hypex ncore

[Julf]

Originally Posted by mr_push_pull

yes, "small, joyless people" as Mr. Atkinson once called them which refuse to give in to the proven healing qualities of high-end audio shopping.

The most annoying thing about people in anoraks is that they are mostly right - if they weren't, you could just dismiss them as "sad bastards", as my British friends would say. OK, they might still be sad bastards, but at least they are annoying sad bastards.

[Esperado]

Originally Posted by Julf

a couple of pertinent quotes from Bruno:

So, as supposed, the two switching frequencies (smps & amp) are not synchronized at all, and i would certainly put a shield between them. And a shield between the two channels as well.

[Julf]

Originally Posted by Esperado

So, as supposed, the two switching frequencies (smps & amp) are not synchronized at all, and i would certainly put a shield between them. And a shield between the two channels as well.

You are of course free to do that. Whatever makes you happy.

People from hypex have stated that the EMI of the modules is so low that, for example, shielded power supply cables are not needed.

Personally I would not put a shield between two units that are already connected to each other with a bunch of cables, but that's just me...

[Mark Verhoeven]

Originally Posted by Julf

If you don't have the 8 minutes to watch it, it shows how, when people were served regular tap water, but in fancy bottles and with fancy descriptions and price tags, they described in rather poetic ways how much clearer, brighter, deeper, more resolving, whatever the "fancy" water tasted compared to tap water. And the most expensive water usually tasted the best.

Considering how strong a factor perceptual bias is, how would you guard against it without a double-blind ABX test?

OK, even this thread seems to have turned into one of those endless and circular "objective" vs "subjective" debates - should we just get back to discussing hypex amps?

Just one off-topic remark from me regarding the "water thing", this shows the people are not TASTING like they should taste. As Barrows has posted before, skills can be learned by practising. I am into wine tasting we do quite a lot of "blind" tasting and in some cases we try to trick our wine-friends by serving them wine which has been put in different bottles. The more eperienced tasters in our tasting group can't be fooled this way and are exactly telling what they are tasting and that it can never be the wine which belongs in the bottle.

In my opinion the same is valid when listening to (reproduced) music. If you have enough experience and listened to a lot of different setups and perhaps also have the skills for it (I don't know if this is needed, probably it helps), you can easily tell the difference between for example 2 interlinks (RCA) without seeing which one is actually fitted. Assuming there was the possibility to be able to listen to them before and "mark" the sound in your head. There needs to be a noticable difference of course, but almost every (RCA) interlink I have heard, sounds quite different.

But, as long as there are people who are saying there isn't any difference in sound between different cables or different resistors, you also will always have discussion about this listening and comparing subject too.

[Julf]

Originally Posted by Mark Verhoeven

But, as long as there are people who are saying there isn't any difference in sound between different cables or different resistors, you also will always have discussion about this listening and comparing subject too.

And that is why double-blind ABX should be the middle ground everybody should be able to agree to. It allows you to demonstrate the audible differences, while helping to rule out perceptual bias and other psychoacoustic issues.

[Mark Verhoeven]

Originally Posted by Julf

And that is why double-blind ABX should be the middle ground everybody should be able to agree to. It allows you to demonstrate the audible differences, while helping to rule out perceptual bias and other psychoacoustic issues.

It's O.K. for me if that's necesarry for you, but it isn't necesarry for me.

[Julf]

Originally Posted by Mark Verhoeven

It's O.K. for me if that's necesarry for you, but it isn't necesarry for me.

As I keep saying, "if it makes you happy". Just don't complain if people question your claims.

[Esperado]

Originally Posted by Mark Verhoeven

But, as long as there are people who are saying there isn't any difference in sound between different cables or different resistors, you also will always have discussion about this listening and comparing subject too.

Oh, please, not this old and boring sea snake "sound of metal" !!!!
Please refer to the impedance characteristics of elements (resistance, inductances & capacitance) and the way previous/next electronic stages behaves with them.
There is things we cannot explain in measurements, because we don't know yet what to measure, but one thing is for real: what you hear can't go against physic laws.
If you are able to hear any difference between two rca plugs (according they are not oxyded) refer to the electronic stage feeding-it and capacitive charges.

[Mark Verhoeven]

Loads of people can't tell the difference between a Syrah from Australia and one from France (or even a Syrah from France and a Cabernet Sauvignon from Australia...)

But I don't want a discussion started about WHY cables and/or resistors do sound different. I don't care.

I just wanted to tell that you CAN practice the listening skills as you can practice the tasting skills, just my opinion that is.

[barrows]

Originally Posted by Mark Verhoeven

Loads of people can't tell the difference between a Syrah from Australia and one from France (or even a Syrah from France and a Cabernet Sauvignon from Australia...)

But I don't want a discussion started about WHY cables and/or resistors do sound different. I don't care.

I just wanted to tell that you CAN practice the listening skills as you can practice the tasting skills, just my opinion that is.

"loads of people" are never a good reference. Loads of people think that Taylor Swift is a good singer, for example. Clearly, loads of people are often entirely wrong.
Additionally, there really is no such thing as an "objective" audiophile, as the practice of listening to music for enjoyment is not objective at all. And, being objective does not make it impossible for one to also be "subjective": there are not objectivists and subjectivists, there is continuum, and everyone has both objectivist and subjectivist traits to varying degrees. I have always found it amusing how some seem to want to place people in diametrically opposed camps, which are just not part of the real world.