Jump to content

vmartell22

Members
  • Content Count

    213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About vmartell22

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Indeed - you are 100% right - as I said, I was simplifying a bit but you expanded it nicely... thnx! v
  2. I started making an argument but well... had to stop - this is gonna go to the core of the argument and it is maybe a oversimplification.. however - I think it holds true: People do not want to admit that their brain can be affected by many things, physical, physiological, psychological, etc - and given that their brain IS the mechanism to interpret the data they get from the world thru their senses... well... you know what I am getting at - your brain can fool you. You can be tired... and you think it sounds worse; you can be stressed out and the sweet balm of your favourite music can make you think is sounds better... etc However it's obvious that they cannot get themselves to admit that. They are looking for a reason outside their brain on why the difference they perceive. And boy - when that happens to a technically/scientifically knowledgeable person... well it becomes really hard - their own knowledge and self image (as a smart person) it's barrier to admitting their brain can fool them... and f(WAV) == f( uncompress(FLAC) ) v
  3. This is something I have commented many many times - specially re: skin effect 1.- well, skin effect, is, you know... a thing 2.- So cable peeps go on to explain skin effect to the fullest - I am sometimes in awe. BUT 3.- Then a jump is made to: "therefore is bad" (even at audio frequencies) 4.- So they make a cable that addresses skin effect. 5.- then a jump is made to: "therefore it sounds better" I feel that the jumps from 2 to 3 and 4 to 5 can only be proven true with guess what? true scientific testing... but then again... well, forget I said anything.... not really want to get into it... v
  4. ... when Chuck Norris comes to listen, Chuck Norris ends up singing FOR her. v
  5. Right - wish there was an easy way to test DS-1 against a regular NUC with audiolinux... man - this digital thing is hard - starting to think I should rather use the money to upgrade my turntable! v
  6. right - that is the big question - my practical/skeptic heart tells me that a laptop with no iron HDs + JRiver would do as much if not more - BUT well - for example right now the laptop I use has been nagging me to update to mojave - and I am terrified that it won't work - sound quality opinions aside - the convenience of those dedicated boxes is alluring... v
  7. Posted this over at Music Servers, not sure if was the wrong place - no replies, so trying here... So, Archimago has a interesting post http://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/02/musings-computer-audio-mythos-comment.html I have always wondered on the advantages of a high end streamer - something like the Sony HAP-Z1ES - I mean there is no denying that they are beautiful machines - but cannot help but wonder how they are better than a well configured computer based system - I doubt the internal software would do more than what JRiver does cheaper - or even Roon, expensive as it is... But these streamers/servers like that are dedicated, beautifully designed machines. To me, the TLS DS-1, is too much like a regular NUC - fancy clock notwithstanding <--- and this is Archimago's point - that probably doesn't matter. Been thinking of moving away from the laptop I use as a player to a NUC, but as a JRiver user, need to research how to configure headless - but maybe Audiolinux is worth a try... Wonder if the DS-1 is worth the extra dough, maybe even not for the fancy clock, but just get a fully configured box that just works... v
  8. Yello - so Archimago has a interesting post http://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/02/musings-computer-audio-mythos-comment.html I have always wondered on the advantages of a high end streamer - something like the Sony HAP-Z1ES - I mean there is no denying that they are beautiful machines - but cannot help but wonder how they are better than a well configured computer based system - doubt the internal software would do more then JRiver and cheaper - or even Roon, expensive as it is... But this is too much like a regular NUC - fancy clock notwithstanding <--- and this is Archimago's point - that prbly doesn't matter. Been thinking of moving away from the laptop I use to a NUC, but as a JRiver user, need to research how to configure headless - but maybe Audiolinux is worth a try... Wonder if the DS-1 is worth the extra dough, not for the fancy clock, but just get a fully configure box that just works... v
  9. Indeed - not even close - that is at least the edge of Westwood, not sure if it is officially still Westwood, though... v
  10. Post is a bit old, but has to be said... DUDE, chill. v
  11. That was a question for the group - who would you have - well, not censored - but you who would you have declared out of order? because the thread immediately went from a discussion re: the merits of certain cables to the typical cable thread - partly my fault, but there were others. So the question is what do we want from moderation? 1) A certain balkanization, where the topics are kind of closed around objective or subjective ideas? That is , for example never allow in a cable evaluation thread anyone to post that expectation bias might make the conversation moot, forcefully keeping the thread on the virtues of cable X against cable Y. OR 2) Try to to only solve the civility issue but forcefully moderating away, sarcasm, personal insults, ad hominem attacks, and even aggressive stances, etc and forcing the posters to try to make their arguments without all that. If the group wants No. 1 - then my post should have probably been moderated away . If the groups wants No. 2, then the reply post, immediately getting personal but not actually refuting the previous point (expectation bias) should have been moderated away - or maybe the poster should have been forced to actually support and explain why expectation bias should not have been brought up... So rephrasing the question(s) what do we want? what does Chris want? Then we (or Chris) decide(s) what if and what kind of moderation is needed... v
  12. I kind of agree on "blatant personal attacks" - "troll" however, is in the eye of the offended... (and that's why I suggested professional moderators - they will obviously not care about objective/subjective) Now - lemme give you an example - of something I was involved with... Many months ago there was a thread on guess what? - cables ! - can remember the exact details someone made a comment along the lines of: "I tried X cable, then I tried Y cable and things were more beautiful, open, musical, etc" (no exact words, but that was the gist of it) I could not resist and "innocently", I asked: "Did you at all times know which cable were you using?" Now I assume all of you know what I was referring, going for etc - no need to expand here because that is not the point... However, given what I just "admitted" so far, even I would say my question/reply was a bit "trollish". BUT then came the reply to that - Someone, evidently got upset and replied along the lines of: "OOHHH - I guess you feel very smart UH? please tell us did you come up with that yourself? You must feel you are a genius!" - and etc. Almost the exact words. It was a reply full of sarcasm with the clear intent to put personally down a person who asked a bit troll-ish but in my mind legitimate question/issue: beware of expectation bias. Now - which one should should have been moderated away? my initial question/reply? or the guy that got upset and immediately went aggro? I will shamelessly say - not me. The angry poster should have - that is when threads go sideways, people posting upset, especially those that immediately turn aggressive... But of course, it is only the opinion of Chris that matters... v
  13. "Nobody is saying send your last $10,000 to an online preacher. " haha - well change "online preacher" (here and in Chris' post) to "Nordost" and it is something that is suggested all the time and that it tends to blow up threads! (Apologies - I am dropping in the middle of the thread and without reading the whole thing but the two posts made me think of that and I HAD to post myself!) v
  14. Well - the above post is a perfect example of how things degenerate - and how difficult moderation will be - to me this is a key post in a thread and show how things get derailed. Obvious a bit of a loaded post - full of implied... hmm how to say it?... I don't want to pick a fight with Richard, so I would say... this is the impression that I get... if it wasn't Richard's intention - I apologize... but to be fair, I believe that If I get the impression, other people will... and so... then the argument will start... so again... The post is full of implications re: crenca's ability, audio knowledge etc. of which the poster might not know anything about. It is also a proud subjectivist post, indicating that it's only about what you hear (which of course, whether true or not, that is part of the debate). It could also rub people the wrong way as it could be interpreted as implying that access to high end equipment (and correlating, high income) equals knowledge/expertise. Someone will pick up on that and violently disagree. And there goes the thread. So the question - how do you moderate that? should a post like this be moderated? I know for sure that it COULD be the start of the thread going awry. Yet, it is NOT an inappropriate post at all, whatever one might think of it. I had to stop myself from posting my opinions on that matter - in order to make this post about the difficulties of moderation and keep it on topic - How about a self moderation campaign, Chris? When you login you get a message - keep it civil moderate yourself, don't post angry, etc... v
×
×
  • Create New...