Archimago wrote:
> Just reading from overseas... Thanks GE. Do you happen to have a link to
> the paper you're referring to? Maybe Arnyk can chime in here...
Hi Archimago!
Only just picked up your post, I've had a totally frantic week.
Arny gives the links at the end of his post (#395) on
adamdea wrote:
> .
> One could go on, but the gist of it is that the level of understanding
> of perceptual science required to see through the entire subjectivist
> canon is about the same as the level of understanding of physics
> required to understanding that cartoon characters do not
That is a pretty good analysis. I always wonder if audio subjectivists
ever use a measuring tape, spirit level or even a car speedometer -
after all, aren't their senses perfect and absolute?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
Archimago wrote:
> Beyond that, I agree, there is no value in much of the subjective
> reviews out there when it comes to adjudicating sound quality.
>
> I think what is fascinating is how seriously the subjective reviewers
> take themselves and their opinions.
I think that part of the problem
Mnyb wrote:
> Objektive characterisation of loudspeakers . Sean Olive of Harman
> International had an article about it years ago .
>
> They claim to have some sort of method involving many different
> measurments a staggering undertaking if i remember there where dossens
> of them .
>
> For
Objektive characterisation of loudspeakers . Sean Olive of Harman
International had an article about it years ago .
They claim to have some sort of method involving many different
measurments a staggering undertaking if i remember there where dossens
of them .
For from small signal electronics,
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Archimago!
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with the points that you make.
>
> It is certainly the case that loudspeakers are still (despite massive
> advances in materials available for driver construction since I first
> started my audio quest for nirvana some 45 years
Archimago wrote:
>
> As for this:
> -"Anyhow, I'm not sure demo gear comes to anyone for free for real."- --
> drmatt
>
> No. Nothing is really for free. The price is that of a review of sorts
> and at least an endorsement, right?
>
> As for Chord, I have heard some great sounds from these at
Archimago wrote:
> LOL... Don't think I *can* even convert to being a subjectivist if I
> wanted to at this point :rolleyes:.
>
> For one thing, I honestly find it remarkably -boring -writing about the
> subjective experience of what one hears. The reason being that when
> writing that stuff,
LOL... Don't think I *can* even convert to being a subjectivist if I
wanted to at this point :rolleyes:.
For one thing, I honestly find it remarkably -boring -writing about the
subjective experience of what one hears. The reason being that when
writing that stuff, one recognizes that the words
I didn't say "better" did I? I just said different.
-Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk-
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with
Debian+LMS 7.9.0
Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k
albums..
drmatt wrote:
> Have you tried the Chord Hugo/TT and friends? Not mqa certified I think,
> but quite different sounding from others, IME.
>
>
> -Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk-
This could be the moment for Archimago to affect a conversion to
subjectivism (even to the extent of
Have you tried the Chord Hugo/TT and friends? Not mqa certified I think,
but quite different sounding from others, IME.
-Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk-
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with
Debian+LMS 7.9.0
Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Archimago!
>
> Mytek make a studio-orientated DAC called the Manhattan (now in version
> 2, so *-someone-* must be buying the things!) at a cool $6000.
>
> It has word clock in & out, so that you can buy several & sync them up
> for multi-channel - at a price!
>
>
Mytek offer a no quibble 30 day money back deal if you buy direct on
their website... ;)
-Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk-
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with
Debian+LMS 7.9.0
Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x
Archimago wrote:
> Love it man, send that $10K MQA DAC ASAP!
>
> I want to run a few impulse responses thru and see if I can verify the
> 16 MQA filters across the price points... I already have the measurement
> from the $100 AudioQuest Dragonfly Black, $2000 Mytek Brooklyn, and this
> $10,000
ralphpnj wrote:
> ... On the other hand, a nice "loan" of a $10,000 MQA enabled DAC might
> go a long in helping one to forget that conclusion.
Love it man, send that $10K MQA DAC ASAP!
I want to run a few impulse responses thru and see if I can verify the
16 MQA filters across the price
Archimago wrote:
> Will see man. :-) After all these years of soft, touchy-feely subjective
> audiophile writers, I suspect objective guys will be a little too hot to
> touch for the scam elements of the industry.
>
> -"Now let me welcome everybody to the wild, wild west
> A state that's
ralphpnj wrote:
> Only problem is you will not be offered the loans to write objectively
> about the equipment but rather to write subjectively, as per the
> advertisers instructions.
Will see man. :-) After all these years of soft, touchy-feely subjective
audiophile writers, I suspect
Archimago wrote:
> Hey Ralph!
>
> I suppose every man has his price but my viewpoints I suspect are rather
> difficult for the high end to get behind... Heck, I think the day they
> offer hyper-expensive long term loans to me that Id be happy to accept
> will be a nice indication that
ralphpnj wrote:
> Very nice "musings" post. Haven't read the comments yet but the article
> does a nice job of trying to separate science from opinion.
>
> One question that comes to mind: will your "musings" start to drift now
> that you have the audiophile press' attention and, as was the
Mnyb wrote:
> Wonder if universal is going to embedd thier horrible watermark in a MQA
> file to :D
I still wonder where they want to go. Recent releases of the big labels
don't have high samplerates, are watermarked and are compressed to DR4.
The quality has declined clearly.
Nobody should buy
Wombat wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> here in germany we have a saying to tease someone who did something
> great. Under friends we say as i translate: "Now you can call yourself
> Sir"
> Cheers!
Hi Wombat!
I don't mind having my leg pulled.
Unfortunately, people invariably choose the same leg, so these
Hi Dave,
here in germany we have a saying to tease someone who did something
great. Under friends we say as i translate: "Now you can call yourself
Sir"
Cheers!
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
Mnyb wrote:
> The main features are 1. proprietary ( license revenue ) 2. and lossy (
> the record companies does not need to disclose a studio master ).
>
> Wonder if universal is going to embedd thier horrible watermark in a MQA
> file to :D
My gran told me , "Tell the truth & shame the
The main features are 1. proprietary ( license revenue ) 2. and lossy (
the record companies does not need to disclose a studio master ).
Wonder if universal is going to embedd thier horrible watermark in a MQA
file to :D
Wombat wrote:
> I guess you had everything interpretring my post wrong but it is nice
> you still enjoy making long posts...
> It simply means that he shouldn't loose grip to reality by all the
> praise he receives for the many hours he spends with his blog (and
> absolutely deserves!!!)
>
>
I guess you had everything interpretring my post wrong but it is nice
you still enjoy making long posts...
It simply means that he shouldn't loose grip to reality by all the
praise he receives for the many hours he spends with his blog (and
absolutely deserves!!!)
Btw. Since so much of these
Wombat wrote:
> This may be the reason that shortly he only responds to PM when "Sir
> Archimago" is used...
Hi Wombat!
I see that you have popped up for air again.
I would like to take issue with your cynical viewpoint (albeit disguised
as sardonic humour) since Archimago has (so far at
ralphpnj wrote:
> Very nice "musings" post. Haven't read the comments yet but the article
> does a nice job of trying to separate science from opinion.
>
> One question that comes to mind: will your "musings" start to drift now
> that you have the audiophile press' attention and, as was the
Very nice "musings" post. Haven't read the comments yet but the article
does a nice job of trying to separate science from opinion.
One question that comes to mind: will your "musings" start to drift now
that you have the audiophile press' attention and, as was the case with
Computer Audiophile
Hey all,
Glad to be done the MQA Core vs. Hi-Res blind test series and basically
end off with a summary of sorts:
'Part I: Procedure'
(https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-i.html)
'Part II: Core Results'
32 matches
Mail list logo
