My preference is the pretty girl.
Oh you better keep quiet on that topic - your avatar was the prettiest girl around and now look at what you have!
My preference is the pretty girl.
...I started to give you a like on this. But I reconsidered...
Well I'll change it in time. We have to keep some solidarity in our anti_MQA quest.Oh you better keep quiet on that topic - your avatar was the prettiest girl around and now look at what you have!
No, no another thread about digital vs analog signals. Was really aimed at Wombat. He knows who he is.Was this aimed at me?
Was really aimed at Wombat. He knows who he is.
Well I think it was a 2nd gen or early 3rd gen Philips unit. Roughly 18 months later. There was a Labor day sale of the Magnavox brand for $199. This had the 14 bit DAC chips (one per channel TDA1540 I think) with 4x oversampling.
BTW who was that lady on your previous avatar?That is exactly what he means.
BTW, whats with the generic Avatar pic. Come on man, get with the program. Pick a gooffy audio format logo, or a pretty girl. My preference is the pretty girl.
If we are going to make a statement of inaudibility, it better be true of all people, all content and all conditions. Otherwise it is not inaudible.
take a look at home appliances
the batteries have been mostly soldered in
I don't agree with this at all. I don't care if somebody somewhere can reliably hear 0.0001% distortion, or frequency response variations of 0.1dB, or noise 80dB below programme levels, as the vast majority of even trained listeners can't. My interest is in what is audible by the vast majority, not the occasional (lucky or unlucky, depending on your viewpoint) freak. That's why I look for adequacy, which is transparency, not SOTA.
I'm far more interested in how reliable, resilient and serviceable something is, than ultimate performance provided that performance is 'good enough'. Others clearly have different criteria.
S
Let's be respectful please.Pharmaceutical comparison is crap. Analogies are usually only for the un-educated and usually wrong.
Stick to the relevant(audio} science.
I assume you also want that set to include the music you listen to. If I proved that point using pink noise it would not be sufficient. Or if I used techno music you didn't listened to.I don't agree with this at all. I don't care if somebody somewhere can reliably hear 0.0001% distortion, or frequency response variations of 0.1dB, or noise 80dB below programme levels, as the vast majority of even trained listeners can't. My interest is in what is audible by the vast majority, not the occasional (lucky or unlucky, depending on your viewpoint) freak. That's why I look for adequacy, which is transparency, not SOTA.
When the owner gave me this choice, I said I would still do a short review and here we are
That's not the analogy at all. Here is the correct one.I will allow myself one more car analogy: just try to imagine @amirm as a car tester..
"On my dyno I measured peak power of 230HP, peak torque of 320Nm and max speed of only 240 km/h. I cannot really recommend this car, so I returned it to the owner without test driving it. There are much better engineered engines that are well worth your money."
Pants on your head, it’s the rules.That's not the analogy at all. Here is the correct one.
You are not a car tester. But rather, a retired auto engineer/manager who decided in his spare time to set up a dyno in his garage to test cars. People bring in cars from major brands to be tested there. Occasionally, someone imports a car from China that few have even heard of to test. He agrees to also test those. One of those cars advertises to have the same engine, transmission and handling of a Corvette at much cheaper prices. You put it on the dyno and realize that the actual horsepower is half of what Corvette engine produces. You also look around and realize the fit and finish is nowhere near where Corvette is. With a line of brand name cars goring around the block waiting to be tested, you tell the owner the manufacturer claims are false and that there are so many better choices at similar price ranges. Owner agrees and that is that.
You are saying I should have gone above board and test driven the car? Which auto magazine reviewer does what I do and would also entertain that in the same circumstances?
I know your real argument is not any of this anyway. You have no interest in this device. Your interest is to show that all of these devices sound the same. Maybe they do. But I am not in the business of proving or disproving that. If you feel strongly about this, you should put together a project to test such. My job is to put a spotlight on manufacturer claims of measured performance. And where possible, comment on audibility of what I find. That's it. I am not here to perform the project you have in mind. You or someone else should take that on especially since it doesn't take the specialty gear, and knowledge of running it as does measurements.
I’d agree in so much as your reasoning is impeccably consistent and I like that, can’t fault it.I don't agree with this at all. I don't care if somebody somewhere can reliably hear 0.0001% distortion, or frequency response variations of 0.1dB, or noise 80dB below programme levels, as the vast majority of even trained listeners can't. My interest is in what is audible by the vast majority, not the occasional (lucky or unlucky, depending on your viewpoint) freak. That's why I look for adequacy, which is transparency, not SOTA.
I'm far more interested in how reliable, resilient and serviceable something is, than ultimate performance provided that performance is 'good enough'. Others clearly have different criteria.
S
And so am I.For which I'm grateful, btw
My job is to put a spotlight on manufacturer claims of measured performance. And where possible, comment on audibility of what I find. That's it. I am not here to perform the project you have in mind. You or someone else should take that on especially since it doesn't take the specialty gear, and knowledge of running it as does measurements.