Forgive me Computeraudiophiles, for I have sinned

[Ralf11]

One of the "lies" is that you can always beat a $20k analog system with a cheap $500 digital system.

 

The truth is that you can only do it sometimes.

[Ralf11]

AFAIK, Plangent still requires multiple highly trained people and a lot of equipment - may be out of date info tho

[Ralf11]

15 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

Not exactly... Each body reacts different to each perfume. Plus the lady natural scent.

 

But we could agree to call it taste.

 

Roch

 

pheromones

[Ralf11]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Isn't that a myth? Or perhaps wishful thinking.

 

neither, but I highly advise you not to buy anything marketed that way

 

there are a number of lines of evidence pointing to human pheromones but the specifics are not well worked out

 

OTOH, we know a lot about them in moths, even plants (phero-auxins??)

[Ralf11]

androstenol with appropriate dither is the way to go!

[Ralf11]

On 7/11/2018 at 8:20 AM, Brinkman Ship said:

hmm..nothing like power cords to bump MQA off the top of the page...

 

 

I'm gonna set up a Kickstarter for MQA power cords

[Ralf11]

Yes - great idea!

 

One suggestion for version 2.0 -- if cheating is detected it activates the auto-shock circuit...

[Ralf11]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 I can  prove what I say, ...

 

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

BYE !.

 

 

You do not understand the meaning of the word proof.

 

I doubt we have heard the last of this rubbish, despite your promise to go "bye-bye" (many, many times).

 

What is sad is the use of pm's to 'help' the unsuspecting waste their money, without the scrutiny of those who do understand digital signals.

 

But if you really, really think you have proof, then publish it.  You might be the next winner of the No Bell Prize!

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

"Only theorizing" is far more sound than making baseless assertions. I haven't personally been on a boat or a plane that circled the entire earth, but I know it's not flat.

 

 

probably does not understand what "theory" means to a scientist or engineer

 

in common parlance,  "theory" means the same as a notion

[Ralf11]

I think it is worth the small amount of trouble to reduce EM noise as per some of the above, but it really is not clear what amount and type/location of noise affects which equipment to what degree.

 

As just one example, some DACs use opto-isolators on the inputs...

[Ralf11]

when CDs first came out, it seems like a lot of the mastering was pretty poor - the CD player itself may not be the only culprit here

[Ralf11]

10 hours ago, mansr said:

What you perceived as detail was probably high-frequency distortion.

 

Who put the psycho in psycho-acoustics?

[Ralf11]

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Never liked marshmallow suspensions. I prefer to feel the road and know what the car is doing at any given time. But that's exactly what your method of making a bad recording sound good will do: it'll cover up the bumps. My expectation is that you should feel the bumps and hear the distortions in a bad recording, rather than try to adjust it out. You've been suggesting the opposite. 

 

 

I use digressively valved shocks...

[Ralf11]

orr at least include a photo of a boat-tail Alfa in any car analogies

[Ralf11]

Besides, the LAST anybody wants is  'performers breathing on me' - think of their infection rates and lifestyles.  One bunch of them even refused to go in and perform by the side door!  

[Ralf11]

it also looks like he switched the topic from Phasure DAC to high-res formats

 

- the latter can be distinguished as shown by a meta-analysis (Reiss et al.), tho IIRC the statistical significance was marginal

 

I'd switch my 2500 albums to HiRes if it was cheap, easy, & available...  but it's really hard to find the original HiRes recordings of Buddy Bolden, esp. in 5 channel

[Ralf11]

bachish - search on Reiss - I posted the entire cite to that study

 

as usual, the difference for HiRes (if any on a given album) will be smaller than room tmts. or new speakers

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 Would you expect them to be otherwise ?

 They are icing on the cake for a well implemented room and speakers etc.

 

yet many, many people waste valuable time & money on things that don't matter

 

[Ralf11]

9 hours ago, marce said:

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

 

I like the comment, but you mis-spelled odor

[Ralf11]

7 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 so many members

 

what is the difference between "so many" and "many, many" ??

[Ralf11]

59 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

The theory is that, even though we do not hear ultrasonic frequencies, that audio energy exists as upper overtones of musical instruments which has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly.

 

When listening to music we hear the fundamental note and its overtones shape the timbre, this is why an oboe and a clarinet sound different when playing the same note as their overtone series is different. The more overtones available to shape the timbre of the fundamental tone the more accurate the timbre is.

 

See There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz! A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz

 

1. Did you see the posts of how "fast" things like cymbal strikes are?  There may have been pics of rise times but I don't recall for sure.  But the rise times were not very fast really.

 

2. Thanks for posting the Boyk study.  It is not clear if Fig.1's Y-axis starts at 0.  Assuming it does, the supersonic frequencies are at pretty low SPLs (assuming they could be detected at higher SPLs).  It might be possible to do some additions or removals of > 20 kHz sound to test.

 

3. Did anyone mention brickwall filters yet?

[Ralf11]

Yes, I saw that.  It doesn't change my comments tho.

 

i do think there is room for someone to followup on the Brack study - they just need grant dollars.  I bet NIH would be all over it!

 

 

or NIMH

[Ralf11]

but then... why bother with a genuine MCH if a great video exists...

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

1.  I cannot hear with my eyes (despite what some might say).

2.  There are so few great video music recordings as to be almost inconsequential.

3.  Recorded video distracts me from the music.

 

re #1 - you are missing out on synesthesia (also applies to car audio...)

 

re #2 - there are a few, esp. in the rock idiom

[Ralf11]

salt?