Skip to main content

Recent Posts

1
Your example isn't only exaggerated but it's not accurate. No one agreed with me one bit but demanded proof of audibility.

So in your book, asking for reliable evidence of audibility is a bad thing?

I can read this sort of thing over at CA.
2
You don't get it.

He appears to be tying himself in knots in his efforts at not seeing what should be obvious.
3
[quote aut
Quote
hor=Case link=msg=937269 date=1490446869]
Sorry you feel that way. I thought we were after the truth and facts, not clever puns or insults.

Sorry, that card is not available for you to play. I already played it in post 99 and follow-on post 101.

B.y taking the position that no DAC should create audible artifacts, no matter how badly installed, you appear to be running in the opposite direction of useful information, or truth.

I am reminded of a DBT critic that I encountered on another forum who characterized DBTs as tests designed to obfuscate clearly audible artifacts.


Quote
I suppose I should be happy that at least someone admits that audible differences can be real,

And you call that sort of excluded-middle blather tinged with passive aggressive language a step in the direction of "truth and facts"?

Quote
even if they feel strong need to explain why it's unimportant.

Is this how you dismiss reasonable questions about relevance?
4
You don't get it.
5
Your example isn't only exaggerated but it's not accurate. No one agreed with me one bit but demanded proof of audibility.
6
Also, all this pointless argument could have been avoided had someone said: "yes, noise can be audible but it doesn't matter for music listening", to which I'd have replied: "true". Instead people did argue that noise is inaudible and now _I_ lost credibility for insisting that their claim is not accurate.
To use a somewhat exaggerated example: Your stance seems to me like belaboring the (correct) argument that mass is speed dependent (see relativity), when the general topic is car races (where the effect is insignificant). And when people try to get you back to the floor and make you consider the relevance of your point to the topic at hand, you blame everyone else for not agreeing with your theoretically correct argument.
7
Also, all this pointless argument could have been avoided..
..if the Pollster didn't press your "noise" button. Finally a poll with something that rings relevant, DAC "noise"
8
I suppose I should be happy that at least someone admists that audible differences can be real
Yep, with 16bit pathological vs 24bit. Admit it Case, you're a Hi-Rezer at heart.  ;)
Straight from their playbook.
9
Also, all this pointless argument could have been avoided had someone said: "yes, noise can be audible but it doesn't matter for music listening", to which I'd have replied: "true". Instead people did argue that noise is inaudible and now _I_ lost credibility for insisting that their claim is not accurate.
10
Sorry you feel that way. I thought we were after the truth and facts, not clever puns or insults.
I suppose I should be happy that at least someone admists that audible differences can be real, even if they feel strong need to explain why it's unimportant.