A hifi bargain...

[Trevor]

"Bob Milutinovic" <cognicom@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lr7nnm$g4f$1@cognicom.eternal-september.org...

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:c3mtatFr239U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2014 8:11 AM, Jeßus wrote:
http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-holographic-ac-adapter/

Bybee Holographic AC Adapter
RRP: $2,795.00
Now $2,295.00.


Then there's this:

http://www.tweekgeek.com/pranawire-photon-usb/

Gotta keep those vibrations and resonances out of one's digital cables.

Indeed. Your $29 inkjet printer might throw its colour balance out with
any lesser cable.

Gotta love the shoddy heatshrink job on the second image (don't they know
you have to keep the heat gun moving?), along with the Brother/Dymo
labeller-printed sleeves. Did they run out of trained monkeys?

If you are selling snake oil after all, you don't spend money on refining
the oil to a very high standard!

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53d829aa$0$29999$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com...

On 29/07/2014 4:58 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:c3mtatFr239U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2014 8:11 AM, Jeßus wrote:
http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-holographic-ac-adapter/

Bybee Holographic AC Adapter
RRP: $2,795.00
Now $2,295.00.


Then there's this:

http://www.tweekgeek.com/pranawire-photon-usb/

Gotta keep those vibrations and resonances out of one's digital cables.

Indeed. Your $29 inkjet printer might throw its colour balance out with
any lesser cable.

Gotta love the shoddy heatshrink job on the second image (don't they
know you have to keep the heat gun moving?), along with the Brother/Dymo
labeller-printed sleeves. Did they run out of trained monkeys?


3m for $1,695 though and what a bargain with the free shipping!

http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-speaker-bullets-MK-II/

Quantum purified!

But what is inside V1?

http://www.htforum.nl/yabbse/index.php?topic=8497.msg1640961#msg1640961

In Dutch, but scroll down to see the pics...

(Please tell me nobody is so stupid to buy into this nonsense)

Unfortunately some are, but far worse is they also vote! That's why we have
the politicians we do :-(

Trevor.

 

[Jeßus]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:58:39 +1000, "Trevor" <trevor@home.net> wrote:

"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53d63b49$0$2752$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
On 25/07/2014 5:44 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cfc130$0$2766$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
On 23/07/2014 4:28 PM, Jeßus wrote:
Never mind speakers. I have a habit of
swapping my amplifiers from time to time, at the time of posting it
was the National receiver that was set up. Can you explain what is
wrong with it?


Again, I didn't say there is anything wrong with it. But I'm sure you
know
that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.

What rubbish, you are about 20 years behind the times with that comment.

Pity about all the people reporting that very issue online right now then.

Why do I not see this problem crop up very often (if at all) on
StereoNet after all these years?

What a bizarre statement that USB DACs are notoriously noisy I've
owned two and neither were the slightest bit noisy. These people
Clocky speaks of must buy absolute crap, I don't have any other
explanation for it.

 

[news13]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 07:20:27 +0800, Clocky wrote:

On 26/07/2014 9:51 PM, news13 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:43:09 +0200, BuckyBalls wrote:


Anyone over 40 or 50 years old won't be hearing much over 12kHz
anyway,
no matter how much they try and deceive themselves into believing they
have avoided the inevitable decline that ALWAYS occurs with
age-related hearing.

Nope. Your arguments were fine until you trotted this out with ALWAYS.
You could have easily gotten away with MOST, but not all are affected.

In any case, age has SFA to do with the argument.


Yes it does. 99.99% of aged people (and a lot of them before age 30)
have hearing loss to the point where the cable choices are completely
irrelevant as they can no longer hear the frequencies that are affected

Okay, show me some real numbers and not figures from the nether region.

The real problem is that most people never heard decent speakers to hear
good one to hear the detail. Now it is all artificil anyway.

> - assuming they ever could.

At one stage, every kid was getting a good, but freq detailed, hearing
test at school. No idea if that still happens . So there would have been
figures to show what percentage.

 

[Clocky]

On 26/07/2014 9:51 PM, news13 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:43:09 +0200, BuckyBalls wrote:


Anyone over 40 or 50 years old won't be hearing much over 12kHz anyway,
no matter how much they try and deceive themselves into believing they
have avoided the inevitable decline that ALWAYS occurs with age-related
hearing.

Nope. Your arguments were fine until you trotted this out with ALWAYS.
You could have easily gotten away with MOST, but not all are affected.

In any case, age has SFA to do with the argument.

Yes it does. 99.99% of aged people (and a lot of them before age 30)
have hearing loss to the point where the cable choices are completely
irrelevant as they can no longer hear the frequencies that are affected
- assuming they ever could.

 

[Clocky]

On 29/07/2014 4:55 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/07/2014 10:00 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 25/07/2014 5:44 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cfc130$0$2766$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
On 23/07/2014 4:28 PM, Jeßus wrote:

Never mind speakers. I have a habit of
swapping my amplifiers from time to time, at the time of posting it
was the National receiver that was set up. Can you explain what is
wrong with it?


Again, I didn't say there is anything wrong with it. But I'm sure you
know
that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.

What rubbish, you are about 20 years behind the times with that comment.

Pity about all the people reporting that very issue online right now
then.


My
USB ADC/DAC can do better than 118dB S/N below DFS on loopback, and less
than 0.002% THD. (And for the record, there are internal PCI cards
that do
just as well also) Easily better than CD is capable of.





I personally hate connecting stuff to my laptop and PC because the
noise
that is introduced annoys me.

Time you bought something better then. Go to a pro audio shop, or
look on
the net. They are not that expensive for two channels now.

Trevor.




Both my PC and laptop introduce a lot of background noise. Mileage may
vary I suppose.

**So? You have faulty equipment.

It's unlikely that all my equipment is faulty.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/08/2014 9:47 AM, Clocky wrote:

On 29/07/2014 4:55 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/07/2014 10:00 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 25/07/2014 5:44 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cfc130$0$2766$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
On 23/07/2014 4:28 PM, Jeßus wrote:

Never mind speakers. I have a habit of
swapping my amplifiers from time to time, at the time of posting it
was the National receiver that was set up. Can you explain what is
wrong with it?


Again, I didn't say there is anything wrong with it. But I'm sure you
know
that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.

What rubbish, you are about 20 years behind the times with that
comment.

Pity about all the people reporting that very issue online right now
then.


My
USB ADC/DAC can do better than 118dB S/N below DFS on loopback, and
less
than 0.002% THD. (And for the record, there are internal PCI cards
that do
just as well also) Easily better than CD is capable of.





I personally hate connecting stuff to my laptop and PC because the
noise
that is introduced annoys me.

Time you bought something better then. Go to a pro audio shop, or
look on
the net. They are not that expensive for two channels now.

Trevor.




Both my PC and laptop introduce a lot of background noise. Mileage may
vary I suppose.

**So? You have faulty equipment.

It's unlikely that all my equipment is faulty.

**Unlikely, but, apparently, that is the case. If a bog-standard Sound
Blaster card (ca. $100.00), plugged into a 5 year old Gigabyte
motherboard can provide well over 100dB S/N ratio (the on-board sound
system is around -96dB on loop-back), then clearly you are doing
something wrong, or you are using seriously crappy equipment. FWIW: The
worst computer sound system I have ever owned delivered -80dB S/N on
loop-back. It was an on-board sound system and it prompted me to try the
Sound Blaster Audigy.

So yes, it seems your equipment is faulty.

I have never bothered to measure my laptops' on-board sound performance.
I use an external USB system, which performs exceptionally well.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 31/07/14 13:39, Jeßus wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:58:39 +1000, "Trevor" <trevor@home.net> wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
On 25/07/2014 5:44 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cfc130$0$2766$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.
What rubbish, you are about 20 years behind the times with that comment.
Pity about all the people reporting that very issue online right now then.
Why do I not see this problem crop up very often (if at all) on
StereoNet after all these years?
What a bizarre statement that USB DACs are notoriously noisy I've
owned two and neither were the slightest bit noisy. These people
Clocky speaks of must buy absolute crap, I don't have any other
explanation for it.

The problem isn't the USB DAC, it's the ground noise. USB doesn't
provide much ground isolation, so the noise level you get depends on a
lot of things apart from how good your sound card is.

 

[Jeßus]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:44:49 +1000, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 31/07/14 13:39, Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:58:39 +1000, "Trevor" <trevor@home.net> wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
On 25/07/2014 5:44 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cfc130$0$2766$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.
What rubbish, you are about 20 years behind the times with that comment.
Pity about all the people reporting that very issue online right now then.
Why do I not see this problem crop up very often (if at all) on
StereoNet after all these years?
What a bizarre statement that USB DACs are notoriously noisy I've
owned two and neither were the slightest bit noisy. These people
Clocky speaks of must buy absolute crap, I don't have any other
explanation for it.

The problem isn't the USB DAC, it's the ground noise. USB doesn't
provide much ground isolation, so the noise level you get depends on a
lot of things apart from how good your sound card is.

Fairy nuff, but not clear on where the sound card comes into it if
using USB? Are there sound cards now with USB out? Like I said, I'm
not clear on any of that

Also for clarification, what I'm using is an entirely external DAC.
PC - USB - DAC, then RCA cables to the amplifier.

 

[Trevor]

"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53dad593$0$29973$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com...

On 29/07/2014 4:55 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/07/2014 10:00 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 25/07/2014 5:44 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cfc130$0$2766$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
On 23/07/2014 4:28 PM, Jeßus wrote:

Never mind speakers. I have a habit of
swapping my amplifiers from time to time, at the time of posting it
was the National receiver that was set up. Can you explain what is
wrong with it?

Again, I didn't say there is anything wrong with it. But I'm sure you
know
that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.

What rubbish, you are about 20 years behind the times with that
comment.

Pity about all the people reporting that very issue online right now
then.

My
USB ADC/DAC can do better than 118dB S/N below DFS on loopback, and
less
than 0.002% THD. (And for the record, there are internal PCI cards
that do
just as well also) Easily better than CD is capable of.

I personally hate connecting stuff to my laptop and PC because the
noise
that is introduced annoys me.

Time you bought something better then. Go to a pro audio shop, or
look on
the net. They are not that expensive for two channels now.

Both my PC and laptop introduce a lot of background noise. Mileage may
vary I suppose.

**So? You have faulty equipment.

It's unlikely that all my equipment is faulty.

It's not faulty, just crappy!

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:c40cp2Fr3v3U1@mid.individual.net...

On 1/08/2014 9:47 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 29/07/2014 4:55 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/07/2014 10:00 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 25/07/2014 5:44 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cfc130$0$2766$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
On 23/07/2014 4:28 PM, Jeßus wrote:

Never mind speakers. I have a habit of
swapping my amplifiers from time to time, at the time of posting it
was the National receiver that was set up. Can you explain what is
wrong with it?

Again, I didn't say there is anything wrong with it. But I'm sure you
know
that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.

What rubbish, you are about 20 years behind the times with that
comment.

Pity about all the people reporting that very issue online right now
then.

My
USB ADC/DAC can do better than 118dB S/N below DFS on loopback, and
less
than 0.002% THD. (And for the record, there are internal PCI cards
that do
just as well also) Easily better than CD is capable of.

I personally hate connecting stuff to my laptop and PC because the
noise
that is introduced annoys me.

Time you bought something better then. Go to a pro audio shop, or
look on
the net. They are not that expensive for two channels now.

Both my PC and laptop introduce a lot of background noise. Mileage may
vary I suppose.

**So? You have faulty equipment.

It's unlikely that all my equipment is faulty.

**Unlikely, but, apparently, that is the case. If a bog-standard Sound
Blaster card (ca. $100.00), plugged into a 5 year old Gigabyte motherboard
can provide well over 100dB S/N ratio (the on-board sound system is
around -96dB on loop-back), then clearly you are doing something wrong, or
you are using seriously crappy equipment. FWIW: The worst computer sound
system I have ever owned delivered -80dB S/N on loop-back. It was an
on-board sound system and it prompted me to try the Sound Blaster Audigy.

So yes, it seems your equipment is faulty.

Not faulty, just exceptionally crappy.

I have never bothered to measure my laptops' on-board sound performance. I
use an external USB system, which performs exceptionally well.

Since most laptops don't even have line inputs, there is no point doing a
loop back. You really don't want to know how bad their mic inputs are!
You could check the line output only if you wanted using wave files, but
they are often pretty bad as well.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Clifford Heath" <no.spam@please.net> wrote in message
news:9aDCv.419662$J34.388339@fx10.iad...

The problem isn't the USB DAC, it's the ground noise. USB doesn't provide
much ground isolation, so the noise level you get depends on a lot of
things apart from how good your sound card is.

Not so, a good sound card or USB device provides it's own isolation. The
proof is in the measurements.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Jeßus" <none@all.org> wrote in message
news:039mt9hi0v2i75m513l0ot6lulo97pf5kl@4ax.com...

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:44:49 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:
On 31/07/14 13:39, Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:58:39 +1000, "Trevor" <trevor@home.net> wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
On 25/07/2014 5:44 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cfc130$0$2766$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.
What rubbish, you are about 20 years behind the times with that
comment.
Pity about all the people reporting that very issue online right now
then.
Why do I not see this problem crop up very often (if at all) on
StereoNet after all these years?
What a bizarre statement that USB DACs are notoriously noisy I've
owned two and neither were the slightest bit noisy. These people
Clocky speaks of must buy absolute crap, I don't have any other
explanation for it.

The problem isn't the USB DAC, it's the ground noise. USB doesn't
provide much ground isolation, so the noise level you get depends on a
lot of things apart from how good your sound card is.

Fairy nuff, but not clear on where the sound card comes into it if
using USB?

Some simply use the name "soundcard" for internal, or external ADC-DAC audio
devices.


>Are there sound cards now with USB out?

Plenty of USB (and firewire) in/out sound devices available. Have been for
very *many* years!

Like I said, I'm not clear on any of that
Also for clarification, what I'm using is an entirely external DAC.
PC - USB - DAC, then RCA cables to the amplifier.

Most devices are simply ADC and DAC in one box, otherwise exactly the same
as what you are using, *except* far better quality that what Clocky
obviously has!

Trevor.

 

[BuckyBalls]

On 1/08/2014 3:17 AM, news13 wrote:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 07:20:27 +0800, Clocky wrote:

On 26/07/2014 9:51 PM, news13 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:43:09 +0200, BuckyBalls wrote:


Anyone over 40 or 50 years old won't be hearing much over 12kHz
anyway,
no matter how much they try and deceive themselves into believing they
have avoided the inevitable decline that ALWAYS occurs with
age-related hearing.

Nope. Your arguments were fine until you trotted this out with ALWAYS.
You could have easily gotten away with MOST, but not all are affected.

In any case, age has SFA to do with the argument.


Yes it does. 99.99% of aged people (and a lot of them before age 30)
have hearing loss to the point where the cable choices are completely
irrelevant as they can no longer hear the frequencies that are affected

Okay, show me some real numbers and not figures from the nether region.

The 99.99% figure wasn't qualified by any age group etc. Check the many
studies of Presbycusis and you will see a consensus that high frequency
age related hearing loss is unavoidable.
http://www.minnesotamedicine.com/Past-Issues/Past-Issues-2007/October-2007/Clincal-Huang-October-2007

Everyone's high frequency hearing deteriorates as they age.
There are several reasons including damage from high environmental sound
levels (industrial deafness etc.) and simply wearing out of the ear's
hair cells.
http://auditoryneuroscience.com/?q=acoustics/clinical_audiograms

The real problem is that most people never heard decent speakers to hear
good one to hear the detail. Now it is all artificil anyway.

High frequency age-related hearing loss happens whatever speakers you have.
Put it this way - when you were a teenager you probably could hear the
high frequencies easily. As you age, the only way to get the same
perceived sound is to compensate for the high frequency loss - i.e. use
a graphic equaliser etc.. Otherwise the enormous difference in
sensitivity from the low frequencies to the high frequencies cannot
possibly lead to the same perceived sound. Some older people fool
themselves into thinking they hear just as well as when they were young,
but that is explained by the slow deterioration in hearing that ocurrs
and the inability of people to make comparisons over several years of
gradual high frequency hearing loss. And just cranking up the overall
volume won't correct the relative frequency response - if your hearing
is down over 50dB at 15kHz, you'll have to boost those high frequencies
by 50dB to hear it like a teenager does.

- assuming they ever could.

At one stage, every kid was getting a good, but freq detailed, hearing
test at school. No idea if that still happens . So there would have been
figures to show what percentage.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 01/08/14 16:22, Trevor wrote:

"Clifford Heath" <no.spam@please.net> wrote in message
news:9aDCv.419662$J34.388339@fx10.iad...
The problem isn't the USB DAC, it's the ground noise. USB doesn't provide
much ground isolation, so the noise level you get depends on a lot of
things apart from how good your sound card is.

Not so, a good sound card or USB device provides it's own isolation. The
proof is in the measurements.

Correct. That isolation can be provided by complete DC isolation (DC-DC
converters, opto-isolated logic, etc), but normally it's just a current
transformer in the USB cable. Yes, Virginia, contrary to what some
scoffers here say, a better USB cable can make a big difference, by
providing better isolation of the ground noise.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Bucky Balls = Fuckwit Trolling Cunt "

High frequency age-related hearing loss happens whatever speakers you
have.
Put it this way - when you were a teenager you probably could hear the
high frequencies easily. As you age, the only way to get the same
perceived sound is to compensate for the high frequency loss - i.e. use a
graphic equaliser etc.

** 100 % WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An audiogram is NOT a response curve !!!!!
---------------------------------------------------

Several posters have made the really dopey error of equating audiograms
showing " hearing loss " - as defined by audiologists - with frequency
response and refuse to be corrected on the point.

Audiologists concentrate on finding the **faintest sound** a person can hear
at a given frequency, which has no relevance to what the same person CAN
easily hear when listening to music - live or reproduced at realistic
levels.

Take look at the famous equal loudness curves by Fletcher-Munson et alia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson

Firstly, it shows that the just audible threshold at 20Hz is 70dB SPL !!

At 10kHz, the threshold is around 10dB SPL, for a young person.

So, if an older person had a measured 40dB loss at 10kHz - all that means is
their threshold is now at 50dB SPL.

Such a person would perceive high frequencies perfectly well for reproduced
music played above a background level.



..... Phil

 

[BuckyBalls]

On 1/08/2014 3:11 PM, Phil Allison - Worst abusive faggot Troll on the
Internet wrote:

"Bucky Balls = who exposes fools like faggot troll Phil"

High frequency age-related hearing loss happens whatever speakers you
have.
Put it this way - when you were a teenager you probably could hear the
high frequencies easily. As you age, the only way to get the same
perceived sound is to compensate for the high frequency loss - i.e. use a
graphic equaliser etc.

** 100 % WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An audiogram is NOT a response curve !!!!!
-------------------------------------------------
Several posters have made the really dopey error of equating audiograms
showing " hearing loss " - as defined by audiologists - with frequency
response and refuse to be corrected on the point.

Audiologists concentrate on finding the **faintest sound** a person can hear
at a given frequency, which has no relevance to what the same person CAN
easily hear when listening to music - live or reproduced at realistic
levels.

Take look at the famous equal loudness curves by Fletcher-Munson et alia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson

If you have any Fletcher-Munson data that INCLUDES age-related data
please post it.

> Firstly, it shows that the just audible threshold at 20Hz is 70dB SPL !!

Irrelevant you twit. Those curves DO NOT take the age-related
deterioration into account. This thread started around cables that were
just a few dB lossy at 15kHz and some idiots ignored the far more
important effect - age related high frequency hearing loss.

At 10kHz, the threshold is around 10dB SPL, for a young person.

So, if an older person had a measured 40dB loss at 10kHz - all that means is
their threshold is now at 50dB SPL.

And they need 40dB more SPL at high frequencies to perceive the same
high frequencies as a teenager. But their low frequency threshold is
unchanged. Tell us all how that would NOT lead to a completely different
perception of the sound from the same source????

Such a person would perceive high frequencies perfectly well for reproduced
music played above a background level.

How many dB above the background level ????
A background level that would annoy the neighbours, no doubt.
Phili Bullshit, he doesn't understand that the change is relative to the
low-range frequencies. If your hearing has a drastic difference in
sensitivity between low and high frequencies, playing sounds louder can
NEVER correct for the HF hearing loss. You will hear the higher
frequencies, but the lower frequencies will then be FAR TOO LOUD.

> .... Phil

Why do older people have so much trouble understanding conversations?
Or on the phone?
It ain't the threshold, it is the relative response between low and
mid-to-high frequencies.
https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys406/Lecture_Notes/P406POM_Lecture_Notes/P406POM_Lect5.pdf

 

[Clocky]

On 1/08/2014 10:44 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 31/07/14 13:39, Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:58:39 +1000, "Trevor" <trevor@home.net> wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
On 25/07/2014 5:44 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cfc130$0$2766$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.
What rubbish, you are about 20 years behind the times with that
comment.
Pity about all the people reporting that very issue online right now
then.
Why do I not see this problem crop up very often (if at all) on
StereoNet after all these years?
What a bizarre statement that USB DACs are notoriously noisy I've
owned two and neither were the slightest bit noisy. These people
Clocky speaks of must buy absolute crap, I don't have any other
explanation for it.

The problem isn't the USB DAC, it's the ground noise. USB doesn't
provide much ground isolation, so the noise level you get depends on a
lot of things apart from how good your sound card is.

Yup.

 

[Clocky]

On 1/08/2014 2:32 PM, Trevor wrote:

"Jeßus" <none@all.org> wrote in message
news:039mt9hi0v2i75m513l0ot6lulo97pf5kl@4ax.com...
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:44:49 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:
On 31/07/14 13:39, Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:58:39 +1000, "Trevor" <trevor@home.net> wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
On 25/07/2014 5:44 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cfc130$0$2766$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.
What rubbish, you are about 20 years behind the times with that
comment.
Pity about all the people reporting that very issue online right now
then.
Why do I not see this problem crop up very often (if at all) on
StereoNet after all these years?
What a bizarre statement that USB DACs are notoriously noisy I've
owned two and neither were the slightest bit noisy. These people
Clocky speaks of must buy absolute crap, I don't have any other
explanation for it.

The problem isn't the USB DAC, it's the ground noise. USB doesn't
provide much ground isolation, so the noise level you get depends on a
lot of things apart from how good your sound card is.

Fairy nuff, but not clear on where the sound card comes into it if
using USB?

Some simply use the name "soundcard" for internal, or external ADC-DAC audio
devices.


Are there sound cards now with USB out?

Plenty of USB (and firewire) in/out sound devices available. Have been for
very *many* years!


Like I said, I'm not clear on any of that
Also for clarification, what I'm using is an entirely external DAC.
PC - USB - DAC, then RCA cables to the amplifier.

Most devices are simply ADC and DAC in one box, otherwise exactly the same
as what you are using, *except* far better quality that what Clocky
obviously has!

Trevor.

Quality has nothing to do with it for the most part.

 

[Clocky]

On 1/08/2014 10:41 PM, BuckyBalls wrote:

On 1/08/2014 3:11 PM, Phil Allison - Worst abusive faggot Troll on the
Internet wrote:

"Bucky Balls = who exposes fools like faggot troll Phil"

High frequency age-related hearing loss happens whatever speakers you
have.
Put it this way - when you were a teenager you probably could hear the
high frequencies easily. As you age, the only way to get the same
perceived sound is to compensate for the high frequency loss - i.e.
use a
graphic equaliser etc.

** 100 % WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An audiogram is NOT a response curve !!!!!
-------------------------------------------------
Several posters have made the really dopey error of equating audiograms
showing " hearing loss " - as defined by audiologists - with frequency
response and refuse to be corrected on the point.

Audiologists concentrate on finding the **faintest sound** a person
can hear
at a given frequency, which has no relevance to what the same person CAN
easily hear when listening to music - live or reproduced at realistic
levels.

Take look at the famous equal loudness curves by Fletcher-Munson et alia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson

If you have any Fletcher-Munson data that INCLUDES age-related data
please post it.

Firstly, it shows that the just audible threshold at 20Hz is 70dB SPL !!

Irrelevant you twit. Those curves DO NOT take the age-related
deterioration into account. This thread started around cables that were
just a few dB lossy at 15kHz and some idiots ignored the far more
important effect - age related high frequency hearing loss.

At 10kHz, the threshold is around 10dB SPL, for a young person.

So, if an older person had a measured 40dB loss at 10kHz - all that
means is
their threshold is now at 50dB SPL.

And they need 40dB more SPL at high frequencies to perceive the same
high frequencies as a teenager. But their low frequency threshold is
unchanged. Tell us all how that would NOT lead to a completely different
perception of the sound from the same source????

Such a person would perceive high frequencies perfectly well for
reproduced
music played above a background level.

How many dB above the background level ????
A background level that would annoy the neighbours, no doubt.
Phili Bullshit, he doesn't understand that the change is relative to the
low-range frequencies. If your hearing has a drastic difference in
sensitivity between low and high frequencies, playing sounds louder can
NEVER correct for the HF hearing loss. You will hear the higher
frequencies, but the lower frequencies will then be FAR TOO LOUD.

.... Phil

Why do older people have so much trouble understanding conversations?
Or on the phone?
It ain't the threshold, it is the relative response between low and
mid-to-high frequencies.
https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys406/Lecture_Notes/P406POM_Lecture_Notes/P406POM_Lect5.pdf

Phil should stick to mutilating his toasters.