Not just 32-bit vs. 64-bit, but much more importantly you did not mention Windows 7, just "Windows" (that could be anything from 3.x to 10 or even 11).
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Topping D30 DAC Measurement and Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Not just 32-bit vs. 64-bit, but much more importantly you did not mention Windows 7, just "Windows" (that could be anything from 3.x to 10 or even 11).
Fine. List them all, and for each, provide evidence of the use of DMA. Just start with 1.0, as it was the first.
Not really interested in if Windows 1 had DMA or not (it had, but not for USB, as USB didn't exist at the time), but just showing how you keep moving the goalposts - as you did again.
So - just show that your tweaks make a measurable or objectively verified audible difference, instead of trying to deflect.
Am I trying to dodge? I don't give a damn for a long time about dma, to which you stuck like chewing gum. And I have repeatedly stated that I am not going to prove anything to you about the changes in sound. Those who are able to understand and reproduce these tweaks, will make their own conclusions. You are clearly not this target audience.
Indeed. So your unverified and unsupported claims preserve to be treated as what they are. Have a good day!
Veri
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Messages
- 9,600
- Likes
- 12,042
Well. If there's no way no verify or prove these grandiose changes.. they're not real. Simple.
You're finally getting it.
Claims without evidence won't get very far with the audience targeted by this forum, where we are stubbornly attached to an evidence based approach.
No way to verify? No one has a computer with Windows, no one knows about the registry, no one can edit its keys?
Or is there no desire - suddenly the result does not fit into the paradigm accepted here: that only the sinad determines everything?
No, only a double blind listening test really determines anything.
How? Now hardware measurements are not suitable for those who have the right equipment?
(The right) hardware measurements are great for showing if there is a difference. Do you have any to show us?
Double blind listening tests are required to determine if the differences are audible.
Are you sure you are on the right forum?
Are you sure you read your opponent's answers and understand it? I have already expressed my attitude to all of this, and not once.
I am sure I don't understand this answer, and not once.
It's harder than just being a bot, an answering machine with a looped tape that playback only: "double blind".
So just checking - you don't believe in double blind tests?
Skinner001
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Messages
- 115
- Likes
- 232
For **** sake. A few pages over a pretty simple thing as I see it.
@Vosya - you don't seem to get that your claim is on par with:
"These 5000$ cables make me hear unicorns crying on rainbows." - and then when someone challenges you - "Buy them and disprove me yourself."
Or, "There is a God, after taking LSD I spoke to him." - then - "Just take LSD and you can check it out for yourself."
People make thousands of claims, from DACs, cables, to everything else. Some are easy to check, some are difficult and time consuming. The point is, you can't shift the burden to others to "disprove" or "check" your claim. If everyone just checked everything we'd all be sitting doing it and nothing else all day. The burden of proof is on the one making the original claim.
1. To show it makes a measurable difference.
Then we can talk about whether it's audible. Obviously, if you're making a claim on audibility and the measurements would require hardware beyond your means - you can still rigorously test audibility. Though, in reality, that should really be done by a third party to remove all bias and possibility of outright lying.
Without any of this, any claim is on par with the ones I gave above (it does not matter if it takes 5 minutes or 5 months and a million $ to test your claim).
@Julf Does it really take multiple pages of the basically the same messages without the argument progressing to realize that the other person has no plans of substantiating anything being said. Moving on seems like the best thing to do.
@Vosya - you don't seem to get that your claim is on par with:
"These 5000$ cables make me hear unicorns crying on rainbows." - and then when someone challenges you - "Buy them and disprove me yourself."
Or, "There is a God, after taking LSD I spoke to him." - then - "Just take LSD and you can check it out for yourself."
People make thousands of claims, from DACs, cables, to everything else. Some are easy to check, some are difficult and time consuming. The point is, you can't shift the burden to others to "disprove" or "check" your claim. If everyone just checked everything we'd all be sitting doing it and nothing else all day. The burden of proof is on the one making the original claim.
1. To show it makes a measurable difference.
Then we can talk about whether it's audible. Obviously, if you're making a claim on audibility and the measurements would require hardware beyond your means - you can still rigorously test audibility. Though, in reality, that should really be done by a third party to remove all bias and possibility of outright lying.
Without any of this, any claim is on par with the ones I gave above (it does not matter if it takes 5 minutes or 5 months and a million $ to test your claim).
@Julf Does it really take multiple pages of the basically the same messages without the argument progressing to realize that the other person has no plans of substantiating anything being said. Moving on seems like the best thing to do.
You are aboslutely right. I was giving way too much benefit of doubt and hope of ability to learn.
Have you checked any of these statements yourself? Did you research something yourself and prove the results to others? Are you really an unconditional expert in all the areas that you casually mention here, and I should not be completely indifferent to your opinion?
This is not the place for guided tours of the Anglo-Saxon legal family.
Look in the dictionary for the meaning of Scientific Consensus. This is a very productive model of interaction on the site if the goal is to search for new knowledge, and not something completely different. On the site, so far, with a big stretch, called scientific.
All computers with which I have to interact, have undergone changes in the settings for working with memory. The difference in sound was only one of the positive effects observed. The fact that repeated trial attempts to return the default values caused me rejection in terms of sound reproduction - is enough for me.
Indeed. I hope you understand that you are the one going against scientific consensus.
It might be enough for you. It doesn't really mean it is in any way relevant or even true for anyone else.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
