DavidJPettifor

vortecjr wrote:<br /> <br /> <cite>Can we agree on flac for everyday and wav for those seeking something better?</cite><br /> <br /> Uh, no. FLAC and WAV are both lossless, one and the same. One is just compressed. I use AIFF me-self! <br /> <br /> --<br /> djp

soooowhat wrote: I'm not sure how it is even remotely related to ABX testing, but hey, if it makes you feel better to post it in response to my sharing of my opinion, that's cool with me. A little extreme, I must admit, but to explain what I was trying to say for you, it doesn't matter what the majority consider to be correct, one or a few individuals can still go against the grain. ABX testing may show one side to be correct, but if someone doesn't agree, who's to say they are wrong (aside from the majority! )? -- djp

audioengr wrote: I would really like to offer money-back, but I first have to get to higher volume manufacturing. Some of my products are still built by hand and to order. I am mass-producing the Off-Ramp 3 now, so this is possible. Stay tuned. Thanks for the response Steve. This is good to read. I'll keep an eye on how things develop. -- djp

audioengr wrote: If you are a skeptic, then just come to the RMAF in October and listen to some demos. I will be doing both both jitter demos and format demos in the main lobby Iris room. They will be scheduled or by request after hours. Not aligning myself to the "skeptic" tag, but IMHO, I do think Steve, you would benefit from allowing potential customers to try out one of your products for say, 30-days, with a money back policy if not satisfied within the given time frame. This would allow people to ascertain whether spending the extra money on one of your products was really necessary, on an individual basis. I was keen to give your Off-Ramp a run against the M-Audio Transit, but unfortunately, at the time, you didn't offer a money back guarantee if not satisifed, where as the seller of the M-Audio did. No offense meant by this Steve, just an observation that I think would be beneficial to many manufacturers, not just yourself. -- djp

soooowhat said: And therein lies one of the problems I have with ABX. People performing ABX tests - and relying on them to support their opinions of what can and cannot be discerned - seem to tend to accept them as universal truths, by that I mean, they seem to argue that their testing proves their point AND also disproves any dissenting point. This is not the case. You cannot take probability-based mathematics and use it to prove that other outcomes are NOT possible. And therein lies the biggest rub - when ABX testing is used in an attempt to disprove something. AFAIC, it can only truly be used effectively to prove that a difference can exist. Even if ABX testing returned a result of 99 to 1%, in favour that a certain conclusion was considered absolute, that 1% would still consider themselves correct in their own assumption that they were right. Even if 99 people out of 100 all produced the same results, that 1 individual would still consider themselves correct. For example. somebody walks into a school and massacres a class of kids. The majority of people would probably find this an abomination, though that individual carrying out the act and a few more within society no doubt would consider it correct and just, for whatever reasons they considered it "correct and just". This all seems to equate to the many arguments that occur here at CA. It reminds me of the film, "Miracle on 34th Street" (the 1994 version). Attempting to disprove the existence of Santa is impossible, as in doing so, the existence of God is called into question. Neither can be proved and neither can be disproved. A zillion and one ABX tests, numerous facts, figures and opinions of a considered higher elite can never dissuade those who choose not to believe. -- djp

Is it possible to preserve ones liberty and still obtain bit-perfect audio? -- djp

PeterSt wrote: To many of you CA may be a cosy place to hang around, reading along a bit, blabbering away a bit. That is fine. However, looking at the name of the site, there is a purpose. "Audiophile" should still mean something to many, and "computer" will be the new thing to most. The audience for this site should be in the direction of these two phenomena, right ? computer –noun Also called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations. audiophile –noun a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction. OK, so I understand what the definition computer audiophile now means, and your point is Peter? The point you may all have missed, but let Chris speak for himself, is that there is no way this can work here, when each and every thread at some stage ends up in "there can't be a difference because I don't perceive it". Or a twist of it : "There can't be any difference because you can't prove it" (both backuped with many arguments which either way, kill the thread). This is where you are so very wrong IMO Peter. It isn't those who argue the case that statistical data is required to ultimately prove there is a difference in what one is hearing, but those who fail to provide or even acknowledge that such data is relevant who tend to kill the thread (or at least the threads in question). If for example, to use your media player as a case in point, one imagines they can hear a difference when using it, then (as has been mentioned many times before here at CA), some simple tests can provide relevant data that can then substantiate or disprove what is being heard. It really is that simple. If, those who disagree with Ashley and others here, finally produce data to support their arguments, then I'm sure many reading these threads will be able to allow some credence to their arguments. Using Chris as a reference, I notice he has suggested he has data from esteemed audio engineers that disproves the data that Ashley has put forward in threads here. However, that data has not been forthcoming, at least as far as I'm aware. Apologies if I have missed said data and if i have maybe someone can point me to it? Publish and be damned is what I say! Everybody is entitled to have his opinion. However, an opinion coming down to "I don't hear it / I don't understand it" and THUS you are talking non-sense (all nicely implicitly put) ... is not justified. And this is what is happening all over (Ashley/Tim combo). This is NOT what's happening at all. Ashley, Tim et al are NOT saying "I don't hear it / I don't understand it", but, and this is all it boils down to, IMO (if I have understood them correctly), is that "high-end" manufacturers of audio devices (specifically computers) that charge astronomical prices for pieces of kit, do not produce a comparative improvement in sound quality in relation to the massive price difference between similar devices at a far more reasonable price point. With regards manufacturers implying their products DO sound much better than other alternatives, they are just asking that the manufacturer at least provides some data that supports such claims. Simple. As a consumer, that is (and I'd suggest what others) want to read. Ashley, Tim, JCBrum and others are not the problem here. Far from it. -- djp

Ashley James wrote: I can't thank you enough for your kind words, they come at a time when I most need them. How so, Ashley? I hope things are OK? You shouldn't be receiving any flack for putting across reasonable and substantiated arguments that benefit the CA forum massively. It seems that simple provable facts are all it takes to get a thread locked on this Forum right now. Yes, I agree. As soon as the subjectivist clap-trap starts to wobble it does appear threads get cut short. IMO. -- djp

Any noobs reading through this forum would be well advised to take note of any comments made by the likes of Ashley James, tfarney and JCBrum. IMO they are the sensible, level-headed side of computer audio, who always provide a well-balanced, informative and constructive viewpoint. Basically they cut through the BS and try to prevent the gullible from being exploited. tfarney wrote: The guy who originally recommended this DAC manufactures and sells power cords -- yes, the 3 feet of copper from the wall to an audio component -- for $1200. Take that for what you will. Anyone who pays $1200 for a power cord is in need of serious help! Who in their right-mind would pay such a ridiculous amount for a power cord? Actually, don't answer that! -- djp

LOL! No offense taken clay. To be honest, I'm not that good with analogies! -- djp

BobH wrote: And yet again........ Quote : The trouble is Chris that you like to believe in magic and there are more convincing people than I who will sell it to you. you have to be confrontational! For the life of me I cannot see what is confrontational about Ashley's comment. I'm willing to accept that Chris has some alternate statistics to offer with regards jitter, however until he does, the only objective data that has so far been offered to this thread has come from Ashley. To be honest, this whole jitter thing plays out like the Darwinism/Creationism debates. -- djp

Ashley James wrote: I wonder how many of these exotic and sometimes questionably priced DACs can show a clean pair of heels to a Transit in a fair comparison. Too true! One final point I'd make is that I stand to gain nothing for providing this information but some of you may save money as a result of taking heed of what I've said. I think that sums things up perfectly. Frivolous spending in todays climate is vulgar at best, therefore anybody who cares to pass on their experience and knowledge of good audio with the sensible, everyday consumer in mind, gets a thumbs up from me. -- djp

Cheers Chris! This might be what happened to me this morning when I upgraded to iTunes 8.1. Something went belly up and a new rip I created pointed to my Macintosh HD and not the prior set, external hard drive. Don't know what I did to create this scenario, but all's back to normal now, with iTunes pointing to my external hard drive for the library. -- djp

shenzi wrote: As far as I know, it isn't possible to spread the iTunes library across two stand-alone hard disks, other than in a specialised RAID system. This is a good point shenzi. I just took a look under the advanced tab in the iTunes preferences, believing for some unwholesome reason that there was an 'add' button. There isn't, just the option to change the iTunes library location. I'd also be interested to know if anyone is aware of a way in which to use multiple locations for the iTunes library. EDIT: Try this; jackb79 wrote: To get this hold option while starting iTunes up and you can get the multiple libraries option. -- djp

Could it be that vinyl advocates like distortion in their musical presentation and that's why they prefer vinyl over digital? That seems the only logical explanation to me. I do understand the nostalgia factor. I still have a C64 setup kicking about in the loft somewhere. I can still use it to connect to the internet, albeit at the gloriously fast speed of 28.8k! -- djp