SBGK wrote:
no, I think the tirnahifi ban was for trolling and the CA was for
promising not to troll after the first ban and then continuing to troll,
facts is facts, doncha know.
Facts for facts the tirnahifi ban was because you demanded my removal.
Anyway, no big loss, and I am glad you
Mnyb wrote:
Yes but have the changed sponsor i cant find the shill article about AQ
cables he wrote ? who is CA's new pimp ?g
Don't know - I was banned from CA after pointing out that sgbk was in
violation of his own software license terms...
To try to judge the real from the false will
Here's a table with examples of typical db(A) levels for some events,
for instance fire cracker explodes at shoulder: 170 dB(A). Search for
Typical dbA levels.
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TableOfSoundPressureLevels.htm
There's a lot of other interesting stuff there too. For example that a
Mnyb wrote:
...
Was it not some old test in the 80's where they mixed in a marching band
in the least significant bits on some music track and absolutely no one
could hear any difference .
...
it was there... http://libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm
2008...
Phil
You want to see the
Phil Leigh wrote:
it was there... http://libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm
2008...
Phil
Holy Moly! Did you hack this account or are you real? Welcome back!
Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers
Wombat wrote:
Holy Moly! Did you hack this account or are you real? Welcome back!
I am a Stroke...
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Touch(wired/W7)+Teddy Pardo PSU - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1
DAC - Linn 5103 -
Phil Leigh wrote:
I am a Stroke...
Welcome back. And best wishes in your recovery. I've personally
witnessed two amazing comebacks of friends/family after strokes. It took
some time and hard work, but the ultimate results were amazing. Good
luck!
*Home:* VortexBox 4TB (2.3) LMS 7.8
Archimago wrote:
Interesting readings Wombat - bad for your health reading too much
though! Swenson commented:
Interesting nobody questioned him what piece of music this was... What
song? What segment with 2 backup singers? Do I or anyone else need a
Regen to hear them clearly if we
Aaargh this is completely silly :D if tou cant hear an insulated single
tone at -80dB'ish ( say -90 if your normal listening levels are
completely deafening and wall ratling )
sitting in your listening position , how are you suposed to hear
changes at -144 to -138 dB while music is playing with
Mnyb wrote:
Aaargh this is completely silly :D if tou cant hear an insulated single
tone at -80dB'ish ( say -90 if your normal listening levels are
completely deafening and wall ratling )
sitting in your listening position , how are you suposed to hear
changes at -144 to -138 dB while music
Phil Leigh wrote:
it was there... http://libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm
2008...
Phil
Oh the audio diff maker guys have this too :) thanks for the link , I've
seen this kind of test mentioned earlier than this but this is very
good everyone can download and have a try for themselfs .
Yes. Welcome back Phil! Godspeed on the recovery!
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this
Julf wrote:
Don't know - I was banned from CA after pointing out that sgbk was in
violation of his own software license terms...
no, I think the tirnahifi ban was for trolling and the CA was for
promising not to troll after the first ban and then continuing to troll,
facts is facts, doncha
On the topic I think I was to generous with my guesstimate about
audibility at home it would be extrem to reach -90dB or -80 in the
listening position -70 is a better ballpark figure with margins :)
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS
Wombat wrote:
No matter how correct you are, there are prayers to undermine all
obvious conclusions of experiments done the way Archimago does.
Here JS feeds the community with what they want to hear. Maybe now that
the Regen business started it becomes even more important.
Julf wrote:
Ah, yes, some people do have a vested interest in pushing foo - and
computer audiophile jumped the shark long ago, pretty much when it went
commercial...
Yes but have the changed sponsor i cant find the shill article about AQ
cables he wrote ? who is CA's new pimp ?g
Wombat wrote:
No matter how correct you are, there are prayers to undermine all
obvious conclusions of experiments done the way Archimago does.
Here JS feeds the community with what they want to hear. Maybe now that
the Regen business started it becomes even more important.
No matter how correct you are, there are prayers to undermine all
obvious conclusions of experiments done the way Archimago does.
Here JS feeds the community with what they want to hear. Maybe now that
the Regen business started it becomes even more important.
Wombat wrote:
No matter how correct you are, there are prayers to undermine all
obvious conclusions of experiments done the way Archimago does.
Here JS feeds the community with what they want to hear. Maybe now that
the Regen business started it becomes even more important.
Wombat wrote:
Now that even a party pooper like Archimago can measure down to -120dB i
see first people claiming audibility of distorting events must be in the
-160dB range :)
Hey... I know that guy! 'Here's his listening room'
Wombat wrote:
Now that even a party pooper like Archimago can measure down to -120dB i
see first people claiming audibility of distorting events must be in the
-160dB range :)
The word logarithm comes to my mind do they realise that dB is a
logarithmic scale , suppose the noise from your own
Mnyb wrote:
The word logarithm comes to my mind do they realise that dB is a
logarithmic scale , suppose the noise from your own cells will swamp
that :) (besides the roar from your own circulatory system ). And the
inherit noise in the recordings we all have who's practical resolution
is
Wombat wrote:
I know but reading at the usual places reveils more and more stupid
reasoning. I really have to stop reading around to much, it is not
healthy.
Lately i played with some 24bit Petty remaster and a missing note of a
song. While restoring i realized the noisefloor of this part
Mnyb wrote:
They also don't realise that archimagi have measured to a resolution
greater than CD (-112dB) his low end system is thus transparent to CD
resolution material , everything on A CD passes trough . So if some one
heard differences in this department when listening to CD standard
18593
+---+
|Filename: e1e934726a413b96b69081703632546d.jpg |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18593|
+---+
Wombat wrote:
Now that all your tests show the obvious non-issue of different OSs i
find it funny how people at your blog chime in thinking linux or W7 may
be better nonetheless. Isn't it frustrating?
They have nerver heard of Russells tempot argument :)
Now that all your tests show the obvious non-issue of different OSs i
find it funny how people at your blog chime in thinking linux or W7 may
be better nonetheless. Isn't it frustrating?
Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made
Mnyb wrote:
They also don't realise that archimagi have measured to a resolution
greater than CD (-112dB) his low end system is thus transparent to CD
resolution material , everything on A CD passes trough . So if some one
heard differences in this department when listening to CD standard
Julf wrote:
18593
Nice, Julf.
Except in the case of audiophilia, science has been in retreat and we're
in the perverse and unenviable position of ending up being:
-*A bunch of assholes trying to DISPROVE shit.*-
:)
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
Archimago wrote:
Except in the case of audiophilia, science has been in retreat and we're
in the perverse and unenviable position of ending up being:
-*A bunch of assholes trying to DISPROVE shit.*-
Because evidently audiophiles don't drink their tea out of Russell's tea
pot...
18595
SBGK wrote:
I just recompiled mqn using vs 2015 and that made a difference to the
sq, another factor to measure.
Would love to see the results of your measurements.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
Archimago wrote:
I actually think the ultimate in tweakability is Bug Head Emperor -
MEGA tuning opportunities: 'http://orya.world.coocan.jp/bughead'
(http://orya.world.coocan.jp/bughead/)
Look at the description on that page and self-disclosure.
Well, at least the poor guy is
Archimago wrote:
SBGK, I don't think you ever answered the question of what methodology
you use to evaluate sound quality... Some details would be interesting
and useful. I've asked before and I believe a very fair question.
I mainly use my earholes and feedback from people nice enough
Julf wrote:
Would love to see the results of your measurements.
Well, the render loop takes 9 uops with no port pressure or register
stalls, that's the only measurement I've done recently, seems better
than the previous 13 and 11 uop versions.
The problem with digital is it's fairly easy to
SBGK wrote:
but these are not concerns of yours, so back to your squeezebox.So can we
take it from that childish dismissive comment that you no
longer have a squeezebox product?
LMS Version: 7.9
TranquilPC T2-WHS-A3 - WHS 2011
2x Touch, 3x SB3
SBGK wrote:
I mainly use my earholes and feedback from people nice enough to try it
and who I respect
It is well known that hearing involves far greater complexity than
merely using one's earholes.
I suspect that you need to up your game to include the functions of the
most powerful
Archimago wrote:
Yeah. Plus he admits to having some kind of mental issue and finds
programming a source of comfort. That's cool. No need to stress the guy
out.
Indeed. But he does seem to exhibit the rather frequent combination of
unverified, non-scientific miracle audiophilia and other
SBGK wrote:
Most science was observed or theorized before actual measurements were
made, so I don't think I'm being unscientific in my discoveries. Just
the measurers need to step up their game and measure rather than sniping
from the sidelines.
The above is a truism (true, but
Julf wrote:
And the investigation would follow the scientific method. First you
would verify that there really is a difference, by isolating possible
other causes (such as confirmation bias and the placebo effect), and by
independent verification / replication. Then you would formulate an
arnyk wrote:
How is hearing a difference in a DBT really any different from hearing a
difference in any other context? It isn't.
Well, if you have drunk the cool-aid, the artificiality, forced
conditions and pressure of DBT makes you less sensitive to differences -
just like the bad
SBGK wrote:
Now what about answering my questions to you about how you can measure
something when you can't hear any differences, most people would hear a
difference and then investigate why.
Measuring differences is pretty easy. At a sufficiently microscopic
level everything is changing
SBGK wrote:
Now what about answering my questions to you about how you can measure
something when you can't hear any differences, most people would hear a
difference and then investigate why.
And the investigation would follow the scientific method. First you
would verify that there really
Julf wrote:
Well, at least the poor guy is honest - However, I am not able to show
scientific basis.
Yeah. Plus he admits to having some kind of mental issue and finds
programming a source of comfort. That's cool. No need to stress the guy
out.
I actually saw this program a year back and
SBGK wrote:
Well, the render loop takes 9 uops with no port pressure or register
stalls, that's the only measurement I've done recently, seems better
than the previous 13 and 11 uop versions.
So how does the speed of the render loop correlate with sound quality?
Or perhaps an easier question
SBGK wrote:
I mainly use my earholes and feedback from people nice enough to try it
and who I respect
eg - here is some feedback for the vs 2015 recompiled version, of course
this way of working is impossible in your world, but it seems to work,
some versions are identified as
SBGK wrote:
Most science was observed or theorized before actual measurements were
made, so I don't think I'm being unscientific in my discoveries.
I was talking about the scientific method, so confining myself to
empirical science. And you are definitely not following scientific
methodology.
arnyk wrote:
It's also false because it forces a false dichotomy between observations
and measurements when in fact they are the same thing.
I think the way SBGK uses the word observation is in the sense of
acquisition of information employing the senses, while you are using
it in the
Julf wrote:
I think the way SBGK uses the word observation is in the sense of
acquisition of information employing the senses, while you are using
it in the scientific meaning of the word.
A few useful reminders on 'observation'
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation):
Absolutely
Are we not making things to complicated in these cases archimago shows
with two methods that the output of the dac is the same hence no need
for DBT or other complex measures. The same output is the same the tiny
dissimiliarities that dont make the curves overlap exactly is the random
noise . Two
Julf wrote:
Well, if you have drunk the cool-aid, the artificiality, forced
conditions and pressure of DBT makes you less sensitive to differences -
just like the bad vibrations caused by the presence of a sceptic in a
room makes fairies less likely to show up. :)
This effect of controls
Mnyb wrote:
Are we not making things to complicated in these cases archimago shows
with two methods that the output of the dac is the same hence no need
for DBT or other complex measures.
That is the whole point about the scientific method (especially
post-Popper) - any scientific theory
Mnyb wrote:
Are we not making things to complicated in these cases archimago shows
with two methods that the output of the dac is the same hence no need
for DBT or other complex measures. The same output is the same the tiny
dissimiliarities that dont make the curves overlap exactly is the
Mnyb wrote:
A very interesting part is that piece of software you tested , people
testify to have all kinds of better sound experience with it. But none
ever heard the only verifiably thing it's does regarding audio , bodge
24/48 ;) just like you pointed out in your blog ( not as explicit as
Archimago wrote:
Nonetheless, I do want to hear from folks like SBGK to make sure
verifiable claims are looked at. If claims are unverifiable; perhaps
better yet the beliefs unfalsifiable, then I think we can say clearly
we are not dealing with the scientific domain.
Yes, that is a very
A very interesting part is that piece of software you tested , people
testify to have all kinds of better sound experience with it. But none
ever heard the only verifiably thing it's does regarding audio , bodge
24/48 ;) just like you pointed out in your blog ( not as explicit as I
just did )
bonze wrote:
Congrats! seems you got a bite on both threads :cool:
Yikes! Strange how there ended up being 2 threads! Maybe if there's a
moderator, there's a way to consolidate...
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago wrote:
Enjoy the summer folks!
Congrats! seems you got a bite on both threads :cool:
LMS Version: 7.9
TranquilPC T2-WHS-A3 - WHS 2011
2x Touch, 3x SB3
bonze's Profile:
SBGK wrote:
I just recompiled mqn using vs 2015 and that made a difference to the
sq, another factor to measure.
SBGK, I don't think you ever answered the question of what methodology
you use to evaluate sound quality... Some details would be interesting
and useful.
I actually think the
--- Boys sorry for the double thread... Let's just chat in the other
one... ---
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile:
Wombat wrote:
I didn't really follow this since i know where it comes from :)
good decision, someone will be a long to tell you what to follow.
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
SBGK's Profile:
Julf wrote:
Wasn't the 'mqnplayer' (http://mqnplayer.blogspot.nl/) the ultimate
incarnation of this silliness?
are you saying you've tried it julfy ?
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
SBGK's
Julf wrote:
Just like people will be wondering if they might not see Bigfoot again
this year.
Thanks for the measurements and writeup - it must be frustrating to have
to keep making the measurements over and over just to conclude that the
laws of physics actually still work...
Actually
Julf wrote:
Just like people will be wondering if they might not see Bigfoot again
this year.
Thanks for the measurements and writeup - it must be frustrating to have
to keep making the measurements over and over just to conclude that the
laws of physics actually still work...
+1 a LOT
Wombat wrote:
This is again a good one! This makes me wonder how far this OS
optimizing and the search for the perfect player got and why?
Wasn't the 'mqnplayer' (http://mqnplayer.blogspot.nl/) the ultimate
incarnation of this silliness?
To try to judge the real from the false will always
Julf wrote:
Wasn't the 'mqnplayer' (http://mqnplayer.blogspot.nl/) the ultimate
incarnation of this silliness?
I didn't really follow this since i know where it comes from :)
Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers
This is again a good one! This makes me wonder how far this OS
optimizing and the search for the perfect player got. Just plain stupid,
no excuses.
Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers
Archimago wrote:
Well folks, now that Windows 10 is released, I bet a number of folks are
wondering *yet again* whether the OS will make things sound better...
Just like people will be wondering if they might not see Bigfoot again
this year.
Thanks for the measurements and writeup - it must
The 2015 vintage wine is out and after 2 bottles, I can tell that
combined with Win10, it makes sound better :)
PS: Archimango, this is really said with a friendly spirit, not
agressive or viciously sarcastic, but I couldn't help, sorry
LMS 7.7.2 - 5 radio, 3 Boom, 4 Duet, 1 Touch, 1 SB2.
68 matches
Mail list logo
