed
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Sure, but here is not the same, I say I heard it and I'm not the only
> one, Again what more evidence you need to accept we feel it (not on why
> and how), please be clear!
With audio you can claim anything especialy on the internet and always
find people daydreaming the
ralphpnj wrote:
> The latest insights from the fringe:
>
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/ab-test-audiostream-readers#Mb90mqpyt3JDowiK.97
>
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/listening-ethernet#Qm1PEiqXwEVUpHPZ.97
>
> Seems to me that Mr. Lavorgna is getting just a bit touchy. Perhaps
>
ralphpnj wrote:
> If one is going to use buds then why not these buds?
I'm not sticking one of those in my ear!
LMS Version: 7.9
TranquilPC T2-WHS-A3 - WHS 2011
2x Touch, 3x SB3
bonze's Profile:
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Jitter means nothing to you? Rurmor coming by interferences?...The final
> stage of a dac Is nothing different from any analog device in that
> matter.
All of those things are of course influences that would of course be
held constant in any logical, scientific comparison.
ralphpnj wrote:
> And of course there are always the fancy magazines with glossy pages and
> lots slick advertising. I think the old saying goes something like "one
> lies and the other one swears to it".
>
>
>
> Ah the first mention of the sainted JS (only took until post #91). The
> less
d6jg wrote:
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00125KZN4
>
> Used it this morning and EVERYTHING sounds better. WAV's and FLAC's
If one is going to use buds then why not these buds?
+---+
|Filename: weed-picture-gallery.jpg
ralphpnj wrote:
> Yes but they failed to cite the sainted JS!
He gets an honourable mention in the comments...
Amongst all the 'bits are not bits', 'anyone that understands IT doesn't
listen to music', etc. etc.
LMS Version: 7.9
TranquilPC T2-WHS-A3 - WHS 2011
2x Touch, 3x SB3
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Again, Who decide when evidence are enougth do become "accepted fact"?
> Oh, yes...Always You.
No, not me at all, except as a tiny part of the scientific and
engineering community. The people who design the gear you use.
> Sure, but here is not the same, I say I heard it
The latest insights from the finge:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/ab-test-audiostream-readers#Mb90mqpyt3JDowiK.97
http://www.audiostream.com/content/listening-ethernet#Qm1PEiqXwEVUpHPZ.97
Seems to me that Mr. Lavorgna is getting just a bit touchy. Perhaps
little old Toto has been pullng
SBGK wrote:
> It's like the 3 Billy Goats Gruff story.
Thanks for dropping in and providing the troll part!
"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
Julf wrote:
> We all do. If there is enough evidence, stuff becomes "accepted fact".
Again, Who decide when evidence are enougth do become "accepted fact"?
Oh, yes...Always You.
Julf wrote:
> Just because we can't prove that something doesn't exist doesn't prove
> that it exists.
Sure,
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Again, Who decide when evidence are enougth do become "accepted fact"?
> Oh, yes...Always You.
>
>
>
>
> Sure, but here is not the same, I say I heard it and I'm not the only
> one, Again what more evidence you need to accept we feel it (not on why
> and how), please be
marcoc1712 wrote:
>
>
> 2. I'm not aware of any "science" actually saying flac and wav sound the
> same (at the analog rca output of the dac), Archimago says the
> difference is under 90db, so is inaudible. (2 is not really like 2 here,
> but from his point of view it does not matter...sure?).
Dont' know why, but the -2 post was lost... was:
Sure, I'm happy to take part to an ABX test, I've only few requests:
a. please provide also some 'long' sessions, some params become evident
only after some time.
b. please provide ABAX test. Some differences become evident only when
you miss
Julf wrote:
> No, not me at all, except as a tiny part of the scientific and
> engineering community. The people who design the gear you use.
And how, de gratia, could one be informed by the "accepted fact" state
of the art, are we supposed to join a mailing list? Ore listening to
Julf is
bonze wrote:
> I'm not sticking one of those in my ear!
Must be a British thing. I suggest spending a weekend across the North
Sea in Amsterdam to learn how to properly use these kinds of buds.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater:
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Again, Who decide when evidence are enough do become "accepted fact"?
> Oh, yes...Always You.
>
Scientific findings generally go through a format/informal vetting
process in this approximate order:
(1) New Finding is found and discussed informally amongst interested
bonze wrote:
> He gets an honourable mention in the comments...
> Amongst all the 'bits are not bits', 'anyone that understands IT doesn't
> listen to music', etc. etc.
Not only does the sainted JS get mentioned but there is also a saintly
quote:
> And here are all three parts of my Q with
Julf wrote:
> It is good to have an open mind, but that doesn't mean abandoning
> scientific thinking in favour of faith and dogma.
Somebody nicely summed this up by saying something along the lines of:
"by all means keep an open mind, but be careful your brain doesn't fall
out"
Anyone
Simple answer: NO. And should not.
Marantz NA-11S1 PCM/DSD streamer with Squeezebox Touch front-end -
Marantz UD9004 / AV8801 / MM8003 & CI Audio D-200 MkII (front only) -
Nubert NuVero & R.E.L. R-528SE - Siltech & ProLine custom made Silver &
Gold, XLR where possible
pinkdot wrote:
> Marijuana is even legal in some states for medical use, so you don't
> have to come over to my country. And, it must have something to do with
> medicine if it improves hearing :p
Yup. We got >100 dispensaries here in Vancouver, Canada even though
federally not "exactly"
Marijuana is even legal in some states for medical use, so you don't
have to come over to my country. And, it must have something to do with
medicine if it improves hearing :p
-Synology nas DS115 - Logitech Media Server 7.9.0 ('LMS-Repack'
marcoc1712 wrote:
> And how, de gratia, could one be informed by the "accepted fact" state
> of the art, are we supposed to join a mailing list? Ore listening to
> Julf is enough?
At this point it seems clear that you either don't want to understand or
simply haven't read what I have been
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Crazy audiophiles believe NOS ladder R2R DAC sounds better. Unless you
> think all dacs sound the same, in that case no way you could heard
> wav/flac differences, no ASRC here, sure.
>
> Noise (yes, rumor was a naive translation from italian) come from signal
> line but
cliveb wrote:
> Somebody nicely summed this up by saying something along the lines of:
>
> "by all means keep an open mind, but be careful your brain doesn't fall
> out"
>
> Anyone remember who that was?
http://www.drwile.com/open_mind.pdf
Dr. Jay L. Wile, Ph.D.
Living Rm:
31 matches
Mail list logo
