A response to me from one "Geoff Kait"

[jj]

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/17202.html

Geoff Kait is the individual credited with the explaination of how the "Intellegent Chip" works at http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm

Gotta love it, eh?

There's more, apparently I missed this first time out. http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/17082.html

It appears that he is insinuating a racist attitde at JREF, but it is hard to be sure exactly what he is saying.

[Zep]

Big fish, small pond syndrome?

[Darat]

Pah that's nothing see: http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/pigsty_run_by_da_rats.htm

[jj]

Yup, that's pretty lame, Darat. Sounds like somebody didn't like being told to behave.

[Raphael]

Pah that's nothing see: http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/pigsty_run_by_da_rats.htm

This guy needs to get a life. His attempt at insulting Darat with the avatar morph kinda falls flat- I always thought Pinky was quite admirable.

[ChristineR]

Geoff has cleverly deleted his insults.

[CurtC]

The audioasylum links are now not working jj, what did they say?

I read the machinadynamica link (or skimmed it), and all I can say is, I'm glad someone has finally found a practical application for quantum entanglement!

[Terry]

On behalf of people with degrees in aeronautical engineering, I'd like to apologise for this person. We're sorry. We're really really sorry.

[Paulhoff]

Things like this make you believe in justifiable homicide.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

Intelligent Cow Chip Fertilizer, yes now you farmers no later have to go out into the fields to fling you cow chips, our Intelligent Cow Chip Fertilizer will fling it for you. Using the latest BS on the market, buy our Intelligent Cow Chip Fertilizer now.

Paul

:) :) :)

Made by IDer's of the world.

[jj]

The audioasylum links are now not working jj, what did they say?

I read the machinadynamica link (or skimmed it), and all I can say is, I'm glad someone has finally found a practical application for quantum entanglement!

The links asserted, perhaps seriously, perhaps as an attempt at guilt by association that I was Kramer, and that we wore "white sheets". There was some suggestion that JREF was somehow an organization associated with "white sheets".

The moderation at the asylum appears to have removed his comments, unfortunately, perhaps, bercause I think they were a wonderful demonstration of what kind of malice some people just exude.

[jj]

On behalf of people with degrees in aeronautical engineering, I'd like to apologise for this person. We're sorry. We're really really sorry.

:)

[Gr8wight]

Poor Geoff has had his ego bruised. His concerted efforts at an explanantion of how the "intelligent chip" might work were greeted with no more than polite laughter.

[TjW]

Poor Geoff has had his ego bruised. His concerted efforts at an explanantion of how the "intelligent chip" might work were greeted with no more than polite laughter.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Why was it polite? It should have been large guffaws.

[pipelineaudio]

where are the altman micromachines

[Gr8wight]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Why was it polite? It should have been large guffaws.

I was thinking of the way one softly chuckles at a child's earnest but totally outrageous tales.

[jj]

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/17380.html

And so it continues.

You notice his complete lack of any evidence. If somebody would like to chime in on his "mechanism" for the IC, be my guest. I'll watch.

[Paulhoff]

Audiophile using so-called Common Sense, "There must be audio differences in cable, in a DBT no differences where heard, Therefore DBT are invalid".

Scientist using a Reality-Check, "No audio differences were heard in the DBT, Therefore there are no audio differences in cables".

Paul

:) :) :)

[Mojo]

Audiophile using so-called Common Sense, "There must be audio differences in cable, in a DBT no differences where heard, Therefore DBT are invalid". Homoeopaths (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm)* (and some other sCAMsters) use this argument as well.

*See bottom of page.

[CurtC]

Scientist using a Reality-Check, "No audio differences were heard in the DBT, Therefore there are no audible differences in cables".

I fixed your typo.

[Paulhoff]

CurtC

MMMMMM, Randi is looking for your mind reading ability. ;)

Paul

:) :) :)

[Luke T.]

Audiophile using so-called Common Sense, "There must be audio differences in cable, in a DBT no differences where heard, Therefore DBT are invalid".


Julio, "The MMPI says I'm a raving loon, therefore the MMPI is invalid."

[Paulhoff]

To do a test with the results already decided is a sign of lunacy.

Paul

:) :) :)

[MRC_Hans]

Life is too short to try to post at a crappy forum format like Audio Asylum, but if you'd like his "How the Intelligent Chip Works - The Definitive Explanation" vivisected here, I'll be glad to. Just give me some time. I could make it quite short by just pointing out the good parts, of course :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Paulhoff]

a·sy·lum
n.

An institution for the care of people, especially those with physical or mental impairments, who require organized supervision or assistance.

The is an understatement for Audio Asylum. :cs:

Paul

:) :) :)

[jj]

Life is too short to try to post at a crappy forum format like Audio Asylum, but if you'd like his "How the Intelligent Chip Works - The Definitive Explanation" vivisected here, I'll be glad to. Just give me some time. I could make it quite short by just pointing out the good parts, of course :rolleyes:.

Hans


You don't understand, Hans, I can dissect it as well, but I want somebody to dissect it OVER THERE, so it's not just me...

[Paulhoff]

Sorry JJ, but I don't like the looks the posting there.

Paul

:) :) :)

[pipelineaudio]

As fun as it is poking fun at audiophiles, it always dawns on me that they are the very LAST bastion of people who appreciate any effort I make to go the extra sonic mile

Of course its counterbalanced by them trying to convince me that they can through their speakers hear what was going on that day better than I could when I was there

[ChaoticLimbs]

I am an engineering techician at a major professional electronics manufacturer. I test and troubleshoot matrix mixers and DSP based audio processors, as well as high end wireless microphones (dsp based as well). There is ZERO truth in this claim, as data is stored digitally on a compact disk, through a method known as PCM. The read head in a CD player returns only either a 1 or a 0 from each data element in a CD. To change this data such that any data change is discernable even in a very subtle way can only be a change from a zero to a one or vice versa.
If you do this, of course, an audio artifact would be created. Since this device is assumed to be passive, any bit flips would have to be randomly arranged, and would sound like pink or white noise in the noise floor of the audio data. This actually would not be desirable. In addition to the audio data there is encoded track data which, if modified, would render the disk unreadable, as the CD player would no longer be able to find the exact sector and track to begin playing audio.
A simple checksum on a CD image could detect whether any data had been changed by the "intelligent chip" although this would be an exercise in futility as it is simply neither possible nor desirable to affect the ability of the read laser to determine whether the original bit was a one or a zero.
It costs thousands of dollars in very complex DSP algorithms applied to audio signals to improve sound quality. If it could be done via the methods this person says, his device would have to know which bits to flip to give compression or equalization to the signal. This is only possible if the disk is rotated and the data is read sequentially and placed in memory such that it can be analyzed and changed. The science for doing this requires that a fairly large database of past audio values be kept and referenced so that frequency and level information can be determined. It is simply impossible to know what changes should be made from a position outside the signal path of this type of audio decoder.

[jj]

Sorry JJ, but I don't like the looks the posting there.

Paul

:) :) :)

trVth

[jj]

I am an engineering techician at a major professional electronics manufacturer. I test and troubleshoot matrix mixers and DSP based audio processors, as well as high end wireless microphones (dsp based as well). There is ZERO truth in this claim, as data is stored digitally on a compact disk, through a method known as PCM. The read head in a CD player returns only either a 1 or a 0 from each data element in a CD. To change this data such that any data change is discernable even in a very subtle way can only be a change from a zero to a one or vice versa.
If you do this, of course, an audio artifact would be created. Since this device is assumed to be passive, any bit flips would have to be randomly arranged, and would sound like pink or white noise in the noise floor of the audio data. This actually would not be desirable. In addition to the audio data there is encoded track data which, if modified, would render the disk unreadable, as the CD player would no longer be able to find the exact sector and track to begin playing audio.
A simple checksum on a CD image could detect whether any data had been changed by the "intelligent chip" although this would be an exercise in futility as it is simply neither possible nor desirable to affect the ability of the read laser to determine whether the original bit was a one or a zero.
It costs thousands of dollars in very complex DSP algorithms applied to audio signals to improve sound quality. If it could be done via the methods this person says, his device would have to know which bits to flip to give compression or equalization to the signal. This is only possible if the disk is rotated and the data is read sequentially and placed in memory such that it can be analyzed and changed. The science for doing this requires that a fairly large database of past audio values be kept and referenced so that frequency and level information can be determined. It is simply impossible to know what changes should be made from a position outside the signal path of this type of audio decoder.

Indeed. Furthermore, some of the claims for this and the "reality check" CD duplicator claim to "fix the bits" to make them better shaped bits, rather than change them. In other words, they stipulate that they don't change the bits going to the DAC.

Yeah. I know. Oy vey, Maria!

Edited to add: Check out my c.v. in the www button.. Yeah, I DO know :)

[The_Fire]

Ke?
"better shaped bits"?!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[MRC_Hans]

You don't understand, Hans, I can dissect it as well, but I want somebody to dissect it OVER THERE, so it's not just me...Mmm, I'll have a look at it and could post it there. After all, that would just be cut and paste. Will be some time, though, I have a week away from computers coming up :D.

Hans

[Paulhoff]

OK JJ, I am sticking my neck out on that other forum. :flamed:

Paul

:) :) :)

[ImOne]

Indeed. Furthermore, some of the claims for this and the "reality check" CD duplicator claim to "fix the bits" to make them better shaped bits, rather than change them. In other words, they stipulate that they don't change the bits going to the DAC.

Yeah. I know. Oy vey, Maria!

Edited to add: Check out my c.v. in the www button.. Yeah, I DO know :)
Actually the Reality Check Duplicator might work. Not by changing bits. It could affect the servo that controls tracking. The power fluctuations WILL leak into every circiut in the the device. This could have an effect on jitter.

The Intelligent Chip and the Clever Little Clock are beyond my comprehension. Maybe beyond anyones comprehension. My guess is they should work as well as putting a photograph of yourself in the freezer.

If someone believes freezing their picture makes music sound better do you really want to get into an argument with them?

[Paulhoff]

Jitter is in no way caused by tracking.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ImOne]

Jitter is in no way caused by tracking.

Paul

:) :) :)
Your opinion has been noted, thanks.

[Paulhoff]

It is not an opinion. There are many stages after the data is read from the CD, and before the DA converters, that in no way can jitter get thru. Jitter can only come from a poorly designed internal clock, never from the CD.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ImOne]

It is not an opinion. There are many stages after the data is read from the CD, and before the DA converters, that in no way can jitter get thru. Jitter can only come from a poorly designed internal clock, never from the CD.

Paul

:) :) :)
So I guess you believe that when using a reclocking dac the transport doesn't matter.

Do all well designed solid state amps with the same amount of power sound the same?

[Paulhoff]

Do all well designed solid state amps with the same amount of power sound the same?

Stay on the subject and don't be a strawman.

So I guess you believe that when using a reclocking dac the transport doesn't matter.

So are you saying that after the data is read from the disk into RAM, that the jitter from the CD has an influence data steam? It is amazing that I can read anything on the computer’s monitor seeing that it connected to the jittery Internet.

Paul

:) :) :)

[cloudshipsrule]

Do all well designed solid state amps with the same amount of power sound the same?

To the untrained ear! :D

[Paulhoff]

That is always the way of the audiophile, always make out that the other is not capable and does not know what to listen for, I have been listening for over 40 years. :D

Paul

:) :) :)

[ImOne]

Stay on the subject and don't be a strawman.



So are you saying that after the data is read from the disk into RAM, that the jitter from the CD has an influence data steam? It is amazing that I can read anything on the computer’s monitor seeing that it connected to the jittery Internet.

Paul

:) :) :)
No, jitter is not stored. It's only present in a transmission stream. Seemingly unrelated circuits in a component can affect how much jitter is present. The power supplies are always coupled to some degree. The tracking servos cause power modulations.

This is one of the reasons audiophiles are adopting hard drive based transports.

[jj]

So I guess you believe that when using a reclocking dac the transport doesn't matter.

Do all well designed solid state amps with the same amount of power sound the same?

I'll put this very bluntly.

If a transport servo leaks into the DAC reference, then the hardware is dreadfully, hideously designed.

Now, I can't deny that there is some hardware that wouldn't pass 1950's telephone engineering standards, but hardware htat is NOT broken is in fact available.

My response to your concern is "If that happens, fix the (rule-8)ing hardware"

[Paulhoff]

Besides I use my AV-Receivers DA anyway. Also when it comes to so-called audiophiles, I now give them about as much credit as a 3-year-old knowledge about marriage.

Paul

:) :) :)

[MRC_Hans]

So I guess you believe that when using a reclocking dac the transport doesn't matter.

Right. As long as faults in the transport does not lead to read failures, it doesn't matter.

Do all well designed solid state amps with the same amount of power sound the same?

Irrelevant.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

No, jitter is not stored. It's only present in a transmission stream. Seemingly unrelated circuits in a component can affect how much jitter is present. The power supplies are always coupled to some degree. The tracking servos cause power modulations.

This is one of the reasons audiophiles are adopting hard drive based transports.The signal is reclocked before conversion. Unless jitter leads to bit faults, it is irrelevant. And modern CD readers don't have bit faults. You would not be able to read a CD ROM, if there was a siginificant risk of getting even one bit of the 700,000,000 bits on it vrong.

(Using audiophile's preferances for something as evidence isn't gonna win you many arguments around here ;))

Hans

[Paulhoff]

It is the old story of the Princes and the Pea with audiophiles and audio equipment.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

700,000,000 bits on it vrong.

Hans

Bit fault. :rolleyes:

Paul

:) :) :)

[ImOne]

And modern CD readers don't have bit faults. You would not be able to read a CD ROM, if there was a siginificant risk of getting even one bit of the 700,000,000 bits on it vrong.


Irrelevant.

We're not talking about CD-ROMs. CD-AUDIO looses bits and still works. No kidding, it's part of the design.

Besides I use my AV-Receivers DA anyway. Also when it comes to so-called audiophiles, I now give them about as much credit as a 3-year-old knowledge about marriage.

Paul

:) :) :)
I don't lump all audiophiles into one group.
If you can try a toslink cable to your receiver. It avoids electrically connecting the components and makes a big improvement in some cases.


The amplifier question was to see how extreme the views are. That is one extreme, clever little clock is the other.

Dac, transport, reclocking, jitter, etc. have been argued to death. The only thing anyone can add to the argument is where they stand.

I have never heard any dac that was not affected by the transport.

[Paulhoff]

Sorry, well not really, audiophiles are in one group. I am a Sciaudiophine, One who does not buy into BS.

It avoids electrically connecting the components and makes a big improvement in some cases.

If the equipment has this problem, fix it or throw it away.

I have never heard any dac that was not affected by the transport.

This is a new one on me, what will audiophiles dream of next, Lunar tides floating the bits. Yea, that the next ticket.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ImOne]

This is a new one on me, what will audiophiles dream of next, Lunar tides floating the bits. Yea, that the next ticket.

Paul

:) :) :)

This is as old as separate transports and dacs.

It's looking like your opinion is speakers are the only thing that make any difference at all. And the entire audiophile industry is sharks selling to idiots.

If so that's fine. The most important thing is acquiring music you enjoy.

I see no point in arguing about what someone can or can't hear. I came in giving a possible reason why the reality check duplicator might have an effect. You disagree for reasons I don't agree with. If you want to argue about this I'm sure there are people at the AudioAsylum that will be happy to provide that entertainment for you. I'm not into that.


Since the topic was about the Intelligent Chip it would be fun if Randi could offer the prize to anyone that could pick out cds that have been "treated". A lot of people claim to hear an improvement, but even in the Asylum most think it's bologna.

[Paulhoff]

When audiophiles call wolf so many times about BS, what kind of credit would you give them, the word is none for me, when 99 out of a 100 things they believe in is BS.

Also, I can speak for myself and will on my own say what I believe or don't believe.

I am already have started on AudioAsylum, that is not the only forum that has people with their head up their ass.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ImOne]

When audiophiles call wolf so many times about BS, what kind of credit would you give them, the word is none for me, when 99 out of a 100 things they believe in is BS.

Also, I can speak for myself and will on my own say what I believe or don't believe.

I am already have started on AudioAsylum, that is not the only forum that has people with their head up their ass.

Paul

:) :) :)
It's clear you are very opinionated and like to argue. Have fun, and beware the aneurysm.

[Paulhoff]

Opinionated about BS.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jj]

I see no point in arguing about what someone can or can't hear. I came in giving a possible reason why the reality check duplicator might have an effect.

I'll say it again. If your reason is correct, then the equipment is poorly designed, poorly built, or broken.

[Paulhoff]

It seems with audiophiles, if they can think it, it must be true.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jj]

Irrelevant.

We're not talking about CD-ROMs. CD-AUDIO looses bits and still works. No kidding, it's part of the design.


Gasp! No kidding! You mean they use EFM and Reed-Solomon-Interleve-Coding on top of that? GASP! Why they must be communications engineers.

Let me point something out, it is possible with some players to observe when any UNCORRECTED error gets through. Except on some of these new "CD's" (that don't follow redbook standard for the desire of computer read protection) that have deliberate errors, errors are very, very rare. One per disc, for any disc that isn't completely mangled, would seem to be a good average. I'm not even sure if that's right, because often the only "error" is at startup, before the RSC and the interleve are fully filled.


I don't lump all audiophiles into one group.
If you can try a toslink cable to your receiver. It avoids electrically connecting the components and makes a big improvement in some cases.


The amplifier question was to see how extreme the views are. That is one extreme, clever little clock is the other.

Dac, transport, reclocking, jitter, etc. have been argued to death. The only thing anyone can add to the argument is where they stand.

I have never heard any dac that was not affected by the transport.

Have you confirmed this claim to fact with any sort of rigorous test?

[Paulhoff]

The tracking servos cause power modulations.

I find it so hard to believe that tracking servos can ever draw enough current to cause this.

It seem that audiophiles are always looking for something to be wrong with Digit Audio, it just never stops, has soon as one idea is shot down, they find another BS claim.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jj]

I find it so hard to believe that tracking servos can ever draw enough current to cause this.

It seem that audiophiles are always looking for something to be wrong with Digit Audio, it just never stops, has soon as one idea is shot down, they find another BS claim.

Paul

:) :) :)

Actually, there's a paper at the AES that showed that for one player, a rather inexpensive consumer one, the tracking servo current was modulating the DAC reference voltage, and doing a 400Hz modulation of the entire signal.

Of course, this is hideous design ...

[Paulhoff]

Well come on JJ, there are Cameras that only use one element in the lens too, as you know we are not taking about trash equipment.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jj]

Well come on JJ, there are Cameras that only use one element in the lens too, as you know we are not taking about trash equipment.

Paul

:) :) :)


Wasn't that cheap. Yes, the designer ought to be bonked with a nerf-bat, at least.

[Paulhoff]

Geeeeeee JJ, "rather inexpensive consumer", now I am into a few different hobbies, I have an idea that things cost money, what is expensive to people not in the hobby are not expensive to ones in the hobby. You also know that these audiophiles will cherry-pick the things that are not normal as the normal.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

You know JJ, it is a shame that you are in a position that you can’t say what you really what when it comes to brand names.

Paul

:) :) :)

[pipelineaudio]

It seem that audiophiles are always looking for something to be wrong with Digit Audio, it just never stops, has soon as one idea is shot down, they find another BS claim.

Paul

:) :) :)

I think the root of it is, they gotta have something to blame for the doggy doo thats coming out of their speakers lately. It at least "seems" to them that around the time of affordable digital recording (as in no longer just in real studios), like the mackie/adat era, that music started sounding worse and worse

whther thats the fault of digital, or more likely the mackies and adats, or even more likely, the "experience" of someone who would use a mackie with an adat and actually charge someone, is going to be lost on them

Once affordable DSP look ahead limiters came to being, it would seem to them around the same time music sounded even WORSE, and the volume war, hypercompression destruction of recorded sound marches on

It just seems to me, that this is why theyre throwing the digital baby out with the digital bathwater

[Gary]

Since the topic was about the Intelligent Chip it would be fun if Randi could offer the prize to anyone that could pick out cds that have been "treated". A lot of people claim to hear an improvement, but even in the Asylum most think it's bologna.

People have to apply for the challenge, it is not normally offered. However, this challenge has been made, see

://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=36074
://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=36079

also

://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38788

(add http in front, I can't post links yet)

The first challenge was unable to agree a protocol and broke down a bit. The second was made by someone who didn't really think she could hear a difference anyway, and, surprise surprise, it failed.

[bjb]

ADAT's! Years ago, I was at a studio that ran 16 tracks worth of ADAT equipment. It was new but even the studio owner realized it was going to be obsolete very quickly.

I'll try and help out at the audioasylum forum, but audiophiles are part of the reason I became a skeptic in the first place. I went into electronics because of my interest in audio, but once I was done with school, I had the knowlege to see all of the mistakes and lies that are printed in the various audio magazines. There used to be some skeptical content in the good magazines but not any more.

I got out of the hobby and watched as companies like Monster cable came along and spread all sorts of nosense like their patented 'Magnetic Tube' wire. I've worked with their wire and others, and there really isn't anything special about Monster cable vs. any other good brand of large-gauge speaker wire. Since I gave up my interest in hi-fi audio, the amount of lies in the audio magazines has only increased.

I do have a few audio magazines from the 50's and 60's, and the letters section is sometimes more informative than the articles. It seems there were a lot of ex-military people who learned electronics in the service (my dad was one of them). They knew b.s. when they saw it, and they wrote in to the magazines whever they saw anything even slightly wrong. These days, the average audiophile is desperately ignorant about electronics. I don't care how smart you are, you need formal training in electronics to understand what is real and what isn't. Reading through those forums, it is very clear that those guys have completely bought into the b.s. they've been reading for the last 20+ years. It would be great if the audioasylum guys could be educated and learn to recognize b.s. when they see it, but I've also looked at the Loose Change forum, and the audiophiles are the same sort of people.

[jj]

It would be great if the audioasylum guys could be educated and learn to recognize b.s. when they see it, but I've also looked at the Loose Change forum, and the audiophiles are the same sort of people.

I fear that for the most case, you've got it dead to rights here.

There are a few sane people there, including some of the people who run the place.

The rest are what I've come to term "maliciously ignorant", i.e. not only are they ignorant, they really, really want to be ignorant.

Bah.

[Paulhoff]

The audiophile prayer,

"Please keep me ignorant of all thing electronic, for I like playing with my equipment in the believe that I am really on to something, please keep me away from knowledge, for I love the mind games that I play on myself, and can tweak the Sh*t out of my equipment forever and ever".

Amen to my ignorance :D

Paul

:) :) :)

[jj]

It still goes on. Now a couple of the bright boys over there are calling me a "fraud".
This includes the one who tried to rewrite the sampling theorem a while ago and accused me of "not understanding anything" when I hit him over the head with a picture of the sum of aliases...

[Paulhoff]

Well JJ all I can say for now is, I do not think in anyway that you are a fraud, and can only hope to meet you in person someday.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jj]

And, more from Geoff Kait on the chip failing the challenge...

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/18861.html

Starting there, with my post. I've been rather shoving it in his face for a while.

[Paulhoff]

We were talking about BS like this at Randi's last month's meeting. And I said that it is getting harder and harder not to come up with some ripoff produce. I can use the money.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jj]

Interestingly, Mr. Kait uses words like "deadbeats and hornswagglers" although he is careful not to include Mr. Randi's name in the same sentence.

For some reason, he seems to believe that the prize is for "Zombie hunters and dowsers? " http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/19225.html and that he is somehow above the faith healers and the dowsers, and so on http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/19224.html

One must wipe one's feet at the door after reading these, I fear.

[Paulhoff]

He's a A-hole.

[Paulhoff]

JJ, Do you liston to Tubular Bells by Mike Oldfield.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jj]

JJ, Do you liston to Tubular Bells by Mike Oldfield.

Paul

:) :) :)

Why does the idea of green pea-soup come to mind here? :)

[Paulhoff]

That is why I have not and never will, see that movie, I will not miss up that music.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Meffy]

Audiophiles or audio engineers, all bow before the wisdom of the mighty Jp22 (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Jp22). "Ha! Ha! I don't have a tube amp!"

[Paulhoff]

JJ

First, I hate the format of that forum.

Second, I was trying to see if you listened to the first Tubular Bells and had compared it to the third, which to me just blows away the first when it comes to sound quality.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

Isn’t it amazing that the claims made for improvements in the sound are supposed to be so obvious and so easily heard, until there is a DBT done.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

OK JJ, which do you feel is better, LPCM or 5.1, I will not hold you too anything, but it would be nice to know since this stuff is the stuff you do.

Paul

:) :) :)

Please a stight answer

[jj]

OK JJ, which do you feel is better, LPCM or 5.1, I will not hold you too anything, but it would be nice to know since this stuff is the stuff you do.

Paul

:) :) :)

Please a stight answer


LPCM??? Or 5.1? As far as I know, those are not competing technlogies. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're asking?

[Paulhoff]

Which would you say sounds better, or which is capturing the sound better.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jj]

Which would you say sounds better, or which is capturing the sound better.

Paul

:) :) :)

What do you mean by "LPCM"? 5.1 is a speaker arrangement, actually depending on who you believe, it's 1 of 2 speaker arrangements.

LPCM could be "linear PCM" but since PCM is intrinsicly linear, what's the point?

And strictly speaking, the term would be "uniform PCM" if you're talking about equally spaced quantizers.

If that's what you mean, there's nothing to prevent us from having 6 channels of PCM.

I do object to the .1 part of 5.1, though, unless the .1 is only for effects, and recorded low frequencies go through the mains.

So, all I can say is ???? huh?

[Paulhoff]

Never mind.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

Ok

[Paulhoff]

JJ

I just got a DVD concert of Gloria Estefan from the local Library, and it has LPCM two channel and 5.1. To me the 5.1 is a lot clearer and therefore more open.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jipihorn]

Kait comes back and He is better than ever !
Take a look to his brand new product at his web page (machinadynamica.com) : the enhancement of your system by phone !

Jipi.

[Paulhoff]

People believe in a magical so-called god, why not this BS too.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Moochie]

Pah that's nothing see: http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/pigsty_run_by_da_rats.htm

Zone Alarm blocked this site. Apparently it hosts "spy" software.

M.

[Paulhoff]

You know, it would be nice just to have the adults talk about things on this forum, like audio and other subjects, without all without the little children yapping about, that is what is good about going to the bar, no children.

Because of the children I don't have JJ to talk to here.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Furthermore, some of the claims for this and the "reality check" CD duplicator claim to "fix the bits" to make them better shaped bits, rather than change them.

Fantastic! Got told in an audio shop on the weekend that a particular CD writer used a more powerful laser to burn deeper pits thereby improving the quality of the music. When I politely pointed out that I thought as far as the reading laser was concerned it either saw the pit or didn't, nothing in-between so, whilst it might reduce the possibility of a read error, it would make no difference to the quality of the music, he just repeated that they were deeper so it would sound better! It's just 0's and 1's I said - the only difference (short of not being able to read the disk) would be in the quality of the dac. He still couldn't see it.

Maybe he still hankered after vinyl where the depth of the track could at least reduce the noise from surface scratches...

[Paulhoff]

Deeper pits they say, oh please, the pits are to be only a 1/4 wavelength deep in order for the wave interference to work, any deeper then they would not work correctly.

Paul

:) :) :)