Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
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.

LOL. It takes guts to perpetrate that sort of test on a wine buff. And they
got away with it :-)

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

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

I read of an interesting study that was done comparing vinyl against CD.
Audiophiles could tell that difference, which doesn't surprise me. Many of
them preferred the "vinyl sound". Fair enough.

But then they introduced a third factor: live sound (eg a radio broadcast of
a concert) with no recording, whether on tape, vinyl or CD. And the
audiophiles thought it was a CD, and hated it. So what some audiophiles
prefer is the modifications that are made to "fit" the recording onto vinyl:
the reduced dynamic range and the modified frequency response when writing
to disc and converse process when playing back - that other forms of
recording are too faithful and less "warm".

On 9/20/2018 5:45 AM, NY wrote:

I read of an interesting study that was done comparing vinyl against
CD. Audiophiles could tell that difference, which doesn't surprise
me. Many of them preferred the "vinyl sound". Fair enough.

My current MP3 collection includes many vinyl records I had as a
teenager that I have rerecorded in various formats as they evolved over
the years. Besides the vinyl sound, I actually like the groove scratch
sound made as the original record turned. Perhaps more nostalgia than
frequency response.

But then they introduced a third factor: live sound (eg a radio
broadcast of a concert) with no recording, whether on tape, vinyl or
CD. And the audiophiles thought it was a CD, and hated it.

Yep, many hated those cold sounding CDs when they came out. That's why
some continued to use their tube amps to "warm up" the music.

So what some audiophiles prefer is the modifications that are made to
"fit" the recording onto vinyl: the reduced dynamic range and the
modified frequency response when writing to disc and converse process
when playing back - that other forms of recording are too faithful
and less "warm".

Bottom line: Sound is a SUBJECTIVE thing. What sounds good to one may
not sound as good to another. And also there is the EAR. As I joked in
my last post, many here are somewhat aged and their hearing response has
changed. I will admit mine has. That's why I use an equalizer. I adjust
it until the music sounds good TO ME. Another advantage of old ears is
that a $20 pair of headphones sounds good enough FOR ME... YMMV.

In article , NY
wrote:

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.

LOL. It takes guts to perpetrate that sort of test on a wine buff. And they
got away with it :-)

found it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rahimka...der-yourself-a
n-expert-think-again/
"This was nicely demonstrated in a mischievous 2001 experiment led by
Frédéric Brochet at the University of Bordeaux,² writes Jonah Lehrer.
³In the first test, Brochet invited fifty-seven wine experts and
asked them to give their impressions of what looked like two glasses
of red and white wine. The wines were actually the same white wine,
one of which had been tinted red with food coloring. But that didn¹t
stop the experts from describing the ³red² wine in language typically
used to describe red wines. One expert praised its ³jamminess,² while
another enjoyed its ³crushed red fruit.²

In fact, the look of a label or the price on the bottle profoundly
influence the tasting experience.

Said Lehrer: ³The second test Brochet conducted was even more
damning. He took a middling Bordeaux and served it in two different
bottles. One bottle bore the label of a fancy grand cru, the other of
an ordinary*vin de table. Although they were being served the exact
same wine, the experts gave the bottles nearly opposite descriptions.
The grand cru was summarized as being ³agreeable,² ³woody,²
³complex,² ³balanced,² and ³rounded,² while the most popular
adjectives for the*vin de table*included ³weak,² ³short,² ³light,²
³flat,² and ³faulty.²


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

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

I read of an interesting study that was done comparing vinyl against CD.
Audiophiles could tell that difference, which doesn't surprise me. Many of
them preferred the "vinyl sound". Fair enough.

cds do sound different, not because they're cds, but because they're
mastered differently.

they're also capable of much higher quality and can reproduce sounds
vinyl cannot.

put another way, a cd can sound *exactly* like a vinyl record (if
that's what one prefers), or it can sound much better.

But then they introduced a third factor: live sound (eg a radio broadcast of
a concert) with no recording, whether on tape, vinyl or CD. And the
audiophiles thought it was a CD, and hated it. So what some audiophiles
prefer is the modifications that are made to "fit" the recording onto vinyl:
the reduced dynamic range and the modified frequency response when writing
to disc and converse process when playing back - that other forms of
recording are too faithful and less "warm".

vinyl records add distortion, which is the 'warmth' that they claim to
hear. that distortion can also be added to a cd, or left out for those
who want accurate sounds.

In article , 123456789
wrote:


But then they introduced a third factor: live sound (eg a radio
broadcast of a concert) with no recording, whether on tape, vinyl or
CD. And the audiophiles thought it was a CD, and hated it.

Yep, many hated those cold sounding CDs when they came out.

that was a production issue, not that it was a cd.

That's why
some continued to use their tube amps to "warm up" the music.

which adds distortion, something which can be added digitally. no need
for a tube amp.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In my search I found DACs ranging in price fro about $5(!) to
$26,000.
I finished up paying about $500.

any of which can be used with a digital headphone jack and whatever
headphones/speakers you want.

not that there is an audible difference, except perhaps the $5 one.

Lots of people think you are wrong. I certainly do.

even more do not.

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 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.

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.

On 9/19/2018 6:25 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 21:59:08 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

your comments support the transition to digital headphone jacks.

My comment was derived from the thought of the kind of DAC a
manufacturer would install in a pair of ear buds.

it doesn't matter, since the quality of the earbuds is the limiting
factor, not the dac.

They must be acoustically lousy!

Mr. Stevens-let me take a dump in your pie hole.

On 9/20/2018 12:17 PM, nospam wrote:
123456789 wrote:

many hated those cold sounding CDs when they came out.

that was a production issue, not that it was a cd.

You're big on double blind tests, right?

"My demonstrations were "blind" tests for them; I didn't identify which
was which, I would just ask them to tell me which one, "A" or "B,"
sounded better. Most guessed the LP. The turntable and CD player were
usually around the same price. My turntable sales remained strong
through the 1980s, but CD players' sales gained ground as the years went
by."

https://www.cnet.com/news/it-was-30-...began-to-play/

That's why some continued to use their tube amps to "warm up" the
music.

which adds distortion

Music is a SUBJECTIVE thing. Distortion can be a good thing if people
enjoy it. How about that distorted (screeching) electronic guitar music
that's so popular? As you can tell I don't particularly enjoy it, but
millions do...

something which can be added digitally. no need for a tube amp.

No need NOT TO HAVE a tube amp, turntable, and LPs in a nice piece of
furniture if that's the way one wants to enjoy their music. Some people
enjoy driving classic cars also.

In article , 123456789
wrote:

many hated those cold sounding CDs when they came out.

that was a production issue, not that it was a cd.

You're big on double blind tests, right?

"My demonstrations were "blind" tests for them; I didn't identify which
was which, I would just ask them to tell me which one, "A" or "B,"
sounded better. Most guessed the LP. The turntable and CD player were
usually around the same price. My turntable sales remained strong
through the 1980s, but CD players' sales gained ground as the years went
by."

https://www.cnet.com/news/it-was-30-...began-to-play/

audio salespeople are not unbiased and rarely do a proper double-blind
test. for example, if the volumes weren't exactly matched, then the
test is void. louder usually sounds better, even if it's only slightly.

there's also this:
The other factor in LPs favor was price, CDs sold for twice as much
as LPs, and that price differential lasted for a long time.

That's why some continued to use their tube amps to "warm up" the
music.

which adds distortion

Music is a SUBJECTIVE thing. Distortion can be a good thing if people
enjoy it. How about that distorted (screeching) electronic guitar music
that's so popular? As you can tell I don't particularly enjoy it, but
millions do...

i didn't say it's bad. i said that the 'warmth' is distortion, which
can be added if that's what a person wants.

what can't be done is removing distortion that's already there. the
damage has been done.

vinyl can't ever have the dynamic range or frequency response of cds,
but cds can be limited to mimic vinyl.

something which can be added digitally. no need for a tube amp.

No need NOT TO HAVE a tube amp, turntable, and LPs in a nice piece of
furniture if that's the way one wants to enjoy their music. Some people
enjoy driving classic cars also.

if someone is buying a turntable or tube amp as a piece of furniture,
then sound quality is not their priority.

On 9/20/2018 3:21 PM, nospam wrote:

audio salespeople...rarely do a proper double-blind test.

I would say salespeople rarely do a double blind test, PERIOD.

The other factor in LPs favor was price

The complaints most voiced were sound, not price.

'warmth' is distortion, which can be added if that's what a person
wants.

'Warmth' is distortion which can also be added with a tube amp, IF
THAT'S WHAT A PERSON WANTS.

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...

cds can be limited to mimic vinyl.

Why would anyone want to make a CD mimic vinyl?

if someone is buying a turntable or tube amp as a piece of furniture,
then sound quality is not their priority.

Not necessarily. Lots of people like nice furniture surrounding their
solid state CD stereos too.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:45:21 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
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.

LOL. It takes guts to perpetrate that sort of test on a wine buff. And they
got away with it :-)

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

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

I read of an interesting study that was done comparing vinyl against CD.
Audiophiles could tell that difference, which doesn't surprise me. Many of
them preferred the "vinyl sound". Fair enough.

But then they introduced a third factor: live sound (eg a radio broadcast of
a concert) with no recording, whether on tape, vinyl or CD. And the
audiophiles thought it was a CD, and hated it. So what some audiophiles
prefer is the modifications that are made to "fit" the recording onto vinyl:
the reduced dynamic range and the modified frequency response when writing
to disc and converse process when playing back - that other forms of
recording are too faithful and less "warm".

You have hit the nail on the head but I'm not sure it is the right
nail. One of the problem with CD records is that they are generally
engineered by older men in rooms crammed with electronic equipment
with the music heard through mediocre speakers. (If you don't believe
me Google 'record engineer' and look at the images.) What is more, the
majority of them will hardly ever have listened to real live
instruments. They tend not to not to engineer for faithfulness in
audio reproduction but to make a sound which sounds 'nice'.

Live concerts tend not to be held in environments ideal for recording
purposes. Nor is their sound equipment of what would be regarded as
good acoustic quality. Pass this mix through a recording engineer who
knows how to make music sound 'nice' and you should not be
disappointed at what you get.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 15:17:35 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In my search I found DACs ranging in price fro about $5(!) to
$26,000.
I finished up paying about $500.

any of which can be used with a digital headphone jack and whatever
headphones/speakers you want.

not that there is an audible difference, except perhaps the $5 one.

Lots of people think you are wrong. I certainly do.

even more do not.

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 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?

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , 123456789
wrote:


audio salespeople...rarely do a proper double-blind test.

I would say salespeople rarely do a double blind test, PERIOD.

yep. all they want is another sale.

The other factor in LPs favor was price

The complaints most voiced were sound, not price.

it biases the decision process. someone might be considering a cd
player but then when they realize cds are more expensive, choose a
turntable. the salesperson wants to make the sale so they'll do
whatever they can to sell *something*.

'warmth' is distortion, which can be added if that's what a person
wants.

'Warmth' is distortion which can also be added with a tube amp, 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.

if someone is buying a turntable or tube amp as a piece of furniture,
then sound quality is not their priority.

Not necessarily. Lots of people like nice furniture surrounding their
solid state CD stereos too.

that's two different things.

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.

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.

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.

On 9/21/2018 6:37 AM, nospam wrote:
123456789 wrote:

someone might be considering a cd player but then when they realize
cds are more expensive, choose a turntable.

The subject was COMPLAINTS not sales. And SOUND was the 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

My local big box and book stores are selling LP vinyl records.

they aren't selling...because of their audio quality.

I imagine that LPs are purchased because of their UNIQUE audio quality.

Turns out I lied above. ONE of my local big box stores, Best Buy,
doesn't sell ANY LPs or CDs. And Target is winding down CD sales.
Because as you said, they aren't selling.

It's ironic that CDs are dying while a 100+ year old technology, analog
headphones, are still ubiquitous...

http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2018/07/best-buy-cd-sales/

In article , 123456789
wrote:

someone might be considering a cd player but then when they realize
cds are more expensive, choose a turntable.

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*.

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.

yes necessarily, and flatness isn't the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_s..._and_distortio
n

My local big box and book stores are selling LP vinyl records.

they aren't selling...because of their audio quality.

I imagine that LPs are purchased because of their UNIQUE audio quality.

nope. the 'audio quality' can be done digitally. cds can be made to
sound like vinyl.

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