Peter Stockwell wrote:
Mark @ item was trying toget that sort of discussion started on pie fight, but was chased out of town, for diverse reasons. One of them being his trade status, which sat unwell with some mayhemmers.
I know, I got some of that too ut not to the same extent as Mark. In fact, one reason I started posting on PFM was in support of MArk as I thought his treatment was disgraceful. I actually blame TonyL for this state of affairs as he could have stopped this at any time. I have stopped posting on that forum for those same reasonsm as you know.
Anyway, I only just started the build a computer thread on here, and I'm reseistant to a lot of the extremes, it's supposed to be simple, isn't ?
Sure, I agree. But remember that thread is the experimentalists thread (some actually think it is just the mentalist bit that applies to it) so there are lots of things tried. When something proves to be sonically beneficial, there is then an attempt at refining - look at the car batteries moving to Anker consumer battery case.
As regards the complexity of it - yes, it's an unfortunate truth - computer audio is complex to get the best sound out of it. And one could argue, as I have been known to do, that PCs are not a good platform to base our audio systems on. We end up with a lot of complexity ironically trying to make the processing simple :)
ut that's where we are at the moment & we are only discovering the boundaries of what's important & what isn't for sound.
As you can see, this isn't hampered by theoretical dogma but also it isn't a free-form, logic-free experimental area.
But my first question will be ... on another thread.
Cool, yes, that's where we should e talking about Audio PCs
