Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem

On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 09:16:58 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-09-21 20:36, Eric Stevens 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....

While you are correct, someone who has heard a real live concert is a
jump ahead of someone who has only heard recordings.

Aah - "stuck in the middle of he crowd". THAT sort of concert. The
sort of concert where the sound of everything (even the drums!) is
filtered through public address quality amps and speakers.

I'm afraid the concerts I attend are the kind where you attract dirty
looks if you sneeze. A different kind of music altogether.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 09:37:44 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-09-21 23:56, Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
It's [nospam] who claimed I was wrong on the basis of a double-blind test.
It's [nospam] who needs to cite such a test.
[...]

You're arguing past each other.

Even if we weren't, nospam would change his position to ensure that we
were arguing past one another. See how determinedly he has changed
from audible differences in DACs to double-blind tests: and now you
are following him!

Perception trumps actuality every time. Some of the most famous double
blind tests involve wine (which nospam included in his list). It's been
done many times: The average person will rate the same wine higher when
it's poured from a bottle with a prestigious label than when labelled
"house wine". That's why wine judges/experts are presented with wines in
numbered, not labelled, glasses.

Worse: What we've just heard/tasted/seen/felt/etc affects how we
perceive the next sensory input. This operates both at the physiological
and neurological levels. That makes comparison tests more than a little
difficult.

Thus, large enough objective differences affect perceptions. Small ones
don't. The threshold varies with on the listener (taster/etc). That's
all. As with every other complex phenomenon, there will a Gaussian
distribution of the data. The data will no doubt be useful when deciding
how much money to spend on, for example, a new speaker design.

BTW, most sensory inputs most of the time operate well below the level
of conscious awareness. Good thing too, or we would have trouble
standing up.

Best,
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 11:06:36 -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.

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.

Actually you said "objective double-blind tests consistently show that
people do no better than chance. in other words, they're guessing"
with the inference being that I could not claim to be able to hear a
difference between the two DACs without the confirmation of a
double-blind test.

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.

Of course I won't be able to! I haven't got the ability to set one up.
You are even worse off being so far away from me.

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.

You seem to think that the faithful reconstruction of the original
analog signal is something which can be easily done by any DAC
(except, perhaps, the $5 one). There is whole industry out there which
disagrees with you.


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.

So how do you tell whether or not the light is on in a room?

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

Yes. It's the extreme case but somewhere between those two extremes it
gets so hard to tell the difference that a double-blind test is
required. Before that point a double-blind test is not necessary.

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.

Without actually having heard them you can't possibly know.

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.

What are you trying to achieve?

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.

But you can measure their affects so they are real. What is needed is
double-blind tests are necessary to deteremine whether or not the
affects are significant in term of the audible music. Some of this has
been done and yes there are factors which adversely affect the quality
of the music for some people. When you are dealing with hi-fi you are
not designing for people who are tone deaf.

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.

You set your standards low.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

You're arguing past each other.

Even if we weren't, nospam would change his position to ensure that we
were arguing past one another. See how determinedly he has changed
from audible differences in DACs to double-blind tests: and now you
are following him!

i did not change a thing.

objective double-blind tests are the only reliable way to determine if
there actually is an audible difference in dacs or any other audio
component, as well as other comparisons (e.g., wine, cameras, etc.)

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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

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

Actually you said "objective double-blind tests consistently show that
people do no better than chance. in other words, they're guessing"
with the inference being that I could not claim to be able to hear a
difference between the two DACs without the confirmation of a
double-blind test.

yep. you *think* you can hear a difference, but if you were to do an
objective double-blind test, you will find out what you think you can
hear and what you actually do hear is not necessarily the same.



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.

You seem to think that the faithful reconstruction of the original
analog signal is something which can be easily done by any DAC
(except, perhaps, the $5 one). There is whole industry out there which
disagrees with you.

no. what's out there is a whole industry scamming people into thinking
one product sounds better than another due to specious and nonsensical
claims that are anywhere from grossly misleading to flat out bull****.

one example out of many, and certainly not one of the most bizarre, is
'audiophile grade' ethernet cables, which must be used in the correct
direction for the best sound. only an idiot would believe that ****.

https://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/0...his-10000-ethe
rnet-cable-apparently-makes-sense/
"All audio cables are directional," says the product page. "Arrows
are clearly marked on the connectors to ensure superior sound
quality. For best results have the arrow pointing in the direction of
the flow of music. For example, NAS to Router, Router to Network
Player."
Let¹s stop and think about this for a moment. Remember that we¹re
talking about an Ethernet cable here‹not speaker wire. This cable is
specifically meant by the manufacturer to be used to connect a NAS to
an Ethernet switch, and then presumably you¹d use a second Diamond
cable to connect the switch to your computer. So these guys are
actually claiming that the direction of the cable has some meaningful
impact on how your NAS-hosted music sounds.


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/...e-bits-just-bi
ts

https://www.audiostream.com/content/...w-bit-perfect-
software-can-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.

But you can measure their affects so they are real.

none that has *any* effect on audio. zero. the entire concept is beyond
ridiculous.

anyone claiming that is a scammer who is full of **** and trying to
pull one over on people.

What is needed is
double-blind tests are necessary to deteremine whether or not the
affects are significant in term of the audible music.

in this case, no such test is needed because it's not possible for
memory access or cache misses to have *any* audible effect.

Some of this has
been done and yes there are factors which adversely affect the quality
of the music for some people. When you are dealing with hi-fi you are
not designing for people who are tone deaf.

there are factors that do, except that cache misses aren't one of them.

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.

You set your standards low.

nope. just a good understanding of sampling theory.

On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 23:30:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

You're arguing past each other.

Even if we weren't, nospam would change his position to ensure that we
were arguing past one another. See how determinedly he has changed
from audible differences in DACs to double-blind tests: and now you
are following him!

i did not change a thing.

No.

objective double-blind tests are the only reliable way to determine if
there actually is an audible difference in dacs or any other audio
component, as well as other comparisons (e.g., wine, cameras, etc.)

So you rely on double-blind tests (very appropriate) to tell whether
or not the light is on. I doubt it.

The point is there are some things which are so obvious that
double-blind testing is not required.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 01:29:00 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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

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

Actually you said "objective double-blind tests consistently show that
people do no better than chance. in other words, they're guessing"
with the inference being that I could not claim to be able to hear a
difference between the two DACs without the confirmation of a
double-blind test.

yep. you *think* you can hear a difference, but if you were to do an
objective double-blind test, you will find out what you think you can
hear and what you actually do hear is not necessarily the same.

Aah. "necessarily". Now you qualify your insistence on the need for a
double-blind test. Qite right too.


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.

You seem to think that the faithful reconstruction of the original
analog signal is something which can be easily done by any DAC
(except, perhaps, the $5 one). There is whole industry out there which
disagrees with you.

no. what's out there is a whole industry scamming people into thinking
one product sounds better than another due to specious and nonsensical
claims that are anywhere from grossly misleading to flat out bull****.

Lets leave 'better' out of it for the time being. 'Different' is what
I claimed. In my case 'better' is a value judgement but different is a
matter of fact.

one example out of many, and certainly not one of the most bizarre, is
'audiophile grade' ethernet cables, which must be used in the correct
direction for the best sound. only an idiot would believe that ****.

https://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/0...his-10000-ethe
rnet-cable-apparently-makes-sense/
"All audio cables are directional," says the product page. "Arrows
are clearly marked on the connectors to ensure superior sound
quality. For best results have the arrow pointing in the direction of
the flow of music. For example, NAS to Router, Router to Network
Player."
Let¹s stop and think about this for a moment. Remember that we¹re
talking about an Ethernet cable here‹not speaker wire. This cable is
specifically meant by the manufacturer to be used to connect a NAS to
an Ethernet switch, and then presumably you¹d use a second Diamond
cable to connect the switch to your computer. So these guys are
actually claiming that the direction of the cable has some meaningful
impact on how your NAS-hosted music sounds.

It's all bull**** as far as I am concerned.


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/...e-bits-just-bi
ts

https://www.audiostream.com/content/...w-bit-perfect-
software-can-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.

But you can measure their affects so they are real.

none that has *any* effect on audio. zero. the entire concept is beyond
ridiculous.

So you say. Listeners have clear preferences on distortion with odd
numbered harmonics vs even numbered harmonics. I suppose you will try
to explain that away.

anyone claiming that is a scammer who is full of **** and trying to
pull one over on people.

What is needed is
double-blind tests are necessary to deteremine whether or not the
affects are significant in term of the audible music.

in this case, no such test is needed because it's not possible for
memory access or cache misses to have *any* audible effect.

Some of this has
been done and yes there are factors which adversely affect the quality
of the music for some people. When you are dealing with hi-fi you are
not designing for people who are tone deaf.

there are factors that do, except that cache misses aren't one of them.

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.

You set your standards low.

nope. just a good understanding of sampling theory.

Science says check what happens in the real world.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

objective double-blind tests are the only reliable way to determine if
there actually is an audible difference in dacs or any other audio
component, as well as other comparisons (e.g., wine, cameras, etc.)

So you rely on double-blind tests (very appropriate) to tell whether
or not the light is on. I doubt it.

no.

The point is there are some things which are so obvious that
double-blind testing is not required.

and your example of a light being on is one of them.

differences in dacs, amps, speaker cable, wine, camera lenses and much
more *does* require a double-blind test.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:03:05 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

objective double-blind tests are the only reliable way to determine if
there actually is an audible difference in dacs or any other audio
component, as well as other comparisons (e.g., wine, cameras, etc.)

So you rely on double-blind tests (very appropriate) to tell whether
or not the light is on. I doubt it.

no.

The point is there are some things which are so obvious that
double-blind testing is not required.

and your example of a light being on is one of them.

differences in dacs, amps, speaker cable, wine, camera lenses and much
more *does* require a double-blind test.

You know that, do you?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:03:05 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

objective double-blind tests are the only reliable way to determine if
there actually is an audible difference in dacs or any other audio
component, as well as other comparisons (e.g., wine, cameras, etc.)

So you rely on double-blind tests (very appropriate) to tell whether
or not the light is on. I doubt it.

no.

The point is there are some things which are so obvious that
double-blind testing is not required.

and your example of a light being on is one of them.

differences in dacs, amps, speaker cable, wine, camera lenses and much
more *does* require a double-blind test.

So you keep saying.

You would need a double blind test to reliably determine whether or
not it is possible to distinguish the Rega from the Arcam. But I find
that only a few seconds listening will tell me that I am listening to
the Roland. I also accept that you might not be able to hear the
distinction.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 14:59:10 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Aah - "stuck in the middle of he crowd". THAT sort of concert. The
sort of concert where the sound of everything (even the drums!) is
filtered through public address quality amps and speakers.

I'm afraid the concerts I attend are the kind where you attract dirty
looks if you sneeze. A different kind of music altogether.

If a sneeze warrants a dirty look, what does lighting a joint get you?

;-)

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


You would need a double blind test to reliably determine whether or
not it is possible to distinguish the Rega from the Arcam. But I find
that only a few seconds listening will tell me that I am listening to
the Roland. I also accept that you might not be able to hear the
distinction.

as i said, it's intentionally altering the sound, something you could
match with the other dacs. either that, or it's defective in some way.

it's a bit like 'canon colours' and 'nikon colours'. the cameras are
tuned slightly differently, but either one can be made to produce what
the other does.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

objective double-blind tests are the only reliable way to determine if
there actually is an audible difference in dacs or any other audio
component, as well as other comparisons (e.g., wine, cameras, etc.)

So you rely on double-blind tests (very appropriate) to tell whether
or not the light is on. I doubt it.

no.

The point is there are some things which are so obvious that
double-blind testing is not required.

and your example of a light being on is one of them.

differences in dacs, amps, speaker cable, wine, camera lenses and much
more *does* require a double-blind test.

You know that, do you?

yes.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 18:38:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


You would need a double blind test to reliably determine whether or
not it is possible to distinguish the Rega from the Arcam. But I find
that only a few seconds listening will tell me that I am listening to
the Roland. I also accept that you might not be able to hear the
distinction.

as i said, it's intentionally altering the sound, something you could
match with the other dacs. either that, or it's defective in some way.

it's a bit like 'canon colours' and 'nikon colours'. the cameras are
tuned slightly differently, but either one can be made to produce what
the other does.

And it's in the subtlties of tuning and the firmware of that that the
differences between DACS (and their costs) lie.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You would need a double blind test to reliably determine whether or
not it is possible to distinguish the Rega from the Arcam. But I find
that only a few seconds listening will tell me that I am listening to
the Roland. I also accept that you might not be able to hear the
distinction.

as i said, it's intentionally altering the sound, something you could
match with the other dacs. either that, or it's defective in some way.

it's a bit like 'canon colours' and 'nikon colours'. the cameras are
tuned slightly differently, but either one can be made to produce what
the other does.

And it's in the subtlties of tuning and the firmware of that that the
differences between DACS (and their costs) lie.

tuning = intentionally altering the sound.