Mnyb wrote:
Schuman resonce is popular in medical humbug to :) wonder if
dream-catchers will improve my sound ?
Only if they are expensive enough...
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
Here is an example of perverting real science and apply it and make a
fake appliance out of it it :)
http://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/rr77/rr77_01.html
A description of the real thing ,ok it's wiki but's seems legit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonances
Schuman resonce is
Mnyb wrote:
Why are those earthmoving and spectacular differences not showing up
elsewhere...
In the world of fantasy, it is a largely accepted fact that the power
of any given deity is proportional to the amount of belief in them or
the amount of worship they are currently receiving.
So which do you think would sound better ?
Macmini connected via USB to a Mdac or
Squeezebox Touch connected via Spdif
to Mdac using apple lossless or flac files
and the same speakers ?
jhonsber...@msn.com's Profile:
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
So which do you think would sound better ?
Macmini connected via USB to a Mdac or
Squeezebox Touch connected via Spdif
to Mdac using apple lossless or flac files
and the same speakers?
Did you ask this in the right tread ?
But mac-mini, a computer how do you
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
So which do you think would sound better ?
Macmini connected via USB to a Mdac or
Squeezebox Touch connected via Spdif
to Mdac using apple lossless or flac files
and the same speakers?
That would be completely dependent on the price of the USB cable :)
ralphpnj wrote:
That would be completely dependent on the price of the USB cable :)
Quite correct. How are we supposed to give advice on audio quality when
the price of one's USB cable isn't specified? :)
kidstypike's
ralphpnj wrote:
That would be completely dependent on the price of the USB cable :)
Linear dependent or logarithmically must be some logX to take into to
account the law of diminishing return , hence one would extrapolate our
relative sound-quality purely from the price .
Some kind of
Mnyb wrote:
snip 8 ... and you could have bigger avatar 8
...always wanted a bigger avatar, maybe I'll get one for Christmas? :)
kidstypike's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10436
View this
ralphpnj wrote:
many of them spend hours listening to Linda Ronstadt wanna be and
glorified back up Jennifer Warnes sing Leonard Cohen songs.
Ahem.
I quite like that Jennifer Warnes recording, Famous Blue Raincoat, even
down to the very 80s arrangements. I liked it on my crap stereo back
More entertainment ( for you ) I recycled a bunch of old audio cables
today , audio quest ( including one pair of caldera speaker cables ) van
den hul Goertz .
It would be best for all if these where forgotten .
So if you in a couple of years get blacker blacks when turning of the
light or wife
mlsstl wrote:
Your post is a good example of conflating two separate issues.
I think it's a really bad example of that, actually! Pick one of a
million other posts on t'internet as a good example.
One must distinguish between scientists and engineers. Scientists
conduct experiments to break
darrenyeats wrote:
I'm going to talk science now.
Excellent. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based
on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of
reasoning.
One must distinguish between scientists and engineers. Scientists
conduct experiments to
Hi Julf,
Julf wrote:
I think that is a rather simplistic (and somewhat offensive) view of
engineers (in the sense of a professional practitioner of engineering,
concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics and ingenuity
to develop solutions for technical, social and economic
Darren,
darrenyeats wrote:
I mean some people like to see things black and white and do this under
the banner of science.
Know what you mean - but I am afraid they are outnumbered by the
pseudoscientists. As we all know, quantum physics makes *anything*
possible...
That's different to
Darren,
darrenyeats wrote:
I mean some people like to see things black and white and do this under
the banner of science.
Know what you mean - but I am afraid they are outnumbered by the
pseudoscientists. As we all know, quantum physics makes *anything*
possible...
That's different to
This thread has turned out to be very entertaining and highly
enlightening.
One of the biggest and also one of most deserved knocks against
audiophiles, which surprisingly has not been mentioned as yet, is that
they all too often use their mega-buck amazing sounding audio systems to
play really
I think the facts are with the majority's side. My experience of blind
listening was educational and humbling! However, there is a bit of
glibness going on I feel because I wager none of us listened blind when
choosing our loudspeakers.
Now, the traditional excuse is that the differences between
RonM wrote:
Well, duh!
r.
+1 Duh!
darrenyeats wrote:
I think the facts are with the majority's side. My experience of blind
listening was educational and humbling! However, there is a bit of
glibness going on I feel because I wager none of us listened blind when
choosing our
darrenyeats wrote:
I think the facts are with the majority's side. My experience of blind
listening was educational and humbling! However, there is a bit of
glibness going on I feel because I wager none of us listened blind when
choosing our loudspeakers Be careful not to cut down the
mlsstl wrote:
Your post is a good example of conflating two separate issues.
1. No one ever needs to justify their personal preference when choosing
a stereo component for their own use (or for that matter, declaring they
like one vegetable more than another). Even if they sound the same
RonM wrote:
Well, what I am saying is that we have to be careful drawing conclusions
based only on subjective experience. Maybe those high priced bits
actually work, but I would be very reluctant to believe this without
properly controlled evidence.
Ron
What about the subjective -design
ralphpnj wrote:
By properly controlled evidence do you mean something like a well
constructed double blind listening test.
Or do you mean something like the review of the high priced bits by a
golden eared, professional reviewer published in a magazine funded by
advertising revenue
jh901 wrote:
We first must come to agreement on S/PDIF. If anyone is having trouble
with prior point, then let's hear it.
Pretty much everyone here accepts that S/PDIF has shortcomings. But you
seem to be trying to establish an axiom from which we must all start any
discussion that those
mlsstl wrote:
The primary problem in the high-end audio world is the consistency with
which devotees treat their personal perception as some sort of
scientific absolute. I just find it incredibly ironic that the
self-described subjectivists never seem to consider that what they hear
may be
cliveb wrote:
Pretty much everyone here accepts that S/PDIF has shortcomings. But you
seem to be trying to establish an axiom from which we must all start any
discussion that those shortcomings must necessarily degrade playback
sound quality. But there is no hard evidence that the
cliveb wrote:
Right. Why is it that golden eared audiophiles seem to feel that being
subject to expectation bias is some kind of character flaw? Don't they
realise that by insisting they are immune to these influences, they are
declaring themselves to be freaks?
I would add that limiting to
ralphpnj wrote:
No one is saying that a well set up high priced audio system does not
sound wonderful. What we are saying is that more often than not, a
system worth $200,000 can be equaled by a system costing a fraction of
that amount. Or better yet, almost any component, cable, wire or
RonM wrote:
Well, what I am saying is that we have to be careful drawing conclusions
based only on subjective experience. Maybe those high priced bits
actually work, but I would be very reluctant to believe this without
properly controlled evidence.
Ron
By properly controlled evidence
These are your favorite red herrings, Ralph. There is PLENTY of bs on
the fringes of ANY hobby. There can be no argument made for cables
costing the same as a small compact car. And so far, no one here is
suggesting that.
Back to S/PDIF. It has shortcomings. We can try to get into PLL if
jh901 wrote:
These are your favorite red herrings, Ralph. There is PLENTY of bs on
the fringes of ANY hobby. There can be no argument made for cables
costing the same as a small compact car. And so far, no one here is
suggesting that.
Back to S/PDIF. It has shortcomings. We can try
RonM wrote:
It's so interesting to me. . .
I'm a psychologist (as in capital P with a doctorate); I do know
something about research into perception, and about appropriate research
methodology in this field, fraught with subjective experience as it
is In this audio context, it is
I'm not interested in the nasty remarks and namecalling. Nor am I
interested in sarcasm and snickering, etc. Or broad brush bashing of
hi-end. We can all participate in an adult discussion and learn from
our experiences. My goal is not to sell gear or convince members to
adhere to some kind
jh901 wrote:
I'm not interested in the nasty remarks and namecalling. Nor am I
interested in sarcasm and snickering, etc. Or broad brush bashing of
hi-end. We can all participate in an adult discussion and learn from
our experiences. My goal is not to sell gear or convince members to
I doubt any of us will agree with any given person ALL of the time. We
are all individuals. The industry media aren't all the same. It isn't
just the USA either. Sure, there are going to be guys we can't respect
on nearly anything, but let's now throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And
jh901 wrote:
I doubt any of us will agree with any given person ALL of the time. We
are all individuals. The industry media aren't all the same. It isn't
just the USA either. Sure, there are going to be guys we can't respect
on nearly anything, but let's now throw the baby out with the
ralphpnj wrote:
The fact that the high end community is embracing USB just reflects the
fact so many of them are using Apple computers as their music
servers/streamers and has nothing to do with the functionality and
quality of the S/PDIF interface.
All I can do is ask you to step back
jh901 wrote:
All I can do is ask you to step back from this comment. S/PDIF
interface has inherent problems related to PLL, etc. If we brought
forward a panel of top audio engineers in the digital space, then there
would be little disagreement. I had never thought about this before
until
ralphpnj wrote:
Once again I believe that you are making a mountain out of mole hill.
Sure the S/PDIF interface is not perfect, nothing rarely is, but the
issues you are obsessing about are at best minor and at worst barely
audible. But hey, it's your anxiety and your money so go ahead and
jh901 wrote:
I don't have anxiety about it. It exists and I recognize it. I'd
rather not use a Squeezebox source to send data to a $5,000 DAC only to
not get what I paid for if there is an alternative. What if a member
asked about buying a Squeezebox source to use with a dCS Debussy DAC?
I make no apology for my bout of sarcasm. There are times when it is
broadly deserved.
RonM makes some excellent, well grounded observations about the nature
of human perception and behavior.
The primary problem in the high-end audio world is the consistency with
which devotees treat their
SBGK wrote:
stop being a stupid audiophile, or I am going to stamp and shout and
scream until my mummy comes home and stop posting about ideas I don't
like, this is my forum and you will think my way.
You and other dogmatic audiophiles are damn tiresome. Whenever some of
your fellow
ralphpnj wrote:
You and other dogmatic audiophiles are damn tiresome. snip
Don't mud wrestle with pigs, the pigs like it and you just get dirty.
;-)
garym's Profile:
It's so interesting to me. . .
I'm a psychologist (as in capital P with a doctorate); I do know
something about research into perception, and about appropriate research
methodology in this field, fraught with subjective experience as it is.
The reason why double-blind study protocols are used
DACs are all the same. Despite the multitude of designs ranging from
cheap as dirt to labor intensive. Just as with power amps from the 80s
designed for low THD. They measure great and sound like crap. Must be
placebo. No one designs using full on negative feedback anymore and
amps sound
RonM wrote:
So what could be the reason why there is this assertion of the
completely impossible? Well, as they say, follow the money. Who has
the motivation to deny reality? Where does their income come from?
What do they stand to gain from their completely irrational position?
jh901 wrote:
You can't possibly know this. It must truly bother you that dCS, for
example, offer stand alone master clocks.
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/dcs-puccini-cdsacd-player-and-puccini-u-clock-usb-converterclock-tas-200-1/
Waste of money?
Yes, external clocks are
jh901 wrote:
You don't know this. You defend Squeezebox as if you work for them.
These products are fantastic, but why is it so important to you that
they are the last word in hi-end audio fidelity? There isn't any
designer/engineer involved with hi-end digital audio who isn't focusing
TheOctavist wrote:
and no..DcS is not the leader in word clocks. far from it
Apogee, etc were making clocks(for proper use in professional studios)
before DcS realized they could squeeze money from stupid audiophiles.
stop being a stupid audiophile, or I am going to stamp and shout and
TheOctavist wrote:
Yes, external clocks are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY A WASTE OF MONEY.
clocks have purpose in a recording studio...IE syncing a bunch of
digital devices together
but hifi?? utter , utter rubbish
ralphpnj wrote:
And again I repeat NO ONE can hear the jitter from any Squeezebox
connected to an external DAC via either optical or coax S/PDIF, to say
otherwise is just not true.
You don't know this. You defend Squeezebox as if you work for them.
These products are fantastic, but why is
jh901 wrote:
You don't know this. You defend Squeezebox as if you work for them.
These products are fantastic, but why is it so important to you that
they are the last word in hi-end audio fidelity? There isn't any
designer/engineer involved with hi-end digital audio who isn't focusing
ralphpnj wrote:
The first sentence is total nonsense
Which part are you referring to?
michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745
View this thread:
michael123 wrote:
Which part are you referring to?
Here's the sentence:
The replacement of the S/PDIF interface by USB as the de facto standard
for transmitting digital audio has been surprisingly rapid.
I am referring to all parts of the sentence. For example, are
professional recording
Ralph, Im again not getting you - how do you reach your conclusions
regarding USB replacing spdif? To me it reads like argument-by-magic, to
stay with the terminology of recent threads.
As far as I know its simply a matter of a sum of factors deciding which
interface shall prevale. Its a
bhaagensen wrote:
Ralph, Im again not getting you - how do you reach your conclusions
regarding USB replacing spdif? To me it reads like argument-by-magic, to
stay with the terminology of recent threads.
As far as I know its simply a matter of a sum of factors deciding which
interface
ralphpnj wrote:
NO ONE regardless of playback system can ever hear the interface induced
jitter in S/PDIF. But hey, there are plenty of high priced digital audio
cables, by they optical, coax or USB, that promise to clean up jitter.
At some point you have to acknowledge that not everyone
bhaagensen wrote:
At some point you have to acknowledge that not everyone agrees with you
in this - its a premise of this entire discussion - like it or not.
Anyway. The point is that USB is a better protocol and using it avoids
the hoops one has to go through to achieve something similar
Thanks for the link - I didnt yet read it though.
But you are misunderstanding my point. Which is that usb is a better
interface by purely technical metrics and probably as cheap as spdif,
and more widespread in computing, so that alone is reason to make the
change. Spdif is for all but
bhaagensen wrote:
At some point you have to acknowledge that not everyone agrees with you
in this - its a premise of this entire discussion - like it or not.
Anyway. The point is that USB is a better protocol and using it avoids
the hoops one has to go through to achieve something similar
bhaagensen wrote:
Thanks for the link - I didnt yet read it though.
But you are misunderstanding my point. Which is that usb is a better
interface by purely technical metrics and probably as cheap as spdif,
and more widespread in computing, so that alone is reason to make the
change.
ralphpnj wrote:
You're right not everyone agrees with me but if you discount the clowns
who write for the high end rags (and they are clowns because clowns make
you laugh and their writing is such a joke that it often makes me laugh)
then you will find that few people who know what they are
Mnyb wrote:
Yes spdiff is obselete imho it's replaced by hdmi on normal consumer
audio .
Agreed plus along the same line of thinking two channel audio (aka
stereo) is also obsolete since now most people listen to music on their
multichannel home theater systems.
Again I agree that
Many of my fellow forum members may often wonder I almost never miss a
chance to say nasty things about the sad state of the high end audio
press and the clowns who edit and write from this useless industry. Well
here is a fine and typical example of the complete and utter nonsense
that these
Agreed. The really sad part is that there's plenty of really good and
useful information they could be providing right now by doing *real*
reporting about digital audio but they will not slay their sacred cows.
Oh well. Hopefully they drive themselves out of existence as their
absurd claims
azinck3 wrote:
Agreed. The really sad part is that there's plenty of really good and
useful information they could be providing right now by doing *real*
reporting about digital audio but they will not slay their sacred cows.
Oh well. Hopefully they drive themselves out of existence with
Robert Harley a clown? Ok.
And yes, asynchronous USB is better than S/PDIF and has become popular
(for good reason). Why buy a first class outboard DAC if its clock is
not able to slave the source component? The digital outputs on the
Transporter, for example, will not allow the DAC to use
jh901 wrote:
Robert Harley a clown? Ok.
And yes, asynchronous USB is better than S/PDIF and has become popular
(for good reason). Why buy a first class outboard DAC if its clock is
not able to slave the source component? The digital outputs on the
Transporter, for example, will not
ralphpnj wrote:
Complete and utter nonsense - the jitter from non-asynchronous USB is
the problem and that has absolutely nothing to do with S/PDIF. There is
nothing about asynchronous USB that makes it sound better than S/PDIF.
This is wrong and I don't believe you can find any support for
jh901 wrote:
This is wrong and I don't believe you can find any support for this
belief. The master-slave issue has a huge impact on sound quality. Why
would you want a source such as a computer or the Transporter to provide
the master clock rather than the external DAC
Again you have
ralphpnj wrote:
Complete and utter nonsense - the jitter from non-asynchronous USB is
the problem and that has absolutely nothing to do with S/PDIF. There is
nothing about asynchronous USB that makes it sound better than S/PDIF.
hmm, ralph thinks s/pdif sounds good and hifi articles make
SBGK wrote:
hmm, ralph thinks s/pdif sounds good and hifi articles make exaggerated
claims, but he displays a fragile ego by not being able to cope with
other viewpoints without resorting to name calling. though, I think he
needs those very same articles otherwise he wouldn't be able to show
ralphpnj wrote:
Again you have things a little mixed up - there is nothing wrong with
the Transporter's master clock. Besides I already agreed with you that
asynchronous USB is superior to non-asynchronous USB.
The Transporter's clock is vastly inferior to those found in today's
best DACs.
ralphpnj wrote:
And the Transporter's master clock is no worse than the master clock in
any DAC, regardless of price.
You can't possibly know this. It must truly bother you that dCS, for
example, offer stand alone master clocks.
jh901 wrote:
You can't possibly know this. It must truly bother you that dCS, for
example, offer stand alone master clocks.
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/dcs-puccini-cdsacd-player-and-puccini-u-clock-usb-converterclock-tas-200-1/
Waste of money?
Why do you keep quoting
jh901 wrote:
The Transporter's clock is vastly inferior to those found in today's
best DACs. Vastly.
Anyhow, is asynchronous USB superior to S/PDIF? In any way? I've
pointed out that slaving the Transporter, for example, to a master is
not possible. If the Transporter had asynchronous
Thank you John for clearing that up.
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97489
I encourage anyone to read about TaS computer audio series follow that
link ralphy provided.
And try to get hold of copies .
The no 1 issue for me in that whole article series is this silly claim
that *exact copies of the same file sounds different ?*
this is audio homeopathy to me . If this
Some more reading a bit off topic but refreshing
http://seanolive.blogspot.se/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html
Indeed if Mr Harley wrote the book on high end audio we are all very
sorry for it :(
But if you from the beggining have denounced all scientific methods off
testing your claims
79 matches
Mail list logo
