I just wished the community could benefit of simple test that is this loopback and hear those Acoucence and Stagetec (that also intrigued me), but it will not happen, understood.

The major issue here on threads like this and the hundred other ones that have to do with converters, high res, tape vs digital etc, is that usually people with the fiercest stances use only anecdotal evidence to support their claim, and when pushed for technical proof of those claims, they tend to either make ad hominem attacks, or say that they have no interest in proving anything to anyone etc. Not that far from religious fanatics behaviour I'm afraid.

In the field of video, a display or a camera with better specs on paper is evidently better(has better image quality) when compared with products with lesser specs. You can claim all day that a CRT 'bloom' or phosphor looks better to you, or that super 16 and super 8mm looks more beautiful and artistic, but no one would ever dare that the quality is better than the latest and greatest digital.

In audio, each and every technical measurement is thrown out of the window and ridiculed by 'peers' as 'pseudoscience', or 'not taking consideration factors that are yet unknown or untested' etc etc ad nauseam. At the same time ,I've read here claims about the 'superior audio quality of CF card vs SD card', 'AES & TDM digital connection audio quality vs USB and ADAT', 'the damage ethernet does to audio', 'the damage wetransfer causes to audio' etc

Which FF plugins are you using? If they’re dynamic eq’s, compressors, gates, reverbs, delays - they’re never going to null (which is what I assume you’re trying to do, your posts aren’t clear) because the sound is always changing slightly - as it should in any “dynamic” process.

For you and @ skybluerental

The only reliable way to compare any two audio processes is through double blind testing, using meticulous gain matching - “sighted” testing of any kind is useless, as soon as you know what you’re listening to, your brain makes a choice, unconsciously, often referred to as “priming” or “expectation bias” - casual listening also encourages sloppy attention to detail, which usually results in the louder mix winning out.

At any rate, these casual listening accounts are always anecdotal, and cannot be verified.

Science talk bores people around here, but imo, the science is always so much more interesting than the pseudo science - knowing what’s really going on under the hood is enlightening - like architecture, music is part arts and part sciences - it’s important have a grasp of both.

No, it isn't "science talk" that bores people, but the ever raining down condescension like you first paragraph here ( and most of the rest of that post). You surely must be more than aware by now that livingsounds isn't a complete noob who wouldn't know that about dynamic processing. Yet here you are, giving him the "nulling science 101" lecture. Incredibly boring.

Instead of the ad hominem, what do you disagree with in my post to LS?

That isn't an "ad hominem" it is a dry pointing out of the fact you always start at a "I am talking to idiots" default. Even when it is more than obvious someone is not an idiot or beginner. Like with livingsounds for example. Boring indeed.

Well aren’t you the pot calling the kettle black

I’ll answer by simply providing a quote from mantaray1, above:

The major issue here on threads like this and the hundred other ones that have to do with converters, high res, tape vs digital etc, is that usually people with the fiercest stances use only anecdotal evidence to support their claim, and when pushed for technical proof of those claims, they tend to either make ad hominem attacks, or say that they have no interest in proving anything to anyone etc. Not that far from religious fanatics behaviour I'm afraid

I don’t think I’m talking to idiots, but I’m constantly battling idiotic arguments filled with unverifiable, pseudo science bullshit - all I have to do is press an issue, and I get the Karloff/Plush treatment - the most derisive and vitriolic ad hominems on the site - it’s tiresome.

I’ll add that there’s an ignore button, if my tone is offensive to you, simply engage the magic button

Well well, see now you are saying that I talk to people like idiots. I guess it was 100% predictable that all you could think of doing with that ball was kick it back regardless whether it was yours to keep. It ain't my ball. Keep it. Maybe think before you type something purely put into existence to put you on some daft "I'm Bill Nye, the science guy" podium and has no other function. Only saying as you were talking about boring. Because that is exceedingly boring. And soooo repetitive.

Inaccurate smearing post.

Because some posters are highly informed pros. If they post something different from you point of view, you apply the garbage assertions above.

And what I occasionally type in your direction although I should know better isn't "the most derisive and vitriolic ad hominems" on the site, it's just some blowback to what you type, often consisting of a mirror, no more. Which is what I did earlier. I held you up a mirror so you could see what it comes off like when you type such condescending lala to someone quite obviously experienced. And you don't like a mirror.

You should “know better”, but you don’t, put me on ignore and go have a nice weekend - this isn’t about me, this about you.

Unless you have a problem with my arguments you want to address, I’m all ears, but your constant insults are a violation of the rules.

That's rich. This is about you. Apart from the part that makes me occasionally decide to hold you up a mirror instead of not bothering. That occasional decision is indeed about me. The stuff before, and what is visible in the mirror is not. Where exactly did I insult you today?

I would love to sit down over beers with everyone in this thread hearing first-hand what Plush asserts with his dazzling collection of esoteric hardware. Without the constant sniping this forum engenders I bet we would find we shared more in common. My involvement with esoteric hardware began with Pacific Microsonics Model 1 discrete pcm and ended with Meitnor and Grimm's discrete dsd efforts. I have not heard anything since that all rely in one way or another on 21st century pcm chips that hold a candle to those designs.

Ok, you asked for it - I don’t think you have the intellectual horsepower to argue with me, or anyone who lays out a cogent position. This frustrates the hell out of and sends you on these long, childish back and forths with no end in sight.

You latch on to conspiracy theories on subjects we’re no longer allowed to discuss here, and you’re a great friend of pseudoscience. Anyone who challenges any of your “positions” gets the same, iron-handed treatment - you can’t wait to “pile on” in a thread when one of your “enemies” is being attacked, which is what you did in this thread by jumping in on plush’s vile ad hominem directed at me.

You’re a grumpy and unhappy troll who provides nothing in the way of solid knowledge or advice on this site, but you are entertaining, none the less.

Wow. And you are the guy complaining about ad hominems. Case closed.

Yeah wow, this whole line of conversation. Ok. . I won't take some other posts personally. I guess this behavior is pretty par for the course for a burner account that likes to appeal to its own authority to condescend.

I am intersted to hear / try the acousence, has anyone done an A/B with the JCF conversion?

Or tried them both and could chat about them

People should have to either use their real names or put them in their profile. Then you can look up if they're pro or a bro. And also, maybe people are more civil when they are not anonymous?

How about we stick to the topic of "most analog sounding" vs look what ive bought and this sounds better. Most analog should be referenced as most true to the source right? Or am I missing something?

Or if you don't use your actual name, don't appeal to your own authority as a pro.

A burner account can't appeal to their own authority as a pro and expect anyone to take them seriously.

The professional burner accounts that get busted are almost always anonymously defending their professional selves as a regular joe (Kevin Durant, that NBA ref a few weeks ago, etc).

The thing here where burner accounts are trying to establish the professional authority to harshly critique and talk down to others. . repeatedly insisting they're a pro who knows everything about everything based on "trust me bro". . is a new one to me.

Let me explain it so you can understand it. I probably skipped a few steps because to me they appear obvious.

Put a plugin on a channel. Turn off OS. Make sure it doesn't actually do anything to the signal. The way you make sure is by opening up a second track next to it, flip the phase, put on the same audio file. Now the resulting sum should be absolute digital silence (within the DAWs resolution). One way to do it is to use a limiter and set threshold to 0 or higher. You can make extra sure by setting the signal volume even a little lower. On both tracks, the one with the plugin and the one without, obviously.

After we have confirmed there is silence and the plugin doesn't change anything we can turn on OS on the plugin. Now look for the deferential signal (what is left from the summing). To make the effect more obvious you can duplicate the plugin a few times on the same channel, put them in series. At some point, given a suitable audio file and listening environment changes should become obvious.

Now I see the confusion - some how or another, you thought I was talking about the real time performance of plugins, I wasn’t

In my earlier post (post #805 ), it should’ve been quite clear I was referring to the A/D/A process. The analog signal at the input of an interface, being digitized, then reconstructed at the output (as it appears on an oscilloscope) as identical to the original input signal - you can watch that Monty Montgomery video and see him do it with a simple sine wave.

My point is, what’s commonly referred to as “converter” around here is actually an interface with multiple functions - the converter portion is transparent, however, the front end is analog, as is the backend - there’s room for tinkering with the analog stages to create the “color” many folks are after.

I own a few scopes, they are great tools, but not for reviewing wether a converted sinewave signal is "identical".

Converters are only "transparent" within certain limits, and these limits are usually above the limit of human hearing. And I'm not talking about harmonic distortions per se.

The "real time performance of a plugin" doing SRC is comparable to the real time SRC performed in a DAC or ADC. The physics and physical limitations are the same.

But from what and how you are writing it appears that you are not actually here to learn anything, so I rest my case.

What is a burner account?

Of course I make an appeal to authority. Because I am recognized as such.

Amateurs and tire kickers—all non pros step off.

All that I posted are very analog sounding. That was the point of the post. Please re-read my post.

Also I see that your GS profile is not filled out.

The original intent of the thread was good, and I did learn there were some good interfaces with analog- like features built into the sound - I even listened to a few of them but found it wasn’t for me, but like many GS threads, once the thread’s purpose was met, it turns into a cognitive bias bickering- fest of magical thinking, pseudo science and digital bashing.

So yeah, not much to “learn”, unless you’re writing a paper on logical fallacies in the audio domain.

Then nefarious types will look up people's names - find their address and burgle them/steal all their gear. No thanks!

That, and being tracked down by some of the nut jobs around here - it’s happened.

What people write should suffice as proof they know what they’re talking about - the site does a pretty good job of ferreting out posers - it’s getting harder though, the number of fake, bot driven posts and lack of moderators is bringing down the overall enjoyment factor.