Jump to content

Albrecht

Members
  • Content Count

    902
  • 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. Hi, Thanks, - I am not looking for anything myself. I've ran the Singxer F-1 for years, - tossed it in my own, (half decent), project box. The F-1 is a lot/significant/incredibly better than the SU-1. I am happy with the Gustard U-16 and I'd have to get a friend to lend me a SU-6 before dropping 3 times the price on something that might be only a minimal SQ upgrade for my application, - which would be significantly different than any Denafrips owner. Luckily,- I only have a SPDIF (RCA-jack) input and don't/can't play any DSD. Thanks again for your reply.
  2. Hi, A good friend just took delivery and is running in a Denafrips Terminator and is awaiting info on how to switch between the different roll-off filters. He is liking it, - asserting that it's a little better than his Audio GD Master. As for the Matrix, - I've had one for about 4 months and sold it as it was very thin sounding through the mid-range and mid to low bass regions. It has some nice detail in the upper mids and highs, - but compared to the F-1 and the Gustard U-16,- it is a poor piece of equipment and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Cheers,
  3. Keep the ultraRendu powered by the LPS1.2. Use the Jameco 5v Linear or pick up an R-core Linear power supply from EBay to power the opticalModule.
  4. SOME-body has been working WAAAAY- too hard in the San Joaquin summer heat...........
  5. Thanks for your comments. I've been using the Jameco LPS walWarts to power my TP-Link FMCs for 3 years and haven't had an issue at all. Guess that I'm lucky. But your advice here to test with a new supply before replacing the FMCs is excellent and well-taken, - if they should die. My first priority would be to get the opticalRendu, - then from there, - it's going to be a really tough decision between an optical module or the etherRegen. Thanks again....
  6. Very nicely said..... "As Rob Watts at Chord demonstrates, the human brain is incredibly sensitive to timing errors and its impact on the sense of realism. " Also, - from Rob Watts. FWIW, (and to continue with an analogy), this is similar to the listener detecting something "wrong" when an instrument is out of tune. Cheers,
  7. uh oh, - that sounds like someone left a water bottle and Starbucks mug clearly visible in the studio......
  8. thanks for explaining further. I understand better what you mean. Also, - in what I wrote previously, - i was not thinking so much of value, - as to performance. I used Meitner as an example as we often do not get as specific as we should in some of these conversations. Specific points of reference can yield a bit more clarity that cause confusion and too many generalizations. Keeping to the Meitner example, - certainly a lot of products were sold on the basis of "it's almost as good,- but the price is a lot less." I don't know if this is subjective, objective, or radical subjective or radical objective, - but the rule of "diminishing returns" is interesting and comes into play and often surfaces leading many folks to "an-almost consensus," - especially when experiences pile up. We've seen a lot of companies fail because of their price to performance ratio, - coupled with a dying economy, and a change in entertainment habits....
  9. This is a great article, - thank you so much for your great work. Like others who've commented, I'm a big PG fan and his work has been a great influence to me as a songwriter and music fan: sometimes to the gross annoyance of my fellow writers and instrument players.
  10. Although I hear and respect your point, - I think that it's a decent size generalization that I could give counter examples. Although, - you and I may mean something different by "monster rig." I do think that there is a certain truth to diminishing returns: that is also a moving target that varies from person to person. IMO, - there's more than a few $40,000 retail systems that sound incredible, fit into different size rooms, and perform significantly better than system's at half the cost, - and although said $40K system might not be quite as great ad some really great systems costing more than double that, - diminishing returns on those big systems make it not worth it, - at least as far as I hear them.....
  11. Hi, Congratulations on what is certain to be a great player. I am so excited to hear the improvements that I know it will make over my ultraRendu, (as amazing as the ultraRendu is). I am very much looking forward to buying the opticalRendu this summer! Congratulations again, and I wish you, Barrows, & Adrian the best!! Cheers,
  12. Interesting post and one that bears thinking about more in depth,- in my opinion. Although I don't quite understand what is meant by radical subjectivism. Giving a practical example, - (and I may be getting you wrong), - but people do form what may be called a relative consensus about products, - this is of course a subjective consensus. And, as with any kind of knowledge, - we are learning beings and our viewpoints change with more and different knowledge. For example, - there is a significant difference between "that violin section sounds really nice," to "those Stradivarius violins sound correct." The latter belies an amount of experiential knowledge about what a Stradivarius violin is supposed to sound like, and likely,- experiences at events where both Stradivarius and other brands/types of violins are played. As a producer, songwriter and musician who plays and am in bands with musicians who play Rickenbacker, Guild, & Gibson guitars among others, - I've a fair amount of experience and knowledge about what those guitars sound like. But of course, their sound can be significantly altered in different context(s) through different amps, and various effects, and EQ settings, - not only on their amplification, - but applied during the recording process. Going back to the Meitner example, - I have heard Ed's players many many times, in varying and different systems. I have made a "VALUE" judgement that is of course subjective, - that value judgement is based on it's performance. I think that there is a very large agreement upon the community who has heard these products, - that they perform incredibly well and do a great job as part of system that accurately reflects what is on the recording, - much better than others at both lower, and higher prices. That doesn't mean that I can afford to buy a Meitner... but I'm not judging it's sound quality on whether or not I can afford it. Of course Meitner DACs measure well, and have very low jitter, - but so do a lot of other DACs that are both cheaper and more expensive: and don't perform nearly as well. So, - just because a product is expensive, (and unaffordable to most of us), - doesn't mean that it sucks. There are two different types of judgements, - the affordability part of the equation is objective, - it's performance is not. I go to audio shows like CES or RMAF out of interest and curiosity to see what's new, how well gear performs, and what combinations of components work well together to make a system sound great. I also go there to hear how well my system stacks up against others. I know that I can't afford much of what I hear, - but I don't let a component's price point interfere with enjoying or not-liking what I'm hearing. I have been both surprised at how much super expensive gear sucks, and how great really cheap gear sounds much better than it's price indicates. Finally, - I'd like to say that a lot of unreasonable criticism of retail prices of components occurs in two main areas, - 1. is the cost to build and the parts that make up the component. (This is especially significant in comparison to retail price markups in other luxury goods). And, 2. No one ever pays retail prices for these higher cost big 3 components of amps, speakers, CD/DACs: knowing the 40% dealer cost rule....
  13. Hi, ""The classic definition of knowledge is "facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education"." Exactly right, - "through experience" Our dictionary definition is roughly the same or similar to how Kant defined knowledge via the 4 main categories of knowledge. Of course there's a whole body of work on epistemology. Largely though, - we all write and speak via the (very good) dictionary definitions of something as those, (by and large), include everything that needs to be included, and excludes everything else that allow to distinguish between it, and something else..... (In this case, - {comparative listening evaluations}, - observable experiences. Again, - one can, and does forget things. There is good knowledge, bad knowledge, better knowledge... worse knowledge..... ""a distinction can be made between knowledge and experience" No, the definition doesn't say that. We get and interpret "information" all of the time, - often without even realizing it. When you pile up comparative listening tests, - (for example), - you are gaining knowledge from different experiences and you naturally interpret and categorize into "knowing." I observed John hitting Jack in the head with a baseball bat. That is experiential knowledge. Was it a sunny day or raining? What were John and Jack wearing that day? I have baseball bat in my hand now. Is there blood on it? I tested the blood and I tested Jack's blood. Those other "tests" give corroboration to the observable knowledge and make the knowledge better. But that doesn't mean that the knowledge still isn't there....
  14. FWIW,- i don't disagree with most of what you wrote above... "" Experience is only knowledge if it results in durable education and retention of factual information gained from that experience. " No, experience is always knowledge, it is one of the categories of knowledge types. It is one type that forms the definition of knowledge. You can have varying levels of knowledge, you can have weak, no, or a lot of knowledge in certain areas, and about certain things. Knowledge can be said to be BETTER if you retain that knowledge for sure. Or if you have a lot of experiences and/or evidence to strengthen or enhance it. " Discerning but impecunious concertgoers will assign their own values to the characteristics of a playback system, so they can attain the best possible compromise for them and their budgets. No one can determine the value of a playback system for you except you." Again, - FWIW, - I agree 100% and one would think that that would be obvious to everyone. But, - there are still a small minority of folks here who think that there is some sort of objective criteria that will bring some sort of universalizable certainty where there can be none. Cheers,
  15. I was just using it as a point of analogy, - to illustrate that there are many high value components out there that have very expensive parts inside and many of these parts are much more expensive and are part of the reason why the overall component is more expensive. No matter what you may think of the performance (and the application) of Wilson's $40,000 speakers, = their cost to build is more than other company's $40,000 speakers.
×
×
  • Create New...