Jump to content

astromo

  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Or, you could try CRAAP settings. Admittedly for a different platform but the principles could translate across: http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/01/measurements-raspberry-pi-3-as-usb.html?m=1 Archimago "swears by them".
  2. Could you please show how to use a separate PSU to feed DigiOne? I have a LT 1083, and also a 7V Rcore at hand but just don't know what to remove and where to solder on DigiOne. If the manufacturer is not recommending modification of their equipment, by default I'd expect that you'll be on your own and I wouldn't expect them to be overly forthcoming with suggestions. My reasoning is that there's bound to be at least one unreasonable person out there who complains bitterly when an unsanctioned modification goes awry but if some sort of guide (even a very rough one) is provided by the manufacturer, then they've opened themselves up to potential liability claims. The safest thing for Allo is to stick to their line of, "modifications are not recommended and if you do, the warranty is void". Looks like you don't really need to mess with the PSU (as long as the details below were achieved with the Allo standard power supply, or similar) according to this: https://allo.com/sparky/digione.html Apart from certain Dutch reviewers making subjective claims regarding the use of an LPSU, have you got an objective basis to give yourself cause to use an LPSU? Or is it just a case of belt, braces and a piece of string for a waist band?
  3. "Beep, beep, beep ..." - don't you love the sound of a reverse beeper?
  4. I really enjoyed reading about the "Daubert Standard". I'm not from the U.S., so it was news to me. Reads like very good legal sense. Keep nailing the point of "deblurring" and the lack of scientific evidence to demonstrate that MQA is doing anything of value. It's always been a key issue for me.
  5. There's been limited coverage here: https://www.1843magazine.com/technology/feel-the-noise by one of their journos.
  6. There's been limited coverage here: https://www.1843magazine.com/technology/feel-the-noise by one of their journos.
  7. Thanks for that link. I've always wondered why the Economist didn't run bylines. Now I know and the rationale and the approach has its place.
  8. Thanks for shedding light on the back story. I raised the Moran and Meyer work a few posts back to contrast with the lack of transparency and empirical validation being offered by the proponents of MQA. It was pointed out that the M&M work was flawed. I don't see that as a problem. For me, that's still a positive. They published their method, theories and results and in time it was critiqued. To their credit, M&M appear to have acknowledged their shortcomings. Other researchers have gained benefit from those mistakes and it has added to the body of knowledge. That's good science. I still consider that there is a stark contrast between good scientific method and the blurred assertions put forward to support the case for MQA. It's very disappointing that Archimago's identity has been used to detract from the effort he has made. The listening test that he's pulled together deserves due credit, as does the technical analysis. It wipes the floor with the alternate empirical work put forward by the MQA proponents, which, from what I've seen, is meagre at best. I look forward to a robust, evidence based refutation of Archimago's essay. If the previous comments in the negative are any guide, I'll be waiting a good while before I see much of value in that regard. We'll see.
  9. Thanks for pointing this out. Looks like I've got some reading to do. From a quick squiz, this fella Josh Reiss has done a comprehensive piece of work. It provides an example for those pushing MQA to think about.
  10. @Archimago thank you for the "cut through". You saved me the effort of pointing out the flaws that I could spot in the HB presentation. Leaves me at this point with the thought of "bring on the McGill Uni study". If the analytical work by Meyer and Moran are any guide: Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback we'll see confirmation of the ABX work you've reported on in your blog. Interestingly, the Meyer Moran paper points to this commentary from another AES Journal Paper as part of the motivation for their study, dating back over ten years now: The similarity of language used to describe MQA by it's co-inventor with the description above is no coincidence (but it's certainly amusing to reflect upon). I've not fully read the paper that the above quote is extracted from yet but a quick skim made me notice this comment: From my own technical background, I know that modelling can only take you so far (George Box's advice is often quoted, "all models are wrong, some are useful" or something along those lines). Without empirical testing and validation, theory and models can quickly lead you down the garden path to leave you dancing around the magic mushrooms with the pixies and the fairies. To take Box's point, if you don't test your models empirically, it's not possible to understand the strengths and weaknesses and ultimately their reliability. If MQA had been subjected to the rigour that Moran and Meyer applied (here's the testing detail from their paper that the abstract above alludes to): We would already have an answer that would put all this angst and debate from the last couple of years beyond doubt to even the greatest proponents of the format. Thanks again for your efforts.
  11. A great read and a worthwhile addition to the knowledge base to inform the consumer and those who enjoy music. Congratulations to @Archimago for all the hard work to draft the opening essay and to @The Computer Audiophile for engaging with the subject matter. I thought it useful for my own interest to reflect back on Chris' initial listening impressions and views of MQA (with underlining by me for emphasis): My First 24 Hours With MQA That final line was telling. Prophecy or an possibly an underlying expectation that trouble would be unavoidable? As with @Archimago I'm very interested to read the findings of the McGill University work. I'd also be interested to understand the source of their research funding, so hopefully that is made clear at the time of publication. Thanks for your effort and keep it going. There are many who appreciate the input from people who have access to the resources and technical capability that are simply beyond the average Joe.
  12. There's an argument for working the way they do when it comes to firmware upgrades. If the upgrade borks, then they're in the best position to sort out a recovery. If a user bricks their Yggdrasil, then you'd see a thunderous uproar that even Thor would turn his head for. I'm speculating on this but Schiit may also have a proprietary protocol or some form of security invoked to prevent users up to mischief, hacking in and attempting to reverse engineer their IP. So a return to base policy is understandable from a number of view points.
  13. I'd agree entirely. The OEM Sovteks that came with mine can be heard to crackle and pop - they sure didn't do much for my face's smile muscles. They've been retired in favour of current generation TungSols, as a low cost starting point. Over time, I'll consider NOS options. I can understand why Chris kept the tubes stock. It's another area where you'll get widely varying opinion, rock and a hard place stuff.
  14. I've done a search for remote+access+CAPS over at Interact and I'm not getting a hit. I'd suggest that you check there because you'll probably get a good hit rate. I've set up a link on your behalf (on the Windows board): J River Remote Access Issues on New CAPS Server Hopefully that helps. All the best. Hope you get sorted soon.
  15. astromo

    HDPlex

    Bill, my case is an older generation unit. Plus, I haven't got an equipment rack (which I'm sorting out), so the heat from my amp is rising into the H3.SODD. On the former point, Larry is good with his R&D - refer here: HDPLEX H5.S Fanless HTPC Chassis where he's now leaving the heat pipe grooves on the case un-coated to improve heat transfer. Look through the forum and you'll find posts like this: Temp stress test that give you feedback from user performance tests. Using a H5.S build with a i3-3220T CPU the particular user observed a 41°C temperature rise above ambient from a 15hour prime95 stress test. Most routine use of an HTPC / media server won't see this kind of stress, so there are some benchmarks for you. I'm thinking I'll max out the heat transfer performance of my case with some grit paper and a bit of manual labour.
×
×
  • Create New...