Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: what we're up against (Read 94258 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

what we're up against

Reply #150 –
Quote from: Axon on
those of you truly willing to slog through this BS might be interested to know that I collected all 76 pages of the Passion of Ethan Winer into a single HTML file...


Interesting choice of words - "The Passion of Ehtan Weiner". It did turn into a sort of crucifixion scene, complete with a rabble of a crowd, and "scribes and pharasees" (apparently the local so-called heavyweights).

If I had the time, it would be fun to deconstruct many of the egregiously ill-informed things that were said.

It has been said many times in other forums that just because you can mix or master, doesn't mean that you actually know squat about signals, systems, or human perception. Just because you can fix things doesn't mean that you have a good detailed understanding of how they work.

what we're up against

Reply #151 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
If I had the time, it would be fun to deconstruct many of the egregiously ill-informed things that were said.

It has been said many times in other forums that just because you can mix or master, doesn't mean that you actually know squat about signals, systems, or human perception. Just because you can fix things doesn't mean that you have a good detailed understanding of how they work.


Well I can respect the later sentence, and I wouldn't mind debating with you on that part.

unfortunatly, the former sentence, as well as the other nasty comments you made gives me little hope about a fair and interesting discussion.

I'll take you on your word and say: come and explain this to us at the womb, it would be interesting to have your obviously well informed opinion on the subject. Because if you have some real technical and even engineering knwoledge, and I don't even question that, it would be interesting to confront people that make a living out of using the gear. Their opinions do matter, ultimately.

I'm sure you can find the time, and you like a good fun.

Meanwhile, I would certainly hope you guys are more knowledgeable about audio design and measurement than copyright infrigement laws.

I mean seriously :

Quote from: Axon on
those of you truly willing to slog through this BS might be interested to know that I collected all 76 pages of the Passion of Ethan Winer into a single HTML file, derived from the Mobile theme of thewombforums.com, for your speed-reading pleasure:

(link removed)

418k compressed, 1700k uncompressed.



How is this shit gonna fly ?

take out this link and come have fun with us, and cut the attitude.

sheeeee


malice


PS: And Yeah, I do think Bob Holson could be considered as "Heavy Weight". But that is just me ...

what we're up against

Reply #152 –
Quote from: malice on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
If I had the time, it would be fun to deconstruct many of the egregiously ill-informed things that were said.

It has been said many times in other forums that just because you can mix or master, doesn't mean that you actually know squat about signals, systems, or human perception. Just because you can fix things doesn't mean that you have a good detailed understanding of how they work.


Well I can respect the later sentence, and I wouldn't mind debating with you on that part.

unfortunatly, the former sentence, as well as the other nasty comments you made gives me little hope about a fair and interesting discussion.


Those weren't nasty comments, they were factual assessments. Its not my fault that the situation was nasty. I neither advised, nor consented, nor contributed except by being specificaly trashed by name behind my back.

Pardon me if I ROTFLMAO when someone from a place that trashes people, bans them, and then trashes them even more after they have been forcably been prevented from posting, tries to lecture me about fairness. ;-(

Anybody who likes the above or finds it interesting probably also thinks that pro wrestling is a sport!

I've left my calling card over at the womb.

Enjoy! ;-)
 

what we're up against

Reply #153 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: malice on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
If I had the time, it would be fun to deconstruct many of the egregiously ill-informed things that were said.

It has been said many times in other forums that just because you can mix or master, doesn't mean that you actually know squat about signals, systems, or human perception. Just because you can fix things doesn't mean that you have a good detailed understanding of how they work.


Well I can respect the later sentence, and I wouldn't mind debating with you on that part.

unfortunatly, the former sentence, as well as the other nasty comments you made gives me little hope about a fair and interesting discussion.


Those weren't nasty comments, they were factual assessments. Its not my fault that the situation was nasty. I neither advised, nor consented, nor contributed except by being specificaly trashed by name behind my back.

Pardon me if I ROTFLMAO when someone from a place that trashes people, bans them, and then trashes them even more after they have been forcably been prevented from posting, tries to lecture me about fairness. ;-(

Anybody who likes the above or finds it interesting probably also thinks that pro wrestling is a sport!



Please : Ethan start to trash our place, not the opposite, and I can tell you he doesn't say everything about the reasons he has been banned. And it doesn't have anything to do with his opinion wich I respect.


Quote
I've left my calling card over at the womb.

Enjoy! ;-)



Please, do point me WHERE ???

malice



what we're up against

Reply #154 –
Quote from: malice on
PS: And Yeah, I do think Bob Holson could be considered as "Heavy Weight". But that is just me ...


Bob Holson?

Do you mean Bob Ohlsson?

Yes, I've conversed with the man.

It is pretty strange when someone tells me about one of  their heros and I have to translate the mangled text they post into something recognizable.

BTW in the world of audio, let's compare the weight of Bob Ohlsson with say, James Johnson or Sean Olive. I'll bet that very few who post on the womb even recognize their names.

what we're up against

Reply #155 –
Quote from: malice on
Please : Ethan start to trash our place...


LOL!

At the very least its a case of Pot:kettle:black

Quote
Quote
I've left my calling card over at the womb.

Enjoy! ;-)



Please, do point me WHERE ???

malice


Userid = arnyk

what we're up against

Reply #156 –
Quote
Meanwhile, I would certainly hope you guys are more knowledgeable about audio design and measurement than copyright infrigement laws.

I mean seriously :

How is this shit gonna fly ?

take out this link and come have fun with us, and cut the attitude.

Man, if copyright were an issue, if that monster file were sold like a book, readers are the ones who would be paid to read the stuff. Compensation for time, tedium and Jerry Springerness.

If this is the Passion of Winer, I think we've found our Barabbas!

what we're up against

Reply #157 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Userid = arnyk


Wow, I had no idea. That your calling cards, okayyyy.

I was hoping you post something in Ethan's thread. I mean no offense but I don't see your one and only post as something that would, what were saying again ???

Ah :"deconstruct many of the egregiously ill-informed things that were said"

And yeah, I do think Bob Ohlsson (gee, you gonna lecture me on my typing as well ) is a heavy weight as far as insightful posting is concerned.

I'm reading yours, and if I have time, I might  chime about the clarity being the essence of mixing ...

Bugs me, in a weird way.

See you there

malice

PS: my God you're rude.

what we're up against

Reply #158 –
Quote from: dwoz on
Ethan ... makes a conjecture about the required measurements to fully and completely describe the fidelity of audio.  According to him, there's four.
Can we split this thread, and have a discussion about that in a separate thread, here on HA, if anyone else is interested?

Because, to me, that sounds really interesting.

And if we're going to do it, it must not get mixed up in this thread!

Cheers,
David.

what we're up against

Reply #159 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Axon on
those of you truly willing to slog through this BS might be interested to know that I collected all 76 pages of the Passion of Ethan Winer into a single HTML file...


Interesting choice of words - "The Passion of Ehtan Weiner". It did turn into a sort of crucifixion scene, complete with a rabble of a crowd, and "scribes and pharasees" (apparently the local so-called heavyweights).

I used that choice of words with more than a little tongue in cheek.

In case my meaning was not abundantly clear: this is not the first time Ethan has been crucified. When it happened on the Stereophile forums - involving him repeatedly going to bat for weeks/months on end against such noted figures of trolldom as Michigan J. Frog and Steve Sammett - one might have been forgiven for thinking that riding crops, slave collars, and safewords were also involved.

what we're up against

Reply #160 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: dwoz on
Ethan ... makes a conjecture about the required measurements to fully and completely describe the fidelity of audio.  According to him, there's four.
Can we split this thread, and have a discussion about that in a separate thread, here on HA, if anyone else is interested?

Off-topic discussion about Ethan's "conjucture" has been moved to the appropriate thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=694662

In the meantime, would any of our new members care to discuss the technical merits of what is laid out in the first post?

what we're up against

Reply #161 –
Quote from: greynol on
In the meantime, would any of our new members care to discuss the technical merits of what is laid out in the first post?



Its somewhat difficult to figure out exactly what the first post is about.

Is it "ipods have a mid bump, therefore need to figure out how to EQ that out"?

or is it "someone thinks FLAC sounds different than WAV on an ipod"?


Clearly, we'd all be tempted to say a resounding "WTF" to the FLAC vs WAV thing...but then again...


...when we talk about audible differences in components that SHOULD spec the same, i.e. lossless data compression vs. original files, where the result is supposed to be a bit-for-bit identity...

Then either the guy is cracked, or he hears something.  He specifically SAYS "so-called loss-less" so I believe he understands the concept...

The next place we can look is at implementation.  Just because FLAC is a loss-less format doesn't mean it's implemented correctly on the iPod.  There could very well be some program driver error that results in the FLAC  stream being different.  I'd be horribly embarrassed to be that programmer that did it, but hey, you know it's entirely possible.

So if he DOES hear some difference, then it's not because FLAC sounds different, it's because there's something broken about the implementation, and I'd scarcely rule that out.

what we're up against

Reply #162 –
Sounds plausible. I have accidentally released subtly broken stuff - equipment with incorrect calibration procedures, inverted polarity or single sample offsets between left and right channels.

The cited complaints do sound like they were directed at the format as a whole, not a particular implementation.

what we're up against

Reply #163 –
Quote from: dwoz on
...when we talk about audible differences in components that SHOULD spec the same, i.e. lossless data compression vs. original files, where the result is supposed to be a bit-for-bit identity...

That is easy to verify using checksum
Quote from: dwoz on
...Then either the guy is cracked, or he hears something.  He specifically SAYS "so-called loss-less" so I believe he understands the concept...

If he hears something he should come up with some evidence, like uploading some samples that other people could verify.
Quote from: dwoz on
The next place we can look is at implementation.  Just because FLAC is a loss-less format doesn't mean it's implemented correctly on the iPod...

It is not implemented on the iPod (except for rockbox that is not official and doesn't work on the last 3 generations of iPods.)

what we're up against

Reply #164 –
Quote from: Light-Fire on
Quote from: dwoz on
The next place we can look is at implementation.  Just because FLAC is a loss-less format doesn't mean it's implemented correctly on the iPod...

It is not implemented on the iPod (except for rockbox that is not official and doesn't work on the last 3 generations of iPods.)



Well, if he's streaming FLAC from his ipod, then what IS it implemented on???????

what we're up against

Reply #165 –
There is no streaming FLAC from an iPod going on.  I suggest you go back and read the first post again.

Barry is suggesting that chadbang try wave or aiff over a compressed lossless format which would have to be ALAC since it is clear that chadbang does not have rockbox installed ("I could Rockbox the ipod for the softwares equalizer, but I'm a mac man and I like iTunes").  ALAC is the only compressed lossless format that an iPod supports without Rockbox.

what we're up against

Reply #166 –
Quote from: greynol on
There is no streaming FLAC from an iPod going on.  I suggest you go back and read the first post again.

Barry is suggesting that chadbang try wave or aiff over a compressed lossless format which would have to be ALAC since it is clear that chadbang does not have rockbox installed ("I could Rockbox the ipod for the softwares equalizer, but I'm a mac man and I like iTunes").  ALAC is the only compressed lossless format that an iPod supports without rockbox.



Ok then, agreed. substitute the acronyms and go from there.

what we're up against

Reply #167 –
Quote from: dwoz on
Quote from: greynol on
There is no streaming FLAC from an iPod going on.  I suggest you go back and read the first post again.

Barry is suggesting that chadbang try wave or aiff over a compressed lossless format which would have to be ALAC since it is clear that chadbang does not have rockbox installed ("I could Rockbox the ipod for the softwares equalizer, but I'm a mac man and I like iTunes").  ALAC is the only compressed lossless format that an iPod supports without rockbox.



Ok then, agreed. substitute the acronyms and go from there.



Please do.  Give it your best shot.  Barry Diament, btw, is a 'noted' mastering engineer and a professional audio engineer -- a member of The Womb's professional cohort.  He did lots of the first generation of tape to CD transfers back in the 1980s.  Today , among other curious claims he makes on Steve Hoffman's forum, he says lossless compressed doesn't sound as good as aiff/wav.  He doesn't know why, though he conjectures it has something to do with proximity to the clock in a digital audio signal path.

what we're up against

Reply #168 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Please do.  Give it your best shot.  Barry Diament, btw, is a 'noted' mastering engineer and a professional audio engineer -- a member of The Womb's professional cohort.


For a real thrill, search the AES papers page for papers by Diament. ;-)

Heck, search the web for papers by him that aren't on his own web site!

Speaking of self-published papers, here's a quote from diament's own web site:

"Clean AC power results in much quieter backgrounds, enabling low level details to be heard more easily.  The absence of power line hash allows for a cleaner midrange and treble, with purer harmonic presentation.  Bass frequencies benefit too, with increased tightness and pitch definition.  Musical dynamics will have more subtle gradations and when called for, more "punch".  Stereo imaging is more solid and soundstage dimensions (as contained in the recording) expand in all directions.  Even your video gear will provide blacker blacks, less grain, better contrast and color purity and better overall definition."

Magic power conditioners, anybody?

I'd like to see a power conditioner make one iota of difference in the picture on a LCD screen driven by a blu-ray ceplayer. AFAIK, that signal is in the digital domain right up until it becomes modulated photons.


Quote
He did lots of the first generation of tape to CD transfers back in the 1980s.


Which relates to power cords and iPods, exactly how?


Quote
Today , among other curious claims he makes on Steve Hoffman's forum, he says lossless compressed doesn't sound as good as aiff/wav.  He doesn't know why, though he conjectures it has something to do with proximity to the clock in a digital audio signal path.


I'm wondering if Diament has even done a time/synched, level-matched evaluation to support that claim.  More likely, he was walking down the street and his iPod just didn't sound right to him... Time to invent some new science, methinks!

The claim he's making is one of the easiest time-synched, level-matched  DBTs in the world to set up cleanly and properly. Lacking any evidence that he's actually ever even tried...

what we're up against

Reply #169 –
Quote from: krabapple on
...He did lots of the first generation of tape to CD transfers back in the 1980s...
Ah, now I understand. Is that the reason why they had to be re-mastered in the 1990s? Now I get it (bit late though) - he did all those first transfers... and completely ignoring that they were mastered for vinyl. Which means that they had a frequency response tailor-made for vinyl. Sounds strange on CD of course...
marlene-d.blogspot.com

what we're up against

Reply #170 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
Quote from: krabapple on
...He did lots of the first generation of tape to CD transfers back in the 1980s...
Ah, now I understand. Is that the reason why they had to be re-mastered in the 1990s? Now I get it (bit late though) - he did all those first transfers... and completely ignoring that they were mastered for vinyl. Which means that they had a frequency response tailor-made for vinyl. Sounds strange on CD of course...


I'd like to give Diament the benefit of the doubt, and presume that he was one of the good guys who didn't slavishly transcribe cutting masters to CD.

More relevant might be to take a look at what he says today:

Diament's pronouncements for 2010

"
It was the early 1970s when Bob Fulton brought forth the first cables designed for use with audio equipment.  At the time, most systems were wired with common lamp cord (also called "zip" cord).  Today, there are hundreds of designs for speaker cables, line level interconnections, digital cables, video cables, AC cords and microphone cables.

While that old zip cord does a wonderful job of carrying AC power to your toaster and light bulbs, music (and video) have different requirements.  The best modern cable designs are rightfully considered components in their own right and as such, will significantly effect system performance.

Remember too that cables are directional.  Sometimes this is because the connections differ at each end (some designs leave "ground" unconnected at one end to minimize noise transfer).  Even if the connections are the same at both ends, all cables will become directional once they've been used long enough to break-in.  Some manufacturers put arrows on the cable or on the connectors to help with proper orientation.  When I start using a cable without arrows, I orient it so any writing on the jacket follows the direction of signal flow.

In the last paragraph, I mentioned break-in.  Cables, like speakers and all the other components that make up your system, require break-in (sometimes called "burn-in") to reveal their best.  There are special burn-in CDs sold for this purpose but all you really need is a CD with some wide range music.  After connecting everything and arranging all of your cables, put in a CD and set your player to "Repeat".  Then just let the music play.  If your speakers, speaker cables and power amplifier are already burned in, they can be left off but the rest of your components should be turned on so they'll pass the signal.  Most gear will show cleaner treble and more powerful bass within the first several days.  In the following days, you'll hear the soundstage open up and overall focus will improve.  After about two weeks, most components will have reached their full performance potential.  Many loudspeakers however, can require as much as two months to hit their stride.  Keep in mind this means two weeks or two months of playing music.  The time the system is turned off does not count.
"


what we're up against

Reply #171 –
Interesting turn of events.

Malice tells me over on the womb that he can't post here any more. What is that all about?

Anyway he gave me a link to a post that appears to be from Ethan, but not on the womb, but at Gearslutz.

Anyway, it appears that these are among the statements that Ethan *actually made* and should be defending. note that they are stated  in such a way that he's debunking the following misapprehensions:

* That dither is audible on typical program material recorded at sensible levels.

* That jitter is ever audible in non-broken gear.

* That a response past 20 KHz is ever needed.

* That blind testing is not valid.

* That static (non-changing) phase shift in usual amounts is ever audible when the amount of shift is the same left and right.

* That more than four parameters are needed to describe everything that affects audio reproduction.

* That different gear that specs "transparently" as defined in my video has a sound, or sounds different than other transparent gear.

* That prosumer level sound cards cannot achieve professional sounding results.

* That audible stacking occurs with properly functioning gear.

End of list of misapprehesions that Ethan is trying to correct.


Here's what Ethan said on the womb about ADAT versus analog tape:

"I had dinner the other night with a good friend who is a fairly well known recording engineer with a wall full of gold records in his studio lobby. He told me that when ADATs came out - the original black-face model - he did a comparison of analog 2-inch versus ADAT, and the ADAT won handily because it preserved drum transients much better. That matches my experience, but I asked him to repeat what he said anyway to be sure I didn't misunderstand. I figured it would come up here eventually. I won't say who he is here without his permission, though I can't imagine he'd really mind. If you're reading this Peter you are welcome to pipe up to clarify."

So far, I see more than a few differences between what Ethan is purported to have said, and what he actually said. Some similarities as well.

And if Malice is unable to post here, I hope that its not for the same reason that Ethan couldn't post on the womb.

what we're up against

Reply #172 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
More relevant might be to take a look at what he says today:

"...While that old zip cord does a wonderful job of carrying AC power to your toaster and light bulbs, music (and video) have different requirements.  The best modern cable designs are rightfully considered components in their own right and as such, will significantly effect system performance..."
Arnie, I understand the point you make here. But I´m afraid that I´m the wrong receiver: I have two cables from Audioquest, one from Monster Cable, loudspeaker cable from Kimber Cable and some other ones from Oehlbach. So you understand that I won´t argue against this. 

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
"...When I start using a cable without arrows, I orient it so any writing on the jacket follows the direction of signal flow..."
Ok, that is ridiculous.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
"...In the last paragraph, I mentioned break-in.  Cables, like speakers and all the other components that make up your system, require break-in (sometimes called "burn-in") to reveal their best."
One and a half week ago I received my new soundcard. Well, what can I say, I used a "burn-in" file for it.

BUT: I´m not making claims about all of this. I´m well aware that I´m on the loony side considering the agenda of this forum. But I´m here to keep 'sane'. In my experience audiophiles tend to embrace every hilarious claim someone makes - even if it is technical nonsense. And I fell for that in the past. Barry Diamant is a wonderful example: he´s so taken by his own nonsense that he´s a danger to everyone else.
marlene-d.blogspot.com

what we're up against

Reply #173 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
BUT: I´m not making claims about all of this. I´m well aware that I´m on the loony side considering the agenda of this forum. But I´m here to keep 'sane'. In my experience audiophiles tend to embrace every hilarious claim someone makes - even if it is technical nonsense. And I fell for that in the past. Barry Diamant is a wonderful example: he´s so taken by his own nonsense that he´s a danger to everyone else.



Based on reading your recent posts here Carl, it seems like you've evolved since the bad old days on RAO.

BTW, maybe I saved the *best* Diament quote for last:

Link to more really weird stuff from Diament's web site

"
Placing a set of roller bearings under my CD player resulted in an across the board improvement in every category used to describe its performance:  frequency extension, dynamic range, soundstaging, overall clarity, etc.  In short, the sound just "opened up" to a degree I wouldn't have believed had I not heard it for myself.  "Floating" the loudspeakers on sets of roller bearings was equally astounding.  As I added sets of roller bearings under my other components, the effect, though more subtle, was cumulative.  Today, all the components in the studio, including the power conditioner, are supported by roller bearings.

After hearing what roller bearings could do for my system, I began to think about air bearings and the result was the creation of a custom designed rack that has an air bearing on each shelf.  Where roller bearings worked their seismic isolation magic in the horizontal and rotational planes, the air bearing rack did so in the vertical plane (and to some degree in the horizontal as well).  When I first installed the completed racks in the studio, I was not prepared for the degree to which they allowed the system to reach new heights in performance.

The first thing I noticed was the Cinerama-like expansion of the soundstage.  The music sounded like it was freed from the confines of the loudspeakers to a degree I'd not heard before in the system.  I began playing record after record and in every case discovered I was hearing information I was previously unaware of.  The difference wasn't simply one of nuance; I was hearing instruments I'd never noticed before on recordings I'd known since childhood.  It was as if every record I own had been carefully re-mastered to bring out previously hidden musical information.

It is important to remember that isolating your gear from the influence of seismic vibrations doesn't add these benefits.  What it does is prevent the vibrations from compressing dynamics, shrinking the soundstage, defocusing images, hardening the treble and muddying the bass.  The effects of well implemented isolation techniques provide so many performance benefits (for both audio and video), it is surprising no one has been shouting this from the rooftops.
"

what we're up against

Reply #174 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Cavaille on
BUT: I´m not making claims about all of this. I´m well aware that I´m on the loony side considering the agenda of this forum. But I´m here to keep 'sane'. In my experience audiophiles tend to embrace every hilarious claim someone makes - even if it is technical nonsense. And I fell for that in the past. Barry Diamant is a wonderful example: he´s so taken by his own nonsense that he´s a danger to everyone else.


Based on reading your recent posts here Carl, it seems like you've evolved since the bad old days on RAO.
Erm, I think you mistake me for someone else. My name is Jörn, I´m from Germany and I´m not in audio business (not yet)  BTW, to give myself a face (you seem to like it): here is my DeviantART profile. (not good art, but hey it´s fun).

BTW, what is RAO?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Link to more really weird stuff from Diament's web site

"Placing a set of roller bearings under my CD player resulted in an across the board improvement in every category used to describe its performance:  frequency extension, dynamic range, soundstaging, overall clarity, etc.  In short, the sound just "opened up" to a degree I wouldn't have believed had I not heard it for myself.  "Floating" the loudspeakers on sets of roller bearings was equally astounding.  As I added sets of roller bearings under my other components, the effect, though more subtle, was cumulative.  Today, all the components in the studio, including the power conditioner, are supported by roller bearings...."
Indeed very weird. It always made sense to me that placing loudspeakers on several dampeners or something could influence the sound (by vibrating the floor etc.) but I never understood how one could possibly want to place things like pre-amps, ampflifiers or power conditioners (!) on something like that. Things with non-moving parts...
marlene-d.blogspot.com