Jump to content
IGNORED

Please eliminate direct marketing threads and posts!


mayhem13

Recommended Posts

Just my $0.02, but I think that the abusive marketing, basically scams, are already weeded out. And CA provides the perfect place for most small business audio and music vendors to hang about and connect with people. Even enjoy themselves interacting.

 

The abusive marketing, like the JPlay hurrah and the people that try to sell their gear by starting innocent sounding threads, and hide their commercial affiliation, I think Chris does a pretty good job of handling. And what he might miss, Eloise will find and shine a light on. ;)

 

Personally, I would far rather be able to post a question here and have Alex K., John Swenson, Gordon Rankin, Matt Ashland, Peter St., Demian, Jussi, or a few dozen other people jump in to answer than not. Also, it provides rather direct access to their products.

 

I admit it is a fine line, but responsible, respected and respectful vendors are important parts of the community here.

 

-Paul

 

+1

Ambassador for Sound Galleries Monaco and Taiko Audio The Netherlands 

Sound Test USA

[email protected]

 

Sound Galleries SGM 2015 Music Server>ROON-all rates up-sampled to DSD512 by HQ Player>Sablon Reserva 2017 USB>T+A DAC 8 DSD>Merrill Audio Veritas Ncore NC1200 Mono Amps>B&W 802D>High Fidelity Cables Interconnect, Speaker & Power Cords for Amps & SGM & T+A>Power Conditioning High Fidelity MC-6 Hemisphere>T+A & Hemisphere supported by Stillpoints Ultra Mini - B&W 802D & Veritas supported by Stillpoints Ultra SS>All sitting on IKEA Aptitlig bamboo butcher blocks - Taiko Audio Setchi active grounding on SGM & T+A

Link to comment
Just my $0.02, but I think that the abusive marketing, basically scams, are already weeded out. And CA provides the perfect place for most small business audio and music vendors to hang about and connect with people. Even enjoy themselves interacting.

 

The abusive marketing, like the JPlay hurrah and the people that try to sell their gear by starting innocent sounding threads, and hide their commercial affiliation, I think Chris does a pretty good job of handling. And what he might miss, Eloise will find and shine a light on. ;)

 

Personally, I would far rather be able to post a question here and have Alex K., John Swenson, Gordon Rankin, Matt Ashland, Peter St., Demian, Jussi, or a few dozen other people jump in to answer than not. Also, it provides rather direct access to their products.

 

I admit it is a fine line, but responsible, respected and respectful vendors are important parts of the community here.

 

-Paul

 

+1

Headphones: ZMF Atrium Closed, ZMF Bokeh, Audeze LCD-X, Meze 109 Pro, Focal Clear Mg, Noble Katana IEMs, Dan Clark Aeon 2 Closed
Amp/DAC: Decware MKIII Tube Amp, ZMF Homage, Schiit Bifrost 2/64, Woo Audio WA8, Burston Playmate 2, Mytek DSD192 DAC, Cayin RU7, Chord Mojo, Fiio M11 Plus DAP
Cables: Promitheus XLR Interconnects, WyWired red cables, Meze Silver, ZMF 6.35 ofc and 4 pin xlr stock, Arctic Cable, Audio Envy Cable balanced, balanced Silver Interconnects
Other: Aurender N100H, Macbook Pro (2023) running Audirvana Studio

Link to comment
Just my $0.02, but I think that the abusive marketing, basically scams, are already weeded out. And CA provides the perfect place for most small business audio and music vendors to hang about and connect with people. Even enjoy themselves interacting.

 

The abusive marketing, like the JPlay hurrah and the people that try to sell their gear by starting innocent sounding threads, and hide their commercial affiliation, I think Chris does a pretty good job of handling. And what he might miss, Eloise will find and shine a light on. ;)

 

Personally, I would far rather be able to post a question here and have Alex K., John Swenson, Gordon Rankin, Matt Ashland, Peter St., Demian, Jussi, or a few dozen other people jump in to answer than not. Also, it provides rather direct access to their products.

 

I admit it is a fine line, but responsible, respected and respectful vendors are important parts of the community here.

 

-Paul

 

Agree

The Truth Is Out There

Link to comment
(True Story) About a year ago I decided I wanted to ask Eric Clapton a few questions about his cable and equipment preference in the recording studio. So I went on the internet and did a bit of research. I found that there were "brokers" who claimed to be able to arrange interviews with various personalities for a fee. I found the fees to be out of reach. (and I had no idea if these brokers were legit.

 

I find having a chance to interact with the individuals who create the tools and equipment we use in this hobby to be a wonderful bonus. I cannot talk to Mr. Ford, Mr. Gates, or anyone of that ilk. Here, sometimes, we can.

 

A wonderful hobby! ~ Made better with the interaction some wish to curtail.

 

....But they are accessible to you anytime via private message or email. That way you can have a one on one discussion without the fear of your thread being derailed or trolled. Anything else?

Link to comment
Just my $0.02, but I think that the abusive marketing, basically scams, are already weeded out. And CA provides the perfect place for most small business audio and music vendors to hang about and connect with people. Even enjoy themselves interacting.

 

The abusive marketing, like the JPlay hurrah and the people that try to sell their gear by starting innocent sounding threads, and hide their commercial affiliation, I think Chris does a pretty good job of handling. And what he might miss, Eloise will find and shine a light on. ;)

 

Personally, I would far rather be able to post a question here and have Alex K., John Swenson, Gordon Rankin, Matt Ashland, Peter St., Demian, Jussi, or a few dozen other people jump in to answer than not. Also, it provides rather direct access to their products.

 

I admit it is a fine line, but responsible, respected and respectful vendors are important parts of the community here.

 

-Paul

 

Agreed.......but if you have a question directly related to their products or intent of purchase, you would both be better served via PM or Email yes?

Link to comment
To put it another way........

 

No surpression free thinking, free speech or free ideology,........just no free advertising or marketing. Does that sit better now?

 

no problem with this as long as paid advertisors can continue to post and do their marketing

There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made. Richard P Feynman

 

http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/

Link to comment
Agreed.......but if you have a question directly related to their products or intent of purchase, you would both be better served via PM or Email yes?

 

Actually, corresponding about commercial products via PM is an activity that runs the risk of banning at CA for the manufacturer, the PM facility being seen as something private. (I think, though Chris can correct me if I'm wrong, that this would be for *unsolicited* correspondence, but still, that's not always crystal clear. For example: "You PM'd me about Thing A, but I've just begun production of Thing B that does the same thing much better for only $10 more if you're interested.")

 

And email, well, let's see - I want to know how many people might want to buy a product I haven't manufactured yet that I know there's an interest in, and I need 150+ units to make a go of it. I can't advertise and let customers come to me, because there's nothing to advertise. So I need to PM how many people to get their email addresses so I can email them each individually and inquire about that? And risk banning for that solicitation PM? Instead, a forum member was able to start a thread asking about interest one time, not imposing on anyone privately, and everyone was happy. He got the 150+ expressions of interest he needed in order to commit himself financially to the project, and has now linked to his website to keep us (yes, I was one of those expressing interest) updated.

 

Plus which, after all that, you'd still have posts from the same people expressing the same thoughts about things audio that drive you up the wall, just without the addendum of "...and we have plans to make and sell something which addresses that." So I'm not sure what would be gained in the end, other than a great deal of inconvenience for the manufacturers and those interested in the products.

 

And I even feel this way about products that I completely agree are based in pure horse hockey - the "quantum" stuff, and other such. Let me have a chance to express my opinion about them (politely, once or twice). (When I did this over at Audiostream regarding the company making the "quantum" products, though they responded in the comments saying their claims were perfectly valid, they changed their website copy the next day!)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Actually, corresponding about commercial products via PM is an activity that runs the risk of banning at CA for the manufacturer, the PM facility being seen as something private. (I think, though Chris can correct me if I'm wrong, that this would be for *unsolicited* correspondence, but still, that's not always crystal clear. For example: "You PM'd me about Thing A, but I've just begun production of Thing B that does the same thing much better for only $10 more if you're interested.")

 

And email, well, let's see - I want to know how many people might want to buy a product I haven't manufactured yet that I know there's an interest in, and I need 150+ units to make a go of it. I can't advertise and let customers come to me, because there's nothing to advertise. So I need to PM how many people to get their email addresses so I can email them each individually and inquire about that? And risk banning for that solicitation PM? Instead, a forum member was able to start a thread asking about interest one time, not imposing on anyone privately, and everyone was happy. He got the 150+ expressions of interest he needed in order to commit himself financially to the project, and has now linked to his website to keep us (yes, I was one of those expressing interest) updated.

 

Plus which, after all that, you'd still have posts from the same people expressing the same thoughts about things audio that drive you up the wall, just without the addendum of "...and we have plans to make and sell something which addresses that." So I'm not sure what would be gained in the end, other than a great deal of inconvenience for the manufacturers and those interested in the products.

 

And I even feel this way about products that I completely agree are based in pure horse hockey - the "quantum" stuff, and other such. Let me have a chance to express my opinion about them (politely, once or twice). (When I did this over at Audiostream regarding the company making the "quantum" products, though they responded in the comments saying their claims were perfectly valid, they changed their website copy the next day!)

 

Sorry.....I am CERTAINLY AGAINST commercial kickstarting on forums. Nothing but less than positive experiences posted all over the web with that type of campaign.

 

Quantum, Rectum,.....what's the difference? lOL

Link to comment
Sorry.....I am CERTAINLY AGAINST commercial kickstarting on forums. Nothing but less than positive experiences posted all over the web with that type of campaign.

 

 

I haven't noticed less than positive experiences dominating on the huge threads about commercial software players. Information regarding these products and updates to them are among the most popular thread topics on this site. And the kickstarting I mentioned in my last post was done by the person who began what is probably the all time most popular thread on this entire forum, with the sole exception of Album of the Evening. So I would say the objective evidence (couldn't resist ;) ) on this forum is positive.

 

And back to the original subject, I don't know that I've seen a single comment from a dissatisfied customer regarding the only product Superdad and John Swenson have offered together thus far, while I've seen many from people who are pleased with it. (Perhaps they're only imagining the changes that they're pleased with, but then we're once again back to whether we can conclusively prove anything of the kind, and whether we would want to go to the trouble even if it was possible.)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
You mean like the differences in measurements on this page - SRC Comparisons - when you plug in Apple CoreAudio (Leopard) and Miska's Signalyst 2.9.1 (ShortPolySinc) choose the "Impulse" test, and see the latter has better ringing behavior? Or don't you think such things will make any audible difference to the listener, and we're back to what you've just called "personal experience"?

Measured diffs in impulse behaviour are proof yes. Whether the diffs are audible or not is 'personal experience' (depends on your ears & setup)

 

Regarding "fully proven that things like phase alignment and flat frequency response sound closer to the original recording" - since it is cut-and-dried mathematics that phase correctness, flat in-band frequency response (i.e., lack of aliasing) and impulse behavior (lack of "ringing") are all related in digital audio (as aliasing behavior improves, ringing worsens, and vice versa; as "pre-ringing" is minimized, phase is no longer linear), can you show me the work that "fully proves" some particular balance of these characteristics is the *correct* one?

 

not sure if you need any proof for that ... two speakers with perfect phase alignment & flat frequency response are, pretty much by definition, going to reproduce the original sound. Studio pros set their speakers like that (or better said they try) when mixing your music. Those are of course not the only params, but a good start.

Again, whether you like a flat response or not is 'personal preference'

Link to comment
You're kidding, you're that close?! I would absolutely love that! I'll PM you - and Happy New Year. :)

 

P.S. Re room treatments - If you think *I* have an unfair advantage in arguing, wait until you meet my lovely wife!

 

Sounds good. I suspect you're about a 2hr drive for me without traffic. We can forgoe the room treatments then as I try and avoid debates with the opposite sex at all costs!!!

Link to comment
guys, it amazes me how every single thread on this site gets morphed into an objectivist vs. Subjectivist debate.

 

 

post of the day award!!! ++1

 

 

your lips to god's ears musicophile!!

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to comment

The guy still wants somebody to convince him that Swenson and Superdad have made positive contributions... How many people need to do that? How blind can one be to this?

 

If he can't find anything positive in their contributions... there's not much to say. Adding to the ignore list in a minute.

 

Very far from it. He's got more experience of setting up audio systems for critical performance than you or I ever will. Take advantage of having people here who know more than you in their areas of specialization rather than being so quick to dismiss them.

 

(That last sentence is exactly what I'd say to mayhem about John and Superdad.)

Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites

Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623

DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels

Link to comment
Guys, it amazes me how every single thread on this site gets morphed into an objectivist vs. subjectivist debate.

 

True ... and not the best ever.

 

Everytime one adds an objective remark like "x is not proven" or "x is plain wrong", hell breaks loose. Also many threads are full of stuff like "x sounds best" or "y sounds different" and when you ask, turns out noone did even the simplest, most basic side-by-side comparison.

 

Solve those two issues and you have total harmony :)

 

 

P.S.

those obj vs subj discussions are pretty much embedded in the very site name

Computer - objective ppl who work with math & logic and wont accept any untested statement. Also easily annoyed by any unscientific remark.

Audiophile - subjectives who only trust their ears and think they can hear better than trained dogs. Usually also have no idea about information science and think a computer is some sort of "turntable with bits"

Link to comment
True ... and not the best ever.

 

Everytime one adds an objective remark like "x is not proven" or "x is plain wrong", hell breaks loose. Also many threads are full of stuff like "x sounds best" or "y sounds different" and when you ask, turns out noone did even the simplest, most basic side-by-side comparison.

 

Solve those two issues and you have total harmony :)

 

 

P.S.

those obj vs subj discussions are pretty much embedded in the very site name

Computer - objective ppl who work with math & logic and wont accept any untested statement. Also easily annoyed by any unscientific remark.

Audiophile - subjectives who only trust their ears and think they can hear better than trained dogs. Usually also have no idea about information science and think a computer is some sort of "turntable with bits"

 

glad you're here to police the forum, things were getting out of hand.

There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made. Richard P Feynman

 

http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/

Link to comment
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the whole site including the forum owned by Chris?

Assuming that is correct, ultimately, he has to decide what he think is acceptable or not.

 

Exactly right, johann, and I like the way this forum has turned out so far.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

not sure if you need any proof for that ... two speakers with perfect phase alignment & flat frequency response are, pretty much by definition, going to reproduce the original sound. Studio pros set their speakers like that (or better said they try) when mixing your music. Those are of course not the only params, but a good start.

Again, whether you like a flat response or not is 'personal preference'

 

Speakers with perfect phase alignment and flat frequency response (for some value of "flat," check out the graphs in Stereophile reviews to see how closely most speakers approach this) will reflect as accurately as possible (assuming good amplification) the output of the DAC. If you want the output of the DAC to have a flat, accurate frequency response, then you will have "ringling" (this is sheer mathematics, not some problem of bad equipment) which may smear the attack on transients. Do you want flatter frequency response or better transient behavior? One way to cope with the problem of transients is to mostly eliminate pre-ringing. But that pushes the ringing energy to after the signal. While this may sound more natural than smearing attacks, it is still artificial and not strictly an accurate reproduction of the signal. The other problem with this (again, just math, not an equipment problem) is that you no longer have linear phase. Now you've changed the phase response and created group delay. (I assume you know what that is, but if not, I'll be happy to repeat the explanation I've read on the web.)

 

Now if you want to keep the filter response from ringing, you're going to have to accept more aliasing, which means your frequency response is no longer flat - again, sheer mathematics.

 

The degree to which all of these are audible is a question that's been discussed and argued about at length on this forum and others by very smart people.

 

To see what I'm talking about graphically in terms of the math and how maximizing one aspect of the filtering causes inevitable changes in other aspects, go to SRC Comparisons . Plug in iZotope RX Adv 2 (High Steepness) as one of the selections and iZotope Rx Adv 2 (Intermediate Phase) as the other. Then check out the Transition (showing frequency response - anything above 22.05kHz will cause aliasing), Phase (high steepness is linear, intermediate phase is of course not), and Impulse tests (see the pre-ringing minimized by intermediate phase?). This is one filter with various parameters being adjusted, and the responses to the three tests changing as a result.

 

Now maybe you're absolutely sure there's an objective point where all these considerations (frequency response, transient response, phase) are optimally balanced. I think maybe it's a matter of people's systems, rooms, and tastes.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
True ... and not the best ever.

 

Everytime one adds an objective remark like "x is not proven" or "x is plain wrong", hell breaks loose. Also many threads are full of stuff like "x sounds best" or "y sounds different" and when you ask, turns out noone did even the simplest, most basic side-by-side comparison.

 

Solve those two issues and you have total harmony :)

 

 

P.S.

those obj vs subj discussions are pretty much embedded in the very site name

Computer - objective ppl who work with math & logic and wont accept any untested statement. Also easily annoyed by any unscientific remark.

Audiophile - subjectives who only trust their ears and think they can hear better than trained dogs. Usually also have no idea about information science and think a computer is some sort of "turntable with bits"

What's your workflow for doing the simplest, most basic side-by-side comparison?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
The guy still wants somebody to convince him that Swenson and Superdad have made positive contributions... How many people need to do that? How blind can one be to this?

 

If he can't find anything positive in their contributions... there's not much to say. Adding to the ignore list in a minute.

 

Let me show you my concerned look?..........

Link to comment
What's your workflow for doing the simplest, most basic side-by-side comparison?

 

That depends on what you compare. Foobar ABX is a wonderful tool. Or, e.g. in case you compare cable pairs, Jud also mentioned a very nice way: use one cable from set1 and one cable from set2, see if you hear any left/right imbalance ... ask someone to change cables for you, see if you can identify the 'better' one.

It may get quite complicated with stuff like AO...you'll need two identical PCs for that

...and so on ...

Link to comment
Speakers with perfect phase alignment and flat frequency response (for some value of "flat," check out the graphs in Stereophile reviews to see how closely most speakers approach this) will reflect as accurately as possible (assuming good amplification) the output of the DAC. If you want the output of the DAC to have a flat, accurate frequency response, then you will have "ringling" (this is sheer mathematics, not some problem of bad equipment) which may smear the attack on transients. Do you want flatter frequency response or better transient behavior? One way to cope with the problem of transients is to mostly eliminate pre-ringing. But that pushes the ringing energy to after the signal. While this may sound more natural than smearing attacks, it is still artificial and not strictly an accurate reproduction of the signal. The other problem with this (again, just math, not an equipment problem) is that you no longer have linear phase. Now you've changed the phase response and created group delay. (I assume you know what that is, but if not, I'll be happy to repeat the explanation I've read on the web.)

 

Now if you want to keep the filter response from ringing, you're going to have to accept more aliasing, which means your frequency response is no longer flat - again, sheer mathematics.

 

The degree to which all of these are audible is a question that's been discussed and argued about at length on this forum and others by very smart people.

 

To see what I'm talking about graphically in terms of the math and how maximizing one aspect of the filtering causes inevitable changes in other aspects, go to SRC Comparisons . Plug in iZotope RX Adv 2 (High Steepness) as one of the selections and iZotope Rx Adv 2 (Intermediate Phase) as the other. Then check out the Transition (showing frequency response - anything above 22.05kHz will cause aliasing), Phase (high steepness is linear, intermediate phase is of course not), and Impulse tests (see the pre-ringing minimized by intermediate phase?). This is one filter with various parameters being adjusted, and the responses to the three tests changing as a result.

 

Pretty solid but I dont know who are u lecturing here...pretty sure my post said phase & flat freq were not the only things to care about. Would also be great to stop throwing that comparison link at me ... afaik, I first posted it a few weeks ago, it might just be that I know what it does ;)

 

Now maybe you're absolutely sure there's an objective point where all these considerations (frequency response, transient response, phase) are optimally balanced. I think maybe it's a matter of people's systems, rooms, and tastes.

 

The objective point is quite real and pretty much by definition. It's not perfect (may never be) but already very good. This point gives you a sound that is closest to the original recording ... it also includes all your equip & room (e.g. acourate does that)

However, you may no like that sound ...and that's the only matter of taste ... and why we have EQs

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...