Funny stuff for the day


Well-known member
I wasn't expecting to discover a dynamically compressed stereo track, with bandwidth cutting off at 24 kHz.
My dog asked me to tell you that he feels your disappointment. The bats in the attic also sympathize.


What a hilarious reply 🤣🤣


Well-known member
I came across this very funny post. 🤣🤣 Oh boy, do some of the items hurt in a funny manner. I'm guilty of some of the practices mentioned therein. Enjoy…

You claim that an

( ) audible
( ) measurable
( ) hypothetical

improvement in sound quality can be attained by:

( ) upsampling
( ) increasing word size
( ) vibration dampening
( ) bi-wiring
( ) replacing the external power supply
( ) using a different lossless format
( ) decompressing on the server
( ) removing bits of metal from skull
( ) using ethernet instead of wireless
( ) inverting phase
( ) installing bigger connectors
( ) installing Black Gate caps
( ) installing ByBee filters
( ) installing hospital-grade AC jacks
( ) defragmenting the hard disk
( ) running older firmware

Your idea will not work. Specifically, it fails to account for:

( ) the placebo effect
( ) your ears honestly aren't that good
( ) your idea has already been thoroughly disproved
( ) modern DACs upsample anyway
( ) those products are pure snake oil
( ) lossless formats, by definition, are lossless
( ) those measurements are bogus
( ) sound travels much slower than you think
( ) electric signals travel much faster than you think
( ) that's not how binary arithmetic works
( ) that's not how TCP/IP works
( ) the Nyquist theorem
( ) the can't polish a turd theorem
( ) bits are bits

Your subsequent arguments will probably appeal in desperation to such esoterica as:

( ) jitter
( ) EMI
( ) thermal noise
( ) existentialism
( ) cosmic rays

And you will then change the subject to:

( ) theories are not the same as facts
( ) measurements don't tell everything
( ) not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
( ) blind testing is dumb
( ) you can't prove what I can't hear
( ) science isn't everything

Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:

( ) room acoustics
( ) source material
( ) type of speakers
( ) speaker placement
( ) crossover points
( ) equalization
( ) Q-tips

Last edited:


Well-known member
Two audiophiles walk into a bar... after a few drinks… started arguing about cables & SINAD.

Three audiophiles walk into a bar, and the first one says, "I don't like this, it's way too warm in here!" The second says, "The temperature is fine, but it's way too bright, bars should not be bright!" They look at the third, who holds his hands up and says, "Don't drag me into this, I prefer to stay neutral."



Well-known member
Two audiophiles walk into a bar… because they heard from the outside, shockingly excellent audiophile music, that was warm, precise, full of micro details & macro dynamics, superb tonality, huge soundstage emanating from the bar…



Well-known member
Funny hifi stuff i came across today…

"It could very well be something as 'ordinary' as your audiophile visitor brings his watch and or cellphone with him into the room. Watches and clocks have the peculiar effect of degrading the sound. As I stated previously somewhere watches and clocks in rooms at big HiFi shows are one very big reason the sound usually sucks. I wrote a paper on it with Peter Belt, it wasn’t that long ago.

Best to have visitors check them in at the door. Experiment: take all watches, clocks and cellphones to another room and listen again. Then bring them back into the room. Ugh, right?"

Are sound waves smeared because they are reflected off the surfaces of the time-keeping devices? Does the EMF given off by the devices affect the electronics and/or sound waves? Does the mere presence of a timing device directly affect the PRAT?


Well-known member
Sibei politically correct …

allowing the user to make a choice based on his budget and belief system.