Popular Post esldude Posted August 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 7, 2019 3 hours ago, tmtomh said: For those who care, here is the crucial passage from the linked article where the author switches from "They Say" to "I Say" - in other words, when the author finishes summarizing the point of view they are going to disagree with, and when they begin to lay out their own response (counter-argument) to that point of view: "It's important to understand that there are no “digital signals”; there are analog signals that carry digital information. High-bandwidth digital signals are not 'pulses and no-pulses' marching down a wire like a line of ants—they are complex, high-frequency analog waves, and digital processors must recognize and decode many different voltages (16 or more for Ethernet) to turn the transmitted data into information. Because "digital signals" are high-frequency analog signals, cable design matters. This is why there are different Cat levels of Ethernet cable, and why cheap USB cables often don’t work with high-speed devices. Shielding a cable can damp energy peaks in the signal or cause non-linear distortions, and so designing a digital cable is most certainly not an “on or off” engineering task." If we're going to have an intelligent discussion about the actual content of this argument (and we certainly don't have to have an intelligent discussion!), then it would make sense to respond to specific claims the author makes in this passage. A few that jump out at me immediately include: The passage implies - and the argument is based on the claim - that properly decoding "complex, high-frequency analogue waves" is a hit-or-miss challenge for modern digital and networking hardware and cables. The passage specifically implies that distinguishing between 16 different voltages is difficult or challenging for "ethernet" to do. The passage conflates cables, the hardware the cables are connected to, and the software running on that hardware into a single thing - in this case "ethernet." The passage equates different CAT levels of ethernet cable to the accuracy of decoding the aforementioned voltages; and it claims that cheap USB cables do not work with high-speed devices - and further strongly implies that devices that transmit digital audio are high-speed devices ("high-bandwidth digital signals" transmitted as "complex, high-frequency analogue waves." The passage claims that cable shielding can cause analogue-like distortions when a digital audio signal transmitted over that cable gets translated into an analogue audio signal ("shielding a cable can damp energy peaks... or cause non-linear distortions"). I don't think one needs to talk about shills or make ad hominem attacks. Instead, I think one need only point to the above points and many more, and ask anyone who wishes to defend this article and argument to explain and support these claims. In fact, I would say that by calling Darko a shill and resorting to name-calling, folks give defenders of this poor argument a great way to deflect from the actual content of the argument - they can instead sidestep the argument itself and post the kind of response Alex has posted above, pointing out and decrying the nastiness of a "small vocal minority" of naysayers. Good post. But that is why I posted upstream as to whether the OP wanted an explanation of why the assertions don't add up to what Darko is concluding in his writing. 1st Darko is usually full of it, and hasn't failed to be in a long time if someone starts talking about his blogs. He is a shill who sells his influence. So maybe if you don't know this, check into it and stop paying attention to him. If you are open to learning why, or would like to know, those list of points in the latter part of your post can be addressed effectively, easily and simply . Does anyone who doesn't know, want to know? OTOH hand, debunking or correcting misdirection from the likes of Darko gets tiresome. The bottom line is any seemingly technical info in a Darko post is usually not correct on the point, and usually is intended to mislead readers whether he realizes it or not. Don't get your technical info from Darko. This particular blog referred to in the OP is a textbook example of the problems of listening to or reading Darko. tmtomh and Arpiben 1 1 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted August 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 7, 2019 2 hours ago, esldude said: Don't get your technical info from Darko There are things about Darko I like, but his technical understanding is clearly limited. And unfortunately, like many (not all) audio writers, the minute what he writes is challenged on technical grounds, he falls back to the traditional position "don't tell me what I hear", etc. While that is definitely true, he is essentially telling other people that what he hears is some sort of broadly applicable yardstick. crenca, esldude and jabbr 2 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
AnotherSpin Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 21 minutes ago, firedog said: There are things about Darko I like, but his technical understanding is clearly limited. And unfortunately, like many (not all) audio writers, the minute what he writes is challenged on technical grounds, he falls back to the traditional position "don't tell me what I hear", etc. While that is definitely true, he is essentially telling other people that what he hears is some sort of broadly applicable yardstick. Which is probably not so bad at all. People tell others what they hear and others may want or not want listen. There is no such thing as universal audio truth and wouldn't be. Teresa 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 I'm confused. Did Dorko write that silly article? Link to comment
4est Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 1 hour ago, mansr said: I'm confused. Did Dorko write that silly article? I struggle to imagine anyone taking him too seriously. Forrest: Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP> Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz Link to comment
rando Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 50 minutes ago, 4est said: I struggle to imagine anyone taking him too seriously. Here, out of provocation? 🔬 Outside, people dazzled by his apparent place as an authority? Droves funneled in by SEO results will accept him as a serious reliable vetted insider source to be tapped. Association to exclusivity, apparent ease and peculiar heredity with it, being laid at his feet out of a most tender respect for his profound divinations. LATFH, couldn't pick him out of a lineup to be honest. Feel sorry for the audio cop who had to write him up if someone else did. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 7, 2019 J&M just posted a comic that seems just as relevant here. Hugo9000 and jabbr 1 1 Link to comment
jabbr Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 12 hours ago, sandyk said: In other words it becomes Censorship of those with differing points of view. Presumably you continue to post your views to get a reaction? You must understand by now that some of your ideas are way outside the norm, and presumably you enjoy tweaking everyone? Ralf11 1 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
tmtomh Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 13 hours ago, sandyk said: I am NOT sidestepping the argument, neither am I agreeing with all the contents of the quoted article. I am simply saying that it is no longer possible to have a rational discussion in this forum without members such as Ralf11 and several others deliberately attacking the poster and using insulting phrases. This amounts to a bullying and disruptive tactic that leads to others with different views not even joining in the discussion. This kind of behaviour is even more prevalent in the MQA thread, where I have already made it perfectly clear that I also hear degradation caused by MQA processing. In other words it becomes Censorship of those with differing points of view. If you are not sidestepping the argument, then please to point to some evidence in support of the specific claims made in the argument. lucretius 1 Link to comment
jabbr Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 7 hours ago, AnotherSpin said: Which is probably not so bad at all. People tell others what they hear and others may want or not want listen. There is no such thing as universal audio truth and wouldn't be. Certainly. The objection should not be what sound someone prefers, rather when people proclaim technical reasons that are outside reality. These pseudo technical proclamations are often ill disguised marketing attempts. Sort of like selling American cheese as organic aged Parmesan — you are free to like your cheeseburger with American cheese, just be honest. Ajax 1 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
AnotherSpin Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, jabbr said: Certainly. The objection should not be what sound someone prefers, rather when people proclaim technical reasons that are outside reality. These pseudo technical proclamations are often ill disguised marketing attempts. Sort of like selling American cheese as organic aged Parmesan — you are free to like your cheeseburger with American cheese, just be honest. According to Scientists all cheeses taste the same. Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted August 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 7, 2019 35 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said: According to Scientists all cheeses taste the same. Your ignorance is showing again: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=cheese+flavor+formation&btnG=&oq=cheese+flavor Ralf11, esldude and marce 2 1 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
marce Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 If bits aren't bits what are they then? Link to comment
Popular Post alfe Posted August 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, marce said: If bits aren't bits what are they then? Bitstamp for cables manufacturers. crenca and marce 2 Link to comment
Popular Post jabbr Posted August 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 7, 2019 1 hour ago, marce said: If bits aren't bits what are they then? Kibbles Teresa and marce 2 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Popular Post jabbr Posted August 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 7, 2019 2 hours ago, AnotherSpin said: According to Scientists all cheeses taste the same. Computer scientists will say anything in exchange for bathroom privileges 😂 lucretius, marce and crenca 3 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
crenca Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 The 'Bits is Bits' Argument Utterly Misses the Point Our new guide is filled with fighting words that shouldn't be fighting words. "There are no digital signals." "Digital cables are cables." "Time is irrelevant to a data stream." "Digital signals can be distorted." And finally, the Mad Hatter-esque "Clocks aren't perfect". Digital products offer significant upgrade paths. Don't lose out because of misinformation. Click here for the "Bits is Bits" guide esldude 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
crenca Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 The above is the misinformation that just showed up in my inbox... Teresa 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Teresa Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 7 hours ago, mansr said: I'm confused. Did Dorko write that silly article? The article doesn't list an author. AnotherSpin 1 I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums. I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past. I still love music. Teresa Link to comment
Popular Post AnotherSpin Posted August 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Teresa said: The article doesn't list an author. Nobody cares, do they? Teresa, kumakuma and jabbr 1 1 1 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 1 hour ago, crenca said: The above is the misinformation that just showed up in my inbox... I also got spammed with this. The worst thing about it, is that it reads like Soviet propaganda - it is well written and uses semi-accurate stmts. to make specious arguments. All in service of selling stuff to people who likely do not need it. Kevin should be ashamed. I am unlikely to buy equipment from them again. Link to comment
esldude Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 3 hours ago, marce said: If bits aren't bits what are they then? meta-bits susceptible to meta-problems. jabbr 1 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
esldude Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 https://www.upscaleaudio.com/pages/bits-is-bits This is what is in the Darko article. I guess a cursory view of it I didn't realize it was lifted verbatim from AQ. Not surprised. lucretius 1 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
mansr Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 9 minutes ago, esldude said: https://www.upscaleaudio.com/pages/bits-is-bits This is what is in the Darko article. I guess a cursory view of it I didn't realize it was lifted verbatim from AQ. Not surprised. Still not seeing the Darko connection. Did he link to that "article"? Did he publish the same text on his blag? What? Teresa 1 Link to comment
kumakuma Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 Just now, mansr said: Still not seeing the Darko connection. Did he link to that "article"? Did he publish the same text on his blag? What? https://www.facebook.com/darkodotaudio/ Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Recommended Posts