advertisement


WAV better than FLAC due to increased processing load on the CPU of the latter?

item said:
Incidentally, sq90125, as you know it's 'all bits' to Ashley James: he's one of your lot, thanks. Perhaps even more of a digital denialist than you?!
Click to expand...

Hold on, Item. YOU are the one making totally unsubstantiated claims made on the basis of absolutely nothing other than opinion & blind faith.

Deniallist implies you have the evidential, scientific & engineering high ground.

All you have is a desperate desire to flannel enough perople into buying your audiophool PC products.

You are no better than any of the other parasite chalatans such as Peter Belt or Russ Andrews.

Chris
 
Mescalito said:
Hold on, Item. YOU are the one making totally unsubstantiated claims made on the basis of absolutely nothing other than opinion & blind faith.

Deniallist implies you have the evidential, scientific & engineering high ground.

All you have is a desperate desire to flannel enough perople into buying your audiophool PC products.

You are no better than any of the other parasite chalatans such as Peter Belt or Russ Andrews.

Chris
Click to expand...

A 'denalist' is someone trying to tell the R&D departments of:
Linn,
Naim,
MSB,
Bryston,
Yamaha,
Logitech,
Aurender,
Wadia,
Wavelength,
Teac/Esoteric,
Mission,
Meridian,
Arcam,
Weiss,
PS Audio,
dCS,
Bel Canto,
Audionote,
Musical Fidelity,
Marantz

(I could go on . . .) that they're all stupidly wasting their time engineering their precision-built digital transports and generally trying to solve problems that don't exist and foist them on a gullible public.

I'd be interested in the credentials of the person making such a claim, Chris. On balance, I'd take the massed digital audio expertise of industry authorities, accumulated over several decades, in preference to a handful of vocal amateurs complaining about how expensive things are.

This stuff is easy enough to get working, but very hard to do well - by which I mean the last 20%. Anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't tried, or simply doesn't understand what they're saying.

You're trying to make stick the idea that digital transports are on the looney fringes of today's audio: they're becoming central to the mainstream. We've had dedicated CD transports since the late 80s: none of this is even new: the local playback environment has always been considered vital to a well designed system - transport and all.

Those companies are the 'evidential, scientific & engineering high ground'. All we're doing is agreeing with them.
 
item said:
A 'denalist' is someone trying to tell the R&D departments of:
Linn,
Naim,
MSB,
Bryston,
Yamaha,
Logitech,
Aurender,
Wadia,
Wavelength,
Teac/Esoteric,
Mission,
Meridian,
Arcam,
Weiss,
PS Audio,
dCS,
Bel Canto,
Audionote,
Musical Fidelity,
Marantz

(I could go on . . .) that they're all stupidly wasting their time engineering their precision-built digital transports and generally trying to solve problems that don't exist and foist them on a gullible public.

I'd be interested in the credentials of the person making such a claim, Chris. On balance, I'd take the massed digital audio expertise of industry authorities, accumulated over several decades, in preference to a handful of vocal amateurs complaining about how expensive things are.

This stuff is easy enough to get working, but very hard to do well - by which I mean the last 20%. Anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't tried, or simply doesn't understand what they're saying.

You're trying to make stick the idea that digital transports are on the looney fringes of today's audio: they're becoming central to the mainstream. We've had dedicated CD transports since the late 80s: none of this is even new: the local playback environment has always been considered vital to a well designed system - transport and all.

Those companies are the 'evidential, scientific & engineering high ground'. All we're doing is agreeing with them.
Click to expand...
Your website has firewire cables for £450. Utter tosh.
 
item said:
A 'denalist' is someone trying to tell the R&D departments of:
Linn,
Naim,
MSB,
Bryston,
Yamaha,
Logitech,
Aurender,
Wadia,
Wavelength,
Teac/Esoteric,
Mission,
Meridian,
Arcam,
Weiss,
PS Audio,
dCS,
Bel Canto,
Audionote,
Musical Fidelity,
Marantz

(I could go on . . .) that they're all stupidly wasting their time engineering their precision-built digital transports and generally trying to solve problems that don't exist and foist them on a gullible public.

I'd be interested in the credentials of the person making such a claim, Chris. On balance, I'd take the massed digital audio expertise of industry authorities, accumulated over several decades, in preference to a handful of vocal amateurs complaining about how expensive things are.

This stuff is easy enough to get working, but very hard to do well - by which I mean the last 20%. Anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't tried, or simply doesn't understand what they're saying.

You're trying to make stick the idea that digital transports are on the looney fringes of today's audio: they're becoming central to the mainstream. We've had dedicated CD transports since the late 80s: none of this is even new: the local playback environment has always been considered vital to a well designed system - transport and all.

Those companies are the 'evidential, scientific & engineering high ground'. All we're doing is agreeing with them.
Click to expand...

I refer you to post 321.

You are flogging fairy dust and foo, and trying to do it under a veneer of pseudoscience & flim flammery.

I suggest you take an ad out with one of the hi fi rags. They'll perpetuate the garbage you are spouting & you can then use them as further validation of your chalatanry.

And Item, if ANY of the companies above have ANY data regarding your puffed up claims, let them show it. All you need do is show a single example where any of the claims made by you has been shown to make an audible difference under properly controlled conditions. Any of them at all.


NO? Thought not. Go back to trying to flog snake oil.

Chris
 
Chris: do keep us informed with your crusade.

Maybe all those world-leading digital audio designers will get together and see that you used the word 'pseudoscience' in a forum post and instantly realise how stupid they are. I can see it now:

“Aw, hell: forum Chris is right, with those opinions and that . . . we've bean using dowsing rods and dreamcatchers when we should of been using SCIENCE and that! Quick, get a screwdriver out off its packet and measure it's datas up so we can be all brainy.”

Does the 'evidential high ground' you have in mind consist of anything more than amateur blind test failures and mickey-mouse DIY measurements? Is it free of bias? Does it reflect any real world complexities or understanding of perception? Is it characterised by a spirit of free and open-minded enquiry? Is it informed by decades of experience?

Why invoke science when you mistrust the advice of its practitioners?
 
item said:
Chris: do keep us informed with your crusade.

Maybe all those world-leading digital audio designers will get together and see that you used the word 'pseudoscience' in a forum post and instantly realise how stupid they are.

I can see it now:

“Aw, hell: forum Chris is right, with those facts and that . . . we've bean using dowsing rods and dreamcatchers when we should of been using SCIENCE and that! Quick, get a screwdriver out off its packet and measure it's datas up so we can be all brainy.”

Does the 'evidential high ground' you have in mind consist of anything more than amateur blind test failures and mickey-mouse DIY measurements? Is it free of bias? Does it reflect any real world complexities or understanding of perception? Is it characterised by a spirit of free and open-minded enquiry? Is it informed by decades of experience?

Why invoke science when you mistrust the advice of its practitioners?
Click to expand...

I, with very good reason, mistrust the advice of the marketeers in an industry which, let's face it, is circling the plug hole.
And item, it is you who are making the irrational claims. I am calling your bluff. Show me the physics, the mathematics, the engineering to justify your claim.

"My golden eared mates can hear a difference" does not cut it.

Chris
 
If you blokes had stuck with turntables we wouldn't be having this silly debate.

Joe
 
Joe P said:
If you blokes had stuck with turntables we wouldn't be having this silly debate.

Joe
Click to expand...

Right... record players, now there's a foo free topic...

I bet you still have an eight-track in the car?



 
Last edited by a moderator:
item said:
A 'denalist' is someone trying to tell the R&D departments of:
Linn,
Naim,
MSB,
Bryston,
Yamaha,
Logitech,
Aurender,
Wadia,
Wavelength,
Teac/Esoteric,
Mission,
Meridian,
Arcam,
Weiss,
PS Audio,
dCS,
Bel Canto,
Audionote,
Musical Fidelity,
Marantz

(I could go on . . .) that they're all stupidly wasting their time engineering their precision-built digital transports and generally trying to solve problems that don't exist and foist them on a gullible public.

I'd be interested in the credentials of the person making such a claim, Chris. On balance, I'd take the massed digital audio expertise of industry authorities, accumulated over several decades, in preference to a handful of vocal amateurs complaining about how expensive things are.

This stuff is easy enough to get working, but very hard to do well - by which I mean the last 20%. Anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't tried, or simply doesn't understand what they're saying.

You're trying to make stick the idea that digital transports are on the looney fringes of today's audio: they're becoming central to the mainstream. We've had dedicated CD transports since the late 80s: none of this is even new: the local playback environment has always been considered vital to a well designed system - transport and all.

Those companies are the 'evidential, scientific & engineering high ground'. All we're doing is agreeing with them.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you just love that to be true!!

If you can get the bits to the DAC. It works, and it works well. From there on in, as long as the DAC has a reasonable analog side, and that is a reasonably trivial requirement, you will get good results. Not 80% results, but 99.99%.

Chris
 
Baz,

Right... record players, now there's a foo free topic...
Click to expand...
What should I use to play my records, a CD player?

I could replace my album collection with CDs, but only audiophool nerds would do that, man. ;-)

Joe
 
Chris,

Digitize ~1,200 LPs? I'd rather rub my head with a cheese grater, then pour lemon juice on the fleshy wound.

Besides, if I were to digitize my albums it would be with my current record player and I'd feel compelled to redo the whole exercise if I were to get a better one, which would be like pouring hydrochloric acid on the aforementioned cheese gratered part of my head.

Joe
 
Lots of very bright people wish they were as clever as you, Chris: you find everything so easy: analog stages, DACs, transports: you really should have your own product line! Join the axis of evil . . .

I could only add names to post 342: it doesn't need further defense. Adjust the percentage to taste.

I don't know what you imagine goes on in an R&D department, but in the case of digital audio, listening tests are used to validate (sometimes complement (note spelling)) the engineering. But once released into the wild, the pile of anecdotal, subjective review becomes a source of (not always reliable) evidence in its own right.

I've never discounted either auditions or measurements out of hand: both need to be contextualised and subject to examination of the test conditions. The less obvious the difference, the harder it is to pin down empirically: WAV v FLAC is definitely in this category. Transports in general are a much grosser effect.

If you're interested in audio differencing, have a word with a few people at Salford University: they have some interesting tales!
 
Joe P said:
Baz,


What should I use to play my records, a CD player?

I could replace my album collection with CDs, but only audiophool nerds would do that, man. ;-)

Joe
Click to expand...

Mr. P,

I prefer 'OCD music listener' to 'audiophool nerd' if you don't mind...

I mean, can you listen to the whole of 'Parsifal' without having to leave your seat?

No, I thought not...

How about the entire ring cycle?

Ha ha...
 
Joe P said:
Chris,

Digitize ~1,200 LPs? I'd rather rub my head with a cheese grater, then pour lemon juice on the fleshy wound.

Besides, if I were to digitize my albums it would be with my current record player and I'd feel compelled to redo the whole exercise if I were to get a better one, which would be like pouring hydrochloric acid on the aforementioned cheese gratered part of my head.

Joe
Click to expand...

I had presumed that anyone who digitised their collection would then give their record player the elbow, to be perfectly honest. Why would you hang on to it?

Chris
 
item, either you can publicly demonstrate your ability to hear the difference between WAV and FLAC or you can't.

If you can, your opinion and credibility would be massively enhanced; I and I am sure many others would apologise for our scepticism, and I am sure you would benefit commercially.

So what's stopping you?
 
Mescalito said:
I had presumed that anyone who digitised their collection would then give their record player the elbow, to be perfectly honest. Why would you hang on to it?

Chris
Click to expand...

I briefly considered doing this but when I realised how long it would take, I swiftly went off the idea and started to buy the CDs...

I'm down to 5 llps I can't find or are stupidly overpriced on CD due to being long deleted... but I'll get them... one day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top