Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , 123456789
'warmth' is distortion, which can be added if that's what a person
wants.

nope. tube amps add distortion whether or not the person wants it.

some people might want it, which is why they buy tube amps. others
prefer more accurate sound. the distortion a tube amp adds can be added
to solid state amps but it can't be removed from a tube amp.

what can't be done is removing distortion that's already there.

My local big box and book stores are selling LP vinyl records. Some
permanently distorted people still out there...

they aren't selling very many and certainly not because of their audio
quality.

cds can be limited to mimic vinyl.

Why would anyone want to make a CD mimic vinyl?

because some people think vinyl sounds better.

you can always downgrade sound quality, but you can't add back what
isn't there.


I can see a market for recordings, especially of older albums that were
originally issued on LP, with the warmth of an LP played through a valve
amplifier.

Whether that is done by having a separate recording, or whether it's done by
modified limiter and frequency response settings to make a CD through a
transistor amp sound like an LP through a valve amp, is neither here nor
there.


When CDs and players first came out in the early 80s, salesmen were very
definitely pushing CDs as being superior. I can remember a group of us from
university went to a hi fi shop (similar to Richer Sounds, but almost
certainly not RS) and the salesman went through his spiel and his
demonstration. We were blown away by the sound which was dramatically better
in dynamic range, lack of distortion and especially lack of background
noise. The salesman had the same album in both formats, played through the
same amp and speakers, which was a good side-by-side test.

When he got onto scratch-resistance, the fun started. The salesman pulled
out an old CD (not in a case) from his jacket pocket in which there were
pens and keys. He got a sewing needle and scored a deep groove in the CD. It
played flawlessly. My mate, a great big burly bloke, said "Giz that CD and
needle" and he carved a trench in the disc. It played almost flawlessly,
with occasional glitches.

"*Now* I'm really impressed," my mate said. "Do that to an LP and you'd rip
the F-ing needle off".

On 9/21/2018 9:39 AM, nospam wrote:
123456789 wrote:

The subject was COMPLAINTS not sales. And SOUND was the original
complaint.

complaints means no sale. a salesperson doesn't give a **** what
someone buys only that they buy *something*.

Forget the salesman. The subject was CD COMPLAINTS from the general
public at the time they first came out. And SOUND (not price) was the
most published original complaint.

tube amps add distortion whether or not the person wants it

Not necessarily. Modern premium components make it easy to produce
tube amplifiers that are essentially flat over the audio band, with
less than 3 dB attenuation at 6 Hz and 70 kHz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound

flatness isn't the issue.

Flatness not an issue in audio design??

From YOUR link (emphasis mine):

"HiFi design tries to minimize distortion and focuses on eliminating
"offensive" harmonics. It also aims for IDEALLY FLAT RESPONSE."

More from YOUR link:

"Using modern passive components, and modern sources, whether digital or
analogue, and wide band loudspeakers, it is possible to have tube
amplifiers with the characteristic wide bandwidth and sound of modern
transistor amplifiers"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_s...and_distortion

these days, people buy records for nostalgia, or hipsters thinking
it's cool.

I buy USED LPs and CDs at my local Goodwill store for a buck or two each
and rip them to MP3s. They sound great on my phone using my analog
earbuds. Good thing it has an analog jack...

On 9/21/2018 10:20 AM, NY wrote:

Whether that is done by having a separate recording, or whether it's
done by modified limiter and frequency response settings to make a
CD through a transistor amp sound like an LP through a valve amp, is
neither here nor there.

An free equalizer app also works well to get the sound one wants.

My mate, a great big burly bloke, said "Giz that CD and needle" and
he carved a trench in the disc. It played almost flawlessly, with
occasional glitches.

Hard to scratch an audio stream or MP3 file. CDs are so old technology...

In article , 123456789
wrote:

The subject was COMPLAINTS not sales. And SOUND was the original
complaint.

complaints means no sale. a salesperson doesn't give a **** what
someone buys only that they buy *something*.

Forget the salesman. The subject was CD COMPLAINTS from the general
public at the time they first came out. And SOUND (not price) was the
most published original complaint.

the complaints were because it sounded different than what people were
used to, not that it was worse.

also some early cds were improperly mastered, which is not the fault of
digital audio, but rather an incompetent recording engineer.

tube amps add distortion whether or not the person wants it

Not necessarily. Modern premium components make it easy to produce
tube amplifiers that are essentially flat over the audio band, with
less than 3 dB attenuation at 6 Hz and 70 kHz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound

flatness isn't the issue.

Flatness not an issue in audio design??

it is, but not the only one. read the part about harmonic distortion.

From YOUR link (emphasis mine):

it was *your* link. i just pointed you to the distortion part.

In article , 123456789
wrote:


My mate, a great big burly bloke, said "Giz that CD and needle" and
he carved a trench in the disc. It played almost flawlessly, with
occasional glitches.

Hard to scratch an audio stream or MP3 file. CDs are so old technology...

yep. same with dvds.

On 9/21/2018 2:52 PM, nospam wrote:
123456789 wrote:

SOUND was the original complaint.
SOUND (not price) was the most published original complaint.

the complaints were because it sounded different than what people
were used to, not that it was worse.

I'm glad you NOW agree that SOUND was the original complaint (whatever
the reason).

also some early cds were improperly mastered, which is not the fault
of digital audio, but rather an incompetent recording engineer.

I'm glad you NOW agree that SOUND was the original complaint (whatever
the reason).

flatness isn't the issue.

Flatness not an issue in audio design??

it is, but not the only one.

I'm glad that you NOW agree that flatness IS an issue in audio design.

From YOUR link (emphasis mine):

it was *your* link. i just pointed you to the distortion part.

I'm glad that you NOW agree that it is possible to have tube
amplifiers with the characteristic wide bandwidth and sound of modern
transistor amplifiers.

It does seem a bit desperate of you to argue over whose link it was that
verified my points but considering the outcome I'll graciously take the
hit...

In article , 123456789
wrote:

flatness isn't the issue.

Flatness not an issue in audio design??

it is, but not the only one.

I'm glad that you NOW agree that flatness IS an issue in audio design.

one of many, and actually not that important because speakers aren't
flat, plus room acoustics will have a much bigger effect on flatness
than any amp ever will.

what matters more are the various forms of distortion.

From YOUR link (emphasis mine):

it was *your* link. i just pointed you to the distortion part.

I'm glad that you NOW agree that it is possible to have tube
amplifiers with the characteristic wide bandwidth and sound of modern
transistor amplifiers.

nope. you have that backwards.

modern transistor amps can sound like a tube amp by adding the
distortion a tube amp adds, but it's not possible to remove the
distortion from a tube amp to sound like a modern transistor amp.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 17:52:42 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , 123456789
wrote:

The subject was COMPLAINTS not sales. And SOUND was the original
complaint.

complaints means no sale. a salesperson doesn't give a **** what
someone buys only that they buy *something*.

Forget the salesman. The subject was CD COMPLAINTS from the general
public at the time they first came out. And SOUND (not price) was the
most published original complaint.

the complaints were because it sounded different than what people were
used to, not that it was worse.

also some early cds were improperly mastered, which is not the fault of
digital audio, but rather an incompetent recording engineer.

Many are still 'improperly' mastered in that the aim is to produce a
pleasant sound rather than accurately reproduce the original. Such
recordings do not sound good to people who know what the original
really sounded like.

tube amps add distortion whether or not the person wants it

Not necessarily. Modern premium components make it easy to produce
tube amplifiers that are essentially flat over the audio band, with
less than 3 dB attenuation at 6 Hz and 70 kHz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound

flatness isn't the issue.

Flatness not an issue in audio design??

it is, but not the only one. read the part about harmonic distortion.

From YOUR link (emphasis mine):

it was *your* link. i just pointed you to the distortion part.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:37:51 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

some might *think* they can hear a difference, but they can't.

objective double-blind tests consistently show that people do no better
than chance. in other words, they're guessing.

You have used that argument several times, applied to different
aspects of audio. I bet you can't cite an example relating to DACs on
high level equipment.

numerous times, because it's true. people *think* they can hear a
difference, but when put to the test, they can't. they do no better
than chance.

The example you originally quoted was in a different context
altogether.

nope

It was. CD vs vinyl. Nothing to do with DAC A vs DAC B.

it doesn't matter what it is. an objective-double blind test will show
whether there's a difference or not.

Quite agreed, but that was not what we discussing. In almost the last
of the text which you snipped before the current post, you said "not
that there is an audible difference, except perhaps the $5 one ...".
This led on to you writing:

"some might *think* they can hear a difference, but they can't.

objective double-blind tests consistently show that people do no
better than chance. in other words, they're guessing."

In other words you were arguing that double-blind tests showed that
double blind tests had shown that people could not tell the difference
between one DAC and another (except perhaps for the $5 one).

But you have never cited double-blind tests of DACs.

it also applies to more than just audio.

there was a double-blind test with wine, where expert wine tasters
couldn't identify the cheap wines from the expensive ones, including
when one of the 'red wines' was white wine + food colouring.

If we accept your argument then double-blind tests are a waste of time
under any circumstances we are discussing with you.

nonsense. objective double-blind tests are never a waste of time,
except for those who have something to hide.

Then what is the point of your reference to wine?

that people *think* they can tell a difference for all sorts of things,
but when put to the test, the fail, big time. it doesn't matter whether
it's wine, audio, cameras, and more.

You don't need a double-blind test to determine whether people can
tell whether or not a light is on in a room. In most cases the
possession of the necessary discrimination is blatantly obvious.


if one product really is better than another product, an objective
double-bind test will show it. it's exactly what someone pushing a
'better product' would want.

In fact, and for example, practically nobody could fail to detect the
difference between my PC speakers and the Arcam DAC feeding the Quad
amplifier and Z4 speakers with their ribbon tweeters.

some will and some won't. others won't care. so what?

The difference
between the two DACs is not as great but it is quite audible.

then something is wrong with at least one of them.

ADC is easy. But DACs are hard. Just ask the experts.

the experts will say both are easy or hard, depending on numerous
factors.

Fudge.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


It was. CD vs vinyl. Nothing to do with DAC A vs DAC B.

it doesn't matter what it is. an objective-double blind test will show
whether there's a difference or not.

Quite agreed, but that was not what we discussing. In almost the last
of the text which you snipped before the current post, you said "not
that there is an audible difference, except perhaps the $5 one ...".

the $5 one might sound worse, but that's because it's cheap crap.

once you get past the junk level, the differences are insignificant, if
there are any at all.

This led on to you writing:

"some might *think* they can hear a difference, but they can't.

objective double-blind tests consistently show that people do no
better than chance. in other words, they're guessing."

In other words you were arguing that double-blind tests showed that
double blind tests had shown that people could not tell the difference
between one DAC and another (except perhaps for the $5 one).

But you have never cited double-blind tests of DACs.

don't need to, but feel free to do one.

objective double-blind tests consistently have shown that people do no
better than chance in a variety of audio tests.


If we accept your argument then double-blind tests are a waste of time
under any circumstances we are discussing with you.

nonsense. objective double-blind tests are never a waste of time,
except for those who have something to hide.

Then what is the point of your reference to wine?

that people *think* they can tell a difference for all sorts of things,
but when put to the test, the fail, big time. it doesn't matter whether
it's wine, audio, cameras, and more.

You don't need a double-blind test to determine whether people can
tell whether or not a light is on in a room. In most cases the
possession of the necessary discrimination is blatantly obvious.

that's an absurd comparison.

a better comparison would be if someone could tell the difference
between two different brands of light bulbs, both outputting the same
lumens and colour temperature.



The difference
between the two DACs is not as great but it is quite audible.

then something is wrong with at least one of them.

ADC is easy. But DACs are hard. Just ask the experts.

the experts will say both are easy or hard, depending on numerous
factors.

Fudge.

nope. there's nothing mysterious about adc or dac.

and it's actually adc that's harder to avoid aliasing, but that's well
understood, so not much of an obstacle.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 22:31:17 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


It was. CD vs vinyl. Nothing to do with DAC A vs DAC B.

it doesn't matter what it is. an objective-double blind test will show
whether there's a difference or not.

Quite agreed, but that was not what we discussing. In almost the last
of the text which you snipped before the current post, you said "not
that there is an audible difference, except perhaps the $5 one ...".

the $5 one might sound worse, but that's because it's cheap crap.

once you get past the junk level, the differences are insignificant, if
there are any at all.

You continue to display your ignorance/lack of experience.

This led on to you writing:

"some might *think* they can hear a difference, but they can't.

objective double-blind tests consistently show that people do no
better than chance. in other words, they're guessing."

In other words you were arguing that double-blind tests showed that
double blind tests had shown that people could not tell the difference
between one DAC and another (except perhaps for the $5 one).

But you have never cited double-blind tests of DACs.

don't need to, but feel free to do one.

It's YOU who claimed I was wrong on the basis of a double-blind test.
It's YOU who needs to cite such a test.

objective double-blind tests consistently have shown that people do no
better than chance in a variety of audio tests.

I've also got a DAC in my Rega CD player. I can pipe CDs from the Rega
to the Arcam DAC via an optical link. I can confirm that it is very
hard to tell the difference between the Rega and the Arcam DAC but the
Roland DAC is quite noticeably different.


If we accept your argument then double-blind tests are a waste of time
under any circumstances we are discussing with you.

nonsense. objective double-blind tests are never a waste of time,
except for those who have something to hide.

Then what is the point of your reference to wine?

that people *think* they can tell a difference for all sorts of things,
but when put to the test, the fail, big time. it doesn't matter whether
it's wine, audio, cameras, and more.

You don't need a double-blind test to determine whether people can
tell whether or not a light is on in a room. In most cases the
possession of the necessary discrimination is blatantly obvious.

that's an absurd comparison.

Of course it's not! There are many cases in life for which a
double-blind test is not necessary to confirm a difference.

a better comparison would be if someone could tell the difference
between two different brands of light bulbs, both outputting the same
lumens and colour temperature.

Why? Do you really think that without even hearing them the output of
the Roland and Arcam DACs are that similar? Dear me.

The difference
between the two DACs is not as great but it is quite audible.

then something is wrong with at least one of them.

ADC is easy. But DACs are hard. Just ask the experts.

the experts will say both are easy or hard, depending on numerous
factors.

Fudge.

nope. there's nothing mysterious about adc or dac.

You know of course from practical experience.

and it's actually adc that's harder to avoid aliasing, but that's well
understood, so not much of an obstacle.

The mere fact that aliasing is a problem says that using a DAC to
reconstruct the original signal is by no means straitforward. There
are other problems too. See

https://www.audiostream.com/content/...efYleDiXrGu.97
or http://tinyurl.com/y97dn5lt

https://www.audiostream.com/content/...JJR6Z6Ik8Rd.97
or http://tinyurl.com/ycq2k3tf

https://www.audiostream.com/content/...Ed2lBr8YWx4.97
or http://tinyurl.com/yc6fcmv9

DACs are by no means straight forward (unless of course you set your
standards low).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Many are still 'improperly' mastered in that the aim is to produce a
pleasant sound rather than accurately reproduce the original. Such
recordings do not sound good to people who know what the original
really sounded like.

I'd say "... who think they recall what the original sounded like."
Recall of audio is as flawed as recall of any other memory. We don't
replay a memory, we reconstruct it. That reconstruction depends in large
part on the emotional ambience (eg, social setting) of the original
experience. Example: I don't think you'd want the recording to present
what the concert actually sounded like to you in when you were stuck in
the middle of the crowd....

yep.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


It was. CD vs vinyl. Nothing to do with DAC A vs DAC B.

it doesn't matter what it is. an objective-double blind test will show
whether there's a difference or not.

Quite agreed, but that was not what we discussing. In almost the last
of the text which you snipped before the current post, you said "not
that there is an audible difference, except perhaps the $5 one ...".

the $5 one might sound worse, but that's because it's cheap crap.

once you get past the junk level, the differences are insignificant, if
there are any at all.

You continue to display your ignorance/lack of experience.

nope.


In other words you were arguing that double-blind tests showed that
double blind tests had shown that people could not tell the difference
between one DAC and another (except perhaps for the $5 one).

But you have never cited double-blind tests of DACs.

don't need to, but feel free to do one.

It's YOU who claimed I was wrong on the basis of a double-blind test.
It's YOU who needs to cite such a test.

nope.

*you* are making the claim that you can hear a difference.

i said you might *think* you can, but you can't.

a double-blind test will confirm if you can reliably do so or not.

resistance to such a test shows that you're worried that you won't be
able to.

objective double-blind tests consistently have shown that people do no
better than chance in a variety of audio tests.

I've also got a DAC in my Rega CD player. I can pipe CDs from the Rega
to the Arcam DAC via an optical link. I can confirm that it is very
hard to tell the difference between the Rega and the Arcam DAC but the
Roland DAC is quite noticeably different.

since it's the odd one out, it's defective or artificially modifying
the sound, neither of which is desirable. it could even be a little of
both.


that people *think* they can tell a difference for all sorts of things,
but when put to the test, the fail, big time. it doesn't matter whether
it's wine, audio, cameras, and more.

You don't need a double-blind test to determine whether people can
tell whether or not a light is on in a room. In most cases the
possession of the necessary discrimination is blatantly obvious.

that's an absurd comparison.

Of course it's not!

it is.

what you're asking is the equivalent of being able to determining if
there's music playing or there's silence.

There are many cases in life for which a
double-blind test is not necessary to confirm a difference.

true, but in this case, it *is* necessary.

a better comparison would be if someone could tell the difference
between two different brands of light bulbs, both outputting the same
lumens and colour temperature.

Why? Do you really think that without even hearing them the output of
the Roland and Arcam DACs are that similar? Dear me.

do an objective double-blind test, ideally multiple times and also more
than just one person.

in the past, people do no better than chance. in other words, they're
guessing. half guess right and half guess wrong. the ones who guess
right might think they have better perception than the ones who guessed
wrong, but it's really just a lucky guess.


ADC is easy. But DACs are hard. Just ask the experts.

the experts will say both are easy or hard, depending on numerous
factors.

Fudge.

nope. there's nothing mysterious about adc or dac.

You know of course from practical experience.

yep, i do.

and it's actually adc that's harder to avoid aliasing, but that's well
understood, so not much of an obstacle.

The mere fact that aliasing is a problem says that using a DAC to
reconstruct the original signal is by no means straitforward. There
are other problems too. See

https://www.audiostream.com/content/...1-what-digital
https://www.audiostream.com/content/...bits-just-bits
https://www.audiostream.com/content/...n-affect-sound

what a load of rubbish. i'm surprised you even linked that crap.

usb packet timing, memory accesses, cache misses and tight loops have
no audible effect whatso****ingever and completely irrelevant to a dac.

the author just spewing random jargon, hoping to fool the stupid.

DACs are by no means straight forward (unless of course you set your
standards low).

they're very straightforward.

On 9/22/2018 6:13 AM, Wolf K wrote:

We "hear" sounds that aren't actually in the soundstream.

You mean like that ringing I hear all the time?

the first sign of hearing loss is increasing misunderstanding
speech.

Yup. And it gets comical sometimes...

I don't think you'd want the recording to present what the concert
actually sounded like like to you in when you were stuck in the
middle of the crowd....

I have a number of recordings with crowd noise and I don't find them
objectionable. Music is a SUBJECTIVE thing.

On 9/22/2018 1:43 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-09-22 12:58, 123456789 wrote:

We "hear" sounds that aren't actually in the soundstream.

You mean like that ringing I hear all the time?

No, I mean phonemes...

It was just a bit of attempted levity. Guess I needed a smiley.

The ringing in your ears may be generated in the ears or the brain or
both.

I don't notice the ringing unless I think about it (same with the
floaters). Love those brain filters.

I have a number of recordings with crowd noise and I don't find
them objectionable.

That's not what I meant. Those recordings combine multiple tracks and
are carefully massaged so that the crowd noise does not interfere
with the music.

Perhaps. But my live recordings sound pretty much like the concerts I
remember.

I've been at concerts where I could hardly hear the music itself. And
others where the music drowned out the crowd noise.

My GUESS is that we may like different kinds of music as the concerts I
remember and currently attend are a bit more refined than what you
describe. But that's OK cause music is a subjective thing...