rgro wrote:
It is not the typical hawking of $1,000/meter cables or claims of that
ilk. I'm not edumacated enough to know if John's theories, as he's put
into practice, are sound science. But my lay read of his explanations
would suggest that there's some merit here.
arnyk wrote:
One big caution flag about business practices can be found here:
http://uptoneaudio.com/blogs/news/20068483-usb-regen-updated-amazing-bass-all-unshipped-orders-will-be-the-latest
The article says that 'We have added $0.40 worth of tiny resistors to
the circuit board of
jkeny wrote:
Yes, Arny, you Archi can continue with your fantasy discussion about
8KHz noise but maybe you should start another thread to do so as this
thread is about the Uptone Regen which has nothing to do with that
issue.
Huh? What fantasy discussion? We are talking about what the USB
Man in a van wrote:
If you actually read the article,
No need to be insulting. Can't we talk?
the question you pose is answered,
Please explain, preferably with quotes from the article we are both
talking about.
Man in a van wrote:
If you actually read the article, the question you pose is answered, or
does that not suite the purpose of your post.
I'm not getting involved in your roundabout, but just thinking about
Dragnet (I know, I know, it's a bit like play it again Sam) just
stick to the
Archimago wrote:
Huh? What fantasy discussion? We are talking about what the USB Regen
is supposed to be doing, right?Yes, not about what you mistakenly THINK it
might be doing.
Over the years people have talked about issues with noise through the
USB system including Jon Swenson
jkeny wrote:
So?. JS has specifically stated that the Regen is not addressing the USB
protocol 8KHz noise spikes or did you not read the 3rd paragraph of the
article?
I find the third paragraph hard to follow.
This packet noise consists of two parts: noise from the USB protocol
engine
jkeny wrote:
Yep, it's the usual logic from this contingent - business is involved so
therefore it's a snakeoil business trying to extricate money out of the
unthinking consumer.
Well Mr Keny, you're not doing so well yourself. My post was to point
out to the arnyk that they were being
Man in a van wrote:
Well Mr Keny, you're not doing so well yourself. My post was to point
out to the arnyk that they were being selective in their quotation and
that the answer to the posed question is in the article.
I saw no such concern expressed in your post.
I did see a personal
Man in a van wrote:
Well Mr Keny, you're not doing so well yourself. My post was to point
out to the arnyk that they were being selective in their quotation and
that the answer to the posed question is in the article.
I think your summary of it being a snake oil business is strictly your
arnyk wrote:
One big caution flag about business practices can be found here:
http://uptoneaudio.com/blogs/news/20068483-usb-regen-updated-amazing-bass-all-unshipped-orders-will-be-the-latest
The article says that 'We have added $0.40 worth of tiny resistors to
the circuit board
arnyk wrote:
I find the third paragraph hard to follow.
This packet noise consists of two parts: noise from the USB protocol
engine and from the USB PHY. The protocol engine noise does not depend
on the input signal quality, just the data, so its impact is always
going to be the same no
jkeny wrote:
You took me up wrong - it's not my opinion - I was pointing out the
usual list of objections that people like Arny make, the so-called
objectivists - once they hear business the hair raises on the back of
their necks all sorts of allegations spew forth.
The above is a
arnyk wrote:
The above is a complete and total fabrication, not to mention the
obvious name-calling.
I am in business for myself right now, one related to IT. I have been
in the audio business in the past. My standing in the Audio Industry is
sufficient that I am a full member of The
jkeny wrote:
I'm pretty sure you are feigning not understanding this as another one
of your forum debate tactics but :
Thank you John for revealing your situation in this conversation by
posting more dire accusations of me that you made up.
*This packet noise consists of two parts:
jkeny wrote:
So you now want to retract this allegation?
It's just a little homily, one that could apply to a lot of things. It
still seems to apply to the situation that it was uttered in, even
though the circumstances have changed a bit.
John, given that you have made about a dozen false
arnyk wrote:
Thank you John for revealing your situation in this conversation by
posting more dire accusations of me that you made up.
Believe it or not, quoting and posting links as you have done above is
far from understanding what they mean in general or the context of this
thread.
Arny, you bring nothing to this thread but noise!
jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103684
jkeny wrote:
No, this is exactly what is wrong with your approach - test for the
wrong thing when nothing is found, add to the doubt about the efficacy
of the device.
Isn't honest skepticism a healthy thing?
I've read and quoted the vendor's top level description of this device
and it
A few comments from a non-technical person:
1. On the general issue of charging for a hardware modification/upgrade
to an existing product, I really have no problem with charging the very
modest $45 fee. After all, they're not claiming that the original
product was not useable or defective and
Can anyone tell me the logic of this test, please? Is there not an issue
with testing the audible effect of recordings that used linear or
minimum phase filters when listening through a DAC that itself uses one
of these filters?
And here's a question for these objectivists - Harmon are the only
speaker company, AFAIK, that have done DBTs on their speakers
correlated listener preference with measurements (a set of 70 horizontal
vertical measurements done in an anechoic chamber)
Any self-respecting objectivist would
rgro wrote:
A few comments from a non-technical person:
5. I would also point out that, Arny, your inference that JS/Uptone is
claiming that ALL audio systems have SI problems is a bit of a reach.
This inference is false. The alleged SI problems that JS/Uptone is
claiming to address
jkeny wrote:
Can anyone tell me the logic of this test, please?
Yes, but based on past experience with you John, you are incapable of
appreciating the explanation.
arnyk's Profile:
doctor_big wrote:
. . . Its original purpose is rendered mute.
If we're going to be picky, let's get our language right. I don't think
the intent was to render the purpose -silent- (mute), but to suggest it
was no longer relevant (moot).
http://grammarist.com/usage/moot-mute/
LMS on a
arnyk wrote:
This inference is false. The alleged SI problems that JS/Uptone is
claiming to address are so vaguely defined that I don't see how it can
be known that they are universal or highly peculiar or somewhere
in-between.
I now understand that it is common for people on this forum
26 matches
Mail list logo
