|
 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
 Link Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| zaphod wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: |
Can you name me one surround processor that dont have any loss pasing analog multi channel in out..?
|
i belive that the bryston SP3 does that - the analog section (including the 7.1 bypass) is completely distinct from the digital.
i'd love to compare the bryston HD decode with the oppo, but the SP3 is way out of my league. i only have the SP1.7 with 5.1 analog input.
as for lossy DTS vs non-lossy - well there are always laserdiscs. |
The Adcom GTP HD870 Will as well, read Page 20
http://www.adcom-usa.com/userguides/gTP-870HD-ug.pdf
Also my Adcom GTP830 does as well
Athanasios
_________________
Don't blame your underwear for your crooked ass~ unknown Greek philosopher
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." --- President Reagan
One Smart Dog!!!
Marquee High Performance Bellows now shipping!!
Marquee Modifications and Performance Enhancement
Marquee C-element and Bellow removal
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Link Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zaphod wrote: | | as for lossy DTS vs non-lossy - well there are always laserdiscs. |
DTS 5.1 on LD is lossy - comparable to the core audio track on BD. DTS-MA and DD TrueHD on BD is far superior.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Link Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nashou66 wrote: | | zaphod wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: |
Can you name me one surround processor that dont have any loss pasing analog multi channel in out..?
|
i belive that the bryston SP3 does that - the analog section (including the 7.1 bypass) is completely distinct from the digital.
i'd love to compare the bryston HD decode with the oppo, but the SP3 is way out of my league. i only have the SP1.7 with 5.1 analog input.
as for lossy DTS vs non-lossy - well there are always laserdiscs. |
The Adcom GTP HD870 Will as well, read Page 20
http://www.adcom-usa.com/userguides/gTP-870HD-ug.pdf
Also my Adcom GTP830 does as well
Athanasios |
Interesting.. Ill try get my hands on those..
Just still doubt that the volume controle is high end stuff, and there is no opamp/ IC / caps. in the signal path..
And many surroundprocessors do a AD convertion to handle the volume and other adjustments, and then finish DA converting it.
I always had a dream building a true analog multi channel pre, with stacked P&G pots. 8 line modules with DC servo and only transistor amplified.
But where to find a surround processor with 4x2 channel digital out to 4 stereo dacs, and a player thats not using SMPS.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Link Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Can you name me one surround processor that dont have any loss pasing analog multi channel in out..? |
What does that have to do with anything?
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Ill not argue against HD Audio.. But pass analog signals true a digital surround processor, thats not optimal.. |
No one ever said it was optimal. Optimal is passing the encoded DTS-MA or DDTHD bitstream to a receiver for decoding, room correction, and D/A conversion.
But that's never been the discussion here, and what you're arguing defies logic. You're the one here claiming that compressed, lossy DD or DTS sounds better than DTS-MA or DDTHD converted to analog by the 83SE and then sent to a receiver. We're talking significantly more dynamic range and at least 2x-3x the data in the latter - there is simply no way you can sell lossy as better unless you're talking about faulty processing in the receiver.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | I prefer to argue the subject.. |
Well, then argue it. Provide some real data.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Link Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Can you name me one surround processor that dont have any loss pasing analog multi channel in out..? |
What does that have to do with anything?
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Ill not argue against HD Audio.. But pass analog signals true a digital surround processor, thats not optimal.. |
No one ever said it was optimal. Optimal is passing the encoded DTS-MA or DDTHD bitstream to a receiver for decoding, room correction, and D/A conversion.
But that's never been the discussion here, and what you're arguing defies logic. You're the one here claiming that compressed, lossy DD or DTS sounds better than DTS-MA or DDTHD converted to analog by the 83SE and then sent to a receiver. We're talking significantly more dynamic range and at least 2x-3x the data in the latter - there is simply no way you can sell lossy as better unless you're talking about faulty processing in the receiver.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | I prefer to argue the subject.. |
Well, then argue it. Provide some real data. |
There is loss in a opamp,, in volume controle in cables.. well in everything, So its posible that less data processed digital and only converted in the ende is better than a hole lot of messed up analog chain.
Just to let you know, i never consider a opamp to be usefull for any kind of high performance audio. So better just one opamp to destroy the sound, than a lot..
When controling volume in most surround processors, its done digital together with all corection, that means that the HD analog audio signal hae to be converted to digital again to be controled, and then back to analog before going to the amp..
Thats a massive lot of loss there..
Its not like i never experimented with this stuff.. I have tested all the stuff i was able to buy and borow..
Never had the oppo 83SE, but i tested the oppo 83 93 95, cambridge 751. Sony 5000ES Pioneer LX 91 Denon 2500 3800 4010, and setup the oppo 103 for a friend, using the analog out to a old Pro logic pre amp. also did the same to a lot of DVD players.. when playing with using the processor in the player or the reciver, or whatever pre amp it was conected.
Ended up using the oppo83 and Denon DVD A1XVA, all digital to different surround processors i have.. depending what i just put up.
There is also the ground loop to consider when having a complex surround setup, just having 1 cable out of the player for audio.. Today im running HDMI to my Radiance, and Coax SPDIF out from there.
I always used the best analog cables i could buy.. in the early days mostly Tara Labs AIR 1 cables, Today i only use VDH MC silver.
I tested dvd/ blu ray players on heavy stereo gear to be sure it was not all the opamps and SMPS in the surround gear messing up the sound..
http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31367
I dont say that multi chanel analog out of a player in some cases is not better, but its mostly just with sh*tty cheep processors.
So for me it might be a 90% chance that the the old SPDIF actualy had better dynamics transients and so on, than HD audio via analog out of a player, and into a surround processor.
Dont misunderstand me and think i dont like the idea of more information from HD source, i just know there is more to it, than digital data.
So it would be nice if the starter here buy the oppo 83SE and compare the multi channel analog out against the processor in hes Bryston fed via SPDIF.
If there is 2 ways or more to conect something, i do it.. try it all.. and keep what i like best.. Not meaning its the same as you would like..
To give u some idea what kind of sound i like i use a lot of time with Vinyl.. And not the Technics SL1210 kind of way..
Dynamic and totaly vertical transients is a must for me.. The way no opamp can perform.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Link Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When I said "data," I wasn't referring to subjective, personal experiences and hypothetical worst-case scenarios. I'd be shocked if any of your "comparisons" were performed blind, let alone in a blind A/B/X setup. Your general distaste for ADCs, op amps, and the like - regardless of how they objectively perform - permeates your opinions and smacks of the kind of snake-oil baloney that permeated much of the "higher-end" audio industry prior to the advent of digital equipment. Most of what you recite tends to be the purview of esoteric designers looking to peddle their overpriced, underperforming junk based on pseudoscience in an age when reliable, high-performing equipment doesn't have to require a 3d mortgage.
You need to read this article: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/08/op-amps-myths-facts.html
Not that I expect to change your mind; I simply don't think that such A/V drivel should be posted without going unchallenged.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Link Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | When I said "data," I wasn't referring to subjective, personal experiences and hypothetical worst-case scenarios. I'd be shocked if any of your "comparisons" were performed blind, let alone in a blind A/B/X setup. Your general distaste for ADCs, op amps, and the like - regardless of how they objectively perform - permeates your opinions and smacks of the kind of snake-oil baloney that permeated much of the "higher-end" audio industry prior to the advent of digital equipment. Most of what you recite tends to be the purview of esoteric designers looking to peddle their overpriced, underperforming junk based on pseudoscience in an age when reliable, high-performing equipment doesn't have to require a 3d mortgage.
You need to read this article: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/08/op-amps-myths-facts.html
Not that I expect to change your mind; I simply don't think that such A/V drivel should be posted without going unchallenged. |
I see your clearly a guy that dont care how sounds as long the spec sheet say its good..
Can u tell me what i did to "peddle their overpriced, underperforming junk based on pseudoscience in an age when reliable, high-performing equipment doesn't have to require a 3d mortgage."
Im just the guy with 20 year old equipment that hate most new marketing BS thats floating around, and the never ending new model is always better..
Are you one of those guys that know everything from reading, and never had any hands on experience, and just feel the need to run around with a stick beat your sense into the head of others.?
Ill much more like to know what kind of gear u tested and how.. maybe we can find something we both have spend time with, and use that as a reference..
Even better.. I can pop in and hear your setup sometime if u like to demo it. And your welcome to do the same here if your around. Your superman right?. I know u can fly..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Link Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I could care less how much gear you've listened to, it's irrelevant to the statements you've made and doesn't add one iota of meaningful or supporting information. The bottom line is that you solely rely on your flawed, human audio system to tell you what is "good" and what is "bad." You flippantly dismiss the mountains of established science that tells us that, as miraculous as our hearing is, it's an awful absolute measuring tool. Consequently, you don't know where to draw the line between personal preference and fact. Worst of all, you have no problem injecting a healthy dose of old-school audiophile pseudoscience dogma (all op amps are bad, discrete circuits are always better, ADCs are bad, etc.), all while failing to realize how much of that "dreaded" stuff your precious digital sound is run through before it gets to you.
I'm not the one here claiming that 2 is greater than 4 - you are. When I pressed you for any sort of cogent, objective data to back that up, your only reply has been to recite your mantra, and then attempt to hide your opinion behind your supposed extensive listening experience - which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Stating your personal preference is one thing; trotting it out as fact is another thing entirely.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc86
Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 765
Location: pittsburgh, pa
TV/Projector: ECP 4500 (Vidikron box), ECP4500+, wanting 07MS/07MTS, evaluating pc soft-blend
|
| Link Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: |
Can you name me one surround processor that dont have any loss pasing analog multi channel in out..?
|
I *thought* my Outlaw 970 would do this...but now I'm less certain it doesn't apply room filters, etc. to the 7.1 multi-channel DVD-A or SACD. That is, outlaw explicitly states stereo bypass sends completely separate lines for two channel stereo, but don't make this statement for multi-channel in. Regardless of how which way it is, Outlaw still went out of their way to suggest I do as Hogpilot says (my highlighting in blue). So for my unit, at least, I'll trust outlaw has the data and knows of what they say...and I imagine by now most quality prepros are no different.
| zaphod wrote: |
i ended up getting a split pack from Curt, but due a trio of medical issues, family issues and two kids the whole basement reno has slipped and slid when we need it the most.
|
Super bummer how life can kick us all in the nads like that. Well, glad you can at least plug along on this stuff!
cheers,
Matt
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Link Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | I could care less how much gear you've listened to, it's irrelevant to the statements you've made and doesn't add one iota of meaningful or supporting information. The bottom line is that you solely rely on your flawed, human audio system to tell you what is "good" and what is "bad." You flippantly dismiss the mountains of established science that tells us that, as miraculous as our hearing is, it's an awful absolute measuring tool. Consequently, you don't know where to draw the line between personal preference and fact. Worst of all, you have no problem injecting a healthy dose of old-school audiophile pseudoscience dogma (all op amps are bad, discrete circuits are always better, ADCs are bad, etc.), all while failing to realize how much of that "dreaded" stuff your precious digital sound is run through before it gets to you.
I'm not the one here claiming that 2 is greater than 4 - you are. When I pressed you for any sort of cogent, objective data to back that up, your only reply has been to recite your mantra, and then attempt to hide your opinion behind your supposed extensive listening experience - which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Stating your personal preference is one thing; trotting it out as fact is another thing entirely. |
Now what is objective data.? what data can you put up that can make anyone here understand the exact sound of some specifik product.?
I never try to hide that its my opinion and my taste, and never say that others might not prefer different.
But still do you just select your equipment from reading, or do you actualy listen to it.?
Still i would love to hear your setup.. I still think its important for the understanding of yor standpoint..
Im sorry you cant trust your ears, but i dont think its fair to let that be the reason to doubt mine.
So again.. name me a player you know well and try put words on how it sounds.. and name your reference, it will be easier for me to understand, or at least get a idea what you like.
I know we will not agree, and its perfectly ok, but that dont mean you know everything and have a patent to whats false or true.
The only thing i see is that your picking on me and my way of selecting.. dont see you come up with any usefull evidence to support your spec tell it all, and ears cant hear.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Link Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mc86 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: |
Can you name me one surround processor that dont have any loss pasing analog multi channel in out..?
|
I *thought* my Outlaw 970 would do this...but now I'm less certain it doesn't apply room filters, etc. to the 7.1 multi-channel DVD-A or SACD. That is, outlaw explicitly states stereo bypass sends completely separate lines for two channel stereo, but don't make this statement for multi-channel in. Regardless of how which way it is, Outlaw still went out of their way to suggest I do as Hogpilot says (my highlighting in blue). So for my unit, at least, I'll trust outlaw has the data and knows of what they say...and I imagine by now most quality prepros are no different.
|
Its easy to try if you have both digital and analog cables.. 
And let your ears select, as they write in the manual..
Would be fun to see a block diagram to that processor.. not that it say anything about how it sounds, but just to see what the signal have to pass.
Is it possible you could perform a test and share with us what you hear.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Link Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Now what is objective data.? what data can you put up that can make anyone here understand the exact sound of some specifik product.? |
Firstly, a product shouldn't have a "sound" - it should be as neutral as possible and simply reproduce the signal as recorded. Secondly, there are so many ways to measure the neutrality and accuracy of a product objectively that your question is ridiculous - the tests performed on the 95 that I linked earlier are one of many examples.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | But still do you just select your equipment from reading, or do you actualy listen to it.? |
Any reasonable person would utilize measurements and listening rather than selecting only one.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Im sorry you cant trust your ears, but i dont think its fair to let that be the reason to doubt mine. |
The flaws of the human audio system - including the processing that occurs in our brain - are well documented and understood. Trust has nothing to do with it. You have the same problems that anyone else does, and your unwillingness to accept this is at the root of your inability to understand why you cannot present your personal observations as fact.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | So again.. name me a player you know well and try put words on how it sounds.. and name your reference, it will be easier for me to understand, or at least get a idea what you like. |
Pointless, for reasons I've already explained ad nauseam.
| stridsvognen wrote: | I know we will not agree, and its perfectly ok, but that dont mean you know everything and have a patent to whats false or true.
The only thing i see is that your picking on me and my way of selecting.. dont see you come up with any usefull evidence to support your spec tell it all, and ears cant hear. |
Once again, you were the one who attempted to make absolute claims about lossy vs. lossless which disagree with well established audio science. The burden of proof (proof not being your personal listening experiences, again for reasons I've listed repeatedly) rests with you. Thus far you've provided no proof, and at every turn have tried to muddy otherwise clear waters with audiophile snake oil. Whining that I'm picking on you is simply another diversionary tactic to avoid the real issue at hand.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Link Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Now what is objective data.? what data can you put up that can make anyone here understand the exact sound of some specifik product.? |
Firstly, a product shouldn't have a "sound" - it should be as neutral as possible and simply reproduce the signal as recorded. Secondly, there are so many ways to measure the neutrality and accuracy of a product objectively that your question is ridiculous - the tests performed on the 95 that I linked earlier are one of many examples.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | But still do you just select your equipment from reading, or do you actualy listen to it.? |
Any reasonable person would utilize measurements and listening rather than selecting only one.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Im sorry you cant trust your ears, but i dont think its fair to let that be the reason to doubt mine. |
The flaws of the human audio system - including the processing that occurs in our brain - are well documented and understood. Trust has nothing to do with it. You have the same problems that anyone else does, and your unwillingness to accept this is at the root of your inability to understand why you cannot present your personal observations as fact.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | So again.. name me a player you know well and try put words on how it sounds.. and name your reference, it will be easier for me to understand, or at least get a idea what you like. |
Pointless, for reasons I've already explained ad nauseam.
| stridsvognen wrote: | I know we will not agree, and its perfectly ok, but that dont mean you know everything and have a patent to whats false or true.
The only thing i see is that your picking on me and my way of selecting.. dont see you come up with any usefull evidence to support your spec tell it all, and ears cant hear. |
Once again, you were the one who attempted to make absolute claims about lossy vs. lossless which disagree with well established audio science. The burden of proof (proof not being your personal listening experiences, again for reasons I've listed repeatedly) rests with you. Thus far you've provided no proof, and at every turn have tried to muddy otherwise clear waters with audiophile snake oil. Whining that I'm picking on you is simply another diversionary tactic to avoid the real issue at hand. |
Is it possible to hear your setup? are you willing to demo it.?
I wish i had your skils.. beeing able to select hifi from Measurements, but for me its just a bit more complex than how perfect the digital signal is, and how the specs is on the components.. what parameters to measure..?
Whats the perfect data for a analog audio cable..? all parametert that can be measured..?
Ill love to perform a blind test here at my place.. you beeing in controle of the test.. can be with something as simple as a cable test.. My reference against anything u like to trow in the chain.
If i can point out my cable every time ull have to kiss my feet and call me god in all future..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Link Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Now what is objective data.? what data can you put up that can make anyone here understand the exact sound of some specifik product.? |
Firstly, a product shouldn't have a "sound" - it should be as neutral as possible and simply reproduce the signal as recorded. Secondly, there are so many ways to measure the neutrality and accuracy of a product objectively that your question is ridiculous - the tests performed on the 95 that I linked earlier are one of many examples.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | But still do you just select your equipment from reading, or do you actualy listen to it.? |
Any reasonable person would utilize measurements and listening rather than selecting only one.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Im sorry you cant trust your ears, but i dont think its fair to let that be the reason to doubt mine. |
The flaws of the human audio system - including the processing that occurs in our brain - are well documented and understood. Trust has nothing to do with it. You have the same problems that anyone else does, and your unwillingness to accept this is at the root of your inability to understand why you cannot present your personal observations as fact.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | So again.. name me a player you know well and try put words on how it sounds.. and name your reference, it will be easier for me to understand, or at least get a idea what you like. |
Pointless, for reasons I've already explained ad nauseam.
| stridsvognen wrote: | I know we will not agree, and its perfectly ok, but that dont mean you know everything and have a patent to whats false or true.
The only thing i see is that your picking on me and my way of selecting.. dont see you come up with any usefull evidence to support your spec tell it all, and ears cant hear. |
Once again, you were the one who attempted to make absolute claims about lossy vs. lossless which disagree with well established audio science. The burden of proof (proof not being your personal listening experiences, again for reasons I've listed repeatedly) rests with you. Thus far you've provided no proof, and at every turn have tried to muddy otherwise clear waters with audiophile snake oil. Whining that I'm picking on you is simply another diversionary tactic to avoid the real issue at hand. |
Is it possible to hear your setup? are you willing to demo it.? |
My setup has absolutely zero to do with your claims of lossy vs lossless and the supposed debilitating effect that op amps and ADCs have on audio.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | I wish i had your skils.. beeing able to select hifi from Measurements, but for me its just a bit more complex than how perfect the digital signal is, and how the specs is on the components.. what parameters to measure..? |
I see your slide into the ridiculous knows no bounds. You have zero ability to support any of your statements objectively, so now you're setting up strawmen arguments to knock down. Explain to me how this statement:
| HogPilot wrote: | | Any reasonable person would utilize measurements and listening rather than selecting only one. |
could lead any moderately intelligent individual to surmise that I "select hifi from Measurements [sic]"?
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Whats the perfect data for a analog audio cable..? all parametert that can be measured..? |
If an analog cable can competently pass a square wave, it can do anything it needs to do to accurately transport any possible audio recording without coloring it. Building such a cable is only moderately expensive, certainly not anywhere near the cost of 4- or 5-figure audiophile crap that probably measures horribly and colors the hell out of the signal.
| stridsvognen wrote: | Ill love to perform a blind test here at my place.. you beeing in controle of the test.. can be with something as simple as a cable test.. My reference against anything u like to trow in the chain.
If i can point out my cable every time ull have to kiss my feet and call me god in all future.. |
Why is it that audiophiles love to brag about being able to do this, yet there isn't a single documented case of one being able to tell the difference between their ultra-fancy ripoff cables and a competently designed one in a double-blind A/B/X test? If you'd read the link that I posted earlier about op amps, there are multiple studies there that show what a futile gesture you're making. There are several individuals out there offering significant amounts of money to anyone who can do what you claim to do - perhaps you should seek one of them out and put your money where your mouth is. I certainly have no reason to waste my time with such an endeavor, just as I have no desire to spend time and/or money proving the existence of the ether, cold fusion, or leprechauns with a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Great article. Now explain to me what it has to do with your statement about lossy vs lossless audio. This should be good.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Photo Albums
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
