USB audio cracked... finally!

[lmitche]

3 minutes ago, Doak said:

.... and one more thing:

Thank You for the Lush cable, Peter.

Yes, I know I paid you for it but you also deserve to be paid the compliment. 

 

Doak,

 

You are right. I had two serious audiophiles here yesterday for a listen.  Jaws were on the ground. One was singing with the music. Both said the word analog at one point or another.  Both said they had never heard their respective test tracks sound so good.

 

Likewise, I am delighted with what I am hearing.

 

So yes, many thanks Peter.

 

Larry

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Doak,

 

You are right. I had two serious audiophiles here yesterday for a listen.  Jaws were on the ground. One was singing with the music. Both said the word analog at one point or another.  Both said they had never heard their respective test tracks sound so good.

 

Likewise, I am delighted with what I am hearing.

 

So yes, many thanks Peter.

 

Larry

 

And you attribute all of these reactions to the USB cable? Did your friends listen to the system without Lush and found it seriously lacking?

[rando]

1 hour ago, rickca said:

How come every thread on CA eventually deteriorates into a discussion about double blind testing?  We may as well have just one thread where people can repeat 'you are delusional' endlessly.

 

Forwarded to @The Computer Audiophile for April Fools Day word filter shenanigans.  No doubt this idea could bear fruit if applied subtly for a short period. 

 

Overnight this went from 69 to 71 pages.  The same old topics are being discussed again.  I have to ask @PeterSt what he hopes to further accomplish here in this very active thread?  

 

As a potential consumer and (dubious ) contributor here I see a few things that were accomplished along the way.  Your slick new webstore was both welcomed and highly likely a direct outcome of slightly chafing input from enthusiasts on CA.  Betwixt the casual bigotry a general agreement upon wide ranging application of the Lush appeared to be settled on.  Sparse mention was made of a new interface on the horizon.  

[Jud]

2 hours ago, Johnseye said:

 

There's a difference between playing an instrument and listening to one.  Just as there's a difference in having an instrument next to your face as opposed to its projected sound.  Were any of the violinists in the study Strad owners?  If there were, and they couldn't tell the difference, it would be relevant to those in the listening audience, but not necessarily to the violinists as a preferred instrument.

 

Preferences and votes on "projection" were consistent among players and audience.

[mansr]

27 minutes ago, rando said:

I have to ask @PeterSt what he hopes to further accomplish here in this very active thread?

Sell product, presumably, and it appears to be working.

[Johnseye]

Just now, Jud said:

 

Preferences and votes on "projection" were consistent among players and audience.

 

Because the players have a preference while playing certain instruments which differ from when listening only, that would tell us there is an audible difference from a listening perspective when playing vs. listening only.

[elcorso]

Blind test et al...  only define in what they agree (regarding the taste) of the participants. But be very careful, it may not be what you like!

 

Has anyone taken into account that not all Strads sound the same?

 

Going back to the Lush, I'm still very happy with it, it goes very well as I like to listen to the music. It relaxes me, transports me, like never another component (I want to describe it as a component) of my listening gear.

 

Thank you @PeterSt for designing it and making it, and thank you @manisandherfor letting me know it existed.

 

BTW, my doctor prescribed a new heart medicine (so new that all sequential effects will be known by 2020, but FAD approved). Yesterday I had consultation with him and although the screen tests did not work out as expected, I feel extraordinarily well. The doctor told me that in these cases it is more important how I feel and function (physical tests), not what the screen tests say.

 

Some similarity with the oscilloscope graphs we obtain in audio versus what we perceive by our ears / brain system?

 

Roch

[manisandher]

11 minutes ago, elcorso said:

...and thank you @manisandherfor letting me know it existed.

 

Hey Roch, it's my pleasure. FWIW, here's the only communication I had with Peter about this thread before starting it:

 

I’d like to start a thread on CA about the Lush at some point. I know the objectivists will come out en masse to discredit it, stating that it is voodoo, and that, in any case, a properly designed DAC shouldn’t need it, etc., etc. But I feel that I owe it to real ‘music lovers’ to make them aware of the Lush – even if only a few go for it, I would feel that the effort of posting about it has been worthwhile.

 

- Sent on July 13th.

 

Mani.

[austinpop]

2 hours ago, rickca said:

How come every thread on CA eventually deteriorates into a discussion about double blind testing?  We may as well have just one thread where people can repeat 'you are delusional' endlessly.

 

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

People don't need to misbehave in order to kill a thread.

I'm all for free speech, and (civil) debate. But repetitive debate (even if civil) is also toxic.

 

I'm not a fan of thread moderation. We've seen some spectacular failures of moderated threads in the past.

 

But this thread is in crisis. I think some light shepherding is in order. I do think the wishes of a thread's OP carry some weight. If the OP of this thread were to declare certain areas off-topic, I wonder - would @The Computer Audiophile help enforce that?

 

I, for one, want to read more Lush listening impressions. Right now, I suspect we have many folks who are apprehensive of posting their impressions because doing so is like walking past a gauntlet of audio science picketers.

 

I know many other CA'ers who are actually thinking of quitting CA entirely due to this. I'm not there yet, but find this all very depressing.

 

 

[manisandher]

31 minutes ago, austinpop said:

But this thread is in crisis. I think some light shepherding is in order.

 

I must be missing something...

 

There was a mention of some violin tests. This led to the consensus that volume levels are of paramount importance in DB listening tests. As far as I'm concerned, the issue was then put to bed in relation to this thread with this:

 

3 hours ago, barrows said:

... the first step of any listen testing is assuring levels are precisely matched, without this control one is off in the weeds.  this is easy to achieve for USB cable testing, as different cables will not/cannot alter playback level.

 

All of this within just 2 pages of this 70+ page thread.

 

Getting back to the Lush...

 

31 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Right now, I suspect we have many folks who are apprehensive of posting their impressions because doing so is like walking past a gauntlet of audio science picketers.

 

I don't think this thread has been worse than any other on CA.

 

Mani.

[The Computer Audiophile]

45 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

I'm all for free speech, and (civil) debate. But repetitive debate (even if civil) is also toxic.

 

I'm not a fan of thread moderation. We've seen some spectacular failures of moderated threads in the past.

 

But this thread is in crisis. I think some light shepherding is in order. I do think the wishes of a thread's OP carry some weight. If the OP of this thread were to declare certain areas off-topic, I wonder - would @The Computer Audiophile help enforce that?

 

I, for one, want to read more Lush listening impressions. Right now, I suspect we have many folks who are apprehensive of posting their impressions because doing so is like walking past a gauntlet of audio science picketers.

 

I know many other CA'ers who are actually thinking of quitting CA entirely due to this. I'm not there yet, but find this all very depressing.

 

 

 

 

Yes, it's always a tricky balance.

 

I always give the OP's wishes the most weight with respect to the direction of a thread. 

 

That said, it's hard for me to read all the comments in a thread and keep the context of the discussion in mind etc... when making a moderation decision. Thus, I really really really like the Report Post feature when people see things they want looked at. Plus, they can give some context in the report post feature. 

 

If people want Lush listening impressions only, I highly suggest a new thread that calls for only listening impressions. That makes moderation really easy and it's easy for some people to just ignore the thread. 

 

 

 

[k-man]

54 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

I’d like to start a thread on CA about the Lush at some point. I know the objectivists will come out en masse to discredit it, stating that it is voodoo, and that, in any case, a properly designed DAC shouldn’t need it, etc., etc. But I feel that I owe it to real ‘music lovers’ to make them aware of the Lush – even if only a few go for it, I would feel that the effort of posting about it has been worthwhile.

I can put some and a lot of trust into a manufacturer who is a 'music lover' to design a product, a 'music lover' to recommend it, and other 'music lovers' to benefit and share. 

 

I'm sorry to see some such members take offence to those who won't buy into this. I appreciate they have a right to think differently, especially when we all have different systems and ways to enjoy this hobby. I'm also thankful there has been no 'en masse' crucifying, sometimes it has been a bit of a laugh.

 

Thanks to all!

[Jud]

My apologies for participation in the OT portion of the thread.

 

As far as any reluctance to post about the Lush, why?  If the usual comments from the usual folks are at all a bother, just looking past those or using the ignore list works very well.

 

I would be particularly interested in reading any comments regarding the Lush's behavior with transients.

[CuteStudio]

17 minutes ago, austinpop said:

I, for one, want to read more Lush listening impressions. Right now, I suspect we have many folks who are apprehensive of posting their impressions because doing so is like walking past a gauntlet of audio science picketers.

 

 

I think it's reasonable to question the merits of a €200 digital cable infomercial in a forum, particularly when the only physics backing up any claims appear to be plots of RF frequencies, which can (and usually are) prevented by a clip-on ferrite bead costing £2.

 

HiFi has suffered immeasurably over the years from the application of marketing-speak and voodoo at the clear expense of sound quality and basic engineering. In RF engineering and ham radio if you want to suppress interference then metal boxes, ferrites and the odd transformer work well. Once we've tamed RF: what is left? Cable resistance if we're powering the DAC from it, and reflections from a poorly out of spec cable: a USB cable is a transmission line like any other.

 

So while it's cute that people can put down all manner of sonic traits to cables while ignoring the source, mixing, mastering, formats, processing, the DAC itself, the preamp, the amplifier, speakers and room - all of which have far greater effects on the sound, it does tend to distract from the chain of fidelity, which in fact spans from the microphone/source all the way to the air in the listeners room or headphone.

 

For the more engineering and technically minded among us the endless marketing prose attributed to the magic of some cryogenic mains fuse or USB cable is quite difficult to bear. Cables are popular because the margins are high and they're simple to make. On the Lush page itself: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3854.0

 

it says that a lot of the difference between the 1m cable and the 3m is the time it takes to put the braiding on: by anyone's standards €200 for an extra hours work is better than spending months of R&D for some small sonic gain in an amplifier, software or DAC for a possible extra sale here or there.

 

I only read this post because it claimed to have 'cracked' USB audio, then I ended up reading get another free advert (which I thought were not allowed on this site BTW) for some cable. Perhaps if it was re-titled 'Lush Cable Advert' it would work better as a chat about the lush cable rather than it's challengingly ambitious title ? Maybe worth a thought

 

Cracking USB audio could be rather better summed up by making sure the digital path (sample rate and depth) are preserved as they travel from the app to the USB cable (quite often there is resampling going on there in the OS and drivers), then once external another key is to switch to optical to avoid 100% of the RFI from the digital source. 

Then the optical needs to be captured and re-timed using a decent master clock: lots of pro-audio boxes around for this, then it needs to be upsampled and fed into a decent DAC, and decent DACs are hard to come by. However the USB cable's job can be said to be ended once re-clocked: so 'cracking' USB audio comes down to:

 

1) Isolation of RFI (ferrites and or optical)

2) retiming (jitter reduction)

 

I hope that explains the misgivings many people have to these cable 'mercials, I have no objection to people thinking cables are the answer to their problems but to demand that others stay silent in the face of stuff they know to be wrong may be a little too much to ask :). I think us engineers also have problems too BTW, we assume other people know about the actual RF engineering or physics when many will be english teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc etc, HiFi is their hobby, and most of their education comes from magazine adverts and reviews. For that I apologize! 

 

Here's a DAC system (which I have no connection to) which concentrates exactly on the most critical issues: jitter and accuracy, many DACs simply fail to decode to a good level of accuracy and many also pump RF (from all those little digital steps!) into active filters creating additional distortion from slew limiting after the conversion. Jitter, accuracy and DAC RF filtering remain problems to be solved, none of these real world problems involve magic USB cables, the best a USB cable can do is to not add RFI or reflections and therefore jitter, but jitter will be in the source PC/CD player anyway so jitter removal in front of the DAC is still needed: making choice of cable irrelevant in a system than genuinely 'cracks' digital audio.

 

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue79/totaldac_d1.htm

 

Another way of looking at this is that if your USB cable changes the sound, chances are NONE of them create the correct sound and the sound changes you here are merely a symptom of a fault elsewhere. At the end of a day one jitter free digital signal entering the DAC is the same (i.e. Exactly The Same) as another: logically and scientifically there can be no other alternative.

[89reksal]

4 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

Another way of looking at this is that if your USB cable changes the sound, chances are NONE of them create the correct sound and the sound changes you here are merely a symptom of a fault elsewhere. At the end of a day one jitter free digital signal entering the DAC is the same (i.e. Exactly The Same) as another: logically and scientifically there can be no other alternative.

 

[lmitche]

6 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

 

 

I think it's reasonable to question the merits of a €200 digital cable infomercial in a forum, particularly when the only physics backing up any claims appear to be plots of RF frequencies, which can (and usually are) prevented by a clip-on ferrite bead costing £2.

 

HiFi has suffered immeasurably over the years from the application of marketing-speak and voodoo at the clear expense of sound quality and basic engineering. In RF engineering and ham radio if you want to suppress interference then metal boxes, ferrites and the odd transformer work well. Once we've tamed RF: what is left? Cable resistance if we're powering the DAC from it, and reflections from a poorly out of spec cable: a USB cable is a transmission line like any other.

 

So while it's cute that people can put down all manner of sonic traits to cables while ignoring the source, mixing, mastering, formats, processing, the DAC itself, the preamp, the amplifier, speakers and room - all of which have far greater effects on the sound, it does tend to distract from the chain of fidelity, which in fact spans from the microphone/source all the way to the air in the listeners room or headphone.

 

For the more engineering and technically minded among us the endless marketing prose attributed to the magic of some cryogenic mains fuse or USB cable is quite difficult to bear. Cables are popular because the margins are high and they're simple to make. On the Lush page itself: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3854.0

 

it says that a lot of the difference between the 1m cable and the 3m is the time it takes to put the braiding on: by anyone's standards €200 for an extra hours work is better than spending months of R&D for some small sonic gain in an amplifier, software or DAC for a possible extra sale here or there.

 

I only read this post because it claimed to have 'cracked' USB audio, then I ended up reading get another free advert (which I thought were not allowed on this site BTW) for some cable. Perhaps if it was re-titled 'Lush Cable Advert' it would work better as a chat about the lush cable rather than it's challengingly ambitious title ? Maybe worth a thought

 

Cracking USB audio could be rather better summed up by making sure the digital path (sample rate and depth) are preserved as they travel from the app to the USB cable (quite often there is resampling going on there in the OS and drivers), then once external another key is to switch to optical to avoid 100% of the RFI from the digital source. 

Then the optical needs to be captured and re-timed using a decent master clock: lots of pro-audio boxes around for this, then it needs to be upsampled and fed into a decent DAC, and decent DACs are hard to come by. However the USB cable's job can be said to be ended once re-clocked: so 'cracking' USB audio comes down to:

 

1) Isolation of RFI (ferrites and or optical)

2) retiming (jitter reduction)

 

I hope that explains the misgivings many people have to these cable 'mercials, I have no objection to people thinking cables are the answer to their problems but to demand that others stay silent in the face of stuff they know to be wrong may be a little too much to ask :). I think us engineers also have problems too BTW, we assume other people know about the actual RF engineering or physics when many will be english teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc etc, HiFi is their hobby, and most of their education comes from magazine adverts and reviews. For that I apologize! 

 

Here's a DAC system (which I have no connection to) which concentrates exactly on the most critical issues: jitter and accuracy, many DACs simply fail to decode to a good level of accuracy and many also pump RF (from all those little digital steps!) into active filters creating additional distortion from slew limiting after the conversion. Jitter, accuracy and DAC RF filtering remain problems to be solved, none of these real world problems involve magic USB cables, the best a USB cable can do is to not add RFI or reflections and therefore jitter, but jitter will be in the source PC/CD player anyway so jitter removal in front of the DAC is still needed: making choice of cable irrelevant in a system than genuinely 'cracks' digital audio.

 

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue79/totaldac_d1.htm

 

Another way of looking at this is that if your USB cable changes the sound, chances are NONE of them create the correct sound and the sound changes you here are merely a symptom of a fault elsewhere. At the end of a day one jitter free digital signal entering the DAC is the same (i.e. Exactly The Same) as another: logically and scientifically there can be no other alternative.

CuteStudio, do you own and/or have you listened to a Phasure Lush cable?

[k-man]

18 minutes ago, Jud said:

My apologies for participation in the OT portion of the thread.

Jud, CA will be in crisis if you need to apologise further. You are a beacon of forum etiquette 

[k-man]

6 minutes ago, lmitche said:

CuteStudio, do you own and/or have you listened to a Phasure Lush cable?

I believe he is manufacturing DACs that compete with Peter's own, so a lot is riding on him to discredit his cable.

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

 

 

I think it's reasonable to question the merits of a €200 digital cable infomercial in a forum, particularly when the only physics backing up any claims appear to be plots of RF frequencies, which can (and usually are) prevented by a clip-on ferrite bead costing £2.

 

HiFi has suffered immeasurably over the years from the application of marketing-speak and voodoo at the clear expense of sound quality and basic engineering. In RF engineering and ham radio if you want to suppress interference then metal boxes, ferrites and the odd transformer work well. Once we've tamed RF: what is left? Cable resistance if we're powering the DAC from it, and reflections from a poorly out of spec cable: a USB cable is a transmission line like any other.

 

So while it's cute that people can put down all manner of sonic traits to cables while ignoring the source, mixing, mastering, formats, processing, the DAC itself, the preamp, the amplifier, speakers and room - all of which have far greater effects on the sound, it does tend to distract from the chain of fidelity, which in fact spans from the microphone/source all the way to the air in the listeners room or headphone.

 

For the more engineering and technically minded among us the endless marketing prose attributed to the magic of some cryogenic mains fuse or USB cable is quite difficult to bear. Cables are popular because the margins are high and they're simple to make. On the Lush page itself: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3854.0

 

it says that a lot of the difference between the 1m cable and the 3m is the time it takes to put the braiding on: by anyone's standards €200 for an extra hours work is better than spending months of R&D for some small sonic gain in an amplifier, software or DAC for a possible extra sale here or there.

 

I only read this post because it claimed to have 'cracked' USB audio, then I ended up reading get another free advert (which I thought were not allowed on this site BTW) for some cable. Perhaps if it was re-titled 'Lush Cable Advert' it would work better as a chat about the lush cable rather than it's challengingly ambitious title ? Maybe worth a thought

 

Cracking USB audio could be rather better summed up by making sure the digital path (sample rate and depth) are preserved as they travel from the app to the USB cable (quite often there is resampling going on there in the OS and drivers), then once external another key is to switch to optical to avoid 100% of the RFI from the digital source. 

Then the optical needs to be captured and re-timed using a decent master clock: lots of pro-audio boxes around for this, then it needs to be upsampled and fed into a decent DAC, and decent DACs are hard to come by. However the USB cable's job can be said to be ended once re-clocked: so 'cracking' USB audio comes down to:

 

1) Isolation of RFI (ferrites and or optical)

2) retiming (jitter reduction)

 

I hope that explains the misgivings many people have to these cable 'mercials, I have no objection to people thinking cables are the answer to their problems but to demand that others stay silent in the face of stuff they know to be wrong may be a little too much to ask :). I think us engineers also have problems too BTW, we assume other people know about the actual RF engineering or physics when many will be english teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc etc, HiFi is their hobby, and most of their education comes from magazine adverts and reviews. For that I apologize! 

 

Here's a DAC system (which I have no connection to) which concentrates exactly on the most critical issues: jitter and accuracy, many DACs simply fail to decode to a good level of accuracy and many also pump RF (from all those little digital steps!) into active filters creating additional distortion from slew limiting after the conversion. Jitter, accuracy and DAC RF filtering remain problems to be solved, none of these real world problems involve magic USB cables, the best a USB cable can do is to not add RFI or reflections and therefore jitter, but jitter will be in the source PC/CD player anyway so jitter removal in front of the DAC is still needed: making choice of cable irrelevant in a system than genuinely 'cracks' digital audio.

 

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue79/totaldac_d1.htm

 

Another way of looking at this is that if your USB cable changes the sound, chances are NONE of them create the correct sound and the sound changes you here are merely a symptom of a fault elsewhere. At the end of a day one jitter free digital signal entering the DAC is the same (i.e. Exactly The Same) as another: logically and scientifically there can be no other alternative.

 

Where to start?

 

 

@manisandher has no business relationship with Phasure, other than he is a customer. This thread isn't an advertisement. If @PeterSt wanted to advertise, he could without a problem. 

 

Your statements about a larger picture of HiFi suffering from marketing tactics and that people shouldn't concentrate on cables or spend this much money on cables etc... are all well and good, but start your own thread if you want to discuss those topics. 

 

Don't protect people from themselves. You'd be amazed at how smart some of the people on this site actually are. The completely understand the incessant comments about science not backing up this or that, yet they still want to try out some fun stuff in this hobby. 

 

For some people the amount of money spent on one of these cables is meaningless. If you made $2 million per week, would you care about a $200 cable? Probably not. I'm not suggesting everyone here makes that much, some actually do, but you shouldn't be the arbiter of value. 

 

Sure, "innocent" people may stumble onto a thread talking about magic pixie dust and buy into it, but such is life. Buy your line of thinking, it's amazing that most people get to work every day without getting into an accident or getting lost. Give people credit. They can stay away from products they don't like or don't believe in. 

 

The same can be said for topics. I don't want you or anyone else telling me that I can only talk about the most critical issues in any hobby and that I have to ignore all others. It's all about freedom and respect. 

 

If you want to talk all day long about any of this, you are 100% encouraged to open a new thread and call it "snake oil 123" or whatever and open the discussion. I'm sure it will be interesting. There are many smart people around here and I enjoy reading all their opinions. 

 

 

By the way, I have an inbox full of PMs from subjective people saying that the objective group is ruining everything, and I have an inbox full of objective people saying the subjective group is ruining everything. I don't care which side you are on as long as you are respectful. I fall somewhere in the middle, as ai suspect many CA readers do. 

 

Live and let listen. 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

38 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

. At the end of a day one jitter free digital signal entering the DAC is the same (i.e. Exactly The Same) as another: logically and scientifically there can be no other alternative.

 

I think you created a very good post there. But at the end of the day it looks like not any genuine EE will make fine audio products.

I am not saying this to bash on you(r good post) and most certainly not to praise any voodoo out of hell, but ...

well, we're just a bunch of poor audiophools who refuse this kind of aid.

 

Edit : Apologies for the seemingly repeated post from The Computer Audiophile, who phrased it way better with this time more words.

[manisandher]

33 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

Here's a DAC system (which I have no connection to) which concentrates exactly on the most critical issues: jitter and accuracy, many DACs simply fail to decode to a good level of accuracy and many also pump RF (from all those little digital steps!) into active filters creating additional distortion from slew limiting after the conversion. Jitter, accuracy and DAC RF filtering remain problems to be solved, none of these real world problems involve magic USB cables, the best a USB cable can do is to not add RFI or reflections and therefore jitter, but jitter will be in the source PC/CD player anyway so jitter removal in front of the DAC is still needed: making choice of cable irrelevant in a system than genuinely 'cracks' digital audio.

 

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue79/totaldac_d1.htm

 

[Highlight mine.]

 

On 7/14/2017 at 0:38 PM, manisandher said:

Known DACs that various users around the world are using with the Lush USB audio cable, with positive sonic benefits:

 

- Phasure NOS1 G3

- Holo Audio Spring

- Aries Cerat Kassandra

- Pacific Microsonics Model Two (with Playback Designs USB-XIII USB-AES converter)

- Schiit Yggdrasil (pre Gen 5 board)

- exaSound e32

- iFi nano iDSD

- iFi micro iDSD

- dCS Debussy

- Benchmark DAC2-D

- Chord DAVE

- Pink Faun DAC 2.32 (with Wavelength Wavelink USB --> BNC converter)

- NAD M12

- Lampizator B7

- Ayre Codex

- Halide DAC HD

- TotalDac d1-12

- Playback Design MPS-5 w/ USB-X(2) interphase

- exaSound e22 Mark II

- S.M.S.L iDEA HiRes

- T+A dac 8 dsd

- Chord Hugo 2

 

Mani.

[rickca]

41 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

At the end of a day one jitter free digital signal entering the DAC is the same (i.e. Exactly The Same) as another: logically and scientifically there can be no other alternative.

Like a nothingburger? 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/you-can-get-a-nothingburger-at-mcdonalds-but-it-takes-some-work-2017-08-23

[lmitche]

15 minutes ago, rickca said:

Like a nothingburger? 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/you-can-get-a-nothingburger-at-mcdonalds-but-it-takes-some-work-2017-08-23

Not a nothing burger more like the dreaded PCRI:

 

Partial Cranial-Rectal Insertion where the ears are covered but the mouth is still exposed.

[Les Habitants]

2 hours ago, austinpop said:

I, for one, want to read more Lush listening impressions. Right now, I suspect we have many folks who are apprehensive of posting their impressions because doing so is like walking past a gauntlet of audio science picketers.

 

Me too

 

2 hours ago, austinpop said:

I know many other CA'ers who are actually thinking of quitting CA entirely due to this. I'm not there yet, but find this all very depressing.

 

 

Me too.

 

On a related note, I have observed that any mention at all of either DBT or ABX on the Head-fi forum are actually strictly prohibited, except for on threads within one very specific "Sound Science" forum.

Is that too heavy handed moderation or akin to censoring, or is it a wise way to avoid the very thing so many threads here on CA are plagued with?

Or is it just sufficient to label/title any given new thread topic with some sort of "listening impressions only" or even "No DBT or ABX please" type of notation?

 

Sorry in advance that I too am now off-topic for this particular thread.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I prefer to title a thread with "listening Impressions Only" or something of that sort.