jkeny wrote:
Good to see at least one of you is open to new information/data
Now when the next batch of Regens are shipped reports of their
improvement on the Touch are reported (as they will be) - (I think at
least one person here is getting one) what will your position be?
Denial, ala
ralphpnj wrote:
My position would be a simple shrug of the shoulders since I see no need
to modify the Touch to use the Touch's USB input as an output so that I
can play 24bit/196kHz files, that is until someone develops a way to
transplant a bat hearing organs into to a human so that we can
jkeny wrote:
Good to see at least one of you is open to new information/data
Now when the next batch of Regens are shipped reports of their
improvement on the Touch are reported (as they will be) - (I think at
least one person here is getting one) what will your position be?
Denial, ala
so getting back on topic
if you non circle jerking, placebophilephobic, fundamentalist
objectivists (who are not part of the mafia) ever get to hear the regen
and find it makes a difference will you be open minded enough to
reappraise your beliefs ?
Touch optimisations
SBGK wrote:
so getting back on topic
if you non circle jerking, placebophilephobic, fundamentalist
objectivists (who are not part of the mafia) ever get to hear the regen
and find it makes a difference will you be open minded enough to
reappraise your beliefs ?
Sure I would be open to
ralphpnj wrote:
Sure I would be open to reappraisal but that's not really the issue. The
issue is whether or not there even is a problem in the first place but
if turns out that the regen does improve the sound of USB playback, well
then two things can be said:
1) The really was a problem
arnyk wrote:
So jkeny you didn't get this memo?
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?103684-uptone-audio-regenp=819748viewfull=1#post819748
Quote Originally Posted by SBGK
So the regen might work and you're open minded about it, just your
understanding of digital electronics
SBGK wrote:
so getting back on topic
if you non circle jerking, placebophilephobic, fundamentalist
objectivists (who are not part of the mafia) ever get to hear the regen
and find it makes a difference will you be open minded enough to
reappraise your beliefs ?
Asked and answered.
The
jkeny wrote:
Good to see at least one of you is open to new information/data
Now when the next batch of Regens are shipped reports of their
improvement on the Touch are reported (as they will be) - (I think at
least one person here is getting one) what will your position be?
My position
arnyk wrote:
The article could convince a naive reader that JS has measured an
improvement due to his device, but
What I have been finding in looking at DACs etc with USB inputs is that
there is what I am calling packet noise. This is bursts of noise
caused by the USB receiver processing
SBGK wrote:
a wifi attached touch is not something that should be feeding a $5000
dac, unless listening to streaming radio or something.
And why not? Because some clown writing in some slick magazine said so?
Tell me is your favorite food crackers because you sure sound like a
parrot.
doctor_big wrote:
So ralph, julf et all, your cult leader is now amongst us, and you're
saved.
One of the problems with faith-based approaches is that they make you
think everybody that disagrees with you is part of the same global
conspiracy against you.
In reality, there is no
jkeny wrote:
snip childish insults on the grounds that being a placebophile, the
author can't help himself
This packet noise consists of two parts: noise from the USB protocol
engine and from the USB PHY.
snip additional childish insults on the grounds that remaining a
placebophile,
SBGK wrote:
No evidence apart from placebophilephobes making themselves unhappy at
the thought of the regen device existing and everyone else that has
ordered one being very happy with proceedings.
Actually, reliable evidence to adequately support that claim does not
seem to exist, either.
jkeny wrote:
No, you also seem to have great difficulty in understanding the
technology what it's addressing - Asynchronous USB was simply
addressing the timing issues inherent in using the PC clock. Your
simplistic statement/viewpoint Supposed to fix all the nasty USB
problems is of your
ralphpnj wrote:
No but a $175 device used to solve a problem with a $5,000 USB DAC
is all part of the same ecosystem, an ecosystem where the price to
performance ratio has no meaning. Want to isolate a $5000 DAC from the
evils of USB? By a SB Touch, stream it digital audio via wi-fi and
jkeny wrote:
WiFi-attached SB devices?
Since my ownership of Logitech Squeezebox equipment has been made an
issue for me, please list the Logitech Squeezebox equipment that you
own.
arnyk's Profile:
We're 1/2 way through the test period! At present I'm at 35 detailed
responses which is not bad given the demands of the test...
Folks, if you've ever wanted to know whether this whole digital filters
effect with pre-ringing makes a difference for you, I'd highly recommend
giving the test a try
Julf wrote:
One of the problems with faith-based approaches is that they make you
think everybody that disagrees with you is part of the same global
conspiracy against you.
In reality, there is no objectivist mafia.
However the mafia does have an objective: to make money in any way
ralphpnj wrote:
Which is why my computer is not directly connected to my stereo since I
use various squeezebox devices to listen to computer based digital
audio. In the world of Mac minis and USB DACs all these problems still
need solving.
WiFi-attached SB devices?
SBGK wrote:
No evidence apart from placebophilephobes making themselves unhappy at
the thought of the regen device existing and everyone else that has
ordered one being very happy with proceedings. Does the idea of people
being happy upset you ?
I think you need to first prove the existence
jkeny wrote:
Don't worry, Arny, we know what you mean by reliable evidence - it's
the list of demands that Arny makes up as he goes along.
We know that one positive ABX test from ralph would not be enough for
you - you would want multiple trials from multiple people.
Sue me for
jkeny wrote:
No, you also seem to have great difficulty in understanding the
technology what it's addressing - Asynchronous USB was simply
addressing the timing issues inherent in using the PC clock. Your
simplistic statement/viewpoint Supposed to fix all the nasty USB
problems is of your
doctor_big wrote:
So ralph, julf et all, your cult leader is now amongst us, and you're
saved.
I don't see any evidence of a cult or a need by these individuals for a
leader.
Please explain.
Unfortunately those of us with less skin in the game will still just
quietly play with
ralphpnj wrote:
I believe that I answered that question in the last paragraph of my
prior post:
What I took from your last paragraph was that you don' use a laptop or
USB DAC you are not interested in doing so - so I'm not sure what your
point is
Are you intending to use a PC/laptop to USB
jkeny wrote:
What I took from your last paragraph was that you don' use a laptop or
USB DAC you are not interested in doing so - so I'm not sure what your
point is
Are you intending to use a PC/laptop to USB DAC for audio?
While traveling or when streaming video or audio not available via
jkeny wrote:
Right, that's clear, thanks for stating your position so clearly
So if the Regen has no significance for you why do you bother posting on
this thread?
I believe that I answered that question in the last paragraph of my
prior post:
ralphpnj wrote:
Now if one was not using a
ralphpnj wrote:
My position would be a simple shrug of the shoulders since I see no need
to modify the Touch to use the Touch's USB input as an output so that I
can play 24bit/196kHz files, that is until someone develops a way to
transplant a bat hearing organs into to a human so that we can
ralphpnj wrote:
Pardon my ignorance but what is CA?
Computer Audiophile. A site that might have started off with good
intentions, but once the owner started trying to make a living out of
running it, being paid for by advertising from audiophile product
vendors, it become an on-line version of
jkeny wrote:
Indeed, he has endeared himself to this forum.
Wow, jkeny has empowered himself to speak for the 100's if not 1000's of
people who post on this forum!
Amazing!
The pity is that he does have a wealth of knowledge but his motivations
are very suspect as can be witnessed by
Mnyb wrote:
The trend I was referring to with my blanket dismissal of NOS DAC was
the ones completely without any filter, this was very popular as DIY for
while so popular that it seems to be the norm :-/
That's it in a nutshell.
Most recent work with NOS DACs has centered around the
No, Arny, I mean your motivation is all wrong because you are so
closed-minded that you think you have clarity.
What your imagined clarity actual is, is a failure to comprehend
anything outside of your fixed worldview.
That's why your testing would be of no benefit - it would be the
equivalent
SBGK wrote:
Are they happy to be associated with you ?
Absolutely.
Geddes Clark and I (Nousaine was there in spirit) were sharing
beverages, lots of conversation and a fine meal as recently as last
Saturday.
JJ calls me up when he's in town with some time.
They don't have the energy to be
arnyk wrote:
Part of clarity is realizing that it is possible to have an open mind
without having holes in your head! ;-)
Yup, we find lots of that in our populations of Placebophiles. Their
fixed world view excludes very many of the findings of modern science as
I have demonstrated
Archimago wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm sure much of the discussion about noise is old hat but could be
interesting for some.
I tried out the recently released optical USB 3 cable and ran some
measurements. Worked well as a way to reduce noise from the computer
affecting my pre-amp's analogue
Julf wrote:
Computer Audiophile. A site that might have started off with good
intentions, but once the owner started trying to make a living out of
running it, being paid for by advertising from audiophile product
vendors, it become an on-line version of the audiophile press in terms
of the
SBGK wrote:
well you really need to contact JS directly and try and stamp this
nonsense out, I don't think wasting your precious words on this forum
will do anything to stop this monstrous insult to the audio community.
Which monstrous insult to the audio community are you speaking?
AFAIK
This is getting more like a Christmas pantomime
Arny, I'm outside with my handbag, where are you?
jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192
View this thread:
Touchy wrote:
Anyone using a Regen with a Touch that cares to stick their neck above
the parapet?
C'mon girls, give it a rest.
Bump
Touchy's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=57784
View this
SBGK wrote:
don't thing uptone are a sponsor on that site, so usual misdirection
tactic.
Speaking of usual misdirection tactics, isn't that like saying he
didn't inhale?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery
Julf wrote:
Computer Audiophile. A site that might have started off with good
intentions, but once the owner started trying to make a living out of
running it, being paid for by advertising from audiophile product
vendors, it become an on-line version of the audiophile press in terms
of the
arnyk wrote:
Absolutely.
Geddes Clark and I (Nousaine was there in spirit, he would have been
there in body but for that err.. life change that he experienced last
year) were sharing beverages, lots of conversation and a fine meal as
recently as last Saturday.
JJ calls me up when
arnyk wrote:
Wow, jkeny has empowered himself to speak for the 100's if not 1000's of
people who post on this forum!
Amazing!
What you jkeny and others around here don't get is that once one
obtains a certain critical mass of knowledge and experience and has the
mental power to
arnyk wrote:
Which monstrous insult to the audio community are you speaking?
AFAIK Uptone seems to be a very small operation. Can they even afford to
advertise outside their web site and some forum posts?
AFAIK they are taking money primarily from people who have to have one
of
arnyk wrote:
Now, that is a problem! Thank you!
I'll have to research this further.
This unit claims to run at 480 bps and also has an external power
supply:
http://www.tripplite.com/usb-2.0-over-cat5-cat6-extender-hub-transmitter-receiver-hub-high-speed-usb-330-ft-100m-4-port~B203104/
Second linked device is not of much use for USB 2.0 audio
- USB 1.1 compliant, Data transfer rate at Full Speed 12 Mbps
jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192
View this thread:
jkeny wrote:
Second linked device is not of much use for USB 2.0 audio
- USB 1.1 compliant, Data transfer rate at Full Speed 12 Mbps
Now, that is a problem! Thank you!
I'll have to research this further.
SBGK wrote:
Yes, they are just a couple of enthusiasts so it's ok to continue to
disparage their efforts without even trying the product.
Well, if you say so, but I don't rock that way.
It is a commercial product and it is what it is. So the question is what
is it?
It is pretty clear to
arnyk wrote:
Well, if you say so, but I don't rock that way.
It is a commercial product and it is what it is. So the question is what
is it?
As I stated earlier it is a solution looking for a problem. But just for
fun let's assume that the UAR is indeed addressing a very real problem
and
SBGK wrote:
So the regen might work and you're open minded about it, just your
understanding of digital electronics might need tweeking.
Right. Given reliable evidence, my thinking changes to fit reality.
Pity you won't engage in conversation with JS, I feel your current
company is
arnyk wrote:
Well, if you say so, but I don't rock that way.
It is a commercial product and it is what it is. So the question is what
is it?
It is pretty clear to anybody with familiarity with the internals of
this kind of hardware what it is from the supplied documentation.
Saying
ralphpnj wrote:
As I stated earlier it is a solution looking for a problem.
Totally agreed. It is like so-called high resolution audio, for
example.
But just for fun let's assume that the UAR is indeed addressing a very
real problem and removing all this noise and crud from the USB
SBGK wrote:
JS has said he has measured noise, that's enough for me.
Well you are way ahead of me, could you provide a link to that
statement?
What he describes accords with my experience of what affects SQ. Your
viewpoint doesn't.
Please describe the reliable means that you have used
arnyk wrote:
Well you are way ahead of me, could you provide a link to that
statement?
Please describe the reliable means that you have used to observe SQ.
Well that's not me. You may have read that I feel that you are free to
determine SQ by any means and share it, but of
SBGK wrote:
JS has said he has measured noise, that's enough for me.
What he describes accords with my experience of what affects SQ. Your
viewpoint doesn't.
There are plenty of windbags on the interweb who claim to have never
heard any difference and want to enforce that view on
Before this continues is there measurment around that shows the noise
and THD at the output on a DAC ( any DAC with USB input ) .
I can very well believe that JS found some noise inside the circuit
somewhere , he has the technical knowhow to do so .
But how much does it affects the output ?
ralphpnj wrote:
In the world of high end audio the reality is quite a bit different from
what you state, i.e. it is much that some respected high end audio guru
(a very polite way to say windbag) claims to have heard a difference and
all the audiophiles open their wallets. For example the
Mnyb wrote:
Before this continues is there measurment around that shows the noise
and THD at the output on a DAC ( any DAC with USB input ) .
I can very well believe that JS found some noise inside the circuit
somewhere , he has the technical knowhow to do so .
But how much does it
jkeny wrote:
Well there are a number of reports of people differentiating high-res in
Foobar ABX testing which you seem to ignore or are unaware of. This
doesn't mean that they can hear 20KHz which is just the usual
unthinking objectivists over-simplified mantra.
Here's an
The guy's summary of the thread
-Summary to this point:-
-The effect being heard in foobar ABX testing here has been robustly
detected:-
-1) In popular music (2 different songs), dense textures -
-2) In classical music, more transparent textures-
-3) With default iZotope SRC values (32
jkeny wrote:
Well, Arny, as usual, you didn't read through the link before commenting
- in post 12 he details the CDs tracks he used the resampler he
used.
But, of course one statistically robust positive Foobar example is only
a strong indication that this should be investigated
Well, Arny, as usual, you didn't read through the link before commenting
- in post 12 he details the CDs tracks he used the resampler he
used.
But, of course one statistically robust positive Foobar example is only
a strong indication that this should be investigated further - not
dismissed
jkeny wrote:
Well there are a number of reports of people differentiating high-res in
Foobar ABX testing which you seem to ignore or are unaware of. This
doesn't mean that they can hear 20KHz which is just the usual
unthinking objectivists over-simplified mantra.
I agree that discussing
ralphpnj wrote:
Funny how he missed that part in the recording where, at least on the
192kHz version, one can clearly hear the toilet flushing in the
recording studio mens room, located down a 25 foot corridor from the
recording studio. So how can I believe anything he writes?
For a person
For ralphpnj and others who seem to be not quite clear about what John
Swenson's approach is to the design of this device, here is his verbatim
explanation taken from the Uptone Audio website. Note that the REGEN
device only applies to a USB-connected dac and, in the end, is
purporting to
Sure, ralph - to a man with a hammer all problems are nails - I guess
the same applies to plumbing
If you read the explanation of Swenson's you still have this view then
you fail to understand the function of the device.
Oh BTW, most people use the EDO plugin on their SQ Touch because it
ralphpnj wrote:
Thank you rgro and all of the above only adds to what I have been saying
all along: that since using USB as a means of transmitting digital audio
data is so filled with problems, issues and noise why do audiophiles
insist on using USB when there are means of transmitting
jkeny wrote:
Sure, ralph - to a man with a hammer all problems are nails - I guess
the same applies to plumbing
If you read the explanation of Swenson's you still have this view then
you fail to understand the function of the device.
Oh BTW, most people use the EDO plugin on their SQ
rgro wrote:
For ralphpnj and others who seem to be not quite clear about what John
Swenson's approach is to the design of this device, here is his verbatim
explanation taken from the Uptone Audio website. Note that the REGEN
device only applies to a USB-connected dac and, in the end, is
ralphpnj wrote:
*The world of high end audio is very quickly becoming part of the world
of luxury goods and in the world of luxury goods the relationship
between price and performance is meaningless. *
Cool, I've made it into the super-rich - a $175 device is a high-end
luxury :)
doctor_big wrote:
Holy shit! I had no idea that Arny had -clarity!- That he understood,
grokked, -knew- (in the biblical sense) everything about audio, down to
the quantum level. He's Jesus, Neo and Einstein all rolled into one.
It's no wonder our petty, childish arguments bounce off his
rgro wrote:
For ralphpnj and others who seem to be not quite clear about what John
Swenson's approach is to the design of this device, here is his verbatim
explanation taken from the Uptone Audio website. Note that the REGEN
device only applies to a USB-connected dac and, in the end, is
At this point, I'm reminded of this quote
-A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
... but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new
generation grows up that is familiar with it. - Max Planck-
arnyk wrote:
Wow, jkeny has empowered himself to speak for the 100's if not 1000's of
people who post on this forum!
Amazing!
What you jkeny and others around here don't get is that once one
obtains a certain critical mass of knowledge and experience and has the
mental power to put it
jkeny wrote:
Well, Arny, as usual, you didn't read through the link before commenting
- in post 12 he details the CDs tracks he used the resampler he
used.
Thanks for actually citing something useful.
BTW here's the URL so that you can improve your future attempts to cite
sources:
jkeny wrote:
Sure, ralph - to a man with a hammer all problems are nails - I guess
the same applies to plumbing
It sure seems to apply to some of the placebophiles around here.
USB-this, USB-that. Is there anything else?
I know people who seem to make only USB DACs. At least that's all
jkeny wrote:
At this point, I'm reminded of this quote
Ironically, Max broke his own rule over and over again.
You ought to cite quotes where the quote relates to the actual life of
the guy who made it.
arnyk's
arnyk wrote:
The article could convince a naive reader that JS has measured an
improvement due to his device, but
What I have been finding in looking at DACs etc with USB inputs is that
there is what I am calling packet noise. This is bursts of noise
caused by the USB receiver processing
As far back as 2013, JS said he was measuring noise on '_AudioAsylum_'
(http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/12/126193.html)
I'm sure SBGK will like this as it relates to the measured difference in
noise JS has measured between the outputs from different bit-perfect
software players
jkeny wrote:
Cool, I've made it into the super-rich - a $175 device is a high-end
luxury :)
No but a $175 device used to solve a problem with a $5,000 USB DAC
is all part of the same ecosystem, an ecosystem where the price to
performance ratio has no meaning. Want to isolate a $5000 DAC from
jkeny wrote:
As far back as 2013, JS said he was measuring noise on '_AudioAsylum_'
(http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/12/126193.html)
I'm sure SBGK will like this as it relates to the measured difference in
noise JS has measured between the outputs from different
ralphpnj wrote:
No but a $175 device used to solve a problem with a $5,000 USB DAC
is all part of the same ecosystem, an ecosystem where the price to
performance ratio has no meaning. Want to isolate a $5000 DAC from the
evils of USB? By a SB Touch, stream it digital audio via wi-fi and
82 matches
Mail list logo
