advertisement


$300 too much for a 40cm digital interconnect?

item said:
avole: doesn't saying 'neeeargh' every time I post - whatever I post - get boring?
Click to expand...

Seems pretty succinct compared to your long-winded efforts to persuade yourself and others that digital isn't really digital, and that you can supply special polished bits.
 
sonddek said:
- if you're worried (duly or not) about electrical isolation, use TOSLINK or ethernet, or an isolator gizmo on USB
Click to expand...
As we've dealt with in another thread, Toslink is not 'isolation'; it is an inherently high-jitter interface extremely sensitive at both ends to electrical issues. And (obviously) Ethernet is not a substitute for Toslink: you have to talk to the DAC somehow: that's where the problem lives.
sonddek said:
- if you're worried (duly or not) about the question of whether anybody, even item, hears modest upstream jitter, use a DAC which has a sensible buffer
Click to expand...
We all know that all DACs have buffers and clocks. They nonetheless behave differently to a greater or less extent with different transports. Generally people who claim otherwise are software mindset-locked, or lean too heavily on the theory in the absence of experience combining DACs and transports - as dealers, manufacturers and reviewers do daily.
sonddek said:
- if you're worried (duly or not) about the 1's and 0's reaching your DAC accurately, make sure that your source software isn't fiddling with the bits
Click to expand...
That you even mention bit values this far down the line is spooky - you're saying “my toaster works great next to the microwave; therefore so will the radio.”

sonddek said:
The reason why item's posts are so long and incomprehensible is that he persistently seeks ways to insinuate that digital systems behave like analogue ones . . . The fact that your computer boots up most days shows that item's effort to apply analogue signal ideas to digital circuits is largely a fallacy. Don't swallow the noise/jitter gibberish
Click to expand...
The reason they are so long - hopefully not incomprehensible - is that it seems necessary to rehash Digital Audio 101 ad nauseam. The fact that your computer boots - most days - is because bit values arrive (most days). Digital systems behave like analog ones because fundamentally they are analog. They only look digital from the comfortable, deceptive distance of an OS.

Like I said, I'm always happy to put my money where my mouth is: almost invariably people are surprised by how much difference the transport makes: the hit rate is way higher than when auditioning cables, for instance.
 
sonddek said:
Don't waste any money on cryomobos and other foo sourcery.
Click to expand...

We cryo PC components for exactly the same reason overclockers cryo their PC components: after cryo, chipsets run demonstrably cooler and more efficiently. There's an immediate measurable effect on DPC latency, too (15-25 microseconds). No sourcery, no foo: just the math. And no rip-off pricing: including postage, it costs around £50 to have a board treated.

I'm also careful not to claim that cryo'd digital components (or, your favourite, CAT7) individually 'sound' significantly different. But they straightforwardly improve the local processing environment - and when you do enough of that, it does. Obviously, you can compensate for some of this stuff downstream - many ways to skin a cat, etc - but as an engineering ethos, it's much more satisfying to deal with the problem at source. As I've said.
 
item said:
We cryo PC components for exactly the same reason overclockers cryo their PC components: after cryo, chipsets run demonstrably cooler and more efficiently. There's an immediate measurable effect on DPC latency, too (15-25 microseconds). No sourcery, no foo: just the math. And no rip-off pricing: including postage, it costs around £50 to have a board treated.

I'm also careful not to claim that cryo'd digital components (or, your favourite, CAT7) individually 'sound' significantly different. But they straightforwardly improve the local processing environment - and when you do enough of that, it does. Obviously, you can compensate for some of this stuff downstream - many ways to skin a cat, etc - but as an engineering ethos, it's much more satisfying to deal with the problem at source. As I've said.
Click to expand...

You don’t need to cryo treat components to stream FLAC files. The fact that you might improve PC performance doesn’t somehow make the SQ better.

You just end up with redundant bandwidth.
 
item said:
We cryo PC components for exactly the same reason overclockers cryo their PC components: after cryo, chipsets run demonstrably cooler and more efficiently. There's an immediate measurable effect on DPC latency, too (15-25 microseconds).
Click to expand...

So what?

I'm also careful not to claim that cryo'd digital components (or, your favourite, CAT7) individually 'sound' significantly different. But they straightforwardly improve the local processing environment - and when you do enough of that, it does [sound different].
Click to expand...

Self-contradiction in two consecutive sentences. You should pad your posts out a bit so that people don't notice.
 
item said:
I'm also careful not to claim that cryo'd digital components individually 'sound' significantly different. But they straightforwardly improve the local processing environment - and when you do enough of that, it does [sound different].
Click to expand...

Emboldened italics added for the hard of thinking.

I'm always nice to potential customers, but Richard isn't a potential customer! Beside, I know he can take it – we crossed swords (actually, fought on the same side) in a different struggle where practical sense was being impugned by forces of darkness.

Not with respect to $300 SATA cables, but with these transport issues in general, time is on this side of the argument: I can wait. I've had - and seen - so much theoretical skepticism vanish in the face of experience, that I'm sure avole, sonddek, et al will one day audition a power supply, or USB cable, or some such 'arrant nonsensical upstream foo sorcery' that will change their world. It's, literally, a question of time.
 
No-one in their right mind would audition a power supply or USB cable. It isn't a question of time, it is a question of science, and unfortunately you have little or no understanding of that.

Crygenically treating Cat 7 cables - better off cryogenically treating yourself, item :) !
 
Please - just read or respond to what I've actually said: I've never recommended cryo-treating CAT7. But now you mention it . . .

We've done the science-bashing to death, haven't we? From this side of the fence, nothing looks less scientific than a refusal to conform theory to practice, experiment, question, make or learn.

The way things are going, it's only a question of time before some kind of penny-dropping digital audio moment will happen in your life - unless you lose interest in the hobby and stop listening to new things. You can't fight the future!

On the other hand, maybe the future may bring a new breed of super-immune DACs that level differences between transports. In which case, that tiny part of the market will fold down into a purely aeshetically-driven interface contest and dealers will carry on as they are now: selling five DACs for every one transport. Plus ça change as the Latiners used to say.
 
"Plus ça change as the Latiners used to say"

Love it. I'm pooped. Item wins I reckon.
 
No, that's what he and his ilk want. That, and the disingenuous who believe his drivel and buy his products. After all, you can try them at home...
 
avole said:
No, that's what he and his ilk want. That, and the disingenuous who believe his drivel and buy his products. After all, you can try them at home...
Click to expand...

Why would you propose that people who buy or research digital transports are insincere and hypocritical?

I understand you would like to brand them stupid or gullible or ignorant - even 'not ingenious' - but disingenuous? Really?
 
If you fit BNC sockets and appropriate 75 Ohm cable then you will beat any RCA solution regardless of price. A £100+ digital cable? You could pay for someone to fit BNCs for that, easily reversible if you want to sell. Short cables are also bad for coax SPDIF due to signal reflections, so double pain with a Gucci sub-2m cable!

Due to real flaws with the interface (impedance mismatches and clock signal issues) digital cables make a difference, but cost isn't the issue in determining quality here.
 
I'm not sure the SATA interface likes BNC: even if you could wedge one into the socket, the impedance is too low! But sure, BNC > RCA anytime, and smart > expensive.
 
item said:
I'm not sure the SATA interface likes BNC: even if you could wedge one into the socket, the impedance is too low! But sure, BNC > RCA anytime, and smart > expensive.[/;)QUOTE]

Fair point ha ha... guess I got thrown by the 'digital interconnect' part. As for SATA that is just a bonkers proposition. What next, cryoed 'audiophile' processors?
Click to expand...
 
Yomanze said:
Fair point ha ha... guess I got thrown by the 'digital interconnect' part. As for SATA that is just a bonkers proposition. What next, cryoed 'audiophile' processors?
Click to expand...

I know - we picked up that habit from the hardcore video overclockers in the gaming crowd. Bad bunch out there at the edge of the envelope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top