SBGK wrote:
I respectfully disagree with your viewpoints, apart from Mr Swenson. I
can't see these magazines changing any time soon so look forward to
plenty more of these Ralph PNJ acolytes threads.
Very true. And on a closely related note here is a link about to why
trying to debate
JohnSwenson wrote:
The part that seems to make the difference is a monotonically decreasing
harmonic structure. The third harmonic is a little less than the second,
the forth is a little less than the third etc, all the way down to the
noise floor. Today this is a very easy measurement, a
darrenyeats wrote:
I pondered upon your comments and then I looked through Stereophile's
measurements on DACs with interesting results. See my post here:
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=151401 I hope you
don't mind me name-dropping you!
Interesting post Darren...
I respectfully disagree with your viewpoints, apart from Mr Swenson. I
can't see these magazines changing any time soon so look forward to
plenty more of these Ralph PNJ acolytes threads.
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
This thread was started in response to the absolutely absurd claim by
the high end audio press and high end cable manufacturers that high end
USB cables sound better than standard USB cables and as such I'm still
waiting for Mr. Swenson's take on this subject.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio
John,
I'm more open minded now thanks to some recent experiences with my DAC1
attenuator settings. These contradict the orthodoxy of my previous
thinking regarding gear measurements.
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 4
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
JohnSwenson wrote:
I was wondering if someone would ask that!
Well, somebody had to... :)
The part that seems to make the difference is a monotonically decreasing
harmonic structure.
I absolutely agree with that in the case of SET amps that have quite a
bit of harmonic distortion (but of
Julf wrote:
So how do you measure what a SET does well?
I was wondering if someone would ask that!
The part that seems to make the difference is a monotonically decreasing
harmonic structure. The third harmonic is a little less than the second,
the forth is a little less than the third etc,
JohnSwenson wrote:
IPart of the issue here is that what it does poorly is very easy to
measure, and what it does well is very difficult to measure (not
impossible, just difficult). It took a long time for the engineers to
figure out how to measure what it was doing well.
So how do you
I'd like to reply to some comments in this thread, particularly to the
ones about SETs and NOS DACs. These are not in the same category as
electret cream, they are real life engineering tradeoffs. I'll give some
examples of both.
I'll start with the SET. I have built MANY amplifiers over the
JohnSwenson wrote:
I'd like to reply to some comments in this thread, particularly to the
ones about SETs and NOS DACs. These are not in the same category as
electret cream, they are real life engineering tradeoffs. I'll give some
examples of both.
..
John S.
Thanks John for your
I have to disagree slightly .
The SET sound can in it's totality all be explained within the amps
distortion pattern and output impedance and nonlinear behaviour . This
may sound better to some but this is not transparent treatment of the
signal . It's a sound effect IMO .
I could accept the
ralphpnj wrote:
There's a big difference between letting people live out their
idiosyncrasies and a reviewer stating an outright lie (saying that two
properly functioning USB cables sound different is a lie). I don't care
that people are willing to spend lots of money trying to improve the
Jeff52 wrote:
But, but, the great Steve Hoffman says cables do make a difference:
-Of course they make a difference. It's up to YOU to carefully (and I do
mean CAREFULLY) determine if the difference is good for your system or
not. Don't be fooled or swayed by a sudden top end burst of
garym wrote:
I suspect he wasn't talking about USB or ethernet cables in this
discussion. For *analog* distribution (e.g., speaker wires), cable
*can* make a difference.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign.
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas
garym wrote:
I suspect he wasn't talking about USB or ethernet cables in this
discussion. For *analog* distribution (e.g., speaker wires), cable
*can* make a difference.
Albeit a small one for speaker wires thats goes away when the cross
section is large enough esential parameters are R,L
Mnyb wrote:
Albeit a small one for speaker wires thats goes away when the cross
section is large enough esential parameters are R,L put it does not take
1000$ to accomplishi that !
Signal cables not so much if the design is sane C,L are esential and
the runs aare very short in home
garym wrote:
Agree! And I like the fact that Hoffman notes that different could be
worse sound, even with more expensive cables. Probably a high
correlation between price and lack of sane design.
yeah how else to make it different much like NOS dac's with no or
unorthodox filter design etc
garym wrote:
Agree! And I like the fact that Hoffman notes that different could be
worse sound, even with more expensive cables. Probably a high
correlation between price and lack of sane design.
On a similar note years ago (at least 10 to 15 years) I was having my
Aragon power amp updated
Jeff52 wrote:
I can't speak for you guys, but I suspect I would be hard-pressed to
identify in a blind test any difference between a standard interconnect,
such as those sold by Blue Jeans, and any of the so-called premium
cables.
Same for me. But heck, my premium interconnects *are* the
I can't speak for you guys, but I suspect I would be hard-pressed to
identify in a blind test any difference between a standard interconnect,
such as those sold by Blue Jeans, and any of the so-called premium
cables.
Jeff52 wrote:
I can't speak for you guys, but I suspect I would be hard-pressed to
identify in a blind test any difference between a standard interconnect,
such as those sold by Blue Jeans, and any of the so-called premium
cables.
Hence there is NEVER any kind of blind testing being done on
pablolie wrote:
i like well-crafted cables between my components. not because they
enhance sound (if cables change the sound there is a bigger issue at
hand), but because that eliminates unnecessary connectivity issues and
looks better. but yes, it gets utterly ridiculous, but hey. i let
i like well-crafted cables between my components. not because they
enhance sound (if cables change the sound there is a bigger issue at
hand), but because that eliminates unnecessary connectivity issues and
looks better. but yes, it gets utterly ridiculous, but hey. i let people
live out their
Peter Galbavy wrote:
the customers reviews for the (in)famous Denon Link cable are wonderful
to read:
http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6PM
Yes, it is just a piece of shielded Cat5e cable with Denon printed on
it. For $500.
As funny as most of these
the customers reviews for the (in)famous Denon Link cable are wonderful
to read:
http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6PM
Yes, it is just a piece of shielded Cat5e cable with Denon printed on
it. For $500.
Peter Galbavy wrote:
the customers reviews for the (in)famous Denon Link cable are wonderful
to read
Brilliant! :)
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 -
Peter Galbavy wrote:
the customers reviews for the (in)famous Denon Link cable are wonderful
to read:
http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6PM
Yes, it is just a piece of shielded Cat5e cable with Denon printed on
it. For $500.
And the Accoutrements Horse
The audio cable makers for years have found willing buyers to pay
emourous sums of money on analog cables that would 'improve' the sound
of their systems. (I believe quality cables are important, but the
incremental alteration in sound which gets labeled as improvement is not
worth the money for
As it is said, the fish stinks from head down . I would put dual
distrust in thief capacity to correctly evaluate analog gear.
Example : the tube cult .
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
andy_c wrote:
I don't see these threads as anti-audiophile, as I consider myself an
audiophile, and have been since the late 1960s. I do see them as
anti-industry though. I think the industry has betrayed the audiophile
by embracing a business model that intends to mislead its customers.
It's strange. When I was young all I cared about was the music. Then as
I got older, the equipment became more and more important and the music
less so. Now I seem to have come full circle and it's the music that
matters once again. And, let's face it, you can buy an awful lot more
music when
SteveEast wrote:
It's strange. When I was young all I cared about was the music. Then as
I got older, the equipment became more and more important and the music
less so. Now I seem to have come full circle and it's the music that
matters once again. And, let's face it, you can buy an awful
ralphpnj wrote:
Hopefully you came full circle and along the way picked up some nice
sounding audio equipment. In addition I hope that people reading these
anti-audiophile threads understand that no one here is against well made
decent sounding reasonably priced equipment. What I and many
I dunno. I'm having a hard time laughing, given that real money is being
paid.
I found 'this'
(http://www.audiostream.com/content/mike-wins-1400-usb-cable) sad,
especially because there was a time when I looked forward to reading
Stereophile and its related sites.
s.
satkinsn wrote:
I dunno. I'm having a hard time laughing, given that real money is being
paid.
I found 'this'
(http://www.audiostream.com/content/mike-wins-1400-usb-cable) sad,
especially because there was a time when I looked forward to reading
Stereophile and its related sites.
s.
ralph wrote, in part:
...one now has to very seriously question each and every thing written
in their pages.
That's the thing: I can't bring myself to trust any of what gets
written. This really is a fish stinks from the head down sort of
thing. If you will tell me with a straight face that a
satkinsn wrote:
I'm glad I know what I know, at last, but I'm not gonna lie: learning
this stuff ruined my enjoyment of my stereo for a while.
s.
Luckily if one focuses on the music rather than on the equipment being
used to play back the recording then it's much easier for one to
assemble
Took me a bit to get there, but yes, you're right. I listen on decent
but modest gear, which feels about right, in terms of how much
mental/emotional space it occupies in my life.
s.
satkinsn's Profile:
andy_c wrote:
Speaking of which, be sure to check out the TAS
'_Cable_Designer_Roundtable_'
(http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/cable-designer-roundtable/) :D
Cable Designer Roundtable aka How to Spin Straw Into Gold (with
apologies to The Brothers Grimm)
Living Rm:
ralphpnj wrote:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/2013-tas-editors-choice-awards-digital-interconnects/?utm_campaign=Newsletterutm_medium=emailutm_source=email-147
Bring your shovel and get ready for a good laugh.
The one to try today is this
You have to love this comment appearing after the article of the P.W.B.
Cream Electret.
Chemical 'C'
Submitted by sudont on December 8, 2012 - 9:56am.
I have no difficulty believing that chemical compounds can enhance the
listening experience. My own tweak - let's call it chemical c -
greatly
Jeff52 wrote:
You have to love this comment (below) appearing after the Stereophile
article about P.W.B. Cream Electret. The inventor of the Cream
discussed Chemical A and Chemical B as examples of certain chemicals
having a negative and positive effect on listeners.
Jeff52 wrote:
You have to love this comment (below) appearing after the Stereophile
article about P.W.B. Cream Electret. The inventor of the Cream
discussed Chemical A and Chemical B as examples of certain chemicals
having a negative and positive effect on listeners.
ralphpnj wrote:
You guys have it backwards - one has to be either smoking, drinking or
just plain on something in order to believe all their BS. In other
words, the last thing any audiophile who believes in this nonsense needs
is more drugs!
Speaking of which, be sure to check out the TAS
In other news, Peter Belt's P.W.B. Electronics Cream Electret (WTF?)
made the
'_Stereophile_Recommended_Components_List_in_the_miscellaneous_category_'
(http://www.stereophile.com/content/2013-recommended-components-miscellaneous).
andy_c wrote:
In other news, Peter Belt's P.W.B. Electronics Cream Electret (WTF?)
made the
'_Stereophile_Recommended_Components_List_in_the_miscellaneous_category_'
(http://www.stereophile.com/content/2013-recommended-components-miscellaneous).
Once one is wrapped in the cloak of
ralphpnj wrote:
Once one is wrapped in the cloak of subjectivity (made by the same
tailor who made the emperor's new clothes) there is no limit as to the
nonsense who can publish and the profits to be made. The audio rags
praise and recommend this worthless junk. Then the worthless junk is
andy_c wrote:
At some level, I find the situation comical. OTOH, when you have this
kind of stuff recommended, and the person who reviewed it also writes
columns saying, It's time to call bulls**t on..., the hypocrisy
demonstrated by that is not funny at all. They have the choice to
Oh my! this entire page of misc components (posted above) is just
unbelievable. If one was trying to create a humor page (ala The Onion)
regarding fake, stupid audiophool stuff, they couldn't do better than
this page and the writeup of each item.
garym wrote:
Oh my! this entire page of misc components (posted above) is just
unbelievable. If one was trying to create a humor page (ala The Onion)
regarding fake, stupid audiophool stuff, they couldn't do better than
this page and the writeup of each item.
Some of the acoustic materials seems leggit but . the the Qx4
scalar field generator :)
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel
Stein Music Magic Discs: $50/each
Stein Music Magic Diamond: $185/each
Stein Music Harmonizers: $3999/4-Harmonizer pack; $2099/2-Harmonizer
Package
Advice by Hoger Stein For optimal performance, keep the windows closed,
advised ST. -*PRICELESS*-
*Location 1:* VortexBox Appliance 4TB (2.2)
garym wrote:
Stein Music Magic Discs: $50/each
Stein Music Magic Diamond: $185/each
Stein Music Harmonizers: $3999/4-Harmonizer pack; $2099/2-Harmonizer
Package
Advice by Hoger Stein For optimal performance, keep the windows closed,
advised ST. -*PRICELESS*-
Windows closed but
garym wrote:
Oh my! this entire page of misc components (posted above) is just
unbelievable. If one was trying to create a humor page (ala The Onion)
regarding fake, stupid audiophool stuff, they couldn't do better than
this page and the writeup of each item.
It is increasingly apparent that Mr. Barnum vastly underestimated the
human capacity for credulity.
induna's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34626
View this thread:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/2013-tas-editors-choice-awards-digital-interconnects/?utm_campaign=Newsletterutm_medium=emailutm_source=email-147
Bring your shovel and get ready for a good laugh.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign.
sub
Home Theater:
A good Saturday morning laugh. At least it seems that the majority of
the reader comments on the website are appropriately questioning how
(non-broken) USB cables could possibly have the impact noted by the
reviews. That's a good sign.
*Location 1:* VortexBox Appliance 4TB (2.2) LMS 7.7.2
58 matches
Mail list logo
