Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: The modifying crowd and the Transporter
It can disprove, though, or reveal an absence of disproof, (as in that WS quotation) or illuminate a parallel or a correspondence or a similarity. Wit's a serious business, and proof isn't everything, (as that Voltaire bloke would have realised if he'd read a bit more John Donne), but then again, too many cooks spoil the ship and a bird in the hand is worth two brass monkeys in a poke. Quantum? It could take the Transporter into a whole new dimension. Don't tangle with it. Perhaps Sean could put up a prize for the silliest post in this thread. Tough choices so far. On 3 Oct 2006, at 03:21, jacobdp wrote: joncourage;142244 Wrote: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Billy S. c 1601 A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire ;-) -- jacobdp -- -- jacobdp's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28080 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: The modifying crowd and the Transporter
jeffluckett wrote: This reminds me of when Bose sued Consumer Reports when they first introduced thier reflecting speaker technology a while back. CR had done thier testing in an anechoic chamber, and as a result reviewed the speakers very poorly. (Now, say what you will about Bose, I know they're not very popular with the Audiophile crowd..) Bose sued CR because the testing conditions weren't valid ... you can't test a speaker that RELIES on reflections in an anechoic chamber. I don't remember the outcome of the suit, but this does prove one point. If the test conditions aren't appropriate, all the fancy measurements you can make don't mean diddly. The Bose 901 speakers were fairly well received when they came out, 1970 or so. They had a huge downside for the times: they used active EQ to change the normal uneven response of their array of small speaker drivers into something close to flat. It ate huge amounts of power, and most amps of the time didn't have the power to spare. A lesser problem was that the EQ made the phase be very weird. But they sounded good for the times and good for their price. It is not clear if the current Bose brand has any corporate connection with the one of 1970. A fair number of the old names are owned by totally unrelated companies. To that same end, it's pretty easy to set up a test that makes your mod or whatever look better by carefully crafting the testing conditions. That is bad science. You have to define the hypothesis first, then test, then confirm or disclaim it. BTW: Engineering is not research. The job of an engineer is not to make the perfect amp/speaker/cdplayer... it is to make the best component that can sell for price X. The definition of best is usually not the engineer's job. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: The modifying crowd and the Transporter
joncourage wrote: If the subjectivity in audio systems design results exclusively from economic choices, why hasn't someone invented the cost-no-object perfect audio reproduction system? No one, not even Bill Gates or Warren Buffet has that much money. Plus, you'd have to design the room acoustics. At some point, it is cheaper to buy Carnegie Hall and hire the appropriate talent. The most expensive speaker's I've seen reviewed are the PipeDraeams, which were about $100 large, and the most expensive amp I can remember was $350 large. I think the max turntable was only $85G or so -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: The modifying crowd and the Transporter
jhm731 wrote: On another forum, there's a post by someone who ordered two Transporters and had them shipped directly to his favorite modifier. I'm sure this modifier will take time to listen to the stock units, take measurements and understand how the circuit works before making any changes. I'll bet the modifier finds ways to upgrade the performance. Last month's Car and Driver had a feature on a guy who bought a rare new Ferrari and had Pinninfarina put a new body on it. The base car cost about $800K, and the custom work probably cost several million. Google for Ferrari P4/5 You can always improve things. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: The modifying crowd and the Transporter
tyler_durden wrote: That should drive the final nail in this coffin! Any time someone posts something about quantum mechanics or sub atomic particles and relates it to audio you know the thread has come to an end. What else can anyone say when the irrationality has climbed to such an extraordinary level? But you haven't waited for Godwin's law. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: The modifying crowd and the Transporter
niknik wrote: With a modded SB the max level into the amp is 1.1 volts. This should not usually cause any speaker to blow -as far as I have heard. So I'm not so scared of running directly to my amp. Especially when it's a modded SB.. If you are not scared, just try it. But this is an engineering issue, not voodoo or theater. The actual problem that seems to get lost in all the hype has nothing to do with the SB being bone stock or modded. It has to do with the maximum output voltage, and what your amp will do with it. The key idea that keeps getting lost is not that you need a preamp, but that you need to be sure that if the SB drives a signal at its loudest possible level, that your amp and speakers can handle it. The amp part is important because if you overdrive the input, your amp may clip. And any amp that is clipping it putting out ugly waveforms. That is the definition of clipping. Putting such a waveform into a speaker is very bad, and at high volumes, it can destroy a speaker in seconds. If the amp can drive your speaker load without clipping, then you have to be concerned that the speakers can handle the power. If your amp and speaker are clean when fed the output of a SB when it is set to zero attenuation (aka 11, or 40 depending on the firmware/web skin) than all you have to care about is your hearing. If it is under 110 dBa (120 for some folks) then you are done. If it is too loud, then you need to use physical attenuators to make sure that no matter what the SqueezeBox does, you don't over drive the amp. This can be a preamp, or it can be some in-line attenuators. The attenuators that Sean posted a while back cost about $40, and even if you have to use two in series, it is much cheaper than a preamp. It is hard to test with music, you are better off with a pure sine wave at 200 hz, and another at 5000 kz or so. Or even a signal with a few clean sine waves, something like 200, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200 hz If you can do that without blowing a speaker, you are done. If not, don't blame me. YMMV, etc. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
