There's no such thing as digital: A conversation with Charles Hansen, Gordon Rankin, and Steve Silberman
post-10615377
Thread Starter
Post #1 of 5

Happy Camper

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
9,002
Reaction score
231
Location
STL area
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Location
STL area
Posts
9,002
Likes
231
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.
 
     Share This Post       
post-10615613
Post #2 of 5

Steve Eddy

Member of the Trade: The Audio Guild
Aka: TempAccount555
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
6,609
Reaction score
539
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
6,609
Likes
539
I wouldn't use the term "information."

se
 
     Share This Post       
post-10615757
Post #4 of 5

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
21,684
Reaction score
3,707
Location
Hollywood USA
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Location
Hollywood USA
Posts
21,684
Likes
3,707
Website
www.facebook.com
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
 
     Share This Post       
post-10616228
Post #5 of 5

esldude

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 8, 2001
Messages
569
Reaction score
33
Joined
Dec 8, 2001
Posts
569
Likes
33
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.
"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 Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top