Personally as a "systems engineer", I trust what I can reproduce. When
I write code, I write tests for that code. I know I've fucked up when
my tests don't pass. And when I write something that breaks in strange
ways, I figure out where my tests fail.
Same thing when I'm answering support tick
Gazjam;372084 Wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> ...cleaning out regisrty entries etc for 7.2 THEN reinstall 7.3.
I wonder if Sean or anyone else at Logitech would please comment, if
such separate Windows registry-deletion steps should really be
necessary. Are there leftover "old registry entries" that the S
Rather than mess up the jitter thread, I thought that I would bring to
light this post on some other forum that one of my "spies" told me
about.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1688461#post1688461
Now, I do not know this individual. In fact, looking at his public
profile, I
pfarrell;372268 Wrote:
> Again, you mis-state my position. Look for DBT in my postings. There
> are
> no demands for them. DBT is one option for doing tests. Its not the
> only
> one. The only use of the term "DBT" in this thread in a message
> written
> by me was one that you, Pat at- wrote. Put
pfarrell;372171 Wrote:
> Pete Fowler wrote:
> > Dueling reference works - woohoo!
>
> Except that other than the one linked article that costs money, there
> has been no duel.
Sorry this was unclear - my point was since most of us on the forum
have no means to perform original research on jitt
Honestly, not to pretend to have in-depth knowledge about your setup
(anyone feel free to correct this), my guess would be that there is a
dedicated ASRC (Asynchronous Sample Rate Converter) IC in your
Receiver, or a DSP implementation of it using something like an AD
Sharc chip or like. Meanwhile
pryamomimo;372254 Wrote:
> This would most likely be due to different ASRC methodologies -
> implemented in software (whatever you use) or hardware (whatever it is
> in Denon - a Crystal, AD or TI chip, or what else?)
The Denon has a BB PCM1791A chip and the laptop a Realtek AL885 chip
with 5-on-
ar-t wrote:
> Should, could, would, etc. The guys who run these things usually do one
> of two methods:
>
> Get a small group, and test them to death. Or, put a whole mess of
> people in in giant room, and expect everyone to hear the same thing.
> Gotta get the sample levels up!
There is no reaso
This would most likely be due to different ASRC methodologies -
implemented in software (whatever you use) or hardware (whatever it is
in Denon - a Crystal, AD or TI chip, or what else?)
--
pryamomimo
pryamomimo's Profile:
I'll try it once more: I have a question, and I wonder whether it's
jitter related :
I feed an external dac (the Denon 3808's one, for instance) through an
optical output of my laptop. The Denon's dac upsamples to 192, as
usual.
When I upsample at the source (the laptop's audio card) the sound i
ar-t;372236 Wrote:
> they prove it all sounds alike
They do no such thing. As I indicated, A/B testing can also use
repeated trials, and yet their subjects' remarkable abilities are
consistent right to the end. Perhaps DBT trials more exhausting than
A/B trials, even over the same length of ti
pfarrell;372228 Wrote:
> ar-t wrote:
> > OK, call it the methodology. Try sitting through an ABX DBT for 4
> > hours, then come back and tell me how enjoyable it was.
>
> Complete red herring. Of course a four hour session would not be
> enjoyable. So ask why the test designer did something that
CatBus;372220 Wrote:
> How does telling the listener in advance which sample is different cause
> the test to become MORE reliable than not telling them? Is there an
> answer to this question that passes the laugh test?
I never said that. Do you enjoy twisting the words of others around to
prov
Pat Farrell wrote:
> If you had enough volunteers, you should be able to use a three way test
> of only a few seconds each.
For a test to have any point whatsoever, any possible differences must
be discernible within the duration of the test.
It is my experience that any short-comings in this a
Whatever was causing the sound quality drop seems to have been solved by
the replacement of the switch. I have swapped the switches around to
ensure that the differences I've heard are audible and I have to
conclude that the switch is affecting the sound - no idea why
--
maxrob200
-
ar-t wrote:
> OK, call it the methodology. Try sitting through an ABX DBT for 4
> hours, then come back and tell me how enjoyable it was.
Complete red herring. Of course a four hour session would not be
enjoyable. So ask why the test designer did something that evil.
Perhaps because they could no
ar-t;372180 Wrote:
> Have any of you ever been part of a DBT panel?
Yes.
ar-t;372180 Wrote:
> you would realise that they eventually reduce down to everything sounded
> exactly alike.
Repeated trials are required to improve statistical certainty--they are
actually totally unrelated to whether
darrenyeats;372210 Wrote:
> Now if there's a problem with a particular methodology then that's
> another matter. I'm talking about the principle of double blind
> testing.
OK, call it the methodology. Try sitting through an ABX DBT for 4
hours, then come back and tell me how enjoyable it was.
P
Because the -"close-in"- jitter is the really bad stuff.
And hard to get rid of.
Look, if it wasn't all that bad:
1.) Everyone would spec their oscillator jitter down below 1 Hz. They
don't, and there is a reason why.
2.) All PLLs would work wonderfully and SPDIF would sound as good as
the sou
ar-t;372180 Wrote:
>
> Have any of you ever been part of a DBT panel? I seriously doubt it. If
> you had been, you would realise that they eventually reduce down to
> everything sounded exactly alike.
>
> Which is what the goal of some of its proponents: everything sounds the
> same. A self-ful
ar-t;372196 Wrote:
> Ya wanna see some really, really, really bad jitter, posing as something
> really hot???
>
> Here, follow this link:
>
> http://focus.ti.com.cn/cn/lit/an/scaa088/scaa088.pdf
>
> Look at the phase noise plots. You will notice that they are very proud
> of how low the jitter
Ya wanna see some really, really, really bad jitter, posing as something
really hot???
Here, follow this link:
http://focus.ti.com.cn/cn/lit/an/scaa088/scaa088.pdf
Look at the phase noise plots. You will notice that they are very proud
of how low the jitter is.
>From 10 kHz on up. Yeah, in cas
cliveb;372181 Wrote:
> Quite so. People appear to be able to tell the difference between
> identical bit streams from different transports passing through the
> same DAC. And therefore many conclude that it has to be jitter, because
> apart from the sample values the only other conceivable variab
Well yes, but it's the same analogue circuitry in each case - in the
external DAC and the rest of the audio system.
You can have the same file playing at the same time on both players,
and simply move the digital cable from one source to another.
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
--
Patrick Dixon;372146 Wrote:
> I think one of the issues is that there are too many variables between
> CDPs, streaming devices and DACs to know that you're listening to
> effects of jitter alone.
Quite so. People appear to be able to tell the difference between
identical bit streams from differen
Looks like only one person is really reading what I have written. So, I
will say it one last time:
> Now, here is what a lot of folks fail to grasp:
> *You have to know the carrier frequency in order to know what the
> jitter amount is.* This is critical, as 10 pSec at 10 MHz may be
> decent, but
Sorry for drudging up an old thread, but I was wondering if anyone knows
what the Vrms for the DAC 60 is?
I am sketching out the gain structure of my system and wanted to know.
I haven't measured mine yet and wondered if anyone else has.
I have to finish up some other larger DIY projects, bu
CatBus;372151 Wrote:
>
> Scientists use the scientific method so that others can show exactly
> how they are wrong. In this day and age, when someone does not use the
> scientific method, it is often precisely because they do not wish to be
> shown how wrong they are.
I would rather say "when s
Pete Fowler wrote:
> If I understand your first point, you and Pat are asking for someone to
> either perform a blind test showing that very low jitter rates are
> audible, or to be able to point to an acceptable research document that
> shows a blind test (or other suitable scientific method) was
CatBus;372151 Wrote:
> Supported yes, proven no. Pat's position is that you should doubt until
> you see evidence. Credible evidence may very well exist, but he hasn't
> seen it.
>
>
>
> I'll assume the best from this comment. It's possible to reach the
> correct conclusion via a nonscienti
maxrob200;371844 Wrote:
> It is possible that the original switch was introducing noise or
> artefacts into the data stream. Might even be the wall-wart switch mode
> power supply because the one supplied with the Linksys is certainly more
> substantial in build.
> Thanks for all the suggestions
> badboygolf16v
Heh, I have a valver too! You in the UK I presume?
R.
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Pete Fowler;372123 Wrote:
> By implication one could also conclude that since no scientific proof of
> jitter audibility has been presented to Pat his position is
> supported/proven?
Supported yes, proven no. Pat's position is that you should doubt
until you see evidence. Credible evidence may
The SDA2175 is a superb amplifier. When I bought it, I think I paid
775GBP for it, an unqualified bargain.
I owned one until I got a TDAI2200.
--
badboygolf16v
badboygolf16v's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/membe
Michael Amster;372140 Wrote:
>
> It would be helpful if Pat (ar-t) could name a few names of designs
> that
> have good low jitter implementations where it counts. A handfuly of
> single clock CD players so that people could verify would be very
> helpful. I understand our beloved Slim boxe
Pete Fowler;372123 Wrote:
> He's demanding other people toe the line and conform to his belief in
> science as the ultimate arbiter of what is valid and what is snake oil.
For me the problem is that it's a very narrow view of science, based on
the current academic system where someone puts up a
> Good points.
>
> If I understand your first point, you and Pat are asking for someone to
> either perform a blind test showing that very low jitter rates are
> audible, or to be able to point to an acceptable research document that
> shows a blind test (or other suitable scientific method) was d
cliveb;372009 Wrote:
>
>
> Meanwhile, Benjamin and Gannon demonstrated back in 1998, *using blind
> listening tests*, that jitter less than 20nS was inaudible on music
> material.
>
> And in 2004, Ashihara et al demonstrated, *using blind listening
> tests*, that not one single listener in the
cliveb;372009 Wrote:
> I appreciate that your comment was aimed at Pat, but might I make a
> comment?
>
> Everyone seems to be getting at Pat without appreciating what he's
> actually trying to say. As I read it, he's merely speculating that
> perhaps in the real world, except in gross situation
Gazjam;372084 Wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> I reinstalled 7.3 earlier, this time TOTALLY deleting 7.2.1, not just
> overwriting it.
> I cleaned out registry entries etc etc.
>
> If its a real issue, I suspect its not a SB firmware, sPDIF output or
> anything SB related (as the guys here have pointed out)
Stratmangler;372037 Wrote:
> I've tried the experiment I outlined above.
>
> Firmware does change according to the version of Squeezecenter used,
> which is good (ie 7.2.1 has firmware 113, and 7.3 has firmware 120).
> There is a prompt to upload the relevant update when you shift between
> sour
Skunk;372071 Wrote:
> I would try it if I had an extra Receiver, or two Squeezeboxes, and a
> DAC with two digital inputs, for a more convenient A/B. It probably
> wouldn't be too much trouble for someone with a nice home theater
> processor and two players using different versions of SC. Since t
Stratmangler;372037 Wrote:
>
> All I can say further is to try the experiment - if you can't hear a
> difference then fine, use 7.3 - if you can hear a negative difference
> then stick with 7.2.1 .
I would try it if I had an extra Receiver, or two Squeezeboxes, and a
DAC with two digital inputs
Stratmangler;371783 Wrote:
> Not at all .
>
> Is it possible to select source via the settings menu on 7.3 as you can
> on 7.2.1 ?
>
> If so, I can set up my laptop as a wired (to router) source on my
> network and copy across some files into a music directory.
>
> I can then switch between so
If you download the pdf owners manual from the Lyngdorf site, you'll
find on page 10 that the input sensitivity for the amp is 2V for 200W
out. Depending on how loud you listen, that should be okay. Better yet,
purchase from a dealer that allows a 30 day audition with no restocking
fee.
--
konu
Pete Fowler;371575 Wrote:
> So...did you read the article at the link?
I appreciate that your comment was aimed at Pat, but might I make a
comment?
Everyone seems to be getting at Pat without appreciating what he's
actually trying to say. As I read it, he's merely speculating that
perhaps in the
Spot on, just what I was looking for.
Cheers!
--
Gazjam
Gazjam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18604
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56591
My (and I believe, default) settings for flac are:
FLAC - Native
MP3 - Disabled
WAV - Flac
Most likely, you will be seeing the same. Just to double-check for the
peace of mind.
(One more "by the way" - I found no difference in sound quality between
sending FLAC as FLAC or WAV to the Receiver)
oh right?
What should I be looking for in there - I've just always assumed its
been fine as it is?
Its mostly FLAC I use, with some mp3s
ta.
--
Gazjam
Gazjam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1
One last suggestion. As someone mentioned before, it is always wise to
double check "file types" under the "advanced" tab.
--
pryamomimo
pryamomimo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21964
View this
Thanks for that.
I'm going to reinstall 7.3 - seems daft not to?
I particularly like being able to customise the SB3 display.
Thanks for all the help guys.
--
Gazjam
Gazjam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/memb
And by the way, I have recently installed the 7.3 update, and so far
observe no changes in sound quality (I use Duet feeding a PS Audio
DAC). I played a couple of recordings that never fail to highlight
changes in digital sources - sound the same as before. No setting were
changed by the automatic
Gazjam;371933 Wrote:
> thanks for that, I'll try that.
>
> I had thought , though, that setting was for the analogue outputs, so
> putting maximum attenuation (63) effectively "shut off" the analogue
> ports - making for less interferannce to the spdif?
>
> Or did you mean check that setting, a
thanks for that, I'll try that.
I had thought , though, that setting was for the analogue outputs, so
putting maximum attenuation (63) effectively "shut off" the analogue
ports - making for less interferannce to the spdif?
Or did you mean check that setting, as it will probably be at 0 by
defaul
The default value for "preamp volume control" is 0. You may want to try
this setting.
--
pryamomimo
pryamomimo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21964
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.co
hi, OP here
The idea of the default audio settings being different between
firmwares is a possibility, so could someone look at the below and tell
me if I'm set for best audio quality?
Before I install 7.3 again I'd just like to confirm some settings in
the Player Audio setup screen.
Bitrate li
Phil Leigh;371851 Wrote:
> I'm pretty certain that that jitter (which also sounds like what was
> described) hasn't increased thanks to the firmware changes... unless
> the extra/different work by the CPU code is causing PSU induced jitter
> on the spdif output. I think Sean already ruled out thi
don a hare suit...harebrained ?
What do you call 100 hares in a row taking a step backward ?
receding hare line
--
tomjtx
tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449
View this thread: http:
58 matches
Mail list logo
