Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Part update for newer SoX, part fix, to convert.conf examples: https://github.com/darrenyeats/slimserver/commit/8cbcdb3324fbc6ec015b4055c0fd9115914da59f 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Updates for LMS 8.3 at https://github.com/darrenyeats/slimserver. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optimal Volume Level with SB Touch
I kind of agree in practise, but I would like to unpack what I see as the real problem. There is more benefit than downside with digital VC, if correctly implemented (low distortion and *dithered*). It's possible with SoX. There's another requirement, that the attenuation is *moderate*. I'll discuss this toward the end! With several popular DACs, the ASRC and upsampling stages NEED digital headroom to perform correctly with highly dynamically compressed music i.e. most modern music! https://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?98661-Some-observations-about-the-Benchmark-DAC1=747509=1#post747509. That means they need digital volume control (unless they have digital headroom built in specially like the BM DAC2/3). With these DACs, you simply won't be able to enjoy many modern recordings to the same level without doing this. Here's a visualisation of the difference on a modern recording (inter-sample overs clipped vs not-clipped): https://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/some-observations-about-the-benchmark-dac1.137152/#post-1990168. 6dB of attenuation is enough. People with smart phones, sound bars, mini/micro-systems etc. are actually better off in this way, because digital VC is built into these devices. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a big part of many audiophiles' complaints of modern recordings. Obviously there's damage done by dynamic compression that can't be fixed, but why add extra damage unnecessarily? Many DACs these days are hot via XLR - 4VRMS, some much higher - and *if the DAC is being used preamp-less*, this leads to excessive digital attenuation. Which is bad. Or necessitating the use of XLR attenuators, which I would argue is also bad. But Weiss have the ideal approach with a mixture of reference voltage adjustment in the analogue domain for coarse adjustment - so the XLR output level can be adjusted to 2VRMS (typical RCA output level) or even 1VRMS - followed by dithered digital volume control. All this without need for XLR attenuators. Also dCS do well in this regard. So I'd say digital volume control brings many more benefits than downsides as long as the attenuation is moderate - and the problem is the design of many DACs with too high an output level to be used optimally when preamp-less. The reason the output levels are creeping up is that it makes it easier to achieve a better SNR/THD+N measurement, which people slavishly follow e.g. on ASR. It's a pity manufacturers are chasing one number to the substantial detriment of certain use cases e.g. using the DAC preamp-less. 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=111714 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optimal Volume Level with SB Touch
There's nothing wrong with digital VC per se, if correctly implemented (low distortion and dithered). It's possible to meet both requirements with SoX. There's a third requirement, that the attenuation is moderate. I'll discuss this toward the end! With several popular DACs, the ASRC and upsampling stages NEED digital headroom with highly dynamically compressed music i.e. most modern music! https://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?98661-Some-observations-about-the-Benchmark-DAC1=747509=1#post747509 With these DACs, you simply won't be able to enjoy modern recordings to the same level without doing this. Here's a visualisation of the difference on a modern recording: https://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/some-observations-about-the-benchmark-dac1.137152/#post-1990168 People with smart phones, sound bars, mini/micro-systems etc. are actually better off in this way, because digital VC is built into these devices. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a big part of many audiophiles' complaints of modern recordings. Obviously there's damage done by dynamic compression that can't be fixed, but why add extra damage unnecessarily? Many DACs these days are hot via XLR - 4VRMS, some higher - and this leads to excessive digital attenuation. Which is bad. Or necessitating the use of XLR attenuators, which I would argue is also bad. But Weiss have the ideal approach with a mixture of reference voltage adjustment in the analogue domain for coarse adjustment - so the XLR output level can be adjusted to 2VRMS (typical RCA output level) or even 1VRMS - followed by dithered digital volume control. All this without need for XLR attenuators. Also dCS do well in this regard. So I'd say digital volume control brings many more benefits than downsides as long as the attenuation is moderate - and the problem is the design of many DACs with too high an output level. The reason the output levels are creeping up is that it makes it easier to achieve a better SNR/THD+N measurement, which people slavishly follow e.g. on ASR. It's a pity manufacturers are chasing one number to the substantial detriment of certain use cases e.g. using the DAC preamp-less. 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=111714 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optimal Volume Level with SB Touch
Many up-samplers (including those in many DACs) lack DSP headroom. With highly dynamically compressed input (read most mainstream music since 90s) the up-sampling creates new samples that should be over 0dB but aren't. I think this is one area where people with soundbars, smart phones etc. with digital volume control have it better than many audiophiles. Surely, such recordings are mangled in ways that can't be undone. Without digital attenuation (volume), they're often mangled in a further unnecessary way. Proper digital volume control uses dither. This adds noise but no signal-correlated distortion. I use SoX for up-sampling. I need to shift down by 1 bit before doing up-sampling, this provides headroom but keeps it bit-perfect prior to up-sampling. Then I up-sample, apply the rest of the volume control and dither. Digital headroom (either in the DAC like in the BM DAC2/3, or before it) is absolutely essential for modern recordings IMO. 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=111714 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optimal Volume Level with SB Touch
In previous discussions I was told that with the Touch anything above 40 with 16 bit source has no rounding errors. But with 24 bit source any volume reduction will have rounding errors. The DAC2 has HGC i.e. volume is analogue for analogue inputs but digitial for digital. The DAC2 also has digital head room so I think there's no benefit to attenuating beforehand. So I'd just run the Touch at 100% and use the DAC2 volume control, that way I don't need to worry about 16 bit vs 24 bit source files. 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=111714 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
My hack based on 7.9.2 nightly build is in this fork of slimserver: https://github.com/darrenyeats/slimserver/commits/public/7.9 Commit "Volume as capability A in convert.conf; re-tokenize on volume change" Two methods. Clone my fork https://github.com/darrenyeats/slimserver.git Use post 2 to set up a link from the LMS install to the clone for the main files. Place convert.conf(s) in correct location(s) as per post 1, as appropriate. - Alternatively, download the changed files and overwrite the installed files manually as per post 1. - Go to https://github.com/darrenyeats/slimserver/commit/c51cf9c82c961a13eb120a837cf27aa45595a5b2 - Expand "7 changed files" - For each .pm file: from hamburger menu top right (...) select 'View file'; then right click on 'Raw', use Save link as ...; then save to locations as per post 1. - Similarly, place convert.conf(s) in correct location(s), as per post 1, as appropriate. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
My hack based on 7.9.2 nightly build is in this fork of slimserver: https://github.com/darrenyeats/slimserver/commits/public/7.9 Commit "Dithered SoX volume control/re-sampling hack by Darren Yeats" Two methods. Clone my fork https://github.com/darrenyeats/slimserver.git Use post 2 to set up a link from the LMS install to the clone for the main files. Copy in convert.confs to correct location as per post 1. - Alternatively, download the changed files and overwrite the installed files manually as per post 1. - Go to https://github.com/darrenyeats/slimserver/commit/52814d0e983110af0b49eef49133a7e4ac323203 - Expand "7 changed files" - For each file of interest: from hamburger menu top right (...) select 'View file'; then right click on 'Raw', use Save link as ...; then save to locations as per post 1. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
I rebased this in my local clone onto 7.9.2 (latest nightly build). PM me for details. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is anybody sick of the recent spate of threads?
cliveb wrote: > Darren, could you explain how you got those waveforms? As far as I can > see, they are screen shots from an audio editor, which presumably means > that you recorded the output of the DAC to a WAV file via a soundcard. > > Is it possible that the obvious clipping we see in the second waveform > might have been introduced by the soundcard at the recording stage, > rather than in the DAC during playback? To be sure that this isn't > happening, you'd need to attenuate the DAC output in the analog domain > before recording it. Did you do that? Clive, exactly four years later I notice I didn't reply! The answer is the second waveform is simply the original samples at 44kHz. The conclusion that the Benchmark DAC1 and others digitally clip is not proven by the two screenshots, it's shown elsewhere - the screenshots are just to illustrate the intersample overs you would be clipping with any DAC that does digitally clip. Some people say such inter-sample overs are few and hard to spot without heavy zooming, but this music shows the difference can be be seen easily throughout, at whole-track scale, with some recordings. 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=103842 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Sorry I missed the above post. Yes it would be possible for me to rebase this hack on to 7.9.2. Yes this uses SoX itself. In fact the way I have it set up at home I do bit shift, up-sampling, volume control and dither all in one SoX call for maximum precision. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Sorry I missed the above post. Yes it would be possible for me to rebase this hack on to 7.9.2. Yes this uses SoX itself. In fact the way I have it set up at home I do bit shift, up-sampling, volume control and dither all in one SoX call for maximum precision. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Sorry I missed the above post. Yes it would be possible for me to rebase this hack on to 7.9.2. Yes this uses SoX itself. In fact the way I have it set up at home I do bit shift, up-sampling volume control and dither all in one SoX call for maximum precision. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] transporter: upsample files with sox and drop external DAC?
For future reference, synchronous/asynchronous sounds more like a description for whether the SRC occurs in real-time or is done beforehand. I believe you're referring to is an integer or non-integer "up/down-sampling factor" or "sampling rate conversion factor". Cheers, 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=109640 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] RIP Siegried Linkwitz
https://oplug-support.org/viewtopic.php?f=1=4623=e2f3a0b7ae0976323d0fd08422aa0550 A knowledeable and generous man. RIP Siegfried. http://www.linkwitzlab.com 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=109450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The myth about filter ringing
See my link to PFM at the end of the comments section of Archimago's article. There you will find more recent comments from Werner. 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=108876 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squezzebox 3: power supply recommendation. other tips?
https://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?105197-All-day-battery-power-for-Touch-%A324 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=108708 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] arnyk RIP
Sorry to hear this. He had a disruptive communication style, I think sometimes that was good, sometimes not. In any case I learned from him. I got the impression he'd had some hard times. Rest in peace. 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=109027 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Subwoofer recomendations
drmatt wrote: > Do audiophiles buy subs then? I thought the hard core audiophile > wouldn't trust third party amplification for any part of their playback > frequency range > > > -Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk- Actually I sold my sub - better without IMO. If I ever move into a bigger space (unlikely) then I'll just buy bigger active ATCs. 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=108865 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Mods rebased on to latest public/7.9 (7.9.1). See new sub-folder at original dropbox link in post 1. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
I agree hdtracks is a minefield, and their own sampler tracks are a spectacular own-goal. DOYR. I buy a lot of newer music. Often that's originally recorded at 24/44, 24/88, 24/96. Occasionally these original numbers are available for download and I buy them (usually from Qobuz or 7digital). In these cases I see down-sampling to 16/44 as an additional step that I don't need. It might not be audibly better but hey, it's measurably better. (On a similar note, why should I insert an extra line stage when I don't need it, no matter how transparent it is? That would be bloody-minded IMO. If I need it, fine, but if I don't?) IMV it depends. - Some DACs have sub-par up-sampling (can be fixed with source up-sampling). But some DACs have good digital filtering and can up-sample well themselves. So 16/44 could sound worse than hi-rez when the playback system is not up-sampling well. - Some 16/44 had dodgy anti-aliasing filter applied, in these cases the equivalent hi-rez could sound better. All that said, I believe if you have access to good up-sampling and a well-made 16/44 recording then there's probably nothing audible. So, I'm relaxed generally about 16/44 which, please note, is the majority of what I have. 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=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
Julf wrote: > So you would argue that the downsampling (using a high quality > algorithm) is audible? I wrote it isn't always a good idea to down-sample. I was actually assuming high quality down-sampling. My concern is really the quality of up-sampling in older DACs - a concern which is lessened with higher rate input. Newer DACs should have higher quality up-sampling, so down-sampling would be less of an issue with these. 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=106935 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] "Too loud", "too quiet" opinions: what are the factors?
bpa wrote: > my basic point was that it is usually not possible to please all the > people all of the time. I agree that's a factor! 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=107617 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] "Too loud", "too quiet" opinions: what are the factors?
bpa wrote: > > From past experience with an office and air-conditioning. Even though > temp was automated - it seems depending on how it looked outside (sunny, > rainy, windy) - occupants "felt" hot/cold and complained. Solution - > put in a control the occupants could twiddle but in reality temp was > still automated but occupants felt empowered and except then complaints > were about other people putting temp up/down. It depends what you mean by automated control. Does this include reacting to outside peak temperature - I guess this would need hooking into forecasts? One of my complaints about many offices is that they are too cold on hot days and too hot on cold days. I know seasonal adjustments are made but that seems too simplistic and the temperature difference not enough. It think it's down to people, understandably, wearing warmer clothes on hot days and lighter clothes on hot days. 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=107617 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
I wouldn't touch a higher rate file - it isn't always a good idea. Just feed to the DAC as it is. 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=106935 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
Numerical calculation errors are easily demonstrated as measurable in the real world e.g. DAC on-board digital filters, SRC software. It's an absolute myth that these calculations are generally perfect in the real world (even though they could be, and in particular cases are perfect). For reference:- (1) Benchmark are one of the "good guys" and yet: https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/40489089-benchmark-dac2-vs-dac1-side-by-side-measurements "A careful examination of the two curves will also show that the DAC1 has slightly more ripple in the frequency response. However this ripple is insignificant from an audibility standpoint and it is hard to see even on this expanded scale. This difference is due to the improved digital filters in the DAC2." Note the DAC2 still exhibits this, albeit less. (2) Comparison of various popular SRC software, some quite poor!: http://src.infinitewave.ca/ Also there are historical shenanigans with cheap and/or poor ADCs which have caused measurable issues in a great many recordings. So I think the argument descends to audibility, it can't realistically be won at the level of digital theoretical perfection. Please understand my point: I've no evidence that the above issues are audible. 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=106935 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
arnyk wrote: > The frequency response you measure is not +/- 0.1 dB. It is +/- zero dB > or as close to that as your numerical calculations allow. > Numerical calculation errors are easily measurable at 24 bits even for the good guys (e.g. tiny Benchmark DAC1/DAC2 frequency ripples which BM themselves acknowledge are artefacts of on-board digital filters, less in the DAC2). In the real world there is better and worse software, and some is relatively quite bad, I've no doubt some errors could be resolvable in 16 bits (120dB with dither). See performance of various SRC software which you can seach online. So I'm afraid many times the discussion does descend to audibility rather than being won at theoretical perfection. 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=106935 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
FWIW, SoX uses 32 bit integer internally when passing data between each process step you specify. Each process step can internally use a higher resolution, some calculations use 64 bit float. SoX can also finally output 32 bit PCM as WAV, if you want. 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=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 wouldn't down-sample a high rate file. It's not always a good idea, I'd leave it alone. Under some circumstances, you might up-sample before sending the file to the DAC, but this would only make sense if you knew you could up-sample at higher quality than the DAC's internal up-sampling. -Usually- this isn't the case (not with a DAC using a modern chip set anyway) so again I'd leave it alone. Golden Earring wrote: > So I'd guess that the PCM filtering is applied just below the Nyquist > frequency - isn't the idea of 96kHz sampling frequency recording that > you have your anti-aliasing filtering well up above the audible range so > there is no impact on the audible frequency response at all (given that > real-world filters are not brick-walls)? That is true on the ADC side, or it was, but since ADCs are internally oversampling anyway these days there's no need to record at a higher rate for reasons of the anti-aliasing filter. But you might still record at a higher rate and bit depth in order for more transparent studio processing. On the playback end, modern DACs tend also to over-sample, which creates images, then apply anti-imaging filters. Usually the DAC up-samples in several stages, and often you'll find a combination of digital (the various DAC digital filter options apply here) and analogue filters to remove images. The up-sampling/digital filtering makes the analogue anti-imaging filter much more relaxed. 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=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: > Vodka worked just as well & took some of the irritation away afterwards, > AFAICR... > > And you always knew where you'd left your pen - it was next to your > cassette tapes! > > Dave :cool: Ha-ha! 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=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: > > Tape always picks up problems when used heavily, and also big exposures > to suboptimal storage and handling. It also has problems with rapid > access to different parts of the media. CD media has no known relevant > usage or storage limits if treated reasonably. > Bit of a tangent now Arny, but this reminds of print-through, a problem on the recording side with tape. This can manifest as a pre-echo as the magnetic pattern on the tape transfers slightly to the adjacent layer. It becomes noticeable when a very quiet passage precedes a very sudden loud passage. A friend pointed out to me the print-through in the intro to 'Sledgehammer' by Peter Gabriel. I also discovered print-through on 'Tyler' by UB40 (the first track on their classic Signing Off album). 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=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 :-).
https://www.quora.com/Does-The-Flat-Earth-Society-have-members-all-around-the-globe 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] Some thoughts on the Audiophile Holy Wars :-).
Read the whole thing. 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] Some thoughts on the Audiophile Holy Wars :-).
Real world 16/44 sometimes ends up with various kinds of dodginess around 20-22kHz - none of which would matter if we had zero distortion playback BTW. Some roll off starting somewhere below 20kHz could help mitigate - MP3 might be an advantage in this context. See discussion http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3040013#post3040013. 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
Here is an interesting thread on PFM: http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3040013#post3040013. 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=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
I remember a documentary about famous mathematicians down the ages. It struck me that most of them finished in an asylum or committed suicide! When I have more time, I plan to improve my maths. But not TOO much. 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
Hi Arny, arnyk wrote: > That would seem to be based on the idea that there are no way to do > relevant blind tests related to speaker, room and possibly > amplification. Executive summary: wrong, wrong, and damn wrong. > My statement wasn't based on that idea. They are ideas about system-building that I thought many people would find practical. arnyk wrote: > > If you have an Android phone at your disposal, you would do well to > download and use this product: Neutralizer. Type that into the Android > Play Store and you will at worst be in for an interesting experience. > Looks interesting - my wife has an Android phone so I could try that. arnyk wrote: > > But you've made the blanket statement that DBTs don't apply to them > I don't think I wrote such a statement and, like you, I would disagree with that statement. 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=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
Arguments over blind testing, DACs etc. miss the most practical point IMO - that the biggest problems in the playback chain are the speaker, room and possibly amplification. Yesterday I listened to some good electrostatic headphones, using as a source my Windows phone playing MP3s! It sounded legitimately good! Electrostatic transducers are very suited to headphone application, and of course all headphones lack the problems of room acoustics. Modern sources are all pretty good. The question of whether there are slight differences is a valid one, but it's less important to me; I realise "where it's at" and that's mostly acoustics and transducers. I don't deny DACs might differ slightly in sound - and I maintain it's very difficult for us punters to determine the truth with any reliability - but I'm happy to live and let live just as long as you HAVE actually got the rest sorted out to the best level you can! 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=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 "superposition" probability wave state is as *-real-* as any other > part of the wave/particle duality concept Agreed. 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=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Golden Earring wrote: > Hi Darren! > > I'll have to take issue with you here. The whole point of doing > statistical analysis on data samples is that the samples do not need to > be particularly large to yield statistically significant results It's all relative. A number of samples too large for me to stomach on my own! The aforementioned fatigue spirals as the size of the (audible) difference shrinks. And sadly, we tend not to test gross differences in blind tests! I think amateur blind tests are great for telling if the "huge difference" you hear sighted is actually -small-to-nothing- - not so great for telling you if it is precisely small or nothing. 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] Intona USB thing
Arny, I think you've mistaken the point I'm trying to make. Dave was asking about doing his own listening test, and I was pointing out serious problems with us punters doing this kind of thing and then labelling the results as conclusive (generally, they're not). Well organised tests are possible and have been done. But as you seem to agree, this takes a lot of doing. 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] Intona USB thing
Dave, The "facts" in this case are the results of rounds picking A or B as the identity of X. A statistical analysis is needed on these results to generate a p-value - the outcome of the experiment is a probability. The problem with this statistical angle is that a large number of samples is needed, and so listening tests involving one or a few people run into trouble with listening fatigue. Note this is not physical fatigue. For example: we never "hear" the same thing twice, because hearing changes the hearer, and hearing is a combination of stimulus and experience; this has a long-term and short-term aspect (e.g. you just get "fed up" of hearing the same thing many times and A and B start to mush). There may be other mechanisms at play, but I've done enough blind tests to come to believe fatigue is a factor beyond 3-4 rounds of listening to the same sample for the same particular difference, at least without a significant break. Sometimes this sort of problem is not mentioned. Another problem with listening tests in general is the number of confounding factors. For example, driving hours to a bake-off affects your hearing. You are more familiar with your own system at home, this process of familiarisation can take a long time - I can pick out an unusual squeak in my car, but a passenger can't, yet we're hearing the same sounds. These confounding factors mean NOT hearing a difference EVEN SIGHTED is not necessarily real evidence of non-audibility. 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
Golden Earring wrote: > > If not, I suggest you examine the famous double-slit experiment which > actually illustrates the wave/particle duality of nature. There is an > adequate write-up in Wikipaedia if you need a reference. > Yeah, the double slit experiment captures the essence of quantum behaviour. The "delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment is even weirder I think. This is the way I would put it. When the photon is displaying quantum behaviour it is in the superposition state. This is a state of probabilities, and these probabilities move around in a wave fashion - when the photon is in this state, it's not a particle and it makes no sense to say it passes through a slit, let alone two slits at the same time. It just isn't a particle when it's superposition. One could say the particle IS an observation, or an observation is a particle. Between observations there is quantum behaviour in superposition state - wave behaviour - no particle. That's how the experiment works, by observing the particle at one of the second slits, the wave behaviour at that stage is interrupted. And the two slits stage is the key stage, since having the two apertures in parallel would cause the wave to interfere with itself. 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=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Intona USB thing
Dave, Actually facts have a role in science - observations are facts - but even these are things "that we all agree are true". I remember a prominent physicist explaining this, he then gave an example of a fact using this definition: that it's hard to get a date in NYC on Saturday night! Ha-ha. 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] Intona USB thing
Arny, I mentioned early on what you were writing implied there is no such thing as euphonic distortion. But I missed this conclusion was exactly what you were trying to explain, because it seemed absurd. Thinking it absurd, I thought you were trying to get at something else then I misinterpreted everything you wrote! Also I didn't read my own Linkwitz link properly (note this misreading occurred a long time ago!) Sorry. I get what you've written now, thanks. It still seems an extraordinary conclusion. But this could just be me finding it hard to change a long-held view. 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] 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 :-).
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] 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] Intona USB thing
arnyk wrote: > That Linkwitz Lab page seems to support my claim: "The distortion > spectrum of this test signal is very discriminating and robust. It > contains not only harmonics, but also *the more serious intermodulation > components, which are of higher amplitude*. " Army, that's one thing Siegfried states. Also, he rates the drivers by HD and picks them on a combination of IM and HD performance. Implying HD is significant and not made moot by IM. I do see your point TBH, I just think you're over-egging the pudding. 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] Intona USB thing
Arny, You make your argument with characteristic gusto. I agree with some of the facts you provide, e.g. a lot IM is generated by music replay, but I don't see that I should infer from this that the HD profile is no factor for subjective quality. Your argument seems to imply there can be no such thing as euphonic distortion in replay, no? Of course we can't absolutely draw a straight line (so to speak!) from HD to IM in the real world e.g. http://www.linkwitzlab.com/mid_dist.htm. 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] Intona USB thing
Golden Earring wrote: > > Low Total Harmonic Distortion measurements are reassuring to a degree, > but most people find odd harmonic artifacts much more objectionable than > even harmonic ones (tube amplifier lovers seem to actually like a bit of > even harmonic intrusion to give a euphoric rather than clinical insight > into their recordings). I'm not advocating even harmonic distortion per > se, I'm just saying that of two pieces of kit with similar THD > measurements, the one with the higher odd harmonic components is likely > to sound less musical unless the designer has managed to get the overall > THD to a spectacularly low level. Yeah, I generally seek kit with 2HD higher than 3HD. Yes even DACs (if only because my OCD). Golden Earring wrote: > > When I was a nipper, much stress was placed on the Damping Factor of an > amplifier, which if I recall correctly was defined as the ratio between > the (presumable relatively stable) output impedance of the power > amplifier to the nominal (and often highly volatile) input impedance of > the loudspeakers in use, which tended to be given as exactly 8 or 4 ohms > somewhat oddly, given the variability of loudspeaker impedance with > frequency. This measurement seems to have fallen out of favour, which is > probably for the best. In the old days loudspeaker manufacturers would > go to extraordinary lengths of driver combinations and elaborate > (passive) crossover designs in order to get a relatively flat frequency > response from their designs *-when measured in an anechoic chamber-* > (charts of these frequency responses were freely published to sell the > designs, little mention was made of THD statistics... ). Sadly few > users had one of these chambers, so they ended up with a sound > principally dictated by the size, shape & contents of their listening > rooms, whilst also presenting their power amplifiers with difficult > reactive loads and a loss of close control of the actual drivers > themselves. It is hardly surprisingly that few of such legacy > loudspeakers that have survived sound very musical when compared to a > halfway decent modern loudspeaker. > ) I'd say a "modern loudspeaker" is active! So a flat anechoic frequency response (staying quite flat off axis up to at least 10kHz) is not a bad thing these days - if it ever was, as you write! Having said that, we could have a long conversation about what is a actually a desirable bass roll off once we take into account room gain! Golden Earring wrote: > > What I am saying is that a continuous & dynamic analogue signal, like > er, "music" may be harder to successfully capture than many people > assume. If all DAC's sound the same, then why should all the hardware in > the Squeezebox family from the original Classic onwards not sound the > same? If that were the case why have so many members of this forum > acquired a Transporter or a Touch? Unless someone is going to say that > poorly designed DAC's were put into the earlier models by Sean Adams who > seems to me at least to have had a pretty good idea of what he was up to > as far as design was concerned... > I don't think there are any issues with the numbers involved in digital audio, in that a perfect ADC or DAC would do be very accurate using extant rates and bit depths. However that's not to say there are no issues. http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?106979-Quick-question-about-DAC-quot-filters-quot=876695=1#post876695 http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3040013#post3040013 Golden Earring wrote: > > I've put my firefighter's costume on in preparation, lol > A wise move. I shall do the same. 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] Intona USB thing
Dave, I'm certainly willing to blame you for my outburst! 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] Intona USB thing
FWIW I don't identify with any religion but I do identify as a theist. For me this is philosophical. We go back looking for a first cause until eventually we must accept a "brute fact" as some call it: something that we accept just exists because it does. I'd like my brute fact to be something transcendent - flying spaghetti monster doesn't cut it, big bang doesn't cut it. Maths itself arguably could be called transcendent, but I don't like that either. Of course, the above is hardly a bastion of logic, but it's how I feel. Can we talk about feelings here?! Ha-ha. 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] Intona USB thing
Mnyb wrote: > Well I think the hostile aproach drives up to much tension and personal > prestige it locks everyone involved into their trenches. I agree. Julf wrote: > See my comment in the Holy Wars thread... I know what you mean. Reasonableness doesn't work against certain kinds of ignorance. But when people are seemingly acting stupid, often there is a reason for it that is not stupid at all. Trump voters vote for Trump for a complex set of reasons. For example, some are left behind economically - and many in the middle US view comparatively diminished income as a sign of disrespect of their work and contribution to society. That is hurtful, and there are limited lawful ways to express that hurt in a substantial way - one of them being voting in an election. It is emotional, but emotions are important. Remember none of the cars, houses, hi-fis, roads, planes, atom smashers or smart phones would have any meaning at all if humans disappeared over night. Objects only have meaning in context, the context of humans being present. I would have voted Hilary, and I voted Remain, but I'm worried about polarisation in society. 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 :-).
Archimago wrote: > For those new to some of our discussions here over the years, here are a > few links over the years which I've tried to provide evidence for and > thoughts I wanted people to consider. I've tried to maintain a general > structure in mind of topics to address, many of which are > contemporaneous with where the Industry is going or products it wants to > promote: > 1. It was your MP3/FLAC test that convinced me I CAN distinguish MP3 and FLAC! It was the metal track - I couldn't establish a preference, but I could pick out A and B at will for that one track. Once, I randomised the playlist and tried it 10 times. I got 9 right. Until your test, I was thinking it might be placebo but now I'm convinced it's audible. 2. One of your tests on digital cables is the ONLY concrete evidence I have seen that changing a digital cable can affect measurements at the analogue of a DAC. Without your evidence, I would probably have to concede this might be just a theoretical possibility. (Just in case it isn't clear from the preceding words, I am not writing about audibility.) I thank you for your measurement-led approach. I don't agree with all your summarisations though. 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] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
In theory, yes. But: - I'm not aware of a practical way to do it - this needs an enhancement to the firmware code (or for a software client, the client code). - I'm not sure if the hardware clients would have enough processing power to do this, e.g. in combination with hi-res streams - For me, at the server end I'm combining the processing of dithered volume control with sample rate conversion (PM me for more info) - I wouldn't want to split these anyway. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
soundcheck wrote: > > What's "fab4" in you convert.conf? > flc flc fab4 * > Hi Soundcheck, Sorry I missed this until recently. And then I wasn't sure of the answer. But the other day I found that Qobuz wouldn't work without it - so I guess it's added for Qobuz. It's like the usual 'flc flc' line, but missing the [flac] call to provide seek. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quick question about DAC "filters"
arnyk wrote:
> This is conditionally and not uncommonly false.
>
So a part or all of what I wrote ("this") is sometimes not true? What
exactly did you mean by "this"?
arnyk wrote:
> If the DAC is operating with an excessively high sample rate as is
> common with audiophiles, say 96 KHz and above, then an anti-imaging
> filter further down the signal chain operating at a more sane design
> frequency such as 44 KHz can still remove any audible imaging.
>
Assuming by "down the signal chain" you mean "after the DAC output", I
don't see how any of my statements contradict the above - some at the
least imply the above. Please explain further.
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=106979
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] convert.conf command conditional on incoming sampling rate
The below works on Linux. Not sure if it could be made to work on Windows. E.g. [flac] -dcs $START$ $END$ -- $FILE$ | [tee] /tmp/lms-track | ( sleep 0.5; if test $( [soxi] -r /tmp/lms-track ) -gt 48000; then bandwidth=74; else bandwidth=89; fi; [sox] -q -t flac - -t flac -C 0 - rate -v -b $bandwidth 110600 dither ) If the file has a sampling rate of over 48kHz, then use 74% bandwidth when re-sampling, otherwise use 89%. My actual convert.conf is much more complex than above, BTW. The above is strictly to demonstrate the conditional technique. 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=107067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quick question about DAC "filters"
ralphpnj wrote: > > How are these "filters" different from a simple graphic equalizer or > simple DSP or even, god forbid, tone controls? > When the sampling rate is increased, "images" of the original signal are created at higher frequencies - the up-sampling (anti-imaging) filters are intended to remove these. Any filter placed after the DAC up-sampling stage could do a similar job in principle. In fact NOS DACs rely on the fact that amps, speakers, ears - all after the DAC output - are natural filters. And even up-sampling DACs use a combination of digital and analogue anti-imaging filters. But if the filter is applied (e.g. with equaliser in a computer player) before up-sampling, it won't be doing the same job. You can -up-sample and filter- on a computer, and pass the music at the higher sample rate to the DAC. This could avoid a stage of up-sampling and filtering in a typical DAC (but with typical DACs there is more than one stage). 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=106979 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quick question about DAC "filters"
The reconstruction filters used in up-sampling are anti-imaging (anti-aliasing filters are used in down-sampling, ADCs etc). In theory, no filter should make an audible difference if the transition band (the curved bit of the graph) is above audible frequencies. In practice, distortion is generated by content above audible frequencies, and this distortion can leak into the audible band. I believe this the only route for images, ringing etc to become audible. See here for an interesting discussion: http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3040013#post3040013 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=106979 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hifiberry Digi+ Pro
I can repeatedly tell blind the difference between optical and coax S/PDIF into my DAC1. I'm aware of the good reasons this ought not to be possible. But I can do it. 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=106736 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] MEASUREMENTS: Raspberry Pi 3 as USB Streamer (+ CRAAP config & TIDAL/MQA arrives)
Thanks Archimago. I'm usually somewhat to the left of you on the subjective-objective scale, but anyone putting out measurements gets a thumbs up from me! 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=106756 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Display Off screensaver
asplundj wrote: > Any news on how to get this app to work when using an app to control the > touch? I've found something that helps a bit. If after start up of the Touch, I press play from the Touch IR remote so that I see this symbol: 21829 Then Display Off works fine after that with the phone app and web UI. No need to use the IR remote after that initial play. I've not found another way to solve the issue for any length of time. HTH, Darren +---+ |Filename: touch-play.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21829| +---+ 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=95084 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: All day battery power for Touch - �24
Additional recommendations post 1. 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=105197 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: All day battery power for Touch - �24
I also recommend the following apps (Apps Gallery from SBT touch screen): - Enhanced Digital Output (disables analogue out) - Display Off Battery life seems to be significantly better. It's a reasonable assumption that noise is lowered too. 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=105197 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
The dithered volume control is server-side (SoX) so I think it could
work with other clients.
Re: VolumeLock plugin please see post 2.
darrenyeats wrote:
>
> Fixing client volume to 100 disables the attenuation on the client,
> however, the server-side volume can still be adjusted (it simply will
> not be pushed to client).
>
> But any time you reset the volume from the client end, the client pushes
> its volume (100) to the server. Same goes for system boot up. This is
> why client volume controls must be avoided. Also this is why VolumeLock
> plugin must be used - it near-instantly reduces to the set limit the
> server volume (but not the client volume which is always 100).
>
So it is the very fact that the player volume is fixed to 100 which
necessitates the use of VolumeLock plugin, for protection.
What "controller" exactly shows %? I'd assume any percentage is another
way of stating 1-100 i.e. 0.5dB increments as stated.
Note that after some investigation, the use of TPDF dither has been
confirmed as correct. This is the best kind of dither if further
processing is going to happen. Since most of us use upsampling DACs
(some with ASRC too) this is recommended. People using NOS DACs might
want to experiment with shaped dither ("dither -S" in convert.conf) but
TPDF is going to be fine even for them.
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=104629
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Question about Stereophile's "16 bit undithered sine at -90dB"
Thanks arnyk. I agree with what you say, I think. Nevertheless, I am curious as to how this 3-level waveform ever makes it out of a 24 bit, upsampling DAC - unless, as I infer, the "16 data" is actually nothing of the sort, but instead a 16-bit-like staircase rendered in a higher-rate, higher bit-depth file. 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=105769 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Question about Stereophile's "16 bit undithered sine at -90dB"
It's actually figure 9 I'm questioning. Fig.9 is actually the measurement made on every digital source reviewed by Stereophile. The result varies in each test, and is a measurement of the analogue output. Note this was discussed a while ago here: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?94054-Has-anyone-listened-to-the-NAD-C-390DD/page3 and John Atkinson even replied, though I didn't understand how his reply addressed my concern. 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=105769 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Question about Stereophile's "16 bit undithered sine at -90dB"
I have a question about this. http://www.stereophile.com/content/quality-lies-details-page-6#DQEqFEA63RHRhQcK.97 I thought such a waveform would be impossible with 16 bit data when fed into an upsampling, 24 bit DAC. I thought the samples would be interpolated at higher rate and greater bit depth, leading to a smooth sine even at -90dB. But looking at any number of reviews on Stereophile, the stair steps (with Gibbs ringing) are seen. I infer that the "16 bit undithered sine at -90dB" is a deliberately staircased waveform delivered in a hi-rez container. My question: is this inference correct? If not, DAC upsampling doesn't quite do what I thought it did! 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=105769 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: All day battery power for Touch - �24
Pointed out on PFM (not tried) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tonbux-2mAh-Power-Bank-SmartPhones-Black/dp/B00SKH4J9S/ref=pd_sim_23_1? 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=105197 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
All day battery power for Touch - �24
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00OJXVDAU USB (5V 2.1A/2.4A) 16.5Ah battery £23 + http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/161886488395 (USB to coaxial power connector) £1 Perhaps made more sense since I've been able to arrange the hi-fi on its own mains ring. I also use optical out. ISTM this is optimal isolation of the transport from the rest. 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=105197 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
arnyk wrote: > DBTs have shown that a single generation of vinyl transcription is > highly audible while a single generation of even mediocre but modern > digital is sonically transparent. I'm arguing vinyl transcription reverses extreme compression, somehow, so that would be consistent with my view. Is there some "intangible/meta-physical compression quality" than remains the same - even when all three of DR number, look of waveform and the sound all indicate the vinyl is less compressed? It smacks of denial a bit. 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=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
cliveb wrote: > This widespread belief that vinyl has to be cut from less compromised > masters due to the limitations of the format is misplaced. There is a > growing body of evidence that most modern rock/pop LPs are cut from a > master that is derived from precisely the same hypercompressed master > used for the CD release. (For sure there are a few where a different > master was used, but they are the minority). > Ian Shepherd says the same of his own recording here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AE9dL5FG8. You can read my comments at the above link (now 11 months old, you'll need to click "show more"). Ian is convinced that the vinyl can't have more dynamic range on principal but I think it's mistaken. There are such things as dynamic range expanders (what limited use they have is for de-compressing compressed waveforms ... but that happens to be what we're talking about!) If you watch Ian's video through, you'll see the vinyl waveform _measures_ as more dynamic (obviously Ian and yourself aren't impressed!) but also it _looks_ obviously more dynamic and it _sounds_ more dynamic. As I asked Ian, "So my question is, what OTHER kind of proof would we need to accept dynamics have increased? I can't imagine any other kind of evidence." I did not receive a proper answer. Darren PS: Here you go: http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/details/183049-dbx_1bx_dynamic_range_expander__processor/images/238691/ [image: http://img.canuckaudiomart.com/uploads/large/238690-dbx_1bx_dynamic_range_expander__processor.jpg] "Expand your mind (the rest will follow)"! Such a device can only make sense in the situation where a signal has been compressed and you are reversing this process. I'm certain this process will be far from perfect, but nevertheless expansion is "A Thing". Filtering (even an all-pass filter causes this) explains 1-2dB change in some cases yes, but not the consistent 5+ dB or more gap seen between digital below DR5 and the equivalent vinyl. Yes, that much. Yes, consistently. I don't know whether it's the physical process of cutting vinyl, or some device the vinyl cutting engineers use in advance of the cutting, but I have no doubt that the waveform Ian measures, sees and hears as more dynamic is in fact more dynamic, despite his refusal to accept the possibility. 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=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
browellm wrote: > Just buy a record player. You'll get better post production and more > dynamic range on most new releases, ironically because of the > limitations of the cutting equipment. Too much truth in that. 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=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For Sale: Transport fully modded Modwright Platinum Signature
Even if you think you're providing a public service, it's very rude to pee on someone's for-sale thread. I can't think of a more apt place than the Logitech Audiophiles forum to place such an ad, and unless you can, then give it a break. 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=104936 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezebox Touch + Toolbox 3 + EDO = XRUN Buffer issue
sckramer wrote: > > I suggest the usb output only if you have an *asynchronous* usb DAC, > else use the coax. This varies of course, you should try each. > Yes, it depends on the DAC. 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=103153 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] If you thought mastering was rocket science...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY8SwIvxj8o They're a pretty good song (singular!) 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=104860 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New AKM 4490 DAC
StephenPG wrote: > Very important to level match Agreed. StephenPG wrote: > > Also, darrenyeats, my Touch sounds just fine into a Quad 306! Several points: - My comments are based on a 10k ohms input impedance, which for a Touch is barely 1 to 10 impedance relationship. - The input impedance of a 306 is 20k ohms, a much better situation. - The output impedance of an SB3 isn't that hight either (dipping to 550 ohms) ... did you compare A/B level matched to a DAC with low output impedance ... something like Schiit Bifrost at 75 ohms? If not, then arnyk's gorilla in the room has got an even bigger brother. pablolie wrote: > i have a Benchmark DAC2HGC. for convenience and consolidation of > sources. honestly i can't tell the DAC2 from the built-in Touch DAC if i > connect the latter direct. it is a pretty good one. the reason for the > external DAC is merely flexibility and consolidation. i basically think > competently DACs sound pretty darn indistinguishable (except for > built-in $1 stuff), but when you build a system there are other > considerations at work for me. Well you have compared A/B (and let's assume level matched). The input impedance via XLR for a NAD M22 is 200k ohms! That's unusually high for a power amp, so your comparison speaks little to the general case. 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=104495 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New AKM 4490 DAC
cliveb wrote: > In what way is an 800 Ohm output impedence "weak"? > Line level outputs on sources typically have an impedence of about 1k > Ohm, so the Touch's 800 sounds entirely normal to me. Well the Transporter is much more like it (100 or ohms via RCA). My DAC1 is 60 ohms via XLR. When I connected my Touch directly to my SCM50s I found it a bit "stunted" at the frequency extremes, compared to the DAC1, though otherwise really rather good. I attributed this to the output impedance since the Touch is generally blameless otherwise, including frequency response of course. FWIW I found out about the output impedance being 800 ohms quite some time later. 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=104495 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New AKM 4490 DAC
The analogue output of the Touch measures well, I like the harmonic distortion profile (reducing distortion into higher orders, regarded as "musical"). The main weakness is a weak output impedence of 800 ohms meaning it should be used with an active preamp or integrated (not direct to power amps or actives). Check out Stereophile for JA's measurements. 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=104495 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Ok guys, the dithered volume control change is now immediate! (There's a small pause whilst stream resumes, since this uses SoX server-side. This is minimal and unavoidable.) See "V0.3" folder in Dropbox link from post 1 for this update. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Pippin, Julf, Thanks for the information on Playback.lua. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Pippin, Sorry for the twenty questions. Where can I find Playback.lua? I can see it's referred to in ./Slim/Utils/OS/SqueezeOS.pm but I can find neither Playback.lua nor /etc/squeezeplay/userpath/settings/ in slimserver repo from github - nor even on my file system where LMS is installed. Thanks, 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Pippin, So the table is in the Touch (for example) firmware? And the table translates incoming dB values to the nearest value that matches it in the table? Thanks, Darren PS: I ask out of curiosity only, since I listen over wide volume range and I have 24 bit music ... 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
arnyk wrote: > I'll add something here. There is something called self-dither. Most > commercial recordings have so much built-in random noise that they > effectively dither the downstream reproduction chain and cover up any > stages that should be dithered but aren't. This would probably become > apparent if DBTs were used to evaluate the issues raised in this thread. Right. Plus the studio probably does all sorts of processing in floating point at a high bit rate - when they reduce effective bit depth for the 16/44 file they will have no choice but to add dither at 16 bits to avoid distortion. However a correctly implemented volume control will handle any type of recording, at any bit depth, at any volume level, without adding any distortion. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Dither is still the correct way to do volume control ...! Because I want to play anything, over a usable volume range, without worrying about it. But I have to add something else here. Though I accept you might live within the limitations of the SB and Transporter volume controls, I'm not sure this holds for the Touch ...! I'm given to understand it's SqueezePlay that runs on the Touch, is this true? From what I've seen of the Squeezeplay code, it uses a two part scale where 0=-74db, 25=-38dB and 100=0db and volume steps divided equally in dB in each scale. You can see the first part ramps rapidly. This actually fits with my user experience with the Touch. From this code, I have no confidence that the Touch is bit perfect at any volume level or any bit depth. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Clive, it's -30dB (volume 40) where it becomes bit imperfect with 16 bit data. And I regularly listen at less than this level. Also I have many 24 bit recordings so for those it's always bit imperfect. But digressions aside: the correct way to do digital volume control is with dither! This isn't a contentious statement, except perhaps in Logitech Audiophile forum! 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Wombat, without looking into it further, the result seems to be in the right ball park. The 24th bit probably equates to -144db or so from peak signal. Bear in mind, though, with digital volume control the signal itself moves down in level so then relatively this distortion could be -100db from peak level. But the technically correct way to reduce volume is with dither - whether the effects are audible or not. If it's free then why not. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Julf wrote: > Indeed, if you can have it for free. But seems that in your case it is > not entirely free - you pay for it in some inconvenience and > limitations. Hi Julf, True. I attack everything in terms of technical improvement and try not to philosophise about the audibility of each part - I just hope the cumulative effect will shake out. Put another way, avoid "analysis paralysis". This approach has paid dividends in the last couple of years. It would be nice if the convert.conf got re-tokenized on every volume change (this isn't impossible to do but I wouldn't be surprised if it would involve many more changes, as I said I'm busy). 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Pippin, I've seen such custom tables but are you SURE that SqueezePlay uses such a table? Because the code has a single parameter for the total volume range (74dB) that can be set to any value. Also parameters for the ramping, and the comment says the volume steps are equally divided by dB. I never said linear, it is equally divided by dB, which is itself a logarithmic scale. The point is, I I fer there is no mapping to a custom map like for SB/Transporter. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Julf wrote: > Adjusting volume (scaling the data) is never bit perfect (except at full > volume, when there is no scaling/adjustment) by definition. Ooh, you know what I meant Julf! 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
New Dropbox link in post 1. Also folder structure includes versions. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Wombat wrote: > A simple volume change only creates an absolutely small rounding error. > Agreed. Wombat wrote: > Did you check if a volume change of a 16bit file and playing the 24bit > result without dither has more degration as the noise from dither. I > doubt this but to be honest didn't try hard :) Dither adds noise around the LSB (least significant bit) in this case 24th bit. But truncation errors adds distortion (very non-harmonic) around the same level. In relative terms, absolutely dither is the correct way to implement digital volume control. The question, as you say, is whether you can hear it or not, but if you can have something technically better for free ... why not? I love the LMS platform! 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
True, SoX by default doesn't dither if there is no truncation error in the processing it's doing. However, unless you attenuate by bit shifting (which is quite coarse-grained) you will tend to get truncation errors. Also, with 24 bit music there will be truncation errors no matter what. Dither allows any volume level and any source material to be distortion free, guaranteed. You just get a bit of noise at the LSB, and that really IS inaudible. 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Adam, adamdea wrote: > Does the native LMS volume control not dither? > No. adamdea wrote: > Could you produce a version for 7.9. Have a look in Dropbox, there are now folders for 7.7.6 and 7.9. Had to rename the capability to A (done in both) because because G is used something else in 7.9! The git repo doesn't have a label for 7.9.x, so I just merged onto head of public/7.9, which is the latest and greatest. I don't have 7.9 installed so just give it a try! 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
What you get - Volume control via phone/tablet/web for FLAC and MP3 - It should be possible to set this up for Spotify too - TBD. - You must avoid volume control via IR remote or client controls - Volume change is not immediate but takes place on: - a new track being played - next/previous track selected - time skip within the track - Volume control via Sox dithered at 24 bits, no player attenuation. - Each volume step is 0.5dB. - Volume 0 is -50dB (not off). Notes: - The server volume level will try to return to 100 every time you use the IR remote's volume buttons, or on system start. For this reason - VolumeLock plugin (first step below) is important. And you must use phone/tablet/web for volume control. - You won't be able to time skip with MP3. - The files are patched based on 7.7.6. If you need a patch for a different version, PM me and I will provide them. Steps (assuming Linux) Install the VolumeLock plugin and set the maximum volume level to a safe level Install VolumeLock via Settings > Plugins Set volume to the desired maximum (don't choose anything above 90). Set max volume level via Settings > Player > VolumeLock player settings > 'Set current volume as maximum' > Apply Set player volume level fixed to 100% Settings > Player > Audio > Volume Control > 'Output level is fixed at 100%' > Apply For MP3 support you should install the package 'libsox-fmt-mp3'. Patch convert.conf(s) - see below. Patch perl files see below. Restart LMS. Verify. Settings > Advanced > File Types Check that FLAC-FLAC says 'flac/sox', others in the group disabled Check that MP3-FLAC says 'sox/sox', others in the group disabled Apply. Where can I get the files? https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4oshksnzgrys7af/AABfwj-LYo4qY0VWcyvLNWe6a?dl=0. convert.conf should replace that found in /etc/squeezeboxserver (copy original first) The *.pm files found under the structure in Slim, should replace those found in the equivalent locations in /usr/share/perl5/Slim (copy originals first) 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
How does it work? Fixing client volume to 100 disables the attenuation on the client, however, the server-side volume can still be adjusted (it simply will not be pushed to client). But any time you reset the volume from the client end, the client pushes its volume (100) to the server. Same goes for system boot up. This is why client volume controls must be avoided. Also this is why VolumeLock plugin must be used. The gain adjustment is achieved by adding to the Perl code for convert.conf a new capability, 'G', to control sox gain value. This is why volume changes on new track, prev/next track and skipping in the track this is when convert.conf is reapplied (tokenized) in the code. Anybody got a better idea? Perhaps this will give inspiration to a developer to do something a little less hacky! In my defense, I'm not a developer (though I know Perl). 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=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is anybody sick of the recent spate of threads?
darrenyeats wrote: > > I have to check whether the [flac] part is really necessary, I added it > in whilst fiddling, once I fixed the sox part I didn't try taking out > the flac again! I'll report back if no-one else does. Cut down version indeed works: Code: flc flc * * [sox] -q -t flac - -t flac -C 0 $RESAMPLE$ - gain -33 dither 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=103842 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is anybody sick of the recent spate of threads?
Julf wrote: > And as I keep saying, having the headroom (given the word length of > modern DSP architectures) is not hard. Julf, I agree totally! Should never happen. See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?98661-Some-observations-about-the-Benchmark-DAC1/page2= see post 13 and 18 onwards where Archimago confirms the same issue for his TEAC UD-501. As Mynb astutely points out, why is Benchmark making a song and dance about it for the DAC2? Perhaps the problem is much more common than it should be? 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=103842 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
