New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Willakan

As I stated earlier, looking at studies on the audibility of jitter, the amount of jitter emerging from any vaguely competent piece of digital kit is pretty insignificant. (when the lowest amount audible on test with trained and non-trained listeners was 30ns, and that was listening to square waves...and 30ns is a helluvalot of jitter).   The Stereophile article is, like much of Stereophile, profoundly unscientific. I'll take peer-reviewed studies on the subject over...
Wow, kudos to you for actually offering to test your beliefs. Assuming it's properly volume matched (where applicable) and none of the cables are actually defective in some way, I think the chance of you hearing a difference under blind testing is about the same as one of the cables turning out to be biologically alive, but it's still a brave person who actually offers to validate or devalidate their beliefs in this way.   If there is a difference and you've done it...
  I love the psuedo-science justifications - best one I've seen was suggesting that inferior cables round the edges on your square waves, causing your DAC to misinterpret them (NOW SELLING: USB receiver without any form of digital filters or reconstruction! Bet someone would buy it if I shoved AUDIOPHILE PROFESSIONAL on it in giant gold letters. When it fails horribly, tell them their cables aren't expensive enough.)
Quote: Originally Posted by jackmccabe  Can't hear a difference.. Hmmm... you must be broken... You really need to try imagining more differences, because higher price equals better in audio wonderland, right? Seriously though, it is no surprise you can't hear a difference as there basically are no differences. If you look at even the measurements of cheap dacs you should see that all the distortion and non-linearities in the frequency response are...
  You can apply the same thinking successfully to much of high end audio. How is that after testing cables/super expensive new tube amp/magic marker now with 0.1% radium a positive difference is always perceived? You never seem to see a reviewer at 6moons turning around after saying "Will this state of the art new cable live up to expectations?" and saying "Nope, it was horrible, did unimaginably awful things to my sound." Somehow it's always a magical better change (you...
I think this is the second recent thread asking this. To explain why rather than just say that it won't work:   Originally, you have your uncompressed music data. This contains all the possible information about the music that was on the CD (or potentially the master if it's 24bit 96khz or something, although whether that amounts to an audible difference with proper dithering ect is highly debatable). Anyways, there are a variety of things you can do with this...
  Evidence? I don't need no EVIDENCE cos I CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE!   /hides behind impenetrable wall of illogic  
EDIT:Question was asking for results which were posted as I was writing the response 
Amen to world-class sound under 3K dollars (does the AKG K-1000 happen to feature in that setup BTW?).   The thing that worries me is that arguing that selling products that make differences that don't exist is considered rational by even some objectivist audiophiles. Just goes to show how totally insane the world of audiophilia really is. I start selling stuff that does nothing in any other industry, whilst claiming it does something, at large price tags - I get...
Okay, I suppose you could say that an illusory improvement is still worth paying for, although we could debate that philisophically quite literally for ever. The main reason I suppose to stop people spending money over differences that don't exist is because it does a gigantic amount of damage to the perception of audiophiles. The idea of strange old men spending thousands on differences that only exist in their heads makes the average person think audiophiles are...
New Posts  All Forums: