You were asked to provide evidence already of what is trivial & it was pointed out that you have no real interest in quality music playback based on your own statements & your description of your system. So it is somewhat ironic that you insist others should have the same view of trivial. Have you ever considered that your playback system cannot differentiate anything but gross differences.
Scott, this will be denied as a valid measure as was evidenced by the rejection of scope shots of changes in SPDIF datastream in the Rf attenuator thread. If it's not in the analogue signal then it's just boogaboo according to SY. Of course the analogue system tests need to be capable of revealing what is purported. So you are wasting your time with this sensible suggestion, I'm afraid!
Sy, your avoidance of answering about when you are sending on my devices looks very damming at this stage! Could you please give an answer - 3 weeks ago you said you were posting them!
Last edited:
Still waiting for you to quantify trivial ............ 🙄
The difference as presented to us was not trivial and it varied from software to software. Windows Media was the worst, DBpoweramp was the best and very close to the original.
Burning was done using standard CD's next we will try black and Gold versions to see if we can hear a difference.
When you burned the CDs with different software did the software allow you to "verify"? Many do. That way you know that the files was burned without errors. It isn't always error free.
As I assumed there's a commodity (PC or Mac) hardware involved here.
Enough said. No wonder there are differences.
Enough said. No wonder there are differences.
Still waiting for anybody to offer to clone 2 files, send them to me, and then reliably identify over the course of a number of tests which is which when I rename them and send them back.
I will note which files are sent on which occasion. The tester will note what he thinks he has received. At the end of the test (say 20 files) we will both send our tables of sends and receipts to panomaniac, presuming he is agreeable. He will then simultaneously publish both tables.
w
Oh, right, you need me to define trivial, so that you can tell which file is which. Just exactly what difference would it make?
Stop prevaricating and admit that the test scares you off.
w
Stop prevaricating and admit that the test scares you off.
w
Test ! scared ! ... 🙄
No Waki, you must be the one scared. You said there is no difference and if there was , it would be trivial , quantify trivial , if not then any test by your standards would be useless...
Ironic how precise and then imprecise you can be about this .............................
No Waki, you must be the one scared. You said there is no difference and if there was , it would be trivial , quantify trivial , if not then any test by your standards would be useless...
Ironic how precise and then imprecise you can be about this .............................
Last edited:
Sandy's already pointed out that renaming the files degrades the sound quality so badly that differences can no longer be heard. Interestingly, copying them to and from web servers, memory sticks etc is OK, it's just renaming them that has this effect. 🙄
Above is what I actually said. You are deliberately misquoting me for your own purposes.
The files were not simply renamed as you are suggesting. They were moved around between HDDs , and the "Properties" altered too, to prevent cheating.
SandyK
No, you misquoted him. What he actually said is that the quality was degraded by doing things to prevent cheating.
w
Ironic answers and personal criticism stuff removed. Don't continue in this vein.
There was zero personal criticism in the post you've removed - I know because I wrote it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.