ASR Audio Science Review forum YouTube Channel

[acg]

@Superdadwatch out...you may need to consider contributions/commission to ASR in order to get more bad press.  Would that be a good investment?  haha.

 

That Aus guy tends to be incredibly nasty and personal to everybody that does not tow his line...a true keyboard warrior.  

[acg]

16 minutes ago, plissken said:

 am I missing something here?

 

Certainly...

[acg]

9 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Ok what is it then? Have you heard this specific server?

 

I apologise but I do not have time to engage in a battle of verbal diarrhea.  You seem to have nothing else to do so I suggest you read back to figure out your tangent or perhaps even resolve only to talk about things of which you have some experience...seems you do a lot of talking about stuff of which you know little...

 

[acg]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

If there was a substantive rebuttal coming it would have come by now. So far my point is the last one standing and it's been crickets otherwise. 

 

There is a pill for that...

 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, semente said:

 

What about a server which serves a processing computer that DSPs into a buffering endpoint?

 

@PeterSt defends that his method of having the DSP-processing computer directly feeding the DAC is the best approach.

 

PeterSt does not have a DSP processing computer, does not use computer based DSP software nor espouse its use.  This whole conversation is a tangent of magnificent proportions willingly caused by a malignant poster revelling in the echo of their own voice, who neither understands the concepts involved, has any experience in the area nor is seeking anything but disruption. 

[acg]

22 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

This is a silly comment and easy to dismiss, I shared many examples before but you don't read or conveniently ignore.

 

C'mon...you mention 10 or so companies out of how many audio companies worldwide?  The great majority of these companies publish none or a selective subset of measurements and when they do it is often bastardised by the marketing department into something either borderline deceptive or just not useful. 

 

Truth is that there are not many about that know how to properly interpret the measurements, so providing them to the public in a warts and all fashion is more likely to backfire than cause increased sales.  That would be the fuel for the "race to the bottom" where meaningless targets are chased because they become more important to marketing than the actual function of the product.  Something akin to what happened when transistors replaced valves, or cd replaced vinyl and tape.  Perfect sound forever and all that marketing lie.

 

Then there is all the research to suggest that once below a reasonably easy to attain distortion target that going further is indiscernible.  I reckon this is about -80dB at most (-60dB is probably ok if the system has good gain structure)...0.01%...easy as pie to achieve in either solid or hollow state electronics...but to the uninitiated -120dB must be better sounding than -80dB so lets start that race to the bottom.  I own some exceptional measuring audio gear (dacs and preamps), I also own an audio analyser that walks the same turf as Amirs infamous APx, but only listen to that which gives me most enjoyment.

 

This line you have been treading about "only reading it for the photos measurements" is fine in your use case, and we all get it. We really do.  But your use case is only your own, it is not necessarily mine nor anybody elses in particular.  I don't particularly care what you or others think of ASR or Amir or measurements or whatever and I don't mind reading other considered opinions whatever they may be but don't expect to convince or convert anyone to your viewpoint, because that is unlikely on an internet forum.  There is no one right answer here just different opinions.  The argument cannot be "won" by anyone so I see no reason to treat it as a formal debate.   

[acg]

RTX6001

[acg]

3 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

 

C'mon you didn't read this part that I wrote:

 

 

"Remember, specifications come from measurements.

 

Many more companies than listed above publish specifications... so a measurement or variety of, can be used to verify...."

 

You know this.

 

I agree with a lot of the rest you wrote by the way.

 

 

I read it just fine.  Specifications are not measurements.  In a lot of cases they are gross simplifications of complex results...a snapshot of a simplification...produced for nothing more than marketing.

[acg]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Somehow this worst thread turned into a best thread ?
I am serious.

 

I was thinking the same thing.

[acg]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not something I do very often. I prefer to let people talk, but everyone has a line that can be crossed. 

 

I was checking in daily to have my 'Groundhog Day' moments and a good chuckle.