Hi-Tech is Making Hi-Fi Very Affordable

[tromprof]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00YTA78FW?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_1&smid=A1J7WSBJHTGUFA

$48.75 Prime at Amazon. I may try one, I am not shy about sending things back. Sounds a bit (pun intended)BS  to me as well.

[Mallette]

Clearer and more compelling sound, music, dialog. A better experience."

 

No such thing as "clearer."  It's either clear or it is not.  And Bach can't be made "more compelling" than he is.  Usage in these blurbs is truly disgusting.  They can either state precisely and scientifically what is going to happen or baffle us with bullshit.

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00YTA78FW?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_1&smid=A1J7WSBJHTGUFA

$48.75 Prime at Amazon. I may try one, I am not shy about sending things back. Sounds a bit (pun intended)BS to me as well.

Cool. I'd live to hear about a first hand account.

Cleaning up USB doesn't really make sense. It's an error proofed protocol by design. Otherwise you could not connect disc drives to it! So regardless of noise, the correct digital bits get passed. The DAC always provides the signal clocking, and is the Master, so all that talk sounds crazy to me.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-cable-myth-11711/

That's a good explanation of why cleanup is not needed à with usb DAC. It discussed cable (ironically also from audioquest) but the same idea applies. There is no lost data. No need to clean up USB.

AQ is simply selling insecurity.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Chris A]

Could be just power conditioning to the outboard device (a USB DAC) or perhaps something with ground isolation.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Chris A

[LarryC]

From the audioquest site: Clearer and more compelling sound, music, dialog. A better experience."   I'm calling BS on this. Total floobydust. 

Don't confuse inevitable marketing argot with actual meaning and results.  Remember, these are components for computer sound on quality computer speakers like ProMedia 2.1's, not multi-kilobuck racks of wonderful components.  At least that's what I was thinking of.  The Dragonfly was a very strong success, and has been extremely good on my MacBook and Dell computers.  So, I was basing my positive reaction in part on the Rankin-Silberman team at AQ.  Also, the prominent feature articles in both TAS and Stereophile reflect an above-average positive reaction to these components.  So, I think I foresee the same positive acceptability for the Jitterbug as for the Dragonfly.  Parallel tracks, maybe.

 

No such thing as "clearer."  It's either clear or it is not.  And Bach can't be made "more compelling" than he is. 

well, Dave, I dunno ... A lot of our hi-fi listening and forum postings are based a different view about those things. 

[Jim Naseum]

The Dragonfly was a very strong success,

 

It's a real product with measurable function - a USB DAC. No trouble there. 

 

Also, the prominent feature articles in both TAS and Stereophile reflect an above-average positive reaction to these components.

 

Sure, could be. But Stereophile has a lab guy named Atkinson that ought to test it and publish results. Right? 

 

When billions of bits of data can cross a basis isochronous USB link with ZERO errors into the DAC (my previous link), I have serious doubts what can be improved over perfect? And, I am very skeptical that the vendor has ZERO specifications. Engineers don't skip that, do they?

 

Thanks for bringing it up though. It's interesting to me. 

[muel]

Some of the flowery language can be irritating in reviews but that doesn't make it ALL BS.  It also gets old listening to people call BS on things they have never tried.  It's strong language when the truth might be closer to something like, "I find the benefits of this product to be suspect because I do not understand how it can work and/or it does not fit into my world view."   I do recognize that people can experience things in the way that they want to be true... good, bad, or somewhere in between.  

 

Also, digital is not just about getting 0's and 1's moved.  It also requires accurate delivery over time and with the least affect possible to the signal.  You are listening to the results of a electrical signal for most of the path.  

 

I was very pleasantly surprised by the USB REGEN... so much so that I bought a second one for another system.  Where I noticed the most improvement was a clarity of voices... more life like... a slight breath taken by the singer between notes that was more noticeable than before.    Yes, it was more clear.  I don't know how to respond to the premise that there are no gradations of clarity possible in audio.  

 

Am I just attempting to justify my purchase?  Hardly... I've blown a lot more bucks for a lot worse results.  So, take it as you like.  

 

http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/bugs-uptones-and-regens/

 

The engineer's comments

http://uptoneaudio.com/pages/j-swenson-tech-corner

[Jim Naseum]

Good comment. My BS call is based on strictly on my standard of rationality. It wasn't meant to discourage anyone from buying it. Forums are for opinions, right? My opinion is that when engineers can't provide a single spec or single explanation of how a thing works, they are most likely blowing smoke. I'm skeptical, OK?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

It also gets old listening to people call BS on things they have never tried. It's strong language when the truth might be closer to something like, "I find the benefits of this product to be suspect because I do not understand how it can work and/or it does not fit into my world view."

I think it gets really old when people insist on lecturing others for their opinion. Why didn't you just talk about your enthusiasm for it? Why did you feel the need to lecture me about calling BS?

I never feel compelled to try every dumb idea presented. No, I didn't need to try speaker wire trestles before deciding it was BS. This movement to give every stupid idea equal time and consideration is dumbing down the world. The earth is not flat. The earth is not 5000 years old. And there is no magic involved in processing digital audio signals. AQ is asking customers to believe in magic. I call BS on such nonsense, and I believe I'm entitled to my opinion even if you don't agree with it, right?

If you believe in trying out all ideas before making a judgment I sure won't criticize your decision to do so.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Chris A]

Not that it really matters to me (it really doesn't) but in this particular case, there are at least three main reasons why I can see why the company is not explaining what their device is actually doing and how well it is doing it:

 

1. They don't want competitors for this product and by not describing what they are doing and not filing a patent application for the device, they believe that they are partially "protecting" their IP (actually...not really...since anyone can buy one and test it/tear it apart for very little money).

 

2. (...and the main reason why I believe they are being evasive) They don't want to call too much attention to a basic issue with USBs for continuous data streaming applications up to 192 kHz while powering the connected device.  Focusing a light on that issue could blow them out of the water on their main product - their USB DACs, if people realize what is happening and decide to abandon and choose other DAC solutions.

 

3. They didn't want to accept returns for a bunch of USB DACs that lacked sufficient power conditioning capabilities for smooth operation under all operating conditions, so they "feature" this new product as an in-line enhancement, but the device really is directed at some class of users who are experiencing USB noise issues--that the company now acknowledges exists for some USB-computer configurations.  For most users that are very unsophisticated in terms of being able to test their DACs under operation and that don't want to believe that there are issues, the company doesn't have to admit that there are operational issues using their USB DACs (as Larry mentioned above).

 

I do feel that this sort of marketing strategy really doesn't appeal--sort of like how entrepreneurs typically hype their products to cover their tracks without telling you--as in truth in advertising--what the product is actually doing, how well it is doing it, and why it is needed at all.   They instead rely on keeping their customers in the dark and on the placebo effect to sell their wares to a wider audience.  And at $49, who is going to call them on this strategy, right?  (Well...they've lost at least one potential customer...)

 

Chris

[Mallette]

From the audioquest site: Clearer and more compelling sound, music, dialog. A better experience."

 

Yep.  I am sure it's "Like lifting a veil." 

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

Here's how baloney pollutes the market. This was found in an article about the Jitterbug:

'"On this very matter Paul McGowan of PS Audio says this:

”So noise on the AC line equaled brightness in the music. We realized music’s tonal balance was not changed, the added glare came from power line noise and increased harmonics riding on the sound, creating an edge to it.”

Let's think about what he said. He found noise on an AC line -- OK, nothing new there, AC line are noisy-- but the with no connection of any kind he declared that it created glare of increased harmonics blah blah blah. Note that he presents no numbers or what measurement revealed these harmonics. It's pure posturing.

Look at the spec for a DAC. See the THD + Noise figure? It is like -109dB! It means that after converting the digital to analog the amount of distortion and noise is 0.0004%! For reference many favored tube amps produce about 2000X as much THD!

Where exactly is all this noise??? I see lots of talk about noise and zero proof that it exists. Mc Gowns is no fool. If there was noise coming out of DACs, he'd measure it and show us. Any 1 st year engineer can do the test ( http://www.ti.com/general/docs/lit/getliterature.tsp?literatureNumber=sbaa055&fileType=pdf ). What they are doing is just waving a voodoo doll at the consumer. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

First they tell us how great their DACs are, then in the next breath tell us they are littered with some unmeasurable noise!

Pure hokum.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited September 23, 2015 by jo56steph74

[Jim Naseum]

A good example of total BS spread through audiophile resources. In this case, Head Hi Fi reviewer. Speaking about the Jitterbug:

"Degradation of a signal due to a lower quality cable will cause skew in the analog square edges of “digital” pulse (1s are just analog square pulses when you look on the scope) which results in a timing inaccuracy that will cause jitter and packet errors."

Absolute hog wash. A grade school kid could look up USB SIGNAL on Google, and see that the man is speaking pure jiberish. There are no square edges, and 1s and 0s are represented by NRZI coding, NOT individual square wave as the reviewer is imagining.

Wiki:USB data is transmitted by toggling the data lines between the J state and the opposite K state. USB encodes data using the NRZI line coding; a 0 bit is transmitted by toggling the data lines from J to K or vice versa, while a 1 bit is transmitted by leaving the data lines as-is. To ensure a minimum density of signal transitions remains in the bitstream, USB uses bit stuffing; an extra 0 bit is inserted into the data stream after any appearance of six consecutive 1 bits. Seven consecutive received 1 bits is always an error. USB 3.0 has introduced additional data transmission encodings.

A USB packet begins with an 8-bit synchronization sequence '00000001'. That is, after the initial idle state J, the data lines toggle KJKJKJKK. The final 1 bit (repeated K state) marks the end of the sync pattern and the beginning of the USB frame. For high bandwidth USB, the packet begins with a 32-bit synchronization sequence.

A USB packet's end, called EOP (end-of-packet), is indicated by the transmitter driving 2 bit times of SE0 (D+ and D− both below max) and 1 bit time of J state. After this, the transmitter ceases to drive the D+/D− lines and the aforementioned pull up resistors hold it in the J (idle) state. Sometimes skew due to hubs can add as much as one bit time before the SE0 of the end of packet. This extra bit can also result in a "bit stuff violation" if the six bits before it in the CRC are '1's. This bit should be ignored by receiver."

Then, each packet undergoes a CRC error correction routine. Noise plays no role. The squareness of the edges is of no importance. The guy simply has no clue what USB is. For anyone who would like to understand it, just read the wiki :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB

Noise does not cause errors!!!! Total BS! A USB port can transfer thousands of songs without a single bit error. All this paranoia about noise causing errors or sonic effects is nonsense.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Here's another illogical premise: bit errors always cause bad sound! Really? Why can't bit errors cause improved sound? After all, can't à 1 be flipped to a zero just as often as a zero flipped to a 1? If signal strength (loudness) at any given microsecond can be increased, or decreased with equal probability, how can the error always be perceived as sonically bad? Can't an error cause more bass punch as equally often as less? Lol!

Audiophiles are trying desperately to hang on to the analog world of metaphors in a digital world. The guy at Head Hi Fi was clearly applying an analog metaphor about soft square wave to a digital coding world filled with exotic error correcting schemes. He imagine the effect of rounding a square wave is the same on a USB signal as it would be on an analog signal. He had not taken even an hour to educate himself on digital processing, but he's a "reviewer" on digital products?

People just haven't grasped the profound, fundamental change that digital represents in audio. No, I'm not saying digital I'd perfect. But the kind of errors and problems in digital are not the demons that plagued analog.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Grizzog]

Class D Amps are enjoying the same benefits of silicon scale as DACs. There are only a couple chip sets that make up the bulk of the class D designs. Since there is no heavy iron in the design the cost is dropping with the silicon. There are some sonic personality differences between D amps, but the essential specs are all the same for obvious reasons. This is a major boon for anyone just getting into HiFi, like students.

The beginning system of today is way, WAY better than the beginning system of 1975. Today's entry system is probably better than a high end system of 1975 (aside from sheer loudness). But in terms of distortion, noise, clarity and detail, today's low cost systems are miles ahead of 1975. And they use a fraction of the energy! And they are more reliable. And they take up lead space. Quite an evolution.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

I don't think I'd go as far to say systems today are better than 1975, especially entry systems of today. Plenty of examples of great vintage systems. As far as distortion, some of today's gear has massive amounts - speakers especially. Amplifiers seem to be getting better, but some of the entry items are rated at 10-20% THD. DACs I think are getting better and better - I agree there's no too much reason to spend thousands when you see what a few hundred can get you with these.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Compared to an LP system of 1975, distortion and noise in the signal are down by at least 100X in a 2015 digital system. That's got to be good. As for speakers, modern ones are cheaper and better. You know, the vaunted Dynaco A-25 had nothing but a single cap on the tweeter as a crossover. Today, a far less expensive speaker (in 1975 dollars) has a 6-element crossover, and wave guides, and a better enclosure. You get more technology per dollar (on average) on speakers than you got in 1975. The drivers are better, the crossovers are better and the cabinets are better. And all of that is cheaper. This really IS the Golden Age of audio.  

[Mallette]

At least to my ears, that A25 still sounds better than most.  My Frazier Super Monte Carlos never fail to amaze people and are from the same period.

 

Dave

[Chris A]

Compared to an LP system of 1975, distortion and noise in the signal are down by at least 100X in a 2015 digital system. That's got to be good...

 

As for speakers, modern ones are cheaper and better. You know, the vaunted Dynaco A-25 had nothing but a single cap on the tweeter as a crossover. Today, a far less expensive speaker (in 1975 dollars) has a 6-element crossover, and wave guides, and a better enclosure...

 

You get more technology per dollar (on average) on speakers than you got in 1975. The drivers are better, the crossovers are better and the cabinets are better. And all of that is cheaper. This really IS the Golden Age of audio.  

 

One of the reasons why I posted in this thread is that the OP is basically correct and uncomfortably close to a truth--in that a lot of dyed-in-the-wool audiophiles from the 50s-80s really wish that it weren't true.  Joe perhaps overstates a bit--and so do others on the opposite side of the coin here in terms of differences in listening quality vs. dollars spent.  Digital hasn't got anywhere near the type of costs associated with the hardware that analog did in its heyday, to produce comparable results.

 

Joe is right about the current state of digital over analog (the hardware - not the products pushed out by Big Music companies) - I find a lot more is right in today's world once you subtract the issues associated with really bad mastering of CDs since 1983 vs. phonograph records (due entirely to the limitations of vinyl as a medium).  Most people don't realize how bad it really is on the source music side by the people involved--not the technology. 

 

Class D amplifiers have disrupted other entry-level and consumer grade SS amplifiers and are proceeding to disrupt even the most expensive amplifiers (per the Christensen Disruptive Technology model that I mentioned above). 

 

Richard Small published the "Thiele-Small parameters" papers in 1972 and it took probably 10 years before the loudspeaker manufacturers as a group paid attention to their woofer/box designs because of that.  Signal analyzers still cost $20K (in then-year dollars) in the early 1980s and required some education to use properly.  Nowadays, much software is either less than $500 or free to do the same levels of basic time data series analysis as those done in the 1980s, and the hardware is a laptop, a cheap calibration microphone and a microphone stand.  Developmental testing outdoors is good enough to beat the levels of analysis done in the 1980s, hands down.

 

Currently, Klippel's R&D system (data acquisition and test suite of hardware and software) can start at $6K and goes upwards toward $100K for all modules/hardware.  My guess is that most loudspeaker manufacturers of the "boutique" variety (i.e., excluding Harman Kardon, Klipsch, Bose, EAW, etc. ) don't even have a basic level Klippel R&D system, much less a Klippel QC system for checking units as they go out the door.  In other words -  most every loudspeaker manufacturer smaller than the big manufacturers haven't invested in their test equipment enough to know what they are actually doing/putting out the door.  That has to change for these small manufacturers to come up to the current ISO loudspeaker standards.

 

Other than loudspeakers, digital media/source, and amplification, room acoustics and room analysis software has come a great distance, as well as preamp/processors that do the digital stream decoding, time delays for each channel, and basic room correction software/firmware (e.g., Audyssey) which is light years ahead of where we were even in the 1990s. 

 

Hi-Fi today--even at modest levels of investment--is really hi-fi compared to equivalent investments in constant year dollars of past.  Even MP3/personal music players (including cell phones) are a lot better in terms of fidelity that the most basic audio gear of the 50s-80s.  In short, the OP has a point.

 

What's not the same is the quality of the source material (music) which has been trashed even further than phonograph records allow.  That situation has been with us since 1983 when CDs were first released and the mastering engineers told their clients that they could have it louder than their competition.  That's why I believe so many people have retreated back to vinyl (even with its known issues).  What's interesting, however, is that music released today on vinyl has real issues compared to releases before MP3s and multi-band compressors (1991) came into being.  That's what we should be paying attention to, IMHO--the technical hi-fi quality of the distributed music itself.

 

Chris

Edited October 26, 2015 by Chris A

[muel]

I'll start at the end... It is all about the music and how I experience it.  All else is peripheral (albeit interesting).

 

 

It also gets old listening to people call BS on things they have never tried. It's strong language when the truth might be closer to something like, "I find the benefits of this product to be suspect because I do not understand how it can work and/or it does not fit into my world view."

I think it gets really old when people insist on lecturing others for their opinion. Why didn't you just talk about your enthusiasm for it? Why did you feel the need to lecture me about calling BS?

I never feel compelled to try every dumb idea presented. No, I didn't need to try speaker wire trestles before deciding it was BS. This movement to give every stupid idea equal time and consideration is dumbing down the world. The earth is not flat. The earth is not 5000 years old. And there is no magic involved in processing digital audio signals. AQ is asking customers to believe in magic. I call BS on such nonsense, and I believe I'm entitled to my opinion even if you don't agree with it, right?

If you believe in trying out all ideas before making a judgment I sure won't criticize your decision to do so.



Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

 

 

Anectdotal opinions offered here on this forum has had a great positive effect on my fast track journey towards listening to great music.  The opinions of those who I have found have similar tastes to me has gotten me a lot further towards great sounding music than anything else.  Specs and measurements are interesting things and the scientist side of me really wants to know how and why things work the way they do.  Just because someone can't figure out what or how to measure what they are looking for doesn't necessarily make it BS.  And yes, I do accept that sometimes the change can be internal to the listener (physical or mental).

 

The fact that reviewers seem to exaggerate and embellish their experience and the drastic improvement they are hearing can be irritating and set off the BS alarm but I can understand this to a small degree that they are talking about minuscule improvements (changes) in the grand scheme of the listening experience but they are zooming into that micro view of that small 1% chunk of what they are (or not) hearing.  The rest of us are thinking about the experience as a whole while the reviewers are honing in on some very tiny changes which makes it seem that they are really blowing things out of proportion.  Add to this the fact that THEN they seem compelled to try to explain "WHY" which is where things really fall apart and make them suspect to the rest of us as they proceed to show us their lack of understanding of some aspect of the science.  This also doesn't make their observation BS but it does make you question what else might they be wrong about and impinge on your trust of that persons authority on music systems.

 

 

Not that it really matters to me (it really doesn't) but in this particular case, there are at least three main reasons why I can see why the company is not explaining what their device is actually doing and how well it is doing it:

 

1. They don't want competitors for this product and by not describing what they are doing and not filing a patent application for the device, they believe that they are partially "protecting" their IP (actually...not really...since anyone can buy one and test it/tear it apart for very little money).

 

2. (...and the main reason why I believe they are being evasive) They don't want to call too much attention to a basic issue with USBs for continuous data streaming applications up to 192 kHz while powering the connected device.  Focusing a light on that issue could blow them out of the water on their main product - their USB DACs, if people realize what is happening and decide to abandon and choose other DAC solutions.

 

3. They didn't want to accept returns for a bunch of USB DACs that lacked sufficient power conditioning capabilities for smooth operation under all operating conditions, so they "feature" this new product as an in-line enhancement, but the device really is directed at some class of users who are experiencing USB noise issues--that the company now acknowledges exists for some USB-computer configurations.  For most users that are very unsophisticated in terms of being able to test their DACs under operation and that don't want to believe that there are issues, the company doesn't have to admit that there are operational issues using their USB DACs (as Larry mentioned above).

 

I do feel that this sort of marketing strategy really doesn't appeal--sort of like how entrepreneurs typically hype their products to cover their tracks without telling you--as in truth in advertising--what the product is actually doing, how well it is doing it, and why it is needed at all.   They instead rely on keeping their customers in the dark and on the placebo effect to sell their wares to a wider audience.  And at $49, who is going to call them on this strategy, right?  (Well...they've lost at least one potential customer...)

 

Chris

 

FYI, In the case of the USB REGEN, UpTone Audio doesn't make DACS.   I agree, Chris... why was this kind of technology not built into the DAC to begin with?  Maybe it will be in the future.  

 

Placebo effect?  I'm certain that this can and does happen.  I had no expectation of liking the REGEN except that it intrigued me.  In fact, it offends me a bit that it improved (my opinion of my experience) on my expensive DAC and custom audio PC with SOTM USB card.  After I had already gotten it I was told by someone else who's opinion I respect a great deal (great system and fantastic room setup)  that he had a very positive experience using the REGEN.  He didn't expect much either but was surprised.

 

I understand wanting facts and figures from the engineers.  But hasn't anybody ever built anything ever that they didn't know why it worked or why they had the results they had??!  Well, certainly.

 

 

From the audioquest site: Clearer and more compelling sound, music, dialog. A better experience."

 

Yep.  I am sure it's "Like lifting a veil." 

 

Dave

 

 

Dave, maybe I don't understand where you are coming from... surely you have heard a system or component and thought that "A" is clearer than "B."