|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
50.159.77.150
In Reply to: RE: distinction? posted by Sordidman on March 18, 2015 at 07:42:58
The distinction is there is a difference. You are right, you did say transport. My mistake. I was a little hasty in typing up my response since yours/the OP's argument seems so silly that I just got careless. I am just being a little smart alecky now as you still choose to belabor this point as if it were some how an important component in validating your claim and yet it still apparently seems to be heading nowhere on that front. If you are going to drop a punchline which allows this massive victory in the debate you've now achieved to somehow appear relevant to the point of the discussion then now would be the time."ITunes Airplay to a DAC with a wireless bridge device? (Acknowledge?, or recognize as "viable" high performance)? "
Now you'll need to explain. Who said anything about high performance?
"In your experience, have you ever encountered a wireless setup that has equaled the performance of a wired: given our level of most higher performing systems?"
Isn't the answer to that question a bit irrelevant to the point whether or not the device is or isn't a transport?
I mean, I think I see where you are headed with this. It's just that it does not appear to be a logically tenable argument.
Edits: 03/19/15Follow Ups:
It's simple really, - you need RJ45 & at least 1 USB ports to use the machine as a viable higher performing transport such as one that an audiophile who cares about sound quality, and wants a transport that is commensurate with the rest of her/his system: context. The average cost of a retail system here is $20,000. The OP is talking about the kind of quality that surpasses something like a Sonus etc. By using Airplay, running .mp3 or Lossless, and using a wireless DAC, - you're not talking about the kind of quality that people here utilize.Or more importantly, - the OP. Taking out the ability to run wires, - it severely reduces the performances of the system.
"" It's just that it does not appear to be a logically tenable argument.""
Look within, - you're looking at it from the perspective of a non-audiophile: which is outside of the scope of the post and these forums.
"OP's argument seems so silly that I just got careless.""
It seems silly only if the context is users who are "normal" and not audiophiles. It would be silly in the context of someplace like iLounge: but not for a place where the average system cost is $20,000. AND, not silly in the context, of most of us who have $2000 plus disc transports, $2000 + turntable transports etc....
""choose to belabor this point""
You keep on typing. I'm actually just defending the position, and the very reasonable assertion that wired device connectivity is essential to better performance, - after all the OP is addressing high performance.
""victory in the debate you've now achieved to somehow appear relevant to the point of the discussion then now would be the time.""
Your perception that I'm somehow competing is what is silly. Especially in light of the fact that you are the one who is taking the OP out of context. The ESSENCE of the issue is the context of the viability of an audiophile transport: and judging by the other poster's responses, - you're in the minority. This makes it seem like its personal, - you're not answering the other posts in this thread. I don't write or respond to posts based on whatever your philosophical idiosyncrasies might entail: surprise, - i don't even know what they are.
"Who said anything about high performance?"
Sprezza, - in everything that he wrote.
""Isn't the answer to that question a bit irrelevant to the point whether or not the device is or isn't a transport?""
The point of the definition of what it is, is irrelevant entirely. What is relevant is what he implied by using that term.
"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.'"
Edits: 03/19/15
"It's simple really, - you need RJ45 & at least 1 USB ports to use the machine as a viable higher performing transport such as one that an audiophile who cares about sound quality, and wants a transport that is commensurate with the rest of her/his system:"
Why would you say that? Just because a device meeting those criteria may or may not exist now doesn't mean something couldn't be created someday. For example: the new flavors of wifi have plenty of bandwidth and functionality to pass as high a quality 2 channel as any super-hearing-human, or delusional one for that matter, could ever hope for. I could even imagine that with some of that 802.11s stuff recently rolled into the latest revs there could even be be extremely high reliability links established which would virtually eliminate errors and dropouts.
Besides isn't Airplay or whatever it is supposed to be able to do 24bit 48kHz audio? Do you have your experimental evidence proving with statistical certainty that you actually require better or is this just some assumption you are making?
"Look within, - you're looking at it from the perspective of a non-audiophile: which is outside of the scope of the post and these forums."
That's the upside to applying a logical analysis to statements. No need to look within and potentially taint your result. It just is or it just isn't valid logically.
"It seems silly only if the context is users who are "normal" and not audiophiles."
I disagree. Irrational thought patterns are just silly. End of story. It doesn't matter who is having them or where they are happening at. They should just stop it.
"You keep on typing. I'm actually just defending the position, and the very reasonable assertion that wired device connectivity is essential to better performance, - after all the OP is addressing high performance."
OK but to be fair you keep on typing too and I'm just repeatedly calling bs on these silly kinds of ideas when I get the urge. What is that some new universal law of nature you just made up?
"Sprezza, - in everything that he wrote."
lol. So since this thing you see is unquotable since it wasn't an actual statement OP made it must have come to you in a vision then? Or was it a feeling?
" For example: the new flavors of wifi have plenty of bandwidth and functionality to pass as high a quality 2 channel as any super-hearing-human, or delusional one for that matter, could ever hope for."
I'll believe it when I see it. Equivalent would mean equivalent performance, i.e. the wi-fi always delivering the packet without error at or before the wired network. This means that a wi-fi network must never corrupt, drop or have to retransmit a packet, since with wired Ethernet the error rate is effectively zero. Not something in any wi-fi network that I am familiar with. (Or any radio technology that I've seen, but perhaps there is some military radio technology that comes close.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I wont believe it until I see it either but can see from what little reading about 802.11s I've done there appears to be hope from the standpoint there at least exists standards by which truly reliable, industrial control network grade wifi audio systems technically could exist whether they actually eventually do.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: