Bits is bits?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

https://www.facebook.com/darkodotaudio/

How much does he get paid to have that AQ picture at the top of the page?

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

How much does he get paid to have that AQ picture at the top of the page?

 

Probably nothing. I'm guessing it was a way to add content to his feed without actually having to write anything.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

Probably nothing.

Then he's a fool. Then again, he pays $200 per year for a .audio domain.

[Indydan]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Still not seeing the Darko connection. Did he link to that "article"? Did he publish the same text on his blag? What?

Darko linked to it on his FB page.

[fas42]

15 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.

 

There is a universal audio truth ... any reasonable playback system can be evolved to a status, using knowledge and focused effort, where one is no longer aware of the playback chain in the listening; but only what's on the recording. This is something that I've have confirmed repeatedly - and what's on the recording is plenty enough to keep you mighty happy, .

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

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?

Yes, I agree that they are outside the norm , but I also have quite a bit of confirmation including now 4 high profile members in the previous several months.

[lucretius]

22 hours ago, crenca said:

Present the facts all you want, Darko and these sorts of manufacturers are intentionally operating on another level entirely - it's not about the facts, it's about using and abusing facts for a particular outcome.

 

Sure, the manufacturers are intentionally operating on another level but I'm not so certain about Dorko. That would be giving him credit for being fiendishly clever.  Instead, I'm inclined to believe he's just a useful idiot (who also likes free stuff).

[jabbr]

22 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Yes, I agree that they are outside the norm , but I also have quite a bit of confirmation including now 4 high profile members in the previous several months.

Alex, I appreciate your passion, honestly. If you want to avoid being dismissed then:

1) Clearly state what is being “confirmed”

2) Don’t use the term “confirmation” when you mean that there are 4 more anecdotes. Are they public?

 

Doesn’t matter. When the claims are so outside the norm, the evidence needed to move the bar requires more and more care & effort. 

 

That said this this is a hobby, and you understand why you prompt such reactions.  

[sandyk]

22 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

now, now - for all the Dravings, he understands analog quite well

In case you haven't noticed, I have not used Analogue based material for quite a few years.

All my observations are based around listening to Digital recordings via my highly modified DACs used both with the PC and my main system. My main DAC uses very low noise separate power supplies for both Digital and Analogue areas ,and in the case of the old Musical Fidelity XDAC V3 used with my PC, a very low PPM TCXO is used along with a <4uV noise highly stable +5V supply along with a low noise external Linear PSU instead of the supplied AC wallwart.

[Ralf11]

I am talking about your knowledge base

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Doesn’t matter. When the claims are so outside the norm, the evidence needed to move the bar requires more and more care & effort. 

 I have already provided that in the way of reports by Barry Diament and the results also of 6 separate DBTs.

 As far as I am concerned I have done just that.

 It's not my problem if you refuse to accept the validity of those reports along with those from quite a few respected members of this forum.

Nothing that anybody does will ever be enough for those with deeply ingrained beliefs, just like those that refuse to accept that Man has set foot on the Moon.

[Ralf11]

Quite a few "respected members of this forum" have seen your purported proof.  AFAIK, not one has been convinced, or persuaded.

 

Here is a tip: when reading journal articles (which of course have undergone peer review) you first read the Methods section (not the Intro or even the Abstract).  If it is deficient, there is no need to read anything else.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

I am talking about your knowledge base

 

You wouldn't know what my knowledge base is.

 

[Ralf11]

I  know what your knowledge base isn't.

[kumakuma]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

You wouldn't know what my knowledge base is.

 

 

He said he respects your knowledge of analog electronics. Why are you having such a hard time taking a compliment?

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Quite a few "respected members of this forum" have seen your purported proof.  AFAIK, not one has been convinced, or persuaded.

 

Here is a tip: when reading journal articles (which of course have undergone peer review) you first read the Methods section (not the Intro or even the Abstract).  If it is deficient, there is no need to read anything else.

 Here is a tip for you.

 This is NOT an Engineering Forum, It is an Audiophile Forum, and we don't have to play by your rules.

 I have already gone way beyond what most members would do to try and humour closed minded Academics like yourself, and continue to do so behind the scenes with other well qualified members.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

He said he respects your knowledge of analog electronics. Why are you having such a hard time taking a compliment?

DELETED.

Neither yourself or Ralf 11 are worth the effort of replying to.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

I have no further interest in replying to yourself or Ralf11 in this thread area unless you post something of substance in the Digital or Analogue areas

Would you be so kind as to extend me the same courtesy?

[Ralf11]

I do want to apologize for trying to treat him like a rational person.

[sandyk]

Just now, mansr said:

Would you be so kind as to extend me the same courtesy?

 

When you stop attacking my posts with sarcastic and derogatory remarks I will consider doing so.

[Ralf11]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

  we don't have to play by your rules 

 

 

[jabbr]

55 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I have already provided that in the way of reports by Barry Diament and the results also of 6 separate DBTs.

 As far as I am concerned I have done just that.

 It's not my problem if you refuse to accept the validity of those reports along with those from quite a few respected members of this forum.

Nothing that anybody does will ever be enough for those with deeply ingrained beliefs, just like those that refuse to accept that Man has set foot on the Moon.

 

Ok you still haven’t answered: what exactly is your claim? Specifically: what do you feel you have “confirmed”?

 

Honestly, I can’t tell exactly what you are talking about. 

[sandyk]

26 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Ok you still haven’t answered: what exactly is your claim? Specifically: what do you feel you have “confirmed”?

 

Honestly, I can’t tell exactly what you are talking about. 

 On several occasions I have offered to provide you proof of my main claim but you have made it very clear, as several other members have done, that you are not interested in any proof that I have offered to provide.

 My main claim has always been that Music files with identical checksums do not necessarily sound the same, even when stored in the same folder of the same storage media, or for that matter,  Video files with identical checksums look exactly the same either.

[barrows]

I do not see a whole lot wrong with that article, after perusing it.  But the part that is quoted at the beginning of this thread, which appears to suggest that bit errors are responsible for some sound quality issues with digital audio is entirely mistaken, and this fact really makes the entire article lose weight.  This mistake is really a shame because it is one aspect of digital playback technology which is relatively easily verifiable

For sure though, the parts about choices made by designers/engineers when it comes to how a digital signal is processed inside a DAC, how digital filters are applied and the design of the those filters, the design and influence of power supplies, clock implementation and analog output stage design are all right on target and indisputable as far as I am concerned.

While there is no doubt that (some) different USB cables do indeed sound different, this difference has nothing to do with bit errors.  As far as those who suggest that different USB “cannot” sound different, anyone who holds such a belief is clueless and slightly slack, and might be interested in finding a better way to waste their time than on an audiophile forum.  While I could be convinced by the idea that in a properly designed USB receiver the cable should not matter, I have never come across a DAC sporting such an interface, and I have experienced many, many USB DACs here.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, barrows said:

 But the part that is quoted at the beginning of this thread, which appears to suggest that bit errors are responsible for some sound quality issues with digital audio is entirely mistaken, and this fact really makes the entire article lose weight.  This mistake is really a shame because it is one aspect of digital playback technology which is relatively easily verifiable

Hi Barrows

 Yes , it is relatively easy verifiable, even by correctly implemented DBT sessions, but getting people with deeply ingrained beliefs to accept such proof is an entirely different matter.

 

Regards

Alex