Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Archimago

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Easy to say... But unless you have some suggestions as to how one verifies this belief/claim/idea/suspicion/article of faith, there is no path forward in these discussions. I've tried. I hear no difference. I measure no difference (eg. between lossless file formats). Jitter these days is very well controlled without the use of any doohickeys and IMO inaudible. Noise is absent (significantly below -100dBFS) from inexpensive modern DACs and CD players. If anything, it's the amplifier and speakers creating more distortion and limiting noise floor; not to mention the ambient noise in one's listening room. Even if retrieval & reproduction is a little different each time, the variance is way below audibility with repeated measurements. Essentially bits are bits given the accuracy of modern digital systems. Where is your evidence/rationale to show otherwise beyond an idiosyncratic belief system unsupported even by controlled listening, so as to have a reasonable/meaningful discussion going forward??? This is of course not just a challenge to you Frank, but basically a broad question to all those who insist that there is still some significant issue that can be affected by cables/regenerators/filters/etc.
  2. BTW, some discussion on COVID on the blog (not audio related). Have been in discussions yesterday for hospital contingency plans and stuff locally. http://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/03/covid-19-few-thoughts-finding.html I think we'll survive folks... Just be careful of the elderly and those with comorbid illnesses. Much more concerned about the economy than COVID at this point in terms of the big picture even though there will obviously be difficulties in the next few weeks. We might need a thread on "Recession/Depression Listening" in the next few months depending on how things go.
  3. I came across the Telos box last year when in Singapore. Didn't think much of it then and the sales guy had no explanations either other than to pull out some company material and say "let's listen to it". Couldn't hear anything special and too much hassle for an A/B comparison. Clearly, until demonstrated otherwise, anything in the audio world with the word "quantum" in it should be treated with suspicion.
  4. Oops... Fixed link in quote above...
  5. Boy... You guys are really bullish. O Fortuna: https://www.youtube.com/embed/GXFSK0ogeg4 😱 Stay healthy 🙂
  6. So what? There's no "guarantee" of anything at all based on UpTone and Swenson's claims. It's all just speculation and they expect audiophiles to believe it. This is rather terrible IMO... Let's see evidence that an ethernet switch as touted as this one shows something that can make a difference to the sound system. Feel free to show it from the DAC output, or amplifier output, or heck even show a difference using a nice measurement mic to speaker output. Remember, for those using a streamer, the router devices sits 2 steps down from the DAC. If you're playing directly from the ethernet, we're still looking at an asynchronous interface that should prove to be jitter-free (otherwise your streamer/DAC device is rather poor). If this is a noise issue of some sort, then by all means demonstrate the level of noise and where this exists between a metal $30 D-Link switch bought at BestBuy and this one at 20x the price. Then show us how this is translated to the audio system. Don't see why this should be so difficult! Bottom line. This is for UpTone to demonstrate since I don't think anyone else is going to find anything interesting and supportive of their claims... We are in the Objective-Fi forum and this is supposed to be "objective discussions only", not faith-based discussions; so far over 4 pages there is nothing objective to be supportive of the EtherRegen whatsoever. As far as I can tell, these "REGEN" devices have all been faith-based when it comes to them supposedly improving sound quality.
  7. Agreed. It's a theme I think we as audiophiles will revisit in the days ahead. At some point, it all becomes a worthless circle jerk. New formats applied to material that was never "hi-res" to begin with. New remasters that just sound louder. PCM vs. DSD. All sorts of upsampling filters. Revisiting LPs and calling that "hi-res". All of these were ways for companies to recycle and extract as much as possible. At some point audiophiles become exhausted and rightly lose interest. Of them all, MQA was the most egregious and lacked any face value except for those who drank the Kool-Aid. I suspect MQA will be seen in the days ahead as the biggest waste of time and money for audiophiles. An enduring example of how the purely subjective audiophile writers got it wrong when they don't take the time to confirm and show a bit of discretion when dealing with Industry and placing faith in those who have interests in promoting something "better" for the sake of keeping the recycling going. Take care folks... Keep healthy... Enjoy the music!
  8. @david elias Yikes. You should be careful about talking like this. I agree that your recordings sound good and thanks for the demo tracks. But without a doubt, the MQA "math" does not work out and in fact, applying MQA to a CD-resolution track lowers the effective resolution. It does not make CD "high res" in any fashion. It's OK to "like" the sound of MQA since it could impart its own signature using their upsampling filters (just like one could prefer the application of different EQ and remastering effots). But let's not confuse this with any actual resolution benefits.
  9. Hey there John, Playing with your software on some old ABBA - first press "W. German" Polydor CD from 1992. Very clear difference and the decoding does improve the high end. At least on the songs I tried, I agree the bass boost is a good idea. At times the highs can be a bit harsh even though overall the sound is "more right"! Keep up the good work ;-). Now that I've heard the difference this makes, I'll need to be on the lookout for more albums that could be improved. Have you been keeping a list of CDs over the years you've come across that would benefit?
  10. What we need to see are John Swenson's measurements from DACs - if he ever shows them. I would not hold my breath. Dude's never been able to produce anything but lots of words, claims, and suspicions. Show actual differences whether in jitter or noise what a device like this actually does and with what audio gear. Until then, just like the USB Regen, this thing IMO with good certainty will not make any difference.
  11. Regarding my comment: "But I think it's important not to end up too far down in a state of self delusion especially when money is exchanged and some parties could be benefiting in less-than-honest ways!" Sometimes we have to just be honest especially regarding some highly questionable companies. As "objectivists" and "subjectivists" we can certainly come to a point where we agree to disagree on what we believe depending on what we're after in this hobby. I still don't understand your "conjuring" for example but you're having fun and not asking folks for money... That's cool with me. A company like MQA is a beautiful example. They were asking to be paid for nonsense and was willing to take liberties with terms like "lossless", "deblurring", etc... That's not cool. And let's not delude ourselves into following along with Bob Stuart and his claims. IMO, as consumers, we always should be vigilant about questionable companies asking for money to purchase their products without presenting a case for the benefit. It would simply be naïve if we believe this is not true! This is NOT creating a chasm between the 2 sides (subjectivity and objectivity), it's simply stating a fact about being a consumer. The fact that you don't see it this way is a bit disturbing, actually.
  12. Hi @tapatrick, I have some thoughts about the "which measurements matter" question that I'll post on the blog in the next while...
  13. Correct. I would say to a large part, psychological (referring to subjective reviews). It's done in the service of an industry catering to luxury goods but needs the "legitimacy" of being able to claim that their products definitely "sounds better" than other consumer products that continue to improve over time and compete at lower prices. Without the ability to claim objective improvements - measurement equipment too getting less expensive and better quality over time - where else to obtain validation than through subjective testimony? The value of Golden Ear subjective reviewers is to be measured in the amount of faith/credibility they have. The moment audiophiles lose "confidence" in the reviewer or magazine, there're really nothing of value left but a decline into further irrelevance...
  14. A bit like COVID-19 going forward I think... Although I'd be less concerned about MQA...
  15. Not just for MQA of course, but BS like this cannot stop. Because, if it did, and writers started coming clean with the idea that maybe authors were "mistaken about the listening impression", or simply likely "made stuff up" because they needed to say something to differentiate the sound in a way that might appear plausible to readers, that would destroy the whole "confidence" in the system! Which Golden Ear actually has good hearing acuity? Can I trust that article? Did that guy really tell the truth? etc... I see that Digital Trends article on MQA that @UkPhil linked to and as we can see, more regurgitated material from over the years with the last bit referring to the author's listening impressions. Sure... Whatever... I do believe that sometimes subjective impressions can be very useful. There are certainly products out there that sound terrible to the point that pure subjective reviewers will hear and notice the difference and accurately describing the quality. Subjective reviewers can also give us a sense of the workmanship, reliability, usability, etc... The "problem" is (actually this is good!), I think these days, "good" sounding products are plentiful and the human ear/mind being what it is, no longer can be a good judge of whether a device is technically resolving nor is it a reliable instrument to differentiate similar sounding products. As a result, more of a subjective reviewer's opinion is actually a projection of his own biases and "feelings" about the product than truly due to the product's performance. Again, I think this is obvious to most of us "more objective" people, but subjective-only magazines would never agree to this as it erodes whatever credibility is left... PS: I think this DF Cobalt review in TAS is a great example of what a review wants to hear rather than truly reflective of the performance of the device since we know objectively from my post and Mans' objective analysis that there are some issues to be aware of.
  • Create New...