Jump to content
Computer Audiophile
Jud

Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

kumakuma   
3 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Might this be an overgeneralization? And when you say "audiophile" are you usually including or excluding yourself?

 

Surely he is too clever to answer a trick question like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esldude   
33 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

Anyone else notice a flurry of silly, OT, distracting, posts following one that might be a little unsettling to those 'Righteous' keepers of the objectivist, pseudo-scientific, flames ?

 

Nope.   Do you have any examples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wgscott   
14 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Anyone else miss the "Vote Down" button?

 

When we had the down vote capability, he stalked me and down-voted everything I posted.  His toxic invective is probably the single most unpleasant thing I deal with on the internet.  I put him on ignore, but unfortunately the verbal sludge still slithers its way into my field of vision when he gets quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esldude   
Just now, christopher3393 said:

 

DOH! oh, well...how'bout those new cat8 cables by Wireworld that keep appearing in the banner at the top of the page. Tempted?

I am still waiting on the report from the U of Miami professor that Wireworld promised me.  Sorry, inside joke from a couple years back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daudio   
Just now, esldude said:

Nope.   Do you have any examples?

 

Huh ? And here I thought you had me on 'Ignore' and thus it was a question for all.  But since you ask, Yes, I do. Two of them involve you blasting me with 3 or 4 clearly OT replies, one right after I started a new thread expressly stating the type of content desired in it.

 

Oh, sure, you can claim plausible deniability, but the pattern is clear, and you've been around this place long enough (but not quite longer then me) to develop a finely tuned ability to go right up to the line, without crossing it, to survive without being banned.

 

And that point is known by more then just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daudio   

 

35 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

44 minutes ago, wgscott said:

When we had the down vote capability, he stalked me and down-voted everything I posted.  

 

Even the Grateful Dead stuff? C'mon. He voted down JERRY?

 

 

Of course not, that's just Scott's usual paranoid exaggeration. Yes, I did Down vote a number of his posts, for (IMO) rude behavior and ridiculous statements, in 'open' threads. So what, I get my share too. Is he too much of a snowflake to take it ?

 

And the 'stalking' thing is just a damn lie ! For well over a year, I have refused to click into any posts, in any thread started by wsgscot or esldude, much less post. I might see snippets in Unread Content, through.

 

To be honest, I did break my rule a week back in one of his 'troll trap' threads to add a link to a DAC review by G. Graves, I'd just seen and thought was a very good candidate for testing the question the thread posed. I made no comments and he totally misunderstood it, since he wasn't really interested in the question, but how he could control the outcome of the thread. Then later in the thread, DJ Soundfuck, posted so big a boo-boo, I couldn't resist the temptation to call him on it.

Yeah, my bad, I guess. I've meant to PM Scott explaining all this, but didn't get around to it til just now, when it became unavoidable.

 

All just tawdry shit  :( move on...

 

P.S. he has done his share of stalking of me BTW, adding a bunch of distracta-posts to those of esldude's in one situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esldude   
8 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I do wonder to what extent this overgeneralization is caused by not having more precise descriptive language.  For example, let's just say a particular USB cable has led to a reduction of noise in someone's system such that formerly obscured details become clearer.  (If you don't like the USB cable example, pick any other aspect of the system that you feel might credibly cause such an effect.)  We really don't have very good descriptive terms for these occurrences, beyond the hoary and derided "lifting of veils," descriptions more apt for frequency response changes, and other similar stuff from the analog world of 40 years ago.  

 

I've never yet read a description of the sound of jitter that I could use to actually identify it in an audio sample - come to think of it, I've never read much of a description of how jitter sounds at all.

 

Think the sound of a leslie speaker.  Or singing into a window fan.


Speaking of, some interesting jitter-like measurements I saw awhile back.   Result of a ceiling fan.

 

Second post on this page, and the next several posts discuss it.

 

http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/close-in-jitter.1621/page-15

 

It looks very much like the same effect of close in jitter.  I have tried it and it is quite noticeable with tones and less so though still noticeable with music.  It creates sidebands around all sounds the same as jitter would do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mansr   
28 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I have a hard time understanding why digital USB cables have a sound. Best idea is that it is some combination of leakage noise and induction of phase error -- these effects should be measurable.

What makes you think they do? Sure, ground loops and such can be audible, but no cable can fix those, only an isolation device will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esldude   
8 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

 

~~~

I have tested a boat load of cables here. Some over $1000 could barely work with some of the dacs I had here. Some $10 ones worked really good and better than others.

 

The big problem I have with cable companies is that nobody owns the test equipment that I have to test these cables? Why not?

 

Thanks,

Gordon

I can answer that question.  Because they can run a damned profitable business without it.  Because the technical attributes have nothing to do with how successful that business is.  Because audiophiles in some substantial portion reject technical measures of things most especially cables.  Any good business man would look at the cost of your test equipment, the time and trouble of the whole procedure, and the bottom line he already has.  Knowing what works in the business he would take about 1 femto-second to decide your testing gear, testing program the whole idea is completely irrelevant to his business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jabbr   
3 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

a) Data integrity, impedance correctness, eye pattern, low capacitence etc. Basically how well does the data get there.

b) VBUS/Ground how well does VBUS and ground get to the downstream device without effecting (a) above.

 

c) Computer noise, all cables can transmit noise, some cables will throw that noise back into the computer some will throw it at the device, which of course is really bad.

 

Thanks Gordon, b) and c) yeah very understandable. With a) assuming a short cable and reasonably good SI, the USB bits are crossing a clock domain at the receiver so assume FIFO with dual port and I assume the USB bits make it into the FIFO and out as I2S ... is the USB SI affecting the I2S jitter? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
semente   
34 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I do wonder to what extent this overgeneralization is caused by not having more precise descriptive language.  For example, let's just say a particular USB cable has led to a reduction of noise in someone's system such that formerly obscured details become clearer.  (If you don't like the USB cable example, pick any other aspect of the system that you feel might credibly cause such an effect.)  We really don't have very good descriptive terms for these occurrences, beyond the hoary and derided "lifting of veils," descriptions more apt for frequency response changes, and other similar stuff from the analog world of 40 years ago.  

 

I've never yet read a description of the sound of jitter that I could use to actually identify it in an audio sample - come to think of it, I've never read much of a description of how jitter sounds at all.

 

It would be nice to listen to some samples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kumakuma   
1 hour ago, Daudio said:

 

 

Of course not, that's just Scott's usual paranoid exaggeration. Yes, I did Down vote a number of his posts, for (IMO) rude behavior and ridiculous statements, in 'open' threads. So what, I get my share too. Is he too much of a snowflake to take it ?

 

And the 'stalking' thing is just a damn lie ! For well over a year, I have refused to click into any posts, in any thread started by wsgscot or esldude, much less post. I might see snippets in Unread Content, through.

 

To be honest, I did break my rule a week back in one of his 'troll trap' threads to add a link to a DAC review by G. Graves, I'd just seen and thought was a very good candidate for testing the question the thread posed. I made no comments and he totally misunderstood it, since he wasn't really interested in the question, but how he could control the outcome of the thread. Then later in the thread, DJ Soundfuck, posted so big a boo-boo, I couldn't resist the temptation to call him on it.

Yeah, my bad, I guess. I've meant to PM Scott explaining all this, but didn't get around to it til just now, when it became unavoidable.

 

All just tawdry shit  :( move on...

 

P.S. he has done his share of stalking of me BTW, adding a bunch of distracta-posts to those of esldude's in one situation.

 

 

Festivus isn't until December...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daudio said:

 

Anyone else notice a flurry of silly, OT, distracting, posts following one that might be a little unsettling to those 'Righteous' keepers of the objectivist, pseudo-scientific, flames ?

 

 

It's an acknowledgement of the "pseudo-scientific" principles in the post being commented on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×