SoftwireEngineer;132111 Wrote:
if at all the 63db attenuation is making a difference, it is by
influencing the jitter.
How do you know this?
SoftwireEngineer;132111 Wrote:
but the clock locked into the incoming stream will be swinging (ie.
jitter).
Like I said, whatever happens after the
yeer but - going a bit simple now - :)
But if the analogue outs have nothing pluged in, there won't be any
current flowing anyway, so how can muting the thing stop current
flowing any less than it is already...?
Unless (I know little about electronics) once the thing is muted the
current side
Deaf Cat;132187 Wrote:
So does anyone know what is going on inside the SB electrically wise
when muted and not...?...please
I would love to know what is causing the difference (in simple terms)
Cheers !
:)
I think the designer wanted you to do a DBT to make sure there's a
I believe there are fundamentally two different but related issues at
hand:
First, is there a scientifically measurable difference in adjusting the
attenuation setting? (How/by who will the scientific standard by which
measurable be determined? Shall we get the IEEE involved?)
Second, if there
Skunk;132198 Wrote:
I think the designer wanted you to do a DBT to make sure there's a
difference in the first place...
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=131785postcount=34
Arr sorry, so I gather from that request of BTesting that if there is
something changing, it is an
TiredLegs;131868 Wrote:
Those of you who have tried this attenuation and reported audible
changes to the digital output:
-Did the changes occur immediately upon clicking the Change button
in the Preamp Volume Control setting, or did you have to restart
Slimserver or the Squeezebox?
-Is
opaqueice;131882 Wrote:
I assure you (as a full-time scientist) that what you term a negative
result goes precisely as far towards proving something as does a
positive result.
The statement you can't prove a negative is a common fallacy; to
anyone with a passing knowledge of formal logic
opaqueice;131898 Wrote:
It's not a matter of semantics. In any logical system (that I know of
at least) there is no distinction between positive and negative
statements, so the claim you can't prove a negative is meaningless. In
the real world, and in science, you can't prove anything, so
opaqueice;131898 Wrote:
It's not a matter of semantics. In any logical system (that I know of
at least) there is no distinction between positive and negative
statements, so the claim you can't prove a negative is meaningless. In
the real world, and in science, you can't prove anything, so
seanadams;131858 Wrote:
I don't know that I've ever had a fixed opinion on anything. I love
being wrong. When I'm wrong I learn something.
Please prove me wrong, so that I can understand this remarkable
phenomenon.
OK, I'll let you know when it has been proven.
--
P Floding
I really don't want to get drawn into this... so I'll leave it at this
- as I've already mentioned, there is no way to classify statements as
positive or negative. That renders the whole discussion moot and
the claim you can't prove a negative meaningless.
For the issue we were discussing,
opaqueice;131968 Wrote:
For the issue we were discussing, it's true that it's hard (actually,
impossible) to prove that there is no audible effect from the 63.0 dB
mute tweak. That fact does NOT constitute evidence that there is such
an effect - claiming so is committing another common
Here's my last comment on this thing...
I've tried turning on and off this tweak numerous times, both for
myself and for others. Admittedly, it was not a blind test for myself
:-), but it was blind for a couple of the people (not double-blind,
obviously!).
Every person I tried this with has
Not wanting to get into a logic storm with you guys, but if DBX testing
is so great, why haven't we all DBX'd our way to the best speakers,
amp, source etc by now?
Isn't the bottom line that DBX can only tell you what is different and
that (thankfully?) what is better is left to our own
PhilNYC;131988 Wrote:
Every person I tried this with has heard a difference, but not with
every piece of music I've tried it with. The most consistent (100%)
was playing a quiet piece of music...in this case, with Willie Nelson's
Georgia from the Stardust album, where the opening few
After reading several threads discussing how jitter, flac or wav formats
and 63dB tweaks may affect the analogue output connected to the SPDIF of
a squeeze box I was intrigued enough to do some of my own tests. Using a
16-bit stereo 44100 Hz PCM wav file (The Disappointed by XTC), a
slimserver
ohios,
if at all the 63db attenuation is making a difference, it is by
influencing the jitter. With jitter, you are not going to see any
change in the bit stream. You will still get the same bits, but the
clock locked into the incoming stream will be swinging (ie. jitter).
BTW, I was reading the
ohios,
Thanks for your efforts investigating this. Finally, someone has done
an objective test.
To SoftwireEngineer's point, if jitter is changing with the
attenuation, then this should be measurable as well, although requiring
more sophisticated equipment. And if an audible difference from the
seanadams;131603 Wrote:
PS It's getting really hard to tell when you all are joking or not...
:)
None of you guys at SD can hear a difference..??
Oooo I thought it was quite noticable, but could not understand how
muting something that should not be working anyway (as nothing was
pluged
seanadams;131603 Wrote:
It's called the placebo effect. If you can only hear (or measure)
something like this in the absence of scientific controls, then it's
your imagination.
I wholeheartedly agree, but didn't someone with golden ears pick up on
the dither coefficient being off?
seanadams;131603 Wrote:
It's called the placebo effect. If you can only hear (or measure)
something like this in the absence of scientific controls, then it's
your imagination.
It works exactly the same way that a sugar pill can cure all sorts of
things if your doctor tells you it will.
P Floding;131720 Wrote:
One common fallacy is to write off everything as placebo because one
can't be bothered to investigate further. Personally I keep an open
mind until the experiment has been done.
Exactly. But the onus is on YOU to do a reasonable experiment if you
think you can hear
P Floding;131720 Wrote:
Well, I think we all know about the placebo effect.
The reason I asked if the CEO knew something was to find out if you had
actually done the scientific experiment, or not. Or are you just
assuming it can't be true? One common fallacy is to write off
everything as
seanadams;131743 Wrote:
Exactly. But the onus is on YOU to do a reasonable experiment if you
think you can hear it. Do you really expect me to investigate every
idea like this that comes up? Come on.
OK, I can see how my earlier comment about only bothering with the
Transporter can be read
I am also very curious to know why a modified SB3 with its digital
output will sound better than the unmodified one.
2 things that affects digital signal. First is bit perfect information
and with EAC, we already have this sorted out. The second is jitter, I
think SD has shown that even the
Hi Sean, there's a good reason why any mention of double-blind testing
is banned on some audiophile forums: any time someone does something
they believe improves or degrades their sound, someone else can claim
it's invalid because DBT has not been performed. DBT can be very time
consuming and
ackcheng;131772 Wrote:
I am also very curious to know why a modified SB3 with its digital
output will sound better than the unmodified one.
2 things that affects digital signal. First is bit perfect information
and with EAC, we already have this sorted out. The second is jitter, I
Hi Sean, there's a good reason why any mention of double-blind
testing is banned on some audiophile forums: any time someone does
something they believe improves or degrades their sound, someone else
can claim it's invalid because DBT has not been performed.
OK, so do you want to know WHY you
seanadams;131785 Wrote:
Hi Sean, there's a good reason why any mention of double-blind
testing is banned on some audiophile forums: any time someone does
something they believe improves or degrades their sound, someone else
can claim it's invalid because DBT has not been performed.
OK,
Sean - is there any way in your opinion that this effect could be system
specific?
I guess from your posts that you don't agree that it can technically
make a difference and also that you can't hear any difference. I'm not
disagreeing with you - I'm just trying to understand why I believe that
I
JohnnyLightOn;131771 Wrote:
While the placebo affect can be real and must be watched out for, a
response by a number of people who agree on the effects of a given
change is probably reliable without DBT, although not scientific or
certain.
This statement at least is demonstrably false.
I would be happy to do a blind test (can't be double-blind, as my wife
will have to know which setting she's choosing, but it will at least be
single blind). I will not be able to do the test until at least Tuesday
night. We will switch off, so you can have her results, too. I will
report
JohnnyLightOn;131048 Wrote:
I tried this tweak and there's a clearly-audible difference, but - for
me - not a clear improvement. As was mentioned by Deaf Cat, it does
smooth the sound out, but at the expense of the vocals becoming
slightly recessed. I also noticed that along with the
JohnnyLightOn;131813 Wrote:
I would be happy to do a blind test (can't be double-blind, as my wife
will have to know which setting she's choosing, but it will at least be
single blind). I will not be able to do the test until at least Tuesday
night. We will switch off, so you can have her
For the sake of a latecomer, is the 63.0 (mute) attenuation thing
turning down/off the SB's analog output in hope of improving the
quality of its digital output? (I did a quick search on the forum, but
couldn't find a direct reference to it.)
BTW, as a professional researcher, I have limited but
TiredLegs;131819 Wrote:
For the sake of a latecomer, is the 63.0 (mute) attenuation thing
turning down/off the SB's analog output in hope of improving the
quality of its digital output?
Yes, it is. The level of attenuation is a setting in the web interface
under Player - Audio - Preamp
I agree. What we can say about a DB test is that X percentage of people
are able to hear a difference. If X=2%, that may not persuade as many
people as if X=95%.
--
ezkcdude
SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators
P Floding;131796 Wrote:
To say that something IS placebo doesn't give the impression of an
opinion. You clearly don't believe in it, but if you follow your own
thinking you should not have a fixed opinion on the matter.
I don't know that I've ever had a fixed opinion on anything. I love
P Floding;131820 Wrote:
The level of attenuation is a setting in the web interface under Player
- Audio - Preamp Volume Control.
Those of you who have tried this attenuation and reported audible
changes to the digital output:
-Did the changes occur immediately upon clicking the Change button
The changes were reflected each time in my system after about 2 seconds,
without needing to restart the song or the SB3.
Right now I am using variable digital volume, rather than fixed, but
when I tried the tweak I had the volume maxed, so it should be the same
as fixed volume.
I am using the
JohnnyLightOn;131870 Wrote:
If you have a coax cable and your DAC has a coax input, can you try to
replicate it with the coax cable, TiredLegs?
Johnny,
At your suggestion, I just tested the attenuation with a coax digital
cable, and still no difference. I even tried switching the SB3's
TiredLegs;131868 Wrote:
-Did the changes occur immediately upon clicking the Change button
in the Preamp Volume Control setting, or did you have to restart
Slimserver or the Squeezebox?
Hi TL,
When I first did this, I just entered the new value and clicked the
change button. I posted
andy_c;131876 Wrote:
For the attenuation to take effect, you need to choose stop, then
restart the current song. I did so, and still noticed no effect.
I just tried this stop and start after changing the attenuation. It's
slightly harder to compare because there's a gap in the music and a
JohnnyLightOn;131870 Wrote:
The changes were reflected each time in my system after about 2 seconds
(marked change, not gradual), without needing to restart the song or
the SB3.
I can't be sure your SB behaves exactly as mine does, but if it does
this proves what you are hearing is indeed
P Floding;131818 Wrote:
I have noticed that the ABX-brigade often see negative results as proof
of something, wheras it isn't in a scientific sense.
I assure you (as a full-time scientist) that what you term a negative
result goes precisely as far towards proving something as does a
opaqueice;131882 Wrote:
I assure you (as a full-time scientist) that what you term a negative
result goes precisely as far towards proving something as does a
positive result.
The statement you can't prove a negative is a common fallacy; to
anyone with a passing knowledge of formal logic
ezkcdude;131893 Wrote:
I have to argue that it is a matter of semantics. In science (and I too
am a scientist, well, a lowly postdoc anyway) you typically try to
disprove a positive. Is that the same as proving a negative? Not
really. You take a hypothesis that A causes B, and you show that
JohnnyLightOn;131048 Wrote:
I tried this tweak and there's a clearly-audible difference, but - for
me - not a clear improvement. As was mentioned by Deaf Cat, it does
smooth the sound out, but at the expense of the vocals becoming
slightly recessed. I also noticed that along with the
JohnnyLightOn;131048 Wrote:
I tried this tweak and there's a clearly-audible difference, but - for
me - not a clear improvement. As was mentioned by Deaf Cat, it does
smooth the sound out, but at the expense of the vocals becoming
slightly recessed. I also noticed that along with the
P Floding;131503 Wrote:
Perhaps the CEO can shed some light on this
It's called the placebo effect. If you can only hear (or measure)
something like this in the absence of scientific controls, then it's
your imagination.
It works exactly the same way that a sugar pill can ACTUALLY CURE all
andy_c;131140 Wrote:
Tested with SB2-Benchmark DAC1-Beyerdynamic DT 770 headphones
I don't think it is possible to evaluate some of the aspects of sound
reproduction using headphones.
BTW, SB2?
--
P Floding
P Floding's
I tried this tweak and there's a clearly-audible difference, but - for
me - not a clear improvement. As was mentioned by Deaf Cat, it does
smooth the sound out, but at the expense of the vocals becoming
slightly recessed. I also noticed that along with the slightly
smoother sound was the loss
P Floding;130826 Wrote:
What system do you have, Andy? Anything good?
Tested with SB2-Benchmark DAC1-Beyerdynamic DT 770 headphones
--
andy_c
andy_c's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3128
View
andy_c;130199 Wrote:
Well yes, but it only works if you -believe- in it :-). Once you stop
believing, the tweak stops working. Since I still believe in the
tweak, I now set the attenuation to 63 dB once every three days or so,
but only for a couple of hours. Then after the two hours are
This thread is hysterical!
Seriously though, can it be measured? Seems like something is going on
beyond subtle.
--
Kurt
Main Entry: au·dio·phile
Pronunciation: 'o-dE-O-fI(-)l
Function: noun
: a person who takes the pursuit of high-fidelity sound reproduction so
seriously that they don't
OK, what the heck are you guys talking about?
--
joncourage
joncourage's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26436
andy_c Wrote:
I tried this tweak and even my wife can tell the difference over the
telephone!!! And I'm not even married!!! :-).
Sorry I'm not clear - do you feel the surprise acquisition of a wife a
positive benefit of this tweak? Does reversing the settings also get
rid of the wife?
--
Phil Leigh Wrote:
Sorry I'm not clear - do you feel the surprise acquisition of a wife a
positive benefit of this tweak? Does reversing the settings also get
rid of the wife?
Well yes, but it only works if you -believe- in it :-). Once you stop
believing, the tweak stops working. Since I
I tried this tweak and even my wife can tell the difference over the
telephone!!! And I'm not even married!!! :-).
--
andy_c
andy_c's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3128
View this thread:
ezkcdude Wrote:
Is there any reason at all that this setting should change the digital
output?
Here are two possible reasons: Reduced power demand on the power
supply; reduced source of EMI/RFI from the analog circuit.
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
PhilNYC Wrote:
Here are two possible reasons: Reduced power demand on the power
supply; reduced source of EMI/RFI from the analog circuit.
Hmmm... if the analogue outs aren't being used as a source, neither
one of those sounds very plausible. No current would be flowing down
the RCA cables
opaqueice Wrote:
Hmmm... if the analogue outs aren't being used as a source, neither one
of those sounds very plausible. No current would be flowing down the
RCA cables (if they're even connected), so there shouldn't be much
additional power demand or source of EMI.
What makes you think
I tried this today. I really cannot notice a difference. I must point
out that I think my system sounds pretty damn good both ways :)
BTW I am using coax to a modifed assemblage 2.7 signature.
--
BeerCan
BeerCan's
can someone put a scope on the spdif and try it? - should be a visible
difference of some sort...
Also, there could be a difference if using the stock supply or not.
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile:
H maybe the difference would be more with a linear psu, Interesting
stuff this,
I have not got round to making one yet, but the difference was quite
apparent as it is.
--
Deaf Cat
Deaf Cat's Profile:
May also be a 110 vs 220 ac difference...?
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26436
I would not have believed it, but I tried it and there was a noticeable
difference (improvement for me). It seemed smoother and more real.
-- Martin
--
mschiff
mschiff's Profile:
P Floding Wrote:
What makes you think an amount of current would flow through the RCAs
normally that would be large enough compared to the currents inside the
DAC? The interconnect interface is a voltage interface -meaning that the
receiving component is expected to provide at least 10k ohm
I think this is the pre-cursor for going down that mad road of cable
swapping, brass cones, and other tweaks... ;-)
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
PhilNYC's Profile:
I've just tried it too (despite usual initial scepticism) and a quick
listen to Johnny Cash - American V showed a real (and audibly
reversible) improvement!
What is going on?
I'm going for a lie down and then more listening...
--
Phil Leigh
This is the silliest tweak I've heard (or should I say haven't heard)
yet. I tried it and couldn't hear any difference. Is there any reason
at all that this setting should change the digital output?
--
ezkcdude
SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio
71 matches
Mail list logo
