Last Active
  • Re: BRING @F1nut's OLD AVATAR BACK!!!

    ZLTFUL wrote: »
    rooftop59 wrote: »
    Sure it has much to commend it as a life philosophy or political principle, but as the man has said over and again, this is a BUSINESS with one goal and a clear hierarchical structure. Lots of you work for corporations whose main goal is the almighty dolla, why is it so hard to grasp here lol...

    The primary motivation here is not pleasing or placating anyone, it's selling more gear. Whatever is done in the forum is instrumental. The goal is $$$

    And while I completely agree with you here, that doesn't change the fact that there has indeed been placating to some. A small minority really, that have made the most noise. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

    But this is Polk's playground and if we can't accept the rules (no matter how obviously disproportionately applied) then we should find another playground.

    What you call a "Small minority" in fact, is actually several dozen forum members, and most of the "Silent Majority" of the forum that simply either do not post much, or quit posting regularly due to the issues I mentioned on another thread, about "Why the forum is not mentioned" and how Polk does not appreciate the silliness anymore.

    2 or 3 people are not complaining about issues, it is several dozen or a large majority of the forum.

    @KenCustomerService If these numbers are wrong, please chime in.

  • Re: BRING @F1nut's OLD AVATAR BACK!!!


    Disagreeing with someone is not a personal attack or insult, nor does it show lack of repect. It is quite common on audio forums, and in fact is usually the norm.

    Seeking agreement/confirmation, and not getting it, is not just cause for attacking someone or insulting them either.

    If we all follow forum rules, and quit taking disagreement Emotionally and as an insult, I bet things will be just fine!

    Cheer up and smile!
  • Re: The Sound Of Hard Drive Enclosures

    Its not an attack Ray they just don't get your thought process. The most briliant person I have met in my life was an EE. I can do analytical calculus in my head and am certain in your presence I am a moron.

    No, even far simpler. People do not ever all agree. Just how it is.
    Go to other audio forums, views are all over the place.

    Has nothing to do with "Getting" someone's thought process, has to do with the fact that everyone will never agree on many things.

    Has virtually nothing to do with brilliance or intelligence either.
    Discussing and debating ideas and theories and methods can be fun and educational.
    There is no totally right and wrong answer or method.

  • Re: MP3 is dead!

    ZLTFUL wrote: »
    MP3s even at 320kbps sound "tinny" to me compared to the same song ripped from the same disc in WAV format.

    An example is a back to back listen of Money for Nothing by Dire Straits where glaring differences are represented even on desktop computer speakers.

    But then I can also tell the difference between a Malbec and Cab Sav. B)

    Then something is drastically wrong. I am not sure what could be wrong, but I can listen to both the WAV file and MP3 320kbps and they both sound quite fantastic even on our big systems.

    In fact they sound incredibly almost identical.
    I doubt it has anything to do with your ability to tell wines/grapes apart, but much more likely an outdated poor quality MP3 encoder.

  • Re: MP3 is dead!

    tonyb wrote: »
    steveinaz wrote: »
    Convenience or quality....take your pick, but don't fool yourself for a millisecond that mp3 is an acceptable format for hi-fi systems.

    The study I read on the subject about 15 years ago compared the quality of Mp3 at various bit rates. I've heard audio lectures at 5 kps and the voice was still distinguishable, but a poor recording. At 64 kps the quality is much improved, but when the audience claps the sound got muddied. The study compared FM radio quality to 80 -96 kps Mp3. At 128kps, only a few people in 1,000 could distinguish the difference between Mp3 and Cds - 128kps was a common bit rate 10 years ago. The study also claimed that at 170kps and above no one could consistently distinguish between Mp3 and CDs. I've personally compared high bit rate Mp3 to many times over the last dozen years and now I've compared it to Flac files. I'll do so again later this summer and next year with some quality headphones. Mp3 gets much, much better at the higher bit rates.

    You can find a study on anything, for or against ....pretty much anything. Rarely is there a consistent viewpoint especially in subjective areas like audio. If MP3's float your boat, rock on....use them and be happy.

    Since we can agree MP3 gets much better at higher bitrates, then we should be able to agree CD quality or lossless files, which are even at higher bitrates, should then sound better, no ? Taking it further, SACD should then sound better than cd and so forth. Generally speaking obviously, because bitrates are not the only thing that makes or breaks good sound.

    Not necessarily. One truth does not automatically equate to another truth based on mere extrapolation.

    All recordings can be extrapolated "down" to an equivalent bit rate.

    The recording itself many times limits the final fidelity. Even though it may have been recorded to "High resolution digital" or High speed Open reel.
    There may be "potential" for better sound, but very few recordings even push the envelope of CD quality sound.


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


25 LOLs500 CommentsFirst Anniversary25 Likes25 Agrees5 Insightfuls5 Agrees5 Likes5 LOLsFirst Answer100 CommentsPhotogenicName Dropper10 CommentsFirst Comment