And do we actually have any evidence that this wonderful thing makes any
audible difference?
"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
I'm selling my mint Logitech Transporter (full version with NAV wheel
control, NOT the stripped down SE version). All original boxes, manuals
and accessories.
Fully functional and in mint condition., used less than 100 hours
(conservative estimate) since this was a second unit purchased as a
back
Mnyb wrote:
>
> I never thinks it's is that easy as just follows the money , its a
> culture with a believe system an anti science one sadly . Rational
> arguments have little meaning .
> For example that if you measure , like Archimago has done on several
> occasions the DAC outputs exactly
Running my Transporter into a modded M2Tech Young with linear power
supply.
A step up from the TPs internal Dac, which is great but a little flat
dynamically imo.
Gazjam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?u
In the Case of the Dragonfly wonder what's really going on that DAC a is
actually driven from the 5v at the USB port ?
Or with other DAC's driven from the USB be port ?
In a general case a normal DAC a would only be feed by the USB signal .
What gives then ? I tend to think application specific s
Julf wrote:
> No need to. The important criteria is "audible".
>
>
>
> No. Good engineering means optimizing what is relevant, not what is
> irrelevant. You can spend an endless amount of time and money reducing
> noise - where would you stop, if all you went by was "the lower, the
> better"?
[image:
http://www.audiostream.com/images/styles/600_wide/public/1814jitterbug.jpg?itok=Fou6HAqm]
The link:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/audioquest-jitterbug
nuwanda's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.ph
Being an audiophile, and not a mystic/believer/vodooist, just register
today after some time reading you all because I felt like sharing with
you all what I just saw this morning on Audiostream.
The blog's entry:
49 bucks buys you some of the soundest improvements I've heard for
anywhere near th
darrenyeats wrote:
>
> It seems DAC manufacturers (including the 'non-foo' pro firms) are not
> stopping though.
That's good. And there's an obvious reason for not stopping.
"Audiophiles" and "Reviewers" are driving them nuts. ;)
And companies like iFi are popping up with battery driven 200
soundcheck wrote:
>
> These devices get measured in a clean test bed. That's why peripheral
> changes in real world scenarios can have and usually have impact -- even
> on "Femto Clock" DACs.
>
Yes, good to bear in mind what measurements are and what they are not!
But still very useful of cours
soundcheck wrote:
> Hmmh. Define: Noise
No need to. The important criteria is "audible".
> I do know one thing - the lower, the better - over the entire bandwidth.
No. Good engineering means optimizing what is relevant, not what is
irrelevant. You can spend an endless amount of time and money
Julf wrote:
> Of course. Every engineer also knows that there is a level that is low
> enough that the noise doesn't have any effect.
>
Hmmh. Define: Noise
The noise we're talking about is a complex bucket full of everything.
It's comprising of all kind of different noise types.
People tend t
soundcheck wrote:
> Every (radio) engineer (1 semester) knows about EMI/RFI effects.
Of course. Every engineer also knows that there is a level that is low
enough that the noise doesn't have any effect.
> There's nothing to prove here.
Except that the USB termination actually makes an audibl
Every engineer does as much as a specification asks for. Usually no
more.
USB or networks were never build with "Audio" in mind.
If a bit gets lost. It's send once more.
That's not good enough, neither for medical, nor for lab, nor for audio
applications.
Every (radio) engineer (1 semester)
soundcheck wrote:
> Open lines or ports usually act like antennas/transmitters/reflectors.
> That even applies to RCA jacks.
> There are physical interferences.
>
> Properly terminating open ports is a very well known measure to get
> interferences down.
Where? Where does it says this? If anyt
Open lines or ports usually act like antennas/transmitters/reflectors.
That even applies to RCA jacks.
There are physical interferences.
Properly terminating open ports is a very well known measure to get
interferences down.
If and how this impacts your soundexpierence is a different thing.
Lo
Julf wrote:
> But what AudioQuest is claiming is that their filter will bring benefits
> even when used on unused USB connectors (not just the one you connect
> your DAC to).
Well ofcourse:) any pc like thingy have plenty of outputs .
Yeas some tweaks have some actual physics involved , next qu
soundcheck wrote:
> I'm running USB filters since a long time (On USB 1.1 I ran optical
> isolators ). There's nothing esoteric about them.
> It's simple physics.
But what AudioQuest is claiming is that their filter will bring benefits
even when used on unused USB connectors (not just the one y
Hi there.
I'm running USB filters since a long time. There's nothing esoteric
about them.
It's simple physics.
These devices just filter the noise on pretty noisy USB data, power and
ground leads.
These effects can easily be measured.
How much it impacts the DAC soundquality/soundexperience i
19 matches
Mail list logo
