Bugs, Regens, Words...Hilarity!

[Daudio]

Operative word is show. Last time I checked a text blurb about what they solve or purport too.

 

Oh, how clever ! Slippery way to avoid a honest answer.

 

And equating "commercial businesses" with a (legally) fraudulant religion just plain stinks !

 

As best I can tell you are little more then a rude mid-fi guy hiding behind anonymity and a super critical objectivist pose. I haven't seen you bring anything positive to this forum

 

So welcome to my Ignore List----

[dallasjustice]

Prism Sound

Hey, finally something we can agree on!

 

You mentioned there being more competition for AP, but we have yet to see any less expensive (or even equal priced) units that can produce a 24-bit, 1 million+ point FFT. AFIK, that is only available from the newer AP units with the BW52 ultra-high bandwidth option--and that is what Swenson tells me he wants (APx525, $13,870 without the DIO--ouch). So please tell me if you know of some other equivalent.

 

Ciao,

ALEX

[BobSherman]

Both. I measure with a mic and then I listen. The ear is an important tool but we are not cavemen. We have other advanced tools which can improve things further.

 

Just curious,

 

If you had to chose one... Which would it be. Your senses? Or testing?

[dallasjustice]

Nice try Bob. :-)

 

Just curious,

 

If you had to chose one... Which would it be. Your senses? Or testing?

[Daudio]

I wasn't aware you'd bought the site from Chris.

 

That's a ridiculous reading of my post. I never said, or implied, that I would, or could, take any action. Point your legal mind to the context.

 

OTOH, you seem to be the one acting like a moderator around here. All around, all the time, encouraging the troll-like posts, tripping up people on minor, distracting, points, scolding those you interpret of bad behavior.

 

audio6's ideas about you being a secret moderator seems an outlier, but hard to dismiss some of his points

 

 

 

Is there something I've missed? Daudio has bought the CA site?

Just checking if I understood correctly.

 

No, Nikhil, I have no more interest in CA then any other regular member. Jud must be having an LSD flashback

[BobSherman]

Nice try Bob. :-)

 

 

[BobP63]

Nice try Bob. :-)

 

Seemed like a valid question, why not answer? I know which I would choose.

[Superdad]

Prism Sound

 

Sorry, not even close. Max 256,000 point analogue FFT, and maybe 12-bit depth. And that's for the top-of-the-line dScope III.

[davide256]

I'd like to share a phenomena I've observed, that seems to occur in both the analog and digital domain.

 

A single instrument is easy for a digital or analog source source solution to reproduce

2 different instruments playing at same intensity is easy for a digital or analog or source solution to reproduce

 

Add a third different instrument playing at lesser intensity and systems start to be challenged to provide the same clarity/presence for the third

instrument as for the first two instruments. As more and more different background instruments are added they become a crowd voice vs the discrete

instruments you could separate out in listening at a live performance.

 

I find the combination of regen/jitterbug brings the digital listening experience closer to the instrument separation I can hear at a live performance. Don't know of a measurement for this but simple a/b with both in or out empirically proves it for me

[YashN]

I think there's a lot we don't know about time domain distortion.

 

Some people have already known for a good while, but others persist in asking for or looking at charts of frequencies only as if everything is contained in those...

[Jud]

Pardon the OT ...

 

Is there something I've missed? Daudio has bought the CA site?

Just checking if I understood correctly.

 

Nikhil, my apologies that my use of sarcasm misled you. The meaning is this: Dave (Daudio) told another poster he might wind up being banned. To me it is the exclusive prerogative of the site owner to decide whether none of us should see another person's posts. The rest of us can use the ignore list if someone else's postings consistently bother us.

 

Dave pointed out that I was acting like a moderator by telling him this, which is *also* the exclusive prerogative of the site owner. This is fair comment - in the moment I tend to want to write such posts, but overall I would prefer to stick to audio.

[Jud]

Jud,

It was great to meet you and your wife after the Audio Precision presentation. Whenever that video hits YouTube, it will no doubt launch a new battlefield between the usual two audiophile camps. It was very thought provoking and proved that we are only scratching the surface in terms of measurements. Having said that, I am more convinced that precise and competent measurements are needed more now than ever.

 

One thing that wasn't mentioned in the presentation is that AP's gear is outrageously expensive and there's more competition than ever from some pretty high quality manufacturers.

 

Michael.

 

You as well, Michael. We had a blast at RMAF, largely due to meeting and talking to great people I know from this site.

 

I too thought the AP presentation was fascinating (in contrast to my wife, who spent much of the seminar sketching the word "Boring!" in various decorative fonts on her notepad).

 

There's more I'd like to write about the seminar and RMAF, but I'll save it for when I'm not on the road and thumb typing into a phone.

[Blake]

The massive elephant in the room that people tend to keep glossing over is that AFAIK we currently are unable to measure all aspects of sound, either because we cannot know for certain that we know what "all aspects of sound" entails, and/or because we don't have the equipment to measure all these aspects.

 

Does anyone disagree with the statement above? I'd sincerely like to hear if anyone has a different viewpoint or understanding- perhaps I'm missing something here.

 

If true, then can we agree that some of the sonic improvements or changes that users may report hearing in these devices are not capable of measurement?

 

If that is true, then an argument styled "Unless you can prove it with measurements, I don't believe your device provides any sonic improvements" seems to be short-sighted. Granted, some of the improvements brought about by the device in question might have happened inadvertently.

 

This is distinguished of course from asking for proof that a certain particular engineering issue (a) is really an issue that needs fixing, and (b) was in fact corrected with the device which is claimed to solve that problem. These are fair questions.

[r_w]

Blake, I'm with you... I suspect that the correct measurements required to sum up 'quality of music replay experience' have yet to be found. That's why I will be using my ears (and if/when they are found my ears will still be afforded absolute priority)

 

:-)

[BobSherman]

The massive elephant in the room that people tend to keep glossing over is that AFAIK we currently are unable to measure all aspects of sound, either because we cannot know for certain that we know what "all aspects of sound" entails, and/or because we don't have the equipment to measure all these aspects.

 

Does anyone disagree with the statement above? I'd sincerely like to hear if anyone has a different viewpoint or understanding- perhaps I'm missing something here.

 

If true, then can we agree that some of the sonic improvements or changes that users may report hearing in these devices are not capable of measurement?

 

If that is true, then an argument styled "Unless you can prove it with measurements, I don't believe your device provides any sonic improvements" seems to be short-sighted. Granted, some of the improvements brought about by the device in question might have happened inadvertently.

 

This is distinguished of course from asking for proof that a certain particular engineering issue (a) is really an issue that needs fixing, and (b) was in fact corrected with the device which is claimed to solve that problem. These are fair questions.

 

 

+1

[lmitche]

+1

[dallasjustice]

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." Einstein.

[Superdad]

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." Einstein.

 

Again I am agreeing with you! Dang, twice in as many days. What a strange way to end the week.

[BobSherman]

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." Einstein.

 

 

He also said... "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

[Jud]

Jud,

It was great to meet you and your wife after the Audio Precision presentation. Whenever that video hits YouTube, it will no doubt launch a new battlefield between the usual two audiophile camps. It was very thought provoking and proved that we are only scratching the surface in terms of measurements. Having said that, I am more convinced that precise and competent measurements are needed more now than ever.

 

One thing that wasn't mentioned in the presentation is that AP's gear is outrageously expensive and there's more competition than ever from some pretty high quality manufacturers.

 

Michael.

 

The massive elephant in the room that people tend to keep glossing over is that AFAIK we currently are unable to measure all aspects of sound, either because we cannot know for certain that we know what "all aspects of sound" entails, and/or because we don't have the equipment to measure all these aspects.

 

Does anyone disagree with the statement above? I'd sincerely like to hear if anyone has a different viewpoint or understanding- perhaps I'm missing something here.

 

If true, then can we agree that some of the sonic improvements or changes that users may report hearing in these devices are not capable of measurement?

 

If that is true, then an argument styled "Unless you can prove it with measurements, I don't believe your device provides any sonic improvements" seems to be short-sighted. Granted, some of the improvements brought about by the device in question might have happened inadvertently.

 

This is distinguished of course from asking for proof that a certain particular engineering issue (a) is really an issue that needs fixing, and (b) was in fact corrected with the device which is claimed to solve that problem. These are fair questions.

 

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." Einstein.

 

Michael's Einstein quote is taken from the AP seminar at RMAF, so AP, or at least its representative who gave the seminar, agrees with you, Blake. I'm sure that's part of the reason Michael mentioned he thought the seminar would provoke discussion when it's posted on the Web.

[Nikhil]

No, Nikhil, I have no more interest in CA then any other regular member. Jud must be having an LSD flashback

 

Nikhil, my apologies that my use of sarcasm misled you. ...

 

 

LOL! Thanks for the clarification anyways! I had posted just after pouring myself my morning cup of coffee. Will remind myself to be awake before posting next time.

[Nikhil]

Measurements seem to be a very noble goal but testing with intellectual rigour is prohibitively expensive and beyond the scope of Audio. Period.

 

The Pharmaceutical and Automobile industries have spent more than most in the area and even they are fudging the numbers. Almost all of them do just enough to get past the required certifications. But that is another discussion altogether. Audio is nowhere near the size of these industries and trying to apply rigorous testing standards etc is nothing short of foolishness.

 

Amir's experiment is an example. The test ended up measuring the wrong phenomenon, put out results that in the -125dB to -120dB range (read inaudible) and then rushes to wrong conclusions.

[audio6]

Nikhil, my apologies that my use of sarcasm misled you. The meaning is this: Dave (Daudio) told another poster he might wind up being banned. To me it is the exclusive prerogative of the site owner to decide whether none of us should see another person's posts. The rest of us can use the ignore list if someone else's postings consistently bother us.

 

Dave pointed out that I was acting like a moderator by telling him this, which is *also* the exclusive prerogative of the site owner. This is fair comment - in the moment I tend to want to write such posts, but overall I would prefer to stick to audio.

 

If banning is the "exclusive prerogative of the site owner" and moderating is the "exclusive prerogative of the site owner," then why is it okay for you to get away with moderating Daudio, and repeatedly moderating many others, and not okay for Daudio to remind other members that name calling is against the rules and can lead to possible banning?

 

I suppose if you include this comment it makes it okay?

 

"in the moment I tend to want to write such posts"

 

If banning and moderating are the sole duties of the site owner, according to you, then why not take your own advice and ignore postings that bother you, and stop repeatedly moderating the behaviors of others?

[sandyk]

If banning and moderating are the sole duties of the site owner, according to you, then why not take your own advice and ignore postings that bother you, and stop repeatedly moderating the behaviors of others?

 

audio 6

In all fairness, I usually find that Jud tends to exert a calming influence. Perhaps he sometimes feels like a frustrated "Judge Judy" ? (grin).

 

Alex

[audio6]

audio 6

In all fairness, I usually find that Jud tends to exert a calming influence. Perhaps he sometimes feels like a frustrated "Judge Judy" ? (grin).

 

Alex

 

Your statement is not relevant to the points at all. A total red herring.