Alpha Dog - review (3D printed headphone mod)

[BenLaw]

Ooh, I nearly missed this thread. Links please to where Nyquist has been discredited / superseded? And nothing subjective or based on a golden ears argument. Last time I checked it had been demonstrated that an analogue wave form sampled at red book could be perfectly reconstructed.

 

[John Duncan]

Ooh, I nearly missed this thread.

Ooh indeed. Watching now though...

 

[pauln]

Erm. What can you "hear" that isn't a frequency? Nyquist-Shannon is not "history". It's accepted science. If you know more then do tell us.

It's certainly "accepted" by froggy, who BTW isn't a scientist.

Your theory was considered bogus by real scientists 30-plus years ago when commercial interests backed by big money began their disinformation campaign to sell dumbed-down digital to the public.

Accepted science today knows better, unless of course you've been reading the kind of scientists who "believe" in the Magic Bullet theory. Yours is at least that good.

Oh dear.

So it's another conspiracy theory? I don't remember it being mentioned in Zeitgeist.

It's probably time to stop digging... what little credibility you had is rapidly diminishing to zero.

 

[ROTH AV]

Ooh....

Me too.

This is fascinating and by far the best thread I have ever read on WHFS&V.

 

[dalethorn]

Oh dear. So it's another conspiracy theory? I don't remember it being mentioned in Zeitgeist. It's probably time to stop digging... what little credibility you had is rapidly diminishing to zero.

I know exactly what you're saying - money grows on trees, people just don't do things like that for big money.

Maybe you should take a grade school refresher on "business".

 

[dalethorn]

Ooh, I nearly missed this thread. Links please to where Nyquist has been discredited / superseded? And nothing subjective or based on a golden ears argument. Last time I checked it had been demonstrated that an analogue wave form sampled at red book could be perfectly reconstructed.

Now there's something I missed - "perfectly" reconstructed. Really? Perfectly? With discrete bits and no "fill-in" or interpolation? Amazing!

 

[pauln]

Come on Dale, back up your claims with something other than BS.

 

[dalethorn]

You see all you can do is throw insults and insinuations. I am merely asking for links to where Nyquist theory has been superceded. If they exist and turn out to be authentic science, then I will apologise and adjust my views accordingly. You haven't given me anything conrete whatsoever. "The digital world has long ago passed (sic) you and Nyquist"...please, elaborate, or if you can't elaborate with evidence, science and proofs (which Nyquist still can), then your words are nothing but ramblings. "We know today that listening to sine waves of 20 khz isn't comparable to listening to an orchestral crescendo in a highres system." Ignoring the obvious fact that the sentence is a truism (listening to an orchestral cresendo on a mono radio isn't comparible to listening to sine waves in a highres system either, but so what? )Who knows? Just you and your expectation bias? Or someone who can demonstrate that theory scientifically?

"Authentic science" is what? Something you worship at an altar? I don't know about your country (well, actually I do - your country is as ruthless and corrupt as the U.S. when it comes to pushing a product or technology for profit, and cooking the science books in the process).

I think what you need to do is go back to school and learn how business works. The people behind the Nyquist thing weren't some little nobodies who had a marvelous idea that sailed into being one day. They cooked the books with backing from the Giant corporations who stood to make new billions from reselling the same crappy recordings, now in "digital quality" format that they'd been selling to suckers on vinyl, reel to reel, cassette, 8-track - you name it.

You need to learn about corrupt science and business, and profit motivations. Authentic science? Like a "perfect" reconstruction of an analog wave or even a complex orchestral crescendo from discrete bits? You are far from reality on this. Laughable or sad, take your pick.

 

[dalethorn]

Come on Dale, back up your claims with something other than BS.

Tell me what your claim is, and if I think it's false, I'll dig up some "proof" just for you. So far here, we have "science" people claiming "perfect" reconstruction of analog from digital sampling. Eh?? That needs proof?

 

[dalethorn]

I had a little time on my hands so I googled "44 khz sampling" and found many interesting things. An AES paper that validated better sound with higher rez recording and playback, a discussion about speech artifacts occurring in the 50-plus khz range that are perceptible, other discussions explaining how 44 khz sampling of "frequencies" and filtering loses so much musical data.

I think the naysayers here would be better served with googling their own reads and learning from those, rather than pandering to the debunkers here.

 

[Anonymous]

I think the naysayers here would be better served with googling their own reads and learning from those, rather than pandering to the debunkers here.

If they could get their heads out of their arses, maybe. Trolls out for a fight, whatever stance it is they choose to disagree with this week. Too much time on their hands and thinly veiled racism, in my view. That's the problem with this world, no tolerance, no manners and me, me, me.

The latest saying in this country is to start every sentence with "For me, ....".

 

[BenLaw]

Ooh, I nearly missed this thread. Links please to where Nyquist has been discredited / superseded? And nothing subjective or based on a golden ears argument. Last time I checked it had been demonstrated that an analogue wave form sampled at red book could be perfectly reconstructed.

Now there's something I missed - "perfectly" reconstructed. Really? Perfectly? With discrete bits and no "fill-in" or interpolation? Amazing!

Ok, I'm wrong and an idiot, but can I still please see the link to the science (30 years old or contemporary) that shows Nyquist has been discredited / superseded?

 

[pauln]

Hang on a minute, Dale is making the wild claim that the Nyquist - Shannon theorum is bogus and part of a conspiracy by big business to extract money from the music buying public. He is also claiming that his "highly trained" ears and brain can hear and perceive more than mere frequencies yet in neither case does he offer anything to support his claims other than "saying" that they are facts and drawing feeble comparisons with the Warren Commission.

Then you chip in again with this:

If they could get their heads out of their arses, maybe. Trolls out for a fight, whatever stance it is they choose to disagree with this week. Too much time on their hands and thinly veiled racism, in my view. That's the problem with this world, no tolerance, no manners and me, me, me.

The latest saying in this country is to start every sentence with "For me, ....".

"thinly veiled racism" wtf? where does that come from?

It beggars belief.

 

[fr0g]

Hang on a minute, Dale is making the wild claim that the Nyquist - Shannon theorum is bogus and part of a conspiracy by big business to extract money from the music buying public. He is also claiming that his "highly trained" ears and brain can hear and perceive more than mere frequencies yet in neither case does he offer anything to support his claims other than "saying" that they are facts and drawing feeble comparisons with the Warren Commission.

Then you chip in again with this:

If they could get their heads out of their arses, maybe. Trolls out for a fight, whatever stance it is they choose to disagree with this week. Too much time on their hands and thinly veiled racism, in my view. That's the problem with this world, no tolerance, no manners and me, me, me.

The latest saying in this country is to start every sentence with "For me, ....".

"thinly veiled racism" wtf? where does that come from?

It beggars belief.

 

[fr0g]

Sorry Dale, but your true colours are burning brightly. You keep on attacking me, you keep on claiming things with not a single link to back you up

Here is a link

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem.html

There are many others explaining the following...

"In essence, the theorem shows that a bandlimited analog signal that has been sampled can be perfectly reconstructed from an infinite sequence of samples if the sampling rate exceeds 2Bsamples per second, where B is the highest frequency in the original signal"

Now, if you have something to share that we can actually click on, that would be great.

 

[BenLaw]

I think the naysayers here would be better served with googling their own reads and learning from those, rather than pandering to the debunkers here.

If they could get their heads out of their arses, maybe. Trolls out for a fight, whatever stance it is they choose to disagree with this week. Too much time on their hands and thinly veiled racism, in my view. That's the problem with this world, no tolerance, no manners and me, me, me.

The latest saying in this country is to start every sentence with "For me, ....".

Who's been denigrating which race?

And I'm sure someone with great tolerance and manners wouldn't have made the comments you have towards fr0g, no matter the perceived provocation. Actually, you've gone out of your way to be as offensive as possible.

 

[Anonymous]

Indeed I have not. He comes on here simply to goad and troll dalethorn all the time. Rather than live and let live. It's veiled anti-Americanism everytime, aong with several others on here.

 

[BenLaw]

I like the comment in the review that says it's easier to hear the difference going from a better sound to a lesser sound (to hear what you're missing) than vice-versa (to hear what you're gaining). This phenomenon goes a ways toward explaining why most double-blind tests of cables or DACs or 44 khz WAV versus 96 khz WAV fail.

They fail because there is no audible difference. Unless you happen to have the hearing of a mosquito. 44 KHz will give you a perfect analogue reconstruction up to 22 KHz. No human can hear that high frequency.

So, it explains nothing of the sort.

That was anti-Americanism? Can you explain in what way?

 

[BenLaw]

Fr0gface

Tolerant and well mannered?

 

[Anonymous]

He calls me Chip, I call him Fr0gface, it's mutual fun, in his eyes. Remember that?

 

[BenLaw]

He calls me Chip, I call him Fr0gface, it's mutual fun, in his eyes. Remember that?

Sorry, you don't understand the meaning of tolerance?

 

[BenLaw]

And you started calling him names first if you want to be that childish.

 

[Anonymous]

[EDITED BY MODS and user banned - house rules]

 

[BenLaw]

[EDITED BY MODS and user banned - house rules]

So that's tolerant and well mannered? You're rude first, you then call him racist without foundation, you then swear at me and you have the temerity to call someone else intolerant and poorly mannered. You absolute hypocrite.

Back to the discussion in hand, Nyquist's theory was from 1928 and Shannon's from 1948, so the suggestion that this was some corporate digital conspiracy from the 1970s or 1980s is baffling to say the least. In the absence of a lack of any contradictory science of course.

 

[Anonymous]

[EDITED BY MODS and user banned - house rules]