Honeymoon to Firenze, Italy.
Source: Vince
Roasted some Bourbon Amarelo coffee from Brazil. Very nice, I like it’s smoky taste with a little darker roast and use it for #espresso.
Source: Vince
Published by Vincent in microblog
Beta testing the micro.blog iOS app atm, looks good!
Source: Vince
Published by Vincent in microblog
I feel I underestimated the amount of work blogging requires.
Source: Vince
Published by Vincent in microblog
let us start this journey!
Source: Vince
Published by Vincent in microblog
2017 is a special year for me. It meant a personal Mac milestone: 10 years of owning Macs. Why do I use Apple products, when alternatives are significantly cheaper? Simply put, what makes Macs worth the extra investment? Let me elaborate by telling you my MacBook journey.
Since '07 I have been working on MacBooks for university work and for my first job. The machines I worked on are:
- Mid 2007 White MacBook 13” from 2007 until 2009;
- Late 2008 Unibody MacBook 13” from 2009 until 2012
- Late 2012 Retina MacBook Pro 15” from 2012 until now
- Late 2016 MacBook Pro 13" without TouchBar (work provided) from 2016 until now
Before my Apple decade I used windows desktops only mainly to play games. When I was in high school I chose to work in the local supermarket to fund any fun projects, which enabled me to save up some money. After high school I wanted to study Industrial Design Engineering, which required a lot of graphical design work and 3D CAD work inside SolidWorks. Sadly at the time SolidWorks is Windows only, so installing Windows was a requirement. But that could be solved with a dual boot installation.
In ’07 there was a cool offer by the Media Markt, a local retailer. They offered all laptops without tax for a week! It comes down to a 19% price reduction, due to tax percentages in Holland, resulting in a €228 cheaper Mac! MacBooks were heavily recommended by fellow students during one of my visits at university during these participation days, so I bit the bullet and I bought my first MacBook. I had my fair share of issues using Windows and was curious to what Apple could offer. Worst case scenario, I could always sell it. Before I had owned an iPod Nano first generation (2005), an iPod Shuffle second generation (2006), and an iPod Nano third generation (2007). All in all my experiences with using Apple products have been positive. The well documented halo effect kicked in and I made the switch.
The first couple of days I had lots of issues, which mainly had to do with me getting used to a whole other kind of operating system. How do I install a program? How do I uninstall a program? What programs are worth my while? Do I go for office or iWork? And much more.
Within a week I got the hang of it, and started to enjoy the experience more and more. After a week I did not want to go back to Windows, and that has not changed since.
This is the end of part one of this blog series. In the next part I will look into my time at university with my MacBook.
Pictured below is my first MacBook:
Impressions Shure SE425 with a bluetooth cable.
Because of an earlier post by a redditor, my attention was brought upon the fact you can order wireless ‘cables’ for IEM with removable cables.
Two of my close friends bought Airpods and keep on raving about wireless headphones and all the practical benefits: no more cable getting yanked out of your ears at doors, no longer being tethered to your device so more freedom to do whatever you like. That’s all fun and games, but when I’m at home I will listen to my dedicated headphone setup with DAC and amp. Therefore the only interesting use case with wireless headphones for me would be on the go or while working out. During commuting wireless audio can have tangible benefits, but I need the passive isolation of an IEM, which Airpods do not offer. Without the passive noise isolation humans have a tendency to turn up the volume. The danger of turning up the volume to such high levels is you could damage your hearing permanently!
Conclusion: Let us check out a cheap wireless IEM: Cheap in the sense of already owning the IEM and merely replacing the cable for a bluetooth adapter.
In my research I noticed that wireless audio is seen as a bad idea generally by audio enthusiasts, which led me have doubts about this experiment. I needed more information:
Why is bluetooth considered as a bad idea for audio?
According to this article from lifehacker:
- To be able to transmit the digital signal, it has to be compressed. Rule of thumb: Digital compression is detrimental for your audio quality.
- Bluetooth uses the 2.4 GHz bandwith, which has to compete with other wireless transmitters using the same frequency such as Wi-Fi, wireless mice/keyboards and microwaves among others. These interferences can cause signal drops, which means your music will cut out for a short while.
As a wireless-sceptic I figured there would be losses to audio quality that are simply not worth it. On the other hand, there are use cases where I would prefer to be able to listen to music over not having any music at all. My conclusion, it's not all bad news and I was curious. I felt it would be a worthwhile experiment to look into. After a quick google on ‘shure bluetooth’ I found this cable, and I ordered it immediately. The cable was delivered on the 20th of january, and here are my impressions after using the Shures wirelessly for the last two weeks:
First, let me express my expectations. I expected the sound quality to suffer to the point that it would be audible, in the same sense that you can hear a difference between a 128 kbit/s mp3 compared to a 320 kbit/s mp3.
Clarity - instrument separation and imaging is just as fantastic as wired. You can definately hear fingers moving on the fretboard on acoustic songs. I expect I am a little influenced here, I expected it to be worse.
Soundstage - As intimate as you would expect with an in ear monitor, it was the same.
Lows - Not overly bassy for an IEM, but it is present and extends well. I think the bluetooth transmission losses can be heard best in the bassier songs, especially at higher volumes. The SE425 is not regarded as one of the most bassy IEM, so I thought this was quite a shame.
Mids - The SE425 is known for its' sliky smooth mids, fantastically facilitating vocals, Which I value as one of the strongest points of this IEM. I did experience some significant loss in quality from the bluetooth transmission here, but it really depends on the song.
Highs - The SE425 is not the best when it comes to treble. it lacks in emphasis and does not extend as high in the frequency range as I would like. The bluetooth transmission makes certain songs a bit less involving and distorts the sound to be a bit tinny, But again this really depends on the song.
What are the practical benefits of bluetooth headphones?
Wireless transmission makes using the Shures easier, less of a chore to get everything right to listen to music. All you have to do is: turn the bluetooth reciever on and press play on your phone and you are good to go. During commuting you have the benefit of just putting the phone in your pocket and not being thethered to your device. When I used them with the wire, I occasionally had to put my phone in another pocket to prevent the cable from being damaged. Not a huge issue, but irritating nontheless.
My biggest concerns with this bluetooth headset setup:
- At times when I was cycling there was a short loss of signal during transmission, which ruins the immersion into the music. The music cuts out for a second and then resumes playing, sometimes multiple times repeatedly.
- 'Did I charge my headphones?' is a frustrating usability concern.I have encoutered two times already I wanted to use the headphones, but I could not since it ran out of charge. Other wireless headphones like the Airpods have this covered with charging cases. One solution could be to keep a powerbank in your bag and a short micro usb cable to charge them when you’re out and about, but seriously who wants that? (hint: not me) I ended up charging the headphones at work when I was working without music, but this is something you have to get up for and arrange which takes a little bit of effort.
- Switching from device to device is cumbersome although after you have finished the initial pairing it's quite easy to connect it to your phone.
- Audible loss of sound quality because of the bluetooth transmission.
Is bluetooth worth it?
Honestly, not really. At least not in this configuration. The benefits of a less cumbersome headset in use is not more profitable for me compared to the sacrifices that are necessary to create the wireless connection. There are only three cases where bluetooth is good enough for me to use the wireless setup:
- Simply put, when portability is the main objective.
- In noisy environments/environments where you would not be able to listen carefully anyway. In my case it would be my noisy office or on the go in the train.
- When you are streaming lossy audio anyway.*
When I am cooking dinner and watching a youtube video or listening to a podcast at the same time. When I cook, I can run around the kitchen a bit. Being able to use my tablet untethered is a clear benefit here. In all other cases I prefer the improved sound quality and lack of signal drops that you get with a cable.
I still want to buy a pair of Airpods though, sigh.
*= I have one second thought about this one. According to this link you should never convert lossy files to anything else. So how about playback? In transmission, bluetooth needs to compress the audio signal. If the file has been compressed already from a lossless source to a lossy file, and then during transmission again, would that not have a even worse effect on the audio quality? Right now, I don't know.
One of the most well regarded headphones of recent years has been the Sennheiser HD800. Within audio communities there exist wild discussions on how and why headphone A is better compared to headphone B and C. In short the main consensus is if one is looking for bassy/warm sound you are best off with one of the Audeze LCD series, depending on your budget. On the other hand, if you like more analytical, neutral sound the HD800 or the HD800s from Sennheiser is tough to beat. I tend to prefer more neutral headphones, since I rather enjoy my Sennheiser HD600. Therefore it was natural for me to look into the HD800.
My research let me know that buying a pair of high end headphones such as the HD800 is not simple. Preferably you need to make sure you are able to demo the headphones somewhere with the right kind of DAC and amplification fitting for the efficiency of the headphone. It became rather clear based on my research you need to find a well fitting amplifier since the HD800 is very picky. Bottom line: The HD800 itself is on the bright side with a 6kHz peak according to measurements from innerfidelity.com, thus it is unwise to use a brighter amp. Tube amps are known to provide a more laid back sound and combine nicely with the HD800, which is nice since I have been using the Schiit Vali2 tube hybrid for a while now.
After seeing a rather compelling offer of €800 for a used pair via a Dutch webshop I bit the bullet and ordered a pair.
My impressions
How does the HD800 present details?
Compared to the HD600, They both are extremely resolving and pick up micro detail very well. In my opinion the HD800 separated those sounds better and resulted into a more defined sound. All details heard on the HD800 you will hear on the HD600 as well but they will stand out on certain areas.
How did I like the bass?
The HD800 does texture the bass better and also holds up in the extremes very well for a fully open dynamic headphone. Simply put, very good quality even though a bit lacking in quantity in the low end.
How are the middle frequencies?
If I had to describe the HD800 mids, I would say they are clean, as if there's nothing around the vocals and they appear to come out of nowhere. The HD800 has a slight upper mid dip but instead of sounding recessed as in my Fidelio X2 it creates a spacious sound instead.
How are the higher frequencies?
There it is, the controversial topic: the highs in the HD800. Many audiophiles describe the 6kHz peak as uncomfortable and fatiguing. As a result the headphone can be considered amp picky, since tube amps tend to smooth out these kind of treble peaks better compared to solid state amps. Not all of them of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. Now back to the sound:
The HD800 present the highs in a clean and extend further compared to the HD600. The treble has a airy and detailed presence. I noticed the 6k Hz peak, but it did not bother me during my listening sessions.
How is the soundstage and imaging?
The soundstage of the HD800 is so massive, I still have difficulty getting used to it. The HD600 has a much more narrow and intimate sound in comparison. Imaging on the HD800 is open and clear.
Is the HD800 a worthwhile upgrade over the HD600?
While I still consider the HD600 to be the headphone king, considering its' price per performance. However after having bought the HD800 in October 2016, I understand why someone would consider a HD800 as an upgrade over the HD600. This I mainly because of the soundstage, imaging and detail retrieval, with the HD800 you feel as being in the middle of the orchestra, while the HD600 would offer a more intimate and narrow presentation, as if you are on the first row.
I have researched on the topic of "HD600 vs HD800 and is it worth it?" and I discovered the opinions vary wildly. The one day I would be advised it is not worth it, since diminishing returns and all, the other day you would hear it is totally worth it.
My opinion: I do believe the HD800 is worth it, since it better fits my personal preferences. I like how it effortlessly presents details in the music I would otherwise have to focus on with effort with the HD600. It is not like the details are not there with the HD600, although you need more focus and effort to retrieve them.
First mod: Superdupont Resonator aka "French mod"
Measurements from innerfidelity
In september of 2015, Sennheiser released the new and improved HD800S, which offered a 'fix' for the 6KHz peak the HD800 model has. Although at first I was not bothered by this treble peak, once you know it is there you start noticing it in songs that suffer from it. The HD800 treble peak can be described as sharp and edgy.
After multiple suggestions to look into the Superdupont Resonator mod for the HD800, I went on a research spree. My conclusions: for €20 you can make the HD800 appoach the sound signature of its' predecessor, the HD800S. And, the mod is completely reversible, so if I would not like it for whatever reason, I can undo it.
Since I have modded headphones in the past, I decided to go for it. Within two weeks after ordering the package with the SDR mod arrived, and the same evening after work I went for it.
What steps are necessary?
- Remove the cable, earcups and inner sleeving
- lightly press onto the mesh covering the plastic structure around the driver until you are able to peel it off, as far as you can reach the open space in the middle. The glue used here works as such that you can put the mesh back without doing any damage.
- Insert the SDR mod into the open space in the middle of the driver.
- Reseat the mesh as you found it.
- Put back the earpads and the inner sleeving.
- Done!
Video instructions:
After removing the earpads and the inner sleeving of the cups of the HD800 it looks like this:
When the mod is inserted it looks like this:
Impressions
The HD800 sounds more approachable and less sharp in the treble. Still I have not given the headphone enough listening time to truly appreciate the mod just yet, I have listened to the mod for maybe 2 hours tops. When I have given the mod more listening time I will come back to this post and add in more information. Still, if you can somehow reduce the 6kHz peak sharpness, you at least look into it in my opinion.
Published by Vincent in Uncategorized
One of the easiest and cheapest ways to get into home roasting coffee is the popcorn popper method. The big benefit from this method for me was the ease of use, and the relatively safe way to roast. I have not burnt or ruined a roast up until now. The biggest limitation of using this method is the limited amount of coffee you can roast in one batch, which amounts to 70 grams of coffee in one batch. For my usage it is perfect, as I use around 17 grams for each double espresso I brew.
What you will need is the following:
- A 1200W popcorn popper, preferably this model
- Optional but recommended: candy thermometer that can reach up to 220 degrees Celsius.
- A drill to be able to drill the hole for the thermometer
- A kitchen scale, accurate to at least 1 gram
- A big bowl for catching the chaff, the yellow skin of the beans release when roasting
- a big spoon for stirring when the beans get too hot
- a metal collander or two, for cooling down the beans or a metal baking sheet
- Oven mitt or two for protection
- Green coffee!
The setup
Whenever I roast with the popper my setup looks like this:
Before you start, make sure the popper is located into a place which is well ventilated, I put it onto my balcony. You need to keep in mind chaff will get everywhere. Make sure the place is well lit so you can look into the chamber without difficulty and make sure you have all your materials ready.
One method to determine how much green coffee is a good fit for your popper, you need to turn on the popper and insert green coffee into the chamber up until the amount of coffee is just right: when the beans move in the camber in circles at a relatively slow pace. Then turn off the popper and weigh the amount of green coffee in the chamber. This amount is a guideline for any future roasts with this bean. Whenever you buy another bean I would recommend redoing this measurement, since some beans differ in density.
The steps are as follows for roasting a batch of coffee:
- Turn on the popper and wait until it reaches 150 degrees Celsius / 300 Farenheit at least.
- Insert the green coffee
- Put the plastic hood in place and place a large bowl under the chute with a wet kitchen paper inside it to let the chaff stick to it.
- Wait for around three minutes for the first crack. You will smell a fragrant smell and see a bit of smoke.
- Depending on the type of roast you desire you need to time after first roast. Generally a lighter roast should be around 4 minutes in total, a full city roast around 5 minutes, and darker roasts can take up to closer to 6.5 minutes. Since roasts tend to develop very quickly, you need to watch it closely and need to be able to act quickly. To prevent overroasting you need to pour the beans out of the popper on the cooling plate/collander when they are a tad lighter than the color you desire, since roasting continues until the beans have cooled down sufficiently.
- Try to cool down the beans quickly. I prefer to throw them on a metal baking sheet, since the metal sheet absorbs the heat fairly quickly. Keep cooling them down until they are cold to the touch, by gently shaking it until they are arranged in a single layer.
- A fresh roast needs to vent of CO2, therefore you need to store the coffee into a jar without sealing it. Wait around 12 hours before you seal the jar tightly.
- The coffee attains its peak in taste around 4 to 24 hours after roasting. The coffee is truly fresh for five days after roasting.
Keep a close eye on the beans.
Published by Vincent in Coffee
© 2022 Vincent van der Toorn