DACS Have they gone about as far as they can go?

[fas42]

I see you haven't met fas42 before... You will never get any clear answer to any of your questions. Nor will you ever get any data. fas42 is able to transform any system even a $20 Home Theater In a Box to surpass anything. You will nver find however how he does it.

What is so amusing is that people have the need to grossly exaggerate - the Philips is/was of a quality that you would have to pay over $2000 these days to get something equivalent; the current NAD units are roughly similar, and at times worse internal construction - with a pretty miserable power supply. Only clever engineering in some areas manages to get them performing better.

Which gives you all the clues you need, for what I do. Having a practised eye, I can see shortcomings in the construction, I don't wet my pants with excitement seeing shiny front metal panels a half inch thick, and very pretty internal arrangements of the bits and pieces. You see, I worry about engineering, where it counts - not where it gets a tick of approval from the cognoscenti.

 

[Thomas savage]

I'm referring to all electronic parts having parasitic characteristics, a standard terminology in the Spice world. A transformer is a real bundle of stray inductances, capacitances and non-linear behaviours - these impact on its ability to perfectly "transform" the input - what I was concerned about at the time was stray inductance, I wanted to snub the ringing of the secondary winding at rectifier switch off as effectively as possible. Which worked - no measurements, but good ol' subjective assessment said it was a worthwhile exercise.

But you say this carries no weight. Therefore, I should do nothing to reduce electrical misbehaviour, unless I can get a number on some instrument which says that there was a change, is what you're saying. And if I get a number change, what will be a relevant change? 1%, 5%, 25%, 200%? The dance of numbers is interesting, but I don't want to spend my life obsessing about them unless they have genuine, and useful, meaning.

Sorry about not being more clear about links, it is a blog, after all. Probably the best one to go to is http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Tweaking.

its not the effectiveness to you that's in question but you must realize your here to communicate? therefore in order to present a basis for relevant and repeatable reasoned change one has to use parameters that are universal and translatable to those who you are communicating with.

you're not doing that so the areas of your communication that references your actions and tries to purport real significant alteration of performance are totally meaningless as anything else but posturing waffle.

the numbers are a reflection of known parameters that exist for a few reasons one of which is meaningful communication between humans.

this is my summary of what i ascertain from these posts of yours,
you made some changes that are simple in nature and make 'common' sense and you have attach reasoning to these procedures that's while 'true' to you do not hold weight under peer scrutiny but are totally real and valid because you 'hear' a positive result. its all based in one way or another on your imagination, yes that's what it is. it might be true, the same way there might be a god.

entertaining, but its not science or scientific in its reasoning.

you're having fun though, that's all that matters i guess.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

standard terminology in the Spice world

Now things are making some sense.
Frank, the topic is DACs and audible performance limits. We know you have recursive loop blathering in spades. Do you have a shred of grown ups/adult scientific data or reliable listening evaluation to share?
Any measures of how your DAC goes farther?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

What is so amusing is that people have the need to grossly exaggerate - the Philips is/was of a quality that you would have to pay over $2000 these days

Speaking of amusingly gross exaggeration, why don't you start your own thread about your uber HTIB system with pictures, rather than pollute this one about DACs?
I'm sure it would make for fascinating reading.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Your last comment is very reasonable; however, this thread has devolved into a general thrashing about what's important in audio in general, hence where we are now. Of course, my point would be, was that in DAC units that are considered highly, and are expensive, is that the very things that I worry about are often also worried about ... QED.

Measurements, no. It has never made sense to me, I only measure what I believe is relevant - so I will carefully measure the parasitic characteristics of a transformer to get a power supply right - because it makes sense to.

Different spurs are a fudge to gain some, hopefully sufficient separation, using distance - this works, otherwise everyone on your street would be thrashing your mains quality to a pulp; the proper, long term solution is to apply filtering right at the component, and I've tried many variations of such over the years.

The goal is do what is sufficient, to get the quality you're happy with from the system; of course, all audio components should be engineered well enough so there are no such issues ... but ...

All the links follow from the link in my signature.

A measurement which is always relevant is the analog output signal. It is the signal you listen to. Many measurements elsewhere may or may not have an effect on that. It is the difference between engineering and tweakery.

As to why you get the idea the forum is about dissecting science I don't know. It should be obvious by now you were mistaken. It is the recovering of what science is available to serve audio.

 

[Blumlein 88]

...... Which worked - no measurements, but good ol' subjective assessment said it was a worthwhile exercise.
.......

Here is the issue. Good ol' subjective assessment is not considered good enough here. Especially as the final arbiter of whether fidelity has changed or not. That must have been clear to you by now, but you insist on proceeding with definitive proclamations based on subjective assessment.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

A simple "higher truth" in extracting good sound is: keep current flows low, and smooth! When recording, miniscule currents are required to perform the act, but when revving up the typical consumer playback rig the currents are ripping through the wires ferociously - which is why so much audio can't do 'intense' sound, it's pooing too much at the same time, in an interference sense, and the muck goes everywhere ...

I'm probably one of the least technically astute people on this board, but I know enough to answer this nonsense with a definitive WTF are you talking about? Really, Frank, I come hear to learn and to discuss good audio in a BS-free environment. When I see stuff I don't understand, I look for further information. Your stuff? There is no "further information," because no one with any legitimacy seems to be observing the same things. Which either means it is delusional DIY, or you're smarter than all of the audio scientists and engineers whose work has been uploaded to the net. I'm going with the former and, I'm sorry, but hoping you go away soon. You're trashing this place. Most of us came here to get away from subjectivist arguments look like science compared to the stuff you post. Please stop.

Tim

 

[Mivera]

I'm referring to all electronic parts having parasitic characteristics, a standard terminology in the Spice world. A transformer is a real bundle of stray inductances, capacitances and non-linear behaviours - these impact on its ability to perfectly "transform" the input - what I was concerned about at the time was stray inductance, I wanted to snub the ringing of the secondary winding at rectifier switch off as effectively as possible. Which worked - no measurements, but good ol' subjective assessment said it was a worthwhile exercise.

But you say this carries no weight. Therefore, I should do nothing to reduce electrical misbehaviour, unless I can get a number on some instrument which says that there was a change, is what you're saying. And if I get a number change, what will be a relevant change? 1%, 5%, 25%, 200%? The dance of numbers is interesting, but I don't want to spend my life obsessing about them unless they have genuine, and useful, meaning.

Sorry about not being more clear about links, it is a blog, after all. Probably the best one to go to is http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Tweaking.

Spice world?

 

[fas42]

I'm probably one of the least technically astute people on this board, but I know enough to answer this nonsense with a definitive WTF are you talking about? Really, Frank, I come hear to learn and to discuss good audio in a BS-free environment. When I see stuff I don't understand, I look for further information. Your stuff? There is no "further information," because no one with any legitimacy seems to be observing the same things. Which either means it is delusional DIY, or you're smarter than all of the audio scientists and engineers whose work has been uploaded to the net. I'm going with the former and, I'm sorry, but hoping you go away soon. You're trashing this place. Most of us came here to get away from subjectivist arguments look like science compared to the stuff you post. Please stop.

Tim

Tim, when I first chanced upon this forum key words that leaped out at me were "fun", and "teasing" - both implying lightness of touch - the sad news is, that once people's core ideas appear to be threatened then those virtues are immediately discarded, turfed into the dumpster without a moment's hesitation.

Anyone with half a brain, who has an ounce of ability to read between the lines would be able to pick up that there are a number of people who do "get" what I'm talking about, to at least some degree. Those who are uncomfortable with those ideas to then react by being full on abusive, to protect their precious "territory", are not impressing me with their intelligence - again, the message is that their ego is uppermost in the debate, and must "win" no matter what.

I'll leave it at that ...

 

[Blumlein 88]

Tim, when I first chanced upon this forum key words that leaped out at me were "fun", and "teasing" - both implying lightness of touch - the sad news is, that once people's core ideas appear to be threatened then those virtues are immediately discarded, turfed into the dumpster without a moment's hesitation.

Anyone with half a brain, who has an ounce of ability to read between the lines would be able to pick up that there are a number of people who do "get" what I'm talking about, to at least some degree. Those who are uncomfortable with those ideas to then react by being full on abusive, to protect their precious "territory", are not impressing me with their intelligence - again, the message is that their ego is uppermost in the debate, and must "win" no matter what.

I'll leave it at that ...

Care to list those people on this forum.

 

[fas42]

No, let sleeping dogs lie ... unless you're referring to the people who have some sympathy to my thinking.

 

[Blumlein 88]

No, let sleeping dogs lie ... unless you're referring to the people who have some sympathy to my thinking.

Your ability to fail at communication is intact. Of course I had in mind those sympathetic to your thinking. Not that I care to single them out. I simply have not seen posts that fit with that idea by anyone.

 

[fas42]

I aim to be precise in what I do - looking at that post of mine I referred to more than one group of people - therefore my query.

I would suggest that core to my thinking is the concept that issues that are largely neglected or only given lip service to are in fact crucial to achieving high quality sound. Which a number of this forum do agree with. But that doesn't suit the agenda who wish to worry about microscopic measurements of room behaviour, as an example - they're following the standard line of "what you should worry about" thinking.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I aim to be precise in what I do - looking at that post of mine I referred to more than one group of people - therefore my query.

I would suggest that core to my thinking is the concept that issues that are largely neglected or only given lip service to are in fact crucial to achieving high quality sound. Which a number of this forum do agree with. But that doesn't suit the agenda who wish to worry about microscopic measurements of room behaviour, as an example - they're following the standard line of "what you should worry about" thinking.

So once again, you don't tell me who is sympathetic to your thinking. I again, don't see posts indicating support for your ideas on how to go about this group of issues you have in mind.

I am one who would believe there are issues given lip service or more specifically marginal due to marketing pressures. Specifically in some of the components that you apparently care about. You even said you measure some of them and model them in Spice. I might or might not agree those are crucial to sound quality depending upon the specifics of a given thing you do. Where I disagree is thinking you can make precise decisions about which of those is worthwhile simply by sighted listening. I also simply don't get that you would not avail yourself of measurements at that final point except they have failed to corroborate your hearing and you won't stand for that. As for room measurements, yes, those are damned helpful. Anyone calling them microscopic hasn't understood them. The various effects are orders of magnitude larger than the electronics of good gear these days. Not that no gear can sound better and be heard as such, but that issues with it are now small potatoes.

 

[fas42]

So once again, you don't tell me who is sympathetic to your thinking. I again, don't see posts indicating support for your ideas on how to go about this group of issues you have in mind.

I am one who would believe there are issues given lip service or more specifically marginal due to marketing pressures. Specifically in some of the components that you apparently care about. You even said you measure some of them and model them in Spice. I might or might not agree those are crucial to sound quality depending upon the specifics of a given thing you do. Where I disagree is thinking you can make precise decisions about which of those is worthwhile simply by sighted listening. I also simply don't get that you would not avail yourself of measurements at that final point except they have failed to corroborate your hearing and you won't stand for that. As for room measurements, yes, those are damned helpful. Anyone calling them microscopic hasn't understood them. The various effects are orders of magnitude larger than the electronics of good gear these days. Not that no gear can sound better and be heard as such, but that issues with it are now small potatoes.

Well, you're confusing me - in your previous post you said "Not that I care to single them out." - to me, that implies the "data" is not so important.

A point I have made over and over again, in the past, is that I view a system, any system, as a mechanic who is given a faulty car to fix up. He has zero interest in making the car perform better than what the factory intended - but the customer has complained that "it's not working right!" - the process, therefore, is to "fix it"! I have heard only one "raw" system to date that didn't need "fixing", the Bryston effort I mentioned earlier.

What the "sighted listening" does, is tell me whether in fact it is fixed - or has moved a decent way along that journey. If you tell me that your system, say, doesn't need "fixing" then I'll put on some really nasty "test" recordings, and wind up the volume - and say, doesn't that sound awful! If you happen to agree, then, congratulations, you've used "sighted listening" successfully to assess the system's competence ...

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, you're confusing me...............

No I am not confusing you. You simply seem confused.

A point I have made over and over again,............................

Yes, you make your points over and over the problem is your points don't make all that much sense.

I'll bid ado now as you have no intention of communication. You only have the broken record in your mind.

 

[Don Hills]

... All the links follow from the link in my signature.

I think your blog title is very well chosen. Your posts here are more of the same.

 

[fas42]

I think your blog title is very well chosen. Your posts here are more of the same.

Well, getting convincing sound is a form of "magic" - because it doesn't make sense when you first hear it - you spend the first few days marvelling at the illusion that you've 'miraculously' conjured up. And you can't go back to conventional playback and take it seriously again - the "art" is working out in any situation what's needed to repeat the conjuring effect.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, when I first chanced upon this forum key words that leaped out at me were "fun", and "teasing" - both implying lightness of touch - the sad news is, that once people's core ideas appear to be threatened then those virtues are immediately discarded, turfed into the dumpster without a moment's hesitation.

Anyone with half a brain, who has an ounce of ability to read between the lines would be able to pick up that there are a number of people who do "get" what I'm talking about, to at least some degree. Those who are uncomfortable with those ideas to then react by being full on abusive, to protect their precious "territory", are not impressing me with their intelligence - again, the message is that their ego is uppermost in the debate, and must "win" no matter what.

I'll leave it at that ...

Tim, when I first chanced upon this forum key words that leaped out at me were "fun", and "teasing" - both implying lightness of touch - the sad news is, that once people's core ideas appear to be threatened then those virtues are immediately discarded, turfed into the dumpster without a moment's hesitation.

Anyone with half a brain, who has an ounce of ability to read between the lines would be able to pick up that there are a number of people who do "get" what I'm talking about, to at least some degree. Those who are uncomfortable with those ideas to then react by being full on abusive, to protect their precious "territory", are not impressing me with their intelligence - again, the message is that their ego is uppermost in the debate, and must "win" no matter what.

I'll leave it at that ...

Well, Frank, let me just use this current exchange as an example. The post I responded to (not that it's much different than the rest of your posts, was this one:

"A simple "higher truth" in extracting good sound is: keep current flows low, and smooth! When recording, miniscule currents are required to perform the act, but when revving up the typical consumer playback rig the currents are ripping through the wires ferociously - which is why so much audio can't do 'intense' sound, it's pooing too much at the same time, in an interference sense, and the muck goes everywhere ..."

Ah...where does one begin? "Higher truth?" "Revving up?" "Ripping though wires ferociously?" "Intense sound?" "Pooing too much?" "The muck goes everywhere?"

Or should I just let this highly technical language that I don't understand pass by, and focus in the simple inaccuracy of "When recording, miniscule currents are required to perform the act?"

Am I abusing you by calling this nonsense out as BS? I could be gentler; it would still be BS. Before you got to the keywords "fun" and "teasing," you probably should have noted the name of the forum. That alone should have told you not to bring your superstitions here. But such is life. I'm sure science-oriented environmental forums are full of client change deniers. Oh and by the way, I have read between the lines and I do see who "gets" what you're talking about. I know him well. I wish he'd leave with you.

But it's Amir's forum, and he's both kinder and gentler than I. I would have blocked you the moment I saw you. It's not that your "science" wouldn't be amusing in the right context. It's just that you're in the wrong place, old boy. I'm sure there's a fool's with soldering irons forum out there somewhere. I understand there's a blog out there specifically about audio witchcraft. A good place for your old religion.

Tim

 

[Thomas savage]

Well, Frank, let me just use this current exchange as an example. The post I responded to (not that it's much different than the rest of your posts, was this one:

"A simple "higher truth" in extracting good sound is: keep current flows low, and smooth! When recording, miniscule currents are required to perform the act, but when revving up the typical consumer playback rig the currents are ripping through the wires ferociously - which is why so much audio can't do 'intense' sound, it's pooing too much at the same time, in an interference sense, and the muck goes everywhere ..."

Ah...where does one begin? "Higher truth?" "Revving up?" "Ripping though wires ferociously?" "Intense sound?" "Pooing too much?" "The muck goes everywhere?"

Or should I just let this highly technical language that I don't understand pass by, and focus in the simple inaccuracy of "When recording, miniscule currents are required to perform the act?"

Am I abusing you by calling this nonsense out as BS? I could be gentler; it would still be BS. Before you got to the keywords "fun" and "teasing," you probably should have noted the name of the forum. That alone should have told you not to bring your superstitions here. But such is life. I'm sure science-oriented environmental forums are full of client change deniers. Oh and by the way, I have read between the lines and I do see who "gets" what you're talking about. I know him well. I wish he'd leave with you.

But it's Amir's forum, and he's both kinder and gentler than I. I would have blocked you the moment I saw you. It's not that your "science" wouldn't be amusing in the right context. It's just that you're in the wrong place, old boy. I'm sure there's a fool's with soldering irons forum out there somewhere. I understand there's a blog out there specifically about audio witchcraft. A good place for your old religion.

Tim

that sounds like a typical saturday night out on the town... for me anyway.

you never know, Frank might be onto something...