A hifi bargain...

[Yaputya]

On 23/07/2014 11:34 AM, Yaputya wrote:

This is a link to a post listing 48 speaker 'hifi' cable listening tests.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

The list includes more than just speaker cable tests, so there are less
than 48 speaker cable tests. Still, the conclusion is clear.

From the conclusion:
If hifi is all about sound and more specifically sound quality, then we
should, once the other senses have been removed be able to hear
differences which can be verified by being able to identify one product
from another by only listening. But time and again we cannot.

So you can either buy good but inexpensive hifi products such as cables,
amps, CDPs and be satisfied that the sound they produce is superb. You
do need to spend time with speakers as they really do sound identifiably
different. Or you can buy expensive hifi products such as cable tec and
luxuriate in the build and image and identify one hifi from another by
looks and sound. But you cannot buy expensive and identify it from cheap
by sound alone.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Yaputya the TROLL"

> The average 40 year old bloke has lost 10dB of hearing at just 4kHz,

** Age related "threshold shift '' and hearing loss are two quite different
things.

50 years it is 20dB down - far more significant than the speaker cable!

** It has no significance or even relevance to being able to hear tonal
changes at an audible frequency at an audible level.

http://books.google.de/books?id=sLBRgV3NpZIC&pg=PA217&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

** Wot a fucking, know nothing idiot Google monkey.

What about the capacitive reactance?
Audiophool cables typically have much higher Xc than figure-8.

** So fucking what ?



..... Phil

 

[Yaputya]

On 23/07/2014 2:30 PM, Phil the Phuckwit wrote:

"Yaputya the TROLL"

The average 40 year old bloke has lost 10dB of hearing at just 4kHz,

** Age related "threshold shift '' and hearing loss are two quite different
things.

50 years it is 20dB down - far more significant than the speaker cable!


** It has no significance or even relevance to being able to hear tonal
changes at an audible frequency at an audible level.

Crap.
The high end is lost as you age, Trevor wrote:
"In the second speaker cited, there is an impedance dip at approximately
15kHz of around 0.55 Ohms."

 

[Yaputya]

On 23/07/2014 2:30 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> "Yaputya the TROLL"

You are the biggest TROLL in USENET.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html

 

[Phil Allison]

"Yaputya the MORONIC TROLL"

The average 40 year old bloke has lost 10dB of hearing at just 4kHz,

** Age related "threshold shift '' and hearing loss are two quite
different
things.

50 years it is 20dB down - far more significant than the speaker cable!


** It has no significance or even relevance to being able to hear tonal
changes at an audible frequency at an audible level.

Crap.

** Crap is just what your pointy, retarded head if chock full of.

FOAD - you pathetic ass.



..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Yaputya the TROLL"

You are the biggest TROLL in USENET.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html

** You another of Alan Rutlidge's bum boys ???

Cos there are plenty of them skulking around the public toilets of
Northbridge.

ROTFL !!!



...... Phil

 

[Yaputya]

On 23/07/2014 3:05 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Yaputya the MORONIC TROLL"


The average 40 year old bloke has lost 10dB of hearing at just 4kHz,

** Age related "threshold shift '' and hearing loss are two quite
different
things.

50 years it is 20dB down - far more significant than the speaker cable!


** It has no significance or even relevance to being able to hear tonal
changes at an audible frequency at an audible level.

Crap.


** Crap is just what your pointy, retarded head if chock full of.

FOAD - you pathetic ass.

You don't understand that a dip at 15 kHz isn't perceived by an old fart
like you (you must be around 60 years old, you'd be over 40dB down at
15kHz).
You are the biggest TROLL in USENET.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html

 

[Clocky]

On 23/07/2014 5:26 PM, Trevor wrote:

"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cf67d6$0$2930$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
Just as some claim they can pick the difference between 192kbps MP3 and
the same CD track, in the real world that simply doesn't pan out

What rubbish,

Real world tests prove it. There is even an online test you can do to
see how you go picking different compression rates.
Google it and have a go.

 

[Yaputya]

On 23/07/2014 3:11 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Yaputya the TROLL"


You are the biggest TROLL in USENET.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html


** You another of Alan Rutlidge's bum boys ???
WTF?

Cos there are plenty of them skulking around the public toilets of
Northbridge.

You must frequent such public toilets to gain this knowledge.

 

[Clocky]

On 23/07/2014 4:28 PM, Jeßus wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:44:22 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:

On 23/07/2014 2:58 PM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:16:08 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:

On 23/07/2014 8:49 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Unlike you, I actually have 40 years' experience in the audio
business, along with technical training in electronics and
communications. I actually understand the significance of excessive
inductance in cabling.



That's why I'm surprised that someone with your experience only looks at
this from a purely technical point of view.

Ah well.

Like you did with me a couple of years ago, when I described my audio
set up here. You inexplicably called it a 'kludge of a system', if I
recall correctly

I don't think this topic is one of your strong points.

How is "USB DAC from this PC to a 1965 National valve receiver" not a
kludge compared to a traditional system?

You haven't explained what's wrong with that.

I didn't say there is anything wrong with it.


And what's a
> 'traditional system' in your eyes?

Off the shelf component systems.

Here's a tip - you haven't asked

anything about the DAC in question, what type of files I play, or
anything about that receiver.

Sure, but you said you particularly like the sound of old (70's IIRC)
stuff on that setup. Given how that material was recorded and all the
other factors it's down to a subjective personal preference to the
sound. I've got valve equipment too. Do I like the sound of it? Sure.
It's different to my component system, but better technically - I doubt it.


Never mind speakers. I have a habit of

swapping my amplifiers from time to time, at the time of posting it
was the National receiver that was set up. Can you explain what is
wrong with it?

Again, I didn't say there is anything wrong with it. But I'm sure you
know that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.

Oh, and before you jump on me and assume it was derogatory, you forgot
to mention the smiley I added before we agreed it was largely
subjective, particularly as we both have a dgree of hearing loss.

So let's not take those comments out of context.

Given all that, why you think your judgement is better then mine is what
is inexplicable.

It's inexplicable that you haven't explained what is wrong with it.
You also haven't given an example of what you think is good.

It's subjective. What I think is good is probably unacceptable to you.
I'm quite happy with my Yamaha component system, and I have Stromberg
Carlsson receiver that I brought back from the dead that I like to
listen to. My musical tastes varies quite a bit, so some stuff sounds
better on my system then other stuff but it's a compromise.

I personally hate connecting stuff to my laptop and PC because the noise
that is introduced annoys me.

Just as some claim they can pick the difference between 192kbps MP3 and
the same CD track, in the real world that simply doesn't pan out

It does pan out. I'm one of them... anything under 192K and I can pick
the difference.

But not which is which in a double blind trial.

But I suspect you already know this, since you

specified 192K and I know I've made posts before saying exactly the
same thing.

160k is about where it all levels out for most people.

Try this test for fun.

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/

and this one

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/

and
it's no different with cables no matter how technically and
mathematically the differences may be.

Righto...

Given that you are over 25 and have suffered hearing loss why would you
think you could possibly hear the difference?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 23/07/2014 7:51 PM, Yaputya wrote:

On 23/07/2014 1:35 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 9:20 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 6:14 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 22/07/2014 8:52 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:c360rmFacn1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2014 11:23 AM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Jeßus" <none@all.org> wrote in message
news:9s3rs9lkn8dc8is4ke1jbkqlthe4leu9sd@4ax.com...
http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-holographic-ac-adapter/

Bybee Holographic AC Adapter
RRP: $2,795.00
Now $2,295.00.

The next logical progression from "directional" cables.

"Whileever there're stupid people with money, there'll be smart
people
to take it from them."

A couple of decades ago, a friend and I contemplated ordering a
special
run of twin-core "AC flex" (you know the type, used to connect
lights &
switches in 99.999% of Australian households) in black. The plan
was to
sell it to audiophiles for $100/metre as "super-high-grade lossless
pure
copper ultra-transparent" speaker cable.

**Many speaker cables are configured and sold similarly. Many, but
certainly not all. There is nothing special about most speaker
cables,
apart from the pretty cosmetics.


We gave up on the idea when we realised neither of us was capable of
keeping a straight face for long enough to sell it to anyone. I can
guarantee though that it would've performed better than any of the
$300-$500/metre crap being flogged commercially.


**You can make no such guarantee. Like many who look from the
outside,
your simplistic approach can be tested and dismissed quite quickly.

I make these observations as (a) an electronics engineer and (b) a
former employee of a rather high end audio wholesale/retail group.

**Then do the math on my cited examples. As an electronic engineer, you
should be well aware that 'figure 8' type cables present the highest
possible inductance figures and thus are unsuited to a number of
applications.


Don't believe me? Dust off your calculator and factor in a long
speaker cable run (say, 20 Metres) for these speakers:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Kappa9&image=090801082656_kappa9.jpg






And:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg






The typical resistance and inductance of the cables you suggest are
approximately 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.9 uH.Metre respectively.

OTOH, a top-of-the-line speaker cable, like the Goertz MI-1 possesses
figures of 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.012 uH/Metre respectively.

Run the numbers. You'll realise that SOME systems require different
geometry speaker cables than standard 'figure 8' types. Low
inductance
figures can be pivotal to good performance. In most such cases, I
suggest using RG213/U, which offers sunstantially lower inductance
than regular cables, but at a rational price. Not as good as Goertz
though.

You're quite right that there will be a difference, but the question
arises, will in general use this difference be perceptible to the
unbiased human ear (i.e., will blind tests consistently show that
"bells
'n' whistles" speaker cable is better than regular
electrical/RF/network
cable or cheaper generic speaker cable)?

**The difference will be measureable (within the limits of accepted
audibility). Therefore, there will be an audible difference to some
listeners.


Except in a double blind trial.


**Nonsense. I am suprised that I need to walk anyone through the maths
in an electronics group, but, perhap, I should not be surprised. Anyway,
here goes:

In the second speaker cited, there is an impedance dip at approximately
15kHz of around 0.55 Ohms.

The inductive reactance of 10 Metres of 'figure 8' speaker cable (almost
any variant) is:

0.9 X 10^-6 X 10 = 9 X 10^-6 H.

9 X 10^-6 X 15000 X 2 X pi = 0.85 Ohms.

= A significant and AUDIBLE dip in the frequency response (provided the
listener's hearing extends beyond 15kHz). 20 Metre cables will be far
worse.

The average 40 year old bloke has lost 10dB of hearing at just 4kHz, by
50 years it is 20dB down - far more significant than the speaker cable!
http://books.google.de/books?id=sLBRgV3NpZIC&pg=PA217&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

**So what? Are you now suggesting that to establish the significance of
speaker cables on an audio system, that we should restrict our testing
to those whose hearing is impaired? I don't understand your thoughts here.

OTOH: The Goertz MI-1 cited will exibit a significantly lower XL. I'll
let you work that out.

What about the capacitive reactance?

**What has XC got to do with it?

> Audiophool cables typically have much higher Xc than figure-8.

**So? We assume that the amplifier used is stable when driving highly
capacitive cables. To do otherwise is dumb.

BTW: I have zero objection to double blind trials. That said, when
obviously audible anomalies are evident, double blind trials merely
confirm the blindingly obvious.

Well, you better have a look at this link before you say any more...
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

**I checked your link. The very first link I clicked on returned a 404
error. OTOH, I have a much better idea: Read what I wrote and do the
damned maths. The maths prove, beyond any doubt, that SOME speaker
cables in SOME systems are audibly significant.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 23/07/2014 9:49 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:c3864nFojggU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2014 8:52 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:c360rmFacn1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2014 11:23 AM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Jeßus" <none@all.org> wrote in message
news:9s3rs9lkn8dc8is4ke1jbkqlthe4leu9sd@4ax.com...
http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-holographic-ac-adapter/

Bybee Holographic AC Adapter
RRP: $2,795.00
Now $2,295.00.

The next logical progression from "directional" cables.

"Whileever there're stupid people with money, there'll be smart people
to take it from them."

A couple of decades ago, a friend and I contemplated ordering a
special
run of twin-core "AC flex" (you know the type, used to connect
lights &
switches in 99.999% of Australian households) in black. The plan
was to
sell it to audiophiles for $100/metre as "super-high-grade lossless
pure
copper ultra-transparent" speaker cable.

**Many speaker cables are configured and sold similarly. Many, but
certainly not all. There is nothing special about most speaker cables,
apart from the pretty cosmetics.


We gave up on the idea when we realised neither of us was capable of
keeping a straight face for long enough to sell it to anyone. I can
guarantee though that it would've performed better than any of the
$300-$500/metre crap being flogged commercially.


**You can make no such guarantee. Like many who look from the outside,
your simplistic approach can be tested and dismissed quite quickly.

I make these observations as (a) an electronics engineer and (b) a
former employee of a rather high end audio wholesale/retail group.

**Then do the math on my cited examples. As an electronic engineer,
you should be well aware that 'figure 8' type cables present the
highest possible inductance figures and thus are unsuited to a number
of applications.


Don't believe me? Dust off your calculator and factor in a long
speaker cable run (say, 20 Metres) for these speakers:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Kappa9&image=090801082656_kappa9.jpg



And:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg



The typical resistance and inductance of the cables you suggest are
approximately 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.9 uH.Metre respectively.

OTOH, a top-of-the-line speaker cable, like the Goertz MI-1 possesses
figures of 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.012 uH/Metre respectively.

Run the numbers. You'll realise that SOME systems require different
geometry speaker cables than standard 'figure 8' types. Low inductance
figures can be pivotal to good performance. In most such cases, I
suggest using RG213/U, which offers sunstantially lower inductance
than regular cables, but at a rational price. Not as good as Goertz
though.

You're quite right that there will be a difference, but the question
arises, will in general use this difference be perceptible to the
unbiased human ear (i.e., will blind tests consistently show that "bells
'n' whistles" speaker cable is better than regular electrical/RF/network
cable or cheaper generic speaker cable)?

**The difference will be measureable (within the limits of accepted
audibility). Therefore, there will be an audible difference to some
listeners.

Measurable most definitely, but perceptible?

**Look at the numbers. They are impossible to refute. The flaws lie well
within the audible range.

My current 'phone has a 1080x1920 5.2" display (398ppi); my previous
'phone had a 720x1280 4" display (230ppi). The difference is easily
measurable - but most people would struggle to spot any difference in
resolution without the aid of a loupe (and many would struggle even then).

**Your point being? MOST people are not the issue. One of my mates would
probably spot the difference in your 'phones in a heartbeat. I would
probably need my reading glasses to do so. Again, not the issue. A dip
of several dB is audible to many listeners under careful listening
conditions. And, make no mistake: People who spend big Bucks on speaker
cables often listen under very critical situations.

Over all of this lies the fact that once you get to a specific
performance/quality level, subsequent tiny increments in performance or
quality will exact an exponential rise in cost. For example, you can get
a crappy AV receiver for $250, a reasonable one for $1K, a good one for
$3K, but if you want one which is discernably better than the $3K one,
you'll be up for $15K or more.

**Irrelevant. The cited examples assume the use of an amplifier that
will deal with the anticipated load. The amplifier may cost whatever
is required to meet the required specs.

Not at all irrelevent. If $10/metre cable sounds better than $5/metre
cable, that doesn't mean $20/metre cable will sound better than either -
you'll likely have to go up to $100/metre cable to get any improvement.

**You keep banging on about cable cost. I keep banging on about cable
CONSTRUCTION. Focus on the stuff that is important. I've seen very
expensive cables, which are merely variants on figure 8 cable. Any
figure 8 cable (regardless of price) will exhibit, more or less, similar
XL figures.

I was once at a customer's house delivering his newly-purchased $32K
SACD player (actually a twin set, a separate transport and a separate
preamplifier/controller), and he asked us to stay back for dinner and a
demo after we installed it. Through his $250K custom-built Martin Logan
speakers (a slightly modified version of the Statement e2s), the sound
was (to malign a marketing phrase) "eargasmic" (though as he later
showed, crap in comparison to decent vinyl on his $24K turntable). The
total cost of his sound system was pushing the $400K mark - an amount
most of us would use to buy a house.

**Ah, clearly you don't live in Sydney. Again: Irrelevant to the
discussion. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your speaker
cables. I also provided a cheap alterntative to regular speaker
cables, which is quite inexpensive (<$4.00/M retail).

I do live in Sydney, and though I'll admit it's nigh impossible to find
a house for $400K in Sydney today, (1) that observation was made over a
decade ago and (2) that amount can still be put toward, and take a very
healthy chunk out of, the purchase of a house.

**Again: Stop focussing on price. Focus on construction and
specifications of the cable. As I have shown, it is possible to purchase
modestly price, low inductance speaker cable.

For those who can afford the price and who genuinely know what they're
after and what they're doing, there'll always be benefit to using
better-quality equipment - but experience has shown that the vast
majority of people paying many hundreds of dollars for "luxurious"
cables do so only so they can boast to their friends, and spend many
hours listening to how much better their equipment sounds (in their
minds) in order to try to justify their expenditure.


**Duh. Again, irrelevant. You were aiming your hypothetical dodgy
speaker cable at the upper end of the market. A clear mistake. There
are some excellent, low R, low L speaker cables available, which offer
clear, measureable and audible improvements over standard figure 8 cable.

I still stand behind my claim.

**And yet, I proved that low XL cable WILL sound different (better) than
standard figure 8 type cable. Curious.

Keep your head in the sand.


If you have a listening room and time to

spare, I'll happily bring along a couple of lengths of "two-core flex,"
and we'll start dragging members of the public in and subjecting them to
blind tests.

**If I find the time to rebuild my ESLs (Quads), I may be inclined to do
just that.

BTW: We will not be "dragging in members of the public". I will be
selecting people for their ability to discern quality sound systems. I
have no interest in pandering to some idiot who spends their life
listening to MP3s, or car stereos at 110+dB SPLs. The listeners I will
select will have a track record of listening to high end systems, at
sane levels, using quality music.

You will find that such listeners will be able to identify the quality
cable with almost 100% certainty. Even under double blind conditions.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeßus]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:05:38 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:

On 23/07/2014 4:28 PM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:44:22 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:

On 23/07/2014 2:58 PM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:16:08 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
snip

I don't think this topic is one of your strong points.

How is "USB DAC from this PC to a 1965 National valve receiver" not a
kludge compared to a traditional system?

You haven't explained what's wrong with that.

I didn't say there is anything wrong with it.

I thought it was a 'kludge' of a system?

And what's a
'traditional system' in your eyes?

Off the shelf component systems.

Well, so is my setup? Much of it is vintage gear, but it's been
restored professionally.

Here's a tip - you haven't asked
anything about the DAC in question, what type of files I play, or
anything about that receiver.

Sure, but you said you particularly like the sound of old (70's IIRC)
stuff on that setup. Given how that material was recorded and all the
other factors it's down to a subjective personal preference to the
sound. I've got valve equipment too. Do I like the sound of it? Sure.
It's different to my component system, but better technically - I doubt it.

I agree with that. But weren't you arguing *against* the technical
(specs) with Trev on this thread earlier? My Sansui AU717 (which I'm
currently using) is better technically, and IMO is better than my
Luxman 38FD as well.

Never mind speakers. I have a habit of
swapping my amplifiers from time to time, at the time of posting it
was the National receiver that was set up. Can you explain what is
wrong with it?


Again, I didn't say there is anything wrong with it. But I'm sure you
know that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.

Uh, not really. This is my DAC: http://eeaudio.com/eeaudio_20102.htm
I think you'll find it stacks up pretty well against the majority of
CD players out there.

Oh, and before you jump on me and assume it was derogatory, you forgot
to mention the smiley I added before we agreed it was largely
subjective, particularly as we both have a dgree of hearing loss.

So let's not take those comments out of context.

Given all that, why you think your judgement is better then mine is what
is inexplicable.

It's inexplicable that you haven't explained what is wrong with it.
You also haven't given an example of what you think is good.


It's subjective. What I think is good is probably unacceptable to you.
I'm quite happy with my Yamaha component system, and I have Stromberg
Carlsson receiver that I brought back from the dead that I like to
listen to. My musical tastes varies quite a bit, so some stuff sounds
better on my system then other stuff but it's a compromise.

That's fair enough.

I personally hate connecting stuff to my laptop and PC because the noise
that is introduced annoys me.

There's no need for noise just because your source is a PC or
laptop... seriously.

Just as some claim they can pick the difference between 192kbps MP3 and
the same CD track, in the real world that simply doesn't pan out

It does pan out. I'm one of them... anything under 192K and I can pick
the difference.

But not which is which in a double blind trial.

But I suspect you already know this, since you
specified 192K and I know I've made posts before saying exactly the
same thing.


160k is about where it all levels out for most people.

Try this test for fun.

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/

and this one

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/

The speakers on this PC are the built in speakers for this monitor,
which are crap. Otherwise I'd give it a go.

and
it's no different with cables no matter how technically and
mathematically the differences may be.

Righto...


Given that you are over 25 and have suffered hearing loss why would you
think you could possibly hear the difference?

Admittedly I haven't done any testing since circa 2000, but back then
I tested myself and I know 192K was the bit rate where I could begin
picking the difference. My method may or may not be prefect, but I
burned my own CD using WAV files, and mp3 files of the same converted
back to WAV again.

 

[Jeßus]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:29:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

FWIW: I use 192 MP3 in the car, because I can't hear the difference in
that environment. Different matter on the home system.

I'm happy enough with mp3 in the cars for the same reason. That said,
the Pioneer tuner/USB player in the Hilux is great as it also supports
FLAC files, so I don't need to muck about converting to mp3 just so I
can play them in the car.

 

[atec77]

On 23/07/2014 11:11 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Yaputya the TROLL"


You are the biggest TROLL in USENET.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html


** You another of Alan Rutlidge's bum boys ???

Cos there are plenty of them skulking around the public toilets of
Northbridge.

Ah yes your area of expertise outside breaking toasters

..... Phil

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Jeßus]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:04:01 +0200, Yaputya <bjfoster@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On 23/07/2014 2:30 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"Yaputya the TROLL"

You are the biggest TROLL in USENET.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html

He's far from being the biggest troll, but he's right up there in the
nut job department and/or keyboard warrior department.

 

[Clocky]

On 24/07/2014 5:53 AM, Jeßus wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:05:38 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:

On 23/07/2014 4:28 PM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:44:22 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:

On 23/07/2014 2:58 PM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:16:08 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
snip

I don't think this topic is one of your strong points.

How is "USB DAC from this PC to a 1965 National valve receiver" not a
kludge compared to a traditional system?

You haven't explained what's wrong with that.

I didn't say there is anything wrong with it.

I thought it was a 'kludge' of a system?

And what's a
'traditional system' in your eyes?

Off the shelf component systems.

Well, so is my setup? Much of it is vintage gear, but it's been
restored professionally.

Here's a tip - you haven't asked
anything about the DAC in question, what type of files I play, or
anything about that receiver.

Sure, but you said you particularly like the sound of old (70's IIRC)
stuff on that setup. Given how that material was recorded and all the
other factors it's down to a subjective personal preference to the
sound. I've got valve equipment too. Do I like the sound of it? Sure.
It's different to my component system, but better technically - I doubt it.

I agree with that. But weren't you arguing *against* the technical
(specs) with Trev on this thread earlier?

I'm saying the technical specs are largely irrelevant, and especially
when it comes to cables.

My Sansui AU717 (which I'm

currently using) is better technically, and IMO is better than my
Luxman 38FD as well.

Never mind speakers. I have a habit of
swapping my amplifiers from time to time, at the time of posting it
was the National receiver that was set up. Can you explain what is
wrong with it?


Again, I didn't say there is anything wrong with it. But I'm sure you
know that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.

Uh, not really. This is my DAC: http://eeaudio.com/eeaudio_20102.htm
I think you'll find it stacks up pretty well against the majority of
CD players out there.

Introduced bus noise from the PC side through the power supply seems to
be the biggest issue, that's not to say you have that problem and that
does seem a nice piece of gear.

Oh, and before you jump on me and assume it was derogatory, you forgot
to mention the smiley I added before we agreed it was largely
subjective, particularly as we both have a dgree of hearing loss.

So let's not take those comments out of context.

Given all that, why you think your judgement is better then mine is what
is inexplicable.

It's inexplicable that you haven't explained what is wrong with it.
You also haven't given an example of what you think is good.


It's subjective. What I think is good is probably unacceptable to you.
I'm quite happy with my Yamaha component system, and I have Stromberg
Carlsson receiver that I brought back from the dead that I like to
listen to. My musical tastes varies quite a bit, so some stuff sounds
better on my system then other stuff but it's a compromise.

That's fair enough.

I personally hate connecting stuff to my laptop and PC because the noise
that is introduced annoys me.

There's no need for noise just because your source is a PC or
laptop... seriously.

I haven't had much luck.

Just as some claim they can pick the difference between 192kbps MP3 and
the same CD track, in the real world that simply doesn't pan out

It does pan out. I'm one of them... anything under 192K and I can pick
the difference.

But not which is which in a double blind trial.

But I suspect you already know this, since you
specified 192K and I know I've made posts before saying exactly the
same thing.


160k is about where it all levels out for most people.

Try this test for fun.

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/

and this one

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/

The speakers on this PC are the built in speakers for this monitor,
which are crap. Otherwise I'd give it a go.

Fair enough.

and
it's no different with cables no matter how technically and
mathematically the differences may be.

Righto...


Given that you are over 25 and have suffered hearing loss why would you
think you could possibly hear the difference?

Admittedly I haven't done any testing since circa 2000, but back then
I tested myself and I know 192K was the bit rate where I could begin
picking the difference. My method may or may not be prefect, but I
burned my own CD using WAV files, and mp3 files of the same converted
back to WAV again.

Things change in 14 years ;-)

Curiously in the first test above my limit seems to be 15khz, which I
can hear clearly but 16khz - nothing. My other half who reminds me that
I'm deaf often and is quite a bit younger can't hear 15khz, her limit is
14khz. Must be selective hearing loss ;-)

 

[Jeßus]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:42:15 +1000, atec77 <"atec77 "@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On 23/07/2014 11:11 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"Yaputya the TROLL"


You are the biggest TROLL in USENET.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html


** You another of Alan Rutlidge's bum boys ???

Cos there are plenty of them skulking around the public toilets of
Northbridge.


Ah yes your area of expertise outside breaking toasters

You can't fucking talk, the council cleaners in Brisbane all know you
by name.

 

[Clocky]

On 24/07/2014 7:03 AM, Jeßus wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:42:15 +1000, atec77 <"atec77 "@hotmail.com
wrote:

On 23/07/2014 11:11 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"Yaputya the TROLL"


You are the biggest TROLL in USENET.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html


** You another of Alan Rutlidge's bum boys ???

Cos there are plenty of them skulking around the public toilets of
Northbridge.


Ah yes your area of expertise outside breaking toasters

You can't fucking talk, the council cleaners in Brisbane all know you
by name.

Someone said "bum" and ol' handbag Atec pops up his retarded, illiterate
and infantile head.

 

[Jeßus]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:29:38 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:

On 24/07/2014 7:03 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:42:15 +1000, atec77 <"atec77 "@hotmail.com
wrote:

On 23/07/2014 11:11 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"Yaputya the TROLL"


You are the biggest TROLL in USENET.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html


** You another of Alan Rutlidge's bum boys ???

Cos there are plenty of them skulking around the public toilets of
Northbridge.


Ah yes your area of expertise outside breaking toasters

You can't fucking talk, the council cleaners in Brisbane all know you
by name.


Someone said "bum" and ol' handbag Atec pops up his retarded, illiterate
and infantile head.

Yeah, he's quite Pavlovian when it comes to bums and dicks.