Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Benchmark vs. Numerik
http://www.empiricalaudio.com/ -- harmonic harmonic's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6879 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54015 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
DeVerm wrote: DCtoDaylight;351968 Wrote: Look at it this way, everybody has taken an aspirin at some point in their life, but one pill won't reduce your risk of stroke. Low dosages, over a long time, will. So a short term ABX test would produce one result, a long term ABX would produce another. Exactly. We seem to agree ;-) I've been saying this for years, i.e. that you can't always hear differences on short-term ABX tests, but can prefer A or B over the long-term R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 + Cambridge DacMagic ($400) Review
Have you had time to try out the USB input on the Dacmagic and, if so, could you please share your impressions? I'm interested in how this will match with a PS3's and PC's USB. -- bugmenot bugmenot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15664 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53985 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 Making Pop Sound through Speakers
Phil Leigh;351550 Wrote: That pretty much nails it for me - sounds like there may be a tiny fault (probably a bad electrolytic capacitor) on the right channel of the Numerik output stage. If the popping was on both channels that would have probably indicated a different problem. Good luck - the Numerik is a good DAC - and capable of great things if you fit a clock input to the SB!!! Hi Phil I hope you get this message. After a long conversation on the phone, my dealer agreed to send a courier to pick the Numerik up tomorrow. I had to try really hard to convince him that there is something wrong with the Numerik. He said he will ask an engineer to have a look at it and I will have to include a note explaining the symptom. If it turns out there is nothing wrong with it, I'll have to pay for everything! Well, the only thing I can do now is to make sure that the engineer finds the fauty parts. I think it's a good idea to narrow the list down so he doesn't miss the spot. If you don't mind, could you let me know what I should ask the engineer to look at? You help has been much appreciated. Thanaset -- Thanaset Thanaset's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16937 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53996 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 Making Pop Sound through Speakers
Thanaset;352093 Wrote: Hi Phil I hope you get this message. After a long conversation on the phone, my dealer agreed to send a courier to pick the Numerik up tomorrow. I had to try really hard to convince him that there is something wrong with the Numerik. He said he will ask an engineer to have a look at it and I will have to include a note explaining the symptom. If it turns out there is nothing wrong with it, I'll have to pay for everything! Well, the only thing I can do now is to make sure that the engineer finds the fauty parts. I think it's a good idea to narrow the list down so he doesn't miss the spot. If you don't mind, could you let me know what I should ask the engineer to look at? You help has been much appreciated. Thanaset Oh - well I hope that I haven't accidentally caused you any major expense! That wasn't my intention at all. I was simply suggesting some possibilities. Personally I think it's a good idea to get items like this serviced or at least checked over anyway since the Numerik must be quite old by now (1999 was when it finished production). I've had some Linn gear that aged rather quickly due to class A operation and high internal operating tempratures (Linn Aktiv crossover springs to mind). If it was me I'd be looking for DC leakage on the right channel output (the one that caused the popping. If present it will be really easy to find. However, I am only guessing the problem from a long way away!. If they send it back and say no fault found but you still get the popping, I don't know what to say. However, while it is away/before they collect it you could try connecting the SB to the Cyrus via its analogue outputs (removethe Numerik completely) and see if the popping is still there... that would indicate a problem in the amp (unlikely). Do you have anyhting else connected to the Cyrus? Regards Phil -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53996 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
pablolie;351985 Wrote: Are you measuring the right interface given the fact that what you are trying to explain is the different sound to your ears? Are you really, *REALLY* sure that that is nthe only interface that has possibly changed? Are there no other possible interactions between equipment in the change? Noise from power supplies or power reference points? No other changes made to the system? I have read your posts for over 2 years now, and have the utmost respect for your opinions. So I'd rather trust what *you* hear rather than what you osc tells you... :-) Pablolie - thank you for you kind words. I'm torn between what I hear and what I see. Waht I hear sounds eally good (although I'm sure it can be improved). What I see when I play a squarewave through the sb into a dac looks pretty good. But when I pass the same squarewave through the TACT it is clearly distorted. I am investigating PSU noise and earthing issues and also the various interconnections in my system. The only change I have amde to my system so far is to replace the SMPS in the TACT with a linear supply. This seems to have made a nice improvement to my ears. The change is not visible on the scope apart from the fact that the 5V into the TACT is now visibly cleaner than from the old SMPS. From the TACT forum I have no answer to my squarewav question yet - but lots of advice on upgrading the SB and TACT in various ways. I am looking into all of these options but it will take a long time. I also want to try and clock-link my system to my DAC (which has a very high quality Audicom clock in it) - which involves fitting clock ins/outs to everything which will be expensive! This may have to wait... In the meantime I am concentrating on low-cost improvements (my linear suppy was £6 from eBay - original retail was £85) such as cabling. I always use my easrs to test changes - the scope is just for fun and repairing things that are broken really. Actually I wish I hadn't stumbled across that square wave... Maybe someone else with a TACT and a scope can reproduce my results on day. Kind Regards Phil -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 Making Pop Sound through Speakers
Phil Leigh;352102 Wrote: However, while it is away/before they collect it you could try connecting the SB to the Cyrus via its analogue outputs (removethe Numerik completely) and see if the popping is still there... that would indicate a problem in the amp (unlikely). Thanks for a very quick response, Phil. I immediately disconnected the Numerik once you mentioned that it was the source of the problem for fears of causing harms to the system. Since then I never heard any pop. I am now fairly certain that the Numerik is the suspect. I've got my Musical Fidelity A3 player and a Samsung DVD player connected to the Cyrus -- not one of them causes any noise. I just really want to make sure that they discover the culprit(s). The dealer was very polite on the phone. It's just that he insisted the engineer tested the unit before it was shipped to me and he found no problem. No more E(vil)Bay for me! Thanaset -- Thanaset Thanaset's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16937 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53996 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Loss from Ethernet Cable?
krochat;252228 Wrote: It looks like we've discussed this before: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=199365#post199365 The GW Labs DSP uses a different sample rate converter (a Cirrus Logic 8420) in an all-out design effort. Perhaps if the TacT RCS used a dedicated linear power supply with precision components for the ASRC like the GW Labs, it would work as well. Since it doesn't it sounds worse. It's also getting troublesome to keep two copies of my music around - one in 44.1 for backup/future use and one upsampled offline in Audition to 48kHz. The GW Labs DSP gives me the best of all worlds - upsampling to 96kHz to feed to the TacT, as good sound as the 48kHz files upsampled offline, and it sounds best with the 44.1 input files so I can get rid of the duplicate 48kHz files. Regards, Kim Sorry to resurrect this thread but it's germane to my recent journey - does anyone know if/how the GW Labs device can actually be purchased in the UK? Thanks Phil -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41268 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
DeVerm;352008 Wrote: You are right that you have control and can listen to each sample as long as you want. But that is not the way it is done: samples are mostly 10-20 seconds long and intervals between two samples are often 0.5-1 second. Evidence for mostly? I've done quite a few blind tests, and some were done with quick switches, some with long. Same goes with the ones I've read about - in fact I think you're wrong and most blind tests these days are done with long samples, just to address this complaint. All blind tests up until this one in Japan were trying to find out if humans can -hear- sounds of high frequencies. This was the scope for which the tests were designed. But it turns out that this scope was wrong because we indeed can't hear the difference but we can -experience- it and our brain registers it! Nope. According to the paper (at least as far as I can see from what they wrote), several very similar experiments were done in the past, and the results disagree with theirs. I gave the references above. That's why they bother to try to justify the difference. Moreover the recent SACD tests also apply to this (although one would have to check how the high frequency response of the playback gear was). Furthermore, as explained in the research article, conventional abx testing is based on a questionaire where the tester notes his/her findings. That's *exactly* what they did in one major component of their experiment. I'm afraid that my English isn't good enough because I can't follow you here. What they measured was no difference between silence and high pass only. This proves that the equipment used did not experience interference by the high-pass signals. This has nothing to do with language. Think about it - you're making -precisely- the same assumption about the gear which this paper is claiming was wrong for human hearing - that not being affected by the HF signal alone means it will not have an effect when combined with LF. Last is the honesty of the researchers. Did you look at who was involved? This was not a laboratory doing this like so many funny research projects that you compare it to (tabacco industry etc) but there are 10 researchers from 10 organizations, none of them commercial. Do you really think that all of them collaborated in presenting a lie? How can you live your life if you truly believe that? Again, you're attacking a straw man. I said nothing of the sort. There are all sorts of ways in which research can be wrong, and lying is dead last on the list. It's quite rare - but wrong research is very, very common. Also, you state that research is only right after some time and many other experiments that confirm the original one. So, the guy that first stated that the world wasn't flat was indeed a fraud? The world was still flat at that point in time? Erecting straw men and knocking them down is a common technique of internet (and real life) trolls. It's not very effective. So I'll give you credit and assume you're simply failing to comprehend what I said. I didn't say it's only right after other experiments have confirmed it - that would be patently absurd. I said one shouldn't take it seriously until it's confirmed. I repeat - that's standard practice in every field of science, and for a very good reason: much ground-breaking research turns to be wrong. And he paid off the other 9 researchers to lie and throw away their careers... More absurdities ignored. Or that they never work for commercial projects at all? They don't have a choice because their employer will sign contracts anyway. Every university will do that. You're wrong. Many departments do that, and it's lead to countless debates in universities across the US, at least (some of which I've been involved with). wow... please elaborate on that first part; list some examples of research findings that were wrong and conducted by these big collaborations. I could give tens of thousands of examples in my own field (physics). Pick any paper, the odds are good at least part of the conclusions are wrong. Papers that challenge a body of other research have much higher odds of that. Also, you again write that the current findings go -against- previous results. They do not. They confirm the previous results: nobody can hear above 20 kHz. What they found was a missing link that many (professionals) thought was there but couldn't put their fingers on. It turned out that they were looking at the wrong spot: the ear, instead of the brain. This research definitely doesn't go against any previous research. You disagree with the authors of the paper on that. I'll let you argue with them. :) -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
I'm gonna split up in multiple posts a bit because it's just to diverse to include it all into 1 post; opaqueice;352132 Wrote: Evidence for mostly? I've done quite a few blind tests, and some were done with quick switches, some with long. Same goes with the ones I've read about - in fact I think you're wrong and most blind tests these days are done with long samples, just to address this complaint. Well, I just spent another 30 minutes searching the net for long samples and I didn't find a single one! So I stick with my statement. Here is what I find: http://www.soundexpert.info/ samples about 15s each --- http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=64991 samples should be 8-15s --- http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4601 index of generally used test samples --- http://lame.sourceforge.net/quality.php LAME samples vary between 3 and 30s --- http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/sqam/ mit.edu recommended samples from SQAM disc: between 21 and 37s --- http://ff123.net/samples.html 5-30s samples My conclusion: in audio ABX testing, short 5-30s samples are used. The reason is that they follow the CCIR recommendations from 1978. I do believe that you use longer samples but I am referring to large scale testing incl. the Muraoka et al. 1978; Plenge et al. 1979 tests. Let me quote those citations again because you skipped that section: The CCIR (1978), and the current International Telecommunication Union-Radio communication sector (ITU-R 1997), have recommended that sound samples used for the comparison of sound quality should not last longer than 15-20 s (CCIR 1978; ITU-R 1997), and that intervals between sound samples should be about 0.5-1 s (CCIR 1978) because of short-term human memory limitations I hope this is enough evidence for mostly ? Nope. According to the paper (at least as far as I can see from what they wrote), several very similar experiments were done in the past, and the results disagree with theirs. I gave the references above. That's why they bother to try to justify the difference. I can't agree. When I read the paper, it says that Muraoka et al. 1978; Plenge et al. 1979 did NOT use EEG PET but solely questionnaires. It says so literally. Also, they state that their findings are in agreement with Muraoka et al. (1978) and Plenge et al, --not-- disagreement. Quote: We also examined the psychological evaluation using the same material and sound presentation system as was used for the present study, but followed the presentation method recommended by the CCIR, and confirmed that the results were in agreement with the studies by Muraoka et al. (1978) and Plenge et al. (1979). This has nothing to do with language. Think about it - you're making -precisely- the same assumption about the gear which this paper is claiming was wrong for human hearing - that not being affected by the HF signal alone means it will not have an effect when combined with LF. I am really sorry that I don't understand you and I also don't understand what you write in the quote above. As my IQ is well above 130 I assure you that it must be either my limited comprehension of the English language or your limited clarity in these statements. I know you're talking about the gear used and assume you mean the EEG and PET equipment so why don't you specify that? You also seam to state that the EEG PET gear is not suitable for this test because it is interfered by the music that is played? These are assumptions I make because I don't understand you, but when you indeed state this, you should explain how that figures because I know of no such flaws with this equipment. cheers, Nick. -- DeVerm DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Loss from Ethernet Cable?
musicinmind;250911 Wrote: My files are primarily 16/44.1 aiff (Apple computer) that I have ripped from my own cd's. I also have a few hundred hours of 24 bit/48 aiff files that I've recorded at shows myself with two Neumann U89i's. Thanks again... The problem is your rip. Apple iTune does rip CD tracks correctly as it does not know the read offset of the DVD drive. Use dbPowerAmp or EAC with the correct read offset and rip the file in FLAC. I know because I made the same mistake with Apple lossless and ended up having to re-rip everything later for a bit accurate rip. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41268 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
DeVerm;352167 Wrote: 5-30s samples My conclusion: in audio ABX testing, short 5-30s samples are used. The reason is that they follow the CCIR recommendations from 1978. I do believe that you use longer samples but I am referring to large scale testing incl. the Muraoka et al. 1978; Plenge et al. 1979 tests. The fact these samples are that short are simply cause of copyright laws. You can´t post samples longer. -- Wombat Transporter - Avantgarde based monoblocks - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Loss from Ethernet Cable?
musicinmind;250913 Wrote: . . . Audio quality is still significantly inferior to CD transport. (Parasound CBD-2000 belt drive) . . . Musicmind, I too have a Parasound CBD-2000 transport but coupled to a Levinson No.36 DAC via AES/EBU. I'm also running a SB Receiver via Toslink to the same DAC playing back FLAC files created by dbpoweramp R13.1. I've always enjoyed the laid back but very open and detailed sound of the Parasound belt-drive transport, but the SB Receiver does sound remarkably good even with the Toslink connection and the factory supplied $2 power-supply, but I also know that there is room for improvement. That being said, the CBD-2000 CD transport a tough one to beat especially if you like its sound qualities, but mind you, some folks don't care for the sound of the CDB-2000 saying that it's too laid back, lacks impact, and other statements that I don't agree with. Even with all the tweaking in the world, I doubt that you will ever get the same belt-drive-transport sound out of any Squeezebox product due to the Parasound's unique qualities; however, I do think that you should be able to get very listenable sound from your SB3 with just a little tweaking. Now, as for what tweaks will make your SB sound better, I'll leave that to be answered by the knowledgeable tweakers on this forum, and please let us know how it all comes out in the end. Forrest -- Forrest Forrest's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20125 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41268 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
opaqueice;352132 Wrote: Again, you're attacking a straw man. I said nothing of the sort. There are all sorts of ways in which research can be wrong, and lying is dead last on the list. It's quite rare - but wrong research is very, very common. Well... okay, I'll go with that although you did talk about conflict of interest etc. which was an unfounded, direct attack on the researchers credibility but lets just leave that behind us. So you say that wrong research is very, very common. Being a researcher yourself, do you differentiate between making a claim and demonstrating a phenomena ? My understanding of demonstrating is that they repeatedly show something happening using established methods of measurement, which is why I made the world is not flat comparison as that would be a claim because nobody understood the methods used to come to that statement. So, what exactly do you suspect is wrong in this demonstration they described? Do you question the recorded brain activities itself? (pls. answer so I understand your objections) or do you question that those recordings are the result of listening to the different sound-samples they used? If so, how do you feel about the verification method they applied with two different measurement techniques (PET and EEG)? Or do you question their possible explanations for the demonstrated phenomena? If so, they question those too but just include two -possible- explanations and mostly invalidate one of these themselves describing it as unlikely. I said one shouldn't take it seriously until it's confirmed. I repeat - that's standard practice in every field of science, and for a very good reason: much ground-breaking research turns to be wrong. I follow you here, I understand what you mean. But I feel different about a clear and simple and repeatable demonstration vs a claim that results from procedures that use never-used-before manipulations or chemical reactions etc. I think the following quote is relevant: Indeed, the Advanced Audio Conference organized by the Japan Audio Society (1999) proposed two next-generation advanced digital audio formats: super audio compact disk (SACD) and digital versatile disk audio (DVD-audio). These formats have a frequency response of up to 100 kHz and 96kHz, respectively. However, the proposal was not based on scientific data about the biological effects of the HFCs that would become available with these advanced formats. Although recently there have been several attempts to explore the psychological effect of inaudible HFCs on sound perception using a digital audio format with a higher sampling rate of 96 kHz (Theiss and Hawksford 1997; Yamamoto 1996; Yoshikawa et al. 1995, 1997), none of these studies has convincingly explained the biological mechanism of the phenomenon. This may reflect in part the limitations of the conventional audio engineering approach for determining sound quality, which is solely based on a subjective evaluation obtained via questionnaires. So, this was the 5th study for explaining this phenomenon and as it was published in 2000 and google-search lists it in every medical database on-line and I can't find any follow-up studies, I take it that it was convincingly enough for the research community to accept it. Nobody questioned it and nobody did a follow-up study to show otherwise. So, now, 8 years later, how much longer do you want to wait before taking it serious? I think it's accepted as general knowledge already and as the HD-audio was already in production, there was no big ground-braking research as you call it. It was just a confirmation that the new SACD and DVD-audio formats do make a difference and everybody moved on. You're wrong. Many scientific departments refuse such funding, and that has lead to countless debates in universities across the US, at least (some of which I've been involved with). My own research is funded by the US National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and a university which derives its income from tuition and private donations. Okay, I stand corrected. My experience is with the Technical University in Delft, Holland (worldwide recognized as a leading TU, also in your field of expertise), where many, many student thesis (? final essay, again my English is too limited to find the correct word..) is based on a corporate customer or a project for something that was not done before. I was involved with a design for a new way to operate a system of locks (for ships) that was later built in Africa by the customer. You disagree with the authors of the paper on that. I'll let you argue with them. :) My previous post already addressed this with the relevant quote that shows that the findings are in agreement with the previous studies, but again, I emphasize that they confirm that you can't hear above 20 kHz and if you don't agree with that, show me a quote. The paper says that the brain registers it, directly or indirectly, and only when in
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
Wombat;352175 Wrote: The fact these samples are that short are simply cause of copyright laws. You can´t post samples longer. Look at the samples, lots of them are sounds, no commercial song recordings. Also, the samples used in the Muraoka et al. 1978; Plenge et al. 1979 studies were so short because of the CCIR recommendations and had nothing to do with copyright laws because they didn't post them nor distributed them in another form; they just had the test-subjects listen to them. For today's hobbyist testing, even if it is because of copyright laws, that doesn't change the fact that they use these short samples. ciao! Nick. -- DeVerm DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hardware Upsamplers
Has anyone any experience of one of these? I'd like to use something similar to up the 44.1 out of the SB to 96 for nput to my TACT... http://www.sonifex.co.uk/redbox/rbsc1_ld.shtml -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54066 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Please delete
SORRY double post - please delete -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
:o( My thread has been polluted (sob). Can anyone with a scope and a TACT replicate my findings? My analogue scope is 60Mhz. Hardly state of the art I know but is its bandwidth too low to study spdif signals? (should I ever return to the original question in the thread title!) Cheers Phil -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
At least you posted to pages where some of the samples are found by me myself :) I offered these short samples cause they were long enough to show isolated problems with specific mp3 encoders. And yes, as i remember we used short samples also to avoid fatiguing when testing more versions against each other. I am btw. one of the persons who preferes long time listening. Short abx may tell you advantages on small pasages of music but listening a while with the setting was superior on one section may get nerving when listening a while. Edit: Sorry Phil for going Off-Topic. Even me that writes seldom here couldn´t overread the lng posts of these people on their mission. -- Wombat Transporter - Avantgarde based monoblocks - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
Wombat;352195 Wrote: Edit: Sorry Phil for going Off-Topic. Even me that writes seldom here couldn´t overread the lng posts of these people on their mission. 's okay Wombat - you weren't the first :o) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
I will personally stop polluting this thread. After all, I don't care about convincing anybody about any facts, this was not the point of my post -it was purely informative. Facts are the same whether some people believe in them or not, we're all adults, and each one of us has his own experience and/or consciousness. ;) -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
Themis;352208 Wrote: I will personally stop polluting this thread. After all, I don't care about convincing anybody about any facts, this was not the point of my post -it was purely informative. Facts are the same whether some people believe in them or not, we're all adults, and each one of us has his own experience and/or consciousness. ;) I apologize to the OP about my post, that I initially considered relevant. Themis - no need to apologise! I'm just seeking answers to increasingly complex questions. Phil -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
Same here, sorry Phil. Will start a separate thread next time and stop off-topic posts here. Actually, I have been thinking about your problem. My observation from your photo's is that the tops from the 5th-7th harmonics are clearly missing from the square wave. As the fundamental was 1 kHz, this is the harmonics at 5, 7 and 9 kHz. I also read that you checked at different amplitude levels and frequencies and that the pictures were the same. I would propose this: 1. check those pictures for the different frequencies again or may be you remember this detail clearly still. If that 5th-7th harmonic is still the missing, it is not frequency related but algorithm related. If it's also the same for lower amplitudes, we can assume that it's a core-bug in the algorithm and not just an amplitude-related artifact of overflow etc. 2. I am still curious on the TACT picture of a pure sine 21 kHz signal because it will show what the TACT does with signals at the limits of the 44 kHz sample rate. I mean, it will up-sample it, after which it isn't close to the limit anymore. The question is if distortion appears before, during or after the up-sampling. If we see any distortion here, it would point to a bug before or during up-sampling. 3. test with a 21 kHz sine but in a 48 kHz sample-rate file. Again for 96 kHz rate. Just to make sure it isn't a frequency limit. 4. Did you do the 1 kHz squarewave with 48 and 96 kHz files? I assume the TACT up-samples to 96 kHz? And I assume it doesn't up-sample if the input is 96 kHz already because I wouldn't know how that would be done. This will show several things: The middle of the squarewave isn't the 5th-7th harmonics anymore because we go beyond the 11f harmonic for the higher sample-rates. So, if it's still missing the center tops instead of the 5th-7th tops, the error is independent from input-signal If the 5th-7th harmonic is still missing (the flattened part moves left of center square-top), we must re-evaluate our thinking ;-) A final set of test-signals would be a 10 and a 12 kHz squarewave as 44 kHz sample-rate. The 10 should show one big valley between two tops and the 12 kHz should show... a sine? See if there still is that same distortion. cheers, Nick. -- DeVerm DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Whole house Amp
I'm glad that a few people finally got it. Thanks for the input on the other amps. I do have another listening area for critical listening. I mentioned this in this forum because I thought that some of the brighter members would have an opinion on the amp. Instead a few found it necessary to point out how antiquated it would be compared to buying 6 separate amps and finding power for each amp/receiver throughout the house. Audiophile doesn't mean As complicated as you can make it. Thanks again, I'll post pics when completed in another forum. Landon -- xanadu xanadu's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53288 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
DeVerm;352213 Wrote: Same here, sorry Phil. Will start a separate thread next time and stop off-topic posts here. Actually, I have been thinking about your problem. My observation from your photo's is that the tops from the 5th-7th harmonics are clearly missing from the square wave. As the fundamental was 1 kHz, this is the harmonics at 5, 7 and 9 kHz. I also read that you checked at different amplitude levels and frequencies and that the pictures were the same. I would propose this: 1. check those pictures for the different frequencies again or may be you remember this detail clearly still. If that 5th-7th harmonic is still the missing, it is not frequency related but algorithm related. If it's also the same for lower amplitudes, we can assume that it's a core-bug in the algorithm and not just an amplitude-related artifact of overflow etc. 2. I am still curious on the TACT picture of a pure sine 21 kHz signal because it will show what the TACT does with signals at the limits of the 44 kHz sample rate. I mean, it will up-sample it, after which it isn't close to the limit anymore. The question is if distortion appears before, during or after the up-sampling. If we see any distortion here, it would point to a bug before or during up-sampling. 3. test with a 21 kHz sine but in a 48 kHz sample-rate file. Again for 96 kHz rate. Just to make sure it isn't a frequency limit. 4. Did you do the 1 kHz squarewave with 48 and 96 kHz files? I assume the TACT up-samples to 96 kHz? And I assume it doesn't up-sample if the input is 96 kHz already because I wouldn't know how that would be done. This will show several things: The middle of the squarewave isn't the 5th-7th harmonics anymore because we go beyond the 11f harmonic for the higher sample-rates. So, if it's still missing the center tops instead of the 5th-7th tops, the error is independent from input-signal If the 5th-7th harmonic is still missing (the flattened part moves left of center square-top), we must re-evaluate our thinking ;-) A final set of test-signals would be a 10 and a 12 kHz squarewave as 44 kHz sample-rate. The 10 should show one big valley between two tops and the 12 kHz should show... a sine? See if there still is that same distortion. cheers, Nick. Nick - you are a star! - this will take me some time to organise but I WILL do it as you suggest. Might have to wait until Friday afternoon or the weekend though. I need the brains of this forum (you, Mr O and all the guys in the band) to help me with this because I am well out of my depth here. Analogue - yes ...digital - No! -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
DeVerm;352167 Wrote: Well, I just spent another 30 minutes searching the net for long samples and I didn't find a single one! So I stick with my statement. Here is what I find: snip My conclusion: in audio ABX testing, short 5-30s samples are used. You regard an internet search for copyright-constrained ABX samples as evidence that most ABX testing uses short samples, and from there conclude that the ABX protocol is invalid? Don't be silly. It is true that there is evidence that some differences are easier to hear when switches take place relatively quickly. In fact I can confirm that this is true based on my own experience - it's much easier to hear the differences between high and medium rate MP3s, for example, if you first find a passage where you hear it, and then focus in on that passage a switch back and forth relatively rapidly. However I have no reason to think -all- differences are easier to hear that way, and often when audiophiles to ABX testing it's in fact impossible to switch rapidly (if you're comparing two sets of cables, for example), so I would say it's probably that most such tests are -not- done that way. I hope this is enough evidence for mostly ? Of -course- it's not! Those are two tests out of thousands - and you're trying to conclude something about MOST abx tests? I can't agree. When I read the paper, it says that Muraoka et al. 1978; Plenge et al. 1979 did NOT use EEG PET but solely questionnaires. It says so literally. Also, they state that their findings are in agreement with Muraoka et al. (1978) and Plenge et al, --not-- disagreement. Quote: We also examined the psychological evaluation using the same material and sound presentation system as was used for the present study, but followed the presentation method recommended by the CCIR, and confirmed that the results were in agreement with the studies by Muraoka et al. (1978) and Plenge et al. (1979). PART of their results agree (the part that show that the HFS alone are inaudible), and PART disagree. I am really sorry that I don't understand you and I also don't understand what you write in the quote above. As my IQ is well above 130 I assure you that it must be either my limited comprehension of the English language or your limited clarity in these statements. I know you're talking about the gear used and assume you mean the EEG and PET equipment so why don't you specify that? You also seam to state that the EEG PET gear is not suitable for this test because it is interfered by the music that is played? These are assumptions I make because I don't understand you, but when you indeed state this, you should explain how that figures because I know of no such flaws with this equipment. I'll try one more time. Everyone seems to agree that HFS alone are inaudible based on PET brain scans etc. But these guys find that HFS+LFS is different from just LFS. So there is something very bizarre and non-linear going on if they are right. My point was that we have no way of knowing whether that bizarre non-linear thing is in their equipment or in people's heads. To summarize: we know that neither brains nor gear respond to HFS alone, but that brains+gear respond to HFS+LFS differently than to LFS alone. But we don't - and can't - know whether that difference is due to brains or due to gear. The fact that gear doesn't respond to HFS alone is irrelevant, because neither do brains! -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
Another thought: Your scope should have a test-square-wave output on the front. It's analog and you should calibrate your probes on it using the little adjustment-screw (capacitor). Also, something that Mr. O observed already (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=348946postcount=46) but I'd like to repeat it here because it's the 2nd more obvious part of the distortion: 1. phase distortion. When you bring that to the picture, it means that the tops are not horizontal anymore. Look at fig. 6.7 here: http://www.tpub.com/neets/book23/101a.htm You normally get this when passing the signal through a filter and the higher the order of the filter, the more tilted it gets. But where's the filter in the TACT? (a digital software filter shouldn't do that and I'm not familiar enough with DSP's to tell if they cause phase distortion like this...) 2. AM modulation. The 2 kHz modulation is obvious and this is the 2nd harmonic of the fundamental. Measuring at different frequencies will show if it's a persistant 2nd harmonic modulation. I have no clue yet where this can come from... cheers, Nick. -- DeVerm DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
opaqueice;352224 Wrote: You regard an internet search for copyright-constrained ABX samples as evidence that most ABX testing uses short samples, and from there conclude that the ABX protocol is invalid? Don't be silly. It is true that there is evidence that some differences are easier to hear when switches take place relatively quickly. In fact I can confirm that this is true based on my own experience - it's much easier to hear the differences between high and medium rate MP3s, for example, if you first find a passage where you hear it, and then focus in on that passage a switch back and forth relatively rapidly. However I have no reason to think -all- differences are easier to hear that way, and often when audiophiles to ABX testing it's in fact impossible to switch rapidly (if you're comparing two sets of cables, for example), so I would say it's probably that most such tests are -not- done that way. Of -course- it's not! Those are two tests out of thousands - and you're trying to conclude something about MOST abx tests? PART of their results agree (the part that show that the HFS alone are inaudible), and PART disagree. I'll try one more time. Everyone seems to agree that HFS alone are inaudible based on PET brain scans etc. But these guys find that HFS+LFS is different from just LFS. So there is something very bizarre and non-linear going on if they are right. My point was that we have no way of knowing whether that bizarre non-linear thing is in their equipment or in people's heads. To summarize: we know that neither brains nor gear respond to HFS alone, but that brains+gear respond to HFS+LFS differently than to LFS alone. But we don't - and can't - know whether that difference is due to brains or due to gear. The fact that gear doesn't respond to HFS alone is irrelevant, because neither do brains! Mr O - with the greatest of respect (and that is NOT a phrase I use lightly) - could I beg you to apply your brain power to my question and to take your discussions on the ABX issue with Nick to another thread. I need both of your different wisdoms applied to my problem - sorry to appear selfish, but I'm sure you know what I mean? Best regards Phil -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 + Cambridge DacMagic ($400) Review
Sorry this is not a priority for me right now, but I did just post some pics http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=352250#post352250 -- ajmitchell ajmitchell's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=800 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53985 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hypersonic effect: high frequency spectrum listening experience
This thread is a continuation of off-topic posts that started with post #96 on this page: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345page=10 It's about the research done in Japan that was published in 2000 of which you can find a copy here: http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548 Better PDF copies that include more tables with data can be found on the web. So, here we pick it up: opaqueice;352224 Wrote: You regard an internet search for copyright-constrained ABX samples as evidence that most ABX testing uses short samples, and from there conclude that the ABX protocol is invalid? Don't be silly. Okay, I'll drop that because I seem incapable of explaining the difference between the ABX protocol (okay) and the wide-spread implementation (not okay) of it. It's not the core-issue here. Of -course- it's not! Those are two tests out of thousands - and you're trying to conclude something about MOST abx tests? The first of these two studies (Muraoka et al. 1978) is more important in our current context than all the others because the current Redbook specification is a result of it. Also, this study used the CCIR recommendation of 15-20 second samples and 0.5 second interval between samples. Also, the test subjects did a subjective listening test and noted their findings in a questionnaire; all input for the conclusions was taken from these questionnaires and the subjects did not have their brains scanned. When I say that it was flawed, it's because it turned out that by using that procedure, it is not possible to find any evidence for perception of 20 kHz harmonics by human listeners. They checked that by repeating it with the same music-samples and sound-equipment (presentation system)used for their new method and the results were in agreement with these of Muraoka et al. (1978). PART of their results agree (the part that show that the HFS alone are inaudible), and PART disagree. No, that disagreed part you mention was never tested before. The subjects still can't hear the HFS part even when it's played together with the LFS part... but --their brains react to it--. The scope of previous tests never included that possibility and thus did not monitor the brains of the subjects. When working from two different scopes like that, you can't say that there is disagreement as the first test didn't include this part. You can say that the first test missed it. I'll try one more time. Everyone seems to agree that HFS alone are inaudible based on PET brain scans etc. Ack. But these guys find that HFS+LFS is different from just LFS. So there is something very bizarre and non-linear going on if they are right. Nack. Why is this bizarre? The HFS component is what is in the original sound as from the instruments: high freq. harmonics. When you move the 20 kHz line down to lets say 12 kHz and take a recording of an acoustic instrument without it's harmonics above the 12 kHz everyone hears the difference between HFS+LFS vs just LFS. When you play just the HFS, it might even be totally un-recognizable as the instrument. In other words: high harmonics add to the fundamental+low harmonics but are utterly senseless on their own. That's why a very expensive violin sounds better than a plastic toy. The next step up is to make the LFS 20 kHz and the HFS 20 kHz and the interesting thing is that humans can't hear the HFS anymore... but their brains register the presence of it anyway! If you call that bizarre it is because you can't let go of the notion that only your ears feed your brain with information when listening to music. Other research like mentioned in other threads has already showed that this is not the case, like even memories of hearing this song or smell or seeing how someone else reacts to the music are all factors for what happens in your brain while listening and thus change the listening experience. These are established facts. Also, very low freq's you will have a hard time of hearing them but you feel them and that changes your listening experience too. So, somehow, no-one knows yet exactly how, very high harmonics are sensed by humans as demonstrated in this study. If you can only accept that after they prove exactly --how-- that is done, that's fine with me, but we all sense it while you're waiting for that proof. (I know, I do it again but I just can't help myself, sorry ;-) My point was that we have no way of knowing whether that bizarre non-linear thing is in their equipment or in people's heads. That is a question that must be answered for all research done. The established method is by using multiple and totally different methods of measuring. The primary method they used here was the EEG scan, in the alpha range. These are electrodes that measure brain-patterns in the couple Hz range, like 6 Hz or so. But you are right, the EEG scanner or electrodes could have interference by the high frequency sounds in the room. It is very unlikely because the
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
opaqueice;352224 Wrote: You regard an internet search for copyright-constrained ABX samples as evidence that most ABX testing uses short samples, and from there conclude that the ABX protocol is invalid? Don't be silly. continued here: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=352261#post352261 ciao! Nick. -- DeVerm DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dead end or not...
Hi, lots of forum-activity recently on some pretty serious topics such as spdif on a scope, new dac from Cambridge etc. All interesting. On a, literally lighter, note you might now that the chains, cog wheels, and levers that will allow us to play back audio on the Controller are being forged in the deep dungeons of svn as we speak. While fooling around with the half done bits and pieces of this machinery I decided to point my digicam at the mini-jack hole hoping that this would allow me to see the light. Ahh, not so. It seems Round 1 rules out the Controller as a transport for my super-duper dac which outperforms everything in its class... and which I don't actually have. I guess I'll head over to the DIY forum and get someone to come up with a solution for tapping into the i2c-bus, feed the signal to an spdif interface (which they also have to provide blueprints for), and finally replace the minijack with a more enlighted one. Then I'll come back here so we can make fun of all the jitter the thing would produce. Should all be doable, right? (No insults intended, I learn alot from the folks posting on these forums). Bjorn -- bhaagensen bhaagensen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7418 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54078 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hypersonic effect: high frequency spectrum listening experience
You said that : opaqueice;351963 Wrote: DeVerm;351942 Wrote: The document clearly states that Pioneer is the manufacturer and not Tsutomu Oohashi. Oohashi works for 1) Department of KANSEI Brain Science, ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories, Kyoto; and 2) Department of Network Science, Chiba Institute of Technology, Narashino. So he's a researcher that developed a speaker for Pioneer which is very normal and done by many researchers when a manufacturer doesn't have the knowledge in-house. If he designed the speaker he was paid by Pioneer, and may well receive royalties on sales. This article will promote sales of speakers with supertweeters. That's about as clear a conflict of interest as you can get. I read that : Then, LFCs and HFCs were separately amplified with P-800 and P-300L power amplifiers (Accuphase, Yokohama, Japan), respectively, and presented through a speaker system consisting of twin cone-type woofers and a horn-type tweeter for the LFCs and a dome-type super tweeter with a diamond diaphragm for the HFCs. The speaker system was designed by one of the authors (T. Oohashi) and manufactured by Pioneer Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan). Could it be simply possible that Mr Oohashi, for this experiment, asked Pioneer to manufacture speakers according to his specs? -- sebp System : Mac Mini for ripping to FLAC (Max) SqueezeCenter 7.2 running on a ReadyNAS NV+ Living room : Squeezebox 3 North Star Model 192 NuForce IA-7 v2 KEF iQ9 Bedroom : Squeezebox 3 Beresford DAC NAD C315BEE KEF iQ3 Kitchen : SB Receiver Trends Audio TA10.1 Celestion F10 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/sebp) sebp's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11768 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking at SPDIF with a scope...
Phil Leigh;352232 Wrote: Mr O - with the greatest of respect (and that is NOT a phrase I use lightly) - could I beg you to apply your brain power to my question and to take your discussions on the ABX issue with Nick to another thread. I need both of your different wisdoms applied to my problem - sorry to appear selfish, but I'm sure you know what I mean? Best regards Phil Absolutely - sorry! It's all DeVerm's fault :-). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dead end or not...
bhaagensen;352271 Wrote: ...and please forgive me this post. I don't even *understand* this post :) What were you expecting, or hoping for, when you took a photo of the mini jack? -- funkstar funkstar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2335 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54078 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hypersonic effect: high frequency spectrum listening experience
sebp;352273 Wrote: Could it be simply possible that Mr Oohashi, for this experiment, asked Pioneer to manufacture speakers according to his specs? I even suspect that these speakers were never sold at all but just manufactured for this test. I see that Pioneer does sell speakers that can produce up to 100 kHz sound but none have two tweeters as described in the paper. This diamond diaphragm can't produce lower high-range (if it would, there wouldn't have been two tweeters) so it's not in the line of speakers sold by Pioneer today. cheers, Nick. -- DeVerm DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hardware Upsamplers
It would be interesting to know what chip it uses for the data rate conversion. There are only a handful of devices on the market that do this, unless they've taken in inboard on an FPGA, and I would think you can draw some broad similarities between products using the same IC's. -- DCtoDaylight Audiophile wish list: Zero Distortion, Infinite Signal to Noise Ratio, and a Bandwidth from DC to Daylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54066 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hypersonic effect: high frequency spectrum listening experience
Hope this moves over to the new thread properly... DCtoDaylight;351968 Wrote: Medical ABX tests routinely run for months and sometimes years, in order to properly evaluate the results. It may not be convenient to do that with audio gear, but I personally believe that's what's required. DeVerm;352010 Wrote: Explain me how to do that? you can't sit and listen to a sample for months or years...?? Why not? Two full, album length recordings, each at different sample rates. You are given two years to decide which is better... I didn't say it was easy, what I said was it's possible. I see too many cases of people claiming ABX testing is flawed or can't reveal the truth, when in fact, it isn't ABX testing that's at fault, but rather it's a specific implementation that's at fault. Cheers, Dave -- DCtoDaylight Audiophile wish list: Zero Distortion, Infinite Signal to Noise Ratio, and a Bandwidth from DC to Daylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dead end or not...
OP wants a mini-jack with toslink, like apple uses. Interesting mod opportunity I guess, but I fail to imagine any general appeal for that in a mobile product. This is why it's usually bundled with an SBR. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54078 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dead end or not...
But I give you props for creativity. :) -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54078 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
