Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Anyone can hear a difference

70.166.121.142

Posted on October 8, 2014 at 08:39:27
It's almost maddening to hear people end their argument with "anyone can hear a difference" or propose that improvements can not be heard because the rest of the system is not up to snuff.

On the contrary "anyone can hear the difference" does not prove differences exist. This is the same kind of audiophile BS that's plagued the hobby for decades. It may mean differences actually exist or simply that people thought they heard differences when there was none.

A marginally stable system is more likely to sound different with minor io characteristic change than a more stable one. The fact that a component/systems performance changes more as the system evolves is probably more likely to indicate some kind of peculiarity or stability issue than one of improvement.

I apologize for the rant. I find the technical conversations in most audio forums mostly baseless but here in this forum it's particularly bad. Sorry but audiophiles should reject this kind of whimsy out of hand.
\

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
I hear you but, posted on October 8, 2014 at 08:56:20
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
disagree with the 'rant'. Your words

 

You're exactly right - nt, posted on October 8, 2014 at 09:37:34
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46200
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002
.

 

Of course they can!, posted on October 8, 2014 at 09:57:43
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
And if not:

They either have 'bad ears' or they have a 'non-resolving system'.

End of conversation.

So there.




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

Keep in mind the name of the website is Audio Asylum (nt), posted on October 8, 2014 at 10:00:56
Scrith
Audiophile

Posts: 1169
Location: Los Angeles
Joined: July 19, 2005
:-)

 

"Anyone can hear a difference" - not anyone, not even close., posted on October 8, 2014 at 10:08:42
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
As can be seen from the responses you got so far.

 

Can you please quote anyone here who has written, posted on October 8, 2014 at 10:43:35
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
those words as you stated them, and then followed up with the second part of your "if/then" statement?

Thanks,




"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

I'm not a monkey, posted on October 8, 2014 at 11:33:41
I don't need to quote anyone to express my own opinion.

 

RE: You're exactly right - nt, posted on October 8, 2014 at 11:35:09
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6580
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
This has become a "political" issue with some of the guys. The fact is, with a system like yours, you will hear differences. Are they significant enough to make you want to perform them is another matter.

 

I know I am., posted on October 8, 2014 at 11:36:24
This is very basic stuff but the truth has never done much to slow down the pseudo-science brigade.

 

RE: Anyone can hear a difference, posted on October 8, 2014 at 11:38:06
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6580
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
The sonic differences perceived might not be large enough or significant enough to be valuable to you, but they can be heard.

The fact is, a highly resolving high end audio system will easily reveal these differences. What constitutes a resolving system is another matter for discussion.

 

You are making a claim , posted on October 8, 2014 at 11:40:33
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
""hear people end their argument with "anyone can hear a difference" ""

I asked a simple question. Can you please show us where someone has written what you quoted above?

"I am not a monkey"

We are all slightly-more-evolved chimpanzees.




"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

Prove it! -t, posted on October 8, 2014 at 11:41:34
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
.


"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

There ya go!, posted on October 8, 2014 at 11:42:42
The defensiveness of your response speaks for itself.

It's amazing how few responses have been made to my how to benchmark PC performance down below. But alas it's not really about performance it's about how we feel about our systems performance. Right?

An analogy few will understand. An extended family member of mine got a lap band to shrink his stomach in order to lose weight. Apparently discipline was too much for him and he figured spending the cash would solve his problem. Well sure enough he lost weight but now has learned how to get his fill of garbage in spite of his expenditure and is a fat guy again.

Forget discipline and methodology and let's go for the instant gratification. It's kind of sad in a way.

 

That the veracity of most comments here is questionable? Get a clue dude...., posted on October 8, 2014 at 11:45:48
if that's not obvious to you it's your problem.

The point is it's not me having to prove the results that others claim are true. It's their burden of proof that's lacking not mine.

 

Before you go any further, you may want to search the archives for posts ...., posted on October 8, 2014 at 11:52:49
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
... by Don Till and Don T.

After getting acquainted with the highlights of that body of work, so to speak, you will be better prepared to decide whether it makes sense to continue this "discussion".

 

LOL - check Don Till too!, posted on October 8, 2014 at 11:58:33
I've been posting here for a long time indeed but as usual instead of staying on topic when there's not chance of avoiding embarrassment people will resort to this kind of personal attack.

I don't care if people check my previous posts - I've changed my moniker over the years but have always reflected the name changes is my profile.

But that's ok if you want an easy out play that moniker card.

I've been Goober58 for 2 years now - after I took a year or so off of AA in order to record my record collection.

 

If I may...., posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:02:16
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
First of all, Mercman, you have to work on "defensiveness" of your responses - it speaks for itself, when an inmate previously known as Don Till and Don T. reads them.

And second - you are DEAD wrong. With a with a system like his, SOMEONE ELSE would hear the differences - but to insinuate that HE will hear them is totally inappropriate.

Shame on you.

 

Chasing me around with your personal attacks?, posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:06:46
How about enlightening us with more about how you feel about the sound of your system. Sorry to put a stick in your spokes.

 

RE: There ya go!, posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:06:49
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6580
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
"The defensiveness of your response speaks for itself."

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. My position is based on my experiences that might or might not parallel yours.

 

If one is determined to see a personal attack in a routine exchange, he certainly will., posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:08:54
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
Can't help you with anything else, sorry.

 

Nice response!, posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:13:58
"The sonic differences perceived might not be large enough or significant enough to be valuable to you, but they can be heard."

You've pigeon holed my comments but clearly I believe anyone can or should be able to hear differences. But whether they exist, are actually better or why they exist are all usually unanswered questions.

"The fact is, a highly resolving high end audio system will easily reveal these differences. What constitutes a resolving system is another matter for discussion."

Quite possibly wrong. A more unstable system can be more revealing too. A good design may give it's best within a wider variety of systems, being less effected by the io characteristic of the system. Thus it would be less likely to reveal "differences".

I believe anyone can hear differences - but what those differences mean is what I am questioning.

 

RE: That the veracity of most comments here is questionable? Get a clue dude...., posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:21:50
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
This forum is not a court of law, so the phrase "burden of proof" is inapplicable. Furthermore, it is only applicable in a court of law to the extent that the judge and/or jury's decision of what is the "truth" is backed up with the force of guns, nuclear bombs, etc...

You will find most of the people here do not take kindly to the argument from authority. Furthermore you are on non-existent grounds if you think that anyone has to "prove" what they heard or didn't hear. About all you can safely conclude is that you don't have to believe anything that you read in this forum. That's your personal judgement. It's also our personal judgement if we decide to ignore your posts.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

I found out just before your post by looking up more , posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:25:37
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
details.....

Thanks Carcass.




"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

It's not every day that I agree with your post literally, totally, unconditionally., posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:25:57
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
But - today is the day.

As for making the decision (your last sentence) - that's an easy one.

 

You're the only one making claims: show us, (prove), otherwise., posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:30:03
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001



The door swings both ways, Mr Double-standard.


"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

Articulate and to the point. Thanks Tony (nt), posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:31:31
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6580
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
.

 

FWIW +3 -t, posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:38:02
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
.


"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

RE: That the veracity of most comments here is questionable? Get a clue dude...., posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:42:45
"You will find most of the people here do not take kindly to the argument from authority. Furthermore you are on non-existent grounds if you think that anyone has to "prove" what they heard or didn't hear. About all you can safely conclude is that you don't have to believe anything that you read in this forum. That's your personal judgement. It's also our personal judgement if we decide to ignore your posts."

Authority? I'm not an authority. There's no argument here Tony. I made a criticism.

This shouldn't be that difficult - but when you're rounding second heading for third, but realize you missed first, you're better off returning to first base than heading for home.

Only a few have made on topic response instead of knee jerk defensiveness.

It's speaks very poorly for the nature of the folks posting here.

 

ok, posted on October 8, 2014 at 12:52:17
Here's one. There's many other where resolving is used to define a systems ability to make component changes audible. As if such an ability means the system is "good". It's a laughable presumption.

And another - just look they are all over the place. If I didn't know better I would think you are a newbie or just trying to waste my time.
http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=pcaudio&n=70458&highlight=resolving&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dpcaudio%26searchtext%3Dresolving

 

I apologize, posted on October 8, 2014 at 13:18:47
"This has become a "political" issue with some of the guys. The fact is, with a system like yours, you will hear differences. Are they significant enough to make you want to perform them is another matter."

I didn't question anyones ability to hear differences and don't disagree with your comment.

I said

"On the contrary "anyone can hear the difference" does not prove differences exist. This is the same kind of audiophile BS that's plagued the hobby for decades. It may mean differences actually exist or simply that people thought they heard differences when there was none.

A marginally stable system is more likely to sound different with minor io characteristic change than a more stable one. The fact that a component/systems performance changes more as the system evolves is probably more likely to indicate some kind of peculiarity or stability issue than one of improvement. "


So I hope you can understand why I thought your response was "defensive".

Of course everything makes a difference - but whether it's an actual improvement or why there's a difference still still a question.

Of course a better power supply means one that allows the system to sound better - but what does that mean? It's not a trivial question and most certainly the results from listening tests in one system to the next should not be expected to be portable.

Until we can specify, measure and benchmark performance parameters there's no reason to conclude anyone's listening impressions reflect performance and are just expressions of how they feel about the sound of their systems.

 

LOL - I've never commented about you to another inmate., posted on October 8, 2014 at 13:21:13
Thanks for making me feel special. What is this like you 6th off topic comment about me in this thread.

Get in the conversation or get out of the thread.

 

"Get in the conversation or get out of the thread" - I'll consider this generous offer, thanks., posted on October 8, 2014 at 13:34:11
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
However, you may want to consider getting out of the thread directly above this one first, since you clearly have nothing useful to say on the subject that's discussed there.

 

RE: It's not every day that I agree with your post literally, totally, unconditionally., posted on October 8, 2014 at 14:01:51
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Just so you don't feel too amazed, I will say one more thing that you will probably disagree with. :=)

It is definitely possible for a system to be "unstable". This will have the effect of making it more "resolving", that is to say, it will take two files that should have sounded the same and make them sound different. To get to the bottom of what's happening may be very difficult, but one can see this with some specific examples. In these examples, the differences that were heard were almost certainly due to defects in the playback system and would not have been heard with a more accurate system, should one have been available:

Case 1. Two 88/24 files are the same, except that each sample of the second file differs by a random value which is either 0, or +1 or -1 LSB. This amounts to adding white noise at below the -140 dB level, a difference that is much less than the pressure variations at one's ears due to random motion of the air molecules. One highly outspoken audiophile whose listening judgement I tend to trust described the difference of the second file as "totally trashing the sound".

Case 2. Two 176/24 files are the same except that every sample has been increased by a DC offset of 1 LSB. Here there will be no difference in what one hears as any pressure differences will be lost due to lack of DC response in the woofers, not to mention air leakage from the room. Yet these files will sound different on virtually all systems if one listens carefully. It is likely that the differences come from errors in the DAC, e.g. related to error tolerances in the resistors in an R2R DAC or due to noise modulation in the sigma-delta modulator of an SD DAC.

In both of these cases the differences were audible with state of the art DACs. However, my supposition that the errors came from the DACs are inferences based on how these devices work. If one had suitable listeners, it would be possible to confirm this theory by constructing special test apparatus that would involve several state of the art DACs plus a state of the art analog mixing console. One DAC would get the original file and the other DAC would get the difference file.




Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

See that's the problem, posted on October 8, 2014 at 14:02:59
"However, you may want to consider getting out of the thread directly above this one first, since you clearly have nothing useful to say on the subject that's discussed there."

You don't like being questioned - fine. People who question have been persecuted throughout all of eternity. So sorry for not blindly jumping on a bandwagon.

 

"You can't hear it because you're not a real audiophile", posted on October 8, 2014 at 14:37:26
J.Mac
Audiophile

Posts: 3553
Location: Colorado
Joined: November 6, 2002
I get sick of the narrow-minded garbage that these people keep spewing. Luckily, their credibility is nearing zero, so I think fewer and fewer people take their viewpoints seriously. It's the same old arguments, over and over, with no substance or reason to them.

 

RE: I apologize, posted on October 8, 2014 at 15:02:29
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6580
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
"Until we can specify, measure and benchmark performance parameters there's no reason to conclude anyone's listening impressions reflect performance and are just expressions of how they feel about the sound of their systems."

If you are talking about high frequency noise and common mode noise in a computer, good luck having anyone in this forum being able to measure it. No one here has the equipment and room necessary for RFI measurement.

Educate yourself then educate the rest of us. That would be helpful.

 

Thanks, posted on October 8, 2014 at 15:20:51
"I get sick of the narrow-minded garbage that these people keep spewing. Luckily, their credibility is nearing zero, so I think fewer and fewer people take their viewpoints seriously. It's the same old arguments, over and over, with no substance or reason to them."

At least Stereophile publishes measurement with their equipment reviews. I question the veracity of these comments/experiences and what do they do? Attack my credibility! What the? I was actually expecting some reasonable responses to my comments but all I got was further example of their cluelessness. I'm a relative newbie to PC audio and I'm looking for a hook - I'll be lucky if I find one here.

My original comments were/are very reasonable.

 

You get sick too easily then., posted on October 8, 2014 at 15:31:56
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
Try the narrow-minded garbage the clueless, nasty, devoid of any experience, "I can't hear it and in fact won't even try, but give me a proof nonetheless" naysayers are spewing - you'll puke all over this board, and then some.

 

You make me sick, posted on October 8, 2014 at 15:43:53
J.Mac
Audiophile

Posts: 3553
Location: Colorado
Joined: November 6, 2002
Clueless and nasty are very good descriptions for you, my friend. Try and disagree with anyone posting foolishness and you come jumping into the thread with your personal attacks and accusations.

 

Are you off your "sickness" meds?, posted on October 8, 2014 at 15:55:44
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
Certainly sounds like it, "friend".

What's wrong with you - is that inferiority complex talking? You can't hear anything that's being discussed here, and that upsets your cozy little world, so you're throwing hissy fits?


 

There you go again, posted on October 8, 2014 at 15:57:12
J.Mac
Audiophile

Posts: 3553
Location: Colorado
Joined: November 6, 2002
with the personal attacks. I'd expect nothing less.

 

That doesn't exactly represent real-world listening scenario, where it's the same file in all cases., posted on October 8, 2014 at 17:12:13
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
As any simulation, it can only get you so far.

Like artificial jitter, applied to files in a listening test - one of the favorite dead horses to beat for HydrogenAudio "experts". That's how they know that anything below 2 nanoseconds is inaudible.

 

RE: That doesn't exactly represent real-world listening scenario, where it's the same file in all cases., posted on October 8, 2014 at 18:26:18
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
There is nothing artificial about adding noise that's inaudible when the added noise doesn't go through the DAC, but audible when it does. This proves that the DAC is amplifying the audibility of the noise, which comes from a defect of the DAC and not a difference between two files. The DAC is exaggerating a difference that would not otherwise be audible.

Take the case where added zero samples are put at the beginning of a digital file. Here something is going wrong in the playback chain if the resulting sound is audibly different, apart from a slightly different time delay from pushing "Play" and the beginning of the music. Unlike my earlier examples where the differences were likely to have been caused by the DAC, this example is also likely to be caused by differences in the computer system similar to those one hears when changing buffer sizes, i.e. the time relationship between the computer activity and the music has altered. To the extent that these differences come from the computer system they are likely to be reduced when applying the usual audio computer hardware and software tweaks.

I agree that one doesn't learn much by producing files that have inaudible differences. I'm not talking about that. I am talking about producing files that are supposed (according to some theory) to have inaudible differences that actually have audible differences. Now one can begin a program of experimentation to isolate the likely cause of these differences and possibly learn something useful. I will give you one example. I look at the sensitivity of my computer system when playing WAV and FLAC files. When I play bit perfect PCM through the computer to my DAC there is a distinct difference. When I use the processor to upsample and convert the PCM to DSD128 not only do both formats sound much better, but the differences that I was previously hearing are largely missing. Now one can argue that's because I've lost resolution somehow in the process, but if that's some resolution that I lost I'm all for it. The "resolution" that I've lost is part of the difference between the earlier versions and what live music sounds like.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Even, posted on October 8, 2014 at 21:52:43
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
in an average but well configured system, one can hear fine differences, though not as finely 'balanced' as in a high end system

 

The cases are valid but have, posted on October 8, 2014 at 21:57:07
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
nothing to do with stability.

 

i agree with Merman. stop being noisy, posted on October 9, 2014 at 07:57:05
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
and post pointless remarks

 

RE: I'm not a monkey, posted on October 9, 2014 at 07:58:12
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
I wonder

 

RE: Nice response!, posted on October 9, 2014 at 11:18:17
audioengr
Manufacturer

Posts: 6017
Location: Oregon
Joined: April 12, 2001
This whole concept of an "unstable" system eludes me. What do you mean by this?

All it takes is one poor component or cable to mask details and kill imaging in a resolving system. It is the weak point in the system. Fairly easy to debug however by swapping one thing at a time.

A system with multiple weak points can be very difficult to debug. It is a lot like taking your car into the repair shop with two related problems. They are expecting one thing to be wrong and debugging two things simultaneously can be exceedingly difficult.

 

RE: Nice response!Unstable?, posted on October 9, 2014 at 11:36:16
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
The IT guys think that audio systems are like computer systems with 'instability'. They can't let themselves out of their own mind cages.

 

RE: Nice response!, posted on October 9, 2014 at 12:05:33
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I wouldn't have used the word "unstable" but I had no trouble figuring out the meaning. I took it to mean that a small change in input leads to a large change in output. This is a metaphor, since we are talking about perceived sound quality, rather than a physical object (such as a pencil balanced on its point).

Incidentally, unstable imaging in my experience is more a matter of poor system setup and voicing, rather than lack of resolution, especially resolution that is lost because of noise floor. Four track pre-recorded tapes had poor noise performance (tape hiss) but these recordings imaged well provided they didn't have tape saturation distortion. In no sense could this medium be called "high resolution" even though it was much more pleasant to listen to than early CD.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Nice response!, posted on October 9, 2014 at 12:09:26
Unstable - not working as expected. A couple of analogies are components where the io characteristics aren't a match, or a poor match, where it sounds like everything is fine. Or when digital streams are out of sync or poorly formed. Also this is often why interconnects and tubes very often have their own character. Or BTW no character due to component design consideration It's also why some system can't play compressed music very well - ie. they can't maintain the duty cycle required. They break the system just enough so it doesn't sound broken - many people like it. Break it a little more and the "great sounding" system becomes obviously broken. Or how about thin speaker cables - they sound wonderfully organic you know.

The fact that someone puts a different spec'd or designed power supply in a computer then claims it sounds better to his ears proves nothing at all about the systems performance. Why? Because we don't know why the "sound" improved. It could very possibly have nothing to with the reasoning behind putting in the new supply and in fact it might actually add preferential colorations or ugly colorations that aren't doing much but masking existing uglier colorations.

And really this isn't rocket science. It's what expected with slothiness in process and methodology. The number of breathtaking improvement claims/discoveries isn't really a function of pushing the SOTA - it represents people fixing things that were broke before (or possibly breaking it even more). One man's epiphany is another guys hoo humm.

 

RE: That the veracity of most comments here is questionable? Get a clue dude...., posted on October 9, 2014 at 15:12:03
"This forum is not a court of law, so the phrase "burden of proof" is inapplicable."

I disagree. Although the concept of "burden of proof" may have technical meanings in a court of law, the general concept is also fully applicable to debates between rational people.

"You will find most of the people here do not take kindly to the argument from authority."

Some of us also object to the argument from ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"what they heard or didn't hear." Do you see how the argument from ignorance has crept into your claim? You are assuming, with no evidence, that there actually was something to be heard when whether or not there was anything to be heard, or whether this is just the vivid imaginings of the poster is the core issue of the entire debate. A better way for you to state your case would be: "what they claim they heard or didn't hear."

JE

 

RE: That the veracity of most comments here is questionable? Get a clue dude...., posted on October 9, 2014 at 17:57:47
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Hearing refers to a perception, that's all. If someone "hears" a difference it means that two events were perceived to be different by that person. This may be due to any number of causes, but the random thermal motion of the air molecules is a perfectly good one. Another is a changing focus of attention. It is extraneous and insulting to bring accusations of "imagination" into the discussion. All perception is related to the state of one's mind and is intimately connected with one's imagination and every other aspect of one's consciousness. It is not an argument from ignorance to believe the statements of one's friends concerning their perceptions. The perceptions are (tautologically) correct. I presume that my friends are not complete flakes and are not liars, so I have a strong tendency to believe these kinds of statements.

I do not make "claims". I make statements of personal belief. They may be correct or incorrect, but I try my best to make them correct. You are free to accept them or not and free to try to help me if you sincerely believe I am incorrect. If you do so in an a friendly way then I may well change my mind. As to "claims", the word implies staking out territory, something that animals do by spraying urine. This has a lot to do with overly intelligent sociopaths bullying around weaker individuals, but little to do with reaching any mutual understanding of shared truth.

My experience with various audio forums is that it would not be an unreasonable deduction to conclude that posters who use phrases like "evidence", "claims" and "burden of proof" are most likely xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx. You will get nowhere with me or many other people on this forum by adopting this kind of language.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: That the veracity of most comments here is questionable? Get a clue dude...., posted on October 9, 2014 at 21:33:52
"Hearing refers to a perception, that's all. If someone "hears" a difference it means that two events were perceived to be different by that person. This may be due to any number of causes, but the random thermal motion of the air molecules is a perfectly good one. Another is a changing focus of attention."

Oddly enough, I never see the word "hearing" used in this manner in this forum. Instead "hearing" is used as a proof that some change to a stereo resulted in a change to the sound it produced. "I put ABC into my stereo and heard XYZ."

"It is extraneous and insulting to bring accusations of "imagination" into the discussion."

No it's not. All humans are prone to being deceived, with self-deception perhaps the most pernicious form. Saying you are "insulted" by being reminded of your humanity is emotional blackmail. "Honey, we just can't afford new carpets this year." "Oh, you don't love me! Boo hoo hoo!"

"All perception is related to the state of one's mind and is intimately connected with one's imagination and every other aspect of one's consciousness."

One, now who's bringing up imagination?, and two, your point is what?

"It is not an argument from ignorance to believe the statements of one's friends concerning their perceptions."

No, but it is an argument from ignorance to believe, in the absence of any other evidence, that the statements of one's friends actually prove the proposition being asserted.

"The perceptions are (tautologically) correct."

I have no idea what this sentence means.

"I presume that my friends are not complete flakes and are not liars, so I have a strong tendency to believe these kinds of statements."

And that is fallacious reasoning.

"I do not make "claims". I make statements of personal belief."

In other words, even if you're wrong, you won't admit it. Tony, you are one of, if not my most admired posters on this board. But that doesn't mean that your excrement doesn't stink.

"As to "claims", the word implies staking out territory, something that animals do by spraying urine."

So in your world, connotation always trumps denotation?

"This has a lot to do with overly intelligent sociopaths bullying around weaker individuals, but little to do with reaching any mutual understanding of shared truth."

So again, in your world it's OK to make silly and fatuous claims, with no evidence to support them, but calling people on making such claims makes you a sociopathic bully?

"My experience with various audio forums is that it would not be an unreasonable deduction to conclude that posters who use phrases like "evidence", "claims" and "burden of proof" are most likely xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx."

Now this is just intellectual laziness. Surely you can think of a P.G. way of expressing "xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx?" Further, why should those who insist on intellectual rigor in claims, or statements of belief, meet with your opprobrium? Are you actually rooting for those who insult our intelligence and mock our common sense?

"You will get nowhere with me or many other people on this forum by adopting this kind of language."

That's too bad. I had thought better of you.

JE

 

As a mathematician who, posted on October 10, 2014 at 04:28:16
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
demands logic, clarity etc from others, I see that you are guessing what 'unstable' means and have not asked for clarification from the poster.

Scientifically, instability refers to an output which varies with time and state. In medical terms it can refer to someone being bi-polar.

The description as offered in relation to SQ of an audio system carries no meaning.

 

Reading my thoughts, again - only I was thinking the word "credibility"., posted on October 10, 2014 at 09:08:52
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
After recent exchange with another inmate (linked below), who apparently gets very sick at the mere mentioning of someone achieving any improvements to sound of stereo system (rare, and relatively harmless disorder, as long as one stays away from audiophile forums) - I was reminded about a conclusion I came to long time ago. That conclusion resulted from years of participating in this forum, and lurking in perverted amazement at HydrogenAudio. Here goes:

If a person uses the word "credibility", in the context of questioning it, in a conversation related to audio, it invariably means two interrelated, tightly coupled things:

1. You are dealing with an idiot;
2. Under no circumstances - never, ever - will such an individual try performing the experiment, results of which, reported by another person, caused him to question that person's credibility.

Oh, BTW, Tony - good luck with your troll-feeding excercise. A bit of a friendly advice, if I may: use excrements. A lot of them. The more the merrier, and the stinkier the better - and don't worry about overfeeding, these creatures just love them. In fact, they live to get a taste.

 

RE: As a mathematician who, posted on October 10, 2014 at 11:05:23
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I suggest you read Lewis Carroll:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'


BTW, Lewis Carroll was a mathematician.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Anyone can hear a difference is irrelevant, posted on October 10, 2014 at 12:38:39
Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 5957
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004
Some audiophiles have even gone as far to admit that they do not care whether or not PERCEIVED changes in sound have causation in ACTUAL sonic changes. What this means is that for some audiophiles, tweakery can involve paying for snake oil that TRICKS them into hearing better sound, but they don't care.

Because they are hearing better sound. And that's the end game.

Get it?

Once I got that, I stopped caring if people are willing to pay for placebo effect. Does it "work"? Define work. Does work mean ACTUALLY change the sound? Or just give the user the ability to PERCEIVE better sound?

Instruments can tell us whether or not *some* thing work.
But we can only PERCEIVE music playback, whether the changes are real or imagined.

It's a different way of thinking about this hobby and I like to think of it this way because for me it causes less inner turmoil and I already have enough sources of that and I don't need that sh1t from my audio hobby. ;)

Cheers,
Presto

 

RE: Reading my thoughts, again - only I was thinking the word "credibility"., posted on October 10, 2014 at 15:05:05
"2. Under no circumstances - never, ever - will such an individual try performing the experiment, results of which, reported by another person, caused him to question that person's credibility."

This coming from the person who refuses to download Audio Diffmaker and listen to the "listeners' challenge" dyf files.

 

Perfect, posted on October 10, 2014 at 21:05:39
"Some audiophiles have even gone as far to admit that they do not care whether or not PERCEIVED changes in sound have causation in ACTUAL sonic changes."

And it's not obvious that I'm one of those? Geez and some of these guys will pull out all stops trying to insist they are different as perfectly revealed in this thread.







 

OK, posted on October 10, 2014 at 21:21:11
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
in future, please just guess and not ask me questions on my posts on clarifications that are obvious.

 

RE: As a mathematician who, posted on October 10, 2014 at 21:28:02
"Scientifically, instability refers to an output which varies with time and state."

Interesting - I would refer to that as linearity.

The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge was unstable prior to oscillation.

Instability refers to things that are not operating as designed. When it becomes obvious we refer to them as broken. Amp/pre amp combinations more likely to reveal interconnect differences are probably more likely to be unstable than more resolving.

 

RE: As a mathematician who, posted on October 11, 2014 at 06:42:12
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
"Instability refers to things that are not operating as designed."

That's a good definition from an engineering perspective.

For linear systems the mathematics is fairly simple, but real-world systems are non-linear. (Linearity is just an approximation made to make the analysis simple.) A non-linear system can operate in a way that may not have been anticipated by the designer that is not necessarily catastrophic. For example, airframe designers worry about flutter, a non-linear interaction between aerodynamic forces on the structure changing the shape of the airfoil, which in turn changes the forces. These can result in limit cycles or may progress to divergence (catastrophic failure). I experienced limit cycle flutter once in my sailplane. One wing was vibrating. I could see nodes and peaks of the vibration looking out at the wing. This was rather frightening, to say the least! I was able to gradually slow down the aircraft to the point where the oscillation stopped and then landed. The cause was a loose connection to the flaps combined with going at high speed and at high altitude. Had the vibration continued the connection would have gotten looser and looser and the end result might have been catastrophic. The fix was to adjust the loose linkage after performing a careful inspection and taking care on each subsequent pre-flight inspection that all the control connections remained tight (well within specifications).

The term "stability" is also used in perceptual psychology. Neuroscientists are taking this to another level of understanding by modeling how the brain deals with potentially unstable perception. One example is the Necker Cube. I don't know of any research involving psycho-acoustics, but I would think that the existence of a stereo image, vs. the sound stage collapsing to the speakers would be a similar situation.

By the way, you got the wrong bridge. (See below for a link to the video.)



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Anyone can hear a difference, posted on October 11, 2014 at 07:25:23
Posts: 275
Location: Atlanta, GA
Joined: November 26, 2013
Or it could be that they just don't care enough about differences to motivate them to look for them or worry about it. If the information that they desire from their music can be found in their playback equipment it is perfectly fine for them not to obsess about it. They are probably saving themselves tons of money in the process.

It is when some passing activity become a hobby that discernment really matters. A $150 Singer sews just fine, but a $5,000 Pfaff is probably one heck of a machine. I'm sure Wal*Mart sells many of the singers.
Jim Tavegia

 

I would refer to that as linearity., posted on October 11, 2014 at 07:47:05
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
then you are using the term incorrectly; linearity is not stability

 

Instability refers to things that are not operating as designed.", posted on October 11, 2014 at 07:48:10
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
then you are clearly not an educated or practising engineer.

 

RE: I apologize-not really, posted on October 11, 2014 at 08:11:58
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
as you rant on randomly without really making focussed points or a cogent case.

If you really feel sorry, you should stop going on and on about b***** all.

 

Ok fair enough sometimes design includes instability..., posted on October 11, 2014 at 08:34:09
There ya go again with your personal attacks again.

Sure instability is often a function of design - however you will rarely if ever find a designer advertising or marketing his gear based on these kinds of choices. I mean really how disappointed so many audiophiles be to realize their systems ability to resolve is really it's instability (ie its over sensitivity to load characteristics).

Linearity refers to consistent performance at all times. An example is volume - often the performance of a stereo is different at different volumes or operating temperatures. This is non linear performance. This may be undesirable for most audiophiles. This is also the result of instability.

But a system can also be considered non-linear when it's performance is supposed to be different at different states and different times. Usually though linear operation should be expected within each state as well as within it's operating temperature range.

So though I agree with you on instability as possibly being a function of design. However, like I said in my opening remark, unless one knows what's actually making a system "sound better" it's as likely to be an instability as it is a performance improvement. And the problem with this is it leads to a merry go round of non-ending system changes.

I don't claim to be an audio engineer and I'm not here making claims that what I am doing is cutting edge or SOTA.

You on the other hand with your publicizing of your never ending merry go round of component upgrades and changes have done more to prove my point than I could ever do with words.

All I've done is allowed you to broadcast your denial.





 

Thanks for the correction, posted on October 11, 2014 at 08:42:21
"That's a good definition from an engineering perspective.

Probably a bit brief for this conversation as instability can be a function of design.

 

RE: Thanks for the correction, posted on October 11, 2014 at 09:18:46
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
"Probably a bit brief for this conversation as instability can be a function of design."

The instability may be by (defective) design. When I was a teenager I helped my uncle tweak his Dyna 35 watt amplifier. We didn't like the sound and built a scope, audio analyzer, signal generator, VTVM, etc. to measure what was going on. Eventually, we figured out that the square wave response was ugly and that there were a few resistors and capacitors in the feedback circuit that affected the square wave. By trial and error, we tweaked the parts to get a nice looking square wave into a resistor based dummy load. We then connected the amplifier to the Tannoy, hoping to get good sound. It was not to be, as the plates in the output tubes started to glow red. Fortunately, we didn't melt or smoke anything.

This was my introduction to system stability in the 1950's. At the time I didn't know any calculus, let alone poles and zeros, etc... I was just a kid and my uncle was an artist, art professor and textile designer. Eventually we got that amplifier running stable and measuring and sounding good, but it was all by trial and error.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Nice story Tony, posted on October 11, 2014 at 10:32:21
And was there some point in your adventure when you thought you were doing something cutting edge advancing the SOTA? Or were you, like me, just trying to learn and figure out how things worked?

Maybe I'm just slow but working that way, on my own pace, I'm very capable of a victory but from experience it might not be two or three victories down the road before I understand the veracity of that first victory. Ultimately, I might have achieved some goal, in the big picture it was actually a misstep.

 

I apologized to Mercman not you., posted on October 11, 2014 at 10:43:51
Unlike you I can concede a point when needed. You on the other hand know no bounds in resorting to personal attacks and minutia in order to avoid the issues at hand.

Now you keep trying and I'm going to be able to show the veracity of my "rant", that you so boldly have disagreed with, based on comments you've already made in this thread. Obfuscation of minutia and syntax isn't enough to save you in the eyes of most readers - though it may be enough for you to continue to fool yourself.

 

sometimes design includes instability..., posted on October 11, 2014 at 10:47:47
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
this is an bit of nonsense.

Let TL answer my reply to his false claim that instability = things not working, using engineering as a basis.

 

RE: I apologized to Mercman not you., posted on October 11, 2014 at 11:03:16
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
LOL. Your apology to him amounts to another rant of no cogent meaning.

My interpretation of his reply is that he doesn't have a clue about your rant.

 

Why do you continue beating this dead horse, posted on October 11, 2014 at 11:34:17
I already admitted that instability can be part of the design.

You've been given concrete examples through out audio history - tube distortion producing desirable sound as well as truncated transients are another.

Whether or not you/we define these things as instability is not the issue - the issue is that many people can and do argue that such systems are broken and can back up their contentions with measurements as well as identify such performance via listening sessions.

These kinds of systems, designed to be the way they are, only sound better to some people. In fact systems measuring/testing better aren't going to be universally preferable either.

So when someone changes out a power supply and claims it sounds better it means nothing about performance. It only means the listener thinks is sounds better. Whether the system is more broke or working better is still an unknown. And then to say the reason for the "improvement" was because of this kind of PS or that even furthers the mess.

This is why we have process and methodology, ie. so when someone expresses how they feel about how something sound it actually has meaning to the reader.

Denying the points in my original comment doesn't make you somekind of anarchist or revolutionary trail blazer. It makes you a hack.





 

RE: Reading my thoughts, again - only I was thinking the word "credibility"., posted on October 11, 2014 at 16:46:32
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
As I recall, most of these tests were seriously flawed in various ways that were described in the this forum. carcass93 is entirely justified in refusing to participate. Reasons backing up my statement can be found in the archives of this forum.





Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Hey Sordidman - just to make sure you see this, posted on October 11, 2014 at 16:53:17
Here's two more comments in response to your query here - http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/13/138942.html

I did a search on resolving and 4 of the first 8 I read met the criteria to support my original comment.

Are you really saying you've never saw this before or have you just been wasting my time?

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=pcaudio&n=109200&highlight=resolving&r=&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fsearchtext%3D%26b%3DAND%26topic%3D%26topics_only%3DN%26author%3Dseadog%26date1%3D2013-01-01%26date2%3D2014-04-29%26slowmessage%3D%26sort%3Dscore%26sortOrder%3DDESC%26forum%3DALL

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=pcaudio&n=70458&highlight=resolving&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fsearchtext%3DSonic%2BFrontiers%2BTransport%2B3%26b%3DAND%26topic%3D%26author%3D%26date1%3D%26date2%3D%26slowmessage%3D%26forum%3DALL

 

saddened, posted on October 11, 2014 at 22:54:00
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
nt

 

The uses of Audio Diffmaker, posted on October 11, 2014 at 23:37:21
After doing some digging through the archives, the meatiest discussion I found was actually in Propeller Head Plaza.

I think this quote sums up the complaints most closely:

"The bottom line is that if the soundcard can not adequately resolve certain levels or types of audio signals (errors of subtraction), then there will be nothing there to "difference", the sonic differences between the two recordings will be lost as they were incapable of being recorded in the first place.

If the sound card commits errors of addition, and adds a certain form of distortion to the signal, yes, it will be added to both recordngs, but once again, it will be blurring and hiding what either recording may be doing or not doing AT OR BELOW that level of signal abberation."

Jon Risch, March 3, 2007.

OK, for the sake of argument, let us agree there may be signals too subtle for the Audio Diffmaker (henceforth, AD) to discern. However, what if we were to mix into a recording a low level signal that the AD could still easily discern? The next question would be: if the AD can discern it, can the human ear also discern it?

That is the essence of the listener's challenge. Two seemingly identical tracks are presented to the listener. One of the tracks has a distinctly different piece of music mixed in, albeit at a low level. The AD can easily extract this difference between the two tracks. Does your hearing allow you to identify the track with the additional music?

The listener's challenge completely side steps the complaints about the limitations of the AD, i.e. since sound cards are not infinitely resolving neither can the AD be infinitely resolving. Instead, it is simply a demonstration of how quiet low level signals actually are, and how difficult it may be to hear them in the presence of a musical signal played back at normal levels.

No "testing" is conducted, other than in the broadest sense of the word. Certainly no one is keep score, no reports are required, no feedback gathered. Instead the listener is simply invited to notice how subtle a -50dB or -60dB signal is, I'll leave it to wiser heads than mine to determine the actual level of the mixed in music, and then to consider how much more subtle artifacts at an even lower level must be.

 

RE: The uses of Audio Diffmaker, posted on October 12, 2014 at 06:19:32
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
There are two different experimental scenarios. It is necessary to keep them separate and deal with them one at a time.

1. The device under test is a suspect DAC. Here its deficiencies may be hidden by a poor quality A/D. Or, alternatively, it may be falsely accused of deficiencies that are actually artifacts in the A/D. (Because both converters are non-linear the analysis can not be done by simple subtraction.)

2. The device under test is a human subject. Here there is no need for any A/D to do the testing. One takes (or synthesizes the first file) and then mixes in (or synthesizes) the desired difference. The listener compares playback of the two files through the DAC and other components. If the playback chain were perfect then it would be straightforward to mix in noise or other small errors into one of the files and see if it can be distinguished in the presence of masking from the original file (which might be 0's, so no masking).

Unfortunately, there is still a problem. If the DAC is low resolution it will hide obviously different files. Depending on how bad the DAC is this can be huge: if the DAC is "bricked" a file of Beethoven will sound exactly like a file of Beatles. In a less extreme form this is where audiophiles discuss "resolution" of the DAC, on the assumption that a DAC must be sufficiently resolving to distinguish small signals. This is correct, as far as it goes. However, there is another possibility as well. To the extent the DAC is a non-linear device it may change differences of one type into differences of another type, and that type may be perceptually obvious, even if the original difference was impossible to hear. Therefore, the demonstrated ability to "resolve" small differences may not be an indication of an excellent DAC, rather it may be an indication of an inferior DAC. (I refrain from using the "S" word, but I must confess the temptation.)

Here is a specific example of what I mean. Take a sigma-delta modulator DAC that has noise modulation. There is always a residual level of noise, even when reproducing silence (0 signal). A small difference in the input signal (DC offset) will produce a different level of modulation noise. The two input signals, if played by a perfect DAC, amplifiers and speakers, would have produced acoustic waveforms that were identical because there is no DC response in the speakers or listening room. However, with the noisy sigma-delta DAC the difference in noise level may be noticeable, especially if the playback gain is very high during the test.

As to low level signals being masked by music, this is applicable to junk recordings of junk music where the music is continuous. For recordings of acoustic music in a concert venue there will be periods of note decay to silence in which there is no music to mask what one hears. This masking effect being absent in most of the recordings that I listen to I pay no attention to this argument, except to possibly categorize people making it as having little experience with acoustic music and hence demonstrating their lack of qualification to discuss the reproduction of sound.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Reading my thoughts, again - only I was thinking the word "credibility"., posted on October 12, 2014 at 08:51:58
"If a person uses the word "credibility", in the context of questioning it, in a conversation related to audio, it invariably means two interrelated, tightly coupled things:

1. You are dealing with an idiot;
2. Under no circumstances - never, ever - will such an individual try performing the experiment, results of which, reported by another person, caused him to question that person's credibility."


As if someone who would like to be convinced to invest time and money in verifying what you say is an idiot. We should blindly invest time and money because of what you claim to feel?

You want me to verify your listening experiences you can pay me.

What an insult to the intelligence of the readers of this forum.

 

RE: The uses of Audio Diffmaker, posted on October 12, 2014 at 09:50:54
"As to low level signals being masked by music, this is applicable to junk recordings of junk music where the music is continuous. For recordings of acoustic music in a concert venue there will be periods of note decay to silence in which there is no music to mask what one hears. This masking effect being absent in most of the recordings that I listen to I pay no attention to this argument, except to possibly categorize people making it as having little experience with acoustic music and hence demonstrating their lack of qualification to discuss the reproduction of sound."

Kind of an overblown sense of self importance wouldn't you say?

1.) The vast majority of people who listen to music listen to junk music.
2.) Music with fairly constant or constant levels actually works very well in revealing (edit -" some aspects of" an audio systems performance.

If one really was interested in finding the "best" one might consider weeding out equipment not capable of playing junk music first. Then moving on to acoustical performances second. As opposed to ignoring it all together.


 

I don't want you to verify anything., posted on October 12, 2014 at 15:23:15
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
I want you to calm down, take your pills (which you apparently forgot to do - again), and schedule your long overdue appointment.

 

I'm telling you - this "personal attack" fetish is nothing but a sign of...., posted on October 12, 2014 at 15:57:03
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
... advanced case of persecution mania.

Not that I'm a doctor or anything - but in this case, it's just way too obvious.

 

Playing dumb is just one form of obfuscation..., posted on October 12, 2014 at 16:16:29
That's an interesting response.

As if you (and others) haven't pummeled us with one rave after the next for God only knows for how many years.

Why do you do this? And why do you call out and attack those who question what you do?

And after all the attacks (as in the thread above) and all the name calling (in many if not most of your posts) you continue deny ownership of your own purpose or what you've written.

Or what? You actually admit self gratification and purposelessness?




 

RE: The uses of Audio Diffmaker, posted on October 12, 2014 at 17:45:25
You could have downloaded the free software and listened to the free files in less time than it took you to think through and compose your reply. The "junk recording of junk music" that you couldn't be bothered to listen to is a choir singing Brahm's "Lullaby." I don't know how much more "acoustic" you can get than unaccompanied human voices in chorus.

 

Page processed in 0.044 seconds.