Jump to content
IGNORED

Tom's Hardware Blind DAC Test


Recommended Posts

You should know by now that I don't BS about these things, from that Shelby Lynne track some time back that John Kenny provided.

I would be quite happy to take the test here via headphones from the PC, or the files that are presently saved on a Corsair Voyager through my own main system. Just organise a visit from any Sydney C.A. member.

If you are unable to do that, I would be quite happy to demo them to David L. at a future listening session.

 

After all of which the answer would still be NO to the question.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
After all of which the answer would still be NO to the question.

 

This is silly - I can hear the difference clearly, blind. And so can many other people who download and listen to them.

 

Just what is your point Dennis? Have you listened to them or are you just trying to make trouble? What, are your theories starting to crash on you in the face of direct and very difficult to refute evidence that invalidates them?

 

Stop picking on people in an attempt to obfuscate the matter. You say nobody can hear the difference. That is obviously disputed by many people who can and do clearly hear a difference. You then say these people are fooling themselves and demand proof.

 

Fine- setup and pay for an experiment vetted by people both sides trust and settle it once and for all. Nobody is going to take your work you k ow the truth, any more than you will listen to anyone who does agree with you. I would suggest Kickstarter as an appropriate funding source.

 

But forget any rigged deal you come up with yourself. Ask a group of people who really know what they are doing to design and run the experiment, as well as evaluate the results.

 

This foolish bickering may satisfy one's need for attention, but it is old, boring, and not at all interesting any longer. As my family would say - do you business or get off the pot.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Since this format was mentioned (DSD) I believe I have the obligation to bark. I own about 1,000 DSD (from PS3 rip & from DL) and mileage can vary for each one. How about three examples?

 

• Cookie Marenco’s Valerie Joyce/Marco de Carvalho “Blue Coast Special Event 25" (remastered and added tracks). Recoded an DL in DSD 2.8 (?). Extraordinary, no harsh or extra glare. You feel like being there.

 

• Harmonia Mundi USA’s “Music For Compline-Stile Antico” (Recorded, edited & mastered in DSD 2.8.). Excellent recording, but I would like to have "Korg Aqua Filter" (available in Audiogate for DSD to PCM conversion only). I removed the harsh (or extra glare) by DSD 2.8 to 5.6 conversion.

 

• M.A. Recordings’s “Nima Ben David-Résonance” Recorded in 5.6 MHz DSD, tranfered and sold as CD Redbook 16/44.1 Excellent recording and playback as a Redbook CD, that is what I have. No harsh, but but I like to have it in DSD!. BTW, one track was used as test (before and after equalization) by Mark Levinson new music player and was available on What's Best forum.

 

So I want to repeat (again) what Cookie Marenco said me, can not, or should not record in DSD with over modulation (clipping).

 

If anyone believes that this hobby is getting expensive by what called mystics or gurus tips I answer him that nobody is obliged to follow, and each spends what they want according to your budget and personal tastes. For example I do not own any personal jewel, spending little on clothes and eat and drink only what is necessary. Moreover, many of these tips are cheap, and I find that is the way of evolving, experimenting, but if you are happy with the sound of Redbook CD, stay there.

 

Regarding "Tom’s Hardware Blind DAC Test" about that there was little to no difference between the $2 and $2000 DAC in SQ. Of course yes, and my 86 years old Mom dances as well like my 18 years old daughter...! (I'm sorry Mom for the stupid comparison, but since you are wiser than me you will understand).

 

I can forgive Tom's Hardware because they like better DSD.

 

Happy listening,

 

Roch

Link to comment
After all of which the answer would still be NO to the question.

 

Hi Dennis,

 

I normally wouldn't participate in threads like this where the same group of folks jumps in to demonstrate what it does not hear and seeks to therefore rationalize why no one else could possibly have a different experience.

 

But I must ask:

Did you listen?

I'm sorry but to me, your responses are very clear avoidances of Alex's question.

 

I'll never understand why some folks in audio feel the need to have their experience be universal.

A confident response would be "I listened and I didn't hear any difference" or "I listened and I did hear a difference."

Note both use "I", not "you".

A confident response does not care whether others hear it the same way or not.

 

I'm amazed that some folks *don't* hear clear differences when they don't know which is which. Their experience is clearly very different from mine. But I'll respect them for having the confidence to tell it as *they* hear it instead of seeking to tell me how I hear it.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
Hi Dennis,

 

I normally wouldn't participate in threads like this where the same group of folks jumps in to demonstrate what it does not hear and seeks to therefore rationalize why no one else could possibly have a different experience.

 

But I must ask:

Did you listen?

I'm sorry but to me, your responses are very clear avoidances of Alex's question.

 

I'll never understand why some folks in audio feel the need to have their experience be universal.

A confident response would be "I listened and I didn't hear any difference" or "I listened and I did hear a difference."

Note both use "I", not "you".

 

I'm amazed that some folks *don't* hear clear differences when they don't know which is which. Their experience is clearly very different from mine.

But I'll respect them for having the confidence to tell it as *they* hear it instead of seeking to tell me how I hear it.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

Hey Barry,

 

I did listen, and didn't think I heard a difference. Listened over 2 sets of speakers and 2 good quality headphones. Did some ABX with Foobar, and scored right around 50/50. Did the ABX more than once. While I haven't specifically said so in regard to your recordings, I have said such things in the past. Alex generally pretends to have some results which always end up to have been done with knowledge of what is being compared. Yet he also insists any time I mention it or question it he has positive results.

 

If he or anyone wishes to say their ears trump all that is fine and their perogative. I don't hold that opinion as adequate evidence. So why does someone jump in every time and pretend they have blind results which they don't have? I have experienced too many clear and obvious differences which simply disappear when you no longer know what is being played.

 

So yes, I avoided Alex's question due to its repetitive nature. Not because I am unwilling to own up to what I have and haven't heard. You will notice I didn't tell Alex what he did and didn't hear or what he could hear. I asked if he could hear the differences blind. I am old enough it would be silly to think that I not hearing something is universal. In some cases or involving some issues differences are commonly claimed sighted when there simply is no basis for a difference to exist. In the case of your hirez vs redbook files there is at least a defined and genuine difference in the signal. So it is possible that difference is audible to some.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Hi Alex,

 

There is nothing wrong with the file. I just downloaded it again after reading your post and it is playing as I type this.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

Hi Barry

It may have been a simple download failure, so having a copy of your DVD, I then decided to use that instead to obtain the best possible copy, and generated the 16/44.1 version using Sony Sound Forge 9. You may recall that sometime back Audiophile Neuroscience had difficulty telling the files apart after downloading them, so I ripped the track directly from my DVD and sent him a Zipped copy of the 24/192 file. He was then able to pick the differences between the files. IIRC, after that you may have done things differently your end with the DLs ?

Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Hey Barry,

 

I did listen, and didn't think I heard a difference. Listened over 2 sets of speakers and 2 good quality headphones. Did some ABX with Foobar, and scored right around 50/50. Did the ABX more than once. While I haven't specifically said so in regard to your recordings, I have said such things in the past. Alex generally pretends to have some results which always end up to have been done with knowledge of what is being compared. Yet he also insists any time I mention it or question it he has positive results.

 

If he or anyone wishes to say their ears trump all that is fine and their perogative. I don't hold that opinion as adequate evidence. So why does someone jump in every time and pretend they have blind results which they don't have? I have experienced too many clear and obvious differences which simply disappear when you no longer know what is being played.

 

So yes, I avoided Alex's question due to its repetitive nature. Not because I am unwilling to own up to what I have and haven't heard. You will notice I didn't tell Alex what he did and didn't hear or what he could hear. I asked if he could hear the differences blind. I am old enough it would be silly to think that I not hearing something is universal. In some cases or involving some issues differences are commonly claimed sighted when there simply is no basis for a difference to exist. In the case of your hirez vs redbook files there is at least a defined and genuine difference in the signal. So it is possible that difference is audible to some.

 

Hi Dennis,

 

Thank you. I guess we have a different experience of these as I hear quite pronounced differences in many areas of the sound I can describe (yes, with my assistant doing the switching so I don't know which I'm listening to -- other than by the sound --- this is routine for me as I always double and triple-check my findings, then check them again).

 

It isn't about Alex or anyone else.

I would ask though, what makes you believe you would know if someone saying they have blind results actually has them or not?

And why (at least figuratively) lose sleep when a blind test is not performed and the person just listened?

 

You mentioned "evidence" but not everyone is interested in convincing a jury. Some folks just have fun sharing their experiences and reading about the experiences of others. I happen to trust Alex's ears more than I trust those of many others. I do not hear everything he has described. I certainly hear *some* things the same way he describes. And it appears I place considerably more importance on cables (which I find *critical*) than he might, though I could be wrong and he might value them as much as I do. So what?

It doesn't matter. His experience won't change mine and my experience won't change his. I know my experience well but I have zero knowledge of his (or yours), other than what he (or you) tells me. That's what brings me to a place like CA -- hearing about what other folks *experience* (and hopefully, providing interesting accounts of my own experiences).

 

As far as how (or if) something sounds, my interest appears to differ from yours. I don't know anything that trumps ears in making such a determination.

All else in my view, is just theoretical exercise. It might be interesting but I know of no measurement, no graph, that tells me how something actually sounds. Oh I can get little bits of info from such, for example something with a peak to average level range of 20 dB is likely to sound more dynamic than something with a range of 6 dB but I won't know for sure until I listen.

 

There comes a point where if one needs to test every little thing, in my view they are no longer *experiencing* the phenomenon anymore. Doing an ABX comparison is not the same as sitting back to listen to music and in my experience, the perceptions of the sounds emanating from the system are not the same in both instances. There are differences in the listener too (these can be measured ;-}). I would consider the scenario that more closely represents how one actually listens to music to be the more accurate one, the more (if you will) *scientific* one. If I'm doing a recording session and the guitar player's B string sounds flat to me, I don't ask them to test it, I tell them to *tune* it. (Though I have experienced a player double check on his tuner -- then proceed to tune it.)

 

Can humans be wrong? Of course. Can they also be right, particularly when there is experience? Of course.

Who would you choose to select a new piano for a concert hall? An engineer with an oscilloscope and RTA or someone who has played piano for several years and has experienced many different pianos? (I'm confident there are folks who would want the engineer to choose their piano. I would prefer to have the musician select it by actually using it for its intended purpose.)

 

Listening to music, hearing sounds, is after all, an *experiential* phenomenon. We can learn a great deal from tests but none will provide the *experience*.

 

As I've often posted: "Was it good for you too?"

"Hold on, let me check my EKG and I'll let you know." ;-}

 

I realize it is all a matter of perspective and my experience has long shown me that different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound.

It is this *I'm* most interested in, the *experience* of listening to music. I want the formats and the gear that delivers the *experience*, not the spec sheet, which while very interesting, is not at all the same thing.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
Hi Barry

It may have been a simple download failure, so having a copy of your DVD, I then decided to use that instead to obtain the best possible copy, and generated the 16/44.1 version using Sony Sound Forge 9. You may recall that sometime back Audiophile Neuroscience had difficulty telling the files apart after downloading them, so I ripped the track directly from my DVD and sent him a Zipped copy of the 24/192 file. He was then able to pick the differences between the files. IIRC, after that you may have done things differently your end with the DLs ?

Regards

Alex

 

Hi Alex,

 

Do know that different SRC and dither than what I used will not produce the same results. To my ears, it will enlarge the differences by introducing its own artifacts.

 

I've zipped the files on the Format Comparison page because the ISP shut the site down when they were .wav files and the site got busy.

I can download and compare them today, same as I could do when they were plain, unzipped .wav files and, at least on my system, hear the same differences I hear when comparing the original master files on the studio computer.

 

Anyway, I'm glad Neuroscience could hear the differences with the versions you sent. Still, do keep in mind that (in my opinion) the SRC and dither algorithms used to create the 16/44 version are critical. I selected the ones I use because they allow me to create a 16/44 version that sounds the most *like* the 24/192 -- i.e., that preserves as much as possible of the high res source while minimizing the artifacts engendered by the very act of reducing the resolution.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment

Hi Barry

David still used your original 16/44.1 version. I only supplied him the best possible copy of the 24/192 version directly from my DVD.I have already demonstrated to my own satisfaction and that of quite a few others, that Internet transmission of an unzipped .wav file can result in noticeable degradation of subtle low level detail.. Cookie Marenco also supplies her music as Uncompressed Zips for download.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 

P.S.

I will not be entering into further discussions with others on this subject. It's already been done to death.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
...

Can you guys hear the difference between Barry Diament's track "Maria" from "Americas" in the original 24/192 format, and the same track after conversion to 16/44.1 ? ...

 

Available for free download where?

"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were.

Link to comment
Simply put.......it's part of the scientific method to challenge hypothesis and theory. It's what's driven advancement in medicine and technology for years. If someone is going to state that a difference exists because they hear it, they should expect to have to support that claim. Let's not loose focus here because we're not talking about people sharing listening experiences.......we're talking about people making conclusions about operational limits of audio equipment based solely on individual listening experiences...... Not the same thing at all.

 

Not relevant in the slightest. You will never be able to convert music lovers into audio scientists no matter how much you desire to do so. Audio naysayers such as yourself have not advance digital or analog technology in the least. It is up to audio designers not audiophiles to exploit audio advances and positive audible differences to advance technology, not naysayers who bury their heads and say such advancement is impossible. Technology has improved in spite of you.

 

As I have previously stated in post #82 "It was audio engineers who listened to the subjectivists complaints of the strident, uncomfortable "digital" sound of early CD that caused them to improve the sound of digital. Were it not for subjectivists CD sound would be exactly the same as it was in 1985, since the scientists in power considered it perfect and published theories to prove that it was indeed perfect. However instead of listening to these digital apologists, audio engineers went about improving digital anyway. If objectivists were in charge there would be no high resolution digital, no separate DACs, and no other improvements as we would be saddled with their disgusting "perfect sound forever". Thank God the engineers ignored them and listened to the subjectivists instead!"

 

As a human being you can share your listening experiences, however you can't decide what other human beings are allowed to like or not like. I'm not interested in your blind audio mediocrity I want to advance the science of music reproduction until it is a realistic as real live music.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
Hi Dennis,

 

Thank you. I guess we have a different experience of these as I hear quite pronounced differences in many areas of the sound I can describe (yes, with my assistant doing the switching so I don't know which I'm listening to -- other than by the sound --- this is routine for me as I always double and triple-check my findings, then check them again).

 

It isn't about Alex or anyone else.

I would ask though, what makes you believe you would know if someone saying they have blind results actually has them or not?

And why (at least figuratively) lose sleep when a blind test is not performed and the person just listened?

 

You mentioned "evidence" but not everyone is interested in convincing a jury. Some folks just have fun sharing their experiences and reading about the experiences of others. I happen to trust Alex's ears more than I trust those of many others. I do not hear everything he has described. I certainly hear *some* things the same way he describes. And it appears I place considerably more importance on cables (which I find *critical*) than he might, though I could be wrong and he might value them as much as I do. So what?

It doesn't matter. His experience won't change mine and my experience won't change his. I know my experience well but I have zero knowledge of his (or yours), other than what he (or you) tells me. That's what brings me to a place like CA -- hearing about what other folks *experience* (and hopefully, providing interesting accounts of my own experiences).

 

As far as how (or if) something sounds, my interest appears to differ from yours. I don't know anything that trumps ears in making such a determination.

All else in my view, is just theoretical exercise. It might be interesting but I know of no measurement, no graph, that tells me how something actually sounds. Oh I can get little bits of info from such, for example something with a peak to average level range of 20 dB is likely to sound more dynamic than something with a range of 6 dB but I won't know for sure until I listen.

 

There comes a point where if one needs to test every little thing, in my view they are no longer *experiencing* the phenomenon anymore. Doing an ABX comparison is not the same as sitting back to listen to music and in my experience, the perceptions of the sounds emanating from the system are not the same in both instances. There are differences in the listener too (these can be measured ;-}). I would consider the scenario that more closely represents how one actually listens to music to be the more accurate one, the more (if you will) *scientific* one. If I'm doing a recording session and the guitar player's B string sounds flat to me, I don't ask them to test it, I tell them to *tune* it. (Though I have experienced a player double check on his tuner -- then proceed to tune it.)

 

Can humans be wrong? Of course. Can they also be right, particularly when there is experience? Of course.

Who would you choose to select a new piano for a concert hall? An engineer with an oscilloscope and RTA or someone who has played piano for several years and has experienced many different pianos? (I'm confident there are folks who would want the engineer to choose their piano. I would prefer to have the musician select it by actually using it for its intended purpose.)

 

Listening to music, hearing sounds, is after all, an *experiential* phenomenon. We can learn a great deal from tests but none will provide the *experience*.

 

As I've often posted: "Was it good for you too?"

"Hold on, let me check my EKG and I'll let you know." ;-}

 

I realize it is all a matter of perspective and my experience has long shown me that different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound.

It is this *I'm* most interested in, the *experience* of listening to music. I want the formats and the gear that delivers the *experience*, not the spec sheet, which while very interesting, is not at all the same thing.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

Thanks Barry for the fantastic post, I agree completely. I just wanted to say your common sense is much appreciated.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
Available for free download where?

 

Don

It's available from Soundkeeper Formats Comparison page. I could also upload the 24/192 .wav file for you as an Uncompressed Zip , but it would take me about 4 hours to UL the 24/192 .wav file due to upload speed limits from Optus.

I am prepared to do that if you want it.

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Audio naysayers such as yourself have not advance digital or analog technology in the least.

 

Teresa

It may be quite unfair to suggest that about his real area of expertise, which is in speaker design. I don't doubt for even a moment that he knows this area very well indeed.

 

Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
...I actually have said in years past it seemed 48 khz was better than 44, but I haven't heard any advantages to more than that...

 

I'm so glad we have choices in digital otherwise I would still be spinning LPs and threading reel to reel tapes. While I find 24/48kHz a little better sounding than 16/44.1kHz it's still unacceptable to me. Digital to my ears doesn't sound or more importantly feel analog-like until at least 24/88.2kHz in my system, in my room and to my ears. However 24/192kHz and higher PCM and 5.6MHz DSD sound the most analog-like to me.

 

If you ever get your way and there is no music released over 48kHz then I will not be buying or even getting free digital music. I prefer choice, low resolution digital for those who prefer it and high resolution digital for those who prefer it's more comfortable sound quality.

 

You don't list your computer or software, however your preamp does have a 24/192 DAC. My final question is if you are using iTunes only are you manually changing the sampling frequency in Core Audio? The default is 24/44.1kHz, if you don't change it and reopen iTunes you will never get the advantage of high resolution music files.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
What Mayhem13 wrote wasn't an insult. It was a description.

 

Dennis, that's just ridiculous. You don't believe what you said, do you? By "description" here, you mean "objectivity", "neutrality" or something similar? Isn't it transparent that it could be read as hostile, given context, history, and the moment (another thread gone bad)? Dennis and Anthony, this result just keeps recurring at a high rate of frequency when you 2 are involved. I'm not saying that others aren't equally responsible, but you must know how you are effecting things here, don't you? I don't believe you are malicious people,and clearly you would assign primary blame elsewhere, but somethings got to give on this site, don't you think? You two are both objective enough to see the harm the conflicts are causing on this site, aren't you? Let's have some realistic solution to this, please!

Link to comment
to obtain the best possible copy, and generated the 16/44.1 version using Sony Sound Forge 9.

 

If you look at SRC Comparisons you'll see that the sample rate convertor of SF9 is so crappy that it can be called broken.

 

For rightful comparison one should at least use something of the calibre of iZotope, and then of course set the filter parameters correctly.

Link to comment
Your attitude is insufferable.

 

I have played the guitar for over 40 years. ​I have designed numerous audio amplifiers. You, as far as I can tell, are neither musician nor engineer.

 

w

 

You have knowledge and expertise. Those two things are indispensable yet profoundly limited to what is known at the time. "Perfect Sound Forever" is a great and common illustration of the limits of knowledge and certainty.

 

I don't understand those who insist on science and measurement over listening - especially where there is an effort to minimize bias in listening comparisons. I would never let a measurement, white paper or spec sheet tell me what sounds best to me.

 

I understand even less those who have the need to insist that others are wrong about what they hear because... science. This need to be right and tout one's credentials and inflict their rightness on others is offensive and harmful to the healthy discussion of ideas.

 

The inability to allow others their own experiences and perceptions is aggressive and suggests insecurity on the part of those that exhibit such behavior - in my humble opinion.

Roon Server: Core i7-3770S, WS2012 + AO => HQP Server: Core, i7-9700K, HQPlayer OS => NAA: Celeron NUC, HQP NAA => ISO Regen with UltraCap LPS 1.2 => Mapleshade USB Cable => Lampizator L4 DSD-Only Balanced DAC Preamp => Blue Jeans Belden Balanced Cables => Mivera PurePower SE Amp => Magnepan 3.7i

Link to comment
You have knowledge and expertise. Those two things are indispensable yet profoundly limited to what is known at the time. "Perfect Sound Forever" is a great and common illustration of the limits of knowledge and certainty.

 

I don't understand those who insist on science and measurement over listening - especially where there is an effort to minimize bias in listening comparisons. I would never let a measurement, white paper or spec sheet tell me what sounds best to me.

 

I understand even less those who have the need to insist that others are wrong about what they hear because... science. This need to be right and tout one's credentials and inflict their rightness on others is offensive and harmful to the healthy discussion of ideas.

 

The inability to allow others their own experiences and perceptions is aggressive and suggests insecurity on the part of those that exhibit such behavior - in my humble opinion.

 

+1

 

Well said. I agree with one possible caveat. I'm not sure that insecurity lies at the root of this behaviour. Arrogance and intolerance are, IMO, probably stronger influences.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
You folks would have been right at home in the dark ages. Your offense is evidence of ignorance. Which indicates your opinions are invalid.

 

If you read carefully, I never said that knowledge, expertise, and facts are of no value or benefit. That would be ridiculous. I actually said that they are indispensable.

 

I'm only stating that, while I read about the technology daily and with great interest, I'm in this hobby to listen to music with my ears. The "facts" are typically in dispute and are ever evolving, or else there would be no need for further analysis.

 

I'm intrigued by the intensity of your response to my assertion that people be allowed their own perceptions about what is, after all, an extremely subjective endeavor. But, of course, that is your right.

Roon Server: Core i7-3770S, WS2012 + AO => HQP Server: Core, i7-9700K, HQPlayer OS => NAA: Celeron NUC, HQP NAA => ISO Regen with UltraCap LPS 1.2 => Mapleshade USB Cable => Lampizator L4 DSD-Only Balanced DAC Preamp => Blue Jeans Belden Balanced Cables => Mivera PurePower SE Amp => Magnepan 3.7i

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...