Then don't make the claim then, or defend it.Unfortunately I don't have evidence as of now.
P.S. There are plenty of qualified people posting here, people making baseless claims will drive them away.
Then don't make the claim then, or defend it.Unfortunately I don't have evidence as of now.
It's task is to play music. It does it. It is functional. It may not have any of the features or input modes you want but it certainly isn't useless since it does what it is meant to - playing music. Comfort/usability is subjective, I prefer commandline since I find it quicker to use than keyboard and mouse or touchscreen. Just a few tabs and I'm in my music, and the relevant shortcuts to play pause or rewind music.Seems less than useless, text based gui plays files from local storage only , what do you even as remote control?
Also no network so you can’t use Remote Desktop or VNC or similar from a tablet to control
Not sure what is broken in the nx4dsd I bought after the glowing positive review here. Drivers installed, so definitely in asynchronous mode. There are changes, if I have the gear like a decent ADC, I would likely be able measure it.I don’t have the equipment, but if you have it, done in an hour just measure an USB DAC on it’s analog output, done deal it’s should be visible in Sinad THD FR etc I love to see DAC’s with sinad of 120dB getting even better ?
Wait a minute is not USB audio asynchronous so unless something is severely broken it’s the same from any source...
But if some gremlins sneak in ( aka “disturbances” of unknown nature ) they should show up in a simple measurement.
So a kind soul on the forum that do have some kind of analyser , does not have to be AP to begin with just something that’s better than a human ...
I think the reason these specialty playback systems for Linux are so popular is because it's way too easy to configure the Linux audio chain in a way that inadvertently performs resampling, where you don't realize that it's happening. This is particularly true of playback chains involving MPD or Jack.
That being said, for programs like this that talk to ALSA directly, there shouldn't be a difference. The ALSA playback interface isn't particularly modern, but internally it uses a ring buffer properly. I don't understand the rationale for why some people claim that buffer sizes change the sound quality as the WTFplay docs mention, unless you've got old school hardware using isochronous transfers.
Armchair opinions, thinking every audible parameter is covered with a limited subset of measurements (most of them static or steady state) isn't common sense either.
Science often can't prove that something can never occur.
They may anytime be over written.
Don't get me wrong. I love music, but you give it way too much credit IMO. It's not a big mystery.
If something "audible" doesn't show up in measurements, do a controlled listening test. And if it disappears under those conditions, that's when common sense should be applied.
Science assumes that anything can happen, but that some things are very, very (very... very) unlikely to do so. If some freak state does occur, it will be highly unstable and probably cease to exist before you even have the chance to detect it.
They are rarely over written these days. Mostly just refined. I doubt Planck's constant or the speed of light gets written over any time soon
Then don't make the claim then, or defend it.
P.S. There are plenty of qualified people posting here, people making baseless claims will drive them away.
Sorry but I think you're confusing different issues/areas. Cognition has absolutely nothing to do with audio equipment. It has a lot to do with how we perceive that which we hear, but offers no advance in the understanding of what audio equipment does. Instead it offers advances in what the brain does. You cannot possibly assess the merits of a piece of audio equipment through cognition.audio is cognition related. There is still plenty of research happening on cognition, especially audio. Music isn't really a mystery, cognition is.
You certainly can't make claims on what measurements correlate to perceivable changes, the weights for different performance metric on audibility and what type of parameters need to be measured additionally unless you understand cognition properly. A big part of understanding cognition is to check what types of input it is responsive and not responsive to. Cognition is also relating to precision of detectability of different parameters (including non-desirable influences from parameters), and the location estimation is a use case for which the brain developed to this precision.Sorry but I think you're confusing different issues/areas. Cognition has absolutely nothing to do with audio equipment. It has a lot to do with how we perceive that which we hear, but offers no advance in the understanding of what audio equipment does. Instead it offers advances in what the brain does. You cannot possibly assess the merits of a piece of audio equipment through cognition.
You then go on to use the word "music". Do you mean music or do you mean audio? The two are not the same. I would suggest that music is a mystery (or has an element of mystery to it), but audio does not. Audio can be measured and known.
This still has nothing to do with the assessment of audio equipment. You cannot assess something on the possible cognitive response that it might engender. Obviously it's a valid area of study and is extremely interesting, but it tells you absolutely nothing about how a particular piece of equipment works.You certainly can't make claims on what measurements correlate to perceivable changes, the weights for different performance metric on audibility and what type of parameters need to be measured additionally unless you understand cognition properly. A big part of understanding cognition is to check what types of input it is responsive and not responsive to. Cognition is also relating to precision of detectability of different parameters (including non-desirable influences from parameters), and the location estimation is a use case for which the brain developed to this precision.
If you want an actually simple and free software music player, look into my signature. But as it is actually simple, there's no interface other than IPC; a TUI can never be called simple, as everything related to terminals (curse, termcap/terminfo and termios) is an incredibly complex mess.It's task is to play music. It does it. It is functional. It may not have any of the features or input modes you want but it certainly isn't useless since it does what it is meant to - playing music. Comfort/usability is subjective, I prefer commandline since I find it quicker to use than keyboard and mouse or touchscreen. Just a few tabs and I'm in my music, and the relevant shortcuts to play pause or rewind music.
Comparing this to Planck's constant or speed of light is strawman-hat argument since they are direct physical phenomenon which have now been well understood to quite a good level, while audio is cognition related.
Music isn't really a mystery, cognition is.
At best all that is being done here is a few static/steady-state tests, most of them at fixed amplitude, barely anything correlates to real transients, while music is quite transient and significantly varying behavior in frequency and amplitude with time.
And you certainly can't associate weights to parameters on what is the most audible and discernible and what is indiscernible unless you understood cognition limits properly.
Also where's the official certification and citations to call your club to be "scientific". It's just a claim in the air.
See Floyd Toole's handbook "Sound Reproduction: Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms" that's the reference - not blindly followed, not undisputed, but still the reference - for a lot of work done here.Also where's the official certification and citations to call your club to be "scientific". It's just a claim in the air.
The number of tests being done here cover a very minimal subset of the total number of parameters that determine a signal's behavior.
Armchair opinions, thinking every audible parameter is covered with a limited subset of measurements (most of them static or steady state) isn't common sense either.