Julf wrote:
> I agree. A fact-based discussion is good, and it does seem like your
> numbers provide pretty strong evidence that the CPU load is greater when
> decoding a compressed file format compared to the extra I/O load caused
> by the uncompressed data.
>
> Any possible audible effects
Wombat wrote:
> All of this is has a lower chance to alter the sound as some minimum
> phase upsampling.
Good point.
"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"
sckramer wrote:
> I prefer feeding the client PCM (WAV) only, for all file types, even for
> mp3, then the CPU is practically idle, it just has to read it out to the
> PCM->i2s chip
It might minimize userspace CPU load, but it increases I/O load due to
having to transfer and load double the
netchord wrote:
> i did a little comparison on one track, and felt there was a small, but
> subtle difference...
Sounds like it was a sighted comparison - you knew which file was which,
right?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
Hi,
back here just to inform you that modified squeezelite that allow
playback of serverside upsampled WAV/AIFF files is out, availlable on
GitHub (https://github.com/marcoc1712/squeezelite) also as binary for
Windows, LInux 32 and 64 bit. Same version is in the latest versions of
Daphile, that
Julf wrote:
> Is that user-mode CPU, or does it also include time spent in the kernel
> and device drivers?
I've already reported, but latest form my system are:
1. Squeezelite went from 4% to 1-2%. Total charge from 11% to 6% on the
client.
2.Total charge on server went form 20% to 11%,
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Those are not 'small' task at all, so cpu load is decresed by almost 70%
> in the server and by 50% on the client.
Is that user-mode CPU, or does it also include time spent in the kernel
and device drivers?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
marcoc1712 wrote:
> That's not comparable, have you tried?
Yes, and I think I reported my results earlier.
"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
Would someone please be kind enough to explain to me is a clear and
concise matter how the server CPU load can possibly have any effect on
the sound quality of any Squeezebox player, considering that the player
is playing back the file from a buffer?
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power
Julf wrote:
> It might minimize userspace CPU load, but it increases I/O load due to
> having to transfer and load double the amount of data. For mp3, doing
> the decoding on the server might actually make sense, as you can use
> better software.
That's not comparable, have you tried? at 44.1
marcoc1712 wrote:
> I Already know you are going to say this is a too naife way to take
> measures, but You could measure only the encodind and decoding in flac
> of an Hirez flac file and get an Idea of what are you saving here.
Well, you knew I was going to say it, but I will still say it
Julf wrote:
> Sounds like it was a sighted comparison - you knew which file was which,
> right?
yes, but see my earlier posts where i stated AIF sounded superior to
APL, so if anything the result is contrary to my previously stated bias.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
ralphpnj wrote:
> Would someone please be kind enough to explain to me is a clear and
> concise matter how the server CPU load can possibly have any effect on
> the sound quality of any Squeezebox player, considering that the player
> is playing back the file from a buffer?
I think marcoc1712
Julf wrote:
> I think marcoc1712 (very wisely) specifically avoided discussing sound
> quality.
While that is very wise of marcoc1712, this does not answer my question.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas
netchord wrote:
> yes, but see my earlier posts where i stated AIF sounded superior to
> APL, so if anything the result is contrary to my previously stated bias.
It is not contrary to a (potential) bias towards the existence of a
difference. What you are saying is basically "I saw a black
ralphpnj wrote:
> Would someone please be kind enough to explain to me is a clear and
> concise matter how the server CPU load can possibly have any effect on
> the sound quality of any Squeezebox player, considering that the player
> is playing back the file from a buffer?
Short One: None.
ralphpnj wrote:
> While that is very wise of marcoc1712, this does not answer my question.
1. I've never sayd CPU load on the server could affect sound quality...
As I never said almost anything you and other are mocking here. So, I
did not ever had to answer to your question, that was OT. But
marcoc1712 wrote:
> I've just reported both...
Indeed. And the total cpu numbers might actually give a reasonable
picture. What tool did you use to get the numbers? Top?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery
Julf wrote:
> Indeed. And the total cpu numbers might actually give a reasonable
> picture. What tool did you use to get the numbers? Top?
Top in Linux (cpu tot = us +sy), Task manager in win.
SB+, Klimo Merlino + Kent Gold,
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Short One: None.
> Long One: None, if not in very, very, very poor or broken systems.
>
> Always IMHO.
Yeah ... I probably should not jump in here but I cannot resist :). It
is very difficult to agree with the connection between CPU load and any
sort of impact on audio
philippe_44 wrote:
> Yeah ... I probably should not jump in here but I cannot resist :). It
> is very difficult to agree with the connection between CPU load and any
> sort of impact on audio (through noise being aliased in audible band).
> Frankly, the correlation, if any, is extremely thin and
so today, i was listening to an album, and realized i kept hearing each
track repeat. i checked, and i do do indeed have two copies of the
album, one in AIF, and the other FLAC. so i did a little comparison on
one track, and felt there was a small, but subtle difference...very
subtle, but
netchord wrote:
> so today, i was listening to an album, and realized i kept hearing each
> track repeat. i checked, and i do do indeed have two copies of the
> album, one in AIF, and the other FLAC. so i did a little comparison on
> one track, and felt there was a small, but subtle
WAV --> SHA1 HASH
= 752A5A9A72964084E946E8F84983436939C7A1FF
WAV --> FLAC SHA1 HASH
= 0E282C46EF13A28D4F339DBA27D07BCE7DA527AC
FLAC --> WAV SHA1 HASH
= 752A5A9A72964084E946E8F84983436939C7A1FF
you have the same file, you could convert this millions of times back &
forth & it'll be the same,
IMHO I think the 1s sound better than the 0s no matter what codec is
used.
*Vortexbox LMS 7.8 music on QNAP TS419p via NFS* iThingys/iPeng/Tablets
*Living Room* - SB3 -> Onkyo TS606 - > Celestion Ditton F20s - Zone 2 ->
Sony TA FE 320 -> Sennheiser RS 130 & B P7
*Office* - RPi -> Sony TA FE320
d6jg wrote:
> IMHO I think the 1s sound better than the 0s no matter what codec is
> used.
That's not surprising since the 0s sound like nothing. But as the zen
master asked "what is the sound of 1 hand clapping?"
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home
d6jg wrote:
> IMHO I think the 1s sound better than the 0s no matter what codec is
> used.
hi d6jg,
No way!
I have on good authority that it is the sticky bits (not the unix
kind, audiophiles don't know about them) that cause the degradation in
music quality. :D
The fact is - some bits
netchord wrote:
> I don't suffer from yours.
No reason why not.
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=104227
poing wrote:
> I wouldn't say a subjectivist point of view is necessarily
> unscientific.
>
May well speak to personal bias. You may not want subjectivism to be
known as antiscientific even though as commonly practiced, it is.
For that to be true, you'd have to define subjectivism as being
poing wrote:
> I wouldn't say a subjectivist point of view is necessarily unscientific.
We might be getting into semantics, but I would definitely not call them
scientific.
> I understand that some of the posters in this thread are engineering
> guys. It kind of makes sense that you take a
I wouldn't say a subjectivist point of view is necessarily
unscientific.
I understand that some of the posters in this thread are engineering
guys. It kind of makes sense that you take a more objectivist position.
In the natural sciences, you sometimes can have relatively tightly
controlled
Julf wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Indeed. But then we have to look at what we really are testing for.
i'm not testing. i'm listening, and enjoying the music.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Primare 30.3
netchord wrote:
> i'm not testing. i'm listening, and enjoying the music.
We weren't talking about you.
"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
netchord wrote:
> you misstate what I, and likely most other subjectivists believe: "If I
> hear it, I hear it." i can then decide whether to spend the time/money
> to address what i've heard. in the specific instance mentioned here,
> there's no time difference, and the money (in storage) is
netchord wrote:
> you misstate what I, and likely most other subjectivists believe: "If I
> hear it, I hear it." i can then decide whether to spend the time/money
> to address what i've heard. in the specific instance mentioned here,
> there's no time difference, and the money (in storage) is
Julf wrote:
> Good point. It also leads me to ask if the subjectivist view of "if I
> hear it, it must be The Truth" is either the ultimate in solipsism, or
> just extremely arrogant.
you misstate what I, and likely most other subjectivists believe: "If I
hear it, I hear it." i can then
Mnyb wrote:
> He he is it not another trend by the golden eared to not have sufficient
> buffers and try make the PC behave as much as possible as a bad old CD
> player and stream continiusly with very small buffers ?
Interesting observation Mnyb. I really wonder who started this idea
about
.moving right along! In any case, I love my lossless collection
which has close to 1000 hires albums (yes, a fortune). And played
through standard STP and UTP cabling here to my streamer and DAC. But
mainly - I enjoy my music. End.
Marantz NA-11S1 PCM/DSD streamer with Squeezebox Touch
netchord wrote:
> do you enjoy the music more, constantly checking your audio privilege?
I suspect those who live in the wonderful make-believe world of unicorns
and fairies enjoy their music more than I do, but then again, there is
more to life than just audio...
"To try to judge the real
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Sure, doing what you are doing here, as an example.
Good point. It also leads me to ask if the subjectivists view of "if I
hear it, it must be The Truth" is either the ultimate in solipsism, or
just extremely arrogant.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always
Julf wrote:
> I suspect those who live in the wonderful make-believe world of unicorns
> and fairies enjoy their music more than I do, but then again, there is
> more to life than just audio...
Dunno, I would say that a near pathological focus on finding the
imaginary flaws that need imaginary
Julf wrote:
> I suspect those who live in the wonderful make-believe world of unicorns
> and fairies enjoy their music more than I do, but then again, there is
> more to life than just audio...
but not more than music.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld
Julf wrote:
> I suspect those who live in the wonderful make-believe world of unicorns
> and fairies enjoy their music more than I do, but then again, there is
> more to life than just audio...
Sure, doing what you are doing here, as an example.
Julf wrote:
> Good point. It also leads me to ask if the subjectivist view of "if I
> hear it, it must be The Truth" is either the ultimate in solipsism, or
> just extremely arrogant.
Don't know, not interested about, never said this and sure is not my
mind.
Sure if I heard it it's real for me
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Sure if I heard it it's real for me using my system
I guess that then comes down to your definition of "real". It still
assumes your senses are infallible.
You are the only one using absolute terms here, pretending to know "The
Thruth".
That is actually pretty much
philippe_44 wrote:
> large part of my academic background is in correction codes theory ...
But that only means you think you understand the theory. Science can't
explain everything, the theory is only a theory anyway, you can't
measure art, and music behaves differently from data. :)
"To
arnyk wrote:
> A theory that is easy to prove with sighted evaluations. Good luck
> finding audible evidence of it by proper scientific means.
>
> Back in the days of 286s, CPUs may have actually been that limited in
> terms of CPU power.
>
> In reality, there are many interruptions to the
ralphpnj wrote:
>
>
> The reason why tagged files sound worse than untagged files is because
> of the added load on the CPU that tagging presents. With an untagged wav
> or aiff file the musical data flows uninterrupted, whereas with a tagged
> wav or aiff file the CPU must interrupt the flow
ralphpnj wrote:
> My guess would be Apple TV. That said it is rather sad that the whole
> LMS ecosystem is being basically ignored by high end manufacturers. On
> the plus side I did read in the latest Stereophile that the Antipodes DX
> Reference music server
>
netchord wrote:
> i'm indifferent, although i'd be marginally happier if it weren't the
> case, since my library would take up ~1/2 the space.
Hey man, today's your lucky day then!
Go compress some to FLAC and enjoy the same sound at 1/2 the space! No
need to upgrade storage capacity for
ralphpnj wrote:
> In case you haven't being keeping up with the things in world of high
> end audio it now seems that for some reason (my guess is lack of
> advertising dollars) the Transporter is no longer a piece of high end
> audio equipment. In addition it also now seems that the only two
>
Archimago wrote:
> Sadly Ralph, I think DLNA is all we're gonna get in the forseeable
> future.
>
> Anyone know if there's actual development on anything else that could
> supplant this "universal" standard at some point?
My guess would be Apple TV. That said it is rather sad that the whole
philippe_44 wrote:
> Just for curiosity, for you, if I stream a file from Paris to New York,
> once in flac and once in wav and if that file is processed by LMS in New
> York before being sent in PCM (both cases) to a transporter on the New
> York kcal home network, will it sound different
i've
netchord wrote:
> transporter doesn't support USB.
In case you haven't being keeping up with the things in world of high
end audio it now seems that for some reason (my guess is lack of
advertising dollars) the Transporter is no longer a piece of high end
audio equipment. In addition it also
ralphpnj wrote:
> Then rip and tag to Apple Lossless
on my system, AIF sounds better.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Primare 30.3
Primare-->Ocos--Vienna Acoustics Beethoven/Maestro
netchord wrote:
> ripping/tagging FLAC on a Mac is challenging.
Then rip and tag to Apple Lossless
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon
netchord wrote:
> on my system, AIF sounds better.
Did you listen with your ears or your eyes?
"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
Archimago wrote:
> Hey man, today's your lucky day then!
>
> Go compress some to FLAC and enjoy the same sound at 1/2 the space! No
> need to upgrade storage capacity for awhile, faster and easier to
> backup, and excellent tagging features of course...
>
> Everything to gain, nothing to lose.
Julf wrote:
> If it makes you happy...
i'm indifferent, although i'd be marginally happier if it weren't the
case, since my library would take up ~1/2 the space.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red
Julf wrote:
> I guess not - another difference is that I acknowledge and account for
> mine.
do you enjoy the music more, constantly checking your audio privilege?
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red
Julf wrote:
> Unfortunately we all suffer from cognitive bias.
i don't suffer from yours.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Primare 30.3
Primare-->Ocos--Vienna Acoustics Beethoven/Maestro
Audiotic wrote:
> :-)
>
> I don't believe in differences between the lossless file formats. So
> we're on the same page. I just wasn't sure on your post either - hey, us
> "foreigners" might not always get the subtleties the english language
> allows... :-)
No problem! It's hard to convey the
netchord wrote:
> i don't suffer from yours.
I guess not - another difference is that I acknowledge and account for
mine.
"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
netchord wrote:
> on my system, AIF sounds better.
Better than wav?
I must confess that tagged wav or aiff files sound much worse than
tagged flac or Apple lossless files. There is what sounds to me like a
typewriter in the background. Please note that it is very faint and only
someone with
And how could tagging influence the sound?? The tags are not in the
audiostream.
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 &
Julf wrote:
> Did you listen with your ears or your eyes?
i don't have synesthesia.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Primare 30.3
Primare-->Ocos--Vienna Acoustics Beethoven/Maestro
netchord wrote:
> i don't have synesthesia.
Unfortunately we all suffer from cognitive bias.
"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
Audiotic wrote:
> And how could tagging influence the sound?? The tags are not in the
> audiostream.
I don't know how to properly answer your question since I don't know
just much of all the other audiophile nonsense out there that you
believe, in other words, are you one of those kool-aid
ralphpnj wrote:
> I don't know how to properly answer your question since I don't know
> just much of all the other audiophile nonsense out there that you
> believe, in other words, are you one of those kool-aid drinking
> audiophiles or are you somewhat more reasonable.
>
> I meant my prior
netchord wrote:
> yes, it does.
If it makes you happy...
"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
philippe_44 wrote:
> Just for curiosity, for you, if I stream a file from Paris to New York,
> once in flac and once in wav and if that file is processed by LMS in New
> York before being sent in PCM (both cases) to a transporter on the New
> York kcal home network, will it sound different
I
netchord wrote:
> yes, it does.
Just for curiosity, for you, if I stream a file from Paris to New York,
once in flac and once in wav and if that file is processed by LMS in New
York before being sent in PCM (both cases) to a transporter on the New
York kcal home network, will it sound different
philippe_44 wrote:
> Just for curiosity, for you, if I stream a file from Paris to New York,
> once in flac and once in wav and if that file is processed by LMS in New
> York before being sent in PCM (both cases) to a transporter on the New
> York kcal home network, will it sound different
Some might have misunderstood my question :) I'm not seeking for a
response to the technical question (large part of my academic background
is in correction codes theory ...), but I'm trying to gauge the "belief
mindset" of who said that wav and flac are different and that aiff and
apple lossless
netchord wrote:
> yes, it does.
Blasphemer! Heretic! You speak the language of the devil!
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy
arnyk wrote:
> Brought to us by the magic of sighted evaluations.
They must be magic since they conclusively prove that a $2000 USB cable
sounds better than a $200 USB cable, which in turn sounds better than a
$10 USB cable. Has to be magic!
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power
ralphpnj wrote:
>
> this thread could just as well be titled "does aiff sound different than
> Apple lossless"
yes, it does.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Primare 30.3
Primare-->Ocos--Vienna
No it doesn't. Maybe unless you use a 1997 PC as source.
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
netchord wrote:
> yes, it does.
Brought to us by the magic of sighted evaluations.
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread:
Peter Galbavy wrote:
> So, if I fill two bottles, one clear and the other green glass, from the
> same tap - which one tastes better?
'Penn and Teller Water Bottle Survey'
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFKT4jvN4OE)
But which type of water hose improves the taste the most?
"To try to
So, if I fill two bottles, one clear and the other green glass, from the
same tap - which one tastes better?
Peter Galbavy's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32718
View this thread:
arnyk wrote:
> It seems a shame that some seem capable of only personal attacks, logic
> and reason have long escaped them in a storm of denial...
Indeed. Unfortunately it seems that those who have been repeatedly been
shown to be wrong only have two ways to respond - either man up and
admit
ralphpnj wrote:
> And what other forums would that be?
The only ones I can think of right now are one for-profit computer
audiophile site, and a certain Irish audiophile site. In both cases, the
reason for being banned seems to be questioning the claims of one
specific user. I leave it to the
SBGK wrote:
> It seems a shame Julf only posts here now, his character having been
> defiled at other forums. Help save the Julf.
And what other forums would that be?
My guess is that are several of the audio forums which rely on sponsor
support. Say something negative about over priced cables
SBGK wrote:
> It seems a shame Julf only posts here now, his character having been
> defiled at other forums. Help save the Julf.
It seems a shame that some seem capable of only personal attacks, logic
and reason have long escaped them in a storm of denial...
arnyk wrote:
> It appears that you made a personal attack in this post:
>
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104227-Once-again-does-wav-sound-different-than-flac=829644=1#post829644
>
> "Again, Who decide when evidence are enougth do become "accepted fact"?
> Oh, yes...Always You."
Julf wrote:
> ...Please, next time, when people are asking you to open a new thread,
> could you please do it yourself so others don't have to do it on your
> behalf?
No, sure I'm not going to do anything only becouse someone else want me
to do it, are you?
If and when I open a thread is
marcoc1712 wrote:
>
>
> Here the matter is not anymore if flac sound better than wav, It's my
> opinion and you are free to say whatever you want in order to
> demonstrate it's untrue, but the limit - in a polite discussion - is
> before personal attack: hit the sin, not the sinner... Sure
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
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
