Vansloneker wrote: > Aah, so they use a central clock in the recording studios just for > bogus? > > -this topic is getting ridiculous. i'm out.-
Don't leave us yet! This topic is the precise point of the ABX test that I'm attempting to organise! Theorists are generally agreed that the 20ps jitter & 24 bit DAC incorporated in the Transporter should be sufficient for audible perfect analogue output & that was exactly the way that I have used the XLR balanced analogue output of mine for the last 8 years (so I'm generally pretty acclimatised to the sound, using the same ancillary equipment throughout) with my gradually expanding & eclectic music collection which is almost exclusively lossless & 97%+ 19/44.1 PCM, & now comprises 6,500+ albums. Having recently acquired the Mytek Brooklyn DAC (which has a 32bit floating point DAC, claimed 0.8ps jitter & a word clock out, intended for co-ordinating multi-channel use with additional 2 channel units as required - you can change the logo colour to identify which is which, or other "studio" use). Just out of interest, I thought that I would try linking the word clock out on the Mytek to the word clock in on my Transporter at the cost of a BNC cable. I've used an XLR cable specified for digital rather than analogue use to connect the balanced AES digital output/inputs of the two units to complete the digital connection. It has been grudgingly accepted than the latter should be satisfactory. Both of these new cables were sourced from Canford Audio (a wholesale studio supplier rather than a hi-fi retailer) at what I considered to be a price commensurate with the quality of their cable, connectors & construction: no "snake-oil" super cable claims were made by them nor paid for by me - it brings me out in a rash... Unfortunately for the experts, my listening experience from the outset indicated improvements to the overall sound of my system & as I have continued to listen to familiar recordings of music (rather than sine waves or square waves) this subjective perception on my part has persisted & increased with some acclimation. When I reported my experience on this forum I was branded a terminal subjectivist/audiophool & instructed that my experience had to be a delusion on my part, which I felt was a little unfair since 1. Sean Adams provided the necessary connections on the Transporter to enable this sort of connection, 2. I only made the connections out of curiosity, & 3. I had no preconceptions of the subjective results that would occur, so after fending off a few brickbats & attempting to clarify that "scientific knowledge" is only at any time a set of generally-accepted working hypotheses, none of which can actually be proved, but any of which may at a future time be individually falsified by the outcome of a properly-conducted experiment yielding readily repeatable results which contradict the theoretical predictions of that working hypothesis previously in vogue (this is the essence of the Scientific Method), I proposed conducting a controlled double-blind ABX test using level-matched outputs from the balanced XLR analogue outputs of my Transporter analogue stage & the analogue stage of my DAC respectively. I've had some interest in participating in such a test from forum members but would welcome more (the more, the merrier!). I have also encountered some scepticism as to whether I understand how to conduct a double-blind ABX test. For the benefit of the doubters, I can advise that I am in the process of ensuring that I can obtain accurate level matching of both channels of both sources to 0.1dB or less & obtain true ABX instantaneous switching (for the test to be double-blind, the active experimenter as well as the listeners will be fully aware of the identity of the "A" & "B" settings, but ignorant of the identity of the "X" setting). *-E-**-ach individual trial-* may be repeated as often as required by the listening panel before moving on to the next independent trial, which will then be reset by the operator according to a predetermined "0" or "1" setting for the next trial: the changeover or not between trials should not be visible to the listening panel although it must be known by the operator who sets up the next independent trial in the overall test. The operator does *-not-* at any stage during the whole test know whether setting "0" corresponds to source "A" or source "B" for the doubly-unknown source "X", merely whether or not a changeover has occurred between trials: this fact must be concealed from the listening panel to prevent them from basing their answer to the current trial on their perceptions from the previous one. This can be done by gagging the operator & making him wear an ass's head and instructing him to avoid any affectations of manner. Or by other approved means... I haven't requested volunteers for the role of operator yet, but I shall certainly extend an initial invitation to Wombat who has demonstrated the required deadpan style & difficult to comprehend behaviour in several of his posts in this & other threads (especially "Intona") on this sub-forum: a convincing imitation of a small furry mammal would be equally acceptable as the adopted persona for the operator as a character from one of Shakespeare's comedies... Got to get better in a little while... Dave :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
