IS EVERYTHING DEBATABLE, REALLY?

[beerandmusic]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I don't think I will follow this thread and I already stopped reading after the first sentence, quotes above.

It is 100% wrong.

 

There's already 95% of difference in any same system because of software usage. No wait, operating system usage. Doesn't matter what hardware you use (as long as playback software is in order).

I don't argue that, but we are already past that stage...that is a given along with a good source recording, e.g. best native dsd recordings as a source.  When you talk "software", I suppose you are mostly talking about upsampling software, where in my mind the defacto standard for testing doesn't need upsampling.

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I won't mention digital here, because there's not much of a comparison to make, but the Schiit Yggdrasil IS the Best DAC available under $10K and the Gungnir Multibit is a very close second.

 

What a STUPID thing to say. I read that post with interest but with this added to it, the remainder now has no value any more too.

No points for you George.

[PeterSt]

Just now, beerandmusic said:

I don't argue that, but we are already past that stage...that is a given along with a good source recording, e.g. best native dsd recordings as a source.  I suppose you are mostly talking about upsampling software, where in my mind the defacto standard for testing doesn't need upsampling.

 

No, I don't talk about that at all. I'm only talking about how the operating system behaves and is controlled. Or is a different one to begin with (like already different Windows 10 versions among each other). So there's way more basic stuff to arrange for first.

And after that you may be happy with a $2000 spending. If this basis is not right, a 1 million system will sound as poor as a $500 system.

[beerandmusic]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

 I won't mention digital here, because there's not much of a comparison to make, but the Schiit Yggdrasil IS the Best DAC available under $10K and the Gungnir Multibit is a very close second.

   

This endorses my point about everything being debatable.  To my ears, an el cheapo DSD dac playing a native DSD file via ethernet sounds better....you even stated in another thread that an SACD via a transport will sound better than the yggi,  I won't argue that the yggi may be best "pcm" dac, but then again, they all sound 95% of each other to me, but the native dsd via ethernet will sound better, and that is what i started with 4 years ago, when i first got back into audio since the 70s.

[beerandmusic]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

No, I don't talk about that at all. I'm only talking about how the operating system behaves and is controlled. Or is a different one to begin with (like already different Windows 10 versions among each other). So there's way more basic stuff to arrange for first.

And after that you may be happy with a $2000 spending. If this basis is not right, a 1 million system will sound as poor as a $500 system.

Ok, then I am in agreement.  I am assuming then you are referring to the OS and how it relates to noise...I am already assuming galvanic isolation as a minimum....e.g. new sotm box that can be plugged into an amp, or any similar design.

[PeterSt]

10 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

Some will debate that the Yggi is better than anything they have heard at any cost.

Some will debate the Gungnir sounds just as good, and some actually prefer it.

 

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I won't mention digital here, because there's not much of a comparison to make, but the Schiit Yggdrasil IS the Best DAC available under $10K and the Gungnir Multibit is a very close second.

 

What a STUPID thing to say. I read that post with interest but with this added to it, the remainder now has no value any more too.

No points for you George.

 

OK, I must apologize, George. I *really* did not read further into that first post than the first sentence. So I also did not see the virtual reference to the Schiit lines in the OP.

 

Well written post @gmgraves !

[PeterSt]

Just now, beerandmusic said:

Ok, then in agreement.  I am assuming then you are referring to the OS and how it relates to noise...I am already assuming galvanic isolation as a minimum....e.g. new sotm box that can be plugged into an amp.

 

We can't explain that in a single post while a whole forum deals with it. But example (Chris advises sun glasses) :

Re: 2.09 sound quality

So read that post #10, up to #12 where I quote myself from CA. This is do or die, just because of the change of Operating System, all else the same. Is this noise ? you tell me. But think it takes a life time to sort it out.

[beerandmusic]

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

We can't explain that in a single post while a whole forum deals with it. But example (Chris advises sun glasses) :

Re: 2.09 sound quality

So read that post #10, up to #12 where I quote myself from CA. This is do or die, just because of the change of Operating System, all else the same. Is this noise ? you tell me. But think it takes a life time to sort it out.

I think it is noise, because of products like fidelizer or optimizer which improves on same os....which does many things including simple things like stopping unneeded services....i am a believer in an os tweeked specifically for audio, and why my next device will likely be a "player" with it's own tweeked os...e.g. similar to Lunina D1 or a streamer like SOTM or similar....even EXAsound stated that a streamer/dAc box (which they don't even make in one box, "yet") would be optimal....i believe there will be a slew of these products on the horizon.

[Ralf11]

16 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

It didn't establish valid tests then, why would it now?

 

want to explain this comment?

[Ralf11]

12 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

What a STUPID thing to say. I read that post with interest but with this added to it, the remainder now has no value any more too.

No points for you George.

 

 

what if he said the Yggy was the best DAC under $4,000 (as the Phasure is $4,500)

[beerandmusic]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

what if he said the Yggy was the best DAC under $4,000 (as the Phasure is $4,500)

Does the Phasure do native DSD?

imho, no dac can claim they are the best if they don't.

[wdw]

13 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

I don't think I will follow this thread and I already stopped reading after the first sentence, quotes above.

It is 100% wrong.

 

There's already 95% of difference in any same system because of software usage. No wait, operating system usage. Doesn't matter what hardware you use (as long as playback software is in order).

 

+1

these type of threads are simply a lonely hearts club waste of time...IMHO this site is clogged with by these lately......

[pkane2001]

12 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

This endorses my point about everything being debatable.  To my ears, an el cheapo DSD dac playing a native DSD file via ethernet sounds better....you even stated in another thread that an SACD via a transport will sound better than the yggi,  I won't argue that the yggi may be best "pcm" dac, but then again, they all sound 95% of each other to me, but the native dsd via ethernet will sound better, and that is what i started with 4 years ago, when i first got back into audio since the 70s.

 

Everything is debatable as long as everything is subjective. 

 

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

What a STUPID thing to say. I read that post with interest but with this added to it, the remainder now has no value any more too.

No points for you George.

 

Did you not notice the smiley at the end. While that is my opinion, it was added at the end tongue-in-cheek.  Lighten-up!

[PeterSt]

Waiting for your next response ... 

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

This endorses my point about everything being debatable.  To my ears, an el cheapo DSD dac playing a native DSD file via ethernet sounds better....you even stated in another thread that an SACD via a transport will sound better than the yggi,  I won't argue that the yggi may be best "pcm" dac, but then again, they all sound 95% of each other to me, but the native dsd via ethernet will sound better, and that is what i started with 4 years ago, when i first got back into audio since the 70s.

 Again, notice the SMILEY?

[gmgraves]

18 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Not quite. It is possible to get a playback system to fool someone, say, that a grand piano is playing - and the illusion works outside with the sound wafting from a window, inside at the other end of the house, at the doorway to the room of the speakers; and finally inside that room, with an acoustically transparent curtain hiding the source of the sound - without altering the volume at any time, for any of these positions.

 

That this is rarely achieved is just an indicator of how the audio industry has been dragging its feet, for decades ...

 

Basically, that's what I've been saying. But I don't think the audio industry dragging its feet is the reason why so little progress has been made. I think it's because our "model" of real, acoustic instruments playing in a real space is as yet incomplete. I suspect that we need to complete our understanding of live music before we can move much further toward the goal of ultimate fidelity. Another stumbling block toward reaching that goal is that the then stated goal of high-fidelity is, for better or for worse, not the goal of the pop music industry. They see the recording tools as creative tools, not archiving tools. IOW, they're not trying to capture a performance as accurately as possible; rather they are trying to create a performance. The only segment of the industry still attempting to capture live instruments playing in a real space, is the classical music segment. But they have gone from being the raison d'être of the recording arts to their present position of the poor stepchild of pop. Since the recording industry is all about money, the pop segment and it's needs gets all the R&D resources these days. Nobody seems to be working on making music sound real any more. And since playback of pop music doesn't need equipment that is perfect in order to make pop sound good, few are working toward the goal of ultimate fidelity on that end either.

 

  Forgive me, but I've never heard a system, irrespective of cost, that made me mistake a recorded piano for a real one - even through an open window.  

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

18 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

It didn't establish valid tests then, why would it now?

 

want to explain this comment?

 

It is self-explanatory Ralph

[Allan F]

22 hours ago, mansr said:

No, it's one of those threads where we mock anyone who is wrong.

 

Now, that's debatable!

[Ralf11]

18 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

It is self-explanatory Ralph

 

 

I always find it odd when people reject science.

 

If you are what you say you are, then it is much worse.  I fear for your patients -- if you have any.

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

I always find it odd when people reject science.

 

If you are what you say you are, then it is much worse.  I fear for your patients -- if you have any.

 

Please take another look at his name.

 

He doesn't practice regular neuroscience, he practices audiophile neuroscience. This is a unique branch of the science akin to the audiophile physics that the high-end cable manufacturers use when marketing their products. It's a lot easier the regular kind as there's no peer reviews on publications and you can issue your own degree.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

I always find it odd when people reject science.

 

If you are what you say you are, then it is much worse.  I fear for your patients -- if you have any.

 

Well Ralph thanks for your concern. The fact that I defend science is the point that is lost on you.

[christopher3393]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I fear for your patients -- if you have any.

 

I fear for your patience - if you have any (nyuck,nyuck).

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

He doesn't practice regular neuroscience, he practices audiophile neuroscience. This is a unique branch of the science akin to the audiophile physics that the high-end cable manufacturers use when marketing their products. It's a lot easier the regular kind as there's no peer reviews on publications and you can issue your own degree.

 

Evidence please ! perhaps that sort of science is not to your liking ?

The rest of your diatribe is the usual attack on audiophiles and the high end manufacturers.

Carry on.

[sandyk]

14 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I don't think I will follow this thread and I already stopped reading after the first sentence, quotes above.

It is 100% wrong.

 

 It is indeed 100% wrong, and typical of the numerous threads concocted by beerandmusic.

 Perhaps too much beer , and not enough music ?