Please define 'perfect'. You are splattering that word all over your slew of threads at the moment.
Sy I read it all so y. can bet I won't miss it.I made the front cover of EQ for my DAW recipe.
In fact Craig Anderton quoted is was his PC audio guru. I was quite honored because he was mine from his PAIA days! I will be contributing here more on the subject from now on. I have written 100s of articles about it in both Mix and EQ and online mags.
In this case the highest score that rightmark is capable of giving. Very very very high performance. In other words parity.
Just checked and RMAA doesn't have a 'very very very high' result.
So the game is to find the cheapest things on ebay that RMAA gives an 'excellent' score to across the board'?
So the game is to find the cheapest things on ebay that RMAA gives an 'excellent' score to across the board'?
Yes Bill you are correct it is the highest rating and damn near never acheived. I editorialised, but I do have Lavry adda here for reference. Parity imo. You must realise I am trying to help rid the world of snake oil, and that is not a bad goal.
Last edited:
And no Bill the "game"is to find state of the art performance, esprcially at a low price. There are plenty if much more expensive units that sound and measure poorly. This *is* my game and I am quite proud of playing it.
Parity with what?
If your point is that there are cheap sound cards that reach transparency by any sane metric then people have been saying that for years. Nothing new or surprising there.
But I do like a good deal.
OK so we have 'excellent on RMAA', 'perfect', 'Parity' and 'state of the art' targets. Only one of those is needed if defined properly.
Right, but when it comes to measurements, many feel the need for audio interface performance quite a bit better than mere sonic transparency.
For example, for a measurement to be accurate, the measuring equipment has to have distortion and noise that are at least 10-20 dB better than the quantity being measured, if the measurements are to be very accurate.
In some cases there may be several cascaded conversions between analog and digital to accommodate other local limitations.
When I cite measurements, I often want them to support my claim that the technical performance is good enough to be sonically transparent. Not everybody agrees about what is "good enough", and it can be helpful to be able to make far better measurements than I personally feel to be necessary.
^Exactly. By parity I do mean sonic parity with the best pro gear but at a stupidly low price. When I find these I try to let people know, and I will continue to. From my perspective obviously. Reading your stuff (Arnie) has been a huge part of my education, and I appeciate it.
I still can't work out if this is a serious thread or someone in a lab has created an AI based on the combined posts of 2 or 3 people on the forum. So many confusing assumptions make me suggest this is not an attempt at a serious thread, but as ever hope to be wrong.
But clearly as long as it comes from the 'pro' catalogue its transparent.
Seems pretty clear to me:-
Lets cut through all the subjective bs, snake oil, guru shite, maple cable lifting blocks, cable directionality, insistence on use of JFET's, tubes and other outdated crap, insistence that DBT does not work (but peeking does 😉) and so forth and list equipment that can reproduce signals perfectly - i.e. well below any thresholds of human aural capability. In other words, lets stick it to the technology 'deniers' with this thread.
I commend you peteleoni!
🙂
Lets cut through all the subjective bs, snake oil, guru shite, maple cable lifting blocks, cable directionality, insistence on use of JFET's, tubes and other outdated crap, insistence that DBT does not work (but peeking does 😉) and so forth and list equipment that can reproduce signals perfectly - i.e. well below any thresholds of human aural capability. In other words, lets stick it to the technology 'deniers' with this thread.
I commend you peteleoni!
🙂
Last edited:
Thank you. I have been here before in the pro audio world.People do not like the sacred cows messed with. People were truly gouging. Myself along with several others suceeded in bringing high quality but low cost gear to light. The result was overwhelminingly positive and many things quickly became more affordable. Microphones for example, which most of us know obey the same laws of physics as speakers, were shrouded in mystery. Example among many. People refused to believe that a $300 Chinese mic could compete with a $6000 German mic. Myself along with some my parter in business Morgan Pettinato did some real investigation and testing. The resultant review in Mix changed the landscape.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.