Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
I would set it at 63 and try a good quality EQ device or a software. Hiroyuki On Aug 20, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Deaf Cat wrote: Would you believe I actually find the attenuation on 0 preferable to 63... Oh yes. Yes, I do find things sound more real with the 63 att especially with regards to voices which is rather good. However, things seem generally quiter and more distant (even when turned up), but more Real:-D I've switched back to 0 att as I find the mucic has a little more forwardness to it (foot taps on auto) things seem clearer and voices are pushed right out front which I love, bass seems heaver and deeper and more promanant, and things seem more separate to hear.. However back on 0 I don't listen to all of certian tracks as I find the voices too harsh in particular parts - when on 63 easily listen all the way through. What I want to know is how do I get the realness when on 63 and keep my forwardness/footappingness? Please, any one know ?? :) -- Deaf Cat -- -- Deaf Cat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php? userid=515 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
P Floding wrote: ezkcdude Wrote: Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad. Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard to believe that more jitter will sound better. Just a little, perhaps. There are thresholds of inaudibility for any of a number of criteria. The question is neither 'is less jitter better?' nor 'Systems have to be X good to see the obvious difference, is your that good?'. The question is engineering. What level is bad? or perhaps "what level is bad enough to be important and audible and in need of correction, in an otherwise well matched system of price about X?" If you are playing on a boombox, a lot of jitter can be hidden (along with THD, and other evils) without being important. Played on a $5K system, what is important changes. And it changes a little more on a $10K system and probably on a $50K system. (I don't have much experience on the latter). It is very easy "to believe" that numerically different amounts of jitter are irrelevant in listening to music. It is not easy to know what levels are relevant in the real world. Its about the music. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
seanadams wrote: Precisely right... and maintaining the slope of those transitions matters a lot if you care about jitter. What? You mean real world wiring doesn't instantantously keep the square wave, with infinite slope, moving down the wire? :-) Isn't the actual, delivered slope, or triggering voltage, constant with a connection that is made and left in place for a few million cycles? let alone the months that more real world users keep their gear connected? While the DAC may have to be designed to handle a wide variety of actual signals, I'd expect it to have only a few values in a real installation. Which would mean that theoretical tolerance is not as important as tolerating the variance that your setup actually delivers. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
andy_c wrote: By most standards, the SPDIF signal is just barely in the RF world, or at least not in serious RF mode. There are only 1.5 mega bits per second, just above the AM radio band. Just to nitpick a bit, the bandwidth in the analog domain is determined by the required rise time of the pulses, not by the number of pulses per unit time. As you go to very fast rise times, the equivalent bandwidth becomes much larger than the bits per second of the serial data stream. Right And signaling rate is not the same as bandwidth or data rate when you get serious. But fast rise times allows more transitions, which usually means higher signaling rates, which allows more data per unit of time. The key point is that SPDIF is not at rates that cause RF engineers to lose much sleep. Deal with 2.4 gHz to pick a random number that I curse with every day, and it takes some engineering. The analog dudes, down in the 20-20kHz range have it so easy. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
andy_c wrote: PhilNYC Wrote: Here's a good article describing why you should use a 1.5m digital cable http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/spdif.htm Yikes. ... [snip] .. engineer knows that the information in that linked article is completely false. The referenced article smells like snake oil to me, as well. No reason to degenerate into dualing experts. S/PDIF is a consumer mass market spec. It was designed to be everywhere and to be 'good enough'. It was primarily designed to be cheap. The idea that magic metals in the cable makes a cable 'digital' is simply marketing spin. All cables are analog. You put a voltage on a wire, and it flows (or the electronics flow, or the electron holes flow the other way, depending on your point of view.). The only thing digital is the signaling, which is the interpretation of the analog signal. With proper engineering, you can meet specs. By most standards, the SPDIF signal is just barely in the RF world, or at least not in serious RF mode. There are only 1.5 mega bits per second, just above the AM radio band. There is also the minor detail that no wire with RCA connectors on it can be 75 ohm, which is the spec for S/PDIF. RCA connectors have advantages (which is why the WW2 signal corp veterans who created 'hi fi' used them, but they can't be 75 ohm impedance, the size is wrong. So no matter what the conductors are made out of, or what magic super insulator covers it, there are impedance mismatches. Its a feature. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
PhilNYC wrote: It's not a question of absolute range as much as it is about resolution. If you've ever listened to a state of the art vinyl rig compared to a start of the art digital rig, there's no comparison I have not. I had serious vinyl 20 years ago, and even now have a decent turntable with a decent (more than $100 for just the cartridge) but it was, and is, not good enough to get me interested in going back to vinyl. On a tangent, it does knock me out when someone buys really expensive gear and then does nothing with regards to acoustic treatments etc. Room acoustics is 50% of the equation *at least*... Easily 50%, far more important, at least in the first $10,000 of system cost, than any other improvement. But for 30+ years, I've wanted a house that I could put some Klipshorns into, and then some Quads. I would have to buy a new house, and that makes the cost of silly interconnects look like pizza and beer money -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
PhilNYC wrote: pfarrell Wrote: >> about analog signal paths... I can totally believe that there is an audible difference. Interestingly, most of the top digital component designers agree that just about all production DAC chips are incapable of using the last 5-6 bits on a 24-bit chip to anywhere near an accuracy that makes those last 5-6 bits useful for D-A conversion. But is it important? 16 bits is 96 dB Signal to noise. Each additional bit add 6dB. Lets for the sake of not quibbling over whether it is 5 or 6, and say using 24 bit actually delivers only two real bits of additional signal. That takes us from 96dB to 108 dB. Is that enough? It is clear that no listening space is quiet enough for 108 dB of range, it is not clear that any space 'needs' a range of 96 dB. But we know that the trucation of 16 bit signals without proper dithering is audible, at least when you have 24 bit DACs to compare against. And I'll grant that crappy engineering makes the bad dithering more audible even with RedBook. But a lot of the bad reputation that RedBook got from audiophiles was because early recording engineers used 16 bit (or worse 12 bit) effects Most good recording engineers today use 24 bit audio paths from start to finish, and use a good dithering algorithm to reduce the signal to RedBook specs. The key question for audiophiles is really not "is 24 bits better than 16" as the answer is pretty clearly yes. The question is, do you really need 19 or 20 bits? or the full 24? And if you can hear it, how much is it worth? I totally agree that the engineering to deliver linear response over 108dB or more is challenging. Normal 1% resistors don't cut it. And given unlimited funds, engineers can do it, altho the cost may exceed even what the folks who read The Absolute Sound thing is expensive. At some point, it is cheaper to hire the Julliard String Quartet to play in your living room. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
P Floding wrote: Stop spamming interesting threads with your irrelevant and long-winded religous beliefs. You are the one who claimed I didn't know what I was talking about. And you have no evidence to back up your gratitous ad hominin attack. Perhaps the TacT discussion is interesting to some, but jitter has nothing to do with it. Personal insults have no place in a civilized discussion. The problem causing this thread is not jitter or word clock. It is gain staging. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
P Floding wrote: pfarrell Wrote: And you are claiming that jitter is the reason that S/PDIF sounds poor in this thread? I guess not. So what is your problem? The thread shows that improper setup, specificall bad gain staging is the cause of the poor sound. Not your mythical jitter. What basis do you have for your claim that I am 'less than up-to-date' on digital audio technology? You make it blindingly obvious, my friend. I clearly am not your friend. Got a cite to back up your baseless insult? -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
P Floding wrote: I just do not believe that jitter is a serious problem anymore. And I sure don't see any reason to spend my hard earned money on a problem that doesn't seem to be real. Why don't you start a new thread for ranting about your various beliefs, instead? You certainly seem less than up-to-date on the subject of digital audio technology. And you are claiming that jitter is the reason that S/PDIF sounds poor in this thread? What basis do you have for your claim that I am 'less than up-to-date' on digital audio technology? -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
P Floding wrote: pfarrell Wrote: Especially since the jitter problem is just fiction to make people spend money. I can believe it was a real problem decades ago. I see nothing to indicate that any recent audiophile equipment has any audible differences any more. Decades ago? Why don't all transports sound the same then? Or was it just a flamestarter? Not an attempt to flame at all, which you should be able to tell from my prior postings. I just do not believe that jitter is a serious problem anymore. I don't know what a transport is. Except for a very few (count them on one hand) all the CD/DVD/SACD players use commodity PC transports. It is unreasonable to expect that different brands using the same parts would have different sounds. Last month's The Absoute Sound raved about a CD player that costs $33,000. It is beyond my understanding how it could be even three times better than a $10,000 CD player. All CD/DVD/SACD players pull bits from the plastic disk. Bits are bits. Perhaps there is a difference in how they read, focus lengths, ECC, etc. But I doubt it. There are different DAC chips out there. Some are really expensive and cost as much as $10 each. Probably sonic differences there. And the analog signal paths can have impact on sound. No argument there, unless someone can implement straight wire with gain. But if you are talking about extracting bits from the plastic disk and transporting it to a DAC (external or internal), I don't see how any sort of transport has any impact on sound. When the digital signal has proper ECC, there is nothing you can do to change the bits. That is one of the solid beauties of being digital. And for stereo, with modern systems, I don't see that jitter is a problem. Clock skew is a big problem in multi-channel recording studios, because you have more channels of signal than you can have on a two channel ADC. So there is lots of potential for clock skew causing all sorts of evil stuff. The solution for that is a master clock driving all the ADCs, and any number of vendors will gladly sell you a clock, and all pro recording gear has clock inputs. For SqueezeBox to DAC to amp to speakers, in stereo, I just don't see it. I don't see credible reasons for it in the audiophile magazines, I don't see any engineering reason for it. And I sure don't see any reason to spend my hard earned money on a problem that doesn't seem to be real. YMMV. If you want to talk about 24 bit samples at high sample rates, I can totally believe that there is an audible difference. But the industry completely screwed up SACD and DVD-A to the point that no one cares about them, and transports that support them are becoming fewer. And major artists' labels are not releasing material on them. So high-wide, while wonderful, is like vinyl -- a niche product for a tiny subset of audiophiles. high-wide could have finally killed vinyl, but it failed. -- Pat Farrell PRC recording studio http://www.pfarrell.com/PRC ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
mauidan wrote: PhilNYC Wrote: Because the jitter performance of the Transporter's digital outs is measured to be much better than that of the SqueezeBox, and he's clearly looking for better performance. Or even further, if the TacT has a word clock out, he'd get even better performance using the Transporter's word-clock input... $2K is a lot of money to pay to get better jitter performance. Especially since the jitter problem is just fiction to make people spend money. I can believe it was a real problem decades ago. I see nothing to indicate that any recent audiophile equipment has any audible differences any more. IMHO, YMMV, etc. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
