Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Albrecht

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Or if I'm listening to one that I actually made/produced/mixed myself 😀 Even the "best" recordings, (whatever that means), pale compared to a live event. Or, as you say, most of us don't know the intention. Plus, there can be as many as 4 to 5 variations & generations in what makes it to CD, or Digital file(s) to download etc. Not sure where I'm going exactly with my reply, - I guess that I respectfully disagree & would say that the best system brings out the best in the recording (on average consistently), - to me. (and of course, I can't afford the best). I wouldn't buy Kharma Exquisites even if I could afford to, - when there's comparably priced real estate in the Cinque Terra. 🤣 (And that might take me back to what I wrote before about endeavoring to be a "learning person" who learns about how things are supposed to sound by hearing them (instruments) over and over, and/or hearing them live.
  2. Hi, Thank you and I appreciate your answer. I thought that the decision was made because it was thought that 10/100 sounded better.
  3. Hey Super.............. Congrats again for all the great success, and great reports on the etherRegen. I would like to apologize in advance before asking this question. (Speaking for myself, I know I would hate it if i worked my ass off for a couple of years, and someone cavalierly came in and asked if you thought about making a change to it). But..... (and of course a "but" was coming) Ever thought of making a model with the "B" port Gigabit? I probably don't need to explain what a benefit that might be to those of us who would LOVE to go B to A with a FIBER digital file player hanging off the SFP port on the "A" side, - and then we'd get to hook up our TV and Blue Ray player and maybe even optimized computer .... to those other RJ45 gigabit ports on the A........ I feel bad even asking, as I know that you likely went through a number of topology decisions when you designed the unit. Thank you...
  4. You used a great example regarding the Topping vs the MolaMola. ""I'd like to believe that's true. My unscientific testing/listening indicates it isn't," Is that because you think that certain measurements are "missed" with something like the MolaMola that allows for it to make the system "sound better." Or, - is that the downstream amp/speakers are affected differently by each? Or does it matter? "even though I agree that the difference in SQ is not as dramatic as audiophiles tend to describe it,"" Yep, - I agree that that is true. Describing this stuff is HARD. Sometimes I feel like musicians who have experience with recording, playing their instruments on stage, and also listening to recordings on all manner of quality of playback systems, do a little better job in describing these SQ/tonal differences. But that being said, - what you wrote triggered in me that cliche of "law of diminishing returns." I admit that there are times when I overlook that........
  5. Thanks for this post..... I think that this ties into what you wrote before when you said that "listening to music is subjective." You reviewed two different $30,000 DACs. Which one is good and which one is bad? The answer is that neither are good or bad. Nothing is certain. Each DAC is "well engineered." One DAC makes a particular system sound more like "vinyl" the other can be said to sound more accurate. There's no certainty. One could also plug these two DACs into the type of system that makes them indistinguishable from each other. One could measure the jitter and maybe find that the jitter levels are identical. But in some systems, the DACs will sound significantly different. Someone may find that one of the DACs sounds "too romantic." Someone may find the other one may sound "too clinical." There are way to many elements (and measuring points) in a system (and a room) to make an accurate prediction of final outcome.
  6. I don't think that it is that simple. Firstly, - tubed/valve preamp(ed) DACs in general will measure very differently than a SS DAC. And, - how do those DACs affect what comes out of the speakers? The final sound? So, - different DACs (can possibly) affect the final sound of an entire system with different "downstream" components. No matter how a DAC measures, - it can affect the rest of the system a certain way depending on how it effects the other components. A Vandersteen-Pass Labs based system will sound significantly different with Schiit Yiggy than will a Harbeth-Manley system.
  7. Hi @DuckToller, Tom, Thank you very much for that thoughtful and well reasoned post. (Some of the things that you've written above are things that I likely overlook in trying to counter arguments: some are things that I've tried to say before, - only not as well). ""There is just no "universal validity" deriving from that experience, like the the follwing one: At a level of 5% humidity you won't find roses growing in the desert."" So true. And, - I bet that sometimes with the way I write, and add into that, perhaps some anger at feeling disrespected, - I tend to be way too self-righteous: and too sensitive. And, also, I think, - not too disagree, - on the objective side: there's no right and wrong either in that a Meitner can be a great DAC as part of a great system, - but it can be a bad DAC when hooked up to something else. ""I find it always interesting to learn/reflect on my own confirmation bias, which definitely exists."" Something that I do not enough of.... One thing that I've said in the past, and something in your post that triggered me, - was I say often that this is an Audiophile website, and that objectivists are going to encounter audiophiles here. (People who care more about evaluating how well the recording is experienced). But that, in of itself, is big mistake on my part. For me, - it's an audiophile website. But this place exists as different things to different people. For others, talking about the intricacies of how MQA unfolds files (may) be what the site is all about...(as an example). Thanks again for your post, - there's a lot to your post, - gives me, (and I hope others), - quite a lot to think about. Cheers,
  8. Thanks for engaging with me about this. From what I've read here, you, @jud, @jabbr, (and some others) seem to be respected by both "camps." "" Not all the objectivists think non objectivists are fools. Some just think they are misguided, others don't really relate to it."" Yes of course, but those that "don't really relate to it" are not (lets say) getting the attention. I would like to think that we are all learning people. I am a songwriter, musician, recording producer. I don't listen to a system to judge how good any given speaker wire is. (When I received my speakers, I listened to 7 different sets of speaker cables after begrudgingly acknowledging that my speaker manufacturer was right and his recommended cables made me enjoy the recordings more. I don't evaluate or want a good digital file player specifically. I want to have more fun listening to the recordings I love. I evaluate an entire playback system that makes the recording that I made, (in conjunction with musicians/songwriters), and the recordings that we love, - sound RIGHT. (How do I tell if they are right? By listening to them on 100 thousand systems. They surely will not be "right" on every one). (the learning part): I don't know what a Stradivarius is supposed to sound like. I just don't listen to enough acoustic violins. If someone played a recording of Jean Luc Ponty's lucite electric violin with the same recording equipment etc. , - I probably couldn't tell the difference between that and a Stradivarius. But, - I can always go out and listen to both, and LEARN what the differences are through experience! (Of course there are lots of variables that can be thrown in here, - but hopefully you get my point). I don't evaluate the engineering chops of any given amplifier manufacturer. If a WHOLE SYSTEM sounds great, - and many systems sound great with that particular manufacturer's gear, - and it gets corroborated by me listening to many different systems, and it gets corroborated by 100s of other people: the engineering chops are a given. I suspect that Ed Meitner's players jitter levels are amazingly low, - but I don't need to know or care, - Ed Meitner is a bloody great engineer based on what happens to the music when one of his players is in the system. Anyway, - the above may sound like another one of my arguments for the subjective approach to evaluations. But my intention here is to actually stay on topic of the OP as the events that have transpired surrounding the creation of the new forum, folks leaving, etc. made me re-examine my own behavior and the way I react to posts: especially those reactions that may be perceived as part of the problem, instead of part the solution. I really don't ever want to feel like I'm disrespected, and then get pissed off, and in turn, piss others off. I want to learn. I think that the OP had/has some very good things to say re: MQA.
  9. @firedog Thank you for answering. I think that what you write is 100% correct: does that necessarily lead to the next step in the objective thought process that comparative listeners are irrational "fools" that objectivists should not be made to suffer? So, not only wrong? And, doubly wrong that somehow irrational "fools" are treated with equality? @TheComputerAudiophile: Do you perform metrics on what sub-forums are most popular on Audiophile Style?
  10. Are you saying that the process of comparative listening, and investigating differences in various systems is somehow "irrational?"
  11. NO, not true. There are no problems. What some folks are doing are reporting improvements by using products that were designed by networking and computing and/or inspired to improve such. Some folks have heard improvements in their audio system by applying EMO EN-30 Ethernet isolators. There are folks who are using Intona USB isolators in their audio system, - (some still asserting that these are "better" than an Uptone ISO Regen). Folks are reporting that the Uptone etherRegen improves the video on their 4K TV. Other folks have noticed improvements in their systems with the more professional, Cisco 29 series switches.
  12. No one commented on any one person's system. I was commenting on Sandy's comment. There's nothing wrong with anyone's Sharp BoomBox here. That's not the issue, - the issue is, - are you going to misapply a device that was not designed for a boombox: (where it does not belong). If any person thinks that I was writing anything critical about THEIR system, - that says something about THEIR insecurity. Which i imagine is a big part of a lot of these unwarranted attacks by the "so-called" objectivists upon SOME high end audio manufacturers.
  13. There is no such thing. Everyone is a subjectivist. The fact that some folks choose to make a subjective prediction from objective data is OK here: and that is the "crap."
  14. Yes... I don't think that the pseudo-science trolls here understand that the etherRegen is not for them. It's not going to work with their rattling Dell optiplex noise-boxes. Likely Uptone can't get the forum monikers of those "buying" these devices, - but if I were them, - I would do my best to take steps to refuse to sell them to those who are going to misuse them by hooking them up to their junk. Foundry and Huawei also make much BETTER switches than the average home TP-Link $35 POS. But, - the trolls aren't crying about those..... I find it ironic that normally some of these folks climb all over themselves to glorify the oligarchy: but when it comes to devices re-designed for high performance audio, they become the fiercest communists and whine and cry about prices.
  15. WHOA!! You can make some money selling all that extra power back to the grid! 😛 😀
  • Create New...