Jump to content
IGNORED

USB audio cracked... finally!


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I demand it with my money. It's in everyone's financial interest to do the same. If you want to believe the marketing hype it's your prerogative,  but don't be surprised if you are paying for some oil from a certain slithering reptile.

 

 

Except that rarely happens. "Snake oil" or fraud is so incredibly rare, that it essentially doesn't happen. And of course, what you call "marketing hype" gets proven or disproven all the time by either an enhanced listening experience or not. The goal isn't some kind of objective effectiveness,  like does that car actually go 0 to 60 in 40 seconds, but does this item help MY WHOLE SYSTEM make the instruments on Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" seem more realistic and powerful? It's easy to take an individual out of context.

 

There's no way that an USB cable change is ever going to affect a Sony boombox (whose plastic speakers separate), in the same way that a LAMM/Avalon/Meitner will. (Those are extreme examples, - but an illustration of what is, and what isn't in context).

Many of these products also offer a money back guarantee, - something that you never get with Gucci purse or a Ferrari

Link to comment
5 hours ago, mansr said:

Advertising comes in many guises, including this post of yours.

It is a gross mis-representation to call SuperDad's post advertizing. I call BS on that. Essentially you are saying that because Superdad responded to a post with the moniker "SuperDad" that that is an advertisement; and therefore ridiculous.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, barrows said:

I think the above remark represents a "slippery slope" so to speak.  The idea that, "... it doesn't matter" is not actually true in my mind, as here is the problem with this approach:  If one is trying to build a system that is true to the music (recording), then that system should be as neutral (in tonality terms) and as resolving (in terms of musical details and without any artifacts) as possible.  If components are being developed to "shape" sound we are away from being true to the recording, we are actually building a system which leans towards making all recordings sound a certain way.

 

I agree, but I state that ultimately it doesn't matter because you personally are defining the sound you want.  For you, which is the same as me, I want a pure unaltered reproduction of the performance.  I've selected all my equipment that way.  I've had extensive discussions with people when going through a several month speaker auditioning, traveling to different states.  It still comes down to personal preference.  Some like a smoother relaxed sound and some like a clear defined sound.  Arguments are that clear and defined can be clinical and smooth and soft can be muddy but that's the parallel.

 

I also state after it doesn't matter a caveat, and that's if you're being misled that it's engineered to reduce noise when it is in fact only shaping it.  We can listen and hear for ourselves but there are a lot of things we hear that could sound pleasing but we only later learn it's because the sound was manipulated to remove a certain frequency that is known to produce a harshness, like in the upper ranges.  If that was being done and part of the recording was being filtered in order to produce a more pleasing sound then I have a serious problem with the design because that's not what I want.

 

 

14 minutes ago, barrows said:

The problem becomes more apparent when mixing and matching components:  the audiophile ends up in an endless balancing act, mixing "warm/soft" interconnects with cold/hard amplification, and on...  this results in problems every time a new component is brought into the system for evaluation, as the component in question may be neutral and resolving and "perfect" in every way, but in the flawed (shaped) system, this component may seem to not be so perfect...

While we hear much discussion about "musical" systems, and often how systems can be made "musical" by actually softening the sound (SET amplification, etc), in my experience, the very best and most musical systems which I have heard are the ones with the ultimate resolution and the least artifacts, and are not "softened" or "smoothed" to make them more musical.  Ultimately, the system with the most resolution, and the least artifacts, sounds the best, as it relaxes the demands made on the ear brain system and allows for deeper listening (connection with the music).

 

In regards to LUSH, my question would be: is LUSH accurate, and as such is it increasing resolution and reducing artifacts, such that the listener hears more music and makes a greater connection, or, is it reducing resolution in some sense, performing a "cover up" of musical artifacts?

 

I agree 100%.  Someone else posted that they hear a smearing in the upper frequencies.  Is this because of an extended presence of mid and bass, or because the upper range is being manipulated allowing us to hear the lower frequencies better?

 

I've gone through a similar exercise with speaker cables and get similar results.  You may be familiar with the Western Electric cables that are tin coated copper.  There's a big buzz about these in the analog world.  They provide a smoother, fuller more relaxed sound.  Maybe the tin slows down the signal to the speakers as it's less conductive than copper and silver.  I also have pure silver cables (at least 99.9%) and these sound clearer, cleaner and more dimensional.  Less relaxed and smooth.  There's a contrast between the two and it's similar to the Lush and the USPCB.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

It is a gross mis-representation to call SuperDad's post advertizing. I call BS on that. Essentially you are saying that because Superdad responded to a post with the moniker "SuperDad" that that is an advertisement; and therefore ridiculous.

 

It may not be paid advertising but it falls into my definition of marketing because Alex is communicating to his market (us) the message that his products are so good that he doesn't need to buy ads.

 

 

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

I do hear a bit of smearing in the upper frequencies with the Lush relative to the USPCB - and that's partly what detracts from timing precision.

 

I don't hear any obvious 'smearing' in either of my systems when using XXHighEnd's 'Arc Prediction' filter, which has zero pre- or post-ringing. In both cases, I use a Lush to feed a Phasure NOS1 G3, itself a very detailed DAC. But the Lush certainly sounds 'lusher' than the Clarixa (which I'm guessing sounds pretty close to the USPCB).

 

Which one should you go for? Not sure, but it's a pretty good problem to have ;)

 

Mani.

Main: SOtM sMS-200 -> Okto dac8PRO -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horns + 2x Rotel RB-1590 amps -> 4 subs

Home Office: SOtM sMS-200 -> MOTU UltraLite-mk5 -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Impulse H2 speakers

Vinyl: Technics SP10 / London (Decca) Reference -> Trafomatic Luna -> RME ADI-2 Pro

Link to comment
1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

It may not be paid advertising but it falls into my definition of marketing because Alex is communicating to his market (us) the message that his products are so good that he doesn't need to buy ads.

 

 

What product did he mention? Did he mention uptone audio at all? So, - in other words, - Alex shouldn't be allowed to post here at all? Because someone might possibly click on his moniker and find out that he is a manufacturer? Otherwise, how would anyone know? I am willing to bet that at least someone read Alex's post without knowing that he's a manufacturer. With respect, - that is a stretch that I find silly.

Of course, this is Chris' site, with his rules, and he finds manufacturer participation of value. Whether you or i agree is just something that we'll have to live with. And finally, (silly also to continue with this), I would hazard that there are more than 50 manufacturers who post all over these forums.... Like us, - they're all audio enthusiasts who are really into good sound, and enhancing the listening experience. (READ: NOT INTO MAKING MONEY IN THE MARKETPLACE).

For if they were, - they'd be in another field entirely......

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, manisandher said:

I don't hear any obvious 'smearing' in either of my systems when using XXHighEnd's 'Arc Prediction' filter, which has zero pre- or post-ringing.

 

Good to know.  Thanks!!

Digital:  Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256

Link to comment
23 hours ago, austinpop said:

Ask once - "Show me the data! Prove it!" - then you have a valid point of view. Ask it hundreds of times, over and over, then you are trolling, plain and simple. It's the repetition, the endless refrain, the attacks on unsuspecting end users, that makes you a troll.

 

We have an infestation of trolls on CA. I ask people of good will to exercise restraint, and stop feeding these trolls. Starve them, and they will go away.

 

One nice thing about this thread is that it has become a prime troll destination. That makes it easy to add them to your ignored user list with just a few mouse clicks. The "Ignore User" feature on CA is working great! Please use it liberally. Or conservatively! 9_9

Yes. Me too, Absolutely love the ignore user feature. No burn in needed, one click and peace is restored without any debate or discussion. Bye bye, Love it. ?

Topaz 2.5Kva Isolation Transformer > EtherRegen switch powered by Paul Hynes SR4 LPS >MacBook Pro 2013 > EC Designs PowerDac SX > TNT UBYTE-2 Speaker cables > Omega Super Alnico Monitors > 2x Rel T Zero Subwoofers. 

Link to comment
23 hours ago, austinpop said:

Ask once - "Show me the data! Prove it!" - then you have a valid point of view. Ask it hundreds of times, over and over, then you are trolling, plain and simple. It's the repetition, the endless refrain, the attacks on unsuspecting end users, that makes you a troll.

 

We have an infestation of trolls on CA. I ask people of good will to exercise restraint, and stop feeding these trolls. Starve them, and they will go away.

 

One nice thing about this thread is that it has become a prime troll destination. That makes it easy to add them to your ignored user list with just a few mouse clicks. The "Ignore User" feature on CA is working great! Please use it liberally. Or conservatively! 9_9

 

Or some people just like to argue their point incessantly because they believe they're right.  I see that more often than obvious trolls.

Link to comment

Albrecht, maybe you want to keep arguing the subjective vs. objective point in every thread, but I've personally had enough. Since you quoted this part of my post, you must have read it. Perhaps it didn't register, so I'll repeat it:

 

Quote

You have the right to discuss your subjective impressions. I have the right to ask for objective data and measurements. We can both do this without constantly trying to defend our positions.

 

 

56 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

And you certainly should understand that NONE of these products were designed for any kind of what-you-call objective measured performance. I would hope that no manufacturer would give a flying "F" about how it "measures" by itself, out of the context of other components that it's interacting with. Good performance on the test bench,  out of context, is not what ANY of these products were designed for. What they were designed for was to enhance the listening experience. If you're not interested in enhancing the listening experience, - go buy a pickup truck.

All of these manufacturers make SUBJECTIVE build decisions that are designed for a SUBJECTIVE experience. It often so happens that  a $.33 capacitor has a variance of 30% as opposed to a Dueland, (for example) that has a variance of 5%.

Of course, you can make assumptions all day long, - and certainly "better" parts don't always end up being applied to contribute to the overall sound... But could be one element of how the design and final outcome are all about improving the experience.

 

 

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, tapatrick said:

Yes. Me too, Absolutely love the ignore user feature. No burn in needed, one click and peace is restored without any debate or discussion. Bye bye, Love it. ?

Thanks for mentioning this amazingly, gratifyingly useful feature of which I have herefore not used to my advantage. ;)

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Dishonest advertising distorts the free market. I have no problem with honest advertising, which may "improve" the free market.

 

I generally agree but it is fairly complicated...

 

read The Hidden Persuaders, Vance Packard

Link to comment
4 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Marketing is simply communicating with your market. It can be done in a number of ways including paid advertising or by simply posting messages here that raise your credibility with your target market. 

 

The fact that you didn't pick on the subtle message that Alex was conveying doesn't mean it wasn't marketing.

 

Whether he realized it or not, Alex was using Cialdini's principle of Social Proof in his message. I suggest that you, or anyone else interested in the subject, read Cialdini's book, Influence.

 

Chris requires manufacturers to identify themselves like Alex is doing in his signature. He also allows them to engage in other forms of marketing such as buying banner ads and sponsoring forums. The fact that many (like Alex) pay him for these additional marketing opportunities indicates that their participation here is not always just because they are fellow audiophiles.

Hi,

I equate marketing with selling. I think that we may disagree on how we define marketing. I am not interested in the principle of Social Proof. I can say that though that once we start attaching different meanings to the same words, we run the risk of communication breakdown. No way that you are going to convince me that merely posting on a subject means that Alex is selling a particular product.

Finally, - and this is something that I forgot to mention, - isn't there a rule that prevents from manufacturers/designers from selling outside a designated area? In the area designed for such, they can, - outside that area, - they are just another enthusiast.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, barrows said:

On the listening side, I am wondering what people are thinking: is the LUSH actually performing better than other cables, that is producing all the musical details while eliminating some kind of artifacts (distortions), OR is the LUSH producing a euphonic kind of sound by somewhat softening the focus, perhaps softening the edges and softening the artifacts/distortions at the same time?

 

No to the latter. All genuinely effective products, and methods for optimising systems are doing nothing more than removing or attenuating the audible artifacts introduced by the playback chain - "fabulous sound!!" is because the recording itself is "fabulous!", in its content - not because that which has been introduced to improve the reproduction machinery is somehow "super special".

 

Having played with this for years, and coming at it from numerous angles, the conclusion has been overwhelmingly emphatic - sound recordings are truly amazing historical captures of musical happenings, and are capable of almost infinite potential for "sounding good!". An inconvenient truth, :P, for many will be that if one puts on a recording, and it sounds like shit ... well, the painful answer is that the particular rig  is shit ... B|

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

Hi,

I equate marketing with selling. I think that we may disagree on how we define marketing. I am not interested in the principle of Social Proof. I can say that though that once we start attaching different meanings to the same words, we run the risk of communication breakdown. No way that you are going to convince me that merely posting on a subject means that Alex is selling a particular product.

Finally, - and this is something that I forgot to mention, - isn't there a rule that prevents from manufacturers/designers from selling outside a designated area? In the area designed for such, they can, - outside that area, - they are just another enthusiast.

 

Within the field of business, sales and marketing are related but separate fields and are typically performed by different people within a corporation.

 

I would consider what Alex was doing marketing (communicating with his market) but not really sales as he was making no overt attempt to sell his product.

 

I used the term "Social Proof" in the way that marketers understand it and the way Cialdini uses it in his book, Influence.

 

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Within the field of business, sales and marketing are related but separate fields and are typically performed by different people within a corporation.

 

I would consider what Alex was doing marketing (communicating with his market) but not really sales as he was making no overt attempt to sell his product.

 

I used the term "Social Proof" in the way that marketers understand it and the way Cialdini uses it in his book, Influence.

 

Thanks for your explanation. I understand better what you mean here.

Link to comment

Alex, glad you brought the conversation back to LUSH.  I may post some listening observations soon, as I have close to week of play on the cable now and it is time for a bit of A/B comparisons, but unlike many here, I am not so sure about this cable with my system...

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...