rgro wrote:
That is precisely my setup. I have a Vortexbox micro appliance (small,
Linux-based pc/server) which has only analog and USB outputs. So, I am
feeding the Benchmark dac with an el cheapo (I know you'll approve,
Ralph) USB cable. This is, indeed, why my interest was piqued.
jkeny wrote:
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?
If the reports are anecdotal and subjective, they will not be of much
value
Touchy wrote:
Anyone using a Regen with a Touch that cares to stick their neck above
the parapet?
Bump and apologies - I have reread the OP and it was indeed an
invitation for you ladies to carry on as you have been.
Well done. 'Handbags at dawn' then.
Will start a more appropriate thread
Mnyb wrote:
Sadly most recordings aviable does not even challange the CD systems
resolution.
So far I haven't found a single one (and I have looked at quite a few).
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
Oh i forgot the base reason for further piontlessness .
Sadly most recordings aviable does not even challange the CD systems
resolution , certainly not cherished audiophile gems from the 70's or
the new loudness war cr*p .
Posibly you can find some special recordnings ( 0.01% of the market ) .
Julf wrote:
Another case of cargo cult science?
It was weird science. The post was an alleged tutorial in FFT technology
by someone who routinely dismisses FFTs as being measureist dildos, and
concurrently misidentified a clear discrete signal splke as being part
of the noise floor.
Touchy wrote:
Bump and apologies - I have reread the OP and it was indeed an
invitation for you ladies to carry on as you have been.
Well done. 'Handbags at dawn' then.
Will start a more appropriate thread for the subjectively inclined in
due course.
Carry on
If this was a rational
Touchy wrote:
Bump and apologies - I have reread the OP and it was indeed an
invitation for you ladies to carry on as you have been.
Well done. 'Handbags at dawn' then.
Will start a more appropriate thread for the subjectively inclined in
due course.
Carry on
I appreciate your
Touchy wrote:
Bump and apologies - I have reread the OP and it was indeed an
invitation for you ladies to carry on as you have been.
Well done. 'Handbags at dawn' then.
Will start a more appropriate thread for the subjectively inclined in
due course.
Carry onHopefully things will
arnyk wrote:
The thread shows that it got derailed with this irrelevant
post:http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?103684-uptone-audio-regenp=819095viewfull=1#post819095
Another case of cargo cult science?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
Julf wrote:
So far I haven't found a single one (and I have looked at quite a few).
leaving an opening for the rare exceptions , one can always be wrong .
If i had your experience in recording I could possibly be more sure .
Julf wrote:
If the reports are anecdotal and subjective, they will
Touchy wrote:
Bump and apologies - I have reread the OP and it was indeed an
invitation for you ladies to carry on as you have been.
Well done. 'Handbags at dawn' then.
Will start a more appropriate thread for the subjectively inclined in
due course.
Carry on
Hopefully I can sneak
adamdea wrote:
. Since the SBT is a comparatively low powered
device with (by all accounts) a well designed switchmode power supply,
one might wonder whether it was better or worse than an ordinary
computer [which is what I am assuming you used Arch] in doing whatever
arnyk wrote:
It was weird science. The post was an alleged tutorial in FFT technology
by someone who routinely dismisses FFTs as being measureist dildos and
dismisses just looking at them as measurebation, and concurrently
misidentified a clear discrete signal splke as being part of the
jkeny wrote:
However, if you are struggling to understand what problems using
asynchronous USB solved then you really are dumber than I thought
further strengthens my viewpoint that you are measurebators who twiddle
with your instrument but don't really know what it's for or how to use
it.
SBGK wrote:
Hopefully I can sneak this in here while the measurebators are changing
positions in their circle.
the only reference I've seen is Guidof tried it with a Touch, but
decided squeezelite was better, so used it with that, don't know if
squeezelite was on a linux box or pc.
If I
jkeny wrote:
However, if you are struggling to understand what problems using
asynchronous USB solved then you really are dumber than I thought
further strengthens my viewpoint that you are measurebators who twiddle
with your instrument but don't really know what it's for or how to use
it.
snip a long list of irrelevant attempts at libel and the expected
deflections when cornered
jkeny wrote:
However, if you are struggling to understand what problems using
asynchronous USB solved then you really are dumber than I thought
further strengthens my viewpoint that you are
ralphpnj wrote:
Julf please see my prior post about the audiophile fixation with
asynchronous USB DACs, aka Snake Oil Marketing 401 (101 deals with
speaker wire and interconnect cables, 201 deals with power conditioning
and 301 deals with power cables).
Sure - I would like to hear what
ralphpnj wrote:
The presence of jitter in digital audio is not a new issue and has been
dealt with in various ways since the introduction of the compact disc
back in the mid 1980s.
Completely true and might I add that jitter in digital data is far older
than that. I still remember
So, let me predict that next will be demanded reliable evidence of
audibility so on so on until finally, he demands that any blind test
be administered by someone he has nominated - such as JJ. It's hilarious
Welcome to the Arny show - the show that never ends!!
rgro wrote:
For the sake of accuracy, the DacMagic is made by Cambridge Audio, not
Benchmark.
FWIW I can confirm that. I might add that in a separate post, the JL
article is far from being what JK has mistaken it for. For one thing, JK
does not seem to know what parts per billion is in dB.
jkeny wrote:
I wasn't specifically referring to you, ralphjn but you seem to take on
the attributes answered
I'm not even going to link to the many, many reports of an audible noise
on the output of a non-asynchronous USB DAC - noticeable when mouse
movements, HDD access, keyboard
ralphpnj wrote:
In celebration of Nieuwe Haring Dag 2015 (New Herring Day 2015) and your
constant stream of red herrings I offer you this link:
https://www.oysterbarny.com/event/nieuwe-herring/
The red herrings present in your quoted post above:
Many (if not all) of the problems and
A nice aside to this whole discussion is the history of the audiophile
fixation with the USB interface for digital audio.
Several iterations ago of the Windows operating system it was discovered
that USB digital output on a Windows computer was not bit perfect due to
an issue with the sound
arnyk wrote:
As usual, a deflection. The question was for reliable reports of cases
where asych made an improvement. Furthermore most of those kinds of
problems happen on PCs with other discernable and correctible software
and hardware problems. Making them go away without hardware upgrades
ralphpnj wrote:
LINKS LINKS LINKS PLEASE PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE!
Funny that audiophiles and Dr. Oz (the best snake oil salesman of all
time) but insist one using anecdotal evidence rather scientific
evidence. One bad apple (pun intended) does not ruin the entire bushel.
I don't need to give
Let me also quote Jim LeSurf's conclusion (which I don't agree with but
however:
The above said, we should take care -not to put the blame on the
DACMagic for the higher replay rate flutter when using a direct USB
connection. The root of the problem here is that a normal domestic
computer
SBGK wrote:
a wifi attached touch is not something that should be feeding a $5000
dac, unless listening to streaming radio or something.
ralphpnj wrote:
And why not? Because some clown writing in some slick magazine said so?
Tell me is your favorite food crackers because you sure sound
jkeny wrote:
I'm sure you can give us a list of properly designed DACs - you know
the ones where all inputs sound the same? If properly designed, surely
it wouldn't matter if connected to a PC or Mac, would it? Again, your
schizophrenic nature is showing - so maybe you do need therapy as you
jkeny wrote:
I'm sure you can give us a list of properly designed DACs - you know
the ones where all inputs sound the same? If properly designed, surely
it wouldn't matter if connected to a PC or Mac, would it? Again, your
schizophrenic nature is showing - so maybe you do need therapy as you
jkeny wrote:
I wasn't specifically referring to you, ralphjn but you seem to take on
the attributes answered
I'm not even going to link to the many, many reports of an audible noise
on the output of a non-asynchronous USB DAC - noticeable when mouse
movements, HDD access, keyboard
jkeny wrote:
I stand corrected
This post would be more complementary to you JK if there were more
quotes and repetitions of the same text. ;-)
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
arnyk's Profile:
arnyk wrote:
No jkeny, no reading problems here. I just know what the numbers mean.
You obviously don't.
Here's your quote:
Here the rate jumps down about 8 ppm for around 2 seconds at a time.
Now an 8 ppm change in rate accumulates to a timing error of 16
microseconds over two
I wasn't specifically referring to you, ralphjn but you seem to take on
the attributes answered
I'm not even going to link to the many, many reports of an audible noise
on the output of a non-asynchronous USB DAC - noticeable when mouse
movements, HDD access, keyboard activity, etc. If you want
rgro wrote:
For the sake of accuracy, the DacMagic is made by Cambridge Audio, not
Benchmark.I stand corrected
jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192
View this thread:
JK, how about addressing the actual questions instead of all the inane
and childish name calling?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
jkeny wrote:
I wasn't specifically referring to you, ralphjn but you seem to take on
the attributes answered
I'm not even going to link to the many, many reports of an audible noise
on the output of a non-asynchronous USB DAC - noticeable when mouse
movements, HDD access, keyboard
jkeny wrote:
Y.
As you are such a bad reader I have outlined the relevant text for you
No jkeny, no reading problems here. I just know what the numbers mean.
You obviously don't.
Here's your quote:
Here the rate jumps down about 8 ppm for around 2 seconds at a time.
Now an 8 ppm change in
ralphpnj wrote:
A nice aside to this whole discussion is the history of the audiophile
fixation with the USB interface for digital audio.
Several iterations ago of the Windows operating system it was discovered
that USB digital output on a Windows computer was not bit perfect due to
an
jkeny wrote:
I'm not even going to link to the many, many reports of an audible noise
on the output of a non-asynchronous USB DAC - noticeable when mouse
movements, HDD access, keyboard activity, etc. If you want to deny this
reality then it will not surprise me.
How about if you instead
ralphpnj wrote:
I already answered question about Macs:My question was how would one of your
properly designed DACs be any
different with a Mac as opposed to a PC? You haven't answered this.
You continue to avoid giving a list of these properly designed DACs as
does Arny who took it on
jkeny wrote:
Go off now regroup you measurbators, take a little pleasure in a
twiddle with your equipment.
But don;t come back here with some other off-topic post meant to swing
the attention away from your embarrassing foolishness demonstrated in
the recent pages.
If you can't come
jkeny wrote:
Yes the timing difference that last for 2 seconds will affect both
channels.
snip additional deflections
Again, game, set, match.
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
arnyk wrote:
Yet another interesting factoid from the world of measurists: Frequency
drift and even clock jitter in stereo DACs affects both channels equally
because they share the same clock. Therefore the issues related to
interchannel time delays are irrelevant!
Thanks again jkeny for
Arny drags Hydrogen Audio into this so let's just show his motivation
for being on this thread as per his statement on HA
My goal is that every time a 'boe logs on to the thread, he is faced a
wall of challenging posts that is more than he can handle. Every
challenging post that thus goes
jkeny wrote:
Do they? The structure of the digital signal I2S signal (the one that
operates at chip level) is a serial stream of data bits, Right channel
sample first then followed by Left channel sample. In modern DACs there
are 32 bits in each sample. Each of these bits is clocked on a
ralphpnj wrote:
Two things - won't the list of improperly or poorly designed DACs be
much more useful since those are the ones that seem to be causing all
the trouble. I know about PC and USB issues from first hand anecdotal
experience, which for any self respecting is better than hard
jkeny wrote:
You claim that there is such a thing as a properly designed DAC all
DAC issues are a result of DACs not matching this design
So, give us a list of these DACs so we can judge them see what such a
design entails the price we can get them at - many want to know this
as all
jkeny wrote:
Again, your desire to be always right shows up your foolishness
The commonly accepted smallest inter-channel timing that humans can hear
is somewhere from 4 microseconds to 10 microseconds, depending on which
research you read. Your statement equivalent to a frequency error of 8
jkeny wrote:
I don't need to give links - any sane person knows the issue as it is
well reported everywhere, not just audiophile press.
Your continued attempts at denial show how much of an outlier on the
spectrum of normality you are.
So give me a list of properly designed DACs as you
jkeny wrote:
My question was how would one of your properly designed DACs be any
different with a Mac as opposed to a PC? You haven't answered this.
The question does not deserve to be answered because it yet another
jkeny deflection.
The question at hand is: Where is his reliable evidence
jkeny wrote:
My question was how would one of your properly designed DACs be any
different with a Mac as opposed to a PC? You haven't answered this.
You continue to avoid giving a list of these properly designed DACs as
does Arny who took it on himself to try to deflect on your behalf.
arnyk wrote:
The question does not deserve to be answered because it yet another
jkeny deflection.
The question at hand is: Where is his reliable evidence that Asynch DACs
solve some real world problem. So far he is empty handed of OnTopic
responses.
This has been a day of deflections
Go off now regroup you measurbators, take a little pleasure in a
twiddle with your equipment.
But don;t come back here with some other off-topic post meant to swing
the attention away from your embarrassing foolishness demonstrated in
the recent pages.
If you can't come back with a list of
arnyk wrote:
Indeed.
Reference: 'I2SBUS.pdf'
(https://www.sparkfun.com/datasheets/BreakoutBoards/I2SBUS.pdf)
Reality is that in i2s there is one clock line and one data line,
Changes to the shared clock line that affect one channel will affect the
other channel if the change to the
arnyk wrote:
snip additional deflections
Again, game, set, match.
Wow, your stupidity is so entrenched that you think this really reflect
well on your claim of being a rationalist?
You have just shot yourself in the foot demonstrated exactly what I
always claimed measurebators do - try to
jkeny wrote:
Wow, your stupidity is so entrenched that you think this really reflect
well on your claim of being a rationalist?
snip additional deflections
So, jkeny who that actually understands DACs, OEMs yours for you?
Or are you saying that your OEM is clueless as well?
utgg wrote:
Oh dear.
Indeed.
Reference: 'I2SBUS.pdf'
(https://www.sparkfun.com/datasheets/BreakoutBoards/I2SBUS.pdf)
Reality is that in i2s there is one clock line and one data line,
Changes to the shared clock line that affect one channel will affect the
other channel if the change to the
Julf wrote:
Jkeny, I know you are the master of avoiding questions you don't like to
answer, but just to remind you, how about actually answering these?
Hint: it is OK to reply with I don't have a clue
You mean how using a local clean clock in the USB receiving device to
time the USB signl
jkeny wrote:
OK, I may be mistaken that you said this - it may have been Mnyb?
Apologies for the confusion
Yes, I asked you what evidence you had for this claim?
And I told you personal and anecdotal experience, which in the world of
audiophiles is better than hard scientific evidence.
jkeny wrote:
Again, Arny, you demonstrate that you haven't a clue what you are
talking about
What is shown on those graphs is nothing to do with the frequency of the
signal
Oh jkeny, so your next error of the day is to assert that jitter and
long term clock timing errors have nothing to
jkeny wrote:
You mean how using a local clean clock in the USB receiving device to
time the USB signl is better than timing it with a derived clock running
in a computer powered by electrical noisy PS sharing a an environment
bathed in emi RFI? Why a stable clock would be better at timing
Julf wrote:
And how many currently available, commercial DACs actually have a
totally independent clock? And how does the asynchronous ample rate
converter that is included in most modern DACS change the situation?Any DAC
claiming to be asynchronous will use a local clock to time the
USB
jkeny wrote:
A
I knew when you translated ppm into dBs that you hadn't a notion about
this but you have dug yourself deeper deeper in your misunderstanding
That statement is exactly consistent with your next fallacious claim
which was that timing errors and jitter have nothing to do
ralphpnj wrote:
And I told you personal and anecdotal experience, which in the world of
audiophiles is better than hard scientific evidence.
All kidding aside - because this type of behavior in a computer is the
result of conflicts between the various internal processes going on
within
jkeny wrote:
You mean how using a local clean clock in the USB receiving device to
time the USB signl is better than timing it with a derived clock running
in a computer powered by electrical noisy PS sharing a an environment
bathed in emi RFI? Why a stable clock would be better at timing
jkeny wrote:
You mean how using a local clean clock in the USB receiving device to
time the USB signl is better than timing it with a derived clock running
in a computer powered by electrical noisy PS sharing a an environment
bathed in emi RFI? Why a stable clock would be better at timing
arnyk wrote:
If you read JL's article, there is no jump. The mniscule timing
difference starts building up at a super-miniscule rate over the 2
second period.
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Linux/Sound3/TimeForChange.html
Here the *-rate-* jumps down about 8 ppm for around 2 seconds at a
jkeny wrote:
Bluff bluster won't disguise your mistakes.
That's a laugh coming from someone who knows nothing about digital audio
but how to buy DACs from an OEM and call them his own, and then cut and
paste other people's ideas and call them his own.
Tell us what the IQ-test actual
Julf wrote:
Bzzz. Wrong. Asynch in USB has nothing to do with the bit clock - it
has to do with the timing of higher-level data blocks.Where did I say it had
anything to do with the bit clock? Jeez, yo do
make things up
And you would be well advised to read that 101. Most modern commercial
arnyk wrote:
snip additional deflections
So, jkeny who that actually understands DACs, OEMs yours for you?
Or are you saying that your OEM is clueless as well?
Your attempts at deflection are obvious
So let's see if you still assert this stupidity that you posted
-Yet another
Although I enjoy reading posts like this instead of watching Coronation
Street, I suggest a moderator locks this thread for a while to let
things cool down a bit. This is some childish bullying here ...
pinkdot's
Jkeny, I know you are the master of avoiding questions you don't like to
answer, but just to remind you, how about actually answering these?
Julf wrote:
So please tell us, in your own words, what problems using asynchronous
USB actually solve in modern DACs?
Julf wrote:
You keep ranting
pinkdot wrote:
Although I enjoy reading posts like this instead of watching Coronation
Street, I suggest a moderator locks this thread for a while to let
things cool down a bit. This is some childish bullying here ...
I had to look up what Coronation Street is and you're right this
thread is
jkeny wrote:
Again, you can't but demonstrate your stupidity, Arny, can you?
Yes the timing difference that last for 2 seconds will affect both
channels.
Do you think that this jump in timing at the start of this 2 seconds
happens instantaneously i.e it has no timing - it is instant? Do
arnyk wrote:
That statement is exactly consistent with your next fallacious claim
which was that timing errors and jitter have nothing to do with the
frequency of the audio signal being transmitted digitally.
In the face of such! I am almost speechless.Bluff bluster won't disguise
your
jkeny wrote:
Any DAC claiming to be asynchronous will use a local clock to time the
USB stream.
Bzzz. Wrong. Asynch in USB has nothing to do with the bit clock - it
has to do with the timing of higher-level data blocks.
Oh, I missed the second part of your question - asynchronous sample
arnyk wrote:
A little homily:
There is this jkeny guy who says: Buy my DACs because they sound better
- more organic. Organic reminds me of a smelly compost pile, but what
ever.
We all know that better presumes different so lets find out how jkeny's
DAC at least sounds different.
Julf wrote:
So please tell us, in your own words, what problems using asynchronous
USB actually solve in modern DACs?
Julf please see my prior post about the audiophile fixation with
asynchronous USB DACs, aka Snake Oil Marketing 401 (101 deals with
speaker wire and interconnect cables, 201
ralphpnj wrote:
*I never said that a properly designed DAC would solve these issues,*
rather what I said is that these issues are complete audiophile nonsense
since 1) that the claimed audible jitter when using non-asynchronous USB
cannot possibly be heard any human and 2) no one has yet
Arny, I thought you might have left after making this post - (you
should, btw)
So let's see if you still assert this stupidity that you posted
-
Yet another interesting factoid from the world of measurists: Frequency
drift and even
_*clock_jitter_in_stereo_DACs_affects_both_channels_equally*_
82 matches
Mail list logo
