Jump to content

numlog

  • Content Count

    208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About numlog

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. they are bashing the self proclaimed scientists whose main focus doesnt seem to be making new discoveries and helping us understand what we dont while simulataneously becoming more respected as scientist and as an audiophile, but instead refute all possible hints that current science is flawed in some way... at least thats the impression I got. active research, testing etc into something you believe is nonsense is definitely a lot tougher than the former, likewise its a lot easier for the audiophile to just accept what they ''think'' they hear is real.
  2. as you put it yourself you believe in science, as again its only a belief, always subject to change as new information comes to light... I dont understand the die-hard attitude around it when you think about how horribly and collectively wrong scientists have been in the past.
  3. you are not really following the post correctly, it was about the chance of unsuspecting newbies finding incorrect information and how 95% of general audio internet population are already spreading what a small amount of experts have told them. ''bits are bits'' '' it either works or it doesnt'' etc. are the typical phrases you will see thrown around a lot
  4. can we get a computeraudiosciencereview subforum?
  5. you mean the 95% who parrot what a handful of actual researchers have proved for them over the years.
  6. what software settings could cause an explainable difference in this case?
  7. who are these newbies that manage to come here and avoid the other 95% of the internet (including half of this site, courtesy of your valiant efforts) that agree and perpetutate that ''bit are bits''? I think the people here all already know what they hear is ''wrong''. you are free to waste your time though, 10000 posts later
  8. agreed, it seems most of the hard-leaning objectivist's have to bring an air of hostility when dealing with these kind of discussions.
  9. This is after hearing the comparatively small impact the improved PS made, which is still in use now. The assumption/hope is the internal clocking performance is a significant bottleneck here.
  10. I was under impression the jitter generally resulted in a ''muddier'' and less fatiguing sound like the HDD, but with reduction in resolution/detail. Whats described there sounds even more like the SSD, which does give the impression of better clarity (HF detail) but with less smoothness and HDD capturing stereo image more accurately with a better balance of low mid high detail.
  11. Maybe not, but it seemed the HDD did not respond as much to the same PS improvements as SSD when compared (briefly). Most of distance could be closed and the SSD honestly sounds preferable, yet the HDD still seems to have better overall detail retrieval compared to SSD. Replacing external crystals on HDD PCB with low jitter XO is next thing on to-do list, to see if some of the performance limitations can be overcome with a mod like this, if the limitations could mainly be bound to the mechanics or the older electronics built to a lower jitter spec
  12. its not hard to believe the HDD output does have more jitter in controlled conditions, but must differ in how it reacts with the rest of the PC i.e less jitter (or other sound influence) on the final output at speakers/headphones
  13. ok, Its only useful for sound in browsers. Chrome is supposed to have WASAPI output with command ''-exclusive-mode-audio'' but it doesnt work anymore, possibly never worked since it didnt work in an older build of chrome either.
×
×
  • Create New...