Certainly not the intent. A good metric would be ideal. Right now I don't have one, have to make do with what is at my disposal.
Ah, yes. True. Very different budget and research resources applied over time to that. Most perceptual research is done on a shoestring budget. Okay in the early days when rough measurements were better than none.
EDIT: No NASA budget needed though. What the food industry spends on perceptual research should probably suffice nicely.
Last edited:
Will do, thank you. Just finished Fischer and Furtwangler doing beethoven and not sure whether to go EMI or RCA for my next 'before I were born' fix 😀
Not the whole story. Some DACs may sound better despite the compromises in DSP processing for upsampling. More gained than lost, is the goal. Imperfect choices, pick one.
EDIT: No matter what is posted in this thread, seems like always risk of misunderstanding (for content, intentions, or both). Not just by one person. Likely a limitation of forums combined with people having naturally different points of view (biases).
With that, I would like to bow out again. Bye 🙂
Last edited:
.... and you just ramble on more or less incoherent - totally amazed by our own voice... and technical superiority - in all this I can almost hear your mind going full spinn in french - struggling to convey your last ingenious sentence which you surly believe is the final logical "check-mate" into frenglisch - once satisfied, adding a few hyphens here and there to confuse the evil enemy and then... you smile triumphant as you hit the Post button - and voice loudly - Take That!
;-D
What do you want really? Why are you here?
//
;-D
What do you want really? Why are you here?
//
If I mentioned sampling (the analog signal) to the highest definition available, it was to be sure that this part of the test was not the restricting factor.
A measurement instrument need better performance than the one of the thing to be measured, isn't it ?
We could make the difference in analog subtracting the signals, but how to synchronise them ?
Last edited:
I"m sorry if you did not understood my words.
By the way, it is not enough to say "incoherent". You need to demonstrate-it.
I am here to can exchange with other's experiences about AUDIO.
Not to be flamed by a little pack of hunters that turn crasy each tome some refer to a listening experience. Always the same guys.
Where is your problem ?
Last edited:
Yes, virtually all intended on fooling as many folks as possible with cheap or fake merchandise.
Rough measurements of what exactly? Toole, Olive, Geddes etc etc have done plenty of perceptual research, is it not good enough?
Oh, I see, because not enough (in your imagination) money was spent on audibility study of audio electronics, we still don't know enough about what can be heard when spending more $$$ on DACs and cables and therefore it cannot be ruled out when someone like you claim to have heard differences. With no mention of any numbers, it's a strawman argument, the typical move by audio businessmen seen all over the net.
Of course, in subjective auditioning sessions you've engaged in.
As if that means something. 🙄
The quote below (response to T) clears it up.
T has noticed a vast reserve of "food" here and that's why he came back after announcing "Goodbye" earlier this year.
I'm still enjoying mono vinyl. Low fi RCA at the moment. All is good and decay tails matter not one jot in this superb performance. Good music trumps high fidelity. Got some serious tidying up to do before the wife gets back tomorrow mind 😀
Not holding my breath. Talking and being creative in describing the SQ is cheap, presenting evidence not so much. I have even collected, over the years, a long list of excuses for not doing so.
If I would get a dime each time I've heard such promises I would be long retired by now 😀.
Last edited:
Is that Fischer and Furtwangler? If so, you may need to keep it in a separate bin so that you don't mix it up with disposable ones. 😀
Yes that was on earlier. Don't worry I have a 60 volume dross record club set for the zombie attack. Not sure if anyone your side of the pond would have got the new order 'blue monday' joke in that scene.
We took all my friend's father's shellac 78's out to a football field and tried to score field goals with them. Plenty hit the posts with spectacular results.
Nope 🙂
The 12" single sleeve was cut to look like a floppy disc. And had no mention of the band or track on it until you took the record out. Apparantly cost so much to make the record company lost money on every one they sold. But an iconic cover in the UK. Mine would apparantly be worth £50 if it hadn't got water damaged during a move.
The 12" single sleeve was cut to look like a floppy disc. And had no mention of the band or track on it until you took the record out. Apparantly cost so much to make the record company lost money on every one they sold. But an iconic cover in the UK. Mine would apparantly be worth £50 if it hadn't got water damaged during a move.
Attachments
The very first stereo cutter heads weren't quite as good as the contemporary mono cutters. The early post-war LPs were a combination of shellac masters, often pre-war, and the first tape masters. Creaky old sound to modern ears, but performances by people who knew Mahler or had learned from Joachim.
That's what I call musical realism. Arf!
All the best fortune,
Chris
That's what I call musical realism. Arf!
All the best fortune,
Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.