[Maxpain]

I want to upgrade my system from windows 7 to windows 10. Is there a known problem with windows 10 drivers for the micro? And am I going to need a new firmware update or is the firmware ''saved'' in the device? 

 

[john57]

The firmware  is saved inside the device. Thee is a ASIO driver that is installed on windows 10 which is the same driver used on Win7.

 

[HotIce]

 
Hi,
 
Please allow us to explain further:
 
With respect, adding oodles of even order harmonics is not what Tube State (or even our real tube circuitry) is about. It is true this is quite prevalent in the <$1,000 segment of the audio market where quite a few companies do not do truly high-end stuff (with respect). Some people try to emulate 'Tube Sound' by just adding distortion. The result invariably is an unrealistic dummy sound, nothing like real tubes. We agree this goes on with some companies that just make tubes but never really went 'all out.'
 
But this is not what we do. With the AMR background, iFi thinks and works a little different. And yes, for measurements people, they can have their cake and eat it too.
 
ClieOS measured the iCAN (with tubestate Circuit) in his review:
http://www.inearmatters.net/2013/04/impression-ifi-audio-idac-ican-iusb.html
 
He explained "In fact, iCAN performance has excessed the resolution of my measuring setup so it looks pretty much perfect."
 
He also tested the iTube:
http://www.inearmatters.net/2013/08/impression-ifi-audio-itube-magic-infused.html
 
His comments on how it measured compared to iCAN alone: "we are talking about 0.001% of difference in THD and 0.004% in IMD+Noise, plus less than 2dBA in overall noise level."
 
Neither the Tube State circuitry in the iCAN micro nor the Tube in the iTube produce much distortion, noise or other objectively measurable additions of any kind.
 
By the way, the same holds true for the iCAN Pro. We clocked that at 'tripple zero' levels of THD (meaning 0.000X% THD) in tube mode and 126dB ( A ) Signal/Noise ratio, in single-ended mode (THD is less in balanced mode). Remember, that is in TUBE mode. So nope, we don't do the usual 'chuck loads at it' thing.
 
This is the AMR pedigree which means we do handle tubes/valves in an unconventional manner.

 
Sorry, but if X is the original signal, Y is the reproduction from a solid state amp (which we know have typically less than 0.01% distortion), and Z is the tube state reproduction which has, according to you, a very limited distortion as well, if Y=~X and Z=~ X, isn't Y=~Z?
Hypothesis which stand its grounds of actual A/B tests done on human perception of audio distortion.
One among them:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/distortion

 

[diamondears]

 
Hi,
 
Please allow us to explain further:
 
With respect, adding oodles of even order harmonics is not what Tube State (or even our real tube circuitry) is about. It is true this is quite prevalent in the <$1,000 segment of the audio market where quite a few companies do not do truly high-end stuff (with respect). Some people try to emulate 'Tube Sound' by just adding distortion. The result invariably is an unrealistic dummy sound, nothing like real tubes. We agree this goes on with some companies that just make tubes but never really went 'all out.'
 
But this is not what we do. With the AMR background, iFi thinks and works a little different. And yes, for measurements people, they can have their cake and eat it too.
 
ClieOS measured the iCAN (with tubestate Circuit) in his review:
http://www.inearmatters.net/2013/04/impression-ifi-audio-idac-ican-iusb.html
 
He explained "In fact, iCAN performance has excessed the resolution of my measuring setup so it looks pretty much perfect."
 
He also tested the iTube:
http://www.inearmatters.net/2013/08/impression-ifi-audio-itube-magic-infused.html
 
His comments on how it measured compared to iCAN alone: "we are talking about 0.001% of difference in THD and 0.004% in IMD+Noise, plus less than 2dBA in overall noise level."
 
Neither the Tube State circuitry in the iCAN micro nor the Tube in the iTube produce much distortion, noise or other objectively measurable additions of any kind.
 
By the way, the same holds true for the iCAN Pro. We clocked that at 'tripple zero' levels of THD (meaning 0.000X% THD) in tube mode and 126dB ( A ) Signal/Noise ratio, in single-ended mode (THD is less in balanced mode). Remember, that is in TUBE mode. So nope, we don't do the usual 'chuck loads at it' thing.
 
This is the AMR pedigree which means we do handle tubes/valves in an unconventional manner.

 
Sorry, but if X is the original signal, Y is the reproduction from a solid state amp (which we know have typically less than 0.01% distortion), and Z is the tube state reproduction which has, according to you, a very limited distortion as well, if Y=~X and Z=~ X, isn't Y=~Z?
Hypothesis which stand its grounds of actual A/B tests done on human perception of audio distortion.
One among them:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/distortion

Lol

 

[iFi audio]

 

   
Hi,
 
Please allow us to explain further:
 
With respect, adding oodles of even order harmonics is not what Tube State (or even our real tube circuitry) is about. It is true this is quite prevalent in the <$1,000 segment of the audio market where quite a few companies do not do truly high-end stuff (with respect). Some people try to emulate 'Tube Sound' by just adding distortion. The result invariably is an unrealistic dummy sound, nothing like real tubes. We agree this goes on with some companies that just make tubes but never really went 'all out.'
 
But this is not what we do. With the AMR background, iFi thinks and works a little different. And yes, for measurements people, they can have their cake and eat it too.
 
ClieOS measured the iCAN (with tubestate Circuit) in his review:
http://www.inearmatters.net/2013/04/impression-ifi-audio-idac-ican-iusb.html
 
He explained "In fact, iCAN performance has excessed the resolution of my measuring setup so it looks pretty much perfect."
 
He also tested the iTube:
http://www.inearmatters.net/2013/08/impression-ifi-audio-itube-magic-infused.html
 
His comments on how it measured compared to iCAN alone: "we are talking about 0.001% of difference in THD and 0.004% in IMD+Noise, plus less than 2dBA in overall noise level."
 
Neither the Tube State circuitry in the iCAN micro nor the Tube in the iTube produce much distortion, noise or other objectively measurable additions of any kind.
 
By the way, the same holds true for the iCAN Pro. We clocked that at 'tripple zero' levels of THD (meaning 0.000X% THD) in tube mode and 126dB ( A ) Signal/Noise ratio, in single-ended mode (THD is less in balanced mode). Remember, that is in TUBE mode. So nope, we don't do the usual 'chuck loads at it' thing.
 
This is the AMR pedigree which means we do handle tubes/valves in an unconventional manner.

 
Sorry, but if X is the original signal, Y is the reproduction from a solid state amp (which we know have typically less than 0.01% distortion), and Z is the tube state reproduction which has, according to you, a very limited distortion as well, if Y=~X and Z=~ X, isn't Y=~Z?
Hypothesis which stand its grounds of actual A/B tests done on human perception of audio distortion.
One among them:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/distortion

 
Hi,
 
Good comments - we like 'em.
 
Please allow us to convey our thoughts.
 
This is correct to a certain degree, however the fundamental limitation applies that if A and B have harmonic distortion below audibility they are equal only insofar as harmonic distortion is concerned.
 
To draw from this very limited equivalence the conclusion that A & B must sound identical is highly illogical, unscientific and cannot be supported by solid science. We like solid science as much as the next person.
 
Yes, there are those who claim that if A & B have similar distortion and flat frequency response they sound the same and as evidence they point to deeply and fundamenally flawed semi-blind tests that are subject to bad test implementation, the deliberate creation of anticipatory bias which maximises the nocebo effect and topped off with shocking bad statistical analysis, which all combined return 'null' results with great reliability even if the audible difference stimulus is extreme.
 
Audio is subjective and people are free to base their faith in such 'cargo cult science' instead of listening for themselves and coming to their own conclusions but we always recommend that people keep an open mind and try for themselves - and arrive at their own informed conclusions.

 

[semeniub]

 

 

   
Hi,
 
Please allow us to explain further:
 
With respect, adding oodles of even order harmonics is not what Tube State (or even our real tube circuitry) is about. It is true this is quite prevalent in the <$1,000 segment of the audio market where quite a few companies do not do truly high-end stuff (with respect). Some people try to emulate 'Tube Sound' by just adding distortion. The result invariably is an unrealistic dummy sound, nothing like real tubes. We agree this goes on with some companies that just make tubes but never really went 'all out.'
 
But this is not what we do. With the AMR background, iFi thinks and works a little different. And yes, for measurements people, they can have their cake and eat it too.
 
ClieOS measured the iCAN (with tubestate Circuit) in his review:
http://www.inearmatters.net/2013/04/impression-ifi-audio-idac-ican-iusb.html
 
He explained "In fact, iCAN performance has excessed the resolution of my measuring setup so it looks pretty much perfect."
 
He also tested the iTube:
http://www.inearmatters.net/2013/08/impression-ifi-audio-itube-magic-infused.html
 
His comments on how it measured compared to iCAN alone: "we are talking about 0.001% of difference in THD and 0.004% in IMD+Noise, plus less than 2dBA in overall noise level."
 
Neither the Tube State circuitry in the iCAN micro nor the Tube in the iTube produce much distortion, noise or other objectively measurable additions of any kind.
 
By the way, the same holds true for the iCAN Pro. We clocked that at 'tripple zero' levels of THD (meaning 0.000X% THD) in tube mode and 126dB ( A ) Signal/Noise ratio, in single-ended mode (THD is less in balanced mode). Remember, that is in TUBE mode. So nope, we don't do the usual 'chuck loads at it' thing.
 
This is the AMR pedigree which means we do handle tubes/valves in an unconventional manner.

 
Sorry, but if X is the original signal, Y is the reproduction from a solid state amp (which we know have typically less than 0.01% distortion), and Z is the tube state reproduction which has, according to you, a very limited distortion as well, if Y=~X and Z=~ X, isn't Y=~Z?
Hypothesis which stand its grounds of actual A/B tests done on human perception of audio distortion.
One among them:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/distortion

 
I am not aware of any peer-reviewed published research (i.e. serious) showing the precise correlation between how distortion in hifi electronics is propagated through the loudspeaker or headphone drivers, then into our hearing mechanisms, and how that is interpreted by our brains.
 
Until we have that, claims about what we should be hearing are just that, claims. Measurements are nice, but they are not absolutes.
 
Until things improve, It’s really best to make final judgements based on what you hear yourself.

 

[DougD]

 
Audio is subjective and people are free to base their faith in such 'cargo cult science' 

 
 
I keep watching iFi Audio threads, and periodically you all announce some new product, which is often followed immediately by mana from heaven being spread amongst the worthy. (I myself have been so gifted.) 
 
Pretty solid scientific evidence in support of the Cargo Cult Theory, IMO. 

 

[rickyleelee]

X Files. The truth is out there. Isn't a new X Files coming along?

 

[HotIce]

 
Hi,
 
To draw from this very limited equivalence the conclusion that A & B must sound identical is highly illogical, unscientific and cannot be supported by solid science. We like solid science as much as the next person.
 
Yes, there are those who claim that if A & B have similar distortion and flat frequency response they sound the same and as evidence they point to deeply and fundamenally flawed semi-blind tests that are subject to bad test implementation, the deliberate creation of anticipatory bias which maximises the nocebo effect and topped off with shocking bad statistical analysis, which all combined return 'null' results with great reliability even if the audible difference stimulus is extreme.

 
Let's shed off the big words ... I understand this is an evil topic to bring up in an audiophile board, but what you are saying is that, given an original signal, and a signal which is unchanged (according to you), those actually sound different? Assuming the speaker being a deterministic device, which reproduces the same sound waves given the same input, your statement would imply some sort of Dark Signal(TM), which is hidden within the measurable signal, which at the end make the speaker behave differently.
While I cannot rule that out, that seems not very likely to me.

PS: I like my iDSD don't get me wrong. It's just that VooDoo science triggers an uncontrollable urge to reply.

 

[HotIce]

 
I am not aware of any peer-reviewed published research (i.e. serious) showing the precise correlation between how distortion in hifi electronics is propagated through the loudspeaker or headphone drivers, then into our hearing mechanisms, and how that is interpreted by our brains.
 
Until we have that, claims about what we should be hearing are just that, claims. Measurements are nice, but they are not absolutes.
 
Until things improve, It’s really best to make final judgements based on what you hear yourself.

 
That was not a blind test. You should have actually read the article. People under test were told that distortion was going to be added, and they should tell when they heard something off with the sound.
There was no amp A vs. amp B, or speaker C vs. speaker D thing, with people having an agenda to push.
Science cannot tell what you hear. Science, by the means of statistics, can predict what the majority would hear.
And yes, there have been plenty of A/B tests done (plenty posted within this forum as well), with respectable organizations behind, which debunked many of the myths going around.
Unfortunately A/B stands to VooDoo science, like sunlight to vampires

 

[semeniub]

 

   
I am not aware of any peer-reviewed published research (i.e. serious) showing the precise correlation between how distortion in hifi electronics is propagated through the loudspeaker or headphone drivers, then into our hearing mechanisms, and how that is interpreted by our brains.
 
Until we have that, claims about what we should be hearing are just that, claims. Measurements are nice, but they are not absolutes.
 
Until things improve, It’s really best to make final judgements based on what you hear yourself.

 
That was not a blind test. You should have actually read the article. People under test were told that distortion was going to be added, and they should tell when they heard something off with the sound.
There was no amp A vs. amp B, or speaker C vs. speaker D thing, with people having an agenda to push.
Science cannot tell what you hear. Science, by the means of statistics, can predict what the majority would hear.
And yes, there have been plenty of A/B tests done (plenty posted within this forum as well), with respectable organizations behind, which debunked many of the myths going around.
Unfortunately A/B stands to VooDoo science, like sunlight to vampires

I did indeed read the article, and would say that it qualifies as a nicely run case study, nothing more. Could I draw conclusions from that work, and apply those conclusions to other cases with different listeners and equipment (i.e. headphones as opposed to loudspeakers)???
 
As an example, Axiom did their tests through their own loudspeakers. Each loudspeaker driver cone will break up into vibrational resonance frequencies depending on the design and materials of the driver. Did these driver resonances influence or mask the distortion introduced for the subjects to identify?
 
Did Axiom measure this resonance behaviour in their work to confirm it didn't influence the test? Doubt it.
 
Nothing Voodoo, just that conclusions from these type of simple comparisons are incomplete because the entire picture is not considered.

 

[EVOLVIST]

 

 

[marcus1]

Anyone using the Micro with a Raspberry Pi set up with the Moode audio player?  
 
I'm trying to find the best setting on Moode for the Micro.  Using the "disabled" setting (Moode's volume control deactivated) and the Micro set to Eco power is too much gain - it's very loud with the Micro's volume control set at 9 o'clock.
 
Tim Curtis has suggested using the "Software" option on Moode which I will try next but still interested if anyone here is using the Moode player.
 
Thanks

 

[technobear]

Anyone using the Micro with a Raspberry Pi set up with the Moode audio player?  

I'm trying to find the best setting on Moode for the Micro.  Using the "disabled" setting (Moode's volume control deactivated) and the Micro set to Eco power is too much gain - it's very loud with the Micro's volume control set at 9 o'clock.

Tim Curtis has suggested using the "Software" option on Moode which I will try next but still interested if anyone here is using the Moode player.

Thanks

This isn't a problem with the Moode player. Disabling the volume control doesn't make the bits louder. Disabling the volume control is the right thing to do so that you get the music bit-perfect to the iDSD.

The problem here will be that you headphones are too sensitive. Have you tried engaging the IEMatch control on the underside of the iDSD. That should solve your problem (that's why it's there).

 

[marcus1]

Thanks.
I should have mentioned that I'm not using the Micro for headphone use but using it as the preamp for my home stereo; feeding the Micro's RCA output to my stereo amp.  I don't think the IEMatch control affects the RCA output - sorry should have been clearer.