[Edwood]

The Sound Sciences forum is a perfect avenue for legitimate and focused discussions for those that want to nitpick and debate ad infinitum about theories and testing methodologies.  And guess what?  The vast majority of the participants in this thread have not actually taken the time to listen to the Portable Players being discussed.  Rather pointing to artificial measurement graphs created by someone else. 
 
It's like a bunch of physics undergrad college students debating about the fundamental max G-Forces that are present in a new roller coaster.  But then never actually taking a ride on the roller coaster in question.  Meanwhile, there are a lot of people have ridden that roller coaster that had a great time and want to talk about it.  But here are a bunch of people standing nearby shouting about how the Max G-Forces are too low for it to be fun at all.  
 
It's distracting, and frankly the topic has been beaten to death beyond squeezing blood from this stone.
 
Instead of crying foul of censorship, be thankful this Sound Sciences forum even exists as this thread would've just been locked a long time ago.
 
-Ed

 

[JohnFerrier]

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwood

The Sound Sciences forum is a perfect avenue for legitimate and focused discussions for those that want to nitpick and debate ad infinitum about theories and testing methodologies. And guess what? The vast majority of the participants in this thread have not actually taken the time to listen to the Portable Players being discussed. Rather pointing to artificial measurement graphs created by someone else.
 
It's like a bunch of physics undergrad college students debating about the fundamental max G-Forces that are present in a new roller coaster. But then never actually taking a ride on the roller coaster in question. Meanwhile, there are a lot of people have ridden that roller coaster that had a great time and want to talk about it. But here are a bunch of people standing nearby shouting about how the Max G-Forces are too low for it to be fun at all.
 
It's distracting, and frankly the topic has been beaten to death beyond squeezing blood from this stone.
 
Instead of crying foul of censorship, be thankful this Sound Sciences forum even exists as this thread would've just been locked a long time ago.
 
-Ed

 
ur a moderator?
 
 
.

 

[Edwood]

C'mon, John.  Don't know how active you've been over the years, but if so, you probably remember all the nasty arguments over DBT in the Cables forums.  And then the Certifiably Inane forum getting shut down.
 
-Ed

 

[DayoftheGreek]

Quote:

The Sound Sciences forum is a perfect avenue for legitimate and focused discussions for those that want to nitpick and debate ad infinitum about theories and testing methodologies.  And guess what?  The vast majority of the participants in this thread have not actually taken the time to listen to the Portable Players being discussed.  Rather pointing to artificial measurement graphs created by someone else. 
 
It's like a bunch of physics undergrad college students debating about the fundamental max G-Forces that are present in a new roller coaster.  But then never actually taking a ride on the roller coaster in question.  Meanwhile, there are a lot of people have ridden that roller coaster that had a great time and want to talk about it.  But here are a bunch of people standing nearby shouting about how the Max G-Forces are too low for it to be fun at all.  
 
It's distracting, and frankly the topic has been beaten to death beyond squeezing blood from this stone.
 
Instead of crying foul of censorship, be thankful this Sound Sciences forum even exists as this thread would've just been locked a long time ago.
 
-Ed

 
Who needs to ride the coaster if the math says its slow as hell and doesn't pull many G's?  Its not complicated math, its very well explained, and it can easily be proven.  Why would I buy a ticket to an amusement park full of slow, over priced, poorly engineered roller coasters?  Oh wait, maybe its an audiophile park and it costs $800.  Then the people that do go can claim that everyone needs to go to this park or they can't talk about it.
 
Artificial measurements?  You means like the pace, rhythm, timing, musical, "toe tapping," and the other words that people use?  Oh no, you are takling about frequency response graphs. 
 
Maybe you should be happy people aren't held to truths elsewhere in this forum.
 
What a joke.
 

 

[/Fail]

meh... the fact that this thread was moved to the Sound Science forum doesn't really change anything. This thread is extremely active, and usually has the most recent posts in it. I see it whenever I scroll down.
 
$0.02

 

[JaZZ]

 

 
What a joke.

The subjectivist approach is that graphs and measurements don't tell everything about the sound. That's why I give some credit to the HM-801 despite my displeasure about its high-frequency roll-off. I can absolutely imagine that it nevertheless sounds good and realistic (so not just provides the assumed fun factor), although it may not entirely be to my taste compared to available alternatives. What I miss from the objectivist side is at least some understanding for the concept of a smooth low-pass filtering with its pretended and perceived sonic advantage. There's too much aggressive criticism pointing out the bad design and leaving out these considerations. You don't have to agree with this sonic philosophy and preference.
 
And note that in turn the attitude of judging gear by means of data instead of personal audition is perceived as a joke as well by a majority of subjectivists. Not to speak of a theoretical rollercoaster ride.
.

 

[Edwood]

 
Quote:

 
Who needs to ride the coaster if the math says its slow as hell and doesn't pull many G's?  Its not complicated math, its very well explained, and it can easily be proven.  Why would I buy a ticket to an amusement park full of slow, over priced, poorly engineered roller coasters?  Oh wait, maybe its an audiophile park and it costs $800.  Then the people that do go can claim that everyone needs to go to this park or they can't talk about it.
 
Artificial measurements?  You means like the pace, rhythm, timing, musical, "toe tapping," and the other words that people use?  Oh no, you are takling about frequency response graphs. 
 
Maybe you should be happy people aren't held to truths elsewhere in this forum.
 
What a joke.
 

Yeah, because overall and maximum speed can be calculated by only measuring the maximum G's in a roller coaster.

 
 Anyways, I'm done participating with bludgeoning the thoroughly decomposed equine corpse here.  Have fun guys.
 
I've got a lot of work to do including helping finish a lot of stuff in preparation for CanJam.
 
Those that are attending will be in for a blast.  It's a great, fun time.  The rest of you in this thread can have fun here squeezing some more blood.
 
-Ed

 

[DayoftheGreek]

Quote:

Yeah, because overall and maximum speed can be calculated by only measuring the maximum G's in a roller coaster.

 
Yeah, because that's exactly what I said.  This is a terrible straw man.
 
Sorry, I didn't want to bring any more artificial measurements to the table. 

 

[Shike]

Quote:

The Sound Sciences forum is a perfect avenue for legitimate and focused discussions for those that want to nitpick and debate ad infinitum about theories and testing methodologies.  And guess what?  The vast majority of the participants in this thread have not actually taken the time to listen to the Portable Players being discussed.  Rather pointing to artificial measurement graphs created by someone else. 
 
It's like a bunch of physics undergrad college students debating about the fundamental max G-Forces that are present in a new roller coaster.  But then never actually taking a ride on the roller coaster in question.  Meanwhile, there are a lot of people have ridden that roller coaster that had a great time and want to talk about it.  But here are a bunch of people standing nearby shouting about how the Max G-Forces are too low for it to be fun at all.  
 
It's distracting, and frankly the topic has been beaten to death beyond squeezing blood from this stone.
 
Instead of crying foul of censorship, be thankful this Sound Sciences forum even exists as this thread would've just been locked a long time ago.
 
-Ed

 
 
How many issues with a player does it take before you classify it as defective?  The player measures poorly in spite of whether you enjoy it or not.  Besides, you're whining that you want to discuss the player and how much you enjoy it.  I'm pretty sure this thread isn't about that now is it?
 
As for the coaster strawman, DayoftheGreek summed it up perfectly.
 

 

[terriblepaulz]

I spent some time this evening reading through this thread, and I am still trying to wrap my mind around spending $800 on a DAP.  Does this player do something other than play music?

 

[kostalex]

Thanks god, it does not. It works the same way as turntables or stationary CDP - just plays music. No bells, no whistles. No websurfing, youtubing, bookreading, etc.
 
Quote:

I spent some time this evening reading through this thread, and I am still trying to wrap my mind around spending $800 on a DAP.  Does this player do something other than play music?

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
It's like a bunch of physics undergrad college students debating about the fundamental max G-Forces that are present in a new roller coaster.  But then never actually taking a ride on the roller coaster in question.  Meanwhile, there are a lot of people have ridden that roller coaster that had a great time and want to talk about it.  But here are a bunch of people standing nearby shouting about how the Max G-Forces are too low for it to be fun at all.  
 
It's distracting, and frankly the topic has been beaten to death beyond squeezing blood from this stone.
 
Instead of crying foul of censorship, be thankful this Sound Sciences forum even exists as this thread would've just been locked a long time ago.
 
-Ed

 
You haven't taken children to an amusement park recently, have you?
 
Not to mention I believe the creator of this thread has two of them and has listenned to both - one of which was defective.
 
Just a question. Have you listenned to any of the devices he is comparing it to?

Why are you refusing to do the DBT?

 

[Edwood]

Read through the thread, you'll find all the answers to your questions.  I have a lot of work I'm busy with, I know most of you aren't going to CanJam, so you wouldn't appreciate it anyways.

 

[shigzeo]

Wow, it's still going on... and I thought I was clear in the woods, lost among the bramble. Hope I don't get dragged back into civilisation...

 

[Galatian]

High Fidelity <> pleasant sounding
 
The measurements on the unit fall short of even the 16 bit standard, and actually, now you mention it, the measured performance on the first gen iPod (Stereophile, 2003)
 
http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/934/index5.html 
 
is superior on several parameters.
 
PS I am no great Apple fan, though in the spirit of full disclosure I do have an iPod I won in a raffle

Actually that's exactly what I was talking about and the English wikipedia article is somewhat vague on describing what the actual standard of hifi is. The German wikipedia is a little bit more precise and they essentially state that there is no DIN norm anymore as almost all audio products buildt today easily surpass those old standarts. So if you make a point please clearly state what you are referring to. As of right now I just see you making a point without any reference. Tell us exactly where you think the Hifiman lacks any existing hifi standard.