1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

There's no such thing as digital: A conversation with Charles Hansen, Gordon Rankin, and Steve Silberman

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by happy camper, Jun 7, 2014.
  1. Happy Camper
    http://www.audiostream.com/content/draft Part 1

    http://www.audiostream.com/content/theres-no-such-thing-digital-conversation-charles-hansen-gordon-rankin-and-steve-silberman-p Part 2

    This was posted in another thread but I wanted to put it out as it's own topic.

    Informational purposes only.
  2. Steve Eddy
    I wouldn't use the term "information."

  3. Happy Camper
    Then you can start your own thread using whatever you like.
  4. bigshot
    Duh... checksum... duh!
    Duh... Double blind listening tests... duh!
    How many duhs can one article generate, and I'm only through the first couple of paragraphs!
    MUCH Better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
  5. esldude
    "Misinformational purposes only."
    There, I fixed it for you. 
    Now do we really need to go through all the problems with this article.  I was aware of it when it first came out.  The sound science section is exactly where that article does not belong, unless your intent is to have its problems explained to you.  Is that really what you hope to accomplish here?
    Now in a barely related comment, Gordon Rankin, a few months back said I give up, I can find no reason for software players to sound different.  He still believes they do, but could find no evidence of why that would be. This was at the end of two years of intensive effort to find out why on his part.  He has some rather good test gear most of us don't have.  No analog output difference, no EMI/RFI difference, no digital difference, no timing difference (and he was setup to check each step of the way all the way to the very pins of the DAC chip), no data difference, no difference in any way he could even think to check on.  You see if Mr. Rankin were being scientific, he would try a blind test as a last resort, and failing to get results in a positive outcome would conclude there in fact is no difference.  Instead, though knowledgeable about the workings of such gear, he places primacy of subjective listening as the final arbiter about what is real and what isn't.  That is the difference in his approach and a scientific one.  That is also true of the other people commenting in the links you supplied.
    So I ask again, do you want it hashed out in detail or what was your purpose in starting the thread?

Share This Page