Steven Sullivan wrote:
stuff deleted
sigh
I suspect it's more likely just bad comparison techniques.
If they improved those, changing cables probably wouldn't
yield much in the way of statistically significant perceived
differences.

But I would still like to know if any *measurements*, at least,
have been done to verify that many two-box systems still do not do
clock recovery well. At what point their measurable performance
translates to an audible difference, is another issue.


would be most interesting...


I'm sorry, Jeff, but as you might have realized by now,
you can throw sighted comparison anecdotes at me until
doomsday, but unless there's some good *independent*
reason to believe such reports, they aren't of much use
to me.


Understood. Ol' Arny's just raked me over the coals over in the
"Audioquest power cord" thread straightening me out over the need
for proper DBT :-) I'll never be the same...

Still, I have developed some personal techniques that I'm
comfortable with that aren't as exotic and time consuming. For
example, with a source that has two outputs, you can run both
sets of cables to your preamp and set them up so they select on
the tape loop. I can close my eyes, hit the loop button on the
remote quickly many times and then listen, guess, and then check.
Do that one or two dozen times and then swap the physical cables
(to account for differences of output/input circuitry) and repeat
the tests. It's not really a DBT since its only me but when I can
correctly pick 25 out of 25 and someone tells me I'm imagining
it, I have a problem with that :-)

Again though, I understand your target. Good luck and let us know
if you do find anything.

- Jeff

"Jeff Wiseman" wrote in message


Steven Sullivan wrote:
stuff deleted
sigh

I suspect it's more likely just bad comparison techniques.
If they improved those, changing cables probably wouldn't
yield much in the way of statistically significant perceived
differences.

But I would still like to know if any *measurements*, at least,
have been done to verify that many two-box systems still do not do
clock recovery well.

I don't think that there is going to be a lot of real enthusiasm for new
tests of high end two box CD players, because for all practical purposes the
home CD player is a dead product.

Ironically, the two-box optical player as a technical concept is alive and
well. It has been reborn as a DVD player with digital output attached to a
surround-sound receiver. IME these generally work well, due to the advanced
buffering and reclocking in the receiver's DSP-based surround decoders.

would be most interesting...

....would be beating a dead horse.

At what point their measurable performance
translates to an audible difference, is another issue.

...one that is well-treated by the well-known Benjamin and Gannon AES paper.
Cut to the chase: audible jitter in properly-designed (i.e., those that were
not gratuitously cut into two half-witted boxes by the high end in order to
increase perceived complexity and therefore revenues) was never a problem.

I'm sorry, Jeff, but as you might have realized by now,
you can throw sighted comparison anecdotes at me until
doomsday, but unless there's some good *independent*
reason to believe such reports, they aren't of much use
to me.

Understood. Ol' Arny's just raked me over the coals over in the
"Audioquest power cord" thread straightening me out over the need
for proper DBT :-) I'll never be the same...

Hopefully...

Asking the ages-old question, can an old dog be taught new tricks.

Still, I have developed some personal techniques that I'm
comfortable with that aren't as exotic and time consuming.

DBTs are exotic? GMAB! They are as exotic as downloading a few files from
www.pcabx.com and listening to them.

For example, with a source that has two outputs, you can run both
sets of cables to your preamp and set them up so they select on
the tape loop. I can close my eyes, hit the loop button on the
remote quickly many times and then listen, guess, and then check.

(1) Ignores the need for level-matching
(2) Provides no assistance for time-synching which is the tough problem to
solve when comparing media players of any kind
(3) Ain't double blind.

Three strikes and you're out, Jeff!

Do that one or two dozen times and then swap the physical cables
(to account for differences of output/input circuitry) and repeat
the tests. It's not really a DBT since its only me but when I can
correctly pick 25 out of 25 and someone tells me I'm imagining
it, I have a problem with that :-)

A total waste of time and effort.

Again though, I understand your target. Good luck and let us know
if you do find anything.

Or for more fun, let's start worrying about something that really matters
like recording, speakers, and rooms.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Jeff Wiseman" wrote in message


Steven Sullivan wrote:
I'm sorry, Jeff, but as you might have realized by now,
you can throw sighted comparison anecdotes at me until
doomsday, but unless there's some good *independent*
reason to believe such reports, they aren't of much use
to me.

Understood. Ol' Arny's just raked me over the coals over in the
"Audioquest power cord" thread straightening me out over the need
for proper DBT :-) I'll never be the same...

Hopefully...

Asking the ages-old question, can an old dog be taught new tricks.


I would sure like to think so. How old are you Arny? You recently
admitted in another thread as being bald, is that from age or
just from tearing it out over some of the rec.audio discussions? :-)


Still, I have developed some personal techniques that I'm
comfortable with that aren't as exotic and time consuming.

DBTs are exotic? GMAB! They are as exotic as downloading a few files from
www.pcabx.com and listening to them.


Exotic is relative, isn't it? For the average joe listening to
different speakers at the audio store to decide which ones to
buy, the complication of setting things up for DBT would be kind
of exotic, wouldn't it?


For example, with a source that has two outputs, you can run both
sets of cables to your preamp and set them up so they select on
the tape loop. I can close my eyes, hit the loop button on the
remote quickly many times and then listen, guess, and then check.

(1) Ignores the need for level-matching


True, but the gain differences between the preamp sections is
minor enough for many practical purposes.


(2) Provides no assistance for time-synching which is the tough problem to
solve when comparing media players of any kind


Again quite true. However, if I don't hear any difference that's
obvious, I'll make my purchase based on cost or looks of the equipment.


(3) Ain't double blind.


'Course it is. My eyes are closed and there is no-one else in the
room! :-)


Three strikes and you're out, Jeff!


Arny, be nice to me, I'm a sensitive type of guy! Out of your
league, yes I admit it :-) but I think it's more because my goals
may be different from yours. My intent is to build the nicest (to
me only) sounding system for as little money as I can.
Unfortunately, I don't have the funds to build a system that
really sounds like what I want anyway, so it's always a
compromise. If an item doesn't provide a significant enough
improvement for me, I can't justify trying to raise the funds for
it. Those types of differences would not normally require me to
use very sensitive test methods. In fact, I've changed components
in the past where the new one sounded just like the old except
the new one matched my wife's decore better. That's OK for me
because that's where I wanted to spend my money at the time.

Now, on the other hand, I do also have an interest in some of the
more subtle improvements that I may make from time to time. When
I start this again, I will be coming back here to get your
suggestions on practical ways to accomplish this without
short-circuiting my own efforts. Don't let me down! :-)

BTW, I used to work in the Telecom industry (in fact, I sat in
the cubicle right next to one of RAHE's moderators. He's going
bald too you know...) I lost my job quite a while back and have
been forced to sell all of my audio equipment. The only real
thing I have left is a pair of Hales Rev 1 speakers. Everything
else I have has something wrong with it where I can't afford to
fix it in order to sell it (so at least I've been justified in
keeping those items). Anyway, it's going to be quite a while
before I can get back to doing these types of comparisons so I'm
quite looking forward to it.


Do that one or two dozen times and then swap the physical cables
(to account for differences of output/input circuitry) and repeat
the tests. It's not really a DBT since its only me but when I can
correctly pick 25 out of 25 and someone tells me I'm imagining
it, I have a problem with that :-)

A total waste of time and effort.


True ONLY if your goal is to PROVE that the differences exist.
Again, that is not my goal. It is to only help me determine what
I like. Even if it is only a preconceived psychological
difference, for my intents and purposes, I'm happy with it.

When I reach the point that I can continue to explore the
differences in comparing techniques (which I do plan on exploring
once I again have the facilities to do so) I plan to personally
do some comparisons using both DBT and the less involved
techniques I've used in the past. I want to prove to myself that
the methods I've always used are "A total waste of time and
effort" as you so clearly put it :-) I'm guessing that they will
still prove to hold value in some applications, but I will
reserve judgement on that until I am able see for myself.

- Jeff

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jeff Wiseman" wrote in message


Steven Sullivan wrote:
stuff deleted
sigh

I suspect it's more likely just bad comparison techniques.
If they improved those, changing cables probably wouldn't
yield much in the way of statistically significant perceived
differences.

But I would still like to know if any *measurements*, at least,
have been done to verify that many two-box systems still do not do
clock recovery well.

I don't think that there is going to be a lot of real enthusiasm for new
tests of high end two box CD players, because for all practical purposes the
home CD player is a dead product.

I'm not even talkign about high-end two-box players -- I'm talking about
taking a sample of the now-ubiquitous DVD player--AV receiver setups.

Ironically, the two-box optical player as a technical concept is alive and
well. It has been reborn as a DVD player with digital output attached to a
surround-sound receiver. IME these generally work well, due to the advanced
buffering and reclocking in the receiver's DSP-based surround decoders.

That's the sort of data I'd like to see. So, if that's generally true, and given that these
setups *enormously* outnumber high-end transport--DAC CD setups in the marketplace,
should the idea that 'many two-box setups' do poorly at clock recovery continue to be
circulated, or should it be retired? How does the DVD--AVR performance compare to a
good one-box setup when DSPs are bypassed (i.e., when using the setup for 'straight'
two-channel CD playback via the digital link?)

would be most interesting...

...would be beating a dead horse.


Not if the claim that two-box setups are inferior to one-box setups continues to
have currency. The dead horse is still alive, in audiophile-land, at least.
And it 'impugns' the vast majority of setups in existence.

At what point their measurable performance
translates to an audible difference, is another issue.

..one that is well-treated by the well-known Benjamin and Gannon AES paper.
Cut to the chase: audible jitter in properly-designed (i.e., those that were
not gratuitously cut into two half-witted boxes by the high end in order to
increase perceived complexity and therefore revenues) was never a problem.

How do we know that modern commodity two-box setups (DVD--AVR) tend to
be properly designed in that regard? What sort of measurement would one look for in the
'bench test' section of an audio magazine review to verify this?
Do you have measurement data available?

to me.

Understood. Ol' Arny's just raked me over the coals over in the
"Audioquest power cord" thread straightening me out over the need
for proper DBT :-) I'll never be the same...

Hopefully...

Asking the ages-old question, can an old dog be taught new tricks.

Still, I have developed some personal techniques that I'm
comfortable with that aren't as exotic and time consuming.

DBTs are exotic? GMAB! They are as exotic as downloading a few files from
www.pcabx.com and listening to them.

For example, with a source that has two outputs, you can run both
sets of cables to your preamp and set them up so they select on
the tape loop. I can close my eyes, hit the loop button on the
remote quickly many times and then listen, guess, and then check.

(1) Ignores the need for level-matching
(2) Provides no assistance for time-synching which is the tough problem to
solve when comparing media players of any kind
(3) Ain't double blind.

Three strikes and you're out, Jeff!

Do that one or two dozen times and then swap the physical cables
(to account for differences of output/input circuitry) and repeat
the tests. It's not really a DBT since its only me but when I can
correctly pick 25 out of 25 and someone tells me I'm imagining
it, I have a problem with that :-)

A total waste of time and effort.

Again though, I understand your target. Good luck and let us know
if you do find anything.

Or for more fun, let's start worrying about something that really matters
like recording, speakers, and rooms.



--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

"Jeff Wiseman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Jeff Wiseman" wrote in message


Steven Sullivan wrote:
I'm sorry, Jeff, but as you might have realized by now,
you can throw sighted comparison anecdotes at me until
doomsday, but unless there's some good *independent*
reason to believe such reports, they aren't of much use
to me.

Understood. Ol' Arny's just raked me over the coals over in the
"Audioquest power cord" thread straightening me out over the need
for proper DBT :-) I'll never be the same...

Hopefully...

Asking the ages-old question, can an old dog be taught new tricks.

I would sure like to think so. How old are you Arny?

A little shy of 60.

You recently
admitted in another thread as being bald, is that from age or
just from tearing it out over some of the rec.audio discussions? :-)

Male pattern baldness is due to excess testosterone affecting the hair
follicles.

Still, I have developed some personal techniques that I'm
comfortable with that aren't as exotic and time consuming.

DBTs are exotic? GMAB! They are as exotic as downloading a few
files from www.pcabx.com and listening to them.

Exotic is relative, isn't it? For the average joe listening to
different speakers at the audio store to decide which ones to
buy, the complication of setting things up for DBT would be kind
of exotic, wouldn't it?

DBTs are difficult to use for comparing speakers because the differences due
to the speaker's inability to be co-located, are large compared to the small
differences that can be readily heard in a DBT. For this reason among
others, auditioning speakers in an audio store is almost universally a bad
idea.

For example, with a source that has two outputs, you can run both
sets of cables to your preamp and set them up so they select on
the tape loop. I can close my eyes, hit the loop button on the
remote quickly many times and then listen, guess, and then check.

(1) Ignores the need for level-matching

True, but the gain differences between the preamp sections is
minor enough for many practical purposes.

Absolutely wrong. Preamps have volume controls with a large range of
adjustments, and they are highly unlikely to have their settings matched
closely enough unless done using test equipment.


(2) Provides no assistance for time-synching which is the tough
problem to solve when comparing media players of any kind

Again quite true. However, if I don't hear any difference that's
obvious, I'll make my purchase based on cost or looks of the
equipment.

Unless you address this problem, the difference will be so obvious that it
swamps all other possible differences. Hey, if there is a difference it sure
would be nice to hear it!

(3) Ain't double blind.

'Course it is. My eyes are closed and there is no-one else in the
room! :-)

yawn.

Three strikes and you're out, Jeff!

Arny, be nice to me, I'm a sensitive type of guy! Out of your
league, yes I admit it :-) but I think it's more because my goals
may be different from yours.

So its your goal to do an invalid listening test where uncontrolled (and
often random) influences dictate the outcome of the so-called test?

My intent is to build the nicest (to
me only) sounding system for as little money as I can.

Then forget listening tests at all.

Unfortunately, I don't have the funds to build a system that
really sounds like what I want anyway, so it's always a
compromise.

One of the things most people find out from DBTs is that with many kinds of
components, reasonble expense need not force any kind of compromise at all.

If an item doesn't provide a significant enough
improvement for me, I can't justify trying to raise the funds for
it.

I submit that most of the *improvements* you have heard in your life were
caused by the kind of random or bias-caused influences that I've been
talking about.

Those types of differences would not normally require me to
use very sensitive test methods.

But Jeff, you've been using test methods that are arguably randomized or
highly influenced by your beliefs, not actual sound quality.

n fact, I've changed components
in the past where the new one sounded just like the old except
the new one matched my wife's decore better. That's OK for me
because that's where I wanted to spend my money at the time.

If your tests are highly influenced by random influences and your personal
beliefs, how can you know that anything sounds the same?

Now, on the other hand, I do also have an interest in some of the
more subtle improvements that I may make from time to time. When
I start this again, I will be coming back here to get your
suggestions on practical ways to accomplish this without
short-circuiting my own efforts. Don't let me down! :-)

At this time you can probably learn quite a bit *on the cheap* at
www.pcabx.com .


BTW, I used to work in the Telecom industry (in fact, I sat in
the cubicle right next to one of RAHE's moderators. He's going
bald too you know...)

Don't get me started about RAHE moderators.

I lost my job quite a while back and have
been forced to sell all of my audio equipment. The only real
thing I have left is a pair of Hales Rev 1 speakers. Everything
else I have has something wrong with it where I can't afford to
fix it in order to sell it (so at least I've been justified in
keeping those items). Anyway, it's going to be quite a while
before I can get back to doing these types of comparisons so I'm
quite looking forward to it.

I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties.

Do that one or two dozen times and then swap the physical cables
(to account for differences of output/input circuitry) and repeat
the tests. It's not really a DBT since its only me but when I can
correctly pick 25 out of 25 and someone tells me I'm imagining
it, I have a problem with that :-)

A total waste of time and effort.

True ONLY if your goal is to PROVE that the differences exist.

No, as I've shown above, its even a waste if you want to prove that the
differences don't exist.

Again, that is not my goal. It is to only help me determine what
I like. Even if it is only a preconceived psychological
difference, for my intents and purposes, I'm happy with it.

Random influences and influence based on prejudice aren't criteria that I
exactly favor.

When I reach the point that I can continue to explore the
differences in comparing techniques (which I do plan on exploring
once I again have the facilities to do so) I plan to personally
do some comparisons using both DBT and the less involved
techniques I've used in the past.

I want to prove to myself that
the methods I've always used are "A total waste of time and
effort" as you so clearly put it :-) I'm guessing that they will
still prove to hold value in some applications, but I will
reserve judgement on that until I am able see for myself.

Try www.pcabx.com. The price is right!

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

I'm not even talkign about high-end two-box players -- I'm talking
about taking a sample of the now-ubiquitous DVD player--AV receiver
setups.

Ironically, the two-box optical player as a technical concept is
alive and well. It has been reborn as a DVD player with digital
output attached to a surround-sound receiver. IME these generally
work well, due to the advanced buffering and reclocking in the
receiver's DSP-based surround decoders.

That's the sort of data I'd like to see. So, if that's generally
true, and given that these setups *enormously* outnumber high-end
transport--DAC CD setups in the marketplace, should the idea that
'many two-box setups' do poorly at clock recovery continue to be
circulated, or should it be retired?

That idea appears to be at least partially based on the poor engineering
that the concept often received when it was a high end only thing.

How does the DVD--AVR
performance compare to a good one-box setup when DSPs are bypassed
(i.e., when using the setup for 'straight' two-channel CD playback
via the digital link?)

IME, very good.

How do we know that modern commodity two-box setups (DVD--AVR) tend
to be properly designed in that regard?

We test them.

What sort of measurement
would one look for in the 'bench test' section of an audio magazine
review to verify this?

Jitter resistance. Ideally, a digital signal would be pre-jittered and then
the output of the UUT would be tested for jitter.

Do you have measurement data available?

I haven't done exhaustive testing, but the tests of DVD-DD mid fi decoder
that I have done, showed that jitter was very low in normal use, and
remained very low even when huge amounts of jitter were added to the
digital data stream coming into the DD decoder.

The UUT was earlier tested with the results posted at
http://www.pcavtech.com/adc-dac/shac300/index.htm . Even with huge amounts
of jitter added to the input stream in a later test, the results were the
same as shown in the earlier test. I believe that the SHAC300 was based on
the surround decoder circuitry in Technics contemporaneous surround sound
receivers.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

I haven't done exhaustive testing, but the tests of DVD-DD mid fi decoder
that I have done, showed that jitter was very low in normal use, and
remained very low even when huge amounts of jitter were added to the
digital data stream coming into the DD decoder.

The UUT was earlier tested with the results posted at
http://www.pcavtech.com/adc-dac/shac300/index.htm . Even with huge amounts
of jitter added to the input stream in a later test, the results were the
same as shown in the earlier test. I believe that the SHAC300 was based on
the surround decoder circuitry in Technics contemporaneous surround sound
receivers.



Thanks!


--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Jeff Wiseman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

Asking the ages-old question, can an old dog be taught new tricks.

I would sure like to think so. How old are you Arny?

A little shy of 60.


Ok, so we're in the same ballpark (I'm a little over 50). I
believe an old dog can learn if he wants to.


You recently
admitted in another thread as being bald, is that from age or
just from tearing it out over some of the rec.audio discussions? :-)

Male pattern baldness is due to excess testosterone affecting the hair
follicles.


Do you think excess testosterone has anything to do with some of
the rec.audio discussions we see here? Hmm... :-)


Exotic is relative, isn't it? For the average joe listening to
different speakers at the audio store to decide which ones to
buy, the complication of setting things up for DBT would be kind
of exotic, wouldn't it?

DBTs are difficult to use for comparing speakers because the differences due
to the speaker's inability to be co-located, are large compared to the small
differences that can be readily heard in a DBT. For this reason among
others, auditioning speakers in an audio store is almost universally a bad
idea.


I certainly agree with that. However, I feel that my point would
still apply for other components such as amps or sources, etc.
Even though they would be easier to set up for DBT, it's still a
lot more involved for the average Joe.


(1) Ignores the need for level-matching

True, but the gain differences between the preamp sections is
minor enough for many practical purposes.

Absolutely wrong. Preamps have volume controls with a large range of
adjustments, and they are highly unlikely to have their settings matched
closely enough unless done using test equipment.


I may not have conveyed it really well but I was referring to
using something like the tape loop inputs on my preamp for
comparing something like cables. Those inputs are all intended by
design to be unity gain and are all upstream of the volume
control so my point was the volume control wasn't a big influence
as long as it wasn't changed between inputs.


(2) Provides no assistance for time-synching which is the tough
problem to solve when comparing media players of any kind

Again quite true. However, if I don't hear any difference that's
obvious, I'll make my purchase based on cost or looks of the
equipment.

Unless you address this problem, the difference will be so obvious that it
swamps all other possible differences. Hey, if there is a difference it sure
would be nice to hear it!

Well perhaps. I've duplicated some test CDs that I use so that I
can run two players at the same time. With some poking around I
could get them to play close enough to simultaneously that I
could get a feel for possible differences. Again though, I'm not
trying to prove that differences exist, just to see if there are
any real obvious characteristics that I might be interested in.


(3) Ain't double blind.

'Course it is. My eyes are closed and there is no-one else in the
room! :-)

yawn.


Even though I added a smiley, I'm not kidding! There is noone
else there to tip me off in any phsychological way as to which
line I'm testing. I use a pseudo random type method for selection
with my eyes shut (can't see any selector lights--perhaps not as
sophisticated as other methods, but I certainly can't remember
how many times I rapidly switched inputs.


Arny, be nice to me, I'm a sensitive type of guy! Out of your
league, yes I admit it :-) but I think it's more because my goals
may be different from yours.

So its your goal to do an invalid listening test where uncontrolled (and
often random) influences dictate the outcome of the so-called test?


I'm trying to use more economical testing where absolute critical
accuracy is not as important. If "invalid listening tests" are
defined as anything but DBT with all the trimmings, then yes. I
know that phsychological factors can have a big influence on
sensing certain types of differences but I guess that I'm a long
way from believing that they have as much influence over
detecting some significant differences in as great a magnitude as
you seem to be ralting here.


My intent is to build the nicest (to
me only) sounding system for as little money as I can.

Then forget listening tests at all.


Hold on. Think of what you just said. If I'm trying to build a
system that is the "nicest sounding to me" then how can I do that
without listening to it?


Unfortunately, I don't have the funds to build a system that
really sounds like what I want anyway, so it's always a
compromise.

One of the things most people find out from DBTs is that with many kinds of
components, reasonble expense need not force any kind of compromise at all.


Yup. I think that the real trick so many folks (with my type of
goals) are trying to achieve is to pick out a system that A) They
can afford and B) The more they listen to it, the more they like
it over many months of time. The problem is that as you get
familiar with a system, you begin hearing it's character in more
detail and frequently discover that you don't like part of it
(getting married can be sortof like that, the difference being
that if you have agood relationship with your wife, she may
choose to change things to please you. A stereo system won't ever
do that :-)


If an item doesn't provide a significant enough
improvement for me, I can't justify trying to raise the funds for
it.

I submit that most of the *improvements* you have heard in your life were
caused by the kind of random or bias-caused influences that I've been
talking about.


I beleive that they "were caused IN PART by the random...influences..."


Those types of differences would not normally require me to
use very sensitive test methods.

But Jeff, you've been using test methods that are arguably randomized or
highly influenced by your beliefs, not actual sound quality.


But they are NOT 100% influenced in this way (I'd say maybe 20%
or 30%). That might be wrong and I'll have to wait until I can
start trying some DBT techniques to show myself how far out I am.
The problem here is that it's worked so well for me in the past.
I was able to assemble a couple of systems that I really liked to
listen to. When I tried to upgrade to achieve a certain change, I
already knew precisely the kind of change I wanted. If I put a
component in and I got the change without loose other items I
wanted to keep, I could tell pretty quick and after several
months of listening, in general, I found that the reasons for my
choice were still valid. For my personal selection process, you
just can't argue with success (although as you've pointed out,
you can improve on it).


n fact, I've changed components
in the past where the new one sounded just like the old except
the new one matched my wife's decore better. That's OK for me
because that's where I wanted to spend my money at the time.

If your tests are highly influenced by random influences and your personal
beliefs, how can you know that anything sounds the same?


Well, again, I'm more focused on an end result, i.e. a system, in
a particular room of my house, that I really enjoy listening to.
My ultimate test is listening over a period of time and see how I
"feel" about it. A random influence perhaps but my music is all
about "feel" anyway. I use it for escape.


Now, on the other hand, I do also have an interest in some of the
more subtle improvements that I may make from time to time. When
I start this again, I will be coming back here to get your
suggestions on practical ways to accomplish this without
short-circuiting my own efforts. Don't let me down! :-)

At this time you can probably learn quite a bit *on the cheap* at
www.pcabx.com .


Thanks for the link. I've bookmarked it and plan to have a look
sometime when I get the chance to focus on it some.


BTW, I used to work in the Telecom industry (in fact, I sat in
the cubicle right next to one of RAHE's moderators. He's going
bald too you know...)

Don't get me started about RAHE moderators.


Heh! Sorry about that :-)

I also shared an office for about a year with Pete Goudreau. I
know he used to apparently spend a lot of time on rec.audio
discussions. A rather colorful character who's experience in
digital I respected alot.


I lost my job quite a while back and have
been forced to sell all of my audio equipment. The only real
thing I have left is a pair of Hales Rev 1 speakers. Everything
else I have has something wrong with it where I can't afford to
fix it in order to sell it (so at least I've been justified in
keeping those items). Anyway, it's going to be quite a while
before I can get back to doing these types of comparisons so I'm
quite looking forward to it.

I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties.


Thanks for that. The good news is that I get to rebuild all over
again once I can get back on my feet. I've also (hopefully) had
the opportunity to learn some other life skills. Hey maybe there
is some hope for this "old dog" learning some new things.

- Jeff