Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SPDIF is evil
pfarrell wrote: > (starting a new thread) > > Themis wrote: > > In any case, it would have been much better if in the digital audio > > protocol the clock was explicitly indicated by the A/D (in the data) > > and stored with it. This way, transport wouldn't have to add its own > > jitter. > > > > Now, whatever is done, we can't go back. > > False claim. One reason why digital signalling is so valuable is that the digital signal can often be purified by means of regeneration. For example when it is read off the disc, the digital data stream that is read from optical disks is highly jittery, and often has errors. These are generally perfectly removed by the normal functioning of a standard optical disc player. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71464 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SPDIF is evil
NewBuyer wrote: > ar-t;491667 Wrote: [color=blue] > > If using such a long S/PDIF coax cable for a short distance: Is it > appropriate to just coil-up the extra coax cable? > > Yes. Don't be mislead by all the BS about digital cables that is being passed around by audiophiles that lack the ability to properly test their claims. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71464 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
arnyk wrote: > I've long thought of myself as a reliable subjectivist. My many > critiques of measurements as being numbers for the sake of numbers > underscore that. That all said besides my ABX box collection, I also > have a pretty complete set of test gear, both electronic and acoustical. > > And I should write a thing about how to interpret the audibility of the > findings of technical tests. I like that term very much - is it your original phrasing? I suppose my position having received some education in Natural Sciences is that one should seek to gain knowledge by the experimental process implied by the scientific method, whilst endeavouring to keep an open mind to new ideas. The latter is easier said than done, and many eminent scientists have struggled to maintain such a mindset. Devising original experiments to disprove an accepted hypothesis in favour of such new ideas also requires a degree of practical creativity that many purely theoretical scientists lack. A new idea may be regarded as effectively untestable against the conventional wisdom for quite a while before someone dreams up an experiment ingenious to distinguish the rival ideas. Sometimes a chance experimental finding may prompt further investigation which invalidates an accepted view, in which case the theoreticians may need to come up with an alternative hypothesis afterwards. After Edwin Hubble observed "red shift" through the massive telescope he constructed, the concept of an essential stable universe which had been in vogue since Newton's time was suddenly disproved. Whilst Einstein was left to rue the inclusive of his "Cosmological Constant" fudge into his Theory of General Relativity (something he later described as his "greatest mistake"), a Catholic priest called George Lamaitre extrapolated Hubble's findings backwards in time (something we were strictly instructed not to do in mathematics classes when using a regression line or curve to make predictions, btw!) & came up with his "Primeval Atom" concept, which he saw as a way of reuniting science & religion by allowing room for the existence of a Creator (of such an Atom). His idea was not taken very seriously at first, but in reality it is a clear antecedent of the now prevalent Big Bang Theory, although this has not led to a mass religious conversion of scientists. The Cosmic Background Radiation remaining from the birth of the universe was discovered accidently by the Bell guys who had no remaining explanation for it after spending a day cleaning the pigeon guano out of the giant horn detectors they were trying to use to detect weak signals of a different nature already, & sort advice on how to eliminate this "interference" from scientists who were aware that active searches for such traces of the Big Bang were in progress but without result to that date. Once it was confirmed that the residual signal was of constant amplitude irrespective of the direction the Bell detector was pointed in, the penny finally dropped. Cue two of the most unlikely Noble Physics Laureates ever! I think that since the scientific method requires that any disproving experimental result must be repeatable, as well as performable in the first place, I think the expression that you have used is a very apt description of the truly scientific approach. Art appreciation, on the other hand, is an entirely difference discipline although it has its schools of thought & its passing fashions, because ultimately nothing is really testable, & all positions taken must be subjective in nature. Popularity has never been a requirement of high culture... I suspect that I would strive to be a "reliable subjectivist" myself to the extent that my abilities permit. 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > Sorry Arny, but did I just detect a -*chink*- of subjectivism in your > normally impenetrable armour? :D > > Dave :) I've long thought of myself as a reliable subjectivist. My many critiques of measurements as being numbers for the sake of numbers underscore that. That all said besides my ABX box collection, I also have a pretty complete set of test gear, both electronic and acoustical. And I should write a thing about how to interpret the audibility of the findings of technical tests. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
darrenyeats wrote: > Arny, > The reason I referred to Linkwitz is to establish a point. That point > being: the fact a complex signal will exhibit IM components greater than > the HD components, does not mean the HD measurement is uninteresting. I > wasn't implying more, but it's quite enough. > So you want some kind of award for contradicting me and then paraphrasing the what I said? > > So, when someone posits that certain HD profiles might be related to > euphony, one cannot contradict simply by pointing out, with complex > signals, IM components are greater than HD components. > No visible connection between the two commencements, so any inference is non existent. > > This is exactly what you did here: > > Here's another way to look it. Certain HD characteristics could have an > association with certain -other IM- characteristics, given their > relationship as you discussed. Again, this would mean IM components > being generally greater than HD does not speak against certain HD > profiles having a relationship to euphony (the old cause versus > association chestnut). > > Once again, to argue the position that certain HD profiles might be > related to euphony is you need to provide more than you have up to now. > > That isn't to say certain HD profiles ARE related to euphony, or that > you, or someone else, can't come up with a good explanation why they are > not related to euphony! It's just I think we need more explanation than > we've seen. > > Come on Darren, please stop obfuscating and playing with words. You claim that I said something but then you provide your own words, not a quote of what I said. And then some of your made up words are false. The statement "Certain HD characteristics could have an association with certain -other IM- characteristics" is a vast understatement of the facts of the matter. There is a fixed relationship between any HD characteristic and any IM characteristic that is dependent on which characteristics you choose to study the relationship(s) between. So, it is not a matter of "could have" it is a matter of *does have*. The comparison is highly flawed because it is susceptible to cherry-picking. Furthermore, It is not uncommon to have measured THD that vastly understates the nonlinearity that is present by means of low pass filtering. For example estimating nonlinear distortion above 10 KHz in a CD player by means of measuring harmonics is false because the harmonics are outside the natural bandpass of the CD player. But many IM products are sidebands of the signal and thus are nearly the same frequency as the signal and thus difficult or impossible to filter out. The end result can easily be massive audible and ugly aharmonic IM with no measurable HD at all. Just ignore the built-in filtering starting around 20 KHz. I know that euphonic distortion is a canonical part of much golden ear dogma, and that many true believers in anti-scientific audio will fight the Science to the death. The primary reason why equipment with audible harmonic distortion are tolerated is that the high distortion only happens under rare operational circumstances. One can see this kind of cherry-picking of demos at just about any high end audio show. SET amps with high full-power distortion are demoed with high efficiency speakers at lower listening levels where there naturally is not all that much distortion. The loudspeakers used are complementary to the SET's poor performance into loads with varying impedance by contouring the speaker's impedance curve to boost the mid bass and drop the upper midrange, creating a warm sound. It is all a set up to perpetuate the fiction that measurements don't matter. This helps the same dealers sell magic cables with no relevant audible measurable characteristics, which is confirmed by means of sighted evaluations. Darren, why are you trying to be complacent with all this? arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Arny, The reason I referred to Linkwitz is to establish a point. That point being: the fact a complex signal will exhibit IM components greater than the HD components, does not mean the HD measurement is uninteresting. I wasn't implying more, but it's quite enough. So, when someone posits that certain HD profiles might be related to euphony, one cannot contradict simply by pointing out, with complex signals, IM components are greater than HD components. This is exactly what you did here: arnyk wrote: > ... any audio component that has any amount of harmonic distortion of > high or low orders produces as much if not more IM distortion which > sounds ugly. So the statement "most people find odd harmonic artifacts > much more objectionable than even harmonic ones " is totally false > because in fact they find all harmonic artifacts to be objectionable > because those artifacts can't help but also generate IM. Here's another way to look it. Certain HD characteristics could have an association with certain -other IM- characteristics, given their relationship as you discussed. Again, this would mean IM components being generally greater than HD does not speak against certain HD profiles having a relationship to euphony (the old cause versus association chestnut). Once again, to argue the position that certain HD profiles might be related to euphony isarnyk wrote: > [u]tter audiophile myth from start to finish. you need to provide more than > you have up to now. -That isn't to say certain HD profiles ARE related to euphony, or that you, or someone else, can't come up with a good explanation why they are not related to euphony!- It's just I think we need more reasoning than we've seen. Best regards, Darren Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Some thoughts on the Audiophile Holy Wars :-).
darrenyeats wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU1PyzEVPdg Love it! Also check out the extended version of "Fallin' Like Dominoes" on Gare Du Nord's "Let's Have A Ball" release (sorry no video available). Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=107343 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Some thoughts on the Audiophile Holy Wars :-).
ralphpnj wrote: > And once I was able to hear the truth with my own ears many of the > audiophile myths started to fall like dominoes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU1PyzEVPdg Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=107343 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Wombat wrote: > I leave you adults alone until GE has done an abx to talk about. > To much "What if?" drivel and besides that it starts to remind me on the > several reincarnations of a member at hydrogenaudio. > laters May I ask for your response to my invitation to operate the ABX oujit I eventually come up with? I'm very confident in your ability to conceal the pre-ordained switching strategy from the listening panel. Dave :) P.S. Back from shop but now really stuck in a "Do loop" which I'm going to cover up by pretending to watch the Spanish GP Qualifying highlights on C4: this will give me plenty of time to bootstrap myself multiple times & make the necessary neural networking adjustments... 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
I leave you adults alone until GE has done an abx to talk about. To much "What if?" drivel and besides that it starts to remind me on the several reincarnations of a member at hydrogenaudio. laters Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Sorry guys, but I've got to leg it to the shop to get some more cigars - didn't want you all to think I was stuck in a "Do loop". Trying to prove that you're not a mathematical construct *-&-* that you're not nuts simultaneously is quite an intellectual challenge :D . I'll do my best to catch up when I get back. 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > The floating 32 bit DAC chip *-might-* be superior 11 years down the > line. Or it may simply have been optimised by the designer of the Mytek > to perform better with native 24 bit input. > Before you declare your Brokkoly sounding incompetent with 16bit material did you even try what i suggested or do you simply enjoy fishing around here? Wombat wrote: > Now that you have an abx session in sight you may add a resampled > 44.1kHz version of your HDtracks purchase against its original 192kHz > version. Forget about the CD. Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
arnyk wrote: > For whatever reason I am very sensitive to them, and in fact that is > what drove me to be an early adopter of the CD - having one of the first > CD players sold in the Detroit area back in early 1983. Sorry Arny, but did I just detect a -*chink*- of subjectivism in your normally impenetrable armour? :D 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
arnyk wrote: > Exactly, and I covered that a few posts back. > > Unfortunately that is only good for shedding light on just a few things > like some cable magic, some digital magic, some power supply magic, and > sometimes not even that (example: speaker cables). I can't argue against this position. I have yet to try it out... I presume that I'm comparing the respective analogue feeds to my amplifier? 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
cliveb wrote: > Of course it hit #1 because of the reputation of its personnel, not > because of its content. I recall being totally underwhelmed by it, > despite having enjoyed a lot of Cream's output. Blind Faith was a > classic example of a manufactured supergroup that failed to deliver. > > > I doubt it. Record companies have a history of treating their inventory > with utter disregard. Amazing when you think that the master tapes are > their core assests. It wouldn't surprise me if most early generation > copy masters of historic recordings that come to light are in the hands > of individuals who were not employees of the record company itself but > around the recording sessions and "liberated" a personal copy. > > A 45 year old early generation copy tape that's been hidden away by > someone close to the artist is going to yield a better source than a > later generation copy tape that's been slung in the record company's > storage facility, even if the latter is 15 years younger. > > Or of course it could simply be that the 2001 release was prepared less > competently than the 2014 release, as you hypothesise :) I hear you, Clive, although I can't say I agree with your opinion on its content. "Do What You Want" is a jam session filler, but "Presence Of The Lord" still has many fans & speaking strictly for myself, I like the bass riff in "Sea Of Joy". Obviously we all like different things. That's a good thing. 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
The somewhat unlikely sentence above has a grammatically unambiguous meaning in American English. Check it out on Wiki if you're not familiar with it. Apparently this is the sort of stuff Noam Chomsky specialises in as his day job. It's a strange world. I like the Tao Te Ching: one of its many remarkable statements (in my English translation) is "When some people begin to overvalue possessions, other people begin to steal". Dave :) P.S. How am I doing? :D 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Julf wrote: > Sure. Just because nulling shows differences doesn't mean the > differences are audible - but if the nulling shows no differences we can > be pretty sure there aren't any. Exactly, and I covered that a few posts back. Unfortunately that is only good for shedding light on just a few things like some cable magic, some digital magic, some power supply magic, and sometimes not even that (example: speaker cables). arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Julf wrote: > See 'Mark V. Shaney' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_V._Shaney). Had a look, IMHO it looks more like Wombat's stuff than mine :D ! You suggest a topic, I'll discuss it with you... 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > The album did hit #1 on both sides of the Atlantic Of course it hit #1 because of the reputation of its personnel, not because of its content. I recall being totally underwhelmed by it, despite having enjoyed a lot of Cream's output. Blind Faith was a classic example of a manufactured supergroup that failed to deliver. Golden Earring wrote: > so some efforts may have been made to preserve the master tapes: > nevertheless, they would have been >30 years old by 2001 & 45 years old > by 2014, which is a considerable age for an inherently unstable medium. I doubt it. Record companies have a history of treating their inventory with utter disregard. Amazing when you think that the master tapes are their core assests. It wouldn't surprise me if most early generation copy masters of historic recordings that come to light are in the hands of individuals who were not employees of the record company itself but around the recording sessions and "liberated" a personal copy. A 45 year old early generation copy tape that's been hidden away by someone close to the artist is going to yield a better source than a later generation copy tape that's been slung in the record company's storage facility, even if the latter is 15 years younger. Or of course it could simply be that the 2001 release was prepared less competently than the 2014 release, as you hypothesise :) Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
As I recall, Sean Adams made much of the "magic" 24 bit DAC chip he put in the Transporter in 2005. The floating 32 bit DAC chip *-might-* be superior 11 years down the line. Or it may simply have been optimised by the designer of the Mytek to perform better with native 24 bit input. Search me... 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > Doesn't this mathematical theory enable you to predict how many > lampposts you may expect a "close encounter" with on your journey home > from the pub? :D > > It's been a while, sorry if I've got that wrong... See 'Mark V. Shaney' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_V._Shaney). "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Just for good measure, my 24/48 copy of the above iconic track sounds better than my 16/44.1 copy. Oh dear... :D 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Julf wrote: > Didn't I make a comment about markov chains quite a while back? :) Of course, the probability that I am totally crazy is non-zero. But then so is the probability that you are a figment of my (or the Red Queen's) imagination... 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Julf wrote: > Didn't I make a comment about markov chains quite a while back? :) Doesn't this mathematical theory enable you to predict how many lampposts you may expect a "close encounter" with on your journey home from the pub? :D It's been a while, sorry if I've got that wrong... 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
The Russian government has promised faithfully to reimburse the copyright holder on your behalf if you get them from the car boot sale RUT RACKE RORG (it loses a bit in the translation), as long as you swear to continue to support both Mr. Trump & Brexit through the coming storms... Dave :) P.S. I paid 39/11d for my original vinyl pressing anyway back pre-decimalisation of the British currency 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > Before anyone jumps to a prejudicial conclusion regarding my > rationality, may I respectfully suggest the application of a "Turing > test" to the content of my previous posts? > Didn't I make a comment about markov chains quite a while back? :) "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
cliveb wrote: > Have you considered the possibility that the 2001 and 2014 releases are > sourced from different analogue master tapes? > It may very well be that an earlier generation analogue master with less > losses was discovered between the 2001 and 2014 releases. > This seems to me to be the simplest and most likely explanation for the > differences you hear. Indeed. The album did hit #1 on both sides of the Atlantic, so some efforts may have been made to preserve the master tapes: nevertheless, they would have been >30 years old by 2001 & 45 years old by 2014, which is a considerable age for an inherently unstable medium. An inferior method of "hiss removal" to the same tape in 2001 compared to the 2014 efforts could also be a factor... Dave :) P.S. Would love to hear from anyone with access to both recordings to get their take on it 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > This may be the point: that the 2001 "re-master", for all its extra > tracks, may simply be a poor transcription of the original master > sound. > > Since the 2014 version sounds much more musical to my ears (albeit > stupidly labelled as Hi-Res), I can live with that suggestion unless > someone can come up with any other explanation. Have you considered the possibility that the 2001 and 2014 releases are sourced from different analogue master tapes? It may very well be that an earlier generation analogue master with less losses was discovered between the 2001 and 2014 releases. This seems to me to be the simplest and most likely explanation for the differences you hear. Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Before anyone jumps to a prejudicial conclusion regarding my rationality, may I respectfully suggest the application of a "Turing test" to the content of my previous posts? Thanks. 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Julf wrote: > Reading that makes me happy - have seen too many "why keep ranting about > all that double blind stuff, nobody will change their mind anyway" > comments lately... Sorry to say I am a scientist, so I do listen and adapt to new information, even if it's being shouted at me in a patronising way. All this, I can prove... I do think the ranting should stop. And I still think some DACs sound different. Not all. But I am very very sure that all vinyl playback systems sound totally and utterly different in huge ways I'm very happy with digital playback and wouldn't go back to the stone age. Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk -- Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0 Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
arnyk wrote: > Trouble is, this good effort does not address the other problem, which > is that the audibility of various differences varies tremendously. Sure. Just because nulling shows differences doesn't mean the differences are audible - but if the nulling shows no differences we can be pretty sure there aren't any. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Julf wrote: > Indeed. Bill Waslo's 'slides' > (http://www.libinst.com/Detecting%20Differences%20(slides).pdf) actually > point out that a timing/phase error as small as 93 ns turns a perfect > null into a 55 dB one at 1 kHz, and a 0.03 dB level error makes for a 50 > dB null instead of a perfect one. This is why programs such as audio > diffmaker do is apply crosscorrelation to time align the signals, as > well as gain equalisation. Trouble is, this good effort does not address the other problem, which is that the audibility of various differences varies tremendously. A good example is jitter. High measurable jitter, particularly if measured by means of taking time-aligned, gain-aligned, and frequency-response corrected measurements, can be pretty innocuous sonically. A good example of jitter tolerance would be taking the difference between LP playback and the master tape used to make it. The measurable differences are huge, but as we know many listeners do actually prefer the distorted, noisy sound, or at least tolerate it. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
My favourite R.E.M. album. And again it sounds amazing! There is the possibility that the effect might be ascribed to my underlying (but pretty stabilised) & long-standing bipolar disorder: I do not possess "golden ears" in general, but my brain does "light up" from time to time. I don't recommend it to anyone else - I can experience mental states where "music" becomes an unbearable noise & I am left in the lurch contemplating my navel... For the most part I find listening to music very therapeutic and would highly recommend it to fellow sufferers: it doesn't attack your liver or kidneys like the "mood stabilising" drugs advocated by the medical profession. I take a strictly minimal dose of those! (Semi-Sodium Valproate 250mg t.d. for reference - that dose shouldn't get me if I'm lucky) Dave :) P.S. Any such effect would be eliminated by the double-blind ABX test. I still have the analogue outputs of my Transporter connected to the 2nd balanced XLR input of my amplifier, although I don't have instantaneous switching/level matching implemented. I prefer the Mytek... 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
darrenyeats wrote: > Hi Anry, > I now have some more free time, so I'm up for more chinwag. You're going > to need some more eggs! Please make it a nourishing omelette, appetising > if possible. > > Thanks for your exposition on the semantics of HD and IMD. > > It seems you agree nevertheless that Linkwitz takes a HD measurement and > uses it as a criterion for driver selection. How can this be completely > irrelevant? > This is my last reply to you because you are obviously not capable of comprehending my posts. I've said how and why *HD is relevant*. So your issue is basically about you arguing with your misapprehensions. One last time. THD and IM are actually analogous, and have the same basic cause. Their interrelationship varies with the circumstance. They are just different ways of looking at the same potentially important problem: nonlinear distortion. In practice workers naturally gravitate towards measuring one or the other one depending on their preferences and experiences. It is possible that measuring just one or the other can yield very low numbers when there is still audible nonlinear distortion. For example, if a device has limited HF response it is possible for the harmonics to be filtered out by the device, but the nonlinearity is still there. A relevant IM test will reveal the truth which is that the device is audibly nonlinear, even when there is vanishing harmonic distortion. The converse situation can exist, but it seems to me it is harder to contrive. > > Your last post was interesting, but I don't see how it explains why this > practice of Linkwitz is completely irrelevant. Since *I never said that* and have already once before *specifically denied it* with examples and explanations, you are obviously talking utter nonsense. I deserve a public apology for you wasting my time and that of any engaged reader of this forum, which you are obviously not. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
arnyk wrote: > My own take is that measuring gross differences is, well gross. One > serious problem with gross differences is that their size can be huge > when there is actually no audible difference, just a slight difference > in timing. Indeed. Bill Waslo's 'slides' (http://www.libinst.com/Detecting%20Differences%20(slides).pdf) actually point out that a timing/phase error as small as 93 ns turns a perfect null into a 55 dB one at 1 kHz, and a 0.03 dB level error makes for a 50 dB null instead of a perfect one. This is why programs such as audio diffmaker do is apply crosscorrelation to time align the signals, as well as gain equalisation. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > Does this directly impact on the problem summarised in my previous > post? > > I ask because this will affect my prioritisation of reading matter. I > shall consult it in due course in any event because I like to expand my > knowledge, but will give it a higher priority if you specifically claim > that it explains why my familiar recordings now sound persistently & > constantly more musical than with my previous connections, which I have > just summarised above. > > Dave :) My own take is that measuring gross differences is, well gross. One serious problem with gross differences is that their size can be huge when there is actually no audible difference, just a slight difference in timing. OTOH, if one takes the time to suss that all out, one often finds vanishing differences when the sighted listeners are swearing up and down that many, many "Veils were lifted". BTW every once in a while I get a jitter advocate to actually do some related DBTs and they always obtain yet more evidence that jitter in digital gear of even modest quality is audibly vanishing. I think that Archimago has covered this in past editions of his blog. The sort of numbers you mention are vanishing when you consider the jitter that is inherent in analog tape and LP playback. How many people complain about the jitter in analog tape and LP playback? In fact they were never reduced to solidly inaudible levels in the best analog gear. Tape is generally better than the LP. For whatever reason I am very sensitive to them, and in fact that is what drove me to be an early adopter of the CD - having one of the first CD players sold in the Detroit area back in early 1983. The jitter in analog tape and LP playback is found to be measured in tens of microseconds, so divide that by 1,000 to get nanoseconds, and divide that by 1,000 again to get the picoseconds mentioned above. Get my drift? ;-) arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Julf wrote: > Yes. It provides a pretty good tool to determine what, if any, > differences there are between two recordings (that could be recordings > of the output of two different devices). It allows you to hear *only* > the difference. Roger that, I'll check it out... 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Vansloneker wrote: > Aah, so they use a central clock in the recording studios just for > bogus? > I already explained that once, back up the thread. Since you are running and hiding Vansloneker, this response if not for you, but it is for any lurkers. In large recording studios there is naturally a large number of digital boxes that are swapped in and out of the work flow and of course need to be kept in synch. A central clock makes that easy and automatic. A home audio system is in contrast really simple and relatively static. In a typical home system, external clocks are like adding a trailer hitch to a racing car. Yes there are novelty races where that makes sense, but almost all regular racing is done without trailers, so the hitch would be just dead weight. Truth is that as a general rule the converters in well designed players are very good, and the ones in the Transporter are way above average, thank you. All one can really hope to do with dangling add-ons is perhaps to screw up. > > -this topic is getting ridiculous. i'm out.- Right Vansloneker, ideas that are way over your head are of course not interesting to you. I suggest that you close your eyes, and hum loudly. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > Does this directly impact on the problem summarised in my previous post? Yes. It provides a pretty good tool to determine what, if any, differences there are between two recordings (that could be recordings of the output of two different devices). It allows you to hear *only* the difference. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Julf wrote: > Are you aware of 'Audio DiffMaker' > (http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm)? There is an interesting > 'AES paper.' > (http://www.libinst.com/AES%20Audio%20Differencing%20Paper.pdf) Does this directly impact on the problem summarised in my previous post? I ask because this will affect my prioritisation of reading matter. I shall consult it in due course in any event because I like to expand my knowledge, but will give it a higher priority if you specifically claim that it explains why my familiar recordings now sound persistently & constantly more musical than with my previous connections, which I have just summarised above. 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Julf wrote: > Reading that makes me happy - have seen too many "why keep ranting about > all that double blind stuff, nobody will change their mind anyway" > comments lately... I am equally delighted to ascribe differences between *-different-* versions of an original recording to mastering issues, and have also made it clear that I am sceptical about the provenance of many so-called "Hi-Res" recordings presented in a larger PCM box than 16bit/44.1kHz. I remain open-minded about the potential of such PCM formats themselves, although I can recognise that this is a minority position on this forum... What I remain unable to account for is my persistent & increasing perception that the musical quality of the *-same-* versions of original recordings has improved since I reorganised the way that my Transporter output is processed in my own music system. *-That-* is what my proposed double-blind ABX test is designed to investigate. Just so we're clear. 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > Don't leave us yet! This topic is the precise point of the ABX test that > I'm attempting to organise! Are you aware of 'Audio DiffMaker' (http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm)? There is an interesting 'AES paper.' (http://www.libinst.com/AES%20Audio%20Differencing%20Paper.pdf) "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
arnyk wrote: > > You appear to be grasping at any straw to avoid the point of my > comments. Let me throw a few more eggs at the problem: ;-) > Hi Anry, I now have some more free time, so I'm up for more chinwag. You're going to need some more eggs! Please make it a nourishing omelette, appetising if possible. It seems you agree that Linkwitz takes a HD measurement and uses it as a criterion for driver selection. How can this be completely irrelevant? Your last post was interesting, but I don't see how it explains why said practice of Linkwitz is completely irrelevant. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
drmatt wrote: > If it means anything to anyone here, despite the rage and the bitching > directed at me (and that I've responded with) I have changed my approach > to some audio aspects. I would not have ever described myself as a > hard-core audiophile (despite what some people here probably think), > that just doesn't make any sense to me, but I have stopped thinking > about the system so much and spent more time just listening into the > music. Given that I don't listen to a pure diet of high-quality > audiophile-mastered obscure jazz or classical music I inevitably find > huge variation in the SQ of individual recordings. Hanging out here > means I now put that down to the source master, not my system, and > that's a relief .. :) Reading that makes me happy - have seen too many "why keep ranting about all that double blind stuff, nobody will change their mind anyway" comments lately... "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Some thoughts on the Audiophile Holy Wars :-).
Okay so I'm late to the party. With spring now struggling to arrive here in the northeastern US I have been busy out riding my bicycles (I have several bicycles although I can only ride one at a time) rather than sitting at the computer reading on-line audio forums. So far a very interesting discussion, filled with lots of great links. My feelings about the high end audio industry remain highly skeptical since there are some kernels of truth buried within all the audiophile voodoo. While the use of measurements is a wonderful tool perhaps a basic primer on the differences between what can be measured and what is actually audible is needed. Two quick examples would be jitter in digital audio and the effects of cable/wire in both digital and analog audio. In the case of jitter it can shown while jitter can be easily measured, jitter cannot be heard by human ears. The case for cables is even more absurd since the claimed effects of most cables can't even be measured let alone be audible. Then there is the myth that electrical and digital audio signals somehow behave differently than other electrical and digital signals. For example the video portion of a HDMI connection is not effected by a fancy high end HDMI cable but the audio portion is. Then there is the money, as in the saying "follow the money" - following the money goes a long way in helping to explain most, if not all, audiophile myths. And there is lots of money being made by keeping audiophile myths alive and well. $50,000 power amps and $10,000 speaker cable offer profit margins that should make one's head spin. One of the main reasons that this forum seems to attract so many objective audio enthusiasts is that most of us understand that the aforementioned audiophile beliefs are myths and simply reject the outright dismal seen in the audiophile world that the Squeezebox devices are only "mid-fi" and are not capable of delivering "high end" audio. Truth be told, it was only after my purchase of my first SB3 that I began to fully question many of the audiophile myths. And once I was able to hear the truth with my own ears many of the audiophile myths started to fall like dominoes. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=107343 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
arnyk wrote: > > I don't know how separate the two (basically medium versus message) are, > but I know that you can study one quite extensively and hold the other > constant, and it is all good. They both involve learning. > (I didn't criticise the science.) > > The fact of the matter is that in most of the treasured audiophile cases > of burn in, detailed technical investigation finds no relevant audible > changes. This is particularly true of gear that has to be very stable to > work well, such as DACs. So then you have to either decide that > technology is lacking, or that the audiophiles don't understand that > they have brains that are very complex and do crazy things like learn > and remember. It is possible that while many of us of the scientific > persuasion have brains that learn and remember, the audiophiles are > lacking in this area. > I have no prior knowledge of the research that has been done in the area (my PhD is in applied mathematics), so that's why I'm here. Unfortunately it's not always a rewarding pursuit.. I am, incidentally, reading interesting stuff around here, but it's bloody hard work cutting through the sarcasm to the point being made sometimes. I do, still, refuse to take sweeping statements as fact, and you shouldn't have it any other way. I think that I am guilty of responding too quickly, on a smartphone screen, without spending time on fully researching the context, though. I guess this can come across as being dismissive. If it means anything to anyone here, despite the rage and the bitching directed at me (and that I've responded with) I have changed my approach to some audio aspects. I would not have ever described myself as a hard-core audiophile (despite what some people here probably think), that just doesn't make any sense to me, but I have stopped thinking about the system so much and spent more time just listening into the music. Given that I don't listen to a pure diet of high-quality audiophile-mastered obscure jazz or classical music I inevitably find huge variation in the SQ of individual recordings. Hanging out here means I now put that down to the source master, not my system, and that's a relief .. :) -- Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0 Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
arnyk wrote: > > I'm posting this for the benefit of lurkers. I know you well enough, > notadrbutaposerMatt. You were doing so well too, NotADrAtAllArny. The differences you would expect to find due to bass management go way beyond what people seem to talk about wrt burn in or warm up. -- Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0 Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 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
