Date of start shooting first movie Banquet, Feng Shao Feng enter the
big screen so far has been more than two years. He cooperation with the
first director Tsui Hark, Ann Hui, Daniel Lee, Li, and many other
Chinese show business. The joining Oscar director Jean-Jacques Arnold
directed screen
LOS ANGELES After long preparations for the past four years, the
Sino-French co-production Wolf Totem attracted the attention of
international film crew experienced keep the wolf, long animal actors
training wolf training, published for the first time starred in the
film starring male candidates
Julf wrote:
Not true! There are all those sharp square bit-shaped steps in the
signal. And anyway, you can't get the timing more precise than a sample
interval!
(yes, purely joking - aren't those the top 2 misconceptions about
digital?)
Indeed :) As I've already posted, anyone that
Julf wrote:
Not true! There are all those sharp square bit-shaped steps in the
signal. And anyway, you can't get the timing more precise than a sample
interval!
(yes, purely joking - aren't those the top 2 misconceptions about
digital?)
That's so PCM! Don't you know that the asynchronous
ralphpnj wrote:
That's so PCM! Don't you know that the asynchronous USB + $500 USB cable
+ DSD combo solves all these problems, why just look at a recent issue
of any high end audio magazine :)
Or if it doesn't solve the issue, at least it covers up the sharp
corners with HF hash and
Julf wrote:
Or if it doesn't solve the issue, at least it covers up the sharp
corners with HF hash and intermodulation that makes the sound analog,
natural and tube-y :)
Man, you are such a bring down!
ralphpnj's
netchord wrote:
this is precisely my point. i do want good sound, and could give a fig
whether it's accurate in the engineering sense or not. I've spent
over 10 years performing real live classical music in major concert
halls in the UK, France, Italy, Germany, and the US. i know what
netchord wrote:
this is precisely my point. i do want good sound, and could give a fig
whether it's accurate in the engineering sense or not. I've spent
over 10 years performing real live classical music in major concert
halls in the UK, France, Italy, Germany, and the US. i know what
Archimago wrote:
... and some engineer (don't remember which, but he's with some
audiophile company) dude says he'll measure the AudioQuest Diamond USB -
bring it on! I'll be impressed if I ever see some numbers/graphs! :-)
Isn't that Steve Nugent, of Empirical Audio? I've had a run-in with
cliveb wrote:
Isn't that Steve Nugent, of Empirical Audio? I've had a run-in with him
in the past. His main claim to fame seems to be that he was part of the
team that designed the Intel Pentium CPU.
It seems that he has concluded that his knowledge of how ultra-high
speed signals work
probedb wrote:
Ahh, the old I have 40 billion years of experience so you must listen
to me argument.
Yes, I believe netchord has used essentially every typical audiophile
response (as is his right since this is a public forum). He's used:
1. I'm experienced in therefore I have knowledge
garym wrote:
Yes, I believe netchord has used essentially every typical audiophile
response (as is his right since this is a public forum). He's used:
1. I'm experienced in therefore I have knowledge you may not have.
2. I've listened to your equipment before and personally find it
netchord wrote:
to which i'd retort, if i cared, that perhaps you should listen with
more imagination. the act of listening to music, whether live or
recorded, is not something one does with only one sense engaged.
Oh yeah. Thanks. I forgot that one.
netchord wrote:
the act of listening to music, whether live or recorded, is not
something one does with only one sense engaged.
Indeed. That is precisely why one hears things that aren't necessarily
caused by the actual pressure waves travelling through the air.
netchord wrote:
stated that it would not surprise me if someone else can hear the
difference between compressed and non-compressed files, since i've had
the same experience. you, and others here, have said it's not possible,
and i'm imagining what i hear.
No, many have pointed out how it
garym wrote:
No, many have pointed out how it *is* possible that there could be a
difference (and I agree). Things such as electrical noise/interference
caused by the equipment doing the transmission of the bits, etc. But in
my science training, we were taught to always look for (and control
Archimago wrote:
2. If we strive for the IDEAL - then good equipment that is bit-perfect
*should* sound inaudible even with this small amount of processing to
convert ALAC -- WAV or FLAC -- WAV or whatever given the same
DAC/analogue output system! Like I said before, hearing a difference
Chrobrego wrote:
Not to deviate from the original debate but just to mention the
complexity of the HiFi sound capture and reproduction, I would avoid the
expression bit-perfect but rather call it bit-unperfect. Bit is
digital - not real - world and already translates irremediable sound
netchord wrote:
you've completely (obtusely?) missed my point. none of my experience
invalidates your own, and the the reverse should be true as well.
There is an important point of misunderstanding here. Of course no one's
experience invalidates (or validates, for that matter) anyone else's.
Chrobrego wrote:
Not to deviate from the original debate but just to mention the
complexity of the HiFi sound capture and reproduction, I would avoid the
expression bit-perfect but rather call it bit-unperfect. Bit is
digital - not real - world and already translates irremediable sound
Chrobrego wrote:
Not to deviate from the original debate but just to mention the
complexity of the HiFi sound capture and reproduction, I would avoid the
expression bit-perfect but rather call it bit-unperfect. Bit is
digital - not real - world and already translates irremediable sound
darrell wrote:
This is simply not true. search this forum (or the internet in general)
for Sampling Theorem. It can be heavy going for the non-mathematician,
but the short version is that digital audio can perfectly reconstruct an
analogue sound wave.
Not true! There are all those sharp
Julf wrote:
Not true! There are all those sharp square bit-shaped steps in the
signal. And anyway, you can't get the timing more precise than a sample
interval!
(yes, purely joking - aren't those the top 2 misconceptions about
digital?)
At the risk of going off topic... Evidently stair
ralphpnj wrote:
You gentlemen have made my day. It's good to know that I'm not alone in
my search for truth in audio.
Too bad we mostly hang out in the audiophile section of a forum for a
discontinued music playing system :)
Julf wrote:
Too bad we mostly hang out in the audiophile section of a forum for a
discontinued music playing system :)
LOL - good one man :-)
Boys, I'm going try doing my part going more mainstream; a couple
posts in the last 24-hours:
Steve Hoffman hardware forum:
Archimago wrote:
LOL - good one man :-)
Boys, I'm going try doing my part going more mainstream; a couple
posts in the last 24-hours:
Steve Hoffman hardware forum:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/some-real-world-cable-tests-measurements.317312/
Audio Asylum - where the crazies
then by your definition, i am not an audiophile, since i only believe
things that i can hear (or see, feel, smell, etc.)
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread:
netchord wrote:
then by your definition, i am not an audiophile, since i only believe
things that i can hear (or see, feel, smell, etc.)
not quite, if you believe things you can hear (see, smell, etc.)
*without* proper testing procedures to exclude potential
biases/confounding variables then
garym wrote:
not quite, if you believe things you can hear (see, smell, etc.)
*without* proper testing procedures to exclude potential
biases/confounding variables then you're still an audiophile.
no, i'm a music lover. used the wine analogy earlier, but if two
different cabs taste
netchord wrote:
no, i'm a music lover. used the wine analogy earlier, but if two
different cabs taste differently, and have different noses, are you
suggesting i shouldn't believe what my senses tell me, without
subjecting the wine tasting to rigorous chemical analysis?
or, should i
netchord wrote:
no, i'm a music lover. used the wine analogy earlier, but if two
different cabs taste differently, and have different noses, are you
suggesting i shouldn't believe what my senses tell me, without
subjecting the wine tasting to rigorous chemical analysis?
or, should i
Archimago wrote:
LOL - good one man :-)
Audio Asylum - where the crazies live (along side the AudioStream
reviewer of USB cables and manufacturers); fascinating one-liners:
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudiom=123111
Oh dear! Amongst the crude insults, there is this gem:
darrell wrote:
To be clear, let's remember we're talking about the perception of
differences between FLAC and AIFF, not differences in general. These are
lossless formats, which means that the bits arriving at your DAC
(unless, as I said, something in your replay chain is broken) are the
garym wrote:
I'm hope you're wearing your flame-proof clothing. They'll attack you
like you're a crazy person at Audio Asylum. I like the Hoffman forum
*only* for reading about different albums being released, etc. (but not
for their knowledge--or lack thereof--regarding digital music.
No
darrell wrote:
Oh dear! Amongst the crude insults, there is this gem:
-Ideal cable geometry for audio use differs from driving monitors.
Expand your horizons.-
Remember, this is referring to a mains power cable! Somehow, I don't
think it is worth asking for this statement to be
Chrobrego wrote:
I don't buy the bit-perfect statement as a scientific fact. What about
the timing in this reasoning? Should we also state that a cd should
always sound the same in whatever hardware it is read only because it
contains the same bits in both situations?
The reality is
Archimago wrote:
I don't think anyone disagrees with this Chrobrego; what you say is
logical and plausible. Firstly, of course the same CD doesn't sound the
same in all hardware - but that has to do with different analogue output
qualities more than the underlying digital section mostly - a
Chrobrego wrote:
I don't buy the bit-perfect statement as a scientific fact. What about
the timing in this reasoning? Should we also state that a cd should
always sound the same in whatever hardware it is read only because it
contains the same bits in both situations?
The reality is
netchord wrote:
you're sure of this, that no tests exist? i know some very talented
audio engineers, not wild-eyed audiophiles, who come from decidedly
different disciplines, working with simple tube circuits, or exotic
highpowered DSP based systems, who would not agree with you.
Please ask
netchord wrote:
1. you're sure of this, that no tests exist? i know some very talented
audio engineers, not wild-eyed audiophiles, who come from decidedly
different disciplines, working with simple tube circuits, or exotic
highpowered DSP based systems, who would not agree with you.
2.
Archimago wrote:
1. Happy to look at any references like Darrell mentioned. Remember,
undocumented opinions don't really go far in these discussions so I tend
to shy away from them in these debates.
2. I'm interested in accuracy, not good sound since that implies a
judgment of experience
netchord wrote:
this is precisely my point. i do want good sound, and could give a fig
whether it's accurate in the engineering sense or not. I've spent
over 10 years performing real live classical music in major concert
halls in the UK, France, Italy, Germany, and the US. i know what
EricBergan wrote:
You know, I just saw there were not one but two (serious journal) recent
papers suggesting the speed of light might not be a hard constant, so
there you go...
Good point but not really applicable since sound travels at the speed of
sound (DUH!) and not at the speed of
ralphpnj wrote:
Good point but not really applicable since sound travels at the speed of
sound (DUH!) and not at the speed of light.
I am assuming that the comment from EricBergan was humorous.
Julf's Profile:
Julf wrote:
I am assuming that the comment from EricBergan was humorous.
Oops! Sorry. I think I need some kind of guide which indicates which
forum members are Kool-Aid drinking die-hard audiophiles who love all of
HP's Super-Discs and which members listen to real music.
ralphpnj wrote:
Oops! Sorry. I think I need some kind of guide which indicates which
forum members are Kool-Aid drinking die-hard audiophiles who love all of
HP's Super-Discs and which members listen to real music.
But see, now we can not only have time clock variation jitter on
TOSLINK, we
EricBergan wrote:
But see, now we can not only have time clock variation jitter on
TOSLINK, we can also have varying speed of light effecting the audio
quality!
:-)
Ah! But if, wait, not if but WHEN the audio quality is being adversely
affected by the varying speed of light we need a name
ralphpnj wrote:
my suggestion is the Einstein effect
'XKCD: Einstein' (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/einstein.png)
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread:
Julf wrote:
'XKCD: Einstein' (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/einstein.png)
Does one to be a real audiophile to understand the comic?
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this
ralphpnj wrote:
Does one to be a real audiophile to understand the comic?
I don't think a real audiophile would get it at all. It is making fun
(among other things) of the argument by appeal to authority by
pointing out that taking every statement Einstein ever made as literal
declarations of
Julf wrote:
I don't think a real audiophile would get it at all. It is making fun
(among other things) of the argument by appeal to authority by
pointing out that taking every statement Einstein ever made as literal
declarations of truth is very silly indeed.
This is a very important point,
darrell wrote:
These values, demanding proof for claims made, respect for evidence,
thinking for oneself, etc, should be much more widely taught. Then the
world, never mind the consumer audio industry, might be a better place.
So true. Proof and evidence instead of simply opinion.
darrell wrote:
These values, demanding proof for claims made, respect for evidence,
thinking for oneself, etc, should be much more widely taught. Then the
world, never mind the consumer audio industry, might be a better place.
garym wrote:
So true. Proof and evidence instead of simply
ralphpnj wrote:
I beg to differ - often it is not opinion which is being stated but
simply pure misinformation. Misinformation is very useful to those who
are trying to get someone else to buy something that they really don't
need. For example a $500 USB cable. Misinformation is also useful
garym wrote:
I don't disagree. But even ignoring the intentional spread of FUD and
misinformation (for money), I'd even settle for more reliance on facts,
evidence, and rigor by folks that don't have money on the table. The
false equivalence of two sides to a question that the media seems
Science which doesn't follow the evidence, wherever it leads, without
fear or favour, is not science in my opinion. The uses to which it is
put, of course, is an entirely different question.
garym - I completely agree, it drives me crazy, and more often than
sometimes! It astounds me that
Julf wrote:
I don't think a real audiophile would get it at all.
what is your definition of an audiophile?
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread:
netchord wrote:
what is your definition of an audiophile?
Perhaps, people, like the White Queen in -Through the Looking Glass-,
who can believe 6 impossible things before breakfast, and who encourage
the same in others?
Alice laughed: There's no use trying, she said; one can't believe
darrell wrote:
Perhaps, people, after the White Queen in -Through the Looking Glass-,
who can believe 6 impossible things before breakfast, and who encourage
the same in others?
I think you've nailed the definition. Never thought of this, but it fits
perfectly.
garym wrote:
And by the way, the word audiophile only has negative connotation for
me.
Me, too. The democratisation of audio, via computers, the internet,
and particularly the open source movement, is what did it for me. The
days of high priests with a monopoly on the knowledge and technology
darrell wrote:
Perhaps, people, after the White Queen in -Through the Looking Glass-,
who can believe 6 impossible things before breakfast, and who encourage
the same in others?
garym wrote:
I think you've nailed the definition. Never thought of this, but it fits
perfectly.
edit: And
darrell wrote:
1. Psychological factors
2. There is something broken in your replay chain
3. You are not comparing like with like (different masters, for example)
these are only the most likely causes if you believe, as you seem to,
that there can be no differences unless something is
netchord wrote:
these are only the most likely causes if you believe, as you seem to,
that there can be no differences unless something is broken.
It's not belief it is a FACT. But then it is becoming quite
acceptable, at least in the US, to completely disregard facts and
science, especially
netchord wrote:
these are only the most likely causes if you believe, as you seem to,
that there can be no differences unless something is broken.
To be clear, let's remember we're talking about the perception of
differences between FLAC and AIFF, not differences in general. These are
Archimago wrote:
I would still argue (ultra-kamikaze-like) that if one could tell a
difference between FLAC vs. WAV vs. AIFF vs. APE vs. WV vs. ALAC, then
there's *something wrong with their hardware*! To actually hear a
difference (not just bias of some sort) should not be like some badge
Jeff52 wrote:
I can't tell any difference between FLAC, WAV or other lossless formats,
but I do notice a difference in all formats if the temperature in my
listening room deviates two degrees above or below 68 degrees F. or the
relative humidity levels are above or below 50%. The lower the
I suppose that humidity would likely have a greater effect than the type
of (lossless) compression. Light levels I'm not so sure about, although
if it got so dark that I couldn't find my armchair or remote control,
there would be consequences...
darrell wrote:
I suppose that humidity would likely have a greater effect than the type
of (lossless) compression. Light levels I'm not so sure about, although
if it got so dark that I couldn't find my armchair or remote control,
there would be consequences...
You need to develop your
darrell wrote:
At the risk of hammering the point home, we are discussing a scientific
subject, so we must apply the scientific method. Otherwise, there is
little to talk about.
Exactly!
garym's Profile:
Archimago wrote:
I would still argue (ultra-kamikaze-like) that if one could tell a
difference between FLAC vs. WAV vs. AIFF vs. APE vs. WV vs. ALAC, then
there's *something wrong with their hardware*! To actually hear a
difference (not just bias of some sort) should not be like some badge
netchord wrote:
well, SC is converting ALAC to FLAC using faad/sox, so i guess the
difference I'm hearing is actually between FLAC and AIFF, both of which
are converted natively by the TP.
and would it surprise you to learn i hear a difference between wired and
wireless to the TP, and
netchord wrote:
well, SC is converting ALAC to FLAC using faad/sox, so i guess the
difference I'm hearing is actually between FLAC and AIFF, both of which
are converted natively by the TP.
and would it surprise you to learn i hear a difference between wired and
wireless to the TP, and
netchord wrote:
well, SC is converting ALAC to FLAC using faad/sox, so i guess the
difference I'm hearing is actually between FLAC and AIFF, both of which
are converted natively by the TP.
and would it surprise you to learn i hear a difference between wired and
wireless to the TP, and
netchord wrote:
and would it surprise you to learn i hear a difference between wired and
wireless to the TP, and prefer the former? what ever bias might be
involved, i assure you it's an inconvenient one- running ethernet to my
system was a pain in the ass.
Very surprised. More evidence
Quad wrote:
Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?
No idea, as I haven't had a Coke in 25 years. And it is not very
relevant - as has been pointed out, they are chemically different.
But I can. Here I stand; I can do none other (double blind tested, I
promise). So what's
Julf wrote:
So, switching back to FLAC, as the Coke analogy doesn't work... We
aren't saying you can't. All we are saying is that it is rather unlikely
that what you are hearing is a real difference, and it is much more
likely that you are influenced by expectation bias or other perceptual
Archimago wrote:
I would still argue (ultra-kamikaze-like) that if one could tell a
difference between FLAC vs. WAV vs. AIFF vs. APE vs. WV vs. ALAC, then
there's *something wrong with their hardware*!
Sure - but first I would like to verify that one actually can tell the
difference. No
Julf wrote:
Sure - but first I would like to verify that one actually can tell the
difference. No point looking for the cause of a problem if the problem
doesn't exist.
True... Just pointing out the obvious conclusion of such claims as well
;-)
Archimago wrote:
...(ultra-kamikaze-like)...
Julf wrote:
Sure - but first I would like to verify that one actually can tell the
difference. No point looking for the cause of a problem if the problem
doesn't exist.
You are both quite right Archimago-san and Julf-san!
ralphpnj wrote:
You are both quite right Archimago-san and Julf-san!
Domo arigato!
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread:
Mnyb wrote:
Yeah experimental errors
Actually I missed the point where we learned that he used server side
decoding . Then everything is not just the same hen entering the DAC by
actually from the point where it leaves the computer ?
And it is a good example of perceptual bias to for
Julf wrote:
We have provided pointers to ABX software on the mac. It is easy for him
to show us the ABX logs if he wants to make his point. Until then, he
has his opinion, and while it is unrelated to any factual evidence, I
guess he still has a right to his opinion - and we have our right
I have a question for you guys: ralphpnj, Julf, Mnyb, Archimago, mlsstl
(order is not important)
Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?
Almost everyone claims to be able to identify them but the majority
can't. Many tests have proven this.
But I can. Here I stand; I can do
Quad wrote:
I have a question for you guys: ralphpnj, Julf, Mnyb, Archimago, mlsstl
(order is not important)
Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?
Almost everyone claims to be able to identify them but the majority
can't. Many tests have proven this.
But I can.
ralphpnj wrote:
I haven't had a Coke or Diet Coke in over 30 years so I don't care
because as far as I'm concerned they are both poison.
True, that's why I'm listening to classical music.
Quad's Profile:
Quad wrote:
I have a question for you guys: ralphpnj, Julf, Mnyb, Archimago, mlsstl
(order is not important)
Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?
Almost everyone claims to be able to identify them but the majority
can't. Many tests have proven this.
But I can.
garym wrote:
but a FLAC, ALAC, WAV, etc file are all decoded to the same bits as they
enter the DAC. A diet coke and regular coke are NOT bit perfect (my
chemistry colleagues can tell me how the makeup is NOT identical). We
may not typically be able to tell a difference, but if we can tell
Quad wrote:
I have a question for you guys: ralphpnj, Julf, Mnyb, Archimago, mlsstl
(order is not important)
Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?
Almost everyone claims to be able to identify them but the majority
can't. Many tests have proven this.
But I can.
Archimago wrote:
BTW, what did they do to the NAD to make it Rowen Swiss?
Basically they replaced the analogue output circuit with Mundorf gear.
Quad's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20234
View
Quad wrote:
The same who will tell you that it is not possible to discern different
modern DACs. Which - with all my respect - is complete BS.
I don't recall people indicating that it is impossible to tell the
difference between some DACs. DACs can certainly have a sound flavor.
But this is
Quad wrote:
I have a question for you guys: ralphpnj, Julf, Mnyb, Archimago, mlsstl
(order is not important)
Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?
Almost everyone claims to be able to identify them but the majority
can't. Many tests have proven this.
But I can.
garym wrote:
I don't recall people indicating that it is impossible to tell the
difference between some DACs. DACs can certainly have a sound flavor.
But this is because DACs have an analog stage. My Transporter DAC sounds
different from my Benchmark DAC I (and I've detected this in a double
darrenyeats wrote:
In the case of the DAC1 it could be DSP headroom if you are not doing
digital volume at the transport and you are listening to loudly mastered
stuff (see separate thread). The DAC2 has fixed this issue. Definitely a
real issue although perhaps not audible ... but my
Quad wrote:
Don't take the analogy too far. But yes, you're right, it's different.
Me for myself I am unable to hear a difference between FLAC and WAV. But
I can hear differences between HDMI and USB outputs with otherwise
identical variables. They are both bit perfect. I can't give you a
netchord wrote:
i listened to two file types, through the same system, with all other
variables constant.
But you knew which file type was which? In that case, there was no guard
against perceptual bias.
There seems tp be a decent 'ABX app for the mac'
netchord wrote:
i listened to two file types, through the same system, with all other
variables constant. one consistently sounded better. i have no bias
either way; in fact, given mine is an apple based system, it would be
simpler to use ALAC (less transcoding file types).
Yet you still
probedb wrote:
Yet you still offer no proof that you can actually tell the difference.
If you hear it that's all fine, it's in your head. But until you can
offer proof that the output of one format is better then that's where
the difference can happily stay.
i don't understand this demand
netchord wrote:
i don't understand this demand for proof. it's my system, my ears, my
music- all i said was i can hear a difference, and it would not surprise
me that others can as well (the dude referenced in the OP). your
position seems to be it can't be so. that's fine too.
and as
netchord wrote:
i don't understand this demand for proof.
Proof is what it takes to differentiate between an opinion and a fact.
Opinions are OK, just don't expect anyone to accept it as a fact without
proof.
Julf's
Julf wrote:
Proof is what it takes to differentiate between an opinion and a fact.
Opinions are OK, just don't expect anyone to accept it as a fact without
proof.
Except for American politics and the Great State of Texas - two truly
fact free zones.
And of course any and all high end
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
