...sold my speakers got new ones sold my vinyl setup.
Logitech killed Squeezebox.
Almost forgot about this forum, what's up lately?
TT4.0 out yet?
Regards
RoDa
[image:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a270/RODARID/HIFI%202012/IMG_7743.jpg]
brgds wrote:
This week I'm going with the similar exercise, perhaps more advanced -
two SBTs, first one vanilla with std PSU and EDO, second also with EDO
and with advanced PSU together with some HW mods including separate
powered high end oscillatrors. My chain: SBT-coax-Sabre-passive-AN
NoRoDa wrote:
Instead of all that thinking, what about trying?
It can be very revealing, at least it was for me.
I can't explain why we were able to hear a difference between the stock
and the Teddy PSU.
But at least the products in the system we listened to are sane
components. :D
Mnyb wrote:
I have a CIA linear PSU left over from my SB3 days that now power the
Touch , I can not recall or remember any great differences with the SB3
and I just dropped in the Touchs as replacement .
So I haven't compared :D but as my system is today it does not show any
differences
mlsstl wrote:
Two considerations. First, what some call blind conditions can still
leave a lot of room for subjective intrusions into the results.
Well-done blind testing is hard work with lots of opportunities for
corner-cutting.
Second, there are a lot of issues in audio other than
NoRoDa wrote:
Yup
Our test was nothing more than listening blind and trying to tell one
from the other.
No proof.
I agree that this (possible) difference with the PSU has to do with
noise more than with the digital playback itself.
Regards
PSU could actually influence other parts
Mnyb wrote:
PSU could actually influence other parts of your hifi it is not
necesarily the squeezebox that gets improved
I've heard this a lot: I'm really not that convinced. For example, I
have an O2 headphone amp: it's prettymuch a cheapskate objectivist's
wire with gain for headphones. The
It is a remote possibility ,not the most likely one , a couple of years
ago some member did extensive ADM measurements with the SB3 and there
was never any difference in the output with expensive PSU vs the
original , so I offered it as a remote possibility , there is of course
a handfull more
Instead of all that thinking, what about trying?
It can be very revealing, at least it was for me.
I can't explain why we were able to hear a difference between the stock
and the Teddy PSU.
But at least the products in the system we listened to are sane
components. :D
The few hours spent
NoRoDa wrote:
Don't know how the jitter relates to the PSU?
Yup, of course, both locked on max volume.
The issue isn't so much that, rather that such levels of jitter are
extremely low: far, far below even the most conservative of reported
audibility thresholds. When the one with the
Willakan wrote:
The issue isn't so much that, rather that such levels of jitter are
extremely low: far, far below even the most conservative of reported
audibility thresholds. When the one with the better power supply is
clearly better under blind conditions and it's a digital connection,
Willakan wrote:
Just to confirm, this was with the digital outputs?
Yup, that's correct.
Was a bit of a surprise that one, didn't think it would be that easy to
hear.
NoRoDa's Profile:
NoRoDa wrote:
Yup, that's correct.
Was a bit of a surprise that one, didn't think it would be that easy to
hear.
Surprise?! Surprise!! The Touch's jitter is 300ps peak :D
Both on max. volume presumably?
Willakan's
Willakan wrote:
Surprise?! Surprise!! The Touch's jitter is 300ps peak :D
Back to the test: both on max. volume presumably?
Don't know how the jitter relates to the PSU?
Yup, of course, both locked on max volume.
NoRoDa wrote:
Hi
Read this post:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?94418-Blind-listening-TT3-0-HWmods-and-Teddy-Pardo-PSUp=699118viewfull=1#post699118
Good luck with the tests!
PS: The one thing we did hear an improvement with was the Teddy PSU,
could be worth testing ;)
brgds wrote:
Rolf,
sounds interesting.
Could you tell us a bit on the whole system you used?
This week I'm going with the similar exercise, perhaps more advanced -
two SBTs, first one vanilla with std PSU and EDO, second also with EDO
and with advanced PSU together with some HW mods
aubuti wrote:
NoRoDa has provided a lot of the details of test conditions in various
posts in this thread and the thread to which he linked when starting
this thread. Btw, it is easy to find those posts by clicking on the link
that shows NoRoDa's username, and then choosing View Forum Posts.
NoRoDa wrote:
Thanks aubuti.
The primary goal of the blind listening was to check the differences
between a factory/vanilla SBT and one with TT3.0 installed.
There was just me and baardbaard present at the time of the listening.
Two guys that finally had the chance to listen to two SBTs
Best thing I ever did (months ago) was disable TT3.0go back
to stockand quit reading all the unqualified Bullshnit here.
This forum is THE definition of waste of time
I did the cap mod however and that did improve the analog.
Make no mistake: I'm not singling it out as flawed, just saying that it
was probably also flawed. I'm very much on the worthless claims are
worthless bandwagon.
Willakan's Profile:
Willakan wrote:
I can't seem to work out whether the test was between the digital or
analog outputs though...
In other words; The test's 'reproducibility'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) can be expressed in a
non-non-zero number.
Willakan wrote:
Make no mistake: I'm not singling it out as flawed, just saying that it
was probably also flawed. I'm very much on the worthless claims are
worthless bandwagon.
I can't seem to work out whether the test was between the digital or
analog outputs though...
A lot of people
mlsstl wrote:
A lot of people find it tempting to denote things only as black or
white, with no possible territory in the middle.
The perfect blind test will never exist, but that shouldn't keep us
from drawing conclusions regarding the cumulative weight of the somewhat
less-that-perfect
Willakan wrote:
Agreed, but I still don't see why more emphasis wasn't placed on
discussion of the test conditions from the get-go, to establish whether
it could be classed as meaningful and/or to attempt to reproduce it.
NoRoDa has provided a lot of the details of test conditions in various
Did anyone ever verify that this blind test was conducted with any real
degree of vigour? Call me a cynic, but I'm inclined to blame differences
on things like failing to volume match within +/-0.1db and failures in
test protocol rather than, erm, magic...
The OP has already stated that it was not terribly rigorous (see post
#1943 in the thread
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?91322-soundcheck-s-Touch-Toolbox-3-0/page195).
But if you're going to blame the test procedure when someone at least
actually bothered to try (single) blind
aubuti wrote:
The OP has already stated that it was not terribly rigorous (see post
#1943 in the thread
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?91322-soundcheck-s-Touch-Toolbox-3-0/page195).
But if you're going to blame the test procedure when someone at least
actually bothered to try
ralphpnj wrote:
Simple: I believe that all those claims are completely worthless. Well
not really completely worthless since when these claims are make by a
reviewer in one of the high end audio magazines the claims then can be
made into great quotes by equipment manufacturers.
Obviously. I
aubuti wrote:
Obviously. I was directing the question to the person who suddenly chose
to single out as flawed one of the few test cases in which someone at
least considered expectations bias and made a modest attempt to account
for it.
Yes I fully understood that to be how you meant your
ralphpnj wrote:
Yes I fully understood that to be how you meant your post, however I
rarely miss a chance to bash the high end audio press :)
Ok, glad I could help with teeing that one up for you :-)
aubuti's
sbgk wrote:
those who think there's a sound quality difference between server
configurations in any normal situation, simply have no clue how
squeezebox streaming works.
there is quite clearly a difference in sound.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Soulkeeper wrote:
Of course you were unable to detect any difference in sound quality.
Those who think there's a sound quality difference between server
configurations in any normal situation, simply have no clue how
Squeezebox streaming works.
a simple test is to set the LMS process
NoRoDa wrote:
As long as you're not in my head I'll survive! :D :D :D
noroda, why don't you try my settings ? then you'll be listening to
music instead of winding yourself up on here.
A few on here are using them and are pretty impressed with them.
SBGK wrote:
a simple test is to set the LMS process priority to low, have a listen
and then set it to high and have a listen. There is quite clearly a
difference in sound.
Do operating systems sound the same ? no.
why does changing the tcp settings on the server affect the sound ?
mlsstl wrote:
After making the switch to the new server I have been unable to detect
any difference in sound quality.
Of course you were unable to detect any difference in sound quality.
Those who think there's a sound quality difference between server
configurations in any normal
Soulkeeper wrote:
Of course you were unable to detect any difference in sound quality.
Those who think there's a sound quality difference between server
configurations in any normal situation, simply have no clue how
Squeezebox streaming works.
I didn't say so the first time around, but
For those running vanilla SBT, do you run any mods on the server
system...like Fidelizer, registry changes etc?
lake_eleven's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=48979
View this thread:
lake_eleven wrote:
For those running vanilla SBT, do you run any mods on the server
system...like Fidelizer, registry changes etc?
No, I don't run any special programs on the server. In fact, I just
switched music servers this past week. I had been using a 7 or 8 year
old PC running Fedora
magiccarpetride wrote:
I say so! It's all in your head, you know.
As long as you're not in my head I'll survive! :D :D :D
NoRoDa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49139
View this thread:
TT 3.0 improvement is pretty obvious I don't need you to tell me I don't
hear a difference. Peace on guys!
edodo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=55876
View this thread:
edodo wrote:
TT 3.0 improvement is pretty obvious over vanilla sbt. I don't need you
to tell me I don't hear a difference. Peace on guys!
Buy a better system to critically judge!
Who says there's no difference?
I'm just saying it sounds worse than vanilla SBT in my system.
If you prefer the
NoRoDa wrote:
Who says there's no difference?
I say so! It's all in your head, you know.
magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863
View this thread:
mcr, you crack me up. You have to be the king of chameleons!
rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418
Returned to vanilla STB wired to Windows 8 server. All
Modem/Router/Switch have linear PS. SBT has CIAudio PS.
WOW!, way to go until TT4.0. More organic sound, fuller lower end, no
harsh...SBT sounds pleasant now!
What about the possibility that the listeners are stressed because it's
very hard to tell the difference when relying purely on their ears?
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile:
But didn't report all TT3 lovers dramatic increases in their listening
experiences. If these exist, why would it be stressful to also detect
them under blind conditions?
I'd let the stress argument count if someone reported I can hear
subtle improvements, but please go back to the very first
On a slightly different note, I think discussion is about exaggeration
of differences. I do think DACs can and do sound different. The better
they get, supposing they have been designed to be transparent, the
harder it is to hear a difference. But audibly, I believe the difference
will be subtle
darrenyeats wrote:
On a slightly different note, I think the discussion is about
exaggeration of differences
Correct. If you read my comments carefully, I don't state there are no
audible differences in many situations, only that they often shrink
dramatically in size when non-audio cues
mlsstl wrote:
Guess we'll just have to disagree. In your case, any situation where a
listener is deprived of the opportunity to confirm their conscious or
unconscious sighted bias, results can be discarded due to stress. I'm
of the opinion that blind testing often illustrates that those
magiccarpetride wrote:
I would have no objection against listening tests if after the test I
could pee in a cup, and then they send that cup to the lab, and the next
day test results clearly show whether I was able to hear the differences
or not.
That issue was previously addressed and then
mlsstl wrote:
That issue was previously addressed and then conveniently ignored by
you. You're obviously welcome to all of the enormous differences you can
muster.
See you around. I've got no urge to become repetitive.
Urine sample was previously addressed in this thread. When?
Does taking the p*ss count? He-he.
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread:
darrenyeats wrote:
Does taking the p*ss count? He-he.
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
Gotcha, it's a pissing contest.
magiccarpetride's Profile:
magiccarpetride wrote:
Double blind listening tests are tricky at best because they tend to
deliver a lot, and I mean a lot of false positives. There are well
documented cases where sufficiently large population of double blind
testers were reporting significant differences in the sound
magiccarpetride wrote:
Double blind listening tests are tricky at best because they tend to
deliver a lot, and I mean a lot of false positives. There are well
documented cases where sufficiently large population of double blind
testers were reporting significant differences in the sound
lrossouw wrote:
Your arguments for describing the failures of double blind tests (if
they DO consistently fail) are also arguments for being even more weary
of listening tests that involve no blind testing (because you're
describing how the listeners heard differences that weren't there!).
magiccarpetride wrote:
Absolutely. My point is that any listening tests unavoidably place the
listening subject in a stressful situation
There you go again. Somehow blind testing is critically important in
endless other areas of science and can produce results that are credible
enough to
mlsstl wrote:
There you go again. Somehow blind testing is critically important in
endless other areas of science and can produce results that are credible
enough to find medicines that save lives, but cannot survive the fragile
psyche of the audiophile. My tears flow at the injustice of it
magiccarpetride wrote:
I think you're missing the point. In a more hardcore testing situation,
such as testing a life saving drug, the test subject is not asked
afterwards to give his/her opinion/evaluation. The results of the test
are gathered by doing blood analysis, or by measuring other
NoRoDa wrote:
Hi John
No, I haven't. I guess, and hope, that the HW modded Touch is
measureably better than the stock Touch.
Our findings is only that in the system we listened, it was not audibly
different using the digital out.
Regards
JohnSwenson wrote:
Hi Rolf,
have you tried
baardbaard wrote:
Hi
I can perform a listening test this evening. Since this blind test was
done over my setup and I'm one of very few here that actually have 2
Touch, one vanilla and one clock upgraded. It will not be a blind test
tough. Rolf lives in another town and is not here to assist
TheOctavist wrote:
PSUs make no difference.
another tweak that comes up empty.
the PSU in the touch is more than fit for purpose.
Buy more music. fix your room acoustics(actually room acoustics make a
bigger difference than ANY component ever could)
and this you know from
TheOctavist wrote:
PSUs make no difference.
another tweak that comes up empty.
the PSU in the touch is more than fit for purpose.
Time to downgrade my PSU. I really don't need something in my system
that is more than fit for the purpose. I want everything to be just fit
for the
garym wrote:
Also consider the question of how digital feeding a DAC from a duet may
not be as good as from a Touch.
That's yet another myth promulgated by the haters. I have both SBT and
Duet feeding into the same DAC, and there is no, nor could ever be any
difference in the osund quality
garym wrote:
I didn't say there was a difference...just that many people here have
asserted a difference. But I'm a bit surprised at your response as
you've previously reported massive improvements from TT2.0/3.0 mods on
your TOUCH, which is entirely inconsistent with your statement above.
magiccarpetride wrote:
That's yet another myth promulgated by the haters. I have both SBT and
Duet feeding into the same DAC, and there is no, nor could ever be any
difference in the osund quality between these two digital transports.
I didn't say there was a difference...just that many
NoRoDa wrote:
The tests:
WLAN SBT factory w/Teddy VS WIRED SBT/HW/TT3.0/TEDDY
- SBT factory preferred in all repetitions
WLAN SBT factory w/Teddy VS WLAN SBT factory + HW w/Teddy
- Not possible to hear a difference
Toshiba HD DVD digital output VS WLAN SBT factory w/Teddy
- We
lake_eleven wrote:
Did you make any changes on the system running LMS, like running
Fidelizer?
I believe that the server is running Fidelizer, but I'm not shure.
NoRoDa's Profile:
magiccarpetride wrote:
We live in a free society
Yup. With angels trolls and everything.
NoRoDa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49139
View this thread:
So you are saying the HW mod made no difference and TT3.0 made it worse.
is that the gist of things?
kerkula
kerkula's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=53418
View this thread:
kerkula wrote:
So you are saying the HW mod made no difference and TT3.0 made it worse.
is that the gist of things?
That's the essence of what we discovered, yes.
The sound from the SBT was preferred without the TT3.0, not what I
expected before the blind listening!
kerkula wrote:
Also,
kerkula wrote:
Also, how does a power supply change the sound of the digital signal
emanating from the Touch?
kerkula
do some searching on this forum for lots of discussion of this. Basic
idea is that a powersupply can introduce some EMI/noise into your
playback system.
Hi Rolf,
have you tried listening to the analog outs of the two Touchs? My
experience with putting lower jitter clocks in SB boxes is that it does
affect the analog outs. I haven't measured the clock mod that was done,
but I HOPE that anyone who is making a 3rd party clock board is going to
be
JohnSwenson wrote:
Hi Rolf,
have you tried listening to the analog outs of the two Touchs? My
experience with putting lower jitter clocks in SB boxes is that it does
affect the analog outs. I haven't measured the clock mod that was done,
but I HOPE that anyone who is making a 3rd party
garym wrote:
do some searching on this forum for lots of discussion of this. Basic
idea is that a powersupply can introduce some EMI/noise into your
playback system.
I've read a lot on this forum and there are a lot of very different
opinions on this subject. I can buy your hypothesis for
kerkula wrote:
I've read a lot on this forum and there are a lot of very different
opinions on this subject. I can buy your hypothesis for EMI polluting
analog signals but don't see how it should affect the playback of a
digital signal fed to a quality DAC.
It's not my hypothesis, I was
PSUs make no difference.
another tweak that comes up empty.
the PSU in the touch is more than fit for purpose.
Buy more music. fix your room acoustics(actually room acoustics make a
bigger difference than ANY component ever could)
you didn't compare two SBTs without hardware mods. Since the stock SBT
sounded better than the modified one which modification changed the
sound in a negative way: the hardware mods or the TT3? It seems the
hardware mods are on trial as much as the TT3 in your evaluation. So
maybe hardware mods
kerkula wrote:
you didn't compare two SBTs without hardware mods. Since the stock SBT
sounded better than the modified one which modification changed the
sound in a negative way: the hardware mods or the TT3? It seems the
hardware mods are on trial as much as the TT3 in your evaluation. So
Isn't it all about feelings ?
If I feel my system sounds better after a nice dinner, why not always
have a nice dinner before I listen to my system ?
If I feel my system sounds better with a red curtain than a blue curtain
in the room, why not always use the red curtain when I'm listening to
the
erland wrote:
If I feel my system sounds better if I've told the world about my
improvements, why not always tell the world about my improvements before
I listen to the system ?
Because it wastes other people's time.
erland wrote:
If the imaginary reality is better and more fun than
erland wrote:
Isn't it all about feelings ?
If I feel my system sounds better after a nice dinner, why not always
have a nice dinner before I listen to my system ?
If I feel my system sounds better with a red curtain than a blue curtain
in the room, why not always use the red curtain when
darrenyeats wrote:
Fair enough, although with this attitude the human race would not have
come this far.
Fortunately at least 99% of the human race aren't audiophiles :-)
erland's Profile:
TheOctavist wrote:
you wont find anything statistically relevant. ever.
NSS. It's called calling his bluff. Maybe too subtle, but at least
soulkeeper and mcr got it.
aubuti's Profile:
TheOctavist wrote:
I have done this often to bands I record(or to myself). I do a take, and
hit a switch on , say an eq only to hear damn that was good ...but I
hadn't engaged anything at all, but put it from OFF into bypass mode. .
I do this with bands too. ill say im going to change
TheOctavist wrote:
I do this with bands too. ill say im going to change this compressor a
bit and without doing anything, I replay the take, they go damn brah,
that sounds much better
Guess I've not been alone when doing recordings in the past.
It's so much easier to talk to bands this way
TheOctavist wrote:
I have done this often to bands I record(or to myself). I do a take, and
hit a switch on , say an eq only to hear damn that was good ...but I
hadn't engaged anything at all, but put it from OFF into bypass mode. .
I do this with bands too. ill say im going to change
aubuti wrote:
But I really was looking for some of the purported well documented
cases where sufficiently large population of double blind testers were
reporting significant differences, which I also interpreted (perhaps
foolishly) the 'significant differences' to be the
mlsstl wrote:
Classic subjective response featuring the selective use of psychological
issues in audio testing.
Our poor, frightened test subjects are cowed into helpless uselessness
when they find themselves in a situation where their 100 times better,
even my wife could hear it
RonM wrote:
This is really just prime BS. Anyone with anything resembling an
education in science or a capacity for critical thinking can see it for
what it is. It's entirely supposition without so much as a single
remote kernel of truth at its core.
In this context, blind testing is
mikael_b wrote:
This is the opposite of a double blind test, it's an schoolbook example
of expectation bias, one factor you remove with a properly designed
double blind test, and clearly demonstrates why it is necessary with a
double blind test. If I know you are now playing the better
aubuti wrote:
Thanks, and I personally don't find that surprising. But I really was
looking for some of the purported well documented cases where
sufficiently large population of double blind testers were reporting
significant differences, which I also interpreted (perhaps foolishly)
the
magiccarpetride wrote:
OK, I guess I've misread Phil's reply. My point was why toss the baby
out with the bath water?
On the topic of hyperbole, I think many here are making a mountain out
of a molehill. Taking someone's attestation of a subjective impression
and attempting to twist it
TheOctavist wrote:
bad analogy.
he isn't adding anything.
he is , at best, changing the wallpaper in the restaurant.
That too could be a minor change that can produce a big difference in
the subject's experience. No matter how much you try, you can't wiggle
out of the subjectivist
magiccarpetride wrote:
That too could be a minor change that can produce a big difference in
the subject's experience. No matter how much you try, you can't wiggle
out of the subjectivist hellhole.
Personal experiences are just that - when a wallpaper change in a
restaurant improves the
mlsstl wrote:
Personal experiences are just that - when a wallpaper change in a
restaurant improves the perceived quality of the food, that is likely to
be a one-off experience unique to an individual. Same thing with
improving the sound of one's stereo by putting photos in the freezer ala
magiccarpetride wrote:
Just because someone discloses their impressions to other like-minded
people doesn't automatically imply that the person who chooses to
confess feels entitled to be respected or endorsed. Humans like to
share, sharing is the spice of life, and people should not be
magiccarpetride wrote:
Good point. I have no problem agreeing that facts are facts, and that
bits are bits and so on. But the fact remains (and it's also a cold hard
fact) that many people I know are hearing differences in the resulting
sound quality. How to reconcile these two bundles of
ralphpnj wrote:
Once again you act like the master politician, who when asked a direct
question gives a totally unrelated answer. The issue at hand is whether
or not the bit perfect digital audio data stream which goes from a stock
SB Touch to an external DAC can be somehow improved so that
magiccarpetride wrote:
...and people should not be afraid or feel stultified when it comes to
enjoying life.)
I understand there are cultural niceties one normally follows in casual
social settings - you don't tell a new mother that her baby is ugly,
even if it is - but that is not the
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
