I was wondering can anyone explain t me how a upgraded power cord can help? - Page 9  

Yeah, there's an awful lot of high horsin' goin' on around these here parts.

So what do you base that on?

If you have to ask that question.........

Well you just failed the who, how and what if crtical thinking test.

It seem if I have to ask you can't tell me...how funny is that.

A real knee slapper........ Gulp, I'm so embarrassed!

I think he's referring to alien technology. Ya know, stuff we studied and copied off of them Area 51 crashed saucers.

speaking of which, what's gizmologist been up to these days?

Thanks, I was wondering if he is mentally retarded. Thanks for letting me know he's just crazy!

Spoken from one who has direct experience with "the stuff we studied and copied off of them Area 51 crashed saucers"? Do tell.......

Ah yes, the name calling and condescension. That didn't take long. Very nice.

I thought one had to be an expert in the field to even discuss it?!? But my point was that how audio gets from a to b is not all that we, or you, have been discussing.


If you have first hand knowledge substantiating the absurd claims of cable believers, then out with it. Otherwise, stop hiding behind your prior employment and taking pot shots at the very valid concerns average hobbyists have with those absurd claims.


This is kettle calling pot, come in pot... over.


I just chorted coffee all over my keyboard.


Hold on a minute. You are the one who made very direct and unambiguous statements concerning who you think is allowed to question the "science" (ie unsubstantiated claims) of cables. A refresher...


The appeal is when he infers no one else is qualified to discuss high blood pressure because they arent a doctor.


The way you repeatedly and so perfectly describe cable believers and their absurd position is incredible to me. That you project this behavior onto the group you disagree with is a fascinating facet of human psychology.


"Science" encompasses much more than engineering, and you certainly don't need an engineering background to understand the scientific method and be a critical thinker, nor does such a background guarantee that you will. But since I have one, am I still allowed to play?

Once again I make an appeal to reason. Lets reboot the discussion on some level where we can find some common ground from which to examine the heart of our differences.

A previous quote of yours...

Ok, so you've said you don't believe in absurd power cord claims. You've also previously claimed to be an objectivist. Yet you've consistently poo pooped in this and many other threads the very valid concerns hobbyists have about wild and unsubstantiated claims. Why? You've inferred in this thread that one cannot question cable believers without either first being an expert in the field, or without also crusading against every instance of misleading or exaggerated marketing on the planet (perhaps both). I don't honestly think you feel that way, so what is it? No couched joke-like quips. Spell it out for us. Do you think that until every possible extraordinary circumstance under which it is proposed cabling might potentially make a difference is disproven that we should refrain from doubting the body of absurd claims as a group?

Take it from square one, the first post in this thread. An innocent request for advice. Advice given, don't waste your money on absurd unsubstantiated claims. A reasonable suggestion to just listen for oneself met with a reasoned response pointing out that uncontrolled evaluations here are all but useless. And then a bunch of mess along the way. So lets sort through that mess.

Do you take issue with layman saying the claims of cable makers and believers are absurd and unsubstantiated?

Do you really take issue with passionate hobbyists trying to inform entrants into the hobby about the nature of the boutique industry and the very real probability of wasting money?

Do you take issue with the notion that uncontrolled tests are worthless in this area?

If your stated objective is to defend the proper way to evaluate audio, then what do you think that is?

Coming from someone whose posts in this thread have so far contained not one shred of actual contribution to the discussion, consisting instead entirely of schoolyard retorts scribbled on your palm so you won't forget them? Nice.

And now the insults. Impressive....... most impressive.

The use of subtle inflammatory language, leading hollow one line retorts, thinly disguised jabs, and inability to make meaningful contributions are the transparent traits and tools of the common forum troll.

If you have a relevant point to make, make it. Or not and continue playing the victim... it's mildly amusing.

BTW, if you find the truth insulting, so be it.

And now, a self proclaimed troll expert. Amazing. Of course, "the truth", in this instance, is merely a figment of someone's imagination.

No expert, just stating the obvious. You're welcome.

Once more, he is saying that because people not schooled in the medical science, are challenging his knowledge of it -- precisely what you are trying to do with me by saying what I have shared are opinions or claims. There is no appeal to authority in saying that is the ABC of the business and you don't get to challenge him on that lightly.


I am not concerned with what science encompasses. If we are discussing audio, and your engineering degree, or work experience is not in audio, then you can't readily challenge people and claim that what they say is opinion, BS, or whatever other terms you feel like using to land on top.

When the topic of astronomy was introduced, I quickly said I know nothing about it. I didn't try to say, "well, I am an engineer so maybe I know something about it."

But sure, you absolutely can be a critical thinker. You absolutely can ask questions. You absolutely can learn. You absolutely can have an argument.

What you can't do is go so far as to convince yourself that your knowledge base that is created purely as reading forums and having an audio system or two at home gives you authoritative knowledge against people who may have designed the equipment you use.


I have told you why. And JN put it more brilliantly. Your explanations of why you believe in what you believe is wrong. I don't care if your conclusion is correct. You can't put out false data. Jinjuku waves around his blind test as proof that burn in doesn't work. I agree burn in has no merit. But that doesn't mean I can't comment on how his test is sloppy ten different ways.

Somehow you think your "concerns" here are more important than mine. Contrary to your assumptions, no one is saved by your rants against these things. But they can learn something from proper explanation of science and objective testing of the same.

Further, your militant approach to this topic turns people off and make the very people you want to "save" to run away. I don't want them to run away. I want to have a discussion with them. You know, the critical thinking type .

If your reasoning is wrong for what you believe in, then you are asking me why you can't bully people into believing anyway. Well, I am not one that encourages bullying.


You can doubt it. You can say you doubt it. Just don't try to explain or "prove it" if you don't have the full vocabulary lest you want one of us to jump in to correct even though we might agree with the conclusion.


Let's take it from square one. Innocent question was asked. You say "advice given." Is this how you give advice?

Guns come out blazing. Megaphone is pulled out and the shouting starts. Why? The militant attitude here was uncalled for. This is why I say these things are not about being helpful. It is about a personal fight going on from thread to thread to stroke one's male hormones. You keep trying to rationalize it and then wonder why I don't take your posts seriously.


Yes I do because they are not aware of whether substantiation has occurred or not. They just assume it has. Where is the wide scale tests of burn in for all manner of audiophile cables that I can read about? They don't exist, do they? Did you see how I expressed my opinion of it? Did I say it like you did with use of the words such as absurd? Nope. I just said I don't believe it. I did not use capital letters. I did not shout. I gently said I can't believe for it to be true. Why is it to so hard for you to express your opinion that constructively?


Yes, I take serious issue. Because they are not out to do good. They are out too satisfy their urge to look like an authority. Why else do they shout before anyone has raised their voice? I have no use to satisfy that urge. This is the AVS forum. Not AV Male Hormones forum . There is so much emotion in Giz's response I can't even read past it. No one would need to be "advised" would do either. He has his sword out ready to fight. Why? You have your sword out to fight. Why? Jinkuku has his sword out to fight. Why?

You say my "past posts" indicate people should not listen to my explanation of human behavior. So how about you explaining the appropriateness of Giz's response and your complete twisting it into innocent advice? Are you being a critical thinker? Or just a cheerleader of bad behavior?

Sorry, no direct experience. But alien technology was the only thing that sprung to mind when trying to parse intended meaning from your usual passive-aggressively vague posting style...

The "posting style" is only "vague" to those who can't see the forest for the trees; and in this case it's the usual suspects. (And I ain't talkin' about amirm!).

Amir just wants everyone to be polite. To play nice and accord everyone with contrary views to how things work or an alternate perspective of the universe the courtesy of respect. This way there will be peace in our time. The eagle will fly with the dove. Harmony and understanding. The dawn of the age of Aquarius.

To do this, we, meaning the male population, must endeavor to keep our testosterone in check and instead embrace a more estrogen-centric mode of behavior. Metrosexual if you will for after all, women do not show aggressive and confrontational behavior. To this end, Amir leads by example. He would never call anyone a liar or take written words out of context in an attempt to belittle a person. He would never say a person was attempting to falsify matters if they made a mistake. If by some chance he were to make an error, he would quickly apologize and demonstrate contriteness.
After all, do not the hippo and the crocodile exist in relative tranquility when sharing a mud pond?

Sorry if I hurt your feelings it was meant as a joke.

However, you make claims that science doesn't play a role is how you computer works. When I ask for you to explain your point of view you insinuate that if I have to ask I am not worthy of your response, this in its self is meant to insult and enrage.

No one here thinks science is perfect but it's a path to perfect understanding that takes years of trial and error and must stand up to intense scrutiny. I guess you still won't care to share your point of view on way it is so wrong.

AmirLogic 101

Amir, what happened at RMAF? I looked everywhere for the guy dressed like Napoleon, couldn't find you.
Scared you off again eh.

cheers,

AJ

What an interesting visual.

I do consider that possibility of course, and try to keep the postings non technical (well, as much as I can without losing content). It is sometimes difficult to be immersed so deeply in the physics/EM environment for a living, and still see the forest..

Nonetheless, when a poster violates EM theory, I will correct it. It does not concern me which side of the fence the incorrect information comes from.


If it is not too impolite, may I ask what your work experience is. No offense if you prefer not to answer, I would certainly understand.


Sentence 1 and 2, correct.

Sentence 3...anecdote and/or personal belief is indeed the start of the self correction process. An observation is made which is inconsistent with the current scientific model.. The observations are duplicated to judge accuracy. Repeatable variances from expectation will drive modifications to the model. On occasion, a paridigm shift occurs as a result of severe divergence from expectations.

Sentence 4...This may be correct. It may also be that the topology and the coupling between the line cord/interconnects is indeed what has historically been observed, and that some modifications of general understanding will result.

At this point in time, I have provided a realistic and thoroughly consistent path of causation from PC/IC parameters/topology to system performance, and this must be further evaluated.


The self evaluation and self correction process is indeed one of those soft points that many such as yourself, with these words, will attack. Yes, at any instant in time the scientific model will be incomplete, and yes, scientists will ALWAYS test their models. Nature of the beast.

That is by definition the scientific method. Personally, I refuse to be embarrased by errors in models. It is not an indication of self worth. It is a model to be tested..nothing more, nothing less.

Cheers, jn

Your entire premise was BS Amirm. Head on over to productionsforums.com and many a production person disagree:

"Old School" says it's the other way around, that a PCI or PCIe sound card are going to be superior to any external sound card, due to the computer interface used for the external gear, whether it's USB or Firewire, since there's an additional "translation" layer for the external interface protocol. (Digital "noise" from the computer's internals is not a factor with the "modern" sound cards' shielding.) That may not be the case (or a factor) in USB3 or that new Intel thingie interface. Most PCI/PCIe cards can generally be set to the lowest latency settings you can get with their ASIO driver in most modern computers. A firewire or USB2 device would generally only be able to get to 6ms.

To hold to the premise that interfacing PCIe is any more difficult than USB is a joke.

And as always you won't recognize why I put in a linear regulated supply and DC-DC ATX. It was going to be ~ the same $$ as a whisper quiet Switch Mode PSU and if the cost is the same I will at least eliminate the primary source of RFI. I never did say it was for SQ. If I had you would have dug up that post. That thread is still there Amirm. Knock yourself out.

You're asking me to back up a claim I never made.

The claim I did make and CAN confirm is that the EMI is GONE. I will be bringing my 2.0 computer to the annual TechTalk GTG in Kentucky. It's on the 19th of this month. Hope to see you there.

Believe me, just cruising, it would take a lot more than what is being offered here to hurt my feelings! However, apology accepted. And I didn't make claims that science doesn't play a role in how the computer works, the point (which is always invisible or in some cases looked at with scorn by some on this forum), is that if it were left up to the scientific community very few of these marvelous advancements in technology would be made available to the mass public for purchase (at least at anywhere near an affordable price). For that we need the genius and hard work of the American business community, who through the incentives afforded through capitalism and hard work, constantly churn out new products and bring to the marketplace technological marvels which sink or swim via the competition of the purchasing power of the consumer.

JN, I certainly am not "attacking" the "self correction process", inherent in virtually every facet of scientific modification models (and for that matter in all our daily decisions and lives). Rather, the inherent condescension and in some cases insolence of a select few on this forum who have made some of the scientific observations used here their religion, and have chosen a form of verbal immolation as a response to those who wish to offer an opinion which may suggest something other than their own.

Fair enough.

""Verbal immolation""...

Sometimes verbal inundation. Some of the posts are so wordy that I do not have the time to read through the entire text..I'm far too busy picking the fly turds out of my pepper...

Cheers, jn

The following will make it easier to understand why amirm does what he does on this forum. He sells over-priced audio gears and he tries to promote and nurture a belief that those over-priced gears are audibly worth the extra cost. Without it, people are less likely to buy them which would put his cash flow in jeopardy. Yes, he is doing this for his own pocket sake and he tries to defend it (understandable when one's own income potential is on the line). In doing so, DBT is the biggest obstacle on his path so he tries to diminish the value of it. Not only that, he tries to discredit those who expose his intentions (again, understandable when one's own income potential is on the line). One might say, why do you care, other members do this too. The difference is, what amirm promotes is snake oil.

Now, why this forum? Just look at the volume of traffic here, it's a goldmine for online advertisement.

Ahh, excellent. Um, you, of course, have documented proof of all this?

I will say this though about most high priced audio component hardware. At least they publish honest and meaningful specs. Now whether the specs of a CD player are worth $30K is questionable but at least the buyer has hard data to compare with lower priced models.

The cable vendors I have a problem with as a group. They either publish no technical specs whatsoever or they post incomplete graphs and charts that any technician will see right through. They pomote junk science to try and sell their scam products.

It is ironic that what you quoted from me talked about power supply issues and your way of improving the sound of your PC was to change the power supply. So if there is BS here, we have shared a meal together .


As I noted to you in our discussion, one can speak of the latency differences with respect to different audio interface. But unlike the forum you listed, people here are interested in fidelity, not millisecond differences in latency. Whether the latency is 6 or 20 milliseconds, is not of interest to anyone trying to achieve the best fidelity. If you try to capture and real-time edit audio, then it is an entirely different matter. This is what the people in that forum worry about and and is indicated by what you quoted from them.

As to their comment of "digital noise" not mattering, there is nothing in the post or the thread that you quoted to back that. Here is what he goes on to say:

"The E-MU 1212M has really nice specs for a card in it's price range, with 20Hz-20kHz response, 120dB dynamic range (theoretical), and 115dB "stereo" crosstalk range. Rather impressive. 'Course, those are E-MU supplied figures, but probably pretty close. Their "top" USB2 device, the 0404USB (which may not be available anymore) has the same 20Hz-20kHz figure, but "only" 113dB dynamic range, and 110dB "stereo" crosstalk. "

So we learn that he is not speaking of measurements performed of the sound cards placed in different PCs and interfaced with different devices and certainly not the class of USB devices I was speaking of which was USB to AES bridges and then to DACs. There is also no talk of Jitter.

To be fair to what he says, it is absolutely true that pro sound cards achieve excellent performance despite being inside the box.

The point in *this thread* was that you don't want the sum total of your knowledge to come from forum postings and what do you do? Use forum postings as proof points. The next heavy poster in that editing forum thread says it best:

"**Don't believe everything you hear on the Internet**

Especially any "blanket" statements like the one referenced here. "


So please, stand back and put aside your emotional needs to be right here. There is nothing you are reading that is inconsistent with what I have been saying to you. There is a world out there with new audiophile products on USB that is not that well known or used in editing world so you are not going to see recommendations of it there.

Despite the differences in applictions, the above poster confirms what I mentioned to you in our joint discussion:

"Of course, if you have plans on using a Laptop with any chosen sound device as well as a desktop machine, then perhaps investing in a USB device that could be used on both would make sense. "

So you see, there is nothing in conflict here. You are just reading things in the wrong context.


Actually, I never told you that I won't recognize the benefits of that power supply. I just found it quite interesting that you keep saying you don't believe in audiophile mantra yet here you are, doing tweaks to your PC that typical objectivists would laugh at. So for grins, I asked you to justify what you have done based on double blind tests and you can't and haven't.


Of course you did. I post how you entered the conversation in this thread. I made a recommendation on how with the right interface USB can sound wonderful and do so at same or less cost than your approach. You quoted what I post saying I was completely wrong. That is a claim. And a super strong one. That the right approach was a linear power supply and a internal sound card as compared to an isolated external DAC.

I usually don't see people bad mouthing audiophiles doing stuff like this but here you are, with a signature of Bob to boot that you are a card carrying objectivists. And that cable test of yours. Why don't we subject you to two PCs, one with or without your power supply? What are the odds of you passing that blind test?


You can? Can you please post the measurements? We shouldn't have to come to a show to see it, should we?