Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Sonicweld/Cryo-Parts Diverter 96/24 USB to SPDIF Review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sonicweld/Cryo-Parts Diverter 96/24 USB to SPDIF Review - Page 5

post #61 of 310
A product is just not just a combination of parts to Josh, but rather everything coming together to be more than the sum of its parts

Just so there is no confusion, the quote above is from me, not Josh.

The product is what it is. We are completely fine with some people not "getting" it, as only a small percentage of audiophiles have the means and desire to own a product like this. This is certainly not for everyone.

Understandably, many will not "get" it. That is fine, and we will not deviate from the course we have set for our products. Josh from Sonicweld will only build a product one way--the best way he knows how.

I will say that we are currently quite back ordered on them, so many people are "getting" it, including many professional reviewers, who will be weighing in with their opinions soon.

Buy one, or don't. I'm cool with it either way. We can only make so many of them as it is.

Peace,

Lee
post #62 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarplayer View Post
A product is just not just a combination of parts to Josh, but rather everything coming together to be more than the sum of its parts

Just so there is no confusion, the quote above is from me, not Josh.

The product is what it is. We are completely fine with some people not "getting" it, as only a small percentage of audiophiles have the means and desire to own a product like this. This is certainly not for everyone.

Understandably, many will not "get" it. That is fine, and we will not deviate from the course we have set for our products. Josh from Sonicweld will only build a product one way--the best way he knows how.

I will say that we are currently quite back ordered on them, so many people are "getting" it, including many professional reviewers, who will be weighing in with their opinions soon.

Buy one, or don't. I'm cool with it either way. We can only make so many of them as it is.

Peace,

Lee
post #63 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by punk_guy182 View Post
Indeed. I'll shut my big mouth up now!

Peace,

Lee
post #64 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3320070 View Post
We are talking digital domain here, not moving parts like speaker drivers.
The terms "digital domain" and "analog domain" have really done us all a great disservice. In nature - the environment in which real-world electrical signals propagate - there are not separate domains; there's only one domain, and it's 100% analog. An electron participating in the operation of a digital circuit has no special properties relative to one in an analog circuit. Unfortunately, the exceptionally long-lived fallacy persists that digital is somehow perfect, and is therefore the same across any interface as long as the binary content remains identical. But what constitutes a "perfect" copy of a digital signal? Is it always the same in every respect? No, it can never be, although there may be a high probability of interpreting two sufficiently similar messages in the same fashion (think reading and re-reading a file from your computer's hard drive). I find it enlightening and liberating to realize that digital is merely a construct - an arbitrary (but useful) engineering fabrication which, by convention, chooses to interpret a particular voltage level as a one, and another as a zero on a discrete time basis. It must be interpreted by something in order to accomplish anything useful, and the key word here is "interpret." As with any form of communication or data transmission, an interpretive process is always imperfect to some degree.

Take, for instance, a data slicer receiving two "digital" signals over an RF interface, both of which contain identical and flawlessly-transmitted high-level content. If one has been whitened and the other has not, the whitened signal displays a consistently superior bit error ratio (meaning, a more accurate interpretation of the message). How, if the digital content is the same? The whitened signal has the decidedly analog characteristic of a more balanced spectral signature, resulting in more optimal operation in the data slicer. This is just one illustration of how an analog effect can sully our "perfect" digital interface. Digital is just a special subset of analog; the effects that distinguish "good" digital from "bad" digital are almost entirely analog in nature. Don't believe me? Go and read about things that plague digital systems like ground bounce, poor eye diagrams, or the effect of power supply noise on PLLs. Those represent analog problems, and must be dealt with in the "analog domain." There are some technical exceptions to that, but high speed digital engineering can be as much about dealing with analog problems as it is with Karnaugh maps and protocols.

And who said anything about speaker drivers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3320070 View Post
I linked to the Audio-gd Ref-3 earlier to show the components he incorporates like DSP, class A transisters and a big transformer, etc. for $550. There may be others like it out there, I don't know, but it's about value for the dollar to me and the Sonicweld piece does not feel like value.
So then, by logical extension, the 27-ton ENIAC computer of yesteryear must be exponentially better than the ten pound Intel Penryn machine sitting on my desktop, right? No? Wait, what about the 10,000 capacitors and 70,000 resistors? The 17,468 tubes? What about the five million hand-soldered joints? What about all that value?

I respect everyone's right to formulate their own definition of value. However, if I can achieve the same or a superior result without the big transformer as with it, that will always be a more sophisticated and elegant method in my mind. I could have easily designed the Diverter to be several times larger merely by using through-hole parts instead of SMD ones that are the size of a grain of pepper. Would that have imparted greater value? It wouldn't have performed as well, I can say that with confidence. And it would have cost more, because the chassis would have been larger. I will always place a higher value on the quality of the result I obtain than the number, size, weight, or photogenic qualities of the parts I used to achieve that result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3320070 View Post
If I want art, I buy art.
And if someone wants some great audio gear, does that preclude him from buying art simultaneously? Is "art" limited to something you see in a gallery, hang on your wall, or display on your coffee table? Or can it be functional as well?
post #65 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by tosehee View Post
Seems to me like 90% of the post is about the physical case than the audio quality itself.
As I said in my original post, the top design priority with the Diverter was performance, first and foremost. It is, above all, a high-performance audio device. In summary, I simply asked why it cannot also be beautiful to look at apart from being superbly functional. I devoted most of my comments to a discussion of the exterior because that's what most people here seem to be polarized about, not because the circuit itself is any less important. As for the audio quality, I refrained from commenting on that here because it would be too self-promotional. Obviously, I think it sounds good, or I wouldn't have offered it for sale. Others have and will continue to comment on the sonic performance, and I think their experiences will be of greater value than mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tosehee View Post
Don't get me wrong. I think the 'design' of the case looks AWESOME. No question about it.
Thanks, that's very kind of you to say!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tosehee View Post
I just wish he can sell the not-so-beautiful product that has same sonic quality for $100. The looks might be a factor in making a decision to some, but not me. And I am sure many people would value $$$ > aesthetic looks.
Yes, and I wish an Audi R8 cost $15k so I could afford one! Say I somehow convinced the Audi engineers to strip off the "fancy" shell and ditch all the creature comforts so the car could be more affordable - would the result be the same? Even if it was identical in some respects of performance - zero to sixty times, for instance - it would be an entirely different product. It has the value and appeal it does because it is a remarkably well-finished package, though some purchasers undoubtedly place a higher value on some of its attributes than others.

I couldn't produce something like the Diverter for anywhere close to $100, even if I offered the bare boards with no chassis whatsoever, which I'd never even consider doing. It wouldn't begin to cover my costs, let alone be something that made economic sense for me to do. As I noted in my original post, the electronics in the Diverter account for significantly more cost than the chassis itself.
post #66 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayDee View Post
The terms "digital domain" and "analog domain" have really done us all a great disservice. In nature - the environment in which real-world electrical signals propagate - there are not separate domains; there's only one domain, and it's 100% analog. An electron participating in the operation of a digital circuit has no special properties relative to one in an analog circuit. Unfortunately, the exceptionally long-lived fallacy persists that digital is somehow perfect, and is therefore the same across any interface as long as the binary content remains identical. But what constitutes a "perfect" copy of a digital signal? Is it always the same in every respect? No, it can never be, although there may be a high probability of interpreting two sufficiently similar messages in the same fashion (think reading and re-reading a file from your computer's hard drive). I find it enlightening and liberating to realize that digital is merely a construct - an arbitrary (but useful) engineering fabrication which, by convention, chooses to interpret a particular voltage level as a one, and another as a zero on a discrete time basis. It must be interpreted by something in order to accomplish anything useful, and the key word here is "interpret." As with any form of communication or data transmission, an interpretive process is always imperfect to some degree.

Take, for instance, a data slicer receiving two "digital" signals over an RF interface, both of which contain identical and flawlessly-transmitted high-level content. If one has been whitened and the other has not, the whitened signal displays a consistently superior bit error ratio (meaning, a more accurate interpretation of the message). How, if the digital content is the same? The whitened signal has the decidedly analog characteristic of a more balanced spectral signature, resulting in more optimal operation in the data slicer. This is just one illustration of how an analog effect can sully our "perfect" digital interface. Digital is just a special subset of analog; the effects that distinguish "good" digital from "bad" digital are almost entirely analog in nature. Don't believe me? Go and read about things like ground bounce, eye diagrams, or the effect of power supply noise on PLLs. Those represent analog problems, and must be dealt with in the "analog domain." There are some technical exceptions to that, but high speed digital engineering can be as much about dealing with analog problems as it is with Karnaugh maps and protocols.

And who said anything about speaker drivers?



So then, by logical extension, the 27-ton ENIAC computer of yesteryear must be exponentially better than the ten pound Intel Penryn machine sitting on my desktop, right? No? Wait, what about the 10,000 capacitors and 70,000 resistors? The 17,468 tubes? What about the five million hand-soldered joints? What about all that value?

I respect everyone's right to formulate their own definition of value. However, if I can achieve the same or a superior result without the big transformer as with it, that will always be a more sophisticated and elegant method in my mind. I could have easily designed the Diverter to be several times larger merely by using through-hole parts instead of SMD ones that are the size of a grain of pepper. Would that have imparted greater value? It wouldn't have performed as well, I can say that with confidence. And it would have cost more, because the chassis would have been larger. I will always place a higher value on the quality of the result I obtain than the number, size, weight, or photogenic qualities of the parts I used to achieve that result.



And if someone wants some great audio gear, does that preclude him from buying art simultaneously? Is "art" limited to something you see in a gallery, hang on your wall, or display on your coffee table? Or can it be functional as well?
All good arguments. These are just my opinions. The truth is in comparisons to similar devices and then real debate can begin as to the value of your unit. No offense intended, just comments and discussion. My point about speakers is electronic versus mechanical as I feel it's harder to make mechanical products work well.
post #67 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayDee View Post
As I noted in my original post, the electronics in the Diverter account for significantly more cost than the chassis itself.
You are still not explaining your product. Please do explain to us what is inside your diverter. You can go into details just like other manufaturers like Dan Lavry or Kingwa from Audio-GD do in these forums.
There is no need to debate and explain your point of view by using examples of a 15k Audi car and we really don't care for the looks of the diverter. You are using scientific argument to explain to us that digital and analog signals are more similar that conceived by the majority of us but you are still not talking about the core functioning of the Diverter. People are ranting because it is very expensive and that we still do not know what drivers are used.
post #68 of 310
It was first assumed in this thread that 117 parts meant higher value in the first post, I challenged that. I know that bits travel in the analog domain through electrical variances, but as long as they are read to mean the same and are bit-perfect at the DAC, all that is left is timing and impedance to worry about to me. This device very may handle timing better and be well matched, no doubt, but we can't tell from looking or the details. So we must completely rely on impressions or would have to buy it to judge and the price that was originally set by the manufacturer (not the consumer judging quality) is prohibitively expensive for testing. The price may also lead the consumer to justify the product that much more because that money isn't coming back to them. I do believe from what I know about business that $100 wouldn't be close to covering what you as a small business require as expenses even with just parts. But you are competing against others who have the means to work very cost effectively, overseas with cheap raw materials and access to more advanced automated machinery using mass production possibly be it as it may and I tend to be more in favor of the customer.

I do believe the mind affects reactions to hearing, just like it affects sight, touch, and memory. The chassis may actually help people enjoy what they hear from this device more. You have the right to charge what you want for this product. Although, its far to say the average consumer gets more useful information about Bose products from the company then we have for this.

PS. Scootermafia, are you still trying to get your MOT badge?
post #69 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by punk_guy182 View Post
a 15k Audi car
You know where to get an R8 for $15K, please share! Man, I will buy five or six of them. The base price for an R8 is $114,200.

Peace,

Lee
post #70 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by manaox2 View Post

PS. Scootermafia, are you still trying to get your MOT badge?
While I agree that Peter should have an MOT badge, they are WAY hard to get from Jude, it took me a while to get one, and I've been at this game for 25+ years, so it may not be his fault.

However, just to be clear, Peter pays buys at retail prices from me, I don't generally give discounts unless people are buying very large quantities of goods.

Lee
post #71 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3320070 View Post
All good arguments. These are just my opinions. The truth is in comparisons to similar devices and then real debate can begin as to the value of your unit. No offense intended, just comments and discussion.
None taken whatsoever!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3320070 View Post
My point about speakers is electronic versus mechanical as I feel it's harder to make mechanical products work well.
Speaking as a speaker manufacturer, I'm not sure I agree on that point. I think both are equally difficult. At they end of the day there is a great deal of similarity between engineering disciplines. But this is probably a debate for a speaker forum somewhere.
post #72 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarplayer View Post
The base price for an R8 is $114,200.
What, $114,200 for a car? Sheesh, what a rip-off! I went all through Audi's website and couldn't find any reports of the computational fluid dynamics sims of the flame front propagation inside the combustion chamber - what's up with that? And get this, I sent an email directly to Audi requesting a copy of the engine management source code, and they blew me off. That bit about the R8 on Top Gear is clearly just propaganda - who cares how well it handles or if it has LED headlamps inspired by the Sydney opera house? I'm not buying one until Audi sends me complete CAD drawings, by Jove.

[/sarcasm]
post #73 of 310
?
post #74 of 310
I was skeptical at first, but the builder's sarcasm in response to a request for technical information has sold me. It must be a fantastic product...
post #75 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayDee View Post
What, $114,200 for a car? Sheesh, what a rip-off! I went all through Audi's website and couldn't find any reports of the computational fluid dynamics sims of the flame front propagation inside the combustion chamber - what's up with that? And get this, I sent an email directly to Audi requesting a copy of the engine management source code, and they blew me off. That bit about the R8 on Top Gear is clearly just propaganda - who cares how well it handles or if it has LED headlamps inspired by the Sydney opera house? I'm not buying one until Audi sends me complete CAD drawings, by Jove.

[/sarcasm]
Your answers and you sarcasm is not helping me understand your product.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Sonicweld/Cryo-Parts Diverter 96/24 USB to SPDIF Review