advertisement


Thinking aloud: obj / sub / ABX cyclic arguments etc

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been on PFM from day 1 and this month marks the tenth anniversary of it being on a vBulletin platform.

I have never been banned from this site, not ever, not even for a day.

I sincerely hope that Mick has is tongue firmly in his cheek.

As for Arthur, I began to 'get' him a few months ago and no longer find his posts aggressive and for one simple reason - he doesn't play to the gallery, he does not seek to turn others against his opponents in discussion. He does not mean to offend.

I have had a positive and quite cathartic exchange with whatsnext in recent days and find that my biggest issue with his posts has been their ambiguity on occasion. I do go to Brum every now and then for a beer. :)
 
AndrewM said:
I'd certainly have no objection and would be happy to take part and interested in the result - but the devil's in the details - there are so many variables that it gives those who don't agree with the results plenty of scope to attack the methodology, so it probably wouldn't provide any sort of real closure to the argument.
Click to expand...

Hi Andrew,

That's only a problem if we are looking for closure and that ain't happening under any circumstances :)

But it does inform the debate - think of some scales equally balanced and the differing views are simply adding their work on each side, with the balance tipping accordingly.
 
jackbarron said:
They would probably decide to argue about football or politics instead and that would be even worse.

Jack
Click to expand...

Hi, Jack,

Don't often see you in here:)

Will you be singing Rooney's praises soon? Jeez, that's gonna be hard for you to swallow!

Chris

Chris
 
Jack,

I think you have been doing well, Joe. The problem is all of the other people who aren't listening.
Click to expand...
Cheers, man.

I think Mick used to be funnier -- he was great on the Naim forum 1.0 -- but I still laugh occasionally when he posts, especially when he pops on a thread to say the topic doesn't concern the UK so why are we discussing it.
[irony]
Apart from (a) people having an interest in issues beyond their immediate backyard, (b) that the forum is global (two of the w's in www I'm certain are short for world wide), and (c) that perhaps people want to discuss the topic he raises a salient point.
[/irony]
Joe
 
Tony and the mods presumably have more real hard data than we do. Is the number of "eyeballs" (that advertisers pay to access) decreasing? Is the amount of content falling (if you subtract the posts from the "usual suspects")? If the answer to either / both question(s) is yes then I think pfm has a problem that Tony may want to address. There is a balance to moderation. From a personal perspective I now find relatively little material I want to view, and find the tone of the voluminous posts of the usual suspects means I often have to abandon threads that would otherwise interest me. Heavier handed moderation is I think the only cure left (as some posters will not ignore the usual suspects). Good luck Tony ... I don't envy you trying to solve this problem. The easiest, quickest solution is to permanently cull the usual suspects.

Nic P
 
Rename it the Mandelbrot room?

Why didn't the more vocal/committed posters take Simon's test?(Serge did try but got a bit muddled up)..
 
Robert said:
The MDAC is transparent and already exceeds the requirements for transparency by some margin - you cannot improve on how it sounds unless you want to use something which distorts the signal in some audible way and find that preferable.
If the product in your link lives up to the published spec it will sound the same as the MDAC.

As you are happy with the MDAC I'd say keep it.
Click to expand...

Discuss in the light of this thread.

Is JohnW wasting his time trying to improve the sound of the MDAC?

If he produces a DAC which folk believe sounds better will that be because it distorts?

Are all those pfm members who have pretty much crowd-funded the new DAC wasting their time and money?

Should JohnW just pack it in?
 
AndyU said:
Discuss in the light of this thread.

Is JohnW wasting his time trying to improve the sound of the MDAC?

If he produces a DAC which folk believe sounds better will that be because it distorts?

Are all those pfm members who have pretty much crowd-sourced the new DAC wasting their time and money?
Click to expand...

Good question.

This distortion concept is somewhat problematical anyway. If you have several DACs that sound different, how do you know which is the transparent one?

- Richard.
 
AndyU said:
Discuss in the light of this thread.

Is JohnW wasting his time trying to improve the sound of the MDAC?

If he produces a DAC which folk believe sounds better will that be because it distorts?
Click to expand...

It depends what the objective is. If it's the intellectual satisfaction of making a technically better product, then he's not wasting his time at all. If it's making a better sounding product, then possibly he is, but manufacturers always need new products, not because there's anything lacking in their existing products, but to maintain market interest, not least amongst their dealers and magazines.

Then, there's the challenge of taking cost out of a product whilst maintaining or even improving technical quality. Companies and their designers can't stand still. Modern market conditions won't allow, say, Quad's new amplifier every 10 years as in PJW.s time when new amplifiers had to be genuinely new technology.



S
 
AndyU said:
Discuss in the light of this thread.

Is JohnW wasting his time trying to improve the sound of the MDAC?

If he produces a DAC which folk believe sounds better will that be because it distorts?
Click to expand...

Why not ask this directly in the MDAC thread?
Do you think the MDAC is the pinnacle of dac design that it can't be bettered?

Your questions are as though you are trying to provoke an argument, I was going to say discussion, but no. It will end up as one those ridiculous threads that circle round like a drunken buzzard. In fact a prime example of why this thread was started.
 
PhilCTTE said:
Do you think the MDAC is the pinnacle of dac design that it can't be bettered?
Click to expand...
No, but whether any technical improvements would be audible...

The planned improvements to the headphone amp will be useful though. If the designer can keep the price to around £500, and make the device capable of driving any cans on the market properly, then it'll take on the new Benchmark DAC but cost a lot less.

Fundamentally though, it seems to me that most mainstream DACs have been pretty much transparent for some time, so it's hard to see how any technical improvements to the DAC itself would yield audible improvements.

Alex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top