What is 'incompetent digital' ?

[Opus111]

The problem with words like "dynamic" is they're utterly meaningless.

Meaningless to you no doubt. But plenty of people communicate successfully using such vocabulary. So evidence contradicts your claim if by it you meant 'meaningless to everyone'.

I'm certain you can't define that word in a way that means the same thing to everyone.

I'm certain I can't - you'll maintain its 'utterly meaningless'.

 

[March Audio]

Meaningless to you no doubt. But plenty of people communicate successfully using such vocabulary. So evidence contradicts your claim if by it you meant 'meaningless to everyone'.



I'm certain I can't - you'll maintain its 'utterly meaningless'.

They communicate, but not successfully, for the reasons already explained.

Reasons you have confirmed with your admission.

 

[Opus111]

They communicate, but not successfully, for the reasons already explained.

I have not seen reasoning or explanation, please do point it out. Also is there any evidence for this claim?

Reasons you have confirmed with your admission.

You have lost me.

<afterthought> It could be that we're meaning different things here by 'communicate'. My meaning for when communication has occurred is that the two individuals have managed to co-ordinate their behaviour. What's your meaning?

 

[March Audio]

Sorry, the meaning is very clear to me. I dont understand where your lack of understanding is. Perhaps someone else can help?

 

[Opus111]

So I take it there isn't any evidence for your claim then? Also no definition for 'communicate'?

 

[March Audio]

Yes - YOUR evidence for one

- I'm certain you can't define that word in a way that means the same thing to everyone.
- I'm certain I can't

Its obvious that whats subjectively going on in your head may not be the same, or described the same, as whats happening for others.

So back to what I said originally.

Subjective is meaningless until some control and understanding is placed into the assessment. Otherwise it is simply "I like". Personal subjective opinions on sound quality are often very flawed and influenced by many other factors beyond sound quality.

 

[amirm]

Guys, this is not constructive. If there is nothing technical to discuss, let's leave the thread.

 

[Opus111]

Seems to me this claim that if something is subjective it must simply be preference is a significant issue. What do others think? I've seen it over at WBF too, Tim (if my memory serves correctly) being a major exponent of the view.

Would it be better to open that topic in the psychoacoustics area?

 

[amirm]

No, we should keep it in this forum. I like the Psychoacoustics area to be free of debates.

 

[amirm]

As to your question, all listening tests are subjective by definition. They can identify if there is a difference. And if there is, whether the population differs on its selection of one over the other.

 

[Opus111]

'Differences' from my perspective aren't interesting. I'd like to know if something sounds clearer, closer to the source. Most audiophiles are also of similar persuasion it seems to me but I'm happy to be enlightened if I'm wrong.

 

[March Audio]

Amir, I am going to say this openly.

Opus your behaviour has been from the off that of an obtuse pedant who clearly likes to argue semantics for the sake of it. I find this very disruptive for the forum and has frequently led to pointless diversions from the discussion in hand.

I am guilty of reacting to this, but as shown above, if I dont reply (I tried to close you down and not respond in post 124) you will use that as further ammo.

I would just like to ask that you consider if your responses are useful and progress the topic in future. If not please desist.

I am determined this new forum wont degenerate into the nonsense you see elsewhere and I will be minding my own reactions more closely in future.

Alan

 

[Opus111]

Opus' your behaviour has been from the off that of an obtuse pedant who clearly likes to argue semantics for the sake of it.

I fully accept that's your subjective perception. For which you are responsible.

I would just like to ask that you consider if your responses are useful and progress the topic in future. If not please desist.

If you find a response from me incorrect or misleading or irrelevant do please give feedback on that. I welcome it.

Just one further observation - if you see dialogue as fundamentally a battle (the word 'ammo' was used) then you're going to have problems taking part stemming from fear of 'losing'. I could suggest some reading material about generative dialogue if you're interested.

 

[NorthSky]

Ethan recently deployed the phrase 'competent digital is audibly transparent' so what are members ideas on how to spot incompetent (i.e. not transparent) digital? Does incompetent digital have any defining traits?

I'll kick off by pointing out a couple of things I see as incompetent in much digital. Firstly S-D DACs which introduce noise modulation when fed with high crest factor (i.e. music-like) signals. Secondly digital filters (known as half-band) which violate the Nyquist criteria by only being -6dB at that frequency. Hence introduce imaging/aliasing artifacts.

Any others?

Incompetent digital was the CD from the 80s, and till roughly the mid 90s. ...Sounded real real bad...no life...dysfunctional...disconnected...disjointed.
And many of us didn't know better. But the analog people were flying high, higher than us the incompetent digital people of the time.

Today digital has regained its composure, and analog is even stronger in its own pursuit.

The recordings are the first most important aspect of "digital competence". ...The electronic audio gear for reproducing it accurately is hard to get it wrong, IMO.
I'm not a technical expert in hi end digital audio fidelity. ...Digital filters used or not with the DACs, and oversampling, upsampling and downsampling.
...Also the exact amount of bits used efficiently. I guess I use my ears to discern the resolution, if it is digitally competent sounding or not...but always the music recordings first. Some are truly bad...mainly the older stuff, and the no-life sameness volume level without dynamics rock/pop stuff.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Amir, I am going to say this openly.

Opus your behaviour has been from the off that of an obtuse pedant who clearly likes to argue semantics for the sake of it. I find this very disruptive for the forum and has frequently led to pointless diversions from the discussion in hand.

I am guilty of reacting to this, but as shown above, if I dont reply (I tried to close you down and not respond in post 124) you will use that as further ammo.

I would just like to ask that you consider if your responses are useful and progress the topic in future. If not please desist.

I am determined this new forum wont degenerate into the nonsense you see elsewhere and I will be minding my own reactions more closely in future.

Alan

I fully concur with this observation.

Now Opus 111, I do not say this trying to offend or create issues or prove who is right or any such thing. My natural perception has been just what Alan has described.

I have answered some of your posts putting aside that impression in order to advance the discussion. It seems to never be advanced. You seem to want to appear clever, imply more than you simply say, and run a repetitive circle around any point without ever allowing one to get to the point. Maybe it is a language issue or maybe just a difference in style of communication. Again, I am not claiming yours is wrong and mine is right. But I only have mine and it is not easily conducive so far to useful discussions with points you bring up. If I didn't know better your approach seems to be calculated to short circuit discussion getting to any useful result. I am giving the benefit of the doubt and not saying I believe this, but I would also be hard pressed to see a better way to do that were you to have that goal.

So I am at a loss going forward. I know this will sound like a personal attack or insult. If possible, please don't take it that way. It was not intended as such. My intent is to be as cleanly honest as possible in order to perhaps move toward real useful communication. Or to realize incompatible communication which might be handled best by rather avoiding too detailed an interaction. That might be preferable to muddying the waters and creating a possibility of regular discontent among us.

 

[Opus111]

I know this will sound like a personal attack or insult.

No, its not a personal attack nor do I take it as an insult. Its simply your subjective perception based only on text you found on an internet forum.

So back to the regular programming - have any of you guys followed the link to the mods Art V did to the Bricasti? No responses to that?

 

[Thomas savage]

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Seems to me this claim that if something is subjective it must simply be preference is a significant issue. What do others think? I've seen it over at WBF too, Tim (if my memory serves correctly) being a major exponent of the view.

Would it be better to open that topic in the psychoacoustics area?

Your memory is doing fine, Opus:

Subjective

adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than tothe object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions,etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known inthe mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind asdistinguished from general or universal experience.
6.
pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere;essential.

Tim

 

[Purité Audio]

A question primarily to Sonny but everyone please feel free to chip in.
Do you often see what you would consider poor design in audio equipment?
What would you consider poor design, would omitting galvanic isolation from a USB DAC be poor practise?
Keith.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

A question primarily to Sonny but everyone please feel free to chip in.
Do you often see what you would consider poor design in audio equipment?
What would you consider poor design, would omitting galvanic isolation from a USB DAC be poor practise?
Keith.

I'm not an engineer, nor do I play one on TV, but wouldn't galvanic isolation be a pretty fundamental thing? Why would a good design omit it? Is it expensive to design and manufacture?

Tim