Mnyb wrote:
If you read archimagos blog , it is some kind of weird gain problem a HT
bypass mode in his preamp and probably some other design issue .
Its incidence (but not severity) is inherent in high speed USB:
Following a link in archimagos blog about the Corning Optical Isolator
arnyk wrote:
I see a measurable problem, but the audible part is not nearly as clear.
Am I missing something?
Good rule of thumb is that anything that is 100 dB down is intensely
difficult or impossible to hear in any reasonable application. Oh maybe
you can come up with some insane
The SB Touch has both optical and coax digital outputs and many
computers (like the one I use) have either an optical or coax digital
output along with the USB output. Therefore I use any of these non-USB
outputs to feed my DAC. The cost, aside from the cable, is ZERO.
Living Rm:
jkeny wrote:
Seems to me that this is FFT basics 101 - incorrectly interpreting the
grass seen on an FFT as the noisefloor - in Archimago's graph
-140dB
Have a read of this document in order to understand
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/4278/en/
What is being shown in the graph is
jkeny wrote:
Seems to me that this is FFT basics 101 - incorrectly interpreting the
grass seen on an FFT as the noisefloor - in Archimago's graph
-140dB
Have a read of this document in order to understand
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/4278/en/
What is being shown in the graph is
Seems to me that this is FFT basics 101 - interpreting the grass seen
on an FFT as the noisefloor - in this case -140dB
Have a read of this document in order to understand
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/4278/en/
Computing Noise Level and Power Spectral Density
The measurement of noise levels
doctor_big wrote:
To some extent I do agree. However the moderators of this forum created
the audiophiles subform specifically so that audiophiles (whatever you
think of them) could discuss their audiophile stuff - power cords, DACS,
amps etc - without having to suffer the ridicule of
Mnyb wrote:
There is always something I assume , but from archimagos blog you can
see a case where it's also an audible problem .
I see a measurable problem, but the audible part is not nearly as clear.
Am I missing something?
Good rule of thumb is that anything that is 100 dB down is
arnyk wrote:
There must be some confusion about exactly which product is being
discussed.
I went here: 'Regen Home Page'
(http://uptoneaudio.com/products/usb-regen)
And found this text:
(snip)
If the product being discussed is some other product, or if you can find
where it says
Mnyb wrote:
A thing that surprises me is that this is a product that actually do
something real ( audible or not ) and suggested by SBGK who usually
write about stuff that is totally bonkers .I think you might be confused
between real bonkers. By your above
statement you are willing to
jkeny wrote:
Similarly, Archimago might care to answer why he wants to borrow a
Regen, to measure it's reduction of the 8KHz spike when this is not the
target of the device?
A typical red-herring measurement, as per usual.
There must be some confusion about exactly which product is being
arnyk wrote:
Ignores the fact that the article discussed more than just the Regen
device.
I'll stand on the relevance of my quotes - how can be wrong if they are
taken directly from the cited article?
Enough of this OT banter - the article was well written, somewhat wide
ranging, and
rgro wrote:
Thanks jkeny, a much better explanation than my lame attempt!
Thanks but be aware, if this thread follows the usual trend, you are
next going to be asked to prove that it is audibly better by doing a
blind test :)
rgro wrote:
Heh...well, I don't have one, so that'll be impossible. Notwithstanding
SBGK's usual amusing chippiness, when I took the time to look into it,
it sounded like a device that actually had the feel of something based
on some good engineering. Plus JS had been a fairly
Similarly, Archimago might care to answer why he wants to borrow a
Regen, to measure it's reduction of the 8KHz spike when this is not the
target of the device?
A typical red-herring measurement, as per usual.
jkeny's
jkeny wrote:
The 8KHz spike has nothing to do with what the Regen device is
addressing - a complete red herring showing a lack of understanding of
what the Regen is designed to do.
Ignores the fact that the article discussed more than just the Regen
device.
I'll stand on the relevance of
jkeny wrote:
Sure, I already edited my post to correct my mistake - it was adyc who
said he owned one :)
No harm, no foul! I will readily admit that, in years past, I've had my
dalliances (as many others have) with tweaks, etc. that have proven to
be harmless, but useless. My wire and
A thing that surprises me is that this is a product that actually do
something real ( audible or not ) and suggested by SBGK who usually
write about stuff that is totally bonkers .
..but you could try the toslink or spdiff input on your DAC too , what
works best with any given DAC seems to be
rgro wrote:
No harm, no foul! I will readily admit that, in years past, I've had my
dalliances (as many others have) with tweaks, etc. that have proven to
be harmless, but useless. My wire and interconnects are decent quality
and reasonably priced stuff from Blue Jeans. I do not believe
arnyk wrote:
Not at all. i was clearly referring to the discrete signal at 8 KHz,
which had just been introduced in the document that I had just quoted.
To clarify something that happens 8 times a millisecond has a repetition
rate of 8 KHz. This is a subtly of USB that people who are
jkeny wrote:
Thanks but be aware, if this thread follows the usual trend, you are
next going to be asked to prove that it is audibly better by doing a
blind test :)
The whiff of this is already evident from the measurists if it's 100dB
down, more or less, its probably not going to an
arnyk wrote:
In fact the first post in this thread references this article:
http://uptoneaudio.com/products/usb-regen.
The other article was brought in as a side discussion and appears to
have been subsequently dropped from the discussion.
Bringing it back up again is obviously yet
jkeny wrote:
I think you might be confused between real bonkers. By your above
statement you are willing to believe in Swenson's device as a product
that actually do something real because it has a plausible explanation.
Yet no empirical evidence has been shown i.e. no measurements showing
Mnyb wrote:
Well we have to wait and see if anyone test this product properly
ideally with several different USB DAC's it would be nice to the analog
out on DAC where this product is used.But they would have to be properly
designed DACs, wouldn't they? You
know the ones that have don't
jkeny wrote:
I'm referring to the article that was linked on page one of this
thread http://uptoneaudio.com/pages/j-swenson-tech-corner to which you
were referring to when you stated how can be wrong if they are taken
directly from the cited article? - not to the front page of the website
25 matches
Mail list logo
