Jump to content

Assisi

Members
  • Content count

    696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

583 Excellent

About Assisi

  • Rank
    500+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Victoria
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

4,779 profile views
  1. @frankn A very apt and pertinent comment in the context of this thread and the many other threads on the topic of the treatment of power. To me it is probably the most contentious matter in audio. It seems to me that there never ever will be consensus. For me the treatment of power is critical to achieving a quality SQ outcome. Everything starts with the power. I am still often surprised that there is an assumption from some people that:- 1. The quality of the supply power on the Eastern seaboard is “excellent” 2. Quality equipment will with appropriate internal regulation and well-designed power supplies mitigate any possible power supply faults. Maybe the above two points are correct. I am not convinced. There is constant comment on Stereonet about the significant variation in voltage that people experience that are well outside supposed service standard limits. There are comments in this thread. My electrician said to me that he measured supply at house at 280 volts recently. Wow. How do we know that there are no other poor levels of standards such as in the matters of THD or frequency? There are glaring examples of poor service in other service industries. Why not power supply? It is said in this thread and others, that supposedly if the equipment is poor quality and especially if the supply quality is poor then there may be benefit with power treatment. My perspective and experience, is that even with high quality equipment if the power, regardless of quality is treated before it reaches the equipment the outcome will be even better than if there is no treatment. To me that is just logical. My equipment is very high quality. My house power supply is treated with a regenerator for the whole house plus there is a quality conditioner for my audio system. As well, dare I say it, there are acrolink power cords. There is a definite beneficial reduction in noise floor. The listening experience is consequently enhanced. @Jake123 My suggestion to any one is, don’t take my advice or that of any one else. This is something that needs to be experienced. Try power treatment in your own system and make up your own mind. You may be surprised and rewarded. John
  2. @Stereophilus Hi John, That was my understanding also. I didn't say so as I was not sure. John
  3. @davewantsmoore @georgehifi PSAudio had three DACs. The Perfectwave then the Perfectwave II followed by the Directstream. The Perfectwave II could be up graded to the Directstream by the total removal of all the internals and the replacement of everything with new boards etc into the existing case. Externally nothing changed. That is how I went from one to the other. It is probable at the time of the shift from the Perfectwave II to the Directstream it was referred to as the Perfectwave Directstream hence the title of the review from Stereophile. I know it is all very confusing. The big change was the move to the FPGA away from I do not know exactly what? This is a quote from Ted Smith Designer of the Directstream “The FPGA in the DS is used for many functions, e.g. decoding inputs, measuring sample rates, testing for DSD doing deemphasis, buffering, upsampling and doing a sigma delta modulation to one bit DSD. The DAC part of the DS is on another board and basically comprises a passive low pass filter. The Perfectwave DAC Mk II, like most DACs these days use a single chip for many of the above functions and most of those chips are based on multibit sigma delta, i.e. they convert PCM to a higher rate but multibit (4, 5, 6, etc.) samples via sigma delta modulation and then use multiple lower precision DACs at random to average out the manufacturing variations in those DACs. So, the functions aren’t really directly comparable, but do have some overlap.” I expect that the Perfectwave and the Perfectwave II both had a single chip John
  4. @georgehifi Paul McGowan is renowned for his strong opinions and positions on many things audio. I consider that a positive strength that he has is his flexibility and willingness to change his position and acknowledge and embrace change. Inflexibility of thought restricts progress. For a long time McGowan was well known for his opposition to using a preamp. Then one day a few years back in one of his daily posts he wrote about hearing a Preamp that I think was an Aesthetix Preamp. This inspired him to go down that path. The PSAudio Perfectwave DAC did not have FPGA processing functionality. The Directstream DAC has FPGA. John
  5. Maybe you should have a read and refresh your memory. Also maybe you should find out exactly why Paul McGowan went down the Preamp path. My understanding is that he heard one that inspired him to pursue the the value of a Preamp. John
  6. @Assisi I think that you will find that this was about the Perfect Wave which was later replaced by the Direct Stream which I understand is FPGA based. I think that you will find that the DAC that Darko was using is the Direct Stream. You did make considerable comment in posts on the Direct Stream when it was released. John
  7. @georgehifi Are you sure that the PS Audio DAC is a Delta Sigma based? John
  8. Ben, I agree. Nevertheless whilst it is difficult to quantify improvement, the step up will be more than just a couple of percent. That is where life becomes definitely more enjoyable John
  9. @Batty I consider my unit to be a DAC even though there is a player section which I understand is a an Esoteric UMK-5 which I rarely use whilst at the same time, the SQ from the player is noticeably superior. John
  10. @Batty My DAC and CD Player are a single unit. The player is definitely superior. I tend to use the DAC section more often because of the flexibility. John
  11. @flanders Ben, I am surprised at your perception John
  12. Assisi

    Speaker topper

    @lowpoke To me mass damping is about special devices strategically designed to control the movement of an object, building, component etc. That is what the toppers or AMGs are about. I do not understand how just a weight on its own will be beneficial as it would just move in the same directions as the speaker enclosure. In fact, it could exacerbate any problem. I also do not understand what would influence an amplifier to move backwards, forwards, sideways or any way such that the movement could be controlled. Therefore, what are you trying to control with your suggestion and more importantly with what control devices? I am quite interested as it may be something I could try. John
  13. Assisi

    Speaker topper

    In the context of belief/acceptance through to denial I tend to sit with the former. With some of the posts in this thread I consider that there are some positions posted that are simplistic that could cause confusion. Whilst the AMGs have a reasonable degree of weight the fundamental key aspect is the movement of the weight itself to counteract the potential backwards and forwards action of the enclosure due to the movement of the driver cones. I have ML2 Ltds and I tried AMGs. They did make difference but for me it was not something to get overly excited about. Speakers move and to reduce that movement could be beneficial. You can download an accelerometer app on your smart phone. You can then get an indication of the speaker enclosure movement. You may find it interesting I find it difficult to understand that a small silver bar on top of a speaker will mitigate the enclosure movement. Weights that do not move probably just look good. Anything is possible though. What do you mean by "mass damping"? The AMGs are about mitigating enclosure movement. Do amplifiers move? Weights strategically located on top of amplifiers may contribute something to the overall performance. It is something that I have not experienced and I question. Once again though anything is possible. Power supplies and transformers can vibrate. Resonance devices strategically located on top (or under) of amplifiers to absorb unwanted micro frequency harmonics, interference or resonance vibrations do work. You can locate the potential areas of treatment if you rub your hands vigorously until they are warm and sensitive. Then gently touching, move them across the top of the component. You should be able to feel a potential site of concern. Also, an internal look or photo may show you where the powers supply etc is located which is likely to be the area of interest. I have a Stillpoint Ultra 6 on top of each power amp over the power supply. That is all I could afford. Used as a set of feet they may even be better than one on top. They do work. John
  14. @davewantsmoore I wonder whether we are confusing each other. Are you trying to say that a high quality room may not enable a listener to differentiate the benefits between a high and low quality DAC? Surely high quality electronics in a high quality room should be even better again still, than low quality electronics in a high quality room. The overall synergistic benefits of all the inputs into the total system experience would prevail. The reverse would also be the case with high quality electronics in a low quality room. The full potential would not be achieved. Hence the comments in this thread about some not good experiences with high quality electronics in low quality rooms at shows. John
  15. Supposedly to identify conclusively what is maybe in pure honey that should not be there, has until now has been very difficult or impossible to do . Now these special tests done in Germany have identified other significant "ingredients" in some honeys especially from you guessed it primarily China. It is not in all honey from Caplilano. Only their Allowrie label. Other honeys from Aldi etc are also suspect John
×