Linux Audio the way to go!?

[soundcheck]

Originally Posted by gk7

I´ve just read your website and as a linux professional I have to say that most of your suggestions make no sense to me (as how and why they should have any impact on sound quality). There is probably a reason why "Linux folks around here wouldn't ever listen to what you say"..

Me as a graduated engineer and former Linux professional with some HW and quite some audio hw background, I couldn't care less.
If you can't make sense out of anything I write I consider it as a known sympton of Linux professionals. (Or perhaps it's related to my poor english.)

But lets leave this for now.

Good news.

Linux desktop systems achieved a market share growth of amazing 40% in 2011...

Ok Ok. Lets put it into perspective.

...in 2010 a marketshare on desktop-computers of roughly 1% had been reported.



Folks. Android made it to the top within their segment in close to no time.

There must be something going wrong in the Linux desktop world. I do have some ideas...

...or perhaps there are just too many old school linux professionals around.

Enjoy.

[phofman]

Originally Posted by soundcheck

There must be something going wrong in the Linux desktop world. Perhaps too many old school linux professionals around.

Perhaps at least one self-claimed "linux professional". You definitely think high of your linux skills.

[soundcheck]

Originally Posted by phofman

Perhaps at least one self-claimed "linux professional". You definitely think high of your linux skills.

see. i get along quite well with my skill level. i did also quite well in my early professional career.
you obviously also missed the term "former" btw. i wasn't interested to spent all my live in the
linux jungle.

... and i never claimed to be a linux guru btw.


but all that is not the actual issue.


the issue is to be creative and to approach things with an open mind. first comes the idea.
that's what i miss when listening to many rather dogmatic Linux professionals who believe
to know it all because they've looked up the code...
...and unfortunately prevent from any progress by doing so.

enjoy

[phofman]

Originally Posted by soundcheck

first comes the idea.

Right, the second step is implementation, and the third one is credible objective verification of the outcome. Without the third step it is all subjective, just ideas and unproven claims. Only after the third step (not by pointing to random "I can hear it too" claims) the idea and its implementation can be taken seriously. It does not have to be accompanied by a credible explanation, that is another step which can be performed by someone else or left for future generations. There are many unexplainable phenomena yet around us.

But the credible verification of the resulting effect being claimed is absolutely fundamental.

That is why I object to some (please note the "some") of your resolute "do it this way" claims. When the claimed effect is confirmed objectively, I will take them seriously and ask myself and others questions about causes. Until then I will use my technical instincts which call for caution with these claims.

[gk7]

soundcheck, just an example from your site, if one reads the "
2.2 Ethernet Hub on wired networks" part one might get the impression you have no
idea what a hub vs. a switch is ...

While of course everybody is free to do what he wants, the problem I have with your
"toolbox" is that you talk people into removing functionality and void the warranty of their
squeezebox without at least presenting a theory (let alone proof) why this would have any benefit.

BTW the "daemon killer mod" for example, care to elaborate what you would expect from this soundwise ? And why ?

[soundcheck]

Originally Posted by gk7

soundcheck, just an example from your site, if one reads the "
2.2 Ethernet Hub on wired networks" part one might get the impression you have no
idea what a hub vs. a switch is ...

While of course everybody is free to do what he wants, the problem I have with your
"toolbox" is that you talk people into removing functionality and void the warranty of their
squeezebox without at least presenting a theory (let alone proof) why this would have any benefit.

BTW the "daemon killer mod" for example, care to elaborate what you would expect from this soundwise ? And why ?

I don't have to prove anything anymore.

However.

1. I presented a theory. And pretty much all mods follow this theory.
2. I presented a tool to prove it.
3. I counted thousands of downloads and got endless feedback confirming that it works
4. I even got measurements that prove it
5. there are hundreds of other examples out there on other OSses, which happen to show the very same effects on similar measures, also covered by measurements.

End of discussion.

And just to finalize it:

Scientific evidence not only means "proven by measuremenst". Empirical results are experimental observations and this method is widely used in science.
In my case not having access to expensive measurement equipment, empirical data are more than sufficient from my perspective.
Especially when looking at the majority of manufacturers who still fail to nail those distortions down to be able to fight those distortions.


I don't have to sell anything. People don't have to install my toolbox. They do it 100% at their own risk. Free of charge.

It's that easy.

As of now I havn't seen much ( Hmmh. I can't recall any) support of the Linux community (from Linux professionals) over here over the last years. It's rather the other way around. The Linux people over here IMO act pretty destructive and arrogant.
Most of those people around here who' are driving those useless discussions never even tried what I'm offering.
They probably never had a SB Touch in front of them. Yep. That's how it works with Linux professionals.
They try to force me to get myself 20k+ measureemnt equipment instead of buying a 200$ SB Touch to find out very easily what's going on. Folks that's not working.


Enjoy.

[gk7]

You simply sidestepped the question,

For the example I picked (daemon killer) ?
1. therory, where ?
2. tool to proove it, where ? (You don´t even mention what to proove)
3. There are always people that simply believe, not only in the audio field
4. Must have missed them. Where ? And what did you measure ?
5. So other measures on different system prove what ?

I´ve seen you call yourself a "Management Consultant" now, no further comment needed.

[gk7]

Originally Posted by soundcheck

... who believe
to know it all because they've looked up the code...

Actually looking at the code would teach you thing or two and help to understand how things really work ...

What you are doing is like modifying an amplifier without being able to read the schematic.

[phofman]

Originally Posted by gk7

What you are doing is like modifying an amplifier without being able to read the schematic.

Actually, many people do that. And they always succeed. At least by their own assessment

[phofman]

Originally Posted by soundcheck

Scientific evidence not only means "proven by measuremenst". Empirical results are experimental observations and this method is widely used in science.

That is certainly true.

Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Design of experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Thousands of downloads" and "endless feedback confirming that it works" do not constitute any of the above.