 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.22.83.191
In Reply to: RE: Please forgive the natural scepticism - but we've heard that before. posted by carcass93 on February 06, 2009 at 11:44:27
I assure you that it was not only my ears listening at THE Show, but everyone who attended heard the same thing. There was no sonic difference regardless of the transport.
Follow Ups:
"I assure you that it was not only my ears listening at THE Show, but everyone who attended heard the same thing."
I'm sure he's heard that one before too.
It is okay to be skeptical. Being obnoxious or sarcastic is just impolite.
Edits: 02/06/09
When real-world, understandable explanations of a technology are not forthcoming, you are asking for trouble. Maybe Andreas has come up with something that will revolutionize digital playback. But if all of the explanations are wrapped in mumbo-jumbo, it will soon be branded as snake oil.
This is not a recipe for success. Look at the people that came before and learn from their mistakes. At one time George Tice made a line of AC power conditioners that were considered to be the best available. His products were carried by the best dealers. He got great reviews from all the magazines.
Then he came out with this thing called "TPT" for "Tice Power Technology". It came in what appeared to be a $25 digital alarm clock from Radio Shack that he sold for $300 after "treating" it with the secret "TPT" juice. He refused to say how it worked except for some nonsense about "coherent electrons".
To make a long story short, within a few years he was literally out of business.
Nobody wants to buy snake oil. When Gordon developed his "asynchronous" USB technology, it was clearly the best way to get the data out of the computer and into your stereo system. We could have spent a bunch of time and money copying him, but guess what? At the end of the day, everyone would just say that Ayre copied Wavelength. And they would have been right. So we simply licensed it from him. It's a win-win for both companies.
If you look at the companies that are successful, they don't hide their technology == they brag about it. Go to the B&W website and learn *exactly* why they think their speaker is better than anybody else's. Learn about their diamond tweeter. Learn about their crossover design. Learn about their cabinet bracing. Learn about their woofer designs. B&W is the most successful high-end speaker company in the world. Put two and two together -- it's not a coincidence that they are successful *and* they tell all about their designs in great detail.
Then when somebody makes a woofer with carbon skins over a Rohacell (foam) core, guess what -- everyone knows that all they did was copy B&W. It doesn't hurt B&W's sales -- it *helps* their sales, by helping reinforce the fact that B&W is the technology leader.
So tell Andreas to explain in plain English what his new method is, and how it "eliminates" jitter. If it is great, we'll license it from him. And anybody that copies him will just be seen as copy cats. It won't hurt Playback, it will only enhance their reputation.
If you want to give someone advice doing it in a public forum is self serving and very obvious. If you are truly sincere, private emails show it better.
It appears obvious to me with each of your responses that you are just fishing. If we wanted to share our technology with you, we would have. You kept asking for me to explain what we are doing and I tried to do so in a way that everyone could get a basic understanding without giving away our trade secrets which certainly gives us a big market advantage. As far as licensing and our business goes, that really is our decision and not yours to dictate.
You stated:
"When Gordon developed his "asynchronous" USB technology, it was clearly the best way to get the data out of the computer and into your stereo system."
With all due respect to both you and Gordon, his asynchronous USB technology is NOT "the best" way to get data out of the computer and into your stereo system". It is just one way and as I stated before, our DAC does not care what interface is used, they are all going to sound the same.
Charles you are not being professional and while I have respect for you, I am losing it quickly.
Respectfully,
Jonathan Tinn
Playback Designs
Mr. Hansen has a solid history and a well earned reputation on this forum.
When I read his advice for you the last thing on my mind is that he was fishing for anything from you. I've never seen him operate that way.
On the other hand, you seem to be working overtime to generate snake oil suspicions out of the box. Your analogies of how your technology works haven't been particularly cogent and your responses to questions in this thread have been less than impressive.
It might be a good time to take a deep breath and restart your introduction from the beginning.
"It might be a good time to take a deep breath and restart your introduction from the beginning."
Way too late for that...
Just letting you know what it looks like from out here. It's yours to do with as you wish.
just a lurker here and mostly enjoying the read but Jonathan aren't you jumping into Charles' thread here and basically telling him his product is not going to be up to scratch, that he doesn't know about what he talks, all without a lot of detailed information about why .... start your own thread about your own white paper and I will happily read it. Sorry - just my grumpy 2 cents.
Hi David,
No, I do not believe so. This started with a statement that Charles made in:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/4/45406.html
All I said in response was:
"Actually with the Playback Designs 2 dimensional DAC, the connection itself is irrelevant. Since the Playback Designs is immune to jitter, it does not matter whether you use Toslink, USB, SPDIF, AES, etc."
I certainly was just trying to make it clear that I disagreed with his statement. His questions took it to where it is now. I never intended this.
Best Regards,
Jonathan Tinn
Playback Designs
You posted a link to a page that made product claims which read like snake oil. Many of us would like to have DACs that totally reject jitter and produce sound that does not depend on the transport. Such a DAC would greatly simplify computer audio. Manufacturers have made claims of this sort before, but these have not stood the test of actual performance, according to reports I have seen or equipment that I have used.
By describing how your product works using unusual terminology your product takes on a decided "snake oil" tinge. I have no way of knowing what your product does. My best guess is that you are doing some form of asynchronous resampling. But the way the web page is written it is impossible to tell. If you wrote how your product worked and compared it to other approaches then we might continue to doubt your claims, but at least you wouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Your product may be good for all I know, but you definitely have a ways to go when it comes to marketing literature.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
