|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
87.114.80.241
In Reply to: RE: Comments on your post (sorry - a bit long) posted by fmak on January 30, 2017 at 01:14:29
that one cannot 'optimise' a system through conjecture.
Some copy missing?
When optimising in the technical sense, the cause and effect of each variable is generally understood and optimisation involves the give-and-take in terms of achieving a final result.
Sounds good but not sure it's relevant here.
When you talk about OS optimisation,
I don't talk about OS optimisation - see above.
the precise effects of many elements of the OS on audio replay quality are not known and so called 'optimisation' is based on conjecture, often speculative ones at that.
Nonsense. Many OS functions have no role in the audio replay chain. Though it can be tedious, disabling or deleting them is generally trivial and has been done to varying degrees across the audio sector for over a decade. Something tells me you've not tried it even if you do experiment with this and that.
So if you say that your system is 'optimised'
Sigh. I don't use the word 'optimise' but neither do I feel the need repeatedly to belittle those who do with gobbledegook about power supplies.
then you would have had to understand and install power supplies that are 'optimal'. Otherwise, if you make a small change to these and get a material change in SQ, what does 'optimisation' mean? Similarly you LAN cable and other peripherals.
Again, nonsense. If, say, I disable enumeration in the USB stack, I definitely lose flexibility and may or may not get better SQ but PS quality has nothing to do with it. If you want to call snipping a couple of pairs from a LAN cable 'optimising' it, who am I to stop you?
Power supply interactions are complex and using two transformers back to back to provide optimal isolation' is conjecture.
You've changed the subject and accused me of saying "optimal'. Again.
You are altering the source impedance significantly and it can be that you are hearing an improvement because something else in your system is 'not right'. As long as you accept that this outcome is fine (optimal for you) and do not pontificate on pseudo technical reasoning for others to follow, then this is fine by me.
Now you're the one who's guessing. Of course the setup raises source impedance which is why one and all stress that it isn't suitable for dynamic loads. We're discussing powering devices that present a low and more-or-less constant load well within the transformers' power rating. You seem also to miss the point that we're talking about isolation and filtration with an eye on leakage currents.
As I said above, I simply have to accept that this is so for my system without dwelling into the technology and pretending that I know better than others.
But almost every post you make has you pretending you know better than others though not always convincingly.
As for isolation transformers, there is no substitute for spending the necessary money to buy units deigned as such and if possible have technical data to back them up. There are transformer manufacturers who know what they are doing and can supply units to requirement at reasonable cost.
I know of a couple of UK manufacrurers who sell reportedly excellent audio-grade isolation transformers but they are not cheap. They're too expensive for me and, in any case, overkill for circuits drawing ten watts or less. Among the "stuff" I tried were ordinary isolation transformers from reputable suppliers but they didn't impress.
Follow Ups:
''I don't talk about OS optimisation'' Quote 1 from you
''"Optimising" in the PC audio context means configuring an OS to favour audio reproduction, typically by disabling non-audio-related function.''
Quote 2 - from you http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/16/162783.html
So, what are you on about?
It is no good quoting bits of what I said and responding in bits and pieces. You need to make cogent arguments if you wish to discuss. After all, you invited criticisms of your post and now it seems that you cannot take comments seriously.
So, what are you on about?
You have a bee in your bonnet about and sounded off on the word 'optimise' so I explained the sense in which other people use it in our context even though I don't use it myself. I don't see what's difficult about that.
The link you provide with that conjuror's flourish confirms that. I wrote: "It may, as you argue, be a misuse of the term but the rest of us know what it means even if I prefer to say "slimming".
You need to make cogent arguments if you wish to discuss.
You miss the point - I really, really don't wish to discuss with you but, as you were talking nonsense about 'optimisation' and more nonsense about Jon's little circuit, I felt obliged to correct the record.
I should've let it go . . .
D
Ho! You mean you with YOUR definition.
...but you appear to have a comprehension issue, again.
issue you have invented again.
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: