Linear Powered Rips & flash drives sound better - Alex was right !

[esldude]

Actually, Galileo's problems with the church came far more from his bad attitude and non-existent people skills than the church having grief over his support of the Copernican theory. In fact, probably all of them came from that - he was a total ass, and took much glee from trumping other people and insisting his ideas were the only right ones.

 

Insisting in fact, that everyone agree with him.

 

You realize the church was willing to wait for proof that the ideas were right, and then go re-evaluate their interpretations of scripture to identfy where they got it wrong.

 

Oh sure. Obviously. That is why in 1992, after "evaluating" for 359 years they formally agreed with Galileo. Actually, well it took a 13 year investigation leading to the 1992 agreement with Galileo.

 

Got anymore bull crap you want to push on us? Please, we might all have been born on a turnip truck, but it wasn't yesterday.

 

I think Galileo was an early scientist who set the mold in some sense. He is considered an ass by many. Yet what he really had was clarity. That clarity is what is often mistaken for being an ass. Or to quote Richard Dawkins:

 

"Clarity is threatening. People can’t bear clarity. They want you to weasel around and be obscure. But if you’re clear, if you stand up and say clearly what you think and what you’re saying, then they will think you’re being threatening, aggressive, strident, shrill.”

 

Galileo was clear. The church could NOT live with that. Or at least for 350 years it was threatening. Even at 350 years it wasn't so much agreeable as it was saving face versus being totally irrelevant. In terms of evaluating the church's ability to decide when ideas were right, well, if a third of a millennia lag is okay with you then the Catholic church is it. Should you wish to be more up do date than 20 generations of humanity you might choose something else to go by.

[beanbag]

There's no banner in Hydrogen Audio either, saying welcome to the deaf old blowhard Engineers club either,

or we only believe what we can correlate with our own measurements. Everything is so cut and dried with these relics from last century, and what they were taught at Uni decades earlier is still regarded by many of them as cutting edge research.

 

If you hate it so much, you should stop posting there and complaining here.

[beanbag]

This "I heard it, therefore it must be true" garbage that we 'discuss' here is not only useless but outright harmful: people with the right knowledge won't ever react to such bollocks and audiophiles will continue to spend thousands on the useless 'cures' sold by the crooks & vultures who exploit this kind of noise.

 

Some things are possible, some things are not possible.

 

If a man tells me "I saw a fish give birth to a kitten", I know that it cannot be true. Some things are not possible.

 

You have (generally and severally) lost the ability to decide that something is untrue.

 

No audio quackery is so extreme that it can't find support here.

 

That's why in some way I welcome this discussion. It sorts the wheat from the chaff. There are only 2 right answers, 'don't know' and 'never happen'. Anybody who answers different (Martin Colloms was it?), is shown to be a flake.

 

It's good to have people call out BS once in a while.

[prot]

Ha!! If you understand the term "jabberwocky", you really ought understand that I was hardly trolling (I'm offended :-) Rather a thought experiment for you. If I "assert" that what I've said is the case, you need to "prove" to me that it isn't.

 

These are valid logical "propositions" --- for reference:

Proof by contrapositive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contraposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transposition (logic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Really?

 

Nice try .

That's prolly not gonna move anyone/anything around here but I sure wish you luck! One can never have too much logic

 

@superdad

a cool game, thx for the link

[prot]

Dude

That Pope was more like a typical Gasbag Forum Moderator who refuses to accept the validity of OBSERVATIONS by others, not just based on THEORY, but real observations, just as many members here report.

 

Observations need to be a lot more rigurous that yours .. also helps to have a solid/worthy Hypothesis to test. Without any of those, no science-dude will talk to you.

And I don't think you know what that word Theory means ... hint: gravity is 'just a theory'.

 

 

Anyway, if I were you I would relax now and wouldnt care a bit about forums, internets and 'bad' people.

[sandyk]

It's good to have people call out BS once in a while.

 

Yes. You get called out all the time !

[sandyk]

Reply deleted.

Replies like yours simply aren't worth replying to.

[prot]

Reply deleted.

Replies like yours simply aren't worth replying to.

 

Prolly a very, very good idea.

 

Another good idea would be for me to post less in this thread ... or not at all.

And since the thread is already overly long & over crowded, that may be a good idea for everyone.

 

Goodbye and thx for all the fish!

(at least I'll try )

[Jud]

I do think, in general:

 

- There's not enough money in the high end niche of the audio world to pay for the sort of research that would make science out of our curiosity.

 

- Too many folks think they are "doing science" when all that's happening is trial and error on the one hand, a generalized skepticism on the other, and no one knows whether we're even asking the right questions.

 

- We'd all like to see actual progress toward giving listeners more accurate, realistic, lifelike sound, but only a handful of folks posting on this forum have the research/engineering chops to help us get there. There's John Swenson, Miska, PeterSt, very occasionally Gordon Rankin and Charles Hansen, and I think Demian Martin unfortunately no longer posts here. (Did I miss anyone?) And even among these people it's not hard to find disagreements.

 

- Until that hypothetical day when there's some clear scientific/engineering road forward, I'm not sure any of this is worth getting personal about. (Just sayin'.)

 

Now we've gone through power supply noise and transmitting files over the Internet - USB cables, anyone?

[Audio_ELF]

I do think, in general:

 

- There's not enough money in the high end niche of the audio world to pay for the sort of research that would make science out of our curiosity.

 

- Too many folks think they are "doing science" when all that's happening is trial and error on the one hand, a generalized skepticism on the other, and no one knows whether we're even asking the right questions.

Jud ... I agree with your post however I would comment that...

 

(a) research in this area doesn't have to be expensive - while I am not suggesting his research is the answer; people like Mitchco have at least attempted to move beyond the "I hear it there for it's true" to looking at if he can find a correlation between what people hear and what can be measured. I'm not suggested that his experiments have proved anything; but those that disagree just brush his comments aside which I feel do a disservice. If some people "sat down" together then we could start looking at some valid experiments (IMO). If such experiments lead to some conclusion then others might be more interested.

 

(b) while "doing science" is a big step, small steps could be achieved by people like Alex if he wanted to by putting in some control elements to his experiments. While he will think I am beating him over the head by commenting this again - he (or someone) could easily put together a set of files which individuals could test to try his theory. However to have any validity, my feeling is that he needs to take a step back and be asking "is there a difference" where as what he is asking is "which of these are better". A simple download (or data CD) could be created with 10 pairs of files - some pairs are made both using the same ripping process (normal and improved if you wish to name them) and some pairs will have one of each type of rip. Now ask people if the pairs are the same or different. While this is not "science" documenting a process is the first step in creating a convincing argument.

 

That is if people want to put something out there which is more than just a wild theory or observation without control...

 

Eloise

[miguelito]

(b) while "doing science" is a big step, small steps could be achieved by people like Alex if he wanted to by putting in some control elements to his experiments. While he will think I am beating him over the head by commenting this again - he (or someone) could easily put together a set of files which individuals could test to try his theory. However to have any validity, my feeling is that he needs to take a step back and be asking "is there a difference" where as what he is asking is "which of these are better". A simple download (or data CD) could be created with 10 pairs of files - some pairs are made both using the same ripping process (normal and improved if you wish to name them) and some pairs will have one of each type of rip. Now ask people if the pairs are the same or different. While this is not "science" documenting a process is the first step in creating a convincing argument.

I have my SpongeBob underwear ready for the time when DBT indicates Alex is correct.

[Daudio]

I have my SpongeBob underwear ready for the time when DBT indicates Alex is correct.

 

 

 

I think DBT's in audio are as useful as Trial_by_ordeal

 

But, I also think, like Eloise, that Alex's observations could use some more rigor and experimental repeatability.

[miguelito]

I think DBT's in audio are as useful as Trial_by_ordeal

As Eloise said (and I said previously) I would like 10 pairs, unidentified, to be posted and listened to, and a statistically meaningful comparison of the results. If there's is no statistically significant bias towards the LPS rips, the effect is not there - plain and simple.

[prot]

I think DBT's in audio are as useful as Trial_by_ordeal

 

....

 

TrialByOrdeal is an extreme form of TrialByLuck. DBT is the very exact opposite of trialByLuck. Your comparison is actually even worse, somewhat like comparing apples to your mother's in law taste in men .

As you can (hopefully) see, you can hardly be more wrong than that. Reaching your level of wrongness is in itself a big performance and requires a very special talent

 

P.S.

Sorry for breakin my "no more comments" promise so soon but I just can't refuse meself a portion of good old bashing fun . That's how I learn to "stop worrying and love the by-ear audiophile".

[Audio_ELF]

TrialByOrdeal is an extreme form of TrialByLuck.

Actually Trial by Ordeal is more a case of screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.

 

I suspect Daudio was referring to the point of Trial by Ordeal where usually you are declared innocent if you drown / burn / get crushed and generally expire during the ordeal which proves you innocent!

 

Eloise

[prot]

Actually Trial by Ordeal is more a case of screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.

 

I suspect Daudio was referring to the point of Trial by Ordeal where usually you are declared innocent if you drown / burn / get crushed and generally expire during the ordeal which proves you innocent!

 

Eloise

 

And surviving drown/burn/crush requires the precise 'extreme form of luck' I mentioned. Wish my msges were easier to read...it's all in there written black-on-white!

[jabbr]

However to have any validity, my feeling is that he needs to take a step back and be asking "is there a difference" where as what he is asking is "which of these are better". A simple download (or data CD) could be created with 10 pairs of files - some pairs are made both using the same ripping process (normal and improved if you wish to name them) and some pairs will have one of each type of rip. Now ask people if the pairs are the same or different. While this is not "science" documenting a process is the first step in creating a convincing argument.

 

Exactly. This was my (actual) point. The observation ("different sound") should be the same if the files have their names switched. Of course you need to use a filesystem that doesn't de-dup or encrypt or compress or de-frag behind the scenes ...

[Paul R]

(grin) Boy, are you off on the wrong track. Ever read the Foscarini letters? They are trivially easy to find on the net. It took a full 10 seconds to find the quote below, and this was 12 years before Galileo got called up for the second time.

 

I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by assuming the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.

 

By the way, that quote is from a letter written by Robert Bellamini- who was basically in charge of the dealing with heresy issues. You might note that great care was taken in the letter to not mention heresy. Read it with open eyes, and it sounds pretty open and modern.

 

Of course, history is never as simple as a set of soundbites. There is so much valid and scholarly research in this area available online it would take a lifetime to read it all. Here is one I particularly like myself. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1989JHA....20....1W&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

 

Note is is impossible to read much of this history without drawing parallels to some behavior today. For example, when entrenched academia resists new theories. (grin)

 

As for Galieo's famously acerbic and downright nasty personality, that is also well known.

 

-Paul

 

OKay- I just cannot resist...

 

I say that if there were a true demonstration that two bit identical files played through the same audio chain from the same media sound different one from the other, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Science that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that the files are identical, but to demonstrate that in truth they sound different on different systems or when played from different media; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture Science as interpreted by the Holy Fathers self appointed experts on the Gasbag forum.

 

 

Oh sure. Obviously. That is why in 1992, after "evaluating" for 359 years they formally agreed with Galileo. Actually, well it took a 13 year investigation leading to the 1992 agreement with Galileo.

 

Got anymore bull crap you want to push on us? Please, we might all have been born on a turnip truck, but it wasn't yesterday.

 

I think Galileo was an early scientist who set the mold in some sense. He is considered an ass by many. Yet what he really had was clarity. That clarity is what is often mistaken for being an ass. Or to quote Richard Dawkins:

 

"Clarity is threatening. People can’t bear clarity. They want you to weasel around and be obscure. But if you’re clear, if you stand up and say clearly what you think and what you’re saying, then they will think you’re being threatening, aggressive, strident, shrill.”

 

Galileo was clear. The church could NOT live with that. Or at least for 350 years it was threatening. Even at 350 years it wasn't so much agreeable as it was saving face versus being totally irrelevant. In terms of evaluating the church's ability to decide when ideas were right, well, if a third of a millennia lag is okay with you then the Catholic church is it. Should you wish to be more up do date than 20 generations of humanity you might choose something else to go by.

[miguelito]

TrialByOrdeal is an extreme form of TrialByLuck. DBT is the very exact opposite of trialByLuck. Your comparison is actually even worse, somewhat like comparing apples to your mother's in law taste in men .

As you can (hopefully) see, you can hardly be more wrong than that. Reaching your level of wrongness is in itself a big performance and requires a very special talent

 

P.S.

Sorry for breakin my "no more comments" promise so soon but I just can't refuse meself a portion of good old bashing fun . That's how I learn to "stop worrying and love the by-ear audiophile".

+1 except for the comment on mother in laws (that's disgusting).

[Paul R]

I think DBT's in audio are as useful as Trial_by_ordeal

 

But, I also think, like Eloise, that Alex's observations could use some more rigor and experimental repeatability.

 

Oh no.. someone order up a gallon or two of holy water please, the DBT Daemon is loose again...

[prot]

Oh no.. someone order up a gallon or two of holy water please, the DBT Daemon is loose again...

 

If you wanna stand a chance make it holy wine ! ... and dont forget that ppl also like circus

[Daudio]

I suspect Daudio was referring to the point of Trial by Ordeal where usually you are declared innocent if you drown / burn / get crushed and generally expire during the ordeal which proves you innocent!

 

Eloise,

 

Hmmm,,, so many folks trying to interpret what I meant, when I thought it was fairly evident that I meant that neither are very good at showing the truth of the matter.

 

And just so there is no more misinterpretation: "I think" = IMHO

 

Dave

[esldude]

(grin) Boy, are you off on the wrong track. Ever read the Foscarini letters? They are trivially easy to find on the net. It took a full 10 seconds to find the quote below, and this was 12 years before Galileo got called up for the second time.

 

 

By the way, that quote is from a letter written by Robert Bellamini- who was basically in charge of the dealing with heresy issues. You might note that great care was taken in the letter to not mention heresy. Read it with open eyes, and it sounds pretty open and modern.

 

Of course, history is never as simple as a set of soundbites. There is so much valid and scholarly research in this area available online it would take a lifetime to read it all. Here is one I particularly like myself. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1989JHA....20....1W&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

 

Note is is impossible to read much of this history without drawing parallels to some behavior today. For example, when entrenched academia resists new theories. (grin)

 

As for Galieo's famously acerbic and downright nasty personality, that is also well known.

 

-Paul

 

OKay- I just cannot resist...

 

I say that if there were a true demonstration that two bit identical files played through the same audio chain from the same media sound different one from the other, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Science that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that the files are identical, but to demonstrate that in truth they sound different on different systems or when played from different media; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture Science as interpreted by the Holy Fathers self appointed experts on the Gasbag forum.

 

 

Actually Paul, the letter you quote was something I was familiar with. It brings to mind the similarity I see in high end audio discussions where people wish to believe what they already believe by ignoring the obvious science, and trying to color it with some other version to warp it to support their opinions. Usually opinions developed by the trust-my-ears crowd who aren't willing to contradict the holiness of their ears.

[esldude]

Eloise,

 

Hmmm,,, so many folks trying to interpret what I meant, when I thought it was fairly evident that I meant that neither are very good at showing the truth of the matter.

 

And just so there is no more misinterpretation: "I think" = IMHO

 

Dave

 

The problem with that opinion of yours, is DBT's are demonstrably useful at showing genuine differences. A negative result doesn't show as much, but a rigorous well done blind test with positive results is quite useful. Despite the oft heard complaint they are always negative, that is not the case.

[alfe]

The problem with that opinion of yours, is DBT's are demonstrably useful at showing genuine differences. A negative result doesn't show as much, but a rigorous well done blind test with positive results is quite useful. Despite the oft heard complaint they are always negative, that is not the case.

 

DBT is for distortion blind test,because most of the time that's what people prefer:)