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 concerned about the 8kHz packet > noise... I've demonstrated on the blog evidence that this could be > picked up and amplified through my Emotiva XSP-1 preamp as a measurable > issue. As I also said, it's -not -a universal issue because it's not > heard through the DAC directly but that noise can be picked up > peripherally through a specific analogue input (and put through the gain > through my preamp and amps). That's about as "read" as it gets for > audiophile discussions I believe. Heck I can even -hear- the darn > contaminant as I showed in one of the videos.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? > To me the potential of the USB Regen (and other devices that supposedly > clean up USB noise like the JitterBug) is clear. Since I have not seen > any objective evidence that this device "works" elsewhere, if it > actually cleans up that 8kHz tone for me like I have already attenuated > to some extent using the optical cable + external USB hub, then $175 > isn't a problem since I already paid $100 for the USB optical cable and > I'd be able to objectively show the reduction in specifically that 8kHz > noise/tone. It'd be fantastic if the optical USB cable + USB Regen > completely removes that 8kHz packet noise! But as it stands currently, > I'm not sure I want to plunk down $175 to get this shipped to Canada > when I have other ideas of ways to deal with this issue and there's no > objective evidence that it would work for what I need... Thus I was > wondering if someone can lend me one locally in Vancouver for a couple > nights!I see. So a device is introduced which targets an issue that you have not measured & you decide that it must operate according to your criteria. This strikes me as typical of your method - it's called "observational bias" or the "streetlight effect" or the "drunkard's search" - taken from an old joke > *A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a > streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys > and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes > the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk > replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why > he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light > is.*"[2] Archimago wrote: > That IMO would be interesting to know and I think others would find that > observation beneficial (plus add some objective data to demonstrate the > positive effect of this device). 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. None of what you do is about trying to find the truth of the matter (as you purport you are doing) rather it is about self-promotion. Your post gives ample evidence of this motivation in action. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103684 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
