Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

You were going so well 'till your bitter end there. Prove that I've avoided anything and you can have that.

 

I may have missed it, but where did you present any proof to your claim -

 

1 hour ago, rmpfyf said:

There's plenty of evidence. People can hear it. 

 

Guest rmpfyf
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by rmpfyf
Posted
7 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

I think it is worth exploring whether people are in fact being deluded by their other senses.

 

Quite so.   However, there are some who will not admit that that is even possible.

 

 

  • Like 1
Guest rmpfyf
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by rmpfyf

Guest rmpfyf
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by rmpfyf
Posted
Just now, rmpfyf said:

 

You'd like me to continue to re-quote myself for your amusement/satisfaction?

 

 

 

This is silly.   OK,  maybe you did post a the results of a DB hearing test or something that proved all your theories are audible.  I am sorry I missed it.  

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, rmpfyf said:

Didn't particularly like any of these. 

That matters not a jot,

 

I myself have both a Topping D30 and E30that I discovered via the ASR sit and  despite not holding Amir in my estimation as a internet deity.

 

 

  • Like 1
Guest rmpfyf
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by rmpfyf
Guest rmpfyf
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by rmpfyf

Posted
12 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

I would suggest of all things likely to make a performance difference relative to their investment cost, audiophile Ethernet cables are a very, very low value argument. Different cables may make a difference but 'audiophile' cables? It's a solved problem. Not because there is no difference, but because it's a super robust application and anything that could matter in an audio context has long had an industrial parallel. Got noise isues? Fibre. Got packet timing issues? Use timing protocols. Waveform sucks? Get a better switch and shorten the cable. Too many packets? Route properly. 

Can we just make this content here a sticky and move on?

  • Like 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

As mentioned earlier, I run a fairly decent test protocol here for kernel development which covers network configuration. I am incentivised to do it correctly as rolling changes into the kernel that don't make a difference (or worse) essentially waste my time. It's the near opposite of audiophile purchases - I am spending $0 and expending time on as much. 

 

Happy?

 

I am happy that you never did present any proof, and that you don't intend to.  I know it would be an effort, so I understand.  

  • Like 1
Guest rmpfyf
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by rmpfyf
Posted
3 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

Same netizens discard it out of hand. 

No-one is doing that. At least I am not.  

 

 

Practically nothing said here would be taken seriously in a scientific community though.  Take it is genuine interest when you advance a new, very different set of theories, and we want to understand more, beginning with the proof.

 

 

Guest rmpfyf
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by rmpfyf
Posted
3 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

 

Not so. Comments on spectral methods, for instance, are pretty usual in relevant scientific review. 

 

 

 

Define proof.

 

PS - to those ends my challenge remains unanswered.

Your challenge would need a whole lot of contextual parameters set before even being considered as a challenge. As it stands it means as little as the tests you have have so vehemently decried.

  • Like 1
Guest rmpfyf
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by rmpfyf
Let's fight spicy adjectives with spice and see if we get a bite on this implicitly simple challenge
Guest Eggcup the Dafter
Posted
4 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

 

PS - to those ends my challenge remains unanswered.

So the result would be "you would hear a test tone", at a guess.

Drawing a line is a request I'm not going to go for. There's wideband noise that I expect we won't hear, a spreading of the base of the signal, and a split that may be

  • sidebands that could result (if they were further apart,  in a slight drift of the signal that a listener wouldn't notice with this tone - or
  • if it is n actual widening of the base of the signal at 60-70 Hz  it could just be audible as noise underneath the tone or as an imperfect test tone, depending on the rest of the system and the environment. You'd need headphones or a quiet envoronment.


Even those suggestions may be way, way out, and I don't know enough to go anywhere beyond that. There ara almost certainly going to be problems of some kind with music. Poor quality conversion lead to distortion of quieter sounds back in the earlier days of CD and distortion at -60dB used to be a standard test. I don't know if it relates to what is shown on this graph though.

 

I expect zero out of ten for this answer. But hey, I tried.

Posted
5 hours ago, allthumbs said:

I myself have both a Topping D30 and E30that I discovered via the ASR sit and  despite not holding Amir in my estimation as a internet deity.

 

5 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

ASR has it's place. Far from all bad.

 

 

I just got the A50s and E30 combo. Talk about bang for buck. ASR indeed has it's place. Oh merde, I'm back here. oops.

 

Just wanted to see how the debate was going - and guess what.....?

Guest rmpfyf
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by rmpfyf
Posted
On 21/03/2021 at 1:32 AM, rmpfyf said:

The areas highlighted show the peak is wider than it should be.

 

... but it is also wider than it should be, by exactly the same amount for all 7 captures.

 

On 21/03/2021 at 1:32 AM, rmpfyf said:

It does not prove that there is no difference in jitter.

 

If each cable induced different jitter in the system .....  wouldn't the output look different (as opposed to all being the 'same').

 

 

On 21/03/2021 at 1:32 AM, rmpfyf said:

If it is a number of tests superimposed I would be very surprised, as some of the characteristic inaccuracies in digital audio come from randomised sources (e.g. clock source). Whilst it's possible to get results that are very similar, it's not practically possible to get results that are exactly identical. Which would be fishy.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying.

Archmagio says that this image:   http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hUTKRa30kLY/VN8OgvHr7FI/AAAAAAAAEKk/obTtgEnAmg0/s1600/Composite%2BJ-Test.jpg

 

"Instead of showing 7 individual J-Test graphs, I decided to overlay each one to create a composite image"

 

ie. that image is 7 J-tests ... one with each cable.... superimposed on each other.

I'm sure they're NOT exactly identical..... below ~130dB .... and if you look closely the noise floor is too "dense" .... ie each image overlaid is slightly different down there.... but that look identical above ~120dB.

 

I assume you're not saying he's lying.....  so?!?

  • Like 1
Guest rmpfyf
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by rmpfyf
  • Volunteer
Posted
52 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

If each cable induced different jitter in the system .....  wouldn't the output look different (as opposed to all being the 'same').

 

I *think* he's saying that 

a) the analysis isn't accurate enough to pick up differences hence they look the same and/or

b ) you need to take an average over time to see the longer term impact of jitter - a single snapshot doesn't capture its impact

 

 

Guest rmpfyf
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by rmpfyf

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...
To Top