I don't understand. This seems to be an upside down argument.
If the improvements are noticeable, then there ought to be some easy to measure results in the analog signal. You say that you have measurements, but can not publish them. Can you at least describe them?
If the measurements show no significant difference but controlled listening tests do, one can admit that and move on. "We can hear it but not measure it" is legit if measurements are shown. So far, none have been shown. Simple controlled listening tests are not that difficult. And just as with any measurement, care should be taken in the implementation of listening tests.
If the improvements are noticeable, then there ought to be some easy to measure results in the analog signal. You say that you have measurements, but can not publish them. Can you at least describe them?
If the measurements show no significant difference but controlled listening tests do, one can admit that and move on. "We can hear it but not measure it" is legit if measurements are shown. So far, none have been shown. Simple controlled listening tests are not that difficult. And just as with any measurement, care should be taken in the implementation of listening tests.
Ah come on now , Michael, read the thread! I said I have scope shots of the the SPDIF output showing major difference. He rejected these & wanted analogue measurements - please read the thread before contributing - it is the least that is expected of a poster!
So I have two pieces of evidence that seem to be rejected - the scope shots & >60 people's hearing. I'm just calling his bluff to produce analogue shots that show all the things that I & others can hear in the sound! If you have such shots then please proffer them.
I really don't want to go have to repeat my previous posts again
BTW, you didn't address my request for analogue plots showing jitter, sound stage, instrument timbre, etc. Can you not produce any such evidence that can be clearly pointed to on a plot? Do you deny that these things can be heard in well reproduced audio? If so they can be measured & shown according to SY or do you disagree with him on this?
So I have two pieces of evidence that seem to be rejected - the scope shots & >60 people's hearing. I'm just calling his bluff to produce analogue shots that show all the things that I & others can hear in the sound! If you have such shots then please proffer them.
I really don't want to go have to repeat my previous posts again
BTW, you didn't address my request for analogue plots showing jitter, sound stage, instrument timbre, etc. Can you not produce any such evidence that can be clearly pointed to on a plot? Do you deny that these things can be heard in well reproduced audio? If so they can be measured & shown according to SY or do you disagree with him on this?
Last edited:
Mostly agree. I'm sure "over 60 people" have claimed alien abductions and spoon bending. Controlled listening is indeed not trivial, whereas analog measurements are pretty simple and fast. The fact that the proponents of this mod are more interested in arguing than actually taking 15 minutes to do the analog measurements is suggestive. I'd love to see some sort of backup rather than aggressive advocacy.
Precisely. As much as I rag on Stereophile, they do provide some interesting stuff including those test discs.
SY - the onus is on you to show plots of analogue output showing what I have repeatedly asked for above - failure to do so underlines the fallacy of your argument. Or are you saying that they can't be measured OR possibly can't be heard. State clearly which one of these options you are proposing & let's get this out in the open! I await with bated breath!
I expect your next move will be to claim that this communication is going nowhere & withdraw! Remember we are being read by others!
BTW, nobody here wanted to be drawn into a debate such as this - remember you & others insinuated yourself into the thread - the original poster just wanted to know how to do it which was given. So your claim about proponents of this mod is again ironic - there were no proponents until you & your likes started to poo-poo it!
PS Why not also address the irony of rejecting the hearing of >60 people while at the same time claiming the analogue out is the only one that matters. Do you not see any dichotomy in this?
I expect your next move will be to claim that this communication is going nowhere & withdraw! Remember we are being read by others!
BTW, nobody here wanted to be drawn into a debate such as this - remember you & others insinuated yourself into the thread - the original poster just wanted to know how to do it which was given. So your claim about proponents of this mod is again ironic - there were no proponents until you & your likes started to poo-poo it!
PS Why not also address the irony of rejecting the hearing of >60 people while at the same time claiming the analogue out is the only one that matters. Do you not see any dichotomy in this?
Last edited:
Avoiding the issue yet again - I'll repeat - post here an analogue plot where you can clearly identify the characteristics of sound that I mentioned ad-infinitum already (I've been asking since post 95)!
Once you do then we can
a) prove that these characteristics can be measured
b)show whether the mods do or don't change these measurements
What's the problem - you state that it is so easy - there must be ample examples for you to choose from - let's see them!
Once you do then we can
a) prove that these characteristics can be measured
b)show whether the mods do or don't change these measurements
What's the problem - you state that it is so easy - there must be ample examples for you to choose from - let's see them!
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.