The first full digitally produced album
Never mind there was no digital playback then
I have to think despite the genius of Steven Wilson that this is the
first truly recoverable album.
life, banned, look it up
banned
darrenyeats wrote:
Well, I didn't say everything matters.
True. I was using the opportunity to take a swing at a typical
audiophile truism.
My point is, each thing that might REALLY, LOGICALLY reduce distortion
isn't necessarily detectable in a blind test on its own. But a
combination of
That may be a problem but it doesn't mean it isn't true ...
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread:
darrenyeats wrote:
That may be a problem but it doesn't mean it isn't true ...
Well, it might be true but it might not make any sense. Everything
matters - even the flutter of the wings of a butterfly in Brazil. But
should I worry about it, or spend money to avoid it?
darrenyeats wrote:
In defense of jh901 and others.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/cycling/head-of-marginal-gains-helps-gb-gold-machine-stay-in-front-8010110.html
I believe the same principle could apply in audio ... an improvement may
be unnoticeable but improving
Julf,
Ha ha! Good point.
Well, I didn't say everything matters. The link describes the GB cycling
team pursuing marginal gains ... not fantasy. They could also try to
time their sprints to coincide with the flutter of a butterfly in India
... but they don't do that, they do things that might
Ralph,
Very droll! See my previous post.
D
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread:
darrenyeats wrote:
Julf,
Ha ha! Good point.
Well, I didn't say everything matters. The link describes the GB cycling
team pursuing marginal gains ... not fantasy. They could also try to
time their sprints to coincide with the flutter of a butterfly in India
... but they don't do that,
ralphpnj wrote:
1) Used a flac file instead of a wav file
2) Used 16bit/44.1kHz file not high resolution file
3) Flac file was encoded using PCM not DSD
4) Flac file stored a standard, i.e. non-solid state, hard drive
5) Hard drive connected to computer running SBS via standard, i.e.
Yea *real* problems will aggregate over the whole chain beginning with
the recording studio .
not everything , especially not things that usually concerns audiophiles
.
For example THD ,I read quotes that we can in best case perceive 0,1% if
every ananlog amp stage had this it would not be good
In defense of jh901 and others.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/cycling/head-of-marginal-gains-helps-gb-gold-machine-stay-in-front-8010110.html
I believe the same principle could apply in audio ... something may be
transparent alone but improving performance (even inaudibly) is
darrenyeats wrote:
an improvement may be unnoticeable but improving performance (even
inaudibly) is always a good thing and might add up eventually to an
aggregate improvement in performance which is audible.
The problem with that approach is that it leads to everything matters,
and then you
RonM wrote:
One would want to control for illicit substances, of course.
R.
So bourbon or beer or wine or whiskey would be okay but not marijuana?
Seems kind of biased to me.
ralphpnj's Profile:
Marijuana would be okay in Colorado and Washington state since it has
now been legalized, just not in other places. So this says that it would
make a difference where the tests were conducted geographically.
w3wilkes's
cliveb wrote:
That isn't how placebos work. You don't get to consciously choose
whether you're going to give them a chance. They operate at a deep,
subconscious level in the mind. And to suggest that the placebo effect
works everywhere *except* audio is just silly.
It IS possible, though,
Mnyb wrote:
Loudspeakers are always riddled with compromises even the most expensive
ones the art is actually tuning 1000's of compromises against each other
and as always I dont think the most expensive audiphile exotica is the
answer ;) in this world the price is an intergral part of the
cliveb wrote:
That isn't how placebos work. You don't get to consciously choose
whether you're going to give them a chance. They operate at a deep,
subconscious level in the mind. And to suggest that the placebo effect
works everywhere *except* audio is just silly.
+1 that is exactly why we
heisenberg wrote:
Same can be done with electricity, no? Using power conditioners? Or is
it the case of 'once the shit hits the fan, there's not enough water in
the river Ganges that could wash it off'? And if so, how so?
Well, in my student days we were toying around with the idea of
cliveb wrote:
That isn't how placebos work. You don't get to consciously choose
whether you're going to give them a chance. They operate at a deep,
subconscious level in the mind. And to suggest that the placebo effect
works everywhere *except* audio is just silly.
I agree, nice catch.
Julf wrote:
Well, in my student days we were toying around with the idea of selling
a power filter that would block the radioactive electrons from nuclear
power plants from entering your house. I am sure it could be repurposed
to produce purified audiophile electrons too.
Yeah, and that's
Mnyb wrote:
To keep Garym calm , I was properly cured from audiophilia before I for
example was doing any work on core recirculation pumps in nuclear
reactors .
thank goodness...I was starting to worry!
garym's
Mnyb wrote:
To keep Garym calm , I was properly cured from audiophilia before I for
example was doing any work on core recirculation pumps in nuclear
reactors .
I too have many years of experience with selecting pumps for various
mechanical systems and did you know that pumps with impellers
heisenberg wrote:
Just because something has been messed with at the source and while
travelling to its destination, doesn't automatically mean it cannot be
fixed at the point of consumption.
I would love to hear how you can remove noise and distortion afterwards.
And I am pretty sure a lot
garym wrote:
And read a bit over a hydrogenaudio.org.
I second that recommendation - but with the caveat that before you post
anything on HA, make sure you have read and understood the Terms Of
Service of HA, and make sure you follow them.
Julf wrote:
I would love to hear how you can remove noise and distortion afterwards.
And I am pretty sure a lot of audio manufacturers would love to hear it
too...
That's why your water filter analogy is plain wrong. A better analogy
would be trying to justify using a tap (spigot /
Mnyb wrote:
Or as I always try say carry around one liter of water in a ten liter
bucket (or gallons and a drum if it pleases you more :) )
Ah, but the extra big container makes the water taste more airy! :)
Julf's
Julf wrote:
I would love to hear how you can remove noise and distortion afterwards.
And I am pretty sure a lot of audio manufacturers would love to hear it
too...
Suppose you need a clean blank canvas to paint on. And all you can get
is a dirty, stained one. What you have to do then is
heisenberg wrote:
Suppose you need a clean blank canvas to paint on. And all you can get
is a dirty, stained one. What you have to do then is scrub it and wash
it, restoring it back to its clean blank state.
Same can be done with electricity, no? Using power conditioners? Or is
it the
ralphpnj wrote:
A well designed and well made power supply should be doing exactly that
and providing the equipment with clean, well regulated power. And that
is exactly why power conditioners are part of the audiophile belief
system.
Here's how it works:
Power conditioners are known
heisenberg wrote:
Wishful thinking doesn't work in audio.
It does if you are an editor of The Absolute Sound or other audiophile
publications that can make up things out of whole cloth. And it works
if you sell $5,000 USB cables (your bank account gets a lot bigger!)
garym wrote:
It does if you are an editor of The Absolute Sound or other audiophile
publications that can make up things out of whole cloth. And it works
if you sell $5,000 USB cables (your bank account gets a lot bigger!)
You bet, because those people are lying for living. But we, the
heisenberg wrote:
However, upon applying it to my interconnects/speaker cables, I was left
in utter disappointment, because despite my enormous expectation bias, I
could not, for the life of me, hear ANY before-and-after difference.
Such a let down...
You probably applied it in a back and
heisenberg wrote:
Like, I really, truly wish that a cheap $30.00 can of some demagnetizing
fluid would propel my system to the new, never before experienced
heights (who wouldn't want to get such incredible bang for a buck? Only
thirty bucks, come on!)
However, upon applying it to my
ralphpnj wrote:
Another example of an audio myth with roots in good science and bad
logic. Cleaning dirty, inexpensive and poorly made interconnects results
in a slight improvement in the sound therefore thoroughly cleaning
already clean, expensive and well interconnects MUST result in
Julf wrote:
Claims of major differences from some minuscule improvements in the
reproduction chain after the audio has passed through tens if not
hundreds of opamps, half a mile of cable, and been filtered and
processed through N layers of digital processing are very much like the
claims of
ralphpnj wrote:
My response is to ask you a question: why is it that only in the field
of digital audio are two digitally identical data streams, by which I
mean two data streams that contain the exact same digital data being
transmitted or sourced slightly differently, e.g. wifi versus
heisenberg wrote:
Very good points. I don't think the debate is about the veracity of the
source information (like you've said, in digital world, a copy is 100%
identical to the original). So this copy can be tossed over and bounced
back-and-forth through countless channels till the cows
garym wrote:
The fallacy of comparing the digital picture files example to issues
with digital music files has been previously discussed at these forums
(been a few years I believe, but a search should find some of the
threads...)
Just because the 'fallacy' has been discussed doesn't mean
heisenberg wrote:
Isn't this the same as saying that any claims that a water filter
system, installed in your kitchen, cannot possibly make any difference
to the cleanliness of the water you're drinking knowing full well that
the same water had travelled through various dirty, rusty pipes?
garym wrote:
edit: and no one in the current discussion has said that different DACs
(analog chain) can't sound different (and certainly speakers can sound
very different). The discussion is more around whether the bits that
arrive at the front end of the DAC (before the analog conversion)
heisenberg wrote:
Just because the 'fallacy' has been discussed doesn't mean that it is
indeed a fallacy, no?
sorry, I meant discussed and debunked
garym's Profile:
heisenberg wrote:
To expect that the bits upon arriving at the analog stage are somehow
'different' than the bits that left the digital transport is, erm, how
shall I put it, stupid. It is just not possible for that to happen, no
matter what.
What might happen, though, is that those bits
ralphpnj wrote:
No. Changing a power cord would NOT be the equivalent of filtering the
water it would be the equivalent to replacing the piping between the
sink and the water supply pipe in the wall. A filter would be the
equivalent of something like the PS Audio Power Plant.
Agreed
heisenberg wrote:
Sorry for missing your point. I agree with you, it would be absolutely
ludicrous to expect that the original file and its copy could sound
different on the same equipment in the same room.
However, the flip side is not necessarily true. Same CDs do sound
different on
heisenberg wrote:
That's why moving to a higher quality digital transport coupled with a
good DAC will definitely sound better.
or rather *may* sound better.
garym's Profile:
garym wrote:
or rather *may* sound better.
Thanks for correcting me. Yes, absolutely, MAY sound better (I've heard
some sickeningly expensive gear that made digitized music actually sound
worse!)
heisenberg's Profile:
garym wrote:
of course. different DACs, different amps/preamps/speakers/room
treatments
True, but also, everything else staying equal, I've heard improvements
when going from a PC-based configuration to a SBT configuration. Both
systems pumping same bits into the same DAC, via same
heisenberg wrote:
Thanks for correcting me. Yes, absolutely, MAY sound better (I've heard
some sickeningly expensive gear that made digitized music actually sound
worse!)
Yes, as mnyb often points out in his posts here, there are cheap chinese
wallmart CD players that can sound better than
garym wrote:
Yes, as mnyb often points out in his posts here, there are cheap chinese
wallmart CD players that can sound better than some badly designed
high-end gear. NOS DACs anyone?
Just the other weekend my wife and I strolled into a newly open
neighbourhood high end audio store and
heisenberg wrote:
True, but also, everything else staying equal, I've heard improvements
when going from a PC-based configuration to a SBT configuration. Both
systems pumping same bits into the same DAC, via same cables, and yet
SBT bettered the PC. Go figure...
Archimago has been doing
garym wrote:
Sorry, you're completely wrong here. But I'm guessing you registered
here just to troll a bit. Enjoy.
Well, why don't you correct me then? Slapping a label on someone just
because they may have exhibited some misunderstanding isn't helping the
case, is it?
garym wrote:
Archimago has been doing some interesting tests on these sorts of
things. See his blog
http://archimago.blogspot.com/
and this thread with lots of interesting measurements (I think all are
in the blog above as well):
heisenberg wrote:
Well, why don't you correct me then? Slapping a label on someone just
because they may have exhibited some misunderstanding isn't helping the
case, is it?
read a lot more of this forum postings on these sorts of issues. And
read a bit over a hydrogenaudio.org. And perhaps
garym wrote:
Yes! My ability to buy my toys depends in part on people paying
university tuition! Focus on that part first. ;-)
Yea and preoccupation with pseudoscience like audiophilia is harmless
:/ run the decision to buy more 5000$ cables truogh your wife and kids
and see what they think .
Mnyb wrote:
Yea and preoccupation with pseudoscience like audiophilia is harmless
:/ run the decision to buy more 5000$ cables truogh your wife and kids
and see what they think .
College fund , luckily we don't have that where I live , anyone can go
to university if their grades are good
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Mynb, you are the one who has spent so much cash on Meridian stuff,
which buffers the bits everywhere (and so the high price). No wonder you
are oblivious of all digital issues. I run digital straight into a TACT
amp which I sadly dont think has good buffering or even
Mnyb wrote:
Yea and preoccupation with pseudoscience like audiophilia is harmless
:/ run the decision to buy more 5000$ cables truogh your wife and kids
and see what they think .
College fund , luckily we don't have that where I live , anyone can go
to university if their grades are good
Mnyb wrote:
The tact may as well have other issues to . Wonder if not most normal
DAC by today's standard have this buffering regardless of price . Price
vs performance is not connected in high end and rather flat in small
signal electronics and IMO it actually gets worse in the ultra high
garym wrote:
It used to almost be that way here in US. I went to state university as
undergrad and my tuition cost was about $200 a semester. Almost free.
But public universities have gone from state supported to state assisted
to state located (ie in name only). Legislators have become
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Good to know the history in the US. I went to school in India. Inspite
of the almost free university education, my parents could not afford the
dorm fees. Scholarships helped me on this front. I think the education
system in the US needs to be seriously revisited to
garym wrote:
It used to almost be that way here in US. I went to state university as
undergrad and my tuition cost was about $200 a semester. Almost free.
But public universities have gone from state supported to state assisted
to state located (ie in name only). Legislators have become
ralphpnj wrote:
At the height of the availability of low cost and free college in the US
(in the 1960s and 1970s the city universities of NYC were tuition free)
the US experienced lots of student unrest, which was fueled by the
anti-Vietnam war movement. So now the US has done away with both
garym wrote:
Agree. We are particularly falling behind in the sciences, with the
possible exception of phd training.
I believe this is a reasonable assessment for Canada as well. (I have a
university appointment and teaching responsibilities there...)
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Right, I guess I am having trouble finding that certain point :-)
Sorry, as always I find myself as the 'middle-of-the-road' person, say
compared to you and jh ...
I am now listening to my Touch in a wired setup.. (wifi disabled) the
extender reporting 65% wifi
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
...I did not expect this change before going in.
I've always been puzzled by statements like the one above which clearly
imply that, on those rare occasions when a subjectivist admits that
their perception might have been influenced by their own mind rather
than
ralphpnj wrote:
My response is to ask you a question: why is it that only in the field
of digital audio are two digitally identical data streams, by which I
mean two data streams that contain the exact same digital data being
transmitted or sourced slightly differently, e.g. wifi versus
mlsstl wrote:
I've always been puzzled by statements like the one above which clearly
imply that, on those rare occasions when a subjectivist admits that
their perception might have been influenced by their own mind rather
than only outside technical factors, that said influence is limited
mlsstl wrote:
I've always been puzzled by statements like the one above which clearly
imply that, on those rare occasions when a subjectivist admits that
their perception might have been influenced by their own mind rather
than only outside technical factors, that said influence is limited
I agree with those points about psychology.
Of course it still leaves us with the issue of deciding whether X is
better than Y.
If X and Y are line level equipment I use measurement data. Full stop.
The other issue is X AUDIBLY better than Y. This can only be answered
reliably by blind
ralphpnj wrote:
...
Can someone, anyone please explain what it is about digital audio data
that gives it this totally unique property.
This is well-known . The clock is also derived from the SPDIF interface.
Ethernet cables and USB cables in async mode will not cause any
problems, unless the
To someone else's place ? Totally unfamiliar acoustics , there is no
point trying to discern finer points .
I have moved a lot , it is quite surprising emotionally how different
the same hifi sounds in a new place it takes about 2 weeks to
acclimatise IMO . But logically it is no surprise it's
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Let me ask, if you go to somebody else's place, can you tell that system
is better or worse than yours ? If something is better than yours, what
was different in it ?
The one person I know who has a better, i.e. more expensive, audio
system than I have has his system
ralphpnj wrote:
Another point worth mentioning is that my friend is always upgrading
something or other on his system and then declaring that the upgrade
makes a night and day difference and of course when I finally get to
hear his new and vastly improved system it sound just like it did
Wombat wrote:
That must be this 'midddle-of-the-road' thing. Still i don´t get this
exatly. Is being the 'middle' of a clown and a subjectivist maybe a
jerk? I really don´t know.
Not sure what to make of your comment.
However, when it comes to my preferences, I hear what I hear and like
darrenyeats wrote:
I've had similar experiences.
Darren
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
I concur , but from the other end , in my audiophool days I could build
a common expectation bias with a friend :)
If you search this forum I have explained in detail hat I was on the
other
mlsstl wrote:
Not sure what to make of your comment.
However, when it comes to my preferences, I hear what I hear and like
what I like. I don't spend time trying to pretend that my perception
yields some universal truth that deems others inferior if they don't
hear the same thing. And I
mlsstl wrote:
Not sure what to make of your comment.
However, when it comes to my preferences, I hear what I hear and like
what I like. I don't spend time trying to pretend that my perception
yields some universal truth that deems others inferior if they don't
hear the same thing. And I
I tend ro agree wombat , how do you find the middle road with flat
earthers :) is concave a good compromise ?
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread:
Mnyb wrote:
I tend ro agree wombat , how do you find the middle road with flat
earthers :) is concave a good compromise ?
I'm a bit confused Softwireengineer. Your middle of the road beliefs
require belief in magic and the abandonment of engineering principles.
Don't confuse facts with
darrenyeats wrote:
I've had similar experiences.
Darren
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
Sad and Funny at the same time. One of the psychological things that
might be happening is - the sound/quality is always there. But we notice
them only after we upgrade something :-)
Leaving
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Sad and Funny at the same time. One of the psychological things that
might be happening is - the sound/quality is always there. But we notice
them only after we upgrade something :-)
Leaving my possible ignorance/obsession with jitter aside, or my IQ,
main thing I
Gary, no problem. I would like to characterize my obsession with jitter
as a 'preoccupation' or pure intellectual curiosity :-) Just like Quad,
I need to put myself through some blind testing. Except my wife would
think, it is a weird behavior for a middle-aged family man, who should
be focussing
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
I would like to my wife would think, it is a weird behavior for a
middle-aged family man, who should be focussing on the kid's college
fund otherwise :-).
Yes! My ability to buy my toys depends in part on people paying
university tuition! Focus on that part first.
On the women I think both are wrong. I'd rather go with someone who's
really smart and has a sense of humor like Hedy Lamarr (coinventor of
spread spectrum RF which is still used today and in the day porn star)
or maybe Asia Carrera (played Carnegie Hall by the age of 15, Mensa
member and last,
w3wilkes wrote:
I'd rather go with someone who's really smart and has a sense of humor
like Hedy Lamarr (coinventor of spread spectrum RF which is still used
today and in the day porn star) or maybe Asia Carrera (played Carnegie
Hall by the age of 15, Mensa member and last, but not least,
w3wilkes wrote:
Hedy Lamarr (coinventor of spread spectrum RF which is still used today
and in the day porn star)
Not sure I would describe her as a porn star, based on that one 1933
movie, where the nudity is pretty tasteful. The rest of her movie roles
have been pretty much respectable.
ralphpnj wrote:
P... dare I say it, jitter. Once you get past a certain point it's just
over designed and over built.
Right, I guess I am having trouble finding that certain point :-)
Sorry, as always I find myself as the 'middle-of-the-road' say compared
to you and jh ...
I am now
ralphpnj wrote:
That said, can the Transporter be improved, yes but those improvements
will NOT result in windows opening, veil lifted or any other audiophile
mumbo jumbo. The improvements will be there but they will be very
slight, at best.
The improvement will be described by any
jh901 wrote:
The improvement will be described by any skilled listener as anything
but slight. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, but there is no
more discovery ahead for you. Sadly.
Would that be one of those skilled listeners with bushy hair, a bright
red nose and big floppy shoes
ralphpnj wrote:
Would that be one of those skilled listeners with bushy hair, a bright
red nose and big floppy shoes aka a professional audio reviewer? You
know that kind of listener who hears night and differences between power
cords and USB cables. I repeat: slight, at best.
Well, your
Archimago wrote:
True, impossible to overcome limitations on the original recording.
Also, I have come across a Hoffman remaster that was strangely
overcompressed - can't remember which is it now, but I remember being a
bit surprised about it since it was atypical of Hoffman's work. I'll
jh901 wrote:
Well, your view is based on no experience, but rather a bizarre wish,
whereas mine is grounded in both personal observation AND views of
professionals AND views of informed consumers. I don't know why you
cannot grasp the fact that both the power supply and the analog output
jh901 wrote:
The improvement will be described by any skilled listener as anything
but slight. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, but there is no
more discovery ahead for you. Sadly.
This is getting out of hand. Let me try and draw an analogy.
The way that different people
cliveb wrote:
This is getting out of hand. Let me try and draw an analogy.
The way that different people subjectively react to sound
characteristics is like the way that men react to women. In an objective
sense there is little to choose between, say, Scarlett Johansson and
Natalie
I was criticised on this very forum for writing about differences I
heard in power supplies for my SB3. It's actually quite frustrating when
people give technical arguments for why your own experience is wrong,
so I have sympathy for jh901.
Subsequently, I had several experiences with sighted
PS: One point to understand is there is really no such thing has wrong
when it comes to what someone hears. If X sounds better than Y to you,
then it really does.
The question is, why? Is it to do purely with physical phenomena or is
there a psychological component? There is no way--none at
jh901 wrote:
The improvement will be described by any skilled listener as anything
but slight. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, but there is no
more discovery ahead for you. Sadly.
Any skilled listener should spend some time in a modern recording
studio, learning about both the
darrenyeats wrote:
I was criticised on this very forum for writing about differences I
heard in power supplies for my SB3. It's actually quite frustrating when
people give technical arguments for why your own experience is wrong
(when actually no experience is wrong--see next post) so I have
jh901 wrote:
Well, your view is based on no experience, but rather a bizarre wish,
whereas mine is grounded in both personal observation AND views of
professionals AND views of informed consumers. I don't know why you
cannot grasp the fact that both the power supply and the analog output
Wombat wrote:
What Steve Hoffman does with his re-re-releases of old tapes is
completely different. He makes money with serving the crowd of
audiophools buying the same recording over and over again even if the
best sounding version still sounds like shit against recordings that
were done
1 - 100 of 287 matches
Mail list logo
