Picotechnology ? We need nanotech !!
Two or three nano-robots to run inside the grooves and clean the dust
Two or three nano-robots to run inside the grooves and clean the dust
IPC : improve your life... yea more like improve their life.
6 seconds treatment, last 120 minutes... diyaudio can do better...
after posting 2 times in the forum your sound system plays with deeper and stronger confidence. It brings back the 'unheared' metaphoric sounds which were hidden.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Last evening I completed building my CS4398 DAC. I did A/B comparisons with my ES9023, and the CS4398 DAC is (subjectively) superior. More detail, with a "clearer" top end, but certainly not "harsh".
Tonight I will do A/B testing between the CS4398 and my turn table setup. I suspect it will be VERY close.
Tonight I will do A/B testing between the CS4398 and my turn table setup. I suspect it will be VERY close.
Rumble noise, bumps and vinyl surface unevenness generates low frequency energy which a good phono stage filters out.
Please record TT and look closely at spectrum 0-20Hz.
Most likely you will see something like this:
posted originally here. Upper traces are LP, lower traces CD, both made from same master recording.
All that LF crap modulates all the audio. No way to remove.
My audio PC is headless and only set up for playback. Some day I might try recording some vinyl, but I am not particularly motivated to do so.
All that low frequency stuff (if not filtered by my phono stage) is filtered by my speakers and my ears.
It may or may not be modulating the rest of the spectrum but, if it is, I cannot tell. My feet still start tapping when the Django starts rippin'.
I am amazed that you have the 'confidence' to dictate to me what is and is not true, when you do not even know the meaning of the word sound, use it wrongly, and want to argue with me when I correct you. Look it up. Unless you acknowledge this error in the first line of your argument, which discredits the rest of your line of thought by the way, I won't engage further. Because I am starting to suspect you are one of those endlessly-argumentative non-learning types, who treat the internet forums like debating classes where they don't care if they have been given a patently wrong position to defend, they will debate that position endlessly and with all the debating tricks that try to prevent the truth becoming clear.
No, that is not my point. You are twisting my words, that is a debating trick, and I am getting very suspicious. We all know that loudspeakers are not perfect beyond audibility. We are talking about electronics reproduction systems upstream of the speakers, and yes it is well demonstrated that there are two electronics reproduction systems possible that are not audibly different when swapped in and out under controlled conditions.
For the third time -- it is wrong to say that a change in signal equals a change in sound, i.e. audible. (As for tube versus SS, you said tube amp vs digital amp, which I take digital to mean class D analog, which are always SS, but I was trying to circumvent this long sidetrack. I failed. 😎)
Again you twist my meaning, I am now very suspicious. I spoke about audibility of electronics, and you twist it into perfect sound systems. That's not good.
I am not talking about small overestimations, I am talking about wild overestimations that completely ignore all evidence from controlled tests. That is going too far, and we all know why it happens: because it contradicts casual at-home listening. Please bear in mind my post #1341 and don't demand that I repeat it all.
And I look forward to solid independent evidence of the circumstances where one is affected by it. And please, no Oohashi links. I was excited by that too, originally, but learned my mistake over the years as attempts to verify his 'hypersonic effect' invariably contraindicated his findings. So, at this point, it's the audio world's 'cold fusion 1989 experiment' equivalent, i.e. pathological science.
We can all make up hypotheses. But if the experiences we drew on to make such hypotheses are experimentally inept, then we don't deserve to be taken seriously, and should be very humble when corrected. Audio conversations would then be much more pleasurable.
You are confused. I am the one who is not underestimating the mind's ability to fabricate changed perceptions of sound independently from changes in sensation. If I am proven to be underestimating it, then the way everyone trusts their ears in judging audio equipment is even more of a problem than I described.
Thankfully, you provided a more specific example in your sentence above. I was referring to the typical audiophile relying too much on their first hand experiences, to draw too many, too-specific conclusions about what this and that audio component 'sounds like', when they are not making any effort to control their first hand experiences, which is the only way to be sure the mind has not fabricated the experience based on non-sonic factors.
cheers
Here was your comment:
on my post:
And here are your responds when someone who you claimed to be in error (using "hit-and-run" style) were looking for clear explanations (simply for wanting to know what you were hinting at):
Tnargs, imho, when you call someone is wrong, you have a morale or ethical responsibility to explain, even without inquiry from that person.
Humility is needed when being corrected or when correcting people.
May be I'm not humble, that's why I don't demand humility from people. At least I'm not that person who demands people humility while he does not have humility himself. I think you just care to much about "winning or losing", no?
Cheers
on my post:
And here are your responds when someone who you claimed to be in error (using "hit-and-run" style) were looking for clear explanations (simply for wanting to know what you were hinting at):
Tnargs, imho, when you call someone is wrong, you have a morale or ethical responsibility to explain, even without inquiry from that person.
Humility is needed when being corrected or when correcting people.
May be I'm not humble, that's why I don't demand humility from people. At least I'm not that person who demands people humility while he does not have humility himself. I think you just care to much about "winning or losing", no?
Cheers
OK, that's it. I have a moral responsibility to explain the meaning of the word 'sound' to you? Where do you get off with the arrogance? And see post #1374, plus expansion in #1379, I have already executed my 'moral responsibility'. !!!!
You still haven't checked a single fact, have you? Like the meaning of 'sound'. Or retracted a single point in your original post that I commented on? Instead we are treated to all these 'diversions'.
If you don't twist my words or employ debating tricks, my respectful tone will be unmistakable. But so far, including your latest post, you are confirming everything I have suspected regarding endless argumentation.
All this blowing because I picked you up on your claim, in a discussion on electronics, "Any reproduction systems WILL modify the sound." I said it's wrong, and first you tried to substitute the word 'signal' for 'sound'. I didn't fall for the trick, so you tried to make it about live music vs reproduced music (which was never the topic). I ignored that, so you tried to make changes to signal and sound the same thing, which I again corrected and tried to keep on topic. By this point you were asking me if I'm an engineer (which I ignored) and you threw in a claim that *I* must think that there are perfect hifis that sound exactly like live music! By now I was well and truly fed up with all the fancy footwork, but you weren't finished. You threw in your personal hypothesis that inaudible distortion still affects the listener, so I asked for evidence, but no. Instead you assure me that everything you write comes from personal experience and you have good ears. How far off topic do you want to go? Lots of people with good ears have personal experience that contradicts yours; are they right or you? It is not a useful argument. But it certainly is a useful diversion.
I am tired.
Now I know what your point was.
"Any reproduction systems WILL modify the sound." was wrong. The correct one is "Any reproduction systems WILL modify the signal."
Honestly, I employed no tricks. I genuinely didn't think I was wrong. But English is not my language so pardon me.
tnargs, the word you're looking for is "eristic." And I'd recommend not encouraging that by feeding it. If you choose to continue feeding it, do not be surprised at the same results.
tnargs, use the ignore list function.
I have, and no longer see the drivel that Jay writes..
- Status
- Not open for further replies.