View Single Post
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default The end of R.A.H-E

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:

Sure there are things that are exceedingly difficult to measure,
possibly not at all, that do affect sound from audio sources.


Actually, I have NEVER encountered a case where, when a verifiable,
repeatable audible difference was demonstrated, there was not a
large, repeatable difference in measurement. On the other hand,
I have witnessed very large differences in measurements and no definite
repeatable and verifiable audible difference was to be discerned
(differences audible to others, including those claiming to NOT
live in the "tin-eared objectivist" camp).

In fact, I have seldom, if ever, encountered two pieces of equipment
did not have measurable difference between them.

And, as I have related before, I have even measured and personally
heard LARGE differences in some cables. The glaring example was
a case where a semi-pro TASCAM DAT recorder that suffered from
a fairly poorly designed S/P-DIF output driver connected to a
VERY poorly designed (but highly regarded by the high-end press)
Levinson DAC that suffered from dreadful clock recovery was a combination
that was critically sensitive to the capacitance of the interconnecting
digital cable, where the wrong cable put the combination on the verge
of losing sync. The DAC was highly regarded as being "very revealing"
of subtle differences in cables when, in fact, it was a piece of sh*t
mixed analog-digital design.

But, to reiterate, I NEVER encoutered a case where an reliable audible
difference was accompanied by no measurable difference.

And, as an example of bad measuring, there was a measurement of
a new "power supply" for the infamous Linn Sondek done by a magazine
that should LARGE differences in "jitter" between the two when, in fact,
the difference inthe measurement could be shown to be nothing more
than simple truncation error caused by a combinations of a small speed
difference (a fraction of a percent) and improper data windowing before
doing the FFT.

This has NOTHING with "tin-eared objectivists" or any other cheap
attacks: these two example are simple cases of sheer incompetence,
intentional or otherwise.

That was my goal: root out the incompetence and ignorance. Much of
it is due to innocence and simply lack of knowledge, but much is
quite intentional, unfortunately.

Dick Pierce