Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audible vs inaudible
Pat: Out of curiosity, what was your company called at that time. It all sounds very familiar. I have only been to a couple of big shows - one CES/High End about 10 years ago and the Stereophile show when it came to Los Angeles. I went to the LA show with a friend of mine and we quietly sat in many rooms and tried to hear stuff knowing that setups have a lot of compromises. Over the next couple of weeks we tracked what people thought were the best/worst rooms of the show online. I was shocked to see that some people liked what I thought were the worst rooms - so many people like very, very bright unmusical speakers (Gamt!?! - we bolted out of that room - just could not take it). On the other hand some of the best were not too expensive (Joseph Audio) and some expensive ones were good (Nola, Hyperion, Rockport). Money and quality of sound did not correlate well enough for me. -MA ar-t wrote: Ok, back to your premise about cognitive psychology. When I did the fake preamp test, and they gave me that deer-in-the-headlight lookI can't hear any difference...was I supposed to..did I screw up...?, I then moved on the next aspect of sorting out the keen listeners. Which, for those who are interested, was to try a listening test with different UUTs, where everyone at the shop all agreed sounded a certain way. Did not mean absolute correctness, but that they listened to things in the same manner that we did, and came to the same conclusion. A self-fulfilling prophecy? Maybe. But we did have a certain target market in mind. It would not have been beneficial to pick folks who preferred the warmth of tubes, and would not be happy if our SS amps did not have that glorious midrange that those folks seem to prefer. We did have some listeners who did own some tube gear, but they also had lots of SS gear as well. Picking listeners that we felt that we could trust was tough. Having them disperse across the country over a period of 20 years aided in our exit from active manufacturing. At least on a full-time basis. We tried to assemble a new team about 5 or so years ago, and found that all of us were now too old to be zealous about any of it. Pat ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] jitter
Good points. If I understand your first point, you and Pat are asking for someone to either perform a blind test showing that very low jitter rates are audible, or to be able to point to an acceptable research document that shows a blind test (or other suitable scientific method) was done that proved or disproved that claim. That said, few who post on this forum (or I would wager, any hobby forum) will be equipped (or motivated) to do the research first-hand, so we're really left with locating publications to back up competing claims for or against. Dueling reference works - woohoo! Your second point is that the article I offered does not meet 'the criteria' for serious scientific research and might be discarded as self-serving marketing hype (which is also Pat's take on similar info). I hope I understand this correctly? By implication one could also conclude that since no scientific proof of jitter audibility has been presented to Pat his position is supported/proven? Hmmm...questionable, that one. (As a side note - did anyone bother to pay the $20 and read the AES article mentioned earlier in the thread which might provide scientific research that supports the audibility of low level jitter? No? Okay then, just checking) In my view, what we're really arguing is competing belief systems. If I understand correctly, you and Pat believe that only 'acceptable scientific research' yields valid answers in the real world. All else is snake oil or self-delusion. Science is the ultimate test of anything. That's fine as long as you realize your reliance on 'scientific proof' is a personal belief system. You believe in the scientific method (or maybe it's infallibility?). Unfortunately, science is remarkably fallible in the real world and even careful research can lead to all sorts of interesting outcomes. Take caffeine for example. Caffeine is bad for you. No wait, new study - caffeine is good for you. Oops, we did another study and it's only good in moderation. Well...which is it? (And was the pro-caffeine study paid for by Folger's Coffee?). Science is just as susceptible to commercial influence as any other human endeavor. To hold scientific research up as the only acceptable standard for right or wrong is...debatable. With the above in mind, I provided an example of an article providing a series of experiments and listening sessions that meet my criteria (belief system) for acceptable methodology. So you are more skeptical than I am and you reject the method and the conclusion. Fine. But that's your choice and you own it. If you choose to reject someone's example because it doesn't match your beliefs that's fine, but don't make it the other person's responsibility to support your beliefs. That's my bone with Pat. He's demanding other people toe the line and conform to his belief in science as the ultimate arbiter of what is valid and what is snake oil. Um...no thank you. It's okay to believe that for any test to be valid it must be blind. It may be wrapped in science but it's still a 'belief'. An opinion. Completely valid, but only to the holder of the belief. I think several posters on this thread were trying to make a similar point in their own ways. Everything is relative. There is no right or wrong, just better or worse. No time to argue with someone who's mind is already closed. They simply don't share Pat's belief system and didn't want to be pulled into defending their own. I don't blame them. Perhaps this is why Pat always gets so much pushback when he demands scientific proof? What he's really demanding is that everyone buys into his belief system. Not going to happen. Best regards, Pete What I am getting from both sides is similar. Pat Farrell believes that there must be some concrete number somehow that can act as a starting point for understanding. i.e. Human hearing can detect 3db of variation from flat response and 0.2db of variation from adjacent tones. Something like that can be measured, established and then used as a basis for further discussion. What Pat (ar-t) is saying is that people have been shown to hear the effect of jitter. It is a complex thing to describe because it is frequency and distribution dependent, and that current techniques to measure and describe it are inadequate. His long experience with RF tell him that: 1. People are measuring the wrong thing 2. People are simplifying the description of value 3. Discussions to date are comparing apples to bananas 4. The design solutions are not widespread, are hard for a DIY person or even real design teams to implement without the right know how or test equipment. My take is that based on widespread experience, jitter is clearly audible. The effect of jitter is subtle compared to other distortions like THD or TIMD. Pat (ar-t) characterizes that it is easier to hear it by its absence than its presence.
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Balanced output/input what is the deal ?
XLR/Balanced is designed to deal with Common Mode Noise and has a higher CMRR than RCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-mode_rejection_ratio) If you have very long interconnects (as is common in a studio or with things like wired microphones), this may be helpful as they are prone to noise in high EMI/RFI environments. IMHO, I think that this is pretty much hype in most consumer equipment. I have read Stereophile for a while and you can see what John Aktinson has measured, some equipment has minor lower noise floor differences, but by and large I have seen few components that are much better in noise with XLR than with RCA. The reason you see XLR on the Benchmark and Lavry is that they come from the proStudio world where XLR is very common. -MA P Floding wrote: thingfish;180004 Wrote: So the other day I asked about a cable which had xlr to rca and you guys pointed out there is such a thing. Thanks :) Well now I am wondering about the importance of the whole balanced input/output thing. The Lavry DA10 has balanced outputs ( can also go unbalanced afaik) but my amp does not, at least not that I am aware of. So what is the deal with this ? Will I miss out on some hifi nirvana by not having balanced inputs on the amp ? I wouldn't worry too much about it. Does your system sound good as it is? Balanced is in no way garanteed to sound better than single ended. It all depends on the implementation. Balanced originates from the pro world to enable long cable runs without mains hum being introduced. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Q:'quality' speaker cable
The process is called Ohno Continuos Casting (you will often see OCC or PC-OCC for pure copper ohno continuous casting in front of wires). As far as I know there are only a couple of suppliers in the world. A description of the process is here: http://www.musicpoint.nl/Furutech/furutech_occ.htm If all you want is Oxygen free copper OFC, there are many outlets: http://www.speakerworks.net/speaker_wire.html Good luck. Skunk wrote: Michael Amster;179339 Wrote: FYI: http://cgi.ebay.com/50-Spool-of-12-AWG-Magnet-Wire-Turning-Winding_W0QQitemZ160077285738QQcmdZViewItem Thanks Michael, but I know where to get magnet wire ;-) I want 'highly annealed continuously cast oxygen free copper', or to know if that's mumbo jumbo. I've been looking at datasheets on Allied Electronics for any such language to no avail. Considering similar language is used here http://www.chimeralabs.com/spkr_intrl_full.html , I was starting to wonder if they were romanticizing what is indeed copper magnet wire. For example, I'm starting to think magnet wire might be continuously cast by definition. Any useful links to info on the subject would be greatly appreciated. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Q:'quality' speaker cable
FYI: http://cgi.ebay.com/50-Spool-of-12-AWG-Magnet-Wire-Turning-Winding_W0QQitemZ160077285738QQcmdZViewItem Skunk wrote: 325xi;178950 Wrote: Again those anti-cables... Regardless of how they sound, why would people pay so much for a plain magnet cable? Google for info before you buy 'em. Out of curiosity is most magnet wire continuous cast and OFC? I went with Blue Jeans Cables, after braiding my ChrisVH recipes a foot too short, so I'd have enough length to experiment with speaker placement. Also, I tend to believe Roger Russell, but still don't trust Home Depot zip cord. My next try will probably be the anti-cables ($1.40/ft unterminated), unless you can point out a cheaper equavilent I can buy locally or online by the foot. I tried the google but got stuck in the ever-interesting steve hoffman forums. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=89629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best reasonably priced DAC
Does anyone have technical info about the Citypulse DAC? Specifically: 1. What DAC chip does it use? 2. What is the output topology (i.e. does it use OpAmps and which ones)? 3. What receiver does it use CS part No? 4. Subjectively how does it compare to frontrunners like Benchmark DAC-1 and Lavry DA-10? -MA fkuti wrote: GaryB;176583 Wrote: I'm not Phil, but I was at one of the audio club meetings where he heard the Citypulse and I was impressed enough to buy one. My squeezebox is pretty heavily modified as documented in a thread elsewhere, and the analog output sounds considerably better than the stock SB3. The Citypulse is a significant step better than my modified SB3, so I will offer the suggestion that it is an even bigger improvement over a stock SB3. Of course, I have no double blind tests to prove any of this 8-}. ---Gary Hi! I am thinking on buying a stock SB3 and citypulse DAC. Would it be sonically in same level than a Arcam CD33!? Would the SB3 benefit from power supply upgrade with citypulse. Or would it be even better to do the digital-out mod. questions questions... :-) Kind regards Fkuti ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Q:'quality' speaker cable
I think that some of the braided Cat5 recipies may have pretty high capacitance. This could cause amplifier oscillation as mentioned below. The Jon Risch recipies offer some low capacitance designes (cross connected, etc.). I ended up using some SCSI ribbon cable: http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/flatter_e.html I did not alternate the wires, I used two separate runs for positive and negative respectively. Sounded better than the Ubyte recipe it replaced. I have since gone to using Orions and using a mishmash of cables there. -MA P Floding wrote: moshulu;178350 Wrote: In my experience, speaker cables are the single lowest-cost way to upgrade a hi-fi system. I use the following. Many people swear by them, they are fun to make, and the cost is next to nothing. http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/triple_t_e.html moshulu I have a pair of those, and another pair of a more upmarket version of those. However, som amplifiers may osciallate into these cables. Something to be aware of. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A/B Testing method question
PhilNYC: Stop pulling Clever Little Clocks out of your pocket. -MA PhilNYC wrote: P Floding;177982 Wrote: It may convince you, but it wouldn't convince a sceptic. So the effort is only meaningful to you. I'm acting the sceptic here to point out all things that may invalidate the test. Certainly I understand that this was not a scientific test. I guess part of my reason for bringing it up is to see to what extent people feel scientific tests are a must. When I hear comments such as people might have heard others raising their hand (making them feel compelled to do so themselves), I kind of think that's just as reasonable as the idea that people actually hear a difference of a tweak in an A/B comparison. Which is more probable? (and btw - I was a HUGE skeptic of this particular tweak...it was produced by a company that I was a dealer for, and the claims were so foreign and outlandish to me that I dropped them from my product lineup. The tweak we used in this particular test was an updated version of that tweak, and the explanation offered as to how it works is still something I don't believe) First thing I would do is make the sign that a change has occurred much more subtle. Good suggestion... ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] the goal of audio reproduction
No. I have not done it yet. I need a little bit of a breather after buying the Orions, the amps, some better grill covers. I have done the LM4652 opamp upgrade. That was nice. I am not sure my room will benefit from the Orion+ upgrade because my speakers basically sit in front of two doorways. I may try it a month or so down the road. -MA Michael, have you tried the Orion+ upgrade? I'm curious to know what the effect is on soundstage. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] the goal of audio reproduction
Take a look at Linkwitzlabs Orions - pretty amazing speakers. The can be built as a kit or turnkey from the provider WoodArtistry. http://www.linkwitzlab.com/ I have them and could not be happier. -MA regalma1 wrote: I meant to say I am looking for speakers that can play all types of music, and that don't mangle bad recordings, and have lots of dynamic range. No WAF for me. And the dogs don't seem to care, except when there is a dog barking on the soundtrack. Then it can get interesting. Might be a good test of system fidelity - can you fool a dog into attacking your speaker? What would be even more impressive is if the dog attacked an empty space between your speakers. Then you would know that your soundstage is great. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Irritating whistle on right channel from SB3
Build them. You won't be sorry. I have a pair too (fed by SB2 w/linear PS and modded Art DIO DAC). -MA At least as far as I'm concerned it's not contentious that the linear might be less noisy, or might have less EMI (which can cause problems like a hum). What's more contentious is whether it can make a difference if it *doesn't* affect the noise floor (as seems to be the case with mine). How do you like the Orions? I'm seriously considering building some. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Any one tried isolating feet on their SB ?
Has anyone put a component on a vibrator (like a baby bouncer or such) to see if the inverse is true (i.e. vibrations are audible)? I know that with my Turntable, using isolation did help dramatically. I have yet to be convinced on things like the SB2 or amps, etc. -MA P Floding wrote: FatElvis2000;176462 Wrote: But also acts as an heat insulator not great for a warm/hot amp. Sure. I wasn't discussing relative merits. I was pointing out that a difference is well possible. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best reasonably priced DAC
What DAC chip is the 7.2 based on? What output OPAMPs? The page does not say... slimkid wrote: PhilNYC;176548 Wrote: I use a Zhaolu DAC2.0 in my office system (Zhaolu is available from the same website, although the 2.0 has been replaced by the 2.5...). The Citipulse is a step above the Zhaolu 2.0, and I don't know anyone who has compared it to the Zhaolu 2.5... Phil, I take it that both of these obviously outplay built in DAC in SB3? Or, it's about a personal preference? ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
