Jump to content

incus

  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About incus

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Have not tried the SOtM switch in this capacity yet but I plan to test it there as well.
  2. Actually I found that the Aqvox switch enhanced picture quality using one of their ethernet cables to my Roku straight from the switch. Noticeable upgrade in contrast and clarity on my 4K TV. I have an HDMI cable to recommend to you as well - a minimalist HDMI cable made by Mapleshade. Not too expensive as this hobby goes. Try it. Try any of this stuff. It just might open your eyes. And your ears. (And there are whole discussions about enhancing digital picture quality with better switches and ethernet cables which I assume you've never searched for - then again I have the funny feeling yours is not a real question - at least not one without your tongue planted firmly in your cheek. But I always try to answer in earnest, regardless.)
  3. I thought we were talking about the SOtM switch and pulling an ethernet cable? Not sure how we got onto processor loads. I have no opinion on this either way. Switch in vs. switch out - that I have done numerous times blind -- just as I have done master clock vs. no master clock, generic CAT5A vs. SOtM dCBL CAT7, etc. And I can guarantee even you would hear the differences I continue to hear over and over, verified by notes taken from previous such tests, etc.. This is into both my Chord Qutest and my Holo Spring II KTE. You seem to think I want to spend money. Or that I'm such a sucker I just end up doing so delusionally. I have no desire to waste money on something that doesn't work. I can't tell you how many DACs I auditioned to get to where I am now - how many phono cartridges, how many tonearms, how many amplifiers - I could bore you to death with how the Holo plays nicely with the system on my desktop but not nearly as nicely with my speaker set-up and vice versa with the Qutest, even though they are fed by the same server/switch combo, implying a large degree of system-dependent synergy, etc. But according to you during all the listening tests I've done over 20+ listening and recording music I've fallen into a delusional state each and every time. In the end, I guess I choose the delusion. Now back to the switch. It is sounding REALLY GREAT right now as I write, clocked by the Mutec REF10. A liquidity to the mids that I find intoxicating. Front row seats for Holly Cole. Bass that gets into your gut. All bathed in such an effortless light - timing is just everything, isn't it? Very nice indeed. And a definite and obvious and repeatably demonstrable upgrade over my previous Aqvox switch.
  4. I've tried to explain to you many times already that your "experiment" proves nothing. The logic of it is entirely faulty. There is, in fact, no logic to it. But you don't seem willing to engage on the level of logic. You are dead wrong about what is being heard under the two conditions you are comparing. So do I want to indulge some glitch in your cognitive reasoning by attaching a device of your making to my private home network? Excuse me if I decline.
  5. So the noise of your Emotiva is greater than anything that's come before it? Interesting.
  6. You got the reference backwards. Flat earth is old dogma - which in this case is that bits are bits. Round earth is new discoveries of ways in which phase noise from prior clocking may indeed seem to show up later. Not to mention electrical noise traveling with the signal (not stored in it) from server, switch, endpoint, whatever does the buffering, through all their power supplies, etc. All apparently brought to the USB receiver chip to deal with unless it's mitigated along the way. Obviously a great clock at the USB chip with great isolation characteristics would do a lot to mitigate all this. Seems to me Master Clock connections on USB receiver chips would be something we should see more widely adopted (I know they already exist) now that all these other kinds of master clocking have cropped up and there seems to be some consensus about their benefits.
  7. I for one cannot wait for the EtherREGEN - it should solve a location issue that forces me to have my modem and first switch in the basement with a long run of CAT 5a through the walls to the main listening room. I hope to use this to clean up the signal coming into the room and give me a real baseline for analyzing different digital components that come after it. Look forward to release!
  8. Let me know when you want to take it off.
  9. But what experiments have you done to say you can't hear that noise? There is a growing body of listening impressions on that big topic listing that shows different sounds to different processors throttled in different ways, lower latency software, RAM booted software, etc. Isn't this presumably reducing the audible effects of those processes? There is ignorance from inexperience that is forgiven with enlightenment and then there is willful ignorance despite enlightenment which is unforgivable.
  10. At least that's the general idea. There has been some discussion on the forums about upstream clocking effects passing through into the DAC, but I don't have a sophisticated enough understanding to evaluate that, and it remains to be demonstrated that this can actually occur. Here we can agree except that it has been demonstrated on a listening level. This is, after all, another form of demonstration. I think you are asking for mechanical demonstration, which I believe we will be able to do soon. I am well aware of the functioning of async USB, thank you. And I think you are actually getting to the heart of my logic bump here. The moment the cable/switch/upstream-signal-source-whatever-it-may-be is disconnected, then there is no more signal coming into the DAC, right? So everything that is "stored" momentarily in the DAC as it's about to be reclocked has already come through the network to the DAC. Otherwise, where did it come from? We are talking exclusively about streaming audio, not local playback, right? So... if all the packets inside the DAC's receiver chip have already passed through the network to get there - no matter when or where it was buffered before - and IF there is any kind of phase noise influence (positive of negative) and/or electrical noise that carries over from the upstream network - then that would ALREADY be there in the signal now being taken in by the DAC. Then, yes, those can be mitigated by the DAC's re-clocking process, its own power supply and electrical noise isolation capabilities, etc. (But as a user of a regen product it seems your ears do agree there is something an upstream product can do that the async USB process alone is unable to do.) Still, my point is simple: how do the packets arrive at the DAC unless through the network upstream of it? That's what I mean when I say it has already passed through all those devices and been influenced by them. And, as I think is being discussed above, this includes whatever Tidal does to get the signal out, whatever the ISP does to get the signal to you, your modem, and all the attendant power supplies for these things, etc. The only logical way to test the effect of a switch or a cable or a power supply or a circuit in your home or the day of the week as it pertains to the noise on yours mains line, is A vs. B: with vs. without the switch, the cable, a psu, same components plugged on one circuit in your home vs. on anther, same components on a Sunday vs. on a Friday, etc. THEN if we hear a difference we know the actual perceptible effect this element is having . THEN we can all work together to come up with a way to measure what we are hearing. In other words, that A/B result is empirical data that warrants explanation not dismissal.
  11. Which is of course the absolute inverse of the scientific method.
  12. Off topic but it would great if the super wealthy among you took it upon yourselves to stock and maintain a kind of lending library with all manner of these devices in all their iterations and upgrades, etc. Then the components could make the rounds and a broad enough sample of listening data could be compiled. I must say all this back and forth between people who have heard a certain component and write about their impressions and those who have not heard the component but dismisses those impressions as wishful thinking is VERY tiring. It infected the old cable discussions - still does - and now it's all over this forum. I guess the way I look at it is this -- for every wishfully thinking fanboy who spent too much money on a dubious product and is hoping beyond hope it sounds better than not having it in his system there is a curmudgeonly troll objectivist who refuses to face the possibility there may still be undiscovered truths in audio. They cancel each other out. Now let the actual listening impressions and measurements begin.
  13. He's saying that to prove the switch and cable have no effect on the sound, just pull the cable and hear that the buffered signal sounds the same. My point is that that doesn't prove what he's saying it does. It's logic, digital or analog. The signal hanging out in the buffer has already passed through the switch and the cable so of course it sounds the same. For the skeptics among you, there just needs to be a loaner program or some other way to test. Play track. Then insert switch and play track again. Then post about it. (Which is, by the way, what the OP did and reported back on - as frustratingly unspecific / fanboyish as those reports may have been...)
  14. This is what SOtM now suggests in response to this thread.
×