Jump to content

crenca

Members
  • Content Count

    3862
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About crenca

  • Rank
    Junior Objectivist

Recent Profile Visitors

7287 profile views
  1. Given that we are talking about the the "Internet", there is no "a/d d/a a/d d/a countless times..." at all - assuming by "a" you mean "analogue" or "audio" or "aardvark", the normal things used and abused by digital voodoo pedlars. Yes, all "digital" has an "analogue" physical layer somewhere somehow, but that is besides the point - or should be, but again we are talking about digital voodoo pedlars who wrongly make much of this in their confidence game...
  2. You got it wrong at #2...
  3. When I saw this I thought to myself what a coincidence, some peculiar/odd "problem" supposedly exists (there is no inherent reason Roon would not be bitperfect zoning, that is playing back to multiple endpoints) and guess what, MQA just happens to offer a solution and Stereophile gets to talk about this anti-consumer zombie format once again...talk about "playing the hand out", scraping the bottom of the barrel, etc. etc.
  4. This speeding up imparts subatomic spin to the bits which is why you are getting that mid fi sheen to your digital chain that even nanotechnology can not correct. But I rather light a candle than curse your darkness: 1) purchase artisan aluminum case 2) purchase a LPS from some boutique eccentric who promises to slow bits down 3) If the above two purchases does not add up to $4K, purchase an "Audiophile rack" to get there 4) plug everything in and report back on the 1000 veils lifted.
  5. That's why I an others come to this comfortable police state that @The Computer Audiophileruns here...at least that's what the likes of Amir and @ARQuinttells me... 😋 (joke people, joke)
  6. I am beginning to think that MQA is a gift from the audio gods for the specific purpose of revealing all the incompetence, posers, and con men in this eccentric little hobby...
  7. Or perhaps the hypothesis is being poorly tested, or perhaps the wrong conclusions are being drawn. Beyond that, Jud's conclusions are several degrees removed/speculated further. The counselor is leading you by the nose... 😉
  8. Nope. You are extrapolating, speculating, and asserting way beyond the evidence. All it may show (further testing is required) is that some parts of the wave form are necessary but not sufficient in themselves for identification (within the confines of the test). Anything beyond that is not in evidence. I like to muse on the significance of this test for high fidelity as well so I like how it underscores the real nature of sound, in that there is but one waveform to rule them all on the one hand, and how easy it is to tinker with and distort on the other hand. It reveals how arbitrary "audiophile" language such as "transients" can be (granting their usefulness at the same time), etc. etc... This whole discussion is but a proxy for a radical subjectivism, which states that if a tree falls in a forest it does not really make a sound and even if it does, it is an impossible ideal that never really exists in the universe as it is. The truth in @barrowsand your subjectivism is that yes there is preferences and taste, even in the art of recording/playback engineering. Yet you take it too far when you push the difficulties to an absolute subjectivism. TAS as a guide and method is not only useful and real, it is necessary...
  9. So you take a waveform and apply DSP so that your left with some inner "tone" quality, and this is then extrapolated to be some kind of golden indicator of reproduction?! I can take the most intimate sound you know, let's for argument sake say the sound of your wifes voice, apply a little DSP, and make her sound like Daffy Duck or Donald Trump...and this means something significant to high fidelity?!? Your making this up as you go along arent you...what are you smoking/drinking/popping, I want some 😋 If anything, the conclusion drawn from this test is the opposite from what you have it: it shows the importance of non-distorted high fidelity playback of the entire waveform in the audio band...
  10. What part of "radical" do you not understand? 😋😉
  11. Um, why? It does test that at all...what's your reasoning to draw your conclusion?
  12. Yea I can't disagree. @Archimagocomment upstream about Amir's Total Dac (this might be the one to which you refer) review got me to look at his measurements of it...Yikes! Sort of puts in perspective the value of these trade publications "Recommended Component" lists and what not.
  13. But but but...at 'L' there was a microphone(s) that did capture the waveform, which is but the sum of all the dotted lines (not only the 4 shown, but all the rest - too infinity and beyond! ). There is but one waveform to rule them all. 😁
  14. So a transport...that feeds PCM into a DAC...does he says it has a "sound" and if so why?
  15. I think it is more complicated, in that Amir is a bit of a "measurement bully". He makes strong claims of "better" or "worse" based on a questionable philosophical interpretation of SINAD and such. In other words, he does not have the balance right. So when his explicit "audio science" position is so obviously contradicted by his MQA stance, well folks pounce on the bully...
×
×
  • Create New...