Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Another trollicious question
JohnSwenson;619078 Wrote: > Most wires have a "grain structure" where there are discontinuities in > the crystal matrix. The impurities in the metal tend to congregate at > the grain boundaries. These impurities cause a very weak semiconductor > effect which does "VERY SLIGHTLY" effect the signal traveling through > the cable. These impurity atoms do migrate through the metal very > slowly, due to both basic thermal action and under the influence of > electrical currents, thuse slowly changing the concentrations of > impurity atoms at the grain boundaries over time. > > These processes work very slowly at room temperatures so if these > effects are audible it would more likely be in the timeframe of years > not hours. > > Whether this is audible is whole different can of worms. > Of course it isn't audible. Such effects, assuming they exist at all (and I would expect they are so completely swamped by changes in temperature, air currents, humidity, not to mention furniture, curtain position, pets, bends in the cable, ear wax, breakfast, and the phase of the moon as to make their existence in a real-world cable impossible to ever establish) are far below the threshold of human perception. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86359 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] squeezebox setup for audiophiles
magiccarpetride;619097 Wrote: > EVERYTHING pretty much vanishes under the double blind ABX test > circumstances. That's the fact that invalidates such a clever test. That's just... not true at all. First of all, I personally have taken a fair number of ABX tests. Some I "passed", some I "failed". One thing I learned very quickly is that it's pretty easy to THINK you hear a difference, and then fail to be able to identify it blind. But after a while, you start to get a handle on when you really hear it and when your mind is playing tricks on you. You can download free software that's very easy to use and will let you ABX two files. I spent some time doing that comparing different lossy compression algorithms and bitdepths. From that experience alone, I can say it's absolutely not the case that "EVERYTHING" vanishes. Quite the contrary, it's very easy to hear differences at low-ish bit rates. Second, there's an entire body of hearing and psychoacoustic scientific literature in which blind hearing tests are a basic tool. Did you think the last century or so of careful research on that topic was conducted using sighted tests? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86419 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no difference to sound q
magiccarpetride;617581 Wrote: > Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no > difference to sound quality. They certainly make a difference for me - when I disconnect them, I can't hear any music. But hook up a pair of coat hangers and everything is just fine http://consumerist.com/2008/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables.html -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86298 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
stop-spinning;603891 Wrote: > I find that interesting... why do some DACs give a damn and others not? > What are the ingredients in a DAC that makes it less fussy with its > connection? Is it something to do with buffering, or re-clocking? A $20 DVD player over a $2 cable will give you a digital stream that's easily good enough to recover the bits with perfect accuracy. I know that for a fact, because I've ripped hundreds of disks on a cheap DVD-ROM drive, and all 6 billion bits or so came through correctly on nearly all the unscratched ones. So unless your source or cable is malfunctioning, there's no issue with bit accuracy. Therefore the only potential difference is clock recovery. The bits arrive at certain times (variations in those times are called jitter), and if you're interested in converting them into music played in real time (rather than saving them to a hard disk), you have to base your clock on them. But if the bit arrival times are jittery, that will introduce distortion. So one way in which DACs differ is how they deal with that issue. The Benchmark deals with it in a way that evidently renders it completely immune to input jitter. You can find details on the algorithm they use on the web if you're interested. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84903 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
garym;603795 Wrote: > You sorta need to read the forum for a while, or at least look at some > of the other posts of the posters who are giving you advice (I'm > speaking generally, not just this thread). This will help with a > baseline on their opinions. I don't mean anything good, bad, or > otherwise here, but this forum has folks that find major differences > with minor things, find no differences with major things, and > everything in between. Some members have the ability to perform fairly > sophisticated tests and o, some are believers in double-blind testing, > some think this is worthless, etc. I, for example, would be willing to be bet a large sum of money that not one of the posters in this thread could hear the difference blind between a touch, duet, or SB3 classic going into my DAC (a Benchmark DAC1). You'll be just as hi-fi with a duet as with a touch or a transporter if you run into a decent DAC. It's a question of what you like and what you feel comfortable with, not sound quality. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84903 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Crackling only through server?
opaqueice;582092 Wrote: > If you play back those same files using your computer's sound card or > some other method besides the Transporter, do they crackle? It sounds like the answer is no, but it's worth checking. > You could also experiment with transcoding the files to another format > and checking whether that has any effect. I'd try this as well. You can download a variety of free music programs that will transcode a file from FLAC to (say) MP3 or WAV. I'd try both. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82558 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best way to convert HDCD to 24-bit FLAC?
earwaxer9;587808 Wrote: > I would re-rip the disks - its not that time consuming - then you know > you got the bits. Henry66;587839 Wrote: > Not that time consuming? I have 400+ CDs. It's not my idea of a good > time. > > I ran the batch conversion over night. It seemed to do fine but I can't > find any log or other info telling me if it found any HDCDs to decode. If you're paranoid you could re-rip one and compare. When I ripped my CD collection I used EAC, which verifies (at least for disks in its database) that you got an absolutely perfect copy. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82970 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Pimp my audiophile Device Hain. Please advice
To avoid going away from slim/logitech, just get a good dac. That renders the digital source irrelevant - and if you want, you can replace the SB3 with a touch (convenient, affordable, and with very low jitter). There are several excellent dacs with analogue volume controls. These can serve as preamps if all you have are digital sources. I use a Benchmark DAC1 for that: http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/dac/dac1 They also make more fully-featured preamps with analog inputs, like this one http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/dac/dac1-pre There are many other options. I don't know the BMC dac. As for speakers, what my advice is to make a mix CD with music you know very well. Then go around to high-end audio stores and audition speakers. They vary far more than any other component in the audio chain, with the exception of the room but you can still get a decent idea what you like even when the listening rooms differ. Listen to a wide variety of designs: traditional sealed-box 2- or 3-way speakers, speakers with a separate tweeter, planar electrostatics, dipoles, etc. Personally I have a pair of Linkwitz Orions (dipoles) that I love. However they require a significant amount of space both behind them and to the sides, as well as 8 channels of amplification: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Wood%20Artistry%20LL-home.htm -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82998 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Pimp my audiophile Device Hain. Please advice
Adiomat;586500 Wrote: > hi, i got a pair of linn ninkas. i thought they would have potential to > follow me with the trichord 300NC. > Now, for my understanding, the chain could be like: > > SB3-coax-DAC-analog out-creek OBH-22-trichord 300-linn ninka > > then, imho the sb3 would be the weakest part. at this point would it > make sense to substitute the sb3 with a sb-touch or 2000 € extra > a transporter. is it clever to put 2000€ into a new transporter > rather than in the amp ?? > like to hear your opinion > fanx in advance > malo I wouldn't use both a DAC and the Creek. I'd either go SB3-->Creek-->amps-->speakers, or SB3-->DAC-->amps-->speakers, where the DAC should have an analog volume control. Either way the SB3 could be replaced with a touch or a transporter, but in the second chain that isn't likely to make an audible difference, because a decent DAC isn't sensitive to small variations in the digital stream coming into it. As for amps versus transporter, the amps you're looking at are overkill, but they're a better investment than a transporter . The transporter is likely to be obsolete in 10 years; that's not going to happen with amps. My philosophy is, the fewer links in the audio chain the better. As for sound, here's a list in order from most to least important: music room treatments speakers amps digital source -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82998 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] High definition digital vs red book
magiccarpetride;586450 Wrote: > The fact still remains that all the naysayers who have so mercilessly > ganged up on me In post #8 of this thread, I asked you whether you'd consider doing a test to determine whether or not the "staggering differences" you were hearing had anything to do with the format. You ignored my question. Turns out Phil could hear the difference very easily too, but sure enough, when he did the test I suggested the difference turned out to have nothing to do with the format, and everything to do with the mastering. The rest of the thread was spent mercilessly trying to explain that to you. > > here are still dancing around the crucial question I've posed above: > how come these (allegedly) scientifically minded people are so > engrossed in their double standards? When I report something (me being > an outsider, a guy with no valid pedigree here), they all jump on me > and bark about my expectation bias and how invalid my findings are. On > the other hand, we see a guy who's been lauded here as being > oh-so-scientific do the same thing (basically report that he's listened > to the two tracks and couldn't hear any differences) Except he -could- hear the differences between those two tracks, and said so. So could everyone else that tried. Did you actually read the posts in this thread? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82870 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Pimp my audiophile Device Hain. Please advice
What speakers are you using currently? And how loud do you need the system to go? Those are very powerful (and expensive) amps - you might consider something cheaper with a bit less power, and put the difference into speakers. As for a DAC, if you decide to get one I agree it ought to have an analogue volume control so you can replace your preamp with it. However I wouldn't make that a priority. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82998 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] High definition digital vs red book
adamdea;585775 Wrote: > Hem Hem > It still doesn't seem to be clear whether the argument is over > a. whether variance in mastering quality is greater than improvement > obtainable from increasing resolution beyond 16/44, so that we might be > better off concentrating on the former > That is clearly true, as the example in this thread demonstrates. > > b. whether there is any appreciable improvement in quality from 16/44 > upwards. Almost certainly not. The best evidence there is probably the Meyer/Moran study. > [not to mention the meta-issue c. whether any expression of performance > not demonstrable in ABX is valid]. Depends on what you mean. Pleasure is pretty hard to quantify. If you enjoy listening to 24/94 more than 16/44, do so by all means. It could be because you're fooling yourself (which is fine, this is harmless), or it could be because your hi-res recordings are mastered better or are musically more to your taste. In any case, it's certainly "valid". Where it becomes an issue is in marketing and engineering. Do you feel OK selling people something they couldn't distinguish from redbook blind, and charging more for it? It's not really that bad - we're talking about a difference that's almost audible, and hi-res recordings aren't that much more expensive, and some people feel better knowing they've got the best possible. So it's definitely not in the category of "audiophile" cables or other such total snake oil. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82870 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] High definition digital vs red book
magiccarpetride;585665 Wrote: > Baloney. Medium IS the message. Don't matter how brilliant your master > may be, if you're delivering it on a 56 Kbps mp3 medium, it's gonna > suck ass! I couldn't disagree more strongly. I've listened to music on internet radio at 32 Kbps and got caught up in it. As a kid I listened to an old shortwave radio sometimes, and the snippets of music coming across the static from so far away had a magic to them. And I don't mind vinyl sometimes even with all that surface noise and limited dynamic range. If I got to the point where the medium mattered that much to me, I'd start over. And here we're talking about a difference so subtle that probably no one can hear it under normal listening conditions. We should be discussing how to make better music, or how to set up speakers in a room, or wether to use stereo versus mono versus some kind of surround sound, how to get pop recordings to stop being so compressed (dynamically, not digitally). Those things actually make a difference. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82870 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] High definition digital vs red book
magiccarpetride;585432 Wrote: > Regardless of the causes and reasons governing those differences, when > you get your hands on a hi-rez master, you will hear that familiar tune > in a different light, offering you a different quality, a different > experience, maybe even an epiphany. You may or may not prefer it to the > standard version, but the differences are undeniable (as you and Phil > had just corroborated). That's not what Phil and Robin corroborated - you don't seem to have understood their posts. The most relevant one is this: Phil Leigh;58541 Wrote: > > If you downsample the 24/96 file to 16/44.1, it still sounds better > that then the Verve master and *indistinguishable from the 24/96 > version.* In other words, at least as far as Phil is concerned there is no benefit to listening to a 24/96 version of the Chesky remaster. A redbook (16/44.1) version sounds just as good. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82870 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] High definition digital vs red book
Phil Leigh;585096 Wrote: > > If you take a REAL 24/96 recording (Linn for example), downsample it to > redbook, upsample it back to 24/96 and compare with the original it does > not sound the same... Is the difference audible under normal listening conditions, in your opinion? Do you think you would be able to succeed at the challenge in my last post? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82870 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] High definition digital vs red book
magiccarpetride;585012 Wrote: > I've spent the weekend listening to various high definition digital > sources (24-bit/96 kHz, delivered via my Logitech Squeezebox Touch > player). After a while, I've switched back to listening to some of my > low definition sources (the CDs I've ripped to AIFF; basically, > 16-bit/44.1 kHz). > > What shocked me at that moment is how staggeringly different CDs sound! > The thing that hit me immediately is in-your-face graininess. The moment > I've switched from the high definition material back to the low > definition CDs, I've noticed a very pronounced harshness and > scratchiness of the overall sound. Next, I've noticed the lack of > resolution (everything became quite two dimensional in the sound > stage), as well as lack of finer details (I've lost the ability to > follow the prolonged dying out of the cymbals sounding in the > background, something that I got quite used to while listening to the > DVD-Audio masters). > > The question on my mind now is: am I merely detecting certain > differences and interpreting them as better/worse based on my > conditioning, or is it really the case that high definition digital > music always sounds this superior? I must confess that now I hugely > prefer the high definition music, but am at the same time extremely > concerned because many/most of the music I really love is not available > in the high definition format. I propose an experiment. Can you provide a sample from one of the hi-res tracks that you feel exhibits this oh-so-obvious difference? Ideally it would be only 10 seconds long or so - I think you could post/email/upload something that short without violating copyright, and that also keeps the file size reasonable. The sample should not contain any very quiet sections. Then, some kind person can volunteer to take that sample, downgrade it to 16/44.1 or 16/48 (with proper dithering), and then upsample it to 24/whatever again. The resulting uncompressed file should be the same size as the original. Now let's say you're provided with 10 versions of this sample, some of which are original and some of which are the down/upsampled version, and your job is to determine which are which. If the difference is obvious, you should be able to get all of them correct easily just by listening. The one flaw in this test is that a computer savvy person can determine which is which from looking at the files themselves, but I trust that you're honestly trying to decide whether this makes a difference and won't do that. It's also potentially possible to distinguish on a very quiet passage from the noise floor, so the sample ideally wouldn't have any such very silent sections. What do you say? Is it worth trying? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82870 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
Phil Leigh;584295 Wrote: > I think we are talking jitter. The quality of the s/pdif waveform from > the Touch is superior to that of the Duet so it is easier for the DAC > to recover the clock accurately... Yes, although a DAC that cannot attenuate the jitter from the Duet sufficiently to render it inaudible is very poorly designed. That said, there are plenty of poorly designed DACs out there, so it's possible. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
magiccarpetride;583944 Wrote: > Again, you misunderstood me. By 'noise' I didn't mean audible noise, I > meant noise as in corrupting the pristine source signal information. Now I'm really confused. When you said "Exact same thing is happening to the sound when you upgrade a component that lowers the noise floor. All audio components inevitably introduce noise into the sound, so the trick is finding and matching the components that minimize this noise. The noise masks the original signal, so you end up losing a lot of the musical detail" you weren't talking about audible noise?? If this noise is inaudible, how can it possibly make a difference in audio reproduction? > Like if you have a stream of bits (zeros and ones), arranged in a > certain order, and then by the process of transmitting them from one > device to another device, you mess the order up. Except we can be absolutely certain that doesn't happen. All you have to do is record the digital stream as a computer file - ones and zeros - and compare it to the original file. I've done that, as have many others, and they are absolutely identical, down to every single bit. If you're getting bit errors in a digital transport, it's broken. The level of jitter in a decent digital source connected by a reasonable cable ($5 at Radioshack, for example) is far below the level that could cause bit errors. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
magiccarpetride;583912 Wrote: > Sorry, I wasn't clear in my explanation. It is not that the signal > increases; it stays the same. What's happening is that the noise > decreases, resulting in the overall impression that the signal is now > clearer, as if it had increased and became louder (even though it > hadn't). > > This is similar to how experts are restoring old paintings, Rembrandt > for example. They only remove the dirt and debris that accumulates on > the surface of the canvas. They don't add anything to the painting > itself. However, by the virtue of removing the muck, the painting looks > clearer and brighter. > > Exact same thing is happening to the sound when you upgrade a component > that lowers the noise floor. All audio components inevitably introduce > noise into the sound, so the trick is finding and matching the > components that minimize this noise. The noise masks the original > signal, so you end up losing a lot of the musical detail. How exactly is changing digital sources going to affect the noise floor? The digital source isn't in the analog chain. Any noise in the digital signal itself can only manifest as jitter, not as analog noise. The only way I can see a different digital source could change the noise floor is if the noise is being transmitted by the digital cable, or possibly through power cords etc. If so electrically isolating the digital source from the analog components should fix the problem. If you use an optical connection like Toslink there's no electrical connection at all. No need to buy an expensive new source. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
magiccarpetride;583762 Wrote: > > Two things I've noticed that a high quality digital transport brings: > > 1. Lowered noise (increases the signal. reduces the noise, and that > results in a very, very audible overall improvement) Which is it - increased signal or reduced noise? They're rather different. If the signal level increased when you switched digital sources, something is wrong. If the noise changed, perhaps it's being transmitted by the cable. If so, switching to Toslink may help. A better digital transport could in principle improve the sound by reducing jitter, and therefore jitter induced distortion - if the DAC it's feeding isn't capable of proper jitter attenuation. That's about it. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What is this noise (?) around 22KHz??
It's suspiciously close to the Nyquist frequency for redbook (which is 44,100/2=22,050Hz). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82740 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
michael123;582962 Wrote: > BS > high-res is very close to master if not the master itself. > 44.1/16 is downsampled, filtered and tortured version of it > > Did you ever compare CD vs 24bit? > Audacity, else? > No. Again, CD versus 24 bit is not a meaningful test of whether 24 bit does any good, because there is no reason to think that the CD version is simply a lower res version of the 24 bit version. (In fact there are reasons to think the opposite.) The only way to test this is to do the truncation yourself, using e.g. sox. And yes, I have done this (once), and yes, I -could- hear the difference - but only in the noise floor on silent passages. michael123;583006 Wrote: > Take -Jasmine- by Keith Jarrett, they released it simultaneously in RB > and in 24bit. I just listened today to both, 24bit version is more > 'delicate' with more precise bass, and overall more enjoyable and > relaxed. See above. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;582960 Wrote: > I've done it multiple times, even when sitting in an adjoining room. > > Instead of just being a knee-jerk skeptic, why don't you listen and > then decide? You made a dithered 16 bit version from the 24 bit, and could tell them apart blind? Again, telling the CD version from the 24 bit version is potentially much easier, since they are probably mastered differently. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
magiccarpetride;582826 Wrote: > If that's the case, I'm sorry to inform you that you've wasted ten > grand. Well, it sounds as good to me than any other I've heard, bar none, and better than nearly all. That's why I picked it after several years of (intermittently) auditioning high-end systems with a test disk of tracks I knew very well. > A progressively better audio system is indeed better because it > progressively reveals more musical information. If you hear all the > same things on your $10K system as you hear on your $1K system, you've > just foolishly pissed away $9K! Actually the radio retails for $179. Do I hear more "information" on the main system? I'm trying, but I can't think of any sense in which that's true. It's simply that music has more impact, more clarity, a greater sense of space - it simply sounds much more like it does live. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;582842 Wrote: > > Throwing it into diffmaker gives really only pure dithernoise at way > over -100dB in the critical audioband as it should be. Good luck on > abxing! There's one way - listen to that dither noise! Just pick a completely silent section and press your ear to the tweeter with the system set at high volume. Be careful :). Apart from that, as I said I'm willing to bet that no one can tell them (i.e. the 24 bit version and its 16 bit dithered counterpart) apart blind. > Edit: If EMI had really tried to make them equal down to the dithernoise > they could have done if even we wackos can with freeware. I imagine the > music industry is planning their next step in selling us the old music > in higher bitrate very clever. They prepare that with fine tactical > steps. If everyone knows even The Beatles sound better in 24bit and > more audiophiles can hear it, selling the other stuff gets more easy. Yep. 1) Master the hi-res version to sound better 2) everyone will (incorrectly) assume it's the extra bits 3) profit. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
ncarver;582678 Wrote: > > Sorry, I did not mean those quotes to apply directly to you, and I > should have made it clear that I meant them as generic statements that > I feel reflect the gist of statements I read all the time on this list. > I truly apologize for any confusion. However, I did think that they > accurately represented your point of view given these definite direct > quotes from you in this thread: > Apology accepted. It's true there have been numerous tests over the years, but the most convincing evidence for cables being inaudible doesn't come from null results. It comes from physics (which allows one to calculate the magnitude of the effect) and hearing thresholds (which tell you it's well below them for any reasonable cable, and that the most easily audible effect is simply volume attenuation). As for "scientific proof", that's an oxymoron. > All I take away from this discussion then is that you believe you are > right and do not need to provide any concrete evidence for your > position because you believe it should be obvious to everyone that it > is correct. I did actually hope for more given that you are supposedly > a scientist, but I realize this is just a hobby to you as it is to me, > so I frankly would have been surprised to see you present some actual > evidence. There are in fact plenty of such listening trials described on the web. You can google, or I can link to some if you insist. I've never seen one that obtained a positive result in a controlled trial (for cables that is), with one exception where the attenuation was high enough to be audible (and that difference went away when the volumes were matched). But what's more convincing is to simply estimate the size of the difference a cable can make, and you see immediately that it is far too small to worry about. I can show how to do that if you like, or perhaps there's a link. Meanwhile, Randi's $1,000,000 awaits... Henry66;582292 Wrote: > http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/97-swift-october-12-2007.html -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Robin Bowes;582718 Wrote: > On 14/10/10 02:40, Wombat wrote: > > I sadly don´t have these files to compare. I read several people > playing > > with these. It looks like EMI didn´t do the 24/192 to 16/44.1 and > > 24/44.1 with treating it as equal as possible. The dithernoise is > some > > strongly noise shaped dither and the 24bit files are 0.2dB louder for > > whatever reason. Good dithering alone may excuse some 0.02db but not > > 0.2db. > > I just used sox to convert "Here Comes The Sun" from 24-bit to 16-bit > and re-calculated replaygain (using metaflac). > > Convert command: > sox 24-bit.flac --bits 16 16-bit.flac > > Results: > > Original 16-bit file (ripped from CD): > comment[10]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-3.93 dB > comment[11]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=0.95849609 > > 24-bit file from USB stick: > comment[13]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-4.14 dB > comment[14]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=0.98062515 > > 16-bit file converted from 24-bit file: > comment[13]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-5.34 dB > comment[14]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=0.98117065 > > So, either my convert command is wrong, or it's reasonable to expect a > converted 16-bit file to have a different peak level than the 24-bit > source. > > R. > -- > "Feed that ego and you starve the soul" - Colonel J.D. Wilkes > http://www.theshackshakers.com/ According to the man page you can see what options sox is using with -V, turn off dithering entirely with -D, as well as manually choose various dithering options (e.g. dither -s). You can also adjust the gain manually, so you could force the two files to have the same peak level. http://sox.sourceforge.net/sox.html -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best Bi-amplified desktop monitors for 1, 000 bucks?
jhonsber...@msn.com;582666 Wrote: > How bout multiple external hard drives?It could affect them too if the > speakers aren't magnetically shielded? Yes, at least in principle it could. Get shielded speakers. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82576 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
There was no cheese in that analogy. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
It may well be that the 24bit version was mastered differently than the 16bit version. The true test would be to take the 24 bit version, cut it down to 16 bit (with proper dithering etc.), and then run a blind comparison between that and the unmodified 24 bit version. I'm willing to bet money that no one will be able to tell the difference (except possibly by cranking the volume on a silent part and listening to the noise). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Skeptical about the ABX tests
bluegaspode;582379 Wrote: > Maybe we should just change our attitude. > A song that cannot get us into musical nirvana on any equipment is just > not good enough. > > I remember times when I walked down the streets with lousy earphones > and started forgetting the world around me. > > Is really this last bit of equipment the dominating factor ? ^that^ DBTs are useful for one thing and one thing only - determining whether or not there is a true audible difference between two components. If you're an engineer designing a piece of gear, that's crucially important. If you're a consumer auditioning it, it may or may not be (depending on your personal priorities). If you're someone sitting in your living room, just enjoy the music and stop obsessing. And by the way if DAC A sounds better to you than DAC B in a sighted comparison, a perfectly reasonable attitude is to choose DAC A regardless of whether you could distinguish them in a blind test. Who cares -why- you enjoy it more, what matters is that you do, since this is all purely for pleasure anyway. Of course some people (me among them) have a different (and also perfectly reasonable) attitude. We want to know what really makes a sonic difference and focus on those links in the chain. No problem there, to each his or her own. The only thing that irks me is to see people making pronouncements to others about how one has to spend $$$ on a DAC or amp or cable to get a "resolving", audiophile grade system, when that's (in my opinion) probably nonsense. It sounds like it's more about wealth and showing off than it is about music. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82600 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
magiccarpetride;582333 Wrote: > It is my strongly biased opinion that scientists and engineers are the > kind of people who lack certain finesse. Sue me. Well I obviously don't agree :D. Anyway they are the ones designing audio gear and developing new technologies for it, so their collective opinion is pretty important. If you think there's something missing from the approach, they're the ones you'll have to convince to change it. That's why I think it's a bad idea when audiophiles obsess over what I believe are irrelevant details, like differences between DACs, when there are huge glaring problems like room acoustics, speaker distortion, and dynamic compression of recordings to deal with. The boy who cried wolf. magiccarpetride;582367 Wrote: > If you fall in love, is there anything measurable about it? Of course > there is (like, your heart rate, the degree of perspiration, etc.) But > are these measures relevant when trying to understand how much in love > you are? That ought to be able to happen regardless of what kind of system you're listening to. If you can only enjoy music on some super-audiophile grade vinyl rig, you've got a big problem. In the right moment, an old staticy radio can sound magical... -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
Gazjam;582290 Wrote: > [b]I said what I said as your observations about sound quality betwen > Dacs seem to make no sense whatsoever, sorry but thats how it reads. You'll find many others that share my view. In fact my hunch is that scientists and engineers that work in fields related to audio would be pretty much unanimous in agreeing with me on this (with the obvious exception of some of those that sell highly priced audio components). So it's interesting that you're not even capable of accepting that I'm being serious -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
opaqueice;582211 Wrote: > > Do you recall if you level matched when you did your testing? If not > that could easily account for the differences - if the resistance of > the cable was enough to change the volume by a dB or so, it's well > known that this will strongly influence the results (for psychological > reasons). By the way, you didn't answer this question. Would you mind doing so? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
ncarver;582230 Wrote: > And to my knowledge no one has ever conducted a blind test of cables > where negative results meant anything beyond that test. I would be > very interested for you to provide citations for a set of serious tests > that have been done with cables so that I could evaluate their validity. > To find a set of serious tests, you'd first have to find a serious researcher that believes they're worth doing. That's going to be quite difficult. > So I am not going to just take your word for it that there have been > "numerous tests" that "scientifically prove" what you claim. Conventionally, putting " " marks around something indicates you're quoting a passage. Can you please point out precisely where I said there had been "numerous tests" that "scientifically prove" something? And if you can't, please don't fabricate quotes that I didn't say. OK? > If there are so many that support your position on this that you feel > this is a scientifically proven fact then you ought to be able to > provide me with a list of half a dozen or so of such tests, where > detailed descriptions of the protocols are available, and I would of > course expect that some would have been published in peer reviewed > journals. I think it might be difficult to find a peer-reviewed journal that would accept such a paper (see above for the reason). > > Obviously I like my yellow jacketed cable today because it is a sunny > day. :) Bingo - that's exactly the straw man. Thanks for the example. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
Gazjam;582245 Wrote: > Sorry, but after reading that and some other posts elsewhere I call > bullshit. > > Knock yourself out buddy, but as we all hear diffrently and our brains > work differently nobody can come on and speak for anyone else other > than themselves. You asked: "They sounded exactly the same to you I take it?" I replied: "...playing music while functioning properly, yes, they all sound identical." How do you get from that me speaking for anyone else? I'm answering your question, which was specifically how they sound to me. > I've noticed your one for sweeping generalisations, quoting "in your > experience" as a way of ratifying your corrections of other people. My "sweeping generalisations" were several specific examples of my own tests, including two that actually -did- sound different? > Hows this for one? > Theres something wrong with your ears or your just enjoying yourself > too much on Hifi forums. > The last time my hearing was tested it was above normal for my age (mid 30s). I've always been able to hear the noise CRT TV sets make (that's around 15kHz at a fairly low volume), which few other people seem to be able to, and I played music (mostly classical and jazz) regularly from age 4 until my mid-20s. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
ncarver;582208 Wrote: > Unfortunately this was 20 years ago, so a bit hard to recall exactly > what we were testing. But certainly much of our time was directed at > cables, and all three of us decided cables could sound different. We > did both blind testing (e.g., with another person changing cables) as > well as independent listening where multiple people would write down > their impressions of the differences (if any) two cables made in their > systems, for later comparison. Did a lot of reading of the > psychoacoustic literature, plus all three of us were trained > scientists, naturally skeptical and also very methodical. Well, to my knowledge no one has ever succeeded in hearing differences between cables in a controlled level-matched blind test. If you can do it, you might be able to win $1,000,000 from the James Randi foundation (I'm not kidding). The only exceptions are those very "high-end" cables that include network boxes (which are essentially RLC filters that add significant distortion), and possibly some extremely exotic designs that have extraordinarily high L or C (or R in a non-level matched test). Do you recall if you level matched when you did your testing? If not that could easily account for the differences - if the resistance of the cable was enough to change the volume by a dB or so, it's well known that this will strongly influence the results (for psychological reasons). > So exactly which one am I biased to pick? ... No, the bias argument is > highly exaggerated IMNSHO. I think that's a strawman. The claim isn't that some people are biased to hear certain things, and that explains why they do. That's far too simplistic and naive. All we really know (from generations of experiments in cognitive psychology) is that biases have a very, very strong effect on perception and cognition. But what that effect will be in any given situation, even in what direction it will go, no one can predict with any reliability at all. Psychology is still very far from that level. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best Bi-amplified desktop monitors for 1, 000 bucks?
Genelec have a very good reputation. I have a friend that's a professional musician - he does music for films, commercials, etc. as well as fronting a band - and he uses them for monitors in his studio. He plays various acoustic instruments primarily. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82576 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
Gazjam;582104 Wrote: > > Sounds like you have good experience of different Dacs. > *They sounded exactly the same to you I take it? * Actually not quite. The boutique DAC (which I still have by the way - anyone want to buy it? :D) distorted audibly on certain high volume passages when connected to a particular amp I used to have. Impedance mismatch, I assume (actually I'm fairly sure, I did some experiments). The SB3 DAC produces a level of display-brightness correlated noise that I found intolerable in my (unusual) active system. But playing music while functioning properly, yes, they all sound identical. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
Gazjam;582093 Wrote: > Is it possible that one may just bebetter? > And why can one Dac cost $200..and another (Weiss say, cost $4000)? Some watches cost $10,000, but they don't tell time any better than a $50 Casio. > I find it hard honestly (not that you need to covince me :)) that you > cant hear differences between Dacs. > Which Dacs have you compared? Many, over the years. A Benchmark DAC1, the DACs in the SB3 (with and without linear power supply), touch, and duet, a Lavry, a boutique DAC by a small company I've momentarily forgotten the name of, a Blue Circle DAC, the DACs in various optical disk players and receivers, and many more. > Which Dac do you use yourself, in your own system. > And why did you choose that one? A Benchmark DAC 1. I chose that because it serves as a preamp (it's got several digital inputs), has an analog volume control, headphone outs, and an extremely low noise floor (which is unusually important in my system). It's also cleverly engineered, which appeals to my nerdy side. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Crackling only through server?
If you play back those same files using your computer's sound card or some other method besides the Transporter, do they crackle? If you take the DAC out of the chain, does that change anything? You could also experiment with transcoding the files to another format and checking whether that has any effect. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82558 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
Gazjam;582033 Wrote: > I'm a bit confused here sorry! > could you define "decent reference dac"...? For example, the one in the touch. Or if you want one with a standard digital input and a lower noise floor, take the Benchmark DAC1. > Also, are you saying all "decent" Dacs should sound the same and if one > sounds different its because its adding unwelcome distortion? > Yes, I believe that's the case. I'm always subject to changing my opinion given evidence, however. > Why does, say, a Weiss Dac sound different from, say, the touch analogue > outs? > > thanks. :) Well, first I'd like to be certain that it really does. That is, I'd like to see someone pick it out in a blind, level matched test while playing music (rather than test tones or silence turned up loud enough to hear the noise floor). If that turns out to be possible (which I'm skeptical of), the next stage would be to figure out what's wrong with one of them :). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
Thanks very much for the references. (Note that in the first link, the differences that the self-identified audiophiles were better at hearing were between 64 and 128 kbps MP3s, which is really very easy.) I fully agree with you that hearing the difference between lossy and lossless audio is largely a matter a learning to identify compression artifacts, and that an average over lots of untrained people isn't a meaningful test of audibility thresholds for it. What that means to me is that if you want to test the audibility threshold of lossy MP3s for trained listeners, give trained listeners a DBT. You would first train them in a sighted test, tell them what to listen for, let them hear the difference (sighted) and play with different sections of the track at different compression levels - and then do a DBT to determine where the threshold actually lies. I've done exactly that myself, and it proved to me that blinding the test really is essential. It's -extremely- easy to fool yourself into thinking you can still hear the difference at some low level, only to discover that you cannot identify it blind. As for the second link, I read the study (CD redbook versus hi-res) Hartley is referring to when it was first published. That study didn't just take an average, it failed to find -anyone- that could distinguish (out of something like 600 subjects). And that I think addresses the other point - if there were really golden-eared audiophiles, they would do exceptionally well on such tests. One could easily identify them and collect more data just from them (using a DBT) until it was proven beyond any doubt that they could hear the difference. But that doesn't seem to happen. So you'll get no argument from me that DBTs can be used in a way that renders the results uninformative, or that some people sometimes draw unwarranted conclusions from them. But I think all that means is that proper blinding is only one of several ingredients to a valid test. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
magiccarpetride;581952 Wrote: > Really? I've yet to meet an audiophile who thinks that digital sounds > better than analog. Some deluded souls do claim that digital can sound > on par with analog, but no one ever claimed that it sounds better. Oh, to my ears digital certainly sounds better. Vinyl has those irritating pops and crackles. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
magiccarpetride;581951 Wrote: > I wasn't very clear in my previous explanation: it is not desirable to > use a DAC that will take the bit-perfect digital signal and just > faithfully convert it to analog signal. Why? Because the digital > source, when compared to the same analog source, sucks beyond belief. > The digital source is just a crude approximation, a crass caricature, > if you will, of the original analog signal that got captured by the > microphone and stored on the magnetic tape. Think of a digital audio > source as if being similar to an extremely pixelated photo. The DAC > needs to upconvert the harsh jagged edges into smooth curves. In order > to be able to do that, the DAC needs to be very creative, that is, > built with some ingenuity. I don't mean to be rude, but... that's pretty badly wrong. If you don't believe me, see the posts by Sean Adams here (the designer of the squeezebox products), or read any book on signal analysis, Fourier transforms, or information theory. Here's the very simplest way I can think of to explain why you're incorrect. Take your jagged-edged signal produced by a DAC and subtract it from the original analog signal. The result of that subtraction is the distortion induced by the A-->D-->A chain. The relevant question is whether or not that distortion is audible when added to the original signal, or whether or not it's as loud as the noise component of the original analog signal. If the answer to both questions is no, then the digital signal will not sound audibly different from the original. A more sophisticated way to look at it is via Shannon, Hartley, and Nyquist, who proved a series of mathematical theorems that tell you precisely what you need to do to encode and reproduce a real-world (finite bandwidth, finite signal/noise) analog signal. The 16 bit 44.1 kHz standard was designed to meet those requirements up to and beyond the level of audible differences, and does so under realistic conditions. If you don't believe me, try distinguishing the sound of a vinyl record from a good quality digital recording (or A-->D-->A processed version) of that same record. Here are two attempts to do that, both failures: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=21&t=7953 There are more such tests out there. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
ncarver;581944 Wrote: > There were many occasions when we established to our satisfaction that > differences were audible with particular components. Would you mind giving some specific examples? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
ncarver;581944 Wrote: > And this is supposed to be meaningful to anyone else why exactly? Only in that it illustrates that blind tests don't need to be done on short samples. > You have a clear bias against hearing differences Do I? When I first got into audio, I believed most things I heard. Why not, after all? As I got more serious about it I started to approach things more systematically. I'm a professional physicist, and so I'm trained to do that. Over the years I've tested many different components, from DACs to tube amps to tubed preamps to speakers to recordings to room placement and room treatments. In some cases I heard very clear differences (speakers, room placement, a few of the amps and DACs that were so badly designed I'd consider them defective), and in others I couldn't hear any difference. In the end I concluded that audibility more or less conforms to what common sense and science says it ought to - that when the differences between components measure well below established audibility thresholds (as they do for DACs and amps and cables), the differences usually are inaudible, and when they don't (speakers, room placement, room treatments), they don't. > Since you obviously made no effort to establish the resolution of your > test setup, your negative result has virtually no value. What would it mean to "establish the resolution of your test setup", and how would I go about doing it? > So sorry, but my anecdotal evidence trumps yours IMNSHO. :) And you're certainly entitled to your opinion. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
magiccarpetride;581926 Wrote: > > The only question is what kind of distortion are we talking about. Well, no, there's at least one other rather crucial question - the level of distortion and whether it's low enough to be inaudible. For mature digital components like DACs, I believe that standard designs are capable of reducing distortion levels to far below the threshold of audibility. > Thus there is a consensus that digital sound reproduction is inferior > to analog sound reproduction. There is certainly a consensus among the people that agree :D. > Beresford Caiman DAC is designed in such a way to sound like a vinyl > record. Gone are all the harsh artifacts that other, much more > 'correct' and superior DACs invariably introduce into the audio chain. > Anyone who is fortunate enough to hear Caiman DAC in action is > guaranteed to get blown away by the analog-like warmth, softness and > sweetness of the sound it produces. In comparative blindfold testing, > it is always clear that other DACs tend to sound cold, clinical, > lifeless, when compared to Caiman. > > If I place you in a DBT session with Caiman and some other flagship > DACs and you can't hear the drastic difference between the two, then > I'd be forced to conclude that you have no pulse whatsoever. It's clearly possible to design a DAC so that it induces enough distortion to make an audible difference. Personally, I'd immediately chuck any such DAC design out the window and start over, because in my view, the goal is to minimize the distortion the components in my audio chain add to the signal. > The reason I'm so sure is that I've tried comparative listening tests > with some other components (most notably pre amps and power amps), and > for many instances, couldn't really detect much, or any difference. > With Caiman, however, the difference is immediate. > > Try it, you'll be very, very surprised. I will, if I get a chance. Thanks. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
mlsstl;581899 Wrote: > an encyclopedia of apologetics has been written to explain why blind > testing is inadequate for the special needs of those in the audio > world. michael123;581901 Wrote: > Personally, I just cannot evaluate the sound during short tests That made me smile... Seriously though, as mlsstl says there's no reason why blind testing needs to be short. It's simple enough to randomly switch something every few days (or hours, or whatever period you like). I've tried that myself at home some years ago, where my girlfriend randomly chose between two components (DACs in that case) every day by flipping a coin, and I tried to tell the difference. I couldn't :). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
michael123;581905 Wrote: > > Anyway, I do not care if it is 0.0001% or 0.001%, and the question here > is WHICH distortion. Which harmonics are added.. It is a full suite of > analysis, I could not care less if that is THD.. > > But yes, it sounds better. Most impressive thing I got is the texture > of the musical instruments (micro-dynamics is the word?), especially > percussion. I like this comment. I have no problem at all if people like the sound of a certain type of distortion and want it in their system, that's entirely up to them. An analogy occurs to me. Sometimes a photo looks better, more interesting or artistic, if it's been processed in certain ways (for example one can punch up the colors so that they're more vivid than in real life, or blur the image to hide unpleasant details). Still, you presumably want to apply such distortions on a photo-by-photo basis. You wouldn't want your television or projector to blur -all- photos, especially when the photos have already been processed professionally. In that case you may want your TV to display something as close as is possible to the version the professional saw on her screen. That's my attitude towards sound reproduction, and why I'd prefer components that don't distort the sound audibly. But it's entirely a matter of personal preference. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
Wombat;581893 Wrote: > I remember one audiophile tester at the audio magazin mp3 test was able > to difference most mp3s. That was because of a hearing loss and masking > didn´t work with his ears to well. The other studies i read over time > didn´t have audiophiles that were clearly better at picking mp3´s. > In my own experience telling the difference is largely a matter of knowing what the artifacts sound lik, identifying a place in a track where they are relatively easy to hear, and listening to that spot very carefully. I doubt audiophiles will be any better at that than anyone else that goes to the trouble to do it, which is why I'm curious to read firedog's reference. > And over time i had many "mp3 is sh**" listeners that couldn´t tell me > if it is the mp3 or wav when burned back to cd. > I think i am a very critical listener and try to avoid to fool myself. > That isn´t easy cause it happens pretty fast. It's actually really amazing how easy it is to fool yourself, and how often it happens. The human brain is a very sophisticated virtual reality generator that's what makes DBTs for audibility both essential and pretty interesting in their own right. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
Hi firedog, I think most people would agree that DBTs are not needed for deciding personal preference, especially if there's a truly audible difference (although I can give you a few counterexamples). What they are generally used for is deciding whether there really is an audible difference at all. That relates to preference in so far as someone may say they strongly prefer A over B because of some characteristic of the sound, and then fail to be able to tell them apart blind. If so, it doesn't change the fact that they prefer A over B, but it tells you it's not because of the sound, it's for some other reason. As for training and golden eared audiophiles, I'm not sure I follow why you think they pose a problem for DBT as a methodology. If you want to test trained listeners, give trained listeners a DBT. If you want to test a mixed group, give a mixed group a DBT. > > BTW, this has also been shown in research: random subjects were often > unable to differentiate between compressed and uncompressed files, but > "audiophiles" were. Reference please! -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
Gazjam;581835 Wrote: > Hi, > > Honestly, even with 16/44 material the difference between the Duet dac > and the Caiman is so obvious even your Granny could pick it out. :) > Different level entirely. > > The design "ethos" of the Caiman Dac is actually the opposite of > -strongly distorting- the sound. In my opinion, if you can tell the difference between it and a decent reference DAC (the one in the touch will do as an example), it is distorting the sound. DACs shouldn't color the sound at all, and the differences between any two decent reference DACs are small enough to be inaudible. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
magiccarpetride;581804 Wrote: > The difference in sound quality between Duet's internal DAC and the > Caiman DAC are staggering. We're talking night and day type of > differences, and there's absolutely nothing subtle there. Hmm. Well, please don't take this the wrong way, but I'd love to witness a blind level-matched test where you try to tell them apart. Under normal listening conditions (normal volume, normal music) I might even be willing to bet money that you can't get (say) 5/5 correct (which ought to be trivial if it's really night and day). The only thing that makes me hesitate is that I've never heard (or heard of) Caiman before, so possibly it's some odd design that strongly distorts the sound. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best < 300 US$ DAC for Squeezebox???
I've got a $1,000 dollar DAC (a Benchmark). I prefer it to the analog out of my SB touch for two reasons: 1) I use it as a pre-amp (for the touch and for a blu ray player). It's very important that I have something in my audio chain with an analog volume control, plus I need something to switch between sources. 2) The SB3 I had prior to the touch produced some noise (correlated with display brightness) through its analog outs that was loud enough to bother me when it wasn't playing music. That's because I have an unusual active system (that amplifies any such noise). As far as sound quality goes, I doubt I could tell the difference between any of those in a level-matched test, and I have a system that most audiophiles would describe as "resolving" and fairly high-end. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82539 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
michael123;581713 Wrote: > I always check equipment in my system.. I published results here on > forum.. > Well, yes, this is all subjective. OK. > "digital audio" is actually an analog signal @ RF, which is not actually > a square wave.. this varies between transports.. Yes, that's true. But the question is whether said variations result in (truly) audible differences. Of course that depends on their amplitude, spectrum, and how the DAC they go in to is designed, so one cannot make absolute statements. But the same goes for variations in the humidity in the air of one's listening room and the phase of the moon. What one can do is come to have a sense of how important these various effects are. > What equipment you tested BTW, on what system setup? A fairly large variety over the years. At the moment I have a SB touch and a PS3 (mainly used for blu ray movies) feeding a Benchmark DAC 1, going into an active Linkwitz Orion system (that costs about $10K new). The amp is an ATI 12 channel (the Orions need 8 channels of amplification). The room is 25x20x9, and not very well treated acoustically. That last is by far the biggest problem the system has. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
ralphpnj;581694 Wrote: > > As for the first part isn't it also true the field of scientific > experiments where humans are concerned that the results of these tests > are often never 100%, in other words there are often subjects who > "fail" the test even when a vast majority of those tested "pass" the > test? One example being drug testing where getting the same result from > 100% of the subjects is rarely the case. That's a fair point. It's true that people are hard to experiment on, highly variable, and very complicated. That's why psychology, economics, etc. are all so much less effective at predicting things than physics or chemistry. But to me, that's all the more reason to be sure one controls for bias as much as possible - if there's one thing we know for sure about people, it's that bias has a really big effect on experience. And although psychology is really complex, ears aren't nearly as much. The ear is basically a microphone, and it's got a limited sensitivity. It's a bit tough to get at that, since ears are usually connected to brains, and that complicates things, but it's not impossible. > > Edit: On BTW, thank you for keeping this discussion civil - no name > calling, personal insults etc. By being civil I really feel that a > positive exchange of ideas and information can and does occur. And > happy listening! Same to you. I've been involved in my share of audiophile pissing matches in the past - I'm done now :). I have no problem at all with people making their own choices, I just find them interesting. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
ralphpnj;581687 Wrote: > I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. > That many audiophiles obsess over imagined differences that even they cannot really hear. That makes them very easy to mock, and it marginalizes their views. As a result when a real issue of sound quality comes along it's hard to get anyone to listen. And it means that most engineers - the people that actually design and build the products audiophiles use - ignore them. > > With DBT one is only testing the system and the music being used for > the test - nothing more and nothing less. Change any of the components > or the music and the test becomes invalid. Therefore all DBT results > should be followed with a statement such as "These results are only > valid for these pieces of equipment playing these pieces of music" or a > similar disclaimer. The problem with that view is that it's contradicted by evidence. If it were true, it would apply to all tests, including all science experiments (which are carried out using differing equipment in different labs on different days by different people when the earth is in a different place and the weather outside is different...). And yet, experiments teach us that the world seems to function according to predictable rules, and those rules can be isolated and studied in controlled experiments. That goes holds true for experiments in acoustics and psychoacoustics. Why audiophiles seem to think that audibility of various effects is a different category from every other phenomenon has always mystified me. But with that said, we're not talking about science - we're talking about the hobby of a few wealthy eccentrics, who are free to do anything they want. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Spotify sound quality
I haven't used spotify, but it should be nearly impossible to tell the difference between 320 kbps lossy and lossless. I think it might be possible, but only for people that know exactly what compression artifacts to listen for. If you check out hydrogenaudio.com, there have been some extensive tests done on audibility at various compression levels (by some of the people that designed the lossy codecs in the first place). At least for LAME MP3 128 and below is very easy, 192 is possible, 256 is very hard, and 320 would require very, very careful listening if it's possible at all. So if there's really a significant difference, something is wrong somewhere. The first thing to do is try it blind, making sure volume levels are matched. If you can still tell them apart, it's time to take a look and make sure the stream really is 320, that there's no nasty transcoding going on, etc. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82484 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
michael123;581681 Wrote: > Acoustic treatment aside, > digital transports have tremendous influence on sound quality, > but this is a function of all other system components. I politely but vehemently disagree, and let me add that my opinion is based on extensive testing of my own, plus the results of every controlled test ever conducted on this issue that I'm aware of. That said it's still just an opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own (and to choosing what to spend their money on). But I think it's fair for the OP to know what the range of opinions is, and what's the evidence behind them. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
mlsstl;581675 Wrote: > > However, at the level of making consumer choices as to which stereo a > person wants to buy, it is only as important as the ego of the buyer > needs it to be. Exactly. ralphpnj;581673 Wrote: > Case closed. When audiophiles complain about legitimate issues like overly compressed pop or the growing prevalence of crappy standards like 128 kbps MP3, they should remember the boy who cried wolf. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
ralphpnj;581660 Wrote: > Without trying to start another pointless DBT debate I would just like > to ask a simple question to the pro DBT people on this forum. Here > goes: > > Part 1 - Background info: > > Those in favor of DBT are always pointing to the fact by not testing > via DBT the listener is likely to heavily influenced by other external > factors which have nothing to do with the sound, such as cost and > cosmetics. In other words, they will hear differences where there may > or may not be differences because they WANT to hear differences. > > Part 2 - Question: > > If people are capable of "hearing" differences where there may or may > not be any differences due to tricks of the mind or whatever one might > call it, is it not equally possible that the pro DBT people are NOT > hearing differences where there may or may not be any differences due > to the same tricks of the mind or whatever one might call it? > > In other words if people can fool themselves into hearing differences > to validate their beliefs then isn't just as likely that people can > fool themselves into NOT hearing differences to validate their beliefs? Sure, it's possible. It's also very easy to check. The simplest way is to take someone that WANTS to hear differences, and have them try to under blind conditions. Most times that's done, they can't hear it any more. Another way is to establish hearing thresholds by changing the degree of difference until it becomes just barely inaudible. You can do that with a bunch of different people and see how much they vary. A third way is to offer a reward, like money. I doubt any "pro-DBT" people are so fanatical they'd try not to hear a difference when they know they'll get paid if they do :D. That's how lots of psychological data gets collected, by the way (offer money to poor college students). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] TP-Tact-Dac minimal jitter?
Robin Bowes;581544 Wrote: > > Is that normal for Toslink? Are they usually so poor? Is there a trick > to getting them to plug in properly? > Just to echo what Phil said, make sure you can see light coming from one end when the other is plugged into the active source, and make sure the plug clicks and locks lightly into place when you push it in. I use Toslink to connect my bluray player to my DAC, and in the past for various other connections, and never had any trouble with it (although the plugs are slightly tricky). I'm using a cheap cable, since I don't think it makes any difference. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82171 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Most bang for buck? Add DAC to SB or buy Touch?
ncarver;577406 Wrote: > Got lots of suggestions about really good sounding hi-res tracks, but > not a single person claimed to have done comparisons and been able to > hear a difference between the two versions of the same track. I'm not sure that's a valid argument in this kind of debate. After all, how many people have done blind, level-matched comparisons between different DACs and been able to tell the difference? As far as I can tell the answer is zero*. So going by that, the OP should stick with the SB3 and save for some better speakers. *You can sometimes tell the difference by the background noise level, if you turn the system up high and put your ear close to a tweeter (while it's not playing, or playing silence). The same goes for 16 versus 24 bit - under artificial circumstances (extremely high volume or very close to the tweeter) you can hear the difference in noise levels, on the nearly silent parts of some recordings. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
Digital transports have a very small effect on sound compared to many other changes you could make. I'd spend the money on an audio pro consultant to advise you on room acoustics, and/or on room treatments. If you don't want to do that and like your speakers, you could try using the transporter as a source (i.e. as a DAC). First, try bypassing your DAC and using the duet's DAC. Can you tell the difference? Are you sure? Because if the difference is subtle or non-existent, it's probably not worth spending much on. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporters Future?
richardw;533955 Wrote: > > have any of you listened to the mit oracle ma-x digital cable? if not, > how could you possibly know how it sounds?! If your wires are making noise, there's -definitely- something going on! Mice, maybe? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76895 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
cliveb;539812 Wrote: > This is true: analogue attenuation after a DAC as opposed to digital > attenuation before the DAC preserves more of the DAC's resolution. But > the point I was trying to make was in the context of turning down the > playback loudness when listening to music... > > Let's say you're listening at a peak level of 96dB SPL. And to simplify > the sums lets assume an ambient noise level in the listening room of > 0dB. That means you're hearing a 96dB dynamic range, the equivalent of > 16 bits. > > Now turn the loudness down so the peak level is 72db SPL (a reduction > of 24dB). The maximum dynamic range you can now hear is 72dB, > equivalent to 12 bits. Let's suppose you've used analogue attenuation > to do this. You will have preserved the full 16 bits of resolution, > which of course is fine. But the bottom 4 bits will now be below the > threshold of audibility and you can't hear them anyway. > > But now let's suppose you've used digital attenuation: you'll have > thrown away 4 bits of resolution. Sounds pretty dire, right? BUT THESE > ARE THE FOUR BITS YOU CAN'T HEAR ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU'VE TURNED THE > VOLUME DOWN. I don't understand why this basic simple fact is so hard > to grasp for so many people (not you, Phil - I realise that you > understand this). > > Bottom line: when you turn down the playback volume, the low level > details drop below the bottom of the audibility envelope. Doesn't > matter whether you use analogue or digital attenuation. Digital throws > away the bits you can't hear anymore. Analogue preserves them, but you > can't hear them anyway. Very clearly said and exactly right, it's something I spent many posts trying to get across to some here. I don't think I succeeded... -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=77725 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC?
peber;442001 Wrote: > > Now to my question... I have noticed that some users of the SB use an > external DAC to improve the sound. How much do I have to spend on a DAC > to get a clear improvement over the internal DAC? I do not want to spend > a lot and only get a subtle change... Do you have any suggestions for a > DAC that is known to work very well with the SB and is a real > improvement? > You'll find as wide a range of opinion on that as is possible. Some will tell you all modern digital sources sound the same unless they're broken, others will talk about "night and day", "veils lifting", etc. I'm pretty much in that first camp, but nevertheless I own a Benchmark DAC1 (but for reasons that don't have much to do with sound quality per se). One thing I can tell you is that the SB3, at least mine, has a relatively high noise floor associated with the display - I can hear it clearly through my not-so-typical setup when no music is playing - and the headphone out is pretty bad. But if neither of those bothers you and you don't need the additional functionality an external DAC can provide, I doubt you're going to notice the difference. If you're in doubt, borrow a DAC and run a simple blind test - have a friend switch and try to identify which is which. That will give you a very good idea how important the differences are (if they exist at all). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65771 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Looking for used DAC for Squeezebox ~700 $
gng;422118 Wrote: > Hi, > > I am looking for a DAC for my Squeezebox Classic. My other components: > EPOS M22 speakers, special amplifier sounds similar to Creek Destiny. > > What I need from the DAC: > > XLR output (must) > Volume control (nice to have) > warm, airy sound Benchmark DAC1s have everything you need feature-wise, and can be had used for $700 on occasion. The sound is completely neutral. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63217 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] is there THAT much difference betweeen SB3 ran through quality DAC and Transporter?
goldstarst...@gmail.com;417392 Wrote: > > The results in fact were quite random! I am more and more convinced > that perceived differences in components break down on blind testing > except for speakers. Yes, I'm not surprised. I have a DAC1, but more for its functionality as a digital preamp and analogue volume control than anything else. I'm not at all confident I could pick it out against an SB in a BT. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=50428 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] speaker & amp recommendations please
aubuti;411600 Wrote: > > My budget is around US$1200 -- I don't feel obliged to spend that much, > but I could exceed it by a little and be okay. I'm fine with going on > the second-hand market such as Audiogon. And I should say that I'd be > open to active monitors or amp+passive speakers. You can get much better deals on audiogon than you can on new gear - for $1200 you can probably get something in near-perfect condition that would sell for $2K or more new. The downside is that it takes more time and effort, and you're unlikely to be able to see or audition it first. But if you're willing to spend the time, it's worth it. That said, it's hard to make recommendations - there is so much out there. Personally I'd look at active monitors. Something like Quad 12 or 11Ls might be a good bet given your room size. Or you could try some pro monitors - there are some very good ones in that range (and the advantage there is you can probably audition them at an audio store geared for musicians). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61984 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Linn Klimax DS - Network Music Player
cliveb;410715 Wrote: > I think you may have misunderstood the end goal of ABX testing in audio. > The endpoint is NOT "does A sound better than B". It's much simpler: > "does A sound DIFFERENT than B". No preference judgements are called > for: simply the detection (or otherwise) of an audible difference. That > strikes me as eminently measurable and open to statistical analysis. I think you meant - "does A sound DIFFERENT than B because it is producing an audibly different pattern of sound waves". That question can only be answered with either blind testing or measurements plus some knowledge (gained via blind testing, of course) of perceptual thresholds. But I don't agree that that is the -only- question one might want to answer. If I had to choose between two components, I would greatly prefer a blind comparison to a sighted one, because I think it's the best way to determine which sounds better and which I would be more satisfied with in the long run (or whether it matters at all). Sometimes such tests are possible in audio show rooms, and I find it's -very- instructive to try. One rapidly starts to understand which aspects are important, and how easy it is to be absolutely confident you hear a difference - and then be utterly wrong. And on that topic, I would vastly prefer if audio reviewers would do their analyses blind - I find audio reviews nearly useless as they are. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38815 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
GuyDebord;410979 Wrote: > > Listening to music involves all the senses, sight, touch, smell... you > guys just dont get it... continue convincing yourselves of perfectly > reproduced SOUND! You're erecting a straw-objectivist and then beating him over the head. The fact is that it seems to be -subjectivists- that have the most trouble relaxing and enjoying music. Objectivists have, if they choose, a perfectly well-defined set of criteria for choosing and comparing components. Moreover they understand that all that really matters are speakers and music - most of the rest is irrelevant. Subjectivists, on the other hand, have to fret over cables, power cords, magic pebbles... the result is inferior sound, an empty wallet and very little time spent actually enjoying music. I haven't changed anything in my system in quite a while, and (unless there's a practical reason to do so) I don't see why I would want to. I'm very satisfied with the sound, and if I wanted to improve it I would focus on things that actually make a difference - like rearranging the furniture or moving the speakers - rather than $1,000 wires. cliveb;410994 Wrote: > > CatBus made the same comment: that Objectivists are not making such an > accusation. I've therefore clearly misinterpreted the things I've seen > written on these and other forums for many years now. Countless times > I've seen phrases like "you're deluding yourself" and "you're imagining > it". Reading between the lines, these phrases seem to be implying that > this delusion/imagination implies some level of gullibility. -Everyone- hears things that aren't really there - that's human nature. The gullibility comes from believing that your subjective impressions correspond to any kind of real change in the sound. There's a big difference between that and what you said. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
cliveb;410749 Wrote: > The Objectivist typically considers that to allow oneself to be > influenced by these other factors is some kind of character flaw. While I obviously can't speak for others, I haven't found that characterization to be at all accurate. In I don't think I've ever encountered that view, despite reading more comments on this debate than I care to admit. In my opinion, perceptual bias is simply a fact - it's part of what makes us human beings. In many ways life would be less interesting without it; certainly it would be totally different. Whether it's how you judge people, taste wine, choose a watch - all of that is extremely subjective and personal. And most of the time, that's perfectly OK. It's just that some of the time, it's not OK. For example, no one wants doctors to be influenced by drug companies in their medical judgments. That's why medical studies are very carefully controlled. And another example is when someone advises you to buy some absurdly overpriced component, because without it you won't have a truly revealing system (or something). Advice like that is both financially damaging to the recipient and liable to leave them permanently unsatisfied with their sound system. OK, it's not the end of the world if some well-off middle aged men (the overwhelming majority of audiophiles) waste some money on a silly pursuit. But it's annoying for those of us that really do care about sound quality, and would like to see the field progress towards superior music reproduction. For that - to make progress on what is after all a very difficult engineering challenge - controls are crucial, and the subjective experiences of people are essentially useless (how many great scientific advances were made because some cult insisted on something in the case of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?). The near-total rejection of the recent Meyer-Moran study on SACD versus Redbook is a perfect example - the industry needs to focus on the areas that matter, and stop getting distracted by mysticism and bogus received wisdom. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A/B SB3 vs Transporter
El Duderino;409594 Wrote: > I do feel that they are revealing enough that one would expect to see > some sort of an improvement between the Transporter vs. SB3. On the > other hand, perhaps, it does take $5000 speakers to hear a > difference... You might find this thread interesting: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35068 -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61686 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 16-44 vs 24-96
JezA;404018 Wrote: > Err .. read the booklet. Ask the engineer to be sure. > Neither of those is reliable (even if contacting the engineer were necessarily possible). There's a fairly widespread suspicion that dual-layer releases are deliberately mastered differently so that there's an audible difference, and consumers are then motivated to buy more hi-res material. Whether or not you believe that, trusting dual-layer discs introduces an unknown and uncontrollable element into the experiment, which is very bad scientific practice. It's just a bad idea, particularly when their method - which absolutely guarantees there is no difference - is simple and easily available. > > It proves no such thing. It demonstrates that the esteemed self-styled > audiophile members of the BAS cannot hear the differences, which, given > the poor way they set their equipment up and select recordings does not > exactly surprise me. BAS members, and undergrad audio engineering majors, and Boston-area audiophiles that were certain they could hear the difference easily, and music pros, and sound engineers, and dozens and dozens of more people. It's interesting - you're going through precisely the same checklist I've seen many other audiophiles go through on this: the recordings weren't good enough, the gear wasn't "resolving" enough, the listeners were deaf... and as each in turn is demolished, you retreat to the next. > And how is it one of them has spent $1000 on a single Nordost SPM > interconnect, the benefit of which we must presume he can hear, yet > they cannot hear a whole A-D/D-A signal chain, with dozens of > components and connexions in it? And why do the females score so much > worse than chance? Do you really need to ask that? The answer is blindingly obvious - -none of those things make a bit of audible difference.- > I do argue and experience that SACD and hi-res is audibly different from > redbook, and I'm sure, and glad, that the recording engineers from the > likes of Gimell, Linn, Chesky, and Tony Faulkner have the same view. I have no doubt you experience that - none whatsoever. Let me make my position clear. First off, I'm quite convinced that hi-res is audibly different from redbook only under totally unrealistic conditions. For 2-channel music, redbook is simply good enough. That said, there's nothing wrong with overkill - particularly if it's easy to do. And for mastering and recording 16/44 does -not- suffice. So there's clearly a need for hi-res standards and gear, and it's fine with me if there's a consumer market for it. It makes people happy, secure knowing they're listening to the best money can buy and technology can do - and I have absolutely no problem with that. I'd even do the same myself if it wasn't too much hastle. But I object strongly whenever anyone tells anyone else that hi-res is better for home stereo, and/or that they need to spend lots of money upgrading their system and buying hi-res versions of music they probably already own. It's BS. The correct advice is "it's almost certainly not going to make an audible difference, but you can never be sure, and if you want the absolute best and can afford it, go for it. And often when music is in a hi-res formats more attention is payed to sound quality during mastering, so you might end up with better sounding recordings." -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60973 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 16-44 vs 24-96
JezA;403865 Wrote: > opaqueice: > > Of the recordings you list, at least the two Murray Perahia cds, the > Pink Floyd cd and the Steely Dan Gaucho are 20 - 30 year old > recordings mastered on analogue tape. They are most certainly neither > hi-res 24/96 or DSD recordings, so how you can draw any conclusions > about 24/96 or DSD from listening to them is beyond me. The whole -point- of this test was that audiophiles claim to be able to hear these differences but when asked to do so blind, they fail. The way you do such a test is play the music that the subjects request, for as long as they want, and let them switch back and forth. You don't dictate to them what music they can hear the difference on. A few of those recordings date back 30 years, some are very recent. -Not one person- - out of hundreds - could tell the difference on -any- of them, despite being able to choose precisely the music and passages they felt most confident on. So your objection that some of those recordings did not, in your personal opinion, benefit from the SACD format is totally irrelevant. Pure polemics in fact. > > Nobody seriously interested in a good sound would set speakers up the > way they are shown in the photograph of the experiment; they are far > too close to the wall and the wood-panelled cavitites behind them, and > such a tall speaker with such a small footprint directly on the floor > will be very unstable. I assure you, these guys are seriously interested in good sound, and have been for many, many, many years. There's no reason to suppose that's where the speakers were situated during the tests. There's no reason to suppose they're "unstable". There's no reason to suppose they weren't moved to wherever the listeners wanted. And this was only one of at least four sets of speakers they ran these tests on. > A far simpler experiment is to take a genuine 24/whatever recording and > play it through a system, then down-sample it and play it through > exactly the same system. What they did should have made it much -easier- to hear differences than that, because of the added noise from the A->D->A. And yet, not one listener could. > Or compare the layers of a dual-layer SACD that has a known hi-res > master. And how precisely are they supposed to know that? > It is very easy to do. > So was this. > But why choose between nails and blankets when you can have the hi-res > master? This test all but proved that the SACD standard is not audibly different than redbook. Are you trying to argue that even though that is true, 24/96 is? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60973 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 16-44 vs 24-96
JezA;403598 Wrote: > The AES so-called experiment is utter tosh. 2 of the 3 SACD players used > weren't true DSD machines for a kick-off, > What do you mean? For the record, six digital sources were used: a Pioneer DV-563A universal player, a Sony XA777ES SACD model, a Yamaha DVD-S1500, a Denon 2900 Universal Player with full PartsConnexion mods, and unspecified hi-rez digital sources in two separate mastering facilities. > many of the recordings were from 30+ year old analogue masters, > Here's a partial list. The reader can judge the veracity of your statement for themselves. Patricia Barber Nightclub (Mobile Fidelity UDSACD 2004) Chesky: Various -- An Introduction to SACD (SACD204) Chesky: Various -- Super Audio Collection & Professional Test Disc (CHDVD 171) Stephen Hartke: Tituli/Cathedral in the Thrashing Rain; Hilliard Ensemble/Crockett (ECM New Series 1861, cat. no. 476 1155, SACD) Bach Concertos: Perahia et al; Sony SACD Mozart Piano Concertos: Perahia, Sony SACD Kimber Kable: Purity, an Inspirational Collection SACD T Minus 5 Vocal Band, no cat. # Tony Overwater: Op SACD (Turtle Records TRSA 0008) McCoy Tyner Illuminati SACD (Telarc 63599) Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon SACD (Capitol/EMI 82136) Steely Dan, Gaucho, Geffen SACD Alan Parsons, I, Robot DVD-A (Chesky CHDD 2003) BSO, Saint-Saens, Organ Symphony SACD (RCA 82876-61387-2 RE1) Carlos Heredia, Gypsy Flamenco SACD (Chesky SACD266) Shakespeare in Song, Phoenix Bach Choir, Bruffy, SACD (Chandos CHSA 5031) Livingston Taylor, Ink SACD (Chesky SACD253) The Persuasions, The Persuasions Sing the Beatles, SACD (Chesky SACD244) Steely Dan, Two Against Nature, DVD-A (24,96) Giant Records 9 24719-9 McCoy Tyner with Stanley Clark and Al Foster, Telarc SACD 3488 > it would be hard to set a system up worse than the one in the picture - > speakers wobbling on the floor, Wow - you can see motion in a still photo! No wonder you can hear differences no one else can... > And yet apparently female subects managed to score 37.5% - a result so > significantly worse than chance that the whole methodology has to be > questioned. On the contrary. In such a large and thorough study, one expects to find small subsets of data that exhibit mild anomalies like that. -Not- finding such things would be suspicious. > > A reasonable conclusion is, though, that self-styled audiophiles are > not very good at making musical judgements through fancy audiophile > systems. > A reasonable person can draw only one conclusion from that - that the differences are inaudible. If you wish to convince anyone of the contrary, the burden of proof is fully on you. And if you were right that the differences are obvious, that proof would be -trivial-. How odd that it always fails to show up in controlled tests! -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60973 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Can you hear the difference?
JezA;401677 Wrote: > That's a pretty poor experiment; they fail or refuse to specify the > equipment used, which would be sufficient to disqualify them from > publication in a more rigorous journal. AFAIK the JAES is the best there is in that field, so I'm afraid you're out of luck - there is no more rigorous journal. But anyway they -did- specify the gear, just not in the article (you can find it easily on the web). IIRC they used 4 different systems (including at least one very high-end one in the home of an audiophile), hundreds of listeners, over the course of a year. -Not one listener could tell the difference.- To anyone but a true believer, that's the end of that debate. Even if somewhere, there's someone, that on some system and some track can tell who cares? If not one of hundreds of music students, audiophiles, and enthusiasts could tell the difference under ideal conditions - well, the emperor is looking pretty bare. > > I have indeed compared cd, sacd, downloaded 16/44 and downloaded 24/96 > of the same music, for example > http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-mozart-symphonies.aspx. Are you sure those are the same masters? > I only have a squeezebox duet, so the 24/96 will have been downsampled > to 24/48; my cd player and duet go through the same DAC, but I can only > listen to the SACD layer directly from the player. There are clear, > obvious differences between the versions. Why don't you try? I think the duet simply drops every other sample at 96kHz (someone correct me if I'm wrong). If so, you might well be able to tell the difference - because undithered downsampling like that introduces artifacts that can be audible. I have tried, although not recently. I compared a hi-rez sample to a downsampled version. No audible difference. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60665 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz dsp plugin - what are the results?
Moonbase;396208 Wrote: > Results *seem* impressive, especially if you got good measuring > equipment for room correction (its still great without), -but- > > > > - its Windows only (as far as I know)> > > > It runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux. > > > > > it requires LOTS of computing power. When experimenting with it on a > > 1.8GHz/1GB RAM Win/XP machine, I could get out only about 10s of music > > every 30s :-( CPU load varied between 10-30% so I wonder what brought > > that up.> > > > I'm running it on a 5 year-old PC with no problems at all. > > > > > its still -very- »beta«, so you shouldnt fear experimentation.> > > > True. > > > > > it seems to leave unfinished lame, flac, InguzDSP, and socketwrapper > > processes around for each track played. > > > > > > I've never had that problem. > > > > > > > the dB settings on a Jive are kludgy at most. (You have to set > > greater dB values in small steps, set again, set again ) > > > > > Haven't tried that. Andy8421;396925 Wrote: > > One quick question - it has taken me a while to get my squeeze system > stable (ish). Is it possible to use inguz to process a file offline and > to save the modified flac file to disc rather than have to integrate the > plug in into SC? You can't use Inguz directly to do that - but there's no need. Generate the correction filter using DRC (as per Inguz instructions if you like). Then use foobar2000 (a free music player etc. for Windows) to batch-convolve all your files with that filter (you'll need the dsp plugin if it isn't installed by default). You can save the results in a parallel directory tree, and then listen to that. That method has some disadvantages - like it's a pain to re-process - but you can let the batch job run overnight, so it's not such a big deal. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60057 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Will a transporter sound as good as the Linn Majik DS
Patrick Dixon;400607 Wrote: > In theory yes, but in practice they're measured in quite different ways > and can give different results. So then what was the point of your question? > > My mistake. I assumed that when talking with such authority, you would > at least have had some facts to base your opinions on. I do, actually. You, on the other hand, have a product to peddle. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60169 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Can you hear the difference?
JezA;401410 Wrote: > What Clive actually said, and what I reacted to, was that " all the > hi-res formats are just a cynical way of separating punters from their > dosh". > > I think that is wrong, and incredibly disrespectful of people like > Linn, Gimmell, the LSO and Chesky who release hi-resolution recordings, > some as dual-layer cds, others as downloads. It may be "disrespectful", but that's not the same thing as "untrue". See here: http://www.aes.org/journal/online/comment/?ID=14195 > > As it happens, I've the same speakers as Clive and I hear a huge > difference between the hi-res and the red-book layers of the dual layer > cds from Linn or the LSO, and find it wonderful to have such great > experiences available for so little money. Have you tried a blind comparison between the hi-res recording and a downsampled version of the hi-res recording? Dual layer doesn't qualify, because (as has been pointed out many times already) the layers may have been mastered differently. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60665 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Will a transporter sound as good as the Linn Majik DS
Patrick Dixon;399734 Wrote: > So what about the impulse response? What about it? The complex frequency response is precisely equivalent to the impulse response, and the phase is irrelevant (unless it's -extremely- far from linear). > And how exactly did you measure the frequency response of the Linn DS > kit and the Transporter? Where did I say I measured them? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60169 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Will a transporter sound as good as the Linn Majik DS
Mr_Sukebe;399586 Wrote: > I've got to ask, how many "high-end" digital sources have you listened > to? More than I can count. > The ones that I've heard over the years generally sounded quite > different in their presentations, which would seem to contradict your > statement a little. Not at all. Wombat;399609 Wrote: > Well, if i read that right opaqueice more or less says that all serious > sources present the perceived bass equal cause the frequency response > is equal. > So all this different sounding is just a mass-hysteria lasting more > than 20 years! Since then most serious devices already had a real flat > frequency response. > Hi-Fi can be so easy! It's not mass hysteria - it's just humanity. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60169 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Will a transporter sound as good as the Linn Majik DS
JezA;399489 Wrote: > Yes, Why is it at all absurd? Because any high-end digital source will have a flat frequency response down to below the threshold of audibility, while on the other hand your brain (and speakers and room) has an enormous effect on your perception of the amount of bass. Unless one of them is broken, claiming the Transporter has "less bass" than the Majik after listening to it is as silly as feeling the air in London and declaring that the weather at that moment must be nicer in New York than it is in Instanbul. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60169 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attention Audio Mythbusters!
Yeah - the obvious guess is that the software isn't able to fully compensate for the (potentially relatively large) differences in average clock rate between two different DACs. If so, positive results for DAC comparisons won't mean much, unfortunately. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60041 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attention Audio Mythbusters!
Phil Leigh;398914 Wrote: > > Conclusions: > > Noise induced by Brightness at settings off/1/full is very low and > pretty much the same > > Avoid settings 2 & 3 (3 being the noisiest) > > > Thoughts? Does this correspond to the findings of other? At least partially - I also found that the noise was loudest on intermediate settings. And also that it was much louder in one channel (I think the left) than the other. But I'm surprised it's so far down - it was pretty easy to hear on medium volume with a silent track. Then again, my system is active and quad-amped, so maybe it's more sensitve to noise than most. Still looking forward to that TacT bypass test! Actually, I'm pretty curious to see the results of any DAC versus DAC test. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60041 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Will a transporter sound as good as the Linn Majik DS
sebbe_sabb;397532 Wrote: > > Sound differences? > Clearly more bass, more PRAT and so on on the Linn. Call me biased > (since I own other Linn equipments) but the DS owns the Transporter > soundwise but the server solution & usability is much better on the > Transporter. The idea that the Linn could have "more bass" than the Transporter is absurd. Try a blind test. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60169 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attention Audio Mythbusters!
ar-t;398715 Wrote: > Phil: > > I hope that you don't think that I am trying to discourage you. As I > said, this test can be an interesting test. But we have talked about > this, and many of us feel until we get 24-bit resolution, it is not a > great deal of help. Even if it does, we still get back to the same ol' > problem we have always faced: > > How does phenomena X relate to how things are perceived? The benefit of this test is that you can listen to the difference, with your own ears. If the difference by itself is not audible at all, I'm perfectly happy concluding that it's not audible when masked by a much, much louder musical signal. For that not to be true would require hearing to be extraordinarily non-linear, in a way that there is no hint of at all in any psychoacoustic or hearing research I've ever heard of. > Your testing can show that cables, etc. can sound the same on your DAC. > But you have not shown that your DAC does this without adding any > colouration of its own. It would be interesting grist to compare what > comes out of your DAC to what goes into it. Admittedly, that could be > tricky to discern. If one where to use a CDP that had a SPDIF output, > there is no guaranty that the audio it produces will be close to the > audio that you DAC produces. But, there is a chance that you could pick > up on some of the effects of the ASRC. If you want to compare different DACs, it's perfectly possible to do using this method. Just record their outputs and difference them. The results would be interesting, and I think Phil could do that easily - e.g. he could compare the SB3 DAC to his main DAC. I'm pretty sure that will detect at least the display noise which seems to be present in the SB3 analogue output. Whether it finds any signal related component would be interesting to see. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60041 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attention Audio Mythbusters!
Phil Leigh;398434 Wrote: > Well, the volume control test is proving very interesting! > I'd like to hear from SlimDevices on this one - Sean are you there? > > I took a 24/96 track via SOX so 24/48 at full volume. > Then I dropped the SB volume to 50% and recorded the same track. The > difference shows as -48dB which is quite large...but when I played it I > couldn't hear anything even with 80dB of boost!!! No rise in the noise > floor either! (well there is but its tiny). > > So I opened up the difference file in Audacity and wow! - now I > understand the apparent paradox of a large difference I can't hear... > there's a fairly obvious DC offset introduced on both channels. This > seems plain wrong to me. I'd really like someone else to try this out! > > With the volume set to 9 out of 11 (web gui) there is no difference at > all (sorry all you "full volume" fans) - and NO DC offset. > > With the volume set at 3 out of 9 there is the expected rise in the > noise floor caused by the lowered signal to noise ratio but the DC > offset is bigger than at half-volume! I notice the offset is higher in > the right channel. We are talking about nearly half scale DC here! > > I think I need to take a rest from this for a bit. These results don't > seem reasonable. > > Maybe something is wrong with my soundcard or method? Anyone care to > replicate? Could that be a bug in the differencing software, rather than in the SB or your soundcard? Maybe when it has to match volumes it introduces a spurious DC offset? You might just record the SB output directly at each volume and just look at it (or take its average) to see if there's an offset. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60041 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attention Audio Mythbusters!
Phil Leigh;397359 Wrote: > Just compared Mozart Requiem in D - Sanctus (Linn CD) as FLAC vs 135 mp3 > vs 225 MP3 (VBR). > > This is the first test I've done where the difference track is audible > without boosting the difference track - really very interesting... I'd > like someone else to corroborate my findings. > > I'd say this track is a good "killer" Mp3 test track. The compression > algorithm clearly decides to throw out some of the massed vocals...and > hall ambience. Hi Phil, thanks for posting these very interesting results! I await the results of the TacT test eagerly. About MP3 and the Requiem - that's actually not surprising. I'll bet if you compare the size of a FLAC version of the Requiem to WAV, you'll find it's not as much smaller as the FLAC version of some of the other tracks you've been listening to are (compared to WAV). Point being, complex music is much harder to compress than simpler music. Pure solo instruments, contrary to audiophile belief, are very easy to compress. Complex orchestral and choral works are not. So it's not surprising the MP3 algorithm is having difficulty compressing the Requiem without losing important information, because it basically has to be much more lossy (compared to FLAC) to achieve the same file size than it would for simpler music. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60041 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attention Audio Mythbusters!
Phil Leigh;396062 Wrote: > Audiodiffmaker > > We've discussed this before... but things have moved on! > > http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm > > Try your TacT on passthrough compared to the SB out. You never tracked down the source of that distortion, right? It would be interesting to see how much effect it has on music. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60041 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Burn in time?
Themis;394259 Wrote: > A few years ago, when some of us were saying that speakers require > burn-in, most of the industry were saying that all this is nonsense. Really? Who in the industry was saying that? There's no doubt - and I'm very skeptical there ever was - that speaker drivers change their characteristics slightly over the first few minutes of use. Things with moving parts are like that, especially when the moving parts are flexible. Some speaker manufacturers do that at the factory before shipping to dealers. > Some years (and measures) later, the same people seem to agree that > -after all- there is some burn-in involved. Again - which people, exactly, are those? They're not made of straw, by any chance? Although I wouldn't be surprised to find some "audiophile" manufacturers pandering to their customers that way. > Some peoples' opinion need burn-in. :) Indeed. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=59381 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Burn in time?
Audio electronics do not burn in in any remotely perceptible way. Your brain, on the other hand, perceives things very differently depending on all kinds of factors... If there's a lack of bass, move your speakers closer to the wall. Or pour yourself a glass of scotch. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=59381 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 24bit/96kHz
JezA;378406 Wrote: > I still don't understand your position Pat. > > Can you hear a difference between 24/48, 24/96 and 24/192? > > Do you believe others, like say the guys at Gimell and Linn Records and > Phillips and Harmonia Mundi, or their customers, can? Blind ABX tests have proven that people can hear the difference between 16 bit and higher rez formats. on a silent section of a track with the volume cranked (so the difference in 16 bit quantization noise was audible). Other than that, no. I did a calculation a while ago on this forum which showed that changing the 24th bit on even a very powerful system corresponds to a change in SPL that's smaller than the fluctuations due to Brownian motion of air molecules - far, far below the threshold of human hearing. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57413 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 24bit/96kHz
Phil Leigh;377971 Wrote: > You need to read up on Nyquist theorum and Information Theory and then > think about that question again. Twice the number of bits might not be > twice the amount of "information" :o) > > My whole point is that in informational terms the difference is really > quite small... The main reason is not information per se - it's that people can't hear sounds with frequencies much above 16kHz, making 96 kHz (with a 48kHz Nyquist cutoff) total overkill. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57413 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Explain this, please.
itz;377908 Wrote: > > On the otherhand I can assure you that I really can hear the difference > in the posted statements. May it be my brain that play tricks on me or > not. Hi itz, it's -very- easy to find out. Have a friend flip a coin - heads is flac as wav, tails is native streaming for example. Then you guess which it is, friend flips again and repeats. Ideally the friend is in a different room, recording his/her sequence on a piece of paper while you record your guesses. If you have to be in the same room, no talking, or even looking at each other if possible. Do ten trials if you have the patience. If there's really a "huge" difference, you'll get all ten right. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57449 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
bhr1439;377475 Wrote: > > How do you know? > > --Steve As Themis says, accuraterip - a program that computes a checksum from the file you ripped and compares it to the results that thousands of others have gotten. The odds of an accidental match are essentially zero. By the way, what DCtoDaylight said is also relevant - not every disc rips perfectly, even when new. But it's only on at most 1 in 20 new discs that I have a problem - and even then, it tends to be localized to one or two specific locations on a few tracks. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
bhr1439;377315 Wrote: > > As a previous poster suggested, recording and comparing S/PDIF data > should be able to confirm or reject the hypothesis path B data being a > more reliable representation of the music. What I would expect to see > is rock solid repeatability in the S/PDIF stream originating in the > server, and run-to-run variability in the datastream originating from > the CD player. Highly unlikely. I have two cheap DVD-ROM drives in an old desktop, and they both read unscratched CDs with zero errors, at about 5-10X real time speed with zero error correction (other than what's built in to the redbook standard) or re-reading. > Now, if only I had an S/PDIF recorder... Many consumer-grade computer sound cards will do that. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
JezA;377233 Wrote: > I don't have any difficulty understanding you at all. But my conclusion > might be that the (extremely expensive) Tact is unacceptably sensitive > to jitter, especially as it claims not to be. So the difference that > the O/P hears, if it due to the cause you hypothesize, reveals at least > as much about the inadequacy of the Tact as it does about the inadequacy > of the Nakamichi or the superiority of served music. Incidentally, you > don't have any proof whatsoever, other than backwards reasoning, that > the Nakamichi produces more jitter than the SB, you are just supposing > it to be so. Removing the Tact from both chains, and listening again, > would reveal useful information. I have to agree with JezA here - if the TacT is audibly sensitive to moderate levels of input jitter, it's poorly designed (especially given its price point). Phil, whatever happened to those distorted square waves it was making? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
