Computer Audio Asylum

Six Years Ago

70.181.190.237

Mercman

Posted by Mercman (A) on April 16, 2006 at 14:37:13

I have been playing around with the idea of a computer server. Being a computer enthusiast, the computer is no problem. Is the Apogee Mini Dac a good place to start for a USB DAC.
I have a Reimyo CDP777 and Esoteric UX-1. Am I wasting my time with the computer setup? I guess I need your suggestions.

Thanks in advance,

Steve

Follow Ups:

I was running a USB to SPDIF interface box - Sordidman 09:35:36 04/25/12 (0)
and an USB ver1 PowerBook into the digital input on my APL, - grabbing Lossless files from our Blue G3 with external HDs in the basement via CAT5.

Funny how not too much has changed....

Today, - we've got a NAS drive in the room next door running CAT5 into a 2008 MAC Mini & Pure Music with the HiFace USB interface into the APL.

"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
RE: Six Years Ago I was already a couple of years into CA and building my first Linux Machine - Dynobot 15:06:10 04/22/12 (0)
I like to think that in my spare time, I have made a little progress working with Linux.

Certainly not the pro that others are at Linux.

Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Yeah about then I tried a Window machine with Foobar. - Norm 12:36:57 04/22/12 (1)
After months of constantly having to reload Foobar, I gave up and went to a Mac Powerbook and Weiss Minerva. No problems since!
- RE: Yeah about then I tried a Window machine with Foobar. - Mercman 12:46:45 04/22/12 (0)
  In those days I worked with Foobar, J. River, Windows Media Player with Burwen Bobcat, and Winamp. I then purchased a Wavelength Cosecant in June 2006. The Crimson in December 2006. The MacBook Pro entered the scene in December 2006.
  
  I love this hobby! And with all the new hi res music, particularly from ripped SACD, I'm in hog heaven.
RE: Six Years Ago - Tony Lauck 16:25:38 04/21/12 (0)
I started with computer audio in the summer of 2005.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
4 Years ago with the Mac Mini.... - AbeCollins 14:13:01 04/21/12 (0)
...and about that long with the Apogee Mini DAC until my recent W4S DAC2 purchase. I've had the Squeezebox setup even longer.

Except for the recent DAC2 purchase and recent addition of Pure Music, the music server system has remained pretty much unchanged. I'll probably update the Mac Mini sometime this year even though the old one is sounding just fine.
How did people get started? - Abstraction 13:08:39 04/21/12 (0)
I bought a fifth generation Ipod in 2005 or 6 (and I still have it; it is still working). With good phones and Apple lossless, the sound was so-so, but it was good enough that one could forget the sound and listen to the music. As I had a large collection of CDs the idea of having all of the music on an Itunes-like database was appealing, so I pulled a computer that was running probably Win 98 out of a closet, installed an Aardvark sound card (a professional card from the late 90s) that out a digital out, or perhaps it was computer in which that card was originally installed. At any rate, I had a Genesis digital lens hooked into a Timbre TT-1 DAC (which even though it was already aging still seemed to me like a great piece of gear), so I replaced whatever transport I was using with computer, and I was on my way. It sounded good enough that I was ready to give up on traditional transports.

I was like my friend Chuck, who started thinking about deep questions about truth and reality, when he was about 12, and thought he had invented philosophy. I thought I had invented computer audio. Then I found this forum. I have been an occasional poster only, but I check in regularly to get the news. I now have a Mac G5 with SSD, and, as of yesterday, an Off-Ramp 5 to a Berkeley Alpha. Long listening session last night. I think it probably sounds great. I had a Berkeley USB in the system for a few days about a month ago. No chance for direct comparison, but I am happy with my decision to wait for Steve to get the new Off-Ramp finished.
Six Years Ago - me too - Old Listener 10:07:09 04/21/12 (24)
I'd be interested to see the responses you got to that post.

I started researching alternatives in fall of 2005. I had waited until I could buy 1 TB of storage for $ 1000 ( 4 X 250 GB drives.) I spent ~45 months trying out various alternatives before settling on JRiver MC in Marc h of 2006. Ripping CDs took ~ 4 months. PC audio has been everything I expected and more.

I gave my CD player away about 10 days ago. It hadn't been used for several years.

Bill
- RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Mercman 11:19:17 04/21/12 (23)
  Here's the original link Bill:
  
  I started by ripping some CDs into my PC and used Foobar to play them back thorugh my stereo. I was so impressed with the result- well the rest is history.
  - http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=pcaudio&n=11489 (Open in New Window)
  - RE: Six Years Ago - me too - audioAl 08:21:43 04/24/12 (0)
    Me too! Foobar 2000 into my Yamaha amp and out thru the 5.1 system speakers.
    I've really enjoyed it, recently got a 428HD set of Sennheiser cans! My
    CD player gets used occasionally just for music DVD's or new SACD's.
    Vista Ultimate 64 bit/e5300 Intel 45nm cpu/ASRock G41M-LE/Asus Xonar DS R 7.1/YamahaRX-V465 HT receiver/ Infinity RS1001 & Cambridge SoundWorks speakers/Yamaha YST-SW216 subwolf
  - RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Old Listener 12:30:27 04/21/12 (21)
    Thanks for the link. I remember considering the Benchmark and Lavry DACs and mentally budgeting to buy something at that price level.
    
    Several of the posters haven't posted for some time. (mature sex for ezxample!) Thomaspf rarely posts here. Dawnrazor contributes regularly. I found this statement in the thread to be amusing:
    
    ---
    In fact, I can honestly say that I'm happy to be out of the merry-go-round of ever chaging equipment.
    I know what you mean. Since I went the computer audio route, I am no longer in search for a "better source".
    ---
    
    This was before his "Road to Damascus" conversion to the cics religion.
    
    Just thinking about my start with PC audio ~6 years ago was very enjoyable. Thanks.
    
    Bill
    - RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Dawnrazor 14:21:50 04/21/12 (20)
      Hey Bill,
      
      I still stand by that statement. Compared to disk, for me computer is the better source, and FWIW the hardware has remained pretty much the same once I ditched the via based system. Still have the same awful pci dac :)
      
      Though I do find myself pondering a better dac some days. That said I think I can put that money toward other parts of the system and get a bigger return.
      
      Speakers for one is an area of improvement.
      
      Sure, I converted. If you remember I did TRY the recipe basically to debunk it and since I had much better results that way I jumped in. I recall making the os changes and listening and the amazement I had at what happened to the sound, and how real and 3d the images had become.
      
      I am guessing that you never tried it but just dismissed it based on your computer experience. FWIW its the ones who never tried it that have the issues with cics approach. I hope I am wrong and you tried it, but I certainly dont remember a post to that effect. maybe I missed it??
      
      Afterwards we discovered faith; it's all you need
      - RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Old Listener 23:22:58 04/21/12 (19)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Dawnrazor on April 21, 2012 at 14:21:50
        
        I was struck by the second sentence I quoted from your post in 2006:
        
        ----
        Since I went the computer audio route, I am no longer in search for a "better source".
        ---
        
        I'd say that your conversion to the cics religion represented a further search for a "better source".
        
        > I am guessing that you never tried it but just dismissed it based
        > on your computer experience.
        
        I'm guessing that you have not tried the tweaks proposed by the Belts or some of the other extremely unlikely tweaks floating around. Do you have a personal BS filter that makes you skeptical of some tweaks?
        
        The cics tweaks might or might not work. The explanations that cics presented early on were not convincing to me.
        
        I followed my own path observing the effect of changes to the the OS configuration on what the computer was doing. I did listen to see if I heard any differences along the way. I heard nothing that required me to abandon or significantly revise my personal BS filter.
        
        > Still have the same awful pci dac :)
        
        I still use a PCI card on my MusicPC. A good PCI card with a clean ASIO driver and player software that can output to ASIO is still a simple, effective recipe for a successful PC audio system. Especially for a Win XP system.
        
        Bill
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Dawnrazor 06:02:18 04/22/12 (18)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Old Listener on April 21, 2012 at 23:22:58
        
        well Bill I can see why you think that my cics adventures constitute a search for a better source, however keep in mind that I was answering in relation to what Merc had asked:
        
        "I have a Reimyo CDP777 and Esoteric UX-1. Am I wasting my time with the computer setup? I guess I need your suggestions. "
        
        There was a time where I was looking at dacs and bought one to add to my cdp. Then I was in the "better transport or stand alone cdp" dilemma. Which digital cable to get toslink or coax, etc.
        
        Once i went to the computer for me at least that was all answered. I think it still is. The computer is a superior source over a disk medium.
        
        Sure the specifics of the computer setup have changed and many many thanks to cics for all he has done to improve our experiences, but the general idea of a source has not changed for me.
        
        Though if trying to improve what one has is a crime then YEP I am guilty!! Its like I bought a corvette or some hotrod, said I found THE car and am no longer looking but Bill has an issue because I got a tune up :)
        
        Anyhow I do have a personal bs meter but often I try to use it to expose bs, which IMHO means trying ridiculous things. That certainly was the spirit I had when I tried some of cics concepts. i thought I would debunk some things and boy was I wrong. Skeptical sure, dismissive?? NO. I dont see how you can dismiss something that you havent tried.
        
        It amazes me how many people on this board just dismiss things without trying them and somehow that means that the thing couldnt possibly work. Or worse yet throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Man if Einstein showed up on this board he would be tossed to the side for his math mistakes...yet his theories seem to hold.
        
        Not sure what tweaks you mean by "the belts" but I have tried some crazy things. There was a time when I was playing with cables and made all kind of crazy designs from steel or graphite conductors to gel dielectrics and liquid conductors. Sure my bs meter could have stopped me but some of the things it would have stopped me from turned out to be quite useful. Besides that above one thing that I never should have tried was thin 30g magwire as speaker cables for my maggies. Heck Allen Wright said right in his cookbook that such a recipe was NOT to be used with Krells and Apogees. Well IME he got that one wrong big time.
        
        And I still have $100+ in crystals I still need to try. Well I did try some on the tripath based headphone amp and nothing. Its not the most revealing system I imagine but so far the crystal thing is one of those tweaks that hasnt worked. Maybe I am doing it wrong. I just put them in a cloth bag and set on top of the amp. I'll see one day in the big rig what happens.
        
        I try to have an open mind about alot of things. I KNOW that is not cool anymore...
        
        I do take issue with your characterization of cics project as a religion. I certainly dont see it that way and well wouldnt be involved in such a thing. Cics is pretty clear that one is free to use or not use his optimizations. Religions are often very dogmatic, my way or the highway type affairs. And usually religions have some kind of guru status where only one person is in the know. Cics is not like that and has readily accepted input from many inmates and currently he isnt even driving the latest developments. This truly is an open source project.
        
        Anyhow I do agree with you about the asio/pci card option with xp.
        
        Afterwards we discovered faith; it's all you need
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Old Listener 16:09:25 04/23/12 (11)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Dawnrazor on April 22, 2012 at 06:02:18
        
        Tony got it right. "the Belts = Peter and May Belt.
        
        In another post, Tony said
        
        "The Base is what it is. Its marketing is snake-oil. I prefer to have nothing to do with snake-oil marketeers."
        
        I agree with Tony's attitude toward snake-oil marketing. (I'm not commenting on the specific product.) Having a personal BS filter doesn't mean that I reject any novel approach. It just means that I approach dubious claims with a healthy skepticism. I consider that the person making such claims has the burden of proof. And if the marketing pitch sounds like snake-oil, I may say so.
        
        In real life, most people have a personal BS filter to keep them out of trouble. The saying "A fool and his money are soon parted" remains relevant in the modern world.
        
        > I dont see how you can dismiss something that you havent tried.
        
        You seem to reject the idea that knowledge can be applied by people who didn't participate in the experiment that established that knowledge.
        
        > Man if Einstein showed up on this board he would be tossed to the
        > side for his math mistakes...yet his theories seem to hold.
        
        Questioning theory is an essential part of science. Checking the logic and the math AND devising repeatable experiments that could disprove a theory are essential to science. Einstein's theories "hold" precisely because they passed those tests.
        
        > And I still have $100+ in crystals I still need to try.
        
        And I still have the $ 100 I might have spent on crystals. I prefer to spend money on something that I have confidence in. Given a finite amount of money to spend, making sound choices can improve my quality of life. My choices are informed by what I know.
        
        > I do take issue with your characterization of cics project as a religion. ...
        > Religions are often very dogmatic, my way or the highway type affairs
        
        Rejecting scientific knowledge when it conflicts with belief is a characteristic of a number of popular religions. Missionary zeal (which you have in spades) is a characteristic of some religions.
        
        In explaining my comment on your 2006 post, I used the word "religion" to describe your adopting the cics approach. If my use of the word "religion" offends you, I will not use it again.
        
        ----
        Most of my second post was a response to a question you asked. My answer was about my own philosophy. You are quite free to have a different philosophy.
        
        Bill
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Dawnrazor 12:56:44 04/26/12 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Old Listener on April 23, 2012 at 16:09:25
        
        Hi Bill,
        
        You seem to reject the idea that knowledge can be applied by people who didn't participate in the experiment that established that knowledge.
        
        I dont. What I reject is that one can know apriori how things sound. Most of the detractors of cics approach have never listened to the actual product. Much like Tony hasnt listened to the base he dismisses.
        
        Questioning theory is an essential part of science. Checking the logic and the math AND devising repeatable experiments that could disprove a theory are essential to science. Einstein's theories "hold" precisely because they passed those tests.
        
        Exactly. That is why I find these posts so frustrating. What have you actually tested of cics theories? I assume you have but I dont recall seeing some test. Did I miss them? And FWIW I think the best test is to actually listen to a cmp2 box or build one. Or try the concept on existing hardware. There is little cost to this and that is what I did. (heck I'll send you extra psu if you like). I had some trouble with some of the explanations or thinking that any of the concepts would make a difference. Well in total they made a huge difference and that is why I am so emphatic about the concept. It really does sound better.
        
        Rejecting scientific knowledge when it conflicts with belief is a characteristic of a number of popular religions. Missionary zeal (which you have in spades) is a characteristic of some religions.
        
        See that is what I object to. What scientific knowledge am I rejecting? That some smart people are critizing the sound of something that they never tried??
        
        The thought of inmates being able to improve their sound by some simple os tweaks and some free software is something to get excited about. But I dont deny that there may be other viable options (most religions take a my way or the highway approach) Unlike some inmates I try NOT to comment on things I havent heard.
        
        The Belts are crazy but I dont see what it would hurt to try some of their tweaks. Geeze that stuff is free to try. And that is the crux. I cant dismiss their tweaks if I havent tried them.
        
        Afterwards we discovered faith; it's all you need
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Old Listener 16:49:41 04/28/12 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Dawnrazor on April 26, 2012 at 12:56:44
        
        > What I reject is that one can know apriori how things sound.
        
        You have repeated the same idea over and over without addressing anything I have said. I said that I did not find cics's explanations convincing. I did comment on some claims years ago, but I have not for quite a long time. I have not commented on how such a system sounds.
        
        If I comment on a claim that cics or someone else using his approach makes, his words and my comments should stand on their merits.
        
        Maybe knowledge, logic, experiment and measurement don't matter to you as an audiophile. They are essential to me as a consumer and they are part of my pleasure in being an audiophile.
        
        > That is why I find these posts so frustrating.
        
        Well, as long as fmak is around, you will find his posts frustrating.
        
        You can convince me if you meet the knowledge and logic in my posts with better quality knowledge and logic of your own.
        
        > What have you actually tested of cics theories?
        
        In the sentence you quoted, I said "Checking the logic and the math AND devising repeatable experiments ..." You ignored the part about logic and math.
        
        You are the one urging other people to adopt the cics approach. I think that you should be asking and answering these questions: "Can I explain credibly why the claims are valid?" and "What repeatable experiments have I done to verify those claims?"
        
        Bill
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Dawnrazor 22:41:09 04/28/12 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Old Listener on April 28, 2012 at 16:49:41
        
        Bill this is like the pre superbowl hype where pundits tell you what they think will happen, who will win, etc. They are very knowledgeable and make great points.
        
        But none of that matters when the game starts. If the game differs from what the pundits say, well the game is what matters. Cics recipe works in my system and according to the threads on many other inmates systems too.
        
        Broccoli and kids Bill.
        
        "Can I explain credibly why the claims are valid?" and "What repeatable experiments have I done to verify those claims?"
        
        Probably not to your satisfaction. Trying the recipe and reverting and hearing a difference is not enough for you I suppose. But IMHO that is enough. YMMV
        
        THough I can tell you that underclocking is an improvement and is demonstrable. I can hear it in my pedestrian headphone rig. For instance a quirk with my headphone cmp2 system is that you can set it to 960mhz and it will keep that setting for a while, often for weeks. But out of the blue it will reset to 1.6ghz. I never see the boot up screen and often just pick albums at random (it is connected to my main monitor with a switch box and it is easier to just pick stuff randomly). I have had sessions where things just dont sound as good and everytime I check, the thing has reset to 1.6ghz. It is pretty clear in the bios when you reboot if it is resetting or if it is just loading the same setting it had before. So it is easy to know if it reset before I rebooted or during. Anyhow it is pretty clear that I can hear when it is playing at 1.6 vs 960mhz even without knowing what the setting is beforehand. There is a smoothness to the bass and a warmth that is missing at the higher cpu setting.
        
        I think it would be fairly easy to test a clean install vs a tweaked install to see the difference. I usually dont bother making copies but I do plan to move to a different mobo and cpu and can try to do that test.
        
        You mention that cics claims are credible but somehow say you dont comment on the sound??? This is bunk. If you think the claims arent credible then that IS a comment on the sound. Certainly you are not saying that uncredible claims can some how produce an improved sound???
        
        To me the proof is in the listening. You havent listened so how you know things are credible I'll never know.
        
        i am on vacation tomorrow in Napa and will most likely quickly forget this whole thing and the asylum. So post if you want just dont expect a reply. I have concluded that it is pointless anyhow. I am talking about real sound quality in a real system and you are talking about theory. So we will never meet. The game is over and cics won even if the pundits said he never would...
        
        Afterwards we discovered faith; it's all you need
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Tony Lauck 10:17:28 04/29/12 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Dawnrazor on April 28, 2012 at 22:41:09
        
        "To me the proof is in the listening. You havent listened so how you know things are credible I'll never know."
        
        It is possible for a recipe to work and produce tasty and nutritious food. The proof is in the pudding. But if the fabulous chef explains why his recipe works, it doesn't logically follow that his explanation is correct. This may not matter if one follows the recipe blindly, but it may matter greatly if circumstances force one to deviate from the recipe.
        
        Bogus explanations may pass the ears of a naive gourmand, but will be spotted quickly by another chef. A master chef will be able to recognize the bogus explanation without even tasting the pudding.
        
        Tony Lauck
        
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Dawnrazor 11:23:33 04/29/12 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Tony Lauck on April 29, 2012 at 10:17:28
        
        hey Tony,
        
        There is another option. Perhaps the chef has figured out something that the master chef hasnt. Certainly novel approaches and real advancements are met with ridicule from the masters only to find out later that the masters were not so masterful and the advancements become vogue.
        
        I think you could find many examples of this in many many fields. I see that happening here and that latest thread about PS audio is an example.
        
        Here is an example from another area: Tennis.
        
        Nadal's ground strokes are more powerful than his serve, but they aren't the effortless shots that most pros own. He muscles his two-handed backhand rather than gliding through it, and it often lands short, putting him in a defensive position. Nadal also hits it with an open stance—a technique considered utterly implausible until the rise of the Williams sisters—and off his back foot, which again robs him of power. And while his heavy-topspin, lefty forehand is a serious weapon, you won't find it any tennis handbook.
        
        Nadal does it all wrong according to the masters and I am sure his explanations would be considered bogus too but he is a genius and his proof is in the pudding.
        
        That is how I see the cmp2 project. YMMV
        
        Afterwards we discovered faith; it's all you need
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Ryelands 01:59:30 04/24/12 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Old Listener on April 23, 2012 at 16:09:25
        
        I used the word "religion" to describe your adopting the cics approach.
        Inevitably, using terms like "cics religion" in our context ends any meaningful discussion. Perhaps that was your intention.
        I can accept that some folk might have an overly uncritical attitude to what you call cMP2 "dogma" but the above seems to suggest that any acceptance (partial, critical, downright zealous, whatever) of ideas he outlined on this forum has a touch of the religious about it.
        Those who defend the project as technically viable have at least had the benefit of having tried it. Is it not about as dogmatic as one can get to belittle a project you've never heard given that's it's little more than a list of OS & BIOS config changes and a couple of freeware programs? (Almost all the hardware changes discussed on the threads have come from others and have been replicated on or derived from non-cMP2 systems.)
        I think it's risible. I've never heard an SB Touch, let alone one jazzed-up up with soundcheckk's tweaks. So, though I'm a touch sceptical of its merits, I say nothing. Though JRiver was for me a sonic disaster, I again do not comment as it has crossed my mind that the fault might just be mine, not the product's. Nor do I comment on the SQ of Mac-based systems (though I do poke fun at some of the damn-fool things that some Mac advocates say with - unlike Mercman, an honourable exception - ne'er a smile).
        
        The explanations that cics presented early on were not convincing to me.
        What? All of them? Come, come.
        Of course cics (who, BTW, hasn't posted on the forum for at least two years) is a physicist by training and you're a programmer - very different mindsets. I'd hesitate to suggest that either has an exclusive hold on the truth though, to listen to some of the programmers who post here, there are those who cannot conceive that there's more than one way to strangle a cat or that programmers' abstractions are not universally applicable.
        I did listen to see if I heard any differences along the way. I heard nothing that required me to abandon or significantly revise my personal BS filter.
        Your loss, I'm afraid.
        
        Edits: 04/24/12
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Old Listener 10:16:50 04/24/12 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Ryelands on April 24, 2012 at 01:59:30
        
        > Inevitably, using terms like "cics religion" in our context ends any
        > meaningful discussion. Perhaps that was your intention.
        
        Do you mean that the rest of your post is not meaningful?
        
        > > The explanations that cics presented early on were not convincing to me.
        
        > What? All of them? Come, come.
        
        I responded to Dawnrazor's question. My answer was about my own path. I did not re-hash old arguments in detail. I believe that my statement was clear.
        
        > Is it not about as dogmatic as one can get to belittle a project
        > you've never heard given that's it's little more than a list of OS
        > & BIOS config changes and a couple of freeware programs?
        
        Is it not dogmatic to refuse to subject the basis of your beliefs to criticism based on knowledge and reason? I made a clear distinction between the tweaks and the assertions that cics made. Those assertions are subject to analysis without hearing the result. You ignored that distinction.
        
        Using your own knowledge and reasoning to evaluate what others say seems like a normal and desirable human activity. Talking about audio in terms of your knowledge and your reasoning from that knowledge would seem a natural activity on this forum.
        
        > I think it's risible. I've never heard an SB Touch,
        > let alone one jazzed-up up with soundcheckk's tweaks.
        > So, though I'm a touch sceptical of its merits, I say nothing....
        
        You have mis-characterized my remarks as an attack for the cics approach.
        
        Dawnrazor's response and yours demonstrates an unwillingness to allow any unfavorable remark about the cics approach whatever the context to pass without a rebuttal.
        
        > Of course cics (who, BTW, hasn't posted on the forum for at least two
        > years) is a physicist by training and you're a programmer
        > - very different mindsets.
        
        You jumped to a conclusion. In fact, I am a scientist by training and I used that view in my work writing software. I also used that view in reading cics's material.
        
        Bill
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Ryelands 11:19:41 04/24/12 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Old Listener on April 24, 2012 at 10:16:50
        
        Do you mean that the rest of your post is not meaningful?
        
        Very droll.
        
        [You demonstrate] an unwillingness to allow any unfavorable remark about the cics approach whatever the context to pass without a rebuttal.
        
        Nonsense. I have long ignored most references to the thing outside the threads concerning it. As it happens, some of the criticisms I agree with, others I don't. It's all a long time ago now - I aired them on the appropriate threads so you probably missed them.
        
        What I took exception to was your use of the "religion" jibe, not once but repeatedly, not in one but at length in three (now four) posts. You started the taunting (not DR) by seizing on a passing remark that you went out of your way to hold up to ridicule ("This was before his 'Road to Damascus' conversion to the cics religion"). That was intentionally offensive and cheap - I'd have expected better from you.
        
        I've no idea what your criticisms of cics's ideas are as I cannot recall you ever describing them, always assuming you have. But the fact remains that you dismiss in a deliberately offensive way something you've never heard (amusingly, much like those a priori dismissals of Steve's isolation platform) and then have the gall to give me a pompous lecture about scientific method.
        
        I am a scientist by training
        
        You miss the point: I didn't say it was a scientist v programmer thing, I said it was a physicist v programmer thing. Think about it.
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Old Listener 13:18:20 04/24/12 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Ryelands on April 24, 2012 at 11:19:41
        
        > You started the taunting (not DR) by seizing on a passing remark that
        > you went out of your way to hold up to ridicule
        
        I intended no ridicule; I made an observation about his history on this forum. You are inventing the ridicule.
        
        There was a mild irony. The 2006 post expressed satisfaction with his source. His posts since he adopted the cics approach describe it as a dramatic improvement.
        
        Perhaps you consider "road to Damascus conversion" to be inherently pejorative. Perhaps you consider the work "religion" to be pejorative. I see both figures of speech used without prejudice and that is how I used them.
        
        > What I took exception to was your use of the "religion" jibe, not once but repeatedly, not in one but at length in three (now four) posts.
        
        Read the context of my early posts in this thread. There was no jibe intended in those posts. I used the word "religion" in the reply to Dawnrazor to explain to Dawnrazor why I was struck by his remark from 2006. Since then I have been responding to what you and Dawnrazor wrote. When you or he mentioned religion, I replied. When Dawnrazor described a characteristic of (some) religions that didn't fit the cics community, I gave two characteristics that did fit. My reply was a logical reaction to his post.
        
        > That was intentionally offensive and cheap - I'd have expected better from you.
        
        You ignored what I actually wrote and assumed that you knew that I meant something else. Then you took off on a denouncement of the meaning you imagined. No conversation is possible with that sort of thought police behavior on your part.
        
        Bill
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - riboge 17:00:17 04/24/12 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Old Listener on April 24, 2012 at 13:18:20
        
        I have to say I read your remarks the same way. It still seems to me you said it is either your way or it is BS. The clear meaning of your use of 'religion' and 'road to Damascus" in what you said was that what he hears and believes is a result of ideology and passion and not more objective and dispassionate observation and clear-headed description such as yours. If you want to say now that is not what you believe then fine, but I don't see validity in a claim it is not what you wrote.
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Old Listener 23:02:29 04/24/12 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by riboge on April 24, 2012 at 17:00:17
        
        > The clear meaning of your use of 'religion' and 'road to Damascus" in
        > what you said was that what he hears and believes is a result of
        > ideology and passion and not more objective and dispassionate
        > observation and clear-headed description such as yours.
        
        From four words I wrote you built a lot of inferences. Your inferences are not my words.
        
        My reply to Mercman was just about a bit of forum history. I explained why I was amused by the sentence in Dawnrazor's post in my next post. That was the clear context of those posts. There was no more detail about the cics approach and no mention of any other approach.
        
        Subsequent exchanges in this thread were initiated by Dawnrazor's and then by Rylands' remarks. I tried to reply logically to what they wrote. Most of those posts were about general issues. I don't see much that is specific to the cics approach or any other approach in those posts.
        
        > It still seems to me you said it is either your way or it is BS.
        
        I expect that what I write will stand or fall on its merits. I expect that what other peoples' posts will also stand or fall on those merits.
        
        Dawnrazor was free to reply to anything I said with his knowledge and reason. So was Rylands.
        
        I didn't call anybody names or label anything BS. I presented my point of view with the knowledge and reason I possessed. In particular, I did not make assumptions about hidden meanings in what Dawnrazor or Rylands wrote.
        
        > If you want to say now that is not what you believe then fine,
        > but I don't see validity in a claim it is not what you wrote.
        
        My posts have been simple and to the point. If you choose to put your own interpretation on them, I can't stop you. However, I won't accept your inventions as representing what I said.
        
        Bill
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Mercman 08:27:04 04/22/12 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Dawnrazor on April 22, 2012 at 06:02:18
        
        I’m afraid you’re right about a resistance to new things in this forum by some inmates.
        
        One example was the Synergistic Research Tranquility Base. A number of folks referred to this product as “snake oil”. To me, snake oil means that the product does not deliver what the manufacturer claims. I found this not to be the case with the Tranquility Base.
        
        I do respect those that don’t want to deal with the product unless they have an adequate technical description that satisfies them. But to suggest that the product is a “fraud” without listening to it is wrong.
        
        I have Wilson Sasha speakers. Wilson will not provide specifics about the design of their crossover. The crossover is potted and placed into a sealed enclosure. Is this “snake oil”?
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Tony Lauck 09:46:40 04/22/12 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Mercman on April 22, 2012 at 08:27:04
        
        Wilson makes no bogus pseudo-technical claims in their sales literature. Wilson has no patents that skate on the edge of non-standard physics. In addition, Wilson doesn't claim that their speakers "fix" problems in other components.
        
        Tony Lauck
        
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Mercman 09:49:48 04/22/12 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Tony Lauck on April 22, 2012 at 09:46:40
        
        But that does not mean that the Base is "snake oil" ! It does what Synergistic Research says it will do. And this is the point I was trying to make Tony.
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Tony Lauck 09:59:26 04/22/12 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Mercman on April 22, 2012 at 09:49:48
        
        The Base is what it is. Its marketing is snake-oil. I prefer to have nothing to do with snake-oil marketeers.
        
        Tony Lauck
        
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
        
        RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Mercman 10:36:55 04/22/12 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Tony Lauck on April 22, 2012 at 09:59:26
        
        Ted Denney is an honest fellow that treats his customers well. He is not a snake-oil marketeer.
        
        I made my point clear. We will have to agree to disagree.
        
        The Belts - Tony Lauck 08:10:38 04/22/12 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Dawnrazor on April 22, 2012 at 06:02:18
        
        "Not sure what tweaks you mean by "the belts" but I have tried some crazy things."
        
        Probably Peter and May Belt.
        
        Tony Lauck
        
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
        http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/ (Open in New Window)
RE: Six Years Ago of Constant Changing - fmak 05:14:27 04/21/12 (0)
It is difficult to settle in when one does this. I have learnt over the years not to meddle radically with a good system. Instead, I have multiple systems.

When computer audio 'quality' depends a a motherboard with it's set of hardware, 'upgrading' to the latest computer model, OS or software introduces just too many variables.

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Signature Sound

[ Signature Sound Lounge ]