My system is balanced throughout. Tried driving the poweramps directly
from the transporter. Managed to convince myself that there was a
significant improvement - probably best way to describe it was a
lowering of the noise floor. Didn't have attenuators (a route I would
not recommend) so was
Andy8421;410686 Wrote:
Didn't have attenuators (a route I would not recommend)
[snip]
I would strongly recommend direct plus attentuators (and balanced if
your system is capable of it).
There seems to be a contradiction in your recommendations here. Is
there a typo, perhaps? Do you think
El Duderino;410682 Wrote:
Without this level of objectivity in endpoints, it is hard to design a
relevant double-blind, randomized controlled trial. In testing audio,
the endpoint is as subjective as it gets ie Does A sound better than
B. Therefore, the design of any double-blind study is
El Duderino;410682 Wrote:
The problem here is that many individuals seem to think that you can
take the scientific concept of a double-blind randomized controlled
trial and apply it to areas which one could argue are distinctly
non-scientific. This is a fallacy.
What is a fallacy is
Recent postings in some threads here have stirred up that old hornets
nest of blind testing once again. The antagonists have once again set
out their uncompromising positions, with no prospect of reaching any
kind of shared view. So, at the risk of getting badly stung by the
angry hornets, I
I think you are missing the point.
A-B-X testing, blind or otherwise, as advocated by the
(pseudo-)objectivists is a poor way to judge differences between
systems, because it is more a test of musical memory than musical
perception. For it to be useful, you have to be capable of remembering
the
JezA;410762 Wrote:
A-B-X testing, blind or otherwise, as advocated by the
(pseudo-)objectivists is a poor way to judge differences between
systems, because it is more a test of musical memory than musical
perception. For it to be useful, you have to be capable of remembering
the A and the B
cliveb;410749 Wrote:
Objectivists should stop telling people they are deluding themselves
when they hear a difference, and Subjectivists should stop insisting
that the difference they hear can't be down to these external factors.
Good thoughts! You could apply them on other subjects. The
Quad;410778 Wrote:
Good thoughts! You could apply them on other subjects. The blind testing
controversy here reminds me of the discussion between homeopathy and
conventional medicine (...which has been going on for the last 200
years, so don't expect harmony too soon. But hope dies last,
cliveb;410775 Wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that it's
impossible to compare two components, sighted or otherwise, to
determine whether they sound the same. Is that your position? .
No it is not my position. I said that A-B-X testing is a poor way of
cliveb;410749 Wrote:
Here's an analogy. You have two servings of food: one is presented
artistically and looks nice on the plate; the other is the same but has
been pre-cut up, mixed and dumped into a bowl. Once the food is in the
mouth, there's no difference, but pretty much everyone would
iPhone;410810 Wrote:
Not to stir the pot to much, but I find it rather odd that your analogy
very much involves SIGHT when your post is about Double Blind Testing.
1. The word blind in blind testing doesn't refer to having no sense
of sight. It's about not knowing the identity of the candidate
I second the motion for a 24/192 capable Transporter Mini, to use with
the Controller and your own choice of DAC. I currently have a Benchmark
DAC-1, but would love to audition a Berkeley Audio Alpha DAC. I think
the high-res download market will really take off in the next year or
so, and
Yes. Highly recommended. I've been using one with my CD player and now
run the Duet through it. Big difference compared to the Duet on its
own. Sound and volume compare favorably to the CD.
--
chitunes
chitunes's
I've been using Duet for a couple months, playing the the gain
settings.
Most of my tracks (AAC MP3) have been tagged using iGain or MP3Gain
(which use the same standard).
Does the Replay/Smart feature read what's already tagged, or does it
act on its own, ignoring any previous file
chitunes;410825 Wrote:
Based on this, how is the volume adjustment number in More Information
calculated?
Everything comes from the tags. Squeezecenter does not (by default) do
any extra processing, nor does it write anything to your files.
--
SuperQ
SuperQ;410833 Wrote:
Everything comes from the tags. Squeezecenter does not (by default) do
any extra processing, nor does it write anything to your files.
Thanks for the reply SuperQ. I appreciate the information. This leads
me back to my other question as to why the displayed number is
Discussions like this tend to generate more heat than light.
Perceptions are personal. Views can differ.
--
Goodsounds
Goodsounds's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14201
View this thread:
Moonbase;410501 Wrote:
Suggestion to at least -check- against badly encoded files and/or RG
tools that deliver incredible values:
(I actually also use another method: From time to time I generate
master playlists on my whole collection that also spit out some
special playlists like
chitunes;410835 Wrote:
Thanks for the reply SuperQ. I appreciate the information. This leads
me back to my other question as to why the displayed number is always a
greater reduction than is tagged by MP3/iGain. This difference is
audible in the actual volume, sound quality and dynamic
My main problem with DBT is that it only gives one a snapshot of the
sound of the components being tested. By snapshot I mean a very small
sampling of the musical spectrum, a one or two minute long snippet of
music rather than an overview of how the components may or may not
differ when playing
El Duderino;409346 Wrote:
I was simply asking if using the XLR outputs influences the volume.
Priceless reply.
But I don't think anyone answered your actual question.
You should expect XLR outputs to be +6 dB above RCA connections. In
addition, but more variably, -nominal- line level
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:
jaysung;410341 Wrote:
That is the question.
Directly into main amps or have you got a pre?
Why?
Ok, 2 of 3 of my systems go direct, one uses a preamp. The preamp is
for selecting between multiple analog sources becuase I didn't want to
use the DACs of the home theater surround sound
Patrick Dixon;410849 Wrote:
There's 'track gain' and 'album gain', are you comparing like with like?
I use smart gain to differentiate between playlists and albums. Are
you saying there could be different results?
--
chitunes
Patrick Dixon;410849 Wrote:
There's 'track gain' and 'album gain', are you comparing like with like?
The dynamic range of the actual music should not be affected as both
the high and low are changed the same.
--
Nonreality
-IF THE RULE YOU FOLLOWED BROUGHT YOU TO THIS, OF WHAT USE IS THE
chitunes;410835 Wrote:
Thanks for the reply SuperQ. I appreciate the information. This leads
me back to my other question as to why the displayed number is always a
greater reduction than is tagged by MP3/iGain. This difference is
audible in the actual volume, sound quality and dynamic
chitunes;410855 Wrote:
I use smart gain to differentiate between playlists and albums. Are you
saying there could be different results?
With track gain each song has a different volume gain, with album gain
every song on the album will have the same volume gain to preserve the
original intent
The Blind Testing Controversy
There is nothing controversial about blind testing. There is a small
groups of audiophiles, plus a few other groups, that have wish to
believe in magic more strongly than they wish to believe in science.
Since these groups offer nothing in support of rejecting the
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
honestguv;410861 Wrote:
Can you provide an example or two?
Wait a second...
honestguv;410861 Wrote:
[...] subjectivists making incorrect statements [...] due to their
belief system.
Ha! Found one.
--
Quad
Quad's
opaqueice;410870 Wrote:
In my opinion, perceptual bias is simply a fact - it's part of what
makes us human beings.
So is expectation bias.
--
Quad
Quad's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20234
opaqueice;410853 Wrote:
You might find this thread interesting:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35068
Wow! I really didn't know that this discussion has been going on for
that long! But I'm curios now. I would love to redo a similar test and
find out if I could hear a
I'm going to do my best. Forgive me if it's not good enough.
cliveb;410749 Wrote:
The Objectivist seems to take the view that since there is no difference
in the detectable soundfield (as evidenced by a blind comparison)
Usually I'm not this pedantic, but it seems to make a difference here.
Nonreality;410859 Wrote:
The dynamic range of the actual music should not be affected as both the
high and low are changed the same. Try turning the volume up.
Turning up the volume does help on older, less dynamic recordings.
Thanks.
I'm still curious about what affects the volume leveling
Nonreality;410860 Wrote:
With track gain each song has a different volume gain, with album gain
every song on the album will have the same volume gain to preserve the
original intent of the producer.
Yes, I understand that's the reason for both settings. Thanks.
But I'm still curious on
If you use mp3gain you can apply gain setting to the actual track
without the use of tags. The changes the music so that you can use
replay gain on devices that do not support replay gain. I've never
used it because I don't want it to be permanent. I guess you can
change them back but I just
Nonreality;410898 Wrote:
If you use mp3gain you can apply gain setting to the actual track
without the use of tags. The changes the music so that you can use
replay gain on devices that do not support replay gain. I've never
used it because I don't want it to be permanent. I guess you can
I just have to point at this paper:
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/short/83/6/3548
What do 'objectivists' (I think I am one) say to these results? Bad
design?
Sorry if this is old stuff. I find it rather interesting.
--
Quad
chitunes;410901 Wrote:
The original intent, as you indicated, was to use MP3gain for playback
on iPods, which of course don't support tags. But that was before
Duet! Given that MP3/iGain act on the file itself, I would like to
know what affect that has on volume playing back through SC and
Quad;410902 Wrote:
I just have to point at this paper:
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/short/83/6/3548
What do 'objectivists' (I think I am one) say to these results? Bad
design?
Sorry if this is old stuff. I find it rather interesting.
My experience with PET scans is nil, so I
41 matches
Mail list logo
