[chipzahoy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why? RMAA is a valid way of measuring. You have yet to provide any credentials as to how this will honestly benefit sound in any way. Proof? What about the Benchmark DAC which we all know is built well beyond what is necessary? There are businesses built on selling snake oil where their whole offering is snake oil.

Benchmark DAC1 is "built well beyond necessary" based what? RMAA measurements? I never knew that. All I know is that the DAC1 sounds fatiguing and unenjoyable.

Have you even listened to the damn thing before, or are you just citing "reviews"? Or do some of you get eargasms simply by reading the perfect numbers and graphs?

 

[chipzahoy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif We can measure the differences between speakers and show the differences are indeed audible. I was mostly referring to stores and manufacturers that sell audio "tweaks" . . . such as $1K wood blocks or $500 wood knobs. This point seems lost on you though.

Oh yea, plenty of the high end audio gear measure worse than consumer electronics. Is it because their R&D is too incompetent to cook up a device that produces impressive measurement results, or maybe, I don't know, that they care about sound reproduction more than anything else?

To quote an individual that I personally dislike, "if you want to know how audio gear sounds when R&D is based on measurements, just buy some stabdard $199 DVD player. These normally have impressing measurements. But sounds like *Biiippp*."

Edit: Why don't you advanced scientific people just grab that perfect DVD player and be happy for the rest of your life? Let the demented audiophiles have the forums. After all, only backward people like them need to "discuss" and listen to "subjective" opinions before making gear choices. Real reasonable, sensible people look for perfect equipment by reading measurements and graphs!

 

[sonci]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for entering a "high-end" store, I've done it plenty. You seem to assume that I haven't which tells a lot about you.

Oh I'm sorry, I should have known that, I'm so irresponsable

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif Once again . . . proof? Your opinion is meaningless when it comes to making a statement of fact.

A good part of this forum is all about opinions, I cannot give you proof about how I like or not the sound of my PC, or yours,

Don't worry about my statements, even if I'm wrong, they're not gone enter the BOOK OF RECORDS,

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipzahoy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh yea, plenty of the high end audio gear measure worse than consumer electronics.

Did I even say that? I was saying there's a reason Logitech is regarded as low-end . . . but I think you missed the point . . .

Quote:

Is it because their R&D is too incompetent to cook up a device that produces impressive measurement results, or maybe, I don't know, that they care about sound reproduction more than anything else?

So because the Benchmark measures impressively it must be bad? What ARE you going on about? I've listened to it . . . and honestly I don't know what you expect people to say beyond "hey, I hear the music as it was produced". There's no trying to add things to it. No random audiophile jargon is necessary to explain the sound. What goes in is what's coming out. End of story.

If you want distortion go elsewhere. Some of us demand accurate reproduction . . . not a pseudo presentation.

Quote:

To quote an individual that I personally dislike, "if you want to know how audio gear sounds when R&D is based on measurements, just buy some stabdard $199 DVD player. These normally have impressing measurements. But sounds like *Biiippp*."

There's some pretty decent $199 DVD players . . . if that's the sale price.

In terms of handling IVTC, proper color reproduction, de-interlacing . . . you may want to pay more honestly. That's just the video side of things, not even getting into audio. Oh, and those are also measurable.

There's a reason you're on my ignore list and staying there for a very long time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonci Oh I'm sorry, I should have known that, I'm so irresponsable

No . . . just presumptuous, condescending, and rude.

Quote:

A good part of this forum is all about opinions, I cannot give you proof about how I like or not the sound of my PC, or yours,

Then don't act like it. Your opinion is that . . . an opinion. Not to mention a fairly baseless one.

Quote:

Don't worry about my statements, even if I'm wrong, they're not gone enter the BOOK OF RECORDS,

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about this. You seem to be throwing a tizzy fit in general . . .

 

[chipzahoy]

Aww, don't ignore me. You're really entertaining.

 

[Loque]

I am genuinely interested in this. Considering the relatively low price of the internal components it might be something I look into to be quite honest. I can't say I know how much of it is horsecrap and how much of it isn't mind.

It's a shame they don't make some kind of audiophile laptop. I cannot be bothered with another screen, another mouse, another keyboard on my desk.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loque /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't say I know how much of it is horsecrap and how much of it isn't mind.

In skimming through the document it looks like a lot if it is horsecrap. There are some very questionable things suggested and some that are just wrong.

For example he suggests running Foobar at realtime priority. No. You don't want to do that. Unless you believe the developer of Foobar is an idiot and doesn't know how to do multithreaded programming and doesn't know how to set reasonable priorities for the threads that he creates. When a programmer creates a thread they get to decide what priority it will run at. So for example they can create a thread that will do audio processing and set it to run at high priority. They can create a different thread that does user interface updates and set it to run at a lower priority. A program can be made of multiple threads each dedicated to its own purpose and each running at a selected priority determined by the developer. Now this fool comes along and decides to run Foobar at realtime priority. That bumps *all* of Foobar and *all* of its threads to realtime priority. Suddenly that user interface thread inside Foobar is running at realtime priority along with the audio processing threads. There is no longer any division of priorities within Foobar. Everything is realtime priority (the highest priority you can give it). The user interface threads and other internal threads that were intended to run at lower priority are now fighting on equal footing for priority and processor time as the audio critical audio processing threads within Foobar. All the work the Foobar developer put in to have proper threading and separate priorities is wiped out.

Setting all of Foobar to run at realtime priority will probably actually hurt its audio performance.

 

[sonci]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif In skimming through the document it looks like a lot if it is horsecrap. There are some very questionable things suggested and some that are just wrong. For example he suggests running Foobar at realtime priority. No. You don't want to do that. Unless you believe the developer of Foobar is an idiot and doesn't know how to do multithreaded programming and doesn't know how to set reasonable priorities for the threads that he creates. When a programmer creates a thread they get to decide what priority it will run at. So for example they can create a thread that will do audio processing and set it to run at high priority. They can create a different thread that does user interface updates and set it to run at a lower priority. A program can be made of multiple threads each dedicated to its own purpose and each running at a selected priority determined by the developer. Now this fool comes along and decides to run Foobar at realtime priority. That bumps *all* of Foobar and *all* of its threads to realtime priority. Suddenly that user interface thread inside Foobar is running at realtime priority along with the audio processing threads. There is no longer any division of priorities within Foobar. Everything is realtime priority (the highest priority you can give it). The user interface threads and other internal threads that were intended to run at lower priority are now fighting on equal footing for priority and processor time as the audio critical audio processing threads within Foobar. All the work the Foobar developer put in to have proper threading and separate priorities is wiped out. Setting all of Foobar to run at realtime priority will probably actually hurt its audio performance.

Really interesting,
however, he just install Foobar at minimum, and disable graphics interface, even playback statistics, its just playback..

 

[FasterThanEver]

Ham Sandwich, Thanks for posting a chunk of sanity. I often think similar thoughts when I see a casual suggestion to run a player at real-time priority.

Sonci, I see 7 threads associated with foobar when I play a file using DirectSound. 3 are within foobar itself, 1 is in gdiplus, 1 is wdmaud.wdm and 2 are in DirectSound. I doubt that anyone except the developer of foobar knows which of those threads might benefit from a higher priority and which would negatively impact other threads.

The cics mythology has advanced a long ways from the 2007 paper cited at the beginning of this thread. Several very long threads on the AA PC Audio forum contain the full flow of breakthroughs to date. Foobar is yesterday's news. cmp/cplay is the road to paradise now.

Bill