Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2017 6:31:41 GMT -5
Hi Chuckie - A small clarification, please - garbulky and I are two different Loungers. The threads you keep referring to are not garbulky 's; they are, instead, mine. I do sometimes post deliberately provocative threads in hope of learning something (and I usually do). To the best of my recollection, garbulky has started no such threads. Additionally, garbulky and I do not always agree. I'd set our "right-on" rate at about 50%. I like tubes - Gar doesn't. Gar's into traditional power supplies - I'm not. Gar has gone loco for room-treatments - I haven't. Etc. I realize that we both manage to irritate you, but no malice should be intended. We all disagree. Good. So long as we can disagree without acrimony, which is what we should be working toward on Emotiva's Lounge, then it's all productive for those reading our various opinions and claims. The readers can decide for themselves who is right, who is wrong, and in cases where it's a grey area, the reader can pick from the discussion whatever factoids are useful to them. As to Gar and/or I having any tendency to "put themselves above everyone else here as the supreme audio/video experts," I make no such claim (nor do I recall garbulky having done so). It isn't my fault if someone perceives me that way - I don't claim to have any special insight that others lack. I do state my opinions - and I try to back them up with facts. I do sometimes try to challenge "conventional wisdom" as well, but when I do so, I give my reasons. Nobody is required to agree, and in fact most times that I start a provocative thread, I get hammered (not speaking of you) by those who have different opinions. And that's a GOOD thing (I've been wrong before, and will be again). That said, I value your opinions, Chuckie. I've been forced to reconsider some long-held beliefs based on threads here on the Lounge, and find this a valuable and occasionally eye-opening place to visit. So please feel free to disagree whenever you wish - the only Oracle I know of was reputed to be in Delphi - not the Emotiva Lounge. Cordially - Boomzilla Thanks Boom, I apologize for not being more specific in my posted comments. I tried to imply (I can't find the words I posted now) that the threads I mentioned were by you or Gar or you both posted significantly in them (or very close words to that). Garbulky did in fact start one of the threads I mentioned, titled: A visit to mr and mrs Boomzilla's! (Started way back but still with current posts.) I unfortunately tend to tie you guys together since you two obviously spend a lot of time together with gear and post the results. I realize you are not clones and have some differences of opinion. I presumed perhaps incorrectly that you two agree on DAC's, blind testing, surround systems and sources. Again, I'm sorry to lump you together. The only reason I get irritated is that it seems to me that the attitude is, I don't want to hear about Chuckie's opinions or experience about blind testing (I was 100% serious about my simple but very effective easy Nut test), surround systems, speaker placement, SACD, DVD-Audio. I only ask questions not to beat you or Gar over the head with my thoughts but perhaps to help if I can. The irritation comes from getting blown off and completely ignoring my opinions, experience or questions. You might see many, many times in my post that I have suggested folks here post photos of their system/room as it can be a great help. ..... feel free to disagree whenever you wish ..... Thanks, I really appreciate that. That IMO is what the threads/posts are for. When I was in college I had a perfect score on one far side of the political scale in my Poly Science course. One end was 0 and the other end was 100 (50 was obviously middle of the road politically) and I won't identify which was 0 and which was 100. Over the years I had done a lot of deep thought on my own, no outside influences, books or commentators. In that class I was the only student of about 125 to have a perfect score of 0. However, I always tried to keep an open mind and had many friends on the opposite side of the scale. We drank lots of beer and strongly argued for hours about politics, but we always remained friends. Now I have over the years slid over to about 60. I'm pleased with where I'm at now. I accredit it with being opened minded. Even if I strongly disagree with someone I always listen to their side of any subject. In high school as a class debate exercise we would debate a subject and have to argue for the side we were assigned to by the teacher whether we agreed with that side or not. That was a great exercise to try and understand the point of view of the other side.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 8, 2017 6:59:26 GMT -5
Is 6am too early to break out the popcorn? |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 8, 2017 8:00:54 GMT -5
Is 6am too early to break out the popcorn? Nope! Its 5 PM somewhere!  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 8, 2017 11:25:08 GMT -5
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jan 8, 2017 13:18:36 GMT -5
Wow, Chuckie, you used to be so funny. I used to enjoy reading your posts. Why this anger and vitriol? Gar and Boom are some of the nicest folks on this forum. You may not agree with them but no need to rip into them like this. I was learning so much from this thread and hope to continue to do so. Chuck likes to call out the BS when he reads it. (BS being in his opinion of course which it happens I usually agree with) Nothing wrong with that as long as the posts stay within the lounge rules. Personally being an Engineer by trade I tend to take a route less subjective but I'm not closed to a subjective only opinion. Example: Someone may say "I like tubes over solid state". I say I like tubes becasue I enjoy a bit of 2nd order harmonic distortion with my music. Both statements say the same thing but are formed from the opposite side of the subjective vs quantitative audiophile worlds, but that doesn't make both statements any less valid. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 8, 2017 14:27:49 GMT -5
Personally being an Engineer by trade I tend to take a route less subjective but I'm not closed to a subjective only opinion. Example: Someone may say "I like tubes over solid state". I say I like tubes becasue I enjoy a bit of 2nd order harmonic distortion with my music. Both statements say the same thing but are formed from the opposite side of the subjective vs quantitative audiophile worlds, but that doesn't make both statements any less valid. As an accountant by trade I have an inbuilt preference for clean data, hence I would say; I'm not a fan of tubes because I enjoy my music as it was recorded. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Wideawake on Jan 8, 2017 14:31:04 GMT -5
Bootman, I agree with you at some level, however, subjectivity comprises of a large part of our discussions. Since many of us lack the equipment necessary to take measurements we keep to the subjective end of things. Does it matter why someone might like the tube sound and how they express that? Perhaps they have not figured out that it is the very high levels of 2nd order harmonic distortion that makes tubes sound the way they do. Or they have and simply don't care for the reasons but just that they like the sound. Look at the people who like DSD. I don't want to get into a DSD v/s PCM argument but having read technical details on DSD, it is clear to me that DSD sucks on many levels! Look at the Tekton patent that is pure gibberish and yet people don't seem to care that this person is denigrating all speaker manufacturers and making a mockery of audiophiles by putting out such drivel. People like the sound of his speakers and so they buy them. And let's not even get to what's considered snake oil stuff such as expensive interconnects, cable risers and such things. People hear a difference whether imagined or real and they either like it or they don't. Who are we to judge them or to begrudge them their opinion?
Presenting measurements alone would make our hobby too sterile and boring. If you read any professional review the reviewer, in addition to providing measurements, will also met out a good dose of subjective experiences. Without that, all you get are specs and we all know that specs alone don't tell the full story. Even when specs are presented they usually fail to mention the context in which the measurements were taken. This context is important to interpreting the specs. So, there is an objective as well as a subjective component that is required in order to provide a meaningful review or opinion. And we all have our subjective opinions and have an equal right to express them.
So, here's what I would say to Chuck ...
Chuckie, you certainly have the right to voice your opinion and state your experiences, however, I don't think that also gives you the right to get down to a personal level and to insult people just because their views diverge from yours. What makes your views more important or right than theirs? You get upset when people ignore you but you fail to realize that had they not ignored you they would be contradicting your views and they did not deem your views meritorious enough to argue about. How would you feel if they were to slice into you the way you do them? That would piss you off, no?
Did you consider that the person you "helped" in Australia (or wherever he was) did not consider your advice to be credible? Perhaps he thought you wasted his time! I read your double blind method and thought it to be flawed. I don't remember the details and why I considered it flawed at this moment. Anyway, I ignored the information because of that. If you don't agree with people on this forum then why do you participate in their threads? Ignore their threads and their posts in other's threads. Present your point of view on the topic being discussed without feeling the need to make personal attacks on people you don't agree with and be grateful if they ignore your posts. You come off like a petulant child throwing a tantrum when you say it upsets you when you are ignored. You can't demand attention or reverence; you have to earn that. People have every right to ignore other members on this forum. That is a form of expression too. Lighten up and enjoy the forum and learn from those you deem knowledgable.
In order to expand your knowledge it is sometimes helpful to put down a thesis and let lounge members debate the merits and demerits of the same. That is what I see Boom doing quite often. There is nothing wrong with that and I hope that your rants don't dissuade him from continuing that practice. Many of us learn from the ensuing debates in such threads. I particularly enjoyed the DB thread.
I'm not going to say any more on this subject. This thread has already been sufficiently derailed. My sincere apologies to the OP.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jan 8, 2017 15:18:50 GMT -5
Personally being an Engineer by trade I tend to take a route less subjective but I'm not closed to a subjective only opinion. Example: Someone may say "I like tubes over solid state". I say I like tubes becasue I enjoy a bit of 2nd order harmonic distortion with my music. Both statements say the same thing but are formed from the opposite side of the subjective vs quantitative audiophile worlds, but that doesn't make both statements any less valid. As an accountant by trade I have an inbuilt preference for clean data, hence I would say; I'm not a fan of tubes because I enjoy my music as it was recorded. Cheers Gary But what if it was recorded with tube gear?  Or a crappy recording that the added noise now makes it sound "better".  I admit to liking tube distortion and find the euphoric affect pleasing when done right. But I at least know what it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2017 15:48:54 GMT -5
Wideawake, .......... I don't think that also gives you the right to get down to a personal level and to insult people .......... Examples please. (Never mind, as I mentioned below it is best we stop this exchange.) .......... Did you consider that the person you "helped" in Australia (or wherever he was) did not consider your advice to be credible? Perhaps he thought you wasted his time! I am not exaggerating the 7 hours approx. Would he have stayed on the phone that long if he thought I was wasting his time? That is a ridiculous statement by you implying that was not the way I posted. .......... If you don't agree with people on this forum then why do you participate in their threads?Gee Wideawake, I thought the purpose of this forum was to post including starting a thread and then letting other folks give their opinion even of it is in conflict with the OP thoughts? Why don't you take your own advice: "People have every right to ignore other members on this forum" Apparently you think my only value here is as a comedian. Sorry but I think I have the right to disagree with threads and post here and voice my serious opinion. If I start a thread here and avoided your post with question for me, I would consider myself to be rude by simply ignoring your post/question simply because you disagreed with me.. .......... I'm not going to say any more on this subject. Good, I hope you will keep your word. Please take Bill O'Reilly's common phrase and consider that my comment here is the "last word", as you started this exchange. I will not post again about your comments if you agree to do the same with me. Fair enough? Let's see if you can keep your word and do not post further about this. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by RichGuy on Jan 8, 2017 16:55:01 GMT -5
did not consider your advice to be credible? I never consider anything Chuckie says credible, I mean just look at THOSE eyes, one look and you know he's gotta be a shyster ! |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Jan 8, 2017 17:54:26 GMT -5
DSD VS PCM : MYTH VS TRUTHOkay, so here we go again : one crucial question of this debate turns on the degree to which the SACD format was, indeed, and inherently, capable of delivering the promised superior higher quality audio signal (as compared to PCM) as an end-product to the consumer, that is, assuming the consumer always cared enough to purchase the higher quality sound format (which is far from being the case, as many responses on this thread have already indicated). Is it a foregone conclusion that DSD formatted audio always produces higher quality end product than PCM ones (well, if the question seems to be posed in a rather simplistic and naive way, it is partially deliberate, as I am trying to get to the heart of the issues that concern me here, without getting bogged down in the technical jargon of electrical or audio-format engineering, which I am not very familiar with in the first place)? Reading this Benjamin Zwickel article about DSD VS PCM related mystifications and obfuscations by the industry would seem to suggest that a series of dirty tricks already go into fabricating the differences in effects between DSD and PCM, in the first place, which makes me wonder how much faith one should legitimately place in the promise of higher rez audio at all. I do not think many readers of this thread will find the following statement controversial, as it resonates with what many have said here:
"Historically, most decisions related to mass-marketed recordings were based on consumer convenience and higher profits, rather than technical advantages and higher fidelity."But I personally find these other conclusions in the "summary" provided at the end of the article quite provocative: "Even though many recordings are advertised as being 24-bit, all 24 bits were used only in the recording studio to reduce quantization noise. The consumer version was mastered at a much lower bit-rate, usually at or below 20 bits.
The DSD64 tracks on a hybrid SACDs have roughly 33 times the resolution of the 16-bit 44.1KHz PCM tracks. This was done purposely so that they could sell more SACD players by fooling potential customers into believing that they were making a fair comparison when they played music from the same disk.
DSD has significantly higher quantization noise than PCM, and the noise is much closer to audible frequencies, requiring significantly more sophisticated digital filters, as well as noise-shaping and upsampling algorithms, that can result in distortion of the analog signal.
Pure DSD recordings, as pictured in the flow charts used in DSD marketing hype, are almost nonexistent. There is currently no technology to edit, mix, or master DSD. High-definition 5-bit and 8-bit PCM (Wide-DSD), are used in recording and postproduction editing, mixing, and mastering of nearly all modern DSD recordings.
High-resolution PCM and DSD formats are statistically indistinguishable from one another in blind listening tests.
When a PCM file is played on a DSD or Bit Stream converter, the DAC chip has to convert the PCM to DSD in real time. This is one of the major reasons people claim DSD sounds better than PCM, when in fact, it is just that the chip in most modern single-bit DACs do a poor job of decoding PCM."
In short, these findings bring me back to one essential question : in the end how much of the "DSD is superior to PCM" claim is sheer mystification, and how much of it is actually a reliable fact that one can "take to the bank" as an enthusiast?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 8, 2017 20:18:53 GMT -5
As an accountant by trade I have an inbuilt preference for clean data, hence I would say; I'm not a fan of tubes because I enjoy my music as it was recorded. But what if it was recorded with tube gear? Then it already has the level of distortion intended by the musicians and sound mixer/engineer. It would be just plain rude to add even more. What's that saying, 2 wrongs don't make a right.  Another saying, horses for courses.  The first step to overcoming an addiction is admitting that you have one.  Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 8, 2017 20:30:40 GMT -5
IMHO it was Steve Jobs who killed SACD;  The SACD format was released in 1999 and was just stating to gather some momentum in 2001 when Apple released the first iPod. From that day on SACD was doomed, the iPod took all of the oxygen right out of high definition multi channel music. Not for the first time convenience won out over quality. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by RichGuy on Jan 8, 2017 20:40:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 8, 2017 20:44:25 GMT -5
IMHO it was Steve Jobs who killed SACD; The SACD format was released in 1999 and was just stating to gather some momentum in 2001 when Apple released the first iPod. From that day on SACD was doomed, the iPod took all of the oxygen right out of high definition multi channel music. Not for the first time convenience won out over quality. Cheers Gary It is sad but convenience and that "must have" feature trumps over something superior in sound quality. Though I can understand why. For all the talks of formats, most people do not have equipment (speakers, gear) that are good enough to make a differentiator between SACD's and 128 kbps mp3s. Or for that matter 64kbps mp3's! I remember when I was running 64 kbps mp3's and I was thinking eh, not too shabbpy but 160 was where it was at. I didn't have the gear or equipment to realize a difference and neither did my friends. I find it a major duping - for instance Pono - for them to advertise to the public and talk about how much better their file format sounds. The majority of the public won't hear any difference on their apple ear buds or their $150 wally world speakers - and that's being optimistic about the gear. Advertise to audiophiles - absolutely. Go right on ahead. They have a chance to actually take advantage of a better format. |
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Jan 8, 2017 20:51:15 GMT -5
DSD VS PCM : MYTH VS TRUTHOkay, so here we go again : one crucial question of this debate turns on the degree to which the SACD format was, indeed, and inherently, capable of delivering the promised superior higher quality audio signal (as compared to PCM) as an end-product to the consumer, that is, assuming the consumer always cared enough to purchase the higher quality sound format (which is far from being the case, as many responses on this thread have already indicated). Is it a foregone conclusion that DSD formatted audio always produces higher quality end product than PCM ones (well, if the question seems to be posed in a rather simplistic and naive way, it is partially deliberate, as I am trying to get to the heart of the issues that concern me here, without getting bogged down in the technical jargon of electrical or audio-format engineering, which I am not very familiar with in the first place)? Reading this Benjamin Zwickel article about DSD VS PCM related mystifications and obfuscations by the industry would seem to suggest that a series of dirty tricks already go into fabricating the differences in effects between DSD and PCM, in the first place, which makes me wonder how much faith one should legitimately place in the promise of higher rez audio at all. I do not think many readers of this thread will find the following statement controversial, as it resonates with what many have said here:
"Historically, most decisions related to mass-marketed recordings were based on consumer convenience and higher profits, rather than technical advantages and higher fidelity."But I personally find these other conclusions in the "summary" provided at the end of the article quite provocative: "Even though many recordings are advertised as being 24-bit, all 24 bits were used only in the recording studio to reduce quantization noise. The consumer version was mastered at a much lower bit-rate, usually at or below 20 bits.
The DSD64 tracks on a hybrid SACDs have roughly 33 times the resolution of the 16-bit 44.1KHz PCM tracks. This was done purposely so that they could sell more SACD players by fooling potential customers into believing that they were making a fair comparison when they played music from the same disk.
DSD has significantly higher quantization noise than PCM, and the noise is much closer to audible frequencies, requiring significantly more sophisticated digital filters, as well as noise-shaping and upsampling algorithms, that can result in distortion of the analog signal.
Pure DSD recordings, as pictured in the flow charts used in DSD marketing hype, are almost nonexistent. There is currently no technology to edit, mix, or master DSD. High-definition 5-bit and 8-bit PCM (Wide-DSD), are used in recording and postproduction editing, mixing, and mastering of nearly all modern DSD recordings.
High-resolution PCM and DSD formats are statistically indistinguishable from one another in blind listening tests.
When a PCM file is played on a DSD or Bit Stream converter, the DAC chip has to convert the PCM to DSD in real time. This is one of the major reasons people claim DSD sounds better than PCM, when in fact, it is just that the chip in most modern single-bit DACs do a poor job of decoding PCM."
In short, these findings bring me back to one essential question : in the end how much of the "DSD is superior to PCM" claim is sheer mystification, and how much of it is actually a reliable fact that one can "take to the bank" as an enthusiast? Isn't IMO missing from the title? Russ |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 8, 2017 21:03:30 GMT -5
That's an interesting point. PS Audio's direct stream DAC's asppear to function on this very principle. They convert the PCM to DSD. They run at 10k and one user on head-fi found it to offer some significant advantages over the regular stuff. So does DSD have pre and post ringing or anything it avoids that PCM decoding does not with PCM DACs? |
|
|
|
Post by brand on Jan 8, 2017 21:40:48 GMT -5
Can a mod clean up this thread? (Not demanding, just curious^^) I came into this thread intrigued to learn something about the SACD history (something I know little about). It starts out great and then quickly turns into a discussion that is supposed to happen in PMs because: nobody cares, nobody cares about the back and forth and nobody cares if you actually get along or not. At least open a specific garbulky vs chuckie thread if you need to do it in public. It always follows the same format of: 1. chuckie or garbulky makes a "pun" directed at the other trying to be super casual about it with lots of and :DD 2. thread gets derailed (at least partly) 3. quoting of each others walls of text forming even bigger walls of text 4. one of them starts getting defensive suggesting to "get along" or "be civil" 5. the other "apologizes" ("it's not personal") 6. after that it either loops back to one 1. immediately or 7. it calms down until one of them gets triggered again |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 8, 2017 21:53:52 GMT -5
LOL. if posts like that were cleaned up.... like half the lounge would be deleted.
You're missing out on all the Boomzilla threads that fit the same formula, only it's more than 2-3 people involved.
/hey.....
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 8, 2017 22:02:58 GMT -5
Can a mod clean up this thread? (Not demanding, just curious^^) I came into this thread intrigued to learn something about the SACD history (something I know little about). It starts out great and then quickly turns into a discussion that is supposed to happen in PMs Yes please clean it up. I shall delete my posts. Cheers. |
|
