Summit

Measurements is not facts they are data. Measurements can reveal real issues, but also be done wrongly and not indicate what they are meant to. It’s paramount to understand how to measure different things and how to minimize that other external elements can interfere. I don’t know exactly how Amir's test was conducted but some said that the box was not used and connected as it is intended to be used and that he didn’t even measured the ground plain, e.g. Amir didn’t connect the box to an audio system and instead connected it directly to his measuring device and all it showed was the noise that the cable picked up from his room. The thing is that a ground box is supposed to act like an antenna and drain noise from the audio system to the box .

I’m not mistaken and did not exaggerate. He thinks that if he didn’t measure any difference on the analogue output of his DAC it somehow makes it a FACT for that the PSU on the switch doesn’t matter. The same with everything else that they said about clocks upstream doesn’t matter. I disagree.

I guess you must have missed the now deleted thread: ”A novel way to massively improve the SQ of the microRendu / ultraRendu” there they made fun of people that are using better clocks and PSU on different digital gear. A couple of examples can be found in this tread. https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/55716-innuos-zenith-mk3-or-opticalrendu-separate-server/page/7/

Am not sure you understand me correctly. I agree with John that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding isolation floating around in audio circles. I and many others have heard the effect of using better digital components upstream of the renderer. That includes clocks. LAN cards and PSU on server and switch etc. It is of course good if we would know the mechanism and exact reason to why clocks, PSU and other things have an impact on sound on upstream gear, but even without the technical explanation, if I can hear the effect clearly it what’s really matter.

Yes indeed and the reps from Sonore have very firmly denied and even ridicule that the clocks and PSU upstream of the renderer make ANY SQ difference, until now with their optical gear.

Background noise of a room is very different at various frequencies. Some noise is external noise, but a lot of the background noise is actually generated by technical installations such as refrigerator, routers, computers and ventilation systems etc in our homes. They can be removed or turned off (at least temporarily) if you put some effort to it. In a normal room the background noise is almost always loudest in the lower frequencies. It is not correct IMO to assume that because the background noise is 40 dB that we can’t hear below that. Some low frequencies will be masked yes, but far from all sound. Like in math we should never rounding off decimals until the summary. How about hum? Hum is 50/60 Hz, but also has harmonics at 120 and 180 Hz. The reason that the background noise in a room normally is highest around those frequencies, is not surprising when we think about all the electrical gear, Mains noise, transformers and ventilation systems we have on standby in our homes.

Really, after reading your nonsense posts on Saturday I thought you were a Global Warming denial. The knowledge of the greenhouse effect is old, the knowledge about the human-caused climate effects is not that old and is still evolving.

Yes the planet has been warmer in the past, but if the global warming continue it will get so warm that the permafrost melts and leak methane which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. If permafrost starts leaking methane the global warming will not be stoppable and the affects will be devastating for the life as we know it. @ esldude many reports of the cost of climate change has been published after Nicholas Stern’s report from 2006. Am an Environmental Economics https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/

The economic costs of climate change is massive. Already in sir Nicholas Stern’s report from 2006 the report states that climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, presenting a unique challenge for economics. The cost of not doing nothing (or enough) is much greater than the cost of taking actions and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. “Sir Nicholas Stern, former Chief economist of the World Bank, was asked by the British government to lead a review on the economics of global climate change. The Stern Review was published in October 2006 and attracted a great deal of attention from various circles, from academic to NGOs and the media in Europe, but also worldwide. This article aims first to highlight the Review’s main points and to single out a selection of the most significant factual data and quantitative evaluations that make up the Review’s rich contribution to the subject, going beyond the well-publicised striking results in which the possible damages of climate change are compared to the impact of the two world wars of the 20th century, but lasting forever. The survey concludes with reflections on criticism of the Stern Review made by several economists, mostly in the US, regarding the integrated assessment modelling exercise included in the Review. The most consequential criticisms are related to the low discount rate used to tackle this very long-term issue and the treatment of adaptation of future generations to a new global climate. Paradoxically, the much-attacked choice of a low discount rate chosen to ensure an equal treatment of the utility of all generations is the best-grounded in the utilitarian philosophy that underpins the type of economics that both the Stern Review and most of its critics share.” https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/240 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-how-much-climate-change-could-cost-the-u-s/?redirect=1

The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the greater the greenhouse effect. There is no doubt about that, none. Should greenhouse gas emissions continue at present rate it will cause severe negative effects on all from economy, ecosystems and biodiversity to human livelihood. It’s true that a higher levels of CO2 can result in increased plant growth, but only up to a point after that there will be no positive effects. The main problem for plants is not the level of CO2 its water and climate.

I don’t believe most artists are involved in the stereo details and is more engaged in which type of “sound” their music should have.

High fidelity is kind of vague but mostly refer to the pre-recorded live sound while accuracy refers to the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound. Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary#kIWfHoIKDwKvb8JR.99

@ esldude it depends on the speakers and the room. With my Polk no toe in and like 10 degrees with my Martin Logan.

I can’t say that am surprised you haven’t even tried different speaker positioning.

It’s all relative and depends on which other DACs you compare the Schiit Yggrasil too, of course. I’m, for example, is no aficionada of Chord’s DACs, while many others seems to be.