Popular Post mansr Posted December 10, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 10, 2017 That's an equaliser, not a cable. Nobody has ever doubted that equalisers work. plissken, esldude and Teresa 1 2 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 10, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 10, 2017 It's funny how many audiophiles sneer at EQ, yet swoon over it if you call it a cable. gmgraves, esldude, Teresa and 5 others 7 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, Speed Racer said: I am a music lover, not an audiophile, and I have no issues with analog equalizers that are built properly. I wouldn't have thought you would. Link to comment
mansr Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 16 minutes ago, sdolezalek said: I suspected that might be the case, but if so, it appears to be an extraordinarily expensive one and my sense is those here willing to use their computers as a front end can do better (at a tiny fraction of the cost) with products like REW, DIRAC, combined with Roon, HQPlayer, JRiver etc. that apply equalization but based upon measurements rather than "fine-tuning to taste." Am I missing anything else here? I don't think so. Link to comment
mansr Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, gmgraves said: DSP-based solution would, of course, add the quality issues associated with A-to-D and D-to-A conversion. Not if applied before the DAC. Analogue sources are noisy enough that an A/D/A trip won't matter. esldude 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 11 minutes ago, GUTB said: Obviously it’s not "just" an equalizer. Sure, it's a very expensive equaliser. The Computer Audiophile 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Most patents are nothing but technobabble. Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 That's nothing but technobabble. Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 10x is complete overkill. No recordings have anything of value above 50 kHz or so for the simple reason that microphones don't capture it. An amp bandwidth of 100 kHz provides ample margin. To then start talking about cables is absurd. Any half-decent cable works well into the MHz range, at least at lengths likely to be used in a home audio system. eternaloptimist 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 5 hours ago, esldude said: This 10x bandwidth thing comes from a time of analog gear. If an amplifier has a bandwidth of 0-200,000 hz that means it is -3db down at 200,000 hz and rolls off at 6 db per octave above that (usually). It will be .1 db down at 20,000 hz and above that frequency the phase begins to change between that point and 200 khz. I challenge anyone to discern a 1 dB drop at 20 kHz. 10x is probably a good rule of thumb for instrumentation. Audio is a different kettle of fish. Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 1 hour ago, gmgraves said: Nobody is saying that those MIT cables don't do anything. What is being said is that since the "box" in the cable is passive, it can't do much. Even MIT says that the box controls lows, miss, and highs, so it is basically an equalizer, but passive, high-level Equalizers use huge capacitances, big inductors, and they can only effect their center frequencies at 6 dB/octave. More poles mean more insertion loss, so the box's output would be severely attenuated from it's input, which I would think would be not too desireable. No matter how you cut it', an active equalizer would be superior, and certainly a lot cheaper! And more importantly, a boxful of components is not a cable. Teresa 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, esldude said: There are young people who can do that. They still have hearing to around 20 khz. With test tones anyway. Don't know about music. And even then it will be a small percentage of people. Sure, with a 20 kHz tone, you can probably hear a 1 dB drop if you can hear it at all. With music, the content at 20 kHz is already far below the level of lower frequencies, so a small change will not be easily noticed. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2017 I still think it's pretty dishonest of them to build a rather simplistic equaliser, call it a cable, and sell it at an astronomical price. eternaloptimist and Teresa 1 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 As I've said before, I have no issue with bling being sold as bling. I might even buy it if I like the way it looks. The Computer Audiophile 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Calling something a cable when it blatantly is not can hardly count as innovation regardless of what the thing actually does. CuteStudio 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 12 minutes ago, sdolezalek said: Question is, what sonic benefits are derived from "easier to drive loads"? With a good amp, probably none. $80k will get you a good amp. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, GUTB said: None of us here are Bruce Brisson, who's been conducting research The only research he has conducted is into how best to fleece rich audiophools. 2 minutes ago, GUTB said: and experimentation into these topics since the 70s. Electrical Engineers have very little knowledge of advanced audio -- their knowledge is basic, and that leads to basic opinions on advanced technologies. Audio is pretty basic technology. The fact that all the scam artists you so adore are able to produce anything that works at all is testament to that. 2 minutes ago, GUTB said: I'm also just as ignorant, You are worse than ignorant. You are wilfully ignorant, and on top of that you are condescending. Now go away instead of derailing this thread more than you already have. 2 minutes ago, GUTB said: Literally every single review I've ever come across of Bybee DIY products report improvement. Literally every single review of anything reports improvements. esldude, eternaloptimist, CuteStudio and 1 other 2 1 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 10 minutes ago, gmgraves said: Every Maggie that I have owned have been, essentially, purely resistive, and usually somewhere between 4 and 6Ω. That's about as simple as one can get. That's a direct consequence of their design. There's no coil to produce any inductance. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2017 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: He asked for real information and said opinions really didn't matter. I don't know what more he could do. I think it was a fair request, and I think most of the responses (until GUTB derailed it) were in line. There was an honest discussion around what this device might be doing, which I believe is what the OP asked for. While some are quick to dismiss any sharing of engineering knowledge as "just an opinion," I did not perceive the request in this light. Ralf11's response was unnecessarily harsh, but he has contributed usefully in later posts. The Computer Audiophile and wgscott 1 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Ralf11 said: the EE makes judgments outside of the scope of the actual physics and math. This is because the lowly engineering majors took simple, cook-book course in math & physics as undergrads, instead of the full bore physics major physics and math major math that REAL MEN took.... I disagree with this assessment. My brother did a PhD in maths and my sister in physics. The maths and physics I took during my EE studies didn't differ much from theirs. We even used some of the same textbooks. Obviously, they ultimately went deeper into their respective areas, but the foundations were still the same. Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 8 minutes ago, Speed Racer said: The web site for the product is extremely vague as to what the product actually does and does not explain how it does whatever it does. I looked. I downloaded everything from the site on the products. All quite vague with no discussion of actual implementation. There certainly was no discussion of IP. Given the connections (one input, one output, no power source) and controls along with their descriptions, there is only so much it could be doing. Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: well, I saw it in the '70s at one of the xITs - the engineers got away with easy texts & courses.... I studied at KTH, my siblings at Stockholm University, around the turn of the century. Maybe things are/were different in Sweden. Link to comment
mansr Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 12 minutes ago, GUTB said: Electrical engineers are mostly very ignorant of high end audio. I think "impervious" is the word you are looking for, not "ignorant." 12 minutes ago, GUTB said: Basic knowledge supports only basic views. I’m not saying that as if I’m better than EEs, Yes, you are. 12 minutes ago, GUTB said: or belittling them. Yes, you are. 12 minutes ago, GUTB said: In fact, they know more than I do when it comes to basic electrical circuit knowledge. Finally something we can agree on. 12 minutes ago, GUTB said: If an EE can walk into a Synergestic Research show room, walk out and then re-produce the sound based on only their knowledge of physics and electrical circuits I’ll listen very intently. I can do that in my sleep. 12 minutes ago, GUTB said: But the thing is — why can’t you even get them to go listen to the room to begin with? You don’t have to buy anything. Is it really just willful ignorance? Do you attend flat earther conventions? Why not? wgscott 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, GUTB said: Can you post your system? I’d like to see if I can replicate what you’ve accomplished. DAC, amp, and speakers. wgscott 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 57 minutes ago, marce said: What patents? There's a list at the bottom of their web page: 4,994,686; 4,718,100; 4,954,787; 5,123,052; 5,142,252; 5,227,962; 5,260,862; 5,412,356; 5,791,919; 5,920,410; 5,920,468; 5,956,410; 6,658,119 and D 314,551; D317,292; D317,293; D462,324; D456,775; D446,778; D436,935 A search for patents assigned to the actual company name returns some of these and some others. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now