Latest Posts

Audio is Expensive but …

چهار شنبه 25 آوریل 2018
/ / /

آيا ميشه راه حلي پيدا كرد كه ما بدون صرف هزينه بسيار به اون صدايي كه دوست داريم برسيم؟

سوال سختيه والبته يكم نياز به توضيح داره تا از حالت كلي دربياد

ما برندهاي گران زيادي داريم و البته بيشتر اونها به نسبت قيمت ارزش زيادي ندارند اما برندهايي هستند كه از نظر من در عين گران بودن ارزشمندند.

براي فرار از پرداخت هزينه هاي يك دستگاه بسيار گران يك راه حل DIY هست و راه حل ديگه پيدا كردن برندهايي كه با قيمت پايين تر صداي فوق العاده اي ميدهند.

راه حل DIY تا يه سطحي جواب ميده مثلا شما يه صداي معمولي خوب بخواهيد براي رقابت با دستگاه هايي تو رنج قيمت هاي زير ١٠ هزار دلار اما من اصلا اعتقادي به اينكه با DIY بتونيم در سطوح خيلي بالا High End صداي فوق العاده اي بگيريم ندارم.

نمونه موفق حتي در سطوح بالا داريم مثل بلندگوي رومي (هزينه ساخت اون بلندگو زير ٤٠ هزار دلار نيست) اما اگر مساله احتمالات رو درنظر بگيريم حقيقت اينه اين احتمال در اين مورد خيلي كمه و رفتن به سطوح بالاتر قيمتي هم ريسك داره هم نتيجه با احتمال كمي خوب خواهد بود و من اصلا فكر نميكنم با DIY ميشه سراغ high End رفت و حداقل خودم چنين ريسكي نميكنم.

توجه داشته باشيد DIY بسيار بسيار وقت و انرژي ميبره و سعي و خطاهاي بسياري داره كه مجموعا براي من راه حل جذابي نيست .

راه حل دوم اينه ببينيم تو دنيا چه برندهايي با قيمت هاي كمتر صداي بهتري ميدهند.

در مقايسه با راه حل DIY من با راه حل دوم بسيار موافقم

براي دوستاني كه هزينه هاي هاي فاي براشون توجيه نداره و همچنان علاقه مند به داشتن دستگاه هستند من پيشنهادم اينه دو مساله رو درنظر بگيرند :
اول اينكه بايد اين برندهايي كه با قيمت كم صداي بسيار خوبي ميدهند رو پيدا كنند.
دوم اينكه وارد فضاي سعي و خطا نشوند و قبل از خريد به اندازه كافي وقت و انرژي قرار بدهند تا به شكل درستي انتخاب كنند چون هزينه سعي و خطا بسيار بسيار زياد هست.
بهترين راه هم استفاده از تجربيات كساني هست كه بهشون اعتماد داريم و دوري كردن از مجلات و نظرات ضعيف اينترنتي.
سوم اينكه بايد وقت و انرژي بيشتري براي تيون و جاي بلندگو بگذارند.

اما آيا راه حل بالا براي كساني كه high end يعني اون اخرين مرحله رو ميخوان ممكنه،
منظورم اينه اگر مثلا شما از صداي هورن ليوينگ وويس با كوندو (مجموعا ٢ ميليون دلار) لذت برديد آيا راهي براي ندادن اون هزينه خواهيد داشت ؟
منم به اين سوال فكر ميكنم و نتيجه اي تاحالا نگرفتم و فكر ميكنم راهي وجود نداره .

متاسفانه اگر CEC اگر Kondo Audio Note اگر هورن Living Voice اگر گرام مايكروسيكي بهترين هستند تجربه به من ميگه راهي براي جايگزيني اينها با برندهاي ارزانتر وجود نداره .

اما خبر اميدواركننده براي خودم و براي شما اينه با يه ست معمولي خوب اگر جاي بلندگو تو نزديكاي DPOLS پيدا بشه و سورس صدا انالوگ باشه و برق پيورپاور باشه ما به اون لذت شنيداري بسيار زياد ميرسيم بدون اينكه دو ميليون دلار بديم.

Read More

Telegram Channel

سه شنبه 24 آوریل 2018
/ / /

سلام
نوع صدایی که من دوست دارم تو هاي فاي ایناست -> صداي آنالوگ ، صداي آئوديونت (تو سیستم match خودش) ، صداي بلندگوي تنوي red قديمي ، صداي هورن ليوينگ وويس ، من این تيپ صدا ها رو دوست دارم.

اگر شما نوع صداي دیگری دوست داريد مثل بلنگوی ۸۶ دی بی با وضوح بالا (۹۰٪ بلندگو های گران تو ایران اینطور هستند) و يا آمپلي فايرهای توان بالا يا صداي ديجيتال high Rez و … با کمال احترام این کانال برای شما حرفي برای گفتن نداره دليلش اينه همه پيشنهادات و نوشته ها و قضاوت ها تو كانال من بر مبناي رسيدن به اون تيپ صدايي است كه من دوست دارم .

معتقدم نوشته هاي من كمكي به شما كه سليقه متفاوتي داريد نميكنه و حتي ممكنه شما رو از اون صداي مطلوبي كه دوست داريد دور كنه چراكه اين نظرات كاملا در تضاد با نگرش شما خواهد بود.

اكثر صداهايي كه مورد توجه اين صنعت هست و در نمايشگاه ها شنيده ميشه و در مجلات ريويو ميشه چيزي نيست كه من بدنبالش باشم. بحثم فقط انتخاب دستگاه ها نيست بلكه اون رويكرد غالب در دنيا چه در ميكس و مسترينگ استوديوها چه در ساخت دستگاه ها و چه در قضاوت صداها همه و همه به دور از اون چيزي هست كه من بدنبالش هستم.
اين مساله باعث ميشه شما هميشه تفاوت هايي ببينيد در قضاوت هاي من در مقايسه با نظرات ريويوئرهاي معروف و اين مساله طبيعيه چون اونا صدايي رو تبليغ ميكنند كه صداي ماركت هست و با سليقه ٩٠٪؜ مخاطبان سازگاري داره اما من صداي ديگري رو دوست دارم.

کانال تلگرامی من برای نوشتن در مورد های فای :

https://t.me/hificlub

Read More

Bass/Mid/High vs Extended Midrange

سه شنبه 24 آوریل 2018
/ / /

I got today an email with description of a playback sound that made me to think that the author linguisticly formed and nailed down one aspect of sound that I very long looking myself and even practicing but never was able to put it into the words. I think he did it very nice and very thoughts provoking. Here are his words, reprinted without permission:

“The first thing that impressed me was the bass, or really the lack of bass, you don’t hear bass you don’t hear highs there is only midrange, … I was expecting to listen to a bunch of concepts like the air between the instruments or the midbass slam or the transparency of the highs, there is none, there is only seamless extended midrange, but lets call it plainly, there are only instruments playing, and a bunch of them! “

A single sentence but it very loaded and it encompass years and year of observation about sound. What the sentence introduces is very tangible characteristic of sound of a playback – the bandwidth of Midrange. I sound oxymoronic – how a Midrange might have a different bandwidth? What we call Midrange is defined but there is a lot of “buts”.

The key in the sentence above the describer “Seamless extended midrange” which implies that a playback must be of course full-range but the wider bandwidth is perceived as Midrange the better sound is. I mean if the system has extended bass and extended HF but they sound as Midrange then something in the system is done properly. The irony is that live sound has no HF and no LF – it has ONLY Midrange but the bandwidth of this Midrange and the amount of information in this Midrange is enormous. The reproduced sound very frequently gets broken down to LF, Midrange and HF that is in a way a surrogate of sound reproduction. So, the rule is:

The wider Midrange bandwidth is without trained listener experience deficiency in upper and lower octaves the more pregnant reproduced Sound is.

I think I need to start to review from this perspective the performance of the orchestral conductors and musicants…

Rgs, Romy the caT

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=13585

یه دنیا حرف اینجاست ، برای همینه یه 2way خوب که درست Place شده برای من ۱۰۰۰ بار بهتر از 3way هست وقتی نشه از 3way صدای درستی بگیریم.

این متن خیلی با ارزش هست.

Read More

فركانس هايي كه تو بلندگو با اكوستيك بيشتر درگيرند

سه شنبه 24 آوریل 2018
/ / /

از ٣٠ تا ١٠٠ هرتز كه خود اتاق ميتونه نقاط رزونانس داشته باشه و شايد بقدري كار با اتاق سخت بشه كه مجبور بشيد زير صد هرتز رو با اكولايزر ديجيتال (فقط تو همين محدوده فركانس و نه بالاتر) تغيير بديد يا تغييراتي تو خود اكوستيك بوجود بياريد.
اين قسمت فركانس بشدت تابع رفتار اتاق هست و اگر كسي خيلي بره رو بيس اكستريم طبيعتا كارش مشكل ميشه. تو اين قسمت جابجايي بلندگو يكم كمك ميكنه ولي راه حل صد درصد نيست.

از ١٠٠ هرتز تا ٥٠٠ هرتز كه از نظر جيم اسميت و رومي مهمترين قسمت براي حس خوب موزيك همين محدوده فركانس هست و با جابجايي بلندگو ميشه به نقطه اي رسيد كه ما در اون فركانسها بيشترين گين (مثلا ٥ تا ٦ دي بي بيشتر) رو تو بازه فركانسي حتي ١/٥ اكتاو داشته باشيم.
رومي معتقده با قراردادن بلندگو در چنين جايي در اتاق شما در محدوده ماكرو قرار مي گيريد و ميتونيد تو اون منطقه دنبال نقطه بسيار بسيار اپتيمم بگرديد.

از ٥٠٠ هرتز تا ٥ كيلوهرتز و بالاتر هم بر اساس جاي بلندگو و اكوستيك كردن اتاق بصورت استفاده زياد از ديفيوزرها و در حد كمي هم استفاده از جاذب اكوستيكي ميشه به نتايج خوبي رسيد

بنابراين ما با سه بخش سروكار داريم كه هركدوم شرايط خودش رو دارند

رومي معتقده شما اصلا از بلندگو نبايد صدا بگيريد به اين معني كه بلندگو فقط يه تريگر هست كه بايد تو جاي خوبي قرار بگيره تا اتاق رو تحريك كنه و شما بايد صداي اتاق رو بشنويد . در اينحالت ما همه جاي اتاق صداي خوبي ميشنويم و بلندگو محو ميشه تو اتاق.

Read More

USB to SPDIF Converter Legato Art

دوشنبه 23 آوریل 2018
/ / /

اين دستگاه ٨٠٠ دلار هست و يو اس بي ميگيره و spdif تحويل ميده فقط و فقط خروجي 16bit فركانس 44.1khz داره.

با ترانس ديتاي خروجي رو ايزوله ميكنه و امپدانس دقيقي داره تا اون فركانسها درست منتقل بشه و در ضمن جيتر بسيار كمي داره.

گزينه جالبي هست و مورد تاييد و پيشنهاد Gordon Rankin . اسم مهندس اين دستگاه pat هست . قيمتش يك سوم تا نصف قيمت Berkeley Alpha USB هست.

http://ar-t.co

Read More

Tiger Moth Tales

پنجشنبه 5 آوریل 2018
/ / /

درسال جدید قصد دارم گروهی رومعرفی کنم که با وجود ارائه آلبومهایی ارزشمند درطول نزدیک به یک دهه فعالیت هنری خود، برای اغلب علاقه مندان موسیقی در اینجا ناشناخته مانده است.

پیت جونز(Pete Jones) مغز متفکر گروه در سال 2010 اولین آلبوم خود را به نام Look At Me Now  که مجموعه ای از ترانه های ده سال گذشته وتحت تاثیر هنرمندانی همچون فیل کولینز، پل مک کارتنی بود به بازار عرضه نمود.

سال 2013 وی نام  Tiger Moth Tales را برای گروه خود برگزید.

آلبوم Cocoon  در ژانر پراگرسیو راک سال 2014 تحت تاثیرنبوغ  پیت جونز توجه منتقدان موسیقی را به خود جلب نمود.

به اعتقاد پیت Cocoon  آلبومی مفهومی مربوط به دوران کودکی است وسفری است بی قید و شرط به  شادی، تخیل، داستان، دوستی، عشق، طبیعت ونوستالژی.

آخرین آلبوم و بدون شک شاهکار گروه The Depths Of Winter در سال 2017 منتشر گردید.

آلبوم بر اساس مفاهیم زمستانی و داستان هایی است که در فصل زمستان اتفاق می افتد، پیت توضیح می دهد “تعداد زیادی از تم های مختلف در این آلبوم مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است، از جمله داستان های قومی زمستانی و شخصیت هایی مانند روح باد، رابین هود ،افسانه های وایکینگ و مرگ قهرمان فولکلور انگلیسی ”

تعدادی از ترکهای این آلبوم زیبا را با هم می شنویم.

Take the Memory

Sleigh Ride

Hygge

Migration

Read More

تست دستگاه با روش Contrast

چهار شنبه 28 مارس 2018
/ / /

http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/art_audio_hell.shtml

The old method: comparison by reference

We should begin by examining the method in current favour: The usual procedure is to use one or more favoured recordings and, playing slices of them on two different systems (or the same system alternating two components, which amounts to the same thing); and then deciding which system (or component) you like better, or which one more closely matches your belief about some internalized reference, or which one “tells you more” about the music on the recording. It won’t work! … not event if you use a dozen recordings of presumed pedigree … not even if you compare the stage size frequency range, transient response, tonal correctness, instrument placement, clarity of test, etc. – not even if you compare your memory of your emotional response with one system to that of another – it makes little difference. The practical result will be the same: What you will learn is which system (or component) more closely matches your prejudice about the way a given recording ought to sound. And since neither the recordings nor the components we use are accurate to begin with, then this method cannot tell us which system is more accurate! It is methodological treason to evaluate something for accuracy against a reference with tools which are inaccurate – not least of which is our memory of acoustical data. Therefore, it is very likely to the point of certainty that a positive response to a system using this method is the result of a pleasing complementarity between recording, playback system, experience, memory, and expectation; all of which is very unlikely to be duplicated due to the extraordinarily wide variation which exists in recording method and manufacture. (Ask yourself, when you come across a component or system which plays many of your “reference” recordings well, if it also plays all your recordings well. The answer is probably “no;” and the explanation we usually offer puts the blame on the other recordings, not the playback system. And, no, we’re not going to argue that all recordings are good; but that all recordings are much better than you have let yourself believe).

Recognising that many will consider these statements as audiophile heresy; we urge you to keep in mind our mutual objective: to prevent boredom and frustration, and to keep our interest in upgrading our playback system enjoyable and on track. To this end it becomes necessary that we lay aside our need to have verified in our methodology beliefs about the way our recordings and playback systems ought to sound. As we shall see, marriage to such beliefs practically guarantees us passage to AUDIO HELL. It is our contention that, while nothing in the recording or playback chain is accurate, accuracy is the only worthwhile objective; for when playback is as accurate as possible, the chances for maximum recovery of the recorded program is greatest; and when we have as much of that recording to hand – or to ear – then we have the greatest chance for an intimate experience with the recorded performance. It only remains to describe a methodology which improves that likelihood. (This follows shortly).

Listeners claiming an inside track by virtue of having attended the recording session are really responding to other, perhaps unconscious, clues when they report significant similarities between recording session and playback. As previously asserted, no-one can possibly know in any meaningful way what is on the master tape or the resulting software, even if they auditioned the playback through the engineer’s “reference” monitoring system. Anyone who thinks that there exists some “reference” playback system that sounds just like the live event simply isn’t paying attention; or at best doesn’t understand how magic works. After all, if it weren’t for the power of suggestion, hi-fi would have been denounced decades ago as a fraud. Remember those experiments put on by various hi-fi promoters in the fifties in which most of the audience “thought” they were listening to a live performance until the drawing of the curtain revealed the Wizard up to his usual tricks. The truth is the audience “thought” no such thing; they merely went along for the ride without giving what they were hearing any critical thought at all. It is the nature of our psychology to believe what we see and to “hear” what we expect to hear. Only cynics and paranoids point out fallibility when everyone else is having a good time.

Another relevant misunderstanding involves the correct function of “monitoring equipment”. The purpose of such equipment is to get an idea of how whatever is being recorded will play back on a known system and then to make adjustments in recording procedure. It should never be understood by either the recording producer or the buyer that the monitoring system is either definitive or accurate, even though the engineer makes all sorts of placement and equipment decisions based on what their monitoring playback reveals. They have to use something, after all; and the best recording companies go to great lengths to make use of monitoring equipment that tells them as much as possible about what they are doing. But no matter what monitoring components are used, they can never be the last word on the subject; and it is entirely possible to achieve more realistic results with a totally different playback system, for example, a more accurate one. Notice “more accurate,” not “accurate.” It bears repeating that there is no such thing as an accurate system, nor an accurate component, nor an accurate recording. Yet as axiomatic as any audiophile believes these assertions to be, they are instantly forgotten the moment we begin a critical audition.

The proposed method: Comparison by contrast.

When auditioning only two playback systems using the usual method, we will have at least a 50% chance of choosing the one which is more accurate. However, evaluations of single components willy-nilly test the entire playback chain; therefore efforts to choose the more accurate component are compounded by the likelihood that we will be equally uncertain as to the accuracy of each of the system’s associated components if for no other reason than that they were chosen by a method which only guarantees prejudice. How can we have any confidence that having chosen one component by such a method that its presence in the system won’t mislead us when evaluating other components in the playback chain, present or future?

The way to sort out which system or component is more accurate is to invert the test. Instead of comparing a handful of recordings – presumed to be definitive – on two different systems to determine which one coincides with our present feeling about the way that music ought to sound, play a larger number of recordings of vastly different styles and recording technique on two different systems to hear which system reveals more differences between the recordings. This is a procedure which anyone with ears can make use of, but requires letting go of some of our favoured practices and prejudices.

In more detail, it would go something like this: Line up about two dozen recordings of different kinds of music – pop vocal, orchestral, jazz, chamber music, folk, rock, opera, piano – music you like, but recordings of which you are unfamiliar. (It is very important to avoid your favourite “test” recordings, presuming that they will tell you what you need to know about some performance parameter or other, because doing so will likely only serve to confirm or deny an expectation based on prior “performances” you have heard on other systems or components. More later.) First with one system and then the other, play through complete numbers from all of these in one sitting. (The two systems may be entirely different or have only one variable such as cables, amplifier, or speaker).


The more accurate system is the one which reproduces more differences – more contrast between the various program sources.

To suggest a simplified example, imagine a 1940’s wind-up phonograph playing recordings of Al Jolson singing “Swanee” and The Philadelphia Orchestra playing Beethoven. The playback from these recordings will sound more alike than LP versions of these very recordings played back through a reasonably good modern audio system. Correct? What we’re after is a playback system which maximizes those differences. Some orchestral recordings, for example, will present stages beyond the confines of the speaker borders, others tend to gather between the speakers; some will seem to articulate instruments in space; others present them in a mass as if perceived from a balcony; some will present the winds recessed deep into the orchestra; others up front; some will overwhelm us with a bass drum of tremendous power; others barely distinguish between the character of timpani and bass drum. In respect to our critical evaluation process, it is of absolutely no consequence that these differences may have resulted from performing style or recording methodology and manufacture, or that they may have completely misrepresented the actual live event. Therefore, when comparing two speaker systems, it would be a mistake to assume that the one which always presents a gigantic stage well beyond the confines of the speakers, for example, is more accurate. You might like – even prefer – what the system does to staging, but the other speaker, because it is realizing differences between recordings, is very likely more accurate; and in respect to all the other variables from recording to recording, may turn out to be more revealing of the performance.

Some pop vocal recordings present us with resonant voices, others dry; some as part of the instrumental texture, others envelope us leaving the accompanying instruments and vocals well in the background; some are nasal, some gravelly, some metallic, others warm. The “Comparison by Reference” method would have us respond positively to that playback system, together with the associated “reference” recording, that achieves a pre-conceived notion of how the vocal is presented and how it sounds in relation to the instruments in regard to such parameters as relative size, shape, level, weight, definition, et al. Over time, we find ourselves preferring a particular presentation of pop vocal (or orchestral balance, or rock thwack, or jazz intimacy, or piano percussiveness – you name it) and infer a correctness when approximated by certain recordings. We then compound our mistake by raising these recordings to reference status (pace Prof. Johnson), and then seek this “correct” presentation from every system we later evaluate; and if it isn’t there, we are likely to dismiss that system as incorrect. The problem is that since neither recording nor playback system was accurate to begin with, the expectation that later systems should comply is dangerous. In fact, if their presentations are consistently similar, then they must be inaccurate by definition simply because either by default or intention no two recordings are exactly similar. And while there are other important criteria which any satisfactory audio component or system must satisfy – absence of fatigue being one of the most essential – very little is not subsumed by the new method of comparison offered here.

من اینو یکم بسطش میدم

Read More

The remarkable moments in Audio

شنبه 17 مارس 2018
/ / /

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&postID=24604#24604

 

John:

My own “profound” experiences with audio playback (where I was moved by the sound) have always been related to acoustics/room. Sometimes it all comes together, and equipment that have no right to sound much better than a table radio can sound magical. Actually there was a time when a table radio in my father in-law’s study sounded so good I wanted to smash it (lol); it made me feel like a fool for having spent tens of thousands of dollars on stuff (yes, I am a fool). I have been astounded by sound blasting out of speakers hanging in open spaces in amusement parks, and sound in musical theater venues, where every piece of equipment would probably not fit the traditional audio-snob definition (cheap cables, tone controls, mixers, conventional ported box speakers in multi-arrays). And electricity….I dare not go there but I recall a Wall Street Journal article on Japanese audiophiles who install their own utility poles (August 2016 Japanese Audiophiles Are Going To Extremes).

 

Romy:

John, this is quite serious subject and I spent some time to think about it as well. Let me to share how I feel about it.

Over 17 years back, I was visiting one of the Boston’s stores that sell used CD/records and in the store, I had some sort of the argument about music with the store owner. The store had old and very bad sounding loudspeaker siting behind the shelf, the flea market level loudspeaker and it was powered by 5-cd changer with built in 25W amplifier. You get the picture. So, during the argument with the store owner (who was incredible asswhole but who knew music very well) we were listening some music fragments to illustrate our points. One day I was listening home (and I had already a nice playback then) the same music as we were listening in the store during argument and I sensed that the expressivity of musical impressions in the store was more prominent. I thought that it was because the attention to that music in that store during the argument was more contextual but soon I learned, after consecutive visits to the store, that it was not the case. For sure the sound I was getting home was much more sophisticated from any single point of view but at the very same time, the sound I was getting in the store was very perfectly sufficient to stimulate my responsiveness at very high level. I have a lot to say on this topic but it is not the subject of my post.

Anyhow, I was thinking a lot about it and I, very much like you, at that time I was wondering if my time and money investment into audio was some kind of self-delusion. So, I am very much familiar with what you felt after visiting your father in-law’s study, I can tell you even more. My story in that music store and my arguing with myself about the worth of my involvement in audio is to the great degree serves as a base of my general overview about high-end audio. So, here is what I learned about myself.

Yes, I have a few regrets for many steps I took in audio but generally I do not feel that my audio-involvement was foolish. As a retrospect, I feel that foolish part in my audio journey took place when my motivations did not brew with me. Any single time I was listening recommendation or solicitation from any external party I unavoidably ended up with waste of time, money and NEVER got satisfaction. To me, a pleasure in audio starts when I declared all audio-involving humanity as dead and then I use my audio solely for satisfaction of my own interest, curiosity, objectives and sensations. When I look at my past and see how much money and how much time I wasted I never feel apologetic about the waste if it was my own original motivation. On other hand, when I look at the projects that I was involved that were inspired by advise of others (and, trust me,  there were plenty of these in my audio live) then I do feel incredible regrets for the time and the resources spent.

Read More

PC Audio Transport Music Server

پنجشنبه 15 مارس 2018
/ / /

ماجرا اینه :

راه اول خرید CAD CAT Server شرکت Computer Audio Design یا شرکت هایی از این دست

راه دوم خرید Streacom FC9 Chassis, Fujitsu D3313-S5, 4GB RAM DDR3L, 64GB mSATA internal HDD, JCAT Femto PCIe to USB CARD, Mojo Audio Illuminati PSU 12v &5v, Windows 10 or Server 2012R2 or Server 2016, Roon Server  Roon Remote, External SSD

نکاتی که باید رعایت بشه :

زیر ۱۰ وات ماردبرد و  cpu

ماردبرد بهتره intel یا supermicro یا Fujitsu باشه

هارد SSD

بدون فن cpu

cpu quad core

input 12v for motherboard

lower voltage RAM DDR3L

High Quality Linear Power Supply

Single PC in Core Mode not Dual PC

این خروجی usb میده به Berkeley Alpha USB

راه حل اول بهتره اما یکم گرونتره. بعد هم حتما Berkeley رو لازم دارید.

Read More