Jump to content
IGNORED

Archimago and the TLS DS-1


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

I have had two high end streamers in my system for a test. I won’t mention names though to protect the innocent. My Macbook with usb out sounded better imho. I used the usb out on each one. Took one to a friend who has the Senore. The Senore killed it. His Senore sounds wonderful. So, I have heard these fancy streamers sound better and worse than my laptop using A+. It would be nice to be able to try before you can buy.

 

right - that is the big question -  my practical/skeptic heart tells me that a laptop with no iron HDs + JRiver would do as much if not more - BUT

 

well - for example right now  the laptop I use has been nagging me  to update to mojave - and I am terrified that it won't work - sound quality opinions aside - the convenience of those dedicated boxes is alluring...

v

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, LTG2010 said:

Sure but the topic is specifically about the article regarding the TLS - DS1which he and all of those in agreement with his comments have not heard. Two reliable sources who have the unit, confirm it offers an improvement over the basic machine. There is as always a diminishing return in audio a $1500 unit will rarely sound 3 times better than a $500 one.

 

It really depends on the input to those streamers as to wether any improvement will be heard.

 

Right - wish there was an easy way to test DS-1 against a regular NUC with audiolinux... man - this digital thing is hard - starting to think I should rather use the money to upgrade my turntable! :D

 

v

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Ok.  You enjoy your gear and that's what's important.

Exactly, after all, why pay more for a piece of equipment if it does not lead to more enjoyment. I do not judge others on how they test gear or their listening preferences. But true "enjoyment" is a universal truth in all of us

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Pseudo science and bad science are easy to refute. Please provide your scientific evidence that contradicts Archimago's results.

And that refutation comes quite frequently from folks who are conducting better tests. The fact that Archimago uses cheap software tools and conducts no tests on high performance "high-end" equipment; then draws conclusions about that equipment is contradiction enough. There doesn't need to be ANY counter evidence produced, when criticizing the testing METHODOLOGY, - which is of course, - conducting tests on low-fi equipment, - and making the false conclusion that those tests apply to ALL equipment.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, firedog said:

Context is everything. You are looking at the one blog post and missing the context. He wrote an opinion piece based on years of extensive testing of a lot of these specific issues. The device in question is just another device - there's nothing magic about it. So he has a basis for his opinions/doubts that some audio magic is going on. Basically, instead of subjective impressions, he's saying a) show me a measurement backing up what you subjectively hear; or b) explain (not just speculate) on what is happening that could cause the differences you are hearing. Vague descriptions of noise and phase without anything behind them mean nothing.

Hi,

Yes, - and this is why any "objective" testing is going to not be representative. It's why the review magazines always have as the main part of their review subjective testing, - (Not enough comparisons though), - as there are no adequate objective tests, (or body of tests), that in any way represent what one is hearing...

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

And that refutation comes quite frequently from folks who are conducting better tests. The fact that Archimago uses cheap software tools and conducts no tests on high performance "high-end" equipment; then draws conclusions about that equipment is contradiction enough. There doesn't need to be ANY counter evidence produced, when criticizing the testing METHODOLOGY, - which is of course, - conducting tests on low-fi equipment, - and making the false conclusion that those tests apply to ALL equipment.

 

And if his measurements are confirmed with much more expensive, lab-grade equipment, then you'll change your mind?

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

And that refutation comes quite frequently from folks who are conducting better tests. The fact that Archimago uses cheap software tools and conducts no tests on high performance "high-end" equipment; then draws conclusions about that equipment is contradiction enough. There doesn't need to be ANY counter evidence produced, when criticizing the testing METHODOLOGY, - which is of course, - conducting tests on low-fi equipment, - and making the false conclusion that those tests apply to ALL equipment.

His equipment isn't junk and is perfectly adequate for proper testing. Your post is the psuedo science and refutes nothing. He doesn't say his testing applies to ALL equipment. He shows that many scenarios that audiophiles trot out as making a significant difference appear to do nothing of the sort when objectively evaluated.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, firedog said:

His equipment isn't junk and is perfectly adequate for proper testing. Your post is the psuedo science and refutes nothing. He doesn't say his testing applies to ALL equipment. He shows that many scenarios that audiophiles trot out as making a significant difference appear to do nothing of the sort when objectively evaluated.

Whenever he concludes through bad tests that different digital file players do not sound different, - he's making a statement about the performance of ALL digital file players.....

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, firedog said:

His equipment isn't junk and is perfectly adequate for proper testing. Your post is the psuedo science and refutes nothing. He doesn't say his testing applies to ALL equipment. He shows that many scenarios that audiophiles trot out as making a significant difference appear to do nothing of the sort when objectively evaluated.

I am not conducting any testing when I am criticizing Archimago's poor testing methodologies. I know that I am not "refuting" anything.

 

""trot out as making a significant difference appear to do nothing of the sort when objectively evaluated.""   (I also dispute that Archimago does any objective evaluations).

 

That is not true, - actually patently false. It is ABJECTLY impossible to predict how an objectively evaluated component will sound with 6 others, in a room, without actually being there. For example, A Meitner DAC would make a significant difference to a $350 Sony in a system with commensurate components and make NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever when plugged into the auxillary input of a Sharp boombox.

Archimago's tests are equivalent to plugging Meitner's into boomboxes.... the essence of bad science.

Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...