Just Amazing
Jun 15, 2007 at 9:14 PM Post #16 of 87
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dept_of_Alchemy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
On the topic of politics, I'd like to address why an informed populace is the key element in any democracy...


I prefer the uninformed poplace of a diktatorship! My rule will be firm, but gentle!
very_evil_smiley.gif
 
Jun 15, 2007 at 9:15 PM Post #17 of 87
Quote:

Originally Posted by cdog46 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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?
 
Jun 15, 2007 at 9:16 PM Post #18 of 87
Quote:

Originally Posted by cdog46 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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?
evil_smiley.gif


This thread is amazing...
 
Jun 15, 2007 at 10:28 PM Post #21 of 87
wow, amazing... I think now I'm going to use onboard audio
 
Jun 15, 2007 at 10:42 PM Post #22 of 87
I think he's basically saying, at least in the second part which I agree with, that when you get a bit perfect DAC, for $400, how can a $2000 unit sound better? If its bit perfect its all you can get. I believe he's saying that due to natural flaws in all materials used their is no true bit perfect, but hey...I could be wrong.
 
Jun 15, 2007 at 11:18 PM Post #24 of 87
Quote:

Originally Posted by cdog46 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
.This was my main point There is no perfect sound reproduction system.


Where has anyone on Head-Fi said there is a perfect sound reproduction system?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdog46 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
An A to D convertor does just what it says. Takes an analog signal samples it, and digitizes it.


I'm personally more interested in D to A; I would think the recording engineers would be more interested in the A to D encoding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdog46 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
some readers a few years back believed Armour All sprayed on CD's yielded better sound.


In the course of history some people do/believe crazy things in hindsight. Pointing them out will not prevent people from doing different crazy things in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdog46 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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.


So your point is to turn this into an ad hominem argument? This will go nowhere.

You would best serve yourself by stepping away from the keyboard, think of what point you are trying to make with supporting information, and then try. What makes perfect sense in the bits racing around in your mind isn't clear to me since I cannot read minds.

Whatever point you are trying to make is lost in a jumble of disconnected statements which don't have any relevancy at first glance. Which reminds me of a tee-shirt saying...

My friends keep telling me I have AHDD but I don't believe them...hey look, there's a chicken.
 
Jun 15, 2007 at 11:20 PM Post #25 of 87
Hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it doesn't specifically make sense to us. I think it's in the Constitution although that doesn't mean Jack in this country anymore....
Now I want one of those tee shirts!!
 
Jun 15, 2007 at 11:57 PM Post #27 of 87
the whole point is-which is better PC-MAC? spend more for headphones or DAC-some guy who has 2000 fri---- posts does n't understand my point-

another guy says who said -who said there was such a things as a perfect system?
Nobody said that!!!!! Rather-do any of you read these posts? Which is better? x or Y? Does anyone think somebody asks that question so they can go out and buy the crappier of the two?

The way my post was answered-you'd think that was the case. Why do people ask for opinions-what is so hard about understanding why people do?

Probably because they like music I would guess-and if they do they want a good sound re-producer. How hard is that to understand? My daughter understood that concept in the second grade.

So along comes a new poster and says just amazing and all he says is the quest itself for the holy grail can in some instances become down right stupid ala Sterophile magazine. Whats so hard to understand about that statement?

He goes on to say that designing DACs i8s more art than science as in the case of transducers. One with half brain would assume that a DAC was all about math. Where does art go in with mathamatical equations and calculations? I*sn't DAC design pure science? No it isn't.

That's really a hard concept to understand too.-isn't it!

So if its not science and alot of it is art-and the quest can get stupid- may be the term best is a bad term to use.

Is that hard to understand? Maybe a dedicated DAC is overkill.

What I have learned is that no matter how good my equipment is-it can be any better than how it was originally recorded. Is that so hard to understand?

Or is it just more fun to belittle the poster? I have seen the answer and any advice -judging from the responses to this post-would be suspect to say the least.
 
Jun 16, 2007 at 12:07 AM Post #29 of 87
Quote:

Originally Posted by cdog46 /img/forum/go_quote.gif

What I have learned is that no matter how good my equipment is-it can be any better than how it was originally recorded. Is that so hard to understand?


Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top