🚀 go-pugleaf

If Mr. Krueger charged money for his tests and opinion you might have a
case, though in that event any tests by magazines such as consumer reports
would also be totally invalid since stuff changes all the time.  I would
assume that it takes some thought and intelligence to interpret Mr.
Krueger's test.  Perhaps Paul has neither anticipated or equipped himself
for that.

--
You Know Who~
``````````````````````````````````````````````
"No matter how cynical you get,
it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

Cat stuff, Win Help & Purgatory @
http://home.att.net/~You_Know_Who/
`````````````````````````````````````````````
"Paul D." <media@clara.net> wrote in message
news:eh2tgtov8p9trecnudefc5dr4igisjptbi@4ax.com...
| "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@pop3free.com> wrote:
|
| >> Ts ts ts! My CT4830 had a Sigmatel STAC9721, on yours sits a CT1297
| >> which is also used on the full, value and 1024 retail versions.
| >Naming
| >> a test "CT4830" doesn�t suffice, we actually must state the AC�97
| >chip
| >> used (or skip it altogether, all you can rely on is the knowledge
| >that
| >> you can�t rely on anything).
| >
| >> http://grassomusic.de/english/methoden.htm#ac97 shows some examples
| >> for the exchangeability of AC�97 chips, I guess I�ll add another
| >one...
| >
| >Exactly. As I wrote on another thread, CL reserves the right to
| >change their cards without notice and they do it.
| >
| >Sometimes it takes a good, careful eye to see the differences.
| >
| >I'm farsighted enough that I can't see the chip part number changes
| >without a big magnifying glass. So, when I install yet another Live!
| >in a customer PC I can't see what chips have changed unless I first
| >take the card back to my office and whip out the big magnifying glass
| >and take notes. I do that while I test the cards for PCAVTech, but
| >otherwise I just stick to the business at hand which is making my PC
| >customers happy.
| >
| >FWIW I've also seen Live! 4830 (OEM) and 4760 (consumer) boards with
| >both STAC 9721 (Sigmatel) and CT1297 (Creative) codec chips. I
| >haven't seen that many Live! 4620 (old consumer) cards, but the ones
| >I've seen seemed to all be using  Sigmatel CT 9721 codec chips. The
| >pairs of like-numbered cards with different-numbered chips that I
| >tested happened to test out pretty much the same.  The consumer and
| >OEM cards mainly differ in terms of maximum output voltage and jacks
| >for digital inputs and outputs.
| >
| >But who is to say what Creative decides to do next week or did just
| >last week?
|
| You are digging your own grave, Mr Kruger.  All you have done is
| demonstrate that you have neglected to emphasize the possible
| variation in hardware / performance (and therefore the general
| reliability of using your report as a benchmark - particularly for
| consumers who won't know better) when making your routine, derogatory
| comments about "the Live!" based on test performance of a limited
| subset of the series.
|
| >The bottom line is that Mr. Dormer is up to his usual deceptive
| >trouble-making tricks. He does not test the same cards, drivers, and
| >test conditions that we do. That does not stop him from trying to use
| >his test results as "proof" of wrong-doing by us. He lacks either the
| >common decency or the brains to understand what he is actually doing.
| >He does not  make a complete report like you and I do, Mr.
| >Grassberger. Instead Mr. Dormer provides isolated photographs and
| >graphs and lots of false claims.
|
| What an ingrate you are.  Have some gratitude - I have highlighted
| differences between our "4830" soundcards by providing relevant
| information.  I have educated you to the fact that your continual
| trashing of "The Live!" soundcard is based on a fallacy and a unfairly
| limiting set of information.  Now that I have shown that in certain
| cases the disparity between your results and reality - digital output
| of "the Live!" soundcard (sic) can very much exceed your results - how
| have you ammended the information on your website to reflect as such?
| Same old story..
|
| >This is all particularly frustrating and a waste of our time because
| >the Live! series is supposed to become a lame duck next month.  Once
| >it is no longer in the top position of the CL pecking order, our
| >experience with the Ensoniq AudioPCI/SB PCI 128  series suggests that
| >CL will slowly cheapen and further degrade the performance of the
| >Live!. If current production is really  better than past production
| >it's likely that future production will end up worse than past or
| >current production.
|
| Yes.. that makes a lot of sense!  Not :-(
|
|
| --
| S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t