We are not trolls, but DIY audio enthusiasts who happen to know a bit of maths, science and engineering.
Then why not conduct yourselves as befits people who know "a bit of maths, science and engineering" and toss in some good manners while you're about it?
This has to be one of the most vituperative threads I've visited on any audio forum ever. A small group has pitched into a discussion that seems to have no purpose beyond denigrating (behind his back) a commercial designer in the strongest of terms ("a unit that looks like it was vomited from a junk-box" [that immoderate description from, if you please, a "moderator"]; "I am surprised the EU hasn't banned it" [which verges on libellous]; "[the] circuits tend to be 'original' " [see below]; "Have a good laugh", etc etc) pausing only to remind us time and again just how jolly "professional" its members are.
Reading the posts, it hits one between the eyes that, in crassly amateur fashion, one and all are commenting on a device they have not heard and criticising a circuit whose schematic they have not seen. They do not describe why it is faulty other than in abstract terms and, as often as not, erroneously - "star grounding on a 50MHz clock speed digital PCB" [not known]; "there are no real digital techniques used", [there are but not in the analogue section of the device], etc etc.
Had they troubled to look beyond marketing hype and directly at the main subject of their tantrums, the I/V circuit (as I have), they would soon have discovered that it is a conventional, straight-out-the-textbooks (aka tried and tested) circuit. In this application, though not generally, its PSU is more elaborate than typical but, again, thoroughly conventional.
So how do our "professionals" think it should have been laid out? Lampizator devices are not unusual in using point-to-point wiring for valve/tube electronics; the sometimes elusive degradation in performance that can arise from using PCBs in analogue circuitry is discussed by competent designers such as UK veteran Stan Curtis (who, unlike most here, has a track record in mainstream audio design).
And so on and so forth. The thread neatly illustrates why audio hobbyists are often right not to take electronics engineers without a background in audio very seriously - despite their "professionalism", they can, when so minded, talk as much spiteful nonsense as anyone.
Oh, and please, please, please spare us that "audiophools are attracted by a dash of distortion in their circuits" nonsense, the last (solipsistic) resort of the lazy critic. Those who care to look will find that the Lampizator I/V circuit measures as well as or better than any comparable device out there.
Then why not conduct yourselves as befits people who know "a bit of maths, science and engineering" and toss in some good manners while you're about it?
This has to be one of the most vituperative threads I've visited on any audio forum ever. A small group has pitched into a discussion that seems to have no purpose beyond denigrating (behind his back) a commercial designer in the strongest of terms ("a unit that looks like it was vomited from a junk-box" [that immoderate description from, if you please, a "moderator"]; "I am surprised the EU hasn't banned it" [which verges on libellous]; "[the] circuits tend to be 'original' " [see below]; "Have a good laugh", etc etc) pausing only to remind us time and again just how jolly "professional" its members are.
Reading the posts, it hits one between the eyes that, in crassly amateur fashion, one and all are commenting on a device they have not heard and criticising a circuit whose schematic they have not seen. They do not describe why it is faulty other than in abstract terms and, as often as not, erroneously - "star grounding on a 50MHz clock speed digital PCB" [not known]; "there are no real digital techniques used", [there are but not in the analogue section of the device], etc etc.
Had they troubled to look beyond marketing hype and directly at the main subject of their tantrums, the I/V circuit (as I have), they would soon have discovered that it is a conventional, straight-out-the-textbooks (aka tried and tested) circuit. In this application, though not generally, its PSU is more elaborate than typical but, again, thoroughly conventional.
So how do our "professionals" think it should have been laid out? Lampizator devices are not unusual in using point-to-point wiring for valve/tube electronics; the sometimes elusive degradation in performance that can arise from using PCBs in analogue circuitry is discussed by competent designers such as UK veteran Stan Curtis (who, unlike most here, has a track record in mainstream audio design).
And so on and so forth. The thread neatly illustrates why audio hobbyists are often right not to take electronics engineers without a background in audio very seriously - despite their "professionalism", they can, when so minded, talk as much spiteful nonsense as anyone.
Oh, and please, please, please spare us that "audiophools are attracted by a dash of distortion in their circuits" nonsense, the last (solipsistic) resort of the lazy critic. Those who care to look will find that the Lampizator I/V circuit measures as well as or better than any comparable device out there.
Are you suggesting that any criticism of any commercial item, based on information on a commercial website, must necessarily involve alerting those criticised? Nothing was done behind anyone's back. This is a public forum, searchable via Google, commenting on something published on a publicly accessible website which relates to an item which is being offered for sale to the public at quite a high price. As such, it would be perfectly justifiable if the criticisms were more strongly expressed than similar comments about a DIY item or a very cheap item. As far as I can remember, the criticisms were of the item and things said on the website: the design, not the designer.Ryelands said:
Criticism of commercial items often takes place on here, including items which have received glowing reviews from journalists. Potential purchasers are free to make up their own mind on the plausibility of explanations and the reasonability of price tags. Would you prefer a world in which makers make claims and journalists nod their heads and say "How wonderful!" while people with criticisms keep quiet?
Are you suggesting that any criticism of any commercial item, based on information on a commercial website
By your own admission (post 40), you hadn't visited the pertinent web site for "a few years". IOW, your comments were gossip, not valid criticisms of a commercial product. Ditto e.g. the claim that the circuit was "original" a term which, you stressed, was intended to belittle. As it happens, the circuit is not original, it is text-book conventional. More ditto, the stuff about digital grounding - the design of the digital component is not apparent from the photograph that launched the thread. The picture was, in any case, taken from a "for sale" ad, not from the designer's commercial web site. And so on.
. . . must necessarily involve alerting those criticised?
Not at all but if you can't see the difference between valid criticism, however robust, and misleading gossip about an unsighted product, I doubt I can help you.
As far as I can remember, the criticisms were of the item and things said on the website: the design, not the designer.
Your memory fails you on this occasion - see above. Given the dubious provenance of the unit pictured at the top of the thread, even the points about price and construction quality are probably invalid but several substantive "criticisms" - including yours - were of a product that didn't actually exist. The explicit intent was to portray the designer as incompetent, a bit of a charlatan, the product as inherently sub-standard, perhaps even in breach of EU safety Directives and anyone who thought otherwise a gullible fool, the latter point repeated ad nauseam.
Would you prefer a world in which makers make claims and journalists nod their heads and say "How wonderful!" while people with criticisms keep quiet?
Of course not but you seem to prefer a world in which engineers make false claims and lay people nod their heads and say "How clever you all are!" while people with criticisms keep quiet.
My criticisms were of errors of fact made by engineers that could impact on someone's business but could readily have been checked prior - as any competent professional would do.
By your own admission (post 40), you hadn't visited the pertinent web site for "a few years". IOW, your comments were gossip, not valid criticisms of a commercial product. Ditto e.g. the claim that the circuit was "original" a term which, you stressed, was intended to belittle. As it happens, the circuit is not original, it is text-book conventional. More ditto, the stuff about digital grounding - the design of the digital component is not apparent from the photograph that launched the thread. The picture was, in any case, taken from a "for sale" ad, not from the designer's commercial web site. And so on.
. . . must necessarily involve alerting those criticised?
Not at all but if you can't see the difference between valid criticism, however robust, and misleading gossip about an unsighted product, I doubt I can help you.
As far as I can remember, the criticisms were of the item and things said on the website: the design, not the designer.
Your memory fails you on this occasion - see above. Given the dubious provenance of the unit pictured at the top of the thread, even the points about price and construction quality are probably invalid but several substantive "criticisms" - including yours - were of a product that didn't actually exist. The explicit intent was to portray the designer as incompetent, a bit of a charlatan, the product as inherently sub-standard, perhaps even in breach of EU safety Directives and anyone who thought otherwise a gullible fool, the latter point repeated ad nauseam.
Would you prefer a world in which makers make claims and journalists nod their heads and say "How wonderful!" while people with criticisms keep quiet?
Of course not but you seem to prefer a world in which engineers make false claims and lay people nod their heads and say "How clever you all are!" while people with criticisms keep quiet.
My criticisms were of errors of fact made by engineers that could impact on someone's business but could readily have been checked prior - as any competent professional would do.
Well said!
What worries me most of all in this (and similar debates) is that well qualified persons will so often be extremely dictatorial regarding anything within the widest ambit of their discipline, yet will in no way examine the flimsy structure upon which their own, non-scientific, beliefs are based. The fact that they can launch into this debate in such cynical fashion does not bear examination.
I cannot take anything uttered by such people without the largest possible pinch of salt. As I don't like salt I tend to pass over that which they may say. IF they believe that the tenets of others are unfounded all well and good, but to attempt an assassination of their work and products is at the least evil when they have not - as stated in the post above - tested the said beliefs and resultant products.
Regarding the generality of comment which criticizes the unit in question not one can honestly claim any personal experience of the product, and many of their criticisms could be subject to legal action.
What worries me most of all in this (and similar debates) is that well qualified persons will so often be extremely dictatorial regarding anything within the widest ambit of their discipline, yet will in no way examine the flimsy structure upon which their own, non-scientific, beliefs are based. The fact that they can launch into this debate in such cynical fashion does not bear examination.
I cannot take anything uttered by such people without the largest possible pinch of salt. As I don't like salt I tend to pass over that which they may say. IF they believe that the tenets of others are unfounded all well and good, but to attempt an assassination of their work and products is at the least evil when they have not - as stated in the post above - tested the said beliefs and resultant products.
Regarding the generality of comment which criticizes the unit in question not one can honestly claim any personal experience of the product, and many of their criticisms could be subject to legal action.
My comments were general ones about what I remember reading on that website. I can make no comment on the particular item as I know nothing about it. I said his circuits and explanations are 'original'. By that I meant that they do not appear to confirm to conventional audio engineering science; he would probably claim this himself and regard it as a positive feature. The current quotes from his website posted here by others seem to confirm that his general approach has not changed in the few years since I last visited his website. If the particular item referred to in this thread has a conventional circuit then clearly my comments do not apply to it, but then I never claimed they did. Other people's comments were mainly about apparent build quality and the presence of pieces of wood etc., which do not relate to the circuit itself.
Not at all. I encourage robust debate. Have I asked you to keep quiet? No - I have responded to what you say.Ryelands said:
There is ample anecdotal evidence of the truth of this. I did read somewhere (but unfortunately I am unable to find the source) that properly conducted listening tests in the 1940s or 50s found that given a choice of variable amounts of low order distortion many people opted not for zero but a few %. This is not surprising, given that it adds 'warmth' and 'richness'.
On the contrary, I think it is very likely that Mr. Lampizator is very sincere in his views.
Photos were posted here and are consistent with the photos on the peddler's website. The construction is incompetent. Sorry if that offends you, but that changes nothing.
Legal nonsense
There is no need for anyone to be concerned about libel in these discussions. It seems that such assertions are interposed to stifle discussion. I for one prefer a free and open discussion with conflicting views. As long as civility is maintained, this advances knowledge. So long as it does not commit a murder, just get on with it.
There is no need for anyone to be concerned about libel in these discussions. It seems that such assertions are interposed to stifle discussion. I for one prefer a free and open discussion with conflicting views. As long as civility is maintained, this advances knowledge. So long as it does not commit a murder, just get on with it.
I almost included that very sentence in my last comment criticizing this thread. This hasn't been merely an attack on some inanimate device, it has been an quite mean spirited attack on a person's intellect at best, and on their integrity at worst. Based on some remote perception (not on an direct experience) of that device.
Furthermore, I agree with with an earlier comment that there is is bit of a 'wolf pack' culture developing. While those involved, no doubt, believe they are merely defending the principles of rationality and the precepts of science, they should well consider whether those virtues are self-corrupting into hubris and authoritarian intolerance, and whether defense requires derisive ridicule. Consider it.
Last edited:
If we are a 'wolf pack', what is the group of people circling around us baying for our blood?
PS A few days ago this thread was doing what most threads do: naturally dying. It would then have slowly slipped off Google's radar as Google is mainly interested in active threads. An attempt at stirring up mischief will have now revived it. Is that what people want, given that they believe themselves to be defending someone? I would prefer to let this thread die again.
Intolerance says "You can't say that". Exactly who is saying that something should not be said, and who is merely disagreeing with something which has been said? I think the boot is on the other foot.Ken Newton said:
PS A few days ago this thread was doing what most threads do: naturally dying. It would then have slowly slipped off Google's radar as Google is mainly interested in active threads. An attempt at stirring up mischief will have now revived it. Is that what people want, given that they believe themselves to be defending someone? I would prefer to let this thread die again.
Last edited:
Not worth worrying about until an actual technical argument is made, at which point that is what is addressed.
DF96:
My comments were general ones about what I remember reading on that website.
I know that but you were recalling from years back and couldn't be bothered to revisit the web site before commenting. That's shabby.
I did read somewhere (but unfortunately I am unable to find the source) that properly conducted listening tests in the 1940s or 50s found that given a choice of variable amounts of low order distortion many people opted not for zero but a few %. This is not surprising, given that it adds 'warmth' and 'richness'.
Ye Gods. A hazy memory of an experiment from up to 70 years ago using equipment designed to the standards of the time and perhaps using AM broadcasts or 78rpm records as source (we haven't a clue) produced a result that was, well, awfully jolly useful to my argument if I only knew what was said and when and where. So there.
If that's your idea of "ample anecdotal evidence" in a scientific context, best stick to electronics. Speaking as someone who "knows a bit" about experimental psychology, your claim is, with respect, worthless.
SY:
The construction is incompetent. Sorry if that offends you, but that changes nothing.
Not at all - it's a reasonable comment and would have been even more reasonable had you commented on the company's products. (The photo at the top of the thread has only a passing resemblance to them.) Less attractive are remarks such as "looks like it was vomited from a junk-box, then had the parts rearranged by a palsied lemur". Still, each to his own.
GTHICM
There is no need for anyone to be concerned about libel in these discussions.
Nobody is. Did I suggest that Lukasz Fikus sue somebody? I said that some comments verged on libellous because posters suggested that the device breached RFI compliance and, crucially, safety regulations. That's not a trivial charge, not least because they don't.
It seems that such assertions are interposed to stifle discussion.
Don't be silly.
DF96
What is the group of people circling around us baying for our blood?
Calm down - no-one's "baying for your blood". I found the cliquish nature of the thread distasteful but kept quiet until others revived it following LF's restrained reply to some of the more overblown comments. So I said what I thought.
My comments were general ones about what I remember reading on that website.
I know that but you were recalling from years back and couldn't be bothered to revisit the web site before commenting. That's shabby.
I did read somewhere (but unfortunately I am unable to find the source) that properly conducted listening tests in the 1940s or 50s found that given a choice of variable amounts of low order distortion many people opted not for zero but a few %. This is not surprising, given that it adds 'warmth' and 'richness'.
Ye Gods. A hazy memory of an experiment from up to 70 years ago using equipment designed to the standards of the time and perhaps using AM broadcasts or 78rpm records as source (we haven't a clue) produced a result that was, well, awfully jolly useful to my argument if I only knew what was said and when and where. So there.
If that's your idea of "ample anecdotal evidence" in a scientific context, best stick to electronics. Speaking as someone who "knows a bit" about experimental psychology, your claim is, with respect, worthless.
SY:
The construction is incompetent. Sorry if that offends you, but that changes nothing.
Not at all - it's a reasonable comment and would have been even more reasonable had you commented on the company's products. (The photo at the top of the thread has only a passing resemblance to them.) Less attractive are remarks such as "looks like it was vomited from a junk-box, then had the parts rearranged by a palsied lemur". Still, each to his own.
GTHICM
There is no need for anyone to be concerned about libel in these discussions.
Nobody is. Did I suggest that Lukasz Fikus sue somebody? I said that some comments verged on libellous because posters suggested that the device breached RFI compliance and, crucially, safety regulations. That's not a trivial charge, not least because they don't.
It seems that such assertions are interposed to stifle discussion.
Don't be silly.
DF96
What is the group of people circling around us baying for our blood?
Calm down - no-one's "baying for your blood". I found the cliquish nature of the thread distasteful but kept quiet until others revived it following LF's restrained reply to some of the more overblown comments. So I said what I thought.
The dac itself can sound wonderful but construction techniques for the price asked simply imply disdain and disrespect for the customer. It looks clearly like a product coming from a poor country of low technical culture ( my country to be precise) and directed to rich countries inhabited by rich spoiled you know whom (your countries to point it out
) There is nothing else to it. The time came for a designer to cash in on so laboriously put together web site and marketing effort and there is nothing wrong with it. Also it appears that there is more parts hardware used than in commercial dac's costing three times as much. I think this thread is good for Lukasz and I'm sure he will work on interior aesthetics which will create more trust for reliability and quality of his product. Now , this community used to be "more gentle" for ones of us who go commercial ...
) There is nothing else to it. The time came for a designer to cash in on so laboriously put together web site and marketing effort and there is nothing wrong with it. Also it appears that there is more parts hardware used than in commercial dac's costing three times as much. I think this thread is good for Lukasz and I'm sure he will work on interior aesthetics which will create more trust for reliability and quality of his product. Now , this community used to be "more gentle" for ones of us who go commercial ...3 pages of getting at us, not one scientific or engineering based argument to disprove what was said.
Personally I do research before I say things and did look around at any relevant info. And any questions I asked were unanswered.
I do think that there are some audiophile beliefs and actions that are almost followed with religious zeal and any one dare criticise them is doomed. Maybe we could have some popcorn while you are burning us at the stake
Bye.
Personally I do research before I say things and did look around at any relevant info. And any questions I asked were unanswered.
I do think that there are some audiophile beliefs and actions that are almost followed with religious zeal and any one dare criticise them is doomed. Maybe we could have some popcorn while you are burning us at the stake
Bye.
No, that was not the anecdotal evidence; it was in addition to the anecdotal evidence. I don't recall the details, which you may consider to be useful to your argument. If you know anything about experimental psychology then you will be aware of how easy it is to fool someone, and how easy it is to fool ourselves even when we are aware of this fact.Ryelands said:
The anecdotal evidence, plainly seen in this forum from time to time, is the known preference by some people for devices which add distortion to music signals. Perhaps the clearest example is poorly-designed tube buffers, which in some cases are not even buffers.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.