jkeny wrote: > Good, at least it seems you have _*now*_ read the material. Now let's > see if you understand it. > > There is no logic shift here, except from you. > > He is saying that weak/worse signal integrity of the USB signal causes > the PHY in the RECEIVER to generate extra noise. This RECEIVER PHY is > located in the USB audio device & shares the ps with the DAC chip & > clocks & other analogue stages in that device. It is immaterial where > the signal integrity issues arise from - from the computer, from the > computer's USB port (the transmitter PHY), from the USB cable - the > result is that a USB signal with these SI issues causes this noise which > permeates the ground plane within the DAC. Have you have heard of ground > bounce within IC's? > > Where do you think that the noise has an effect - on the digital side of > things or on the analogue side? You are still arguing from your wrong > logic from point 6 > > By putting the Regen on it's own PS, & regenerating the USB signal just > before it enters the DAC, can hel to ameliorate SOME of the problem - > not all of it as Swenson is honest enough to state > > I would suggest that he is very clear in his explanation with clearly > stated engineering terms. Your failure to understand what he's saying is > now his fault? You still don't understand despite having apparently read > what he says & my explanations of same.All the hand-waving & innuendo is > from both of you You mean the only thing you can understand is this 8KHz > packet noise so you insist that this must be the noise. I'm sure you've > heard the phrase "to a man with a hammer everything is a nail"? Well you > said you were going to measure the 8KHz noise with & without the Regen > so what would this have shown you? The Regen is stated not to do > anything to this 8Khz noise. So when you return no difference what are > you going to declare? Why are you bothering with this useless 8KHz > measurement claim as if it is intended to prove anything? > > You now want Swenson's measurements produced for you so that you will > then do measurements of any worth? Why? Why wouldn't we take Swenson's > measurements - I'm sure he is far better at doing such measurements & > has better equipment at his disposal then you > > Of course that is what you are concerned about - "hammer & nail". If > you do a test for the 8KHz noise attenuation of the Regen at least be > honest about it & state that this is not it's purported mode off > operation when you post the results > > > Done! But it seems that you can't understand what's being said as I > already said this back in May & you still repeat the 8KHz red herring > issue in July.
Oh boy. I try to ask for evidence, point out inconsistencies, and suggest areas where we might verify claims and all I get is finger pointing and personal comments around "hammers & nail" cliches. No. I am not asking Swenson for measurements "produced for (me)". I am asking the scientist/engineer/designer to demonstrate that his claims are true for all (including myself) who may be interested in the product before plunking $175+shipping. Not words, but some form of verification that real life improvements are made. You clearly cannot provide that and can only speak hypothetically based on some kind of -faith-. Good luck to you, sir. Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103842 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
