Paul R Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 This I believe - Apple makes some very tough computers. Due to a series of almost unbelievable occurrences, I managed to throw a Mac Mini 17 feet across a room tonight, where it penetrated 6 inches into a drywall 4ft above the floor, and bounced about 5feet back to a carpeted floor. Plugged it in. Tested OK, worked fine. Only about 6 inches of scratch marks from the drywall on it. Dang. Those are tough little computers. -Paul It involved a wild animal that got into the house... Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
kumakuma Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 This I believe - Apple makes some very tough computers. Due to a series of almost unbelievable occurrences, I managed to throw a Mac Mini 17 feet across a room tonight, where it penetrated 6 inches into a drywall 4ft above the floor, and bounced about 5feet back to a carpeted floor. Plugged it in. Tested OK, worked fine. Only about 6 inches of scratch marks from the drywall on it. Dang. Those are tough little computers. -Paul It involved a wild animal that got into the house... Glad to hear the little guy still works. Raccoon, squirrel, or rat? Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 This I believe - Apple makes some very tough computers. Due to a series of almost unbelievable occurrences, I managed to throw a Mac Mini 17 feet across a room tonight, where it penetrated 6 inches into a drywall 4ft above the floor, and bounced about 5feet back to a carpeted floor. Plugged it in. Tested OK, worked fine. Only about 6 inches of scratch marks from the drywall on it. Dang. Those are tough little computers. -Paul It involved a wild animal that got into the house... Paul, All I can say is "anger management" and dont talk about your good wife that way! ;-) Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
Paul R Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 Glad to hear the little guy still works. Raccoon, squirrel, or rat? squirrelious demonicus... Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Superdad Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 squirrelious demonicus... I don't know Paul. I've been in some urgent circumstances before, and somehow I doubt that a computer would ever be the first or last object I would grab to throw at a predator. There was NOTHING else you could have hurled? A desk phone maybe? And did you actually take the time to unplug all the cables from it before you threw it? That would be VERY odd. UpTone Audio LLC Link to comment
kumakuma Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I don't know Paul. I've been in some urgent circumstances before, and somehow I doubt that a computer would ever be the first or last object I would grab to throw at a predator. There was NOTHING else you could have hurled? A desk phone maybe? And did you actually take the time to unplug all the cables from it before you threw it? That would be VERY odd. Yes, Paul. I think we're going to need to hear the entire story. Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
petaluma Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I don't know Paul. I've been in some urgent circumstances before, and somehow I doubt that a computer would ever be the first or last object I would grab to throw at a predator. There was NOTHING else you could have hurled? A desk phone maybe? And did you actually take the time to unplug all the cables from it before you threw it? That would be VERY odd. Quick disconnects and a healthy dose of adrenaline I can see it happening. "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place". George Bernard Shaw. Link to comment
Paul R Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 I don't know Paul. I've been in some urgent circumstances before, and somehow I doubt that a computer would ever be the first or last object I would grab to throw at a predator. There was NOTHING else you could have hurled? A desk phone maybe? And did you actually take the time to unplug all the cables from it before you threw it? That would be VERY odd. I already had it unplugged, because I had just added some memory to the little beastie. When hell broke loose it was the closest thing to hand, and easy to replace. With two cats and dog, who would think one of those fuzzy tailed rats could cause such mayhem? Luck I didn't have a pellet rifle immediately to hand! Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
petaluma Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I already had it unplugged, because I had just added some memory to the little beastie. When hell broke loose it was the closest thing to hand, and easy to replace. With two cats and dog, who would think one of those fuzzy tailed rats could cause such mayhem? Luck I didn't have a pellet rifle immediately to hand! A former sitting president had to fight off a swamp rabbit so I can understand the chaos.... "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place". George Bernard Shaw. Link to comment
Superdad Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I already had it unplugged, because I had just added some memory to the little beastie. When hell broke loose it was the closest thing to hand, and easy to replace. With two cats and dog, who would think one of those fuzzy tailed rats could cause such mayhem? Luck I didn't have a pellet rifle immediately to hand! "Well sir, thank you for coming to the police and game warden station to report the incident. Attacks have been on the rise in the area and the suspects have varied in their methods and viciousness. We have a photo book of some recently spotted individuals. Please take a look and tell us if any of them look like the villain that invaded your home." UpTone Audio LLC Link to comment
shadow ewe Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 "Well sir, thank you for coming to the police and game warden station to report the incident. Attacks have been on the rise in the area and the suspects have varied in their methods and viciousness. We have a photo book of some recently spotted individuals. Please take a look and tell us if any of them look like the villain that invaded your home." [ATTACH=CONFIG]16817[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]16818[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]16820[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]16821[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]16822[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]16819[/ATTACH] Cute - really cute! Less and less: Ikeda 9TS with Kuzma Stogi Ref and Vendetta Phono => Lamm L2 Ref & Lamm 2.2 => Tidal Piano Cera. More and more: Mac Book Pro Retina (mid-2014) with 128GB SSD: with Audirvana 2.0) and all the while auditioning different DACs. (something small and sometimes portable - she who must not be named demands it). Link to comment
Paul R Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 Rotflmao!! Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Solstice380 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Don't mess with Paul, he'll sick his squirrel brigade on you! https://audiophilestyle.com/profile/21384-solstice380/?tab=field_core_pfield_3 Link to comment
InfernoSTi Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 CA is indeed addictive. Good people, smart people, passionate people, and a very small percentage of poopieheads. Recurring poopieheads even. -Paul Not to correct you Paul, but we have Doo Doo Noggin's on the CA forums, not Poopieheads like they have on those "other" audio forums. Our Doo Doo Noggin's are of much higher quality than their Poopieheads.... Positive emotions enhance our musical experiences. Synology DS213+ NAS -> Auralic Vega w/Linear Power Supply -> Auralic Vega DAC (Symposium Jr rollerball isolation) -> XLR -> Auralic Taurus Pre -> XLR -> Pass Labs XA-30.5 power amplifier (on 4" maple and 4 Stillpoints) -> Hawthorne Audio Reference K2 Speakers in MTM configuration (Symposium Jr HD rollerball isolation) and Hawthorne Audio Bass Augmentation Baffles (Symposium Jr rollerball isolation) -> Bi-amped w/ two Rythmic OB plate amps) -> Extensive Room Treatments (x2 SRL Acoustics Prime 37 diffusion plus key absorption and extensive bass trapping) and Pi Audio Uberbuss' for the front end and amplification Link to comment
Allan F Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Not to correct you Paul, but we have Doo Doo Noggin's on the CA forums, not Poopieheads like they have on those "other" audio forums. Our Doo Doo Noggin's are of much higher quality than their Poopieheads.... Of course, you chose those appellations for their technical meaning. "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
bobbmd Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 YashN- i have 'bought in' to this series and i heard bruce willis is supposed to make a cameo appearance-thanks for the youtube video Link to comment
Pneumonic Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 This I believe The vast majority of audiophiles conduct improperly administered subjective testing which is fraught with error and, thus, gives inaccurate results of what constitutes the differences in what they hear when they conduct a listening test. Basic protocols, such as level matching devices under test or ensuring testing is conducted blind and switching done in a timely fashion are rarely, if ever, implemented by most audiophiles. It is these untrustworthy results that are the primary reason why this hobby sees so many different opinions on components that perform with errors in distortion, noise and frequency response that are below human hearing threshold A listening test comparing components is valid only when you are able to instantaneously switch between components which have been properly level matched and whose identities are unknown to you. Link to comment
Pneumonic Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 This I believe High-end audio defines any audio component that performs with errors in distortion, noise and frequency response which are inaudible. For this purpose, as follows: • Distortions (individual harmonic, alias, modulation, & crosstalk) all below –90 dBFS with their total sum below –80 dBFS (0.01%) • All noises below –110 dB with total sum below –100 dBFS • All jitters below –110 dB with total sum below -100 dBFS • All over a linear fr (20Hz – 19 kHz within +/- 0.1 dB) Obviously, I am presumptuous and believe that current measurement processes and instruments can measure all things that determine sound quality (for audio electronics; not transducers). I freely acknowledge the possibility that components and elements of psychoacoustics (a study of science I have only cursory knowledge of) may well alter & impact hearing in ways that the above criteria can’t explain but, in the absence of science, or even 1 measly controlled listening proof, that refutes the limits, I am certainly not in a position to question it. Not when the overwhelming evidence supports that there is no demonstrated audible difference that isn’t measurable. Could there come a time when this could change? Sure, but that's more a philosophical question which could be debated till the cows come home. A listening test comparing components is valid only when you are able to instantaneously switch between components which have been properly level matched and whose identities are unknown to you. Link to comment
Paul R Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 This I believe High-end audio defines any audio component that performs with errors in distortion, noise and frequency response which are inaudible. For this purpose, as follows: • Distortions (individual harmonic, alias, modulation, & crosstalk) all below –90 dBFS with their total sum below –80 dBFS (0.01%) • All noises below –110 dB with total sum below –100 dBFS • All jitters below –110 dB with total sum below -100 dBFS • All over a linear fr (20Hz – 19 kHz within +/- 0.1 dB) Obviously, I am presumptuous and believe that current measurement processes and instruments can measure all things that determine sound quality (for audio electronics; not transducers). I freely acknowledge the possibility that components and elements of psychoacoustics (a study of science I have only cursory knowledge of) may well alter & impact hearing in ways that the above criteria can’t explain but, in the absence of science, or even 1 measly controlled listening proof, that refutes the limits, I am certainly not in a position to question it. Not when the overwhelming evidence supports that there is no demonstrated audible difference that isn’t measurable. Could there come a time when this could change? Sure, but that's more a philosophical question which could be debated till the cows come home. I like this. I am not sure I agree with it completely, but I like this. Yours, -Paul Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 This I believe High-end audio defines ... Was there some Governing body meeting that I missed? :~) Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Superdad Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Obviously, I am presumptuous and believe that current measurement processes and instruments can measure all things that determine sound quality (for audio electronics; not transducers). Indeed. Very presumptuous. UpTone Audio LLC Link to comment
Superdad Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Was there some Governing body meeting… You mean, like when my wife gets home? Talk about a governing body… UpTone Audio LLC Link to comment
Paul R Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 You mean, like when my wife gets home? Talk about a governing body… Almost enough to convince a person that Astrology is effective - with heavenly bodies ruling our destiny... Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Was there some Governing body meeting that I missed? :~) It wasn't in a CA meeting but AA meeting..... Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
esldude Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 This I believe High-end audio defines any audio component that performs with errors in distortion, noise and frequency response which are inaudible. For this purpose, as follows: • Distortions (individual harmonic, alias, modulation, & crosstalk) all below –90 dBFS with their total sum below –80 dBFS (0.01%) • All noises below –110 dB with total sum below –100 dBFS • All jitters below –110 dB with total sum below -100 dBFS • All over a linear fr (20Hz – 19 kHz within +/- 0.1 dB) Obviously, I am presumptuous and believe that current measurement processes and instruments can measure all things that determine sound quality (for audio electronics; not transducers). I freely acknowledge the possibility that components and elements of psychoacoustics (a study of science I have only cursory knowledge of) may well alter & impact hearing in ways that the above criteria can’t explain but, in the absence of science, or even 1 measly controlled listening proof, that refutes the limits, I am certainly not in a position to question it. Not when the overwhelming evidence supports that there is no demonstrated audible difference that isn’t measurable. Could there come a time when this could change? Sure, but that's more a philosophical question which could be debated till the cows come home. Heard a number of undoubtedly high end systems that will not meet those specs. What you are describing actually is a high fidelity system. Which probably is the best goal to have. Sometimes, an artful melding of equipment can minimize shortcomings, emphasize strengths and get a better result than you might expect. 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
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now