Forgive me Computeraudiophiles, for I have sinned

[marce]

6 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 I imagine that 1st generation digital without a pile of other stuff mixed in does sound better than what most of us get to hear.

1st generation digital data is exactly the same as 1000th generation digital or even 1,000,000th time generation digital... It does not degrade.

[marce]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Rubbish !

The same applies to Digital Video too.

 I can  prove what I say, but you have shown that you aren't in the least interested in any  proof that challenges your out of date beliefs.

The same applies to several other high profile members including " Troll " who also managed to dismiss Mani's results as " pure chance" .

I have already made the proof available from esldude to any member who has access to a decent media player capable of playing high res .mp4 on BR discs via HDMI to a HD TV.

 

BYE !.

 

 

 

If it was not true the whole IT industry, ethernet, would fail... A digital copy is an EXACT copy, however many time you copy it. When you first tarted this on DIYAudio I and others copied files from all over the place, no change in the data contained in such file at all....

[marce]

2 hours ago, vl said:

 

In the analog days, it was quite easy to assemble a hi-fi component system.  So long as the individual components were good good sonic quality, the system usually sounded good.  This was true for LP and tape based sources.  At the worst we got some hum from ground loops.

 

It is different for digital audio.  Digital audio components are noise sensitive, from other digital components, the AC, the computer, etc.  Interconnects and AC cords react with noise differently so they sound different.  Then there are preamps and amps.  Some are very sensitive to the ultrasonic noise which is present from most digital gear.  It is due to high order harmonic distortion or slew rate induced distortion interacting with the ultrasonic noise in the digital gear, but not in analog gear.

 

We are into digital audio for more than 30 years but the way we pick a preamp or amp have remain more or less the same.  Digital audio requires amps and preamps of different behavior.  It requires noise isolation that is still not well understood by most manufacturers or audiophiles.  That is one reason why LP and tape still get such great support.  For those realize the potential of digital audio, we do not need to turn back to LP or tape.

rubbish, we have the best quality replay systems available these days with digital...

As to noise, most people involved in electronics understands noise, like you said its been with us 30 years... things have moved on. Interestingly from the DAC output its all analogue anyway, the digital part is just the storage medium.

[marce]

2 hours ago, vl said:

 

Most CD players were not good sounding until the mid '90.  One exception was the Sony flagship CDP101.  It was head and shoulders above other CD players of those years and musical sounding.

 

Surprisingly the early CDs, even the ones from 1983 to 85, are actually quite good sounding.  It took about 30 years for me to get them to sound like master tapes or better.  

Why degrade the quality!!!

[marce]

10 hours ago, vl said:

 

Did the early CDs sound good in your system in the '80s?  Do they sound better now?

early CD's have better mixes and less compression...

I didn't get a CD player till 1990 though, wasn't happy with the early players, like a lot of new stuff I like to wait a couple of years or so before I jump in.

[marce]

On 9/16/2018 at 6:50 AM, sandyk said:

 

 

 Unless you are using a Phasure DAC , your results with the comparison pages that Barry has provided more than likely say more about your own equipment/listening discernment. 

 

Tut tut, the usual pull down, disappointed.

[marce]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

Not everybody is as deaf as you are, and there are HUGE numbers of C.A. members who hear a clear improvement over 16/44.1 with 24/96 , 24/192 etc. as well as with SACD and DSD.

 Then again, they aren't as closed minded as you are about the possible SQ  improvements using more recent Audio formats than 16/44.1 ,other than spectrum saving formats such as  .aac etc.

 

WHAT'S THAT YOU SAY, BIT LOUDER I CAN'T HEAR YOU....?

 

[marce]

Yes I am short sighted, but have an open mind, it just closes when the odour of bullshit enters my nostrils....

[marce]

My apologies to the thread owner and CA in general for my previous biting comment...

[marce]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

Given that the previous discussion was about Hi res vs. 16/44.1, you sure know how to insult and get offside with a large proportion of the C.A. members and readers who love hi res and DSD , don't you ?

I haven't insulted anyone on this thread or mentioned hi-res, I was replying to you. I would like a public apologies and a retraction of that statement please.

[marce]

For the record I have been looking at and trying some hi-res files, I am also going to have a play with multi channel DVD audio. My own view at the moments is I need some hi-res versions of the same mixes to determine whether the difference is the mix or the quality, I do not find the differences to be strikingly obvious, this is via open backed headphone listening as my system is still in bits.

[marce]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

That's never going to happen. As you well know, Alex has been insulting people left and right for years. For whatever reason, he gets away with things that would see others banned in a jiffy. Maybe Chris feels pity for him.

I know I am just peeved that he makes it out I am insulting everyone, I insulted no-one just pointed out the same tired old stuff about defective systems/hearings is played again.