| AudioREVIEW's Forum Archives - Cables & Interconnects |
|
|   Now, this is real progress. | pctower
Oct 26, 2003 9:57 AM | | Ill readily admit that the cable industry (and a lot of high end, for that matter) is fraught with hype and obnoxious pseudo-science, and that the prices are often obscene. Therefore, its refreshing to see real value and progress elsewhere in home entertainment.
Last week-end Direct TV was running a special on new Hughs TiVo receivers for $100, so I ordered one. Wow, what an incredible piece of electronics. In my opinion, it is a truly revolutionary product and significantly improves the usability and entertainment value of satellite TV.
A totally unexpected side benefit was the significant improvement in surround sound as compared to my 5-year old RCA satellite receiver. I had no idea what my surround system was capable of. It even blows away my 5-year old Toshiba DVD player.
Even my wife commented on the significant improvement the first time she sat down to listen, and her sole and controlling ABE as to audio/video is that every dollar I spend on new equipment is money right down a dark hole. (I know, an other wife story).
On another front, I have finally spent some time listening at length to my Marantz 8260 SACD player I bought used about a year ago. I dont have much in the way of SACD material, so most of my listening has been to the Stones re-masters, and the listening experience has been full of goose-bumps.
I understand that a 10-box SACD re-mastered Dylan set is now available for $150 ($10 per disk) and that the Karajan 1961-62 Beethoven cycle is about to be released on SACD.
Dont want to get into an argument over digital formats, but my opinion on SACD is improving.
Finally, a friend of mine was using his new Canon SLR Digital D60 camera last night, and thats another amazing, if not pricey, piece of gear.
To me, all this makes the attention I and others have given to wires seem a little silly. |
| I agree. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 26, 2003 12:23 PM | | The TiVo totally changes the way people watch TV (and movies). I got interested in the technology when I was asked to write an article for a print publication, to explain the technology. At the time the PVR was a totally new idea, and after talking to the people at TiVo and the other PVR companies I decided I had to give one a try.
It is not without its downsides, including the fact that many people end up watching even more TV than before, but once people get use to having them around it's hard to imagine being without some kind of PVR. I'd like to see better video compression (or no re-compression), as with larger high resolution displays the compression artifacts are a bit bothersom. I'd rather not make that quality tradeoff, but the alternative, doing without a PVR, is now simply unacceptable.
I find your comments about the sound more than just mildly interesting. Can't wait to read some golden-ear review of the TiVo sound. The compression scheme used employs a brick-wall filter at 15kHz. (same as the upper frequency limit of FM broadcasts), which of course to a man in his 50's might as well be 15-megahertz. A good decoder makes a huge improvement, a real improvement, that anyone can hear, but you can rest assured that if the TiVo "sounds good" then you've not affected by a loss of signal above 15k. How does that mesh with the preceived "need" for a sampling rate (as in DVD-A for example) that only improves the frequency response well above that 15k brick-wall filter in the TiVo. I know the answer Phil, and am simply wondering if you're smart enough to figure it out for yourself. Care to give it a shot?
R.O. |
| I agree. | pctower
Oct 27, 2003 7:08 AM | | b I know the answer Phil, and am simply wondering if you're smart enough to figure it out for yourself. Care to give it a shot?
Of course it could be placebo, but I can honestly say that when I got the TiVo, it had not even occured to me that it would improve sound or picture. I bought it solely for the convenience features. Nor could my wife have had any positive disposition toward perceiving improvement. She understands nothing about any of this, doesn't care and thinks I'm crazy.
So if you want me to ignore those facts and say for sure that it's placebo, sorry, I'm not willing to go there. And I really don't care. I'm enjoying the convenience and since I don't have an HDTV, the picture seems quite good to me. I have noticed no difference between a recording and live. |
| Clarification | pctower
Oct 27, 2003 9:57 AM | | RADAR:
I reread your post and perhaps your question was directed at my comments about SACD. Yes, I'm fairly certain I have virtually no hearing above 15KHz. As to my reaction to SACD, it could very well be placebo, or just good mastering on the Stone's new SACD releases.
What I find interesting is how good the Marantz sounds on red-book with cheap interconnects and a price that is a small fraction of my CED TL-1X transport (with Reference Audio Mods modification) and my Audio Logic 2400 DAC (with the new transformer outputs)and Sahuaro XLR interconnects. |
| One more question. | pctower
Oct 27, 2003 10:01 AM | | The improvement in surround sound performance I perceived and that my wife perceived were both during live broadcasts. And, as I said, I can't tell any difference between live and recorded with the TiVo.
That got me to wondering if "live" is really live with TiVo, or when I'm watching live TV is TiVo first recording the signal and what I'm seeing is the recorded playback?
BTW, Cox just announced here a device similar to TiVo. I'm surprised it took them that long to catch up. |
| Thanks Phil. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 27, 2003 3:16 PM | | Thanks for re-reading the post, Phil. If others here would be as thorough and thoughtful we'd have a much better forum.
(I said nothing about "placebo," as it just doesn't seem to apply.)
You have guessed correctly about the TiVo. The picture you watch is never actually a live picture. There is a slight time delay you can see easily if you can feed the cable directly to a monitor in parallel with the TiVo. Everything you see coming out of the TiVo is coming from the internal hard-drive. The signal is being recorded, and you are actually viewing the recording. That's one of the things I actually don't like about the device. There is no bypass mode to allow me to get the full quality of my C-band system (C-band is uncompressed video and uncompressed digital audio). We love our TiVo, but like almost anything else, it involves some compromises.
The PVR (TiVo is only one of many) is a direct offshoot of standalone digital video editing boxes like the ones produced by Applied Magic. Inside they are pretty much the same thing, a CPU, some memory, a big hard drive, and some software. We saw the technology packaged this way first in the video editing marketplace because that is a professional arena that could support the development costs (with very high prices). TiVo and others have taken the same basic box and moved it to the set-top (in the industry they call these things "set-top boxes" because they are designed to sit on top of the TV), and they all have big plans for their products. TiVo is already offering a number of extensions to the basic box. You can share files between multiple units, display and edit your digital images, and do other things that were once in the domain of the general purpose home computer. Their vision doesn't stop here. They are busy developing additional applications for the boxes. Soon (some day) we'll be downloading games and music to the same set top box we use to "pause live television" and time-shift programming. We'll be editing our home movies (videos) from the couch, using the TiVo remote. What you see now is just the tip of the iceberg.
If I've missed any of your questions it was unintentional. Kind'a hard to keep up with three posts all at once. ;-) If I've missed anything important ask again and I'll try to catch it all on the next round. ;-)
R.O. |
| Is it live or is it memorex! | Tony_Montana
Oct 27, 2003 3:51 PM | | Hey R.O.
You said:"Everything you see coming out of the TiVo is coming from the internal hard-drive. The signal is being recorded, and you are actually viewing the recording."
I also have an early version of TiVo and from what I have read, the signal is passed thru a buffer zone before being send to TV. The buffer zone is similar in concept to RAM or cache in your computer where the signal is streamed [buffered] thru it and it is very fast.
It is only when one pushes the pause button (since data is accumulating) that signal is routed thru the hard drive [and recorded] since the buffer zone can not hold too much data :) |
| Hi Tony. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 27, 2003 5:34 PM | | I'm not sure where you got that information from, and I'm not sure that it's correct. I have a great deal of respect for the TiVo design team, and I really don't think they'd do it that way. Let me explain why.
Input to the TiVo is always compressed. The output is always the result of result of reconstituting the compressed signal. This is easily verified by simply looking at the audio output on a spectrum analyzer (a PC based simulation will work just fine, as the measurements are totally non-critical). Feed a broadband test signal (20-20k) to the TiVo input, and look at the spectral plot of the output. There is NOTHING above 15k. Matters not if you are in "live" mode or pause a while to introduce a delay, you will see the same audio filtering. The same thing can be seen in the video data stream. It is compressed going in, and reconstituted to produce an output. There is no bypass mode, even if the data is being moved directly from one buffer to the other. The data has to be compressed before being written to the buffer (uncompressed video data rates are simply impractical). Given that the viewer is always going to be seeing the wavelet compression and hearing the limited bandwidth audio, and that passing it through the hard drive on the way from one buffer to the other actually changes nothing, how would you design the software? Would you put in code to handle "immediate viewing" as a special case, and write code to handle it, or would you simply let a record routine, and a playback routine, run independently on independent A/V streams? It makes a lot more sense to generalize the software as much as possible, because it reduces code size, reduces the chances for errors, and makes maintenance easier (because problems can appear in more than one place if unneeded code is allowed). I could be wrong about it Tony, but I really think the TiVo software engineers have a good grasp of what they are doing, and how to do it well, and I don't think they'd make this kind of design decision. On the other hand, memory is cheap, and getting cheaper, and programmers do sometimes make very misguided design decisions (as do we all). ;-)
It's moot anyway. My point was really that the output of the TiVo is always the result of a compression/decompression chain, and there is no way to bypass it. Once that data is in the digital form writing it to the HD doesn't hurt it one iota. In fact, it can be shown that writing data to a block device totally eliminates any jitter (jitter-heads could probably have a field day with that one if they had the intelligence to understand it). ;-)
On our early unit, when the drive was partially filled, it was possible, by putting the ear close to the unit, to hear the heads clicking wildly during "live" playback, as the heads jumped back and forth between the two data streams. The newer unit is almost silent (except for the fan, which needed some work).
R.O. |
| Hi Tony. | pctower
Oct 27, 2003 5:52 PM | | Thanks RADAR. I think you answered all my questions. If my response seemed reasonable, I must just be having a bad day. :-)
I find it fascinating reading your description of what TiVo does to the signal. If you were talking about a pure audio signal, I'd be convinced it was compromising performance beyond acceptablility. But because it's HT, I don't worry. I don't watch much TV, but I do enjoy recording movies and watching them. I never worry much about wires or equipment with HT. I just enjoy it.
Wish I were this uncritical (or many would say un-paranoid) about audio. |
| I'll try to keep this short, ... | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 28, 2003 12:54 PM | | ... but it may not be easy. The short version would simply be a statement of understanding and agreement, but you struck a nerve, so the short version won't do.
Audiophiles are told, and actually believe, that anyone who disagrees with their audio pseudo-sciences does so because they don't listen to music, don't care about music, care more about equipment than music, care more about measurements than music, and so on. Of all the claims audiophiles and their gurus make, this is one of the most ignorant and one of the most inflammatory. What delusions do these people actually hold? Don't they have enough sense to realize that audio designers and engineers become audio designers and engineers because they love music? No, they DON'T understand it, they deny it, and it's just plain stupid. The depths of mental depravity.
We measure (and test) because we want better performance, but it's about the music (or the video), not about the gear. Guys who claim to get headaches from CD's and hear magic from cables are obviously all about the gear, but their reversed thinking makes them get it totally bass-ackwards. It is an amazement how audiophiles can be so wrong about so many things and yet so arrogant and comfortable in their ignorance. Sometimes they're funny, sometimes they're pathetic, and usually they manage to be highly abrasive.
Talking with them is like trying to talk to Moonies. They simply reek of a cult mentality that is stupid beyond belief. That's a fact, not an opinion. Proof is left to the reader. ;-)
I have no respect for the idiots who say it's all about the music, but that CD's, or TiVo's, or car radios give them headaches or make them sick to their stomach. If any of their BS was true, they'd have to go to the hospital after attending a live performance. ;-)
R.O. |
| I believe that is main problems with some audphiles. | Tony_Montana
Oct 29, 2003 3:02 PM | | They rather listen to their system than music. Given that every CD/LP/DVD/recordings will have different equalization and sound, having a system that will have perfect bass, midrange and treble 100% of time is just a mirage :)
BTW, on the TiVo subject, I was referring to TiVo model that are integrated into satellite receivers. Since the digital data (Video/audio) that TiVo receive from satellite is already compressed by satellite provider, it make it that much easier to buffer/record it before it is send to the Mpeg decoder. And I agree that audio output don't have 20-20kh full spectrum. The sound quality seem to be somewhere between FM and CD :) |
| HUH? | pctower
Oct 29, 2003 6:15 PM | | b "I believe that is main problems with some audphiles."
b They rather listen to their system than music.
If that's what they want to do, how or why is that a problem for you? |
| Good question! | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 29, 2003 6:45 PM | | LOL. Sometimes (most of the time) I listen to music, but sometimes I listen to the gear. If
b anyone
has a problem with that, it's their problem, not mine. ;-)
What I have a problem with is guys who are obviously obsessed with equipment telling guys like me that we don't buy their bullshit because we don't listen to music. Phil, it really doesn't get much deeper or dumber.
Does it? ;-)
R.O. |
| Good question! | pctower
Oct 30, 2003 12:29 AM | | b What I have a problem with is guys who are obviously obsessed with equipment telling guys like me that we don't buy their bullshit because we don't listen to music.
Good point. I would guess the people who are the least concerned about equipment are the ones most in touch with the music. |
| You sure said a mouthful PC. | Tony_Montana
Oct 30, 2003 2:33 PM | | To demonstrate your point, just take a trip to your local A/V shop such as BestBuy or CircuitCity and hang out in the aisle where they keep low priced HTiB and look at expression on people's faces when they load one up into their shopping carts. They are happy as they could be.
Now, go hang out in the aisle where they keep cables and check out the people that hang out in that aisle. They all look so tense and nervous, and the way they read the fine print on cable package seem like their life depend on it.
Now the question is which group do you think would have a ball that night? The group that is eating pop corn and grinning from ear to ear at the way Subwoofer makes the bass notes comes alive, or the persons siting in their sweet spot , sweating about whether they hear an extra note with their new cable or not? |
| That was a real eye opener. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 30, 2003 6:23 PM | | Tony, I've observed the behavior but had not placed it in the same framework. I doubt that most audiophiles go home with new wire and sweat over their purchase. I was interested in music and recorded sound long before I had any real understanding of the technologies and processes that are involved (big surprise, eh?), and "in the old days" test equipment was too expensive for hobbyists, so about all we had were subjective evaluations. I can say with certainty that all the "upgrades" I purchased during those dark-ages exceeded my expectations. I still wonder about some of them, whether they were real or just my expectations playing tricks on me, and I'm sure there was some mix of the two. Expectation bias is as real as it gets, even if it is totally internal to the individual. The person who feels sick, and responds to sugar pills resulting in a "cure," the guy really IS better, because he isn't sick anymore. I think once most guys get a new toy home they're in love with it for at least a little while.
The stress we see in the stores, in forum discussions and letters to audio magazine editors, seems to be more a part of the decision making process. I think when someone asks for approval after a purchase they're (in most cases) just looking for some confirmation that they didn't make a mistake.
R.O. |
| You sure said a mouthful PC. | pctower
Oct 31, 2003 5:38 AM | | Great observation.
But, gee, think of the wonderful tech advice available to those customers over in the cable section. A BB salesman once tried to sell me some Monster speaker cables by telling me that it was so good because it allowed all the electrons to arrive at my speaker at the same time.
I was tempted to tell him I didn't think my speakers could handle all those electrons showing up all togther at the same time. |
| Phil, that's FUNNY!!!!!!!! | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 31, 2003 11:01 PM | | When I was selling audio gear (in the early 70's) a customer called me, all excited because he'd just visited a competing dealer, and "on their speakers you could hear traffic on the street outside the recording studio." That's how they'd explained away their turntable rumble, but I didn't realize that right away. I did know for sure that the dealer he'd visited had no really decent gear, so they had been shooting a few bulls. Unfortunately, I didn't have a clue how to answer his question. "Can I hear that on the speakers you're selling?" All I could think to say was, "Bring the recording when you come by. If their system lets you hear the traffic on the street, our system will let you hear the peanut vendor on the other side of the street making change." I was just kidding with the guy, but he thought I was serious, and was in the store with his recording within 5 minutes. By then I'd realized that what he'd heard had to be TT rumble, so we set up the same turntable the other dealer used, and sure enough, you could "hear the traffic on the street" (but it wasn't really traffic, it was rumble from the TT). After he realized how the other dealer had fooled him he grinned at me and asked why he couldn't hear the peanut vendor making change. I told him it must be the guys day off, we had a good laugh, and he went home with new speakers.
Once upon a time there were at least a few audio dealers that tried very hard to treat their customers fairly and give them the best advice possible. That all ended about the time magical wire and magic rocks became more popular than real hardware upgrades. Go figure.
R.O. |
| That has to be right. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 30, 2003 5:56 PM | | GDS chose to become an EE and analog engineer because of his love of music. I also went into electroincs because of my interest in music and recording. I'm not a gambling man, but I'd risk a wager that Jon Risch also selected his choice of education, in whole or in part, because of his love of music. I even tend to believe that most if not all audiophiles start out with the music, and most probably never really forget what it's all about. But the "golden-ears" and their gurus are so biased that they can't even imagine that this might be the case. This is the kind of thinking that I've repeatedly referred to here as "cult-like." There is no basis for it in any known reality, and no good reason for anyone to believe anything that is so obviously stupid. But audiophiles and audio gurus will SWEAR that the claim is above question, a matter of established fact, and will even call an honest man a liar if he points out that they're mistaken. Phil, I'm thinking that perhaps I should apply for a grant to investigate "Audiophilia" as a form of mental illness. ;-)
R.O. |
| That has to be right. | pctower
Oct 31, 2003 5:46 AM | | b Phil, I'm thinking that perhaps I should apply for a grant to investigate "Audiophilia" as a form of mental illness. ;-)
Sadly, I suspect your doctor story is not an isolated instance. I believe that many of the ills that trouble modern man could be well illustrated in studying the audiophile industry including its customers.
Perhaps though, some of the strengths of modern man might also be revealed. As you know, there are people in the industry who are honest and work hard to produce quality for a fair price.
I don't know if you or someone else might be willing to take a swipe at this question, but I've been wondering what people with the proper background believe is the typical price point for speakers, amps, CD players, etc beyond which audible improvement is unlikely. I suppose one would need a point of reference as to the size of the listening space to accomodate different power requirements and speaker capabilities, so let's say for a 22'x14.5'x11' foot room, which are dimensions I just happened to choose out of thin air. |
| It was supposed to be a joke. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 31, 2003 10:38 PM | | I was really just kidding, Phil. Audiophiles, at least for the most part, aren't crazy. They're just passionate, or obsessed, depending on whether we want to say it in a positive way or a negative way. I'm inclined to think that a man without at least a few passions/obsessions is missing some of the best that life has to offer.
Your "price point" question is an easy one, for me at least. The only possible (rational) answer is "It all depends." What's a good price point for a house? How about an automobile? How much land do you have to own before you own a lot of land? A half-acre on Sunset Boulevard is a heck of a lot of land, isn't it? Around here that's the minimum lot size for a mobile home. Is a thousand bucks a lot of money? Is a million bucks a lot?
It ain't what it use to be! ;-)
I'm sure that the cost of the cables was no big deal to that doctor, because he's very wealthy, and that means that he sees money a little differently (even when he's a little short). A man making ten grand a week isn't going to climb down into a sewer to recover a $20 bill he drops, but a guy making a living flipping hamburgers at McDonalds just might. There are too many variables to set "price points" that apply to everyone, but I think most people know when they've overspent. If you're worrying about paying the bills because you bought some new exotic audio device, then that's probably a clue. ;-) If you feel guilty after making a purchase, that's probably a clue too.
R.O. |
| TiVo. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 29, 2003 6:37 PM | | Some of the PVR's do use the compressed video directly from the receiver, but TiVo uses a proprietary form of wavelet compression. They may well use transcoding to convert from one compressed format to another, but the output circuitry should still only be processing wavelet-compressed video. That means it's been transcoded, at the very least. With the TiVo separates like I have, the received video has to be reconstructed into an NTSC analog signal in the receiver before being passed to the TiVo, where conventional D-to-A is performed. Probably more lossy than transcoding, though of course that would depend on the transcoder itself.
I'd be interested to know if you can see a difference in video quality when you compare a direct receiver connection to the TiVo output. Can you even do a direct receiver connection with the all-in-one units?
I've still got contacts at the company, so if it were really important we could ask how the combo units like yours handle their I/O, but I think the important thing is that, in spite of any warts, PVR's are very cool, and will be getting cooler as the companies further extend their capabilities.
To be completely honest about it, I have to admit that I had a very hard time accepting the TiVo tradeoffs. We didn't even have Ku band when we bought the thing, because, quite frankly, the compression stinks. C-band is so much better (at its best) that there is just no comparison. The TiVo compression really drops the quality of C-band, and I've spent more than too much money over the years chasing improved video quality. Giving up even a little for more convenience didn't sit well at all. However, as you probably know from your own experience with the thing, we were soon addicted. We ended up buying a Ku band system simply because it worked so much better with the TiVo, and that made for an even bigger loss of video quality. I doubt I'd have been willing to make the tradeoff if I'd had a real state of the art video system, but all things considered, about all I can say now is that it is hard to imagine life without a PVR.
Phil will be addicted soon enough. ;-)
R.O. |
| TiVo works best when the feed is digital. | Tony_Montana
Oct 30, 2003 2:44 PM | | My TiVo is integrated into satellite receiver so I could not do a comparison between direct or recorded/buffered feed. But as you have noticed, there is degradation in signal quality if signal have to go thru [stand alone] TiVo when it is analog because it have to go thru double DACs (to digital and back to analog).
That is why I think TiVo and PVR work best when the signal feeding it is already in digital state (such as satellite :) |
| In general that's true. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 30, 2003 6:58 PM | | Once something is in the digital domain it is less lossy to perform any transformations in the digital domain, but for optimal results a quality transform is necessary. I have little doubt that the TiVo design group is quite capable of writing very good transcoders. Native format recording would be better still.
The wavelet compression used in the TiVo is quite good, and while it's a close call, I think it's better than the compression used with the Ku-band systems. It degrades uncompressed C-band enough for it to be obvious, but the result is at least as good as, and sometimes better, than the direct Ku-band video. It's hard to say with certainty that the wavelet compression is actually better though, because Ku quality varies from provider to provider. Some of the stuff is really over-compressed, and ends up looking pretty nasty when compared to the identical C-band feed. I don't expect any of that to matter when we upgrade to HDTV, but we probably won't make that move until there are more providers.
R.O. |
| re: Now, this is real progress. | mtrycrafts
Oct 26, 2003 6:37 PM | | Good to see your other ventures:)
b To me, all this makes the attention I and others have given to wires seem a little silly.
Yes, indeed:) |
| re: Now, this is real progress. | FLZapped
Oct 27, 2003 8:14 AM | | I took the digital photo dive a little while back and purchased the Canon G5. Excellent piece of hardware. Especially for under 6 bills....
Took over 300 photos in Alaska with it. Used my film camera only for really fast moving stuff, or long distance shots(400mm lens).
-Bruce |
| SACDs vs. Wires -- which upgrade likely to be audible? | Richard Greene
Oct 28, 2003 2:40 PM | | SACDs have the potential for better high frequency sound quality -- the frequencies where Redbook CD's did not beat vinyl IMHO ... and the frequencies where vinyl suffered most from surface noise and inner groove tracking distortion.
"I dont have much in the way of SACD material, so most of my listening has been to the Stones re-masters, and the listening experience has been full of goose-bumps."
RG
Are these dual layer SACDs with a Redbook CD track too ... and if so, does that track sound decent too? I've been waiting almost four decades for decent early Stones sound quality -- even the original vinyl pressings were not that good! Wouldn't you know the wife's favorite rock is 1960's Stones.
.
.
.
.
"I understand that a 10-box SACD re-mastered Dylan set is now available for $150 ($10 per disk) and that the Karajan 1961-62 Beethoven cycle is about to be released on SACD."
RG:
Similar sound quality problems with early Dylan CD's.
The ONLY one with decent sound quality is my DCC Gold Highway 61 Revisited -- now out of print and probably
$75-$100 on EBAY. I found a Columbia/Sony "SuperBit Mapped"
gold CD version of Blonde on Blonde in a flea market but it was bright sounding = no better than the original aluminum CD.
SACD will survive ONLY if there is popular music with significantly better sonics. With many of the early Stones and Dylan CD's, even average sound quality on SACDs would be a big improvement over the awful sounding Redbook CDs. |
| SACDs vs. Wires -- which upgrade likely to be audible? | pctower
Oct 29, 2003 10:45 AM | | The new Stones releases do have a redbook track, but I haven't listened to it. I'll give it a shot, but I honestly don't think my opinion will be worth much, as I have no practical way to control for bias (see, I am starting to learn something).
Agree about the sound quality of the early Dylan CDs. I'll be particularly interested to see how the Karajan re-masters turn out, as I thought the sound quality on the original DG vinyl release was atrocious. |
| Also::::::: Excellent "use of wife" to make persuasive audio point | Richard Greene
Oct 28, 2003 2:47 PM | | I usually go berserk instantly when reading the usual
"Even my wife ..." claim from Golden Ears used to P*R*O*V*E
that some bizarre tweak had made a huge 937% improvement to their sound quality ... but your "wife comment" was so perfectly worded that it was actually believable and very funny, which of course means you either wrote thirty seven rough drafts before posting that almost perfect "wife" paragraph, or stole it from one of my old posts:
"Even my wife commented on the significant improvement the first time she sat down to listen, and her sole and controlling ABE as to audio/video is that every dollar I spend on new equipment is money right down a dark hole.
(I know, an other wife story). " |
| Also::::::: Excellent "use of wife" to make persuasive audio point | pctower
Oct 29, 2003 10:40 AM | | True story about my wife, but I intentionally described it with tongue in cheek, as I think all wife stories, including mine, are no substitute for valid bias-controlled testing.
Good to see you emerge here again. I know you've been busy doing battle over at AA. They don't play fair over there, so I stopped posting.
It had nothing to do with my own personal experience, as I never have anything of substance to say. Rather it had to do with how you, Steve, Bruce, jneutron and others were treated. Blatant double standard. |
| |
|
|
