Quote:   Was this post directed at me? If so, it sounds like you misunderstood my explanation since I never suggested either (a) that Tyll's graphs are not quantitative (they are by definition quantitative) or (b) that there is a manifest problem with the data (per sampling error, for...

Quote: It is a matter of logic that something which is not a quantitative measurement of distortion is not a quantitative measurement of distortion and thus does not inform an inquiry on the basis of that data. What you quoted, irrespective of whatever intepretation you decided to run...

Quote: Insofar as accuracy is defined in a manner which is minimally inter-subjective, and very likely quantitative (in most cases it is, anyhow), your response that people cannot assess its performance in this capacity, absent using them, is utterly lacking rational foundation. The...

Quote: PCM1704 can take an input Fs of up to 768KHz. The 96KHz spec has to do with the highest sample rate for which 8x oversampling may be used.

This song specifically or music made by The Cars generally? "Drive" is pretty much a mid-80s adult contemporary piece with some New Wave influence. That's probably where you should be looking if that's the specific sound you're looking for, but probably try to stick with bands that were into...

Should be able to make it.

Depending on what the final date set is I should be able to make it.

Quote: Originally Posted by hifidk You can swap op-amps on D10 also. If you need portability then you should go with D10. If not, I don't know since I don't have STX. Yes I know you can. I indicated that in my post. However, I still think the STX has better hardware overall on...

STX has the higher end D/A converter, iBasso D10 probably gives a more seamless amp/dac experience. If I were making the decision for myself, I'd get the Essence STX since it's multipurpose and can have the default op-amps swapped to improve performance further, building upon an already...

Quote: Originally Posted by scytheavatar Have you considered getting the AD2000? The K701 is going to be a lot more neutral and flat than the AD700, so the AD2000 is a more natural upgrade. EDIT: Ok, you are not going to be able to afford the AD2000, so maybe save a bit more and try...

Quote: Originally Posted by wudanao I really enjoy the sound of k701 but I'm also aware that it is extremly hard to drive. I don't want a Hi-end system but one can drive 701 to an acceptable extent. I intend to use it on my laptop and 800 dollars is the MAX amount I can pay.(though I...

[General impressions about sound; hope it's helpful] I don't know if this is of any help to you, but when I tried the HD800 at CanJam, I found the bass to be pretty anaemic as well and the highs a bit off. I later tried blessingx's pair on virtually the same setup (dynalo + my dac) and I...

Quote: Originally Posted by pdupiano How is (b) an isomorph of (x)? Can you further explain what you mean by isomorph aswell because I'm failing to see the connection wherein (x) is structurally identical to (b). At the moment I do not see them as being identical in any way. I...

OK...I think perhaps I'm just not explaining a couple things clearly enough. Bear with me; I'll try to touch upon what I understand to be the major concerns... 1. On the matter of the relationship between (b) and (x) The logical structure of this argument is modus tollens, if you want to...

Falsification of the causal connection is a scientific matter. Falsifying the perception itself isn't the subject of an inquiry into whether you can differentiate between cables on the basis of your perception. The 'observable phenomenon' is the differentiation task between cables in a...

Quote: Originally Posted by pdupiano I will not contend with your logic, seeing as there's nothing wrong within the confines of the logical form. My issue as I wished to clarify in my earlier post, is with what you attribute to (a), (b), and (x). As I mentioned in earlier posts, it is...

Quote: Originally Posted by pdupiano Defining (a), (b), and (x) matters quite a bit and I contend that interchanging the orders leads to different conclusion. I stipulated that (x) was contingent on (a), not that (a) was contingent on (x) let alone that (x) was contingent upon (b). To...

Wow, some nice stuff from Frank there.

Quote: Originally Posted by pdupiano I just want to clear this up, Are you stating that when you write: You are stating: 1. I can differentiate between cables 2. then (a) I can hear something in cables 3. And (b) there is a causal connection between the cables and my hearing...

Quote: Originally Posted by pdupiano If testing (b) does not assume (a) then you are stabbing in the dark by testing (b). Because if you do not know that this perception exists, how can you test anything with regards to it. And yes I'm getting at the idea that (a) is not being tested by...

Quote: Originally Posted by pdupiano Ok I agree. And as stated (a) cannot be touched by science. But my point is when people deal with DBT or other cable tests, they are conducting tests on (a) rather than (b). I will concede that (b) is the important, empirical, and testible component...

Quote: Originally Posted by pdupiano I agree that the subjectivity doesn't matter, I stated that in my previous post. And I am not asking for an example with respect to how do you prove an observation. I am quite literally asking, how do you prove an observation. Because it seems to me...

Quote: Originally Posted by pdupiano When I claim a particular experience or observation, I do have the burden of proof to do something. But is that something necessarily the prove that it exist? While what I perceive is particularly subjective, the subjectivity isn't the real issue, it...

Quote: Originally Posted by pdupiano I get my notion of science through theory and practice... [I'm just quoting the post as a placeholder so it's clear what I'm replying to.] As the claimant of the existence of a particular phenomenon, you possess the burden of proof. Simply...

I have no idea where you got your notion of science from. Scientific methodology is simply disciplined empiricism. If you engage in an empirical endeavour, and fail to conform to scientific methodology, it simply means you've generated a dubious proof of concept and it is unreasonable to expect...