Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: Jude's Blog
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
So I tried to edit a bit of the original post in hopes of clarifying what he was trying to say ... (???)
Originally Posted by cdog46 (edited)
I was briefly reading some of the responses as to which computer (mac v. pc) makes for a better sound processing source.
As one who has been in electronics as a job and who is an audioholic, it is certain that all electronics and the associated transducers are not created equal. Any good D/A designer will tell you just designing that part is more an art than a science (for really really good ones). What's this bit perfect myth hocus pocus?
So...... what's my point? Only that arguing what's the ne plus ultra borders on the myth, superstition, and religion you read in mags like Stereophile.
You'd be better off, in some cases-talking religion or politics which in essence you are.
... well, he lost me on the last line ...
I'm not sure the argument is incredibly compelling and certainly not convincing to me, but nonetheless.
And P.S. Leave it up to "wavefunction" to talk about the UP and Planck! At least you didn't try and calculate whether or not the operators were commutative! Ohh, head hurting ...
If what I said is over your head-let me dumb it dumb it down so you'll have a chance of understanding what I was saying. This was my main point There is no perfect sound reproduction system. That's a really a hard concept to get your hands around.
An A to D convertor does just what it says. Takes an analog signal samples it, and digitizes it. Their are many ways of smoothing the sound curve out-Gaussian, Cheachev filtering which is all over my head. But seeing you have so much fun with my post I'll have mine.
What that last paragraph means is that there are more ways than one to digitize an analog signal. So that why its an art.e to expound-I will.
And if you have never read Stereophile-some readers a few years back believed Armour All sprayed on CD's yielded better sound. Get it? what my third paragraph was about? If not I can expound on this too.
I did not mean to make it so complicated for the more stupid people who read this post. So if my limited explanations made no sense to the stupid people who were having their jollies with my post- you're actually more stupid and ignorant then you would ever be able to comprehend.
Kind of like the the 18 bit processing-too high a BER.
If what I said is over your head-let me dumb it dumb it down so you'll have a chance of understanding what I was saying. This was my main point There is no perfect sound reproduction system. That's a really a hard concept to get your hands around.
An A to D convertor does just what it says. Takes an analog signal samples it, and digitizes it. Their are many ways of smoothing the sound curve out-Gaussian, Cheachev filtering which is all over my head. But seeing you have so much fun with my post I'll have mine.
What that last paragraph means is that there are more ways than one to digitize an analog signal. So that why its an art.e to expound-I will.
And if you have never read Stereophile-some readers a few years back believed Armour All sprayed on CD's yielded better sound. Get it? what my third paragraph was about? If not I can expound on this too.
I did not mean to make it so complicated for the more stupid people who read this post. So if my limited explanations made no sense to the stupid people who were having their jollies with my post- you're actually more stupid and ignorant then you would ever be able to comprehend.
Kind of like the the 18 bit processing-too high a BER.
WTF??? I still don't get it.. what are you trying to say??
__________________ Home Rig: Coby mp3 -> Boostaroo -> Bose Triports!
If what I said is over your head-let me dumb it dumb it down so you'll have a chance of understanding what I was saying. This was my main point There is no perfect sound reproduction system. That's a really a hard concept to get your hands around.
An A to D convertor does just what it says. Takes an analog signal samples it, and digitizes it. Their are many ways of smoothing the sound curve out-Gaussian, Cheachev filtering which is all over my head. But seeing you have so much fun with my post I'll have mine.
What that last paragraph means is that there are more ways than one to digitize an analog signal. So that why its an art.e to expound-I will.
And if you have never read Stereophile-some readers a few years back believed Armour All sprayed on CD's yielded better sound. Get it? what my third paragraph was about? If not I can expound on this too.
I did not mean to make it so complicated for the more stupid people who read this post. So if my limited explanations made no sense to the stupid people who were having their jollies with my post- you're actually more stupid and ignorant then you would ever be able to comprehend.
Kind of like the the 18 bit processing-too high a BER.
So wait, digital sources sound different from each other? Is that what you're trying to say?
__________________
Vista 64-bit -> ESI Juli@ -> KECES DA-131 -> Eddie Current EC/SS -> SR225
And if you have never read Stereophile-some readers a few years back believed Armour All sprayed on CD's yielded better sound. Get it? what my third paragraph was about? If not I can expound on this too.
Are you saying that prayers are worthless?
This thread is amazing...
__________________ I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world, and fool enough to think thats what Ill find. The Carpenters
At least you didn't try and calculate whether or not the operators were commutative! Ohh, head hurting ...
I still don't get it.. what are you trying to say?? 
Linear Mode
