|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
205.188.116.132
This will be sweet and simple. As some of you know (and have commented on quite vociferously), I decided to blow $40 and try the much-maligned Golden Sound Intelligent Chip. It arrived early this afternoon, and I immediately started my grand experiment. The results? Well, as of 5:30 EST, I've tried 15 discs with the chip, being careful to follow the directions to a T. I have not heard an improvement, even the slightest improvement, on a single disc thus far. Now that I've heard it for myself, I'm in a much better position to place a value judgment on it. I won't call it "junk" or a "scam" (I'll leave that to others). But what I will say is that it did NOTHING in my system. Perhaps future purchasers will have better luck.
Follow Ups:
Why don't you just take it apart just for your curiosity since it does not work and it is only $40.
Going out and wasting 40 whole dollars on the IC. Man, - that's 2 trips to McDonalds....Stupid, stupid...
Did you know that people actually buy them there Kharma Exquisites thingies... Gosh, dem speakers actually cost $80,000 and sound no better than my Sharp boombox!! Stupid Audiophiles.
Then they go out and buy that really expensive snake oil treated speaker hook-up whire too; and it sounds no better than my Home Depot 18 gauge lamp cord. I'm not even going to talk about how many trips to McDonalds I can have....
The best part is that these scammers can't even PROVE that their snake oil treated cables and their Kharma Exquisitey thingies sound better than my Sharp boob-box!!! Coursen, - I never heard them Kharma thingies, - but since they can't prove it, I know that my boob-box sounds better!!
Heck, - I'm gonna go on their website forum thingy and show them what-for!!! I may even use them there analogies and everything...
No, seriously. I'll send you something-or-other and, hey, it might work. You won't know 'til you try. Not that I's be making any claims.
Bet you worked on that one a while....
I perplexed and offended that you can keep an "open" mind with respect to I-chip purveyors but not for me! The believability of our claims is about the same.
.
nt
.
... to most people.
.
Right.Once upon a time, it was obvious that the earth was flat, or that the sun orbitted around the earth.
Doesn't mean there is anything to the I. Chip.
But, while someone might guess right most of the time when something sounds ridiculous or suspicious (or when something seems painfully obvious by one means of evaluation), they won't necessarily be correct all of the time.
When Galileo insisted that the earth was round, he offered a plausible explaination and arguement. Where is the plausible explaination for how the I-chip works or even what it does??I submit that there is none . See what I mean?
Sure.But, take it a step further.
What if Galileo screwed up and offered a wrong explanation? Would the earth be round or flat?
I don't know either way and tend to be skeptical myself. But, stranger things have happened.... (well, maybe not)
Which is not whether the explaination is, in fact, correct, but whether is plausible . For the umpteenth time, there's nothing plausible about I-chip.
I suppose you are merely trying to say you must try it yourself to know, and gee, this is cheap tweak to try for yourself.I have tried many tweaks(and other gear), and before I bother to try them there has to be either:
1. A reasonable scientific basis for expecting it will improve my system, 2. A return policy that shows manufaturer's confidence in the product,
3. A consensus from respected unbiased sources that it has value.The Chip has none of the above.
To me, the issue is not the $40 to prove to myself what I already suspect. It is that I would feel so foolish after I demonstrated for myself what was common sense in the first place. I would also feel guilty for contributing to the success of a fraud.
You must be feeling off tonight given the insulting nature of your comments. Truly, you are not at your best tonight.
that Aurios, or Symposium rollerblocks contain none of the aforementioned criteria....You must be feeling off tonight given the insulting nature of your comments. Truly, you are not at your best tonight
Just returning some of the sarcasm back against the overwhelming whining from the unreasonable multitudes.
But, - you're right, - I should refrain and rise above.
Thanks for pointing that out..
The difference for me in those products, is:1. It makes sense to me, and is in accordance with my understanding of physics, that vibration may affect certain types of equipment.
2. From the Symposium website "factory direct or through authorized Symposium dealers with a full money back guarantee".So, I would gladly try this product based upon the above.
On a sidenote, isn't it strange this little chip has raised so much discussion? I hope the people on this forum are as passionate about things that matter. Imagine if the energy spent on topics like this one could be channelled for the good of mankind. We would have world peace, feed mankind, and bring back reasonable prices for a cup of coffee.
about this stupid little thing.....I've TRIED to say that:
1. It's Clark's job to do these kinds of things: why string him up?
2. If someone doesn't like that (admittedly bad) explanation by the manufacturer of how it works, - I have no problem with not buying/borrowing/attending a test or having anything to do with it.
A). But if you choose to not test, you are wrong to say that it cannnot work.
3. It's only $40, - not exactly something to get so riled up about either way.
A). And because it's only $40 the investment to test shouldn't be such a big deal either way. (So, - too, - I would require much less from the manufacturer as far as an EVAL, proof, etc): OR < the difference that it makes would be more on the subtle side. Anyone should expect a $200 investment for example, - to be researched much more thoroughly than a $40 chip, - IE, more than just a few negative or positive reviews here....I totally agree, - why is this generating so much noise and such vitriol? It's silly and petty. The piles of attacks on Clark, a person that I respect for his large volume of work, - gets his head bitten off for bringing this up, then a few of us who are skeptics get attacked for falling prey to a SCAM, and get our words misconstrued: it's not as though we lost a million dollars or something....
There are certainly a lot more important things to fight about in regard to Audio on this audio gear site. But, why are we fighting at all? Why do we have to be so absolute and so unbending with our opinions and experiences? Why do we seek an absolute truth and certainty with audio equipment? Why do we denigrate others here, who should be our allies, when they deviate from the "truth.?" (Using words like "proof" really is scary to me).
"There are certainly a lot more important things to fight about in regard to Audio on this audio gear site. But, why are we fighting at all? Why do we have to be so absolute and so unbending with our opinions and experiences? Why do we seek an absolute truth and certainty with audio equipment? Why do we denigrate others here, who should be our allies, when they deviate from the "truth.?" (Using words like "proof" really is scary to me)."I absolutely agree. Is this really fun, or rewarding? Why do we do it? The only thing I can think of is ego gratification and testosterone.
It’s like saying "Nobody can make judgment about Nigerian check scams UNTIL they’ve been ripped off". Couldn’t you have figured it out before squandering your $40 to that con artist?Worst, after you got ripped off, you’re still in denial claiming it could be your system incompatibility failure:
"I can’t judge Nigerian check refunds for being scams, all I can say is that my bank refused to cash this Nigerian fellow’s check."
The Chip is something that actually exists, - a physical device, - defined as some physical device that can be placed in the audio system and tested.
This is similar to ERS paper, Audience Auric Illuminator, etc.. Anyone can buy, receive and in turn, test these devices and make a determination as to if they work or not. Whether or not is a SCAM is a debatable point.The Nigerian Email Scam is a solicitation for money, and an alleged double return for the potential investee. No one has ever received a return/product for their "investment."
What's wrong with my logic? I was CURIOUS. Ever hear of that concept? I wanted to know for myself if the chip worked, and I took a $40 risk that didn't pay off. Lesson learned.Second, how am I in denial? Because I admit the possibility that the chip could function and that I simply couldn't perceive its effect? I don't know about you, but I've tried plenty of tweaks that I couldn't hear but my friends could. And vice-versa. Your logic is flawed. If one person hears a car horn honk from across the street, and three people in the immediate vicinity DON'T hear the same horn, does that mean the car doesn't exist? C'mon.
Yes, it could quite possibly mean the car does not exist and the first person is delusional.
From the true skeptical position, - you have to BEHAVE as though things like walls exist, or you would have lots of lumps on your head from running into them.Of course, you Circuit City folks need to have proof....
In terms of the poster's car example, I was merely pointing out there is also the possibililty the person who heard something that others didn't could simply be mistaken.To your point about walls. Actually, before bumping into a wall I could:
1. See it.
2. Touch it to confirm it is solid.
3. Push on it to determine if it could be moved.
4. Test it for hardness to determine if I could create an opening.
5. I could measure it's thickness, height, and width.I would have to take nothing on faith about walls. Do I have to do this with every wall I see? No, I have learned about walls and certain behaviors that apply to them.
However, if someone claimed to have invented a new wall that did not behave like any other wall, and violated basic physics, would I take their word on it? No.
In terms of proof, the burden of proof always rests (as it should) on the new theorem. To ask people to take on faith a premise that is contrary to commonplace engineering and physical laws (not to mention common sense) is not a reasonable position.
Think about some of the silly explanations from the Chip manufacturer. It is simply unreasonable to ask people to spend money to prove to themselves the obvious truth, given no credible explanation from Chip manufacturer has been provided.
Lastly, if you are asking other people to have an open mind, surely you must ask the same of yourself, and recognize the possibility you are wrong.
By the way, the circuit city comment was a cheap shot unworthy of you.
nor burden of proof....1. Never said that it worked.
2. Knowledge has limits
3. We have poor measuring tools
4. If you don't test it, - you can't know if it can work or not.
5. Running Clark or other people who've tested up the flagpole in unfair and unreasonable.
6. It's Clark's job to do what he did...
'1. Never said that it worked.'
Ok, I misunderstood your posts. I thought you had been a proponent'2. Knowledge has limits'
Yes, but even my limited knowledge of physics tells me this product violates basic principles given the explanation from the manufacturer, and my belief system precludes taking things on faith.'3. We have poor measuring tools'
I disagree, and especially in this case. For instance, a binary compare of extracted data pre/post treatment is enough for me and the chip failed this basic test. Of course, there are many other ways to show that nothing on CD changed.'4. If you don't test it, - you can't know if it can work or not.'
Wrong, it has already been tested and failed. The company that makes the product should prove it's merit. They can't and havn't.'5. Running Clark or other people who've tested up the flagpole in unfair and unreasonable.'
I have not run anyone up any flagpole, nor would I want to. I respect his rights as individual to spend his money and time anyway he chooses.'6. It's Clark's job to do what he did...'
I am not sure why it is his job, but ok, if he feels compelled to do it.Would you mind responding to this statement from my previous post:
"Lastly, if you are asking other people to have an open mind, surely you must ask the same of yourself, and recognize the possibility you are wrong."
"" "Lastly, if you are asking other people to have an open mind, surely you must ask the same of yourself, and recognize the possibility you are wrong." ""I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, - at least I don't think so. I'm wrong way too often for my taste and strive to do better. I also try to take responsibility for who I am and what I say, - and don't want to be wrong at the expense of an ego, - and hope that I project such an attitude.
Before I can answer that, - what is it that I need to recognize that I'm wrong about? Since I'm not asserting that the thing works, I wouldn't say that I'm wrong about that.....
In between writing reviews and selling items in his store, LOL.
Your results match mine, with no discernible change in the sound upon treatment.You did an honorable and beneficent thing: to purchase the chip, try it with an open mind, and report the results. Your results are more useful than mine, because I received the chip from a friend who had purchased it and used part of its stated capacity. Since I was not present, I have to assume my friend used the chip per the instructions before he sent it to me. My report is also open to doubt because I expressed my belief that the chip could not possibly work before I tried it.
Anyone who criticizes you for spending the money fails to calculate the value of your posted results to other inmates, and the value of your experience to yourself for future judgements of commercial claims. Shame on them.
We all make decisions every day based on information from others, whether on the Asylum or from personal aquaintances, as well as what we believe to be true. Audio tweaks range from simple to obvious but requiring skill to nonobvious to impossible. There is a grey area between nonobvious and impossible for all of us. You have shed some light on your grey area through your experiment, and I applaud you for it.
.
like a gentleman and scholar. And there are so few of us left :^)
Very well said and on point.
.
Thanks, Al. I (perhaps naively) thought I was doing people here a favor by buying the chip and reporting on my findings, so that other inmates could use that information to determine if they wanted to invest in the chip. I truly did not expect the furor that arose. Maybe I should have expected it, though, after viewing a few earlier threads about the chip. At any rate, thank you for your very eloquent post, and I appreciate your support!
Quint's results with the Chip should really put this matter to rest. My results- or lack of- were exactly the same. No difference, and my system is as resolving as they come; dCS and Meiner CD players side by side, CJ 350 solid state amp for Meitner, Vac 70-70 tubes for dCS, Watt/Pup 7's in the living room. I don't feel indignant--maybe just a bit foolish-- but the real problem is that tweaks like this give ammunition to the Aczel crowd, who refuse to hear any difference in ac cords, interconnects, etc. And they DO make a difference. Most dramatic of all are speaker cables, e.g. my new Nordost Valhallas!
"Now that I've heard it for myself, I'm in a much better position to place a value judgment on it. I won't call it "junk" or a "scam" (I'll leave that to others). But what I will say is that it did NOTHING in my system. Perhaps future purchasers will have better luck."Is your value judgement a recommendation for others to draw their own conclusions on your test or a subsequent purchase? Perhaps we put different emphasis on the term "value judgement".
My "value judgment" is mine and mine alone, not a recommendation or warning of any sort. I bought the chip, it didn't work in my system, and from that I made my value judgment--that it might work in other people's systems but, for some reason, didn't in mine, and thus held no value to ME. People can do whatever they want. If they want to heed my experience and not buy the chip, fine. If they want to spend the $40 and see for themselves, that's fine too.Now, excuse me while I politely bow out of this thread for a while. I've dodged enough stones and arrows for one morning. Need to recover my strength.
sat next to box of CDs in the UPS truck? LOL, tony
Jean-Francois Lessard 2A3 PP amp
Marantz 7T Preamp
Klipschorns w/ALK xovers
Sony CX350&CX-230 cd changers
MSB link DACIII w24/96k
MSB digital director
Luxman PD-272 TT
Technics M85 Cassette
As I have said, at CES and here, I have heard a modest improvement on most disks. As always, YMMV.
Thanks, Norm. So, I'm out $40, but at least I gave it a chance and satisfied my curiosity. It just didn't work for me. Que sera sera.
...which should be, printed in small letters, at the end of that most comprehensive instruction manual they gave to you with the Chip? You know, under "Problem shooting"...Regards
Honestly, I took one look at the "comprehensive" owner's manual, got a basic idea of what I needed to do, and threw it in the trash. Not worth the paper it's printed on.
`
nt
`
......the way the emmlabs converts PCM to DSD and lowers jitter may eliminate the normal effect of the chip.The last three weeks i have been doing some listening to some specially 'burned' cds that were suppose to be much better than the original cds they were burned from. This processing doesn't seem to have much effect in my system. I don't think it's due to lack of resolution......but it 'might' be due to the emmlabs doing already what this tweak might be doing in other systems with different digital players.
when i first got the emmlabs it was clearly a break-thru (to my ears) for naturalness with resolution for cds. If a particular tweak is intended to have that effect it makes perfect sense that you would never hear the effect on the emmlabs gear.
who really knows but it is possible.
in my case; i have considered trying a different digital player to see if there is more difference......Quint, you might consider the same.
i have no agenda one way or another here......with these discs i'm trying or the I-chip.....just trying to keep my mind open to learning when i can.
> ......the way the emmlabs converts PCM to DSD and lowers jitter may eliminate the normal effect of the chip.Erm, the late transcoding/reclocking would eliminate jitter induced by S/PDIF cable reflections, but the signal coming off the CD trasnport mechanism itself is pretty much jitter free. It's where the clock is generated, after all.
> If a particular tweak is intended to have that effect it makes perfect sense that you would never hear the effect on the emmlabs gear.
So what caliber of equipment will it work on? Cheap CD players don't have enough resolution to pick up it's effects, but well designed players have too much? If it's that system dependant why haven't they done testing to inform their consumers what players their tweaks work on?
i can only relate what effect i percieved from the emmlabs compared to other digital (especially with the new CDSD transport). this effect was similar to what various cd tweaks did in other systems i had heard......and those tweaks had less absolute effect with the emmlabs than other systems (at all levels of performance).whether this issue MIGHT have been a factor in what Quint heard (or didn't hear) is a question......but one that has some logic to my personal experience.
there is no doubt that Ed Meitner's approach with emmlabs is unique and solves some problems that others might solve in different ways.
somehow getting a cd to be read better (more completely and accurately) MIGHT be similar (in perceived sonic performance) to lowering jitter and converting pcm to dsd. just a SWAG.
if Quint were to try the I-Chip with another high quality digital source in the same system and he DID hear a repeatable improvement then my SWAG would be more likely probable.
it would be logical that different tweaks work differently with different players......that has been an obvious result in my experience. i would guess that there would be some pattern to any benefit of the I-Chip......whether it might be cost or particular transport or dac would just be a guess.
> somehow getting a cd to be read better (more completely and accurately) MIGHT be similar (in perceived sonic performance) to lowering jitter and converting pcm to dsd. just a SWAG.Er, if a CD is read incompletely, you wouldn't see an increase in jitter, you'd get audio dropouts.
All CD's have errors. Fortunatly there's error correction information embedded in them, and most can be recovered. These are called C1 errors. C2 errors are unrecoverable, and result in a dropout of the sound. An increase in C1 errors usually won't cause an increase in jitter (unless there are a TON, in which case jitter is the least of your worries)
This is one of the problems the skeptics of the 'chip have. The two factors affecting CD sound quality are data integrity and jitter. Data integrity of CD's isn't really a problem, they're designed to be fault tolerant. Jitter isn't a problem at the transport, it's a problem between external DAC's and transports over S/PDIF connections. So what else could the chip affect?
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
Please help me understand why the audiodesk system works so well in my system? As I understand it, it reduces laser scatter allowing the laser to more 'effectively' read the pits on the cd allowing for less error correction? Is this the case? Thanks.
I've never tried an Audiodesk. I understand it's designed to true the diameter of a CD and bevel it's edges. Early CD's had diameter problems, which have largely been corrected in modern manufacturing, so truing older CD's may make a difference. I'm not sure how beveling will help anything.If it's supposed to reduce errors, that's pretty easy to check. Plextor and Lite-On CD-ROM drives have software that tests for C1 and C2 errors.
Otherwise I'd say it really does nothing at all. Have you tried comparing a treated and untreated disc directly?
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
I was thinking about that very thing last night. The EMM gear has generally been pretty resistant to the various tweaks I've tried to apply to it (CD mats, green pens, etc.). You might be right: the level of resolution and naturalness of the EMM gear might already be so high that the chip couldn't improve on it. Whatever, I took a chance and lost. I gave the chip to a friend of mine who has a less costly digital front end. I'm curious what his results will be. Thanks for the input, Mike. Yours is one of the few sympathetic voices I've heard on this thread. Jeez, I feel like I'm being crucified for simply trying a stupid little tweak.
nt
naysayers and giving it a go....The intolerance team is quite large here, - but I'll add my support for doing things yourself and conducting your test...
Cheers,
It amazes me how negative and critical (and sometimes nasty) many posts are.
cyn·i·cism (sĭn'ĭ-sĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.1. An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals.
2. A scornfully or jadedly negative comment or act: “She arrived at a philosophy of her own, all made up of her private notations and cynicisms” (Henry James).
3. Cynicism The beliefs of the ancient Cynics.as opposed to some good and healthy
skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism (skĕp'tĭ-sĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy.
1. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
2. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
3. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.
As I see it, the momentum of this topic is fueled by a rift between subjectivist audiophiles. Hopefully as more relevant information surfaces, healing will prevail.
I just wonder how much time will be required.
I need it.
"I feel like I'm being crucified for simply trying a stupid little tweak."The proponents of the chip blast those who are skeptical and won't try the chip. Yet those who have tried it and reported it as useless get grief because they DIDN'T hear a difference!
In the meantime, sales are up and new explanations for how it works and reasons why it didn't work for some get more creative.
to my thinking, what is needed is those that are curious but open minded, especially if the price of that curiosity is $40.if i restricted my investigations to things i fully understood.......my life would be considerably different. nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, but it should be matched by a hunger to learn and discover new things.
After all, it is "intelligent", and chose not to waste it's cargo of flooby dust on a non-believer such as yourself.
Matthew
Default Signature Line
It is the skeptics who are testing it for themselves.....
Place the chip under your shoe. Then step on it real hard. You will end up breakin' the chip, hardy har har!I was given a demo of the chip at CES, did not hear a difference, so nobody can accuse me of being critical and damning of something I have had no experience with. I still think a double-blind test (two indentical digital players plugged into a linestages inputs, allowning a quick switch between treated and untreated discs) might help discern if there is indeed a difference that some folks can hear (though I doubt this, but, hey, I'll leave the slim possiblity open.) It those folks who can hear a difference can indeed pick out the treated disc enough times for it not to be luck, then maybe we can ascertain that some difference could be there. From the way proponents of the disc talk, it sounds like it's a miraculous change that is rendered, not a "gee, it's subtle, I think I hear a difference.
Now, even if the chip does not work, if it makes the users think it does, and they are happy with it, fine. I was talking to a makeup artist on a shoot once who had a friend in New Orleans who sold "voodoo graveyard" dirt on ebay, at something like $20.00 a jar. The dirt was from the person's backyard, and they put it up as a gag, but people bought it! So I guess those people were happy to pay $20.00 for a jar of dirt, and I'm sure their magic/voodooo spells worked out just fine for them.
> > The dirt was from the person's backyard, and they put it up as a gag, but people bought it! So I guess those people were happy to pay $20.00 for a jar of dirt, and I'm sure their magic/voodooo spells worked out just fine for them. < <
"I'll bet you that within a year from now the mechanism behind the Intelligent Chip's effect on CDs will be understood and recognized -- by a public resistant to growth, a public enmeshed in the gears of accepted ways, a public subservient to whatever entrenched "scientific" bureaucracies tell them is absolutely, forever true. In short, people such as yourself."clark
(reply to regmac on Critics)
was his exchange with KlausR....
.
with all the crap generated about this silly chip am I the first to notice that virtually the only thing said about the damn thing by those claiming to hear a difference is, well, just that, a difference! Jesus is the difference itself so mysterious that it defies description?
Here's the link to my review of the GSIC. I note some of the differences I heard after a disc was treated.
Hey Geoff, for your next audiophile fraud, please have the courtesy to suggest what we should invent when we listen. Make sure to pick endless ones that are easy to imagine:
In fact I have in the past needed some objective information to learn what to listen for. Just a little bit of training the brain there.
.
Jesus is the difference.:-)
.
hoping that some of the people would think, "well, 40 bucks isn't such a big deal, so let me try it". This works very nicely, in conjunction with 'no money back' policy.
[-;
...send the rest of the applications to me. ;-)
would you pay $20 for the 15 applications left?
...purchase a 15 application chip for $20. At the furious pace Quint went a chippin', I would have my doubts that 15 applications are left.
suppose Quint has used the IC X times, where X is less than 30, so there are 30-X applications left. However, Quint does not reveal what X is.The experiment is - you get the chip, you use it until it has run out, then you report how many times you used it until it was used up, which should be 30-X, and then Quint reveals X was. The two numbers should add up to 30 - right?
Actually there are a few extra applications available on each GSIC-30. But you are right, if the GSIC-30 had exactly 30 applications available it would be an extremely interesting experiment.
These factors might have made a difference. They do with me as I'm less likely to howl if the moon is waning than if it is in full mode.BS aside, full marks to you for your frankness and thanks for relating your (lack of) revelation to us.
Now with Easter coming up, that moon .......
this turkey.
We'll see about that. As long as curiosity holds sway, people will continue to investigate these kinds of products. It's the "But What If It DOES Work?" phenomenon. Hell, maybe even you might try one one day.
your screwed !your system doesn't have sufficient resolution for you to hear the improvement ....
you must spend mega-upgrade bux ....
But now you can post on the chip with a mantle of authority . . . that's gotta be worth something!
As soon as it gets dark...I'm headed out back to the neighbors pasture to steal me some fresh cow chips. The ones I tested yesterday were a few days old, and the results were questionable. ...hey, a mushroom.
Don't waste your time. I hear they sound like crap. You'd have to get up aweful early to get the best fungus, in which case I'd be willing to bet that you'd hear a difference too. Perhaps even some colorations that you had not noticed previously.
NOT!Let's see who'll be the first to issue a insulting rebuttal ...
If John Curl AND Clark Johnsen say it works, who are WE to argue!
.
.
You know some improvements can't be heard through a mid-fi set-up. Maybe you need to locate the bottleneck in your system. I'm just kidding. I looked at your setup. Nice stuff. I hope you had fun anyway.
I was just about to shoot back a defensive retort when I saw you were kidding! My system may have other problems, but resolution ain't one of them. :)Yeah, overall, I had fun with the whole chip thing. Nobody likes to feel suckered--and, especially, advertised in a public forum--but I hope my experience will be instructive to others. I also hope Golden Sound uses my $40 wisely. They should invest it in additional R&D for their (Not So) Intelligent Chip.
I debated how far to go before I said I was kidding. I wasn't sure if you had high blood pressure or not. I bet the VR9s are awesome. I love my little VR4s.
Noticed new Ritz chips last night at the store, got two kinds -regular and cheddar. Double blind taste test (not watching in a mirror, with either eye) results were very favorable.
Try the aerosol cheeze upgrade.
The Ritz are just too good,to be good for you.
sincerely beanz
:-)
That's what my wife says when anything electrical does not work ... as I'm trying to diagnose the problem.Oh it's nice to have a wifey with such a good sense of humor!
and when you've seen a process analyzer that's been wired to a lighting panel, and said analyzer only works after the sun goes down...then you know you have a photocell controlled lighting panel.
Quint,I know I'm digressing but...
I'm joining the Von Schweikert followers...just put money down on db99's. I saw but did not hear you speakers...very futuristic looking, remind me of robots from space...the sound must be incomparable.
Hey, Pond:Congrats on those 99s. They're fantastic speakers. I almost bought a pair . . . until I decided to empty my IRA to go for the VR-9s. :)
If you're gonna go broke, it may as well be in style, right? Now I digress! The VR-9s, to me, are the most impressive and well balanced speakers in Albert's line. Now, I may be a bit biased, but that's how I feel. They can be breathtakingly real on the right material. Try "I Won't Back Down" from Johnny Cash's album "American III: Solitary Man." On that song, I could visualize every movement of his mouth and hear every creak in the chair. And they're easily the most dynamic speaker I've ever had in my room. They can stop on a dime and give you five cents change! They're still breaking in, but I'm having a blast anyway. Enjoy those 99s!
Quint - Not intending to put you on spot, but anything else in your system still breaking in?
I thought this thing performs i's magic on the CD itself. It should be audible regardless of the status of the machine. What's the next explanation?
Matthew
Default Signature Line
No, everything else should be pretty well broken in. The speakers are the newest link in the chain. Why do you ask?
Quint, you appear to have given this chip a fair test, and it didn't work for you. However, it seems to work for others. Geoff is only trying to eliminate any potential reasons why the chip didn't work for you. Sometimes, it hasn't worked with other quality equipment as well.
I don't understand why you purchased the more expensive chip. Why not get the cheaper one first, to try? That's what I would have done, and then I would have less to complain about, if it didn't work for me.
"sometimes it doesn't work with other quality equipment..." and by implication, for some other people, as well. To read Clark, you would have thought that it worked for everybody who has listened to it and the only skeptics are people who haven't listened. At least, that's the way it reads to me, maybe I'm reading him wrong.
John:The eternal optimist that I am, I went for the 30-charge chip because I honestly thought it was going to work, and the 30 is overall a better deal, price-wise, than the smaller one. Maybe a lame explanation, but that's how my mind works!
Quint, what you say leaves a little room for interpretation...out of idle curiosity, how many hours of play do you have on your Meitner gear?
I would say in the neighborhood of 800-900 hours on the Meitner gear.
If it was less than 300 hours, this could be the problem.
nt
you, on the other hand, seem to accept everything at face value, without any curiosity, even the idle variety. :-)
nt
let me guess, you were voted class clown, right?
nt
...good at it, too. :-)
hear a difference...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: