Patrick Dixon;143406 Wrote:
I guess what you're saying then, is that some bunch of wackos with a
totally non-standard approach, came up with something that Mercedes
Benz (and their billions) hadn't even though of measuring ... and they
changed the face of car design forever!
Not quite the
flattop100;143424 Wrote:
In the future, we'll be able to carry our entire album collection around
in our pockets and listen to it at our leisure. Oh, wait...
That's right, and then someone will come up with a way to mod it and
relieve you of even more money :-)
--
CardinalFang
You're only
CardinalFang;143544 Wrote:
That's right, and then someone will come up with a way to mod it and
relieve you of even more money :-)
http://www.redwineaudio.com/iMod.html
--
P Floding
P Floding's Profile:
CardinalFang;143542 Wrote:
You have to draw the line somewhere about what is reasonable to test and
measure. I have never said anything else. Listening tests play a part,
but it shouldn't be the only criteria when there are many things that
can and should be measured to ensure repeatable and
Patrick Dixon;143557 Wrote:
Listening tests are actually the most important part - after all if it
measures great and sounds rubbish it's about as much use as a car that
crashes at the first sign of an elk. ;-)
Listening tests are the most important part after you have the main
design right.
P Floding;143547 Wrote:
http://www.redwineaudio.com/iMod.html
Err.. this mod removes the headphone jack so you have to use it in a
home stereo or with a dedicated headphone amp - doesn't that make it
non-portable?
--
CardinalFang
You're only young once, but you can be immature forever...
CardinalFang;143566 Wrote:
Err.. this mod removes the headphone jack so you have to use it in a
home stereo or with a dedicated headphone amp - doesn't that make it
non-portable?
Indeed, so in fact the superior and cheaper version of this mod is,
err, the Squeezebox...
--
adamslim
SB3
adamslim;143579 Wrote:
Indeed, so in fact the superior and cheaper version of this mod is, err,
the Squeezebox...
That was what I was thinking...
I suppose it has the advantage of being able to store all those music
files on device, but the battery runs down in no time at all playing
back
CardinalFang;143566 Wrote:
Err.. this mod removes the headphone jack so you have to use it in a
home stereo or with a dedicated headphone amp - doesn't that make it
non-portable?
Not quite, it is still portable.
In addition you can still use it with a small battery driven headphone
amp,
CardinalFang;143589 Wrote:
I see. Even more to get mugged for ;-)
Absolutely!
However, being mugged as a headphone aficionado is not nearly as
expensive as being mugged as a speaker-system aficionado. Worst, of
course, is being both.
--
P Floding
CardinalFang;143564 Wrote:
Please go back and read my original commentsActually, I think you should
re-read my comments. You seem to feel I'm
somehow accusing you of things that I'm not - and you don't seem to
even notice the smiles on the end of my posts.
Anyway, I'm very glad the A
CardinalFang;143564 Wrote:
Listening tests are the most important part after you have the main
design right. If it measures great and sounds rubbish, then you haven't
got the design right and aren't measuring the right things.
Please go back and read my original comments - they don't say
If you read this paper,
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf, you find out the
the group that ranked themselves highest among their peers continued to
do so even after they were shown their own low scores AND the higher
scores of their peers.
It is a shame so many suffer the
I read the extract and it says the test is intend to help people
realizing their limitation, sounds like this is just trying to make
people feel bad about themselves!!
Sounds like the objective camp, who tried all their best to bash
products that they have never listened to, but still wanted to
You have to draw the line somewhere about what is reasonable to test and
measure. I have never said anything else. Listening tests play a part,
but it shouldn't be the only criteria when there are many things that
can and should be measured to ensure repeatable and consistent
performance from
95bcwh;143690 Wrote:
Sounds like the objective camp, who tried all their best to bash
products that they have never listened to, but still wanted to make the
people who bought these products feel bad, because ACCORDING to
measurement, the product is degraded...LOL
I think it was the theory
Patrick Dixon;143618 Wrote:
Actually, I think you should re-read my comments. You seem to feel I'm
somehow accusing you of things that I'm not - and you don't seem to
even notice the smiles on the end of my posts
How about this then from you message to me - So why is it that some
people
CardinalFang;143746 Wrote:
How about this then from you message to me - So why is it that some
people seem to think that an audio product can be completely defined in
terms of bandwidth, SNR and THD?Hmm, well this is a open forum - I quoted
your post to give context to
my reply, but if I
tyler_durden;143668 Wrote:
If you read this paper,
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf, you find out the
the group that ranked themselves highest among their peers continued to
do so even after they were shown their own low scores AND the higher
scores of their peers.
opaqueice;143837 Wrote:
I think that study was rather flawed - the results can be explained
simply by the fact that if you're on the low end of a distribution
you're liable to overestimate yourself (since it's hard to
underestimate yourself), the opposite for the high end, plus the
tyler_durden;143868 Wrote:
our society is clearly structured to promote the low scoring people to
the highest offices- just look who's in the white house, congress, and
senate...
TD
what do you mean by our society is clearly structured to...? Who has
the power to structure our society?
CardinalFang;143031 Wrote:
If we were talking televisions, I don't suppose there would be too many
arguments against checking measurable things like contrast ratios,
colour balance or resolution.Funny you should say that, but as someone who
spent over 20 years
designing and manufacturing
SuperQ;143134 Wrote:
I'd love to see audio electronics benchmarked like computer video cards
are benchmarked. Scoped with a known set of instruments, and compared
A/B with each other.
It would completely stifle innovation. Manufacturers who wanted to
stay in business would simply
SuperQ;143134 Wrote:
I'd love to see audio electronics benchmarked like computer video cards
are benchmarked. Scoped with a known set of instruments, and compared
A/B with each other.
They are, and have been for a very long time!
The problem is that listening experience is not easily
95bcwh;143041 Wrote:
So, think again, is it fair to condemn the modders or the people who
bought from the modders, with words like: Oh, why do they use that
crappy noisy capacitors, oh, it's surely bad sounding, Oh, they'd
better put up some measurements to prove that their mod sound
95bcwh;143041 Wrote:
Have I said that adding noise increase details? I said, adding noise
SACRIFICE transparency, that means masking the details. I don't see any
disagreement here.
Transparency has a very specific meaning and it isn't about detail,
it's about occlusion of electromagnetic
Patrick Dixon;143162 Wrote:
Funny you should say that, but as someone who spent over 20 years
designing and manufacturing equipment for broadcast TV and CCTV, I can
tell you you're wrong.
And no, I'm not going to prove it!
I'm sorry, but you can't just throw in a comment like that which
CardinalFang;143175 Wrote:
Transparency has a very specific meaning and it isn't about detail, it's
about occlusion of electromagnetic and other waves. Your skin is
transparent to X-rays, your bones aren't. The grill of your speaker may
be transparent to audio frequencies, but not to light.
P Floding;143188 Wrote:
No need to diss everything audiophile just because one doesn't agree
with some of the BS directed at audiophiles.
Did I diss everything audiophile? I explained the correct usage of
transparency as I understand from the world of physics, optics and
other sciences. I
CardinalFang;143193 Wrote:
Did I diss everything audiophile? I explained the correct usage of
transparency as I understand from the world of physics, optics and
other sciences, including audio. I commented on noise floors masking
detail, someone else said that transparency meant the same
P Floding;143194 Wrote:
There is no need to go defensive just because I explain that
transparency has a specific meaning in audiophile lingo, just as it has
a slightly varying meanings in other specialised fields.
Final comment then I'm done - really!
no need to diss everything audiophile
CardinalFang;143213 Wrote:
My point was that they at least agree that measurement is useful if you
can do it, even if they feel that some tests are less useful than
others. Does the TV/Broadcast review equipment and use measurements in
that process or do they simply describe products in
Patrick Dixon;143303 Wrote:
That's not so say that standard electrical/electronic measurements
weren't/aren't ever used - it's just that most engineers understand the
limitations of the measurements, how to interpret them, and the
variation that can result from slight differences in
CardinalFang;143314 Wrote:
But at least they value measurements and are being pragmatic about
things that are *hard* to measure. They don't resort to false theories
and invent terminology to describe artifacts. The equipment is designed
using measurements as well as viewing tests, it's never
CardinalFang;143314 Wrote:
But cars are defined by a very precise set of measurements during
development. Seat sizes, leg room, control layout are all defined by
careful haptic and ergonomic design. Car manufacturers may not publish
them, but they do use them.Agreed, but your kids may not
Patrick Dixon;143334 Wrote:
Agreed, but your kids may not be comfortable in the back because the
ride upsets them - and I don't think there's an objective way to
measure ride.
Actually, there is. I wrote software for McLaren to do just that many
years ago. You record track data and replay it
CardinalFang;143373 Wrote:
No, they measured everything they could within a given budget and to
pass relevant legislation. The Elk test at the time was not a standard
test and involved far more excessive sudden steering changes than
government sponsored ones. Tests are often introduced after
Patrick Dixon;143406 Wrote:
I guess what you're saying then, is that some bunch of wackos with a
totally non-standard approach, came up with something that Mercedes
Benz (and their billions) hadn't even though of measuring ... and they
changed the face of car design forever!
Now I wonder
CardinalFang;142516 Wrote:
But we do have the means to do it, it would just be prohibitively
expensive! Think of the measuring gear used in military listening
devices or all manner of scientific measuring equipment in physics labs
that require incredible fidelity. They cost billions to
opaqueice;142685 Wrote:
Honest buck? I don't think so. And if you think that's OK, I suggest
you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair - would you like to go back to the
days when there was no regulation of food or drugs, and snake-oil
salesmen went around selling cure-alls to suckers? That's
opaqueice;142685 Wrote:
Honest buck? I don't think so. And if you think that's OK, I suggest
you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair - would you like to go back to the
days when there was no regulation of food or drugs, and snake-oil
salesmen went around selling cure-alls to suckers? That's
95bcwh;142702 Wrote:
A pointless thread, all begins with people thrashing things that they
have never listened to, imposing their own egoistic viewpoint, their
self-perceived sense of superiority and expect the rest of the world to
follow.
Well for my part, I hope I contributed sound
This thread has highlighted an important point: people disagree, and
often do so irrationally. Of the 'sides' we have (objective vs
subjective, perhaps), neither is really willing to listen to what the
other really has to say, and life is kinda like that.
It reminds me of someone's signature I
adamslim;142759 Wrote:
This thread has highlighted an important point: people disagree, and
often do so irrationally. Of the 'sides' we have (objective vs
subjective, perhaps), neither is really willing to listen to what the
other really has to say, and life is kinda like that.
I really
CardinalFang;142762 Wrote:
I really object to that if you are including me in that sweeping
statement. I for one never tried to shut anyone down with irrational
statements and I was more than happy for someone to prove me wrong.
Sean backs up his statements with product that impresses with
P Floding;142737 Wrote:
I have lived in a semi-socialist country, so I know a bit about
over-regulation and its negative effects. Only things that can hurt you
need be regulated. If you want to hurt yourself in the wallet by
purchasing stuff purely based on the sellers hype -then you must be
Well said.
CardinalFang;142762 Wrote:
I really object to that if you are including me in that sweeping
statement. I for one never tried to shut anyone down with irrational
statements and I was more than happy for someone to prove me wrong.
Sean backs up his statements with product that
adamslim;142759 Wrote:
neither is really willing to listen to what the other really has to say,
and life is kinda like that.
I don't listen to what people say, I don't fall for the claims of any
modders, I don't listen to measurement either. I LISTEN to the
product with my own ear, every
If Bolder, RW Audio and others had not experimented with different
modifications and improved power supplies we might still be stuck with
just the original unmodified SB. I believe because of their efforts
Sean was spurred to create the Transporter because he realized that
their mods worked and
rajacat;142874 Wrote:
If Bolder, RW Audio and others had not experimented with different
modifications and improved power supplies we might still be stuck with
just the original unmodified SB. I believe because of their efforts
Sean was spurred to create the Transporter because he realized
tyler_durden;142877 Wrote:
I think it more likely he saw that there was a market for a $2K player
and decided to get into that market. Now he has to deal with all the
usual problems of people who don't know about computers trying to make
the thing work, plus he has to deal with looney
rajacat;142882 Wrote:
Have you compared a Bolder modded SB and power supply to an unmodded
one? If you haven't your opinion really doesn't mean much and is not a
point of view of a rational person. Just one more mindless Slimdevice
fanboy.
Is it really necessary to be insulting?
BTW I am
tomjtx;142891 Wrote:
Is it really necessary to be insulting?
BTW I am somewhere between the 2 camps. I have a Bolder modded Elpac
and I heard a big difference, but I also think there is a lot of
chicanery out there and blind tests can be a good guide.
He's just returning the favor, the
rajacat;142874 Wrote:
If Bolder, RW Audio and others had not experimented with different
modifications and improved power supplies we might still be stuck with
just the original unmodified SB. I believe because of their efforts
Sean was spurred to create the Transporter because he realized
seanadams;142899 Wrote:
Magic Pebbles:
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina17.htm
There's science! They must work! Where's my credit card!!!
--
adamslim
SB3 and Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859,
Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost cables
seanadams;142899 Wrote:
That is absolute bullshit. Transporter incorporates none of those ideas
and I have no reason to believe any of them work any better than these
Magic Pebbles:
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina17.htm
The only idea to come directly out of the mod community
95bcwh;142859 Wrote:
The other side, so-called objective folks, they based their opinion on
measurement. They think that there's 100% correlation between
measurement and good sound. They believe that they have a moral high
ground because measurement said so. So they pick on people that they
Anybody wishing to find out more about the Jung super reg topology
should check out Walt's regulator articles here:
http://waltjung.org/Regs.html
In Sean's earlier post, he mentioned that Andrew Weekes helped him with
the super reg design. Andrew is well known over at diyaudio.com for
having
P Floding;142904 Wrote:
But isn't it the case that the very existence of modders (private or
commercial) has been a factor in deciding that the Transporter is a
feasible product?
Transporter is targeted to the high end market. Modders are a tiny
portion of that. I have no problem with people
Transporter mods:
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PRODProduct_Code=SDTransporterCategory_Code=MODSProduct_Count=44
--
jhm731
jhm731's Profile:
jhm731;142923 Wrote:
Transporter mods:
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PRODProduct_Code=SDTransporterCategory_Code=MODSProduct_Count=44
Unless you know him, or unless he offers money back guarantee, you will
be insane to fall for it.
--
95bcwh
seanadams;142919 Wrote:
Of course, I listen all the time. There are many things that are easy
to hear but hard to measure, particularly with respect to the codec
algorithms. However, I don't design the products to satisfy my own
subjective preferences. When it comes to the DAC, things like
jhm731;142923 Wrote:
Transporter mods:
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PRODProduct_Code=SDTransporterCategory_Code=MODSProduct_Count=44
Oh, c'mon now. No reason to wave a red cape in Sean's face -- an
earlier post already got him to display an
jhm731;142923 Wrote:
Transporter mods:
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PRODProduct_Code=SDTransporterCategory_Code=MODSProduct_Count=44
This is where my skeptical side takes over. How have they had the time
to evaluate the stock Tranporter, let alone each of
seanadams;142919 Wrote:
There are many things that are easy to hear but hard to measure,
particularly with respect to the codec algorithms.
That's an interesting comment - surely codec algorithms are fairly
standardised and it's down to a good implementation that can supply
correctly decoded
CardinalFang;142941 Wrote:
That's an interesting comment - surely codec algorithms are fairly
standardised and it's down to a good implementation that can supply
correctly decoded data at the appropriate time for the DAC. Are there
that many variables in implementations or are you listening
seanadams;142943 Wrote:
Not so much the math - certainly you don't mod and MPEG decoder in the
same way you would a power supply or something. What I'm talking about
is listening for glitches, dropped samples, misaligned data, different
kinds of buffer issues, etc. There is a whole bunch of
jhm731;142923 Wrote:
Transporter mods:
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PRODProduct_Code=SDTransporterCategory_Code=MODSProduct_Count=44
Funny. These mods over there exchange the OPs for pretty noisy AD825. I
won´t comment the sound but the excellent
Wombat;142999 Wrote:
Funny. These mods over there exchange the OPs for pretty noisy AD825. I
can´t comment the sound but the excellent measurements Sean reached are
surely gone after this :)
You will be surprised, what noise can do to your mid range. Depending
on the degree of noisiness it
95bcwh;143024 Wrote:
You will be surprised, what noise can do to your mid range. Depending on
the degree of noisiness it introduce to your system, it can make your
mid range fuller, while sacrificing a little bit of top end
transparency, sacrificing a little bit of bottom end tightness, if
I have some LM6172 in the output of my DAC. They are noisy also in
relation to others.
--
Wombat
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View this thread:
95bcwh;143024 Wrote:
If measurement is the only truth that's worth pursuing, I wonder why
manufacturers still need to send their gears for review. Why
Stereophile still bothered with listening, might as well just get all
the measurements, and use them to rank every piece of equipments.
95bcwh;143024 Wrote:
You will be surprised, what noise can do to your mid range. Depending on
the degree of noisiness it introduce to your system, it can make your
mid range fuller, while sacrificing a little bit of top end
transparency, sacrificing a little bit of bottom end tightness, if
CardinalFang;143031 Wrote:
Noise has a use in rounding off digital artifacts, but a higher noise
floor from an op-amp only masks detail if it is audible.
Have I said that adding noise increase details? I said, adding noise
SACRIFICE transparency, that means masking the details. I don't see
opaqueice;143033 Wrote:
Bringing up Stereophile's methodology is not a good way to convince a
skeptic.
I'm not trying to convince anyone, a modder whom I know, was not shown
enough respect, I'm here to put up a defence.
At the end of the day, the market will decide, good products will stay,
opaqueice;142809 Wrote:
So all this argument over science having a long way to go, etc. is
irrelevant to the main point, which is whether or not some or most of
these mods are snake-oil. That can be decided cleanly and definitively
in a few minutes. The fact that this is never done says
Very good points indeed. Except that, actually, it's quite easy to
measure speakers. Professional testing software (Liberty Audio Suite
is an industry standard; for Mac users, there's Fuzzmeasure) exists and
is used by speaker designers, reviewers, and home-users (like myself).
Some honest
opaqueice;143084 Wrote:
I'd seen that before - it's a good read, well written and
straightforward.
Although this statement:
Has no one heard anything about Quantum Physics, which questions the
existence of an absolute objective reality?
drove up my blood pressure a bit. I'm
Thank you SO much for saying that...! I don't teach physics, but I
spent a good portion of my graduate studies in the field -- it is
depressing how words intended to simplify concepts for lay people get
turned into mystical ideas that have no basis in science.
opaqueice;143084 Wrote:
I'd seen
tomjtx;143121 Wrote:
where are you teaching the course and would the text be intelligible to
a novice?
At a university. Any physics department offers a yearly course on QM;
it's an essential subject for physics majors. There are many many
texts - in my opinion the best pedagogically is
opaqueice;143033 Wrote:
I'd love to see blind test results compared to measurements of, say,
amplifiers, or better yet interconnects or power cords or speaker
cables. I'm willing to bet a large sum that no one can tell the
difference between wires with the same measured R, L, and C -
And then we'd see the wizard come out from behind the curtain.
Seriously, I think a lot of people feel this way. The industry, as a
whole, feels quite something else. (And I commend SD for publishing
and discussing results, providing open-source software, etc. How rare
is that? Do you think
opaqueice;143131 Wrote:
At a university. Any physics department offers a yearly course on QM;
it's an essential subject for physics majors. There are many many
texts - in my opinion the best pedagogically is Griffiths:
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
opaqueice;142258 Wrote:
I really should know better than to post in this thread - but when I
read this I snapped.
Quarks and leptons have a rather dramatic influence on what we hear -
because all matter (such as speakers, air, ears, brains, even Bybee
filters) is composed of them! But
Is there any better audiophile poetry than Catullus:
Odi et amo, quare id faciam fortasse requiris.
Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior.
I hate and I love; why do I do it, perhaps you ask. I don't know, yet
I feel it burning, and am tormented.
(Apologies for my dodgy translation...)
It's
Electronics mods are analogous to automobile mods. Even very high end
car manufactures make compromises on what they offer as standard
equipment. To take a stock SB and upgrade some of the parts certainly
will improve its performance...it's common sense.
To dis modders for performing an useful
rajacat;142073 Wrote:
I'm sure that you would quote numbers when they support your point but
ignore cutting edge science when it might challenge the way you
perceive the natural world. Flat world thinking, eh?
Irrationality? Whoa! So are you saying that particle physics is just
CardinalFang;142449 Wrote:
I love music, that's where the emotion is, not in the boxes that sit at
the other end of the room. I don't want to measure the music, but I do
want to know that my stereo is an accurate reproducer of that music and
does not add to or subtract from it in any way.
CardinalFang;142449 Wrote:
Deviation from accurate reproduction can be measured. Listening tests
are really just confirmation of a design or a substitute for more
careful measurements.
You make an important non-sequitur here. There are several factors to
consider:
- All audible differences
CardinalFang;142449 Wrote:
I love music, that's where the emotion is, not in the boxes that sit at
the other end of the room. I don't want to measure the music, but I do
want to know that my stereo is an accurate reproducer of that music and
does not add to or subtract from it in any way.
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
Gotta throw in my 5 cents as well.
Forget woodoo and quantum physics.
The science involved in audio is not rocket science. (Although some
might say it is more complicated..)
However, engineers make oversights, such as forgetting totally about
timing issues in sampling systems (digital audio).
That is bad science. You have to define the hypothesis first, then
test, then confirm or disclaim it.
I wasn't putting that forth as an example of good science. My point is
that manufacturer's (or modder's) published numbers (if any exist) are
suspect at best unless you carefully study
rajacat;142457 Wrote:
I think that there is some subjectivity in how we see and hear the
world. In other words, some speakers or cameras might appeal to one
person but sound or look different to someone else. Eye tests will
confirm that people see colors in different shades and intensities
adamslim;142455 Wrote:
You make an important non-sequitur here.
I'd like you to point out the fallacy in my assertion if you can. Just
because consumer product companies make mistakes in choosing what to
measure or have limited imagination or budgets does not mean things
cannot be measured.
Who tests the tester? Have all possible accoustical tests and electronic
testing machines been invented? I doubt it. Science keeps evolving so
state of the art is exactly that and the art is still evolving.
Raja
--
rajacat
rajacat;142470 Wrote:
Who tests the tester? Have all possible accoustical tests and electronic
testing machines been invented? I doubt it. Science keeps evolving so
state of the art is exactly that and the art is still evolving.
Raja
If measurements are made in line with industry good
Lastly, it's not an art. It's science and engineering. It isn't
evolving, electronic theory is still as valid as when it was first
understood. We may have different views on sub-atomic processes, but
they do not have audible effects otherwise we'd all be running around
screaming about the
Do you consider yourself an engineer or a scientist?
If it can't be measured with state of the art equipment, does it exist?
We shouldn't ignore history and how most breakthroughs were by people
that were pushing the limits and ignoring contemporary biases. Who
knows, there might be a new theory
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
