Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
In the current online stereophile there is a Moon amp review. Certain
claims there present the perfect chance for a listening alone test. "As with other Simaudio components I have used, the sound of the W-7 was a touch bright and forward when it was first turned on. It began to sound more neutral over the next week or so--I'm told this "break-in" is a function of the heavy, pure-copper circuit-board traces." Hence we have two assertions to be tested, one of "break in" and the other apparently from the manufacture as to why the first should be. Take two amps, one fresh from the production line and another of the requisite time suggested to provide the difference. This would be a sighted test using the listener's choice of everything as to gear, setting, music, etc.; except not knowing which amp is active. Both amps would be in full view but with no indication of which was on by removing status indicators. For a period of days one of the new or "broken in" amps would be randomly used. At the end of a days listening which of the two amps would be declared. If that amp had been the new one, a new one would be used the next time round to avoid any confusion ongoing "break in" might cause. The above testing setup addresses all of the usual objections said to exist in testing, including removing any of testing pressure, switching interval etc. said to be flaws in other variations. The only variable being at hand is the amp difference in operation time. The second of the claims could be done by varying the thickness of the traces in two different amps and/or using traces with different degrees of "purity". Listening setting and method would be as above. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
wrote in message
In the current online stereophile there is a Moon amp review. Certain claims there present the perfect chance for a listening alone test. Letsee - $1500 for a 50 wpc "entry level" integrated amp. "As with other Simaudio components I have used, the sound of the W-7 was a touch bright and forward when it was first turned on. It began to sound more neutral over the next week or so--I'm told this "break-in" is a function of the heavy, pure-copper circuit-board traces." If you believe balderdash like this... Hence we have two assertions to be tested, one of "break in" and the other apparently from the manufacture as to why the first should be. The first assertion that I would need tested is why I would pay so much for so little? Take two amps, one fresh from the production line and another of the requisite time suggested to provide the difference. Sadly, Stereophile has a long track record of failing to even aspire to this level of testing sophistication. Look at all the ways they blew it in the Furutech LP demagnetizer debacle. Remember, with LPs there is *no* controversy over the idea that their technical properties change significantly with repeated playing, and Stereophile still didn't consider this in their published tests. This would be a sighted test using the listener's choice of everything as to gear, setting, music, etc.; except not knowing which amp is active. Both amps would be in full view but with no indication of which was on by removing status indicators. IOW, a blind test with a limited number of trials - still not valid. For a period of days one of the new or "broken in" amps would be randomly used. At the end of a days listening which of the two amps would be declared. If that amp had been the new one, a new one would be used the next time round to avoid any confusion ongoing "break in" might cause. The above testing setup addresses all of the usual objections said to exist in testing, including removing any of testing pressure, switching interval etc. said to be flaws in other variations. The only variable being at hand is the amp difference in operation time. One thing that I've learned over the years is that when it comes to the high end magazine reviewers, there is no end to their ability to complain about testing methodologies making them suddenly incapable of demonstrating that they are talking about much more than their fertile imaginations. One of the funniest sets of recent Stereophile antics can be found he http://www.stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index.html Executive summary: Mikey Fremer loves 'em. John Atkinson measures them and find that they measure about as bad as LPs. John Atkinson listens to them and decides that they also sound bad Mikey Fremer is then forced to recant his initial glowing review. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
After which, the only question would be "Why?".
Sadly, those prone to the delights of snake-oil are also precisely and equally immune to the effects of tests, sighted and unsighted, properly designed or not. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Jun 2, 8:19*am, Walt wrote:
wrote: In the current online stereophile there is a Moon amp review. *Certain claims there present the perfect chance for a listening alone test. "As with other Simaudio components I have used, the sound of the W-7 was a touch bright and forward when it was first turned on. It began to sound more neutral over the next week or so--I'm told this "break-in" is a function of the heavy, pure-copper circuit-board traces." Hence we have two assertions to be tested, one of "break in" and the other apparently from the manufacture as to why the first should be. "Break in" is a myth, most likely started by audio salesmen to deal with customer returns. *Instead of saying "hey, just tough it out, you'll get used to it eventually" they claim that the gear needs a "break in" period. *Horse hockey. What's breaking-in during the break-in period is the customer's perception, not the gear. *Put on a pair of yellow glasses - the whole world will look yellow for a while but eventually you'll get used to it and the yellow tint will seem normal. *The same thing happens with hearing. That is not always the case. My old Martin Logan CLS IIZs needed a break in period. I, in effect, did do the test that the original poster suggested. The differences were not subtle. Note: speakers, being mechanical devices, do change their characteristics with use. *However, the break-in period is measured in seconds, not days. That would be a warm up not a break in. And that does happen with electrostats as well but it seems tro take about 3 to 5 minutes. OTOH it takes a good 15 minutes with the tube electronics. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 08:12:31 -0700, dave a wrote
(in article ): wrote: In the current online stereophile there is a Moon amp review. Certain claims there present the perfect chance for a listening alone test. "As with other Simaudio components I have used, the sound of the W-7 was a touch bright and forward when it was first turned on. It began to sound more neutral over the next week or so--I'm told this "break-in" is a function of the heavy, pure-copper circuit-board traces." Why is it that "breaking in" results in better sound? If indeed the copper traces are changing their electrical characteristics, I would expect the effect to be random - some better, some worse. Oh, don't you know? One has to "form" the dielectric in all of the electrolytic capacitors and "stabilize" the resistors for an esoteric amp like this to sound its best. :- As a degreed electrical engineer who has designed many printed circuit boards, I can say that the only time I have seen copper traces change characteristics is when too much current was applied and they melted. This did not improve the circuit. No it wouldn't. And if resistors and capacitors or semiconductors had to burn-in in order to achieve their optimum operating parameters, the manufacturers of these components would be obliged to do that before they sold them. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 08:19:11 -0700, Walt wrote
(in article ): wrote: In the current online stereophile there is a Moon amp review. Certain claims there present the perfect chance for a listening alone test. "As with other Simaudio components I have used, the sound of the W-7 was a touch bright and forward when it was first turned on. It began to sound more neutral over the next week or so--I'm told this "break-in" is a function of the heavy, pure-copper circuit-board traces." Hence we have two assertions to be tested, one of "break in" and the other apparently from the manufacture as to why the first should be. "Break in" is a myth, most likely started by audio salesmen to deal with customer returns. Instead of saying "hey, just tough it out, you'll get used to it eventually" they claim that the gear needs a "break in" period. Horse hockey. Good point. "Keep listening. You'll get used to our crappy sound - or rather, the equipment will get better." Solves a whole bunch of issues for sales, doesn't it? What's breaking-in during the break-in period is the customer's perception, not the gear. Put on a pair of yellow glasses - the whole world will look yellow for a while but eventually you'll get used to it and the yellow tint will seem normal. The same thing happens with hearing. I suspect that you are correct here. Many times I've put on a pair of sunglasses, and after a while, forgotten I had them on. The sun went down or I went Inside-with the glasses still on, and wondered why everything got so dark all of a sudden. Then I'd remember that I had my sunglasses on, and I'd take them off. Voila! Light! I see no reason why this phenomenon wouldn't work for hearing as well. After all people with afflictions such as Meniere's disease get used to huge amounts of tinnitus in their ears. Note: speakers, being mechanical devices, do change their characteristics with use. However, the break-in period is measured in seconds, not days. There was a time when the paper surrounds of speaker cones wore OUT as opposed to "in", but that's hardly the same thing, now is it? |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
Arny Krueger wrote:
: One of the funniest sets of recent Stereophile antics can be found he : http://www.stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index.html That's both really hilarious, and kind of sad. : Mikey Fremer is then forced to recant his initial glowing review. He does, and he doesn't -- he seems to want to do both (see especially his reply to unpublished letter #5). $1500 cables that introduce audible hiss, with one boosting the volume and the other decreasing it, get promoted as "one of the greatest technological breakthroughs in high-performance audio that I have experienced in my audiophile lifetime". That's just ... amazing. -- Andy Barss |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Jun 2, 11:12*am, dave a wrote:
I can say that the only time I have seen copper traces change characteristics is when too much current was applied and they melted. This did not improve the circuit. I would disagree by pointing out the the sound of some amplifiers is definitely more tolerable after the fuse blows. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Jun 2, 11:19*am, Walt wrote:
Note: speakers, being mechanical devices, do change their characteristics with use. *However, the break-in period is measured in seconds, not days. Umm... I would beg to differ. Speakers break in very much the same non- linear way that audio tubes break in (all numbers additive): 0-15 minutes: 80% 15-45 minutes: 10% 45min-3 hours: 8% 3 hours - 100 hours: 2%. Points that may affect (new) speaker performance (break in): Glues and solvents and materials requiring curing used in the manufacture. Moisture content in the cabinet and cone (if possible) materials. Manufacturing stresses relieving with use - material annealing for lack of a better word). Environmental adjustments to their (presumably) final location. Of course, some function of materials, temperature, humidity and so forth will always have some effect on speaker performance depending on type, and any extremes. So, yes, there is a break-in which will vary based on any number of factors - and it ain't nohow 'minutes'. Could well be hours, could be days - won't be much longer than that all other things being equal - which they seldom are. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:19 am, Walt wrote: Note: speakers, being mechanical devices, do change their characteristics with use. However, the break-in period is measured in seconds, not days. Umm... I would beg to differ. Speakers break in very much the same non- linear way that audio tubes break in (all numbers additive): 0-15 minutes: 80% 15-45 minutes: 10% 45min-3 hours: 8% 3 hours - 100 hours: 2%. See http://www.audioholics.com/education...act-or-fiction or http://preview.tinyurl.com/yund9q "Required break in time for the common spider-diaphragm-surround is typically on the order of 10s of seconds and is a one-off proposition, not requiring repetition. Once broken in, the driver should measure/perform as do its siblings, within usual unit-to-unit parameter tolerances." //Walt |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:19 am, Walt wrote: Note: speakers, being mechanical devices, do change their characteristics with use. However, the break-in period is measured in seconds, not days. Umm... I would beg to differ. Speakers break in very much the same non- linear way that audio tubes break in (all numbers additive): 0-15 minutes: 80% 15-45 minutes: 10% 45min-3 hours: 8% 3 hours - 100 hours: 2%. See http://www.audioholics.com/education...act-or-fiction or http://preview.tinyurl.com/yund9q "Required break in time for the common spider-diaphragm-surround is typically on the order of 10s of seconds and is a one-off proposition, not requiring repetition. Once broken in, the driver should measure/perform as do its siblings, within usual unit-to-unit parameter tolerances." //Walt |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Jun 3, 6:23*am, " wrote:
Umm... I would beg to differ. Speakers break in very much the same non- linear way that audio tubes break in (all numbers additive): 0-15 minutes: 80% 15-45 minutes: 10% 45min-3 hours: 8% 3 hours - 100 hours: 2%. Where did these numbers come from and what exactly are they measuring? |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Jun 3, 11:52*am, Walt wrote:
"Required break in time for the common spider-diaphragm-surround is typically on the order of 10s of seconds and is a one-off proposition, not requiring repetition. Once broken in, the driver should measure/perform as do its siblings, within usual unit-to-unit parameter tolerances." Walt: That is for the drivers - not the entire system - which is what I took the for the referral. Glues cure over time, caulks get harder over time, solvents outgas over time and so forth - and this is all part of the break-in. The individual drivers may be the largest part of it, but they are not the entire system. Note that I am not referring to crossover capacitor break-in, interconnect wire break-in, magnet wire break-in nor any other silliness, but simply the physical parts-and-pieces reaching their final equilibrium after manufacturing is complete. And this is a non- linear process with a very high proportion of it taking place in the very first few minutes/hours of use. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
Andrew Barss wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: : One of the funniest sets of recent Stereophile antics can be found he : http://www.stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index.html That's both really hilarious, and kind of sad. And you didn't even touch on the really hilariously sad gyrations Mr. Fremers went to in his replies, like: "I didn't know the cables were adding extraneous material to the signal! I thought I perceived a removal of certain extraneous qualities I hear from cables.." And this should highlight his "qualifications" as a professional review how exactly? Or; "I wrongly attributed the "purity" of what I heard to the loss of additive problems..." IOW, the added distortion resulted in the "purity" of the sound. Sounds like a terminology problem to me. Not that the lack of objective definition of such subjective terms has ever been discussed here ;-) Or; "... I also hear how I missed the subtle bass boost that JA measured, which I can now hear. It is a coloration. I did make a mistake there in thinking I was hearing an absence of colorations compared to other cables,..." So now he hears the colorations that the cables induce. But wait! Then he says: "Your last sentence sums it up, Mr. Wortman, but I don't think the distortions measured in the CyberLight cable are audible..." Make up your mind Mr. Fremer. He continues; "you have to listen for yourself, though now that you know how they measured it's easier to conclude you hear them...that's one of the things I like about "observational" reviewing. I have no pre-conceived notion based on the measurements." No, you just change your mind about what you heard based on the measurements, such as: "Do I recommend the Cyberlight cables now, having read the measurements? No." What happened to recommendations based on *sound*, not measurements? When a Mr. Peak wrote: "Once again, Stereophile falls below its own set standards of honest reviewing. If you were honest Mr. Fremer, you would of stood behind your recommendation of what you heard and experienced. Not change your mind because measured data does not support what you heard." Mr. Fremer responds with: "You are clueless, Mr. Peak. Your comment makes no sense. I am glad you'd never recommend a product that introduces audible distortion. neither would I." Mr. Fremer confuses retracting a recommendation based on subsequent objective data, with having never made the recommendation based on now-acknowledged misguided subjective data. Well...OK, I guess Mr. Fremer has also *never* recommended any tube amp (WAVAC anyone?) then, since he also stated: "While some tube amps measure better than others, compared to even budget solid state gear, they are all "defective" in terms of distortion, frequency response, noise, dynamics, and a host of other specs. " Simply amazing! Thanks for a good chuckle Arny. Keith Hughes |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Jun 3, 11:23*pm, wrote:
Where did these numbers come from and what exactly are they measuring? These numbers are an aggregate/average of some burn-in statistics from WE, RCA and Sylvania that I ran across some time back collected into a little pamphlet on the silliness of the entire break-in concept. Essentially the point was that most tubes stabilize within measurable parameters within a very few hours, and operationally within a very few minutes. WE made a point that their tubes were burnt-in at the factory. Sylvania made the point that the matching process if done correctly was enough for any burn-in. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Jun 3, 11:25*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 3, 11:52*am, Walt wrote: "Required break in time for the common spider-diaphragm-surround is typically on the order of 10s of seconds and is a one-off proposition, not requiring repetition. Once broken in, the driver should measure/perform as do its siblings, within usual unit-to-unit parameter tolerances." Walt: That is for the drivers - not the entire system - which is what I took the for the referral. I take as referral a quarter century of direct involvement in the loudspeaker manufacturing business. Glues cure over time, * GLues which take a long time, which, in the speaker manufacturing business, is measured in minutes, cost manufacturers money. If the glues are not assembly cured in a few minutes, or completely cured in 24 hours, they're not likely to be used. I have seen cabinet manufacturing facilities which use RF curing technique to get complete cures in 30 seconds. caulks get harder over time, Which is why caulks are seldom used nowadays. solvents outgas over time Ditto. and so forth - and this is all part of the break-in. No, it's not. Even if all the examples you cite, in the worst imaginable case, are used, these processes will happen no matter what. Using the speaker WILL NOT change the rate at which they happen. The individual drivers may be the largest part of it, but they are not the entire system. Note that I am not referring to crossover capacitor break-in, interconnect wire break-in, magnet wire break-in nor any other silliness, but simply the physical parts-and-pieces reaching their final equilibrium after manufacturing is complete. And that final equilibrium is with the local environment, which is changing constantly. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Jun 4, 11:59*am, " wrote:
On Jun 3, 11:23*pm, wrote: Umm... I would beg to differ. Speakers break in very much the same non-linear way that audio tubes break in (all numbers additive): 0-15 minutes: 80% 15-45 minutes: 10% 45min-3 hours: 8% 3 hours - 100 hours: 2%. what exactly are they measuring? These numbers are an aggregate/average of some burn-in statistics from WE, RCA and Sylvania that I ran across some time back collected into a little pamphlet on the silliness of the entire break-in concept. I think you miss the point of his question. The numbers, as stated, are completely meaningless. There are no units, no conditions, nothing. As such, they are no more useful than randomly selected numbers.80%, 10%, 2% of WHAT? They could mean nothing more than log base X of error from 100 hours. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Jun 6, 12:00*am, wrote:
On Jun 4, 11:59*am, " wrote: On Jun 3, 11:23*pm, wrote: Umm... I would beg to differ. Speakers break in very much the same non-linear way that audio tubes break in (all numbers additive): * * 0-15 minutes: 80% * *15-45 minutes: 10% * *45min-3 hours: 8% * *3 hours - 100 hours: 2%. what exactly are they measuring? These numbers are an aggregate/average of some burn-in statistics from WE, RCA and Sylvania that I ran across some time back collected into a little pamphlet on the silliness of the entire break-in concept. I think you miss the point of his question. The numbers, as stated, are completely meaningless. There are no units, no conditions, nothing. As such, they are no more useful than randomly selected numbers.80%, 10%, 2% of WHAT? They could mean nothing more than log base X of error from 100 hours. Whatever the numbers mean, what is really unclear is how they would in any way relate to speakers and speaker burn in. There is no question that tube characteristics change over time which may or may not be significant for audio reproduction. That this same temporal property somehow also relates to speakers is much harder to follow given the very different physical processes involved. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Jun 6, 2:52*pm, wrote:
Whatever the numbers mean, what is really unclear is how they would in any way relate to speakers and speaker burn in. There is no question that tube characteristics change over time which may or may not be significant for audio reproduction. That this same temporal property somehow also relates to speakers is much harder to follow given the very different physical processes involved.- Hide quoted text - YIKES~!~ Point of all of this is that, whereas there are some *__VERY SMALL__* changes that may be related to 'burn-in", those processes are simple, very fast, and for the most part already completed before the speaker reaches the end-user. Same as with tubes. The processes are very different, of course being mostly chemical and mechanical with speakers, but the similarity is how very small they are and how quickly they are over. Of course, one could argue that once burn-in is complete, decay begins - and that is entirely another discussion... Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
Sonnova wrote:
What bothers me the most is the notion that replacing a simple piece of coax, which, in normal lengths (0.5 to 2 Meters) has no effect, either measurable or audible, on any audio signal passing through it with an expensive, active system consisting of TWO transducers (AC electrical to laser light and laser light back to AC electrical) could possibly be seen as "better". Agree that for normal lengths this product is an unnecessary complication. However, there are some advantages of a technology like this if you're running long interconnects (i.e. hundreds of feet) between systems that have different ground sources. An optical interconnect effectively eliminates ground loops and induced signals (hum and buzz) as well as eliminating hf rolloff due to cable capatance. In that case, the overhead of additional circuitry may be worth it. So my take is that this technology is not necessarily useless, but misapplied if you're using it in a typical home environment. //Walt [quoted text deleted -- deb] |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... What bothers me the most is the notion that replacing a simple piece of coax, which, in normal lengths (0.5 to 2 Meters) has no effect, either measurable or audible, on any audio signal passing through it with an expensive, active system consisting of TWO transducers (AC electrical to laser light and laser light back to AC electrical) could possibly be seen as "better". No conversion of signals can possibly take place with adding non-linear characteristics to the original signal. No phonograph cartridge is distortion free, no microphone, no speaker, no headphone. Although this is audio signal to light (and vice-versa) the same rules are bound to apply: conversions aren't perfect. And, as we see, they do apply. Now, even a "throwaway" audio cable, the kind packed with FM tuners or cheap CD players doesn't add any distortion. This is just fact, irrespective of one's "religious" convictions about cable in general. Not only that, but this equipment does not seem to be particularly good by modern standards. Its dynamic range is about 70 dB which is actually pretty good for pure analog modulation/demodulation to/from light, but poor by modern standards. The logical way to do this would involve digital, which is probably anathema to the intended audience. Frequency response up to 100 KHz or more, and with 110+ dB dynamic range would be possible. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 07:28:12 -0700, Walt wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: What bothers me the most is the notion that replacing a simple piece of coax, which, in normal lengths (0.5 to 2 Meters) has no effect, either measurable or audible, on any audio signal passing through it with an expensive, active system consisting of TWO transducers (AC electrical to laser light and laser light back to AC electrical) could possibly be seen as "better". Agree that for normal lengths this product is an unnecessary complication. Not just unnecessary, but according to Atkinson's measurements, actually not as good as a cheap Radio-Shack molded interconnect cable of the same length. Cheap interconnects do not alter frequency response or introduce distortion. This product, apparently, does AND charges the user an arm and a leg for the privilege. However, there are some advantages of a technology like this if you're running long interconnects (i.e. hundreds of feet) between systems that have different ground sources. Agreed that this type of technology certainly COULD be good for this purpose, but I think I would convert the analog signal to digital before making an optical run that long. An optical interconnect effectively eliminates ground loops and induced signals (hum and buzz) as well as eliminating hf rolloff due to cable capatance. In that case, the overhead of additional circuitry may be worth it. Yes, of course. Still converting the signal to digital on the sending end and back to analog on the receiving end is better yet, and I know it would be cheaper than this product. So my take is that this technology is not necessarily useless, but misapplied if you're using it in a typical home environment. That it certainly is. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 09:55:27 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... What bothers me the most is the notion that replacing a simple piece of coax, which, in normal lengths (0.5 to 2 Meters) has no effect, either measurable or audible, on any audio signal passing through it with an expensive, active system consisting of TWO transducers (AC electrical to laser light and laser light back to AC electrical) could possibly be seen as "better". No conversion of signals can possibly take place with adding non-linear characteristics to the original signal. No phonograph cartridge is distortion free, no microphone, no speaker, no headphone. Although this is audio signal to light (and vice-versa) the same rules are bound to apply: conversions aren't perfect. And, as we see, they do apply. Now, even a "throwaway" audio cable, the kind packed with FM tuners or cheap CD players doesn't add any distortion. This is just fact, irrespective of one's "religious" convictions about cable in general. Not only that, but this equipment does not seem to be particularly good by modern standards. Its dynamic range is about 70 dB which is actually pretty good for pure analog modulation/demodulation to/from light, but poor by modern standards. The logical way to do this would involve digital, which is probably anathema to the intended audience. Frequency response up to 100 KHz or more, and with 110+ dB dynamic range would be possible. My sentiments precisely. I know, for a fact you could do the A/D and D/A and encode it optically far more cheaply than this product sells for. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 07:28:12 -0700, Walt wrote Agree that for normal lengths this product is an unnecessary complication. Not just unnecessary, but according to Atkinson's measurements, actually not as good as a cheap Radio-Shack molded interconnect cable of the same length. Agreed. Like most unnecessary complications it degrades performance. However, there are some advantages of a technology like this if you're running long interconnects (i.e. hundreds of feet) between systems that have different ground sources. Agreed that this type of technology certainly COULD be good for this purpose, but I think I would convert the analog signal to digital before making an optical run that long. Yep. Back in the day before digital was widespread some people were expirementing with this approach. Today, it's usually much simpler and cost effective to just digitize it and call it a day. //Walt |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... Yes, of course. Still converting the signal to digital on the sending end and back to analog on the receiving end is better yet, and I know it would be cheaper than this product. Note that the technique of converting the signal to digital for optical transmission is used for virtually all modern communications involving any type of signal (voice, music, video, data, telemetry) that is transmitted any significant distance, anywhere in the world. There are a number of legacy technology exceptions related to broadcasting to consumers. Somehow, generally accepted digital technology isn't good enough for a few audiophiles. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moon amp, the perfect chance
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:28:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Yes, of course. Still converting the signal to digital on the sending end and back to analog on the receiving end is better yet, and I know it would be cheaper than this product. Note that the technique of converting the signal to digital for optical transmission is used for virtually all modern communications involving any type of signal (voice, music, video, data, telemetry) that is transmitted any significant distance, anywhere in the world. There are a number of legacy technology exceptions related to broadcasting to consumers. Somehow, generally accepted digital technology isn't good enough for a few audiophiles. Maybe not, but it's certainly GOT to be better than this EXPENSIVE analog optical transmission system tested by Stereophile. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
give us a chance is also give u a chance | Pro Audio | |||
Found by chance elsewhere | Pro Audio | |||
"Fly me to the moon" | Audio Opinions | |||
La chance de votre vie | Car Audio |