USB audio cracked... finally!

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, JoeWhip said:

Sorry, but this reads like an infomercial.

 

But wait there's more!

 

If you order in the next ten minutes, you'll get two cables for the price of one and the amazing digital data degunker absolutely free.

 

Call the number on your screen now. Operators are standing by.

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, rando said:

Could you clarify the meaning of this photo comparison.  In general, outside of the supermarket women's magazines, leaving the pores attached to female faces is considered a hallmark of good quality post-production.  In your example a filter was simply applied over a lengthy professional conversion that  had already created an unrealistic ideal.  Which would seem to be at odds with your impression of this cable.  

 

 

 

I had similar thoughts.

 

The picture on the right seems to be higher fidelity. However I haven't been close to a women this young recently so I have no live event to compare it to.

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

This may not be a frequently used phrase here yet, but it deserves to be.

 

Perhaps not married but a few folks here appear to be in bed with him...

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

What I was trying to extract was your experience with real-world, not-simulated, non-ideal differential circuits where everything isn't instantaneous & perfectly balanced.

 

For those of us sitting on the sidelines trying to determine who is more credible, can you share your own background in this area or any other related fields?

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Hey, it's not a competition about credibility - I'm just asking questions of Marce who has experience in the field & I'm hoping to learn some things!

 

I'm not into appeals to authority or credentials wagging - just inquisitiveness

 

Hey, you were the one who questioned Marce's credentials.

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Where?

 

Perhaps not your intent but this post like the following as well as comments like "But what you are stating is just book learning" sure read that way... 

 

32 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

What I was trying to extract was your experience with real-world, not-simulated, non-ideal differential circuits where everything isn't instantaneous & perfectly balanced.

 

Anything to relate in this regard?

 

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

Dear Kuma,

 

By the times I duplicated CDs (EAC on Win 7), I used, to get a more decent SQ, some Theory®  CD-R blanks.  To my ears (and some friends) they improved a lot the SQ...

 

They was expensive and very hard to find.  Some friends said I was crazy.  And yes, of course I'm

 

My (good) experience with the Lush is from an user point of view and I can swear you even if the theory and / or measurements could condemn this cable I would still use it

 

Roch

 

I've already determined whether or not that you are credible...

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Not meant to come across in any way as questioning his credentials - just that his answer was one that anyone can read - I was more interested in his real-world experience, as I said - i believe it could be valuable!

 

Fair enough. I apologize if I misconstrued your comments.

[kumakuma]

It appears that Peter is taking lessons from Trump on how to treat friends who disagree with him.   

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

At least in this thread, please not.

 

Yeah, we don't want Chris raining "fire and fury" down on us...

[kumakuma]

10 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

It is a gross mis-representation to call SuperDad's post advertizing. I call BS on that. Essentially you are saying that because Superdad responded to a post with the moniker "SuperDad" that that is an advertisement; and therefore ridiculous.

 

It may not be paid advertising but it falls into my definition of marketing because Alex is communicating to his market (us) the message that his products are so good that he doesn't need to buy ads.

 

 

[kumakuma]

49 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

What product did he mention? Did he mention uptone audio at all? So, - in other words, - Alex shouldn't be allowed to post here at all? Because someone might possibly click on his moniker and find out that he is a manufacturer? Otherwise, how would anyone know? I am willing to bet that at least someone read Alex's post without knowing that he's a manufacturer. With respect, - that is a stretch that I find silly.

Of course, this is Chris' site, with his rules, and he finds manufacturer participation of value. Whether you or i agree is just something that we'll have to live with. And finally, (silly also to continue with this), I would hazard that there are more than 50 manufacturers who post all over these forums.... Like us, - they're all audio enthusiasts who are really into good sound, and enhancing the listening experience. (READ: NOT INTO MAKING MONEY IN THE MARKETPLACE).

For if they were, - they'd be in another field entirely......

 

Marketing is simply communicating with your market. It can be done in a number of ways including paid advertising or by simply posting messages here that raise your credibility with your target market. 

 

The fact that you didn't pick on the subtle message that Alex was conveying doesn't mean it wasn't marketing.

 

Whether he realized it or not, Alex was using Cialdini's principle of Social Proof in his message. I suggest that you, or anyone else interested in the subject, read Cialdini's book, Influence.

 

Chris requires manufacturers to identify themselves like Alex is doing in his signature. He also allows them to engage in other forms of marketing such as buying banner ads and sponsoring forums. The fact that many (like Alex) pay him for these additional marketing opportunities indicates that their participation here is not always just because they are fellow audiophiles.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

Hi,

I equate marketing with selling. I think that we may disagree on how we define marketing. I am not interested in the principle of Social Proof. I can say that though that once we start attaching different meanings to the same words, we run the risk of communication breakdown. No way that you are going to convince me that merely posting on a subject means that Alex is selling a particular product.

Finally, - and this is something that I forgot to mention, - isn't there a rule that prevents from manufacturers/designers from selling outside a designated area? In the area designed for such, they can, - outside that area, - they are just another enthusiast.

 

Within the field of business, sales and marketing are related but separate fields and are typically performed by different people within a corporation.

 

I would consider what Alex was doing marketing (communicating with his market) but not really sales as he was making no overt attempt to sell his product.

 

I used the term "Social Proof" in the way that marketers understand it and the way Cialdini uses it in his book, Influence.

 

[kumakuma]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The thing that fascinated me over the years is that it seems to take an enormous leap of mental repositioning to comprehend that the art of getting good sound is recognising that normal playback usually has many, obvious defects - and the process then becomes simply to trace the source of the flaws that are audible, and fix them! Almost no-one appears to be capable of, or interested in doing this - and thus most activity centres on chasing one's tail, continuously, in circles, steadily wearing a deep hollow in the floor doing so.

 

Quite some years ago I used the analogy of a swimming pool that leaks water, through various imperfections in how it was built and installed - the goal is quite simply to stop all leaks, and that means that one can then just enjoy the swimming, care free each day. But until that point, every day one has to check the levels, add more water, wonder what might need to be looked at "to make things better" - the fact that the pool is still not quite right is a constant thorn that irritates ...

 

While I admire your ability to keep coming up with new ways to say the same thing ("fix the flaws/bugs in your system"), I think it would be more useful if you could provide some practical advice on how one goes about doing this.

 

"My husband's a wrestler," said the first. "He's really strong and aggressive in bed."

"My husband's an artist," said the second. "He's really gentle and sensitive."

"My husband's an IBM salesman," said the third. "He sits on the edge of the bed and tells me how good it's going to be when I finally get it."

[kumakuma]

21 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What seems to confuse people is that I say that one has to learn to recognise when a system is not working right - if the listener can't pick that the sound is "wrong" in some specific way then trying to make things better is highly likely to fail. I have an audio friend locally who has taken literally years to tune into changes that were positive - how many times have I visited him, when he was excited beforehand that he had made a major improvement, only to find that the sound was ... ummm, well, less than worthy ... . He was caught in the vortex of balancing of "getting some recordings to sound better, and others to sound worse" - this was dancing on shifting, moving floors to the point where he lost perspective on what was stable underfoot and what wasn't.

 

A solution here, as I see it, is to get one recording, and one only, that comes across badly on some way - and stick with it!! Don't jump around between tracks "to see how they compare" - the attitude to have is to think that the first track that is showing up badly is telling me a lot about 'what's wrong' - and I'll hang in with doing everything I can to make that track sound "less bad!". Yes, play other stuff to get further information, but always come back to that particular key track, as a reference point, to see if real progress has been made.

 

 

Thank you.

 

[kumakuma]

17 minutes ago, Teresa said:

No system I have ever heard can turn an ugly over-processed highly compromised recording into a naturally realistically sounding beautiful recording for me. And I have heard many megabuck systems. Perhaps we are listening for something different in recordings?

 

A better system might allow you to hear more from a poorly made recording, I'm just saying a poorly made unnatural recording cannot magically turn into a naturally realistic recording. The quality begins with the choice of recording space, the choice of and careful placement of microphones, and a dozen other attributes that separates great recordings from poor recordings. YMMV 

 

+1

 

I'm having a hard time believing this as well. Perhaps Frank can provide some examples of poorly recorded songs that change from a sow's ear to a silk purse through his magic.

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Adele's "21" is an album that is pretty much universally villified in the audiophile realm - I had a hard time taming it through my previous setup, but it stood up much better in my current system, a work in progress ... my wife remarked something along the lines of "That was fabulous to listen to!"; whereas she hated me playing it on the first mentioned chain - it was prone to in your face stridency unless absolutely everything was 100% at the moment of playing.

 

Thanks for sharing this example. I agree that this album sounds like crap and I'm amazed that you were able to tweak your system to make it listenable.