# Objectivists board room



## Joe Bloggs

*You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry.*
-Abraham Lincoln​
--A quote a head-fier from AAMML puts in his sig. Thought it's a nice quote that could give some of us here some perspective on what we need and need not do with head-fi.

----
Another year, another skeptics lounge thread locked?

I think the rationale behind the "lounge" may not be entirely healthy--it seems to be a place where the gang gathers after a day at the trenches, knocking down beers in chain-fire fashion and grumbling about the bad day they had. (except you can't grumble too hard, because, well...)

When we were not grumbling in the thread, we were hatching crazy ideas to "take down" the "enemy" (bigshot's (RIP) likebomb comes to mind), which is of course also frowned upon by the mods.

If this is to become the next "general talk" thread of Sound Science, I would like to see neither of the above here.

I think the only allowable response to posts of "egregious offenses on good audio common sense" on head-fi (or whatever you would like to call those posts against which you'd like to rally a call to arms, or something) is to respond evenly with good arguments. Any name-calling or similar sub-argumentative tactics is never allowed, whatever the other side does.

But if you think about it, calling names has never won anybody an argument or drawn many people to their side. On the other hand, one could possibly win over some people with truly well-phrased arguments. Or, if the "opposition" is not truly interested in the argument (as may be the case with a true "troll"), they may instead be bored into submission / posting elsewhere.

Going by the numbers, and the fact that any member of head-fi can post anywhere they dang well please, the fact that this place is called "Sound Science" obviously doesn't mean we own the joint, only that we are allowed to express our opinions relatively freely here.

The thread title was written to reflect the more "intelligent" nature of the discussion I'd like to see here.

If you'd like a good old lounge to grumble and knock down beers in, I suggest going elsewhere.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Just joined. Can you capitalize the f in HeadFi and remove the hyphen? Thanks! 

EDIT: Oh, wait, leave the hyphen. I see that it's official. Just capitalize the f.

se


----------



## headdict

_[Mod Edit: Read the Posting Guidelines please.]_


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Even if they may never agree with you, you may still earn their respect... 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/6495#post_11644737


----------



## Steve Eddy

joe bloggs said:


> Even if they may never agree with you, you may still earn their respect...




He's been on the receiving end of some pretty nasty stuff here. I'm not at all surprised he gave that post a thumbs up.

I hadn't really read much of any of his posts, but saw the Schiitstorm that surrounded them here. And I was just going to write him off as a troll as well. But then I read a couple of his posts that he was getting slammed for. Had to do with cables foe electrostatic headphones. I started to pile on and then realized he was absolutely correct.

That caused me to want to get to know more about him. So I PMed him, and shortly thereafter ended up having a long telephone conversation with him.

He's a genuinely nice guy. And in terms of general audio, actually quite knowledgeable. After our telephone chat I considered him a friend.

He has his faults (who doesn't?). Namely that he puts too much faith in human subjective perception and his knowledge of materials science comes from audiophiles. But I'm working on him. 

All I can say is that I'm glad I stopped and took the time to get to know him better. Sadly, some still see fit to call him a troll. 

se


----------



## RRod

I think we should discuss the fine points of suggesting ABX tests to wanderers-in. I've been reading about some ABX-related fusterclucks over at hydrogenaud.io: the keys jangling test, the AIX test, and an AES paper with some iffy statistics (see here for starters). They hit on many of the roadblocks to properly using the protocol, but the first two especially highlight the perils of mixing what is supposed to be a rigorous test and the Interwebz. Part of me feels like we need a sticky to point to and say "here is the checklist for how to do an ABX test of X vs Y by yourself," with the added caveat that the rest of us can't really take a person's results as proof of anything, given how easy these things are to do improperly or to rig. Thoughts?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

rrod said:


> I think we should discuss the fine points of suggesting ABX tests to wanderers-in. I've been reading about some ABX-related fusterclucks over at hydrogenaud.io: the keys jangling test, the AIX test, and an AES paper with some iffy statistics (see here for starters). They hit on many of the roadblocks to properly using the protocol, but the first two especially highlight the perils of mixing what is supposed to be a rigorous test and the Interwebz. Part of me feels like we need a sticky to point to and say "here is the checklist for how to do an ABX test of X vs Y by yourself," with the added caveat that the rest of us can't really take a person's results as proof of anything, given how easy these things are to do improperly or to rig. Thoughts?




Aside from music file tests....................................................................................

I've never even bothered to do any ABX tests for myself, I knew before anybody told me that it would be quite impossible for me to conduct any proper ABX tests of anything of a mechanical nature. Asking a believer in differences in your chosen topic of known indifference (excuse me for having to tread carefully  ) is just an invitation for him to run a non-level-matched, improperly blinded test, come back with a nice 9/10, say "ha! There's your proof!" and the discussion to go further downhill while he becomes firmer in his belief than ever.

We obtained our knowledge of the non-difference of most components through a combination of simple electronics theory and well-documented, properly run ABX tests already conducted on large batches of test subjects, published on the AES journal and the like. Probably better to point to those in most cases than to ask the impossible of someone who's probably all thumbs when it comes to experiment protocol.


----------



## RRod

I think having a primer on self-ABXing music files would be useful, since that's the most typical case (on here at least) where people might actually go through the necessary steps. Hardware is of course a whole different beast, but even there having some information around for the willing can't hurt them, at least.
 I guess I can't envision people NOT suggesting ABX at times on this forum, so I thought a bit of discussion about how such suggestions should go might be useful.
  
 As far as paper referencing, it  would see that if we link to this:
 http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195
 a cheeky subjectivist can link to this:
 http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398
 then we're off pointing out the procedural and statistical superiority of our favorite AES paper. Perhaps that is unavoidable.


----------



## Steve Eddy

But let's not get too hung up on ABX.

I think difference testing should be the go to first choice. If the residual isn't audible, there ipso facto can't be an audible difference. If there is an audible residual, then that would warrant moving on to ABX testing to see if the difference is audible while listening to music.

se


----------



## RRod

steve eddy said:


> But let's not get too hung up on ABX.
> 
> I think difference testing should be the go to first choice. If the residual isn't audible, there ipso facto can't be an audible difference. If there is an audible residual, then that would warrant moving on to ABX testing to see if the difference is audible while listening to music.
> 
> se


 
  
  
 I wouldn't know on the hardware end how much easier a null test is to set up compared to an ABX. For music, I worry a bit about the double-testing aspect, at least from a sociological view. If someone nulls something like an mp3, they will certainly hear obvious differences, which means they will have to want to believe us that an ABX might still show these differences to be inaudible in the context of the music. Sending them straight to an ABX in something like Foobar might be better in such a case. But you're right that the silence of a difference file is a powerful result, and for testing things like pre-ringing from Redbook conversion, it is probably the way to go.


----------



## limpidglitch

rrod said:


> I think having a primer on self-ABXing music files would be useful, since that's the most typical case (on here at least) where people might actually go through the necessary steps. Hardware is of course a whole different beast, but even there having some information around for the willing can't hurt them, at least.
> I guess I can't envision people NOT suggesting ABX at times on this forum, so I thought a bit of discussion about how such suggestions should go might be useful.
> 
> As far as paper referencing, it  would see that if we link to this:
> ...


 
  
 I was about to ask if that 44.1/88.2 test was what you were referring to.
 Do you know any more about the statistics than what was discussed in the HA thread? It looks a bit of a mess.

 I think you're absolutely right about ABX tests. They are a great tool, when used correctly, but we have no way to assess the validity of any proof presented to us, so it makes no sense for us to ask for it.


----------



## maverickronin

I don't think it will matter what kind of test you propose.  Someone will just make up an ad hoc excuse to explain away results they don't like.


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> I don't think it will matter what kind of test you propose.  Someone will just make up an ad hoc excuse to explain away results they don't like.


 
 Yes, I wouldn't put anything past some of the true believers of myths.


----------



## RRod

maverickronin said:


> I don't think it will matter what kind of test you propose.  Someone will just make up an ad hoc excuse to explain away results they don't like.


 
  
 I guess it's the trade-off between being actually helpful to those who want to learn versus putting up with the people who want to make the excuses. If even one person saves some money on a DAC or amp because of a thread, then that's great, even if someone else is making up their test results.
  
  
 Quote:


limpidglitch said:


> I was about to ask if that 44.1/88.2 test was what you were referring to.
> Do you know any more about the statistics than what was discussed in the HA thread? It looks a bit of a mess.
> 
> I think you're absolutely right about ABX tests. They are a great tool, when used correctly, but we have no way to assess the validity of any proof presented to us, so it makes no sense for us to ask for it.


 
   
Haven't seen the paper yet, so I can't expand on the thread comments. But yeah, seems a mess in there, even beyond the statistics. Any time a result is "well it was significant if we go 2-sided because the only people who passed got scores that were too LOW", I get a bit worried.

  
 Recently someone showed me a pass of an ABX of 320lame versus hi-res on a choral music track, where they claim they heard the differences in the reverb via extremely quick switching. Do I believe him? Do I flood him with questions on possible issues? In the end the easiest thing to do it just let him have his results and be happy, and just continue on knowing that I myself couldn't hear anything. Still, any information either of us got about properly executing the test was useful.


----------



## maverickronin

Possibly on topic, what do my fellow skeptics see as their purpose in engaging people on forums like these which are so overrun with nonsense?
  
 One is very unlikely to convince anyone to give up their irrational beliefs in one conversation whether it's online or in RL so many see it as pointless.  It usually goes like this.
  
  






 
  
 OTOH, even if you don't convince the person you're arguing with there's another factor which is commonly overlooked, the _audience_.  Lurkers are watching in the background.  They may be lightly committed to one position or another or may be completely new to field and not yet know left from right.  Those are the people who are most likely to be swayed in one way or another.  When I was more active on here a few years ago I used to get PMs from people I hadn't previously interacted with in threads thanking me for talking straight, saving them from buying snake oil, and asking technical questions so I can attest that does work.
  
 On the other hand, doing that kind of thing can pretty exhausting and I seem to be getting more and more jaded and cynical about the prospects since it's hard to keep up that kind of effort.
  
 What does everyone else think?


----------



## RRod

I echoed pretty similar sentiments in one of the Pono threads, and the thread-marm didn't take to kindly. I feel pretty much the same: every page of BS that can be filled with at least one scientifically-backed counterargument is a good deed done, and there are so many pages on these forums. People scoff and say just to go to sound science, but they don't get the lurker aspect that you mention. It doesn't have to be a lurker, even. It can be someone like I was not long ago, coming off a Google search, trying to buy his first set of nice gear for improving their music experience. I wish I could have ended up where I am now much faster, and that would have happened if more factual stuff was allowed to float around outside of this sub-forum.


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> What does everyone else think?




Yes, if it were a private conversation I'd just hang up. But on public forums such as this, there are others reading and hopefully trying to learn something. That's why I bother.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Yes, if it were a private conversation I'd just hang up. But on public forums such as this, there are others reading and hopefully trying to learn something. That's why I bother.
> 
> se


 
 It's a serious undertaking as the "Believers" circle their wagons and throw rocks at you. It's truly amazing when I ask for just one of them to identify how is that their claim is true, I usually get no meaningful response just petards.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> It's a serious undertaking as the "Believers" circle their wagons and throw rocks at you. It's truly amazing when I ask for just one of them to identify how is that their claim is true, I usually get no meaningful response just petards.




As Joe said in his original post, you just do what you have time for.

As for the rocks, they can't hurt you. The important thing is not to reciprocate. That's what creates the Schiitstorms and gets threads closed.

se


----------



## SunTanScanMan

I think the majority of arguments in sound science presented in a coherent and mature manner.
 It is not difficult to see when some members appear to be deliberately 'provocative' (for lack of a better term), with some of their questions and responses. Sometimes a quick glance at their previous posts will bring their positions to an even clearer focus.
  
 At the same time the manner of responses to such members (sometimes justifiably) appears to step over the line at the expense of the thread, members, and the valuable arguments and knowledge contained within. Focus shifts to a few individuals, and leaves behind the readers who are most likely laymen, with the science getting too complicated/muddled/contradictory. It shuts out space for others to ask questions, and instead of science taking the centre stage, it is the drama.
  
 Wherever the blame may lie, IMO that is a detriment to 'science' and the reputation of an invaluable and enlightening section of this site.
  
 IMO the solution has been here all along, and followed by the majority of the thread members: That they take as much responsibility in the posts they write, as they take when motivated to 'spread science'.
 -----
_From a very grateful 'lurker'_
  
 Edit: typo


----------



## sonitus mirus

The few controlled tests that I have read about, the Ethan Winer videos and "The Audio Expert" book, my own ABX tests between lossless and well-encoded lossy formats, and the rig I use to volume match any of my amps has led me down a particular path with regards to audio quality.  I generally do not believe there is any significant difference between a well-encoded mp3 or aac file played over an inexpensive DAC and amplifier when compared to the same material in a high quality format using top-end audio gear, provided the design of the equipment is to achieve audio transparency and not some boutique sound.
  
 I do not adamantly refuse the notion that there are some limitations with the mp3 codec that could create audible differences.  I also do not believe that every DAC or amplifier sounds exactly the same.  
  
 When someone brings forth ideas that challenge my current position on these topics, I'd like to see some information to back up their claims.  To this point, I've not been shown much that would convince me that my current opinion is incorrect. 
  
 I didn't always have this opinion, but I wanted to learn.  I still want to learn.  I'm thrilled that I can achieve great quality at such an affordable price.  I feel like I know a secret and I want to share it with anyone that will listen; but I try not to get wrapped-up in the petty quarrels and gobs of misinformation being slung around.  Time to head home, crack open a cold beer, put the ball game on mute, and crank up the tunes. 
  
 Thanks to many of you for the wonderful contributions you have made to the Sound Science forum.  
  
 Cheers!


----------



## castleofargh

ok so let me put clearly where I stand and what needs solving first IMO.
  
 if this is a section for science, then let science rule. we are forbidden to use sciency*Aladeen* words in the rest of the forum with a TOS, even if it is to explain something 100% true. it's sad but it's the law, so be it.
 but then in sound science, give us the same power! that's really all we want and need.
 make it officially forbidden in the sound science section to post nonsense, unsubstantiated claims, straw-man arguments and any form of demagogy. there isn't one audio or science subject that could ever make constructive use of those stuff, so away with them I say.
 that's equal treatment, it's reasonable, and it would stop good motivated people from being pushed at the end of their rope by silly trollz.
  
 if the staff really wishes for that section to be about audio science instead of being about petty fights saying the same incomplete stuff again and again all year long, because the only way to stop nonsense is to pray for the guy posting to get bored and stop coming; then give us the proper tools to stop that before it goes into bad blood. and those tools are a law.
 when talking to currawong, it really always felt like he wished for a better science in the sound science. IMO that's how we do it. balance a strange law outside of sound science, by the opposite law inside sound science. we don't end up with something really right, but at least it's balanced and we stop feeling like sound science is the leprosarium of headfi where objectivists are quarantined until they die or get killed. because that's really how it felt those last years and I doubt many people can deny it. people outside sound science even tell us to go back in it... so let's make it really a place of science, where scientific methods are recognized as the methods.
  
  
  
 I think my wish is very simple, very fair, and would indeed change the face of the sound science section and the quality of the debates. a TOS for science in the sound science section, the same way there is an anti science TOS outside of it.
  
 please if you agree with me, and even if you don't, let's all clear this out once and for all, hopefully some staff will take interest in it. I'm a dreamer today, and I'm also at the end of my rope with headfi in general. so for me it's a constructive change or I'll just give up on it entirely. 
 enough with a section called sound science where facts have the value of an old zimbabwean dollar in 2008. did you guys read the last topics? buy one topic, get a free troll! offer limited to forever if nothing changes!!!!
 my idea may not be the right one, I'm not the brightest kid in the block, I'm not even a scientist. but something needs to be done so that we can make some matter of progress in here. I'm not talking about making science advance obviously we often don't have the means. but simply learn from other members and ask our questions without the need for an advanced BS filter. so that other members coming to read would actually learn something even if those are only rational theories, instead of just watching a battle of rhetoric about a nonsense subject.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Sound Science is just a ghetto that HeadFi could really care less about. It's just an attempt to keep certain people from mixing with the general population.

The DBT-Free Zone was taken from Audio Asylum and its been as poorly implemented here as it was over there.

Bottom line, they just don't give a Schiit about what anyone here thinks or says. I've talked to Jude a number of times about these issues. It's a ghetto. Get used to it.

se


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Besides, you wouldn't have much of an argument / discussion if everything the other guy says is banned material. :rolleyes: Thankfully, the block on your speech in the rest of the forums is a leaky filter. 

Does the link in my OP work? Some of the things you guys are trying to discuss are, well...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I think another brick in the wall against you guys is that your position comes off as so "negative". Cables don't make a difference, players don't make a difference, amps don't make a difference, then what does?

I think, rather than banging on how the things they are going on about don't matter, you may put the emphasis on giving them something that DOES matter to try out. Heck, if the audiophiles are so open-minded about something like "cable burn in" making a change for the better, who knows if they won't give something like this a serious try?


----------



## maverickronin

joe bloggs said:


> Does the link in my OP work? Some of the things you guys are trying to discuss are, well...


 
  
 Wouldn't know.  It insists I sign in but I haven't taken the Mark of the Beast yet.
  


joe bloggs said:


> I think another brick in the wall against you guys is that your position comes off as so "negative". Cables don't make a difference, players don't make a difference, amps don't make a difference, then what does?


 
  
 Sometime the truth hurts, especially if you're heavily invested in falsehood, especially if the entire forum we're discussing it funded on is as well.
  
 About the most positive I can get is explaining to newbies how get the most for their money.
  
 DSPs are great, but they're not plug and play enough for widespread use.  Pretty much everything I know of more complicated than a parametric EQ only runs in software on specific platforms and really ties you down.  I use TB Isone and Voxengo GlissEQ with foobar, and ffdshow's DSP suite for locally stored videos but that's far from everything.  I still need a hardware crossfeed for anything streaming or for PC games w/o a headphone mixer and a hardware EQ won't play as nicely with that.  I also use my headphones with game consoles and other random sources as well.  Consequently, I can only really use EQ or other DSPs to improve a 'phone I already like instead of using to fix a mediocre one.  It's easier for me just to buy something that will sound good now matter what I plug it into into rather than being limited to a specific piece of hardware, or even worse a specific software player.
  
 I'm sure there are plenty of people who would still benefit from the current state of affairs, but since I'm not one of them I've never looked into anything like a convolution DSP to improve a mediocre headphone.  I'd just have no use for it so I haven't looked into it and thus can't recommend it.
  
 If someone made something like a DEQ2496 that you could load arbitrary VST/AU plugins on to and had less than 30ms latency it would be easier to recommend that kind of thing


----------



## Joe Bloggs

*You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry.*
-Abraham Lincoln​
--A quote a head-fier from AAMML puts in his sig. Thought it's a nice quote that could give some of us here some perspective on what we need and need not do with head-fi.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

maverickronin said:


> If someone made something like a DEQ2496 that you could load arbitrary VST/AU plugins on to and had less than 30ms latency it would be easier to recommend that kind of thing




This (and a dozen variations for headphone and speaker listening alike) works on any and all audio going through my PC, with ASIO-level latency, with the help of Virtual Audio Cable and ASIO4All: (the VST Host itself being VSTHost)


For mobile I have Viper4Android processing all audio too.

That covers 99% of what I listen to.


----------



## Ruben123

Hello everyone!


----------



## arnyk

joe bloggs said:


> I think another brick in the wall against you guys is that your position comes off as so "negative". Cables don't make a difference, players don't make a difference, amps don't make a difference, then what does?
> 
> I think, rather than banging on how the things they are going on about don't matter, you may put the emphasis on giving them something that DOES matter to try out. Heck, if the audiophiles are so open-minded about something like "cable burn in" making a change for the better, who knows if they won't give something like this a serious try?


 
  
 Two comments:
  
 (1) *Raw sound quality isn't everything.* I admit it, I married what I thought was a nice looking lady, and I think she still is (and more). I don't want stuff that disturbs my tastes with poor appearance. Looks aren't eveything, but they matter. Particularly with regards to headphones, earphones and portable players, things like comfort, unobtrusiveness, battery life, and durability matter a lot. None of those things are very ABX-able although some of them may have been subject to some kind of a controlled test during their development.
  
 (2) The problem with a lot of audiophile SQ evaluations is that they are highly prone to* both false positives and false negatives*. There is a lot of focus by rationalists on the false positives, but the *false negatives are there by the boatload*, and they matter just as much if not more. The congenital absence of level matching, time synching the media, and allowing sighted bias which includes both sight and life's experiences, (many or all of which are irrelevant to everybody else), can easily be shown to mask audible differences that are really there!


----------



## arnyk

joe bloggs said:


> This (and a dozen variations for headphone and speaker listening alike) works on any and all audio going through my PC, with ASIO-level latency, with the help of Virtual Audio Cable and ASIO4All: (the VST Host itself being VSTHost)
> 
> 
> For mobile I have Viper4Android processing all audio too.
> ...


 
  
 Please provide the name of the product that has the orange screen. Looks very interesting!  The text is too small for me to read it.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

arnyk said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > I think another brick in the wall against you guys is that your position comes off as so "negative". Cables don't make a difference, players don't make a difference, amps don't make a difference, then what does?
> ...




Fancy seeing you here 

Raw sound quality isn't everything--which is why the top quality I look for in circumaural headphones these days is comfort. Pretty much the only part of headphone "auditions" these days is putting them on and how it fits--the sound I can deal with later. :rolleyes:

As for portable use, the only two good reasons for splurging a pair of CIEMs, in retrospect, were isolation and comfort--but oh what good reasons they were :etysmile:

I will admit that the looks don't hurt either


----------



## Brooko

Nice idea for a thread Joe.
  
 Just some musings - from someone who genuinely tires to be objective in my observances, but often does not understand the science behind it all.
  

We need a series of resource threads that can be written in easy to follow laymans terms, that someone new - without a lot of experience - can understand, and test for themselves.  An example - although it's probably full of flaws (and needs to be rewritten) *is this on ABX etc*
  
I'd also suggest a resource link to some of the really good videos that are around - like Ethan's workshops
  
I've really enjoyed some of the posts from Steve when it comes to cables.  But often the math is a little out my grasp (even though I'm a pretty smart guy).  A thread explaining the basics on cables - and why materials etc can't change audible frequency response (or when they could) would be good.  but again - in easy to understand laymans terms - with examples.  Spell out how the math works.  Treat it as a primer.
  
I really enjoyed Ethan's Audio Myths video.  I'd love to see a thread dedicted to examples (video is great) of psycho acoustic instances where the brain is fooled.  Poppy's part in that video was brilliant. The more people get the chance to learn in an entertaining fashion, and the more that we question our own human abilities - the more open we might be to the fact that human limitations should be celebrated rather than always trying to attain golden eared status.
  
Once the main threads are in place - then when you get someone claiming the bogus claims - just drop them the link to the appropriate thread, and suggest they have a read.  If they refuse and go on a rant etc - just ignore it, and them.  You can lead a horse to water ......

 The ffbookman stuff is an ideal example of not how to go about things.  You'll never change his mind, and he'll never test himself - so you're at an impasse.  The smartest thing to do is issue an invitation to set-up an independently monitored test, and then when he refuses, just simply block him - and don't answer any of his posts - no matter what he posts.  At that time it's a good idea to also start reporting him if he's deliberately going out of his way to provoke.
  
The worst thing I see from "the SS mob" is when questions are asked - and even if you think they are not genuine - the immediate reaction is to deride, denigrate, mock and ridicule.  Stan - for all I have learnt from you - yours are often the worst.  I know its done in banter - but anyone coming here to learn, and reading how the objectivists treat visitors, would immediately leave, never to return again.  If you want an example of how to post - follow nick-charles. Always calm, always rational, always written based on known facts, and with provided references.
  
 I know its hard to remain calm - especially when you see some of the responses from people who are likely trolling for a response.  But often its better to explain your position, and then not insist on having the last word.  If it gets too much - block the offender and flag them.
  
 I've learnt so much in the last 4 years - from all of you - and I am grateful for that.  But if learning comes at the cost of denigrating our fellow community members - are we really happy with that?


----------



## limpidglitch

arnyk said:


> Please tell me the name of the app that has an orange screen. I'm very interested in what it appears to be able to do.


 
  
 Electri-Q. If you click the image you can see the original full size.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

arnyk said:


> Please provide the name of the product that has the orange screen. Looks very interesting!  The text is too small for me to read it.




You can click on the photo to enlarge it you know 

You mean the paragraphic equalizers? That's Electri-Q, by AIXcoustic Creations, who are sadly out of business before I have had the chance to give them any 
http://www.savioursofsoul.de/Christian/vst-plugins/eqs-filters/electri-q/

The free version did, and still does, everything I need in the way of parametric equalization, up to and including the extensive headphone tuning project, whose methods are outlined (rather poorly I'm afraid) here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/615417/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-advanced-tutorial-in-progress

And the fruits of which can be found here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2372750
(the ***-starred models being the models I tuned using this perceptual tuning method)

I suspect you'll want the free version, since the paid version doesn't even seem obtainable anymore... Thankfully I have a copy of it for safekeeping 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1yw2w8ahuyf4v7/Electri-Q_%28posihfopit%29_Install.exe?dl=0

It's a bit buggy, but I put up with it for being able to apply and plot a seemingly unlimited number of EQ points, and apply the EQ cleanly and without ringing (in "Digital Economy mode" no less--that's the mode I recommend for all-purpose usage)


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> The worst thing I see from "the SS mob" is when questions are asked - and even if you think they are not genuine - the immediate reaction is to deride, denigrate, mock and ridicule.  Stan - for all I have learnt from you - yours are often the worst.  I know its done in banter - but anyone coming here to learn, and reading how the objectivists treat visitors, would immediately leave, never to return again.  If you want an example of how to post - follow nick-charles. Always calm, always rational, always written based on known facts, and with provided references.


 
 Hold it. Outside of the sound science forum, I state facts, provide numbers and usually get attacked by a mob. I get called names and refrain from returning in kind. I'll ask those to be nice, that usually doesn't work.


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> I think another brick in the wall against you guys is that your position comes off as so "negative". Cables don't make a difference, players don't make a difference, amps don't make a difference, *then what does*?
> 
> I think, rather than banging on how the things they are going on about don't matter, you may put the emphasis on giving them something that DOES matter to try out. Heck, if the audiophiles are so open-minded about something like "cable burn in" making a change for the better, who knows if they won't give something like this a serious try?


 
 Headphones, IEMs and Loudspeakers make a difference.


----------



## Brooko

Stan - all I'm doing is relating what I read.  Again you may see it as banter & you're not the only one who involves themselves in it.  Bigshot (RIP) was another.  Look at the posts from A.S. and how often the next dozen or so posts afterward would be full of inane ridicule.  Someone coming into the thread at that point would immediately see A.S. as the sane one, and everyone else as the bad guys.
  
 I'm just stating it how I see it mate.  Like I said - I've learnt a lot from you and everyone else here.  But if we're going to perform a SWOT analysis on the SS section, lets turn the W's into O's.


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> Stan - all I'm doing is relating what I read.  Again you may see it as banter & you're not the only one who involves themselves in it.  Bigshot (RIP) was another.  Look at the posts from A.S. and how often the next dozen or so posts afterward would be full of inane ridicule.  Someone coming into the thread at that point would immediately see A.S. as the sane ione, and everyone else as the bad guys.
> 
> I'm just stating it how I see it mate.  Like I said - I've learnt a lot from you and everyone else here.  But if we're going to perform a SWOT analysis on the SS section, lets turn the W's into O's.


 
 I said outside of Sound Science. Here, I got carried away with AS because he gets away with stuff over here that we would get clobbered with by the moderators elsewhere, very quickly. IMO, he repeats the same pattern to get attention, just say'in.


----------



## Brooko

But isn't the topic what happens in SS?  Not in the rest of the forum?


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> But isn't the topic what happens in SS?  Not in the rest of the forum?


 
 I though the first post said, "express our opinions relatively freely here." So in theory I did, which IMO pales in comparison to the constant carrying on that AS conducted. His constant disruption is just too much.
 He still owes that study on CD Mats, which I expect to be rigged.


----------



## arnyk

joe bloggs said:


> You can click on the photo to enlarge it you know


 
  
  


> Did that but it didn't help. Old eyes with lots of correction but...





> Since you are right there and so helpful, what's the best way to plug that  thing into the speaker output of my PC?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

arnyk said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > You can click on the photo to enlarge it you know
> ...




It's easier if you just want it for your music player--get foobar2000, get the VST wrapper
http://www.yohng.com/software/foobarvst.html

Install Electri-Q, point the VST wrapper to where the VST .dll is installed...

If you want it to process systemwide audio like I'm doing, well, a remote desktop session may be in order... 

Fancy a live (text) chat? My Skype ID is joe0bloggs (with a zero between joe and bloggs)


----------



## Brooko

arnyk said:


> > Did that but it didn't help. Old eyes with lots of correction but...


 
  
 Arny
  
 If you click the image, then at the pop-up, there is a button under the image which simply read "original".  If you click that, you get a maximum resolution image.
  
 The one Joe posted is pretty big.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Here's something that may put the frustrations of you guys in perspective...

Though the Sound Science subforum is a dusty corner of head-fi, it's a dusty corner of HEAD-FI, one of the largest audio forums out there. That, combined with the bang-on forum title, earned it...



3rd place in a google search on "sound science". Heck, the top two hits aren't even on the right topic, so you're effectively at the top!

So don't give up on yourselves as though nothing you say here matters. Compared to someplace like chang* or H2 audio, this place is positively the spotlighted spot in the middle of the Superbowl Arena. What you guys say here *matters*. So start acting like it and carrying yourselves properly in discussions and arguments.


----------



## arnyk

OK I've got the version from your Dropbox installed.
  
 I've got the VST wrapper you recommended installed and it seems to be wired into FB2K
  
 I can run the equalizer from the tray icon and change its settings.
  
 But, do what I want to its controls and there is no change in the sound from FB2K
  
 ????


----------



## Joe Bloggs

arnyk said:


> OK I've got the version from your Dropbox installed.
> 
> I've got the VST wrapper you recommended installed and it seems to be wired into FB2K
> 
> ...




You need to go to foobar2000->File->Preferences->Playback->DSP Manager and plop "George Yohng's VST wrapper" from "Available" to the "Active" side


----------



## arnyk

Bingo!
  
 Give me a clue or two about making it system-wide
  
 Pretty please?


----------



## limpidglitch

joe bloggs said:


> Here's something that may put the frustrations of you guys in perspective...
> 
> Though the Sound Science subforum is a dusty corner of head-fi, it's a dusty corner of HEAD-FI, one of the largest audio forums out there. That, combined with the bang-on forum title, earned it...
> 
> ...


 
  
 I get the same, but bear in mind that this result is weighted by our respective Google portfolios.
 If I do the same search through Bing, or a completely unbiased search through DDG, things doesn't look quite so rosy (though we still seem to beat other relevant internet fora).


----------



## uchihaitachi

limpidglitch said:


> I get the same, but bear in mind that this result is weighted by our respective Google portfolios.
> 
> If I do the same search through Bing, or a completely unbiased search through DDG, things doesn't look quite so rosy (though we still seem to beat other relevant internet fora).




You are right. Just did it using incognito mode via Google. It's not even on the first page.


----------



## Ruben123

Wow hold on, testing audiophile claims and myths and our saloon are both locked? What did I miss last few days?!


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> Wow hold on, testing audiophile claims and myths and our saloon are both locked? What did I miss last few days?!


 
 Madness.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

arnyk said:


> Bingo!
> 
> Give me a clue or two about making it system-wide
> 
> Pretty please?




You need virtual audio cable for the system sound loopback, ASIO4All for low latency, and a VST host like VSTHost.

There's links to a few guides here
www.head-fi.org/t/615417/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-advanced-tutorial-in-progress


----------



## Steve Eddy

ruben123 said:


> Wow hold on, testing audiophile claims and myths and our saloon are both locked? What did I miss last few days?!




Some people calling other people trolls (mistakenly or otherwise) instead of either engaging them properly or ignoring them.

I'm beginning to wonder if I even want to participate in here anymore.

se


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> Some people calling other people trolls (mistakenly or otherwise) instead of either engaging them properly or ignoring them.
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder if I even want to participate in here anymore.
> 
> se


 
  
 Wouldn't be the first forum I've been on where a thread got locked because it became too messy.
  
 From a moderator viewpoint, it might be preferable to taking action against certain individuals, but sometimes that coincides with the lock down.
  
 Not just a HF thing...


----------



## money4me247

Lurker on some of the more interesting sound science threads, I would just to drop a comment commending the attitudes and points made in the initial post.
  
 What is the point of 'sound science'? It is to *further the understanding for members interested in learning more on specific topics*.
  
 A lot of interesting topics that I peruse in this particular forum setting often gets extremely and viciously derailed with very tedious bickering and a general air of hostility. There is a lot of degrading/ridiculing members holding alternative opinions from both sides. I think a 'skeptic' mentality will naturally lead to questioning and debate, but I don't ever see the need for the negativity often pervades these discussions.
  
 I saw that bigshot may have been banned and I am not surprised. His posts were often highly informative but very negatively confrontational at times. I remember learning a wealth of valuable information from him especially during a discussion about 'headphone speed' where I first seriously thought about the idea of what is actually auditory perceptible for human ears and I learned more about reading CSD plots. However, after that conversation, I simply never wanted to talk to him again as there was an extremely hostile vibe with the presentation of the information/arguments. It was like the attitude of a soldier going to war on the front lines.
  
 I think a common attitude held here is that there is only one way of thinking that is correct and posting is akin to doing 'battle' with the 'enemy' in order to enlighten/save everyone. That is simply not sustainable. People will simply believe what they want to believe. No one is looking to be saved or persuaded. People want information to digest for themselves, not to be attacked for having certain beliefs or possibly flawed assumptions. Interpretation or conclusions may be flawed, but isn't that is a natural progression of scientific inquiry? 
  
 I think the goal of frequent sound science posters should not to be "proving" or "disproving" or telling someone that their way of thinking is incorrect/unscientific, but rather to simply share background information in an easy to understand way, provide further resources, and explain in a non-confrontational way why certain conclusions cannot be drawn from certain assumptions. That is what I've personally found to be the most helpful for myself as a reader and I do think that would be a lot less tiring for the contributors who post valuable information.
  
 Thanks for taking to time to read my thoughts & cheers!


----------



## arnyk

joe bloggs said:


> You need virtual audio cable for the system sound loopback, ASIO4All for low latency, and a VST host like VSTHost.
> 
> There's links to a few guides here
> www.head-fi.org/t/615417/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-advanced-tutorial-in-progress


 
  
 Thanks for the tips,
  
 I really appreciate them. The tips really helped me along in my journey.
  
 This project seems to be moving at light speed!  I was looking for something to implement on client computers with minimum hassle. 
  
 So anyway, since my clients and are  Win 7/8 users I ended up going down the Equalizer APO and PEACE Parametric equalizer route.   They are dumb simple to implement and have to be seen to be believed.
  
 Thanks again!


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> Wouldn't be the first forum I've been on where a thread got locked because it became too messy.
> 
> From a moderator viewpoint, it might be preferable to taking action against certain individuals, but sometimes that coincides with the lock down.
> 
> Not just a HF thing...




Sure. I'm just saying the blame for the mess is often misplaced.

A troll (genuine or otherwise), can't create a mess on their own. The responsibility of any resultant mess that may ensue is on the shoulders of those who respond. Or take potshots from the sidelines. Yet it's the "troll" who gets blamed for the mess and thread lockdowns.

se


----------



## Roly1650

steve eddy said:


> Some people calling other people trolls (mistakenly or otherwise) instead of either engaging them properly or ignoring them.
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder if I even want to participate in here anymore.
> 
> se



That would be a huge loss to the forum in my opinion.


----------



## dazzerfong

steve eddy said:


> Sure. I'm just saying the blame for the mess is often misplaced.
> 
> A troll (genuine or otherwise), can't create a mess on their own. The responsibility of any resultant mess that may ensue is on the shoulders of those who respond. Or take potshots from the sidelines. Yet it's the "troll" who gets blamed for the mess and thread lockdowns.
> 
> se


 
 There's two ways you can look at this:
  
 1. Blame the fool who started it, or:
 2. Blame everyone else who followed him along with the ride.
  
 So while you may go for no. 2, remember the problem would have _never_ occurred if not for no. 1. So yes, you can blame both parties, both it's undeniable that the troll carries a large portion of it. That being said, emotions get heated when it comes to this forum particularly often. More often than not it's due to a visitor either ignorant of the conventions here or having an axe to grind with 'objectivity'.

 Oh, and since you're a friend of AS, tell him to hurry up with the CD mats, would you? I genuinely want to know if at least there's a bit of plausibility to what he said.


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> But let's not get too hung up on ABX.
> 
> I think difference testing should be the go to first choice. If the residual isn't audible, there ipso facto can't be an audible difference. If there is an audible residual, then that would warrant moving on to ABX testing to see if the difference is audible while listening to music.
> 
> se


 
  
  
 A big +1 to that.
  
 For example Wireworld has link to a site with a mass of 16 and 24 bit music files related to different cables. Logical step one would be to test them for residual differences.
  
 http://www.audio.de/ratgeber/soundfiles-gratis-download-analogkabel-2568176.html


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> Sure. I'm just saying the blame for the mess is often misplaced.
> 
> A troll (genuine or otherwise), can't create a mess on their own. The responsibility of any resultant mess that may ensue is on the shoulders of those who respond. Or take potshots from the sidelines. Yet it's the "troll" who gets blamed for the mess and thread lockdowns.
> 
> se


 
  
 Many may be guilty, but the person who instigates the most,  and/or the one(s)  who make the most personal attacks are probably going to be on the moderator's hit list.
  
 ( I think I just paraphrased dazzerfong) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I don't know how it works around here, but I've never had a moderator call out specific people. It is just that some people go on a little vacation, or a permanent one.


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> Headphones, IEMs and Loudspeakers make a difference.


 
  
 And for those of us who still listen with speakers, rooms are a very big influence on SQ - probably bigger than the speakers themselves.
  
 Source material also matters a ton.  There are some genres where good recordings are like hen's teeth.


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> And for those of us who still listen with speakers, rooms are a very big influence on SQ - probably bigger than the speakers themselves.
> 
> Source material also matters a ton.  There are some genres where good recordings are like hen's teeth.


 
 I aas going to add the acoustics part of it but got too lazy. You are absolutely correct. Moving a couch can do all sorts of things.


----------



## Steve Eddy

roly1650 said:


> That would be a huge loss to the forum in my opinion.




Thank you. But it's just getting more and more frustrating seeing threads get turned to crap and locked.

se


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> Thank you. But it's just getting more and more frustrating seeing threads get turned to crap and locked.
> 
> se


 
  
  
 The turning to crap is indeed frustrating. It happens so often. A thread can be a vortex that sucks in even people with good will.  Sometimes locking them puts lots of people out of their misery, guilty or not.
  
 You can always make a new thread, right?


----------



## Steve Eddy

dazzerfong said:


> There's two ways you can look at this:
> 
> 1. Blame the fool who started it, or:
> 2. Blame everyone else who followed him along with the ride.
> ...




I don't agree. 

All a fool/troll/whatever can do is put the key in the ignition. Takes someone else to turn that key and start the car. And if the car gets started, there's only one person responsible for it. The person who turned the key. The key could have simply been ignored. 




> That being said, emotions get heated when it comes to this forum particularly often. More often than not it's due to a visitor either ignorant of the conventions here or having an axe to grind with 'objectivity'.




So? There are ways of dealing with that that don't create a Schiitstorm and get threads locked.




> Oh, and since you're a friend of AS, tell him to hurry up with the CD mats, would you? I genuinely want to know if at least there's a bit of plausibility to what he said.




He's a busy man but I'll try.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> You can always make a new thread, right?




Shouldn't have to.

se


----------



## dazzerfong

steve eddy said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> All a fool/troll/whatever can do is put the key in the ignition. Takes someone else to turn that key and start the car. And if the car gets started, there's only one person responsible for it. The person who turned the key. The key could have simply been ignored.
> So? There are ways of dealing with that that don't create a Schiitstorm and get threads locked.


 
 Since we're into analogies, the troll is like a thief who broke into an unlocked house and stole something. Sure, the owner might be a bit nutty leaving it unlocked, but that doesn't change the fact that the thief stole something to begin with. Another analogy is of a houseowner beating an intruder in their house, followed by the intruder accusing the houseowner of wrongdoing.
  
 Of course there are ways to deal with it all without it hitting the fan, but if it does, blaming others seems hardly appropriate, don't you think?
  


steve eddy said:


> He's a busy man but I'll try.


 
 I'll have no problem with him coming up blank and just conceding. If anything, I'll respect him more for knowing his limitations. Problem is, _don't make a claim without proof _and all would have been fine.


----------



## RRod

Going back and forth about how we define a troll was probably part of the fodder that lead to the closing of the other threads. We should keep discussion more focused on the kind of dialectic we want in this particular thread, to keep it from the same fate. Enough about AS and his CD mats already.


----------



## StanD

How about a simple process. We should all ignore repeated unsubstantiated silly posts.  Lack of  attention drives away those that detract from an honest discussion.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dazzerfong said:


> Since we're into analogies, the troll is like a thief who broke into an unlocked house and stole something. Sure, the owner might be a bit nutty leaving it unlocked, but that doesn't change the fact that the thief stole something to begin with. Another analogy is of a houseowner beating an intruder in their house, followed by the intruder accusing the houseowner of wrongdoing.




WHAT?!? 

How is that AT ALL analogous? We don't OWN Sound Science. Sound Science isn't our PRIVATE PROPERTY. Those who post here, troll or otherwise, are not INTRUDERS. This is a PUBLIC SPACE. Well, technically it's privately owned. BUT NOT BY US!

I'm completely flabbergasted that anyone would draw the analogy to someone trespassing on private property. If that's really how some of you see it, it's no wonder we have problems here. 



> Of course there are ways to deal with it all without it hitting the fan, but if it does, blaming others seems hardly appropriate, don't you think?




I put the blame on those responsible. And the only people responsible for starting the car are those who turn the key. 



> I'll have no problem with him coming up blank and just conceding. If anything, I'll respect him more for knowing his limitations. Problem is, _don't make a claim without proof _and all would have been fine.




All would be fine if you simply hold them to substantiating their claims instead of thinking they're intruders and running for your shotgun. 

se


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> How about a simple process. We should all ignore repeated unsubstantiated silly posts.  Lack of  attention drives away those that detract from an honest discussion.


 
 +1
  
 Trolls basically are seeking attention. Many are well-practiced at attention-getting and they know how to keep on inciting people so they get their attention-fix.
  
 Usually, the thread is the focus of the group's attention, and moderators know that locking the thread is often a fix.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> How about a simple process. We should all ignore repeated unsubstantiated silly posts.




That would be a start. 

Another thing is don't let yourselves get lured into the weeds. During the last big Schiitstorm, he had you all off arguing about building pyramids and Tesla and Schiit. 

se


----------



## limpidglitch

steve eddy said:


> During the last big Schiitstorm, he had you all off arguing about building pyramids and Tesla and Schiit.
> 
> se


 
  
 I still don't see what was so wrong about that. It only got messy once people decided to start getting nasty.


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> That would be a start.
> 
> Another thing is don't let yourselves get lured into the weeds. During the last big Schiitstorm, he had you all off arguing about building pyramids and Tesla and Schiit.
> 
> se


 
 Yep, lets not play the game.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

steve eddy said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > How about a simple process. We should all ignore repeated unsubstantiated silly posts.
> ...




If you could prove him wrong on everything from pyramids to tesla coils, that's fine by me


----------



## castleofargh

brooko said:


> Nice idea for a thread Joe.
> 
> Just some musings - from someone who genuinely tires to be objective in my observances, but often does not understand the science behind it all.
> 
> ...


 
 can't say you're wrong on any point. but again aren't all those the symptoms and not the sickness?
 take 5. and 6. together. how can we stop FFbookman from posting "320≠40k" 300more times to say that mp3 sucks, when I alone have already explained to him twice that it is a total nonsense argument. bitrate and sample rate aren't the same thing, and mp3 isn't PCM. different units, and different format, that should be compelling enough to stop pretending they're the same stuff right? but as you say he doesn't read and doesn't care. and he posted it once more a few days ago on the wave vs flac topic when he now fully knows and has been told by several people that it was wrong to do it.
 it has become his main argument, comparing apple and oranges in a strawman argument and just wait for a guy like bigshot or stan or myself to blow a fuze. all the troll has to do is have patience. as in our actual headfi rules, we have zero practical way to stop a troll.
 what is right and fair in this system? nothing. what you suggest is for us all to always be cool, always be wise, and always treat him with respect... by ignoring his posts or him entirely.
 so the answer against one guy misbehaving is that the entire forum has to move around him without touching him. where is that normal and fair?
  
 how can we expect a public forum to be able to behave like that? parent can't do it with their own kids on a daily basis, of course stuff will blow out of proportion, and of course someone(probably me) will bite at the troll. if not the first time, if not the second, one day for sure we all know I will. it's only a question of time and the troll doesn't mind for that as he can go all day long and it will never cost him anything. because there is no rule against posting nonsense again and again and again.
  
 in sound science, science should be the ruler. and claims should never ever come without backup.
 a false claim or a fallacy is used. the normal action is what we already do, we call it what it is.
 at that point 3 possible ends:
  
 1/ the guy understands why what he said is wrong and he isn't blinded by his own ego. he will just admit he was wrong, or at least stop posting his erroneous stuff.
 2/ the guy's ego would let him burn the world before he ever admits to not being a knowing being, and he will just continue to talk nonsense until the day he dies. nothing in the actual headfi can prevent him from doing so in sound science, and at some point someone will get made at him and will not be wrong. but he will get a ban or a locked topic or deleted post. and that's just wrong.
 3/ we get some matter of law saying that unsubstantiated claims and fallacies should be posted outside of sound science: the guy is reminded of the TOS and stops on his own from fear of the police. or he doesn't, and instead of all going crazy over his BS, we can just ask a modo to take matters in his own end and stop the troll. end of the problem. nobody got killed, no kitten was hurt, and we can at long last talk about what interests us instead of running in circle with a troll posting the same claims again and again.
  
 I don't know about you, but I find 3/ to be one hell of a progress. that's what I ask in my previous post. the problem needs to be treated, not the symptoms. and the problem is that nothing can be done against a guy who decides to post a nonsense claim 10 times a day. in sound science we need to have the moderators and the law on the side of science and facts. that's what I'm asking for.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 about simple easy to understand resources, it's the thing about science and facts, they are most of the time complex stuff, and simplifying them is only making them false. we have examples of that all over the forum on both sides of objectivism and subjectivism sadly. that's when people use values or definitive statements as weapons with no regard to the magnitude of those values or how they compare to the rest of the audio chain.
  as soon as we try to make things simple, we distort reality. you think we can explain cables in a simple way? how? if the guy has no background in electricity how do we convince him? by making a statement and just expect him to trust us?
 yes sometimes a cable will make an IEM to sound very different. and yes other times no matter the cable, the sound will always be audibly the same. both can be real depending on external factors. we try to make it simple with rule of thumbs and saying to people that cable won't matter if they respect the at least 1/10 damping ratio, so that variations in FR should stay below 1db and thus not really matter.
 but then they take the impedance of an IEM as stated in specs, so at 1khz only. and when cables do make a difference because the 30ohm IEM in fact goes as low as 8ohm, they come back to us telling we lied. so now we need to explain that impedance changes over frequency. even though it is perfectly understood, how do we make that simple? we now need to have people learn how to read and impedance graph. I really wish I knew how to make stuff simple and still true.
 and that's not even starting with how the amp behavior might change with different loads... how can that relate to people asking "what's the best sounding device?"
  
 TBH I've started to make some stuff several times to "make it simple", but I can never go through because there would always be something need more explaining that nobody will want to learn. I tried making that just to give the basics of PCM on a french forum, it was really made to be for the lay person and nothing advanced. I ended up making a 13pages .doc 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 who would want to read 13pages with a conclusion saying that it's just the very surface of digital conversion? ^_^
  
 I always wanted to make a graph showing loudness, dynamic of formats, and distortions on the same axis with several formats and devices to put the values into perspective so that people would stop crying over stuff at -120db as if it was audible on a system that fails to resolve -80db. but I just don't know how without being wrong.
 if I put a range value for headphone distortions, what should it be? I have no clue. I certainly have an idea about where that should be, but what values can I put on both sides without being a liar?
 same with an amp, do I use the specs they give with no load, or should I try to find some average "in real usage" with the volume turned down and the noise floor now much more closer to the music? how to do that when there are so many amps and so many headphones combo possible? I again have a fair idea about a range of values, but no way to make a graph about it as I don't know where to start and where to end. if I do I would at some point be wrong. is that acceptable? to shortcut the truth as a mean to educate people? I don't know if I have the right to pretend objectivity without actually using it. but such a graph even false would certainly shut a great deal of arguments about highres, jitter, EQ distortions, low pass filters, or how colored tube amps are hifi... showing how all of those are a joke compared to an average audio chain resolution.
 is a compromise of truth still truth just because it's closer to reality than other claims?
  
  
 as you can see I'm very passionate and boring(sorry people) about those stuff. I always felt lucky to be able to find great souls willing to help and educate me on the web. a total stranger wasting his time for me for free! probably the best human thing still happening on that planet. as I obviously can't ever hope to repay those guys because they know so much more than I do, I take it that I should in turn do the same when by luck I happen to know a little about what someone wishes to learn. it's my little own wheel of karma ^_^, and then those guys might explain stuff to other guys and we all share our knowledge and the world ends up a better place where ignorance doesn't have to win.


----------



## Steve Eddy

limpidglitch said:


> I still don't see what was so wrong about that.




Other than it being completely off topic and off point?



> It only got messy once people decided to start getting nasty.




That didn't help.

se


----------



## Joe Bloggs

On the other hand, if they went off on a tangent that you cannot refute with fact or well backed arguments (could even be an audio topic) but you've only got this gut feeling that he's wrong, well, you either research and put together a real argument or shut up about that part. You don't start calling him a troll because he's "not playing fair" with his arguments by zipping every which way and throwing up ill-formed arguments that are so much easier to throw up than to tear down. That's just the way those not of a scientific bent roll, there's nothing you can do about it.

My thought on this were summed up in this post of the day:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/6495#post_11644737



> Ironically, it seems the temptation is greater for one of a scientific mindset to resort to name-calling--because it's so much easier and quicker for someone to pull another ill-formed argument, anecdote, etc. out of his hat than for the scientific representative to rebut it with properly backed arguments. To this I say, rebut the arguments you have time to rebut when you have time, leave the rest of the torrent of "arguments" alone, and leave it to the audience to see for themselves who has the better points. Those readers who cannot tell the wheat from the chaff are not those you can hope to win over to your side anyway.
> 
> Do not in any case attempt to match the other guy's post rate--you'll run out of arguments in no time, whereas their "arguments" are inexhaustible.




If you guys all "liked" it (9 likes so far, got me top rated post of the day  Thanks guys!), does that mean you'll agree with what I say in what you do?


----------



## Steve Eddy

joe bloggs said:


> If you could prove him wrong on everything from pyramids to tesla coils, that's fine by me




Why would I necessarily want to prove him wrong? It's the claimant's job to prove themselves right, not necessarily our job to prove them wrong. Pyramids and Tesla was just a distraction out in the weeds.

When he asked me what I thought about Tesla, I simply said I wasn't aware that Tesla had done any work with audio cables and could he be more specific. He didn't have an answer for that and it stopped right there. If instead I had gone on with five paragraphs about Tesla, we would have been arguing about Tesla, who was irrelevant to the discussion.

se


----------



## limpidglitch

steve eddy said:


> Other than it being completely off topic and off point?
> 
> se


 
  
 As with analog, I believe there was an internal logic to his reasoning. He wanted to know about electricity, wether there was something to N. Teslas old musings, and wether the old egyptians knew how to use electricity.
 Those are completely legitimate questions in my book, and we should be able to answer them in a calm and rational manner.


----------



## Steve Eddy

limpidglitch said:


> As with analog, I believe there was an internal logic to his reasoning. He wanted to know about electricity, wether there was something to N. Teslas old musings, and wether the old egyptians knew how to use electricity.
> Those are completely legitimate questions in my book, and we should be able to answer them in a calm and rational manner.




If he wanted to learn about electricity, then you should have stuck to explaining electricity. Pyramids and Tesla have nothing to do with explaining electricity, nor do they have anything to do with Sound Science. 

se


----------



## limpidglitch

steve eddy said:


> If he wanted to learn about electricity, then you should have stuck to explaining electricity. Pyramids and Tesla have nothing to do with explaining electricity, nor do they have anything to do with Sound Science.
> 
> se


 
  
 In his mind it evidently did.
 He's not the first, and won't be the last, to arrive here with some funny preconceptions.


----------



## Roly1650

steve eddy said:


> If he wanted to learn about electricity, then you should have stuck to explaining electricity. Pyramids and Tesla have nothing to do with explaining electricity, nor do they have anything to do with Sound Science.
> 
> se



I agree, based on his posting record, the only interest he had was in rubbishing science, he was about 3 posts away from his omnipotent diety speech. Imo he played everybody on the thread and was as interested in learning about electricity as I am in learning how to sky dive without a chute and ultimately the real nasty piece of work on the thread was him. Thankfully, the mods agreed, deleted his final crude, insulting post and moved the thread out of SS, since when he's been invisible, so insatiable is his thirst for knowledge.


----------



## Steve Eddy

limpidglitch said:


> In his mind it evidently did.




But trying to disabuse him of that was just a distraction.




> He's not the first, and won't be the last, to arrive here with some funny preconceptions.




Sure. But unless they somehow relate to Sound Science, they should just be ignored.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

roly1650 said:


> I agree, based on his posting record, the only interest he had was in rubbishing science, he was about 3 posts away from his omnipotent diety speech. Imo he played everybody on the thread and was as interested in learning about electricity as I am in learning how to sky dive without a chute and ultimately the real nasty piece of work on the thread was him. Thankfully, the mods agreed, deleted his final crude, insulting post and moved the thread out of SS, since when he's been invisible, so insatiable is his thirst for knowledge.




Yeah. He was just a Tesla/free energy crank. As my friend says, the Law of Conservation, she's a bitch.

se


----------



## cel4145

joe bloggs said:


> On the other hand, if they went off on a tangent that you cannot refute with fact or well backed arguments (could even be an audio topic) but you've only got this gut feeling that he's wrong, well, you either research and put together a real argument or shut up about that part. You don't start calling him a troll because he's "not playing fair" with his arguments by zipping every which way and throwing up ill-formed arguments that are so much easier to throw up than to tear down. That's just the way those not of a scientific bent roll, there's nothing you can do about it.
> 
> My thought on this were summed up in this post of the day:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/6495#post_11644737
> If you guys all "liked" it (9 likes so far, got me top rated post of the day  Thanks guys!), does that mean you'll agree with what I say in what you do?




Agreed. The sound science forum likes to spend a bit too much time talking about other posters instead of talking about the science. 

It's one thing for people to get a little heated in talking about science. It's quite another when people start ganging up and calling someone a troll. Or when these "lounge" threads become discussions focused on saying negative things about another poster. Those types of activities deserve to have threads shut down. This is not a school yard, and this is not middle school any more.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Agreed. The sound science forum likes to spend a bit too much time talking about other posters instead of talking about the science.
> 
> It's one thing for people to get a little heated in talking about science. It's quite another when people start ganging up and calling someone a troll. Or when these "lounge" threads become discussions focused on saying negative things about another poster. Those types of activities deserve to have threads shut down. This is not a school yard, and this is not middle school any more.


 
 We should simply ignore the troll like posts and report the disruptive poster to get them off the thread.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> This is not a school yard, and this is not middle school any more.


 
  
 I thought the same thing back when I started my job; how wrong I was!


----------



## uchihaitachi

castleofargh said:


> what is right and fair in this system? nothing. what you suggest is for us all to always be cool, always be wise, and always treat him with respect... by ignoring his posts or him entirely.
> so the answer against one guy misbehaving is that the entire forum has to move around him without touching him. where is that normal and fair?
> 
> how can we expect a public forum to be able to behave like that? parent can't do it with their own kids on a daily basis, of course stuff will blow out of proportion, and of course someone(probably me) will bite at the troll. if not the first time, if not the second, one day for sure we all know I will. it's only a question of time and the troll doesn't mind for that as he can go all day long and it will never cost him anything. because there is no rule against posting nonsense again and again and again.


 
 Those that buy into all the marketing hype and BS on head-fi exhibit symptoms very much like religious zealots. There is no way to reason or even hold down a discussion with them, before the whole thing descends into back and forth ad hominem responses. 
  
 No need to be wise or patient. Just use the block button!


----------



## Steve Eddy

uchihaitachi said:


> Those that buy into all the marketing hype and BS on head-fi exhibit symptoms very much like religious zealots.




I've always found it ironic that on boards like this, discussions about "religion" and "politics" are strictly forbidden, even in general topic areas. 

You can't discuss _those_ topics. They're too inflammatory. But you can discuss _these_ topics, even though they can be _just_ as inflammatory and for _the very same reasons_. It's religion and politics no matter how you slice it.

A rose by any other name...

se


----------



## arnyk

uchihaitachi said:


> Those that buy into all the marketing hype and BS on head-fi exhibit symptoms very much like religious zealots. There is no way to reason or even hold down a discussion with them, before the whole thing descends into back and forth ad hominem responses.
> 
> No need to be wise or patient. Just use the block button!


 
  
 There are people like that, but I don't think that everybody who believes what amounts to be conventional wisdom about audio gear gets that much engaged.
  
 Instead I think that people of the rational audio persuasion run into the danger of walking up to someone who has just spent big bucks on a new purchase that they intend to treasure for some time, and we tell them that they made a bad choice, a bad deal.
  
 We're telling them that they didn't make a good investment, but a bad one.
  
 We're telling them that in effect, we are smarter than they are, and not by a little bit.
  
 OK, put yourself in their shoes. Some stranger walks up to you and says all that to you.
  
 How would you react? Cover them with hugs and kisses?  
  
 Unh-unh.


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> There are people like that, but I don't think that everybody who believes what amounts to be conventional wisdom about audio gear gets that much engaged.
> 
> Instead I think that people of the rational audio persuasion run into the danger of walking up to someone who has just spent big bucks on a new purchase that they intend to treasure for some time, and we tell them that they made a bad choice, a bad deal.
> 
> ...




But if they're happy with it, and they feel it was worth the money, and they don't make any objective claims about it, then they shouldn't be told any of that. I mean, who's business is it?

se


----------



## arnyk

Right. The exposed target is someone who makes unwarranted claims about his new stuff.
  
 But the problem remains. We are basically picking on his new toy possession, and by extension him.


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> Right. The exposed target is someone who makes unwarranted claims about his new stuff.
> 
> But the problem remains. We are basically picking on his new toy possession, and by extension him.




Sure. They're certainly going to be operating from a defensive posture. But it can go a long way toward keeping things calm by putting them in the position of substantiating their claims rather than resorting to absolutes by simply telling them they're wrong and you are right. I typically only tell people they're wrong when it comes to matters of physics. When it comes to claims of audibility, I leave the ball in their court.

se


----------



## uchihaitachi

arnyk said:


> Right. The exposed target is someone who makes unwarranted claims about his new stuff.
> 
> But the problem remains. We are basically picking on his new toy possession, and by extension him.


 
 As stupid as their defensive position may seem, and their reasoning behind their latest toy, a condescending tone is going to exacerbate the matter at hand.
  
 You can always place the burden of proof on them. Ignore them otherwise!


----------



## Don Hills

castleofargh said:


> .... in sound science we need to have the moderators and the law on the side of science and facts. that's what I'm asking for....


 
  
 I know of at least one place where this is baked into the TOS. In my experience, it works pretty much like you're asking for.
 In my opinion (worth exactly what you paid for it), fair is fair: Head-Fi bans "science" (specifically, ABX) in most of the areas. There should be a similar ban on unsubstantiated audibility claims in the "science" area.  People with incorrect / incomplete knowledge of "how things work" could still feel free to seek education.


----------



## StanD

don hills said:


> I know of at least one place where this is baked into the TOS. In my experience, it works pretty much like you're asking for.
> In my opinion (worth exactly what you paid for it), fair is fair: Head-Fi bans "science" (specifically, ABX) in most of the areas. There should be a similar ban on unsubstantiated audibility claims in the "science" area.  People with incorrect / incomplete knowledge of "how things work" could still feel free to seek education.


 
 Unfortunately too few come to the SS forum to learn.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Unfortunately too few come to the SS forum to learn.




Why is that "unfortunate?" (lol)

Everyone had to start somewhere


----------



## Don Hills

uchihaitachi said:


> As stupid as their defensive position may seem, and their reasoning behind their latest toy, a condescending tone is going to exacerbate the matter at hand.
> 
> You can always place the burden of proof on them. Ignore them otherwise!


 
  
 For the type of poster we are discussing, a non-condescending answer is not what they're looking for. They'll try again and again until they get what they're looking for - a condescending, dismissive or angry answer that they can light a flame war with. Ignoring them is a noble sentiment, but there's always someone who will have a rush of blood to the head. The type of poster we are discussing works to make that happen.


----------



## knucklehead

don hills said:


> For the type of poster we are discussing, a non-condescending answer is not what they're looking for. They'll try again and again until they get what they're looking for - a condescending, dismissive or angry answer that they can light a flame war with. Ignoring them is a noble sentiment, but there's always someone who will have a rush of blood to the head. The type of poster we are discussing works to make that happen.


 

 That's the sad thing: An individual employing trolling behavior has a huge strategic advantage over a group -- just cast a line or two, and someone will almost certainly take the bait.


----------



## Steve Eddy

knucklehead said:


> That's the sad thing: An individual employing trolling behavior has a huge strategic advantage over a group -- just cast a line or two, and someone will almost certainly take the bait.




The sad thing is, I've seen very few genuine trolls come through here. Most are just "religious" faith-based types, and a few were just off the reservation crazy. I can't recall the last time I've seen anyone in here making disingenuous statements and arguments just to try and get a rise out of people.

As I said, "troll" has largely devolved into a general purpose epithet people hurl at those they either just don't like or disagree with.

se


----------



## uchihaitachi

Plus the moderators will never allow scientific methods to be implemented anywhere around this site. It goes against every fibre of the head fi sponsor community.


----------



## StanD

uchihaitachi said:


> Plus the moderators will never allow scientific methods to be implemented anywhere around this site. It goes against every fibre of the head fi sponsor community.


 
 +1


----------



## knucklehead

steve eddy said:


> The sad thing is, I've seen very few genuine trolls come through here. Most are just "religious" faith-based types, and a few were just off the reservation crazy. I can't recall the last time I've seen anyone in here making disingenuous statements and arguments just to try and get a rise out of people.
> 
> As I said, "troll" has largely devolved into a general purpose epithet people hurl at those they either just don't like or disagree with.
> 
> se


 

 I've heard what you said -- did you hear what I said?
  
 I said trolling behavior ... as in fishing. Not a creature that live under bridges. I've never called anyone a troll here.


----------



## dazzerfong

OK, side-stepping political discussion and all:
  
 Could anyone explain how an analog filter is designed from a digital one? I keep hearing my lecturers go on about making a digital filter first with defined parameters, but I never learnt how it actually gets made into an analog one.


----------



## knucklehead

dazzerfong said:


> OK, side-stepping political discussion and all:
> 
> Could anyone explain how an analog filter is designed from a digital one? I keep hearing my lecturers go on about making a digital filter first with defined parameters, but I never learnt how it actually gets made into an analog one.


 

 Don't ask me  ...  I'm just here for my interest in how cults work.


----------



## Steve Eddy

uchihaitachi said:


> Plus the moderators will never allow scientific methods to be implemented anywhere around this site. It goes against every fibre of the head fi sponsor community.




Personally I don't mind the DBT-Free Zone policy. No reason why people can't be allowed to share their subjective experiences without being hassled by anyone asking them to prove it. The reason why the same policy was originally first put into place over there is because people were being harassed by an "objectivist" from Audio Review. Though it didn't help that a _moderator_ from Audio Asylum was routinely going over to Audio Review and stirring up Schiit over there until the owner of Audio Asylum finally told him to knock it off.

Anyway, the problem here, just as it was over there, the rule isn't implemented properly. People would be making objective claims in the DBT-Free Zone, which by all rights should be open to question and/or challenge, but those making the claims would then run and hide behind the mommy' skirt of the DBT-Free Zone policy and were allowed to get away with it.

If the other forums are to be DBT-Free Zones, effectively an objective-free zone, then anyone making objective claims on those forums should be dealt with in the same way as an objectivist harassing someone who is only sharing their subjective experience. Similarly, Sound Science should be declared a Subjective-Free Zone.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

knucklehead said:


> I've heard what you said -- did you hear what I said?
> 
> I said trolling behavior ... as in fishing. Not a creature that live under bridges. I've never called anyone a troll here.




I never said you did. I was referring to the behavior of others.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

dazzerfong said:


> OK, side-stepping political discussion and all:
> 
> Could anyone explain how an analog filter is designed from a digital one? I keep hearing my lecturers go on about making a digital filter first with defined parameters, but I never learnt how it actually gets made into an analog one.




Some filters can only be implemented in the digital domain.

se


----------



## dazzerfong

steve eddy said:


> Some filters can only be implemented in the digital domain.
> 
> se


 
 Oh, of course, but I'm saying when you're trying to design an analog filter, you usually design it digitally, then implement it analog-wise. How do you do that?


----------



## Steve Eddy

dazzerfong said:


> Oh, of course, but I'm saying when you're trying to design an analog filter, you usually design it digitally, then implement it analog-wise. How do you do that?




Usually using simulation software like SPICE.

se


----------



## dazzerfong

steve eddy said:


> Usually using simulation software like SPICE.
> 
> se


 
 I've used SPICE for circuits, but never for filter design. Say hypothetically you didn't have SPICE, say you got the transfer equation of the filter: how do you go from there?


----------



## knucklehead

steve eddy said:


> I never said you did. I was referring to the behavior of others.
> 
> se


 

 Plausable deniability is a wonderful thing ...


----------



## Brooko

castleofargh said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I "spoilered" it because I don't want to clutter replies up with too much length.
  
 In general response - even though it has been covered already - I still stand by what I suggested.  Treat everyone politely with a reply that lists facts, figures, references. Ask for proof of what they are claiming (if they are making claims).  If they then choose to just repeat the same things (ie totally ignoring your reply), then the worst thing you can do is escalate.  Take the higher ground.  Simply block the person, and report his posts.  If enough of us do that - then the troublemakers (ie the guys looking simply to stir trouble) will be the ones on the receiving end.
  
 The problem I see is that in order for something to escalate, there has to be another participant.  When it does - the guys in this section are seen as the bad guys.  Don't give them the opportunity. What troubles me even more are when I see an EE in the main forum referring to SS as the Science Fiction section.  If we're not able to present factual evidence in a calm and instructional manner - then there is no point in even having an SS section.
  
 On your other point about dumbing things down - that's the last thing I want to do.  But you can still instruct in laymans terms.  Steve's done it plenty of times.  What I'm suggesting is a series of threads we can then point people to that have things spelled out reasonably basically so anyone can understand.  Eg - on cables (forgive me SE if I get this wrong):
  
 We know that there are four factors that can affect the fidelity of sound: Noise, frequency response, distortion, time based errors.
 We know that that main factors to cable changes involve: resistance, inductance and capacitance
  
 I just grabbed a quote from SE in another thread:


> In the electrical domain, the audio signal exists as nothing more than voltage and current versus time. So you have a time domain and a frequency domain. In order for a cable to make any actual audible difference, it must alter the signal in the time to main and/or the frequency domain. And we can measure any alterations in each of these domains to levels orders of magnitude lower than our ability to perceive. And it has been shown over and over again that unless a cable is broken, or incompetently designed, it will not alter the signal sufficiently in either domain as to be audible.
> 
> To put it bluntly, getting an audio signal from point A to point B without any audible degradation has been a "solved problem" for probably close to a century.
> 
> And the copper/silver/whatever debates are particularly absurd. All a wire brings to the table is its conductivity, which on the applications side of things manifests as simple resistance. And a given amount of resistance is a given amount of resistance regardless if it's from a copper wire or a silver wire. There is no otherworldly property that distinguishes the two.


 
  
 Now if we had a thread the explained the basics, then took the results from two different cables (silver and copper), applied the math, and show (without doubt) an example of change being below the audible level - then it becomes very easy to refer people to the appropriate thread.
  
 You won't influence the true believers, but you might educate/influence the people (like me) who simply didn't know - when i first came here.
  
 Lets face it - until I was encouraged to perform actual ABXs on my music in different formats (redbook vs high-res vs DSD vs lossy), I would have been the first to trot out the old myth that lossless sounds better and high bit-rate lossy was inferior.  Thankfully I was encouraged to search for the truth as it pertained to me.  I am now the better for that info


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Hi Brooko! Nice to see you here. 

Re cables, it would be particularly interesting to see two claims dissected thoroughly: 1. skin effect 2. diode effect from oxidation. I have a good understanding on (1) but re (2) all I know is that you guys think it's bollocks. But how so?


----------



## Brooko

That's why I'd love to see a thread where:
  

Factors that could be different in a cable are recognised
How those difference can be calculated
Then examples (real world) of what the differences mean audibly
  
 Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to contribute .......


----------



## Steve Eddy

dazzerfong said:


> I've used SPICE for circuits, but never for filter design. Say hypothetically you didn't have SPICE, say you got the transfer equation of the filter: how do you go from there?




Calculator, notepad, breadboard and a junk box of parts. 

EDIT: Just noticed. What is an analog filter but a circuit?

se


----------



## julian67

joe bloggs said:


> *You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry.*
> -Abraham Lincoln​




My top 4:

haemorrhoids, socialism, weak beer, people who think they are objective and rational just because they claim it to be so.


----------



## Steve Eddy

joe bloggs said:


> Re cables, it would be particularly interesting to see two claims dissected thoroughly: 1. skin effect 2. diode effect from oxidation. I have a good understanding on (1) but re (2) all I know is that you guys think it's bollocks. But how so?




I covered (2) in this reply to Analogsurviver a couple days ago in the now-locked Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths thread.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/6495#post_11644677

se


----------



## jcx

there are no strings of micodiodes, just lots of really, really little balls
  
 oxygen is intentionally included in "tough pitch" copper commonly used in wire to form insoluble oxides with contaminants - which, along with Cu2O, precipitate out as discrete particles - not uniform films spanning the wire diameter or even crystal faces – although they are concentrated at the crystal interfaces

 as discrete particles they are completely surrounded (== shorted out) by bulk copper - "large" particle size mean is < 10 um dia
  
  
 if you want to make CuO diodes: http://www.hpfriedrichs.com/radioroom/cu-diode/rr-cu-diode.htm


----------



## Steve Eddy

jcx said:


> there are no strings of micodiodes...




Are too! John measured them! 

(Inside joke)

se


----------



## jcx

yes it helps to have framework for observations, some knowledge of relevant fields/accepted, validated practice, known practical measurement limits
  
 Quote:


> *theory-ladenness of observation*
> 
> Theory-ladenness of observation holds that everything one observes is interpreted through a prior understanding of other theories and concepts. Whenever we describe observations, we are constantly utilizing terms and measurements that our society has adopted. Therefore, it would be impossible for someone else to understand these observations if they are unfamiliar with, or disagree with, the theories that these terms come from.
> 
> ...


 
  
 of course sometimes it comes down to RTFM
  
  
 at others it seems like some audio "gurus" are in the business of applying the infinite monkey principle with soldering irons instead of typewriters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem


----------



## castleofargh

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






brooko said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> ...


 
  


 
 you have no idea how much I love to be spoiled 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 now I've _inception_ized the spoiler into a spoiler!!!!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I wish I was a saint, but I'm really not. I try,  and I've blocked a few people recently to keep my sanity. but I still feel like that system is messed up for sound science.
 ugly analogy number 4825: when one guy is shouting in the street at night, sure at first people will not mind, and they will try to ignore him. but after a few hours, some people will start to react obviously, and some may call the cops. and sure enough the cops wouldn't take to prison the guy who got angry because his kids can't sleep, and then go away letting the guy to keep shouting in the street. (see what I just did here! RIP bigshot)
 with a TOS asking to avoid unsubstantiated claims, just that, most guys after being reminded by another member would turn down the claim'o'meter. people are unreasonable and spam nonsense claims because nobody ever told them it was wrong to do so. except that for science it certainly is wrong to do so. with a TOS for it, members could ask for a guy to stop when it becomes obvious that he doesn't care about the truth or other people arguments. and if it goes on too long, we can then ask a moderator to kick in with evidence that we did warn him and that he just didn't care.
 it would make a world of difference in that subforum. I would bet my 8$ philips IEM and a pack of pringles on it. that's how much I believe. 
  
 there is nothing wrong with someone having a theory, as long as the guy doesn't pretend like it's a fact. the difference is very clear in my head, it would be nice if it could be that clear in the posts.


----------



## castleofargh

brooko said:


> That's why I'd love to see a thread where:
> 
> 
> Factors that could be different in a cable are recognized
> ...


 

 but you see the problem already.
 1 ok, but cable alone or cable with stuff on both ends? I would bet that it's already been done at least for cable alone. diameter, length, material, shielding, insulation, current going in, who's in first base? who....
 2. sure, again if we have all informations we need... good luck with that. and good luck for understanding what they mean for sound.
 3. audibly... blue screen of death. how loud? with what signal? you can find armies of people pretending like they hear below -96db when it's bollocks. so when is something "audible"?  I don't want to be the guy trying to make a statement there.


----------



## arnyk

dazzerfong said:


> OK, side-stepping political discussion and all:
> 
> Could anyone explain how an analog filter is designed from a digital one? I keep hearing my lecturers go on about making a digital filter first with defined parameters, but I never learnt how it actually gets made into an analog one.


 
  
 A little reading assignment:
  
 Analog audio filters:
  
 http://www.ti.com/lit/an/sloa152/sloa152.pdf
  
 Digital audio filters:
  
 http://www.ti.com/lit/an/slyt375/slyt375.pdf
  
 A piece of friendly advice - before you ask, google!


----------



## arnyk

uchihaitachi said:


> Plus the moderators will never allow scientific methods to be implemented anywhere around this site. It goes against every fibre of the head fi sponsor community.


 
  
 Point of order: Being great scientists is not usually part of the job description for a forum moderator. Keeping order is.


----------



## Currawong

Welcome arnyk. FYI things are pretty much as explained in the Posting Guidelines. 
  
 Thank you everyone for being sensible and, I hope actually understanding the reasons the things are the way they are. If anything, the last 9 pages have what must be the most sensible discussion I've seen in Sound Science in the last 5 years.
  
 The problem, if you like, with Head-Fi, is that as a hobby, it is about personal enjoyment, which very much can be irrational. As Steve Eddy rightly pointed out, it is not for anyone to go around effectively mocking people's personal purchase decisions, even if one believes they were unnecessary.  If you observe for a while, though it seems to repeat itself, product hype usually ends up with two groups of people: Those who are interested in buying headphones or other gear at the time and end up buying a currently much-talked-about product, and those who are currently enjoying the hobby by buying or borrowing a lot of gear just for the fun of doing so. I feel there is a certain amount of science useful for the former group of people, such as the FR of a pair of headphones and whether that is suitable to their music tastes, as well as how loud they listen; and the electrical compatibility of amplification to a pair of headphones.  Beyond that is where I'm sure a number of you may disagree with me, as it goes into subjective feelings about combinations of particular components which I think it is likely their combination of subtle differences in behaviour at different frequencies (eg: group delay in amps etc.) people feel is sonically pleasing. That ends up going outside the regular discussions of audibility as tests will almost certainly fail a person IMO. I'm not convinced that failing a test means that a person hasn't heard a difference between two things in _all_ cases, only that they can't reliably _prove_ they have. There isn't a requirement to prove one enjoys something better! 
  
 However, there is NO prohibition of science in the main forums. If you write a review and include a DBT or ABX (there are actually a number that do) that is perfectly acceptable. What isn't allowed is thread-crapping impressions with "Did you do a DBT/ABX?" etc. which a number of people were intentionally doing to try and destroy discussion. Science consists of a lot more than just those two things. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 In Sound Science I think it is reasonable when someone talks about their subjectively experiences to offer to suggest ways they might test their experiences, if interested, rather than lambast them for not doing so. I think if there is going to be science on the forums, it should be practical and useful, not just arguments about who is right. There are plenty of arguments about that even in the AES. It is misleading to project science as some kind of arbitrator of truth and far more useful to use it for its intended purpose: To develop understanding.
  
  
 Can I split off the ABX discussion into a new thread? I think it is worthy of one. In the future, in very general threads when a particular topic comes up, it may be more worth splitting them off quickly, before it becomes prohibitively time-consuming to do so, so that anyone with contentious beliefs can be addressed by people interested in doing so, and it doesn't have to end up with insults and a locked thread.
  
 Something that may or may not amuse some of you is that my late father was a biological scientist and wrote a book, Science, Myth or Magic? (Note: I get a few cents if you buy it.)
  
 NB: Edited.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

currawong said:


> Can I split off the ABX discussion into a new thread? I think it is worthy of one. In the future, in very general threads when a particular topic comes up, it may be more worth splitting them off quickly, before it becomes prohibitively time-consuming to do so, so that anyone with contentious beliefs can be addressed by people interested in doing so, and it doesn't have to end up with insults and a locked thread.




Opening and possibly locking what may be destined to become a dedicated playground for a shouting match between so-called "trolls" and "scientists" sounds like a brilliant idea compared to e.g. sinking the whole Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths thread--I personally give this idea a big thumbs up.

What's your take on the argument regarding the responsibilities of those who are perceived as walking into Sound Science deliberately looking for trouble vs those who "take the bait", as it were?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

currawong said:


> Welcome arnyk. FYI things are pretty much as explained in the Posting Guidelines.
> 
> There is NO prohibition of science in the main forums. If you write a review and include a DBT or ABX (there are actually a number that do) that is perfectly acceptable. What isn't allowed is thread-crapping impressions with "Did you do a DBT/ABX?" etc. which a number of people were intentionally doing to try and destroy discussion. Science consists of a lot more than just those two things. :wink_face:




Hi there Currawong,

I think your posting guidelines and TOS need to be updated with a detailed guide on posting on this subject.

The TOS as it currently stands states that "If what you want to post includes words/phrases like "placebo," "expectation bias," "ABX," "blind testing," etc., please post it in the Sound Science forum." That seems like a ban on all science-based talk on all except the Science forum. On the other hand, you additionally label the Cables forums "DBT-free", which wouldn't be necessary if all except Science are DBT-free.

Brooko has started a well-received thread with ABX in its title in the Lounge, which confirms your claim that ABX is allowed outside of Science.

But I suspect a thread with the same content regarding ABX, worded just a bit differently, and placed as the main topic rather than the last post in a series of tutorials, would descend into chaos and be locked in short order, if it weren't locked citing TOS in the first place.

I think (though this might be a chore for you, sorry) you want to spell out in a detailed section of the TOS / posting guidelines what constitutes an acceptable science-based post and what does not, based upon all the tradeoffs you actually consider regarding the audience makeup at head-fi and how they can be expected to respond to different types of science-y posts.

Acknowledging that science is allowed outside of Science and detailing how exactly it is so would be a good start towards extinguishing the opposite expectation--that non-science posts be banned by moderator action in the Science forum. It's a leaky sieve, both ways--you need to point it out and define to the people here how the sieve works.

Best regards,
Joe


----------



## Currawong

Split! http://www.head-fi.org/t/769952/abx-testing-consensus-on-the-question-of-audibility


----------



## dazzerfong

arnyk said:


> A little reading assignment:
> 
> Analog audio filters:
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks for that, but it doesn't really describe the relationship between, for example, the coefficients of a transfer function and the actual intended analog filter designing. Unless I'm mistaking what my lecturer said on basing analog filter on digital first for calculations. Need to review my course material now........


----------



## arnyk

dazzerfong said:


> Thanks for that, but it doesn't really describe the relationship between, for example, the coefficients of a transfer function and the actual intended analog filter designing. Unless I'm mistaking what my lecturer said on basing analog filter on digital first for calculations. Need to review my course material now........


 
  
  
 The short answer is that a digital filter and an analog filter can both implement what is for practical purposes the same transfer function if that is what you want.
  
 Both digital filters and analog filters can do weird things like all pass and linear phase as well as plain vanilla minimum phase.
  
 The charm of digital filters is their ability to do pretty much the same things as analog filters, so much easier from both a design and execution standpoint _*today*_.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

dazzerfong said:


> arnyk said:
> 
> 
> > A little reading assignment:
> ...




Think you are mistaken indeed. I imagine digital is a great way to preview the effect of your analog filter, if it consists of a separable combination of well-known analog filter types, your good old peaking, highpass, lowpass, butterworth, etc. But I'd imagine analog would have a poor chance of emulating a random arbitrary digital filter's transfer function.


----------



## arnyk

dazzerfong said:


> Oh, of course, but I'm saying when you're trying to design an analog filter, you usually design it digitally, then implement it analog-wise. How do you do that?


 
  
 Probably not so much these days...
  
 These days you fire up Matlab or Octave (depending on your budget), put in the transfer function you want (amplitude and phase or poles and zeroes) and it grinds out the filter coefficients and simulates the filter you thought you want.
  
 Then you run your experiments by feeding in .wav files and analyzing the resulting  output .wav files. 
  
 When everything is as you wish, you either program your filter into a microprocessor or DSP or  program a  PGA or something like it. 
  
 Your finished product will probably already have a microprocessor and or/a DSP  in it and...
  
 You mean the prof didn't already tell you this?
  
 He must be saving the punch line


----------



## castleofargh

currawong said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I believe I talk for the majority when I say that we aren't against opinions, suggestions, hypothesis, or questions of all kinds. and nobody is trying to deny the value of subjective opinions or the very real pleasure we can take from placebo or from enjoying a particular color on a DAP. it shouldn't have a place if we're talking about sound, but it can very much have a place if we're talking about preferences.
 S.E has been in the middle of some pretty "HOT" topics
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, yet he's the first one talking about the personal value of subjective parameters. there is no mutual exclusion for any of us.
  
 most of the super fights going in circle are about calling a chicken a chicken. not about subjectivism, not even really about who's right sadly. in fact I feel like when someone makes a claim instead of expressing an opinion, we should mention the burden of proof, suggest some testing methods, and the guy either modifies his statement explaining he was just giving a personal opinion(and we're cool), or he should be required to substantiate.
 most points shouldn't go past that. this is the alternative, you think something is as it is and you say "I think". or you know it is as it is, you make the claim and you can demonstrate it, or show some matter of law that will at least at a statistical level(and ideally without exception) give the expected result. there is no third path that can be justified.
  
 yet it's that non existent third path that most people making empty claims will decide to take. as soon as the guy takes the path of denial, trying to push the burden of proof onto others or any kind of lame tricks, that person has lost the argument. it's a done deal and we're all wasting time.
 but what about the guy who is being unreasonable, as in who can't be reasoned with? still repeating the same claim he was asked to substantiate months ago, still making a lot of noise while saying nonsense like in an episode of kenshiro before his famous "you're already dead". and the guy pretending like all is fine in the back. except that instead of lasting 10seconds, he goes on for months in the forum, for years, probably until the day he really dies making the same claim while not even once, providing anything to substantiate.
 we can't force people to learn or understand things if they don't want to, but you certainly have the power to ask them to do it in their own head and stop spamming the same false claims with wind as demonstration.
  
 most of what I'm asking for could be summarized by reading the *Useful and Important links* on the main page of sound science. what I'm asking is for the staff to be clear on their position. I guess I will just spam a link to definitions of claim and burden of proof from now on. see how it goes when it's the troll who gets angry.


----------



## castleofargh

brooko said:


> ...  What troubles me even more are when I see an EE in the main forum referring to SS as the Science Fiction section. ...


 
 murdered your post but I wanted to come back on that part.
  
 I take it the EE in question makes that remark while spending time correcting people in the wrong, and explaining the reality of things in SS right? else he would just be some guy criticizing while doing nothing to improve sound science. that would be pretty lame. 
 (I should mention I have no idea who you are talking about so hopefully he is doing something to help).


----------



## uchihaitachi

arnyk said:


> Point of order: Being great scientists is not usually part of the job description for a forum moderator. Keeping order is.




You should read things in context. Another member suggested a hudrogen audio esque abx rule within the science forum that the moderators could implement.

Great idea, sadly not possible. What will happen when gazillion dollar Dacs and amps have no difference to 100 dollar ones.


----------



## Currawong

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






castleofargh said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> ...


 
  


 
 I see much of these problems coming from people regardless of what position they are discussing, and even in other forums which have nothing to do with audio.  Too much people shouting at each other, not enough people trying to understand things better. I hope that might change.


----------



## Brooko

castleofargh said:


> murdered your post but I wanted to come back on that part.
> 
> I take it the EE in question makes that remark while spending time correcting people in the wrong, and explaining the reality of things in SS right? else he would just be some guy criticizing while doing nothing to improve sound science. that would be pretty lame.
> (I should mention I have no idea who you are talking about so hopefully he is doing something to help).


 
  
 He's pretty knowledgeable when it comes to discussions on power, current etc - but has his own beliefs on audibility of things like audio formats. But what resonated with me was that he no longer participated in SS and in fact makes it known that he believes some of the discussion here borders on the ridiculous.  Why should an EE (a guy who deals with facts and figures) feel that way - simply because he saw so many discussions end up with name calling and snide remarks on both sides.
  
 I won't go into it further though - as he's been very helpful to me in the past with understanding some of the math behind power requirements. Best leave it be, and see if we can all contribute to actually exploring and finding answers.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Had a nice starting chat with Currawong tonight. 

[Currawong Edit: The rest has been removed, as it ranges from inaccurate to incomplete and doesn't represent properly what I said.]


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I don't think anyone has read Currawong's quotes yet but if you have don't quote them.


----------



## uchihaitachi

joe bloggs said:


> Had a nice starting chat with Currawong tonight.





>





> [Mod Edited]


 
 What were the life experiences? Just curious.
  
 Also, guilty as charged, some do mock others at the insanity of some purchase decisions. But a lot of the people on this forum, want to educate others on what is sensible or not when it comes to purchasing decisions. 
  
 There are many individuals on this forum that I have come across that spend amounts of money on suspect gear at the expense of their livelihoods. In my eyes, that doesn't constitute 'oh it's just a hobby so leave them be.'


----------



## maverickronin

joe bloggs said:


> This (and a dozen variations for headphone and speaker listening alike) works on any and all audio going through my PC, with ASIO-level latency, with the help of Virtual Audio Cable and ASIO4All: (the VST Host itself being VSTHost)
> 
> For mobile I have Viper4Android processing all audio too.


 
  
 I've never been able to get acceptable latency out of VAC rerouting hacks.  IME it's actually faster to output from one DAC, run it to the ADC on my Scarlett2i2, through the VST hosting application, and back out the DAC on my 2i2.  Even then it's only fast enough for streaming audio or slow paced gaming.
  
 Then again I'm _super _picky about latency.  I used to make anime music videos and would time effect down a single frame.  I use my own AMVs as acid tests for latency.
  
 As for android, I think they make terrible DAPs since they're all touch screen.  I'll probably be sticking with my Rockboxed Clip Zip for a while.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

maverickronin said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > This (and a dozen variations for headphone and speaker listening alike) works on any and all audio going through my PC, with ASIO-level latency, with the help of Virtual Audio Cable and ASIO4All: (the VST Host itself being VSTHost)
> ...


 
  
 Can I ask what's your issue with latency to listening to music? (not recording or midi realtime playing/recording).


----------



## StanD

uchihaitachi said:


> What were the life experiences? Just curious.
> 
> Also, guilty as charged, some do mock others at the insanity of some purchase decisions. But a lot of the people on this forum, want to educate others on what is sensible or not when it comes to purchasing decisions.
> 
> *There are many individuals on this forum that I have come across that spend amounts of money on suspect gear at the expense of their livelihoods. In my eyes, that doesn't constitute 'oh it's just a hobby so leave them be.'*


 
 +1 on that last sentance. IMO they are lead astray by not understanding the true technical details and being subjected to the chanting of a mob. What are they to believe?
 Here is an example, at least it wasn't a mega dollar product: http://www.head-fi.org/t/711824/hifiman-he-560-impressions-discussion-thread/13335#post_11650680


----------



## Joe Bloggs

uchihaitachi said:


> What were the life experiences? Just curious.




I do not know, nor do I think it should be for me to say without his approval...


----------



## RRod

joe bloggs said:


> Similarly, when the conclusion that a hardware difference is not audible ("proved"* by ABX testing) is called into question, the scientific arguments you use to arrive at the conclusion are similarly called into question.
> 
> *You should know that a failed ABX test, or a thousand failed ABX tests, is not logical proof that something makes no difference. There's no such thing as a logical proof of the null hypothesis. The difference between you and Currawong should properly lie in how much stock you put on the remaining possibility that there's a difference.


 
  
 Statistics are there to quantify uncertainty, not to guarantee certainty. This is why good statistics involves choosing limits that are high enough to make the audience question their inherent doubt, and why those performing the studies must do their best to verify the assumptions of their models and to meet the criteria necessary to make each trial proper. There's no such thing as logical proof of either the null hypothesis or the alternative. We simply accept the error probabilities (positive and negative) dictated by our test parameters and the data. But that doesn't mean the statistics can't be useful, especially if the model is reasonable, which I think ABX most certainly is, especially for things like comparing hi-res to Redbook.


----------



## maverickronin

macacodosom said:


> Can I ask what's your issue with latency to listening to music? (not recording or midi realtime playing/recording).


 
  
 I don't have _much _of one listening to music.  For some irrational reason it really annoys me when the pause and stop buttons aren't absolutely instant, but I could probably get over that if I tried.
  
 The real problem is with videos and games.  I spend more time using my headphone while watching videos or playing games than I do listening to just music.
  
 I don't do any musical production.  I have no talent in that area at all.  The original purpose of my 2i2 was for measuring my headphone mods.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> +1 on that last sentance. IMO they are lead astray by not understanding the true technical details and being subjected to the chanting of a mob. What are they to believe?
> Here is an example, at least it wasn't a mega dollar product: http://www.head-fi.org/t/711824/hifiman-he-560-impressions-discussion-thread/13335#post_11650680




I don't see anyone special in that post by Hifi59?


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> I don't see anyone special in that post by Hifi59?


 
 Not anyone special, but it is an ongoing theme of what I consider disinformation, unsubstaniated claims. Should one contest that in a reply, there's a good chance that one would get ganged up on.
 Do you think the content of that post was helping anyone?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see anyone special in that post by Hifi59?
> ...




You know that you're in the wrong part of the neighborhood to be making blanket statements against cable tweaks. If you do it anyway, your behaviour may be seen as in some ways similar to the guy who walks into the Sound Science forum claiming the efficacy of his cable magnetic conditioner thingambob or what-have-you. One difference would be that you think you're right and he's wrong... that's similar to the stuff of religious wars, though :rolleyes:

See, that's another operational difficulty that I imagine the management has between the science contingent and everyone else: even if, e.g. somebody walks into the FiiO X5 thread and says he thinks his iBasso DX90 sounds better, there's little chance of a nasty conflict unless he phrased it like "anyone who isn't deaf should prefer the DX90", which people seldom do--they usually just see it and post it as their personal preference. But for science folks,

1. It's you against virtually every manufacturer out there
2. And all their customers are *wrong*. Not just preferring something different, but *wrong*
(note: the above is an exaggerated portrayal pointing out the philosophical differences between having a different brand preference and having a different scientific outlook and is not meant to be an accurate portrayal of your posting pattern or temperament.)

That's your basic (edit: philosophical) starting position. Practically speaking, with the audience makeup of head-fi, you simply can't let such a band of people roam free (edit: i.e. posting everywhere showing their opposing view in a manner that is sure to cause confrontation) without setting the whole place one fire...

And what would be the point of going into the thread, guns blazing, just to try to convince that one poor soul spending more on audio gear than his mortgage to save his pennies for lunch instead of cables? A pm conversation would probably be more effective. Would it be a taste for the dramatic at work here--just as may be the case for Sound Science forum "intruders"?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

maverickronin said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > Can I ask what's your issue with latency to listening to music? (not recording or midi realtime playing/recording).
> ...


 
 I have a similar interface (Roland UA-55) and have no issues with latency with WDM drivers and VAC, with ASIO drivers and with minimal VSTs I can go as low as 3.29ms (output latency) with a buffer size of 32 samples at 44.1kHz... I to have a Rockboxed Sansa Clip+, and don't want anything else...


----------



## maverickronin

macacodosom said:


> I have a similar interface (Roland UA-55) and have no issues with latency with WDM drivers and VAC, with ASIO drivers and with minimal VSTs I can go as low as 3.29ms (output latency) with a buffer size of 32 samples at 44.1kHz... I to have a Rockboxed Sansa Clip+, and don't want anything else...


 
  
 I've never been able to get an acceptable latency out of VAC without it dropping out a lot.  I've got a 3.7Ghz i7 and 18GB or RAM so it shouldn't really be a hardware issue either.
  
 Using the input on my 2i2 might work better if I get around to spending more time tweaking it.    Is was faster than VAC and didn't drop out at all either.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Not anyone special, but it is an ongoing theme of what I consider disinformation, unsubstaniated claims. Should one contest that in a reply, there's a good chance that one would get ganged up on.
> Do you think the content of that post was helping anyone?




You are right. And I wouldn't jump into that discussion and say anything unless I had either (a) recently been participating otherwise thread or (b) owned the HE-560s. Otherwise, it would seem too much like an outsider jumping in just to be argumentative. 

However, if that thread were in the introduction and recommendations forum, and someone directly asked about better cables, I would not hesitate to say something since (a) I'm a very active poster there and (b) there are so many newbies who don't know about the audio science perspective. And in the newbie/help forum, there's also the possibility of influencing people's opinions because they are still forming them, still learning. In some of the hardware specific areas of the forum, people are already overly invested (via money and time) in that belief that they can trust what they hear through subjective listening evaluations. Perhaps some of you might help out in the intro and recommendations forum more? 

I also share my other personal opinion about differences in sound between dacs/amps/cables. *If* those differences do exist, the differences are subtle enough that I think it makes no sense to trust someone else's opinion about headphone/hardware synergy. We already know that SQ preferences between different headphones, which have very significant audio differences, is very subjective, and then this idea that something subtle is a transferable experience? Seems more likely to still be transferable in an expectational bias sort of way even if difference does exist. In other words, the existence of audible difference does not rule out that the perceived difference is not biased. 

So it seems to me that headphone synergy is just unreliable no matter what.


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> You know that you're in the wrong part of the neighborhood to be making blanket statements against cable tweaks. If you do it anyway, your behaviour may be seen as in some ways similar to the guy who walks into the Sound Science forum claiming the efficacy of his cable magnetic conditioner thingambob or what-have-you. One difference would be that you think you're right and he's wrong... that's similar to the stuff of religious wars, though
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 First thing is I state my case politely and remain so. I'll even state that some people prefer _such and such_ and others don't as a means of estabishing a peaceful position. I back it up with good information. Many people actually thank me. Some get bent out of shape.
 I used to me more aggresive but have learned to approach this diplomatically. Same thing with Amps and DACs. I usually express this in threads regarding products that I own.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

maverickronin said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > I have a similar interface (Roland UA-55) and have no issues with latency with WDM drivers and VAC, with ASIO drivers and with minimal VSTs I can go as low as 3.29ms (output latency) with a buffer size of 32 samples at 44.1kHz... I to have a Rockboxed Sansa Clip+, and don't want anything else...
> ...


 
 I was talking of a laptop with a i7-3610QM @2.3GHz with 8 GB RAM, hyper threading disabled.   I also have a desktop with the same processor as yours, where I use a Firewire interface (Presonus Firestudio Project) only with 16GB RAM and hyper threading on, and I cannot go as low latency as the laptop... now that I think about it, I'll have to check it with hyperthreading off...
  
 interesting... I have disabled it in the laptop because of heating issues... and not noticing any improvements in performance with it on...


----------



## maverickronin

macacodosom said:


> I was talking of a laptop with a i7-3610QM @2.3GHz with 8 GB RAM, hyper threading disabled.   I also have a desktop with the same processor as yours, where I use a Firewire interface (Presonus Firestudio Project) only with 16GB RAM and hyper threading on, and I cannot go as low latency as the laptop... now that I think about it, I'll have to check it with hyperthreading off...
> 
> interesting... I have disabled it in the laptop because of heating issues... and not noticing any improvements in performance with it on...


 
  
 Ha!  The hyper threading might be killing the latency?  That would be pretty interesting.
  
 My HT needs to stay on for the AviSynth upsampling scripts I run on SD video though.  They can easily max out all 8 virtual CPUs.  I've been eying a new hex or octo core for a while so I can user higher quality filters too...


----------



## MacacoDoSom

maverickronin said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > I was talking of a laptop with a i7-3610QM @2.3GHz with 8 GB RAM, hyper threading disabled.   I also have a desktop with the same processor as yours, where I use a Firewire interface (Presonus Firestudio Project) only with 16GB RAM and hyper threading on, and I cannot go as low latency as the laptop... now that I think about it, I'll have to check it with hyperthreading off...
> ...


 

 I think that it would be strange to, but I'll have to check it with the desktop... it's not near me at the time, not for some days, I've heard about audio software having some problems with hyper but as I hadn't any, I haven't give it a second thought... I'm going to reboot the laptop and check it with hyper on...


----------



## Steve Eddy

joe bloggs said:


> Had a nice starting chat with Currawong tonight. As far as I can tell, he was as pro-science as any of you at one point but has had life experiences since then that has shifted his stance. It's not anti-science by any means, but he seems rather jaded by many cases in which science has seemingly failed. I'll have to talk to him some more for details on that.




Yes. Because I would argue that anyone who says science has failed doesn't quite understand what science _is_.




> You can't petition for a policy requiring ABX tests to be made to back up all audio-related claims in Sound Science when the management does not believe in the absolute utility of double-blind testing. (He mentions examples of conflicting results for DBT testing of medical drugs)




I don't think it is apt to make comparison to drug testing.

In any case, as you point out, a null result doesn't prove anything one way or another. That's why it's called a null result instead of a negative result. But some people essentially portray it as such. 

The bottom line is, no matter how you feel about blind testing, vanity and ego _do not_ substantiate claims of audibility. there must be some adequate control for subjective biases. So you can't gat away with your claim of audibility by simply dismissing proper controls as some would like to do.

se


----------



## MacacoDoSom

macacodosom said:


> maverickronin said:
> 
> 
> > macacodosom said:
> ...


 
  
 Just checked it with foobar:
  
 With ASIO drivers impossible to listen (with 32 samples buffer, lots of stuttering with hyper threading on, none with it off...)
  
 With WDM drivers (with and without VAC) no difference.
  
 Today I've learned something thanks to you... have to change it in my desktop, hope it will solve my MIDI recording issues with latency, not much but a bit troublesome, sometimes...


----------



## Currawong

Sorry, but Joe doesn't have permission to quote me, let alone try and post what he think I said out of context. What he posted about what I said is inaccurate and incomplete and I've edited the post to remove the contents.  Sorry Joe, but what you did was completely inappropriate.


----------



## dazzerfong

arnyk said:


> Probably not so much these days...
> 
> These days you fire up Matlab or Octave (depending on your budget), put in the transfer function you want (amplitude and phase or poles and zeroes) and it grinds out the filter coefficients and simulates the filter you thought you want.
> 
> ...


 
 Oh, I've already done that, and implemented it in both Labview and MATLAB, even placed it into a DAQ and FPGA for simulation and testing, but I've never actually seen how the coefficients get implemented into an actual (for example) RLC circuit.


----------



## anetode

Currawong said:
			
		

> Sorry, but Joe doesn't have permission to quote me, let alone try and post what he think I said out of context. What he posted about what I said is inaccurate and incomplete and I've edited the post to remove the contents.  Sorry Joe, but what you did was completely inappropriate.


 
 Were you embarrassed by someone else's opinion of your views? Shame that you can't mod away people's thoughts 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Shame, a conversation about the difference in DBTs across various disciplines could prove to be enlightening.
  
 As SE said, it is all politics and religion, certainly there have been accusations of _religious zeal_ and censorship due to the _politics of business_.
  
 On a completely different point: we should come up with a flowchart for answering FAQs. An index with relevant links hidden in spoiler tags or something.
  
 Also it seems that the majority of SS discussions mainly concern the maths of e.e. and digital audio. Sometimes I think it would be apt to discuss basic psychology with an "interloper" rather than fuss over technicalities.


----------



## cel4145

Here you go, guys. Here's someone that wants to learn over in the intro/recommendations forum. Go help him out 



tail said:


> I have a good hearing (also due to my age, but generally I checked it quite a few times) and I always tested those smartphones and players well, in silent room (those players I've tested in isolated studio room of the dealership used for testing gear), also tested them with fairly easy to use headphones but pretty high end, like Sennheiser IE80 I own, NAD Viso HP50 and several other, usually ~300-400$ price range.
> 
> I was just wondering... are people hallucinating or something.. I've heard several players including AK100, AK120, X3, X5, all iPod classics, quite a lot smartphones etc... differences were miserable and between many players there even wasn't any differences in sound to me. Do people lie so much or what? I read reviews some people saying about how imaging, perception of something, depth, separation bla bla is good with certain player... what? Do they lie because they got review unit for free so they have to say nice things?


----------



## arnyk

dazzerfong said:


> Oh, I've already done that, and implemented it in both Labview and MATLAB, even placed it into a DAQ and FPGA for simulation and testing, but I've never actually seen how the coefficients get implemented into an actual (for example) RLC circuit.


 
  
 The parameters that get implements into a LRC circuit are of course the ones for an analog filter.  Engineers implemented with standard parts, usually on a prototyping bread board and measured the results with standard test equipment.
  
 I lied like that most of my life!
 '
 If that is what you want to do, what is stopping you?


----------



## maverickronin

macacodosom said:


> Just checked it with foobar:
> 
> With ASIO drivers impossible to listen (with 32 samples buffer, lots of stuttering with hyper threading on, none with it off...)
> 
> ...


 
  
 Sounds similar to the problems I've had.  I'll have to test that again sometime.


----------



## dazzerfong

arnyk said:


> The parameters that get implements into a LRC circuit are of course the ones for an analog filter.  Engineers implemented with standard parts, usually on a prototyping bread board and measured the results with standard test equipment.


 
 Fair enough: I was hoping for a more direct connection, but I guess it's just trial and error in the end. That being said, actually calculating the coefficients takes AGES, and if I have a higher-order filter, the number of coefficients..............but MATLAB makes it easy. Use the _butter_ function with type, normalised frequency, bandstop/pass and _filter_ to realise it.


----------



## arnyk

dazzerfong said:


> Fair enough: I was hoping for a more direct connection, but I guess it's just trial and error in the end. That being said, actually calculating the coefficients takes AGES, and if I have a higher-order filter, the number of coefficients..............but MATLAB makes it easy. Use the _butter_ function with type, normalised frequency, bandstop/pass and _filter_ to realise it.


 
  
 Setting the analog circuit in a software circuit simulator such as Spice and its descendents can be a good prologue to actually building a test circuit.


----------



## sonitus mirus

arnyk said:


> I imagine that if you know that if you actually look up the meaning of the words, the High End Audio Industry have probably badly missapplied the words objectivist and subjectiivist.
> 
> I made this point in my 2005 debate with John Atkinson, but it seems to have flown over many heads.


 
  
 Is the PowerPoint presentation still available? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyaWMpnhusA


----------



## anetode

Salvage time?
  
 Quote:


arnyk said:


> I imagine that if you know that if you actually look up the meaning of the words, the High End Audio Industry have probably badly missapplied the words objectivist and subjectiivist.
> 
> I made this point in my 2005 debate with John Atkinson, but it seems to have flown over many heads.


 
  
 I agree that the subjectivist/objectivist label is a false dichotomy. John Atkinson is certainly smart enough to realise that, but he has a job and that job comes with expectations. It's kind of sad that the appreciation of controlled testing must divide the audiophile community so that some businesses may prosper.
  
 With head-fi there's at least the possibility of less pretense. There's a thriving network of headphone modders and enthusiasts who do comparative measurements, not to mention the obvious intersection with people generally well versed in digital audio. Unfortunately the approach which was chosen was to compartmentalize portions of the hobby, thereby limiting educational opportunities much to the disservice of many newcomers. It's obvious that the way forward is not to repeat the same few patterns of argument but to have more indexed references, as with the Testing Myths thread or Bigshot's thread about experimentally established thresholds. That clears the way for interesting science content which could be unique to head-fi, e.g. the discussion of HRTFs, the role of interaural delay and so forth.


----------



## knucklehead

currawong said:


> Sorry, but Joe doesn't have permission to quote me, let alone try and post what he think I said out of context. What he posted about what I said is inaccurate and incomplete and I've edited the post to remove the contents.  Sorry Joe, but what you did was completely inappropriate.


 

 In other words, his subjective impression of what he heard is inherently flawed, and not really worth reporting without controls ...
  
 Welcome to the science forum!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Lol 

No really, I shouldn't have posted what I posted without discussing with Currawong first so here's a public apology. 

That I'd mulled over it for two hours and probably wouldn't have slept a wink last night if I didn't post something doesn't really excuse me :rolleyes:


----------



## Exacoustatowner

uchihaitachi said:


> What were the life experiences? Just curious.
> 
> Also, guilty as charged, some do mock others at the insanity of some purchase decisions. But a lot of the people on this forum, want to educate others on what is sensible or not when it comes to purchasing decisions.
> 
> There are many individuals on this forum that I have come across that spend amounts of money on suspect gear at the expense of their livelihoods. In my eyes, that doesn't constitute 'oh it's just a hobby so leave them be.'



I have a hard time being silent when someone is being steered towards a POWER cord that costs several times the cost of their system. "don't bother with an EQ or better Headphones until you buy BrandX Superconducting Liquid Nitrogen Sheathed Power Cords!" That said I don't insult the person- but state my skepticism. I also recommend a UPS power conditioner if they have issues attributable to power lines. I might suggest contacting the power company as such might be a fire hazard


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> I have a hard time being silent when someone is being steered towards a POWER cord that costs several times the cost of their system. "don't bother with an EQ or better Headphones until you buy BrandX Superconducting Liquid Nitrogen Sheathed Power Cords!"


 
 I can understand that - and I agree.. But why, per default and as a principle, even reasonably priced cables ( like $ 30ish for RCA interconnect ) get so fiercely opposed by the objectivist camp ?
  
 Make no mistake, I will ALWAYS put better transducers and better electronics in front of the cables (except in those cases where they really are make or break in actually measured and audible differences, such as phono cartridges and electrostatic headphones ) - but I do hear an improvement of "something reasonable" vs zip cord.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

analogsurviver said:


> I can understand that - and I agree.. But why, per default and as a principle, even reasonably priced cables ( like $ 30ish for RCA interconnect ) get so fiercely opposed by the objectivist camp ?
> 
> Make no mistake, I will ALWAYS put better transducers and better electronics in front of the cables (except in those cases where they really are make or break in actually measured and audible differences, such as phono cartridges and electrostatic headphones ) - but I do hear an improvement of "something reasonable" vs zip cord.



I can't prove you don't hear a difference- and ultimately it's about enjoyment anyway.
I'm a working scientist of many years experience and I can't show measurements proving that ENJOY my hybrid Tube/SS amp far more than my SS amps- with certain old tubes. People will point out that the dual triode electrical characteristics are set by the tube type such that any 6922 SHOULD sound the same unless it's faulty. And yet they don't to my ears or many other's ears.
I've a fabulous Rane DEQ60L EQ that can't compensate for poor sounding tubes.
I am not offended if someone tells me I'm wrong it does not affect my enjoyment 
I'm hoping some Sage may know what outside of the nominal performance characteristics of plate voltage, transconductance, etc might make such an apparent difference in what I hear.
I can't imagine the new 6922 tubes are ALL out of spec. Pretty unlikely! Yet they don't "sound" as good. 
I need measurements dang it!!


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> I can't prove you don't hear a difference- and ultimately it's about enjoyment anyway.
> I'm a working scientist of many years experience and I can't show measurements proving that ENJOY my hybrid Tube/SS amp far more than my SS amps- with certain old tubes. People will point out that the dual triode electrical characteristics are set by the tube type such that any 6922 SHOULD sound the same unless it's faulty. And yet they don't to my ears or many other's ears.
> I've a fabulous Rane DEQ60L EQ that can't compensate for poor sounding tubes.
> I am not offended if someone tells me I'm wrong it does not affect my enjoyment
> ...


 
 Fair enough answer 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  
 Regarding tubes - try to check them for the microphonics. They might be electrically in order - but picking back structural or airborne feedback trough microphonics. They can be markedly different manufacturer to manufacturer, even batch to batch. That is why I tend to avoid tubes unless absolutely indespensable (high voltage diret drive elecrtrostatic amps).


----------



## castleofargh

brooko said:


> He's pretty knowledgeable when it comes to discussions on power, current etc - but has his own beliefs on audibility of things like audio formats. But what resonated with me was that he no longer participated in SS and in fact makes it known that he believes some of the discussion here borders on the ridiculous.  Why should an EE (a guy who deals with facts and figures) feel that way - simply because he saw so many discussions end up with name calling and snide remarks on both sides.
> 
> I won't go into it further though - as he's been very helpful to me in the past with understanding some of the math behind power requirements. Best leave it be, and see if we can all contribute to actually exploring and finding answers.


 

  the EE guy thinks sound science is science fiction, and what are his thoughts about the rest of headfi? do we get closer to reality in the rest of the forum?




  
 I guess we all wish for SS to change into something that would actually deserve to have science in its title. I certainly would love it. 
 but if the EE guys knowing stuff don't come to explain and tell when we're wrong. and the staff of headfi doesn't do anything to make a change outside of saying "be nice kids" as if that had ever worked in the history of humanity. then who's going to do the change?
 me with my "I opened a book, once, long ago" kind of knowledge?
 FFbookmark who decided that his mind construct of the world was the only real world and that we're all fools for not dreaming his dreams?
 analogsurviver who turns his highly challenged hypothesis that ultrasounds matter in music, into an axiom to discuss most formats, supports, filters...?
 the noname guy that comes once in a while saying something because his grandfather told him, but never checked and never will?
  
 we all see that we have a little problem here.
 pretending like we want change but doing nothing about it, that's not going to help much. only those with power and those with knowledge can do it.
 a few well minded guys keep wasting their time with us trying to help and answer our questions. but it's not like I see all AES members posting in sound science. we have to make do with what's more likely to be closer to 10 guys with actual advanced knowledge on a topic, and I'm grateful for them being here everyday. but they sure could use some help.
 the guys who don't try to help have no right to critic. that's why I reacted TBH. I have nothing against you, I hope you that, you're one of the very few guys I still enjoy reading. and I don't actually have anything against that EE guy whoever he is. it just rubbed me the wrong way a little ^_^.
  
 and as for power taking action, at first glance it looks like we all really want the same thing here. more science, less pitiful fights. but "if" the staff of headfi really wants it too, they certainly go at it in a very puzzling way.
  
_host: today we have a professor working on viruses and one of the developers of the tri therapy to treat HIV. also with us tonight, some guy randomly picked out at a grocery store. so let's start, prof can we get AIDS from shaking hands with a sick patient?_
  
_prof: you won't become HIV positive by shaking the hand of a guy who is, just avoid blood contact if he gets cut, and avoid unprotected sex, that way you'll be fine._
_prof: we have had a great many number of couple followed over the years with one person being sick, and as long as they were careful the other person never contracted it. we now have enough data to be confident about it._
  
_grocery guy: well I know a guy who got aids from staying next to a sick person on a plane._
  
_prof: that's not true, it just doesn't work that way_
  
_grocery guy: yeah well prove me wrong, I know what I know and it happened. _
  
_..._same stuff going back and forth 20times_ ..._
  
_prof: no it didn't, stop saying stupid stuff. can someone please take that guy off the cameras before we end with a witch hunt on the streets?_
  
_host: and we have to make a short pause while prof is being kicked out of the building, we'll come back soon with grocery guy talking some more about aids. as we certainly can't allow disrespect. _
  
  
  
 and that's moderation in sound science in a nutshell. full enforcement of the law, zero shiit given to context and truth. so I have a pretty clear opinion about how to improve sound science... yeah I do.


----------



## castleofargh

maverickronin said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > This (and a dozen variations for headphone and speaker listening alike) works on any and all audio going through my PC, with ASIO-level latency, with the help of Virtual Audio Cable and ASIO4All: (the VST Host itself being VSTHost)
> ...


 

 for sound I have to say I never payed attention, I already have a larger than usual buffer for a long list of DSPs in foobar, so I get a delay anyway and got used to it somehow.
 for movies I also never go where I wished with VAC. I seem to remember that when I managed to use KS for the repeater(somehow it wasn't always possible, or I'm just too much of a noob^_^), then I ended up with less latency before stuttering or other kinds of problems. but MME is so much more easy to use with everything :'(
  
 for games I just gave up completely I only had troubles and even the best case scenarios were still a problem for FPS.
 it's too bad because apart from the latency, we can do some pretty cool stuff thanks to that software.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Fair enough answer
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 That would create noise or as a stretch possible oscillation/instability due to induced positive feedback (like a microphone in a PA system). Certainly one will not get such feedback from headphones.This should not produce the effect that Exacoustatowner described. Where did you get this information from?


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> That would create noise or as a stretch possible oscillation/instability due to induced positive feedback (like a microphone in a PA system). Certainly one will not get such feedback from headphones.This should not produce the effect that Exacoustatowner described. Where did you get this information from?


 
 It is information from my experience. It is particularly acute in high gain circuits (phono preamplifiers). 
  
 If you tap with a fingernail on the tube, with everything open to the same level as you would during normal listening, there can be big difference among tubes. It does not result in howling ( like a microphone in a PA system ) - but it does get excited by structural or airborne feedback from loudspeakers - colouring the sound.
  
 I have had a similar experience with - switch for a stepped attenuator. Only this was FAR worse - it almost lead to howling if flickering the front panel of the preamp with fingernail. The sound stepped attenuator is supposed to improve over the potentiometer took a super steep nosedive - it was OK with headphones, it fell to pieces during listening to speakers. So, it is learning the hard way - no way sellers of tubes or attenuator switches are likely to mention this "little" detail of their products being microphonic.
  
 Clever guys from the East Europe ( on the territory that once belonged to the Warszaw Pact ) with access to the Russian tubes use - miniature Russian tubes. Originally used for military, where prime consideration is reliability and G-shock resistance, these tubes also reign supreme in audio - partly no doubt to extreme non-microphonics that is inherent in the design. Just an example of these tubes off ebay : 
  
 http://www.ebay.de/itm/201163051051?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> It is information from my experience. It is particularly acute in high gain circuits (phono preamplifiers).
> 
> If you tap with a fingernail on the tube, with everything open to the same level as you would during normal listening, there can be big difference among tubes. It does not result in howling ( like a microphone in a PA system ) - but it does get excited by structural or airborne feedback from loudspeakers - colouring the sound.
> 
> ...


 
 None of this has anything to do with Exacoustatowner's post. It would be nice if you refrained from going off on tangents. MIcrophonics is not related to FR or IM or THD or the sound signature, it's manifestation is noise and possibly oscillation/instability.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> None of this has anything to do with Exacoustatowner's post. It would be nice if you refrained from going off on tangents. MIcrophonics is not related to FR or IM or THD or the sound signature, it's manifestation is noise and possibly oscillation/instability.




I think he was just stating why he personally avoided tubes though...

Edit: and did I miss the part where Exacoustatowner specified what he felt was wrong with the tubes he didn't prefer other than they "didn't sound good"?


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> None of this has anything to do with Exacoustatowner's post. It would be nice if you refrained from going off on tangents. MIcrophonics is not related to FR or IM or THD or the sound signature, it's manifestation is noise and possibly oscillation/instability.


 
 It is also possible for the tube to - create its own vibrations during operation. It is possible to test for this in actual circuit, playing some music - without a load ( or a resistor instead of speaker or headphone if required for amp stability ). Some (output power) tubes are "quiet", some can be heard across the room ... - regardless of any additional external stimulus.
  
 Transistors also are not noiseless in the same test - but there are far lower differences in their "acoustical output" than between tubes.
  
 There is a reason why certain brands and types of tubes reach exorbitant prices in auctions ... - beyond my means, but I am familiar with this.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> It is also possible for the tube to - create its own vibrations during operation. It is possible to test for this in actual circuit, playing some music - without a load ( or a resistor instead of speaker or headphone if required for amp stability ). Some (output power) tubes are "quiet", some can be heard across the room ... - regardless of any additional external stimulus.
> 
> Transistors also are not noiseless in the same test - but there are far lower differences in their "acoustical output" than between tubes.
> 
> There is a reason why certain brands and types of tubes reach exorbitant prices in auctions ... - beyond my means, but I am familiar with this.


 
 Again, you are persisting off topic. I will no longer respond to this and suggest that others ignore your tangential posts. I consider this to be troll-like behavior.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Again, you are persisting off topic. I will no longer respond to this and suggest that others ignore your tangential posts. I consider this to be troll-like behavior.


 
 All I was doing was offering a plausible explanation of the differences heard. I have no knowledge or measurements of the actual tubes used by exacoustatowner.
  
 And I really did not, do not and will not troll - at least not intentionally. Provoke anyone to try to think of the posibilities overlooked so far - YES - troll - NO.


----------



## maverickronin

castleofargh said:


> it's too bad because apart from the latency, we can do some pretty cool stuff thanks to that software.


 
  
 It's a shame this kind of thing isn't ready for prime time.  Even if you're technically inclined and it works with what you need it to it's still a PITA to get set up so it's hardly something you can recommend to the average user.


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> That would create noise or as a stretch possible oscillation/instability due to induced positive feedback (like a microphone in a PA system). Certainly one will not get such feedback from headphones.This should not produce the effect that Exacoustatowner described. Where did you get this information from?


 
  
 The source of vibration could be concurrent operation of speakers with headphone listening, or some other source of vibration such as a power transformer, or vibrations from activities in the home.


----------



## cel4145

In case anyone wants to take a look, this guy has claimed that the Schiit Modi 2 sounds significantly worse than all his other DACs because



kodhifi said:


> My conclusion is that the problem is in the analog stage of the modi 2 uber and is a combination of lower output (1.5v modi VS 2.5v ms2+) and a compressed soundstage.




He provides "test files" he recorded with different DACs for comparison.


----------



## arnyk

cel4145 said:


> In case anyone wants to take a look, this guy has claimed that the Schiit Modi 2 sounds significantly worse than all his other DACs because
> He provides "test files" he recorded with different DACs for comparison.


 
  
 I took a look. Pictures and analysis at the source thread:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/766815/comparison-flac-recordings-of-modi-2-uber-and-musicstreamer-ii-plus#post_11655176
  
 Conclusion:
  
 One file obviously and seriously clipped.
  
 Files mot properly level-matched, either.
  
 The left channels are the most different for the first 16 seconds.
  
 Never ever seen files so different when allegedly all that was different is that they came from different DACs.
  
 I suggest confirmation by repeating the whole process.


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> The source of vibration could be concurrent operation of speakers with headphone listening, or some other source of vibration such as a power transformer, or vibrations from activities in the home.


 
 The oddball assertion in response to a post was that microphoncs would be "colouring the sound". The original post had nothing to do with microphonics, it was about the sound quality of tubes.


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> The oddball assertion in response to a post was that microphoncs would be "colouring the sound". The original post had nothing to do with microphonics, it was about the sound quality of tubes.


 
  
 The sound quality of tubes can be dramatically or subtly affected by microphonics. No need to deny that.
  
 SS in contrast is remarkably insensitive to mechanical influences and that is a strong advantage.  
  
 Just because the mechanical sensitivity of tubes doesn't result in a 110 dB squeal in the particular case, doesn't mean the mechanical sensitivity isn't there. In the days of tubes , everybody knowingly or not, had this unpleasant experience as PA systems became popular and widely used. 
  
 It also needs to be said that with some care, tubes can be remarkably insensitive to mechanical influences. In WW2 they routinely put a fairly sophisticated multi-tubed radar-like system into anti-aircraft shells and shot them out of anti-aircraft guns. Not for the weak of constitution!  I worked with equipment with wired-in long life tubes clipped to heatsinks and they would have been pretty reliable except for the fact that there were about 400 tubes in each piece of equipment and with 10,000 hour MTBF tubes, there was about a failure a day. Kept you on your toes!
  
 Most of the instances of harmful tube microphonics related to tubes that were not made right to begin with or that mechanically degraded internally as they aged.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

Just an out of context quick question..
 I have a friend with an 8 ohm amp and he got two 6 ohm speakers, is there anything he can do? without obviously get other speakers... the sound as it is sucks....
 can anyone give an idea...


----------



## arnyk

macacodosom said:


> Just an out of context quick question..
> I have a friend with an 8 ohm amp and he got two 6 ohm speakers, is there anything he can do? without obviously get other speakers... the sound as it is sucks....
> can anyone give an idea...


 
  
 There is probably no problem with that mix of impedances. I could write an engineering paper about why, but I hope you will just take this at face value.


----------



## headwhacker

macacodosom said:


> Just an out of context quick question..
> I have a friend with an 8 ohm amp and he got two 6 ohm speakers, is there anything he can do? without obviously get other speakers... the sound as it is sucks....
> can anyone give an idea...




Is that a real question?


----------



## arnyk

headwhacker said:


> Is that a real question?


 
  
 "Sound sucks" is about as vague as it gets for a statement of the current problem. 
  
 Sound sucks all the time no matter what would probably be an indictment of the room and speakers, or the basic source materail. Maybe the amp is broken.
  
 If I had a nickel for every time hooking 6 ohm speakers to 8 ohm amps has worked brilliantly...   
  
 For two things, the speaker rated impedance and the power amp rated impedances are two of the most vague specs that there are...  
  
 They are right up there with frequency response specs of headphones and speakers.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

arnyk said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > Just an out of context quick question..
> ...


 

 So, the reason for why sound is so bad is not that, maybe the speakers are really bad (or the amp), thanks a lot for your answer...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

How does it suck?
Edit: ok, not funny. Let's try again 
Has any audio equipment placed in that room ever not sucked?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

joe bloggs said:


> How does it suck?
> Has anything else in that room ever not sucked? (Aside from you and your friend that is
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

on second thought, that didn't quite come out the right way. Edited


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> *The sound quality of tubes can be dramatically or subtly affected by microphonics. No need to deny that*.
> 
> SS in contrast is remarkably insensitive to mechanical influences and that is a strong advantage.
> 
> ...


 
 Again, we were *not* discussing microphonics as it is more of a noise rather than sound signature which was the original point. MIcrophonics was a posted reply as a tangential diversion from the original post. A usual tactic from that person. Lets not beat a head horse and continue to feed that poster.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Noise injected into music can totally reduce sound quality, yes? I do not see any any specification to Exacoustowner's description of "bad sound" that explicitly rejects such a possibility--but then I don't know nearly enough about tubes to know what's going on. Do you?


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> Noise injected into music can totally reduce sound quality, yes? I do not see any any specification to Exacoustowner's description of "bad sound" that explicitly rejects such a possibility--but then I don't know nearly enough about tubes to know what's going on. Do you?


 
 He wasn't talking about the unusual microphonics, but of a general sound quality. I know plenty about tubes. I'm an EE and even when in High School worked as a service tachnician and have an intimate experience with tube microphonics. This was not a question of noise but more of sound signature. Lets not muddy the waters with a broken amp as opposed to normally operating amp.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

joe bloggs said:


> How does it suck?
> Edit: ok, not funny. Let's try again
> 
> 
> ...


 

 It sucked less... never mind... maybe its a stupid question for you guys and it's not even my problem... I just thought it could have any kind of mild (cheap) solution... the thing is that it has some distortion with high level material, obviously this is not an audiophile system and the purpose is to have a bad system behave a little better... the SQ will always be bad... but maybe could be more enjoyable...as it is now...


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> Again, we were *not* discussing microphonics as it is more of a noise rather than sound signature which was the original point. MIcrophonics was a posted reply as a tangential diversion from the original post. A usual tactic from that person. Lets not beat a head horse and continue to feed that poster.


 
  
 The above seems to claiming that talking about tube microphonics is a deflection from a reasonable discussion of tube sound, but given its significance and incidence broadly ignoring microphonics  seems like denial.
  
 The claim that microphonics is a noise, flies in the face of the fact that can be a source of nonlinear distortion or a discrete interfering signal.
  
 When it causes feedback, the actual process that is rooted in tube  microphonics is a more akin to a form of nonlinear distortion. 
  
 I've been around the track in discussions  like this often enough to know that tube advocates will often fight any mention of the any of the well-known disadvantages of tubes tooth and nail. 
  
 My view is that tubes are what they are and given the age of tube technology and most of the components related to that technology, it is reasonable to think tubes are well known and well understood, no matter what people may want to deny.


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> The above seems to claiming that talking about tube microphonics is a deflection from a reasonable discussion of tube sound, but given its significance and incidence broadly ignoring microphonics  seems like denial.
> 
> The claim that microphonics is a noise, flies in the face of the fact that can be a source of nonlinear distortion or a discrete interfering signal.
> 
> ...


 
 Lets not muddy the waters with a broken amp as opposed to normally operating amp. The original post was about the sound of a healthy amp. As I said, the topic of microphonics was brought up as a diversion having no context to the original point.


----------



## Ruben123

So while I can understand how people think ultrasonics are important for music, I dont quite get how they think how they can actually HEAR it as most transducers really roll off at the treble region. Even the best ones.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> So while I can understand how people think ultrasonics are important for music, I dont quite get how they think how they can actually HEAR it as most transducers really roll off at the treble region. Even the best ones.


 
 True, however there is always someone wuth an overactive imagination.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> Lets not muddy the waters with a broken amp as opposed to normally operating amp. The original post was about the sound of a healthy amp. As I said, the topic of microphonics was brought up as a diversion having no context to the original point.




If it wasn't for you, stan, this discussion would have long since blown over and never come up again unless exacoustowner went and checked his tube collection for microphonics and reported back.

He was saying some tubes sounded better than others. How does the possibility of faulty tubes NOT figure in the equation and what does the fact of the amp itself being healthy figure into it?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

macacodosom said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > How does it suck?
> ...




Is it the amp input or the amp output clipping? The former can be cured by turning down the signal level upstream and turning up the volume at the amp.

And for free "solutions", of course I'd suggest using a tone generator program to check the system and room for any major resonances and compensating via software EQ.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

joe bloggs said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > joe bloggs said:
> ...


 

 Don't say????? really?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

huh?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

macacodosom said:


> Don't say????? really?




Yeah, really. This is what my system / room EQ looks like


Not sure all the little wiggles are really there, but the cuts at 32, 133 and 195Hz really help to improve the texture of the bass from "boomy" to "enjoyable".

The tone generator I used was Sinegen, and the EQ is Electri-Q. Both free
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bp4dwqfv1qtdx38/SineGen.zip?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1yw2w8ahuyf4v7/Electri-Q_%28posihfopit%29_Install.exe?dl=0


----------



## RRod

What's a decent set of hardware/software for making room measurements for us amateur types?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

rrod said:


> What's a decent set of hardware/software for making room measurements for us amateur types?




I dunno, a Dayton EMM-6 plus a suitable mic preamp and REW (Room EQ Wizard) should get you a long way. But my UMM-6 (USB version of EMM-6 not requiring a mic preamp, also a good model to get if you don't care about distortion measurements--its amplifier has distortion at harmonics of 1kHz) is sitting there gathering dust, and I'm preferring to carry over my techniques from perceptual headphone calibration into calibrating my speakers, so I've never quite figured REW out.

There was also DRCDesigner, which gave me a wav file for use in a convolver that supposedly deconvolves the room's transfer function to yield ideal response both in frequency and time domain. That technology was my holy grail when I was young but it sounded meh when I tried it out. I dunno.


----------



## bfreedma

rrod said:


> What's a decent set of hardware/software for making room measurements for us amateur types?


 
  
 I really like Bill Waslo's OmniMic system as an all in one solution that you can get up and running with quickly.
http://www.daytonaudio.com/index.php/omnimic-v2-precision-measurement-system.html
  
 RoomEQ Wizard has more features and the software is free, but the learning curve is greater and you need to purchase a mic.


----------



## cel4145

arnyk said:


> I took a look. Pictures and analysis at the source thread:
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/766815/comparison-flac-recordings-of-modi-2-uber-and-musicstreamer-ii-plus#post_11655176
> 
> ...




Thanks for checking on that. I thought the recordings sounded way off for two different dacs, and then I ran my media player's replay gain volume leveling function, and it found them to be 2.6 db different between the Modi and HRT files. I didn't know how accurate that is, so best to leave it to the experts as to whether or not the test was flawed


----------



## RRod

joe bloggs said:


> I dunno, a Dayton EMM-6 plus a suitable mic preamp and REW (Room EQ Wizard) should get you a long way. But my UMM-6 (USB version of EMM-6 not requiring a mic preamp, also a good model to get if you don't care about distortion measurements--its amplifier has distortion at harmonics of 1kHz) is sitting there gathering dust, and I'm preferring to carry over my techniques from perceptual headphone calibration into calibrating my speakers, so I've never quite figured REW out.
> 
> There was also DRCDesigner, which gave me a wav file for use in a convolver that supposedly deconvolves the room's transfer function to yield ideal response both in frequency and time domain. That technology was my holy grail when I was young but it sounded meh when I tried it out. I dunno.


 
  
  


bfreedma said:


> I really like Bill Waslo's OmniMic system as an all in one solution that you can get up and running with quickly.
> http://www.daytonaudio.com/index.php/omnimic-v2-precision-measurement-system.html
> 
> RoomEQ Wizard has more features and the software is free, but the learning curve is greater and you need to purchase a mic.


 
  
 Thanks. I was thinking of trying REQ out, but I don't have a mic other than what's in my laptop which probably isn't quite up to snuff. Any other mics that would do the job that aren't too pricey (I'd be hooking this into an EMU 0404 usb).


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> Thanks for checking on that. I thought the recordings sounded way off for two different dacs, and then I ran my media player's replay gain volume leveling function, and it found them to be 2.6 db different between the Modi and HRT files. I didn't know how accurate that is, so best to leave it to the experts as to whether or not the test was flawed


 
  
 Near as I can tell there's also a rather large difference in timing as well; there's not way both the beginning and ending of the two tracks line up with just a shift.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

rrod said:


> Thanks. I was thinking of trying REQ out, but I don't have a mic other than what's in my laptop which probably isn't quite up to snuff. Any other mics that would do the job that aren't too pricey (I'd be hooking this into an EMU 0404 usb).




Cheapest option I know of would be the Behringer ECM8000 but I think paying extra for an individually calibrated EMM-6 from Cross-Spectrum gives peace of mind.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> Thanks. I was thinking of trying REQ out, but I don't have a mic other than what's in my laptop which probably isn't quite up to snuff. Any other mics that would do the job that aren't too pricey (I'd be hooking this into an EMU 0404 usb).




If you rather have a mic to plug in direct without using your EMU, the UMIK-1 USB mic works with REW: http://www.minidsp.com/products/acoustic-measurement/umik-1


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> If you rather have a mic to plug in direct without using your EMU, the UMIK-1 USB mic works with REW: http://www.minidsp.com/products/acoustic-measurement/umik-1


 
  
  


joe bloggs said:


> Cheapest option I know of would be the Behringer ECM8000 but I think paying extra for an individually calibrated EMM-6 from Cross-Spectrum gives peace of mind.


 
  
 Pretty consistent price range there. Thanks gents, I'll give them a ponder.


----------



## arnyk

macacodosom said:


> It sucked less... never mind... maybe its a stupid question for you guys and it's not even my problem... I just thought it could have any kind of mild (cheap) solution... the thing is that it has some distortion with high level material, obviously this is not an audiophile system and the purpose is to have a bad system behave a little better... the SQ will always be bad... but maybe could be more enjoyable...as it is now...


 
  
 Did I miss the part where the system in question and the room it was in was described? This is very much for me like trying to doctor on a pig in a thick black bag from the outside!


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> Did I miss the part where the system in question and the room it was in was described? This is very much for me like trying to doctor on a pig in a thick black bag from the outside!


 
 Use a hammer. If it squeals it might just be that pig.


----------



## arnyk

rrod said:


> Near as I can tell there's also a rather large difference in timing as well; there's not way both the beginning and ending of the two tracks line up with just a shift.


 
  
 That we can fix pretty easily with any audio editor. The level mismatch can be fixed after the fact, too. The clipping, not so much!
  
 So there are your options. You have to make two recordings without clipping and that are naturally level matched within maybe 10 dB plus minus which is usually completely doable. Then you synch the files and match the files with any editor like Audacity.
  
 If you don't have any way to level match with say a meter, then this is how one trial and errors it until it is close enough to fix.
  
 Even though I have meters up the @$$, trial and error is how I usually get things close enough the first or second try. The I edit things the rest of the way. Works brilliantly!


----------



## arnyk

rrod said:


> What's a decent set of hardware/software for making room measurements for us amateur types?


 
  
 Eoom Eq Wizard which is by its name more optimized for rooms, and Holme Impulse which is more optimized for working over speakers. But each can be used either way. Both are dead free and highly refined products with a strong theoretical basis. REW is cross-platform, it works on about anything that has Java which is these days, anything worthwhile.


----------



## arnyk

joe bloggs said:


> Cheapest option I know of would be the Behringer ECM8000 but I think paying extra for an individually calibrated EMM-6 from Cross-Spectrum gives peace of mind.


 
  
 My bill of materials shows that a pair of UMM-6 would be less costly than a pair of ECM8000s and a good mic pre/USB interface. The separate mic+USB interface approach has the advantage of being useful for both recording and measuring. The best halfways decent USB mic interface I know of is the Audiobox close-out that has been on Guitar Center lately - $79.95 if memory serves. 
  
 So a pair of UMM-6 USB (note the U) mics are about $82 each http://www.amazon.com/Dayton-Audio-UMM-6-Measurement-Microphone/dp/B00ADR2E68 and that is it.
  
 So a pair of EMM-6 balanced mics (note the E) http are about $42 each http://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-emm-6-electret-measurement-microphone--390-801 or $84 plus nominal shipping. The ECM 8000 is about the same or a little more each, so that is the same but you still need to fork over at least about $80 or more for the USB audio interface with phantom power and a mic input for either one.
  
 You need USB cables (limited to about 10') with the UMM-6, but the standard mic cables that are used with mics like the EMM-6 or ECM 8000 can easily be 20' long or more.


----------



## arnyk

joe bloggs said:


> Yeah, really. This is what my system / room EQ looks like
> 
> 
> Not sure all the little wiggles are really there, but the cuts at 32, 133 and 195Hz really help to improve the texture of the bass from "boomy" to "enjoyable".
> ...


 
  
 The wiggles are usually room resonances and room reflections. The Schroeder frequency for most typical listening rooms is about 200 Hz, and the above shows the probable effect of it. Things get easier.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quick question, which soundcard has the best specs? I have been looking around but can't find any detailed specifications. I will need it to do testing like RMAA.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

joe bloggs said:


> If it wasn't for you, stan, this discussion would have long since blown over and never come up again unless exacoustowner went and checked his tube collection for microphonics and reported back.
> 
> He was saying some tubes sounded better than others. How does the possibility of faulty tubes NOT figure in the equation and what does the fact of the amp itself being healthy figure into it?


 hi!
I don't notice microphonics in particular.
95% of my listening is with Planar Magnetic Headphones in a rather minimal rattling environment ! 
None of my tubes sound bad per se and most have been tested (although I'm sure the quality of the testing device is not always ideal). One pair has an obviously "rounded off high end response. Some have more or less bass. Luckily I've a Rane DEQ60L and have little fear of using it.
Most of my tubes need no EQ. My best tubes provide what I refer to as "instrument separation" in terms of tonality, ie the trumpets, strings, Soprano voices are more apparent as separate entities. My favorite example being certain parts of Mahler 8 MTT SFSO when they and they organ hit high notes simultaneously. It can blend into a piercing screech. My best tubes give them separation and reduce my wince factor.
SS amps did not solve that 
The other form of separation involves spatial separation and localization of instrument sections. I'm fortunate to have a recording of Mahler's 4th by the SFSO MTT and heard the same live. I took lots of photos of the orchestra do I've a better than memory reference 
This is my definition of sound stage.
Not the "fake" concert hall DSP effect using, I assume delay.
I do tend to buy the higher quality tubes such as the Cca or Mil spec tubes such as USN CEP.
I did hear a "soundstage" issue using the EQ I had prior to the Rane.
On the CD Tierney Sutton "Paris Sessions" she sits between two guitarists on a small stage. When the EQ inline it seemed as if she was sitting on the guitarists lap! Hard to play that way! When the EQ was bypassed the guitarists moved to the left and right


----------



## RRod

arnyk said:


> Eoom Eq Wizard which is by its name more optimized for rooms, and Holme Impulse which is more optimized for working over speakers. But each can be used either way. Both are dead free and highly refined products with a strong theoretical basis. REW is cross-platform, it works on about anything that has Java which is these days, anything worthwhile.


 
  
 Yeah I want to give Room EQ a try in my completely un-prepared living room. I should have gotten this all going when I was on stay-cation; now I'll have to annoy the wife a bit ^_^


----------



## arnyk

uchihaitachi said:


> Quick question, which soundcard has the best specs? I have been looking around but can't find any detailed specifications. I will need it to do testing like RMAA.


 
  
 In terms of actual technical performance, the best audio interfaces are probably products of companies such as RME and.or LynxStudio who have a track record of using the finest chips and marketing them in the context of excellent support circuitry and drivers.
  
 Who has the time to keep up with the alphabet soup of ongoing new product announcements.
  
 However, the best sound cards and even many of the mediocre ones are someplace between vast overkill and just plain overkill for relatively simple things such as listening to music.
  
 I'm sorry if this upsets someone's religious beliefs.


----------



## uchihaitachi

arnyk said:


> In terms of actual technical performance, the best audio interfaces are probably products of companies such as RME and.or LynxStudio who have a track record of using the finest chips and marketing them in the context of excellent support circuitry and drivers.
> 
> Who has the time to keep up with the alphabet soup of ongoing new product announcements.
> 
> ...




Of course, but i need it to run tests, so the lower the card artefacts the better?


----------



## arnyk

uchihaitachi said:


> Of course, but i need it to run tests, so the lower the card artefacts the better?


 
  
 Well up to the point of highly diminishing returns which is pretty near by these days.
  
 I have a LynxTwo audio interface and while its about a decade old its still not that far from the SOTA. My justification for having it is that it was given to me and I use it for measuring other lesser audio products with a good margin between the artifacts in my test gear and the artifacts in my UUTs. 
  
 My favorite tool for testing is actually a couple of M-Audio AP 24192s which are in different computers. It is a lesser device than the LynxTWO but its artifacts are still lower than most audio  gear, and its gain structure is more compatible with the gear I test.
  
 Gain structure and the need for low operating voltages is an issue when testing portable gear. I'm experimenting with modified mic preamps to address this issue. I also have a number of balanced attenuators for getting signal voltages down for testing. The AP 24192 is basically a 4 volt RMS box, and that's high for consumer audio and very high for portable audio.
  
 If you are testing speakers and rooms that almost anything that is halfways decent is more than good enough. Right now my favorite tool for testing speakers and rooms is a Presonus Audiobox which is vastly more than good enough, and really simple to use with just about any computer.
  
 One of the problems is having interfaces that keep up with the ongoing parade of Windows releases. The stuff I have is Win 7/64 bit compatible but not all of its is certified for Windows 8 or 10. I think the Presonus Audiobox drivers are being kept up to date, but the M-Audio AP 24192 not so much.


----------



## uchihaitachi

arnyk said:


> Well up to the point of highly diminishing returns which is pretty near by these days.
> 
> I have a LynxTwo audio interface and while its about a decade old its still not that far from the SOTA. My justification for having it is that it was given to me and I use it for measuring other lesser audio products with a good margin between the artifacts in my test gear and the artifacts in my UUTs.
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks for the detailed feedback.
  
 What sort of tests are you running? I was planning on doing RMAA with portable gear. Then would onboard soundcards of most high end Asus motherboards suffice for this role?


----------



## arnyk

uchihaitachi said:


> Thanks for the detailed feedback.
> 
> What sort of tests are you running? I was planning on doing RMAA with portable gear. Then would onboard soundcards of most high end Asus motherboards suffice for this role?


 
  
 RMAA is a very good starting point. I have some other tests of my own, that I will probably discuss here in time. 
  
 It is important to learn how to use RMAA in data file mode to gain flexibility with your measurements. Audacity has been a good tool for me to manage separate recording/playback of the RMAA test file which it will create and process for you. 
  
 The trouble with onboard sound cards and even outboard audio interfaces for consumers is that many have asymmetrical performance. They may be 110 dB devices as DACs but only 70-80 dB devices as ADCs.
  
 Anything over 100 dB is hard to fault practically speaking.
  
 The AP 24192 and the Emu 0404 USB are approximately 110 dB devices.  
  
 As a rule the pro stuff is far more symmetrical.


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> <snip>
> On the CD Tierney Sutton "Paris Sessions" she sits between two guitarists on a small stage. When the EQ inline it seemed as if she was sitting on the guitarists lap! Hard to play that way! When the EQ was bypassed the guitarists moved to the left and right


 
  
 That's a curious effect.  Why do you think that happened?


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Again, we were *not* discussing microphonics as it is more of a noise rather than sound signature which was the original point. MIcrophonics was a posted reply as a tangential diversion from the original post. A usual tactic from that person. Lets not beat a head horse and continue to feed that poster.


 
 Oh, you are clinging to that tangential diversion  as (per our proverb ) a drunk clinging to a fence. 
  
 There is a limit up to which I can tolerate such behaviour. I certainly do not want this microphonics thing to  become the main topic of the thread ( as I am NOT into HSD (Hollow State Devices ) in any way enough to offer a competent answer ) - but dismissing anything I might possibly write as "tangential diversion" by you is really getting 
 a nuissance.


----------



## analogsurviver

ruben123 said:


> So while I can understand how people think ultrasonics are important for music, I dont quite get how they think how they can actually HEAR it as most transducers really roll off at the treble region. Even the best ones.


 
 NOT true.
  
 Back in the day, before the CD, Technics had THE ENTIRE CHAIN - from phono cartridge to loudspeaker - capable of "flat" response to at least 120 kHz. Say within +-4dB limits.
  
 Go check specs of any Stax headphone - and see if it rolls off above 20 kHz. And there are others - MANY of them - which meet or exceed 40 kHz - and beyond.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Rather than beating day-old posts (that had been refuted by others, me included) out of the woodwork, is now a good time for you to work on posting the test results for those CD mats or whatever you'd promised them to test?


----------



## analogsurviver

joe bloggs said:


> Rather than beating day-old posts (that had been refuted by others, me included) out of the woodwork, is now a good time for you to work on posting the test results for those CD mats or whatever you'd promised them to test?


 
 Yes, I will try to do that. Given the fact that my PC monitor exploded in front of me yesterday and that I had to get a stopgap replacement, that I am recording today,  demoing some recordings tomorrow, recording again saturday and sunday, had a presentation yesterday which has to be repeated on highest level on monday - I really have next to no time for that.  I barely get the time to recharge the batteries ( usually work independent of the mains - there can be any amount of trouble riding on the mains ...), copy the files to main storage, author the CDs if required, etc.
  
 I am GLAD it is like that - sometimes, it can be MONTHS at a time without any work.
  
 More realistic is posting recordings promised - that will be in a day or two. But ASAP, CD mat tests will be posted.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

> Originally Posted by *arnyk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> ...
> ...
> ...


 
  
 One of the problems is getting interfaces that work _with Linux_.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, I will try to do that. Given the fact that *my PC monitor exploded in front of me yesterday* . . .




Oh, no! I hope there were no CD mat casulaties


----------



## Exacoustatowner

upstateguy said:


> That's a curious effect.  Why do you think that happened?



I wish I knew! Easily reproduced.All skiders in the 0 position.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Oh, no! I hope there were no CD mat casulaties


 
 Nope - but I did wake up - thoroughly - at about midnight/0:30 ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 !


----------



## Exacoustatowner

What IS a "CD Mat?"


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> What IS a "CD Mat?"




Noooooooo :eek:

One must not ask.


----------



## limpidglitch

exacoustatowner said:


> What IS a "CD Mat?"


 
  
 A slightly less OCD Mat.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> Noooooooo :eek:
> 
> One must not ask.



Uh oh...


----------



## jcx

Russian profanity?


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> Uh oh...




It's like saying Beetlejuice too many times


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> It's like saying Beetlejuice too many times



A Summoning! CD Mat CD Mat CD Mat! There! See nothing....Aaaaaaahhhh!!! But seriously, what is it? A soft cushion for the disc? I've plenty of CD's- does giving them a Mat give them a "relaxed sound?" Perhaps more "warm?"


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> A Summoning! CD Mat CD Mat CD Mat! There! See nothing....Aaaaaaahhhh!!! But seriously, what is it? A soft cushion for the disc? I've plenty of CD's- does giving them a Mat give them a "relaxed sound?" Perhaps more "warm?"




You really gotta know, huh? 

analogsurviver will tell you.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> You really gotta know, huh?
> 
> analogsurviver will tell you.



And the Wrath of Stan will Smite Down on Thee?


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> A Summoning! CD Mat CD Mat CD Mat! There! See nothing....Aaaaaaahhhh!!! But seriously, what is it? A soft cushion for the disc? I've plenty of CD's- does giving them a Mat give them a "relaxed sound?" Perhaps more "warm?"


 
 It is a thin disc, below 0.5 mm, usually in the 0.3 mm thickness range, with a hole in the center, basically mimicking the dimension of a CD, made from as acoustically dead material as possible. In most cases it is carbon fibre, the high end variety uses graphite. Graphite is the most sound deadening material in solid state. Making a disc so thin from graphite that will not be too brittle for anything but the extreme pampering is quite a challenge - and reason why there are so few manufacturers and priced so highly. 
  
 I own/use carbon fibre variety - at approx 40 $/EUR per mat. Never saw a graphite version in real life.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

analogsurviver said:


> It is a thin disc, below 0.5 mm, usually in the 0.3 mm thickness range, with a hole in the center, basically mimicking the dimension of a CD, made from as acoustically dead material as possible. In most cases it is carbon fibre, the high end variety uses graphite. Graphite is the most sound deadening material in solid state. Making a disc so thin from graphite that will not be too brittle for anything but the extreme pampering is quite a challenge - and reason why there are so few manufacturers and priced so highly.
> 
> I own/use carbon fibre variety - at approx 40 $/EUR per mat. Never saw a graphite version in real life.



Confused I am Survivor of Analog! Has someone applied reflective materials such that this can be encoded with reflective and non reflective spots and read with a CD player? In my simple way I see the goal of a CD and player as simply reading the data. What is the point of making an acoustically dead CD? I may be reading you with errors. Please apply an error correction algorithm!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I believe the assertion is that it reduces read errors and jitter. For computer-based indirect CD playback, jitter is not an issue because the read data is cached before being sent to the DAC. Read errors, or the lack thereof, can be demonstrated by comparing results of ripping the disc at 1x speed in the same manner that the disc will be read in real-time playback. For a primitive standalone CD player not applying error correction or caching to the data these might be more valid theoretical issues.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

joe bloggs said:


> I believe the assertion is that it reduces read errors and jitter. For computer-based indirect CD playback, jitter is not an issue because the read data is cached before being sent to the DAC. Read errors, or the lack thereof, can be demonstrated by comparing results of ripping the disc at 1x speed in the same manner that the disc will be read in real-time playback. For a primitive standalone CD player not applying error correction or caching to the data these might be more valid theoretical issues.



Oh! And you pretty much said what I was thinking. I can't fathom a point to CD Mat then- from a theory and CD format and CD player design.
I could be wrong. 
I hear differences between preamp tubes that test as good.
But I extended my 2 meter OFC Copper Silvet headphone cable (Stock with HiFiMan HE-560 Headphone) with a 15 ft Radio Shack cable without pain


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> Confused I am Survivor of Analog! Has someone applied reflective materials such that this can be encoded with reflective and non reflective spots and read with a CD player? In my simple way I see the goal of a CD and player as simply reading the data. What is the point of making an acoustically dead CD? I may be reading you with errors. Please apply an error correction algorithm!


 
 It is precisely tripping this error algorithm LESS that contributes to better reproduction in real time using normal CD ( CD-R) player.
  
 Or during burning of the CD-R.
  
 CD players differ among themselves, at least in digital domain, primarily due to different error correction algorithms. 
  
 Less errors > less tripping correction > better reproduction. As simple as that.. And errors come in from mechanical resonances in the spinning disc - the amplitude of which is GREATER than the size of the pits containing zeroes and ones... That is why mat has to be as acoustically dead as possible - and it damps the CD (CD-R) trough friction between the two, or what is more correctly termed "constrained damping". In pinch, you can try using paper "labels" that come on top of each "cake" of CD-R(W)s or DVD +/-Rs - it is FAR less effective than the proper CD mat, but it should give you an idea.
  
 PLEASE let me live trough this mad, mad week ( I recorded TWO events yesterday, came home at 2:00AM, at 9:00 AM I was already demoing recordings from saturday - and in the rush hour, I needed one hour to get there.
  
 I want to upload these CD mat test(s) ASAP - more than anyone of you. But I can not jeopardize recordings this saturday and sunday...


----------



## RRod

We're actually talking about CD mats again…


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> We're actually talking about CD mats again…


 
 I only answered the question(s).
  
 I will refrain from anything CD mat related until the full complement of samples is posted.


----------



## castleofargh

WARNING!!! maybe not 100% science!!!
  
  
 you may actually all have the wrong idea. here is my theory:  the CD mat is a weight, it's used to train the motor in the CD player in the ways of shaolin. after some time training to turn CD+mat at the proper speed, the CD player builds up muscles and can now handle the CD alone as if it was nothing.
 that's why the test you asked AS to do will not be conclusive. his CD player is already at a master level of training, the wire making the coil has doubled in muscle. what we need for the test are 2 twin CD players taken young, and let only one train with the mat. then see the difference after a few months.


----------



## headdict

castleofargh said:


> WARNING!!! maybe not 100% science!!!
> 
> 
> you may actually all have the wrong idea. here is my theory:  the CD mat is a weight, it's used to train the motor in the CD player in the ways of shaolin. after some time training to turn CD+mat at the proper speed, the CD player builds up muscles and can now handle the CD alone as if it was nothing.
> that's why the test you asked AS to do will not be conclusive. his CD player is already at a master level of training, the wire making the coil has doubled in muscle. what we need for the test are 2 twin CD players taken young, and let only one train with the mat. then see the difference after a few months.



So the CD mat is actually a tool by which the effectivity of the burn-in process can be brought to another level. What could be "not 100% science" with that?
Just make sure to avoid arguments with your CD player or it will beat you up!


----------



## Baxide

I did some work on CD mats about 15 years ago for a company I used to do business with in those days, and I did find some points of interest. The thing that I discovered that the effect of a CD mat depended on the type of clamp that was used to press the CD against the platter that the motor spindle is attached to. I can't remember the correct technical terms for these things any more, so please excuse me on this. Anyhow, some of these clamps were not putting out sufficient force to keep the disc in a strong enough grip. So with a CD rotating at speed of up to 600RPM, the disc would move backwards and not maintain in sync with the rate of data extraction that the laser pickup was expecting. Inserting a mat basically increased the thickness of the space that that the CD clamp had a grip on.
 Some/most of these clamps rely on magnetism to keep the CD in place. That magnet can vary in strength from manufacturer to manufacturer, which affect the level of accuracy.


----------



## StanD

baxide said:


> I did some work on CD mats about 15 years ago for a company I used to do business with in those days, and I did find some points of interest. The thing that I discovered that the effect of a CD mat depended on the type of clamp that was used to press the CD against the platter that the motor spindle is attached to. I can't remember the correct technical terms for these things any more, so please excuse me on this. Anyhow, some of these clamps were not putting out sufficient force to keep the disc in a strong enough grip. So with a CD rotating at speed of up to 600RPM, the disc would move backwards and not maintain in sync with the rate of data extraction that the laser pickup was expecting. Inserting a mat basically increased the thickness of the space that that the CD clamp had a grip on.
> Some/most of these clamps rely on magnetism to keep the CD in place. That magnet can vary in strength from manufacturer to manufacturer, which affect the level of accuracy.


 
 Then I would think that an overpriced CD Mat would not be required in such a _mechanical_ case and some cheap spacer would suffice. I would hope that the current crop of players aren't saddled with such mechanical/mounting issues.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> We're actually talking about CD mats again…




I tried to stop it. (lol)


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> Then I would think that an overpriced CD Mat would not be required in such a _mechanical_ case and some cheap spacer would suffice. I would hope that the current crop of players aren't saddled with such mechanical/mounting issues.


 
  
 The electronics of a CD player control the rotation of the CD so that it matches a precise oscillator whether it slips or not. There are two rules for the rotation of an optical disc, CLV and CAV depending on whether the angular rotation or the linear speed of the track are held constant by slowing down and speeding up the disc's rotation.


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> The electronics of a CD player control the rotation of the CD so that it matches a precise oscillator whether it slips or not. There are two rules for the rotation of an optical disc, CLV and CAV depending on whether the angular rotation or the linear speed of the track are held constant by slowing down and speeding up the disc's rotation.


 
 Yes, but interia isn't immediately compensated for. I'll give them that much, but I seriously doubt that modern players have issues with slipping discs or for the matter any _back problems_.


----------



## Opportunist

arnyk said:


> The electronics of a CD player control the rotation of the CD so that it matches a precise oscillator whether it slips or not. There are two rules for the rotation of an optical disc, CLV and CAV depending on whether the angular rotation or the linear speed of the track are held constant by slowing down and speeding up the disc's rotation.


 
 Some time ago, a friend recommended that I use a CD-mat made from a silicone-covered material and covering part of the disc surface, starting from the hole in the middle. Initially, I was impressed because it seemed that some glare (particularly on strings in classical music) was removed. However, after a while I found that the music became less engaging and on popular music the sense of rhythm was impeded. My belief is that the distance introduced by the mat prevented the magnet holding the disc from exerting its full force, resulting in (more) vibrations in the disc. However, I have no means of proving that theory. All I know is that CD mats henceforth are a no-go for me.


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> Yes, but interia isn't immediately compensated for. I'll give them that much, but I seriously doubt that modern players have issues with slipping discs or for the matter any _back problems_.


 
  
 That would appear to be an exceptional claim.
  
 The word Immediately is gratuitous because there is a data buffer which alleviates the need for any correction to be immediate in an impractical sense.
  
 The system in question is a servo mechanism which were largely perfected before the second World War.
  
 Servo mechanisms put the man on the Moon and have probably saved your life many times.
  
 As part of the design of servo mechanisms, the effects of inertia are taken into account.


----------



## cel4145

Another new thread in the intro forum that some of you might enjoy helping with: 



elmarcado said:


> Hello. Quick question: How something that measures better (for example, an iPhone 6 Plus headphone out) can sound worse objectively (less realistic, less prat, thin and harsh) when driving an efficient over-ear headphone compared to a esoteric audiophile tube amp like the Eddie Current Balancing Act or the GS-X Mk2?
> Even if the iPhone 6 Plus have less THD, less impedance, it is tagged as 'thin' and 'harsh' with 'poor soundstage', while the less technically proficient ultra-expensive audiophile tube amps (called by objectivists as 'under-performing) sounds OBJECTIVELY better with ALL headphones.


----------



## lamode

> Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> There isn't a requirement to prove one enjoys something better!


 
  
 True, but there's a fine line between users suffering from expectation bias, and those who benefit commercially from false advertising. There are laws in most countries against vendors falsely representing the properties of commercial goods, and with good reason.


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> That would appear to be an exceptional claim.
> 
> The word Immediately is gratuitous because there is a data buffer which alleviates the need for any correction to be immediate in an impractical sense.
> 
> ...


 
 Interia cannot be instantaneously corrected and thus can only be taken into account if the rate and data are tied together and accounted for in processing that data. So how many CD players do this? Or is buffering and reclocking done?


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> Interia cannot be instantaneously corrected and thus can only be taken into account if the rate and data are tied together and accounted for in processing that data. So how many CD players do this? Or is buffering and reclocking done?


 
  
 Yes and yes. They have been part of the design of CD players since they were first introduced in 1982-3. If they weren't done the signal coming off the disk would be unlistenable. So if you can stand to listen to a CD player at all, you know that both functions are there and doing something to help sound quality.


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> Yes and yes. They have been part of the design of CD players since they were first introduced in 1982-3. If they weren't done the signal coming off the disk would be unlistenable. So if you can stand to listen to a CD player at all, you know that both functions are there and doing something to help sound quality.


 
 Thinking way back I used to buy portable CD players with large buffers that could take 45 seconds or more of jostling without any ill effects. OK, let's just burn those CD Mats.
 These days I only touch audio CD's to put them into my PC's drive to rip.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

stand said:


> Thinking way back I used to buy portable CD players with large buffers that could take 45 seconds or more of jostling without any ill effects.
> 
> ... ... ...


 
 Oh yes! And the cheap "portable" ones without any buffering went crazy with any movement that wasn't completely smooth.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Oh yes! And the cheap "portable" ones without any buffering went crazy with any movement that wasn't completely smooth.



I had one of those and I tried to use it in my car-plugged in to an amp.
My first CD player was the year they came to the USA Kyocera DA1. 
And for all the folks saying they all sound the same I can tell you that the high end Kyocera I got in 83 (84?) beat the crappy Sony I got in 87. I was listening through Acoustats and the SQ took a major hit.
Unexpected at the timr


----------



## Currawong

lamode said:


> > Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> > There isn't a requirement to prove one enjoys something better!
> 
> ...


 
  
 Enjoyment is a placebo. It must be outlawed We can't have people enjoying themselves in anything other than a completely rational manner now, can we?
  
 Sorry, but I can't reply seriously when you use the word "suffering". One may as well complain about people behaving like human beings.  Other than that. if you believe someone is advertising falsely, take it up with the appropriate authority I reckon.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

I would have to agree. Enjoyment of music is not based on strict rationality or double blind studies.
Expectation and emotion are part of the human experience.


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> I would have to agree. Enjoyment of music is not based on strict rationality or double blind studies.
> Expectation and emotion are part of the human experience.


 
 Yet when it comes to the purity of sound, I'd rather not be fooled by myself.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Yet when it comes to the purity of sound, I'd rather not be fooled by myself.



I can appreciate that- most can't.
By now are you learning anything you did not know already? You know all amps sound the same and that differences between DAC's are not detectable in double blind studies.
I may or may not agree 100%. 
I am not convinced everything is tested that can "prove" those assertions. 
I hear qualitative differences between my early 90's Denon "Optical Class A" Reciever and my Yamaha "Natural Sound" A/V Reciever. My Yamaha seems underpowered for my HE560 Planar Magnetic phones so I was looking for an alternative. The Denon was in the closet. I was surprised to prefer it for my speakers as well.
Why? The FR , IM, and THD measurements are all below limits. They both have similar rated power and my Paradigm Studio Monitors are not a tough load- nothing look my old Acoustats! Why do I prefer one to the other
I could lob descriptors at you but that is pointless


----------



## Joe Bloggs

currawong said:


> Enjoyment is a placebo. It must be outlawed We can't have people enjoying themselves in anything other than a completely rational manner now, can we?
> 
> Sorry, but I can't reply seriously when you use the word "suffering". One may as well complain about people behaving like human beings.  Other than that. if you believe someone is advertising falsely, take it up with the appropriate authority I reckon.




Perhaps "suffering" is too strong a word, but building a hi-fi audio system is not just placebo medicine--that would be palliative care (incurable disease though audiophilia can seem to be at times :rolleyes: )


----------



## Exacoustatowner

joe bloggs said:


> Perhaps "suffering" is too strong a word, but building a hi-fi audio system is not just placebo medicine--that would be palliative care (incurable disease though audiophilia can seem to be at times :rolleyes: )



Hold on there! No such thing as a Hi Fi audio system! Most amps sound the same. Just get good speakers- and an amp with enough power for your room. Add an MP3 player and you've got ultimate audio!
Nothing better exists. Bigshot (RIP) would be the first to tell you mp3 is as good as it gets!
Confession. I think the speakers make the most difference. Confession 2: I'm bring mostly tongue in cheek. Mostly


----------



## castleofargh

hifi, neutral, natural, realistic. all the terms that should point toward fidelity have been stripped naked of any universal meaning and are used mostly as an attempt to say "I like" and "look at me, I know", using the same word.
  
 it doesn't matter if all devices sound the same. most people can't tell because they don't even know a proper method to test differences. and even more people don't have the proper understanding of audio vocabulary to express differences if there were some. but as you can see on the forum, it never stopped anybody from telling us all about it.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 apparently that's how we become happy. by pulling everybody down with our own misconceptions because it makes us sad to be wrong and it's boring to learn something. idiocracy, here we go.


----------



## Currawong

castleofargh said:


> apparently that's how we become happy. by pulling everybody down with our own misconceptions because it makes us sad to be wrong and it's boring to learn something. idiocracy, here we go.


 
  
 Apparently indeed. Going around telling people how to think is not a path to happiness.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> hifi, neutral, natural, realistic. all the terms that should point toward fidelity have been stripped naked of any universal meaning and are used mostly as an attempt to say "I like" and "look at me, I know", using the same word.
> 
> it doesn't matter if all devices sound the same. most people can't tell because they don't even know a proper method to test differences. and even more people don't have the proper understanding of audio vocabulary to express differences if there were some. but as you can see on the forum, it never stopped anybody from telling us all about it.
> 
> apparently that's how we become happy. by pulling everybody down with our own misconceptions because it makes us sad to be wrong and it's boring to learn something. idiocracy, here we go.



Idiocracy and pseudo science rule it seems. 
Hi Fi to me means "closer to live music." 
Even the best (if you believe anything sounds better ) audio systems only approach that goal. I personally think it will not be achieved by our current tech.


----------



## jcx

music production is all about "impressionism" after the painting style - any knowing the subject/practice of music production today have to laugh at literal "realists"
  
 commercial recorded music hasn't been about reproducing accurately the sound reaching any particular audience member's ears in quite a long while - simply wouldn't sell when you can have the "enhanced" experience
  
 in fact most "live" music today is amplified - often at painful levels in acoustically bad environments over speakers you wouldn't pull from the trash for free for your listening room
  
  
 and even listening to a studio album over you dream home system you have Toole's "circle of confusion" http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html
  
  
 which is even further stretched by headphone listening as the majority here do without virtualization processing


----------



## Brooko

castleofargh said:


> it doesn't matter if all devices sound the same. most people can't tell because they don't even know a proper method to test differences. and even more people don't have the proper understanding of audio vocabulary to express differences if there were some. but as you can see on the forum, it never stopped anybody from telling us all about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'd counter that thought with the fact that whilst some people are genuinely (during reviews and discussions) trying to talk about how a unit sounds, ie describing the device, many others are doing the same thing - but describing how music sounds to them on the device in question.
  
 Sure - measure the gear - but at the same time, we don't have to be overly critical when someone is describing how the music connects with them.  Or have we lost some of our humanity when we are trying to be so objective.  I always look at the reviews I enjoy as being a mix of the objective and subjective.  And I think there are many really good reviewers here who manage to do both.  It's what I ultimately aspire to be able to do with my own. Give an objective picture - but at the same time, a subjective narrative.  Too much of one, it becomes a lecture or spec manual.  Too much of the other and it becomes a fantasy.  A good mix of both and it becomes an informative and interesting read.  A journey of discovery.
  
 I just found your above comment to be sadly pessimistic - in a forum where i have delighted in being able to share my own experiences with a community that has a passion for the same pursuit I do. And for me - it has always been about the music.


----------



## headwhacker

Perhaps we should establish a standard with reviewscomparidons with gears. Basic measurements or parameters set to make reviews more consistent. Example, comparing gears must be at least level-matched. For me this is the biggest factor that can be easily wipe perceived difference due to uneven/un-match volume.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Head-fiers seem to equate subjectivity with inaccuracy. 
  
 Reviews should and must control for basic objective parameters.


----------



## uchihaitachi

currawong said:


> Apparently indeed. Going around telling people how to think is not a path to happiness.


 
 Educating the masses from irrational herd behaviour is a virtue in my opinion.
  
 I embrace the qualitative effects that I feel when listening to audio gear, but if my preferences were not underpinned by a rational scientific basis, I think I would suffer chasing after imaginary improvements - wasting money in the process. 
  
 In addition, we deal with mass consumer products after-all. A better informed buying community, would put the manufacturers on their toes to make constant improvements and adjustments.


----------



## Currawong

uchihaitachi said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently indeed. Going around telling people how to think is not a path to happiness.
> ...


 
  
 Usefully better informed I agree with, as long as it isn't trying to force a belief system on people. That is just just replacing one kind of irrationality with another.  There are, after all, plenty of people who comment about _not__ _being impressed with some or other expensive piece of gear, which in turn has dissuaded people from being products. With headphones at least, that has often come down to music preferences. I haven't seen anyone produce a scientific guide to music genres vs. the frequency response of headphones, for example. That would be incredibly useful, but probably beyond the scope of anyone who couldn't devote a postgrad-level paper to it.


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> Yet when it comes to the purity of sound, I'd rather not be fooled by myself.


 
  
  


exacoustatowner said:


> I can appreciate that- most can't.
> By now are you learning anything you did not know already? You know all amps sound the same and that differences between DAC's are not detectable in double blind studies.
> I may or may not agree 100%.
> I am not convinced everything is tested that can "prove" those assertions.
> ...


 
 Not all amps meet their published specs. Not all specs are given in a comprehensive manner. Yes some amps are sub-par, however, it is easy to achieve levels far below JDD (Just Detectable Distortion) and there is a plethora of products that do this. Then of course is the weak link, us carbon units that impart our feelings in our judgments, which are subject to constant change.
 Did you compare those two receivers using the same speakers in the same room, with matched volumes, with the same source and within seconds?
 Lob descriptors?


----------



## RRod

currawong said:


> I haven't seen anyone produce a scientific guide to music genres vs. the frequency response of headphones, for example. That would be incredibly useful, but probably beyond the scope of anyone who couldn't devote a postgrad-level paper to it.


 
  
 Why would that be more useful than teaching people to use EQ correctly? A person's physiology would seem to be a more useful reference for what they need from a headphone than genre choice.


----------



## arnyk

exacoustatowner said:


> I can appreciate that- most can't.
> By now are you learning anything you did not know already? You know all amps sound the same and that differences between DAC's are not detectable in double blind studies.
> I may or may not agree 100%.
> I am not convinced everything is tested that can "prove" those assertions.
> ...


 
  
 The above post seems to make the assumption that spec sheets contain every relevant technical test result, which of course they absolutely don't.
  
 When you are driving headphones with a piece of audio gear, there are two vitally important specifications:
  
 (1) Source impedance.
 (2) Maximum voltage output into say, a 16 ohm load.
  
 I could challenge you to provide both specs for the equipment that you are comparing, but I'm not sadistic and won't give you a challenge that is unlikely to be manageable for you. 
  
 Those two relatively easy specs to measure are elusive or non-existent for almost every headphone jack on equipment that doesn't happen to be headphone amps, as well as most actual headphone amps. Truth, brother? 
  
 Furthermore, I seriously doubt that your evaluations actually addressed the most common confounding influences in audiophile listening tests.
  
 I appreciate the emotion, but the supporting facts for a reliable conclusion seem to have gone missing.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

currawong said:


> Usefully better informed I agree with, as long as it isn't trying to force a belief system on people. That is just just replacing one kind of irrationality with another.  There are, after all, plenty of people who comment about _not__ _being impressed with some or other expensive piece of gear, which in turn has dissuaded people from being products. With headphones at least, that has often come down to music preferences. I haven't seen anyone produce a scientific guide to music genres vs. the frequency response of headphones, for example. That would be incredibly useful, but probably beyond the scope of anyone who couldn't devote a postgrad-level paper to it.




On the matter of music genre vs headphone FR (the title was written in my less, ahem, diplomatic years):
http://www.head-fi.org/t/604058/whats-all-this-best-iem-for-rock-pop-bang-nonsense

I have got tuning different headphones to match a common reference FR (as opposed to making one sound like another...) down to a (sadly very personal) art, and listen to a very diverse mix of music. The reference FR is as close to all-terrain all-wheel-drive as it gets, and even more so on my desktop rig with the addition of an adaptive multiband compressor that automatically tames unruly sibilance peaks in many records with overenthusiastic sibilance (otherwise you are prone to having to EQ down ranges of frequencies or choose headphones that are too dull for music that does not have sibilance problems). Nevertheless I do come across the occasional song that I do not want to listen to using the reference FR--usually it comes down to adding different levels of bass boost (since the addition or removal of bass is a mastering decision that affects how loud the overall mix can be, this tends to be an area that varies quite a lot depending on where in the Loudness War a particular mix master stands). Sometimes a dud mix comes along that I either do not want to listen to at all, or that I would only want to listen to after extensive re-tuning.

I do not detect a consistent a genre-based pattern to the phenomenon--I believe it is well-explained by the Circle of Confusion linked above in this page
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html
and comes down to individual mastering engineers rather than genre's of engineers.


----------



## arnyk

joe bloggs said:


> On the matter of music genre vs headphone FR:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/604058/whats-all-this-best-iem-for-rock-pop-bang-nonsense
> 
> I have got tuning different headphones to match a common reference FR (as opposed to making one sound like another...) down to a (sadly very personal) art, and listen to a very diverse mix of music. The reference FR is as close to all-terrain all-wheel-drive as it gets, and even more so on my desktop rig with the addition of an adaptive multiband compressor that automatically tames unruly sibilance peaks in many records with overenthusiastic sibilance (otherwise you are prone to having to EQ down ranges of frequencies or choose headphones that are too dull for music that does not have sibilance problems). Nevertheless I do come across the occasional song that I do not want to listen to using the reference FR--usually it comes down to adding different levels of bass boost (since the addition or removal of bass is a mastering decision that affects how loud the overall mix can be, this tends to be an area that varies quite a lot depending on where in the Loudness War a particular mix master stands). Sometimes a dud mix comes along that I either do not want to listen to at all, or that I would only want to listen to after extensive re-tuning.
> ...


 
  
 Totally agree with your conclusions, Joe. The idea that certain devices are better for certain genres of music raise my hackles on the grounds that they just don't match my life's experiences and they disagree with the basic concept of high fidelity.
  
 BTW last night enjoyed Post Modern Jukebox at the Royal Oak Theatre. The lighting and music were  great but the sound guy gave yet another demo of how skill can matter. I saw what he had to work with and it was enough in the right hands. I did live sound in mid-sized venues for 12 years just lately and in the first few minutes of the show he provided more audible feedback than I did the whole 12 years, including my newbie days. It didn't stop and the SQ was exasperating on other grounds as well. 
  
 My take away is that music can be that like NASCAR. If you want to follow the race watch the media, but if you want to get the total physical experience of the event, go to the live event. In either case, ear protection can be manditory.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

currawong said:


> Apparently indeed. Going around telling people how to think is not a path to happiness.


 
  
  
 Funny... I thought that was called _education_. Oh, wait... I guess there are lots of teachers who might agree with you.
  
_Just enjoy the music, _in this sort of context, means, simply, _I ran out of arguments that even look like they make sense.  _People who really do _just enjoy the music_ don't bother with all the comparison, experiment, upgraditis, sidegraditis, and so on.
  
 They certainly do not join forums to argue about one DAC being 0.1% better than another. They... just enjoy the music. 
  
 There _is_ a lot to be said for it.
  
 Of course, there is also a lot to be said for having an interest in science and technology. What I have discovered in my recent past three or four years hanging around audio forums (I used to just enjoy the music) is that, if one has or develops that interest, it is better to to consult science and technology itself, and _not_ the local voodoo  man. Especially when the voodoo man is trying to sell you (or justify his purchase of) the magic ingredients.
  
 There is nothing wrong with walking into a shop and making an entirely subjective, colour-of-the-case choice of equipment, taking it home and enjoying it. Pride of ownership comes in many shapes and types, and is certainly , where audio equipment is concerned, about far more than just the sound (unless one just enjoys the music, of course).
  
 But how about this for a dream?  I go to the hifi shop, having booked a demo of two amplifiers, and I am made comfortable in the demo room, given a cup of tea and all that, and the music starts --- but I can't see the amplifiers. The vendor has sincerely gone to the necessary lengths to ensure level matching, and I can't even see the person doing the switching. Oh my god! I have to _trust my ears_ here! That is all that I have available to make this decision.
  
 The result may be that I could or could not tell the difference. It could be that I did, or did not, prefer one to the other. That doesn't matter: I have either made a decision _using nothing but my ears,  _or I have decided that, _using nothing but my ears,  _it all sounded the same anyway.
  
 I am then free to make my purchase. I am then free to choose between the retro-wood that I always find a bit sort-of-fake and off-putting, the plain steel, or the milled titanium of my dreams --- and being but human, I quite likely choose the latter, and quite possibly pay ten times as much as I needed to if I had simply bought _trusting my ears._
  
 Then, when I get it home, I had better to be honest as I show it of to my friends: _milled titanium! Feel that finish! _and hey, yes, it sounds good too, but no, I did not make the choice _just by trusting my ears._
  
 Nothing herein is supposed to represent the real process of double-blind, level matched testing, because that would have meant more words and is best left to people like Arnold anyway: it is just a parable. The real point is that the just-enjoying-the-music _trust your ears  _mob mostly... don't.


----------



## StanD

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Funny... I thought that was called _education_. Oh, wait... I guess there are lots of teachers who might agree with you.
> 
> _Just enjoy the music, _in this sort of context, means, simply, _I ran out of arguments that even look like they make sense.  _People who really do _just enjoy the music_ don't bother with all the comparison, experiment, upgraditis, sidegraditis, and so on. They certainly do not join forums to argue about one DAC being 0.1% better than another. They... just enjoy the music.


 
 I'd rather compare Ras Malai.


----------



## gikigill

As someone from Bengal, Ras Malai is serious business.


----------



## StanD

gikigill said:


> As someone from Bengal, Ras Malai is serious business.


 
 I volunteer to be an ABX test subject.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

stand said:


> I'd rather compare Ras Malai.


 
  
 I hope that's a level-matched, double-blind comparison!


----------



## gikigill

I have seen competitions run by Bengali sweet makers in Calcutta that go on for days with Top secret recipes and rivalry that would make Iron Chef seem like kids playing with dolls. Even the milk is analysed for fat content and only high fat milk is used.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

Let's enjoy some music while we test our rasmalai...


----------



## gikigill

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c4OkzyDoe8w

Here's a Rasgulla eating competition, held about 15km from my home in Calcutta.


----------



## StanD

What's next Gulab Jamun? I prefer Ras Malai.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

jcx said:


> music production is all about "impressionism" after the painting style - any knowing the subject/practice of music production today have to laugh at literal "realists"
> 
> commercial recorded music hasn't been about reproducing accurately the sound reaching any particular audience member's ears in quite a long while - simply wouldn't sell when you can have the "enhanced" experience
> 
> ...


 
  Sadly true. It is why I usually refer to my Mahler Recordings from Michael Tilson Thomas and the SFSO. I've heard them live in the same venue they were recorded at with the same conductor who seems to prefer organizing the orchestra sections in precise ways.
 When sitting in the first 7-8 rows of the Orchestra- and comparing what I remember of the sound (imperfect) with photos I took to show WHERE the various instruments and vocal soloist  were-I get a reasonable facsimile. I'm sure if I was A/B switching I would notice MANY differences.
 It is very different when sitting in the tiers at the back since there is a higher percentage of diffuse reflected sound. 
  
 Can you expand on this? " which is even further stretched by headphone listening as the majority here do without virtualization processing."


----------



## Exacoustatowner

arnyk said:


> The above post seems to make the assumption that spec sheets contain every relevant technical test result, which of course they absolutely don't.
> 
> When you are driving headphones with a piece of audio gear, there are two vitally important specifications:
> 
> ...



Hi Arnie
I should probably delete my post
What can say is that my favorite head phone amp output is around 0.2 Ohm. My headphones inn the mid 40 Ohm range. With a rather flat impedance vs FR and 90 db/mw 
The amp puts out 4 watts/ ch at 50 and 6 watts at 32 ohm.
The Yamaha does not list any specs for the headphone out. The bass response seems weak and I find myself turning up the bass. Perhaps the output impendance is high relative to the HP? Damping factor?
Kettle drums, tympani and bowed bass section all seems weak
With the 1992 Denon I usually turn the bass Down! 
My source Oppo BDP-105D puts out 180 mWatt at 32 Ohms. It sounds generally good but does not render my favorite Mahler 8 torture section well- blending the sopranos, violins, woman's choir, organ and brass crescendos with a painful scratchy sound.


----------



## davidsh

Can also be because of poorly implemented coupling caps.


----------



## Currawong

rrod said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't seen anyone produce a scientific guide to music genres vs. the frequency response of headphones, for example. That would be incredibly useful, but probably beyond the scope of anyone who couldn't devote a postgrad-level paper to it.
> ...


 
  
 Have you seen the threads in the Help forum? Most people are just looking to buy a pair of headphones, not spend hours tweaking the sound using an EQ, which is most likely going to be on their phone.
  
 Other than that, there will always be people who want to argue over their 0.1% or however people here wish to describe it. That's their enjoyment.  Unless someone is going to sit down with a large number of rigs where the owners feel they have "system synergy" and measure exactly what combination of harmonics and whatnot are resulting, then we're just going to go around in circles with the same arguments. These people just aren't interested in people telling them they don't need all the gear they have.
  
 The best anyone here can say at any time is "I don't think X is necessary for reasons Y." Ironically how one decides to approach audio is a _subjective_ choice, including to use science or not. We all do what makes us feel best.


----------



## uchihaitachi

currawong said:


> Have you seen the threads in the Help forum? Most people are just looking to buy a pair of headphones, not spend hours tweaking the sound using an EQ, which is most likely going to be on their phone.
> 
> Other than that, there will always be people who want to argue over their 0.1% or however people here wish to describe it. That's their enjoyment.  Unless someone is going to sit down with a large number of rigs where the owners feel they have "system synergy" and measure exactly what combination of harmonics and whatnot are resulting, then we're just going to go around in circles with the same arguments. These people just aren't interested in people telling them they don't need all the gear they have.
> 
> The best anyone here can say at any time is "I don't think X is necessary for reasons Y." Ironically how one decides to approach audio is a _subjective_ choice, including to use science or not. We all do what makes us feel best.


 
 The help forums aren't very helpful. There is so much inaccurate information...
  
 The 0.1% improvement seeking magical gear people exist primarily due to the sheer amount of misinformation that exists in most 'high end audio' communities.
  
 If people were correctly informed, I don't think that they would spend such exorbitant amounts on dubious gear because audio is a 'subjective choice' and it makes them feel better (there are exceptions to the rule of course). Ignorance is never a good thing in my opinion.


----------



## RRod

currawong said:


> Have you seen the threads in the Help forum? Most people are just looking to buy a pair of headphones, not spend hours tweaking the sound using an EQ, which is most likely going to be on their phone.


 
  
 It's easy enough to make basic, broad sound-preference changes in EQ. I mean, most people probably just want more bass anyway. I don't see how that's any harder than finding "teh" perfect headphone for someone. I wouldn't imagine many people have the willpower to buy and sell off cans to find their perfect fit like, say, Musical Alchemist. It reminds me of the people trying out all kinds of amps with the HD800s when all they really need to do is go "blip" at 6 or 10kHz on the EQ. In fact, this makes me wonder if the definition of a "good" set of headphones should be something like: "Needs only a minimal amount of DSP to sound great to most people." I have no doubt that the 800s could deliver more bass without sounding bloated if I wanted them to; I couldn't say the same thing for the free headphones at work.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

rrod said:


> It's easy enough to make basic, broad sound-preference changes in EQ. I mean, most people probably just want more bass anyway. I don't see how that's any harder than finding "teh" perfect headphone for someone. I wouldn't imagine many people have the willpower to buy and sell off cans to find their perfect fit like, say, Musical Alchemist. It reminds me of the people trying out all kinds of amps with the HD800s when all they really need to do is go "blip" at 6 or 10kHz on the EQ. In fact, this makes me wonder if the definition of a "good" set of headphones should be something like: "Needs only a minimal amount of DSP to sound great to most people." I have no doubt that the 800s could deliver more bass without sounding bloated if I wanted them to; I couldn't say the same thing for the free headphones at work.



Well said 
I think there are people who don't understand how easy EQ is! I see people looking for "warm amps" or "warm cables". I usually get the response that "EQ" ruins the sound since they read that somewhere.
Someone says he cured the sharp treble of his HE 560's by changing to an R2R Ladder DAC. 
BTW: with a good source and appropriate amp I rarely use my EQ. But then I listen to Classical or Jazz or acoustic and vocals- which tend towards better mastering


----------



## Currawong

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Of course, there is also a lot to be said for having an interest in science and technology. What I have discovered in my recent past three or four years hanging around audio forums (I used to just enjoy the music) is that, if one has or develops that interest, it is better to to consult science and technology itself, and _not_ the local voodoo  man. Especially when the voodoo man is trying to sell you (or justify his purchase of) the magic ingredients.


 
  
 Science and technology is what is used to make the products we listen to music with, not voodoo.
  


uchihaitachi said:


> The 0.1% improvement seeking magical gear people exist primarily due to the sheer amount of misinformation that exists in most 'high end audio' communities.
> 
> If people were correctly informed, I don't think that they would spend such exorbitant amounts on dubious gear because audio is a 'subjective choice' and it makes them feel better (there are exceptions to the rule of course). Ignorance is never a good thing in my opinion.


 
  
 I don't think either of these analogies describe what is going on. If you believe something someone is selling is voodoo or only has a useful 0.1% improvement, then you don't have to buy it.  I haven't met an engineer from any manufacturer that does anything that isn't logical and rational and have had many conversations with engineers about the technical challenges faced when designing their products. I do get the feeling that any science that is not understood gets labelled as in the posts above. It's fair enough when considering buying something to comment in response to a description of what is special about a product _"I don't understand what benefit this would really have for me or why it matters in general."_ I think manufacturers should explain their technology better, but I understand if they are reluctant. Many are used to copping abuse from people who have never been involved in making products in their life let alone even touched a soldering iron.  Not to mention the science involved in the design of something like a pair of headphones is complex, even before one gets into the science of auditory perception. It's easier for a manufacturer to suggest people try their products at a meet and see if they like them or not. There's no hard selling at meets and one can compare expensive set-ups to inexpensive ones easily and decide for oneself if they are "worth it." In the end, some people do feel they are worth it. Some don't. In the end, it is ultimately subjective, however one goes about it.


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> Sadly true. It is why I usually refer to my Mahler Recordings from Michael Tilson Thomas and the SFSO. I've heard them live in the same venue they were recorded at with the same conductor who seems to prefer organizing the orchestra sections in precise ways.
> When sitting in the first 7-8 rows of the Orchestra- and comparing what I remember of the sound (imperfect) with photos I took to show WHERE the various instruments and vocal soloist  were-I get a reasonable facsimile. I'm sure if I was A/B switching I would notice MANY differences.
> It is very different when sitting in the tiers at the back since there is a higher percentage of diffuse reflected sound.
> 
> Can you expand on this? " which is even further stretched by headphone listening as the majority here do without virtualization processing."


 
 There is, seemingly,  still hope for EXACOUSTATOWNERS out there ...


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> Can also be because of poorly implemented coupling caps.


 
 Given the chance, your (supposedly?) sarcastic comment would have proven to be about as true as it gets... ( IIRC, you are the man asking about building the ESLs - which in itself are THE source/teacher of all capacitor related audio blues imaginable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...)


----------



## Exacoustatowner

analogsurviver said:


> There is, seemingly,  still hope for EXACOUSTATOWNERS out there ...



Hope! I have Hope!!


----------



## Steve Eddy

currawong said:


> Science and technology is what is used to make the products we listen to music with, not voodoo.




Except in "high end" audio, in which voodoo survives and thrives.




> I haven't met an engineer from any manufacturer that does anything that isn't logical and rational and have had many conversations with engineers about the technical challenges faced when designing their products.




What's your level of knowledge as it concerns electrical engineering and physics?

I only ask because I'm curious to know how you're able to assess whether what they say is logical and rational unless you have a good understanding of those fields. 

Because there is a _lot_ of utter nonsense that can seem logical and rational to a layperson. And the "high end" relies on this to a _*huge*_ degree. It simply would exist in large part otherwise. That's why you never see these people publishing in places like the JAES and IEEE Spectrum, where _real_ engineers publish. They'd just be laughed out of Dodge.

So what's your level of knowledge and understanding of electrical engineering and physics that you're able to assess what's logical and rational and sort it from the nonsensical?

se


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> Hope! I have Hope!!


 
 You are half way there ( AKG K-340 ...)


----------



## Currawong

steve eddy said:


> I only ask because I'm curious to know how you're able to assess whether what they say is logical and rational unless you have a good understanding of those fields.


 
  
 By cross-referencing the knowledge when I don't know. Other than that, I take it as "Person X claims Y" and no more. Thankfully I don't have to ponder, and nor would I want to, some of the odd stuff in high-end audio.
  
 As for how much I know, I don't have a definitive answer for that beyond that I know that there is a hell of a lot I don't know.


----------



## Steve Eddy

currawong said:


> As for how much I know, I don't have a definitive answer for that beyond that I know that there is a hell of a lot I don't know.




Hehehe. Reading that, I can't help thinking of this video. 


[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/GiPe1OiKQuk[/VIDEO]

se


----------



## Currawong

We Aussies having a saying, "Only in America".
  
 OT: So Steve, when is your amp coming out?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

analogsurviver said:


> You are half way there ( AKG K-340 ...)



Yes, but I fall from grace by preferring my HE-560.


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> Yes, but I fall from grace by preferring my HE-560.


 
 Can't blame you; although never listened to HE-560 (I skipped that in preference to the HE-1000), K-340 is not *exactly* showpiece of ES technology, being a hybrid with dynamics & passive woofer membranes; I assume HE-560 is a much better headphone.
  
 They still make Acoustats, though - in China ...
  
 Not to mention listening at various positions within the hall to the music of a certain _*Gustavo Mahlerotti*_ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - definitely LOTS of hope for you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

analogsurviver said:


> Can't blame you; although never listened to HE-560 (I skipped that in preference to the HE-1000), K-340 is not *exactly* showpiece of ES technology, being a hybrid with dynamics & passive woofer membranes; I assume HE-560 is a much better headphone.
> 
> They still make Acoustats, though - in China ...
> 
> Not to mention listening at various positions within the hall to the music of a certain _*Gustavo Mahlerotti*_ :rolleyes:  - definitely LOTS of hope for you  !



I understand the HE-1000 sound signature is much like the HE-560- only more so.
RE: Gustavo: I found myself liking my recordings over Live. Sitting in a rear balcony.
I like more direct sound hence the new location. The only problem is liking the Live more than the recording 
Since I prefer hearing separation in the instrument section (one if my criteria) the new seating was ideal. Took lots of pics of the orchestra for reference
The recording engineer did good!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

exacoustatowner said:


> I understand the HE-1000 sound signature is much like the HE-560- only more so.
> RE: Gustavo: I found myself liking my recordings over Live. Sitting in a rear balcony.
> I like more direct sound hence the new location. The only problem is liking the Live more than the recording
> Since I prefer hearing separation in the instrument section (one if my criteria) the new seating was ideal. Took lots of pics of the orchestra for reference
> The recording engineer did good!


----------



## Brooko

OK - got a question re power supplies.
  
 Recently was gifted an iFi Micro iDSD (competition winner).  I really like it.  Probably going to sell my current NFB-12 and LD MKIV - because I've been looking for a more compact desktop set-up. The iDSD gets it's power solely through USB, and the PC I have is starting to show it's age a little.  Still runs well - but it's around 8 years old already.  iFi also sell a device - the iUSB, which plugs into mains power (which the iDSD doesn't) then delivers clean and well regulated power to the iDSD.
  
 I've read a lot of reviews - but I'm reasonably sceptical about some of the claims regarding audible performance.  The attraction for me though is that this is always going to be a desktop set-up.  I have no reason to go mobile. So therefore the mains power vs purely USB power - especially for the output power the iDSD is capable of - is what has me looking at it.
  
 From the point of view of audible performance, would it be worth it?  Interested in any ideas/thoughts.  iFi does seem to put out some very good gear, at a reasonable cost ratio.  I'd just like a little feedback before I do something stupid


----------



## arnyk

brooko said:


> OK - got a question re power supplies.
> 
> Recently was gifted an iFi Micro iDSD (competition winner).  I really like it.  Probably going to sell my current NFB-12 and LD MKIV - because I've been looking for a more compact desktop set-up. The iDSD gets it's power solely through USB, and the PC I have is starting to show it's age a little.  Still runs well - but it's around 8 years old already.  iFi also sell a device - the iUSB, which plugs into mains power (which the iDSD doesn't) then delivers clean and well regulated power to the iDSD.
> 
> ...


 
  
 A hard question to answer because the spec sheets for many audio components are very sketchy. In general very credible USB headphone-driving devices can be built that are powered by the USB jack, but whether any particular device is built that way is often difficult or impossible to discern from spec sheets and subjective reviews.


----------



## Brooko

Thanks Arny - I suspected as much.  I may have to see if I can grab one to trial from a local dealer.  The main reason I was asking is because the NZ prices are pretty high, and there are a couple in the FS section which are a lot cheaper. It just seemed like a good idea as it's only ever used as a desktop unit.


----------



## Steve Eddy

currawong said:


> We Aussies having a saying, "Only in America".




And some of us Americans say to ourselves "Oh Schiit, I live in America." 



> OT: So Steve, when is your amp coming out?




Don't know right now. As a MOT, I can only say that a recent decision has been taking up my full attention aside from getting cable orders out the door.

se


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> OK - got a question re power supplies.
> 
> Recently was gifted an iFi Micro iDSD (competition winner).  I really like it.  Probably going to sell my current NFB-12 and LD MKIV - because I've been looking for a more compact desktop set-up. The iDSD gets it's power solely through USB, and the PC I have is starting to show it's age a little.  Still runs well - but it's around 8 years old already.  iFi also sell a device - the iUSB, which plugs into mains power (which the iDSD doesn't) then delivers clean and well regulated power to the iDSD.
> 
> ...


 
 You can probably find a USB Y cable to get external power to your iDSD other than from the USB audio source. A potential problem is that most USB wall warts and even USB battery packs generate lots of noise, probably due to switching regulators/supplies. Perhaps you can find one with a linear regulator.


----------



## Brooko

Thanks Stan - I think that's the point behind the iUSB unit.  I'm just in two minds whether I want to shell out $$s for it.


----------



## Roly1650

brooko said:


> Thanks Stan - I think that's the point behind the iUSB unit.  I'm just in two minds whether I want to shell out $$s for it.



Totally off the wall suggestion, but why not try a charging cube for a smartphone. You may be pleasantly surprised. I've never found the Apple cube charger into my iPad noisy and my Galaxy Tab was the same way. You can't beat the price and the iDSD will tell you almost straightaway whether it works or not.


----------



## Brooko

Thanks! Another great option. And this one will work well - I just need to feed the audio to the iDSD via spdif


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> Thanks! Another great option. And this one will work well - I just need to feed the audio to the iDSD via spdif


 
 SPDIF is digital (optical - toslink or coax), using that you wouldn't need USB, other than for power I guess.


----------



## Brooko

Yep - aware of that Stan 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 But if I'm using the USB for purely power (as there is no other power source), I'll need to get the audio into it somehow


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> Yep - aware of that Stan
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I originally thought you were going pure USB, hence my suggestion of using a Y cable.


----------



## Brooko

Yeah - I'm just tossing up my options at the moment.  I can pick up an iUSB on the forums for $150, but if there aren't too many gains, and I can get everything I want via spdif for the audio, and a wall wart to USB for the power - then that is the way I might go.  I'll probably still try to get a loaner iUSB unit just to see if it makes any difference.


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> Yeah - I'm just tossing up my options at the moment.  I can pick up an iUSB on the forums for $150, but if there aren't too many gains, and I can get everything I want via spdif for the audio, and a wall wart to USB for the power - then that is the way I might go.  I'll probably still try to get a loaner iUSB unit just to see if it makes any difference.


 
 Optical or coax? Optical has the advantage of ground isolation.


----------



## Brooko

stand said:


> Optical or coax? Optical has the advantage of ground isolation.


 
  
 It'll do both - but I tend to prefer optical.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> You can probably find a USB Y cable to get external power to your iDSD other than from the USB audio source. A potential problem is that most USB wall warts and even USB battery packs generate lots of noise, probably due to switching regulators/supplies. Perhaps you can find one with a linear regulator.


 
 The beauty of the micro is in the fact that it has a GIGANTIC  inbuilt battery - so much capacity, it needs to have USB output port - to charge your smartphone that would run out of steam long before the micro does.
  
 Micro can drive on its own battery the toughest load of them all, the AKG K-.1000 headphones, at full output for approx 4 hours.
  
 Meaning of the above micro is going to perform for something like 8 hours on a single full charge using more reasonable headphones (or line out ) - making ANY USB powering moot.
  
 Anything switching intended for powering has the shortest of possible careers chez moi .  It is THE recipe to make SQ bad.


----------



## Brooko

analogsurviver said:


> Anything switching intended for powering has the shortest of possible careers chez moi .  It is THE recipe to make SQ bad.


 
  
 Can you please rephrase this?  I can't understand what you mean by it


----------



## analogsurviver

brooko said:


> Can you please rephrase this?  I can't understand what you mean by it


 
  


brooko said:


> Can you please rephrase this?  I can't understand what you mean by it


 
 Any switching power supply is likely to cause trouble. It can lead to audible difference in signal to noise ratio - and it can blur the treble. It can be audible.
  
 A decent battery is infinitely superior. And there are linear PSUs that can improve even on batteries - but at a price. About as low noise as batteries, but MUCH lower output resistance .
  
 For your micro - if you do not use it 24/7 - simply use it on its own internal battery.


----------



## davidsh

Switchmode psu = switching


----------



## Brooko

analogsurviver said:


> Any switching power supply is likely to cause trouble. It can lead to audible difference in signal to noise ratio - and it can blur the treble. It can be audible.
> 
> A decent battery is infinitely superior. And there are linear PSUs that can improve even on batteries - but at a price. About as low noise as batteries, but MUCH lower output resistance .
> 
> For your micro - if you do not use it 24/7 - simply use it on its own internal battery.


 
  
 Thanks.  Still curious about a couple of things.
  

I can understand the noise.  How would it blur treble?  Or do you just mean the added noise would mask treble frequencies?  Please clarify the term "blur treble".  Do you just mean noise masking?
  
How is the power supply going to affect output resistance?  And are you talking about an impact on output impedance?
  
 And just for clarification, I'm looking at usage beyond the life of the battery.  I'm using it purely for desktop use.


----------



## analogsurviver

brooko said:


> Thanks.  Still curious about a couple of things.
> 
> 
> I can understand the noise.  How would it blur treble?  Or do you just mean the added noise would mask treble frequencies?  Please clarify the term "blur treble".  Do you just mean noise masking?
> ...


 
  


brooko said:


> Thanks.  Still curious about a couple of things.
> 
> 
> I can understand the noise.  How would it blur treble?  Or do you just mean the added noise would mask treble frequencies?  Please clarify the term "blur treble".  Do you just mean noise masking?
> ...


 
 Blurring usually comes trough intermodulation with noise above 20 kHz coming off switching supply. I do not mean noise masking - as it can be "quiet" - just not "clean".
  
 It was meant output resistance of the POWER SUPPLY - not the output resistance of the analog output stage for powering headphones. They are in priciple all along similar solution : http://www.ebay.de/itm/330512380165?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT


----------



## Brooko

Thanks for that.  I'm not worried about anything above 20 kHz.  it's outside my personal audible range.  If I can't hear it, I'm not worried about it.
  
 And thanks for the link on the PSU.  If I do decide it's worth it, I'll probably stick with the iUSB which will essentiially do the same thing.  If the reviews are to be believed - it's quieter than battery.


----------



## Don Hills

The benefits of battery operation are somewhat overstated. Even a battery powered device will almost always have an internal switch-mode power supply. It's the only way to get 5V from a single Li-ion cell (3.4 to 4.2 volts). It's possible to use 2 series cells and a linear regulator, but you'll know if you have this because the device will get quite warm in use and they'll likely trumpet the fact in the sales literature. In practice, the main advantage of battery operation is the reduction in injected noise due to the supply isolation.
  
 By the way, not all 5V chargers are equal in performance. Some of them are awful. See the tests here:
 http://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-apple-is.html


----------



## arnyk

don hills said:


> The benefits of battery operation are somewhat overstated. Even a battery powered device will almost always have an internal switch-mode power supply. It's the only way to get 5V from a single Li-ion cell (3.4 to 4.2 volts). It's possible to use 2 series cells and a linear regulator, but you'll know if you have this because the device will get quite warm in use and they'll likely trumpet the fact in the sales literature. In practice, the main advantage of battery operation is the reduction in injected noise due to the supply isolation.
> 
> By the way, not all 5V chargers are equal in performance. Some of them are awful. See the tests here:
> http://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-apple-is.html


 
  
  
 Thing is, none of the tests showed what effect the various chargers had on the quality of the output of the device receiving power from it. IME even the noisier switchmode power supplies provided cleaner power than the unregulated linear wall warts that proceeded them.
  
 For the record, I found a cheap replacement power supply for a Dell laptop that actually had bad effects on both the sound and video quality of that Dell laptop. The standard Dell power supply was rated at 95 watts, but the cheap replacement was rated at 65 watts. The following problems were found to go away when the cheapie 65 watt power supply was replaced by a genuine Dell 95 watt power supply:
  
 (1) Error message during cold boot saying that the power supply was not a 95 watt power supply, and promising an attempt at a circumvention and undisclosed adverse effects.
  
 (2) Machine was generally perceptibly slower to boot and run..
  
 (3) While watching a Youtube video there were frequent random interruptions to both the sound and video and the sound had random periods of audible distortion in the bass.
  
 This is the first and only time I've seen this sort of misbehavior after years of experience with generic replacement type power supplies that generally have no observable adverse effects.


----------



## arnyk

don hills said:


> The benefits of battery operation are somewhat overstated. Even a battery powered device will almost always have an internal switch-mode power supply. It's the only way to get 5V from a single Li-ion cell (3.4 to 4.2 volts). It's possible to use 2 series cells and a linear regulator, but you'll know if you have this because the device will get quite warm in use and they'll likely trumpet the fact in the sales literature. In practice, the main advantage of battery operation is the reduction in injected noise due to the supply isolation.
> 
> By the way, not all 5V chargers are equal in performance. Some of them are awful. See the tests here:
> http://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-apple-is.html


 
  
 Batteries provide power developed by means of chemical reactions which have low but measurable amounts of noise. Good practice is to parallel the batteries with large electrolytic capacitors.


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> Batteries provide power developed by means of chemical reactions which have low but measurable amounts of noise. Good practice is to parallel the batteries with large electrolytic capacitors.




Why? What designs are you using that have no power supply rejection?

se


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> Why? What designs are you using that have no power supply rejection?
> 
> se


 
  
 True, Integrated Circuit  power supply rejection is often good enough that many kinds of noise are weeded out at this point.
  
 A typical IC might have 90 dB power supply rejection, but this is only at low frequencies, and circuit design features other than the op amp chip itself may cause real-world gear to have much poorer power supply rejection than the usually good numbers given by chip manufacturers.
  
 Many of the chip manufacturers have writeups about this, but this one seems simple and actually talks about the kind of circuitry in modern headphone amps:
  
 http://tangentsoft.net/audio/opamp-ps.html
  
 They seem to recommend adding an internal regulator to the output of any external power supply, and most good gear I check out seems to have this circuit feature.
  
 While there have been a lot of negative comments about noise in modern switchmode external power supplies, the old transformer-based wall warts were just a transformer, and couple-four diodes and a capacitor, and they were very nosy, especially if loaded up near their capacity. The noise was hum, not ultrasonic and it was often very audible if not dealt with by the internal filters and regulators in the gear.
  
 In the case of headphone amps, the two headphone amps I mentioned above seem to have pretty good power supply rejection, but they absolutely need an external power supply that is isolated from the grounding of the signal source and load because their inputs and outputs are not referenced to ground. Fail to provide that external power supply, and their output often has more noise and distortion than music!
  
 The people who encourage paranoia about external power supplies without looking at how they affect real world performance, are just being sensationalistic and raising self-defeating concerns. Most of them just know what they read or heard and haven't actually tested this things out for themselves.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Random question...

Assuming we can't hear frequencies above 20khz, we can still feel the waves hitting our bodies?

If so, say you had a grand speaker setup, would one be able to feel rather than hear the difference when listening to 192khz recordings as to a standard lossy file?
Or would the effect be so miniscule that it is essentially impossible?


----------



## castleofargh

uchihaitachi said:


> Random question...
> 
> Assuming we can't hear frequencies above 20khz, we can still feel the waves hitting our bodies?
> 
> ...


 

 look at the content of ultrasound for music, then look how fast such frequencies gets attenuated in the air, the result is a quiet joke for the vast majority of albums.
 we can sense real loud ultrasound physically(there a paper on this), but 1/ they need to be real loud, and 2/ I remember them saying they saw no compelling correlation with our feeling/perception of music.
 when on the other hand, it's very clear that body feeling of low frequencies has a massive effect for our perception of music. I remember reading something(another paper) saying that simply adding some random vibration to the body (by any mean) felt like "better bass"/"better music" ^_^.
 no matter what excuse we try to find, most music don't have a use for ultrasounds, we fail to hear it, so how did the sound engineer deal with EQing/mixing that part?
 it's all but a red herring pushing us to focus on the wrong side of the FR. I wish I could have speakers and headphones that work with low distortion and little roll off on low freqs. I would trade cheap solutions for all the high res, low jitter, and ultrasounds in the world.


----------



## xionc

Two words - temporal resolution. link: boson.physics.sc.edu/~kunchur/*temporal*.pdf


----------



## imackler

I'm skeptical whether I'll ever understand science enough to make much of amp specs, when they are actually published by a manufacturer. I'm not stupid, but I didn't do much math/science in school and now my time is limited. I've dabbled but don't have the foundational principles. If I were to do my headfi time over, I'd learn first. That being said, over time I've become skeptical of lots of reviews. How can it be that every product is better than the previous iteration of the same brand? 
  
 Have you all found (or would it make a worthy thread) a buying guide for those who lean toward objectivism but really are pretty crappy science stuents? (Or maybe people who are just cheap!) On the one hand, there are so few manufacturers that publish useful specs, maybe its not needed.
  
 But on the other hand, I'd love to be able to pick out a pair of headphones, determine what the specs of my source/amp will need to be able to do take advantage of the headphone/iem, and then pick out from the various amps (or dac/amp combos) to match with the headphone...or to choose _not _buy the headphone because I'd need a new source/amp. I'd love to buy an amp/dac like you do every other piece of electronic equipment: power/speed _for my need_, cost, functionality, durability, warranty, repair costs... If I want to make a subjectivist purchase, I'd like to be on something besides the quality of the sound/amount of the power. I want to pick between silver and black, between rca and 3.5mm input, etc., one or two year warranty, portable and desktop. If someone wants to make a mohagany, jewel encrusted, glow in the dark amp, so be it. Maybe the purchasers will smile more because it looks cool.  I just don't want to wonder if my signal has distortion that someone should have told me about. Maybe, I'll like distortion. But tell me about it! 
  
 Personally, I don't really feel the need to know what THD, noise and crosstalk mean. I just want to trust someone to tell me what is objectively good enough for a headphone (either one I own or one I may consider purchasing.) 
  
 How is a non-scientist supposed to decide between two amps... based on the specs provided? I appreciate that Schiit provides the specs; I wish all manufacturers did. But I don't know what they mean! And I've spent more time on this stuff than many, many headfiers. I just wish I knew.


----------



## xionc

We all would like to trust someone - but there is always agenda behind the human written review...
  
 There is only one way to go for the people who are unable to comprehend measurements - choose only between pro gear as their specs tend to be real and are often done in a standardized way.


----------



## jcx

xionc said:


> Two words - temporal resolution. link: boson.physics.sc.edu/~kunchur/*temporal*.pdf


 

 sorry to say while he may be a fine Physicist, probably a good teacher needing a motivating but not too complex subject - but he falls a bit short in both signal theory and perceptual audio experimental knowledge
  
 he totally misunderstands or misrepresents digital audio capabilities - we can "place in time" audio "events" like raised cosine enveloped sine bursts to *nanoseconds* with 16/44.1 - so even accepting his "can detect microseconds" result there is no "problem" with even 16/44 audio "time resolution"
  
 I've even posted sims of these signals through a 16/44 .wav encode/decode with fft measurements showing the quite fine time resolution of CD digital audio: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/245555-temporal-resolution-6.html#post3697702


----------



## imackler

xionc said:


> We all would like to trust someone - but there is always agenda behind the human written review...
> 
> There is only one way to go for the people who are unable to comprehend measurements - choose only between pro gear as their specs tend to be real and are often done in a standardized way.


 
  
 Yeah, but part of the difficulty I keep finding is knowing which specs are significant. Battery life I get. But what is a _good _THD number? I can't worry about whether the reviewer is being honest; I imagine that they are... But I wish I could line up the real options (Amp 1, 2, 3, etc., all of whose "numbers" are a good match for my headphone) and then read reviews, if I choose. I'd like the objective portion to come before the subjective.


----------



## uchihaitachi

imackler said:


> Yeah, but part of the difficulty I keep finding is knowing which specs are significant. Battery life I get. But what is a _good _THD number? I can't worry about whether the reviewer is being honest; I imagine that they are... But I wish I could line up the real options (Amp 1, 2, 3, etc., all of whose "numbers" are a good match for my headphone) and then read reviews, if I choose. I'd like the objective portion to come before the subjective.


 
 What you could do, is cross reference values from RMAA measurements, and values below or above those thresholds, you can make informed decisions.


----------



## castleofargh

imackler said:


>


 


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






> I'm skeptical whether I'll ever understand science enough to make much of amp specs, when they are actually published by a manufacturer. I'm not stupid, but I didn't do much math/science in school and now my time is limited. I've dabbled but don't have the foundational principles. If I were to do my headfi time over, I'd learn first. That being said, over time I've become skeptical of lots of reviews. How can it be that every product is better than the previous iteration of the same brand?
> 
> Have you all found (or would it make a worthy thread) a buying guide for those who lean toward objectivism but really are pretty crappy science stuents? (Or maybe people who are just cheap!) On the one hand, there are so few manufacturers that publish useful specs, maybe its not needed.
> 
> ...


 
  


 
 it's a little phantasm and we all wish it could be a reality. just look how fast people give money just because some guy without any actual understanding of signal fidelity came posting some exuberant feedback like "night and day difference", "the best", and other crap that a 12 years old would read with suspicion. because we humans, love easy solutions and simple ways out of our problems, it's the only way for our brain to deal with the massive flow of information coming in all the time. it will simplify, look for patterns, and most of all, try to get rid of problems and questions as soon as possible. so much that most of the errors one will do in one's life will be a consequence of how we're wired to focus on easy way out. we will miss the elephant in the room because we were staring at the door all the time.
 nobody's to blame, but the fact that we're all victims of it doesn't make it legit for us to be idiots. it's a little like chess. when you realize that the obvious answer is rarely the best move, you then start to keep looking, even after you've found a move that looked good. well we can try to do that in audio too, and skepticism is a nice place to start.
 I know I'm telling you the opposite of what you want to hear, but that's still my advice.
  
  
 now the reality of electronic isn't simple. the number of parameters is massive, so the chances of a product being superior on all points is unlikely.
 and from that point on, it's not a matter of which is better, but a matter of what parameters count the most for you. is it FR and how high in ultrasound it goes without problem? is it timing as that's once again a trend...? is it power and you're one of those guys that believe more power will always be heard even far after driving requirements are met(something that cannot happen in that reality, but you keep reading about it all the time)? is it noise floor? is it impedance? do you want tubes? do you hate negative feedback for no real reason? do you want discrete stuff? do you refuse to buy an amp if it's not class A?
 for most of those individual points, some people will have a preference(rational or not). and to get the best of one parameter, you often have to sacrifice a little of another parameter. like hoping to get the lowest distortion and low impedance while refusing negative feedback, that might be complicated. so to get a simple reply like "that amp is the best", it's simply very unlikely that there is even an actual answer to the question without specifying a lot of things before.
  
 and so you should just look for what seems important to you, that alone will restrict your options. then just look at stuff that can actually drive you headphones as loud as you will ever need. some stuff on the net can help you with calculations in most cases. or you can go and learn or re-learn some basic electricity with resistors in series. just taking a headphone as if it was a resistor will tell you most of what you need to know in most cases unless you're looking for great precision.
 if you plan use some IEMs, then you might want to focus on super low impedance and low noise instead of power.
 add some specific input or output you may want or need? maybe some gain and impedance switch if you have lot of sources and lot of headphones? in the end if you find 2 amps that actually meet all your needs, you're a lucky guy. and distortions, crosstalk and stuff like that will not matter at all in the end, unless it's one of those parameter you hold high on your priority list.


----------



## dazzerfong

castleofargh said:


> look at the content of ultrasound for music, then look how fast such frequencies gets attenuated in the air, the result is a quiet joke for the vast majority of albums.
> we can sense real loud ultrasound physically(there a paper on this), but 1/ they need to be real loud, and 2/ I remember them saying they saw no compelling correlation with our feeling/perception of music.
> when on the other hand, it's very clear that body feeling of low frequencies has a massive effect for our perception of music. I remember reading something(another paper) saying that simply adding some random vibration to the body (by any mean) felt like "better bass"/"better music" ^_^.
> no matter what excuse we try to find, most music don't have a use for ultrasounds, we fail to hear it, so how did the sound engineer deal with EQing/mixing that part?
> it's all but a red herring pushing us to focus on the wrong side of the FR. I wish I could have speakers and headphones that work with low distortion and little roll off on low freqs. I would trade cheap solutions for all the high res, low jitter, and ultrasounds in the world.


 
 Or, you know, we can use one hell of a tweeter:
  

  
 Pretty sure you'll be able to feel the hertz from this baby.


----------



## arnyk

imackler said:


> Yeah, but part of the difficulty I keep finding is knowing which specs are significant. Battery life I get. But what is a _good _THD number? I can't worry about whether the reviewer is being honest; I imagine that they are... But I wish I could line up the real options (Amp 1, 2, 3, etc., all of whose "numbers" are a good match for my headphone) and then read reviews, if I choose. I'd like the objective portion to come before the subjective.


 
  
 If THD is < 0.1% it is exceedingly to utterly impossible to hear under even the most ideal circumstances. Of course just about everything meets or beats this spec, and not by a little. That's part of the true meaning of the oft-heard comment that THD doesn't matter. In  reality it would matter if it weren't such a routinely solved problem.
  
 In fact almost all published reviewers are in some state of self-deception because of the highly flawed listening evaluations that they base their judgments on.
  
 Headphone amps are in actuality pretty easy to figure out the requirements for, but then you will realize that nobody actually makes a good headphone amp.
  
 A headphone amp needs the following specs:
  
 (1) The ability to deliver about 4 volts rms with < 0.1% THD into whatever headphones are at hand. Not rocket science! Not infrequently accomplished by fairly ordinary mainstream hardware.
  
 (2) A source impedance of < 1 ohm.   Not rocket science!  Not infrequently accomplished by fairly ordinary mainstream hardware.
  
 (3) A good parametric eq with 5 bands or more, +/- 20 dB adjustment range.  Not rocket science but IME rarer than hen's teeth. One implementation that comes to mind is whatever mainstream digital music player you might have that can be Rockboxed.   However due to the law in many countries, you will need outboard hardware to meet spec (1). 
  
 (4) 85 dB or better SNR as used.


----------



## James-uk

http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

not very well apparently...... Which is great news! I can look forward to apple music !


----------



## imackler

james-uk said:


> http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
> 
> not very well apparently...... Which is great news! I can look forward to apple music !


 
  
 I picked the WAV file on 6/6. I'm almost a little disappointed...


----------



## dazzerfong

imackler said:


> I picked the WAV file on 6/6. I'm almost a little disappointed...


 
 Same, it's ridiculously easy: the WAV file takes a full second longer to load.


----------



## cjl

dazzerfong said:


> Same, it's ridiculously easy: the WAV file takes a full second longer to load.


 

 And this is why you have to be so careful with tests like this - you have to eliminate every cue except the one you're actually testing for. This would be solved by simply converting the MP3s back to WAV for the webpage, so all the filesizes and bitrates were the same (so things like loading time and buffering won't give it away).


----------



## imackler

dazzerfong said:


> Same, it's ridiculously easy: the WAV file takes a full second longer to load.


 
  
  


cjl said:


> And this is why you have to be so careful with tests like this - you have to eliminate every cue except the one you're actually testing for. This would be solved by simply converting the MP3s back to WAV for the webpage, so all the filesizes and bitrates were the same (so things like loading time and buffering won't give it away).


 
  
 I didn't notice the buffering speed. I was just listening for audio clues. Maybe my subconscious did though!


----------



## StanD

cjl said:


> And this is why you have to be so careful with tests like this - you have to eliminate every cue except the one you're actually testing for. This would be solved by simply converting the MP3s back to WAV for the webpage, so all the filesizes and bitrates were the same (so things like loading time and buffering won't give it away).


 
 Then someone will complain that converting back to WAV compromises the test, which would be a valid claim.


----------



## uchihaitachi

james-uk said:


> http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
> 
> not very well apparently...... Which is great news! I can look forward to apple music !


 
 What are the files and bitrates?


----------



## cel4145

dazzerfong said:


> Same, it's ridiculously easy: the WAV file takes a full second longer to load.




They should have converted the mp3s back to .wav as well.


----------



## dazzerfong

cel4145 said:


> They should have converted the mp3s back to .wav as well.


 
 And then deniers would claim that it's no longer valid, as it's no longer MP3 vs WAV, it's  WAV to WAV. And unlike most of the stuff they say, it's true, because even though theoretically the WAV could capture all the MP3's nuances, for sake of practical execution, it's not as good as MP3 to WAV.
  
 I have to stress, however, that it only does that on my laptop when I use Battery Saver mode (ie. CPU never rises from its lowest state). On my desktop and when my laptop isn't throttled, there's no lag.


uchihaitachi said:


> What are the files and bitrates?


 
 Actually 128, 320 and WAV, surprisingly. These are the links to Tom's Diner:
  
WAV
320
128


----------



## Joe Bloggs

dazzerfong said:


> And then deniers would claim that it's no longer valid, as it's no longer MP3 vs WAV, it's  WAV to WAV. And unlike most of the stuff they say, it's true, because even though theoretically the WAV could capture all the MP3's nuances, for sake of practical execution, it's not as good as MP3 to WAV.
> 
> I have to stress, however, that it only does that on my laptop when I use Battery Saver mode (ie. CPU never rises from its lowest state). On my desktop and when my laptop isn't throttled, there's no lag.




What are you talking about--are you talking about the fact that mp3 can be decoded in 32 bits? Then use 32bit wavs for all the samples.


----------



## dazzerfong

joe bloggs said:


> What are you talking about--are you talking about the fact that mp3 can be decoded in 32 bits? Then use 32bit wavs for all the samples.


 
 No, no, I'm saying that people who reckon MP3 and WAV have a very pronounced difference will only believe so if the files are MP3 and WAV, not with the MP3 transcoded back to WAV. Of course, the MP3 transcoded back to WAV will be the same as the MP3, but that's not the way to do an experiment that's foolproof.
  
 To sum it up even more briefly, if you want to test MP3 and WAV, use MP3 and WAV files, not MP3 transcoded back to WAV.
  
 BTW, I was always under the impression the MP3's actual bit depth (not bit rate) changes as needed throughout the recording, hence the 320 kbps (for example) being representative of both frequency and bit depth.


----------



## James-uk

dazzerfong said:


> Same, it's ridiculously easy: the WAV file takes a full second longer to load.




Another reason to use the compressed version then. I've got 150Mb broadband so I didn't get any lag, for this reason I would still choose the WAV if I had a choice even though I can't hear the difference with confidence . I suppose it's a peace of mind thing but seeing as the best streaming services use compression I certainly won't lose sleep over it now , my own tests way back also showed I couldn't hear a difference between 256 ask and WAV. I was sure I would easily pick out the 128 though. On one of them I completely eliminate option C because I was sure it was the 128 version , turned out it was the WAV! Time to sell all my gear and just use my free apple buds I think!


----------



## dazzerfong

james-uk said:


> Another reason to use the compressed version then. I've got 150Mb broadband so I didn't get any lag, for this reason I would still choose the WAV if I had a choice even though I can't hear the difference with confidence . I suppose it's a peace of mind thing but seeing as the best streaming services use compression I certainly won't lose sleep over it now , my own tests way back also showed I couldn't hear a difference between 256 ask and WAV. I was sure I would easily pick out the 128 though. On one of them I completely eliminate option C because I was sure it was the 128 version , turned out it was the WAV! Time to sell all my gear and just use my free apple buds I think!


 
 It's not so much downloading the file (though it is for the first time you play it), it's more to do with computer performance in general. That being said, they're not very decent examples IMHO: even Perahia's no. 17, which I could pick out the easiest, had lots of noise and hiss in the background.


----------



## James-uk

dazzerfong said:


> It's not so much downloading the file (though it is for the first time you play it), it's more to do with computer performance in general. That being said, they're not very decent examples IMHO: even Perahia's no. 17, which I could pick out the easiest, had lots of noise and hiss in the background.




Just spent a bit more time re taking the test. This time with fresh ears and more concentration I correctly identified the 128 every time now but it's a guess between the remaining 2 .


----------



## cjl

dazzerfong said:


> And then deniers would claim that it's no longer valid, as it's no longer MP3 vs WAV, it's  WAV to WAV. And unlike most of the stuff they say, it's true, because even though theoretically the WAV could capture all the MP3's nuances, for sake of practical execution, it's not as good as MP3 to WAV.


 
 WAV will perfectly capture everything that's in the MP3 though, so comparing a native WAV to a WAV-->MP3-->WAV converted file is a completely valid test. For many reasons, it's a better test than MP3 to WAV, since it eliminates any difference in how the playback chain handles different formats and bitrates, including differences in buffering time and computer load. When MP3 is decoded, it's changed to a raw LPCM bitstream before it's sent to the DAC anyways, so it isn't like the conversion is doing anything new to the file.


----------



## cjl

james-uk said:


> Just spent a bit more time re taking the test. This time with fresh ears and more concentration I correctly identified the 128 every time now but it's a guess between the remaining 2 .


 
 That's what I would expect the result to be most of the time - 128 should be discernible most of the time (though subtle), and 320 vs WAV will be nearly a toss up.


----------



## StanD

cjl said:


> WAV will perfectly capture everything that's in the MP3 though, so comparing a native WAV to a WAV-->MP3-->WAV converted file is a completely valid test. For many reasons, it's a better test than MP3 to WAV, since it eliminates any difference in how the playback chain handles different formats and bitrates, including differences in buffering time and computer load. When MP3 is decoded, it's changed to a raw LPCM bitstream before it's sent to the DAC anyways, so it isn't like the conversion is doing anything new to the file.


 
 If one is to do a scientific test one must start with the premise that there are possible differences, even if we know better. If that's the case converting from mp3 to WAV as source material is not a good idea and opens the door for complaints.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> If one is to do a scientific test one must start with the premise that there are possible differences, even if we know better. If that's the case converting from mp3 to WAV as source material is not a good idea and opens the door for complaints.


 
  
 One must also control for confounding variables in a test, so accepting different formats means the added onus of insuring that the playback software doesn't treat the formats differently. That seems like just as easy a complaint to make as with the pre-conversion. The real problem isn't such issues anyway, it's that naysayers basically don't want to accept any possible world where they might be incorrect.


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> One must also control for confounding variables in a test, so accepting different formats means the added onus of insuring that the playback software doesn't treat the formats differently. That seems like just as easy a complaint to make as with the pre-conversion. The real problem isn't such issues anyway, it's that naysayers basically don't want to accept any possible world where they might be incorrect.


 
 Good point about different playback software. Then the best bet is to provide files and use have the user run foobar ABX. But then one cannot automagically collect the data.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> Good point about different playback software. Then the best bet is to provide files and use have the user run foobar ABX. But then one cannot automagically collect the data.


 
  
 In which case we're trusting the black box of the foobar plugin. At some point we have to say "the testing environment has been verified to have measurement error that is some orders of magnitude below the differences between the files" and go on with life.


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> In which case we're trusting the black box of the foobar plugin. At some point we have to say "the testing environment has been verified to have measurement error that is some orders of magnitude below the differences between the files" and go on with life.


 
 I'm not going to get too worked up over any of this.


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> If one is to do a scientific test one must start with the premise that there are possible differences, even if we know better. If that's the case converting from mp3 to WAV as source material is not a good idea and opens the door for complaints.


 
  
 That strikes me as a know-nothing argument that places senseless burdens on the people doing the experiments.
  
 The input signals to just about any modern DAC are in essence  .wav files. They are actually usually I-squared-S (I2S).  The data words have about 95+% of the same processing applied to them as is applied when converting files in any lossy coded format to wav files. The data is bit-for-bit the same or trivially different in very simple ways such as reversing the order of the bits.
  
 Most perceptual coding techniques trivialize the decoder which is a standardized piece of code for that general format. In the case of MP3 there was more than a decade of often clearly audible improvement in the SQ of the MP3 format based only on changes to the encoder software. The decoder in 2005 may have been the identical same code as was used in 1995. If there were changes they were probably based on exploiting processor speed, not actual decoding function.
  
 The point is that you can't avoid the conversion of lossy encoded files to .wav files or something that is very,very similar to a .wav file, no matter what you do. So why obsess over it in such a way as to add unnecessary complexity to the experiment?
  
 Converting all available files to the same .wav file format has some advantages such as displacing CPU use for decoding from the listening portion of the experiment. In these days of highly powerful processors costing literally $1.98 , processor speed is never a practical issue.


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> That strikes me as a know-nothing argument that places senseless burdens on the people doing the experiments.
> 
> The input signals to just about any modern DAC are in essence  .wav files. They are actually usually I-squared-S (I2S).  The data words have about 95+% of the same processing applied to them as is applied when converting files in any lossy coded format to wav files. The data is bit-for-bit the same or trivially different in very simple ways such as reversing the order of the bits.
> 
> ...


 
 Although I believe that a WAV file is transparent, however, proper testing should assume nothing and not muddy the waters of sceptics with such an extra conversion between the testing types as this would only lead to more arguing. As someone else pointed out, a specific decoder might even have a bug, that'll really confuse matters if one cannot control which one is used in testing.


----------



## upstateguy

Is nothing lost?  In converting from mp3 to wave aren't you digitally re-sampling from something that has already been digitally sampled and are things not omitted in the digital sampling process?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> Although I believe that a WAV file is transparent, however, proper testing should assume nothing and not muddy the waters of sceptics with such an extra conversion between the testing types as this would only lead to more arguing. As someone else pointed out, a specific decoder might even have a bug, that'll really confuse matters if one cannot control which one is used in testing.




Playing the mp3 in real time is only shifting the responsibility from an offline decoder to a realtime decoder, which can be equally suspect, if not more so.

It's long been standard practice to upconvert all tracks to the highest quality format available for cross-format blind comparison tests. For sample rate / bit depth tests, the rationale is that it avoids any possible difference in characteristics of the DACs used at different modes from affecting the outcome. For mp3 vs lossless similar arguments can be made, e.g. the different buffering times mentioned before, plus how mp3 should be decoded to 32bits for best results... so the common format should probably be 32bit float and whatever sample rate is common to the mp3 and wav (usually 44.1kHz).


----------



## StanD

Sorry guys, I don't believe in any modification or tampering of the data. As I said it gives rise to suspicion, despite decoder differences.IMO, one should as best as possible look at things as a black box.


----------



## castleofargh

upstateguy said:


> Is nothing lost?  In converting from mp3 to wave aren't you digitally re-sampling from something that has already been digitally sampled and are things not omitted in the digital sampling process?


 

  mp3 is a temporary format that means nothing as is. cannot be measured or listened to without decompression. so how do you even check that decompression brings a change? you have nothing to compare it to. and if you compare to the original wave, then you're seeing both compression and decompression.
 anyway it's a lossy format based on psycho acoustic, so if you came to mp3 looking for bit perfect you came to the wrong the place. I believe that people should try test formats on their own as objectively as they can, and then decide to use whatever they want. I find that having more albums and more battery on my portable gears is well worth the small little changes I may or may not stumble upon while testing. but I could just as well find it more important to be reassured about quality and keep using wave, ape or whatever lossless format. the best choice is the one that makes us happy.
 it's when we try to force our choices onto others that things become a problem.


----------



## cjl

stand said:


> Sorry guys, I don't believe in any modification or tampering of the data. As I said it gives rise to suspicion, despite decoder differences.IMO, one should as best as possible look at things as a black box.


 
 Decoding the MP3 to PCM isn't tampering though. It's a step that will happen, regardless of whether it happens by preconverting to WAV, or in the real time decoder during playback.


----------



## StanD

cjl said:


> Decoding the MP3 to PCM isn't tampering though. It's a step that will happen, regardless of whether it happens by preconverting to WAV, or in the real time decoder during playback.


 
 I've already alluded to that I expect no differences, however, do you understand my point about testing methodology?


----------



## earthpeople

If I'm understanding this correctly, this can be broken down in two parts:
  
 1) Testing for differences between mp3 and wav playback --> Keep files in respective formats.
 2) Testing for audible differences in the actual audio --> Make both files wav to minimize external factors. 
  
 Basically depends what you are testing for. If you want to see whether the software/hardware somehow processes mp3 and wav differently, that is the only time when you need to keep the mp3 as mp3. 
  
 So here, if we're testing whether 320kbps mp3 audio cuts out enough data to sound different from a lossless file, putting them both into wav eliminates the possibility of the software/hardware playback difference and gives us just the audio to test. It controls for possible differences in format playback.


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> Sorry guys, I don't believe in any modification or tampering of the data. As I said it gives rise to suspicion, despite decoder differences.IMO, one should as best as possible look at things as a black box.


 
  
 The good news is that several decades ago they gave me a licence to ignore whatever I want to ignore.


----------



## arnyk

earthpeople said:


> If I'm understanding this correctly, this can be broken down in two parts:
> 
> 1) Testing for differences between mp3 and wav playback --> Keep files in respective formats.
> 2) Testing for audible differences in the actual audio --> Make both files wav to minimize external factors.
> ...


 
  
 Watching all sorts of time being wasted by people who are trying to pontificate themselves out of a rabbit hole.


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> The good news is that several decades ago they gave me a licence to ignore whatever I want to ignore.


 
 I could take that different ways.


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> I could take that different ways.


 
  
 Of course.  The actual rule for designing experiments is hold constant what you can hold constant, and control the necessary variables as best you can.  
  
 There have been times when PC CPUs were not as powerful as they are now, and the higher CPU use for decoding a MP3 than just replaying a WAV file was significant.
  
 It is still true that if you take a DAC and have it play two different files with the same format, its performance particularly during the switch over between the two files, was a lot cleaner.
  
 For example I've done listening tests of a 16/44 wave file compared to the same file upsampled to 24/96, and due to measurable but irreducible switching artifacts that were characteristic of each file being played on that PC, been able to identify them 16/16. That is obviously a false positive that was an artifact of the ABX test, and not one that would be experienced in actual use.
  
 There was a time when audiophiles were not subject to all of the utterly unbelievable and inherently flawed Audio Woo as they are today such as the incredible idea that FLAC files necessarily sound different than the corresponding WAV file, or that network and USB cables have audible signatures.


----------



## StanD

You left out the SQ magic of grossly overpriced power cables.


----------



## uchihaitachi

What is the best way to go about volume matching IEMs to do an ABX comparison? In terms of tools I need and so on?
  
 What test signals should I use?


----------



## arnyk

uchihaitachi said:


> What is the best way to go about volume matching IEMs to do an ABX comparison? In terms of tools I need and so on?
> 
> What test signals should I use?


 
  
 Doing actual good tests of IEMs seems to be one of those possibly unfulfilled challenges.
  
 The best relevant work that I am aware of is described in this AES paper:
  
*"The Relationship between Perception and Measurement of Headphone Sound Quality"*
  
*The best best explanation of that testing I could find online is:*
  
*http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-researchers-make-important-headway-understanding-headphone-response*
  
*Starting with the paragraph titled:*
  
*"The Relationship between Perception and Measurement of Headphone Sound Quality - Presented at the 133rd AES Convention Oct 2012, San Francisco"*


----------



## Brooko

uchihaitachi said:


> What is the best way to go about volume matching IEMs to do an ABX comparison? In terms of tools I need and so on?
> 
> What test signals should I use?


 
  
 The easiest way of doing it (at least the method I use) - assuming you have a calibrated SPL meter .....
  
 Play music from DAP/source to set comfortable listening level with the IEM
 Using calibrated meter - set-up so you're measuring sound out of one of the IEM earpieces (I use a tube on the end of the meter, and then insert the tip into the tube).  I use same tips on the IEMs I'm testing.  I also make sure that the IEMs are in the tube so that they are just touching the end of the meter.  Secret is consistency.  Play a constant 1 kHz tone - note the reading on the meter. Make sure you also note the volume level on the DAP/source.
  
 Now set-up for the second IEM using same tone etc - but this time adjust volume level until you match spl level from first reading.  Note new volume.
  
 Recheck first and second levels again - simply by inputting volume levels you wrote down (from the DAP).  Recheck to make sure SPL levels match.
  
 Now you're volume matched.
  
 It's crude but reasonably accurate.  The reason you use a 1 kHz tone - is because it's where our ears are most sensitive to volume.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

uchihaitachi said:


> What is the best way to go about volume matching IEMs to do an ABX comparison? In terms of tools I need and so on?
> 
> What test signals should I use?




Are you talking about ABXing different IEMs or different cables on the same IEM?


----------



## castleofargh

brooko said:


> uchihaitachi said:
> 
> 
> > What is the best way to go about volume matching IEMs to do an ABX comparison? In terms of tools I need and so on?
> ...


 

 sadly that will fail badly on very different signature IEMs. on stuff reasonably close in FR that's certainly a logical way to proceed IMO, but that's about it. anyway the simple fact of having to switch between IEMs makes the idea of an objective test very challenging to me. I really suck when samples are delayed by more than a few seconds.
 we need @H20Fidelity 's future invention with an earpiece where you plug several IEMs at the same time ^_^. that would bring a whole lot of new problems, but it would be fun to use I'm sure.


----------



## Brooko

The question was how you volume match two iems. If you have a better method I'm all ears.


----------



## uchihaitachi

brooko said:


> The question was how you volume match two iems. If you have a better method I'm all ears.


 
 Thanks for the input, I thought of the spl meter and that method, but realised comparing IEMs it would be redundant due to different sonic signatures. Maybe my quest is a futile one at best


----------



## Brooko

I'm afraid I can't understand this comment about different frequency responses. Isn't the whole idea to compare two IEMs? If they both had the same frequency response what would be the point?

The reason you use 1kHz tone is that at that frequency, we perceive it as the loudest or most easily heard. So if both are level matched where we are most sensitive, we can then successfully A/B. If bass is different between the two, we'll notice it. If one has more treble emphasis we'll notice it.

Isn't that what you wanted to do?


----------



## arnyk

brooko said:


> I'm afraid I can't understand this comment about different frequency responses. Isn't the whole idea to compare two IEMs? If they both had the same frequency response what would be the point?
> 
> The reason you use 1kHz tone is that at that frequency, we perceive it as the loudest or most easily heard. So if both are level matched where we are most sensitive, we can then successfully A/B. If bass is different between the two, we'll notice it. If one has more treble emphasis we'll notice it.
> 
> Isn't that what you wanted to do?


 
  
 It is about designing the test for the purpose..
  
 I've been told repeatedly that you can't equalize the frequency response of headphones for any useful purpose.
  
 However, it is relatively easy to apply equalization to headphones and thereby obtain a wide range of response curve characteristics, sometimes closely matching other headphones. 
  
 Equalizing speakers has a built-in limitation. You have to chose between equalizing the off-axis response which is heard to a significant degree, or equalizing the on-axis response which is almost always different from the off-axis response and very significantly heard. You can't equalize both equally well with an electrical equalizer.
  
 Headphones don't have significant off-axis response because the sound either goes down the ear canal and is heard, or else it is highly attenuated by the fleshy parts of the ear.  Since there is only one choice, equalization should work pretty well. 
  
 Therefore equalizing headphones as part of the test procedure focuses the attention on the parts of the headphone's response that are supposed to be the most important and unchanging. Seems like a worth goal!
  
 We faced the same argument back in the days when we were ABXing amps and CD players and it turned out that frequency response was exceedingly important. Match it, and you go a long ways to matching everything that was heard.


----------



## Brooko

But we're not talking about equalising. The specific question asked was how to volume match two IEMs. I answered it with how I do it. The question was not about equalising them. Uchi just wants to know how to volume match so he can A/B them.


----------



## castleofargh

brooko said:


> I'm afraid I can't understand this comment about different frequency responses. Isn't the whole idea to compare two IEMs? If they both had the same frequency response what would be the point?
> 
> The reason you use 1kHz tone is that at that frequency, we perceive it as the loudest or most easily heard. So if both are level matched where we are most sensitive, we can then successfully A/B. If bass is different between the two, we'll notice it. If one has more treble emphasis we'll notice it.
> 
> Isn't that what you wanted to do?


 

 but does it work like that in practice? from an equal loudness point of view, I agree that the 1-3khz range is what matters most, and that's how it feels when listening. having all the FR graphs aligned @1Khz certainly goes to show that we're not alone thinking like that.
 yet if I take my IE80 and some HF5 and try to match level them with a 1khz tone, I can't say I feel like they both sound as loud. in fact they really don't. I'm playing the devils advocate here, but one has a rising medium and flat bass, the other one is massively V shaped. so 1khz is neither the loudest, nor the quietest part, and not really meaningful of everything else.
 at least that how I perceive it. to me it would make more sense to pick whatever is the loudest in the maybe 1 to 4khz and match it. but even then I can think of situations where it would backfire.
  
 @arny, do you know if something like the R128 stuff cares about FR when doing its job? or is it only working with dynamic alone and overall loudness? because if it take some psycho acoustic loudness for different frequencies into account, then maybe we could record the output of the IEM playing a song with a dummy head, same with another IEM and just match level using the values the R128 normalization tool recommends? (I'm fishing here, does it show? ^_^)


----------



## uchihaitachi

brooko said:


> I'm afraid I can't understand this comment about different frequency responses. Isn't the whole idea to compare two IEMs? If they both had the same frequency response what would be the point?
> 
> The reason you use 1kHz tone is that at that frequency, we perceive it as the loudest or most easily heard. So if both are level matched where we are most sensitive, we can then successfully A/B. If bass is different between the two, we'll notice it. If one has more treble emphasis we'll notice it.
> 
> Isn't that what you wanted to do?


 
 Yup, but I just realised, if headphone x has an emphasis in the frequencies containing the 1khz, wouldn't it bias headphone x when comparing it to headphone y whic doesn't have an emphasis for the aforementioned frequencies? 
  
 Or would the differences be negligible?


----------



## Brooko

Ok - so propose an alternative.


----------



## uchihaitachi

brooko said:


> Ok - so propose an alternative.


 
 I don't know 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 that is why I was asking for alternative view points.


----------



## Brooko

Sorry - that was in answer to Castle.

Uchi - it might help if you state what IEMs you are trying to A/B


----------



## arnyk

castleofargh said:


> but does it work like that in practice? from an equal loudness point of view, I agree that the 1-3khz range is what matters most, and that's how it feels when listening. having all the FR graphs aligned @1Khz certainly goes to show that we're not alone thinking like that.
> yet if I take my IE80 and some HF5 and try to match level them with a 1khz tone, I can't say I feel like they both sound as loud. in fact they really don't. I'm playing the devils advocate here, but one has a rising medium and flat bass, the other one is massively V shaped. so 1khz is neither the loudest, nor the quietest part, and not really meaningful of everything else.
> at least that how I perceive it. to me it would make more sense to pick whatever is the loudest in the maybe 1 to 4khz and match it. but even then I can think of situations where it would backfire.
> 
> @arny, do you know if something like the R128 stuff cares about FR when doing its job? or is it only working with dynamic alone and overall loudness? because if it take some psycho acoustic loudness for different frequencies into account, then maybe we could record the output of the IEM playing a song with a dummy head, same with another IEM and just match level using the values the R128 normalization tool recommends? (I'm fishing here, does it show? ^_^)


 
  
 No knowlegedble modern sound professional does acoustical measurements with pure sine waves because they are at just one frequency, and as several have discerned, the response might be vastly different just a few Hz away.  Therefore swept tones with results averaged over fractions (1/3-1/12) of an octave are current best practice.
  
 My general experience is that any two reproducers that are not FR matched can be easily discerned in an ABX test.
  
 I don't think that there is any doubt among scientists and audio professionals that frequency response is the most important parameter in sound quality.
  
 There is plenty of evidence that the at-eardrum frequency response of earphones and headphones are dependent on the physical structure of the individual ear, which is always different from person to person.
  
 Therefore, any discussion of the SQ of headphones always has strong elements of two people talking past each other. They never hear the same thing!


----------



## uchihaitachi

brooko said:


> Sorry - that was in answer to Castle.
> 
> Uchi - it might help if you state what IEMs you are trying to A/B


 
 Noble audio savant and the Etymotic er4s


----------



## castleofargh

brooko said:


> Sorry - that was in answer to Castle.
> 
> Uchi - it might help if you state what IEMs you are trying to A/B


 

 that's what I'm trying to do, I even just invented something that will most likely make me pass for an idiot with the R128 normalization thing ^_^.
 as FR can't really be matched, I'm afraid the answer is that there are no objective solution when the mids don't follow the same kind of profile.
  
 in practice what I do is that I would use my sansa clip with the IEM at home for a few days and find out where I usually set the loudness. then do the same with another IEM, and when I have something that doesn't seem to change much, I go with 2 sansa clips and I just set them to whatever I'm used to set for both IEM. so it's nothing amazing and it clearly doesn't free me from the loudness bias.


----------



## davidsh

I'm thinking pink noise equalized according to equal loudness will get you close to having same volume for 2 iems.


----------



## jcx

some here haven't seen the Linkwitz headphone eq article? http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reference_earphones.htm - I'm not saying that is "the one right way" given the "free field" curve debate - but it shows one process
  
 and of course the Smyth SVS Realizer system puts mics in your ears, tries to make the sound at the entrance to your ears match a "reference" system - usually speaker and room  - but you can also swap out headphone' curves
  
  
 sometimes people make too big a deal of individual physiologic variation - our brains seriously "normalize"/accommodate for these differences
  
 enough that we can speak, play, listen to music, have a considerable "shared experience" such that conductors, composers, musicians, recording "production" people do work together in substantial agreement on the audio experience despite their each having a "personal" set of ears
  
 of course there are a zoo of substantial enough differences to count as "pathologies" - I believe there's one study where the Audiophile Reviewers as a class were found to have more individuals with bizarre audiograms and their strong opinions could be colored by trying to find a compensating system "sound"


----------



## uchihaitachi

davidsh said:


> I'm thinking pink noise equalized according to equal loudness will get you close to having same volume for 2 iems.


 
 do you know where i can generate pink noise files?


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> do you know where i can generate pink noise files?


 
  
Audacity > Generate > Noise


----------



## davidsh

I'd guess Google will help you find a track with pink noise


----------



## analogsurviver

Pink noise definitely sounds "better/more natural" - if it contains frequencies below and above the 20-20 kHz range.
  
 Experience - from test records HFS-75 http://www.discogs.com/No-Artist-Stereo-Test-Record/release/1160030
  
 and HFS-81 http://www.discogs.com/No-Artist-Stereo-Test-Record/release/1034219
  
 HFS-75 has MUCH broader frequency range than HFS-81 ( I will have to make a 192/24 recording of both to know exactly by how much, spectrum analyzer etc ) - and is better sounding one. But it takes a MUCH better cartridge to play it properly than the HFS-81.
  
 It lead to ASAP building a Stereo Noisemaker published in The Speaker Builder
 https://books.google.si/books?id=vcG1bb2ikFcC&pg=PA315&lpg=PA315&dq=Speaker+Builder+A+stereo+Noisemaker&source=bl&ots=JOJDysRKFZ&sig=TbQBLuUHerVosYZ_ko1BQXNvEF0&hl=sl&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIt-CLlYCMxgIVBOsUCh3LKABz#v=onepage&q=Speaker%20Builder%20A%20stereo%20Noisemaker&f=false
 in early 80s; it has pink and white noise in "stereo" and mono - and even in published form, has very extended response. It allows for a more precise speaker placement than it would have been possible with a pink noise source limited to 20 kHz.


----------



## DreamKing

uchihaitachi said:


> do you know where i can generate pink noise files?


 
  
 There's also:
 http://mynoise.net/NoiseMachines/whiteNoiseGenerator.php 
  
 Choose pink noise in the presets on the right.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Noise is random in nature and thus gives a fluctuating volume readout. I've been wondering if there is such a thing as a "non-random broadband signal", i.e. a signal that incorporates all frequencies of the spectrum in a regular, correlated manner? :confused_face_2:


----------



## arnyk

joe bloggs said:


> Noise is random in nature and thus gives a fluctuating volume readout. I've been wondering if there is such a thing as a "non-random broadband signal", i.e. a signal that incorporates all frequencies of the spectrum in a regular, correlated manner?


 
  
  
 There are a number of different kinds of decidedly non-random (Deterministic) broadband signals. One general class of them are Multitones, which are composed of a number (up to 60 or more) distinct sine waves, usually at the same amplitude but at regular frequency intervals and mixed together. Another class are Chirps which are simply swept sine waves, and another class are Swishes. Each have their strengths, but all of them are commonly used to perform audio measurements.
  
 Pink and white noise have fallen out of favor, simply because they are random, and you have to collect a lengthy segment of them in order to obtain a stable (say, +/- 0.1 dB) FR measurement. Multitones, Chirps and Swishes don't have this problem.  Multitones are desirable because you can use them to characterize both linear and nonlinear distortion. Multitones sound the most like music.


----------



## arnyk

brooko said:


> But we're not talking about equalising. The specific question asked was how to volume match two IEMs. I answered it with how I do it. The question was not about equalising them. Uchi just wants to know how to volume match so he can A/B them.


 
  
 You  may not be talking about equalizing, but you can't volume match devices that have different frequency response curves. You might match them at one frequency, but unless they are equalized, they won't be matched at most other frequencies.
  
 You can't overcome the laws of physics, and if you think you have, then you have surely failed, like it or not.


----------



## Brooko

Again - as some seem to have an issue reading the original question - I'll quote it, so you can go back .....
  


uchihaitachi said:


> What is the best way to go about volume matching IEMs to do an ABX comparison? In terms of tools I need and so on?
> 
> What test signals should I use?


 
  
 He wasn't talking about equalising.  He was simply talking about volume matching.  If you volume match at the point where volume is most sensitive (ie around 1 kHz), you can then compare any two IEMS.  IE - one has comparatively more sub-bass, or mid-bass, or more upper mid-range emphasis.  The thing is - you have a point of reference.
  
 You were the one who keeps mentioning equalising.  Uchi didn't mention - he didn't even ask about it.  So why do you keep bringing it up in the context of the conversation we were having?
  
 To try and explain further - the question is not how to volume match and compare two equalised IEMs - it was to compare two IEMs.


----------



## arnyk

brooko said:


> Again - as some seem to have an issue reading the original question - I'll quote it, so you can go back .....
> 
> 
> He wasn't talking about equalising.  He was simply talking about volume matching.  If you volume match at the point where volume is most sensitive (ie around 1 kHz), you can then compare any two IEMS.  IE - one has comparatively more sub-bass, or mid-bass, or more upper mid-range emphasis.  The thing is - you have a point of reference.
> ...


 
  
 Typical insulting response from someone who simply does not get the whole picture.
  
 For example, the following is true as far as it goes, which is not far enough to be useful:
  
 "If you volume match at the point where volume is most sensitive (ie around 1 kHz), you can then compare any two IEMS.  IE - one has comparatively more sub-bass, or mid-bass, or more upper mid-range emphasis.  The thing is - you have a point of reference."
  
 You can compare them but they will always still sound different. Where does that get you? Before you do the comparison you knew they sounded different, and after the comparison you knew they sounded different. No change. No insight. 
  
 Reality is that the influence of individual variations in the shape of the ears means that all headphones and earphones sound different, even if they are identical but being listened to by two different people.
  
 Equalization can overcome that. An electrical equalizer is just an electrical analog of an acoustic equalizer which is what both headphones and ears are.
  
 I have to admit that I ROTFLMAO when I read audiophiles arguing over what headphones sound best. Fools! When they are listening to the same headphones, they still aren't hearing the same thing!


----------



## Brooko

arnyk said:


> Typical insulting response from someone who simply does not get the whole picture.
> 
> For example, the following is true as far as it goes, which is not far enough to be useful:
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Wow thanks - I didn't insult once.  Go back over all my previous posts  - I haven't.  I came here for enlightenment, and I got the same attitude *I wrote about in this post *on page three of this thread.
  
 Because I genuinely want to get my point across - I'll answer this
  


> You can compare them but they will always still sound different. Where does that get you? Before you do the comparison you knew they sounded different, and after the comparison you knew they sounded different. No change. No insight.


 
  
 Actually - IMO that is where you are completely wrong.  By having a set reference point, and measuring frequency changes from a common point of reference, two or three IEMs can be compared. I did it when I recently compared DUNU's 3 IEMS (DUNU 1000, 2000 and 2000J).  Here's the graph:
  

  
 I volume matched all three at 1 kHz, and then using that set volume as a reference point, I was able to objectively compare the frequency response of all 3 from a common source (measured with a calibrated SPL meter, using C weighting, and translating into real SPL using a spreadsheet that someone else kindly helped me build) .  This was in response to questions I had from others who were asking how the 3 IEMs compared.  I offered my subjective thoughts on what I heard, and followed up with the measurements.  Comparatively the DN1000 does have a lot more mid and sub-bass that both the 2000 and 2000J.  Comparatively the 2000J has a higher frequency response in the upper mid-range and lower treble.
  
 That Arny - is insight.  Nopt only that - it is measurable and provable to be there.
  
 But I've had enough.  I'm out of here.  Sadly nothing is changing.  I really do appreciate the help and assistance I've had from those who've been willing to listen, explain and inform.
  
 Ciao.


----------



## arnyk

brooko said:


> Wow thanks - I didn't insult once.  Go back over all my previous posts  - I haven't.  I came here for enlightenment, and I got the same attitude *I wrote about in this post *on page three of this thread.
> 
> Because I genuinely want to get my point across - I'll answer this
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 No that is denial. I predicted that they would sound different and they did. It is axiomatic that all good audio gear will converge on similar or identical sound quality.  I gave a solution, but ran into overwhelming resistance and denial.


----------



## dazzerfong

arnyk said:


> No that is denial. I predicted that they would sound different and they did. It is axiomatic that all good audio gear will converge on similar or identical sound quality.  I gave a solution, but ran into overwhelming resistance and denial.


 
 Errr, no-one's claiming that IEM's sound the same: no s*** they sound different. They're just trying to compare them under the fairest way possible. Also, with the number of curves out there, at least for headphones, we're not going to ever have products that converge on sound quality, at least not in the near future.


----------



## arnyk

dazzerfong said:


> Errr, no-one's claiming that IEM's sound the same: no s*** they sound different. They're just trying to compare them under the fairest way possible.


 
  
 There seem to be enough artificial constraints in most people's minds that "the fairest way possible" is already pretty well excluded.
  
 Actually I've posted a claim that were anybody to actually do * good *listening tests of IEMs, there are enough different ones that at least a few would be indistinguishable from each other.
  
 I also defined what a good listening test has to deal with to be a good listening test.
  
 I suspect that as close to that as has been achieved was described by Harman, and I gave a link to that.
  
 Now I just have to wait for the denial to dissipate!


----------



## analogsurviver

arnyk said:


> Typical insulting response from someone who simply does not get the whole picture.
> 
> For example, the following is true as far as it goes, which is not far enough to be useful:
> 
> ...


 
 There IS an exception to this sad state of affairs people listening to the same headphones and each and every one reporting different results ( as it should be - due to the differences in ear size/pinna - as individual as a fingerprint - and with which each individual ear/brain system has learned to hear correctly ).
  
 The answer is called AKG K-1000.
  

  
  
 anything else involving pads, tips etc is at least one step removed from the natural hearing - and will modify our hearing in (un)predictable manner. 
  
 Most of the headphone mumbo-jumbo, starting with crossfeed, is simply neglecting the fact how we actually hear - and trying to strap anything that can produce acoustic output to our ears. K-1000 avoids most of these issues. It is, essentially, a band aid for the problem that should not have existed in the first place.
  
 The least affected by the above are circumaural open back designs, followed by on-ears, the worst being IEMs. These exclude crosfeed as well as ANY effect of the pinna, so crucial for us to hear correctly. And, yes, unless going K-1000 style ( which in itself requires proper HRTF of the listener to be loaded to the appropriate processor in order for the K-1000 to be able to image properly in 3D ), there will be limitless applications for limitless number of headphones - BEFORE an individual HRTF can be loaded to the processor for that headphone.
  
 Until we arrive at this state, it is pointless to argue which headphone sounds best (unless K-1000) - it is perfectly possible that a decent $40 headphone will sound actually better to you than TOTL in four figure range - simply because, by pure chance and luck, it has EXACTLY the response required for YOUR ears - which more neutral TOTL model would most probably lack.
  
 Getting two different IEMs _subjectively _similarly loud is tough - objectively impossible (other than for a single frequency ).


----------



## castleofargh

the best objective way to compare IEMs is to measure them. because we cannot match all frequencies at the same time without EQ, so we cannot hope to objectively match level IEMs. I believe that's all Arny was saying. we were talking about actually matching them and by definition that would have involved EQ. I think ever body's reading too much(or not enough?) into what has been said.
  
  what are we trying to achieve. if all we want is to subjectively feel like 2 IEMs are about as loud, then we have ways to try that and a few suggestions have been offered.
  if we want to get 2 IEMs at the same loudness to objectively remove the loudness difference bias, then I believe we're just lying to ourselves. we're more or less creating our own bias in the idea that we'll get a good listening if 1khz is matched. again it should work ok a few circumstances, like with the dunu, but that's about it.
 while the dunu example works fine because the general FR shape follows through all the way, and one is each time definitely warmer that another almost 100% of the FR band, I'll remind you of my counter example, IE80 vs HF5
  

 good luck feeling the same loudness after matching 1khz.
  
 I mean it should be petty obvious that matching 1khz wouldn't work for many situations. would those guys sound as loud if matched @1khz?



  

 /me thinks not. of course we'll still find the warm one to be warm, the V shaped V shaped... but not matching anything would also tell us that much.
  
 there is nothing wrong with trying to reduce our biases, I understand broko and uchihaitachi(is that a super complicated way to say "us"?), like everyone else I also wish there was such a thing as an objective way to match IEMs and avoid calling one better just because it's slightly more sensitive and louder. but I don't think 1khz to be significant enough to rely on it as a method.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

This looks like someone who didn't know what he was asking for, (and uchaitachi has long admitted so and given up) followed by pointless bickering over what he was asking for.

What arnyk seems to be proposing is to EQ earphones until they all sound the same. I 'd like to see him propose how to actually go about doing that, especially as he himself noted that different earphones interact with different people's ears differently. I've tuned many earphones to rougly the same reference curve and they sound much more similar *to me* than before, but that's neither here nor there...


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> This looks like someone who didn't know what he was asking for, (and uchaitachi has long admitted so and given up) followed by pointless bickering over what he was asking for.
> 
> What arnyk seems to be proposing is to EQ earphones until they all sound the same. I 'd like to see him propose how to actually go about doing that, especially as he himself noted that different earphones interact with different people's ears differently. I've tuned many earphones to rougly the same reference curve and they sound much more similar *to me* than before, but that's neither here nor there...


 
 EQ'ing by ear might be considered subjective and affected by our short term memory of sound.
 Brooko's volume matching might be a means of a subjective comparison where one might be able to subjectively determine relative properties, e.g., bassier, boomy and so on.


----------



## castleofargh

but obviously chances are that matching at 1khz will often get 2 IEMs closer in loudness than just praying for similar sensitivities or setting loudness at random. I'm not saying it's a useless process, and in many instances when the headphones are relatively close in signature, it might just be one of the best ways to go at it. as long as it's not mistaken for an objective method and expected to always yield good results.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> but obviously chances are that matching at 1khz will often get 2 IEMs closer in loudness than just praying for similar sensitivities or setting loudness at random. I'm not saying it's a useless process, and in many instances when the headphones are relatively close in signature, it might just be one of the best ways to go at it. as long as it's not mistaken for an objective method and expected to always yield good results.


 
 That's why I used the word _subjective_ in my response. A proper test would be very difficult to achieve, especially when one has to consider the individual person's acoustic coupling, a daunting task.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> but obviously chances are that matching at 1khz will often get 2 IEMs closer in loudness than just praying for similar sensitivities or setting loudness at random. I'm not saying it's a useless process, and in many instances when the headphones are relatively close in signature, it might just be one of the best ways to go at it. as long as it's not mistaken for an objective method and expected to always yield good results.


 
 It is *difficult* to get two phono cartridges equal in loudness by referencing their output at 1 kHz ( which is what I usually do ) - and cartridges are FAR more linear than headphones.
  
 Depending on the music ( which part of the frequency response is most represented ), it may well turn out that equalling levels at reference  1 kHz may work for some songs better than the others. 
  
 There is more to this than just frequency response; the one transducer that is more dynamic will ALWAYS sound louder than the more conservative one; despite both being perfectly equal on steady state 1 kHz sine wave signal.


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> True, Integrated Circuit  power supply rejection is often good enough that many kinds of noise are weeded out at this point.
> 
> A typical IC might have 90 dB power supply rejection, but this is only at low frequencies, and circuit design features other than the op amp chip itself may cause real-world gear to have much poorer power supply rejection than the usually good numbers given by chip manufacturers..




Sure. But at what level is the noise of the battery? You're making it sound as if it's pretty significant. But I've not seen any evidence of that.

se


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Sure. But at what level is the noise of the battery? You're making it sound as if it's pretty significant. But I've not seen any evidence of that.
> 
> se


 
 The noise of the battery is somewhat higher than that of the finest power supplies - it can be up to approx 6 dB.
 It is relevant in high gain low voltage input (pre)amplifiers - phono cartridge, microphone ( in that exact order - carts can have outputs as low as 0.04 mV/5cm/sec, which is 0 dB reference level on record - and the signal to noise at this minuscule voltage input  should be at least 60 dB).
  
 In theory at least - in practice, getting the isolation from the mains, RFI etc anything good enough to compare with from mains galvanicaly isolated battery is tough indeed.
  
 This power supply noise hardly matters with "heavy industries" levels usual in digital audio, standardized around 2 V RMS output at 0 dBFS.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> The noise of the battery is somewhat higher than that of the finest power supplies - it can be up to approx 6 dB.




6 dB? Relative to what exactly?

se


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> 6 dB? Relative to what exactly?
> 
> se


 
  
 0-6 dB more than what you get out of a ca.1980 technology cheap linear commodity regulator chip such as those in the LM780x, LM790x, LM337 family of devices.
  
 Good engineering practice is to either further filter the output of the battery with a large electrolytic capacitor, or a good regulator chip.  Batteries get nosier and also provide a higher source impedance as they discharge. The latter can cause oscillation and motorboating, which is pretty obvious.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> 6 dB? Relative to what exactly?
> 
> se


 
 There are ultra low noise solid state power supplies available.
  
 The noise of the batteries VARY greatly from type to type - as does its internal impedance. That is why, regardless of all ecological issues, NiCD batteries are still irreplaceable in some applications. 
  
 All of the above has to be carefully considered for the exact application - sometimes PSU is superiour, sometimes battery. No clear cut answer to which is better - in practice. It is up to the actual implementation. And the general order of magnitude of these differences is - roughly - about 6 dB.
  
 Technics used to offer preamps that could run on batteries alone : http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/su-c1000.shtml
  
 Yes, I have it - and in stock form, there is a marked improvement when powered by the NiCD pack. I did *everything* within my power to bring this potentially great design to actually usable product ( it is THE least expensive remote controlled volume control you can possibly find.. - with a decent preamp attached to it ! ) - and , after all the know how packed into it, I really have to struggle to discern a difference between mains powered improved PSU and NiCD battery pack. To the point I *yet* have not decided to get another NiCD pack, as the original is by now (nearly) dead.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Ok, here is the relevant question.

WHAT IS THE NOISE LEVEL OF THE _*BATTERY*_?

Quit confusing the issue by talking about power supplies and regulators. What is the noise level of the BATTERY? And for extra points, what is the noise level (again, of the BATTERY) versus frequency?

It's like pulling teeth.

se


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Ok, here is the relevant question.
> 
> WHAT IS THE NOISE LEVEL OF THE _*BATTERY*_?
> 
> ...


 
 It IS like pulling teeth. Very much unfortunately so.
  
 Because each and every battery manufacturer is the least likely to supply the data for the inherent noise of the battery.
  
 That figure is most likely to be published by some super duper power supply manufacturer - in fact, the first concrete noise rating for battery I have really seen made public this way. And, to make matters worse, they chose about the noisiest battery available at the time for comparison - by now, batteries have gone quieter than that.
  
 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=483923&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D483923
  
 http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/regulators_noise4_e.html
  
 As you can see, saying "battery has so and so much noise" is, in real world, pretty futile task. It all depends on the actual implementation.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> It IS like pulling teeth. Very much unfortunately so.
> 
> Because each and every battery manufacturer is the least likely to supply the data for the inherent noise of the battery.




Oh for Pete's sake. No one can grab a battery and a resistor and do a noise plot?

se


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Oh for Pete's sake. No one can grab a battery and a resistor and do a noise plot?
> 
> se


 
 Of course it can be done.
  
 Now go check ANY battery manufacturer's specs - and see if the noise plot is included ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 After finding batteries that do not noise in my applications, I kind of called it quits. Can't test (courtesy of my wallet ) each and every battery on the planet...


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> Of course it can be done.
> 
> Now go check ANY battery manufacturer's specs - and see if the noise plot is included ...:rolleyes:




Who said anything about manufacturer's spec sheets? 

se


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Who said anything about manufacturer's spec sheets?
> 
> se


 
 I simply wanted to stress the point that battery manufacturers are not particularly forthcoming with the noise characteristics of their products.
  
 As noted in the IEEE link provided a few posts above, it has not been a theme for a LONG period - only when extremely low noise applications are required, there were tests of battery noise against the best PSUs. 
  
 I can remember a few AA NiMHs ( Korg MR-1000 recorder uses 8 of these in series ) having tendency to "farting" - out of the blue, every 5 or so minutes, there were low level but definitely audible "farts" coming from the recorder/recording. After a few charge/discharge cycles, this went away - completely. Another brand of AA NiMHs did never behave like that.
  
 Now - how does one explain and measure something like this ?


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Who said anything about manufacturer's spec sheets?
> 
> se


 
 Damn - I wrote an answer, forgot to press "submit"  - and unintentionally closed that window... - will repeat tomorrow.


----------



## StanD

The dog ate someone's homework.


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> Ok, here is the relevant question.
> 
> WHAT IS THE NOISE LEVEL OF THE _*BATTERY*_?
> 
> ...


 
  
 If you have a DVM with a good low AC range, you can measure it.
  
 I recently checked out a standard 9 volt alkaline cell totally fresh, and there was about 1 mV noise.
  
 This was about the same as the residual noise of one of those commodity regulator chips I mentioned.
  
 There are now super-quiet regulator chips that perform far better than the old-tech "jelly bean" commodity analog regulators. 
  
 However - do the math. If you have a circuit with 90 dB power supply rejection (1 part per billion), and the power supply noise is 1 mV, then the noise from the power supply in the circuit's output is 1 trillionth of a volt or -120 dB referencing a 1 volt signal and that is with the crappy old jelly bean chip that was designed in or before 1980.


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> If you have a DVM with a good low AC range, you can measure it. I recently checked out a standard 9 volt alkaline cell totally fresh, and there was about 1 mV noise.


 
 That would be throughout the full frequency response of your meter. The PSRR of an OpAmp is very high throughout most of the audio range. Take a cheap opamp like a TL081 it has a PSRR of 40 dB at 20 KHz yet at 1 KHz it is 70 dB and at 100 Hz it's around 85 dB. That's for the negative rail, the positive rail is at least 30 dB better. So using the worst figure of 40 dB (at 20 KHz) would result in 10 microvolts across the spectrum (it will really be far lower as the PSRR increases with lower frequencies).
 Modern quality opamps intended for audio use are far better. I wouldn't buy a portable product that directly uses a battery without some extra filtering, would you?
 Here's a $2 part that I just looked up that kills the above example. Not sure of the rest of this part's attributes but many fine components are available. This one is about 80 dB at 20 kHz on the negative rail and about 100 dB at the positive rail. At one point it's 120 dB.
http://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/tutorials/MT-043.pdf


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> If you have a DVM with a good low AC range, you can measure it. I recently checked out a standard 9 volt alkaline cell totally fresh, and there was about 1 mV noise.




I'd prefer to see a noise versus frequency plot.

se


----------



## analogsurviver

analogsurviver said:


> Damn - I wrote an answer, forgot to press "submit"  - and unintentionally closed that window... - will repeat tomorrow.


 
 For some reason, I did not see my post #451 - it was the"post that went missed".
  
 @ StanD - BTW - although I do love dogs, I am definitely more likely to visit cat-fi http://www.head-fi.org/t/462560/cat-fi/585#post_11623757 
 thread than dog-fi thread.


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> I'd prefer to see a noise versus frequency plot.
> 
> se


 
  
 That depends on the values of the other parts that are used with the regulator. Please see one of the many 780x data sheet such as this one:
  
 http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm340-n.pdf
  
 One key parameter is Ripple Rejection on page 4. The chips will typically reduce the kind of noise that comes out of a simple rectifier by about 60 dB. The spec is given this way because the power supply ripple noise  can have many different kinds of frequency content and noise levels depending on the design of the rest of the equipment and how it is being used.
  
 In general high frequency noise is reduced by simply sizing the output filter capacitor, C2 in figure 1 on page 1.


----------



## davidsh

So when are we gonna talk about them caps messing with the sound?


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> So when are we gonna talk about them caps messing with the sound?


 
 Careful what you wish for - it MAY come true...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Seriously, I plan to bore you to death with ABXing the samples - but this very moment, I am authoring ( deadlines...) CDs of recent recordings.
  
 I am stuck with preparations for the - mostly unplanned - recordings for the second part of this month - when there is usually no action. I FAR prefer complaining about too much work - than none at all.


----------



## krismusic

.


----------



## analogsurviver

krismusic said:


> Just to cut through the science for a minute.
> The main argument against MP3 would be something along the lines of, the emotion in the music is lost, right?
> I do most of my listening on public transport. All I can say is that if I got anymore connected to my music it would be embarrassing!
> This is using Spotify Premium. I have been doing so for a couple of years now. If I was not getting a satisfactory experience I would think that I would have got bored by now. Far from it.


 
 Yes, that is the main complaint against the MP3 - or the bottom line . Regardless how it is "specified" in scientific terms.
  
 I do not find listening to music on public transport in high quality reasonable or justified. Simply, too much noise etc to warrant anything above CD redbook - most likely even well below that quality.
  
 At quiet of the home, it is another story. 
  
 Our country is too small for the Spotify to consider it - so, no experience on that front either.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

analogsurviver said:


> I do not find listening to music on public transport in high quality reasonable or justified. Simply, too much noise etc to warrant anything above CD redbook - most likely even well below that quality.


 
   
_Well_ below it. I have my doubts that anything above 128k MP3 is justified --- but then I do not use either expensive playback equipment or really great ear-buds/phones for travel, and might amend that to 320 if I did.


----------



## analogsurviver

thad-e-ginathom said:


> _Well_ below it. I have my doubts that anything above 128k MP3 is justified --- but then I do not use either expensive playback equipment or really great ear-buds/phones for travel, and might amend that to 320 if I did.


 
 I agree. 
  
 Running around with (say) Sennheiser ie800 driven from an Astel & Kern 240 pumping DSD  into your ears can mean more than provoking trouble in some places ...
  
 I can not afford that kind of money for work - let alone leisure...


----------



## krismusic

I deleted my post out of respect for the fact that this is The Objectivists Boardroom and not really the place for anecdote. 
I will mention however that I use CIEM's that isolate so well that I do not have that different experience on public transport to that of listening at home. 
I take the point but listening to ridiculously good SQ in public is almost surreal!


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

If you do have the equipment to enjoy it, then I have no argument with that. Enjoy.
  
 I'm retired, don't commute, and don't even travel much, so it is does not merit much budget.


----------



## krismusic

thad-e-ginathom said:


> If you do have the equipment to enjoy it, then I have no argument with that. Enjoy.
> 
> I'm retired, don't commute, and don't even travel much, so it is does not merit much budget.



I'm not far behind you! 
I bought a very expensive CIEM on the basis that I'll be dead soon. 
My only "problem" now is that they are so good that I don't see my full size getting much ear time.


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> That depends on the values of the other parts that are used with the regulator.




What regulator? I'm talking about a battery.

se


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> What regulator? I'm talking about a battery.
> 
> se


 
 C'mon - you'll have to test some batteries; this goes sooo far the rep of some MC preamp manufacturer laughed when I complained that the design they sell is noisy - AFTER hearing which batteries I have been using with it.
  
 OK - the good batteries may have been plentiful where he was coming from, I had to pay trough the nose for them over here - or "enjoy" the noise of more locally available brands...


----------



## Exacoustatowner

analogsurviver said:


> C'mon - you'll have to test some batteries; this goes sooo far the rep of some MC preamp manufacturer laughed when I complained that the design they sell is noisy - AFTER hearing which batteries I have been using with it.
> 
> OK - the good batteries may have been plentiful where he was coming from, I had to pay trough the nose for them over here - or "enjoy" the noise of more locally available brands...



Somewhere there's a purveyor of "audiophile fuses" salivating at the thought of "audiophile batteries" for Hi End DAPs!


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Somewhere there's a purveyor of "audiophile fuses" salivating at the thought of "audiophile batteries" for Hi End DAPs!


 
 And special battery cables with silver clips. It must be tough for vampire audiophiles with silver headphone cables.


----------



## maverickronin

stand said:


> It must be tough for vampire audiophiles with silver headphone cables.


 
  
 Werewolves and lycanthropes as well.
  
 I would feel _very _left out.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> And special battery cables with silver clips. It must be tough for vampire audiophiles with silver headphone cables.



Good point! Hah ha! They also have Bat Hearing so cables and clips matter


----------



## upstateguy

arnyk said:


> You  may not be talking about equalizing, but you can't volume match devices that have different frequency response curves. You might match them at one frequency, but unless they are equalized, they won't be matched at most other frequencies.
> 
> You can't overcome the laws of physics, and if you think you have, then you have surely failed, like it or not.


 
  wondering if you EQ them extremely well, what differences would you be looking for?
  


arnyk said:


> 0-6 dB more than what you get out of a ca.1980 technology cheap linear commodity regulator chip such as those in the LM780x, LM790x, LM337 family of devices.
> 
> Good engineering practice is to either further filter the output of the battery with a large electrolytic capacitor, or a good regulator chip.  Batteries get nosier and also provide a higher source impedance as they discharge. The latter can cause oscillation and* motorboating*, which is pretty obvious.


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> Somewhere there's a purveyor of "audiophile fuses" salivating at the thought of "audiophile batteries" for Hi End DAPs!


 
 Well, I do not subscribe to the use of "super" fuses - but batteries vs batteries CAN - and DO - make a difference. I also did write with which applications - which are all WAY more demanding than for DAPs. I do not own a DAP - and likely never will. Maybe a combo of smartphone and DSD capable DAC - not intended primarily for my leisure listening, but the ability to demo my recordings on the go/spot. I am not going to get the likes of say Astell & Kern for that purpose; for the kind of money required, I can think of million ways to further improve my recording chain.
  
 And no,  batteries need not to cost an arm and a leg either. I have NEVER been proposing ludicrously expensive gear - my goal is to get max performance out of reasonably priced designs. Trying to mock everything I wrote will do nothing but lead you to denying yourself of better performance vs money spent.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I do not subscribe to the use of "super" fuses - but batteries vs batteries CAN - and DO - make a difference. I also did write with which applications - which are all WAY more demanding than for DAPs. I do not own a DAP - and likely never will. Maybe a combo of smartphone and DSD capable DAC - not intended primarily for my leisure listening, but the ability to demo my recordings on the go/spot. I am not going to get the likes of say Astell & Kern for that purpose; for the kind of money required, I can think of million ways to further improve my recording chain.
> 
> And no,  batteries need not to cost an arm and a leg either. I have NEVER been proposing ludicrously expensive gear - my goal is to get max performance out of reasonably priced designs. Trying to mock everything I wrote will do nothing but lead you to denying yourself of better performance vs money spent.



Sorry Analog- I was not trying to mock you. Are you saying that batteries sound different?
There are better batteries that last longer and keep a fairly constant power output such as Lithium batteries.


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> Sorry Analog- I was not trying to mock you. Are you saying that batteries sound different?
> There are better batteries that last longer and keep a fairly constant power output such as Lithium batteries.


 
 No problem.
  
 Yes, they do. As I would go bankrupt using non-rechargeable lithiums, I use lead-acid, NiCD , NiMH and LiIon rechargeables; some general pointers regarding batteries can be found here : 
  
 http://www.buchmann.ca/Chap6-page3.asp
  
 http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/the_secrets_of_battery_runtime
  
 http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/rising_internal_resistance
  
 http://forum.drc.su/cordless-power-tool-batteries-nicd-vs-nimh-vs-liion-vt4187.html
  
 http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/is_lithium_ion_the_ideal_battery
  
 As you can see, there ARE differences - and concern for safety of LiIon batteries DWARFS any concern over any noise it surely  possess...
  
 In real world, it is the cheapest battery that can perform the task required. That means China - as most "premium" batteries are nothing but rebranded better Chinese products.


----------



## StanD

So what have we here. A bunch of links that are once again a tangent. There is no information about noise or affect on SQ. Most of the information is repeated in the links, waste of reading time. Our desktop kit does not use batteries. Most of our portable kit has self contained batteries so one isn't going to open up their stuff and mess with it. So all you've got here is about charging, life cycle and use in freezing weather, information that anyone can Google in a couple of minutes. It would be a good idea to put this to rest. If anyone is overly interested in this, start a new thread dedicated to this.


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> So what have we here. A bunch of links that are once again a tangent. There is no information about noise or affect on SQ. Most of the information is repeated in the links, waste of reading time. Our desktop kit does not use batteries. Most of our portable kit has self contained batteries so one isn't going to open up their stuff and mess with it. So all you've got here is about charging, life cycle and use in freezing weather, information that anyone can Google in a couple of minutes. It would be a good idea to put this to rest. If anyone is overly interested in this, start a new thread dedicated to this.


 
  
 Good idea. Battery power is what it is which is for convenience, not SQ.
  
 Every piece of quality battery powered gear that I have and/or analyzed feeds the battery into some kind of switchmode or analog regulator chip or on-chip function, probably to keep the gear ticking properly if for no other situation than end-of discharge cycle operation.  
  
 If you can't design a piece of audio gear that is plenty quiet when powered by the power line, they should have never let you out of EE school.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> So what have we here. A bunch of links that are once again a tangent. There is no information about noise or affect on SQ. Most of the information is repeated in the links, waste of reading time. Our desktop kit does not use batteries. Most of our portable kit has self contained batteries so one isn't going to open up their stuff and mess with it. So all you've got here is about charging, life cycle and use in freezing weather, information that anyone can Google in a couple of minutes. It would be a good idea to put this to rest. If anyone is overly interested in this, start a new thread dedicated to this.


 
 Sorry, NO battery noise tests/measurements/comparisons for audio purposes I could find - yet.
  
 But having a battery with lower internal resistance/impedance sure does offer benefits - as well as does lower noise in recent crop of batteries. It can be HEARD.
  
 Sorry, I do not have either the time or resources to test every battery available in the world today for audio related qualities. But powering a microphone, low output phono cartridge(preamp) , etc, ( all non desktop home gear requiring as good power supply as it gets ) sure does differentiate among the batteries. 
  
 Batteries were not meant as a diversion - they do have place in today's electronics. And sometimes they are the more reasonable - or in some cases - the ONLY solution to the problem.


----------



## arnyk

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, NO battery noise tests/measurements/comparisons for audio purposes I could find - yet.
> 
> But having a battery with lower internal resistance/impedance sure does offer benefits - as well as does lower noise in recent crop of batteries. It can be HEARD.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Let me guess - the above sweeping, pseudo-authoritative executive pronouncement from on high is based on audiophile casual sighted evaluations or even less evidence that that.
  
 I'll stick to my story - it is based on decades of measurements and circuit analysis, which finds that just about every quality piece of audio gear that I own or otherwiseI know of that is battery powered, buffers the battery from the audio parts of the component with some kind of analog, switchmode or simple passive regulation/buffering circuit. 
  
 Batteries are not part of the solution to audio noise -they are part of the problem.


----------



## analogsurviver

arnyk said:


> Good idea. Battery power is what it is which is for convenience, not SQ.
> 
> Every piece of quality battery powered gear that I have and/or analyzed feeds the battery into some kind of switchmode or analog regulator chip or on-chip function, probably to keep the gear ticking properly if for no other situation than end-of discharge cycle operation.
> 
> If you can't design a piece of audio gear that is plenty quiet when powered by the power line, they should have never let you out of EE school.


 
 Not so fast.
  
 Powering really low level input preamps ( really low means peak input of say 1-2 mV RMS ) is problematic - mere proximity of the mains AC cable can induce hum, let alone a power transformer.
  
 It can be MUCH easier and MUCH cheaper accomplished by batteries. Else, one might spend _years _designing that PSU, finding out it needs power conditioner at its input - and after all this time and expense, have to acknowledge defeat to good ol' lead-acid (gel) battery...
  
 Powering digital devices with standard output of approx 2 V RMS is FAR less critical and could/should for all practical purposes work OK off mains.


----------



## arnyk

analogsurviver said:


> Not so fast.
> 
> Powering really low level input preamps ( really low means peak input of say 1-2 mV RMS ) is problematic - mere proximity of the mains AC cable can induce hum, let alone a power transformer.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I can tell that you've never looked inside a mainstream pro audio mic preamp, probably can't even read a schematic. If I thought you could benefit from it I'd link some schematics, or just popped the top on some stuff laying around the bench and snapped some pix.
  
 Pro mic preamps usually are speced to have noise something like 120+ dB below reference level which is close enough to 1 volt to make the calculations easy. 1 millivolt  RMS is 60 dB below 1 volt, so we are talking noise levels another factor of 1,000 below that.
  
 Other than the bottles, the following is pretty typical:
  

  
 The little module on the right by the IEC plug is the power transformer, etc.  In the cosmic scheme of things, it is a hyper-cautious design.


----------



## analogsurviver

arnyk said:


> I can tell that you've never looked inside a mainstream pro audio mic preamp, probably can't even read a schematic. If I thought you could benefit from it I'd link some schematics, or just popped the top on some stuff laying around the bench and snapped some pix.
> 
> Pro mic preamps usually are speced to have noise something like 120+ dB below reference level which is close enough to 1 volt to make the calculations easy. 1 millivolt  RMS is 60 dB below 1 volt, so we are talking noise levels another factor of 1,000 below that.
> 
> ...


 
 OK, try - 150 dBV+ preamps with transformer inside ...


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, NO battery noise tests/measurements/comparisons for audio purposes I could find - yet.
> 
> But having a battery with lower internal resistance/impedance sure does offer benefits - as well as does lower noise in recent crop of batteries. It can be HEARD.
> 
> ...


 
 Start a battery thread and take it there.


----------



## arnyk

analogsurviver said:


> OK, try - 150 dBV+ preamps with transformer inside ...


 
  
 It's the old golden ear move-the goalposts strategy, rather than admit that a serious mistake has been made.
  
 What the above post does not seem to recognize is that 150 dBV preamps are like hen's teeth, mostly used for industrial measurements, many legacy gear that should be in a museum some place.
  
 As a general rule modern mics don't put out voltages anything like that.  48 volts is the highest standard phantom supply, and with the usual overhead and losses, the linear output of the mic to about 15 volts RMS and that is being generous. +22 Vu which is less than 10 volts RMS would be more likley. 
  
 And, if you increase the reference level, then higher noise levels give the same dB SNR numbers. In short, your irrelevant factoid works for my side of the argument.
  
 Friendly advice - admit your mistake, move on.


----------



## analogsurviver

arnyk said:


> It's the old golden ear move-the goalposts strategy, rather than admit that a serious mistake has been made.
> 
> What the above post does not seem to recognize is that 150 dBV preamps are like hen's teeth, mostly used for industrial measurements, many legacy gear that should be in a museum some place.
> 
> ...


 
 Oh - it was meant as SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO  ( -150dbV ) - I do not work with anything like 10 V RMS output at the microphone preamp. That is almost 32 V peak to peak...
  
 No, it was NOT my mistake - I merely stated preamps I use are quiet enough for anything - and do not contribute to overall noise, which is detemined by the microphone capsule and its electronics - aka "microphone" - which noise as much as they do, amplifying this beyond any reason will not do a single thing to improve this. 
  
 I DO NOT tolerate hum - which can be heard as such. The noise of electronics has to be even - like pink or white noise, without any component sticking particularly out. Hum free condition of this order is the easiest to achieve using batteries. 
  
 The same goes for phono cartridges once you drop to or below cartridge output of 0.1 mV RMS/5cm/sec, which is 0 dB level in analog record. The S/N should in this case still exceed 60 dB in order to be negligible - which is no easy task. That final residual hum can  usually be eliminated trough relocation of the transformer into a separate well shielded box some reasonable distance ( say half to one metre ) away from the preamp box. Or batteries...


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Start a battery thread and take it there.


 
 Good suggestion. The last I will post about batteries here.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Could I have some quick advice on where I can find some proper data on electrostatic amps (I can't seem to find much around)? Or recommendations, for electrostatic amps for the stax?


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

analogsurviver said:


> Good suggestion. The last I will post about batteries here.


 
  
 You might, please, post the link to the new thread.


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> Could I have some quick advice on where I can find some proper data on electrostatic amps (I can't seem to find much around)? Or recommendations, for electrostatic amps for the stax?


 
  
 I wish there was a NwAvGuy of 'stat amps but I haven't found anything that comprehensive.  I've learned a little bit along the way so i might be able to help you out though.


----------



## imackler

Do you guys see any difference in specs to justify the difference in price between choosing JDS' Element over the Odac/O2 combo? It is definitely prettier! https://www.jdslabs.com/products/151/the-element-by-jds-labs


----------



## cel4145

imackler said:


> Do you guys see any difference in specs to justify the difference in price between choosing JDS' Element over the Odac/O2 combo? It is definitely prettier! https://www.jdslabs.com/products/151/the-element-by-jds-labs




The power output is significantly higher. Compare the specs.


----------



## imackler

cel4145 said:


> The power output is significantly higher. Compare the specs.


 
  
  
 Yeah, I'm able to see that there are differences. I guess the conversation of an amp is useless without talking about what the load is. My bad.


----------



## uchihaitachi

maverickronin said:


> I wish there was a NwAvGuy of 'stat amps but I haven't found anything that comprehensive.  I've learned a little bit along the way so i might be able to help you out though.


 
 What is the most transparent, technically excellent electrostatic amp? There seems to be so may dodgy (ooooh look at how many diodes there are) audiophoolery stat amps on the threads here...


----------



## maverickronin

imackler said:


> Do you guys see any difference in specs to justify the difference in price between choosing JDS' Element over the Odac/O2 combo? It is definitely prettier! https://www.jdslabs.com/products/151/the-element-by-jds-labs


 
  
 Like cel4145 said., spec wise, the only thing that might matter is the power output.  It's more than twice as much power, but that's only about ~3.9db louder so in practice I wouldn't expect it to matter much.
  
 The main reason to buy an Element over an O2/ODAC would be to improve on the O2's terrible ergonomics.


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> What is the most transparent, technically excellent electrostatic amp? There seems to be so may dodgy (ooooh look at how many diodes there are) audiophoolery stat amps on the threads here...


 
  
 Hehe, that's a hard one.  I've heard that most of KG's amps measure rather well.  It's hard to compare that with the Stax manufactured amps since they're measured under different conditions.  Most of the Stax ones are measured at .01% THD 1KHz/100VRMS while driving an actual Stax headphone.  All the 3rd party amps I've seen are measured without a load.
  
 Personally I use the Stax manufactured amps and don't worry about it too much.  I don't really notice any difference between my SRM-252S and SRM-T1S.  I just got the T1S because it does both Pro and normal bias.


----------



## uchihaitachi

maverickronin said:


> Hehe, that's a hard one.  I've heard that most of KG's amps measure rather well.  It's hard to compare that with the Stax manufactured amps since they're measured under different conditions.  Most of the Stax ones are measured at .01% THD 1KHz/100VRMS while driving an actual Stax headphone.  All the 3rd party amps I've seen are measured without a load.
> 
> Personally I use the Stax manufactured amps and don't worry about it too much.  I don't really notice any difference between my SRM-252S and SRM-T1S.  I just got the T1S because it does both Pro and normal bias.


 
 Could you explain what you mean by pro and normal bias?
  
 0.01% seems rather high!


----------



## cjl

0.01% is below audibility, so it is good enough. As for pro and normal bias, I believe that the different Stax models can use different bias voltages, hence the two options.


----------



## uchihaitachi

cjl said:


> 0.01% is below audibility, so it is good enough. As for pro and normal bias, I believe that the different Stax models can use different bias voltages, hence the two options.


 
 I know it is below audibility but I am a sucker for those long lines of zeros 
  
  
  
 How about frequency response?


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> Could you explain what you mean by pro and normal bias?


 
  
 The bias voltage on the diaphragm for the stators to push against.  The older Stax 'phones use a 6 pin connector and have 230V bias voltage which is called "Normal".  "Pro" bias 'phones (580V, and everything Stax makes now) use a 5 pin connector and was originally introduced with the Stax Lambda Professional, hence the name.
  
 I just have Stax 'phones requiring both kinds of bias.
  


uchihaitachi said:


> 0.01% seems rather high!


 
  
 That's because it's driving an actual headphone and that's why Stax's numbers aren't comparable with most others.  The numbers always look better if you test with a dummy load.  The Liquid Lightning here is measured into simulated load, which may or may not be representative of the real Stax Lambda which most Stax amps are measured into.  Some other are just measured into a load resistor which is the way most normal amps are measured.


----------



## analogsurviver

uchihaitachi said:


> Could I have some quick advice on where I can find some proper data on electrostatic amps (I can't seem to find much around)? Or recommendations, for electrostatic amps for the stax?


 
 Plus minus - nowhere. 
  
 The reason is simple - what really good enough is, is beyond what is allowed for safety reasons. In EU - at the very least. You DON'T want to know the voltage/CURRENT rating of my DIY ESL amp... - it can easily meet the requirement for The Ultimate Transient - if you catch my drift...
  
 I suggest reading articles by Heymeyer and Sanders ESL amps from The Audio Amateur in mid 70s, later reprinted by The Speaker Builder Magazine in early 80s.. They should be online somewhere. A good article and DIY ESL amp was published by Helmut Becker ( now of Audio Valve fame ) in mid 80s in German DIY electronic press. I can give you the exact  magazine/issue if  required.
  
 The best ESL amp I have seen published anywhere comes from Russia - using Svetlana EL-519 tubes.  Due to the extreme danger it poses to unexperienced or careless unenlightened potential builders, it has been LONG ago withdrawn from the Svetlana site. It is amp meant for speakers; input has + - 275 VDC power supplies, driver stage has +-650 VDC power supplies, GRAND FINALE for the EL-519s is + 10 kV.  You don't want to know the energy stored in that grand finale power supply either ...
  
 And it is HERE that cables become ULTRA important, critical and definitely have audible effect - that CAN EASILY BE MEASURED. 
  
 Stax Lambda Pro: overall capacitance 140 pf (or so . would have to check for the last pF up or down) ; driver itself 58 pF, the rest ( ALL LOSSESS ) is in the cable.
  
 I have achieved overall capacitance of 82 pF, SAME length of cable as original. Giving effectively almost twice the bandwidth to which the amp can drive the load to full amplitude - from just above 4 kHz to 8 kHz, using Stax SRM1MK2 amp. MOST DEFINITELY AUDIBLE.
  
 You have to buy big and expensive amps by Kevin Gilmore and others to effectively achieve the same drive capability with stock Stax cable. 
  
 Cables don't matter, huh ?


----------



## uchihaitachi

analogsurviver said:


> Plus minus - nowhere.
> 
> The reason is simple - what really good enough is, is beyond what is allowed for safety reasons. In EU - at the very least. You DON'T want to know the voltage/CURRENT rating of my DIY ESL amp... - it can easily meet the requirement for The Ultimate Transient - if you catch my drift...
> 
> ...


 
 Could you elaborate on how cables make a difference in this scenario?


----------



## analogsurviver

uchihaitachi said:


> Could you elaborate on how cables make a difference in this scenario?


 
 Please THINK before posting such a question - ever again. I DID answer that many times by now. The answer lies in the capacitance of the cable - which limits the performance actually available at the headphone driver itself.
  
 It takes understanding how and why electrostatics work and what makes them tick. Electrostatic driver is NOT a resistor, it does NOT dissiapate power, it does NOT behave as dynamic driver (essentially resistor, with some inductive component that for all practical purposes can be neglected ) - it is a PURE CAPACITOR.
  
 Even if and when all the variables are kept at the very extreme of doable and legally still allowed, it is BARELY enough for the proper performance. Talking about TOTL products, not middle of the road or even entry level solutions - which can be abysmal in their actual performance.
  
 You don't see Ferraris with say 50 brake horse power - even bottom of the line Ferrari is still a VERY powerful car. What is the point of a Ferrari if any well cared for VW Beetle now 40 or so years old has no trouble showing the "Ferrari" its heels ( or exhaust ) ?
  
 The same can unfortunately not be said regarding electrostatic headphones and amps intended to be used with them. Only the biggest amps achieve proper drive to 20 kHz - equivalents of most TOTL muscle cars of today.


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> Could you elaborate on how cables make a difference in this scenario?


 
  
 He's actually mostly right on this one.
  
 Electrically, 'stats are pretty much just capacitors that happen to make noise.  Since their impedance decrease with frequency the vast majority of 'stat amps are unable to deliver their full output at high frequencies.  The higher the capacitance, the more power it takes to deliver those higher frequencies, and the bigger more/expensive amp you'll need to do it.  In 'stats, as @analogsurviver pointed out, the cable can make up 2/3 of the total capacitance of an electrostatic headphone and reduce the maximum frequency an amp but its full power into by a corresponding amount.
  
 Fortunately, with real music instead of test tones, and at sensible volume levels, this is rarely an issue in normal listening since most of the energy in music is at lower frequencies.  @analogsurviver says he's heard it on his amps and playing just the right tracks at what I would consider ear-bleeding volumes it's probably true.  I've never actually heard it on my SRM-252S though, and that's the smallest and cheapest non-portable amp that Stax currently makes.  I usually listen fairly quietly though.
  
 You can screw this kind of thing up pretty bad though.  There was one person on here who had their Stax 'phone recabled by  someone who had absolutely no idea what they doing and used a _braided _cable.  He discovered modern Stax 'phones have parallel ribbon cables for a very good reason.  According to the unfortunate end user, the new cable "strangled the highs," undoubtedly the result of extra capacitance caused by the braiding.


----------



## dazzerfong

maverickronin said:


> He's actually mostly right on this one.
> 
> Electrically, 'stats are pretty much just capacitors that happen to make noise.  Since their impedance decrease with frequency the vast majority of 'stat amps are unable to deliver their full output at high frequencies.  The higher the capacitance, the more power it takes to deliver those higher frequencies, and the bigger more/expensive amp you'll need to do it.  In 'stats, as @analogsurviver pointed out, the cable can make up 2/3 of the total capacitance of an electrostatic headphone and reduce the maximum frequency an amp but its full power into by a corresponding amount.
> 
> ...


 
 And good thing that Stax headphones are the exception, not the norm. Otherwise, that thread going on about 'cables are placebo' would blow up.


----------



## maverickronin

dazzerfong said:


> And good thing that Stax headphones are the exception, not the norm. Otherwise, that thread going on about 'cables are placebo' would blow up.


 
  
 Fortunately, it's pretty hard to screw up a headphone cable.  You _really _have to try to actually change the sound without hiding some other passive components in their too.
  
 There are plenty of other 'exceptions' though.  Off the top of my head there are long and/or low quality/high capacitance cables attached to high output impedance sources like electric guitars and some tube preamp outputs.  Sometimes guitarists will use longer cabled than needed to cover the distance to the amp because they like the sound of the low pass filter formed by the extra capacitance from the longer cable.  It's nothing you couldn't fix with a decent EQ or even just a capacitor in parallel with the shorter cable, but at least it's a real effect.
  
 OTOH, given the fact that some of these people appear to believe that accepting Ohm's law as true is some kind of populist revolt against those with better ears and larger bank accounts, it's probably better to give them as few excuses as possible.


----------



## jcx

I like suggesting CAT 5 cross connected pairs as iem recables - quite the different listening experience from the manufacturer supplied cable


----------



## Steve Eddy

jcx said:


> I like suggesting CAT 5 cross connected pairs as iem recables - quite the different listening experience from the manufacturer supplied cable




Don't give them any ideas. 

se


----------



## arnyk

jcx said:


> I like suggesting CAT 5 cross connected pairs as iem recables - quite the different listening experience from the manufacturer supplied cable


 
  
 Uncomfortable and ugly as headphone cables. Ugly and awkward, even as speaker cables. No sonic difference, either way. Vast overkill.


----------



## arnyk

uchihaitachi said:


> Could you elaborate on how cables make a difference in this scenario?


 
  
 Badly designed amplifiers and badly designed system in general is unduly sensitive to the subtleties of headphone cable construction.


----------



## analogsurviver

arnyk said:


> Badly designed amplifiers and badly designed system in general is unduly sensitive to the subtleties of headphone cable construction.


 
 With electrostatics, it is primarily inherent properties of the load and concern for the safety.
  
 The only dynamic headphone potentially capable of dethroning electrostatics overall is the new HiFiMan HE-1000 - which is normal dynamic load and, for the first time, diaphragm that rivals the response of electrostatics in high frequencies - WAY above 20 kHz. Where it bests electrostatics is in the bass - no contest there.
  
 Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to listen to Stax 009 - yet. And HE-1000 in the general din of a fair also can not be the ultimate demo. Senn Orpheus was in soooo noisy environment I stopped listening to it after some 20 seconds - ANY conclusion reached under such conditions would have been false.
  
 Bur, yes, HE-1000 definitely is a contender - and is not inherently electrically limited as electrostatics.
  
 Badly designed is too strong a word - what is still reasonable, has been - more or less -  already done.


----------



## uchihaitachi

I know the sample size is rather small, but from my experience (and friends') what audiophiles tend to label as 'natural and accurate' seems vastly different from what seasoned instrumentalists consider 'natural and accurate.' Have there been any studies on this topic?


----------



## arnyk

uchihaitachi said:


> I know the sample size is rather small, but from my experience (and friends') what audiophiles tend to label as 'natural and accurate' seems vastly different from what seasoned instrumentalists consider 'natural and accurate.' Have there been any studies on this topic?


 
  
 Musicians are probably not the best source of this kind of information for a number of reasons:
  
 (1) Musicians tend to be interested in musical values with often transcend mere accurate reproduction.
  
 (2) Musicians tend to hear their instruments up front and personal, which is different from how the audience hears them.
  
 (3) Older musicians often have severe hearing damage because of (2).


----------



## jcx

I think I heard in a BAS/AES lecture that different preferences in stereo mix lateralization were clear between performing musicians and general listeners


----------



## RRod

jcx said:


> I think I heard in a BAS/AES lecture that different preferences in stereo mix lateralization were clear between performing musicians and general listeners


 
  
 Concertmaster: "Why is there music coming into my right ear?!"


----------



## uchihaitachi

arnyk said:


> Musicians are probably not the best source of this kind of information for a number of reasons:
> 
> (1) Musicians tend to be interested in musical values with often transcend mere accurate reproduction.
> 
> ...


 
 1 I disagree. I am a Pianist and so I always use piano music to test speakers or headphones as it's very difficult to reproduce them without weird imbalances. I simply listen to how accurate the instrument sounds.
 2 Depends what kind of recordings you are listening to?
 3 Which instrument


----------



## uchihaitachi

jcx said:


> I think I heard in a BAS/AES lecture that different preferences in stereo mix lateralization were clear between performing musicians and general listeners


 
 For the better or worse?


----------



## analogsurviver

uchihaitachi said:


> I know the sample size is rather small, but from my experience (and friends') what audiophiles tend to label as 'natural and accurate' seems vastly different from what seasoned instrumentalists consider 'natural and accurate.' Have there been any studies on this topic?


 
 Yes - and no. Depends how one looks at it.
  
 There is a study that has measured, quite precisely, the polar pattern of each instrument within the orchestra.
  
 Which, in itself, is quite an achievement. But, at the same time, a decisively detrimental way to trying to record each and every instrument "from its very best position" - leading to, in practice, the dreaded multimiking. 
  
 A listener in a hall can NEVER get to hear the instrument played the same as performer does - and this is why there is sometimes so sharp division between the "sound of the performers" and "sound of the listeners". It boils down to the preference, or if one really insists, the ego of the performers.  Some accept they are a part of a broader picture, some think - and insist - the universe revolves around them. 
  
 I try to record in a way that most closely approximates what a listener in any given hall would be able to hear if he/she had the best possible seat in that hall.
  
 Come to think of it - would any of those artist insisting to record as they get to hear it allow you to seat/stand so close to him/her during the performance - for you to be able to experience the sound as close to what he/she gets to hear ?
  
 It is NOT an entirely scientific question/decision - not at all. But should be more frequently asked and - at least broadly - answered for which type of recording it has been agreed to be made available to public.


----------



## uchihaitachi

analogsurviver said:


> Yes - and no. Depends how one looks at it.
> 
> There is a study that has measured, quite precisely, the polar pattern of each instrument within the orchestra.
> 
> ...


 
 I understand for orchestral music, the issue is a lot more complex.
  
 However for say individual piano recordings, the rough positioning of recording mikes are not too far off from what the Pianist hears?


----------



## upstateguy

uchihaitachi said:


> 1 I disagree.* I am a Pianist and so I always use piano music to test speakers or headphones as it's very difficult to reproduce them without weird imbalances.* I simply listen to how accurate the instrument sounds.
> 2 Depends what kind of recordings you are listening to?
> 3 Which instrument


 
  
 I'm sure I'm not the pianist you are but I also use piano music to test my headphones and speakers. 
  


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Regarding headphones, my 650s sound closest to my piano, besting the 701s, 880s, and the T-1s I have.  (never mind, that's subjective)


----------



## uchihaitachi

upstateguy said:


> I'm sure I'm not the pianist you are but I also use piano music to test my headphones and speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Same, I have found the 650 to be the closest!! 
  
  
 RIP but I found this gem from bigshot.


----------



## upstateguy

uchihaitachi said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure I'm not the pianist you are but I also use piano music to test my headphones and speakers.
> ...


 
  


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



I think the mods have made their point.  Isn't it time they let him back in?


----------



## analogsurviver

uchihaitachi said:


> I understand for orchestral music, the issue is a lot more complex.
> 
> However for say individual piano recordings, the rough positioning of recording mikes are not too far off from what the Pianist hears?


 
 Oh - it can be quite different in the hall to what the Pianist hears.
  
 The most extreme difference I am aware of is not with piano, but with harpsichord. TOTALLY different what is possible to hear anywhere audience is allowed - and in the "driver's seat" .
  
 Piano can be recorded in MANY many many ways - and ALL of them have place in the context of the message a certain piece of music played on a piano should convey.
  
 This
  
  http://www.digitalaudio.dk/News.1187/Miking-a-Grand-Piano---a-Super-Audio-CD-by-DPA-Microphones-.54.aspx
  
 http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/Mic-University/Application-Guide/Grand-Piano.aspx
  
 http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/Download/~/media/PDF/Download/grandpiano.pdf
  
 and an offspring of the above, this time for the harp :
  
 http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/Mic-University/Application-Guide/Harp.aspx
  
 although quite comprehensive ( IIRC 7 different parallel recordings of the same performance using 7 different microphones/positions in real time ) , only slightly opens the door into this particular Pandora's Box, called Recording The Piano. The possibilities are almost limitless - from the binaural recording using Pianist's own head to wear microphones, giving the EXACTLY THE SAME sound as heard by the Pianist - to a VERY distant recording using say Jecklin Disk, which approximates what say a listener deeper in the hall may experience live. And everything in between, all the possibilities represented in the above mentioned DPA's  disc included.
  
 There are , no doubt about it, other similar "cookbooks/samplers" regarding recording the piano by other microphone manufacturers - I have chosen DPA's because I do use their mikes ( although NOT the way described in Miking a Grand Piano...) and because I am familiar with it. I am in no way affiliated with DPA - just a satisfied customer.


----------



## uchihaitachi

analogsurviver said:


> Oh - it can be quite different in the hall to what the Pianist hears.
> 
> The most extreme difference I am aware of is not with piano, but with harpsichord. TOTALLY different what is possible to hear anywhere audience is allowed - and in the "driver's seat" .
> 
> ...


 
 What is a 'standard' way to record solo piano performances? Am I mistaken thinking that the microphone is placed near the open lid?


----------



## analogsurviver

uchihaitachi said:


> What is a 'standard' way to record solo piano performances? Am I mistaken thinking that the microphone is placed near the open lid?


 
 No - it is as "standard" placement as it gets - with most types of microphones.
  
 But it is almost incredible how much say an inch or so different position of the mics can change the sound being captured...


----------



## davidsh

It's a fine thing that the diaphragm is extremely thin, but how about the tracers? How much weight do they contribute?
  
 For a full range 300 Vrms (425 volt peak) signal into 140 pF you'd need a peak current of 7.5 mA. I doubt you'd need 425 volt peak voltage at 20 kHz listening to music, though.
  
 Does anyone remember the max current the different stax amps deliver? I imagine they will be adequate in most situations.


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> It's a fine thing that the diaphragm is extremely thin, but how about the tracers? How much weight do they contribute?
> 
> For a full range 300 Vrms (425 volt peak) signal into 140 pF you'd need a peak current of 7.5 mA. I doubt you'd need 425 volt peak voltage at 20 kHz listening to music, though.
> 
> Does anyone remember the max current the different stax amps deliver? I imagine they will be adequate in most situations.


 
 Orthodynamic diaphragm of the HE-1000 is thinner than even the thinnest diaphragm of Stax. Of course, traces of conductor are metal and therefore heavier than homogeneous plastic film of electrostatics. But both should be very well damped by the mass of the air trapped between the diaphragm and electrodes/magnets - that air mass is WAY higher than the diaphragms in micrometer thickness range. 
  
 I would love to see the pulse and square wave response measurements of the HE-1000 - it must be good according to the ( limited) listening impressions.
  
 Correction - 300 Vrms is ( 300 x 2 x 1.41 ) = approx 850 V peak. 
  
 Current capability of any ESL amp can be roughly arrived at by knowing its power consumption rating. If it is say 40 W, this means each of the four amps (one per each stator ) can have max 10 W ( if we disregard losses in power supplies, particularly with tubed gear ). Calculating the max current, if voltage swing is known, should then be no problem.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Orthodynamic diaphragm of the HE-1000 is thinner than even the thinnest diaphragm of Stax. Of course, traces of conductor are metal and therefore heavier than homogeneous plastic film of electrostatics. But both should be very well damped by the mass of the air trapped between the diaphragm and electrodes/magnets - that air mass is WAY higher than the diaphragms in micrometer thickness range.
> 
> I would love to see the pulse and square wave response measurements of the HE-1000 - it must be good according to the ( limited) listening impressions.
> 
> ...


 
 Incorrect. 300 VRMS is about 850Vp-p. That's Peak to Peak, not Peak. That's a big difference.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Incorrect. 300 VRMS is about 850Vp-p. That's Peak to Peak, not Peak. That's a big difference.


 
 Correct.


----------



## arnyk

uchihaitachi said:


> What is a 'standard' way to record solo piano performances? Am I mistaken thinking that the microphone is placed near the open lid?


 
  
 AFAIK, there is no standard way to record a solo piano.
  
 The evidence of various different and even sometimes contradictory ways to record solo pianos needs to be interpreted as support for that statement.
  
 Depends on what you want, and what you have to start with.
  
 Otherwise, you are supporting the fallacies that:
  
 (1) All pianos sound the same as basic instruments
  
 (2) All piano players play the same.
  
 (3) All microphones sound the same.
  
 (4) All locations in all performance spaces sound the same.
  
 (5) Everybody has the same taste in sound and music.
  
 (6) All musical works that are played on solo pianos were written to sound the same and be played the same, mechanical way.
  
 Of course, not one of the above is even faintly true.


----------



## analogsurviver

arnyk said:


> AFAIK, there is no standard way to record a solo piano.
> 
> The evidence of various different and even sometimes contradictory ways to record solo pianos needs to be interpreted as support for that statement.
> 
> ...


 
 True.
  
 That "standard" is only something that can give us a vague "reference", if you will - and it would still allow for all the real world differences listed to come across clearly.
  
 Piano is and will remain to be the instrument that can be and does get recorded in most different ways.


----------



## uchihaitachi

arnyk said:


> AFAIK, there is no standard way to record a solo piano.
> 
> The evidence of various different and even sometimes contradictory ways to record solo pianos needs to be interpreted as support for that statement.
> 
> ...




Most pianos of certain makes do sound homogeneous to a degree that allows for more accurate comparison. I use it more as a reference point to compare the comparative realism. It also helps that I have been present in some studios as well as I listen to recordings I have done on my own piano which I am familiar with. Often the inability of certain headphones to reproduce piano tone is very noticeable, it isn't a subtle difference.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

arnyk said:


> AFAIK, there is no standard way to record a solo piano.
> 
> The evidence of various different and even sometimes contradictory ways to record solo pianos needs to be interpreted as support for that statement.
> 
> ...


 
 Sorry,
 All Pianos and Pianists sound the same. No difference between Martha Argerich, Rachmaninov, or Vladimir Horowitz. OK-KIDDING!  
 As a LISTENER I tend to prefer more direct than reflected sound. I had the chance to sit a few rows back from Garrick Ohlsson playing Chopin, Lizst, etc. The sound changes dramatically depending on the location of the listener-or microphone.
 Some of my classical recordings seem to be from a vantage point just ABOVE the pianist-and I've seen microphones in just that position. Other times it's more like the microphone was directed at the open lid.   The most recent live performance I was hearing more sound from the open lid. Some recordings are from above the pianist's  vantage point-which can be a bit odd. Unless I am playing myself, I don't expect to hear the keys to the left of middle C on the left-and above on the right. 
 As an enthusiastic Amateur Classical Guitar player I know guitars and pianos do not sound the same-neither do pianists.
 I wonder how much advancement there has been in microphone  technology over the years or are we at a steady state in development. In much the same way as headphones have advanced, I'm hoping  microphone diaphragms have become thinner and more responsive


----------



## analogsurviver

uchihaitachi said:


> Most pianos of certain makes do sound homogeneous to a degree that allows for more accurate comparison. I use it more as a reference point to compare the comparative realism. It also helps that I have been present in some studios as well as I listen to recordings I have done on my own piano which I am familiar with. Often the inability of certain headphones to reproduce piano tone is very noticeable, it isn't a subtle difference.


 
 Agreed.


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> arnyk said:
> 
> 
> > AFAIK, there is no standard way to record a solo piano.
> ...


 
  
 I would guess that microphone development is relative to microphone usage and the same is true of headphones.
  
 Edit to throw in some links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=microphone&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=u9eBVaqvMoyqNtGUgfgL&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1376&bih=636#tbm=isch&q=microphones+of+the+1960s
  
https://www.google.com/search?q=microphone&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=u9eBVaqvMoyqNtGUgfgL&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1376&bih=636#tbm=isch&q=microphones+of+the+2000s
  
https://www.google.com/search?q=microphone&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=u9eBVaqvMoyqNtGUgfgL&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1376&bih=636#tbm=isch&q=microphones+of+2014


----------



## cel4145

Just in case people that might be interested missed this discussion over in the intro and recommendations forum:

HD downloaded tracks vs 192Hz/24bitdepth DAC music
http://www.head-fi.org/t/770127/hd-downloaded-tracks-vs-192hz-24bitdepth-dac-music


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Just in case people that might be interested missed this discussion over in the intro and recommendations forum:
> 
> HD downloaded tracks vs 192Hz/24bitdepth DAC music
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/770127/hd-downloaded-tracks-vs-192hz-24bitdepth-dac-music


 
 It gave me a headache.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> It gave me a headache.




So you are saying they are beyond your help? LOL


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> So you are saying they are beyond your help? LOL


 
 Beyond all hope.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Beyond all hope.




I asked recently in the feedback section if we could get this emoticon added: 



It really would be helpful for instances like that


----------



## maverickronin

Also, these.
  











 
  
And a few more I've collected.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> I asked recently in the feedback section if we could get this emoticon added:
> 
> 
> 
> It really would be helpful for instances like that


 
 This explains it all.


----------



## headdict

stand said:


> It gave me a headache.


 

 I get that all the time. I call it head-fi-ache.


----------



## StanD

headdict said:


> I get that all the time. I call it head-fi-ache.


 
 Guaranteed to start bigtime with cables and expensive power cords.


----------



## krismusic

maverickronin said:


> Also, these.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A fine collection!


----------



## krismusic

headdict said:


> I get that all the time. I call it head-fi-ache.



That should be a thing on here.


----------



## maverickronin

headdict said:


> I get that all the time. I call it head-fi-ache.


 


krismusic said:


> That should be a thing on here.


 
  
 Say it 10 times fast and you get Head Fake...


----------



## headwhacker

maverickronin said:


> Say it 10 times fast and you get Head Fake...


 
  
 That's a nice trick


----------



## Exacoustatowner

maverickronin said:


> Also, these.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Where can I buy one? Is there a High End version for my SACD's? IS there a demagnetizer attachment? I hear that with lots of play the aluminum layer get magnetized and bends the laser light through the well known generation of gravitic waves by spinning magnetic fields- giving you Angle Of Incidence Distortion. Laugh all you want-but it's all fun and games until local space-time gets warped cuz ya did not demagnetize your CD!


----------



## StanD

Do they make CD Mats that demagnetize your CD while it plays? Priced right it would sell like hot cakes, about $100 a pop. It could be powered by the rotation from the player and be considered a green product.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Do they make CD Mats that demagnetize your CD while it plays? Priced right it would sell like hot cakes, about $100 a pop. It could be powered by the rotation from the player and be considered a green product.


 
 Now that is a great idea! $100 a pop sounds good for a "save the Earth product!"


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Now that is a great idea! $100 a pop sounds good for a "save the Earth product!"


 
 A good use of alien tech from area 51. It's about time some of that Schiit trckles down to the audio industry.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> A good use of alien tech from area 51. It's about time some of that Schiit trckles down to the audio industry.


 
 Indeed! The Alien ship's propulsion system uses space time warping tech and it's great that the same can be used to prevent the well known angle of incidence distortion caused when the locally dense gravity waves induced by the spinning magnetized (paramagnetized) CD's actually bend the laser beam. The "angle of Incidence" distortion of the laser is  especially bad with the gold layer SACD's and is the main reason what "some people" claim that you cannot tell a well mastered CD from a well mastered SACD. The aluminum in CD's is also less likely to become paramagnetic. The Quantum Demagnetization of the Gold SACD layer really "opens up" the sound.
  
 The bent laser will start mixing in earlier and later music with the current music. The temporal distortion will collapse the sound stage and lead to grainy and harsh edged treble.


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Indeed! The Alien ship's propulsion system uses space time warping tech and it's great that the same can be used to prevent the well known angle of incidence distortion caused when the locally dense gravity waves induced by the spinning magnetized (paramagnetized) CD's actually bend the laser beam. The "angle of Incidence" distortion of the laser is  especially bad with the gold layer SACD's and is the main reason what "some people" claim that you cannot tell a well mastered CD from a well mastered SACD. The aluminum in CD's is also less likely to become paramagnetic. The Quantum Demagnetization of the Gold SACD layer really "opens up" the sound.
> 
> The bent laser will start mixing in earlier and later music with the current music. The temporal distortion will collapse the sound stage and lead to grainy and harsh edged treble.


 
 Perhaps this can be used to cure headphone group delay issues that don't exist. I'll bet that there are many who would pay big bucks for that.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Perhaps this can be used to cure headphone group delay issues that don't exist. I'll bet that there are many who would pay big bucks for that.


 
 Paying big bucks for nonsense to solve issues that don't exist! I can guarantee that my explanation is solidly based on pseudoscientific principles on par with some of the babble connected with gizmos that do bring in a lot of money. 
 Now on to my revolutionary cable designs using paramagnetic materials coupled with a small attached electromagnet. By forcing alignment of the magnetic dipoles you cause "Quantum Organization" in the wire….. 
 Is there a "tongue-in-cheek" emoji?
 Pseudophysics! The next frontier! Solidly based on misunderstanding and bad math!


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Paying big bucks for nonsense to solve issues that don't exist! I can guarantee that my explanation is solidly based on pseudoscientific principles on par with some of the babble connected with gizmos that do bring in a lot of money.
> Now on to my revolutionary cable designs using paramagnetic materials coupled with a small attached electromagnet. By forcing alignment of the magnetic dipoles you cause "Quantum Organization" in the wire…..
> Is there a "tongue-in-cheek" emoji?
> Pseudophysics! The next frontier! Solidly based on misunderstanding and bad math!


 
 Will you be throwing in copper and magnetic braclets that cure all maladies including ED?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Will you be throwing in copper and magnetic braclets that cure all maladies including ED?


 
 That costs extra! Repeated application of "paramagnetic Ferrofluid oils-with Aloe Vera" cost $19.95 per month. A permanent magnet made of audiophile/medical grade ferromagnetic materials comes FREE with each yearly subscription along with my guide to Happiness and Bass Grunt. Some Limitations may apply.
 The orientation of the magnetic dipoles in the paramagnetic liquid causes an alignment that aids in curing ED by well proved sympathetic magical principles. . Certainly a non-audiophile grade paramagnetic liquid would be susceptible to brownian motion, thermal gradients, etc-but not my Audiophile Grade Liquid based on this product- with proprietary additives!


----------



## StanD

But will I able able to hear above 20 kHz?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> But will I able able to hear above 20 kHz?


 
 Only with repeated application of the magic oils….


----------



## wink

Yep, and if cut with 50% genuine copperhead snake oil + venom, you will hear up to 50KHz before your cilia burn out and scorch your eardrum in the process.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 This, of course means that you will be permanently deaf, barring a cochlear implant, but it will be a trip as it goes down.


----------



## castleofargh

I'm not against a good laugh, but maybe we could go back to talking about real stuff for a few pages?


----------



## StanD

What's with this BS about DACs being bright, dark, warm, cold and so on? All the decent ones, as in almost everything, seem to have a very flat FR. So many of the golden eared wonders claim night and day differences.


----------



## uchihaitachi

stand said:


> What's with this BS about DACs being bright, dark, warm, cold and so on? All the decent ones, as in almost everything, seem to have a very flat FR. So many of the golden eared wonders claim night and day differences.


 
 But but the soundstage expansion!!!


----------



## StanD

uchihaitachi said:


> But but the soundstage expansion!!!


 
 Yes, I forgot about that, Yet another auditory delusion  illusion.


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> I'm not against a good laugh, but maybe we could go back to talking about real stuff for a few pages?



Good call.


----------



## nick_charles

stand said:


> What's with this BS about DACs being bright, dark, warm, cold and so on? All the *half-decent* ones, as in almost everything, seem to have a very flat FR. So many of the golden eared wonders claim night and day differences.


 
  
  
 Fixed 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 The $30 Behringer UCA202 is flat (within +/- 0.1 db from 10 Hz to about 17Khz) and only 0.3db down at 20Khz - paradoxically the biggest deviations you will find are from super expensive DACS such as .....
  




  
 but these aberrations are few and far between and DAcs with razor flat FR were available in the late 80s/early 90s


----------



## Exacoustatowner

wink said:


> Yep, and if cut with 50% genuine copperhead snake oil + venom, you will hear up to 50KHz before your cilia burn out and scorch your eardrum in the process.   :blink:
> 
> This, of course means that you will be permanently deaf, barring a cochlear implant, but it will be a trip as it goes down.



The problem is the Copperhead Oil. Avoid any products using Copperhead or Rattlesnake Toxins! Beneficial doses of Neurotoxins from the Genus Naja (Cobra) give longer lasting results. In a pinch Coral snake venom will do!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

krismusic said:


> Good call.







castleofargh said:


> I'm not against a good laugh, but maybe we could go back to talking about real stuff for a few pages?



Oh! OK, but there is very little real stuff. I'll refrain for awhile


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Oh! OK, but there is very little real stuff. I'll refrain for awhile


 
 Is not the hyperactive imagination of an audiophile sufficiently entertaining? Just listen to the wildly conflicting and surreal claims about DACs.


----------



## StanD

I love the yarn about Wolfson DAC chips being warm.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> I love the yarn about Wolfson DAC chips being warm.


 
  
 More of a sous-vide than a braise.


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> More of a sous-vide than a braise.


 
 More like overactive imaginations busy at work.


----------



## maverickronin

How about things that really do sound different?
  
 What's with SET amps being so popular?


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> How about things that really do sound different?
> 
> What's with SET amps being so popular?




People like their sound. Simple as that. Why do I like asparagus and other people don't? It's just basic subjective preference. Nothing wrong with it at all.

se


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> How about things that really do sound different?
> 
> What's with SET amps being so popular?


 
 Aside from subjective feelings, how and why do they sound different?


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Aside from subjective feelings, how and why do they sound different?




Combination of things ranging from distortion to frequency response aberrations. 

se


----------



## nick_charles

steve eddy said:


> Combination of things ranging from distortion to frequency response aberrations.
> 
> se


 
  





 The valvies would say that this rather large 2nd harmonic distortion spike is subjectively innocuous, but it should not be there, it is distortion not present on the signal


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> I love the yarn about Wolfson DAC chips being warm.


 
 Yes and my universally acclaimed Oppo BDP-105D uses 32 Bit Sabre 9018 DAC's-which evidently are shunned (Head-Fi only)  for their COLD nature.
 I wish I had known that before I bought and started enjoying it. I may go out and buy a few Wolfson DAC chips to snuggle up with.  My player has separate DACS for the XLR and RCA outs (which is nice because I use the XLR to feed my RANE DEQ 60L Equalizer (Shudder) then XLR out to my Ragnarok Amp (biggest Schiit). I then use the RCA to feed my Schiit Lyr hybrid if I want a hint of tube sound).
  
 On the other hand, the Sabre DAC's are nice to have in a heat wave. 
 Here are some of the supporting evidence for the repulsive nature of the Sabre DACs

  
 Here is the source http://www.audioholics.com/blu-ray-and-dvd-player-reviews/oppo-bdp-105/oppo-bdp-105-measurements


----------



## StanD

@nick_charles What is the exact signal frequency and what is it's purity? What are the test conditions? Graphs alone say nothing, we need all the suporting data.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> @nick_charles
> What is the exact signal frequency and what is it's purity? What are the test conditions? Graphs alone say nothing, we need all the suporting data.




50 Hz, probably into 8 or 16 ohms. What do you mean "what is its purity?"

se


----------



## nick_charles

stand said:


> @nick_charles What is the exact signal frequency and what is it's purity? What are the test conditions? Graphs alone say nothing, we need all the suporting data.


 
  
 All tests were done with a 50 Hhz signal, purity ? - can you explain ? - All test conditions can be found from the Stereophile measurement pages I nabbed them from under Reviews---------Tube ----------------Power amps. All measurements were done by John Atkinson who has posted here a couple of times, the guy knows what he is doing so I cannot imagine he has compromised the results with poor procedure.
  
 The first graph is for Thöress 300B monoblock power amplifier
  
 The 2nd is the VTL Compact 160, then the last two are from the Raven Spirit


----------



## nick_charles

steve eddy said:


> 50 Hz, probably into 8 or 16 ohms. What do you mean "what is its purity?"
> 
> se


 
  
 beat me to it !


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> Yes and my universally acclaimed Oppo BDP-105D uses 32 Bit Sabre 9018 DAC's-which evidently are shunned (Head-Fi only)  for their COLD nature.
> I wish I had known that before I bought and started enjoying it. I may go out and buy a few Wolfson DAC chips to snuggle up with.  My player has separate DACS for the XLR and RCA outs (which is nice because I use the XLR to feed my RANE DEQ 60L Equalizer (Shudder) then XLR out to my Ragnarok Amp (biggest Schiit). I then use the RCA to feed my Schiit Lyr hybrid if I want a hint of tube sound).
> 
> On the other hand, the Sabre DAC's are nice to have in a heat wave.
> ...




Dead netural and transparent is the new "cold." LOL


----------



## Steve Eddy

nick_charles said:


> beat me to it !




Oops. Sorry. Didn't see you coming. 

se


----------



## nick_charles

steve eddy said:


> Oops. Sorry. Didn't see you coming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  ooh er missus !


----------



## StanD

All I saw is some graphs. Purity meaning the test signal's harmonic content. Nor was the test configuration given. GIGO. Not much infomation came with those graphs, why accept it on face value?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> Dead netural and transparent is the new "cold." LOL


 
 LOL. I wish I had known that! to be fair, there is a 3 db drop at 80 Khz which might be audible to bats. And the THD does rise to 0.005% at treble frequencies when using the analog multichannel out. 
  
  
 If I want it "warm" I can use my EQ or put cotton in my ears…or put a thick wool sock over the tweeters when using my speakers….


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> All I saw is some graphs. Purity meaning the test signal's harmonic content. Nor was the test configuration given. GIGO. Not much infomation came with those graphs, why accept it on face value?




Didn't catch the AP logo in the upper right corner?

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Didn't catch the AP logo in the upper right corner?
> 
> se


 
 Sorry but I don't look for logos as they don't give specifics.


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> LOL. I wish I had known that! to be fair, there is a 3 db drop at 80 Khz which might be audible to bats. And the THD does rise to 0.005% at treble frequencies when using the analog multichannel out.
> 
> 
> If I want it "warm" I can use my EQ or put cotton in my ears…or put a thick wool sock over the tweeters when using my speakers….




Oh, and I hear it all the time. I have the NFB-11 with the Sabre ES9018, and the NFB-15 with dual WM8741 chips gets described as warmer. *If* there is an audible difference in DAC resolution between the two models (only the DAC is different) due to some distortion, then I think people are confusing slightly better resolution for "colder" because there should be no audible variation in frequency response. It's just make no sense.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Sorry but I don't look for logos as they don't give specifics.




Suffice to say that the residual distortion of the AP's generator is far far far below the distortion products shown in the graphs.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Suffice to say that the residual distortion of the AP's generator is far far far below the distortion products shown in the graphs.
> 
> se


 
 Looks like the fundamental frequency was so low as to make me wonder as to the validity of the test.


----------



## nick_charles

stand said:


> Looks like the fundamental frequency was so low as to make me wonder as to the validity of the test.


 
  
 The 50 hz test has been used for donkey's years and SP have used it on many different types of component both analog and digital as a standard measure of quality. here is what a budget CD player does with a 50 hz tone


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Looks like the fundamental frequency was so low as to make me wonder as to the validity of the test.




What are you going on about? What do you mean the validity of the test? How does a 50 Hz test tone make it invalid?

se


----------



## arnyk

maverickronin said:


> How about things that really do sound different?
> 
> What's with SET amps being so popular?


 
  
 The first question whose necessity surprises many people, is whether or not there even are any audible differences in any particular situation.
  
 I would say that about 99% of every audio component that just about any audiophile thinks sounds different, dosn't. In fact the only part of a modern audio system that can be counted on to sound different is the loudspeakers/headphones/earphones.
  
 And this gets us to the first conundrum - the characteristic sound of any system is the mathematical product of the equations that characterize the sound of each component. If the speakers/headphones/earphones sound different then that profoundly colors the listener's judgement of the system. In short, how do you know that reality is not that only your speakers/headphones/earphones are responsible for the sound quality of your system?
  
 If every system contains headphones/earphones/loudspeakers, and all headphones/earphones/loudspeakers can be counted on to sound different, how can we possibly know that any other components actually sound different?  Is it not possible that 100% of our perceptions of differing sound quality in other components are 100% due to just the known audible differences in the  headphones/earphones/loudspeakers?
  
 So, the most probable first and commonly unmet challenge of any audiophile listening evaluation is how the fact that  headphones/earphones/loudspeakers is managed in such a way that we have reliable knowlege that other components actually sound different?


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> What are you going on about? What do you mean the validity of the test? How does a 50 Hz test tone make it invalid?
> 
> se


 
  
 The nonlinearity of audio equipment varies pretty strongly with frequency. Speakers, headphones, earphones, electronics, anything analog.
  
 Digital systems tend to have the same amount of nonlinearity at all frequencies at which they operate. However other processing that is not uncommonly done in the digital domain such as musical sound synthesis can interact with the natural frequency response limits of any digital audio system and create unexpected audible nonlinear distortion.
  
 There's a general rule that the nonlinearity of analog audio gear tends to increase as the frequency we are measuring varies away from the midrange or  the range 400 Hz - 2 KHz.
  
 So, any test of nonlinear distortion at just one frequency is a miniscule single sample of an effect that varies with frequency for which we have insufficient data to base any general quality judgments on.


----------



## arnyk

cel4145 said:


> Dead netural and transparent is the new "cold." LOL


 
  
 Agreed.
  
 The perception that Oppo equipment sounds cold is probably a great case study in how grotesquely false claims are fostered and perpetuated by the bad science and egregiously flawed listening evaluations that naive audiophiles base their purchase decisions on.
  
 The technical test results that have been posted here support the idea that Oppo equipment is generally sonically transparent and has no perceptible sound coloration of its own. 
  
 I know all to well how the abjectly ignorant and biased turn that fact into a generalization that "Oppo sounds cold".


----------



## maverickronin

steve eddy said:


> People like their sound. Simple as that. Why do I like asparagus and other people don't? It's just basic subjective preference. Nothing wrong with it at all.


 
  
 I wouldn't be so sure it's _just _that.  I'm sure that some people do really like them better but ti seems more like a long lived fad to me.  There's a whole mythology about them that touches on many areas of audiophoolery.  Off the top of my head, tubes > transistors, feedback is bad, and "simple" is better.  I'm interested in the origin of that.
  


stand said:


> Aside from subjective feelings, how and why do they sound different?


 
  
 Nothing magic.  Mostly just extra output impedance and high THD/IMD.
  


arnyk said:


> The first question whose necessity surprises many people, is whether or not there even are any audible differences in any particular situation.
> 
> I would say that about 99% of every audio component that just about any audiophile thinks sounds different, dosn't. In fact the only part of a modern audio system that can be counted on to sound different is the loudspeakers/headphones/earphones.


 
  
 That number isn't quite as high around here. Outside of this little bubble of insanity I'd agree with you, but head-fi and audiophoolery in general are full of thing designed to sound different and that show up on perfectly normal measurements of FR, THD, IMD, etc above accepted thresholds.  Things like NOS DACs or amps with >1% THD are certainly within the realm of audibility.


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> The nonlinearity of audio equipment varies pretty strongly with frequency. Speakers, headphones, earphones, electronics, anything analog.




No!! 

REALLY?!?!

Come on. You're just pulling my leg!




> Digital systems tend to have the same amount of nonlinearity at all frequencies at which they operate. However other processing that is not uncommonly done in the digital domain such as musical sound synthesis can interact with the natural frequency response limits of any digital audio system and create unexpected audible nonlinear distortion.
> 
> There's a general rule that the nonlinearity of analog audio gear tends to increase as the frequency we are measuring varies away from the midrange or  the range 400 Hz - 2 KHz.
> 
> So, any test of nonlinear distortion at just one frequency is a miniscule single sample of an effect that varies with frequency for which we have insufficient data to base any general quality judgments on.




You know, if you would have *KEPT UP WITH THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION*, something you seem incapable of doing, you would have known that the discussion was SPECIFICALLY related to SET amplifiers. Single Ended Triode tube amps if you're not familiar. And if you know anything about SET amps, you would know that the weakest link in the chain are the output transformers. and if you know anything about transformers, you would know that their performance diminishes at the lowest frequencies.

So to that end, 50 Hz is a perfectly adequate frequency to use for doing a distortion spectra plot on a SET amplifier.

If you can't reply within the context of the discussion, just keep your trap shut.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> I wouldn't be so sure it's _just_ that.  I'm sure that some people do really like them better but ti seems more like a long lived fad to me.  There's a whole mythology about them that touches on many areas of audiophoolery.  Off the top of my head, tubes > transistors, feedback is bad, and "simple" is better.  I'm interested in the origin of that.




The origin comes from typical audiophile mythology and their inability to come to grips with their subjectively preferring certain things _because[/b] of their limitations rather than in spite of them as they would prefer to believe.

se_


----------



## StanD

nick_charles said:


> The 50 hz test has been used for donkey's years and SP have used it on many different types of component both analog and digital as a standard measure of quality. here is what a budget CD player does with a 50 hz tone


 
 50 Hz? I see the trailing end of something at the extreme left end of the trace that looks way below 50 Hz. Could it be 25 Hz?


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> 50 Hz? I see the trailing end of something at the extreme left end of the trace that looks way below 50 Hz. Could it be 25 Hz?




No, the test signal is 50 Hz. Trust us.

se


----------



## maverickronin

steve eddy said:


> The origin comes from typical audiophile mythology and their inability to come to grips with their subjectively preferring certain things _because[/b] of their limitations rather than in spite of them as they would prefer to believe._


 
  
 That's were they come from in general, but I'm wondering why the mythology settled on these specifics.  I want to know why those specific memes have caught on.
  
 Is it just because their old fashioned?  Are there other circuits/topologies that date from the same times with similar performance that just failed to catch on?  (I'm too young to know that without doing some further research.)  When did they start to catch on again in "modern" times?
  
 I remember Rod Elliott making some offhand remarks in some of his technical articles about it starting with boutique manufacturers in Japan and spreading westward but that's all I know about the history.


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> That's were they come from in general, but I'm wondering why the mythology settled on these specifics.  I want to know why those specific memes have caught on.




Don't think you'll be able to trace the genesis of that. 




> Is it just because their old fashioned?  Are there other circuits/topologies that date from the same times with similar performance that just failed to catch on?  (I'm too young to know that without doing some further research.)  When did they start to catch on again in "modern" times?




There are all manner of things that play into one's subjective preferences. SET amps are from the 1920s. I think it was in the '70s that they made a comeback in Japan, and as Rod notes, caught on in the west.

se


----------



## maverickronin

steve eddy said:


> Don't think you'll be able to trace the genesis of that.


 
  
 Assuming that one hadn't followed it from the beginning, it would take quite a bit of research to say the least.
  
 It would make a pretty interesting sociological study though.


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> Assuming that one hadn't followed it from the beginning, it would take quite a bit of research to say the least.




And I would recommend learning to speak Japanese. 

You might want to get in touch with Herb Reichert. I'm sure he could fill in a lot of blanks on the US side of things.




> It would make a pretty interesting sociological study though.




I guess. I really don't see it any different than people who drive vintage cars, use fountain pens and the like.

se


----------



## maverickronin

steve eddy said:


> And I would recommend learning to speak Japanese.


 
  
 I _really _need to get back to that.  I took two semesters when I was in college.
  


steve eddy said:


> You might want to get in touch with Herb Reichert. I'm sure he could fill in a lot of blanks on the US side of things.


 
  
 I'm never really going to have time to do all that research myself.  I'm mostly just wondering if anyone's bothered to compile somewhere since I think it would be interesting reading.
  


steve eddy said:


> I guess. I really don't see it any different than people who drive vintage cars, use fountain pens and the like.


 
  
 I think it's a bit different in this case since a claim is made for their technical superiority.  In the other cases it's more about style, history, and general coolness.


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> I'm never really going to have time to do all that research myself.  I'm mostly just wondering if anyone's bothered to compile somewhere since I think it would be interesting reading.




There might be. I'd still recommend getting in touch with Herb. He might be able to point you to something like that.




> I think it's a bit different in this case since a claim is made for their technical superiority.  In the other cases it's more about style, history, and general coolness.




It's still considerably about style, history and general coolness. They just want to justify it with something more is all, when really they don't have to justify it with anything more than they like the sound. 

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> Oh, and I hear it all the time. I have the NFB-11 with the Sabre ES9018, and the NFB-15 with dual WM8741 chips gets described as warmer. *If* there is an audible difference in DAC resolution between the two models (only the DAC is different) due to some distortion, then I think people are confusing slightly better resolution for "colder" because there should be no audible variation in frequency response. It's just make no sense.



If an "authority" pronounces it "cold" then it will seem cold to susceptible listeners


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> No, the test signal is 50 Hz. Trust us.
> 
> se


 
 Then explain that line that is well below 50 Hz?


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> You know, if you would have *KEPT UP WITH THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION*, something you seem incapable of doing, you would have known that the discussion was SPECIFICALLY related to SET amplifiers. Single Ended Triode tube amps if you're not familiar. And if you know anything about SET amps, you would know that the weakest link in the chain are the output transformers. and if you know anything about transformers, you would know that their performance diminishes at the lowest frequencies.


 
  
 Recognize this, Mr. Eddy?
  

 by Nick Charles as "The 50 hz test has been used for donkey's years and SP have used it on many different types of component both analog and digital as a standard measure of quality. here is what a budget CD player does with a 50 hz tone.
  
 Friendly advice: Please be as abusive of me as it takes to make you feel better, but making false claims like this only reflects badly on the quality of your postings.


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> Then explain that line that is well below 50 Hz?


 
  
 Noise from some other source(s) in the system. It peaks at -80 dB so in the cosmic scheme of things, it isn't all that significant. One often sees such things in FFTs with linear frequency scales because below 50 Hz the frequency scale for everything down to DC is squished down so much.


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> I really don't see it any different than people who drive vintage cars, use fountain pens and the like.


 
  
 The big difference is that IME few who use fountain pens and drive vintage cars brag about their technical superiority over the modern equivalent or have carefully worked out pseudoscience "Explanations" of their purported superiority. Digital sounds hollow because of the missing space between the samples, anybody? 
  
 BTW if you want a real thrill, try driving say a vintage automobile (say a ca. 1960s muscle car) in concours condition (which is to say perfectly stock). Been there, done that. Definitely a taste that needs re-acquisition, as they impressed the #&!! out of me back in the day.  The handling of the muscle car at 65 mph will make you think you are going well over 100 in a modern econo-box sedan. The old supercars were designed to go in a straight line. This gets back to the fact that a Honda Accord fresh from the dealer will clean a Jaguar XKE's clock on any race track. 
  
 But the contests that SETs, NOS DACs, analog tape and LPs allegedly win have no stop watches or other objective measures of performance. If this were presented as a matter of taste which of course it is, I'd have no complaint. 
  
 BTW. Mr. Eddy it might help if you realized that your numerous recent vociferous personal and professional attacks on me are exactly based on  this issue. You don't see a difference between the audio religionists and car buffs, but I have enough personal experience with both and the related technologies to know the difference. The fact that I have professional credentials in both audio engineering and automotive engineering probably doesn't hurt but they are not necessary, only helpful.


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> The origin comes from typical audiophile mythology and their inability to come to grips with their subjectively preferring certain things _because[/b] of their limitations rather than in spite of them as they would prefer to believe.
> 
> se_


 
  
 I think that most who prefer old tech are simply risk adverse.  SETs, NOS DACs, and the like are more understandable to people who read the Peanut's comic strip and noticed the running jokes about Linus' blanket.


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> Noise from some other source(s) in the system. It peaks at -80 dB so in the cosmic scheme of things, it isn't all that significant. One often sees such things in FFTs with linear frequency scales because below 50 Hz the frequency scale for everything down to DC is squished down so much.


 
 So it's low freq. flotsam. In any case the harmonics are pretty low down. This amp have output transformers?


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> So it's low freq. flotsam. In any case the harmonics are pretty low down. This amp have output transformers?


 
  
 Did a little detective work and found that the test, as previously stated by the OP is of a CD player.
  
 The actual make and model are Marantz CD 5004.
  
 Confirm here:
  
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/marantz-cd5004-cd-player
  
 More specifically, figure 5. 
  
 SP has the corresponding plot for many SETs, and the ones I looked at have a similar artifact, for example:
  

  
 I believe you are winding up to make the point that the output of a device with an output transformer at DC is nil, which of course I agree with.  I therefore reiterate, it is a (familiar) artifact of the measurement technique.  The FFT has a wide enough bandwidth that it conflates a whole bunch of signals into that peak that is (mis)labelled 0 Hz.


----------



## StanD

@arnyk I thought we were discussing DACs and amps as the context. I wonder why the OP slipped in something that uses a CD player as a source rather than test equipment.


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> @arnyk I thought we were discussing DACs and amps as the context. I wonder why the OP slipped in something that uses a CD player as a source rather than test equipment.


 
  
 it wouldn't matter except for this accusatory, insulting and hateful post: http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/585#post_11741094


----------



## StanD

I'm not used to such anger between Objective people, it's more like what happens when dealing with the audiophile mob. I suspect that too much frustration has been stored up without discharging.
 OK everyone, lets kiss and make up.


----------



## krismusic

arnyk said:


> it wouldn't matter except for this accusatory, insulting and hateful post: http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/585#post_11741094



I didn't call that at the time because I did not want to inflame the thread but I thought that was atrocious. The worse kind of forum behaviour. I know Steve Eddys previous posts to be highly intelligent and well informed. I can only assume that he was having a bad day and that an apology will be forthcoming.


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> Recognize this, Mr. Eddy?
> 
> by Nick Charles as "The 50 hz test has been used for donkey's years and SP have used it on many different types of component both analog and digital as a standard measure of quality. here is what a budget CD player does with a 50 hz tone.
> 
> Friendly advice: Please be as abusive of me as it takes to make you feel better, but making false claims like this only reflects badly on the quality of your postings.




Nick only showed the CD player plot to illustrate that JA routinely used 50 Hz for different types of components both analog and digital.

Stan questioned the 50 Hz frequency in response to two plots Nick posted *OF TWO SET AMPLIFIERS* which *HAS BEEN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION FROM THE START*.

Here, let me draw you a map.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/570#post_11740695

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/570#post_11740797

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/570#post_11740826

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/570#post_11740850

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/570#post_11740851

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/585#post_11740876

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/585#post_11740876

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/585#post_11740887

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/585#post_11740896

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/585#post_11740902

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/585#post_11740953

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/585#post_11741004

Again, if you can't be bothered to keep up with the context of what's being said, then just keep your trap shut.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Then explain that line that is well below 50 Hz?




It's probably just the AP's autoranging as the signal approaches DC. JA has the plot pretty squished on the X axis. If it were stretched out, you would see that it's just a ramping up to -80 dB as it approaches DC and not a spectral peak.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Again, if you can't be bothered to keep up with the context of what's being said, then just keep your trap shut.
> 
> se


 
 Behave yourself.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Behave yourself.




No.

I'm sick of Arny's comments that are completely out of context with what is actually being discussed.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

krismusic said:


> I didn't call that at the time because I did not want to inflame the thread but I thought that was atrocious. The worse kind of forum behaviour. I know Steve Eddys previous posts to be highly intelligent and well informed. I can only assume that he was having a bad day and that an apology will be forthcoming.




No apology will be forthcoming from me. As I said, I'm sick of Arny commenting completely out of context. If he can't be bothered to read the posts and understand the context of what he is replying to, he should just shut the hell up. He's done this several times so far and it's getting tiresome. 

se


----------



## maverickronin

steve eddy said:


> I'm sick of Arny's comments that are completely out of context with what is actually being discussed.


 
  
 Kinda like a chatbot or something...


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> Kinda like a chatbot or something...




No Schiit. Though chatbots are probably able to keep up with context these days.

se


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> No.
> 
> I'm sick of Arny's comments that are completely out of context with what is actually being discussed.
> 
> se


 
  
 Interesting comment Steve given the large number of times you've used that as a pretext for personal attacks, and I've proven that the items I commented on were already part of the context that was being discussed.
  
 For example, your recent attack on a chart from Stereophile that as I've shown, someone else introduced. Not only that, but in my opinion, attacking it would be nit-picking and missing the point.
  
 At the very least Steve you could comment on just the technical content, and leave the hateful emotion, personal animus* *and professional libel out of it. Do those things really make you feel better?


----------



## upstateguy

steve eddy said:


> arnyk said:
> 
> 
> > The nonlinearity of audio equipment varies pretty strongly with frequency. Speakers, headphones, earphones, electronics, anything analog.
> ...


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> Interesting comment Steve given the large number of times you've used that as a pretext for personal attacks, and I've proven that the items I commented on were already part of the context that was being discussed.




Yeah, you proved it alright.

*Captain Queeg*: Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers...




> For example, your recent attack on a chart from Stereophile that as I've shown, someone else introduced. Not only that, but in my opinion, attacking it would be nit-picking and missing the point.




Yes, it was introduced by someone else. But if you had kept up with the context you would have known WHY it was introduced. It was introduced solely to illustrate that JA routinely used a 50 Hz test signal for distortion spectra. But this was in response to Stan's questioning the validity of 50 Hz AS IT RELATED TO THE TWO SPECTRAL PLOTS OF SET AMPS, *WHICH WAS THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION*.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

upstateguy said:


>




I think he could use some of your hair stylin' mojo. 

se


----------



## castleofargh

peace love music.


----------



## Steve Eddy

castleofargh said:


> peace love music.








se


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> Yes, it was introduced by someone else. But if you had kept up with the context you would have known WHY it was introduced. It was introduced solely to illustrate that JA routinely used a 50 Hz test signal for distortion spectra. But this was in response to Stan's questioning the validity of 50 Hz AS IT RELATED TO THE TWO SPECTRAL PLOTS OF SET AMPS, *WHICH WAS THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION*.
> 
> se


 
  
 Now Steve, entertain us by distorting any recent post of  mine in such a way that you can *prove* that I did not have that in mind when I replied.
  
 Steve you seem to have zero appreciation for the the  merit of true facts, such as the true fact that this evidence was not taken from a SET.  
  
 Had the CD player test been taken from a SET it would have been more like the actual results of a SET test that I posted. There are two or more orders of magnitude difference  (about -80 dB versus about -30 dB).
  
 You might also want to explain why you spew venom all over me, when I was not the one who introduced a plot of a CD player in a discussion of SETs. I merely pointed out the error, which was a relevant (if minor) error because of the differences in basic distortion levels of SETs (relatively high) and CD players (relatively low).
  
 All that happened is that someone asked a general question about some details on a FFT plot, and I gave one or more correct and relevant answer. Whats wrong with that?


----------



## upstateguy

steve eddy said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> Now Steve, entertain us by distorting any recent post of  mine in such a way that you can *prove* that I did not have that in mind when I replied.
> 
> Steve you seem to have zero appreciation for the the  merit of true facts, such as the true fact that this evidence was not taken from a SET.
> 
> ...




Christ, I take the time to draw you a damn map and you can't even follow that. You're absolutely hopeless.

One last time and see if you can follow along. Use your finger if it will help you.

1. The subject of SET amps was brought up by maverickronin. He wrote "How about things that really do sound different? What's with SET amps being so popular?"

2. StanD replied, asking "Aside from subjective feelings, how and why do they sound different?"

3. I replied to StanD "Combination of things ranging from distortion to frequency response aberrations."

4. Nick Chareles replied to this post by posting some distortion spectra and frequency response plots of two different *SET AMPS* from Stereophile.

5. StanD replied to Nick, asking "@nick_charles What is the exact signal frequency and what is it's purity? What are the test conditions? Graphs alone say nothing, we need all the suporting data." JUST TO REMIND YOU, THE PLOTS WERE OF TWO SET AMPS.

6. To that I replied "50 Hz, probably into 8 or 16 ohms. What do you mean 'what is its purity?'" Nick also replied that it was 50 Hz and asked about the "purity" thing as well.

7. StanD replied with "All I saw is some graphs. Purity meaning the test signal's harmonic content. Nor was the test configuration given. GIGO. Not much infomation came with those graphs, why accept it on face value?" AGAIN, STILL TALKING ABOUT THE SET AMP PLOTS.

8. I replied "Didn't catch the AP logo in the upper right corner?"

9. StanD replied "Sorry but I don't look for logos as they don't give specifics."

10. I replied "Suffice to say that the residual distortion of the AP's generator is far far far below the distortion products shown in the graphs."

11. To which StanD replied "Looks like the fundamental frequency was so low as to make me wonder as to the validity of the test." AGAIN, THE CONTEXT IS THE PLOTS FOR THE TWO SET AMPS.

12. I replied (and pay attention because this is critical) "What are you going on about? What do you mean the validity of the test? How does a 50 Hz test tone make it invalid?"

It was THAT post of mine that you replied to with this post:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/585#post_11741024

Here's the critical part, Arnie. That post of mine was in response to a post that StanD had made BEFORE Nick had introduced the CD player plot, which again, was ONLY to illustrate that JA typically used 50 Hz for distortion spectra. The post of MINE that you replied to was WHOLLY IN THE CONTEXT OF SET AMPS. Making YOUR reply to MY post *COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT WITH WHAT I HAD SIAD*.

Which puts the lie to your claim that "All that happened is that someone asked a general question about some details on a FFT plot, and I gave one or more correct and relevant answer. Whats wrong with that?"

BullSchiit. The plots they were asking questions about WERE THE SET AMP PLOTS!

Both StanD's post and my reply to it (and again, it was my post you replied to) HAD ABSOLUTELY *NOTHING* TO DO WITH THE CD PLAYER PLOT. It was COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT with what I had written.

That what's "wrong with that."

So for the last time I say, if you can't reply within the CONTEXT of what is written, keep your trap shut.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

upstateguy said:


>




BRILLIANT! You da man!

se


----------



## upstateguy

steve eddy said:


> Use your finger if it will help .....


 
  
 LOL


----------



## upstateguy

> Originally Posted by *arnyk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


 
  
 “But I really got hot / When I saw Janette Scott / Fight a triffid that spits poison and kills.”


----------



## StanD

upstateguy said:


> “But I really got hot / When I saw Janette Scott / Fight a triffid that spits poison and kills.”


 
 Isn't she a bit too old for you?


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> BRILLIANT! You da man!
> 
> se


 
 Just a friendly note to point out the obviously off-topic content that SE seems to hate so much unless...


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> Just a friendly note to point out the obviously off-topic content that SE seems to hate so much unless...




Can't even get that right. I'm all for a little off topic banter. 

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

Wow. Another thread about to fall to the Lock Monster…and if the fighting continues, I'll be forced to create yet another Audiophile Snake Oil Concept!
  
 All I can say is (thanks to StanD for this one)


----------



## StanD

Play nice, y'all is upsetting Exacoustatowner.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

Any advice on how to avoid pissing people off outside of Sound Science?
 For instance when the consensus is that a certain DAC (ESS Sabre 32 9018) is too BRIGHT when I can post FR plots showing that it is within 0.1 db all the way to 70 Khz? Someone of forum renown stated in several threads that it is BRIGHT-and that label has stuck. Of course every reviewer who actually measured it's performance in the Oppo BDP 105D raved about it in glowing terms- and so did the Golden Ears.But in the Head-Fi Subculture it is famously BRIGHT.
 I get annoyed and want to post FR, IM, THD, plots and ask them HOW it CAN be BRIGHT.  But that will lead to banning, won't it?


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Play nice, y'all is upsetting [COLOR=6A6A6A]Exacoustatowner. [/COLOR]:veryevil:




I'll say it is. He's starting to look like Martin Sheen. 

se


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Any advice on how to avoid pissing people off outside of Sound Science?
> For instance when the consensus is that a certain DAC (ESS Sabre 32 9018) is too BRIGHT when I can post FR plots showing that it is within 0.1 db all the way to 70 Khz? Someone of forum renown stated in several threads that it is BRIGHT-and that label has stuck. Of course every reviewer who actually measured it's performance in the Oppo BDP 105D raved about it in glowing terms- and so did the Golden Ears.But in the Head-Fi Subculture it is famously BRIGHT.
> I get annoyed and want to post FR, IM, THD, plots and ask them HOW it CAN be BRIGHT.  But that will lead to banning, won't it?


 
 No, I've given the tech argument for various topics of headphones, amps and DACs. Some peope get mad, the trick is not to get drawn into a name calling contest or a tennis match. In some places a mention of DBT will get you tossed, I believe that might be the Cable Worshipping forum.


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> I'll say it is. He's starting to look like Martin Sheen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 As long as it isn't *Giorgio A. Tsoukalos.*


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> No, I've given the tech argument for various topics of headphones, amps and DACs. Some peope get mad, the trick is not to get drawn into a name calling contest or a tennis match. In some places a mention of DBT will get you tossed, I believe that might be the Cable Worshipping forum.


 
 Fundamental Question: When an FR plot is posted- does it confuse people? I'm wondering if I need to actually EXPLAIN it. Explain WHAT a decibel measures, point out that NO one can hear a 0.1 db variation, etc. I've been looking at such plots for so many years I just ASSUME everyone understands the concept.
  
 The Cable Worshipping Forum is a lost cause. I've dived in to give people links on XLR cables, etc-but stick to the contention that good build quality and insulation is all that they need. But fighting is pointless.


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Fundamental Question: When an FR plot is posted- does it confuse people? I'm wondering if I need to actually EXPLAIN it. Explain WHAT a decibel measures, point out that NO one can hear a 0.1 db variation, etc. I've been looking at such plots for so many years I just ASSUME everyone understands the concept.
> 
> The Cable Worshipping Forum is a lost cause. I've dived in to give people links on XLR cables, etc-but stick to the contention that good build quality and insulation is all that they need. But fighting is pointless.


 
 I've shown FR plots. The worst part is when someone understands it yet continues spewing crazy talk about hearing something what can't be heard. If they don't understand and ask, it might be best giving a link to a description. Pick something real technical so as to confuse them into submission. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Some people think they can actually hear 0.1 dB differences, I suspect they also hear voices in their heads as well.


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> Any advice on how to avoid pissing people off outside of Sound Science?




Just leave it alone. Their subjective perceptions simply are what they are whatever the reasons. No one should ever be taken to task for their subjective perceptions. 

The problem is that in the DBT-Free Zones, people are still allowed to make objective claims without their being able to be challenged because of the DBT-Free Zone rule. It was screwed up like that the same way when it was implemented over on Audio Asylum. But the Powers That Be at both places simply don't care how nonsensical and ridiculous it is. But then both places have a vested interest in ghettoizing science and objectivity. 

se


----------



## arnyk

exacoustatowner said:


> Fundamental Question: When an FR plot is posted- does it confuse people? I'm wondering if I need to actually EXPLAIN it. Explain WHAT a decibel measures, point out that NO one can hear a 0.1 db variation, etc. I've been looking at such plots for so many years I just ASSUME everyone understands the concept.


 
  
 I don't think that your average audiophile understands fundamental concepts like frequency and amplitude well enough to profit from a frequency response curve that is presented without a lot of accompanying tutorial information. I base this on a lot of the questions and reactions that I see on audiophile forums, and also on the contents of introductory books about audio, both popular and academic.
  
 Sounds like meat for stickys.
  
 There are two layers to this problem: One layer is simply the concepts of amplitude and frequency which has been around since Helmholtz (1824-1891), and the other relates to the human perceptual meaning of those findings, which has undergone a world of upgrades in terms of relevance and detailed understanding since the mid-1980s.


----------



## arnyk

steve eddy said:


> Can't even get that right. I'm all for a little off topic banter.
> 
> se


 
  
 OK, so then why not take those of  my posts that you think are OT as "a little off topic banter"?


----------



## arnyk

exacoustatowner said:


> Any advice on how to avoid pissing people off outside of Sound Science?


 
  
 Remember how the *Lilliputians*.behaved in Gulliver's Travels.


----------



## Steve Eddy

arnyk said:


> OK, so then why not take those of  my posts that you think are OT as "a little off topic banter"?




What on earth are you talking about? When did I ever say any of your posts were off topic? 

Answer: NEVER

I HAVE said that a number of your replies to my post have been OUT OF CONTEXT with what I had written.

So which is it, Arnie? Either you don't understand the difference between OFF TOPIC and OUT OF CONTEX, or you somehow believe they are synonymous. 

Personally I think this is just some feeble attempt on your to weasel out of admitting that in several instances you have replied to posts of mine which were entirely out of context with the context in which I wrote them. So you throw up this off topic/out of context smoke screen hoping no one will notice.

Pathetic.

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> I've shown FR plots. The worst part is when someone understands it yet continues spewing crazy talk about hearing something what can't be heard. If they don't understand and ask, it might be best giving a link to a description. Pick something real technical so as to confuse them into submission.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I thought I heard a voice in my head saying "if you'd like to make a call, please hang up and try again" over and over-then I realized it was my cell phone!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

arnyk said:


> I don't think that your average audiophile understands fundamental concepts like frequency and amplitude well enough to profit from a frequency response curve that is presented without a lot of accompanying tutorial information. I base this on a lot of the questions and reactions that I see on audiophile forums, and also on the contents of introductory books about audio, both popular and academic.
> 
> Sounds like meat for stickys.
> 
> There are two layers to this problem: One layer is simply the concepts of amplitude and frequency which has been around since Helmholtz (1824-1891), and the other relates to the human perceptual meaning of those findings, which has undergone a world of upgrades in terms of relevance and detailed understanding since the mid-1980s.


 
 Good points. I always thought FR plots were the simplest to understand-but was wrong. I've from time to time seen plots I was not familiar with-and a quick search was all it took to define terms- 
 I suppose supporting verbiage such as "with a +0.1 db FR from 20-20 Khz" this device is as neutral as you can get" might be helpful. "Yes, but authority A proclaimed the DAC "BRIGHT" so it CANNOT be used with my Senn HD800's-unless I buy a WARM AC cord…." The Dimwitte AC Gold power cord TAMED the brightness (of the DAC with the +0.1 db FR."


----------



## uchihaitachi

exacoustatowner said:


> Good points. I always thought FR plots were the simplest to understand-but was wrong. I've from time to time seen plots I was not familiar with-and a quick search was all it took to define terms-
> I suppose supporting verbiage such as "with a +0.1 db FR from 20-20 Khz" this device is as neutral as you can get" might be helpful. "Yes, but authority A proclaimed the DAC "BRIGHT" so it CANNOT be used with my Senn HD800's-unless I buy a WARM AC cord…." The Dimwitte AC Gold power cord TAMED the brightness (of the DAC with the +0.1 db FR."




Oh God, all this DAC and cable matching to 'tame the treble' of the HD800 is just hilarious.

Use copper!!!


----------



## arnyk

exacoustatowner said:


> Good points. I always thought FR plots were the simplest to understand-but was wrong. I've from time to time seen plots I was not familiar with-and a quick search was all it took to define terms-
> I suppose supporting verbiage such as "with a +0.1 db FR from 20-20 Khz" this device is as neutral as you can get" might be helpful. "Yes, but authority A proclaimed the DAC "BRIGHT" so it CANNOT be used with my Senn HD800's-unless I buy a WARM AC cord…." The Dimwitte AC Gold power cord TAMED the brightness (of the DAC with the +0.1 db FR."


 
  
 Given that almost all audiophiles base their opinions and purchase decisions on casual audiophile sighted evaluations with their built-in huge propensity for false positive results, in their minds and experiences all things are possible.
  
 It takes a proper listening test for people to hear that the same sound is in fact the same sound. Otherwise, there are too many influences that bias listeners to hear differences no matter what.  
  
 Until they have the personal experience, phrases like "Sonic transparency" and "+/- 0.1 dB frequency response" have no actual meaning.


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Good points. I always thought FR plots were the simplest to understand-but was wrong. I've from time to time seen plots I was not familiar with-and a quick search was all it took to define terms-
> I suppose supporting verbiage such as "with a +0.1 db FR from 20-20 Khz" this device is as neutral as you can get" might be helpful. "Yes, but authority A proclaimed the DAC "BRIGHT" so it CANNOT be used with my Senn HD800's-unless I buy a WARM AC cord…." The Dimwitte AC Gold power cord TAMED the brightness (of the DAC with the +0.1 db FR."


 
 One can always warm their cord in the oven.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> One can always warm their cord in the oven.


 
 Good thinking!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

arnyk said:


> Given that almost all audiophiles base their opinions and purchase decisions on casual audiophile sighted evaluations with their built-in huge propensity for false positive results, in their minds and experiences all things are possible.
> 
> It takes a proper listening test for people to hear that the same sound is in fact the same sound. Otherwise, there are too many influences that bias listeners to hear differences no matter what.
> 
> Until they have the personal experience, phrases like "Sonic transparency" and "+/- 0.1 dB frequency response" have no actual meaning.



I spend my days working in Science collecting data, and typically create graphs to understand the results. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that most people have not done that outside of a High School or College.
So a little extra explaining might help. Not to say any of this is beyond the average person-but without some grounding it's easier to mislead them with Snake Oil.
I've leaned from the forum and revisited myself with James Clerk Maxwell and friends, and started reviewing Electromagnetism after many years. 
Along the way I've re-invented Snake Oils by seeing how the Physics CAN be misconstrued. After reading some of the claims on product websites it is very clear that most of them are designed to fool the under informed.
My Audiofoolery is mainly to keep me from getting grumpy/banned on the more Voodoo sections of the forum.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

uchihaitachi said:


> Oh God, all this DAC and cable matching to 'tame the treble' of the HD800 is just hilarious.
> 
> Use copper!!!



Use copper! Everyone knows it's "warmer" than Silver alloys! Copper is reddish after all. 
Some cheap audio cables use Red plastic for the positive and Black for the Negative. The two colors when blended give a muddy color-which is why they sound bad!
Audiophile cables blend copper (warm) with silver (cold) to create a neutral sound


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Use copper! Everyone knows it's "warmer" than Silver alloys! Copper is reddish after all.
> Some cheap audio cables use Red plastic for the positive and Black for the Negative. The two colors when blended give a muddy color-which is why they sound bad!
> Audiophile cables blend copper (warm) with silver (cold) to create a neutral sound


 
 And using a _*fiber*_ link (TOS) thickens the sound. Sounds plausible.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> And using a _*fiber*_ link (TOS) thickens the sound. Sounds plausible.



Now you are on to it!


----------



## StanD

In  word, _Huh_?
http://www.head-fi.org/t/711824/hifiman-he-560-impressions-discussion-thread/13650#post_11742838


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> In  word, _Huh_?
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/711824/hifiman-he-560-impressions-discussion-thread/13650#post_11742838



Are you "huh-ing" at the SS amp with carefully added distortion to make it musical?
See by deliberately making the amp sound like a 1960's AM radio you lose that silly transparency and....
Then Magic happens


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Are you "huh-ing" at the SS amp with carefully added distortion to make it musical?
> See by deliberately making the amp sound like a 1960's AM radio you lose that silly transparency and....
> Then Magic happens


 
 Sounds like someone wants to introduce some clipping. They could simply go to Guitar Center and buy a fuzz box.


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> Use copper! Everyone knows it's "warmer" than Silver alloys! Copper is reddish after all.
> Some cheap audio cables use Red plastic for the positive and Black for the Negative. The two colors when blended give a muddy color-which is why they sound bad!
> *Audiophile cables blend copper (warm) with silver (cold) to create a neutral sound*


 
  
 Exactly !  Then heat the audiophile cables in the oven until they reach precisely 88°C.  And if my calculations are correct, once those babies hit 88°C... you're gonna hear some serious schitt.


----------



## StanD

upstateguy said:


> Exactly !  Then heat the audiophile cables in the oven until they reach precisely 88°C.  And if my calculations are correct, once those babies hit 88°C... you're gonna hear some serious schitt.


 
 What temp should I set my oven if I cook with teflon cables?


----------



## Steve Eddy

upstateguy said:


> Exactly !  Then heat the audiophile cables in the oven until they reach precisely 88°C.  And if my calculations are correct, once those babies hit 88°C... you're gonna hear some serious schitt.








se


----------



## maverickronin

stand said:


> What temp should I set my oven if I cook with teflon cables?


 
  
 Keep it under 300C or it may start outgassing some rather nasty stuff.


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> Keep it under 300C or it may start outgassing some rather nasty stuff.


 
 That's why I cook on Stainess Steel.


----------



## uchihaitachi

exacoustatowner said:


> Use copper! Everyone knows it's "warmer" than Silver alloys! Copper is reddish after all.
> Some cheap audio cables use Red plastic for the positive and Black for the Negative. The two colors when blended give a muddy color-which is why they sound bad!
> Audiophile cables blend copper (warm) with silver (cold) to create a neutral sound




Audio Alchemy at its finest.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

upstateguy said:


> Exactly !  Then heat the audiophile cables in the oven until they reach precisely 88°C.  And if my calculations are correct, once those babies hit 88°C... you're gonna hear some serious schitt.


 
 Upstate. That's just plain silly. You heat them until they reach 98.6 degrees F (37 C) if you want true neutrality- your cables will be REALLY WARM-and not suitable for Audeze Headphones.
 Unless you are using Silver Fuses to tame the excess Warmth?


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> Upstate. That's just plain silly. You heat them until they reach 98.6 degrees F (37 C) if you want true neutrality- your cables will be REALLY WARM-and not suitable for Audeze Headphones.
> Unless you are using Silver Fuses to tame the excess Warmth?




But I want some serious Schiit. And for that it needs to be 88°C. No Schiit.

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

steve eddy said:


> But I want some serious Schiit. And for that it needs to be 88°C. No Schiit.
> 
> se



Well then BE unreasonable! Just use Silver fuses.


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> Well then BE unreasonable! Just use Silver fuses.






se


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> steve eddy said:
> 
> 
> > But I want some serious Schiit. And for that it needs to be 88°C. No Schiit.
> ...


 
  
 Ah, the same old same old, EQing by fuse.


----------



## StanD

upstateguy said:


> Ah, the same old same old, EQing by fuse.


 
 Once I saw a 1 bit microprocessor and thought, what the heck would one use that for? After a moment it came to me, a microprocessor controlled fuse blower.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

upstateguy said:


> Ah, the same old same old, EQing by fuse. :evil:



It was a surprise to learn I should use cables and fuses to EQ!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

Perhaps cables , power cords , and fuses should be given FR ratings? 
It would make it easier to know how to mix and match. Eyes rolling....


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> Perhaps cables , power cords , and fuses should be given FR ratings?
> It would make it easier to know how to mix and match. Eyes rolling....


 
  
 You make an interesting point ET. 
  
 Without proper FR curves for cables, power cords, and fuses, it might be possible to put together a combination of ingredients that inadvertently null each other out.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

upstateguy said:


> You make an interesting point ET.
> 
> Without proper FR curves for cables, power cords, and fuses, it might be possible to put together a combination of ingredients that inadvertently null each other out. :rolleyes:



Exactly! Warm Power Cord A, Neutral Fuse, cold DAC, Warm Amp? Endless Possibilities!


----------



## uchihaitachi

All this audiophile alchemy makes me chuckle, and feel sorry for the people's wallets.
  
 It's akin to buying a monitor (screen in this case), and instead of changing the brightness, saturation settings etc. you try to change it by switching around HDMI cables, power cords and so on. Sigh.......


----------



## StanD

OK guys, time to switch topics or this will become the Objectivists *Bored* Room


----------



## RRod

http://instantrimshot.com/
 (i should make a HiResRimshot.com)


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> http://instantrimshot.com/
> (i should make a HiResRimshot.com)


 
 Is that availble in hires and SACD?


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> Is that availble in hires and SACD?


 
  
 and vinyl.


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> and vinyl.


 
 I have a Shure V-15 Type 2 cartridge, too bad they don't make a stylus for it anymore. No OEM stylus, only some 3rd party parts.


----------



## upstateguy

stand said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > and vinyl.
> ...


 
  
 The only cartridge I have is my Stanton 681 EEE


----------



## analogsurviver

upstateguy said:


> The only cartridge I have is my Stanton 681 EEE


 
 At last - something useful.
  
 Oldie but goldie.


----------



## uchihaitachi

http://m.jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548

What do you think of this paper?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

upstateguy said:


> The only cartridge I have is my Stanton 681 EEE



Holy Moly! I had one of those in the previous millennium! It was really tough on those silvery plastic groove less discs.


----------



## StanD

uchihaitachi said:


> http://m.jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548
> 
> What do you think of this paper?


 
 I don't see how this measures an appreciation for real music. So what if there is a physiological effect, that doesn't mean it affects our normal appreciation for music. If I burn my hand there will be a physiological effect and it will affect my appreciation for many different things. I think ABX testing with real music is the way to go, just don't burn any body parts in the process.


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> http://m.jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548
> 
> What do you think of this paper?


 
  
 IIRC a few other people tried to replicate it and failed.  I think when they tried to replicate it they used separate speakers for audible sounds and ultrasound and concluded that Oohashi's results were caused by the subjects hearing <20KHz IMD from the speaker when the ultrasonics were added.  Don't remember the cites though so this could just be a misremember confabulation.  A lot of virtual ink has been spilled on that paper though so you could probably turn up the facts if you patient enough to wade through the crap you probably get searching his name.
  
 Even if was true though you'd need to test it with real music like StanD said.


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> IIRC a few other people tried to replicate it and failed.  I think when they tried to replicate it they used separate speakers for audible sounds and ultrasound and concluded that Oohashi's results were caused by the subjects hearing <20KHz IMD from the speaker when the ultrasonics were added.  Don't remember the cites though so this could just be a misremember confabulation.  A lot of virtual ink has been spilled on that paper though so you could probably turn up the facts if you patient enough to wade through the crap you probably get searching his name.
> 
> Even if was true though you'd need to test it with real music like StanD said.


 
 No problem. Real music with above 20 kHz content.
  
 I am STILL recording like crazy -  or preparing for the recording(s). Once this surge subdues to anything like normal level, there will be samples posted.
  
 Here my very first GoPro camera recording of a concert - stereo mike feed into GoPro Hero 2 camera. Once de-fish-eyed and with proper sound, it should look and listen "a bit" differently - yet it is up to the performers - whether to deal with the expense to do so - or not... In any case, I will post the original DSD128 file too.


----------



## arnyk

analogsurviver said:


> No problem. Real music with above 20 kHz content.
> 
> I am STILL recording like crazy -  or preparing for the recording(s). Once this surge subdues to anything like normal level, there will be samples posted.
> 
> Here my very first GoPro camera recording of a concert - stereo mike feed into GoPro Hero 2 camera. Once de-fish-eyed and with proper sound, it should look and listen "a bit" differently - yet it is up to the performers - whether to deal with the expense to do so - or not... In any case, I will post the original DSD128 file too.




  
 Unfortunately, the room acoustics and the microphone technique are not on the same page. Sounds tizzy.


----------



## analogsurviver

arnyk said:


> Unfortunately, the room acoustics and the microphone technique are not on the same page. Sounds tizzy.


 





  
 I is the sound *as recorded by the GoPro HERO 2 camera* - with the automatic gain riding all the time, stereo separation that is next to non-existant, etc, etc - it is NOWHERE near the true sound of either the hall or the recording proper.
  
 Here another month or so old concert of the same duo in another church, made from MP3 192 kbps ( for playing on the national radio - they never give even this "hirez" MP3 to the performers if they are doing the recording ... ).  Here, they were positioned quite differently ( almost in line, for all practical purposes almost zero left-right spread ) - and the difference DSD128 makes in such instances as regards the depth of image is - staggering. This one will also be posted as DSD128 :


----------



## arnyk

analogsurviver said:


> I is the sound *as recorded by the GoPro HERO 2 camera* - with the automatic gain riding all the time, stereo separation that is next to non-existant, etc, etc - it is NOWHERE near the true sound of either the hall or the recording proper.
> 
> Here another month or so old concert of the same duo in another church, made from MP3 192 kbps ( for playing on the national radio - they never give even this "hirez" MP3 to the performers if they are doing the recording ... ).  Here, they were positioned quite differently ( almost in line, for all practical purposes almost zero left-right spread ) - and the difference DSD128 makes in such instances as regards the depth of image is - staggering. This one will also be posted as DSD128 :




 Much better.
  
 Too bad you have such lack of respect for the benefits of things that are essential such as good micing and demonstrate such abject worship for things that don't matter like DSD128.


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> Much better.
> 
> Too bad you have such lack of respect for the benefits of things that are essential such as good micing and demonstrate such abject worship for things that don't matter like DSD128.


 
 You forgot his admiration of CD Mats, weird cables and so on.


----------



## nick_charles

maverickronin said:


> IIRC a few other people tried to replicate it and failed.  I think when they tried to replicate it they used separate speakers for audible sounds and ultrasound and concluded that Oohashi's results were caused by the subjects hearing <20KHz IMD from the speaker when the ultrasonics were added.  Don't remember the cites though so this could just be a misremember confabulation.  A lot of virtual ink has been spilled on that paper though so you could probably turn up the facts if you patient enough to wade through the crap you probably get searching his name.
> 
> Even if was true though you'd need to test it with real music like StanD said.


 
  
 The main challenge to Oohashi comes from http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=10005 - I had an email interchange with Ashihara , he did a jitter audibility paper 
  
 but wait ooohashi has gone and done a follow up...Linky


----------



## StanD

nick_charles said:


> The main challenge to Oohashi comes from http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=10005 - I had an email interchange with Ashihara , he did a jitter audibility paper
> 
> but wait ooohashi has gone and done a follow up...Linky


 
 Did miss anything or was there any proof that this affects our perception of music or it is simply a physiological manifestation of being zapped with ultrasonics. I'm sure if a high enough level is blasted at us we might feel ill and that might affect more than our perception of music


----------



## analogsurviver

arnyk said:


> Much better.
> 
> Too bad you have such lack of respect for the benefits of things that are essential such as good micing and demonstrate such abject worship for things that don't matter like DSD128.


 
 Oh - I can be accused of *ANYTHING* but the lack of respect of things such as good miking. A well placed mike and Sony WMD-6(C) pro cassette walkman
 http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/sony/wm-d6c.shtml
 would drive the nonexistent theorethically perfect recorder with just slightly worse positioned mike right into the ground ...
  
 If others had gone anywhere near the lengths I went regarding microphones and their positioning, they would have realised the benefits of DSD128 - and up - long ago. DSD256 is commercially available, DSD512 is on the horizon. Eagerly anticipated ...
  
 Anyway, the two recordings posted from YT can be truly appreciated only in DSD128 - or, to a slightly lesser extent - in PCM 192/24 .  Will be done when time will be available.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Did miss anything or was there any proof that this affects our perception of music or it is simply a physiological manifestation of being zapped with ultrasonics. I'm sure if a high enough level is blasted at us we might feel ill and that might affect more than our perception of music


 
 Did you - EVER - feel _zapped by ultrasonics _during the live concert involving harpsichord ? Harpsichord can hardly be classified as a LOUD instrument ..
  
 It IS the instrument that has the most ultrasonic output within the range up to approx 50 kHz ( the current limit of my mics/recorders at the present time ).
  
 I agree more research/proof will have to be done - yet there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that limiting the harpsichord to CD redbook is detrimental to the realistic SQ of the instrument. From the DSD128 masters that will be posted, you can bounce it down to "whatever" - and hear it for yourselves.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Did you - EVER - feel _zapped by ultrasonics _during the live concert involving harpsichord ? Harpsichord can hardly be classified as a LOUD instrument ..
> 
> It IS the instrument that has the most ultrasonic output within the range up to approx 50 kHz ( the current limit of my mics/recorders at the present time ).
> 
> I agree more research/proof will have to be done - yet there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that limiting the harpsichord to CD redbook is detrimental to the realistic SQ of the instrument. From the DSD128 masters that will be posted, you can bounce it down to "whatever" - and hear it for yourselves.


 
 Back to making more unsubstantiated claims. If the military has an ultrasonic weapon, I'll bet it's not for the enjoyment of music but you may feel its effect. Perhaps they might have new applications for harpsichords.


----------



## nick_charles

analogsurviver said:


> Did you - EVER - feel _zapped by ultrasonics _during the live concert involving harpsichord ? Harpsichord can hardly be classified as a LOUD instrument ..
> 
> It IS the instrument that has the most ultrasonic output within the range up to approx 50 kHz ( the current limit of my mics/recorders at the present time ).
> 
> I agree more research/proof will have to be done - yet there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that limiting the harpsichord to CD redbook is detrimental to the realistic SQ of the instrument. From the DSD128 masters that will be posted, you can bounce it down to "whatever" - and hear it for yourselves.


 
  
 The Balinese Gamelan goes up to 50K as well and a muted trumpet can also get there http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm- high frequency sound can indeed induce nausea
  
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2001/crr01343.pdf


----------



## uchihaitachi

So all in all, there has been no scientifically validated evidence that lack of ultrasonic frequencies reduce the 'realism' of instruments?


----------



## nick_charles

uchihaitachi said:


> So all in all, there has been no scientifically validated evidence that lack of ultrasonic frequencies reduce the 'realism' of instruments?


 
  
 In short no and in fact DBT listening tests run by JVC engineers on low pass filters back in the late 70s suggested that a cut-off at 20K was not detectable


----------



## analogsurviver

nick_charles said:


> The Balinese Gamelan goes up to 50K as well and a muted trumpet can also get there http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm- high frequency sound can indeed induce nausea
> 
> http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2001/crr01343.pdf


 
 Sure - I did post the Boyk  link several times in the past, I merely stated the instrument that is relatively widespread and known to general audience and can be listened to on relatively regular intervals in any given series of classical music concerts. No need to travel to Bali ( or few places that have a true gamelan in their inventory).
  
 Muted trumpet and some other instruments can go beyond 100 kHz - but as VERY few microphones and recorders can reach that high ( DSD256 and PCM 384/24 can go to approx 100 kHz, but not beyond - at least not "flat" ) - I tried to "limit" the frequency response to approx 50 kHz - which is technically far easily achievable and MUCH more realistic to encounter in better recordings.


----------



## analogsurviver

nick_charles said:


> In short no and in fact DBT listening tests run by JVC engineers on low pass filters back in the late 70s suggested that a cut-off at 20K was not detectable


 
 Interesting - JVC of all people; who gave the world quadrophonic CD-4 analog record, which requires at least 45 kHz at "flat" response in order to read the carrier for demodulator - and who made one of the best phono cartridges ever - JVC X-1 .  Which is DAMN flat to 50 kHz and slightly beyond - and proved to be superior to "stereo only" carts on normal stereo material - among many others that followed suit.
  
 I regard JVC very highly - they did contribute immensely to binaural - even if and when today this feature survives only in their camcorders.
  
 The tests of people behind the Ionovac tweeter came, interestingly, to the exactly OPPOSITE conclusion regarding cut-off above 20 khz.


----------



## maverickronin

nick_charles said:


> The main challenge to Oohashi comes from http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=10005 - I had an email interchange with Ashihara , he did a jitter audibility paper
> 
> but wait ooohashi has gone and done a follow up...Linky


 
  
 Thanks for the references.
  
 Also thank PLOS One, since I'll actually get to read one of these for once...


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Back to making more unsubstantiated claims. If the military has an ultrasonic weapon, I'll bet it's not for the enjoyment of music but you may feel its effect. Perhaps they might have new applications for harpsichords.


 
 Military would MUCH sooner use _infra _- rather than ultrasonic weapons. 
  
 Whales, who can actually produce SPLs in the range of 150 dB+, can communicate with extremely low frequencies over distances beyond 40.000 km - because the sound has to propagate trough the water, has to go "around" the continents ( and islands) - and because low frequencies sustain the minimum loss of SPL across the distance.
  
 Shoot me with an ultrasonic shooter - by raising a common book or similar object and placing it in the line of "fire", it gets blocked. The higher the frequency, the more this is true. That is why there are optical systems on some speakers - to actually allow the optimum positioning of the tweeters in relation to the listener's ears. If you can't see the tweeter - you can not hear it ( speaker grilles that are acoustically transparent yet do not pass light are here excepted ).
  
 Harpsichord is an OLD instrument and MUCH of the current production tries to mimic the instruments of the bygone periods the best they possibly can with today available materials and knowledge. Thankfully, it can not be used as a weapon - not as you are trying to suggest.


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> Whales, who can actually produce SPLs in the range of 150 dB+, can communicate with extremely low frequencies over distances beyond 40.000 km - because the sound has to propagate trough the water, has to go "around" the continents ( and islands) - and because low frequencies sustain the minimum loss of SPL across the distance.


 
  
 Which would mean the operator would be injured by their own weapon. You's need to make some kind of hilariously impractical subwoofer bomb since there's no way to aim it...
  
  





  
  
  
 Back here in reality, sonic weapons are generally meant to be less than lethal weapons for civilians or crowd control by police or military when public relations dictates the they're not allowed to shoot everyone and let god sort them out.
  
 Amusingly, discounting how they'd ever actually be deployed even if they got them to work,  infrasound weapons have been researched by the US military but the tests don't even seem to have gotten to the stage of causing discomfort yet.  Of course our military will throw money at anything so it's not all that unexpected.  The lab tests of ultrasonic weapons are proceeding much more smoothly and if they get it working, there's already a proven way to deploy it.


----------



## castleofargh

"X is better than Y because it has moooarrrrrr ultrasounds"
         -analogsurviver


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Military would MUCH sooner use _infra _- rather than ultrasonic weapons.
> 
> Whales, who can actually produce SPLs in the range of 150 dB+, can communicate with extremely low frequencies over distances beyond 40.000 km - because the sound has to propagate trough the water, has to go "around" the continents ( and islands) - and because low frequencies sustain the minimum loss of SPL across the distance.
> 
> ...


 
 Perhaps you would be happier as a hybrid WhaleBat. Just say'in.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Perhaps you would be happier as a hybrid WhaleBat. Just say'in.


 
 Hybrid WhaleBats! Love them. Whales are popular today- From the Voodoo Less Cable Thread"
 " 


upstateguy said:


> My speaker cables are not twisted.  Just stuck together from the roll they came on.  Do they sound any different than yours?


 
 Yes. Bass drums will sound like constipated whale farts and have too much grunt! Also they are more prone to Demonic Possession and distortion. You may hear malevolent laughter in quiet passages.
 Not to worry- for only $19.95 I can send you a tuned crystal to prevent any issues.
 Answer: not in any way affecting audibility if you care for reality based answers.
Edited by Exacoustatowner - Today at 7:52 am View History


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you would be happier as a hybrid WhaleBat. Just say'in.
> ...


 
  
 LOL, how did the fart post get into this thread???


----------



## Exacoustatowner

upstateguy said:


> LOL, how did the fart post get into this thread???



StanD mentioned WhaleBat hybrids. Synchronicity


----------



## nick_charles

analogsurviver said:


> The tests of people behind the Ionovac tweeter came, interestingly, to the exactly OPPOSITE conclusion regarding cut-off above 20 khz.


 
  
 Also interesting, do you have a link ?


----------



## StanD

upstateguy said:


> LOL, how did the fart post get into this thread???


 
  
  


exacoustatowner said:


> StanD mentioned WhaleBat hybrids. Synchronicity


 
 So now it's blame Stan.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> So now it's blame Stan. :veryevil:



Yes! All your fault. Also Upstateguy for wanting to know if my vintage twisted pair speaker cable sounded better than his parallel leads off the spool cable. Next he will want signal measurements-as if THAT was relevant to sound!


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Yes! All your fault. Also Upstateguy for wanting to know if my vintage twisted pair speaker cable sounded better than his parallel leads off the spool cable. Next he will want signal measurements-as if THAT was relevant to sound!


 
 Yuo will have find a way to incorporate a CD Mat in your tests.


----------



## analogsurviver

nick_charles said:


> Also interesting, do you have a link ?


 
 No, memory from well before the internet age - good ol' audio press. But I will try to excavate some - given time.


----------



## nick_charles

analogsurviver said:


> No, memory from well before the internet age - good ol' audio press. But I will try to excavate some - given time.


 
  
  
 Found some stuff at Roger Russell's site


----------



## analogsurviver

nick_charles said:


> Found some stuff at Roger Russell's site


 
 Yes, most of those pics are like a good friend not seen for ages. Thanks !
  
 I am signing OFF; the windjammers for mics for tomorrow's big push have been delayed in the mail, and I will have to work overnight - if required. Will be back Sunday - after I get some sleep and rest. This will be no ordinary run of the mill recording ...


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > So now it's blame Stan.
> ...


 
  
 You didn't measure it ?


----------



## StanD

upstateguy said:


> You didn't measure it ?


 
 That's your assigned task. For enhanced accuracy, make sure you sit on a CD Mat when making the measurements.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

Quote:


upstateguy said:


> You didn't measure it ?



 Quote:


stand said:


> That's your assigned task. For enhanced accuracy, make sure you sit on a CD Mat when making the measurements.


 
 I also have a double thick SACD Mat if that helps. I did measure mine with my multimeter. I put the negative probe in my ear and the positive probe on the negative lead of my speaker cable. Was that right? Also, I have a QUANTUM tuned Quartz Crystal to measure piezoelectric distortion.
 TDD (Total Demonic Distortion) can be measured using a grail cup filed with Holy Water-you measure the distance between the standing waves. Really strong Demonic distortion can manifest with voices and sometimes music- it might masquerade as strong RFI from a nearby Radio Station.


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > So now it's blame Stan.
> ...


 
  
 You didn't measure it ? 


stand said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't measure it ?
> ...


 
  
  


exacoustatowner said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> upstateguy said:
> ...


 
  
 I only have one question:  is that one CD mat for each cheek, one CD mat for both cheeks or one double thick SACD mat for one cheek and let the other one hang?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

upstateguy said:


> You didn't measure it ?
> 
> 
> 
> I only have one question:  is that one CD mat for each cheek, one CD mat for both cheeks or one double thick SACD mat for one cheek and let the other one hang?


 
 See it's attention to  details that earns you my Audiophile respect! Most would have overlooked that and having overhang can lead to imbalances in the measurements-and possibly allow the demon to escape to inhabit some other nearby audio gear! I have specially made CD Mats-one for each cheek.


----------



## StanD

Not to break with the mirth but here's an interesting piece of not understanding the basics.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/685162/new-vali-schiit-amp/4770#post_11756512


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Not to break with the mirth but here's an interesting piece of not understanding the basics.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/685162/new-vali-schiit-amp/4770#post_11756512


 
 I forgive you! My old Denon Receiver has a variable "loudness" control to compensate for bass insensitivity at low volumes.


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> I forgive you! My old Denon Receiver has a variable "loudness" control to compensate for bass insensitivity at low volumes.


 
 Seems we are covering loudness buttons/controls in more than one thread (Schiit Vali).


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Seems we are covering loudness buttons/controls in more than one thread (Schiit Vali).


 
 I said much the same-but observation of others tells me it is dangerous to mention real acoustic properties on non-sound science threads.


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> I said much the same-but observation of others tells me it is dangerous to mention real acoustic properties on non-sound science threads.


 
 You would have better luck convincing zombies.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> You would have better luck convincing zombies.


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > Not to break with the mirth but here's an interesting piece of not understanding the basics.
> ...


 

 my old denon receiver has the button.....


----------



## StanD

upstateguy said:


> my old denon receiver has the button.....


 
 I just turn up the volume.


----------



## headdict

exacoustatowner said:


> I forgive you! My old Denon Receiver has a variable "loudness" control to compensate for bass insensitivity at low volumes.



Are there any headphone amps with such useful controls?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> I just turn up the volume.


 
 Me too!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> You would have better luck convincing zombies.


 
 Reaction to Gold Pressed Latinum Headphone Cables….


----------



## StanD

headdict said:


> Are there any headphone amps with such useful controls?


 
 Probably not, however, if your source has EQ, you can deal with it that way.


----------



## castleofargh

stand said:


> headdict said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any headphone amps with such useful controls?
> ...


 

 that's what I do, I go V shaped at low level to keep it "alive", or often just use a V shaped IEM.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> that's what I do, I go V shaped at low level to keep it "alive", or often just use a V shaped IEM.


 
 I use my Graphic EQ if need be for speaker listening-with Headphones I just increase the volume.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> that's what I do, I go V shaped at low level to keep it "alive", or often just use a V shaped IEM.


 
 I prefer a neutral IEM or headphone and I just push up the sub bass, below 100 Hz with EQ, gotta love Neutron's parametric EQ. I find that U or V shaped makes voices and instruments seem more distant.


----------



## uchihaitachi

I have been searching through the forums and there seems to be a whole lot of misinformation regarding the best electrostatic amps for the Stax, and very little objective data to go by... 
  
 Having seen one good article about a French group performing blind tests, the Woo Wee seems to be a good option along with a speaker/headphone amp. 
  
 I was wondering if any of objectivists here could recommend a (measurements wise excellent) power amp to use with the woo wee and the Stax SR009. The only requirement being that the power amp needs to be equal or greater to 3W. 
  
 Thanks!
  
 Or if anybody could suggest better alternatives for products with scientifically validated data! Feedback will be greatly appreciated!


----------



## davidsh

How much volume do you think you need? Can you link the article?


----------



## uchihaitachi

davidsh said:


> How much volume do you think you need? Can you link the article?


 
 This was the blind test
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/681814/amplifiers-shootout-for-stax-009-eddie-current-electra-audiovalve-rkv-wooaudio-wee-stax-srm727-srm007t2
  
  
 the product for Woo Wee is
  
 http://www.wooaudio.com/products/wee.html
  
 I just want maximum transparency.
  
 Thanks again.


----------



## davidsh

I would rather put my faith in an amp such as the 323 than the woo wee + speaker amp for transparency though I do not know. Try asking Kevin Gilmore and perhaps Spritzer about some measurements and thoughts.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Is the 323 better than the 7 series


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> I have been searching through the forums and there seems to be a whole lot of misinformation regarding the best electrostatic amps for the Stax, and very little objective data to go by...


 
  
 Walking into this no man's land again huh?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Again, I wish I could could help you, but as you've found there's very little data to go by since they're pretty uncommon and difficult to measure.  Not even professional audio analyzers will take a 'stat amps full output without a voltage divider.
  
 If you trust Stax's specs and you don't listen at ear-bleeding volumes then the SRM-252 _should_ be fine.  The 323 and 727 have higher voltage swing if you do listen louder.  Also, for 'stat amps you not need to worry about tubes if they're only used as the output stage.  They're much more linear into that kind of load than they are in a "normal" amp.  I got a used SRM-T1S because it's one of the newest Stax amps that has both normal and pro bias outputs, but with my 202s and 207s I can't really say I can tell a difference between it and my 252S.  I can't say the same thing about any conventional tube amps that I've heard.


----------



## uchihaitachi

maverickronin said:


> Walking into this no man's land again huh?
> 
> Again, I wish I could could help you, but as you've found there's very little data to go by since they're pretty uncommon and difficult to measure.  Not even professional audio analyzers will take a 'stat amps full output without a voltage divider.
> 
> If you trust Stax's specs and you don't listen at ear-bleeding volumes then the SRM-252 _should_ be fine.  The 323 and 727 have higher voltage swing if you do listen louder.  Also, for 'stat amps you not need to worry about tubes if they're only used as the output stage.  They're much more linear into that kind of load than they are in a "normal" amp.  I got a used SRM-T1S because it's one of the newest Stax amps that has both normal and pro bias outputs, but with my 202s and 207s I can't really say I can tell a difference between it and my 252S.  I can't say the same thing about any conventional tube amps that I've heard.




A lot of people seem to say the Stax 7 series amps are sub par. Is this marketing gimmick or actually the case in your experience?


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> A lot of people seem to say the Stax 7 series amps are sub par. Is this marketing gimmick or actually the case in your experience?


 
  
 I haven't heard those so I couldn't say.  I believe that the 727 removed a feedback loop that was present in the 717 as some kind of audiophool marketing ploy but it seemed to have backfired because most people don't like either.  I don't really know if it makes an audible difference though.  Last time I checked, the distortion specs for all Stax's amps (including the 727) are the same, presumably because the measure them while driving an actual headphone which would overshadow whatever the amp itself was contributing.


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> I haven't heard those so I couldn't say.  I believe that the 727 removed a feedback loop that was present in the 717 as some kind of audiophool marketing ploy but it seemed to have backfired because most people don't like either.  I don't really know if it makes an audible difference though.  Last time I checked, the distortion specs for all Stax's amps (including the 727) are the same, presumably because the measure them while driving an actual headphone which would overshadow whatever the amp itself was contributing.


 
 Are you assuming that they measure the audible output? Because one measures distortion electrically at the output of the amp. What kind of a load does an electrostatic present to an amp?


----------



## maverickronin

stand said:


> Are you assuming that they measure the audible output? Because one measures distortion electrically at the output of the amp. What kind of a load does an electrostatic present to an amp?


 
  
 I'm assuming electrically, while driving a headphone, but I don't really know for sure what the load would do to the amp's performance.  That made the most sense to me since all of their amps are specs at .01% THD driving an actual Stax  headphone.  I'm not an EE and 'stats are uncommon enough there no "for dummies" that explain the technical details from the ground up like for dynamic drivers and their amps.     I do know electrostatic transducers are essentially just capacitors that happen to make noise.  What should it do into an almost purely capacitive load?


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> I'm assuming electrically, while driving a headphone, but I don't really know for sure what the load would do to the amp's performance.  That made the most sense to me since all of their amps are specs at .01% THD driving an actual Stax  headphone.  I'm not an EE and 'stats are uncommon enough there no "for dummies" that explain the technical details from the ground up like for dynamic drivers and their amps.     I do know electrostatic transducers are essentially just capacitors that happen to make noise.  What should it do into an almost purely capacitive load?


 
 The SR-009 has 110 pF including the cable. Probably nothing to lose sleep over.


----------



## davidsh

An electrostat present a purely capacitive load to the amp. Some amps might fall short when reproducing high frequencies at high amplitude due to the current requirenments. I doubt that'd be a problem with most music to be honest and voltage swing is probably the primary concern.


----------



## uchihaitachi

I am struggling on whether I should spend the extra on the head-fi approved (not that it means much) amps for the SR009 or just go with the stock Stax SR007. 
  
 I am buying a new Stax kit for the UK and the lack of any quantifiable data on Stax amps is killing me


----------



## StanD

davidsh said:


> An electrostat present a purely capacitive load to the amp. Some amps might fall short when reproducing high frequencies at high amplitude due to the current requirenments. I doubt that'd be a problem with most music to be honest and voltage swing is probably the primary concern.


 
 Actually excess capacitance can prevent a proper voltage swing at higher frequencies due to the fact that the available output current integrates on the capacitance and limits the slew rate or slope. 
 In the simplest form dv/dt = i/C
 I doubt that this is an issue for a quality product as the designers and users would have noticed the effects long ago for any such amp.


----------



## jcx

if the question is measuring ES amp's audio performance numbers then you need a ~500:1 Capacitor Voltage Divider - Polystyrene are as good as it gets (Teflon being squishy is more microcphonic, and has poor availability)
  
 the C seen at the ES output should be similar to a ES headphone load - at least as much as a Resistor is compared to a dynamic headphone Z
  
 then you likely need a buffer too before your soundcard or a pro audio analyzer
  
 not real hard but if you've rolled your own someone will object to the quality - it is hard to verify


----------



## maverickronin

jcx said:


> if the question is measuring ES amp's audio performance numbers then you need a Capacitor Voltage Divider - Polystyrene are as good as it gets (Teflon being squishy is more microcphonic, and has poor availability)
> 
> the C seen at the ES output should be similar to a ES headphone load - at least as much as a Resistor is compared to a dynamic headphone Z
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yeah, not like it's impossible or anything.  It just doesn't fit into anyone's plug 'n go test routines for anything else which combined with it's relative rarity give us the paucity of objective data that we're bemoaning...


----------



## Don Hills

stand said:


> Actually excess capacitance can prevent a proper voltage swing at higher frequencies due to the fact that the available output current integrates on the capacitance and limits the slew rate or slope.
> In the simplest form dv/dt = i/C
> I doubt that this is an issue for a quality product as the designers and users would have noticed the effects long ago for any such amp.


 
  
 It's not generally an issue when listening to music either. I don't know of any music which hits 0dBfs above 10 KHz or so.


----------



## davidsh

Looking at the 252 it outputs 280 volt RMS. Driving a lambda of 140 pF, 20kHz at full voltage swing would require a peak current of almost 7mA. I doubt the 252 can deliver that. 
What is the max current capability of the different Stax amps? I know the kgsshv comes in different versions ranging from 7-14 mA max current.


----------



## StanD

davidsh said:


> Looking at the 252 it outputs 280 volt RMS. Driving a lambda of 140 pF, 20kHz at full voltage swing would require a peak current of almost 7mA. I doubt the 252 can deliver that.
> What is the max current capability of the different Stax amps? I know the kgsshv comes in different versions ranging from 7-14 mA max current.


 
 Then again do you need full power at 20 KHz? That could hurt.


----------



## castleofargh

+1, what music has anything remotly close to 0db @20khz? 
 no need.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Then again do you need full power at 20 KHz? That could hurt.



Ouch! Damage ahead!!


----------



## analogsurviver

To everybody; the effects of current limiting , phase shift, etc caused by the pure capacitance of the electrostatic drivers in any amp are measurable/visible/audible LONG before the actual output on the scope gets into the trouble.
  
 The only real answer would be infinite power amp - which is a practical impossibility. If one goes with feedback only from the cathode resistor ( which does not force the front end of the amp to try to compensate the frequency response loss, sooner or later hitting the maximum voltage swing for that input section, making instantly 100+ % distortion ), one has to resort to ENORMOUS currents - which certainly CAN kill. Spec for my amp : each output amp, 4 in total, can swing in excess of 60 mA. Yep, that's 240+ mA on your head - and no, it is not marketable - at all. In storage since 1999, as I decided to trade my expected longivity for massive drop in SQ by going Stax...SRM1MK2 if anyone particularly interested.
  
 Everything else I know of works with overall feedback OFF THE OUTPUT - which WILL force the input into total overload sooner than later. One can try and build the front end with enormously "over engineered" voltage swing ( like replacing semiconductors with tubes with power supply line(s) say an order of magnitude greater than SS - to allow for the voltage swing needed in the highs ). This works quite well - if engineered/designed correctly.
  
 You can forget looking for these data/info/measurements in the press or online - I have yet to see published anything beyond Heymeyer and Sanders ESL amps from The Audio Amateur - and even that showed only the output of the amp. Once you measure how grossly overloaded can be input of an electrostatic amp when called upon to reproduce real music ( it can not be expressed as "anything" - how much THD, IMD, ETC, is a signal that is clipped at half or less the amplitude it should have reached in order for the output of the amp to be correct ???) - you will know that measuring the output of an amp is only half of the story.
  
 Which WILL force you to rethink the cables - ANY decrease of cable capacitance gives the electrostatic 
 amp an MUCH easier life. 
  
 This objectivist thing is myopic in EXACTLY the same degree as those subjectivists negating anything objective - one has to get the grasp of the problem to see what it takes for anything to perform properly. In context of electrostatics, 110 pF for 009 is NOT insignificant - because those 110 pF are everything, there is no resistive or inductive component of the impedance worth mentioning. I do not have access to the 009 - but I can give you the figures for the Lambda Pro; overall 142 pF, driver 58 pF - the rest is the cable ... Newer "low capacitance cables" have achieved reduction of approx 25 pF.


----------



## StanD

Looks like it's back to WhaleBats and CD Mats.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I just love it when someone has no education in EE and loves to spread their _knowledge_.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> Looks like it's back to WhaleBats and CD Mats.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 God bless the interwebz; never fails:


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> God bless the interwebz; never fails:


 
 If only you could find a picture of it eating CD Mats.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> If only you could find a picture of it eating CD Mats.


 
  
 Even whalebats don't fall for *every* gimmick.


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> Even whalebats don't fall for *every* gimmick.


 
 That's more than you can say for many audiophiles.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

rrod said:


> God bless the interwebz; never fails:



That's great! I love Whalebat watching! Although It's a little dangerous when they are chasing flying insects.


----------



## limpidglitch

exacoustatowner said:


> That's great! I love Whalebat watching! Although It's a little dangerous when they are chasing flying insects.


 
  
 How's that line… "looks like a fish, moves like a fish, steers like a cow"?


----------



## StanD

limpidglitch said:


> How's that line… "looks like a fish, moves like a fish, steers like a cow"?


 
 Hears like a Bat on a CD Mat.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

limpidglitch said:


> How's that line… "l[COLOR=252525]ooks like a fish, moves like a fish, steers like a cow"?[/COLOR]



That's the most common saying about Whalebats!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

I'm going to invent more Audiophile pseudoscience if someone does not post a legitimate question soon!
Probably something on "bright" power cables


----------



## maverickronin

exacoustatowner said:


> I'm going to invent more Audiophile pseudoscience if someone does not post a legitimate question soon!
> Probably something on "bright" power cables


 
  
  
 Hikaru objects...


----------



## nick_charles

maverickronin said:


> Hikaru objects...


 
  
  
 The real Hikaru does not seem bothered


----------



## StanD

You hear the one about the WhaleBat that joined a Gypsy Band. He plays the Extended Bass while sitting on a CD Mat.


----------



## maverickronin

nick_charles said:


> The real Hikaru does not seem bothered


 
  
 I was all like "What!?" but wiki to the rescue.
  
Quote: 





> Sulu having the first name 'Hikaru' appeared in a 1981 novel, well over a decade after the original series had ended.


 
  
 No wonder I missed it.  I only really ever got into TNG anyway...


----------



## castleofargh

I guess I need a shirt saying this:
  
I
              
  
                                                        stargate SG1
  
  
 it would go well with that one


----------



## Exacoustatowner

maverickronin said:


> Hikaru objects...


 
 What do you mean? The sound above 40 Khz is way too rolled off!!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> You hear the one about the WhaleBat that joined a Gypsy Band. He plays the Extended Bass while sitting on a CD Mat.


 
 That a good one! I have all his recordings. I play the record at 2000 RPM so I can enjoy the 100 Khz fundamentals!


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> That a good one! I have all his recordings. I play the record at 2000 RPM so I can enjoy the 100 Khz fundamentals!


 
 Math doesn't add up.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

analogsurviver said:


> Math doesn't add up.



Your right! Sloppy. Assuming a 1000 hz fundamental would be 1000 hz at 33 1/3 RPM it would be 10 KHz at 330.33 RPM and 100 KHz at 3330.33 RPM. Unless I'm wrong. Of course the G forces would not be conducive to tracking.


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> Your right! Sloppy. Assuming a 1000 hz fundamental would be 1000 hz at 33 1/3 RPM it would be 10 KHz at 330.33 RPM and 100 KHz at 3330.33 RPM. Unless I'm wrong. Of course the G forces would not be conducive to tracking.


 
 G forces would indeed be "a bit" too much. It is hard at normal RPMs for the stylus to track 100 kHz - takes extremely low effective mass models.
  
 Not a joke; Technics EPC-P100CMK4 cartridge with 0.055 mg ( about one third/fourth of anything available today ) stylus effective mass can go "flat" to 120 kHz - and does not stop there. And, although accidentally, 122 kHz bias frequency from the analog recorder has been at least once successfully transferred to the analog master disc.
  
 Yes, under these turbo extremely favourable conditions, bandwidth of analog record indeed is "flat" to 120 khz or so. Cartridges that could do it can be counted on less than fingers of one hand - and are today extremely hard to come by.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

analogsurviver said:


> G forces would indeed be "a bit" too much. It is hard at normal RPMs for the stylus to track 100 kHz - takes extremely low effective mass models.
> 
> Not a joke; Technics EPC-P100CMK4 cartridge with 0.055 mg ( about one third/fourth of anything available today ) stylus effective mass can go "flat" to 120 kHz - and does not stop there. And, although accidentally, 122 kHz bias frequency from the analog recorder has been at least once successfully transferred to the analog master disc.
> 
> Yes, under these turbo extremely favourable conditions, bandwidth of analog record indeed is "flat" to 120 khz or so. Cartridges that could do it can be counted on less than fingers of one hand - and are today extremely hard to come by.


 
 Analog!
 Holy Mackerel Batboy! Dang. Not sure what good it does for us lowly Humans.  But this guy will LOVE it!  I'd be happy with 20-20 Khz-although I probably can't hear past 16 kHz these days.


----------



## arnyk

exacoustatowner said:


> Analog!
> Holy Mackerel Batboy! Dang. Not sure what good it does for us lowly Humans.  But this guy will LOVE it!  I'd be happy with 20-20 Khz-although I probably can't hear past 16 kHz these days.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

arnyk said:


>


 
 Wow! Perhaps he is Batboys Uncle?


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> Analog!
> Holy Mackerel Batboy! Dang. Not sure what good it does for us lowly Humans.  But this guy will LOVE it!  I'd be happy with 20-20 Khz-although I probably can't hear past 16 kHz these days.


 
 Hehe, that means you have yet to experience a really good turntable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - as noted before, hearing capability of pure sine tone past 10 kHz NOT required to allow one to appreciate the overall difference.
  
 HiRez, one sort or another, is coming close - and may exceed the ultimate analog is capable of in near future.


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> Hehe, that means you have yet to experience a really good turntable
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yup.  Plenty of clicks, pops, and distortion below 10KHz.


----------



## davidsh

What again was the good thing about 20+kHz? Ear induced IMD? Something that we perhaps don't even know of?

So how do we conclude anything from this discussion? One simply has to pick a belief?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

davidsh said:


> What again was the good thing about 20+kHz? Ear induced IMD? Something that we perhaps don't even know of?
> 
> So how do we conclude anything from this discussion? One simply has to pick a belief?



It's very helpful to any bats that may be listening-gives them better localization


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> What again was the good thing about 20+kHz? Ear induced IMD? Something that we perhaps don't even know of?
> 
> So how do we conclude anything from this discussion? One simply has to pick a belief?


 
 One thing is certain - in nature, there is no filtering above 20 kHz ( except through distance in air - which can give us the information of the depth of the sonic image ).
  
 Reasoning is simple - if most, if not all sound is recorded and reproduced, it should mimic the real thing the closest.
  
 Ear induced IM, if it really occurs, should be exactly the same "problem" with live music - I have yet to hear of somebody complaining about any instrument that does exceeed 20 kHz to sound "wrong" live.
  
 CD/Redbook is a limited presentation of reality - having less noise than the real thing itself, which DOES include components above 20 kHz. At low, but not inaudible or, if you wish, imperceptible and insignificant levels - which gives just enough clue between the sound heard live and , say, CD. 
  
 CD is more "perfect" than reality - and is therefore unnatural sounding. It is a sort of "soundshop". One single recording session in situ should disspell the myth that anything above 20 kHz is meaningless - for good.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> One thing is certain - in nature, there is no filtering above 20 kHz ( except through distance in air - which can give us the information of the depth of the sonic image ).
> 
> Reasoning is simple - if most, if not all sound is recorded and reproduced, it should mimic the real thing the closest.


 
 By this argument, I could claim that a TV doesn't truly have good image quality unless it also reproduces my image in the ultraviolet. Just because something is there in real life doesn't mean it is necessary for a high-fidelity reproduction if we can't sense it.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cjl said:


> By this argument, I could claim that a TV doesn't truly have good image quality unless it also reproduces my image in the ultraviolet. Just because something is there in real life doesn't mean it is necessary for a high-fidelity reproduction if we can't sense it.


 
My hi Fi video just blinded me and gave me a lethal dose of radiation while I watched a program on Solar Flares!


----------



## icebear

*lethal*  ...oh com'on you are exaggerating, or is it your spirit typing still on the forum


----------



## maverickronin

icebear said:


> *lethal*  ...oh com'on you are exaggerating, or is it your spirit typing still on the forum


 
  
 A lethal dose of radiation rarely kills you instantly.  It usually means you're certain to die slowly and painful.
  
 But while we're on this subject, it's a good thing TV's don't simulate gravity either.  That would make it a bad day when someone flips on a documentary about black holes...


----------



## Exacoustatowner

icebear said:


> *lethal*  ...oh com'on you are exaggerating, or is it your spirit typing still on the forum



As Macerick pointed out it takes awhile.
Early symptoms have my music sounding "thin" "cold" and lacking in rhythm. All early signs of "Digititus". A short term remedy is to use exotic power cords- but they can only warm the music to a certain degree without catching fire!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

maverickronin said:


> A lethal dose of radiation rarely kills you instantly.  It usually means you're certain to die slowly and painful.
> 
> But while we're on this subject, it's a good thing TV's don't simulate gravity either.  That would make it a bad day when someone flips on a documentary about black holes...



My HFi system has a gravity generator. However I had my power cord heated to warm the sound and the current surge when the Graviton Field kicked in melted the power cord.
Anyone have a work around? Someone suggested limiting it to 2 G's would help.


----------



## davidsh

I'd love if my tv could give me a nice tan, or perhaps even my computer screen


----------



## jcx

LED backlit monitors have been accused of using too short wavelength blue LED, of course by someone wanting to sell you a solution: http://www.benq.com/microsite/eye-care-monitors/lbl.html


----------



## castleofargh

jcx said:


> LED backlit monitors have been accused of using too short wavelength blue LED, of course by someone wanting to sell you a solution: http://www.benq.com/microsite/eye-care-monitors/lbl.html


 

 yeah the problem with blue dominant screens is only as long as you can't calibrate it and it has a serious gamut limitation.
 also blue light is said to make people less sleepy(great for job not so much to browse in our bed until 4am) ^_^.
  
 but else they're right that too many screens are blue-ish. it annoys me a lot that android doesn't use a color profile thing by default.


----------



## StanD

davidsh said:


> I'd love if my tv could give me a nice tan, or perhaps even my computer screen


 
 Perhaps you can find an old TV with a CRT and turn up the high voltage for some extra xrays.


----------



## davidsh

stand said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love if my tv could give me a nice tan, or perhaps even my computer screen
> ...



See, that'd be fun. Gives tube rolling a hole new meaning. I think the electricity would kill me first, though. Got zapped 3 times in a row by my stax amp not long ago


----------



## headwhacker

cjl said:


> By this argument, I could claim that a TV doesn't truly have good image quality unless it also reproduces my image in the ultraviolet. Just because something is there in real life doesn't mean it is necessary for a high-fidelity reproduction if we can't sense it.


 
  
 Perhaps that's how 3D works. The extra frequency gives the depth perception


----------



## Exacoustatowner

So I decided to take my Lyr on a road trip since I've no portable to drive my HiFIMan HE-560's. All on CD right now. So I dug out my 1990 ish portable Sony and hooked up a mini plug with two RCA couplers to the Lyr.
It actually sounds pretty good for such a silly setup. 
What if I compare it to my Oppo BDP 105D and it sounds as good?
How could a 1990's portable measure up?
I'm not set up for double blind...


----------



## Don Hills

stand said:


> Perhaps you can find an old TV with a CRT and turn up the high voltage for some extra xrays.


 
  
 The blue phosphor in CRT displays emits a significant amount of near UV light. Very noticeable in a darkened room, when the TV goes to "blue screen" in the absence of signal any fluorescent objects nearby light up.


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> So I decided to take my Lyr on a road trip since I've no portable to drive my HiFIMan HE-560's. All on CD right now. So I dug out my 1990 ish portable Sony and hooked up a mini plug with two RCA couplers to the Lyr.
> It actually sounds pretty good for such a silly setup.
> What if I compare it to my Oppo BDP 105D and it sounds as good?
> How could a 1990's portable measure up?
> I'm not set up for double blind...


 
 That's right, you don't have two CD Mats.


----------



## nick_charles

exacoustatowner said:


> So I decided to take my Lyr on a road trip since I've no portable to drive my HiFIMan HE-560's. All on CD right now. So I dug out my 1990 ish portable Sony and hooked up a mini plug with two RCA couplers to the Lyr.
> It actually sounds pretty good for such a silly setup.
> What if I compare it to my Oppo BDP 105D and it sounds as good?
> How could a 1990's portable measure up?
> I'm not set up for double blind...


 
  
 If we work on the basis that any two competent digital playback devices should neither add nor subtract from the signal given but just extract it and amplify it correctly then at a certain point if level matched they will both have insufficient noise/distortion levels to be audible. Two devices with inaudible noise/distortion and without audible timing errors should therefore be indistinguishable. So if we exclude the possibility of vague/magical/undefinable/unmeasurable differences then it would be eminently possible for two devices to be indistinguishable. The question then arises at what level do the noise/distortions/timing errors become inaudible.
  
 From what I can gather from a lot of scratching around humans are actually pretty bad at detecting noise/distortion/timing errors - thus it is not difficult to design/build devices that would be perceptibly transparent. Do any vintage PCDPs manage this? Sadly we have little data on this as few were ever properly measured - the infamous radioshack optimus PCDP turned out to be pretty unremarkable by modern terms and bad on some levels. Some very expensive DACs and CD players measure *appallingly* to the point where they are probably distinguishable..
  
 The elephant in the room is that the levels of distortion from headphones/speakers are generally *massively* worse than any competent piece of digital kit so perhaps potentially audible differences may be subsumed by the *relatively* poor performance of the end transducers, for instance my DT880s have a spec of 0.2% distortion and my HD580s 0.1% distortion, both far worse than the specified distortion on my cheapo SMSL DAC and Amp...


----------



## cel4145

Over in the newbie forum, this guy claims that he hears a bit of a channel imbalance in the bass frequencies across multiple computers, dacs, and headphones: http://www.head-fi.org/t/775567/headphone-stereo-image-not-centered#post_11785068. Always on the left side. 

Tried to explain that expectation bias could be what is going on, but it didn't take. Maybe someone else might want to have at it


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Over in the newbie forum, this guy claims that he hears a bit of a channel imbalance in the bass frequencies across multiple computers, dacs, and headphones: http://www.head-fi.org/t/775567/headphone-stereo-image-not-centered#post_11785068. Always on the left side.
> 
> Tried to explain that expectation bias could be what is going on, but it didn't take. Maybe someone else might want to have at it


 
 Earwax.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Earwax.




ROFL


----------



## icebear

nick_charles said:


> If we work on the basis that any two competent digital playback devices should neither add nor subtract from the signal given but just extract it* and amplify it correctly *then at a certain point if level matched they will both have insufficient noise/distortion levels to be audible. Two devices with inaudible noise/distortion and without audible timing errors should therefore be indistinguishable. So if we exclude the possibility of vague/magical/undefinable/unmeasurable differences then it would be eminently possible for two devices to be indistinguishable. The question then arises at what level do the noise/distortions/timing errors become inaudible.
> ...


 
 I guess that you are pretty much spot on that nowadays distortion levels are so low that they are irrelevant for claiming any differences in sound. And I guess further that the major difference is the analog section that amplifies what the DAC chip spits out. Here the designer has the possibilities to voice and trim the sound of their whole package.
  
 As for the influence of amplification:
 I was not convinced that an amp can have a major influence, that was until I got a First Watt M2. This inherently simple circuit seems so much faster than my previous amp (sold shortly afterwards), it is a revelation. Switching back from the First Watt to the old amp, it was indeed night and day. My wife who was sitting in a 90 deg angle to left speaker, so way out of the sweet spot spontaneously said "What just happened, where is the sound stage?" All the plankton that gives you the ambient room information about the acoustic space of the recording had gone missing. (Friday Night at San Francisco, redbook CD). And btw the M2 has 0.05% THD, so nothing to brag about but apparently there are more important properties in this design than distortion figures.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

nick_charles said:


> If we work on the basis that any two competent digital playback devices should neither add nor subtract from the signal given but just extract it and amplify it correctly then at a certain point if level matched they will both have insufficient noise/distortion levels to be audible. Two devices with inaudible noise/distortion and without audible timing errors should therefore be indistinguishable. So if we exclude the possibility of vague/magical/undefinable/unmeasurable differences then it would be eminently possible for two devices to be indistinguishable. The question then arises at what level do the noise/distortions/timing errors become inaudible.
> 
> From what I can gather from a lot of scratching around humans are actually pretty bad at detecting noise/distortion/timing errors - thus it is not difficult to design/build devices that would be perceptibly transparent. Do any vintage PCDPs manage this? Sadly we have little data on this as few were ever properly measured - the infamous radioshack optimus PCDP turned out to be pretty unremarkable by modern terms and bad on some levels. Some very expensive DACs and CD players measure *appallingly* to the point where they are probably distinguishable..
> 
> The elephant in the room is that the levels of distortion from headphones/speakers are generally *massively* worse than any competent piece of digital kit so perhaps potentially audible differences may be subsumed by the *relatively* poor performance of the end transducers, for instance my DT880s have a spec of 0.2% distortion and my HD580s 0.1% distortion, both far worse than the specified distortion on my cheapo SMSL DAC and Amp...


 
 Good points Nick! I did some sighted A/B last night with calibrated expectation bias . The other inequality besides the inexpensive 20 year old built in DAC is that I was using the built in headphone amplifier in the portable CD player to output the signal via the headphone out since there was no line level out on the Sony Car Ready Walkman D-EJ368CK. As such my biased listening found it to not sound as good as the OppoBDP-105D output to the Ragnarok via balanced XLR connections. All that said-as a portable sound source I'd say it's not bad!


----------



## bfreedma

cel4145 said:


> Over in the newbie forum, this guy claims that he hears a bit of a channel imbalance in the bass frequencies across multiple computers, dacs, and headphones: http://www.head-fi.org/t/775567/headphone-stereo-image-not-centered#post_11785068. Always on the left side.
> 
> Tried to explain that expectation bias could be what is going on, but it didn't take. Maybe someone else might want to have at it




I tried, but somehow I suspect it won't be any better received than your well expressed responses.

Could be time to call on a headphone exorcist . Maybe I'll hang out a shingle and offer those services.... A potion made of eye of newt, directional cable, and whalebat blubber ought to do the trick.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

bfreedma said:


> I tried, but somehow I suspect it won't be any better received than your well expressed responses.
> 
> Could be time to call on a headphone exorcist . Maybe I'll hang out a shingle and offer those services.... A potion made of eye of newt, directional cable, and whalebat blubber ought to do the trick.




No joke!  I introduced the up and coming scourge of Demonic Possession for Audiophile Audio cables as an explanation why cables that have no "reality based" reason for sounding better ( as 2nd party cables ALWAYS do) lift the veil off the sound.
It's Total Demonic Distortion (% TDD).
Whalebat blubber repels Demons and Eye of Newt is really helpful against Gremlins.
You are on the right track. I can hear a 0.1 db roll off at 50 KHz btw by the well known problem of reverse harmonic distortion where the absence of ultrasonic overtones affects audible sound.


----------



## StanD

The universal cure for audiophiles and WhaleBats suffering from stuffed ear canals.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> The universal cure for audiophiles and WhaleBats suffering from stuffed ear canals.



It should be included with every $500 pair of cables!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

Disclosure: I extended my stock "Crystalline Copper-Silver" HiFIMan cables with a 6 foot Radio Shack (Copper) extender. Oddly I did not hear thin flabby bass...
Granted it was a sighted evaluation.


----------



## davidsh

exacoustatowner said:


> Disclosure: I extended my stock "Crystalline Copper-Silver" HiFIMan cables with a 6 foot Radio Shack (Copper) extender. Oddly I did not hear thin flabby bass...
> Granted it was a sighted evaluation.



Reversed expectation bias. You have to not believe not to believe, but neither must you believe.

I think we ought to step up the exorcism with some SACD mats on the cheeks.


----------



## cel4145

bfreedma said:


> I tried, but somehow I suspect it won't be any better received than your well expressed responses.




We'll see how he responds to my audio bass mites infestation idea. :evil:


----------



## Exacoustatowner

davidsh said:


> Reversed expectation bias. You have to not believe not to believe, but neither must you believe.
> 
> I think we ought to step up the exorcism with some SACD mats on the cheeks.



Thanks I think you are 100% right! I'll try the SACD mats. Is it important to rub Whalebat blubber on the pads for good contact?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> We'll see how he responds to my audio bass mites infestation idea. :evil:



Audio bass mites! A small demonic infestation may weaken the resistance to bass mites. It can lead to thin sound and bass flatulence!


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Audio bass mites! A small demonic infestation may weaken the resistance to bass mites. It can lead to thin sound and bass flatulence!


 
 You want thin sound, use heatshrink tubing instead of wires for the ultimate in high impedance cables.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> You want thin sound, use heatshrink tubing instead of wires for the ultimate in high impedance cables.



Audiophile grade heat shrink tubing! Very high impedance from non conductors can lead to very thin sound! Have you published this?


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Audiophile grade heat shrink tubing! Very high impedance from non conductors can lead to very thin sound! Have you published this?


 
 Not yet, I have to complete my research. Should be no problem finding deaf test subjects around _hear_.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Not yet, I have to complete my research. Should be no problem finding deaf test subjects around _hear_.



Ha ha! Let me know if I can help with new pseudoscience. If they get a few glowing reviews touting their sonic purity people will believe they are hearing sound!
As you know real physics has no place in Audiophile enclaves


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> Audiophile grade heat shrink tubing! Very high impedance from non conductors can lead to very thin sound! Have you published this?




I thought the idea was to have loose fitting shields, like the Clearview interconnects:



And then you have to be careful how you break them in. Apparently the wrong sound can hurt the cables:



> WARNING: DO NOT USE ANY BREAK-IN DEVICES OF ANY KIND ON OUR WIRES! They will seriously degrade the sound. Use only music to break in our cables.



http://shop.mapleshadestore.com/Clearview-Double-Helix-Digital-Interconnect-with-PLUS-upgrade/productinfo/DHDIC-PL/

So I guess movie watching is out of the question.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> I thought the idea was to have loose fitting shields, like the Clearview interconnects:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Perhaps you can watch "The Terminator" because cables have terminations.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> I thought the idea was to have loose fitting shields, like the Clearview interconnects:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent! It's clear to me that physics does not apply to audiophile products the way it does to the rest of the world. That leaves Metaphysical and Supernatural influences.
Some break in product may offend the spirits whereas music might please the spirits!


----------



## Mambosenior

Wonder if the copy writer of the nonsense above knew the history of the word:

"...*fluffing*. You can do this by blowing..."

This may be the only correct (non-bullschiit) statement in the whole ad.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> I thought the idea was to have loose fitting shields, like the Clearview interconnects:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can watch old Musicals. Thanks for sharing! This an amazing add! Most have a mix of reality and snake oil- this one is almost pure BS. I'm tempted to send them my congrats on the absence of physics. They do suggest not laying them alongside power cables- which may be the single time they make sense.


----------



## StanD

How does a DAC have Bass that is strong? It must be magic.
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/711824/hifiman-he-560-impressions-discussion-thread/13830#post_11801546


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> How does a DAC have Bass that is strong? It must be magic.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/711824/hifiman-he-560-impressions-discussion-thread/13830#post_11801546




I don't know. I'm still trying to understand the "magic" of timbre (to borrow from your reply to this): 



ffbookman said:


> You can tell the difference between a guitar, a piano, a violin, and a synthesizer playing the same note right?  Even if you cut off the beginning and end of the note (where lots of the clues are) most of us can still tell.
> 
> Why is that?  It's the same frequency.  I think you know. It's called timbre and there's no measuring it. There's no formula and it doesn't easily show itself on a waveform.


----------



## StanD

DAC Magic manifests itself in many ways. Smoothes treble, PRaT, eases sibalence, etc. Where do they come up with this?


----------



## earthpeople




----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> DAC Magic manifests itself in many ways. Smoothes treble, PRaT, eases sibalence, etc. Where do they come up with this?



My + .1 db from 20-20 KHz DAC Sabre 9810 32 bit is "bright" according to Head Fi common knowledge. It's no problem for me-I just wear sunglasses while listening. Evidently Whalebats make up a significant proportion of the audiophile populace.


----------



## StanD

I wonder if one can pull a DAC out of that hat?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> I wonder if one can pull a DAC out of that hat?



Only if it's an audiophile grade hat


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> I wonder if one can pull a DAC out of that hat?




Are you a cat? It takes a cat from the hat to pull a DAC from a hat.


----------



## cjl

exacoustatowner said:


> My + .1 db from 20-20 KHz DAC Sabre 9810 32 bit is "bright" according to Head Fi common knowledge. It's no problem for me-I just wear sunglasses while listening. Evidently Whalebats make up a significant proportion of the audiophile populace.


 
 To be fair, I've had some pretty bright electronics before. I don't understand the modern trend to put blinding blue LED indicators on everything...


----------



## maverickronin

cjl said:


> To be fair, I've had some pretty bright electronics before. I don't understand the modern trend to put blinding blue LED indicators on everything...


 
  
 I agree.  I have to put tape over the power lights on most everything nowadays...


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Are you a cat? It takes a cat from the hat to pull a DAC from a hat.


 
 Did you have green eggs and ham for breakfast?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cjl said:


> To be fair, I've had some pretty bright electronics before. I don't understand the modern trend to put blinding blue LED indicators on everything...



That's why the sunglasses help!


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Did you have green eggs and ham for breakfast?




No. But I had a muffin with butter and grape jelly served on a CD Mat. Does that count?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> No. But I had a muffin with butter and grape jelly served on a CD Mat. Does that count?



Is say yes!


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> Did you have green eggs and ham for breakfast?


 
  
  


cel4145 said:


> No. But I had a muffin with butter and grape jelly served on a CD Mat. Does that count?


 
 Only if you ate the CD Mat.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Only if you ate the CD Mat.




If I ate it, then how would I use it as my "putter" for disc golf?


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> If I ate it, then how would I use it as my "putter" for disc golf?


 
 You'll have to make a difficult choice, golf has to go.


----------



## uchihaitachi

uchihaitachi said:


> canadianmaestro said:
> 
> 
> > who cares about downing and screening for diffs? I just enjoy da music.
> ...


 
  
  
 This was in response to high res audio. My comment was deleted as it was thread crapping, flame-bait or trolling...


----------



## RRod

uchihaitachi said:


> This was in response to high res audio. My comment was deleted as it was thread crapping, flame-bait or trolling...


 
  
 Don't worry, I got a comment deleted to there. We're not allowed to discuss such things outside of the Sound Science pillory.


----------



## maverickronin

The inmates have been running the asylum for quite a while already...


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> The inmates have been running the asylum for quite a while already...


 
 Reminds me of  "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." I think they used Electrostatic headphones to give inmates "shockers. (ECT)"


----------



## maverickronin

stand said:


> Reminds me of  "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." I think they used Electrostatic headphones to give inmates "shockers. (ECT)"


 
  
 Let me disconnect the positive from the right, the negative from the left, and see how well that works.
  
 Do you think I'll need to upgrade from an SRM-T1S to a BHSE to finally cure my depression?  It has bigger tubes so it has to be better.  Right?


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> Let me disconnect the positive from the right, the negative from the left, and see how well that works.
> 
> Do you think I'll need to upgrade from an SRM-T1S to a BHSE to finally cure my depression?  It has bigger tubes so it has to be better.  Right?


 
 Sorry to tell you, you're on headfi, there is no help.


----------



## maverickronin

stand said:


> Sorry to tell you, you're on headfi, there is no help.


 
  
 Abandon hope all ye who enter here?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

maverickronin said:


> Let me disconnect the positive from the right, the negative from the left, and see how well that works.
> 
> Do you think I'll need to upgrade from an SRM-T1S to a BHSE to finally cure my depression?  It has bigger tubes so it has to be better.  Right?



Only if you upgrade your power cords.


----------



## cel4145

Someone posted this in the intro/recommendations forum yesterday:



synnnn said:


> Hi All
> 
> New to the forums here *insert roll eyes here*. Have tried to spent considerable (office) time reading stuff and been trying to make some sense of all the cable discussions. Including about expensive power cables, ethernet cables, usb/digital cables, analogue audio cables, headphone balanced and unbalanced cables and the like. The biggest threads have hundreds of pages saying whether expensive cables make a difference. I won't and hope noone else starts the usual flame wars, but why is there often so much debate? Why can't someone have a machine with a lab-grade receiver at the end of the audio chain and be able to make scientific testing of difference in cables and be done with it? Why the need for endless debate of believers vs non-believers?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> Someone posted this in the intro/recommendations forum yesterday:


 
 Giggle, snort, cough cough!


----------



## maverickronin

cel4145 said:


> Someone posted this in the intro/recommendations forum yesterday:


 
  
 They're so cute while they're still wide eyed and naive.


----------



## cel4145

maverickronin said:


> They're so cute while they're still wide eyed and naive.




He's definitely trying to understand. But the cable magic acolytes are doing their best to convert him into one of the faithful. LOL


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> He's definitely trying to understand. But the cable magic acolytes are doing their best to convert him into one of the faithful. LOL



His logical approach will get him in trouble! You can't measure magic with instruments. Magic is disrupted by science. The very presence of measurement instruments eliminates the magic and all sonic improvements. The magic is a quantum mechanical effect and must not be measured.
Measurement takes the "toe tapping" out of the music!


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> His logical approach will get him in trouble! You can't measure magic with instruments. Magic is disrupted by science. The very presence of measurement instruments eliminates the magic and all sonic improvements. The magic is a quantum mechanical effect and must not be measured.
> *Measurement takes the "toe tapping" out of the music!*




It takes the "toe tapping" out of the pride on how much one spent on cables (and DACs, and solid state amps). :etysmile:


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> It takes the "toe tapping" out of the pride on how much one spent on cables (and DACs, and solid state amps). :etysmile:



I have stopped debating with a die hard Power Cord Toe Tapper who has spent thousands on toe tapping power cords that extend his bass into the subsonic


----------



## sonitus mirus

If one was to put faith into even a small portion of the discussions going on around the internet, it would seem that everyone listens to crappy music, all of the time.  The reason behind this is that certainly something new will always be coming along that apparently makes a night and day difference in the sound quality.  The current music quality is doomed to be eternally substandard since it will never be able to keep pace with all of these "improvements" looming ahead in the future.
  
 I jumped off this lunacy train a long time ago.  I am thrilled with the audio quality I have now.  I just enjoy the music.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

sonitus mirus said:


> If one was to put faith into even a small portion of the discussions going on around the internet, it would seem that everyone listens to crappy music, all of the time.  The reason behind this is that certainly something new will always be coming along that apparently makes a night and day difference in the sound quality.  The current music quality is doomed to be eternally substandard since it will never be able to keep pace with all of these "improvements" looming ahead in the future.
> 
> I jumped off this lunacy train a long time ago.  I am thrilled with the audio quality I have now.  I just enjoy the music.



What's this "just enjoy the music" nonsense?


----------



## uchihaitachi

The moderators make sure that the 'magic' is unhindered and unhibited by scientific observations/arguments.


----------



## DreamKing

You guys hear about this "op-amp rolling" craze? I had no idea what it was until the Gustard H10 thread became a thread about op-amp rolling recently.
  
 Here's an example of op-amp comparisons *please note this is not to humiliate in any way, just need to hear at least someone else speaking sense after hearing nothing but one side's revelations*:
 : http://www.head-fi.org/t/735828/gustard-h10-high-current-discrete-class-a-output-stage-headphone-amplifier/2955#post_11819044
  
 Now, there are *pages and pages* of similar op-amp comparisons at this point in that thread. My take is that you cannot compare them in actuality since as soon you got done installing the new op-amps, the other's _sound_ you may or may not remember is already gone from your echoic memory. The most obvious better alternative is parametric EQ, but I don't want to get lambasted for suggesting using factually better alternatives so I'm here.


----------



## StanD

dreamking said:


> You guys hear about this "op-amp rolling" craze? I had no idea what it was until the Gustard H10 thread became a thread about op-amp rolling recently.
> 
> Here's an example of op-amp comparisons *please note this is not to humiliate in any way, just need to hear at least someone else speaking sense after hearing nothing but one side's revelations*:
> : http://www.head-fi.org/t/735828/gustard-h10-high-current-discrete-class-a-output-stage-headphone-amplifier/2955#post_11819044
> ...


 
 Opamp rolling can be real, just stick in an ancient 45 year old 709 and listen to the increased noise level and if you have a high gain circuit the possible treble roll off due to the bad open loop frequency response and the effects of the poor slew rate. Not to mention the possible instabilty by a capacitve load that can be cured by increasing the compensation capacitor which further reduces bandwith and slew rate.
 It must really suck for an audiophile to live in the past or to buy a cheapo poorly designed product on fleabay. So the best advice is not to live in the past or buy cheap S#1t.


----------



## headwhacker

dreamking said:


> You guys hear about this "op-amp rolling" craze? I had no idea what it was until the Gustard H10 thread became a thread about op-amp rolling recently.
> 
> Here's an example of op-amp comparisons *please note this is not to humiliate in any way, just need to hear at least someone else speaking sense after hearing nothing but one side's revelations*:
> : http://www.head-fi.org/t/735828/gustard-h10-high-current-discrete-class-a-output-stage-headphone-amplifier/2955#post_11819044
> ...


 
  
 You can suggest to get 2 amps and install different opamps for quick comparison


----------



## Exacoustatowner

uchihaitachi said:


> The moderatorssi make sure that the 'magic' is unhindered and unhibited by scientific observations/arguments.


 Simply put- magic is banished by science. Once gone it may never return! That would be a sad day!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

dreamking said:


> You guys hear about this "op-amp rolling" craze? I had no idea what it was until the Gustard H10 thread became a thread about op-amp rolling recently.
> 
> Here's an example of op-amp comparisons *please note this is not to humiliate in any way, just need to hear at least someone else speaking sense after hearing nothing but one side's revelations*:
> : http://www.head-fi.org/t/735828/gustard-h10-high-current-discrete-class-a-output-stage-headphone-amplifier/2955#post_11819044
> ...



Welcome. I came here for similar reasons. Somehow using EQ's is heretical- bass and treble can only be adjusted by magical means.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

Oh Em Gee! "WA Quantum Chips" place them on top of the capacitors, on the speakers and power cords!


----------



## arnyk

headwhacker said:


> You can suggest to get 2 amps and install different opamps for quick comparison


 
  
  
 Op amp rolling is as old as the use of op amps in audio gear, which date back to no later than the Infinity Servo Static crossover in 1966:
  
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/845/#bYJ2fS4XtLjov81x.97
  
 "
We contacted Infinity about this, and were told that everything that had been sent to us for testing was "normal production," except that some of the crossover networks had been made using a different brand of integrated circuit from the ones normally used. We were assured that this couldn't be causing the "problem," but just to be on the safe side, we were asked to try one of the crossovers with the usual ICs in it.
 
It did make a difference—a dramatic difference. There was still a very slight tendency for the sound to be harder through the crossover than without the crossover, but the overall gain in sound quality when using the SS-1 bass speaker with the Nine more than compensated for this, in our opinion. The Nine sounded huge, rich, and stunningly realistic, and the bass speaker's contribution fully complemented the Nine's usual extraordinary tightness and detail.
"

 Of course the key to all of this is reliance on casual audiophile sighted evaluations. There have been attempts to duplicate these results in more carefully performed listening tests with an absence of positive results.
  
 Also:  The *Audio Amateur*, issue 1/1977
  
Reproduced here: http://www.waltjung.org/waltsblog/classic-articles-page/


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

exacoustatowner said:


> Welcome. I came here for similar reasons. Somehow using EQ's is heretical- bass and treble can only be adjusted by magical means.


 
  
 Each adjustment _must_ cost money too. The more arbitrary and expensive the "result" achieved by a cable "upgrade," for instance, the better. A touch of tone control or EQ slider will not do at all. One problem with that is that it does make a difference, and it is repeatable.
  
 It's real, and hifi has become the pursuit of expensive fantasy.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Each adjustment _must_ cost money too. The more arbitrary and expensive the "result" achieved by a cable "upgrade," for instance, the better. A touch of tone control or EQ slider will not do at all. One problem with that is that it does make a difference, and it is repeatable.
> 
> It's real, and hifi has become the pursuit of expensive fantasy.


 
 Well said. The more cost-the better. I recently found a new favorite bit of audiophile magic. WA Quantum Chips! Stick them on capacitors, fuses, wires, speakers, ACOUSTIC musical instruments, etc-and all is more airy and real!
 I'm going to buy some and stick them on my head and see if my work as a scientist improves. Perhaps I can save on the Audiophile chips by just putting one on each earlobe? 
 There is NO explanation as to what they do-but they mention that they DO NOT interact electrically! 
 http://www.vhaudio.com/wa-quantum-chip.html


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

You don't even need to buy them.
  
 I just downloaded the brochure, and my computer sounds _so_ much better!
  
 But seriously, I could murder a pack of _edible _audiophile chips just now...


----------



## Exacoustatowner

thad-e-ginathom said:


> You don't even need to buy them.
> 
> I just downloaded the brochure, and my computer sounds _so_ much better!
> 
> But seriously, I could murder a pack of _edible_audiophile chips just now...



Of course! By the rules of Sympathetic Magic a DL should improve your computer sound.
I've GOT to try that!!


----------



## davidsh

How about audiophile food? Will that sell?


----------



## cel4145

davidsh said:


> How about audiophile food? Will that sell?




Better yet, an audiophile vitamin with antioxidants that improves hearing of detail. Now that would definitely sell!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

davidsh said:


> How about audiophile food? Will that sell?[
> Why not? Audiophile Magic Cookies?
> A good Scotch can make music sound better


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> Better yet, an audiophile vitamin with antioxidants that improves hearing of detail. Now that would definitely sell!



Go for it!


----------



## sonitus mirus

cel4145 said:


> Better yet, an audiophile vitamin with antioxidants that improves hearing of detail. Now that would definitely sell!


 
  
 Fish oil pills are wildly popular, why not market and sell actual snake oil pills?
  
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/claims-that-fish-oil-boosts-health-linger-despite-science-saying-the-opposite/2015/07/08/db7567d2-1848-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html


----------



## cel4145

sonitus mirus said:


> Fish oil pills are wildly popular, why not market and sell actual snake oil pills?




Because then audiophiles would probably end up making some kind of snake endangered.


----------



## sonitus mirus

cel4145 said:


> Because then audiophiles would probably end up making some kind of snake endangered.


 
  
 Why did it have to be snakes? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I might be ok with that. ​


----------



## Exacoustatowner

sonitus mirus said:


> Why did it have to be snakes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I'd say thumbs up-but I've always been fond of these little guys...


----------



## Don Hills

dreamking said:


> You guys hear about this "op-amp rolling" craze? ...
> My take is that you cannot compare them in actuality since as soon you got done installing the new op-amps, the other's _sound_ you may or may not remember is already gone from your echoic memory.


 
  
 Theres a thread over on diyaudio where they compared a bunch of different opamps. They daisy chained 5 of each type of opamp in a row, then played test signals and recorded the outputs. The files were randomised and distributed to participants. That way you can do fast switching with an ABX program.
  
 http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/277376-listening-test-trying-understand-what-we-think-we-hear.html


----------



## arnyk

don hills said:


> Theres a thread over on diyaudio where they compared a bunch of different opamps. They daisy chained 5 of each type of opamp in a row, then played test signals and recorded the outputs. The files were randomised and distributed to participants. That way you can do fast switching with an ABX program.
> 
> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/277376-listening-test-trying-understand-what-we-think-we-hear.html


 
  
  
 IME too little, too late.
  
 This set of tests by NWAVGuy gives a good idea about the measured performance of common op amps:
  

  

  
  
 If one were to pick a common performance level they almost all have less than 0.001% THD+N.   The ear's sensitivity to this sort of distortion starts around 0.1%. Therefore you would have to cascade about 100 stages in order to have any hope of actually hearing the distortion of these op amps as typically used.
  
 If you read the DIY audio article, several critical errors were made. First off the recommended subjective test was a preference test, but no qualifying detection test had preceeded it.
  
 Can there be such a thing as sonic preference for things you can't possibly hear?  Of course not, that's absolutely nuts!  Do most audiophiles claim to do this almost all the time? QED.
  
 Then, they only put 5 op amps in series when we've already figured out that about 100 would be more like it.
  
 What to make of the religiously reported sonic preferences? Well the alleged tests amount to being example 463,926 (+/- 23) of casual audiophile sighted evaluations tricked up to be what they aren't and what they aren't is good reliable listening tests.


----------



## StanD

They should used 709 opamps, noisey enough to get negative results without the need of 100 in a row.


----------



## Ruben123

In the pono thread people can hear differences in sq between internal and external (SD) memory.


----------



## uchihaitachi

ruben123 said:


> In the pono thread people can hear differences in sq between internal and external (SD) memory.




Same for power banks lol


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> In the pono thread people can hear differences in sq between internal and external (SD) memory.


 
 I'll bet that some of them hear voices that no one else does.


----------



## icebear

ruben123 said:


> In the pono thread people can hear differences in sq between internal and external (SD) memory.


 

 Have they ABX tested different brands and memory size of SD cards?


----------



## Ruben123

icebear said:


> Have they ABX tested different brands and memory size of SD cards?




Look for yourself, it's fun


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> I'll bet that some of them hear voices that no one else does.


 
 Stan- this is a real effect of high TDD. Total Demonic Distortion- various solutions exist-but the best way to minimize TDD is this http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
 The voices eventually drive people to buy "directional cables" and "Audiophile fuses."  MAGIC has supplanted Science with many Audiophiles.
  
 " Brilliant Pebbles is a unique and comprehensive system for tuning the room and audio system based on special physical properties of highly symmetrical crystal structures. Brilliant Pebbles has been evolving since its introduction 6 years ago at the London HI Fi Show, especially the number of applications, many of which were discovered by our customers. Brilliant Pebbles addresses specific resonance control and RFI/EMI absorption problems associated with audio electronics, speakers and cables, as well as acoustic wave problems associated with the listening room boundaries and the 3-dimensional space within the boundaries."


----------



## Exacoustatowner

ruben123 said:


> In the pono thread people can hear differences in sq between internal and external (SD) memory.


 
 People can also "hear" the difference based on cable "directionality." I lack the magical ability to do so.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

icebear said:


> Have they ABX tested different brands and memory size of SD cards?


 
  
 I'm afraid that the world is a worse place than you think it is 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Except... they probably didn't bother with the "ABX" bit of that. they have ears to trust...


----------



## headdict

thad-e-ginathom said:


> I'm afraid that the world is a worse place than you think it is
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Why ABX the obvious? The storage capacity of your SD has to have plenty of headroom or else you will experience a closed-in soundstage. SD cards with less than 128 GB have also been reported to cause claustrophobia in the listener. You also have to choose the brand carefully for optimum synergy with your DAP, DAC, AMP, cables and plugs. And you can't expect a good sound out of your SD card, if its price is only half of that of your DAP. This is all common knowledge. But did you know that you can bring down the otherwise required 200-2000 hours SD card break-in time to only 60-80 hours by using a special audiophile SD card conditioner?
  
 How can you suggest that the world is a bad place without providing scientific proof? Have you ABX'ed it with a better place? This is plain silly.


----------



## Ruben123

Burning in SD cards.. Shouldn't get worse than that, give it a scream in some threads and have fun.. Lol


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> Burning in SD cards.. Shouldn't get worse than that, give it a scream in some threads and have fun.. Lol


 
 Can you use a CD Mat with an SD Card?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

headdict said:


> Why ABX the obvious? The storage capacity of your SD has to have plenty of headroom or else you will experience a closed-in soundstage. SD cards with less than 128 GB have also been reported to cause claustrophobia in the listener. You also have to choose the brand carefully for optimum synergy with your DAP, DAC, AMP, cables and plugs. And you can't expect a good sound out of your SD card, if its price is only half of that of your DAP. This is all common knowledge. But did you know that you can bring down the otherwise required 200-2000 hours SD card break-in time to only 60-80 hours by using a special audiophile SD card conditioner?
> 
> How can you suggest that the world is a bad place without providing scientific proof? Have you ABX'ed it with a better place? This is plain silly.



Head addict: I salute you!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Can you use a CD Mat with an SD Card?



You use an SD Mat


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

When I first read about audiophile SATA cables I thought it was a joke. Of course, it wasn't.
  
 I really dare not google the wonderful ideas of Exacoustatowner, headdict, and others, lest I find that the world is an even worse place than I think it is. Is there any limit to the horror? Now that audiophools and their suppliers have got their nasty little fingers inside computers, etc, I fear that there is not; it is a bottomless pit of madness.
  
 Can I adapt one of those heavy LP weights to put on top of my SD card?


----------



## uchihaitachi

Are most individuals in this thread from an engineering/science background?
  
 I want to know if these magical effects only affect those that are less scientifically inclined? Or if it's a basic matter of common sense, in which case, I fear for the rest of head-fi.


----------



## analogsurviver

ruben123 said:


> Burning in SD cards.. Shouldn't get worse than that, give it a scream in some threads and have fun.. Lol


 
 Really should not.
  
 I received a warning AGAINST using SDD - for any application that requires multiple writing/erasure/format of the card/disk. Solid state elements are still not fully reliable and the more you tax them, the likelihood of them to self destruct is greater. Leading to detrioration of the card at first, up to the total failure in the end.
  
 In the SSD case, burning-in could well mean burning-out - quite literally so.


----------



## Ruben123

thad-e-ginathom said:


> When I first read about audiophile SATA cables I thought it was a joke. Of course, it wasn't.
> 
> I really dare not google the wonderful ideas of Exacoustatowner, headdict, and others, lest I find that the world is an even worse place than I think it is. Is there any limit to the horror? Now that audiophools and their suppliers have got their nasty little fingers inside computers, etc, I fear that there is not; it is a bottomless pit of madness.
> 
> Can I adapt one of those heavy LP weights to put on top of my SD card?




I thought the Altmann tera player was a joke. Look at the site!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

thad-e-ginathom said:


> When I first read about audiophile SATA cables I thought it was a joke. Of course, it wasn't.
> 
> I really dare not google the wonderful ideas of Exacoustatowner, headdict, and others, lest I find that the world is an even worse place than I think it is. Is there any limit to the horror? Now that audiophools and their suppliers have got their nasty little fingers inside computers, etc, I fear that there is not; it is a bottomless pit of madness.
> 
> Can I adapt one of those heavy LP weights to put on top of my SD card?


 
 Haha! I don't blame you-there probably IS someone selling the silliness.  Is there a BIT cleaner that will clean the bits of data for you? I'll BET there is!
 There is no end really. I thought the Audiophile Aquarium Rocks were the height of absurdity-then I find people raving about them on High End Forums. It's all about Magic really- I just need to learn some incantations to apply to my own audio.  LP weights on SD cards! What a great idea!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

uchihaitachi said:


> Are most individuals in this thread from an engineering/science background?
> 
> I want to know if these magical effects only affect those that are less scientifically inclined? Or if it's a basic matter of common sense, in which case, I fear for the rest of head-fi.


 
 Magic works best if you are not scientifically inclined. I think skepticism disrupts the "Quantum Vibrational Fields" needed to transfer WILL and BELIEF into veil lifting audio quality. The brainwaves you generate when being skeptical disrupt the Magic-and you are left with TUBBY bass, highs that are both BRIGHT and ROLLED off at the same time-and an UPSIDE DOWN soundstage.
 Frightening, really.
 It's probably too late for me. I am doomed to mundane real world physics… Sigh.


----------



## analogsurviver

icebear said:


> Have they ABX tested different brands and memory size of SD cards?


 
 Yes. With DSD recording, whatever the storage medium, it has to support close to 100 MB/sec, but at the very least 90MB/sec in order for the recording to be glitch-free, without hanging, etc, etc - which are all no-no during the actual recording of a master. The advantage of storage without moving parts and susceptibility to vibration in portable recording is an obvious one.
  
 I am still struggling to get time to test if one card ( (Sandisk Extreme Pro 32 MB 95MB/s
 http://www.sandisk.com/products/memory-cards/sd/extremepro-sdxc-sdhc-uhs-ii/  ) can do it in order to replace the HDD in Korg MR-1 and MR-1000. I have the required adaptors/cables for years, but back then only the Hoodman card ( IIRC 16 Gb at approx $500) was fast enough. The price was deterrant enough not to try it.
  
 Again, NO in science threads soooo beloved ABX-ing possible - because in this application, card either works - or it doesn't.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> icebear said:
> 
> 
> > Have they ABX tested different brands and memory size of SD cards?
> ...


 
  
 90 MB x 60 s = 5400 MB/min x 60 min = 324000 MB/hour, so a 32 MB card will give about 10 minutes....?????????????
  
 the card can give you 90 MB/s but not the reader/writer....
  
 And what about the CD mats test files? next Christmas?


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> 90 MB x 60 s = 5400 MB/min x 60 min = 324000 MB/hour, so a 32 MB card will give about 10 minutes....?????????????
> 
> the card can give you 90 MB/s but not the reader/writer....
> 
> And what about the CD mats test files? next Christmas?


 
 Nope - 90 MB/s is required speed of writing, DSD64 is 22 minutes audio/1GB, DSD128 is 11 minutes audio/1GB.
  
 As I write this, I am transferring audio and video from the recent two concerts to my RAID5 array - the CD mats tests have been recorded, but I am NOT satisfied with the results - will re-do this on another CD recorder/player that should clearly benefit from the use of the CD mat. Pioneer PD-D6J, which I used initially, is - now confirmed by myself - not regarded as one of the best CD transports for no reason.
  
 Hopefully in next few days - musicians - finally - called it a day with recordings till early september. iF something else/new does not show up...


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> Really should not.
> 
> I received a warning AGAINST using SDD - for any application that requires multiple writing/erasure/format of the card/disk. Solid state elements are still not fully reliable and the more you tax them, the likelihood of them to self destruct is greater. Leading to detrioration of the card at first, up to the total failure in the end.
> 
> In the SSD case, burning-in could well mean burning-out - quite literally so.


 
 Maybe a while ago, but not really anymore. HDD's have mechanical components which will fail, or worse suffer from a crash. I'll be honest, I've given up on chasing the most 'reliable' system: they're so neck-and-neck nowadays. However, if power loss is frequent, SSD's suffer more from it.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

analogsurviver said:


> ... ... ... either works - or it doesn't.


 
  
  
 Now _that's_ the kind of audible difference that I like to deal with.
  
 ...and it doesn't just mean sound or silence: I have had plenty of unpleasant experiences with dropouts or distortion with computer playback. The answers,  though, (apart from "throw this machine away: it is  never going to make a good audio box.") although seldom simple, are always mundane, and never, ever, magical.


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> Are most individuals in this thread from an engineering/science background?
> 
> I want to know if these magical effects only affect those that are less scientifically inclined? Or if it's a basic matter of common sense, in which case, I fear for the rest of head-fi.


 
  
 I don't have any formal training in engineering or science.  I work in IT/tech support.  I'm pretty much all self taught and a "jack of all trades, master of none" type.  I'm a skeptic, maybe even with a capital "S", as that would appear to be the best way to achieve a proper understanding of reality.
  
 I don't really think that just having a background in science or engineering will save you from this kind of stuff.  Most of what's formally taught just specific knowledge and just knowing things won't necessarily save you from believing in nonsense.  After all, there are tons of people in the "audiophile" industry who believe tons of crazy things despite having such a background.
  
 The issue is knowing how to think, rather than what to think.  People believe in all this craziness for the same reasons that they believe other crazy thing like alien abductions, grand conspiracy theories, and "alternative" medicine.


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> Really should not.
> 
> I received a warning AGAINST using SDD - for any application that requires multiple writing/erasure/format of the card/disk. Solid state elements are still not fully reliable and the more you tax them, the likelihood of them to self destruct is greater. Leading to detrioration of the card at first, up to the total failure in the end.
> 
> In the SSD case, burning-in could well mean burning-out - quite literally so.


 
  
 This was true of the first generation of SSDs but is no longer the case.  The introduction of proper garbage collection techniques, TRIM, for example at the OS level alleviated the issue.  Most manufacturers now build garbage collection, wear leveling, and over provisioning into the SSD controller itself, further reducing the risk of failure due to multiple writes to the same cell.
  
 Every test I'm aware of show that SSDs are now significantly more reliable than spinning media disks, both for home use and at the enterprise level.  It's reached the point where the failure rates are no longer determined by the actual data volume written to create failure but are now calculated by the estimated wear rate of the solid state cells based on multiple petabytes of read/write cycles.
  
 Bottom line - solid state memory is about as reliable as any storage media you can acquire.  As always, random failure is possible and all data should be backed up - regardless of primary storage technology.


----------



## superjawes

analogsurviver said:


> ruben123 said:
> 
> 
> > Burning in SD cards.. Shouldn't get worse than that, give it a scream in some threads and have fun.. Lol
> ...


Basically, no.

It is technically true that writing to SSD memory will eventually lead to the drive's death, but it takes a lot of data to kill a consumer SSD...and I do mean a lot.

Tech Report set out to kill some SSDs by writing boatloads of data to them (the linked article was written after the final sample died), and while most users probably aren't going to write more than a couple terabytes per year, every one of TR's samples wrote HUNDREDS of terabytes before failing (note: that is well above what the drives are rated for).

In short, as long as you're using an SSD under semi-normal conditions, you don't have to worry about killing one with data writes.


----------



## castleofargh

uchihaitachi said:


> Are most individuals in this thread from an engineering/science background?
> 
> I want to know if these magical effects only affect those that are less scientifically inclined? Or if it's a basic matter of common sense, in which case, I fear for the rest of head-fi.


 
  
 I was in a math oriented curriculum until I was about 20years old(turn that into whatever study that is in your country), then I went into a photography school...(what an idiot) I never did anything even remotely related to science or engineering again and forgot all about ..   what? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 my mother has always impressed me with how well educated and bright she could be(lol mother complex lol). but she just doesn't know how to skeptic. the concept itself is like a foreign object. she's kind of skeptical when she first learns about something, meaning she doesn't just intake whatever people tell her. she's not so much the gullible type. but once she accepts an idea, it's almost impossible to make her come back on it.
  
 me on the other hand, I could have triple checked an information and believed it all my life, if a homeless guy on the street tells me it's false, I might just end up checking again and factoring whatever the guy told me.(that's why analogsurviver makes me think so much) I always have that lingering "anybody can be wrong, maybe I missed a part too" at the back of my head. it's annoying as hell at times, but it also makes me improve so I'm cool with it.


----------



## arnyk

analogsurviver said:


> Really should not.
> 
> I received a warning AGAINST using SDD - for any application that requires multiple writing/erasure/format of the card/disk. Solid state elements are still not fully reliable and the more you tax them, the likelihood of them to self destruct is greater. Leading to detrioration of the card at first, up to the total failure in the end.
> 
> In the SSD case, burning-in could well mean burning-out - quite literally so.


 
  
 I switched my customer production of desktop PC's and upgrades of laptops, to SSDs well over a year ago after using them personally for my own PCs for at least another year before that.
  
 The warning you received would effectively forbid the use of SSDs for any boot volume because of the read/write load caused by swapping and paging. They typically amount to about 50% of the I/O load on a well-designed system, and they are in turn about 2/3 reads and 1/3 writes. IOW a ton of writes of new data which according to the advice above would be quickly fatal.
  
 The first year or so that used SSDs for my own use (as a test) I had about equal numbers of SSD failures as HD failures, but the SSD failures were plain old electronic failures of the interface circuits, not wearing out of the flash memory due to running out of life for new writes.
  
 The second year of general application of SSDs found them to be running essentially without any failures at all. All my systems are RAID arrays with just one volume for both boot and data whether HD or SSD.


----------



## analogsurviver

superjawes said:


> Basically, no.
> 
> It is technically true that writing to SSD memory will eventually lead to the drive's death, but it takes a lot of data to kill a consumer SSD...and I do mean a lot.
> 
> ...


 
 If it is master recordings, I mean #001 RAW recording, I most definitely do not want to take chances. HDDs fail at a sustainable, non catastrophic rate - if in reasonable RAID configuration.
  
 Audio and video combined for the two last concert  recordings amounted to just a bit under 300GB. Two DAYS ...
  
 SSDs of 2TB are simply too expensive - and anything with smaller capacity is, for all practical purposes, too small to consider to use under RAID. 
  
 There is a reason why USAF flew, basicaly, 286 ( or whatever2XY) processors, despite newer, more powerful ones were available.
  
 RELIABILITY - and ironing out all the teething troubles. Computer geeks might be tempted to fiddle with SSD - I will wait until it is proven by time.
  
 What good did the analog tapes from the 80's compared to older stuff ? Yes, one could put MUCH hotter signnal on it, more treble, prior to saturation ; but after a few decades, these new tapes can - disintegrate in your hands to dust, whenever the old stuff still works as intended. See what I mean ?


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> superjawes said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, no.
> ...




No matter how you spin it, you are wrong about the reliability of SSD storage. Changing the topic to cost is a different discussion entirely.

As to "computer geeks" being the market for "fiddling with SSD", you might want to take a look at the current offerings from every major enterprise storage vendor and ask yourself if the Fortune 500 and FTSE 1000 customers they serve believe they aren't reliable.

You're also misrepresenting the reason that the military tends to be behind the curve in chip utilization. Design specs are finalized years and in some cases up to a decade before the plane/ship/whatever enters service. Nothing would ever reach production if the mil specs were reconstituted every time a newer/faster CPU became available. The reason for seeing older components is most definitely not due to the perception of reliability, because when those chips were specified, they WERE the new tech.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> There is a reason why USAF flew, basicaly, 286 ( or whatever2XY) processors, despite newer, more powerful ones were available.




No. The real reason is that the programming costs of getting the code error free with lots of redundant testing of the code to ensure that is way more expensive than the processors. 



analogsurviver said:


> Computer geeks might be tempted to fiddle with SSD - *I will wait until it is proven by time.*




SSDs have been around for almost 25 years. What are you waiting for? 50 years?


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> No matter how you spin it, you are wrong about the reliability of SSD storage. Changing the topic to cost is a different discussion entirely.
> 
> As to "computer geeks" being the market for "fiddling with SSD", you might want to take a look at the current offerings from every major enterprise storage vendor and ask yourself if the Fortune 500 and FTSE 1000 customers they serve believe they aren't reliable.
> 
> You're also misrepresenting the reason that the military tends to be behind the curve in chip utilization. Design specs are finalized years and in some cases up to a decade before the plane/ship/whatever enters service. Nothing would ever reach production if the mil specs were reconstituted every time a newer/faster CPU became available. The reason for seeing older components is most definitely not due to the perception of reliability, because when those chips were specified, they WERE the new tech.


 
 Oh - now tell me why military is still using NiCD cells instead of NiMH, and let alone LiWhatever ? Regardless that they are inferior to their newer counterparts in amount of energy stored per unit of volume. Maybe the larger temperature envelope and robustness in both mechanical and electrical sense have something to do with this decision.
  
 If the military actually uses the latest gear available at the time of specification, than this explains the track record of the early F-16s ...


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > No matter how you spin it, you are wrong about the reliability of SSD storage. Changing the topic to cost is a different discussion entirely.
> ...




What part of my design cycle description escaped you? And when did the topic change from SSD storage to CPUs and now batteries which, obviously, have completely different operating envelopes? And of course the military utilizes equipment available at the time of the development of the specification. How do you build a plane with a CPU that doesn't exist, let alone convince the military to fund it as a private contractor?

You are a master of changing the subject - let me try the same.
How are your CD Mat test files coming along?

All kidding aside, you should really stop bloviating on technologies and processes you fairly obviously aren't familiar with.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> No. The real reason is that the programming costs of getting the code error free with lots of redundant testing of the code to ensure that is way more expensive than the processors.
> SSDs have been around for almost 25 years. What are you waiting for? 50 years?


 
 Yes, you could say that the programming to get error free operation is the reason. Sometimes, real operation brings about conditions no programmer could reasonably forsee - yet the equipment should not go berserk even under FAR OFF conditions. And finding such exceptions that are under certain conditions fatal does take time in order to write programmes that are capable of dealing with the real thing.
  
 CDs have been around for more than 25 years - and some no longer can be read - by anything. Any vynil record ever made that has been handled with normal care and stored under reasonable conditions is still playable.
  
 SSDs can not claim such test of time. Would you trust them your entire photo collection ?


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by cel4145 No. The real reason is that the programming costs of getting the code error free with lots of redundant testing of the code to ensure that is way more expensive than the processors.SSDs have been around for almost 25 years. What are you waiting for? 50 years?Yes, you could say that the programming to get error free operation is the reason. Sometimes, real operation brings about conditions no programmer could reasonably forsee - yet the equipment should not go berserk even under FAR OFF conditions. And finding such exceptions that are under certain conditions fatal does take time in order to write programmes that are capable of dealing with the real thing. CDs have been around for more than 25 years - and some no longer can be read - by anything. Any vynil record ever made that has been handled with normal care and stored under reasonable conditions is still playable. SSDs can not claim such test of time. Would you trust them your entire photo collection ?




No media should be trusted as the sole point of storage. Are you suggesting you don't feel the need to back up data you store to spinning platters?

You're on quite the fishing expedition to attempt to support your position. Catching nothing but old boots so far....


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> What part of my design cycle description escaped you? And when did the topic change from SSD storage to CPUs and now batteries which, obviously, have completely different operating envelopes? And of course the military utilizes equipment available at the time of the development of the specification. How do you build a plane with a CPU that doesn't exist, let alone convince the military to fund it as a private contractor?
> 
> You are a master of changing the subject - let me try the same.
> How are your CD Mat test files coming along?
> ...


 
 CD mat test - please see a few posts back, from today.
  
 I know I would not want some untried CPU in my latest gear - I would prefer to opt to something less capable but available long enough to be trustworthy. An example : when Windows 7 became available, I decided to upgrade from XP. But, the early Win7 was so horribly inferior to XP in audio, that I changed back to XP in less than a week. Win7 did, eventually, catch up with XP in audio - but it took almost a year to do so.
  
 I never mentioned using , at the time of spec, unavailable products in the process of development. It is the ultimate recipe for disaster.


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> No media should be trusted as the sole point of storage. Are you suggesting you don't feel the need to back up data you store to spinning platters?
> 
> You're on quite the fishing expedition to attempt to support your position. Catching nothing but old boots so far....


 
 Agreed. No media should be trusted as the sole point of storage. Yet data can be saved from spinning disks gone bad easier than from other merthods.


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > What part of my design cycle description escaped you? And when did the topic change from SSD storage to CPUs and now batteries which, obviously, have completely different operating envelopes? And of course the military utilizes equipment available at the time of the development of the specification. How do you build a plane with a CPU that doesn't exist, let alone convince the military to fund it as a private contractor?
> ...




You've ignored the factual discussion of SSD reliability
You've ignored the links describing testing of SSD reliability
You've ignored the fact that every enterprise storage vendor and therefore every large corporation utilizes SSD storage. (As does every significant cloud storage provider as part of their tiered storage solutions)

You don't seem to want to acknowledge that like spinning platter media, SSDs can and should be backed up, mitigating your irrational fear of failure.

You've now changed the topic once again, this time to Operating Systems.

Would you like me to send you a virtual shovel to keep digging your hole?

Last word can be yours. The facts have been sufficiently presented.


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> You've ignored the factual discussion of SSD reliability
> You've ignored the links describing testing of SSD reliability
> You've ignored the fact that every enterprise storage vendor and therefore every large corporation utilizes SSD storage. (As does every significant cloud storage provider as part of their tiered storage solutions)
> 
> ...


 
 I merely wanted to state the case for STOOD THE TEST OF TIME.
  
 You can have Forsprung Durch Technik in latest super duper Audi - at premium cost. Which can cost one dearly if anything goes wrong. And can make you walk home - or travel by MUCH less fancy vehicle.
  
 You can have reasonably tested over longer period same Forspung Durch Technik - in a VW, say 2 years later. Much more reliable ...
  
 You can have the same in Seat, Skoda - in some five years time since initially introduced in Audi. This time, it is "bussiness as usual" - it merely works and IS reliable.
  
 End of these posts, I have real work to do, There are magazines that should take care of the SSd vs HDD etc comparisons.
  
 The ultimate arbiter whether something is/was good is - ebay. Those things that did stand the test of time still command good prices - those that did not are sold for peanuts. Obviously, this goes for things normal citizen might be interested in. No military gear, etc, for example


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

Anyway, since when was longevity an _audiophool_ consideration? 
  
 Hmm... well, I suppose... if people are paying tens of thousands for gear, they probably want it to last.
  
 Oh, no, wait... they don't care, because they'll "upgrade" it next year!
  
  
_see what you people and your SSDs have done: I'm forced to argue with myself here_


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> Agreed. No media should be trusted as the sole point of storage. Yet data can be saved from spinning disks gone bad easier than from other merthods.


 
 You are right on that: broken SSD's are much more difficult to recover from than broken HDD's. Doesn't change anything else​ that you would do with HDD's: if the data is that important, use RAID. A broken HDD doesn't mean everything is recoverable either, since it doesn't necessarily break down in a 'non-catastrophic' way. Worse, if you dropped your laptop with a HDD and it doesn't have inertial sensors (rare these days, I'll concede), say bye bye to your HDD.
  


analogsurviver said:


> Oh - now tell me why military is still using NiCD cells instead of NiMH, and let alone LiWhatever ? Regardless that they are inferior to their newer counterparts in amount of energy stored per unit of volume. Maybe the larger temperature envelope and robustness in both mechanical and electrical sense have something to do with this decision.
> 
> If the military actually uses the latest gear available at the time of specification, than this explains the track record of the early F-16s ...


 
 Because don't fix what's not broken. That being said, the old radios required a craptonne of batteries to be utilised effectively over a long period of time. Also, the military is surprisingly cheap in a lot of regards (except shiny things like ships and planes).​


----------



## superjawes

SSD discussion: SSDs are perfectly reliable. Any concern about the "maturity" of the technology is largely offset by the fact that they are simpler devices. Mechanical storage can have mechanical failures (surprise). SSDs have no mechanical parts, so mechanical worries go away entirely.

And the point I was specifically countering was the one about writing to an SSD causing the "eventual" failure of the drive. Unless you are writing several terabytes per year, you have nothing to worry about (and even then, your SSD could still survive to write _petabytes_ of data).


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> You are right on that: broken SSD's are much more difficult to recover from than broken HDD's. Doesn't change anything else​ that you would do with HDD's: if the data is that important, use RAID. A broken HDD doesn't mean everything is recoverable either, since it doesn't necessarily break down in a 'non-catastrophic' way. Worse, if you dropped your laptop with a HDD and it doesn't have inertial sensors (rare these days, I'll concede), say bye bye to your HDD.
> 
> Because don't fix what's not broken. That being said, the old radios required a craptonne of batteries to be utilised effectively over a long period of time. Also, the military is surprisingly cheap in a lot of regards (except shiny things like ships and planes).​


 
 Well, that RAID5 array holds my master DSD recordings for the last six years . It is a RAID box containing 5pcs of 2TB HDDs, it is placed stationary and does not move about. As a precaution, it will be placed on the floor - because it can not fall any further than that. Worst case scenario - the box can fall on either of its side ...
  
 I am pampering this array - used for storage almost exclusively. When I want to listen to something from it, it is copied to another HDDs and listened to from there...
  
 I would be fine with SSD for the OS part of the computer (the disk that hardly ever changes anything ), but I trust HDDs for everything else. 
  
 There IS a cost consideration. I need another RAID5 box of 5pcs 2TB shortly ( would appreciate to hear if there is a way to use 3TB or 4TB disks in RAID arrays without having to resort to partitioning the >2TB disk in two , thus preventing the use of RAID array ). Replacing HDDs for SSDs in a laptop is, although expensive, far less costly than having to deal with the amount of data I am producing. 
  
 Military is, luckily enough, limited in budget. It could have - easily - exceeded whatever the budget - by tenfold - if accepting everything latest greatest SOTA gear proposed by the manufacturers. Holds true for the shiny planes and ships, too.


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> Well, that RAID5 array holds my master DSD recordings for the last six years . It is a RAID box containing 5pcs of 2TB HDDs, it is placed stationary and does not move about. As a precaution, it will be placed on the floor - because it can not fall any further than that. Worst case scenario - the box can fall on either of its side ...
> 
> I am pampering this array - used for storage almost exclusively. When I want to listen to something from it, it is copied to another HDDs and listened to from there...
> 
> ...


 
 Cost is ultimately the greatest decider between SSD's and HDD. Personally, I don't like SSD's outside of laptops (so my laptop can be silent) or for OS boot (so I can load quicker). Reliability, however, is not the issue between my deciding factor. That being said, we all have our stigmas with regards to technology, especially things we're not familiar with.


----------



## analogsurviver

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Anyway, since when was longevity an _audiophool_ consideration?
> 
> Hmm... well, I suppose... if people are paying tens of thousands for gear, they probably want it to last.
> 
> ...


 
 Well, longevity WAS ALWAYS my consideration.
  
 I want the gear that is reliable in the long run. That, unfortunately, rules out the gear that has high temperature changes between off and work condition - like tubes and full class A operation. Since it takes 5 "time constants" for anything to settle to its mode in which it starts to purr. If it is a 50 + kg class A power amp, that means it has to be switched on prior to serious listening without appreciable change in SQ some 5 hours prior to the listening session. No, thanks.
  
 Even more concerned I am about phono cartridge stylus tip profile. After the Micro Line stylus became available in the early 80s, which is REALLY good for approximately 1000 hours, WITHOUT threatening any damage to precious records, I use it ( it has a myriad of names for commercial reasons ) almost exclusively.
 In cases I do use other lesser tip profiles, these styli are being regularly inspected not to deteriorate to anything approaching the possible record damage. The hour count is maximum 500 hours of operation - but usually less. There are new styli that inflict more damage than Micro Line used for 1000 hours...
  
 I am perfectly satisfied with preamp , designed in - 1973. It is STILL way ahead of 99.999999999999999999999 % of gear available today. By design. And I most definitely do not have the upgraditis bug - unless something is considerably superior to what I am using at the time.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

analogsurviver said:


> Well, longevity WAS ALWAYS my consideration.
> 
> ... ... ...


 
  
 Me too 
  
 I don't mind buying new equipment (even if not really justified) because I want to, but I do mind it if it is because of failure.


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> Cost is ultimately the greatest decider between SSD's and HDD. Personally, I don't like SSD's outside of laptops (so my laptop can be silent) or for OS boot (so I can load quicker). Reliability, however, is not the issue between my deciding factor. That being said, we all have our stigmas with regards to technology, especially things we're not familiar with.


 
 Agreed. When having to deal with TB as the _minimum ,_ cost becomes the greatest factor. And if there is even a rumour that SSDs are not as reliable ...


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> Agreed. When having to deal with TB as the _minimum ,_ cost becomes the greatest factor. And if there is even a rumour that SSDs are not as reliable ...


 
 And that's why they're rumours: because it's unsubstantiated. That being said, don't fix what's broken. Stick with HDD if it's working fine.


----------



## arnyk

analogsurviver said:


> Oh - now tell me why military is still using NiCD cells instead of NiMH, and let alone LiWhatever ?


 
  
 Because your information may out of date. A lot of personal military gear uses AA batteries which as we know can be made with a number of different technologies. Supply officers are being encouraged to buy the latest technology batteries because as many consumers know, it saves money: http://www.peosoldier.army.mil/faqs/#batteries
  
  
 True story - when I went into Army Air defense I was a hardware tech for IBM. The IBM gear I worked with was all SS with a goodly part of it being IC's. The mainstream consumer electronics gear of the day was all SS with some chips. The Air defense equipment I worked with was all tubed, even the guidance for the rockets. The communication equipment that tied our air defense system together was tubed.
  
 It all was updated to more current technology a few years after I returned to civilian life.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I use this device as the DAC with my powered studio monitors.  My sources can sometimes be quite noisy when charging (Chromebooks, netbooks, inexpensive laptops, etc), so I always make sure that I have balanced inputs with the pin-1 ground lifted on both XLR outputs.
  
 Maybe my brain is wired incorrectly.  Well, I'm almost certain that it is 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, but what setting makes the most sense for lifting the ground to you:  In/Out?


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> Because your information may out of date. A lot of personal military gear uses AA batteries which as we know can be made with a number of different technologies. Supply officers are being encouraged to buy the latest technology batteries because as many consumers know, it saves money: http://www.peosoldier.army.mil/faqs/#batteries
> 
> 
> True story - when I went into Army Air defense I was a hardware tech for IBM. The IBM gear I worked with was all SS with a goodly part of it being IC's. The mainstream consumer electronics gear of the day was all SS with some chips. The Air defense equipment I worked with was all tubed, even the guidance for the rockets. The communication equipment that tied our air defense system together was tubed.
> ...


 
 At least it was EMP proof, a good case for tube amps for audio.


----------



## dazzerfong

stand said:


> At least it was EMP proof, a good case for tube amps for audio.


 

 If an EMP does occur, audio would be the last thing on my mind. (Ok, it won't be)
  
 I always thought the vacuum tubes were just less sensitive, but would still be fried depending on luck.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> At least it was EMP proof, a good case for tube amps for audio.


 
 At last, something we can agree upon.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

sonitus mirus said:


> I use this device as the DAC with my powered studio monitors.  My sources can sometimes be quite noisy when charging (Chromebooks, netbooks, inexpensive laptops, etc), so I always make sure that I have balanced inputs with the pin-1 ground lifted on both XLR outputs.
> 
> Maybe my brain is wired incorrectly.  Well, I'm almost certain that it is
> 
> ...


 
  
 The Out position would make more sense for Lift, but as I can see it follows the same logic as the MONO SUM, normal Out..., the LIFT position would only be used in certain situations, noise because of ground loops... as the MONO SUM...
 You get less noise with the ground lifted?


----------



## sonitus mirus

macacodosom said:


> The Out position would make more sense for Lift, but as I can see it follows the same logic as the MONO SUM, normal Out..., the LIFT position would only be used in certain situations, noise because of ground loops... as the MONO SUM...
> You get less noise with the ground lifted?


 
  
 It is actually lifted when the switch is in the OUT position.  Though, using similar logic that you mentioned, my first guess was to try it with the switch IN.
  
 The story behind this is that I have a pair of powered speakers, and I wanted to use my Chromebook to play streaming audio from a subscription service.  Initially, I used RCA cables from a typical consumer USB DAC, and everything sounded wonderful...until I needed to plug in the Chromebook to recharge it.  When the power cable was plugged into the Chromebook, there was a noisy 60Hz hum that could be heard between songs or when pausing the music.  I tried all kinds of tricks to fix this ground loop, and finally stumbled upon a cheap Peavey USB-P with XLR balanced cables that finally resolved the noise issue.  
  
 The Peavey DAC's XLR ground pins are always lifted.  The device does not have particularly wonderful measurements by audiophile standards, with a FR of +/- 1dB from 20-20kHz and THD + Noise <.015% @ 1kHz.  To add to potential problems with sound, it's only 16-bit/48kHz.  All of my streaming music is 16/44.1kHz, and I doubt I could hear a difference if challenged on it, but that was not the worst of my problems.  My biggest issue was that the Peavey only had instrument level output, or about -9 dBu into the speaker's 10k Ohm XLR input.  I listen to my music at quiet levels, and even with the speaker volume at the maximum gain, the sound was not too loud with the pre-amp volume pot at 50% or more.  Consequently, the speakers would automatically shut off after about 30 minutes by design, since the input signal was so low.   That is why I picked up this Radial Engineering USB-PRO device.
  
 This Radial USB DAC has true line level output. (actually higher at up to +8 dBu)  It also has much better performance ratings and can autosense my 16/44.1 music without having to convert the sample rate.  Initially that ugly hum was back, but now I have the ground lift button sorted out correctly and the noise is gone again.  The best thing about it is that I was able to turn the volume down on the speakers, and the signal coming into them is much hotter, which means that I no longer have the sound abruptly shut off now.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

sonitus mirus said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > The Out position would make more sense for Lift, but as I can see it follows the same logic as the MONO SUM, normal Out..., the LIFT position would only be used in certain situations, noise because of ground loops... as the MONO SUM...
> ...


 
  
 So, they have the picture wrong? Have you read the manual?
  
 "*The USB-Pro has been designed to minimize hum and buzz caused by ground loops by incorporating dual isolation transformers for the XLR outputs. The isolation transformers are normally bypassed but may be introduced into the signal path using the side access ISO switches. If you hear noise after connecting the USB-Pro to your audio system, try engaging the isolation transformers by sliding the switch in the direction of the arrow.*
*This is supplemented with a ground LIFT switch located next to the XLR outputs. When set to the inward position, this switch disconnects pin-1 from the two XLR’s.*"
  

 Ground Lift is more a testing thing and it's not the way it should work. You should check  your power supply instead, it should be rectified and it should not introduce noise.
  
 I have a similar setup, PC(laptop)->USB powered DAC->Powered Speakers, the laptop is always connected to the mains, NO hums NO noise, with ground lift I get not a hum but a bzzzzz, but if you want your balanced cables to be balanced you should not use the lift position.


----------



## sonitus mirus

macacodosom said:


> So, they have the picture wrong? Have you read the manual?
> 
> "*The USB-Pro has been designed to minimize hum and buzz caused by ground loops by incorporating dual isolation transformers for the XLR outputs. The isolation transformers are normally bypassed but may be introduced into the signal path using the side access ISO switches. If you hear noise after connecting the USB-Pro to your audio system, try engaging the isolation transformers by sliding the switch in the direction of the arrow.*
> *This is supplemented with a ground LIFT switch located next to the XLR outputs. When set to the inward position, this switch disconnects pin-1 from the two XLR’s.*"
> ...


 
  
 Yes, I read the manual, it is only a few short pages and a spec sheet.  Not sure how I missed that, but I guess it explains why I am not cut out to be a rocket scientist. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 It appears that I do not have the grounds lifted on the balanced outputs, and I verified that the isolation transformers were NOT engaged.  I think.  In this picture, looking at the left side of the unit, I see "RIGHT-ISO >" and "LEFT-ISO >".  I have the 2-position switches set opposite of the direction the arrows are pointing toward.  I hope this means that they are not enabled, as my goal was to remove the transformers that fudge with the frequency response.  It was the reason why I opted to try this new device over the Peavey USB-P, which also uses transformers in a similar design.
  

  
  
 The transformer isolation with the Radial device significantly impacts the frequency response, and is suitable for a PA system, but not something that I want to employ with my powered speakers.
  

  
  
 Maybe the sound with the pins lifted was more of a buzzzzzz. Using the same gear with my headphones and various other amps and DACs did not produce this noise.  It was only when using the powered speakers, and then only when this specific Chromebook was plugged in.  I had 3 other chargers that I tested, all with the same results.  I don't have the option to change the speaker power, but I did try different power cables, and every plug/power combination to try and solve what I understood to be a ground loop issue.  I was going to return the speakers as being defective until I switched from RCA to balanced XLR with that Peavey device.  Since that fixed the problem, I assumed it was the lifted ground that was responsible. 
  
 I apologize to everyone as this really does not belong in this particular thread, and I will take this elsewhere if anything more needs to be discussed.  Anyway, I listened to music all night with the ground lift button in the outward position and the transformers disengaged, and there was no background noise between songs or when the music was paused, only dead silence even with the volume turned WAY up.  Back to the music.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

I have some Focal Alphas with a Roland Quad-Capture with balanced connections and as I said no noise, as they don't have a volume button the volume is controlled in the DAC and no noise, with the ground lifted I get a low (in volume) and constant bzzzzzzzz, even with the laptop shutdown (and the DAC as it's usb powered) if I disconnect the usb cable the noise changes to higher hummm, just like a live cable connected to an amp, in this situation if I change the ground to normal (grounded) no noise whatever, as expected....
 It's not a good idea to un-ground a balanced connection, I think that a switch to lift the ground is more for a diagnosis purpose than a solution....
  
 You had it right after all, that is why it solved your no-problem, that box seems pretty good... and as someone said the solution to most of the problems it to RTFM.....(with pro gear anyway).


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> At least it was EMP proof, a good case for tube amps for audio.


 
  
 Being tubed does not automagically confer EMP resistance on it.
  
 Back in the day the standard for EMP resistance was called TEMPEST, and if you were a tech and had the chance to examining TEMPEST rated gear, you saw that there was a lot more to it than being tubed. In fact, a lot of it was wall-to-wall SS. 
  
 A little light reading:
  
  http://cryptome.org/emp.htm
  
  http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp/c-6body.pdf
  
  
  
 Fact is that the EMP resistance of tubed gear was just another tube bigot myth.


----------



## sonitus mirus

macacodosom said:


> I have some Focal Alphas with a Roland Quad-Capture with balanced connections and as I said no noise, as they don't have a volume button the volume is controlled in the DAC and no noise, with the ground lifted I get a low (in volume) and constant bzzzzzzzz, even with the laptop shutdown (and the DAC as it's usb powered) if I disconnect the usb cable the noise changes to higher hummm, just like a live cable connected to an amp, in this situation if I change the ground to normal (grounded) no noise whatever, as expected....
> It's not a good idea to un-ground a balanced connection, I think that a switch to lift the ground is more for a diagnosis purpose than a solution....
> 
> You had it right after all, that is why it solved your no-problem, that box seems pretty good... and as someone said the solution to most of the problems it to RTFM.....(with pro gear anyway).


 
  
 It is a common feature for a DI box to have a ground lift, and these are safe to use.  This is not used strictly for testing.  It seemed that in the end my solution was using balanced cables instead of the unbalanced RCA cables, though my first DI box had permanently lifted grounds and isolation transformers while I most likely required neither of these options to eliminate the hum.
  
 http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/feb97/diboxes.html 





> The other common (but much less sinister) electrical problem is that of ground or earth loops. These can be caused when a loop is formed (via a connecting audio lead) between the earth in your mixer's mains plug and the one in an instrument's mains plug (to take one example). In this situation, 'earth currents' circulate, resulting in a hum that should be familiar to most people. Unfortunately, a lot of musicians cure this problem by removing the earth lead from their mains plug, which is a potentially lethal thing to do. *The best solution is to disconnect the screen at one end of the audio cable, breaking the loop in a much safer way. Most DI boxes have a switch labelled 'Ground Lift', or something similar, and these simply disconnect the screen from the balanced mic-level signal going to the mixer, so that the mixer's earth is isolated from the instrument/amplifier earths* (since the audio signal is balanced through the transformer, the screen is not needed for the return signal).


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> Being tubed does not automagically confer EMP resistance on it.
> 
> Back in the day the standard for EMP resistance was called TEMPEST, and if you were a tech and had the chance to examining TEMPEST rated gear, you saw that there was a lot more to it than being tubed. In fact, a lot of it was wall-to-wall SS.
> 
> ...


 
 Sheesh, it was a joke. Unfortunately it can only encourage our resident CD Mat expert.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Sheesh, it was a joke. Unfortunately it can only encourage our resident CD Mat expert.


 
 And now try to tell me that SS is inherently as (or even more...) EMP resistant than HSD ( Hollow State Device ) ...


----------



## cel4145

Can your CD mat survive this? 




Speaking of CD mats



Gotta love that marketing prose!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

IS that  "SID" from the Brilliant Pebbles Website? He offers a TONGUE-IN-CHEEK product like that. 
  
 Quote:


cel4145 said:


> Can your CD mat survive this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> IS that "SID" from the Brilliant Pebbles Website? He offers a TONGUE-IN-CHEEK product like that.




I don't think so. It's available for sale multiple places:
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Improvement-Disc-SID/dp/B0030GVDP2
http://highend-electronics.com/products/sid-sound-improvement-disk?variant=960295875
http://www.analogueseduction.net/system-tune-up-and-upgrades/sid-sound-improvement-disc.html


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> I don't think so. It's available for sale multiple places:
> http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Improvement-Disc-SID/dp/B0030GVDP2
> http://highend-electronics.com/products/sid-sound-improvement-disk?variant=960295875
> http://www.analogueseduction.net/system-tune-up-and-upgrades/sid-sound-improvement-disc.html


 
 Oh wow. "It give more air between my instruments…" I think "a veil" has been lifted!


----------



## headdict

exacoustatowner said:


> Oh wow. "It give more air between my instruments…" I think "a veil" has been lifted!



By neutralizing the red laser light it takes away the aggressiveness. Finally people notice the coloration of the sound by the unmodified laser light. Quite a revelation! I wonder how it synergizes with THE MAT, though.


----------



## StanD

That doesn't eliminate the need for a CD Mat.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

Mat removes all the Gloss.
  
 (If you find the sound from your CDs to be too shiny, you could use fine sandpaper on them them)


----------



## Exacoustatowner

headdict said:


> By neutralizing the red laser light it takes away the aggressiveness. Finally people notice the coloration of the sound by the unmodified laser light. Quite a revelation! I wonder how it synergizes with THE MAT, though.


 
 Oh! That explains it!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Mat removes all the Gloss.
> 
> (If you find the sound from your CDs to be too shiny, you could use fine sandpaper on them them)


 
 So it removes that "glassy digital hardness!"


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

Exactly. We have a product, and a marketing line!


----------



## cel4145

headdict said:


> By neutralizing the red laser light it takes away the aggressiveness. Finally people notice the coloration of the sound by the unmodified laser light. Quite a revelation! I wonder how it synergizes with THE MAT, though.




The color of the CD mat affects the coloring of the sound. For example, if they had used purple, the recognizable frequency response change would be different. Although I understand some colors produce very undesirable results. 

Also, apparently it HAS been proven that anyone who trust their ears can hear the difference, and it also does not help cheaper CD players. One user testimonial said:

"Easy to use and relatively cheap. Tried this with a group of people who could not see whether the disc was in the player or not-everyone agreed that the disc did slightly improve the sound.
It may make more of a noticeable difference the higher the quality of the HI-FI system-I can imagine on a poor set up there would not be a noticeable difference."
http://www.analogueseduction.net/system-tune-up-and-upgrades/sid-sound-improvement-disc.html


----------



## Ruben123

You mean trust the eyes. You can only trust your eyes when evaluating sound differences. With help from your ears of course. But mainly the eyes. ABX sucks.


----------



## icebear

I think I'll have to try a kind of blue SACD mat, that should be cool 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Opportunist

icebear said:


> I think I'll have to try a kind of blue SACD mat, that should be cool
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 For best results (and to hedge all bets) use a rainbow-colored mat. Politically correct, too.


----------



## cel4145

icebear said:


> I think I'll have to try a kind of blue SACD mat, that should be cool  .




Blue might make the music make you feel sad.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> Blue might make the music make you feel sad.



I would try that with a warm outlet to balance the Blue SID- That pesky VEIL won't stand a chance.


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> I would try that with a warm outlet to balance the Blue SID- That pesky VEIL won't stand a chance.




Speaking of "veil," here's another one: "picky" headphones. For example, seen a few people saying the AKG K7XX is picky about amps. I know it's a bit difficult to drive, but that's not what they mean. Apparently the K7XX (and some other headphones) only work well with certain amps among all the amps that can drive them well. It surprises me that they don't understand that the "picky" part is the specific "head" that goes in between the headphones. LOL

There are no "picky" headphones, just picky people!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> Speaking of "veil," here's another one: "picky" headphones. For example, seen a few people saying the AKG K7XX is picky about amps. I know it's a bit difficult to drive, but that's not what they mean. Apparently the K7XX (and some other headphones) only work well with certain amps among all the amps that can drive them well. It surprises me that they don't understand that the "picky" part is the specific "head" that goes in between the headphones. LOL
> 
> There are no "picky" headphones, just picky people!



You are discounting Magical Effects! It has nothing to do with the normal properties of the amps.


----------



## DreamKing

exacoustatowner said:


> Welcome. I came here for similar reasons. Somehow using EQ's is heretical- bass and treble can only be adjusted by magical means.


 
  
 Yes thank you, I don't know why EQ is so hated on H-F. I mean I know it has to do with _purity_ or it being a digital process (whatever that means at this point, in an industry ruled by the digital process anyway), but it makes no sense to me to roll tubes, opamps, buy multiple dacs and amps for different _perceived_ audible differences with no genuine direct-comparisons made.... I love my EQ.


----------



## DreamKing

headwhacker said:


> You can suggest to get 2 amps and install different opamps for quick comparison


 
  
 Too costly, and it would make too much sense at the same time lol.


----------



## DreamKing

stand said:


> Opamp rolling can be real, just stick in an ancient 45 year old 709 and listen to the increased noise level and if you have a high gain circuit the possible treble roll off due to the bad open loop frequency response and the effects of the poor slew rate. Not to mention the possible instabilty by a capacitve load that can be cured by increasing the compensation capacitor which further reduces bandwith and slew rate.
> It must really suck for an audiophile to live in the past or to buy a cheapo poorly designed product on fleabay. So the best advice is not to live in the past or buy cheap S#1t.


 
  
 We're not talking about 45 year old crap though. The actual amp has great design. I was iffy about the whole chinese ebay thing but it's a great product especially considering the price, enough to be a big hit on massdrop. What's happening is that a couple people are unhappy with the sound they're getting from their setup and relating it specifically to the opamp combination....somehow.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

dreamking said:


> Yes thank you, I don't know why EQ is so hated on H-F. I mean I know it has to do with _purity_ or it being a digital process (whatever that means at this point, in an industry ruled by the digital process anyway), but it makes no sense to me to roll tubes, opamps, buy multiple dacs and amps for different _perceived_ audible differences with no genuine direct-comparisons made.... I love my EQ.


 
 Hey- that's logical! Oh, right-it's sound science.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

cel4145 said:


> ... ... ...
> 
> Also, apparently it HAS been proven that anyone who trust their ears can hear the difference ... ... ...


 
  
 Is ear trust measurable?


----------



## sonitus mirus

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Is ear trust measurable?


 
  
 Only ear wax.


----------



## RRod

I just noticed Steve Eddy was banned; how'd that happen?


----------



## headdict

rrod said:


> I just noticed Steve Eddy was banned; how'd that happen?


 

 Oh, it happens to all of us, sooner or later.
  
 And BTW we're not allowed to discuss such things. I think I'm just gonna report the both of us, so that we can follow Steve into head-fi heaven and the mods can clean this mess up.


----------



## RRod

headdict said:


> Oh, it happens to all of us, sooner or later.
> 
> And BTW we're not allowed to discuss such things. I think I'm just gonna report the both of us, so that we can follow Steve into head-fi heaven and the mods can clean this mess up.


 
  
 Nothing to see here, you lookie-loos!


----------



## sonitus mirus




----------



## Exacoustatowner

rrod said:


> I just noticed Steve Eddy was banned; how'd that happen?



Generally someone with actual knowledge of "how stuff works" gets mobbed by people who subscribe to what some of us consider "snake oil." When it escalates bans ensue. I may point out violations of physics but I let it go to avoid pointless acrimony.


----------



## uchihaitachi

headdict said:


> Oh, it happens to all of us, sooner or later.
> 
> And BTW we're not allowed to discuss such things. I think I'm just gonna report the both of us, so that we can follow Steve into head-fi heaven and the mods can clean this mess up.




Isnt it ok to discuss bans on a thread dedicated to bans? Lol


----------



## headdict

uchihaitachi said:


> Isnt it ok to discuss bans on a thread dedicated to bans? Lol


 

 I think this is why my first post to this thread got deleted.
  
 Let's keep promoting CD mats and stuff so the mods think this thread is useful.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

headdict said:


> I think this is why my first post to this thread got deleted.
> 
> Let's keep promoting CD mats and stuff so the mods think this thread is useful.



There is a lot of Magical Tech in the Audiophile world Science is antithetical to Magic. What we need is a "Sound Magic" Forum to discuss the effects of Will and use of Magic Imbued Objects on Veil Lifting. It needs to be free from Physics. No Ohm's Law, Maxwell's Equations, Electrical Engineering Dogma!
Without interference I'm sure the Mages could devise Magical Amps, DACs, DAPs etc that completely circumvent Science.


----------



## headwhacker

exacoustatowner said:


> There is a lot of Magical Tech in the Audiophile world Science is antithetical to Magic. What we need is a "Sound Magic" Forum to discuss the effects of Will and use of Magic Imbued Objects on Veil Lifting. It needs to be free from Physics. No Ohm's Law, Maxwell's Equations, Electrical Engineering Dogma!
> Without interference I'm sure the Mages could devise Magical Amps, DACs, DAPs etc that completely circumvent Science.




Age of Technology is ending. The age of magic is dawning upon us


----------



## upstateguy

stand said:


> That doesn't eliminate the need for a CD Mat.


 
  
 Or Diapers!
  


dreamking said:


> Yes thank you, *I don't know why EQ is so hated on H-F. *I mean I know it has to do with _purity_ or it being a digital process (whatever that means at this point, in an industry ruled by the digital process anyway), but it makes no sense to me to roll tubes, opamps, buy multiple dacs and amps for different _perceived_ audible differences with no genuine direct-comparisons made.... I love my EQ.


 
  
 Yes you do.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

headwhacker said:


> Age of Technology is ending. The age of magic is dawning upon us


 
 It is! Back in the old days groups of Magic users would gather in groups to multiply the power of their magical chants. Today we have internet forums where THOUSANDS can chime in and impose their Magical Will on Cables, Fuses, etc. This massed Magical Intent is powerful to override  mundane Physics!
 " *Magical thinking* is the attribution of causal relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation."  This is why ArnyK, StanD, SteveEddy (RIP), and others sometimes fail to convince people.
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking


----------



## cel4145

headwhacker said:


> Age of Technology is ending. The age of magic is dawning upon us




Where you have you been? The Age of Magic has been ongoing and simply sidstepped the Age of Technology and co-opted it


----------



## StanD

Quote:
 Originally Posted by *StanD* 


  
 Opamp rolling can be real, just stick in an ancient 45 year old 709 and listen to the increased noise level and if you have a high gain circuit the possible treble roll off due to the bad open loop frequency response and the effects of the poor slew rate. Not to mention the possible instabilty by a capacitve load that can be cured by increasing the compensation capacitor which further reduces bandwith and slew rate.
 It must really suck for an audiophile to live in the past or to buy a cheapo poorly designed product on fleabay. So the best advice is not to live in the past or buy cheap S#1t. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  


dreamking said:


> We're not talking about 45 year old crap though. The actual amp has great design. I was iffy about the whole chinese ebay thing but it's a great product especially considering the price, enough to be a big hit on massdrop. What's happening is that a couple people are unhappy with the sound they're getting from their setup and relating it specifically to the opamp combination....somehow.


 
 I was being a wiseguy, couldn't you tell? You will be forced to replace all opamps in your kit with 709s and 741s. I think for the most part rolling a modern opamp that was properly designed into a circuit has no value.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> Where you have you been? The Age of Magic has been ongoing and simply sidstepped the Age of Technology and co-opted it


 
 Haha! I've been cloistered from Reality by working in Biotech. I only joined Head-Fi 6 months ago. I read Fantasy and Science Fiction rather extensively (balance to the Scientific Papers I read) and have an amateur interest in Psychology, Cultural and Physical Anthropology. I had little idea how pervasive Magical Thinking was in the Real World. Some of what I read on Head-Fi reminds me of my earlier readings on Anthropology and how superstition becomes engrained in various cultures.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

And that's just Head-fi. Multiply it by what people _can hear when they trust their ears_ in all the other branches of audio, and.....
  
 Wait!
  


> have an amateur interest in Psychology, Cultural and Physical Anthropology.


 
  
 You're _studying  _us!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

thad-e-ginathom said:


> And that's just Head-fi. Multiply it by what people _can hear when they trust their ears_ in all the other branches of audio, and.....
> 
> Wait!
> 
> ...



Curses! You are on to me!


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> headwhacker said:
> 
> 
> > Age of Technology is ending. The age of magic is dawning upon us
> ...


 
  
 We're running out of people.....


----------



## Exacoustatowner

Wow!
 http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/isolation/bbs.html


----------



## Exacoustatowner

upstateguy said:


> We're running out of people.....



Magic is more powerful than Science- at least here. I mention the Science- but if the Magicians pool their magic for a power blast- I step aside. Ultimately it comes down to this being a hobby. If Magic leads to happiness who am I to nullify it.
Even worse, what if I ruin the magically enhanced sound with my skepticism and science?


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > We're running out of people.....
> ...


 
  
 Or join the ranks of the expats.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

upstateguy said:


> Or join the ranks of the expats.



Id rather keep a low profile and slowly chip away at the Magical Edifice.


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > Or join the ranks of the expats.
> ...


 
  
  
 a logical approach but the force is not with you.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

upstateguy said:


> a logical approach but the force is not with you.



True. Many others have succumbed to the Lure of the Darkside and responded to the Magical Attacks of the Audio Believers- only to be driven into exile.


----------



## headwhacker

In that case I need to work on my genjutsu more. So I can create illusions beyond what Science can explain.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

headwhacker said:


> In that case I need to work on my genjutsu more. So I can create illusions beyond what Science can explain.



Excellent! Illusions become "Consensus Reality." If one of the Arch Mages proclaim a DAC as "Bright", massed consensus will insure it IS Bright to all Magic Adherents


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> headwhacker said:
> 
> 
> > In that case I need to work on my genjutsu more. So I can create illusions beyond what Science can explain.
> ...


 
 and if they think it is "bright", it will be "bright".


----------



## money4me247

exacoustatowner said:


> Excellent! Illusions become "Consensus Reality." If one of the Arch Mages proclaim a DAC as "Bright", massed consensus will insure it IS Bright to all Magic Adherents


 
 I do agree there is some groupthink/herd behavior type bias present in this hobby. For enthusiasts, it is also difficult to avoid seeing any prior impressions before doing your own analysis. However, I do think that you have some personal reference points that you always use for relative comparison, you can get a better sense of where things fall on the frequency response spectrum of dark-to-bright.


----------



## briskly

Why is it that magical thinking and disregard for measurements does not seem to be so present on the other A/V side, the video enthusiast, as much as the audio end?


----------



## analogsurviver

briskly said:


> Why is it that magical thinking and disregard for measurements does not seem to be so present on the other A/V side, the video enthusiast, as much as the audio end?


 
 Simple. In picture/video, it is immediately obvious, if it is out of focus, "stressed", etc - even to the most untrained eye.
  
 Similar audio mischiefs have been known to be awarded Grammys ...
  
 With audio, it is MUCH more subjective than with video - somebody might like something beyond belief, while another person may well find it totally unacceptable. Anything visual has to be "off" by a considerably larger proportion before it is objectionble.


----------



## cel4145

briskly said:


> Why is it that magical thinking and disregard for measurements does not seem to be so present on the other A/V side, the video enthusiast, as much as the audio end?


]

Well, for one thing, people tend to accept that the picture will need to be adjusted (calibrated) to suit their needs. If we could get audio people to accept the similar benefits of EQ, that would certainly help.


----------



## sonitus mirus

cel4145 said:


> ]
> 
> Well, for one thing, people tend to accept that the picture will need to be adjusted (calibrated) to suit their needs. If we could get audio people to accept the similar benefits of EQ, that would certainly help.


 
  
 When one considers the variances between the same models of speakers or headphones, all of the DAC, amp, and cable swapping, conducted in an effort to achieve the ideal sound, is laughable.  None of that other stuff makes a significant contribution that would surpass the differences most likely present from the manufacturing process of the transducer.  EQ is the most reasonable way to improve the sound quality for the serious listener.  A proper EQ is not achieved simply by listening with your ears and adjusting sliders, which is another issue entirely.


----------



## cel4145

sonitus mirus said:


> When one considers the variances between the same models of speakers or headphones, all of the DAC, amp, and cable swapping, conducted in an effort to achieve the ideal sound, is laughable.  None of that other stuff makes a significant contribution that would surpass the differences most likely present from the manufacturing process of the transducer.  EQ is the most reasonable way to improve the sound quality for the serious listener.  *A proper EQ is not achieved simply by listening with your ears and adjusting sliders, which is another issue entirely.*




And that's the problem with headphones. With speakers, easy enough to measure the response at the listening position and go from there. If we ever get a good (and inexpensive) in headphone measurement method, then EQ becomes more practical.


----------



## money4me247

cel4145 said:


> And that's the problem with headphones. With speakers, easy enough to measure the response at the listening position and go from there. If we ever get a good (and inexpensive) in headphone measurement method, then EQ becomes more practical.


 
 there are some quick and easy headphone measurement kits that you can get. if you have soldering skills, you can make it yourself! will need to get a usb interface too though which can add to the total costs. @bluemonkeyflyer helped me quite extensively in setting up my measurement rig.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> And that's the problem with headphones. With speakers, easy enough to measure the response at the listening position and go from there. If we ever get a good (and inexpensive) in headphone measurement method, then EQ becomes more practical.



Good points. Also individual hearing FR varies...


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> Good points. Also individual hearing FR varies...




Yep. Although measurements help with that. At least you and I each using a calibrated mic with something like REW can talk about how our speakers are EQ'd with a common reference point--the measurements. And we can talk about what "neutral" means in terms of measurements instead of perception (which is what people that use measurements do). 

For example, it's incredibly hard to help people in the Intro/Recommendation forum here because they seek headphones with descriptors that are based on their perception with no reference points: balanced, neutral, bassy, punchy, bright, warm, etc. Granted not everyone is like that. But a lot of people have never listened to something that measures neutral, which is necessary to talk about the different sound qualities that are not neutral. 

Indeed, this might be part of the problem: a great difficulty in the community for talking about sonic characteristics even for equipment that does have significant difference (i.e. headphones).


----------



## RRod

Eventually we'll be able to get 3D-printed copies of our heads/torsos made; ship em off for measurement at a anechoic chamber then convolve, convolve, convolve young men!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> Yep. Although measurements help with that. At least you and I each using a calibrated mic with something like REW can talk about how our speakers are EQ'd with a common reference point--the measurements. And we can talk about what "neutral" means in terms of measurements instead of perception (which is what people that use measurements do).
> 
> For example, it's incredibly hard to help people in the Intro/Recommendation forum here because they seek headphones with descriptors that are based on their perception with no reference points: balanced, neutral, bassy, punchy, bright, warm, etc. Granted not everyone is like that. But a lot of people have never listened to something that measures neutral, which is necessary to talk about the different sound qualities that are not neutral.
> 
> Indeed, this might be part of the problem: a great difficulty in the community for talking about sonic characteristics even for equipment that does have significant difference (i.e. headphones).


 
Well said


----------



## Exacoustatowner

sonitus mirus said:


> When one considers the variances between the same models of speakers or headphones, all of the DAC, amp, and cable swapping, conducted in an effort to achieve the ideal sound, is laughable.  None of that other stuff makes a significant contribution that would surpass the differences most likely present from the manufacturing process of the transducer.  EQ is the most reasonable way to improve the sound quality for the serious listener.  A proper EQ is not achieved simply by listening with your ears and adjusting sliders, which is another issue entirely.



What would you recommend for someone who just listens to CD and SACD? I think putting microphones in the headphones and measuring the sound makes sense-but the ear and the headphone interact making a simple microphone less effective. I think RROD is on to something with the 3D scan of the ears, etc


----------



## upstateguy

cel4145 said:


> sonitus mirus said:
> 
> 
> > When one considers the variances between the same models of speakers or headphones, all of the DAC, amp, and cable swapping, conducted in an effort to achieve the ideal sound, is laughable.  None of that other stuff makes a significant contribution that would surpass the differences most likely present from the manufacturing process of the transducer.  EQ is the most reasonable way to improve the sound quality for the serious listener.  *A proper EQ is not achieved simply by listening with your ears and adjusting sliders, which is another issue entirely.*
> ...


 
  
 I think you guys are technically right but you're complicating something that should be very simple.
  
 Just curious, is there something wrong with adjusting the EQ until, what ever it is your listening to, sounds good (to you).......  then listen to the music......


----------



## cel4145

upstateguy said:


> I think you guys are technically right but you're complicating something that should be very simple.
> 
> Just curious, is there something wrong with adjusting the EQ until, what ever it is your listening to, sounds good (to you).......  then listen to the music......




No. Nothing wrong with that. 

But using PEQ to smooth the frequency response by ear is a LOT harder than using a measurement mic with some kind of software like REW to do so. Read this Head-Fi EQ tutorial (there are several posts) to see how difficult it is: http://www.head-fi.org/t/615417/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-advanced-tutorial-in-progress


----------



## arnyk

upstateguy said:


> I think you guys are technically right but you're complicating something that should be very simple.
> 
> Just curious, is there something wrong with a......


 
  
 It must be nice sitting in that char, prognosticating about a simple thing like you are some kind of authority, arguing with and insulting people have have actually gotten their hands dirty...
  
  


cel4145 said:


> No. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> But using PEQ to smooth the frequency response by ear is a LOT harder than using a measurement mic with some kind of software like REW to do so. Read this Head-Fi EQ tutorial (there are several posts) to see how difficult it is: http://www.head-fi.org/t/615417/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-advanced-tutorial-in-progress


 
  
 Agreed that the more intellectual means involving measuring is actually the far easier method.
  
 What's wrong is the suggestion that there's something wrong with people who have actually tried it both ways, and know from personal which one is actually the easier .


----------



## cel4145

arnyk said:


> Agreed that the more intellectual means involving measuring is actually the far easier method.
> 
> What's wrong is the suggestion that there's something wrong with people who have actually tried it both ways, and know from personal which one is actually the easier .




I also think there's a difference, too, between

"I played around with my EQ for a couple of hours and found some settings I liked." 

AND

"I worked to really smooth the frequency response of my headphones" (or speakers), in the way that Joe Bloggs describes.


----------



## castleofargh

upstateguy said:


> I think you guys are technically right but you're complicating something that should be very simple.
> 
> Just curious, is there something wrong with adjusting the EQ until, what ever it is your listening to, sounds good (to you).......  then listen to the music......


 
 sadly it's very hard to do right for the layman. most obvious example, when you rise your EQ +3db somewhere in the bass and listen a little.  going back down -3db will for a time feel like you went too low and lack bass. it's pretty hard to just move up and down until we hit the jackpot because that will tend to make us go up a lot more than we need. if only for the fact that "louder is better". 
 I'm very sure practice makes things better, as I'm way better than I was 1 or 2 years ago at this little game and I don't move each slider aimlessly anymore. but I'm still no sound engineer ^_^.
  
 with measurements, if you can trust them, then you can see objective variations from headphone to headphone, and start to get ideas about what you like or don't like and maybe what to change on one headphone to get it to sound good to you. I'm just beginning with crappy and badly calibrated measurements, but just by comparing several IEMs, I went and applied some EQ that ended up close or slightly better to me than what I had done with joebloggs method(I'm a fan and abused his method on most of my IEMs but it's really no fun at all to do. and you rapidly discover that test tones aren't the most relaxing of sounds). but I arrived their so much faster with a crappy mic and bad calibration! so it may very well depend on the individual experience, both with interpreting graphs, and know where to go by ear. the ear part is still necessary at some point obviously.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 also thank you guys, I was writing a pretty stupid question, and just by trying to figure out how to explain it to you guys, I came with the answer. can't beat that answering speed, you guys are the best.


----------



## RRod

exacoustatowner said:


> What would you recommend for someone who just listens to CD and SACD? I think putting microphones in the headphones and measuring the sound makes sense-but the ear and the headphone interact making a simple microphone less effective. I think RROD is on to something with the 3D scan of the ears, etc


 
  
 Give the EQ-by-ear thing a try as a first shot; there's nothing to lose.
  
 Here are two ways I can think to find a target for your own headphones' response that involve measurement (via binaural mics) rather than listening+EQ:
 a) measure response at the eardrum in a listening room that you like (basically what the Smyth Realiser works with)
 b) measure response at the eardrum from a set of headphones that you like
  
 Then you make ratio filters based upon the eardrum response of your own headphones. All of this is non-trivial, but I've been playing with the headphone→headphone option and results are promising; I'll be posting the whole sordid affair soon. All of this of course means you have to have a target in the first place.


----------



## sonitus mirus

exacoustatowner said:


> What would you recommend for someone who just listens to CD and SACD? I think putting microphones in the headphones and measuring the sound makes sense-but the ear and the headphone interact making a simple microphone less effective. I think RROD is on to something with the 3D scan of the ears, etc


 
  
 Ha!  I don't actually EQ.  I'm not a critical listener.  I enjoy what I have now, but I don't know if it measures flat or looks like a roller coaster.  I don't even listen to CDs, just Google service.  In short, I have no idea.  
  
 Though, with headphones, you could generally rely on the FR charts, as there is no room interaction to worry about, which is a major reason for EQ with speakers.  Maybe a foam head with an open hole running through it from the left ear to the right, where a microphone can be inserted into a separate hole in either the front, back, or underneath that could be centered between the 2 headphone speakers?


----------



## Ruben123

I too care less and less about my equipment. If it sounds good, whatever?! currently loving the #### out of my Sansa Clip+ and KZ ED9 or Sennheiser HD439. The earphones might not be the best, but hey, Mozart's piano concertos and Bob Dylan SHINE. Isn't that what matters? Audiophiles only listen to their equipment which is a shame. Even more so when they actually hear things that there are not -or could not hear when blindly tested. It's about the music and if you enjoy it, it's totally OK!


----------



## cel4145

ruben123 said:


> I too care less and less about my equipment. If it sounds good, whatever?! currently loving the #### out of my Sansa Clip+ and KZ ED9 or Sennheiser HD439. The earphones might not be the best, but hey, Mozart's piano concertos and Bob Dylan SHINE. Isn't that what matters? *Audiophiles only listen to their equipment which is a shame.* Even more so when they actually hear things that there are not -or could not hear when blindly tested. It's about the music and if you enjoy it, it's totally OK!




No doubt. 

My first portable player was one of these:



Had some crappy foam ear headphones that would sell now for about $2 or $3 if they were made today. And of course cassette tapes :rolleyes:

My Clip Zip with high bit rate mp3s and decent headphones is orders of magnitude beyond that in SQ, and yet I was able to enjoy the music with that 2nd generation Walkman setup. I use that to remind myself about the extremely diminishing rates of return I get from higher priced gear (not that I don't have any). It is REALLY important to stop and enjoy the music and forget about the equipment.


----------



## icebear

LOL time travel 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I couldn't afford a Sony at that time
 I had an AIWA which had auto reverse - talk about cutting _edge_ technology!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - and a pretty decent battery life if I remember correctly but that is like 30+ years back ... and yes I also enjoyed listening to the music on that nowadays p.o.c.!
  
 edit: was missing a word


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

I _eventually_ got the leather-clad Sony Walkman Professional, a great little poclket-sized deck, and... a couple of months later, moved to minidisc, leaving all that tape hiss behind.
  
 Mind you... a decade later, I do still occasionally use the Walkman Pro as a deck, but I haven't touched a minidisc in a long, long time.


----------



## analogsurviver

thad-e-ginathom said:


> I _eventually_ got the leather-clad Sony Walkman Professional, a great little poclket-sized deck, and... a couple of months later, moved to minidisc, leaving all that tape hiss behind.
> 
> Mind you... a decade later, I do still occasionally use the Walkman Pro as a deck, but I haven't touched a minidisc in a long, long time.


 
 WMD-6(c) ( aka Sony Walkman Professional ) is a GREAT deck - too bad great cassette tapes are $o expen$$ive today ...


----------



## DreamKing

> Originally Posted by *upstateguy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Yes you do.


 
  
 Do what? 
  
 Edit: nevermind lol tired, didn't read that right


----------



## cel4145

icebear said:


> LOL time travel
> I couldn't afford a Sony at that time
> I had an AIWA which had auto reverse - talk about cutting technology! - and a pretty decent battery life if I remember correctly but that is like 30+ years back ... and yes I also enjoyed listening to the music on that nowadays p.o.c.!




I had an Aiwa tape deck at one point. I think it was even a dual deck. Been so long, and who really wants to remember cassette tape usage, I don't know. :etysmile:


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> WMD-6(c) ( aka Sony Walkman Professional ) is a GREAT deck - too bad great cassette tapes are $o expen$$ive today ...


 

 Why would you want cassettes though? They're worse than CDs in every way except portability, and worse than digital players in every way.


----------



## cel4145

cjl said:


> Why would you want cassettes though? They're worse than CDs in every way except portability, and worse than digital players in every way.




Why would you ask him "why?" It can't possibly be an answer you'll agree with. Well, unless it's so he can listen to that mixed tape he made for his girlfriend in middle school


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> Why would you ask him "why?" It can't possibly be an answer you'll agree with. Well, unless it's so he can listen to that mixed tape he made for his girlfriend in middle school



Nostalgia for wow, flutter, and tape hiss?


----------



## upstateguy

arnyk said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > I think you guys are technically right but you're complicating something that should be very simple.
> ...


 
  
 Uh-oh, looks like someone's is a little cranky today.
  
 In case you don't remember, we've been adjusting the bass and treble on our components by ear since the 50s. 
  
 Then we got equalizers.  Complicated things a bit but most of us were able to play around with it and get things to sound pretty good....  *just like you did Arny ! *
  
 It was as simple then as it is now. 
  
 Maybe not perfect but usually good enough.


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> Nostalgia for wow, flutter, and tape hiss?




C'mon man, it has Dolby C!


----------



## headwhacker

exacoustatowner said:


> Nostalgia for wow, flutter, and tape hiss?


 
  
 Their absense today is what makes audio sound "unnatural", "digital", "stripped off of it's soul" etc...


----------



## upstateguy

cel4145 said:


> arnyk said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed that the more intellectual means involving measuring is actually the far easier method.
> ...


 
  
  
 I was just thinking about this so let me ramble a bit.
  
 First you decide that AKG, or Sony, or Grado  or whoever, had no idea how to voice a headphone properly and you're not happy with how your pride and joy sounds.
  
 So OK, you calibrate your headphones with microphones and calibration CDs until you have a ruler flat FR.
  
 Now everyone who listens to music knows that many but not all recordings have the same amount of bass, mid range and treble.  
  
 So what do you do with your new ruler flat response when you don't like the recording engineer's idea of how the song should sound?   I guess you EQ by ear to get it to sound the way you want it to sound or just put up with it the way it is.
  
 Do you calibrate according to the calibration CDs or to the CD you want to listen to?
  
 What about the guys who like tubes?  Do you want to EQ away the tube sound?
  
 What about amps that have a high Z out of 120 ohms like the Beyerdynamic amp?  Do you want to EQ away the bass increase you get from increased impedance?
  
 If you have more that one amp, which one do you calibrate for, or do you calibrate each one?  What if you have more than one headphone?  Do you calibrate each headphone for each amp you have?  And should you calibrate to the music your listening to or to a calibration CD?
  
 I listen a lot to internet radio and not all of the high bit rate channels I frequent stream the same EQ.  Radio Paradise, for instance streams in 192mp3, 192ogg, 128aac and if you know where to find it, 320aac.  As discussed on the channel forum, the AAC has a little more bass than the other two.  Now what, calibrate it away or calibrate the others up?
  
 Or do you just leave the headphone alone, play the music, and adjust it by ear as needed?


----------



## analogsurviver

I agree that, ultimataly, digital recorders are better than cassette. I agree that even CD-R beats any cassette for wow and flutter - and that is the greatest drawback for the cassette.
  
 However, when used "with every bell and whistle imaginable", cassette will, EASILY, beat CD-R  in dynamic range - specially when recording live, where sometimes peaks exceeding + 10 dB ref anything available at the rehearsal are rather frequently encountered. I t will force you to record with say 12 dB lower gain when recording digital, effectively cutting the resolution ultimately achievable by 2 bits. And, say anything you want, IT IS AUDIBLE LOSS OF QUALITY - and would, absolutely no question about it, loose compared to a parallel cassette recording of the highest calibre. Provided music is not entirely based on speed stability - wow and flutter from cassette is totally unacceptable say in recording of a choir, whereas it would scintillate in recording of a percussion group. Another drawback of the cassette is the tape itself - or its sensitivity. It is NOT constant - same input level is modulated by this, making sounds differ, on momentary random basis, in amplitude. And it IS the main point why Sony Metal Master tape was/is undisputed king of cassette tape - because its constant output puts anything else within metal (type IV ) tapes to shame. Just check how it is made - and the price(s) of what little remains floating in the NOS market. It was/is, no question about it, THE most expensive tape ever available - but equally true is that it is worth every cent. The only tape with comparable constant output I am familiar with is a rather obscure Type II tape - with , compared to the top Sony, abysmally low MOL and hence limited dynamic range.
  
 HiRez recorders have, finally, put an end to the cassette - say about 10 years ago. However, a good tape in a WMD-6C is most certainly capable of making a recording that will generally exceed what is available on most labels - audiophile ones included. Although there were/are better cassette recorders than WMD-6C, they aren't numerous...
  
 You can check what was possible with cassette in 1985 - Keith Jarrett recorded an entire album to cassette at his home : 
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirits_(Keith_Jarrett_album)


----------



## castleofargh

upstateguy said:


> cel4145 said:
> 
> 
> > arnyk said:
> ...


 
 you're looking too much into it, no headphone is flat, not because manufacturers have stupid tastes, but because it's not so easy to do. changing the frequency response (and many other stuff) on a digital level is way easier and with a lot less counter effects than doing it on electrical, mechanical or acoustic level(and having to keep control on all of them into one device). then your ears and your tastes may make you wish for further adjustments. EQ can do that.
 or you really like the sound of a source and wish you could come pretty close to it with another source, EQ can help for that.
 it's a solution not one more problem in the audio chain. if you think you need to change your EQ between songs, then most likely without EQ you would change headphones instead. the need doesn't go away once you have removed EQ from the system. if you didn't have the problem before EQ, you still don't have it. and if you did, EQ is a rapid way to change a signature.
 I have µSD cards with an EQ included in the encoding of the songs for 3 of my most used IEMs, as it happens I didn't try to get the same sound out of the 3 IEMs, to me it wouldn't make any sense and I would then only use one at all times. I just changed them all just a little to remove something that annoyed me, or to compensate the change in signature from my 4ohm sony that ironically made my xba-c10 (a sony IEM) to sound too bright for my taste.
 it's really a solution and you need it only if you have a problem ^_^.


----------



## upstateguy

castleofargh said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > cel4145 said:
> ...


 
  
 +1   Exactly where I was going with this. 
  
 Edit:  flatness is also relative to ear shape.


----------



## cel4145

upstateguy said:


> I was just thinking about this so let me ramble a bit.
> 
> First you decide that AKG, or Sony, or Grado  or whoever, had no idea how to voice a headphone properly and you're not happy with how your pride and joy sounds.
> 
> So OK, you calibrate your headphones with microphones and calibration CDs until you have a ruler flat FR.




Time to stop right there. A "smooth" frequency response does not necessarily imply a flat frequency response. Have you ever looked at headphone measurements? They quite often have peaks and dips that are rather sharp, that will not create an accurate rendition for some notes with some instruments. And speaking of flat, they definitely never measure linear. My desktop speakers, which are not terribly expensive, measure way more linear down to their tuning point (just a bit more than about +/- 1 db) than any headphone I've ever seen. 

After correcting for those issues, which every headphone has, then one might adjust it _smoothly_ after that to desired emphasis levels (bass, mids, treble) for the listener. 

Oh, and I don't think AKG, Sony, or Grado makes headphones with custom frequency responses to suit a particular listener's tastes.


----------



## cel4145

Duplicate


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> I agree that, ultimataly, digital recorders are better than cassette. I agree that even CD-R beats any cassette for wow and flutter - and that is the greatest drawback for the cassette.
> 
> However, when used "with every bell and whistle imaginable", cassette will, EASILY, beat CD-R  in dynamic range - specially when recording live, where sometimes peaks exceeding + 10 dB ref anything available at the rehearsal are rather frequently encountered. I t will force you to record with say 12 dB lower gain when recording digital, effectively cutting the resolution ultimately achievable by 2 bits. And, say anything you want, IT IS AUDIBLE LOSS OF QUALITY - and would, absolutely no question about it, loose compared to a parallel cassette recording of the highest calibre. Provided music is not entirely based on speed stability - wow and flutter from cassette is totally unacceptable say in recording of a choir, whereas it would scintillate in recording of a percussion group. Another drawback of the cassette is the tape itself - or its sensitivity. It is NOT constant - same input level is modulated by this, making sounds differ, on momentary random basis, in amplitude. And it IS the main point why Sony Metal Master tape was/is undisputed king of cassette tape - because its constant output puts anything else within metal (type IV ) tapes to shame. Just check how it is made - and the price(s) of what little remains floating in the NOS market. It was/is, no question about it, THE most expensive tape ever available - but equally true is that it is worth every cent. The only tape with comparable constant output I am familiar with is a rather obscure Type II tape - with , compared to the top Sony, abysmally low MOL and hence limited dynamic range.
> 
> ...


 
 Even if you set 0dBFS on the CD equal to +12dBr on the cassette though, the noise floor of the CD will still be lower (in absolute terms), and as a result, the CD will still deliver better dynamic range.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> Even if you set 0dBFS on the CD equal to +12dBr on the cassette though, the noise floor of the CD will still be lower (in absolute terms), and as a result, the CD will still deliver better dynamic range.


 
 Not true. If external noise reduction ( Nakamichi High Com II - at least 20 dB less noise), high quality deck (64 dB without noise reduction ) and tape is used, under +12 dBr condition cassette can equal 96 dB of the CD. As such amplitude is in practice only required in bass, there is no tape saturation and resulting excessive distortion/compression. 
  
 Cassette is NOT as humble as most might be lead to believe - its greatest trouble is speed stability and not dynamic range.


----------



## cjl

How are you measuring that noise though (and I'd be curious to see a citation for a cassette with noise at -84dB)? Depending on the measurement, and on the type of dither, CDs can reproduce sounds quieter than -96dBFS and not have it get lost in the noise. The actual noise level can be -105dB or lower through most of the frequency range.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> How are you measuring that noise though (and I'd be curious to see a citation for a cassette with noise at -84dB)? Depending on the measurement, and on the type of dither, CDs can reproduce sounds quieter than -96dBFS and not have it get lost in the noise. The actual noise level can be -105dB or lower through most of the frequency range.


 
 Any cassette deck/tape combo with S/N of 64 before application of noise reduction. Noise reduction systems could improve that by up to 25 dB ( Sanyo ), but on the grounds of overall SQ I settled down to 20 dB reduction with Nakamichi High Com II, which provides 20 dB+ noise reduction while producing the least artefacts. Together, this makes a 84 dB SNR recorder ref 0 dB. Which is the exact figure quoted for CD-R recorders in recording mode.
  
 BASF chrome type II tapes were particularly quiet - and if judiciously used, could achieve greater dynamic range than metal tapes, simply because their noise was so much lower, despite lower MOL. Few cassette decks have electronics quiet enough to take advantage of these low noise tape.
  
 About 96 dB is the limit for the cassette, even under the most favourable conditions. And although digital can improve that further as you have described, I do not think that 96 or so dB recorder SNR is going to be an issue in practice.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

headwhacker said:


> Their absense today is what makes audio sound "unnatural", "digital", "stripped off of it's soul" etc...


 
 So true. I miss the extra vibrato added to flute music-I don't hear that with my CD's!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> C'mon man, it has Dolby C!


 
 True, but I had cassette recorders before Dolby B came out, let alone Dolby C! Ah Bookends by Simon and Garfunkel: :Everyone tells me it's all happening' at the Zoo ssssssss I do believe it, I do believe it's true sssssssss…." "Hello Darkness my Old Friend ssssssss…."  Towards the END of my Analog Days, I had the next to the top Nakamichi with Dolby C and was eyeing an outboard DBX compander. I recorded by LP's on to tape for listening (since they sounded better than commercial cassette releases).  Post 1984 I was dubbing CD's onto Metal cassette tape for car use for a year or two. Wow, Hiss, and Flutter were mostly controlled with the best equipment and tape. In the early days nearly all CD's were Classical with only a few pop/rock albums. I went from 30% Classical to 90% Classical listening-and it's still true to this day.
 But with my Acoustat Electrostatic speakers, no recording sounded as clean and free of distortion as the CD source. Once I had CD in the Car-the Nakamichi was sold off (1987?) ending my Analog Days/
 My first CD player was the Kyocera DA01 with mil spec discrete electronics. I lucked out as it did not share in the sonic pitfalls of some early CD players (to my ears). 
  
   Ssssssssss…. WOW!


----------



## arnyk

analogsurviver said:


> Not true. If external noise reduction ( Nakamichi High Com II - at least 20 dB less noise), high quality deck (64 dB without noise reduction ) and tape is used, under +12 dBr condition cassette can equal 96 dB of the CD. As such amplitude is in practice only required in bass, there is no tape saturation and resulting excessive distortion/compression.
> 
> Cassette is NOT as humble as most might be lead to believe - its greatest trouble is speed stability and not dynamic range.


 
  
 The above information does not even agree with standard references. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Com says that the available noise reduction with High Com was up to 10 dB at low frequencies and ranged as high as 25 dB at high frequencies. 
  
 Analog frequency multiband noise reduction based on sliding frequency amplitude compression like Hi Com, High Com II and High Com III, Dolby B and Dolby C are not all that comparable with PCM systems, even if some numbers may seem similar.  
  
 For example the only way you can measure 25 dB of noise reduction with High Com is to use A-Weighting and measure over a restricted frequency range. If you apply comparable srtategies to 16 bit digital, measurements up to 118 dB or more are possible. 
  
 Analog noise reduction's hidden agenda is that it trades off relatively large amplitude response errors for whatever more limited noise reduction. In the day it was often demonstrated that analog noise reduction schemes were highly dependent on the flatness of the response of the underlying magnetic recording system which was poor because the frequency response of analog tape is highly dependent on the currrent recording level. This contrasts with PCM digital where level and frequency response tracking errors are  often way too small to measure.
  
 It is also true that cassette had serious problems with speed errors due to tape slippage and the overall mechanical system. In digital systems we call this same thing jitter, but don't have to tolerate even a fraction as much of it.
  
 I would expect that any DBT comparing even the best cassette system to CD format would be easily dispatched by most listeners.


----------



## icebear

Analog tape machines running at 30ips using 35mm magnetic tape where able to preserve amazing performances. Hint: Cozart/Fine 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 The tiny shoelace of cassette tape is dead. It was nice and the SQ not too shabby - I had a harman/kardon CD491 which I gave away for free to the movers about 8 years ago after it had been sitting in the box for maybe 10 years. Nobody wants that tape format back. It was pretty good at the top end but not comparable to professional equipment e.g Studer, Nagra etc.


----------



## cel4145

Yes. I don't miss the days of cassette tapes. Not only the inferior SQ over digital, but also the other inherent problems working with a magnetic tape. Can't seem to remember a time when my CD player started eating a CD and spitting it out the top. Remember cassettes like these?


----------



## RRod

Why not get the best of both worlds?

  
 This device changed my life for like 2 years


----------



## sonitus mirus

cel4145 said:


> Yes. I don't miss the days of cassette tapes. Not only the inferior SQ over digital, but also the other inherent problems working with a magnetic tape. Can't seem to remember a time when my CD player started eating a CD and spitting it out the top. Remember cassettes like these?


 
  
 Another relic can fix this problem.


----------



## cel4145

sonitus mirus said:


> Another relic can fix this problem.




Not when the tape got chewed.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> Yes. I don't miss the days of cassette tapes. Not only the inferior SQ over digital, but also the other inherent problems working with a magnetic tape. Can't seem to remember a time when my CD player started eating a CD and spitting it out the top. Remember cassettes like these?


 
 Ah! The Mighty TDK Super Avilyn Tape! Who can forget the joys of splicing snapped tape! And I've NEVER once needed to use a head cleaner or demagnetize my CD's…


----------



## Don Hills

analogsurviver said:


> Any cassette deck/tape combo with S/N of 64 before application of noise reduction. Noise reduction systems could improve that by up to 25 dB ( Sanyo ), but on the grounds of overall SQ I settled down to 20 dB reduction with Nakamichi High Com II, which provides 20 dB+ noise reduction while producing the least artefacts. Together, this makes a 84 dB SNR recorder ref 0 dB. Which is the exact figure quoted for CD-R recorders in recording mode.
> 
> BASF chrome type II tapes were particularly quiet - and if judiciously used, could achieve greater dynamic range than metal tapes, simply because their noise was so much lower, despite lower MOL. Few cassette decks have electronics quiet enough to take advantage of these low noise tape.
> 
> About 96 dB is the limit for the cassette, even under the most favourable conditions. And although digital can improve that further as you have described, I do not think that 96 or so dB recorder SNR is going to be an issue in practice.


 
  
 64 dB is physically impossible with any real world cassette tape formulation - the track width is too small and the speed is too slow. I'll grant that the electronics of a good deck should be quieter than that - I know my Nakamichis were.
 The original BASF "Chromdioxid" was indeed quieter than most metal tapes except Nakamichi's own. They did something strange with "Chromdioxid II", I could never get that formula to bias and EQ to a flat response.  I standardised on TDK MA and MA-R for critical work because the noise was good enough for my purposes and the extra HF level capability came in handy when recording live.


----------



## Don Hills

exacoustatowner said:


> Ah! The Mighty TDK Super Avilyn Tape! Who can forget the joys of splicing snapped tape! And I've NEVER once needed to use a head cleaner or demagnetize my CD's…


 
  
 You never clean your CD player lens?
 And you should try demagnetising your CDs. Just like demagnetising LPs, it's amazing the difference it makes.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

don hills said:


> exacoustatowner said:
> 
> 
> > Ah! The Mighty TDK Super Avilyn Tape! Who can forget the joys of splicing snapped tape! And I've NEVER once needed to use a head cleaner or demagnetize my CD's…
> ...


 

 Why demagnetising if you have CD Mats?


----------



## analogsurviver

don hills said:


> 64 dB is physically impossible with any real world cassette tape formulation - the track width is too small and the speed is too slow. I'll grant that the electronics of a good deck should be quieter than that - I know my Nakamichis were.
> The original BASF "Chromdioxid" was indeed quieter than most metal tapes except Nakamichi's own. They did something strange with "Chromdioxid II", I could never get that formula to bias and EQ to a flat response.  I standardised on TDK MA and MA-R for critical work because the noise was good enough for my purposes and the extra HF level capability came in handy when recording live.


 
 OK, we can lower the SNR to 62 dB and increase the recording level to +14dBr (any decent metal tape can take that )
 - creating the same dynamic range ultimately available.
  
 http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/rs-az7.shtml
  
 I agree with your comments on the tapes - right on the money. Except for the fact that RS-AZ6/7 can calibrate themselves for ANY tape to the maximum performance - and that means I use this function for every SIDE of EVERY tape ! I do not use "generic" bias/EQ settings for any given tape - as they, although similar, differ enough from batch to batch and tape to tape to warrant calibration of each side of each tape. At the push of the button, approx 30 seconds ...
  
 Ultimately, the dynamic range of the RS-AZ7, when used without its internal Dolby B or C, bypassed bias filter, but with external noise reduction as High Com or High Com II, is limited by - hum from the internal transformer. It is the only thing I did not do - yet - to squeeze max out of cassette medium.
  
 Since you are obviously familiar with cassette - try Sony Metal Master tape at least once. Everyone doing live recordings should have at least a chance to try it. It is, overall, the best tape ever produced. About the equal of the best TDK metal tape in ceramic shell ( MA-XG - IIRC ) for HF capability - but with rock steady sensitivity, where TDK was/is exceptionally poor.


----------



## arnyk

analogsurviver said:


> Any cassette deck/tape combo with S/N of 64 before application of noise reduction. Noise reduction systems could improve that by up to 25 dB ( Sanyo ), but on the grounds of overall SQ I settled down to 20 dB reduction with Nakamichi High Com II, which provides 20 dB+ noise reduction while producing the least artefacts. Together, this makes a 84 dB SNR recorder ref 0 dB. Which is the exact figure quoted for CD-R recorders in recording mode.
> 
> BASF chrome type II tapes were particularly quiet - and if judiciously used, could achieve greater dynamic range than metal tapes, simply because their noise was so much lower, despite lower MOL. Few cassette decks have electronics quiet enough to take advantage of these low noise tape.
> 
> About 96 dB is the limit for the cassette, even under the most favourable conditions. And although digital can improve that further as you have described, I do not think that 96 or so dB recorder SNR is going to be an issue in practice.


 
  
  
 I don't know in what universe one must travel to in order to find cassette tapes with basic SNR of 64 dB to the same technical standard as a CD has 93 dB SNR.  
  
 If you don't through in all kinds of allowances for measurement conditions, weighted noise and turn a blind eye to lots of THD  even professional high speed analog tape struggles to get past 60 dB, and cassette tape is always worse because of its slow speed and narrow tracks. There's nothing that you can to help cassette tapes that won't also help the more professional tape formats.
  
 A CD has 93 dB SNR with straight 20 Hz - 20 KHz (- 3 dB bandwith)  no weighting at all,  and and with a reference THD+N level of less than 0.01%.   
  
 Remember that many of the techniques that are used to improve the SNR of analog tape also work with digital. The only reason very little is said about doing such things is that it was totally unnecessary.  The other reason is that most implmentations of Dolby or High Com noise reduction processors all by themselves had far higher background noise than the CD format, so just using the actual gear with a perfect medium  (which analog tape never was)  would probably hurt the performance of the CD.
  
 For openers,  AFAIK there has never been a cassette tape or even any other analog tape that ever achieved a THD+N level of 0.01% at _*any*_ recording level.
  
 The idea that there has ever been a true CD quality cassette tape or one that exceeds CD quliaty is a marketer's dream, not a technical reality.


----------



## arnyk

analogsurviver said:


> OK, we can lower the SNR to 62 dB and increase the recording level to +14dBr (any decent metal tape can take that )
> - creating the same dynamic range ultimately available.
> 
> http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/rs-az7.shtml


 
 Page 14 of the reference
  
http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/rs-az7.shtml
  
 lets the cat out of the bag:
  
 The 62 dB SNR performance claim is as I previously suggested, A-weighted.  The CD format has SNR of about 93 dB _*unweighted.*_. Unweighted is the gold standard.
  
 The 20-20K frequency response spec is +/- 3 db or 6 dB, while the frequency response of a CD over the same range can be better than +/- 0.1 dB.
  
 Wow and flutter (jitter) is 0.07% which is about 63 dB down, and even a basic mid-fi CD player exceeds that to -100 dB or better. 
  
 Where is the THD spec for the cassette machine?  I see none!
  
 Recording +14 dB on cassette tape?  As a rule even metal tape saturated like crazy at +6 dB.
  
  
 Not in the same zip code, not even the same universe!


----------



## analogsurviver

Yes, you are right about the weighted and unweighted figures for SNR. That's why I posted the link - to be as transparent as it gets.  Then again, you should also tell the weighing curve - it improves the figure mostly in bass, with a relatively little effect on the most objectionable form of noise in analog tape - hiss. 
  
 However, that + - 3dB spec for FR from 20 - 20 K is a VERY conservative rating by the manufacturer.  They had to take into account various tapes - and published the result that would be met or exceeded by any one of them. Agreed, my unit is modified, used with an additional box that caters for the linearity, but in the end it is within 1 dB 20-20 K, and does not stop at either corner with a steep rolloff. It is one of the few analog tape recorders whose LF limit is governed by the electronics - and not the playback head. In theory, it can go to DC - amorphous head. No studio reel to reel recorder - except for one TEAC model about as late in the game as RS-AZ 6/7, had amorphous heads ( which were developed for the DCC, Digital Compact Cassette - which never took off in proper sense of the word ) - and even that TEAC was hopelessly worse below 40 Hz than the RS-AZ 6/7. As fine as is the work by Cozart/Fine, they simply did not have machines back then, no matter how high the speed and width of the tape used, capable of anything approaching the dynamic range and, particularly, bass extension of the latest generation of cassette decks used with noise reduction systems. Any Mercury ever issued does not stand a slightest chance against the recording on these latest cassette machines - as far as bass quality is concerned.  I repeat, do not think you have heard the cassette until you have heard one with amorphous heads - they were very few, besides Technics I can remember Sony and top Aiwa - but they WERE. No Nakamichi I had the privilege to hear can hold its own in the bass against the amorphous equipped decks.
  
 These Technics units were not embraced by cassette enthusiasts for nothing - over anything else. I have not heard other amorphous head equipped decks, but every other cassette deck does put an indelible and immediately distinguishable stamp on the sound - which can be told against the source - instantly. These units will take some time before you will be able to pick them up from the source. Most other decks can be "heard" listening to the "source" position on the deck itself - let alone "tape" during monitoring - when compared to the source. The difference is big enough NOT to require precise level matching.
  
 I agree that 0.01% distortion is beyond the capability of any analog recorder, HIFI VCR included. But the distortion is low enough to not be objectionable.
 The similar goes for noise.
  
 Clearly, you have no experience with latest gen of cassette hardware and software. It can be pushed that far beyond the 0 dB VU without an audible distress. This goes particularly for the bass - where amplitude is ALWAYS the greatest. Tympani in the finale of Mahler's second are louder than anything else - and that anything else is a BIG orchestra, choir usually comprised of more than 100 singers, gong and organ in full blast - yet those few whacks on tympani will ALWAYS register the highest amplitude.
 Using best tape and HIGH COM II , RS-AZ6/7 is capable of "flat" response up to 23 kHz  at - 3 dB ref 0 dBVU. Which is to say more than will ever likely to be required in real music recording .
  
 Amorphous heads have one additional, but decisive advantage over other types : channel separation. No studio R2R measurements ever published by the manufacturer or independent review could even approach the independent review measurements for the RS-AZ6/7 - particularly in the midrange and treble.
  
 All of the above makes the latest gen of Technics cassette ( it was designed in 1996 ! ) quite a different sounding animal than Super Avylin gen winding with a pencil...
 I have yet to experience to see the tape used with these decks outside of the cassette shell.
  
 As it is almost two decades, it is difficult to find reviews with measurements of RS-AZ6/7 online; if I find some in my archive, I might decide to scan and post them.
 What users have to say can be read here: http://www.audioreview.com/cat/other/tape-decks/technics/rs-az6/prd_121194_1595crx.aspx
  
 These units were NOT available in the USA - and everything that reached US shores was direct import and  had to use step up transformer from 110/120 to 220/240 V AC - there was no 110/120 V models. Therefore, their obscurity in the US is perfectly understandable.
  
 Here a nice video presentation of the operation and features of the RS-AZ 7 ( particularly of the automatic tape calibration, officially called ATC ) :


----------



## Exacoustatowner

don hills said:


> You never clean your CD player lens?
> And you should try demagnetising your CDs. Just like demagnetising LPs, it's amazing the difference it makes.


 
 Hey THANKS Don I'll have to try that. The magnetic and in some cases paramagnetic properties of Vinyl are only known to a SELECT FEW Audiophiles. I'm honored that you would share this secret with me. It's only a problem if you have your LP or CD near your speaker magnets-but still I can hear it! Most of us think of vinyl as diamagnetic only. 
 I'll let you in on a secret in return. You can save big bucks on either "Brilliant Pebbles" http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm or "WA Quantum Chips" http://www.vhaudio.com/wa-quantum-chip.html. Instead of buying separate chips or bags of cleaned aquarium rocks-er I means specially matched semiprecious stones,  to stick on top of capacitors, fuses, cables, power cords, speakers, etc. just tape one on each EARLOBE! 
 If you don't believe it try placing them on all the suggested components- then remove a pair, place them on your earlobes, and remove the rest from your capacitors, cables etc. . I guarantee you won't hear ANY difference. Certainly provable with the best designed double blind testing. 
  
 BTW: here's the "science" behind paramagnetic vinyl.  You can believe this because I am a scientist- and understand the math. As B increases so does M! (See I get it). At high temperatures, if B is fixed then M decreases. So heating your LP's should reduce the Paramagnetic effects.  Most people educated in MUNDANE Physics will tell you vinyl is NOT paramagnetic(but is diamagnetic) -and they would be correct- EXCEPT for the following SECRET! 
  
 This sentence is most important- "but in materials which are *classified* as paramagnetic, the cancelation is incomplete. In the 1940's the US Government SECRETLY CLASSIFIED Vinyl! Hence they are materials which are *classified.*  This is top secret info known only to a few.
  
 Some materials exhibit a magnetization which is proportional to the applied magnetic field in which the material is placed. These materials are said to be paramagnetic and follow Curie's law:





 All atoms have inherent sources of magnetism because electron spin contributes a magnetic moment and electron orbits act as current loops which produce a magnetic field. In most materials the magnetic moments of the electrons cancel, but in materials which are *classified* as paramagnetic, the cancelation is incomplete.
  
 ArnyK would tell you this is utterly absurd and the worst sort of SNAKE OIL. But how do we know the Scientists and Engineers are not just trying to keep HIGH END sound to themselves! You've seen the movies- Scientists are always secretly cackling madly and planning to rule the Earth….
  
  Here's a PAPER! 
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20481621


----------



## Don Hills

analogsurviver said:


> ...  It is one of the few analog tape recorders whose LF limit is governed by the electronics - and not the playback head. In theory, it can go to DC - amorphous head. ...


 
  
 DC? Dream on. Zero change in the magnetic flux in the head gap = zero output, regardless of the material the head is made of. Amorphous ferrite does better than iron at HF, no significant difference at LF. You ought to do the math and work out the flux change required at a typical play head gap to produce a significant DC output. It's the same physics that requires mains frequency transformers to be so much bigger and heavier than the equivalent power transformers in HF switchmode supplies.


----------



## Don Hills

exacoustatowner said:


> ...


----------



## Exacoustatowner

don hills said:


>


 
 What? You think I'm kidding? I posted MATH. It must be real.


----------



## jcx




----------



## Exacoustatowner

jcx said:


>



So you say!  All of your Physics is nothing compared to the power of the Force!


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> What? You think I'm kidding? I posted MATH. It must be real.




Math can be influenced by audiophile alchemy and sorcery, didn't you know?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> Math can be influenced by audiophile alchemy and sorcery, didn't you know?



Absolutely! I've posted several times on the magical effects of audiophile alchemy. Since math is a description of reality and audiophile magic is more powerful than Physics, it follows that math can be influenced by audiophile alchemy.


----------



## Don Hills

exacoustatowner said:


> What? You think I'm kidding? I posted MATH. It must be real.


 

 I thought that was the "+1000" icon...


----------



## cel4145

exacoustatowner said:


> Absolutely! I've posted several times on the magical effects of audiophile alchemy. Since math is a description of reality and audiophile magic is more powerful than Physics, it follows that math can be influenced by audiophile alchemy.




It's not that their magic is "more powerful than Physics." They are just permitted to break the laws. You are not


----------



## castleofargh

exacoustatowner said:


> cel4145 said:
> 
> 
> > Math can be influenced by audiophile alchemy and sorcery, didn't you know?
> ...


 

 why can math get perfect results, but real life applications of the principle always shows a few extra variables? it's not because of magic, those damn gremlins are why!!!!!


----------



## analogsurviver

don hills said:


> DC? Dream on. Zero change in the magnetic flux in the head gap = zero output, regardless of the material the head is made of. Amorphous ferrite does better than iron at HF, no significant difference at LF. You ought to do the math and work out the flux change required at a typical play head gap to produce a significant DC output. It's the same physics that requires mains frequency transformers to be so much bigger and heavier than the equivalent power transformers in HF switchmode supplies.


 
 Wrong.
  
 Here a more precise description how amorphous - or more properly designated - magneto restriction MR - heads work. 
  
 http://www.tapeheads.net/showthread.php?t=8817
  
 I have "forgotten" to mention that amorpous heads have better SNR than anything else - see the figures in the link - as I have took them, and increased dynamic range they bring, for granted - ever after I heard the RS-AZ 6/7 for the first time. The fact that amorphous heads noise less than others in lower frequency range also covers my omission of mentioning of weighted vs unweighted SNR - because, effectively, amorphous head unweighted produces similar results as others weighted. 
  
 In short - don't mess with the RS-AZ 6/7, if you are not familiar with it ... - it is perfectly capable of giving a bloody nose to even the best studio R2Rs.
 Like I said in earlier posts, it is the wow and flutter (which is great, but not stellar) that is the most problematic. Making a hybrid of Technics  amorphous heads with matching electronics and the tape transport from Revox B215,
 http://www.thevintageknob.org/revox-B215.html
 or even better, Eumig 1000FL
 http://www.thevintageknob.org/eumig-FL-1000.html
 would close this gap well enough to be unobjectionable.
  
 I first encountered amorphous heads in Panasonic HIFI S-VHS machine - recording and playback @ - 3 dB down to 4 Hz ( in a word : four cycles per second ), absolutely no dreaded "head bumps" anywhere below 200 Hz.
  
 The practical problem today is the non-availability of really good tapes. TBH - for serious work, RS-AZ6/7 requires metal Type IV tapes - period. Although you can "get by" with lesser tapes, you are not going to hear what these machines are really capable of unless using Sony Metal Master :
 http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.XSony+Metal+Master.TRS0&_nkw=Sony+Metal+Master&_sacat=0
 And, no, the prices are NOT inflated because of NOS status - these tapes were priced this high right from the start. The moment you pick up one in your hand will tell you this is no ordinary cassette - by its sheer weight, if nothing else... Inserting one in the deck and hitting the "tape" position while monitoring recording of a live concert is guaranteed to produce 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 !
  
 And recording live music is the only way one can justify using these tapes today.


----------



## Don Hills

analogsurviver said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Here a more precise description how amorphous - or more properly designated - magneto restriction MR - heads work.
> 
> ...


 
 Sigh... 
  
 For a start, it's magneto-resistive, not magneto-restriction. Nothing to do with amorphous (ferrite) heads as normally found in tape decks. There's a tenuous connection in that MR heads use nickel-ferrite films in their structure. MR heads are standard in modern computer disc drives (and of course in the tape deck you're drooling over). And although the physics of MR allows it to provide a DC output from a constant magnetic field, MR used in tape and disk heads uses the same gap technology as conventional heads, where the LF response is determined by the head gap as in a conventional head. There has to be a difference in magnetic flux between the head poles in order to produce an output. DC implies a constant flux, therefore zero output.
  
 And the audio track for VHS Hi-Fi is recorded on an FM carrier, not as a direct analogue track. Head bumps are thus irrelevant. The head magnetic components are amorphous ferrite for wear resistance and HF capability, not for sound quality.


----------



## arnyk

don hills said:


> Sigh...
> 
> the audio track for VHS Hi-Fi is recorded on an FM carrier, not as a direct analogue track. Head bumps are thus irrelevant. The head magnetic components are amorphous ferrite for wear resistance and HF capability, not for sound quality.



 


Agreed, the absence of head bumps in VHS-Hifi has nothing to do with head materials, as VHS recorders with conventional heads have the same bump-free LF response.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> It's not that their magic is "more powerful than Physics." They are just permitted to break the laws. You are not


 
 That's true. For good reason- Scientific skepticism can damage hard won Magical effects and make peoples cables lose their ability to Lift the Veil.
 Magic is in the ascendent on the board. I may "go Native" for awhile and lose my skepticism. I am curious to see I can suspend my disbelief.
  
  After all- Scientists have LEVITATED live animals based on diamagnetism in extremely powerful magnetic fields! This is actually real btw.
 http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> why can math get perfect results, but real life applications of the principle always shows a few extra variables? it's not because of magic, those damn gremlins are why!!!!!


 
 I disagree that there is no Magical effect- not to say that Gremlins are not also at play.
 There are examples of Sympathetic magic and Alchemy (WA Quantum chips)-which admittedly have no electrical interaction-but can make ANYTHING sound better-from Capacitors all the way to acoustic instruments such as guitars and pianos! There is also magic involved where dozens of Audiomages pool their Will to make cables that measure essentially the same-SOUND amazingly different. There is also the Magical Law that ALL 2nd party headphone cable replacements SOUND better. 
  
 Also-Science can negate the real magical effects-witness the neutralization of magic when blind testing shows no significant difference between cables. We are actually ruining the magically enhanced cables, fuses etc, with our anti-magic. 
  
 I hope I've "lifted the Veil" for you!


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

Can science even prevent the skin effect from damaging my music? Is it that powerful?


----------



## castleofargh

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Can science even prevent the skin effect from damaging my music? Is it that powerful?


 

 may I suggest body lotion?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Can science even prevent the skin effect from damaging my music? Is it that powerful?


 
 Yes!  Science tells us that skin effect is only an issue at very high (well above non-magical human hearing) frequencies. But with very thin and long cables AND sufficient Magical Focus by AudioMages, it can drop the Veil over the music, make it sound "digital", and worst of all "Bright." Even though real Skin Effect would cause roll off. If your Science is overpowered, the only solution is to destroy the Magic using our last resort-the Double Blind Test-this "Scientific Ritual" has proven to be able to overwhelm all efforts by even the MOST POWERFUL Audiomages. 
 As a scientist who works in Science M-F I have enough residual Science to enable me to listen to my Oppo BDP105D-all measurements show the THD, IM, etc to be orders of magnitude below the threshold of non-magical ears, with an FR deviating less than 0.1 db from 20-20 kHz. It uses the dreaded Sabre 9018 32 bit DACs which have been CURSED by the most powerful mages as HARSH. Without my scientific protection my listening to it might be LETHAL.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> may I suggest body lotion?


 
 You are advanced in knowledge! If you grind a few WA Quantum Chips into powder and mix it with the body lotion it will protect against skin effect, AND lift ANY Veils that might be lurking,
 I learn something from you nearly every day!


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> You are advanced in knowledge! If you grind a few WA Quantum Chips into powder and mix it with the body lotion it will protect against skin effect, AND lift ANY Veils that might be lurking,
> I learn something from you nearly every day!


 
 I prefer sand blasting, done properly it eliminates grain as well.


----------



## sonitus mirus

It rubs the lotion on the skin or else it gets the Pono again.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> I prefer sand blasting, done properly it eliminates grain as well.


 
 It can eliminate grain! The problem is it can also eliminate the skin along with the effect. I recommend using science to drive the skin effect back into the megahertz range. It works for me-I've not ONCE suffered damage to my music from the Skin Effect!


----------



## upstateguy

exacoustatowner said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > may I suggest body lotion?
> ...


 
  
 As long as we're OT with body lotion and ground quantum chips.....
  
 Is the stuff between the electron shell and the nucleus the same as the vacuum of space?
  
 EDIT:  Oh well, whatever, never mind.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

upstateguy said:


> As long as we're OT with body lotion and ground quantum chips.....
> 
> Is the stuff between the electron shell and the nucleus the same as the vacuum of space?
> 
> EDIT:  Oh well, whatever, never mind.


 
 I see you are quoting Nirvana from "Smells like Teen Spirit."


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

Recently I saw somebody suggesting that the only way to combat this dreaded skin effect was to dispense with thick cables, and use a lot of thin cables, each one insulated with enamel. 
  
 My electronics knowledge is pretty poor, but if I made a bundle of thin cables, individually insulated, wouldn't I have made a capacitor?
  
 As for the enamel... enamel is glass, wouldn't it all crack and fall off as powder. Oh wait...is that where the body lotion comes in?
  
 edit, with more...
  
 Here, is a Belden guy, on the skin effect. There is some maths there, but not enough to have set off my allergic reaction  It's a nuisance being allergic to maths, when one wants to find out about the science of audio.
  
 One has to search for this stuff, but it is not hard to find _outside the audiophile forums. _Audiophiles would rather quote, as their authority, some guy who unwound all the strands, covered them with body lotion, wound them back up again _and heard a difference. _Actually referring to the world's giant cable companies who must be spending vast amounts on _real_ r&d.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Recently I saw somebody suggesting that the only way to combat this dreaded skin effect was to dispense with thick cables, and use a lot of thin cables, each one insulated with enamel.
> 
> My electronics knowledge is pretty poor, but if I made a bundle of thin cables, individually insulated, wouldn't I have made a capacitor?
> 
> As for the enamel... enamel is glass, wouldn't it all crack and fall off as powder. Oh wait...is that where the body lotion comes in?


 
 You have to be careful here. You have all the ingredients for an NEW Audio Magical curse. You are close to releasing an incantation which may RUIN years of massed focus AudioMage work. I IMPLORE you to stop!


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

exacoustatowner said:


> ... I IMPLORE you to stop!


 
  
 I... Can... Handle... It.
  
  
 AAAAAaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggggh.


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> It can eliminate grain! The problem is it can also eliminate the skin along with the effect. I recommend using science to drive the skin effect back into the megahertz range. It works for me-I've not ONCE suffered damage to my music from the Skin Effect!


 
 Audiophiles are skin deep.


----------



## Ruben123

So is Steve Eddy banned because of his posts in a cable thread? Anyone knows that ?


----------



## kn19h7

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Recently I saw somebody suggesting that the only way to combat this dreaded skin effect was to dispense with thick cables, and use a lot of thin cables, each one insulated with enamel.
> 
> My electronics knowledge is pretty poor, but if I made a bundle of thin cables, individually insulated, wouldn't I have made a capacitor?
> 
> ...


 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire
 ...


----------



## cjl

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Recently I saw somebody suggesting that the only way to combat this dreaded skin effect was to dispense with thick cables, and use a lot of thin cables, each one insulated with enamel.
> 
> My electronics knowledge is pretty poor, but if I made a bundle of thin cables, individually insulated, wouldn't I have made a capacitor?
> 
> ...


 

 Enamel insulated wire is actually a thing - it's commonly sold as magnet wire. That having been said, the skin effect is pretty negligible at audio frequencies, unless you're trying to push huge amounts of 20kHz down a 4AWG cable with kilowatts of power...


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

OK, enamelled wire exists. Thanks, I really wasn't sure. Is it brittle or flexible? I'm reminding myself that glass signal fibre bends!
  
 But, back to cynicism: if an audiophile can find something that works at 100MHz, they may well think it works even more at 20KHz.


----------



## uchihaitachi

I wish somebody would write an in depth post on DAPs, that person would probably get banned right?
  
 I find it so infuriating seeing so many members burning CRAZY amounts of money on these 'high end' premium players. Their prices seem to go up exorbitantly year upon year. Seriously somebody stop this madness!
  
 3000 pounds for a portable player that measures worse than an ipod touch...............


----------



## cel4145

uchihaitachi said:


> I wish somebody would write an in depth post on DAPs, that person would probably get banned right?
> 
> I find it so infuriating seeing so many members burning CRAZY amounts of money on these 'high end' premium players. Their prices seem to go up exorbitantly year upon year. Seriously somebody stop this madness!
> 
> 3000 pounds for a portable player that measures worse than an ipod touch...............




No doubt.

I have a Fiio DX50. Sounds very good, but I'd like to have more amplifier power for when using my K7XX at louder listening volumes. The headphone amp definitely seems very close to its limits. 

So I looked at the FiiO X3 and X5 series, and was surprised to find out that the X5 does not appear to have any appreciable difference in headphone amp ability over the X3 to power headphones when you look at the wattage ratings for different impedances, maximum voltage and maximum current output. It's as if the one factor that really provides more measurable capability to a DAP does not matter.


----------



## cjl

thad-e-ginathom said:


> OK, enamelled wire exists. Thanks, I really wasn't sure. Is it brittle or flexible? I'm reminding myself that glass signal fibre bends!
> 
> But, back to cynicism: if an audiophile can find something that works at 100MHz, they may well think it works even more at 20KHz.


 

 It's somewhat flexible, though it's solid core, so that limits the flexibility compared to a stranded wire. It's commonly used in electromagnets, so chances are you already have some in your system (the voice coils are likely made with it). It's really not necessary or beneficial for your interconnects or speaker/headphone wire though.


----------



## limpidglitch

thad-e-ginathom said:


> OK, enamelled wire exists. Thanks, I really wasn't sure. Is it brittle or flexible? I'm reminding myself that glass signal fibre bends!
> 
> But, back to cynicism: if an audiophile can find something that works at 100MHz, they may well think it works even more at 20KHz.


 
  
 Fine litzendraht is about as flexible as you can get it, works very well as headphone and IEM wire.
 A more usual application is in ham radio antennas, where the large bandwidth comes in handy.


----------



## castleofargh

cel4145 said:


> I have a Fiio DX50.


 
 lapsus or you're from that parallel universe in the Fringe TV series? I hope it's the second one.


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> lapsus or you're from that parallel universe in the Fringe TV series? I hope it's the second one.




ROFL. Can't believe I did that.


----------



## uchihaitachi

cel4145 said:


> ROFL. Can't believe I did that.


 
 LOL 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I mean seriously all the ludicrous cable arguments aside, I was profoundly shocked today when I saw the 3000 pound price tag for the AK380.


----------



## Ruben123

uchihaitachi said:


> LOL
> 
> I mean seriously all the ludicrous cable arguments aside, I was profoundly shocked today when I saw the 3000 pound price tag for the AK380.




Have you heard it? No?


----------



## cjl

ruben123 said:


> Have you heard it? No?


 

 I don't need to hear it to know that 3k is a preposterously high price for something that is basically an iPod.


----------



## uchihaitachi

ruben123 said:


> Have you heard it? No?


 
 Well, I have seen its measurements under various loads, and it fails to outperform the latest gen ipod touch.
  
 Heck, its predecessors had output impedance in excess of 10 ohm and it was 'built for low impedance earphones' for the portable audiophile.
  
 What an utter joke.


----------



## Ruben123

uchihaitachi said:


> Well, I have seen its measurements under various loads, and it fails to outperform the latest gen ipod touch.
> 
> Heck, its predecessors had output impedance in excess of 10 ohm and it was 'built for low impedance earphones' for the portable audiophile.
> 
> What an utter joke.




I know, but their argument is if you have not heard it, don't talk about it! I keep my Sansa Clip.


----------



## cel4145

uchihaitachi said:


> Well, I have seen its measurements under various loads, and it fails to outperform the latest gen ipod touch.
> 
> Heck, its predecessors had output impedance in excess of 10 ohm and it was 'built for low impedance earphones' for the portable audiophile.
> 
> What an utter joke.




Seems like a waste of money.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

Leaving aside the great designs, which certainly look expensive, there is a question that bugs me about the premier maker of high-priced portable players. It arises even before any question of sound quality. It is not scientific, but it is a completely objective matter: Who is/are Astell and Kern?
  
 Isn't this a korean company? Do they sound like Korean names? Or like something made up to sell to people with lots of money? If so, isn't this a  rather disingenuous marketing trick?
  
 Of course, a company with a marketing-invented name might still make good products. Some marketing-invented names might even catch on in themselves, or even become legendary --- but then, Mike and Jason, for instance, did not name their company with the intention of misleading people. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 If I am wrong about this this, then, of course, apologies will be due...


----------



## uchihaitachi

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Leaving aside the great designs, which certainly look expensive, there is a question that bugs me about the premier maker of high-priced portable players. It arises even before any question of sound quality. It is not scientific, but it is a completely objective matter: Who is/are Astell and Kern?
> 
> Isn't this a korean company? Do they sound like Korean names? Or like something made up to sell to people with lots of money? If so, isn't this a  rather disingenuous marketing trick?
> 
> ...


 
 It is a Korean company. I think they are a subsidiary of iriver, sort of how Lexus is under Toyota. 
  
 Waste of money aside, I sort of feel angered when I saw the price, because you come across so many individuals sacrificing their livelihood for the 'massive expansion in soundstage and sparkly treble'......
  
 I used to just shake my head in disbelief for the 1000 pound products but this tops it all. Just waiting for the AK480 to come out priced at 4500 with identical internals as a sansa clip. LOL


----------



## cel4145

uchihaitachi said:


> Waste of money aside, I sort of feel angered when I saw the price, because you come across so many individuals sacrificing their livelihood for the 'massive expansion in soundstage and sparkly treble'......




I would have no sympathy at all for any individual who buys a 3000 pound DAP who can't easily afford it. Doesn't matter how well it performs. That's foolish anyway.


----------



## uchihaitachi

cel4145 said:


> I would have no sympathy at all for any individual who buys a 3000 pound DAP who can't easily afford it. Doesn't matter how well it performs. That's foolish anyway.




Well this website is remarkably good at promoting foolishness and blocking individuals who try to stifle that...


----------



## Ruben123

uchihaitachi said:


> Well this website is remarkably good at promoting foolishness and blocking individuals who try to stifle that...




Who doesn't want the expanded soundstage, controlled bass and sparkly treble?


----------



## uchihaitachi

ruben123 said:


> Who doesn't want the expanded soundstage, controlled bass and sparkly treble?




It's the metaphysical properties of magic again...


----------



## castleofargh

http://www.head-fi.org/t/712487/april-fools-astell-kern-ak480-music-player
 the joke that is reality.
  
  
 now TBH there are guys with lot of money who want the best but don't have the desire or the time to look into what's the best, and just go buy the most expensive gear following the idea that it's expensive for a reason. that's obviously not the 99% but those guys do exist and happen to have money to spend.
 so at some point being expensive can very much pass for the reason itself to buy it. A&K go higher each time, meaning that up until now there was always enough guys to pay for it giving them no reason to stop.


----------



## uchihaitachi

castleofargh said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/712487/april-fools-astell-kern-ak480-music-player
> the joke that is reality.
> 
> 
> ...


 

 A veblen good in Economics, higher the price, higher the demand...


----------



## cel4145

Mike Liang from Woo Audio started a poll on DSD over in the Computer Audio forum. You guys might want to go vote for it 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/778903/your-thoughts-on-dsd-today-late-2015-poll


----------



## uchihaitachi

cel4145 said:


> Mike Liang from Woo Audio started a poll on DSD over in the Computer Audio forum. You guys might want to go vote for it
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/778903/your-thoughts-on-dsd-today-late-2015-poll




Iargh he gets on my nerves. The amount of utter bs he posts on Facebook head fi cos of sponsors


----------



## cel4145

Since we have been talking about DAPs, how about the Pono Player? I had not seen Stereophile's measurements before today. It is obviously designed to help sell their high res audio. Check out the frequency response measurements: 



"Fig.3 Pono PonoPlayer, frequency response at –12dBFS into 100k ohms with data sampled at: 44.1kHz (left channel cyan, right magenta), 96kHz (left green, right gray), 192kHz (left blue, right red) (0.5dB/vertical div.)."

Yes, audiophiles, with your Pono player, high res audio will sound more detailed, because its designed to mislead you into thinking that high res audio is better.


----------



## uchihaitachi

cel4145 said:


> Since we have been talking about DAPs, how about the Pono Player? I had not seen Stereophile's measurements before today. It is obviously designed to help sell their high res audio. Check out the frequency response measurements:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Impressive cunning......


----------



## cel4145

uchihaitachi said:


> Impressive cunning......




With a lot of snake oil devices, I think the people that make them probably believe that they sound better because they only do biased subjective listening tests. But this seems clearly engineered to be deceptive to sell high res audio. It's evil.


----------



## RRod

Wowza, half a dB down by 10kHz? It's funny that we're talking about ±1dB at 18kHz in the 24-bits thread in reference to 1980s electronics…
  
 Also of note is that over at Innerfidelity they had a really hard time A/Bing the Pono versus other hi-end players, and some of the cans for testing get pretty close to being affected by the Pono output impedance.


----------



## Ruben123

But hey, it sounds analogue AND vinyl also rolls off on both ends. Now we get it lol


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> Wowza, half a dB down by 10kHz? It's funny that we're talking about ±1dB at 18kHz in the 24-bits thread in reference to 1980s electronics…




Well, now for $400, you can buy a DAP that will let you relive that 1980s experience. 

Pono is evil.


----------



## RRod

I had hopes for the store when it seemed like it might become a repository for good masters. Then they clarified it to "whatever we can get; we don't ask questions." Oh well.


----------



## castleofargh

we talked about that with RRod in PM at the time, and I was wondering how the lack of neg feedback stabilizing the output would impact distortions. of course those are still small stuff, and I'm sure the pono sounds very fine. but the highres claims, those are most likely BS. 
   the design looks like it would have more distortions than a cheap crap with a good feedback. al that in exchange of the so important "time smearing" . lol. 
 the values noted in the stereophile are with a high impedance load, minimizing the impact of the fluctuating impedance in the pono output, but I wonder how much that would get us as amplitude non linearity when plugged to an IEM?
 I asked that on the pono topic in the beginning, and for some specs to actually know what it can drive, but of course that was before I understood what the pono topic was about :'(
 and getting stereophile to avoid the low impedance situation, with pono giving no spec, Tyll giving a hidden clue about power with some "those headphones are fine, those are not" game to avoid giving a clear value, I concluded that they were asked not to say anything by the pono great guys. what I obviously always interpret as "we ****ed up somewhere and don't want people to know".
  
 but hey that's just me and my natural paranoia.


----------



## uchihaitachi

How about the whole new trend of recent DAPS to increase number of DAC sigh...
  
 Five years down the line, do we expect 10 DACs for each decile of the frequency range?


----------



## uchihaitachi

How about the whole new trend of recent DAPS to increase number of DAC sigh...
  
 Five years down the line, do we expect 10 DACs for each decile of the frequency range?


----------



## castleofargh

it's a way to lower noise(not much TBH) and the amp section would still need to be able to hold that level of noise floor, but it does "something" at least.
  
 edit:
 how do you post several times the same post, I tried to "moullltipass" the post with my secret hundred dragon fist mouse clicking technique I got from years of being low at online gaming, but headfi just tells me I already posted it. what's your secret sensei?


----------



## uchihaitachi

castleofargh said:


> it's a way to lower noise(not much TBH) and the amp section would still need to be able to hold that level of noise floor, but it does "something" at least.
> 
> edit:
> how do you post several times the same post, I tried to "moullltipass" the post with my secret hundred dragon fist mouse clicking technique I got from years of being low at online gaming, but headfi just tells me I already posted it. what's your secret sensei?


 
 No idea? I was born with the ability. (Seriously, no idea...)
  
 reduce the noise floor in the realm of inaudibility


----------



## arnyk

rrod said:


> Wowza, half a dB down by 10kHz? It's funny that we're talking about ±1dB at 18kHz in the 24-bits thread in reference to 1980s electronics…
> 
> Also of note is that over at Innerfidelity they had a really hard time A/Bing the Pono versus other hi-end players, and some of the cans for testing get pretty close to being affected by the Pono output impedance.


 
  
  
 Clear example of cherry picking results as if the only difference were that 0.5 dB loss at 10 Khz, and completely ignoring the far larger 3 dB loss at 20 KHz.
  
 I've done ABX tests with teenaged listeners, commerical CD recordings, and  involving differences like these, and they were reliably audible.


----------



## RRod

arnyk said:


> Clear example of cherry picking results as if the only difference were that 0.5 dB loss at 10 Khz, and completely ignoring the far larger 3 dB loss at 20 KHz.
> 
> I've done ABX tests with teenaged listeners, commerical CD recordings, and  involving differences like these, and they were reliably audible.


 
  
 Are you saying I'm cherry picking? How so? I was just pointing out amazement that we're already into issues at 10kHz, where pretty much everyone can hear. And we're diving down after that, so yes for those people who can hear up to 20kHz, there's even more to worry about. Seems like we're in agreement…


----------



## arnyk

rrod said:


> Are you saying I'm cherry picking? How so? I was just pointing out amazement that we're already into issues at 10kHz, where pretty much everyone can hear. And we're diving down after that, so yes for those people who can hear up to 20kHz, there's even more to worry about. Seems like we're in agreement…


 
  
  
 Yes, I've pointed out a clear case of cherry picking - namely ignoring a 3 dB loss and attempting to defelct  the conversation towards a 1/2 dB loss.
  
 Apparently there is no awareness of the fact that frequency response curves are curves, and have an infinite number of defined values over their length.
  
 So deflect to 10 Khz or 20 KHz as you will, there are also an infinite number of points in-between where audibility matters as well.


----------



## RRod

arnyk said:


> Yes, I've pointed out a clear case of cherry picking - namely ignoring a 3 dB loss and attempting to defelct  the conversation towards a 1/2 dB loss.
> 
> Apparently there is no awareness of the fact that frequency response curves are curves, and have an infinite number of defined values over their length.
> 
> So deflect to 10 Khz or 20 KHz as you will, there are also an infinite number of points in-between where audibility matters as well.


 
  
 Of course I'm aware of that; I just said in my post above that "things go down from there," which means that the values of this curve decrease beyond that, and end up at the 3dB loss at 20kHz, which I agree is huge. What exactly is your beef here; I don't get it.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Question regarding headphone and earphone 'imaging'
  
 What are the factors that can affect imaging for headphones and earphones, I have little to no knowledge in this regard.
  
 I guess stereo crosstalk would make a difference, but even then most audio devices don't have audible levels of leak.
  
 It also seems upper frequency boosted earphones seem to make people perceive a wider soundstage. Is this a causal effect or a byproduct of some other mechanism?


----------



## cel4145

arnyk said:


> Yes, I've pointed out a clear case of cherry picking - namely ignoring a 3 dB loss and attempting to defelct  the conversation towards a 1/2 dB loss.




I think you misread his post. Seems to me he was just remarking the irony of a 1/2 db loss at 10hkz given that he is currently in a discussion they were having about 1980s electronics and its variance at 18khz. Then the rest of his post is critical of the Pono Player. Doesn't seem to be any attempt to "deflect."


----------



## RRod

uchihaitachi said:


> Question regarding headphone and earphone 'imaging'
> 
> What are the factors that can affect imaging for headphones and earphones, I have little to no knowledge in this regard.
> 
> ...


 
  
 It's a hard question to answer because something like frequency response is a measureable thing but something like soundstage (for headphones at least) is only ever talked about in subjective terms. Intuitively, as speakers are moved apart from each other, there will be changes to the spectral content at each eardrum (since the interaction of the soundwaves with the ears/body changes). Understanding what those changes are and matching that to headphone frequency characteristics could go some way towards an answer. One could also delve into HRTF databases and see how spectra change as you move the soundsource around the person's head and compare that to various headphones (though for HRTF measurements they move speakers around a sphere at a fixed radius from the listening position, which isn't quite the same as moving speakers apart in the same plane).


----------



## uchihaitachi

I understand the positioning when it comes to speakers. 
  
 But for earphones, do you think it's mostly imagined?


----------



## RRod

uchihaitachi said:


> I understand the positioning when it comes to speakers.
> 
> But for earphones, do you think it's mostly imagined?


 
  
 No I don't think it's all imagined. What I was trying to get at is that when we move speakers apart, it's not only the timing aspects of the audio that change, but the frequency characteristics as well (due to how our ears and upper body interact with the soundfront). It could be that headphones considered to have "big soundstage" tend to match up with speaker setups with larger spacing. That's just one possible thing that could be going on, but it's something that's actually measureable. I mean that's what we need here: a way of quantifying soundstaging in headphones. I'm just throwing out some ideas for it


----------



## castleofargh

uchihaitachi said:


> I understand the positioning when it comes to speakers.
> 
> But for earphones, do you think it's mostly imagined?


 

 it's not imagined at all. but it's personal because HRTF and whatever hearing problem we have.
 when IRL you have a sound on the side you estimate it from all the times when you heard the sound and saw where it came from, so the brain got super used to interpret the left/right delays and the frequency changes from the shape of the ear as a part of vertical estimation. so now with headphones, the signal has to possess all those changes for us to imagine the positioning of instruments.
 I know that when I listen to the barbershop binaural stuff on most of my headphones, when something is turning around me, I feel like the sound goes up in front of me and down behind me. that's clearly me being used to a certain alteration of the frequency response that I don't get like I should with the headphone. and if the delays are wrong, well it doesn't matter much, you just end up thinking it's a little more over there than it was supposed to be when the guy panned the instrument. no big deal and I don't think the headphone plays much of a part in that appart from not giving us the crossover of sounds like speakers do. a bigger head should have a slightly different imaging than a small one with headphones from what I understand.
 so I guess the headphone that has low distortions, a way to simulate speaker sound, and a FR most suited for your body wins the game of soundstage fidelity.
  
 or something like that? ^_^


----------



## Ruben123

How well are you looking at stereophile's website? Their measures should be OK but the reviews?


----------



## sonitus mirus

Here is a gem.  I was shaking my head at all the hoops folks will jump through in an effort to get bit-perfect playback, but then they moved on to power cables.
  
 Quote: http://www.head-fi.org/t/733233/tidal-lossless-streaming/1515#post_11878236 





> Next best value upgrades I've tried would be Shunyata Zitron Alpha analog power cord for a headphone amp and Zitron Alpha digital power cords for DAC, control and audio PCs.  These power cords make the music sound fast with brilliant clarity and adds euphoria.


 
  
  
 Quote: http://www.musicdirect.com/p-152658-shunyata-zitron-alpha-digital-power-cable.aspx 





> The first and only power cable to act as a power-line conditioner on its own, the Alpha Digital Power Cord will simply leave you with your jaw on the floor. All these claims have been proven, *and all doubters have been banished*. Try one for yourself. This is a serious game changer... guaranteed!


----------



## castleofargh

sonitus mirus said:


> Here is a gem.  I was shaking my head at all the hoops folks will jump through in an effort to get bit-perfect playback, but then they moved on to power cables.
> 
> Quote: http://www.head-fi.org/t/733233/tidal-lossless-streaming/1515#post_11878236
> 
> ...


 
 oh nice another garden hose eye candied and sold for 1000$. I can't get enough of those.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> oh nice another garden hose eye candied and sold for 1000$. I can't get enough of those.



Sign me up! But don't tell the DEAthat a length of wire can induce euphoria or it will be listed as a drug of abuse


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> oh nice another garden hose eye candied and sold for 1000$. I can't get enough of those.



Cable acting as a power line conditioner? That's amazing. Too good to be true. Isn't there a saying about that?


----------



## icebear

I guess I saved myself quite a bunch of cash by DIY :





  




  
 But how can I find out if they also condition the power rather than just simply connect the amp to the power grid? I want some of that conditioning, too


----------



## Exacoustatowner

icebear said:


> I guess I saved myself quite a bunch of cash by DIY :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's easy! Does your "music sound faster?" Is "euphoria added?" Just resist the temptation to plug the power cable directly into your ears. As much as I appreciate simplifying the signal path I suspect the usual route via the power supply and conversion to DC before power your audio equipment is the way to go. Much less likely to be fatal as well


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

exacoustatowner said:


> ... ... ... Just resist the temptation to plug the power cable directly into your ears. ... ... ...


 
  
 But that is the _direct_ route to heaven!
  
 (well, some people would have it that one must have been a good boy/girl before that)


----------



## castleofargh

now I understand everything. it's a drug, that's why it is advised not to put too many stuff onto the same outlet, just like it is recommended to keep the wire short. both are done to limit the risks of OD. it will be so simple to talk cables from now on.
  
 "expensive cables, they might feel great but they will ruin your teeth!"


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> now I understand everything. it's a drug, that's why it is advised not to put too many stuff onto the same outlet, just like it is recommended to keep the wire short. both are done to limit the risks of OD. it will be so simple to talk cables from now on.
> 
> "expensive cables, they might feel great but they will ruin your teeth!"


 
 That's it! "The Surgeon General recommends no more than 2 Audiophile Power cords be used per day…"


----------



## bfreedma

exacoustatowner said:


> That's it! "The Surgeon General recommends no more than 2 Audiophile Power cords be used per day…"


 
  
 Is it cord count or total length of Audiophile Power cords that I need to worry about?.....


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

castleofargh said:


> "expensive cables, they might feel great but they will ruin your teeth!"


 
  
 This could be one of the most seriously useful things I have ever read on this site.
  
 When I was a kid I used to use the gap between my front teeth for striping fine wire. I don't think it did them much good. It's a very good thing I didn't have any audiophile equipment back then.
  
 Whilst I have long since abandoned the habit, I will take care never to forget your advice.


----------



## frodeni

What is the point of this thread? Is this a place for people with certain opinions and views to share their personal experience, or is this a thread about objective ideas and thinking?
  
 Just wonder where some topics would fit in.


----------



## Ruben123

Sort of a members lounge for people with objective instead of subjective ideas, for talk about scientifically correct tests, lots of fun and chatting too.


----------



## cel4145

Yeah. Seems more of a place for random talk by objectivists. 

If you want to have a prolonged discussion on a specific topic, best to start a new thread.


----------



## RRod

It's our time-out corner in our prison cell ^_^


----------



## Exacoustatowner

rrod said:


> It's our time-out corner in our prison cell ^_^



It is! A place to go to hide out. Science is heresy on most of the board


----------



## frodeni

exacoustatowner said:


> It is! A place to go to hide out. Science is heresy on most of the board


 
  
 OK. I will leave you at that.
  
 I am no stranger to science, yet I clearly see the world from a different perspective than I read from this thread. When I have the time, I will start a thread designed to deliberately include science and more objective discussion, alongside the more ordinary "this is what I hear, so this is the way it is".
  
 Enjoy the hide out.


----------



## cel4145

So high end Schiit DACs need to warm up for 12 hours for optimal use???



zabzaf said:


> I was just sitting listening to my rig and a ridiculous, first-world paranoid thought raced through my head....if I'm supposed to leave my Gungnir Multibit powered on for 12 hours to achieve optimal operating temperature, how am I supposed to transport it to the meet? I leave don't turn it off at home.
> 
> While attending the meet in Chicago, the gent that brought the Yggy actually had it on battery backup power in his car on the way to the meet. I just can't bring myself to purchase a battery backup for this purpose.




OK. Forget the rationality that says it needs a bunch of warm up to begin with. 12 hours??? This makes no logical sense to me. It is as if someone pulled a number out of a hat.


----------



## castleofargh

I always go with 13h37.


----------



## sonitus mirus

My DAC always shines after about 3 Double IPAs.  Sometime around my third beer, the details begin to pop and I find myself just pausing and listening to the music, losing track of whatever else I was doing.  I have not had that happen to me since the last time I had a few strong drinks while listening to music.  The proof is in my alcoholic beverages.  I know what I hear.  It is like night and day.  Well, perhaps more like night and somewhere between predawn and dawn.  I mean, it is light out and I can see fine, but the sun may not have actually risen yet; but it's obvious.  Where did I put my beer?  Why am I typing what I'm thinking?  This is weird.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

cel4145 said:


> So high end Schiit DACs need to warm up for 12 hours for optimal use???
> OK. Forget the rationality that says it needs a bunch of warm up to begin with. 12 hours??? This makes no logical sense to me. It is as if someone pulled a number out of a hat.


 
  
  


castleofargh said:


> I always go with 13h37.


 
  
 In the old days, when wirelesses were full of wires and glowing things, and even the TV had valves*, the thing had warmed up enough _when it started producing sound._ This could take several seconds.
  
 It might be childhood memory exaggeration, but the TV might even take a minute or more. Long enough to worry about whether it would _ever_ work --- and it sometimes didn't.
  
  
  
  
  
 *I'm British. Toobs are for toothpaste. And boobs**
  
 ** but not both in the same toob.***
  
 ***By _both_, I mean _both toothpaste and boobs. _Not _both boobs.****_
  
_****_I think I'd better stop here.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Random question

If I am converting audio files say from FLAC to mp3,

 

will the converted/original files be corrupt in any way if the FLAC was being seeded via bitorrent, or if it was being uploaded to a cloud based backup during the conversion process?

 

Or am I being paranoid.


----------



## RRod

uchihaitachi said:


> Random question
> 
> If I am converting audio files say from FLAC to mp3,
> 
> ...


 
  
 Concurrent reading shouldn't be an issue. If the mp3 write was ongoing as the backup started, you might get no file or a half-way file in the cloud.


----------



## uchihaitachi

rrod said:


> Concurrent reading shouldn't be an issue. If the mp3 write was ongoing as the backup started, you might get no file or a half-way file in the cloud.


 
 So there shouldn't be any issues on my computer, if there are it would be elsewhere e.g. in the cloud?


----------



## RRod

uchihaitachi said:


> So there shouldn't be any issues on my computer, if there are it would be elsewhere e.g. in the cloud?


 
  
  
 Shouldn't be.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> I always go with 13h37.


 
 Rubbish! It's only at 14h 22 that it really opens up! Unless it's a really HOT day-then you MIGHT get away with 13hr37min,


----------



## uchihaitachi

exacoustatowner said:


> Rubbish! It's only at 14h 22 that it really opens up! Unless it's a really HOT day-then you MIGHT get away with 13hr37min,


 
 Don't forget humidity levels as well.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

sonitus mirus said:


> My DAC always shines after about 3 Double IPAs.  Sometime around my third beer, the details begin to pop and I find myself just pausing and listening to the music, losing track of whatever else I was doing.  I have not had that happen to me since the last time I had a few strong drinks while listening to music.  The proof is in my alcoholic beverages.  I know what I hear.  It is like night and day.  Well, perhaps more like night and somewhere between predawn and dawn.  I mean, it is light out and I can see fine, but the sun may not have actually risen yet; but it's obvious.  Where did I put my beer?  Why am I typing what I'm thinking?  This is weird.


 
 Yes! This is correct! Yes, you can really get lost in it. Sometime after your 4th the music can make you giggle.
  
 Every now and again I try Scotch-usually after hearing how much better it makes the music sound. I've tried it a few times-after 3 shots I found the music really opening up and the VEIL was not only LIFTED-but moved to another city! Unfortunately, after 3 shots-my quality of life declined the next day-and my music sounded really BAD (as did most sounds).  So I'm back to looking for other Magical Solutions. Hmmmm, WA QUANTUM post-its? Calibrated crystals? Scotch is OUT.


----------



## sonitus mirus

exacoustatowner said:


> Yes! This is correct! Yes, you can really get lost in it. Sometime after your 4th the music can make you giggle.
> 
> Every now and again I try Scotch-usually after hearing how much better it makes the music sound. I've tried it a few times-after 3 shots I found the music really opening up and the VEIL was not only LIFTED-but moved to another city! Unfortunately, after 3 shots-my quality of life declined the next day-and my music sounded really BAD (as did most sounds).  So I'm back to looking for other Magical Solutions. Hmmmm, WA QUANTUM post-its? Calibrated crystals? Scotch is OUT.


 
  
 Scotch, and most whiskeys, tend to make the sound brighter.  This is where the brand Scotch-Brite got its origins.  A good tequila makes the DAC sound warmer.  Any schnapps is right out; don't even bother, especially if you have higher quality gear.


----------



## RRod

sonitus mirus said:


> Scotch, and most whiskeys, tend to make the sound brighter.  This is where the brand Scotch-Brite got its origins.  A good tequila makes the DAC sound warmer.  Any schnapps is right out; don't even bother, especially if you have higher quality gear.


 
  
 Good tequila especially affects the timbre of brass and strings.


----------



## uchihaitachi

I find that alcoholic beverages tend to make everything dimmer and quieter. Until everything turns black.
  
 Maybe that's cos I am asian and can't handle my liquor. Oh well...


----------



## headdict

sonitus mirus said:


> Scotch, and most whiskeys, tend to make the sound brighter.  This is where the brand Scotch-Brite got its origins.  A good tequila makes the DAC sound warmer.  Any schnapps is right out; don't even bother, especially if you have higher quality gear.


 

 Giving your DAC too much tequila will introduce jitter. Likewise most amps can't handle whiskey without channel imbalance. Schnapps on the other hand can speed up the burn-in process of power cables dramatically. If your experiences differ, chances are your schnapps was not audiophile grade. If you accidentally apply high-proof alcohol to yourself instead of to your equipment, the sound stage can get very slippery.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

headdict said:


> Giving your DAC too much tequila will introduce jitter. .. ... ...


 
  
  
 But the worst thing of all is _water. _Especially if you pour it in while the thing is turned on. The DAC is unlikely to survive --- and, if it has a mains power supply, you might not either.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

headdict said:


> Giving your DAC too much tequila will introduce jitter. Likewise most amps can't handle whiskey without channel imbalance. Schnapps on the other hand can speed up the burn-in process of power cables dramatically. If your experiences differ, chances are your schnapps was not audiophile grade. If you accidentally apply high-proof alcohol to yourself instead of to your equipment, the sound stage can get very slippery.


 
 Proper use if Schnapps really makes the new house wiring "open up!" Even my refrigerator sounds better. I find pre treating the bottle with Quantum Chips or Brilliant Pebbles really helps speed up the effect of house wiring "burn in.". Just make sure your AC only flows ONE WAY (chuckle).


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

After reading so much about it, and hearing so many opinions where it was a major factor, for so very long, I had decided to give jitter the benefit of the doubt.
  
 Whenever I hear/read somebody say they can hear it, _I am going to doubt it very much._


----------



## Exacoustatowner

thad-e-ginathom said:


> After reading so much about it, and hearing so many opinions where it was a major factor, for so very long, I had decided to give jitter the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Whenever I hear/read somebody say they can hear it, _I am going to doubt it very much._


 
  After running into things on other forums touting the absolute magical transformations made by things that I already knew had little if anything to do with sound (such as Power cords), I started taking ALL claims as dubious.


----------



## jcx

pure, degassed water actually isn't very conductive - it has been used in high energy capacitors as a dielectric
  
 the stuff coming out the tap however...
  
 ( I recall a local public water supply statement that the sodium content from our taps really wasn't that high - compared to milk)


----------



## headdict

thad-e-ginathom said:


> After reading so much about it, and hearing so many opinions where it was a major factor, for so very long, I had decided to give jitter the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Whenever I hear/read somebody say they can hear it, _I am going to doubt it very much._


 
  

 I can't hear any jitter. Just pure PRaT.


----------



## castleofargh

I don't have time for those pratical jokes.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

exacoustatowner said:


> ... ... ... I started taking ALL claims as dubious.


 
  
 What's that you say? You can hear _music_ from those funny boxes?
  
 ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Whenever I hear/read somebody say they can hear it, _I am going to doubt it very much._


 
  
  
 Exception: unless they are a digital signals engineer.


----------



## SergeSE

The new audio metrics based on Difference level parameter (Df, dB) is ready for practical use. Measurements for the first 10 portable players are here - http://soundexpert.org/portable-players. DF-slides are self-explanatory; top ones represent devices supposed to have better perceived quality (more transparent).
  
 Ready for your questions,
 Serge.


----------



## arnyk

sergese said:


> The new audio metrics based on Difference level parameter (Df, dB) is ready for practical use. Measurements for the first 10 portable players are here - http://soundexpert.org/portable-players. DF-slides are self-explanatory; top ones represent devices supposed to have better perceived quality (more transparent).
> 
> Ready for your questions,
> Serge.


 
  
 Difference testing is meaningless since the audibility of measured differences varies from inaudible to clearly audible.
  
 In these tests it appears that the difference is being calculated between an original 24/96 recording of a bunch of signals as compared to a 24/96 recording of a 16/44 downsampled representation  of it.
  
 There appear to be  differences due to the 16/44 downsampling that are mixed in with the differences due the operation of the player.


----------



## SergeSE

arnyk said:


> Difference testing is meaningless since the audibility of measured differences varies from inaudible to clearly audible.


 
  
 Indeed, a single measured difference (of a sound excerpt) can be audible or inaudible but if you average, say, 1000 differences (of various sound excerpts) the resulting value (median for example) becomes a strong indicator of audibility of introduced distortions. In df-slides the median of 6430 various differences (see histogram) is such indicator. One example of its good correlation with subjective assessment is in our recent discussion at HA. So, difference testing, performed appropriately, is far from meaningless.
  


arnyk said:


> In these tests it appears that the difference is being calculated between an original 24/96 recording of a bunch of signals as compared to a 24/96 recording of a 16/44 downsampled representation  of it.
> 
> There appear to be  differences due to the 16/44 downsampling that are mixed in with the differences due the operation of the player.


 
  
 In these tests the difference was calculated between 44/16 input signals (played back by players) and 96/24 output signals from players' phones outputs. The higher the output resolution, the more accurate calculation of Difference level. So, calculated difference is due to operation of players only. Difference of up-sample operations is much lower, around -80dB (Fig.7) and in our case up-sampling is absent because recording is made at 96/24.


----------



## castleofargh

can someone go report bookman's anti sound science post for me in the pono topic? thanks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 .
 I just saw it because the topic still comes up in the "I've post", even though I can't access it.


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> can someone go report bookman's anti sound science post for me in the pono topic? thanks
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
This one? Meh, let him have his little fun. Although, my wife was listening to Heart of Gold when I walked in… maybe he's the one replacing women with Ponobots‽


----------



## Exacoustatowner

I'm currently evaluating "Tomatin" 12 year old Single Malt Scotch and it's effect on musical enjoyment. So far it's having minimal effect. I usually prefer to keep the intake to sub-hangover levels. Is that insufficient dosage to " lift the veil?"


----------



## uchihaitachi

Got a question for the more computer savvy members.
  
 Is there any likelihood of data corruption or read/write errors when moving files from one hard disk to another? (This is under the assumption that there were  no error messages regarding the transfer of data.)
  
 I have been moving my music disk via an external hard drive and ethernet transfer to a different computer....


----------



## castleofargh

uchihaitachi said:


> Got a question for the more computer savvy members.
> 
> Is there any likelihood of data corruption or read/write errors when moving files from one hard disk to another? (This is under the assumption that there were  no error messages regarding the transfer of data.)
> 
> I have been moving my music disk via an external hard drive and ethernet transfer to a different computer....


 

  just get any free stuff that can do a MD5 or byte by byte check(while transferring or afterward). don't tell me your worries will go away just because I'll tell you everything is fine


----------



## uchihaitachi

castleofargh said:


> just get any free stuff that can do a MD5 or byte by byte check(while transferring or afterward). don't tell me your worries will go away just because I'll tell you everything is fine


 
 Any recommendation for such a programme?
  
 Audio related matters tend to kick me into ocd hyper mode even though I am not ocd with anything else. grrr...


----------



## RRod

uchihaitachi said:


> Any recommendation for such a programme?
> 
> Audio related matters tend to kick me into ocd hyper mode even though I am not ocd with anything else. grrr...


 
  
 I've never had any issues with plain old cp and mv, but if you want to be ocd then you could write a small script to do cp followed by cmp to do a byte-for-byte comparison. I should add, you can also just use rsync, which does a checksum.


----------



## castleofargh

+1 for rsync. but it really ends up depending on what we want to do.
 for basic stuff I use freefilesync,(like to avoid the excruciating job of sending TV shows to my mum without having to sort them all or care for what she has or hasn't deleted) but I really wouldn't say it's better or worst than the last 10 same kind of stuff I used before it. I happened to make it work as I wanted and stopped there. if the need isn't for transfer but only checksum then any checksum software will do well. some probably have more options or go slightly faster, but it's not really a magic job.
 when I just decide to make a complete back up I go with making an image of the disk onto another one( barbarian way) with an old acronis true image software("I paid for it so I still use it" is my only honest reason).
 they all do some levels of checking for success of transfer. it really depends on how paranoid you are and how often you want to do it or have it automated. TBH for years I've copied my pictures(my music library is such a tiny folder compared to that), and I'm yet to notice any problem at all. I get like one picture corrupted out of about 10000 when doing a transfer from compact flash to the laptop with an old card and multicard reader. but I get warned and the second time the picture is fine. that's the only real error I've noticed.
  
 maybe someone should code something like that and pretend that it's especially made for audio. with let's say something like "bit perfect" thrown in for marketing measure. for 150$ that should sell well. ^_^ "the soundstage really opened up after I copied it with soundperfect V2.4"


----------



## castleofargh

if you have missed the topic, enjoy that little gem:
  
  


add said:


> I bought a Jitterbug yesterday on a whim. I thought even at $79 here in Australia, I wouldn't be jumping out of a window if it made no difference. Furthermore, I don't use a USB DAC and I had planned to simply stick the thing in - of all places - the USB port I use for my mouse on my PC! So not in any audio or "data" path at all!
> 
> After installing it inline with the mouse USB port - and doing absolutely nothing else, I was still expecting it to make absolutely no difference whatsoever. After all, I've been pretty careful building up this PC to work extremely well with music.
> 
> ...


----------



## sonitus mirus

Quote: http://www.audioquest.com/jitterbug/faqs 





> Q: Will JitterBug make me smarter, thinner, taller, and more attractive? A: Absolutely! … Not. But it will make your audio system sound fuller, richer, and far more musical, which in turn will make you far happier. And isn’t that what life is really all about?


 
  
 It is probably more likely to make you smarter, thinner, taller, and more attractive than to make your audio system sound fuller, richer, or more musical.  Their first reply of "Absolutely!" is more accurate, in my opinion.


----------



## miicah

uchihaitachi said:


> Any recommendation for such a programme?
> 
> Audio related matters tend to kick me into ocd hyper mode even though I am not ocd with anything else. grrr...


 
  
 Don't forget about bit-rot! Any more OCD I can trigger for you?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Long time no see folks.

How's it going? Same-old same-old?

http://www.head-fi.org/t/782131/why-high-res-audio-is-bad-for-music-take-2


----------



## Exacoustatowner

joe bloggs said:


> Long time no see folks.
> 
> How's it going? Same-old same-old?
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/782131/why-high-res-audio-is-bad-for-music-take-2


 
 Same old same old. I read your link. The other issue with the "pure" button approach-and assumptions that recordings  need ZERO EQ and that playback needs ZERO EQ because it's "perfect" is that people's hearing does degrade over time. Eventually that "perfect" recording might need a little high frequency boost.
 I use a RANE DEQ60L for that purpose.
  
 http://www.rane.com/deq60l.html


----------



## sonitus mirus

exacoustatowner said:


> Same old same old. I read your link. The other issue with the "pure" button approach-and assumptions that recordings  need ZERO EQ and that playback needs ZERO EQ because it's "perfect" is that people's hearing does degrade over time. Eventually that "perfect" recording might need a little high frequency boost.
> I use a RANE DEQ60L for that purpose.
> 
> http://www.rane.com/deq60l.html


 
  
 Unless you are using some measurement tool to get a desired response across the frequency range, how would you know if you are adding too much high frequency boost or if your ears/brain are simply becoming accustomed to the difference?  Perhaps the song does need more cow bell, but how much is enough? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I suppose if you know the specific data about your hearing loss by frequency range and dB, you could tweak these values on your EQ.  (nice EQ by the way) Though, lest your ears are in real bad shape, if you don't know the room measurements already, any minor adjustments to compensate for hearing loss might not mean anything in the grand scheme of things if the room is already creating havoc with the sound.


----------



## castleofargh

I agree that it's hard to hope to get it right only by ear and EQ with speakers, if only because EQ can't solve everything in a room. but not getting it right, doesn't mean there isn't progress that can be made by ear. of course experience might play a massive part when fooling around with EQ, and it's easy to just make a mess when we have none. probably the reason why so many people believe that EQ ruins the sound.


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> I agree that it's hard to hope to get it right only by ear and EQ with speakers,* if only because EQ can't solve everything in a room*. but not getting it right, doesn't mean there isn't progress that can be made by ear. of course experience might play a massive part when fooling around with EQ, and it's easy to just make a mess when we have none. probably the reason why so many people believe that EQ ruins the sound.


 
  
 EQ can't solve everything in a room, but if your head is locked in a vise, it might make things just about perfect. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  I have an EQ that has a pink noise generator and uses a microphone to set itself automatically.  Since I'm only sitting at my desk where I use the speakers, it works out ok.  Though, I would prefer the results to be more consistent, as I can perform the same test without touching the microphone and the results are quite a bit different every time.  I'm paranoid that I am doing more harm than good, so I left the EQ out of the loop until I can find some time and energy to learn more about the process of treating a room and setting an EQ.


----------



## castleofargh

sonitus mirus said:


> EQ can't solve everything in a room, but if your head is locked in a vise, it might make things just about perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I believe you need to hold the mic in your mouth to get closer to your HRTF within the room 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.  you get massive changes or just small ones? because I would expect noise to be noise even pink one so some changes are expected with such a method.
 I've tried doing about the same as you on crappy desktop speakers with the IMM-6 (I only use the best... not) and room eq wizard. I have more fun than success, but the EQ most certainly did some good, I just totally gave up on trying to get back up on the rolled off parts because the distortions were rapidly becoming an audible problem, so I didn't turn a donkey into a race horse, but the mids do sound better.
 the hilarious part was trying to do the same with the tweeters inside my laptop ^_^.
  
 but I do get great results(subjectively at least and I still go for what I favor by ear afterward) measuring IEMs with the Vibro Veritas gizmo. I had to create a make believe calibration(that sucks), and I get a nasty 15khz resonance, but else it's really working fine and again I use REW to make an EQ simulation and then check if it went as anticipated using virtual audio cable, VSThost, and some EQ in the loop while I measure again(that brought a all lot of new problems, but in the end it works ok for my humble needs). so I really have an idea of where I'm going and that rocks. it's obviously a great improvement compared to doing stuff by ear(if only for how much faster I can EQ something), but surprisingly(or not) my previous settings were mostly where they should. I suck a lot at estimating the low end, and even with test tones I don't think I can do better than +/-1.5db(so up 3db variations from one attempt to another). I knew it already and measurements confirmed that. about the same in trebles, but most IEMs can't do much after 10 or 12khz anyway and my ears are done after 16.5khz, so it never mattered much in that direction.
 the only stuff I EQ 100%  by ear now is my hd650.


----------



## AtomikPi

sonitus mirus said:


> EQ can't solve everything in a room, but if your head is locked in a vise, it might make things just about perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Keep in mind that room modes are affected by note frequency. So as you go higher in frequency, space between peaks and nulls decreases. This is why newer iterations of Audyssey don't bother fixing room modes in the treble. I'd suggest starting by EQing bass and then working your way up. Or find a reputable room EQ plugin and calibrated measurement microphone. (I use Sonarworks with my studio monitors and Audyssey XT32 with my far-field setup, although the lack of configurability in Audyssey is very frustrating.) Plus there's the issue that the EQ algorithms of a lot of plugins simply suck.


----------



## bfreedma

atomikpi said:


> Keep in mind that room modes are affected by note frequency. So as you go higher in frequency, space between peaks and nulls decreases. This is why newer iterations of Audyssey don't bother fixing room modes in the treble. I'd suggest starting by EQing bass and then working your way up. Or find a reputable room EQ plugin and calibrated measurement microphone. (I use Sonarworks with my studio monitors and Audyssey XT32 with my far-field setup, although the lack of configurability in Audyssey is very frustrating.) Plus there's the issue that the EQ algorithms of a lot of plugins simply suck.




Have you considered buying the Audyssey Pro kit? That would give you much more flexibility than stock XT32. I've been very happy with the measured results after using some of the curve customization features available in Pro after running XT32/Pro to get the baseline room EQ.


----------



## AtomikPi

bfreedma said:


> Have you considered buying the Audyssey Pro kit? That would give you much more flexibility than stock XT32. I've been very happy with the measured results after using some of the curve customization features available in Pro after running XT32/Pro to get the baseline room EQ.




That's not a bad idea. I can't stop hearing the BBC Dip - or whatever it's called - as a coloration. I suppose there are worse ways to spend money than the pro kit. I'll do it eventually, once my wallet recovers. Speaker-Fi makes headphones seem cheap.


----------



## StanD

I see you guys are still at it.
 Here's an interesting post. Once in a while someone posts that the rectifier tubes in their tube amp affects tone in ways that I couldn't imagine. What do you think? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



http://www.head-fi.org/t/711824/hifiman-he-560-impressions-discussion-thread/14145#post_11947104


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> I see you guys are still at it.
> Here's an interesting post. Once in a while someone posts that the rectifier tubes in their tube amp affects tone in ways that I couldn't imagine. What do you think?
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 It's the natural consequence of relying on casual audiophile sighted evaluatons.


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> I see you guys are still at it.
> Here's an interesting post. Once in a while someone posts that the rectifier tubes in their tube amp affects tone in ways that I couldn't imagine. What do you think?
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  


arnyk said:


> It's the natural consequence of relying on casual audiophile sighted evaluatons.


 
 If that's sight, I'd call it blind, but not in the sense of what we would call blind testing. Everytime I read such a rediculous claim, I feel the need to pass gas.


----------



## Ruben123

So.... what happened to Arny?


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> So.... what happened to Arny?


 
 Perhaps he'll be resurrected as Arnyk1.


----------



## Bibo

ruben123 said:


> So.... what happened to Arny?


 

 He knew too much...


----------



## StanD

bibo said:


> He knew too much...


 
 Unlike Sgt. Schultz. (Hogan's Heros)


----------



## headdict

This is why I'm still around.


----------



## castleofargh

I've been warned a few times already by Curra that I was very close to graduate if I kept doing what I'm doing.
 but if all you have to do is publicly insult somebody, that's cheating IMO.


----------



## Ruben123

castleofargh said:


> I've been warned a few times already by Curra that I was very close to graduate if I kept doing what I'm doing.
> but if all you have to do is publicly insult somebody, that's cheating IMO.




Which happens all day in discussions all over this site yet I've never seen members banned that many as here. If you find someone banned in the cable thread that's because he insisted on abx lol


----------



## limpidglitch

Getting banned is easy, keeping on sticking around, that takes real dedication.


----------



## headwhacker

Just want to get opinion on this thread.
  
 Audeze publishes this specs for their latest LCD4.
  

StyleOpen circumaural Transducer typePlanar magneticMagnetic arraysDouble Fluxor magnetsMagnet typeNeodymiumTransducer size106 mmMaximum power handling15W (for 200ms)Sound pressure level>130dB with 15WFrequency response5Hz – 20kHz extended out to 50kHzTotal harmonic distortion<1% through entire frequency rangeImpedance100 ohmsEfficiency100dB / 1mWOptimal power requirement1 – 4W
  
  
 I just find it odd that they put "Optimal power requirement" between 1-4W when the headphone is very sensitive/efficient at 100dB /1mW. This headphone can easily go past 120dB SPL before drawing 100mW.


----------



## DreamKing

That's because they're targeting audiophiles. At that point, suggested "requirements" don't mean anything. Loads of setups with people barely stressing their super powered amps, but they'll insist on it based on nothing.
  
 In any case, I've never seen any headphone manufacturer's suggested requirements that are anything close to reality.


----------



## jcx

130 dB SPL literal live rock concert levels would require earplugs under the headphones
  
 and I do advocate for up to 120 dB clean dynamic peak capability for "end game" amp/headphone combos
  
 highest peak to average recording I understand is ~ +24 dB, listening to 90+ dB average SPL may give more realistic live event SPL but shouldn't be done for long or daily
  
 how to add channels is arguable but even THX standards only go to ~110 dB peak


----------



## StanD

headwhacker said:


> Just want to get opinion on this thread.
> 
> Audeze publishes this specs for their latest LCD4.
> 
> ...


 
 Perhaps they are planning a new campaign to promote hearing loss?


----------



## cel4145

Probably more to help sell their amp.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Probably more to help sell their amp.


 
 Ah yes, marketing motives.


----------



## RRod

headwhacker said:


> I just find it odd that they put "Optimal power requirement" between 1-4W when the headphone is very sensitive/efficient at 100dB /1mW. This headphone can easily go past 120dB SPL before drawing 100mW.


 
  
 You mean you don't often listen at a consistent 140dBSPL? What a p***y!


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> You mean you don't often listen at a consistent 140dBSPL? What a p***y!


 
 I prefer sticking my head in the exhaust of a jet engine.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> You mean you don't often listen at a consistent 140dBSPL? What a p***y!






stand said:


> I prefer sticking my head in the exhaust of a jet engine. :eek:




Maybe it's best that we don't critique that idea of listening at 140 db SPL. Before long, there will be many audiophools who are deaf, and they'll lose interest in spreading their ideas because it won't be any fun to talk about audio equipment any more. Their golden ears will be gone. :veryevil:


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> Maybe it's best that we don't critique that idea of listening at 140 db SPL. Before long, there will be many audiophools who are deaf, and they'll lose interest in spreading their ideas because it won't be any fun to talk about audio equipment any more. Their golden ears will be gone.


 
  
 So you're saying start up a business for hearing aids with frequency response beyond 20kHz?


----------



## castleofargh

seriously though, they started showing those numbers on the website when they were doing really low sensitivity stuff. they have improved the sensitivity of models like the LCD2 a lot over revisions, but have never cared to change those numbers. so they might have had some kind of meaning at the start that they now clearly have lost.
  
 or maybe that's to account for replaygain +10db for whatever EQ? ^_^ my kind of audiophile.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> seriously though, they started showing those numbers on the website when they were doing really low sensitivity stuff. they have improved the sensitivity of models like the LCD2 a lot over revisions, but have never cared to change those numbers. so they might have had some kind of meaning at the start that they now clearly have lost.
> 
> or maybe that's to account for replaygain +10db for whatever EQ? ^_^ my kind of audiophile.


 
 My i7 laptop specs states that 8GB is the most memory that it can support. I seem to be running much more than that. I checked the specs on the chipset and decided to go for it. Sometimes something erroneous gets written down and everyone is afraid or unwilling to change the story.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

rrod said:


> cel4145 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it's best that we don't critique that idea of listening at 140 db SPL. Before long, there will be many audiophools who are deaf, and they'll lose interest in spreading their ideas because it won't be any fun to talk about audio equipment any more. Their golden ears will be gone. :veryevil:
> ...




I think he's saying that his brand of audiophiles tend to gravitate towards exactly every idea that you guys critique :rolleyes:


----------



## RRod

joe bloggs said:


> I think he's saying that his brand of audiophiles tend to gravitate towards exactly every idea that you guys critique


 
  
 So you don't want in on my hearing aid $$$?


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> I think he's saying that his brand of audiophiles tend to gravitate towards exactly every idea that you guys critique


 
 Perhaps it's time we whine about base jumping. That should thin the herd.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Perhaps it's time we whine about base jumping. That should thin the herd.




You forgot this:

:veryevil:


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> You forgot this:


 
 That should terrify them. This is my 7,000th post, that should really strike fear into their hearts.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

rrod said:


> So you're saying start up a business for hearing aids with frequency response beyond 20kHz?


 
  
 Just beyond speech frequencies would be nice.
  


rrod said:


> So you don't want in on my hearing aid $$$?


 
  
 I want in on your hearing aids... but not at audiophile prices!


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> So you're saying start up a business for hearing aids with frequency response beyond 20kHz?


 
 What!? Aging Whalebats have needs too.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> That should terrify them. This is my 7,000th post, that should really strike fear into their hearts.




ROFL


----------



## Ruben123

Lol olddude in pono topic is seriously the wisest of all (because he is old?). 
Mp3 is the devil's work. You can't fool people by offering art that is not complete!!!


----------



## Ruben123

"Stick that in your science pipe and smoke it."

Don't try to argue with scientific terms or you will get a ban!


----------



## castleofargh

the amount of misleading claims in the pono topic are pretty substantial. a guy who learns only from that place is soooo screwed.
 I certainly have an opinion on olddude and what he has become(because at first he was a nice fellow asking questions all the time and actually trying to read the answers), but it's headfi and we can't really criticize a member even when it's deserved.


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> the amount of misleading claims in the pono topic are pretty substantial. a guy who learns only from that place is soooo screwed.
> I certainly have an opinion on olddude and what he has become(because at first he was a nice fellow asking questions all the time and actually trying to read the answers), but it's headfi and we can't really criticize a member even when it's deserved.


 
  
 It's a ban-bait topic at this point, so I just stay unsubscribed from it. Besides, it's basically become a balanced cable discussion with the occasional "wow, science people are so stupid" tangent.


----------



## dazzerfong

Love how FFBrookman wandered off over to the Pono thread and is whining about that section. I think the reception he got was more or less the best indicator into the mentality over there. 

That being said, I still can't get over how weirdly shaped it is. If I wanted a triangular prism, I'd have ordered a Toblerone.


----------



## castleofargh

what killed it for me was the battery TBH. it stopped me from even wanting to have a try at it. and then I learned about everything else.


----------



## headwhacker

Looks like that thread has turned into full blown fantasy land. At least they don't look at over priced DAPs as the only way to get to audio heaven.


----------



## reginalb

castleofargh said:


> the amount of misleading claims in the pono topic are pretty substantial. *a guy who learns only from that place is soooo screwed.*
> I certainly have an opinion on olddude and what he has become(because at first he was a nice fellow asking questions all the time and actually trying to read the answers), but it's headfi and we can't really criticize a member even when it's deserved.


 
  
 I spent a fairly substantial amount of money because of threads like that one, on this forum, before I started doing a lot of digging in to the science behind it all. I love gadgets, and I wanted to believe in their potential to make my music sound magically better. Now, I still have and use a pretty expensive MP3 player, but it's for very different reasons than when I bought my first Hifiman 601 - that and some AKG's were my first foray in to Head-Fi. Great cans, though.


----------



## castleofargh

reginalb said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > the amount of misleading claims in the pono topic are pretty substantial. *a guy who learns only from that place is soooo screwed.*
> ...


 

 oh most of us went that same road at some point in time. I bought silver cables, and a balanced amp, like a month after I first joined headfi. ohhh yeahhhhhh!!!!!
 that's why I get so mad when I read people claiming total nonsense about what is the best or what others should buy. because I remember being lied to by the exact same kind of ******* who doesn't care for the consequences of his actions and BS claims.


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> oh most of us went that same road at some point in time. I bought silver cables, and a balanced amp, like a month after I first joined headfi. ohhh yeahhhhhh!!!!!
> that's why I get so mad when I read people claiming total nonsense about what is the best or what others should buy. because I remember being lied to by the exact same kind of ******* who doesn't care for the consequences of his actions and BS claims.


 
  
 I was the same way: HD800 needs speshul gears to sound remotely good, right? The funny thing is the more you actually learn about things like DSP the dumber you are considered on this site.


----------



## davidsh

Been down that rabbit hole too. What finally made me think about things was when I started hearing differences between my RCA cables and thought something like, "this is just... not right, can't be, insensible"
 That was when I started investigating and digging a little deeper.
  
 What previously had held me back was the adaption to the norms and consensi I met, finding the people on head-fi to be quite reasonable, very knowledgeable and experienced. I was merely a noob.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

Is this the right room for _Recovering Audiophiles?_
  
 May I join you?


----------



## davidsh

thad-e-ginathom said:


> Is this the right room for _Recovering Audiophiles?_
> 
> May I join you?



Indeed it is. Only if you conform to our views, though!


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

Recently, on another audio forum, somebody suggested that I should "get over" my problems with audiophoolery.
  
 Get over them? I've worked long, hard, and sometimes painfully, to _get_ them!


----------



## krismusic

I don't know if this is the right place to ask but it kind of comes from the same "journey". Silver cables , portable amps. Read SS. Gradually realise that I am kidding myself 90% of the time. 
Anyway. If all well implemented DAC's sound similar, how come the iPhone 6s sounds so different from the 5s?


----------



## sonitus mirus

krismusic said:


> I don't know if this is the right place to ask but it kind of comes from the same "journey". Silver cables , portable amps. Read SS. Gradually realise that I am kidding myself 90% of the time.
> Anyway. If all well implemented DAC's sound similar, how come the iPhone 6s sounds so different from the 5s?


 
  
 Different volume levels or maybe EQ via some "enhanced" audio setting.  If you can bypass the amp completely and test the line level output, they should sound extremely close to identical to the point where practically no human could effectively hear a difference.  If that is not the case, than the audio signal is being manipulated by the hardware or software.


----------



## castleofargh

Bookmark went on with comparing bitrate and samplerate again in the pono topic. how many times did we explain it to him? me alone more than 5 times, with everybody else we're probably past 15. and that's just in sound science.  how can someone go and make a fool of himself again and again and again about the very same mistake so many times? now I can't even explain it with stubbornness and ignorance alone, before I was just angry, now I'm really puzzled. it's incredible.


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> Bookmark went on with comparing bitrate and samplerate again in the pono topic. how many times did we explain it to him? me alone more than 5 times, with everybody else we're probably past 15. and that's just in sound science.  how can someone go and make a fool of himself again and again and again about the very same mistake so many times? now I can't even explain it with stubbornness and ignorance alone, before I was just angry, now I'm really puzzled. it's incredible.


 
  
 It fits his narrative, pure and simple. We can wave our arms all about like this

  
 but words like "Huffman coding" won't make a darn difference because "## < ###" does more for him than we ever can.


----------



## uchihaitachi

krismusic said:


> I don't know if this is the right place to ask but it kind of comes from the same "journey". Silver cables , portable amps. Read SS. Gradually realise that I am kidding myself 90% of the time.
> Anyway. If all well implemented DAC's sound similar, how come the iPhone 6s sounds so different from the 5s?


 
 Amp section, also output impedance of the device. If you are listening on low impedance portable earphones, differences in output impedance can do funny things to the frequency response.


----------



## krismusic

Actually. I have just been swapping between the phones. The differences are tiny, if there at all!


----------



## Ruben123

I like it how many claims of sq difference between intern and extern (SD) memory I read. Even more so when each brand and series has its own sound signature and Sony's HD music SD is the very best of course


----------



## krismusic

ruben123 said:


> I like it how many claims of sq difference between intern and extern (SD) memory I read. Even more so when each brand and series has its own sound signature and Sony's HD music SD is the very best of course



Oh, I've read people comparing makes of battery for their portable amps and making recommendations!


----------



## jcx

"9 V" batteries have quite a range of starting and ending V, the difference between chemistries give different V per cell - and "9 V" batteries have been made with different # of cells per battery
  
 the different chemistries V apples to single cells too  of course


----------



## krismusic

jcx said:


> "9 V" batteries have quite a range of starting and ending V, the difference between chemistries give different V per cell - and "9 V" batteries have been made with different # of cells per battery
> 
> the different chemistries V apples to single cells too  of course



Hmmm. I may well be wrong on this but I really don't think that minute, theoretical differences like these have any bearing on listening pleasure. As I say, I may be wrong.


----------



## davidsh

My dap surely sounds best when receiving between 8.1-8.4 volts, but all batteries are ~9 volts when charged. Most batteries I try surely start to sound grainy too when they are discharged to the sweet spot. What a pain!


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> My dap surely sounds best when receiving between 8.1-8.4 volts, but all batteries are ~9 volts when charged. Most batteries I try surely start to sound grainy too when they are discharged to the sweet spot. What a pain!


 
 Here the solution to your problem :
  http://www.ebay.com/itm/1pc-Soshine-9V-650mAh-8-4V-Li-ion-Rechargeable-Battery-cell-/311418289313
  
 Soshine also produces 8.4V 600 mAh LiIon and 9V 350 mAh NiMH cells in 6F22 ( "9V " ) size. The only problem is that LiIon version is slightly larger dimension - and with very square edges, meaning sometimes it will just not fit in some tight places. Both versions are VERY low self-discharge; not on a par with Sanyo Eneloop ( which BTW does not produce 6F22 9V rechargeables ), but close.  You can have a peace of mind if the batteries were charged a month or two before the use; the capacity will be only slightly less than freshly charged cell.
  
 And yes, some equipment definitely does work better with 8.4 V instead of 9 V ; some does require higher voltage for proper operation. There are dedicated chargers for LiIon and NiMH from Soshine, as well as "universal" one ( which is a bit harder to obtain ). 
  
 So far, reliability has been excellent; only time I did fry LiIon ( discharge below cutoff voltage is terminal failure for LiIon cells ) was due to running some in series, and under these adverse conditions it is easy and possible to destroy them. In normal operation, everything flying colours.


----------



## jcx

the battery chemistry and cell count variation give 7.2 V to 9.6 V range for fully charged/new "9 V" battery - not "minute" - with the 7.2 V "9 V" battery the circuit may need to work to  <6V if you want to use most of its charge
  
 especially with LiIon rechargeables the discharge curve is very sloped over the whole life and many just put 2 cells in the "9 V" package
  
 with some common cmoy or a47 candidate op amps dropping another ~1.5 V from each rail you could have 2x output V swing difference in a single "9 V" battery amp depending on type and charge condition


----------



## Audioholic123

The reason for the noise is most likely due to the higher quality audio files your listening to combined with the quieter atmosphere. Once you reach higher bitrates then under certain circumstances and depending on your level of concentration/awareness, you often _can_ _hear_ _really_ _subtle_ details in music, not forgetting quality of kit! a good audio setup can make such subtle nuances rather obvious.
 I own modded Fostex t50rp's and this is one thing they excel at because of their drivers.
 If the hiss only begins when you select a track and press play, then you may well be hearing the recording equipment that the artist used during the recorded passage.
 ( which you can hear in the background). This would explain why you only hear it in some tracks and not all, as digital recorders are quiete compared to analog ones, also in this day and age studio's record directly onto computers.


----------



## sonitus mirus

audioholic123 said:


> The reason for the noise is most likely due to the higher quality audio files your listening to combined with the quieter atmosphere. Once you reach higher bitrates then under certain circumstances and depending on your level of concentration/awareness, you often _can_ _hear_ _really_ _subtle_ details in music, not forgetting quality of kit! a good audio setup can make such subtle nuances rather obvious.
> I own modded Fostex t50rp's and this is one thing they excel at because of their drivers.
> If the hiss only begins when you select a track and press play, then you may well be hearing the recording equipment that the artist used during the recorded passage.
> ( which you can hear in the background). This would explain why you only hear it in some tracks and not all, as digital recorders are quiete compared to analog ones, also in this day and age studio's record directly onto computers.


 
  
 In this situation, it has nothing to do with the quality of the file, only the quality of the music. Unless you are listening in an an anechoic chamber and blasting the music volume to near-pain thresholds, I don't know of any music that might produce audible noise when taking a higher bitrate file and downconverting this to CD quality.
  
 I can hear the same noise being discussed using a $10 pair of USB speakers.  This noise is present on the source material, and it would be heard in any format as long as the exact same master was used.


----------



## Audioholic123

sonitus mirus said:


> In this situation, it has nothing to do with the quality of the file, only the quality of the music. Unless you are listening in an an anechoic chamber and blasting the music volume to near-pain thresholds, I don't know of any music that might produce audible noise when taking a higher bitrate file and downconverting this to CD quality.
> 
> I can hear the same noise being discussed using a $10 pair of USB speakers.  This noise is present on the source material, and it would be heard in any format as long as the exact same master was used.


 

 I agree...but on a much deeper level, higher bitrates often allows for really subtle details to be heard more clearer. I'm talking about coughs, audible breathing and body movement. Even the noise of a guitarist's fingers moving between each string...stuff like that. I hear these differences all the time when i switch from my ipod to my Hifi, and to me they are obvious....I'm not saying you wouldn't be able to hear these things from cheaper equipment. If you can, then you got yourself a well engineered device!


----------



## Currawong

If I might interrupt the discussion briefly, I would like you all to please welcome castleofargh as the moderator of the Sound Science forum.


----------



## davidsh

Woah, welcome!
What an interesting turn of events


----------



## bfreedma

currawong said:


> If I might interrupt the discussion briefly, I would like you all to please welcome castleofargh as the moderator of the Sound Science forum.




Never heard of him 

Congrats - and remember - no good deed goes unpunished.


----------



## sonitus mirus

currawong said:


> If I might interrupt the discussion briefly, I would like you all to please welcome castleofargh as the moderator of the Sound Science forum.


 
  
 Wonderful news!  I hope you made certain that he destroyed ALL of the copies of those photos he had of you.


----------



## Roly1650

Great, that's all we need, a bloody frog who can't capitalise or punctuate.  
But his English is better than my French, which isn't that hard.

A most excellent choice.


----------



## bfreedma

This is a test of the CMS (castleofargh moderation system). This is only a test as required by the Department of Audio Sanity. No bans are required due to this system check

• Cables make a night and day difference. Silver is bright, copper is warm
• I have two solid state amplifiers that measure identically. The difference in audible sound between the two is dramatic. My significant other can hear the difference from another room while running the dish washer/band saw
• Science doesn't know everything, therefore my personal experience trumps all known and vetted audio science
• Vinyl. Yeah, I said it, vinyl.
• Anything I choose can be analogous to a car.
• Hi Rez music is always better. And no, I don't have to know why, it just is.
• Whalebats - they're real!
• Price dictates SQ. Always. Without exception.

Repeating, this has been a test of the CMS. 

Well, if I'm not banned over this or have the honor of having the first post deleted by our new mod, I look forward to seeing how the Sound Science forum progresses. 

All kidding aside, I'm excited to see castleofargh taking on the moderator role.


----------



## castleofargh

keep your expectations low, and I will not disappoint!
  
 not sure I'll be able to change much to what we've all been doing here. outside of PC police where I'll be super bad anyway, think of me as a method to bring back some rational when you feel it left a topic. so that with everybody's help, we can keep things interesting and reasonable without as much frustration as we've been experiencing a few times.
 I've been asking for it, I end up being it. so now I'm in a put up or shut up situation ^_^.
 while I don't plan on chasing after every and any straw man argument(because I wish to still have a life), someone who is unable to avoid fallacies as a way to argue will be stopped at some point(hopefully just with a talk). even more so when it ends up being the reason why the atmosphere gets bad in a topic.
 so when confronted repeatedly with such a problem, come to me before you blow a fuse, insult the guy and get banned in the process by PC principal. I believe that's mostly what I can do that traditional moderation might not.
  
 the axiom in here is that we come to sound science to do, at our humble level, what any science tries to achieve, get one step closer to the truth. for that purpose, proper and honest reasoning should be the tool of choice for any argument. long before, popularity contest, rhetoric and fallacies.
 on the other hand, this is headfi, and we can't expect everybody to be a master of deductive and inductive reasoning, or to get the merits of lateral thinking before they come posting in here. so it will still be up to you all to try and explain to them why "I heard it" isn't a scientific proof, over and over again.
 I see no solution to that problem, at least not before I become world general and make science laws the only laws that don't have to be mine.(might take a few more years, I've had some set backs in my world domination plan).


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

bfreedma said:


> Never heard of him
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Blind test... or he doesn't exist.
  
 (Who _was_ that in the previous post?


----------



## headdict

This is exciting. Great news! But wait... it's a mixed bag really.
  
 The problem is castle wants to continue having a life. Something has to give, so I reckon his post rate will drop. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
@castleofargh: Could you please give a demonstration of your newly acquired powers by undoing some recent bans?


----------



## castleofargh

my super powers are limited, my understanding of them even more so at this time.
 I suppose opposing other admins in their decisions might not be the brightest move to start with(just my guess). but I sure would love to see a few people back in with their vast knowledge. maybe when I've proved myself a little, I'll go to Currawong like a boss, say, "now you listen to me!!", and start begging. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 how is that for a plan?


----------



## headwhacker

^ sounds like a plan.


----------



## emmodad

castleofargh,

may your challenges be great and your headaches be small....

have fun


----------



## upstateguy

currawong said:


> If I might interrupt the discussion briefly, I would like you all to please welcome castleofargh as the moderator of the Sound Science forum.


 
  
 Congratulations Castleofargh !!!


----------



## Ruben123

audioholic123 said:


> I agree...but on a much deeper level, higher bitrates often allows for really subtle details to be heard more clearer. I'm talking about coughs, audible breathing and body movement. Even the noise of a guitarist's fingers moving between each string...stuff like that. I hear these differences all the time when i switch from my ipod to my Hifi, and to me they are obvious....I'm not saying you wouldn't be able to hear these things from cheaper equipment. If you can, then you got yourself a well engineered device!




That has nothing to do with higher bit rates actually, 16 bit is sufficient (more than that). Only if your iPod is broken or you're using different earphones than on your HiFi there's no reason other than bias you're hearing more.


----------



## Audioholic123

ruben123 said:


> That has nothing to do with higher bit rates actually, 16 bit is sufficient (more than that). Only if your iPod is broken or you're using different earphones than on your HiFi there's no reason other than bias you're hearing more.


 

 This is of topic but could you kindly tell me of the highest quality cd player you've ever heard? then i'll go into detail further. For the record i regularly listen to a very, very well engineered system made by Cyrus. And (using price as a gauge of quality), it cost me $1,200...
  
 16 bit is enough...but higher bitrates allow for more information to be processed...that information contains details in the recordings... yes there are discrete noises that can be heard using anything with transducers but to different degree's and it varies depending on quality of kit combined with bitrate and some concentration.
  
 I'm coming from a deeper level of understanding.


----------



## reginalb

audioholic123 said:


> 16 bit is enough...but higher bitrates allow for more information to be processed...*that information contains details in the recordings*... yes there are discrete noises that can be heard using anything with transducers but to different degree's and it varies depending on quality of kit combined with bitrate and some concentration.
> 
> *I'm coming from a deeper level of understanding*.


 
  
 You're actually not, because that's not what a higher bit-rate does. You don't even understand the difference between bit rates, so your understanding isn't deeper.


----------



## Ruben123

audioholic123 said:


> This is of topic but could you kindly tell me of the highest quality cd player you've ever heard? then i'll go into detail further. For the record i regularly listen to a very, very well engineered system made by Cyrus. And (using price as a gauge of quality), it cost me $1,200...
> 
> 16 bit is enough...but higher bitrates allow for more information to be processed...that information contains details in the recordings... yes there are discrete noises that can be heard using anything with transducers but to different degree's and it varies depending on quality of kit combined with bitrate and some concentration.
> 
> I'm coming from a deeper level of understanding.


 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/243625/serious-abx-tests-sony-discman-vs-high-end-sources
  
 First tell me if you could blindly abx your cd player... also, 16 bit is that many that really all audible sounds while recording could be recorded. Bits give depth of the biggest difference loud-soft and I think you will have a hard time hearing a 20dB sound while a 20+90 dB (16 bit) sound is made. Higher than that is so useless!


----------



## Audioholic123

reginalb said:


> You're actually not, because that's not what a higher bit-rate does. You don't even understand the difference between bit rates, so your understanding isn't deeper.


 

 Is a tv with 6 million pixels going to show a 1080p resolution signal better than one with 4 million? same thing! *bitrate is data transferred in a given amount of time.*


----------



## Ruben123

audioholic123 said:


> Is a tv with 6 million pixels going to show a 1080p resolution signal better than one with 4 million? same thing! *bitrate is data transferred in a given amount of time.*


 
 Ears are not the same as eyes. Wel maybel... at a few meters distance I cant see the difference between a 720p and a 1080p movie.


----------



## reginalb

audioholic123 said:


> Is a tv with 6 million pixels going to show a 1080p resolution signal better than one with 4 million? same thing! *bitrate is data transferred in a given amount of time.*


 
  
 Actually, it depends. A 1080p signal is around 2 million pixels. Therefore, you have to upconvert that signal in either case, and that often degrades the image more as you upconvert it more and more. On a relatively small screen, you're unlikely to be able to tell the difference. On a very large screen, it might look better (have less artifacts) on that 4 million pixel display. Take an HD TV, and hook up an old video game console to it, and you'll find it often looks worse on the HD TV than an old tube.
  
 All of that said, bit-rate in audio and video are not similar to each other.


----------



## Audioholic123

reginalb said:


> Actually, it depends. A 1080p signal is around 2 million pixels. Therefore, you have to upconvert that signal in either case, and that often degrades the image more as you upconvert it more and more. On a relatively small screen, you're unlikely to be able to tell the difference. On a very large screen, it might look better (have less artifacts) on that 4 million pixel display. Take an HD TV, and hook up an old video game console to it, and you'll find it often looks worse on the HD TV than an old tube.
> 
> *All of that said, bit-rate in audio and video are not similar to each other. *


 
 I know that and used it as an analogy. Other guys elsewhere have used similiar analogies. On a relatively small screen the un-trained eye wouldn't be able to tell the difference between say 1080p v 720p - but on a large screen ( lets say 37 inch and upwards) the difference is definetly visible and obvious. Even more so if the tv has 2 or 3 times more pixels - because that means that *the displayed image ( wether upscaled/upconverted or not) will have more texture to it by default.*
  
 1080p is a higher resolution than 720p, and we both know that the difference is visible on a screen regardless of wether it's a CRT or LCD.
 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
  
*On to audio bitrates:*
*granularity =  the scale of detail in a level of data:*
*The granularity of a 16 bit system ( for example) is:  0/65,536 = 0.000152 Volts*
*The granularity of a 24 bit system (for example)  is:  10/16,777,216 = 0.000000596*
  
*Make up your own mind on that one...*
*__________________________________________*
  
 It pays to do some research reggie boy...


----------



## castleofargh

audioholic123 said:


> reginalb said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it depends. A 1080p signal is around 2 million pixels. Therefore, you have to upconvert that signal in either case, and that often degrades the image more as you upconvert it more and more. On a relatively small screen, you're unlikely to be able to tell the difference. On a very large screen, it might look better (have less artifacts) on that 4 million pixel display. Take an HD TV, and hook up an old video game console to it, and you'll find it often looks worse on the HD TV than an old tube.
> ...


 

 first, silvrr said he had the noise on both 16/44 and 24/96, so I don't really get your first post on the topic about sample rate.
  
 second, you're really not helping me believe that you're not FFbookman with that kind of post. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 third, I would strongly appreciate it if you could refrain from mocking others like this.


----------



## dazzerfong

audioholic123 said:


> *On to audio bitrates:*
> *granularity =  the scale of detail in a level of data:*
> *The granularity of a 16 bit system ( for example) is:  0/65,536 = 0.000152 Volts*
> *The granularity of a 24 bit system (for example)  is:  10/16,777,216 = 0.000000596*
> ...


 
 That's not even close to what a 16-bit/24-bit system is. Granularity is the same: the only difference is that a 24-bit system can go quieter.
  
 And no: even if you upscale the crap out of it, you can't generate detail out of nothing. Your analogies fail so damn hard.


----------



## Audioholic123

castleofargh said:


> first, silvrr said he had the noise on both 16/44 and 24/96, so I don't really get your first post on the topic about sample rate.
> 
> second, you're really not helping me believe that you're not FFbookman with that kind of post.
> 
> ...


 

 See - when i joined Head Fi i honestly didn't expect to be met with criticism for simply _stating fact's_...fact's from instruction manuals and university study papers combined with my own experiences, based on technical and electronic engineering. The moderators would know if i was FFbookworm and i wouldn't be allowed to use 2 accounts at the same time.
  
 There is being humorous and there is mocking others...i'm being humorous. 
  
 Ohh btw well done on becoming moderator of SS ( if i've read correctly) should i be worried? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 in that case sorry if i've offended anyone..


----------



## RRod

16-bits goes from -32768 to 32767, and 24-bits goes from -8838608 to 8838607. You can see this either as:
 .24 bits has more of the same size step
 .24 bits maps [vmin,vmax] to finer steps
  
 The former lends itself to the interpretation that 24-bits has more dynamic range; the latter, to 24-bits having finer gradations. They are, of course, entirely equivalent. This is why you will find people around here dismissive of the "I hear the finer steps" argument, because the material being presented never has the dynamic range needed to stress even 16-bits, let alone 24.


----------



## Audioholic123

rrod said:


> *16-bits goes from -32768 to 32767*, and 24-bits goes from -16777216 to 16777215. You can see this either as:
> .24 bits has more of the same size step
> .24 bits maps [vmin,vmax] to finer steps
> 
> The former lends itself to the interpretation that 24-bits has more dynamic range; the latter, to 24-bits having finer gradations. They are, of course, entirely equivalent. This is why you will find people around here dismissive of the "I hear the finer steps" argument, because the material being presented never has the dynamic range needed to stress even 16-bits, let alone 24.


 

 No...a 16 bit binary word can take on 65,536 different values!


----------



## RRod

audioholic123 said:


> No...a 16 bit binary word can take on 65,536 different values!


 
  
 32767+32768=65535, and then you need a sign bit.


----------



## Audioholic123

rrod said:


> 32767+32768=65535, and then you need a sign bit.


 

 Why not just say 65535 then? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 same thing ain't it.
  
 whats the point...i might as well throw in the towel with SS...
  
 Castleofargh - no need to ban me for presenting facts, i wont post here again.


----------



## reginalb

audioholic123 said:


> I know that and used it as an analogy. Other guys elsewhere have used similiar analogies. On a relatively small screen the un-trained eye wouldn't be able to tell the difference between say 1080p v 720p - but on a large screen ( lets say 37 inch and upwards) the difference is definetly visible and obvious. Even more so if the tv has 2 or 3 times more pixels - because that means that *the displayed image ( wether upscaled/upconverted or not) will have more texture to it by default.*
> 
> 1080p is a higher resolution than 720p, and we both know that the difference is visible on a screen regardless of wether it's a CRT or LCD.
> ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> ...


 
  
 You really jump all over the place with your strange arguments. You were originally talking about displaying a 1080p signal on a much higher resolution display, now you're talking about 720p vs 1080p. Certainly a 1080p signal looks better on a 1080p display. I think you're confused about some things. But the way you jump around makes it hard to explain things to you. Any way, no, upscaling an image doesn't give it more "texture"


----------



## RRod

audioholic123 said:


> Why not just say 65535 then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Because it shows how it's technically a bit easier to clip in the positive direction. Note I actually screwed up the 24-bit numbers; should have been -8388608 to 8388607. Darn computers.


----------



## Audioholic123

Most of ya'll know everything but know nothing...Keep telling yourselves otherwise


----------



## Audioholic123

> " I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this"


----------



## castleofargh

the problem is that you jump from one stuff to another, making it very hard to follow or even argue about your points. honestly this topic looks like you're fishing, not much that you're trying to state facts.
 you started with sampling when it wasn't the problem for the OP, and after a few slides, we're down to a bad analogy about screens, and somehow, bit depth. OP had some noise on his system... why are we even talking about all this? it's lucky that he could get most clues thanks to sonitus mirus before this all started.
  
 what is really your hypothesis or fact here? that bigger is better? that we get more details in the music on 24bit? decide and explain it as clearly as possible, and then we'll tell you if we agree or not, and why. and you can counter as much as you want on that one fact/axiom/opinion.
  

 I'm not a fan of deleting posts, but what am I supposed to do with this? move it, where to? to the 1080p tv screen topic?


----------



## Audioholic123

castleofargh said:


> the problem is that you jump from one stuff to another, making it very hard to follow or even argue about your points. honestly this topic looks like you're fishing, not much that you're trying to state facts.
> you started with sampling when it wasn't the problem for the OP, and after a few slides, we're down to a bad analogy about screens, and somehow, bit depth. OP had some noise on his system... why are we even talking about all this? it's lucky that he could get most clues thanks to sonitus mirus before this all started.
> 
> what is really your hypothesis or fact here? that bigger is better? that we get more details in the music on 24bit? decide and explain it as clearly as possible, and then we'll tell you if we agree or not, and why. and you can counter as much as you want on that one fact/axiom/opinion.
> ...


 

 I'm sorry but there's no point in going into more detail than i already did. What more can i do when i present actual numbers and still no one ( except maybe RRod) realises my claims. Cant you see that my posts often veer towards fraustration? i actually genuinly feel sorry for some of you..
  
 This is not a dig at all but i can tell that many people on Head Fi just don't get many things about aspects of audio reproduction yet blatantly claim to know. Its a fatal flaw of this website...
  
 Originally all i was meaning in my first post on this thread was that that the OP was probably able to hear the said noise in the music more easily due to the combination of listening to high quality  audio files combined with the quieter environment ( enabling him to hear more detail) and the fact that he was consciously listening to the music. His most recent post clarifies what i said as subtle details are also more audible at louder volumes.
  
 Am i supposed to be wrong because i'm right?...thats unfair. I know that this explanitory post will most likely be followed by an onslaught of " your wrong, your wrong and guess what - your wrong" your all to predictable.
 ___________________________________________
 (Edit): I can see why you find my posts similiar to bookmans, because our posts are based on academics and written academically.


----------



## cel4145

currawong said:


> If I might interrupt the discussion briefly, I would like you all to please welcome castleofargh as the moderator of the Sound Science forum.




O Fargh No! (lol)

Awesome, dude


----------



## cel4145

A fun infographic to share with our brethren:



Originally posted here where it is a bit easier to read: http://www.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-that-affect-decisions-2015-8

Of course, many would be biased against that explanation as having any importance in determining what they think they hear


----------



## PleasantSounds

> Originally Posted by *Audioholic123* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> [..]
> 
> I can see why you find my posts similiar to bookmans, because our posts are based on academics and written academically.


 
  
 If you're bringing up academic approach, then I'm sure you won't mind listing the sorces of your revelations?


----------



## Audioholic123

pleasantsounds said:


> If you're bringing up academic approach, then I'm sure you won't mind listing the sorces of your revelations?


 

_There is no revelations_ except for the many people who can't grasp electronics. In the case above, I provide a numeral that is the counter-answer to claims such as " Higher bitrates are useless". _The answer is staring at them in the face_. How can numbers that prove something be denied? and that is why i feel sorry for them...
  
 Have a good day Pleasant Sounds.


----------



## castleofargh

first act, first mess \o/ yay me!
 I supposedly moved the off topic part about tv, sample rate, bit deph, 2>1 in here, where I suppose it's ok to be off topic as there is no fixed topic. so that we can go at it if we want(I must admit I'm also tempted to just delete it)
  
 fix coming for the order of the posts(maybe)
  
  
@Audioholic123 you have a reasoning or some material to show why you believe you are right(again it would be cool to first know what you're talking about exactly), or you don't and then you have no claim to being right. saying that those who know, know you're right, means nothing without a constructed argument.


----------



## RRod

The main thing I don't get is how examples from the visual realm are in any way, shape, or form instantly apropos to a discussion of audial phenomena. Yes, given the right distances and screen size you can discern 720p from 1080p; this means what for hearing? A better example I would think would be color discrimination, but even then what's our physiological basis for any isomorphism between sight and hearing?


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> Yes, given the right distances and screen size you can discern 720p from 1080p; this means what for hearing?




+1

Maybe he's thinking people with bigger ears can discern higher bit rate better than people with smaller ears?


----------



## Audioholic123

cel4145 said:


> +1
> 
> Maybe he's thinking people with bigger ears can discern higher bit rate better than people with smaller ears?


 

 Do you have a core understanding of the fundamentals of electronics?


rrod said:


> The main thing I don't get is how examples from the visual realm are in any way, shape, or form instantly apropos to a discussion of audial phenomena. Yes, given the right distances and screen size you can discern 720p from 1080p; this means what for hearing? A better example I would think would be color discrimination, but even then what's our physiological basis for any isomorphism between sight and hearing?


 

 Your right they have nothing to do with each other. But if you understood me i wouldn't have to resort to analogies


----------



## headwhacker

rrod said:


> The main thing I don't get is how examples from the visual realm are in any way, shape, or form instantly apropos to a discussion of audial phenomena. Yes, given the right distances and screen size you can discern 720p from 1080p; this means what for hearing? A better example I would think would be color discrimination, but even then what's our physiological basis for any isomorphism between sight and hearing?


 
 Exactly, it's tiring to see someone who argues about bit depth in audio and use display resolution as a comparison. As if their eyes can hear and their ears can see.


----------



## castleofargh

ok one of the problems I see most of the time are between 2 ways of thinking about increased bit depth:
  
 -one is to say that by adding more values we increase the resolution, and so the signal is more precise.
  
 -the other is to say that because we're dealing with sound waves, one signal is the sound, but is also all the sounds and all the sound waves and they can all be extracted, retrieved or nulled independently up to a point. so having a song with 60db of dynamic playing in 24 bit or in 16 bit does nothing to the precision of the song, because the song played in 16bit will output the exact same music signal, plus some noise way down -96db or something.
  
  I believe both to be true, but it's easy to see why we can disagree on the outcome. even more so if we don't have much knowledge about digital treatment or the behavior of waves.
 but I certainly do not believe I will hear some quiet sounds from the recorded track better if I use 24bits. it could happen under some particular circumstances: having the music playing very loud, all of the recorded content way below 0db and close to the limit of 16db, so that the quantization noise could be heard and reduce the clarity of the perceived music content. but I don't imagine this as a usual way to listen to music. in fact even on a silent passage, I can happen to hear some noises from the recording, but I'm never at a listening level that would let me hear the quantization noise floor. I've tested that on several albums and I really need to create the situation and use unhealthy loudness setting on my amp for it to become "something I can hear".
  
 so the audiophile concept of hearing more details, or better details thanks to 24bit, to me that's a misinterpretation of increased resolution, and it probably finds most of its practical "real life" experience in placebo from expectation, or the ignorance that the 24bit track was made from another master, and the different sound is misinterpreted as a better one and the changes attributed wrongly to the file format.
 converting a 24bit into a 16bit I have never been able to demonstrate an ability to notice more details at normal listening levels.
 so while there is nothing wrong with a 24bit file, on the contrary, and I'm sure we will all end up using it by default at some point as computer tech improves, I have no real life situation where it audibly improved anything. apart from a manufactured situation to hear the quantization noise of a CD track, as I explained above.


----------



## Audioholic123

castleofargh said:


> -one is to say that by adding more values we increase the resolution, and so the signal is more precise.


 
 BINGO!!!
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_%28signal_processing%29
  
 "The set of possible input values may be infinitely large, and may possibly be continuous and therefore uncountable"
  
 This means that contrary to popular belief here on Head Fi,- Higher Bitrates do indeed make a difference. Dynamic range also increases with Bitrates - but not in the recorded material. But that doesn't mean that anything higher than 16bits is pointless, a higher dynamic range still contributes to the overall experience.
  
 Finally getting somewhere


----------



## RRod

audioholic123 said:


> BINGO!!!
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_%28signal_processing%29
> 
> ...


 
  
 More bits = less quantization error, yes. The question is whether these errors are audible within the musical context.


----------



## cel4145

audioholic123 said:


> Do you have a core understanding of the fundamentals of electronics?




Yes. Do you? We are wondering . . .


----------



## Audioholic123

cel4145 said:


> Yes. Do you? We are wondering . . .


 

 Given that i face constant criticism on here with every post, and then Castleofargh decides to explain the same thing in simpler terms for you... i think i know what i'm talking about...do you?!


----------



## bfreedma

audioholic123 said:


> Given that i face constant criticism on here with every post, and then Castleofargh decides to explain the same thing in simpler terms for you... i think i know what i'm talking about...do you?!


 
  
 Can you share your proof that what Castleofargh describes is audible?


----------



## Roly1650

audioholic123 said:


> Given that i face constant criticism on here with every post, and then Castleofargh decides to explain the same thing in simpler terms for you... i think i know what i'm talking about...do you?!


 

 So you agree with @castleofargh that 24 bit offers no audible advantages over 16 bit for normal music listening?


----------



## Audioholic123

roly1650 said:


> So you agree with @castleofargh that 24 bit offers no audible advantages over 16 bit for normal music listening?


 

 Under certain listening circumstances/conditions obviously any audible difference would do. But under normal circumstances such differences are harder to discern. Such differences are obvious to me. And I mean _audible _not imagined. But yes i agree...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

audioholic123 said:


> roly1650 said:
> 
> 
> > So you agree with @castleofargh
> ...




:blink:


----------



## cel4145

audioholic123 said:


> Given that i face constant criticism on here with every post, and then Castleofargh decides to explain the same thing in simpler terms for you... i think i know what i'm talking about...do you?!




I'm sure it must be very exciting for you that Castleofargh agreed with you, but it's a point that the rest of us understand: that 24 bit audio can carry more audio information than 16 bit. It's a given. Doesn't have to be discussed. 

What you need to do is read what he said about perceived differences in audio quality. Our ears are like small screens where increasing the resolution at some point provides no perceivable quality improvement. The threshold with video perception is 700 ppi at very close reading; with ears, 16 bit, no matter what.


----------



## bfreedma

cel4145 said:


> I'm sure it must be very exciting for you that Castleofargh agreed with you, but it's a point that the rest of us understand: that 24 bit audio can carry more audio information than 16 bit. It's a given. Doesn't have to be discussed.
> 
> What you need to do is read what he said about perceived differences in audio quality. Our ears are like small screens where increasing the resolution at some point provides no perceivable quality improvement. The threshold with video perception is 700 ppi at very close reading; with ears, 16 bit, no matter what.


 
  
 I'm kind of thinking you quoted the wrong post.....
  
 Agree with what you posted.


----------



## Audioholic123

joe bloggs said:


>


 

 Obviously i've proved that there is a difference lol...i'm fed up with being slaughtered all the time, so i only said " i agree" as desparation to try to prevent being slaughered..


----------



## bfreedma

audioholic123 said:


> Obviously i've proved that there is a difference lol...i'm fed up with being slaughtered all the time, so i only said " i agree" as desparation to try to prevent being slaughered..


 
  
 Again, I ask you to post your proof.  Something more than your opinion or uncontrolled observations would be a great place to start.
  
 It should be trivially easy since it's "obvious".


----------



## Joe Bloggs

audioholic123 said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > :blink:
> ...




That there is a difference is different from there being a perceivable difference...

But I digress.

I'd rather not hammer down on someone trying to convince them that nothing they thought makes a difference, makes an audible difference--when the real problem is obviously that someone is not fully satisfied with the way his music sounds at times and is looking for various ways to improve his music experience. That he is looking to methods that may not make any perceptible difference, does point to the possibility of changing to things that can and do make night-and-day differences. I think it would be more productive for all concerned if we discuss, what do you think can be improved about your system's sound, how we would propose going making such improvements, etc.


----------



## cel4145

bfreedma said:


> I'm kind of thinking you quoted the wrong post.....
> 
> Agree with what you posted.




And I know you do. Sorry about that. I fixed it. (lol)


----------



## Audioholic123

cel4145 said:


> And I know you do. Sorry about that. I fixed it. (lol)


 

 See this is what you resort to when (1). either you dont understand. or (2). You go to great lenghths to turn my own claims against me!
  
 I'm correct technically and i know i am. Perceived differences is another matter that comes down to individual experiences when listening. Why do you think test's such as the Phillips Golden Ears Exists? the very existence of that test proves that audible differences exist and i know they exist beyond 16 bits.
  
 I've said enough on this.


----------



## cel4145

audioholic123 said:


> See this is what you resort to when (1). either you dont understand. or (2). *You go to great lenghths* to turn my own claims against me!




Since you brought it up by offering false assumptions, actually, it demonstrates that I'm busy at work and very quickly responded to you. You might want to read that infographic on decision making biases I posted this week in this thread. It could really help you a lot.


----------



## RRod

audioholic123 said:


> See this is what you resort to when (1). either you dont understand. or (2). You go to great lenghths to turn my own claims against me!
> 
> I'm correct technically and i know i am. Perceived differences is another matter that comes down to individual experiences when listening. Why do you think test's such as the Phillips Golden Ears Exists? the very existence of that test proves that audible differences exist and i know they exist beyond 16 bits.
> 
> I've said enough on this.


 
  
 Your hidden assertion here is that none of us here have experience listening to 24 vs 16-bit. Have you ever taken one of your favorite tracks down to, say, 14 bits and done a blind test versus the original? Or do you reject the notion of blind testing?


----------



## Audioholic123

rrod said:


> Your hidden assertion here is that none of us here have experience listening to 24 vs 16-bit. Have you ever taken one of your favorite tracks down to, say, 14 bits and done a blind test versus the original? Or do you reject the notion of blind testing?


 

 There is a track ( Coldplay - The Scientist) that i know very well where i can hear *clearly* the strumming of a guitar in the last 2 seconds, when i listen to it on my Separates system ( with a 24bit Wolfson dac) it is blatantly obvious. When i listen to the same file on my PC through the standard headphone jack, it's not even present in the recording.
  
 Another example would be Jeff Buckleys Hallelujah where at some point in the first few seconds you can hear the buzz of his guitar amp. Again i hear it on my Separates system and on my computer it's not even audible.
  
 So you see - These bitrate differences are blatantly obvious and audible to me ( using the same file). No need for blind testing if i can hear these differences *audibly*


----------



## reginalb

audioholic123 said:


> See this is what you resort to when (1). either you dont understand. or (2). You go to great lenghths to turn my own claims against me!
> 
> I'm correct technically and i know i am. Perceived differences is another matter that comes down to individual experiences when listening. *Why do you think test's such as the Phillips Golden Ears Exists? the very existence of that test proves that audible differences exist* and i know they exist beyond 16 bits.
> 
> I've said enough on this.


 
  
 Ff course they exist. Things can sound different, the problem is jumping from "Audible differences between two sources can exist," which nobody is arguing against, to "Thus there is a difference between 16 and 24-bit sources (that is audible to a human)." Nobody has argued with you that there is a difference between 24-bit and 16-bit sources, that's a given. Just that a human can hear them, unless of course you have cat ears. And while I am not an expert in sound, I am much more knowledgeable in visual media (as that's what I do for a living) and your attempts to jump in to descriptions about the differences between different video signals are misinformed. Then you use these misinformed descriptions to make analogies that wouldn't be applicable, even if the video half of the analogy had been correct, but they're even worse when they're not. 
  


audioholic123 said:


> There is a track ( Coldplay - The Scientist) that i know very well where i can hear *clearly* the strumming of a guitar in the last 2 seconds, when i listen to it on my Separates system ( with a 24bit Wolfson dac) it is blatantly obvious. When i listen to the same file on my PC through the standard headphone jack, it's not even present in the recording.
> 
> Another example would be Jeff Buckleys Hallelujah where at some point in the first few seconds you can hear the buzz of his guitar amp. Again i hear it on my Separates system and on my computer it's not even audible.
> 
> So you see - These bitrate differences are blatantly obvious and audible to me ( using the same file). No need for blind testing if i can hear these differences *audibly*


 
  
 Can you provide the 24-bit file, which we can then downsample to 16 and you can prove us wrong once and for all? It sounds quite clear that you're listening to two different masterings, maybe even recordings.


----------



## Ruben123

What do you mean exactly? That's 2 different sources right?
@audioholic


----------



## RRod

audioholic123 said:


> There is a track ( Coldplay - The Scientist) that i know very well where i can hear *clearly* the strumming of a guitar in the last 2 seconds, when i listen to it on my Separates system ( with a 24bit Wolfson dac) it is blatantly obvious. When i listen to the same file on my PC through the standard headphone jack, it's not even present in the recording.
> 
> Another example would be Jeff Buckleys Hallelujah where at some point in the first few seconds you can hear the buzz of his guitar amp. Again i hear it on my Separates system and on my computer it's not even audible.
> 
> So you see - These bitrate differences are blatantly obvious and audible to me ( using the same file). No need for blind testing if i can hear these differences *audibly*


 
  
 So you admit to confounding the playback setup with the bit depth; next you'll tell us you sourced the 24-bit and 16-bit versions from different places. This is not a rigorous testing setup.


----------



## Audioholic123

rrod said:


> So you admit to confounding the playback setup with the bit depth; next you'll tell us you sourced the 24-bit and 16-bit versions from different places. This is not a rigorous testing setup.


 

 I didn't fork out a _very _substantial amount of money on a separates system for someone to tell me what i can and cant hear. My separates system has a different bitrate/sampling rate. to the sound card on my PC. My pc is 16/44.1 . Not forgetting that the components from said system are hand picked from the finest manufacturers around the world ( Wolfson being one of them).
  
 I'll add that playback of the same song on the same system using the original file and a compressed one reveals differences also...


----------



## reginalb

audioholic123 said:


> I didn't fork out a _very _substantial amount of money on a separates system for someone to tell me what i can and cant hear. My separates system has a different bitrate/sampling rate. to the sound card on my PC. My pc is 16/44.1 . Not forgetting that the components from said system are hand picked from the finest manufacturers around the world ( Wolfson being one of them).


 
  
 Can you tell us the source of one or both - if you're not in to providing it for legal or other reasons? I'd love to download the files and be proven wrong.
  
 Your testing protocol seems quite transparently bunk (for example - you have two completely different systems. A better test would be to take the 24-bit file, downsample it to 16, and run it through the SAME system), but if you're right, then simply providing us the file will allow us to either disprove, or fail to disprove your claims. It seems pretty simple at this point. You have files that we will be able to hear an obviously audible difference between its 24-bit version and 16-bit. Should you provide this, the files could be offered up for eternity as proof of the superiority of 24-bit recordings.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

audioholic123 said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > So you admit to confounding the playback setup with the bit depth; next you'll tell us you sourced the 24-bit and 16-bit versions from different places. This is not a rigorous testing setup.
> ...




And of all the things that are different between the two playback chains, you have to pick the sample depth of all things as the culprit? Go pick up a FiiO E17K for peanuts or something and start playing 16/44.1 AND 24/192 music digitally bit-perfectly through the computer and come back to us


----------



## Audioholic123

reginalb said:


> Can you tell us the source of one or both - if you're not in to providing it for legal or other reasons? I'd love to download the files and be proven wrong.
> 
> Your testing protocol seems quite transparently bunk (for example - you have two completely different systems. A better test would be to take the 24-bit file, downsample it to 16, and run it through the SAME system), but if you're right, then simply providing us the file will allow us to either disprove, or fail to disprove your claims. It seems pretty simple at this point. You have files that we will be able to hear an obviously audible difference between its 24-bit version and 16-bit. Should you provide this, the files could be offered up for eternity as proof of the superiority of 24-bit recordings.


 

  I'll try to in the next few days then ( when i got more time)


----------



## RRod

audioholic123 said:


> I didn't fork out a _very _substantial amount of money on a separates system for someone to tell me what i can and cant hear. My separates system has a different bitrate/sampling rate. to the sound card on my PC. My pc is 16/44.1 . Not forgetting that the components from said system are hand picked from the finest manufacturers around the world ( Wolfson being one of them).
> 
> I'll add that playback of the same song on the same system using the original file and a compressed one reveals differences also...


 
  
 I'll chalk this up as a "no" to my question about whether you believe in blind testing.


----------



## Roly1650

reginalb said:


> Can you tell us the source of one or both - if you're not in to providing it for legal or other reasons? I'd love to download the files and be proven wrong.
> 
> Your testing protocol seems quite transparently bunk (for example - you have two completely different systems. A better test would be to take the 24-bit file, downsample it to 16, and run it through the SAME system), but if you're right, then simply providing us the file will allow us to either disprove, or fail to disprove your claims. It seems pretty simple at this point. You have files that we will be able to hear an obviously audible difference between its 24-bit version and 16-bit. Should you provide this, the files could be offered up for eternity as proof of the superiority of 24-bit recordings.


 

 I think one or other of us is misunderstanding what he's saying. I interpret what he's said as he's playing RBCD's, but his separates system has a 24 bit cd player, so the extra resolution he hears is due, he thinks, to this player increasing the resolution of the file to 24 bit from 16/44, but I could be wrong, who the hell knows.


----------



## reginalb

audioholic123 said:


> I'll try to in the next few days then ( when i got more time)


 
  
 Thank you, I would really appreciate it (and I mean that seriously). I'd love to implement some testing where I change only one variable at a time. 
  
 As a technical primer, the criteria for establishing causation (ie the 24-bit to 16-bit change is what caused you to not hear sound X in the lower bit version) are:
  
 1. Establish temporal order (this one is easy with music because you can go back and forth)
 2. Establish a correlation or covariance (again, in your case we have a correlation between a 24-bit system that plays a sound that the 16-bit system doesn't)
 3. Eliminate rival hypothesis
  
 That last one is often sticky, and might be in your case. In experimentation, you do this by only altering one variable at a time. In social sciences, they use regressions and other statistical methods to control for potential intervening variables. Again, in sound this one should be fairly simple. We don't have the complications of conducting large scale studies on a population that's trying to live their lives, we can test sound in a lab setting, so we can conduct experiments.
  
 Some people say that ABX testing isn't a good method for various reasons, and this is what they're pointing to, some intervening variable in the way that humans perceive and remember sounds. That said, they typically then propose something that introduces even _more _potential intervening variables, and label everyone else as unscientific.
  
 In your case, I would say that there are several potential variables that could cause the sound that you're hearing. EMI in the computer, a bad headphone out, there are just too many potential causes to rule it a result of the bit-rate of the song being played. This is why people in this section always encourage downsampling yourself. You know the original file is the same in both cases. And then ABX the two files from the same source on the same system.
  


roly1650 said:


> I think one or other of us is misunderstanding what he's saying. I interpret what he's said as he's playing RBCD's, but his separates system has a 24 bit cd player, so the extra resolution he hears is due, he thinks, to this player increasing the resolution of the file to 24 bit from 16/44, but I could be wrong, who the hell knows.


 
  
 Yeah, I think I had read it incorrectly. Same file, 2 systems. But I don't think it could be an up-conversion of 16-bit, since I think the argument is in favor of 24-bit files. More likely the hypothesis is that it's the down-conversion from 24 to 16-bit?


----------



## Roly1650

reginalb said:


> Yeah, I think I had read it incorrectly. Same file, 2 systems. But I don't think it could be an up-conversion of 16-bit, since I think the argument is in favor of 24-bit files. More likely the hypothesis is that it's the down-conversion from 24 to 16-bit?


 
 I'm much more likely to believe RBCD disc in one drive and the same RBCD disc in the other, but again, who the hell knows.


----------



## castleofargh

audioholic123 said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > Your hidden assertion here is that none of us here have experience listening to 24 vs 16-bit. Have you ever taken one of your favorite tracks down to, say, 14 bits and done a blind test versus the original? Or do you reject the notion of blind testing?
> ...


 

 come on man, now you're answering about bit depth by talking about changing gears. this makes no sense at all. you don't answer a question about one parameter by adding more unknowns to the test, and then bring a conclusion out of a hat.
  
  
  
 now about your last sentence... to us it reads like you don't know about bias and placebo, and don't understand what blind testing is for. I must say, not a great way get mostly objectivist people on your side. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 if we're talking audibility, it's not like there are thousands of ways to prove you can hear something. you do a blind test, or you have no proof. if you have no proof, don't be dumbfounded when we don't accept the empty claim. we are never going to take your word for it as valid proof of anything, and just for the record, it would be the same with my word. trust isn't a strong component of science. skepticism is. and an unsubstantiated claim in sound science is as good as admitting to being wrong.
  
 you have to accept the fact that you're in an objectivist's nest for the most part, and play by objective rules. the entire rest of the forum is ok with just making a claim and stopping there, so it's not like you have no options if you feel uncomfortable with the permanent distrust and scrutiny of people in sound science. that's how science people are, always wondering is they were just fooled and trying to double check and get objective confirmation.


----------



## Audioholic123

castleofargh said:


> come on man, now you're answering about bit depth by talking about changing gears. this makes no sense at all. you don't answer a question about one parameter by adding more unknowns to the test, and then bring a conclusion out of a hat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I will try to provide proof shortly by attempting to upload the file(s). But if no one can hear a difference then consider the quality of equipment your listening through...


----------



## sonitus mirus

audioholic123 said:


> I will try to provide proof shortly by attempting to upload the file(s). But if no one can hear a difference then consider the quality of equipment your listening through...


 
  
 We could start by analyzing the last 2 seconds of the Coldplay track _The Scientist_ to see what frequencies are present and at what decibel levels.  If you are hearing a guitar strum on only one system, the volume levels are different, one system has other frequencies masking the guitar strums,  or there are two different versions of the song, one with the guitar strums at the end and another without the strums.  This assumes that a guitar strum falls well within the normal frequency range of every known audio equipment that is made for listening to music.
  
 Most guitar strums are mid/low range with regards to frequency.  Maybe a simple EQ adjustment is all that is required to bring the cheaper audio system up to the same standard as the more expensive gear?


----------



## Audioholic123

I have made an 8/44.1 copy instead of 16 to make it easier for you to discern this noise and you can compare it to the original  24/44.1 file. The results are very revealing and ( to me, using Fostex t50rp's) blatantly obvious. I'll upload it when i have more time ( in the next day or two).


----------



## davidsh

Of course the noise floor will be obvious on an 8 bit recording


----------



## castleofargh

audioholic123 said:


> I have made an 8/44.1 copy instead of 16 to make it easier for you to discern this noise and you can compare it to the original  24/44.1 file. The results are very revealing and ( to me, using Fostex t50rp's) blatantly obvious. I'll upload it when i have more time ( in the next day or two).


 

 lol. why not 2bit? if showing that there is audible noise at 8bit(something we all know already because k7 tapes were at about 8bit in regard to noise floor and it was clearly audible), was proof that we can hear 16bit vs 24bit, then we could argue that water kills people because when we drink 40bottles a day we can die. the question is about threshold of hearing, do you stop hearing the noise floor at 10bit? 12bit? 20bit? there is a limit, where is it for you who claims to hear that 16bit doesn't have as good details as 24bit?


----------



## limpidglitch

There's certainly something there, just a few seconds from the end. It's pretty quiet, and only on the left channel, so it's hard to spot.
 Sounds like a simple c-d-c mordent to me. Hard to say whether it was included on purpose, or just slipped through the cracks.


----------



## RRod

limpidglitch said:


> There's certainly something there, just a few seconds from the end. It's pretty quiet, and only on the left channel, so it's hard to spot.
> Sounds like a simple c-d-c mordent to me. Hard to say whether it was included on purpose, or just slipped through the cracks.


 
  
Here's the blip cut out and gained up 20dB.
  
 Notes:
 .This is sourced by recording from a PCM stream monitor of an mp3 source
 .I have to turn up the original pretty high to hear this easily (easier if I isolate the fade)
 .Loudness range from this source shows 9.5 LU, so not exactly the most dynamic song


----------



## headwhacker

audioholic123 said:


> I have made an 8/44.1 copy instead of 16 to make it easier for you to discern this noise and you can compare it to the original  24/44.1 file. The results are very revealing and ( to me, using Fostex t50rp's) blatantly obvious. I'll upload it when i have more time ( in the next day or two).


 
  
 We are comparing 16 bits and 24 bits right? What's the point of making an 8 bit copy? Is it obvious when you compare a 16 bit copy from the original 24 bits?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

audioholic123 said:


> Ok here is the 2 files. One is the 16 bit file and one is the (original) 24 bit file:
> 
> http://picosong.com/success/bff603d71e7b40b133ae9e6faf3a0e60/
> 
> ...




Why do you think a 113kbps mp3 vs a 24bit lossless flac is representative of the difference between 16bit and 24bit?

The comparison you offer here has nothing to do with bit depth. For your information, mp3 decodes into 32bit floating point bit depth (higher than 24 bit). Its encoding losses have nothing to do with bit depth.


----------



## Audioholic123

joe bloggs said:


> *Why do you think a 113kbps mp3 vs a 24bit lossless flac is representative of the difference between 16bit and 24bit?*
> 
> The comparison you offer here has nothing to do with bit depth. For your information, mp3 decodes into 32bit floating point bit depth (higher than 24 bit). Its encoding losses have nothing to do with bit depth.


 
  Because allot of people on Head Fi don't think there is any audible difference between a 16 bitrate file and a higher bitrate file regardless of the file codec used. The 113kbps is was recorded/compressed at  16/44.1.


----------



## bfreedma

audioholic123 said:


> Because allot of people on Head Fi don't think there is any audible difference between a 16 bitrate file and a higher bitrate file regardless of the file codec used. The 113kbps is was recorded/compressed at  16/44.1.


 
  
 Are you intentionally muddying the waters or do you really not understand why your two files are inapplicable to your stated position?


----------



## Roly1650

audioholic123 said:


> Because allot of people on Head Fi don't think there is any audible difference between a 16 bitrate file and a higher bitrate file regardless of the file codec used. The 113kbps is was recorded/compressed at  16/44.1.



But that isn't what you agreed to do, once again you've moved the goalposts. You've managed to devalue this thread to the point were it's like trying to have a worthwhile discussion with a pond fly, a total joke.


----------



## RRod

audioholic123 said:


> Because allot of people on Head Fi don't think there is any audible difference between a 16 bitrate file and a higher bitrate file regardless of the file codec used. The 113kbps is was recorded/compressed at  16/44.1.


 
  
 The whole purpose of mp3 is to decide where particular frequency bands can be rounded to less precision without audible effect, which is basically a bit-depth reduction. At 113kpbs I can't imagine the psychoacoustic model isn't throwing away stuff it *knows* is audible to make the bitrate requirement, and I doubt anyone on here would consider 113kbps near transparent. 320kbps, on the other hand...
  
 Still, why not just truncate the 24-bit file down to 16 with or without dither and then do a comparison?


----------



## cel4145

audioholic123 said:


> Because allot of people on Head Fi _don't think there is any audible difference between a 16 bitrate file and a higher bitrate file *regardless of the file codec used*_. The 113kbps is was recorded/compressed at  16/44.1.




Really? I doubt that. I think you might want to reserve judgement on what "allot of people" think on Head-Fi until after you have been a member longer than a couple of months.


----------



## Audioholic123

bfreedma said:


> Are you intentionally muddying the waters or do you really not understand why your two files are inapplicable to your stated position?


 

 One is a 24bit file, the other is a 16bit file. The 24 bit file is an original file, the 16bit file is a compressed copy *of the original file. Deliberately compressed so as to show an audible difference between a lower bitrate file compared to a supposedly  non beneficially audible one. *I used a song with a noise that i can blatantly hear in the background when listening to a higher bitrate than 16/44.1. I was not talking about the bit depth of the recordings - rather, the bit rate of the file.


----------



## reginalb

audioholic123 said:


> Because allot of people on Head Fi don't think there is any audible difference between a 16 bitrate file and a higher bitrate file regardless of the file codec used. The 113kbps is was recorded/compressed at  16/44.1.


 
  
 Please quote ONE Head-Fi member that's arguing that. In any section of the forum. People here repeatedly say that 320k MP3/256 VBR AAC is generally (if not always) transparent to human ears then you prove them wrong by creating a 113k MP3. You did beat the hell out of that straw man, though, Caesar.


----------



## Bibo

I can hear the buzzing sound in the mp3 file, too. It is more audible in the flac file though.


----------



## Audioholic123

bibo said:


> I can hear the buzzing sound in the mp3 file, too. It is more audible in the flac file though.


 

 Well then my point has been validated then. Higher bitrates do sound audibly better _to a piont._ If a 24 bit file can demonstrate any audible difference over a 16 bit one *at all...*
 then i've proved it now.
 There isn't a great leap (audibly) in difference between, say, 113kbps and 256kbps...it's the bit _rate _that makes the difference audible.
  
 Jeez...I at least deserve a medal for demostrating these differences.


----------



## RRod

audioholic123 said:


> Well then my point has been validated then. Higher bitrates do sound audibly better _to a piont._ If a 24 bit file can demonstrate any audible difference over a 16 bit one *at all...*
> then i've proved it now.
> There isn't a great leap (audibly) in difference between, say, 113kbps and 256kbps...it's the bit _rate _that makes the difference audible.
> 
> Jeez...I at least deserve a medal for demostrating these differences.


 
  
 There is a big difference between 113kbps and 256kbps; you haven't really ever tested this stuff have you?


----------



## Roly1650

audioholic123 said:


> Well then my point has been validated then. Higher bitrates do sound audibly better _to a piont._ If a 24 bit file can demonstrate any audible difference over a 16 bit one *at all...*
> then i've proved it now.
> 
> Jeez...I at least deserve a medal for demostrating these differences.



Once again move the goalposts, your claim was that the buzzing sound was *totally inaudible at the lower bitrate, so you are unequivocally wrong by your standards. Go back and re-read your post.*


----------



## reginalb

audioholic123 said:


> Well then my point has been validated then. Higher bitrates do sound audibly better _to a piont._ If a 24 bit file can demonstrate any audible difference over a 16 bit one *at all...*
> then i've proved it now.
> There isn't a great leap (audibly) in difference between, say, 113kbps and 256kbps...it's the bit _rate _that makes the difference audible.
> 
> Jeez...I at least deserve a medal for demostrating these differences.


 
  
 No you haven't. If you re-read my post about the way that you test differences you might see the mistake that you made. If you want to argue that the bit-rate is what caused the difference, the _only_ way would be to change the bit-rate and _only _the bit-rate. So you would use the same format, the same same sample rate, the same playback system. Then change the bit-rate from 24 to 16.


----------



## Audioholic123

rrod said:


> There is a big difference between 113kbps and 256kbps; you haven't really ever tested this stuff have you?


 

  kbps = Kilo Bits Per Second = the amount of input values.


----------



## reginalb

audioholic123 said:


> kbps = Kilo Bits Per Second = the amount of input values.


 
  
 Which, in changing while you _also _changed the bit-rate, you introduced an intervening variable. Intentionally I might add.


----------



## bfreedma

audioholic123 said:


> One is a 24bit file, the other is a 16bit file. The 24 bit file is an original file, the 16bit file is a compressed copy *of the original file. Deliberately compressed so as to show an audible difference between a lower bitrate file compared to a supposedly  non beneficially audible one. *I used a song with a noise that i can blatantly hear in the background when listening to a higher bitrate than 16/44.1. I was not talking about the bit depth of the recordings - rather, the bit rate of the file.


 
  
 Of course there can be audible difference between a highly compressed file and a lossless file.  That statement has nothing to do with testing your claim of audibility at 16 and 24 bit depths.
  
 Bit rate and bit depth are not the same topic no matter how you've tried to conflate them.


----------



## Bibo

audioholic123 said:


> Well then my point has been validated then. Higher bitrates do sound audibly better _to a piont._ If a 24 bit file can demonstrate any audible difference over a 16 bit one *at all...*
> then i've proved it now.
> There isn't a great leap (audibly) in difference between, say, 113kbps and 256kbps...it's the bit _rate _that makes the difference audible.
> 
> Jeez...I at least deserve a medal for demostrating these differences.


 

 You only demonstratred that you cannot compress lossless audio files to 112kbs mp3 without loosing audible information. But we all knew that before.
 Btw if I set up my dac to 16/44 the flac file sounds the same as on 24/192.


----------



## Audioholic123

roly1650 said:


> Once again move the goalposts, your claim was that the buzzing sound was *totally inaudible at the lower bitrate, so you are unequivocally wrong by your standards. Go back and re-read your post.*


 

 Fine...i apologise for stating it was completely inaudible, but it's about 70 - 75% less audible. To some people it might be completely inaudable. The noise in the 24 bitrate file is full bodied compared to the 16 bitrate one. There is clearly chunks of the noise missing...


----------



## reginalb

audioholic123 said:


> Fine...i apologise for stating it was completely inaudible, but it's about 70 - 75% less audible. To some people it might be completely inaudable. The noise in the 24 bitrate file is full bodied compared to the 16 bitrate one. There is clearly chunks of the noise missing...


 
  
 The noise in the 24-bit FLAC is full bodied compared to the 113k MP3. FTFY
  
 If you want to prove it's down to the change in the bit-rate, try again with a 16-bit FLAC at the same sample rate.


----------



## RRod

audioholic123 said:


> kbps = Kilo Bits Per Second = the amount of input values.


 
  
 The input to MP3 will be some kind of uncompressed PCM file; for Redbook that's 16*44100*2=1411200 bits per second = 1411.2 kbps. FLAC will typically get this down to 500-700 kbps; MP3 pushes it to 320kbps or lower. At 113kbps, you're just trolling by doing comparisons to uncompressed PCM at Redbook or greater.


----------



## bfreedma

One side of the recent discussion reminds me of this.  Most appropriate quote: "_An argument is not simply a contradiction_"


----------



## Ruben123

Please try to compare the 24 bit FLAC file with a 16 bit FLAC file and not an MP3. Now youre comparing FLAC vs MP3 *and* 24 bit vs 16 bit. Keep it to one variable at a time!


----------



## Audioholic123

So in essence and despite my efforts ( and i'm not intentionally trolling) you are all saying that there is no audible difference between files of the same bit depth/sampling rate. I see it plastered all over Sound Science...
  
 Well that's nonsense as codec's work differently and that's something that technically would ( guaranteed) make differences audibly at the highest bit- depths, - that one's a stonewaller!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec
 AHA...I SAVED THAT ONE TO LAST...DIDN'T I


----------



## castleofargh

I've removed the troll post from audioholic123, you can still read it from the posts where it's quoted, but I feel it was necessary not to let something like that in a place trying to follow the methods of science.
  
 1/ low bitrate mp3 is obviously not CD resolution.
 2/ the burden of proof is on audioholic123 to demonstrate his ability to hear the improvement in 24bit. not on us all who never claimed such a thing. so sending us files will do nothing to demonstrate the claim.
  
 I believe everybody made it clear that they weren't ok with the post.
  
  
  
 and now for something completely different


----------



## Bibo

audioholic123 said:


> So in essence and despite my efforts ( and i'm not intentionally trolling) you are all saying that there is no audible difference between *uncompressed *files of the same bit depth/sampling rate. I see it plastered all over Sound Science...


 
 I fixed it for you.


----------



## reginalb

audioholic123 said:


> So in essence and despite my efforts ( and i'm not intentionally trolling) you are all saying that there is no audible difference between files of the same bit depth/sampling rate. I see it plastered all over Sound Science...
> 
> Well that's nonsense as codec's work differently and that's something that would ( guaranteed) make differences audibly at the highest bit- depths, - that one's a stonewaller!
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec
> AHA...I SAVED THAT ONE TO LAST...DIDN'T I


 
  
 No, you're still confused. In experimentation, you _must _change only one variable at a time. You have changed 3 variables, and then divined which one caused the change in the dependent variable. You changed the method of encoding, the sample rate, and the bit-rate. To say that bit-rate caused the audible change, you must change the bit depth and _only _the bit depth.
  
 If you prove the null at that point, and you know that a 16-bit and 24-bit FLAC sound the same, then you can turn another knob, and see what change that makes. But you have to change only one variable at a time. To change a bunch all at once, you don't know which caused the audible difference. You have done nothing more than make repeated straw man arguments.


----------



## castleofargh

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/if-you-think-your-own-logic-came-from-someone-else-you-might-not-believe-it/
  


> Many people are already familiar with the concept of confirmation bias, which is the tendency for people to seek out arguments that support their existing opinions. It turns out that we’re not only addicted to seeking information that confirms our biases, we’re also willing to tolerate really weak arguments to support our opinions. So weak, in fact, that if we’re tricked into thinking our own arguments come from a stranger, we’re likely to reject them.


 
  
  
 nothing new for the objective crew I imagine, but one more stone showing how we tend to overlook our own mistakes, just because they're ours.


----------



## sonitus mirus

That makes perfect sense to me and confirms what I already understood to be true.


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/if-you-think-your-own-logic-came-from-someone-else-you-might-not-believe-it/
> 
> 
> 
> nothing new for the objective crew I imagine, but one more stone showing how we tend to overlook our own mistakes, just because they're ours.


Very interesting. It's phenomenon like this that make subjective evaluation of gear next to impossible IMHO. (Try saying that outside of SS though!)


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/if-you-think-your-own-logic-came-from-someone-else-you-might-not-believe-it/
> nothing new for the objective crew I imagine, but one more stone showing how we tend to overlook our own mistakes, just because they're ours.




You do realize this article you shared would best label subjectivists as "lazy." Does that mean it's acceptable to say in the main forum, "you are just lazy" and link to the article? :etysmile:


----------



## castleofargh

cel4145 said:


> You do realize this article you shared would best label subjectivists as "lazy." Does that mean it's acceptable to say in the main forum, "you are just lazy" and link to the article?


 
 not sure being an objectivist protects us from this. I'm afraid the act of not spending much time double checking our own theories/ideas/arguments is just an efficiency choice from our brain(and a clever one TBH). if we were as critical of stuff we know, as we are of things we are learning from "outside", it would mean learning and debating everything all over again every time we pick an idea or a knowledge in our brain. imagine everytime you drive home from your job, you look at the road and the scenery like it's the first time you see it. it would make doing anything, very hard and tiring.
 stored information is considered verified already as a routine. "I must have thought about it the first time I was confronted to it, so now I can just trust myself and relax."
  
 I really imagine my brain going "hey, I know that stuff obviously, I'm the one saying it, who cares about paying attention!!!!".
 for logic, it's probably a matter of "new vs not new", as much as it is "mine vs not mine". hardly anything coming from myself will be news to me. so the level of interest dropping is a given.
  
 of course that's only a part of the problem. big ego/excessive confidence is another thing. and ignorance sure can help when it reaches the point where I don't know that I don't know. a good deal of audiophiles fall for at least the last one with the irrational idea that listening to music means knowing music and gears.
 when all you know about digital audio is that 2>1 and that samples are points making staircases, you will 100% of the time get the wrong idea. because there is no way to understand digital audio with only those cues. on the other hand it's easy to make up a system and believe we have understood digital audio. case closed, no need to ponder, I now know! or so I thought at one point of my audio hobby life, not so long ago.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 all the objectivist has for himself is a general acceptance of skepticism, but even that will be more active toward others opinions than ours. to me, it's a human problem, not a subjectivist's one.


----------



## vapman

Who is bigshot and what was likebomb?


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> all the objectivist has for himself is a general acceptance of skepticism, but even that will be more active toward others opinions than ours. to me, it's a human problem, not a subjectivist's one.




There's an important distinction there, though. True skepticism does mean being skeptical of one's own ideas and experiences. Subjectivism generally involves faith in one's own experience as a way of perceiving the world. Thus the "lazy reasoning" we read from them: "I know what I heard" takes precedence over what science might tell them. And we see them being highly critical of the scientific perspective, while showing little logical doubt of their own conclusions.


----------



## reginalb

vapman said:


> Who is bigshot and what was likebomb?


 
  
 If it's like the Facbook one, it's going to someone's timeline/wall/whatever it is now and clicking like on everything they have so that they get overloaded with notifications. Bigshot was a pretty knowledgeable member of the forums. I've got fairly thick skin, so I was OK in the one or two arguments with him, but he could get insulting, and is banned. The only thing I argued with him on was that I think it's actually OK to have a personal preference for a non-flat frequency response. You'd think I'd recommended he get a lobotomy, but I feel like I learned a lot from his posts, and like I said, I'm not easily offended. In fact, I tend to  think other people are WAY too easily offended. So I wish he was still around. Most entertaining voice in SS, I thought.
  


cel4145 said:


> There's an important distinction there, though. True skepticism does mean being skeptical of one's own ideas and experiences. Subjectivism generally involves faith in one's own experience as a way of perceiving the world. Thus the "lazy reasoning" we read from them: "I know what I heard" takes precedence over what science might tell them. And we see them being highly critical of the scientific perspective, while showing little logical doubt of their own conclusions.


  
 I think that Castle's point was that such "True skepticism" is really hard to produce. Let's be honest, if there were truly some new tech that dramatically improved sound quality for realsies, we would be _super_ slow to believe it. Much slower than those in other parts of the forum, but they would be right. Many here would be slow to believe not just when marketing came out making a claim, but remain so in the face of mounting (good) evidence. 
  
 That said, I think that's OK, perhaps because I'm biased to my own way of thinking, hahaha. I feel that I am usually persuaded by evidence, but I had a professor once make what is a well known, but to me as a college Freshman very profound, point. A mountain of bad evidence does not equal a tiny shred of good evidence. We were actually talking about Bigfoot, and she was comparing kryptozoology to good science. She made a point that researchers were for years skeptical of hunters' reports of some kind of animal somewhere well outside its range (I don't remember the details, it was some big cat or type of bear being reported in an area it shouldn't have been). Local officials were very skeptical of the tall tales, and they should have been because there was no good evidence. But they were immediately swayed when scat was found, and DNA analysis showed it belonged to said animal.
  
 She made the point that 1,000 blurry images and videos, and 10,000 tales by hikers won't amount to one tuft of fur or scat that can have some DNA analysis done at a reputable lab to show that it belongs to a large primate. This is when the skeptical observer should peak their ears, and say maybe Bigfoot does exist. And I think it's an important lesson in life that applies all over. When you hear that there is an "Enormous" amount of evidence for something, analyze it to see if any of that evidence is any good. I think we should strive to be skeptical, but always allow ourselves to be swayed by good evidence.


----------



## vapman

I don't know what "the facebook one" is either, kind of live under a rock especially regarding stuff like this, that said that's too bad as often a lot of passionate but intelligent people get very direct or take things personally. i have seen a lot of genuinely good people get banned from lots of forums - i think it's as you say that people get too emotional over things posted on the internet sometimes.


----------



## castleofargh

cel4145 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > all the objectivist has for himself is a general acceptance of skepticism, but even that will be more active toward others opinions than ours. to me, it's a human problem, not a subjectivist's one.
> ...


 

 sure but is anyone a true skeptic? I like to think that I am more often than not a hard critic to myself on purpose, but I have to admit that I am not as critic as I am of others in the end.
 a poor analogy that comes to mind is chess. how easy it is to notice a mistake the other player makes and how easy it is to miss my own.
 if my brain wasn't so complacent with my own moves, I would be a much much better player. and any noob player is told a hundred times to pay attention to his own moves, still never completely fixes the problem.
 when I play I make the dumbest mistake at least once in a game. stuff I would never fail to see if it was played by the other guy.
  
 the paper is all about that IMO, and we all suffer the consequences, objectivist or not.
  
  I get your point though, in the sens that I do make sincere efforts to try and reduce those situations for myself(at least in some parts of my life), when being a subjectivist is mostly about trusting oneself. so the guy will be less inclined to look in the mirror.


----------



## castleofargh

vapman said:


> I don't know what "the facebook one" is either, kind of live under a rock especially regarding stuff like this, that said that's too bad as often a lot of passionate but intelligent people get very direct or take things personally. i have seen a lot of genuinely good people get banned from lots of forums - i think it's as you say that people get too emotional over things posted on the internet sometimes.


 

 yes, and the sound science sub-section trying to focus on what is real instead of what we like best(what appreciations threads are all about), is a place where obviously arguments will become serious. because nobody likes being told that his vision of reality is false. yet someone will be wrong.
  
 I hope to be a fluffy buffer that will limit the need to get rid of people as a mean to calm things down. I know we're not supposed to talk about moderation, but I guess it's alright for me, I'm really more of a quasi-modo.


----------



## krismusic

Very much agree with reginalb's points. I can't figure out how to quote him. 
I'm very sorry to hear that Bigshot is banned. He can be abrasive but I too learned a lot off him and valued his presence on the forum. Hopefully he will come back at some point. 
I also agree that it is perfectly valid to prefer a tweaked sound to flat. I do. A little bit of warmth is no bad thing for me. 
Same goes for interactions on here! There is no reason for people to become enemies on here. 
I very much like the professors point that a mountain of bad evidence does not negate a small amount of good evidence. I'd not thought of that. Its amazing where an interest in headphones can take you!
Finally Castleofargh, Quasimod. Brilliant.


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> sure but is anyone a true skeptic?




Well, from a Derridian perspective when you apply the concept of différance, that's an unanswerable question. 



castleofargh said:


> I get your point though, in the sens that I do make sincere efforts to try and reduce those situations for myself(at least in some parts of my life), when being a subjectivist is mostly about trusting oneself. so the guy will be less inclined to look in the mirror.




Right. This is a difference in kind, not degree, where one chooses to rely on the lazy reasoning, while the other seeks to reduce it.


----------



## uchihaitachi

reginalb said:


> If it's like the Facbook one, it's going to someone's timeline/wall/whatever it is now and clicking like on everything they have so that they get overloaded with notifications. Bigshot was a pretty knowledgeable member of the forums. I've got fairly thick skin, so I was OK in the one or two arguments with him, but he could get insulting, and is banned. The only thing I argued with him on was that I think it's actually OK to have a personal preference for a non-flat frequency response. You'd think I'd recommended he get a lobotomy, but I feel like I learned a lot from his posts, and like I said, I'm not easily offended. In fact, I tend to  think other people are WAY too easily offended. So I wish he was still around. Most entertaining voice in SS, I thought.


 
 Regarding preference for a non flat frequency response. I always find myself reverting back to tonally accurate equipment, after flirtations with differently coloured equipment. Was curious if this was a general phenomenon, or whether it's my genre (mainly classical and jazz) that results in this.


----------



## analogsurviver

uchihaitachi said:


> Regarding preference for a non flat frequency response. I always find myself reverting back to tonally accurate equipment, after flirtations with differently coloured equipment. Was curious if this was a general phenomenon, or whether it's my genre (mainly classical and jazz) that results in this.


 
 It is hard to live long term with coloured equipment - if you listen mainly to acoustic instruments ( classical, some jazz & similar that is performed and recorded without  amplification). 
  
 After a (not so ) while, any innacuracies will start feeling like a sore thumb. With other genres, it is not so audible/obvious over so short periods of time - but given enough time, one does return to the accurate equipment - or at the very least, the one that can be considered smooth. I find high Q peaks, even if of very small magnitude, more irritating that something off say 2-3 dB by so and so in frequency, but with very smooth transition.


----------



## castleofargh

all of harman studies on speakers and headphones tend to push toward an idea of a mostly common preferred sound. but calling it neutral is challenging when we lack a universal definition of neutral in audio(or do we have too many?). electrically neutral works great for speakers at the output, not so much at our ears or for headphones.
  
 but yes I feel that there is a kind of signature that will please most people.


----------



## cel4145

+1

I think that's one reason why a "linear response" is a popular way of discussing speakers, since it denotes neutrality by how it measures.


----------



## reginalb

I like my very much not linear Unique Melody Merlins. Lots of people seem to like a V-shaped response, a lot of people also seem to like treble roll-off. I think that generally linear responses are a good thing. But I definitely have no problem with different people having different preferences.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I prefer flat, and I listen with a near-field studio monitor setup more than headphones.  With headphones, I tend to keep the volume very low, and due to human ears having a lower sensitivity to lower and higher frequencies, I'm not surprised that I fell in love with the Denon D5000, as these tend to have a large bass boost and sparkly treble presentation with its frequency response.  To get the same level of joy from headphones with a more flat FR, I have to listen at slightly elevated volumes compared to my normal volume level, or I have to EQ, if this is available.  I have a pair of Mr. Speaker Mad Dog headphones that I use at work, and these are relatively flat in my hearing range, and I have become accustomed to the signature.  I still prefer the Denons overall, with or without EQ, but there are some songs, particularly those with female vocals (eg. Norah Jones), that sound better with the Mad Dogs to me.


----------



## RRod

I like my listening setup like I like my women: flat and anechoic.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> I like my listening setup like I like my women: flat and anechoic.




I like my listening setup like I like my women: some smooth curves in the right places to emphasize the right things--but not lumpy! :etysmile:


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> I like my listening setup like I like my women: some smooth curves in the right places to emphasize the right things--but not lumpy!


 
  
 I called my wife "V-shaped" and she just looked at me funny...


----------



## Roly1650

rrod said:


> I called my wife "V-shaped" and she just looked at me funny...



Make sure you sleep with at least one eye open for the next week or so....


----------



## cel4145

roly1650 said:


> Make sure you sleep with at least one eye open for the next week or so....




He's probably having to walk around with one eye closed--swelled shut from where she punched him


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> He's probably having to walk around with one eye closed--swelled shut from where she punched him


 
  
 At least it wasn't an ear


----------



## Roly1650

rrod said:


> At least it wasn't an ear



There's still time....


----------



## reginalb

rrod said:


> At least it wasn't an ear


 
  
 If it were, you could probably save even more space, you'd be good at like 128k AAC


----------



## uchihaitachi

Question: I have a SACDR recording in ISO format, and I want to extract individual tracks as mp3. How would I go about doing this? I mounted the CD, and the audio files seem to have a .mch extension...


----------



## analogsurviver

uchihaitachi said:


> Question: I have a SACDR recording in ISO format, and I want to extract individual tracks as mp3. How would I go about doing this? I mounted the CD, and the audio files seem to have a .mch extension...


 
 No idea - because I do not work with more than 2 channels - and .mch extension is for DSD recordings in surround, most likely 5.1. Any soft or hardware at my disposal is 2 channel only, but i do download sometimes DSD demo tracks also in surround, that's why I am familiar with the .mch extension.


----------



## RRod

reginalb said:


> If it were, you could probably save even more space, you'd be good at like 128k AAC


 
  
 I'm already good at 128k Opus. If I lost an ear I could go to 64k mono, and at that point I'd see if I could get the Rockbox guys to make something for my old Rio Karma... it's almost worth the blunt trauma!


----------



## cel4145

This guy may need everyone's help in the intro/newbie forum: 



lunatikedm said:


> I was wondering if DACs/DAPs have a significant difference in sound quality? If so, how do the components work to produce a better sound? Also, what differences would I be hearing? (e.g. detail/clarity/balance?) Thanks!




Quick. Before he is corrupted by mysticism.


----------



## uchihaitachi

cel4145 said:


> This guy may need everyone's help in the intro/newbie forum:
> Quick. Before he is corrupted by mysticism.


 
 Speaking of mysticism, do any of you follow head-fi on facebook. The daily updates of a certan Mr Rudiwidjaja Hartono is mysticism at its best. It's hilarious.....


----------



## LunaTikEDM

cel4145 said:


> This guy may need everyone's help in the intro/newbie forum:
> Quick. Before he is corrupted by mysticism.


 
 I had to google the meaning of that and I still don't get it :')


----------



## cel4145

lunatikedm said:


> I had to google the meaning of that and I still don't get it :')




If you hang out here long enough in this area of the forum you will. There are a lot of people on Head-Fi (I'd guess a majority) that make all kinds of claims about audio equipment that are not supported by audio science, much like how religion or mysticism ignores science.


----------



## uchihaitachi

lunatikedm said:


> I had to google the meaning of that and I still don't get it :')


 
 You are lucky your first post is in sound science. If you were led astray from the beginning, you would have wasted SOOO MUCH money on pointless equipment


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> This guy may need everyone's help in the intro/newbie forum:
> Quick. Before he is corrupted by mysticism.


 
  
 I saw that earlier and was tempted but I don't have it in me for the slog that would follow.


----------



## LunaTikEDM

uchihaitachi said:


> You are lucky your first post is in sound science. If you were led astray from the beginning, you would have wasted SOOO MUCH money on pointless equipment


 
 Well I mean I never had the funds to begin with and I have 60+ other posts in headphones forums aaaaaaand I did buy an IEM + headphones 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, although for the past few days I've been staring at a website where people can sell/buy things and I've been looking at all the DAPs/DACs


----------



## davidsh

Welcome to the subway station of head-fi, may the Trainman show mercy on your soul.


----------



## briskly

> If you were led astray from the beginning, you would have wasted SOOO MUCH money on pointless equipment


 
 Pfft. Science doesn't save you money. Just look at Tyll and his measurement gear. He could have the new Orpheus with money left over for cable risers if he didn't buy into that science crap.


----------



## uchihaitachi

briskly said:


> Pfft. Science doesn't save you money. Just look at Tyll and his measurement gear. He could have the new Orpheus with money left over for cable risers if he didn't buy into that science crap.


 
 Speaking of Tyll, he is increasingly buying into the wonders of audio mysticism, claiming cables benefit the HD800 sound signature etc.... Good for you


----------



## cel4145

briskly said:


> Pfft. Science doesn't save you money. *Just look at Tyll and his measurement gear.* He could have the new Orpheus with money left over for cable risers if he didn't buy into that science crap.




Why would you point to someone who makes a living off reviewing audio equipment as an example?


----------



## sonitus mirus

I like the test measurements, but I'm really irked by his Pono review where he basically let everyone know that there was "something" about it that just made him pause and listen to the music, suggesting that there was something about the device that was an improvement other than his bias.  I hated that he simply left it at that and did not consider searching for the reason why using all of the test equipment he has available.  I was like, Et tu, Tyll?
  
 Edit: Charlie Hansen of Ayre Acoustics, the designer of the Pono's audio output circuit, seems to be very friendly with Tyll.  Call me suspicious.
  
 Quote: Charlie Hansen http://www.innerfidelity.com/comment/498470#comment-498470 





> "I've found that with the PonoPlayer that regardless of the recording quality, one will end up as Tyll found himself in the opening of his review -- unable to type as the music was too compelling to push it to the background.
> Read more at http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/pono-player-and-promises-fulfilled#gy8vwT6FkyEDhTh3.99"


 
  
 Right, has this been tested?


----------



## jcx

over on diyAudio I posted this as  a "interesting" bit of modern audio history
  
 Gordon Holt was founder of Stereophile, sometimes called "the father of modern subjective audio reviewing"
  
 he sold it, later left even as contributing editor, had some differences with what his creation became 
  


> Infamous 2007 Atkinson interview of Gordon Holt:
> 
> 45 Years of Stereophile | Stereophile.com
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

sonitus mirus said:


> I like the test measurements, but I'm really irked by his Pono review where he basically let everyone know that there was "something" about it that just made him pause and listen to the music, suggesting that there was something about the device that was an improvement other than his bias.  I hated that he simply left it at that and did not consider searching for the reason why using all of the test equipment he has available.  I was like, Et tu, Tyll?
> 
> Edit: Charlie Hansen of Ayre Acoustics, the designer of the Pono's audio output circuit, seems to be very friendly with Tyll.  Call me suspicious.
> 
> ...


 

 if it works it's a great discovery. we could send cars with ponos into war zones, open the doors press play and the conflict would end, people unable to shoot because of the music being too compelling.


----------



## cel4145

sonitus mirus said:


> I like the test measurements, but I'm really irked by his Pono review where he basically let everyone know that there was "something" about it that just made him pause and listen to the music, suggesting that there was something about the device that was an improvement other than his bias.  I hated that he simply left it at that and did not consider searching for the reason why using all of the test equipment he has available.  I was like, Et tu, Tyll?
> 
> Edit: Charlie Hansen of Ayre Acoustics, the designer of the Pono's audio output circuit, seems to be very friendly with Tyll.  Call me suspicious.
> 
> ...




Tyll did say at the beginning of the review that "This is going to be a subjective review...or as close as I know how to get. . . ." So at least he did acknowledge that his review would be purely subjective. So the problem is not so much what he said, but the fact that he would take this approach at all. Calls into question his alignment with audio science. Is it merely his niche as a reviewer as a means to be published and read, when its beneficial for him to do so?


----------



## uchihaitachi

cel4145 said:


> Tyll did say at the beginning of the review that "This is going to be a subjective review...or as close as I know how to get. . . ." So at least he did acknowledge that his review would be purely subjective. So the problem is not so much what he said, but the fact that he would take this approach at all. Calls into question his alignment with audio science. Is it merely his niche as a reviewer as a means to be published and read, when its beneficial for him to do so?




He also said in one of his hd800 videos that he has cables from cardas or somewhere and it makes the sound better. I think sponsors are getting the better of him.

He also changed his viewpoints quite drastically depending on who us talking with. He was originally harsh to the sr007 and talked of the sr009 as a godlike headphone. Bob Katz comes along and says the latter is for deaf people and tyll agrees that the 7 is superior.... Sigh....


----------



## castleofargh

uchihaitachi said:


> cel4145 said:
> 
> 
> > Tyll did say at the beginning of the review that "This is going to be a subjective review...or as close as I know how to get. . . ." So at least he did acknowledge that his review would be purely subjective. So the problem is not so much what he said, but the fact that he would take this approach at all. Calls into question his alignment with audio science. Is it merely his niche as a reviewer as a means to be published and read, when its beneficial for him to do so?
> ...


 

 I'm one to be harsh to him on the blog. too much certainly, but only people we like can disappoint so I hope he takes my ranting as a proof of love ^_^.
 Tyll is doing a job, that is reviewing gears in a way that is meaningful to most people. he needs to get products to review so he can't just trash everything he doesn't like or doesn't believe in. and he kind of explained how stuff measured but not reviewed are usually the stuff he doesn't like.
 cardas cables or whatever, it's not like those cables will ruin the audio, they most likely will make no difference, but they're good cables I suppose, so it's not so bad if he advertises them. sure I could do without his unsubstantiated subjective impressions, but if he tells what he believes, I can't really see a fault as long as the subjective card was clearly on the table.
  
 and Tyll knows better than to buy into cable magic, that doesn't mean that for his job having something reliable doesn't deserve the extra price(even more so if he got them free ^_^). I personally go at it by buying several super cheap cables, RMAA or whatever using them one at a time and those none satisfactory (as it sometimes happens), go to the dumpster. I'm saving a lot of money compared to paying big bucks cables, but if I was rich, would I bother with that? probably not.
  
 the pono being what it is, interested mostly people with little understanding of audio techs or objective values. we can all see that in any pono topic/forum on the web. so while I certainly didn't like that review, I understand why he did it like he did. because that's what talks to the customer target of pono. a subjective review using words that would talk to them(even if some might be BS).
 and the roundabout way he used to explain the power limits of the DAP in SE and balance, when it would have been so simple to just drop a max power value, makes me think that he really tailored his review for the kind of users that would read it(or maybe pono asked not to be to clear about specs?).
  
 the big sound 2015 was the same thing. and you can read me complaining a lot too when it comes to the blind test feedbacks ^_^. but realistically, the TOTL gears aren't what the pure objective consumer is interested in. if I start spending that kind of money on sound, I would do it on speakers not on headphone DAC/amps.
 so while tyll is still very much a human with his pros and cons, I'm not sure if he joined the dark side of the force, or if he's just trying to appeal to the target of each review? I hope it's the later for sure.


----------



## RRod

"It's hard enough to make a living in a boxing audiophile world, so every now and then you gotta do something that might not agree with your principles. Basically, you have to forget you got any."
  
  
 In Tyll's case, he's got two audiences to satisfy. When something like Pono comes out that's leans heavily toward the subjective side, I can't say I blame him for shifting a bit on the couch. Still, if you chase two rabbits you will lose them both, and even though I understand the reasoning for it, that review really stuck in my craw.
  
 I feel the same kind of ambivalence about, say, Schiit. On one hand they'll put out gear like the Modi/Magni and say it's probably all you'll ever need, but they'll also put out tube amps, R2R DACs, and USB cleaners. In the case of Schiit, they can fall back on the Everest excuse: "we did it because it was there", and no one will blame an engineer for trying to make a better spec-ed product or play around with topologies. Still, my objective core wants them to take the hard stand.


----------



## jcx

I can't tell if they are just too deep in the "bubble"
  
 the mix of hard EE and "Audio Guru" may just be sales/marketing driven and we just don't like the line chosen - but it does seem to go beyond adult conversation over reasonable differences
  
  
 I did criticize a "feel good", audiophile "just so" story with no more than high school math/physics of delay and sound propagation speed - no actual response addressing or questioning my deconstruction
  
 but impuning my motives, "arrogant tone", my posting style lack of sentence case, punctuation seemed popular, "victory lap" posts for savaging the critic seemed to be fine too
  
 all the reactive posts not addressing my technical critique must have "left the place better" as that was the explicit standard I was told my posts would be held to


----------



## castleofargh

jcx said:


> ...but impuning my motives, "arrogant tone", my posting style lack of sentence case, punctuation ...


 
 well you could make some efforts, take example on my posts if need be


----------



## AtomikPi

rrod said:


> I feel the same kind of ambivalence about, say, Schiit. On one hand they'll put out gear like the Modi/Magni and say it's probably all you'll ever need, but they'll also put out tube amps, R2R DACs, and USB cleaners. In the case of Schiit, they can fall back on the Everest excuse: "we did it because it was there", and no one will blame an engineer for trying to make a better spec-ed product or play around with topologies. Still, my objective core wants them to take the hard stand.


 
  
 You'll notice that Schiit never posts about the sound signature of their gear. That's something that I really respect. They're just putting quality products out there and letting them sell themselves.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> "[COLOR=252525]It's hard enough to make a living in a boxing audiophile world, so every now and then you gotta do something that might not agree with your principles. Basically, you have to forget you got any."[/COLOR]
> 
> 
> In Tyll's case, he's got two audiences to satisfy. When something like Pono comes out that's leans heavily toward the subjective side, I can't say I blame him for shifting a bit on the couch. Still, if you chase two rabbits you will lose them both, and even though I understand the reasoning for it, that review really stuck in my craw.




Well said.



rrod said:


> I feel the same kind of ambivalence about, say, Schiit. On one hand they'll put out gear like the Modi/Magni and say it's probably all you'll ever need, but they'll also put out tube amps, R2R DACs, and USB cleaners. In the case of Schiit, they can fall back on the Everest excuse: "we did it because it was there", and no one will blame an engineer for trying to make a better spec-ed product or play around with topologies. Still, my objective core wants them to take the hard stand.




A great example is the Ragnorak and the Yggdrasil. And I don't buy the Everest excuse since Schiit wouldn't produce it if they knew that they couldn't market it.


----------



## jcx

on style - I didn't invent these informalities - just adopted what is seen on forums - its not writing for textbooks, resumes
  
http://www.contentious.com/2004/09/13/grammar-and-punctuation-for-the-web-whats-proper/
  
 maybe this link will live a bit longer here?
  
  
 accusations of "arrogance" is interesting coming from those sounding like they are posting from "Audiophile Guru" self conception or attempted positioning
  
  
 I admit engineers can have cultural clashes when talking with the general public - maybe its even regionally amplified with my uni, work experience in the Northeast - a region not known for being steeped in Southern courtesy
  
 when someone talks about EE in terms I recognize from 3 decades of working as one then I do expect a certain reciprocal extension of collegial mutual respect
  
 my presumption is that we each certainly have specialized knowledge and experience that the other may only have passing acquaintance with but we both reason from a similar "Rational Materialism", "Scientific Rationalism" point of view, have substantial common background in math and systems modeling
  
 engineer on engineer in my experience we are blunt about pointing out what we think are misconceptions in each others reasoning, work - I expect to be "called out" too
  
 being wrong, having incomplete conceptions or even just temporary lapses is such a constant in learning, dealing with complex systems that it seems a big waste of time and energy constantly softening the critique, easing into the subject with social lubrication to "spare feelings"
  
 sometimes when something is pointed out in technical argument you do go "I knew that" - and then realize their point is made
  
 the best is when you take it in and suddenly rearrange your previous pieces into a new level of understanding of a subject
  
  
 all this may be foreign, uncomfortable to non STEM types - where "personal interpretation" is given primacy, there are few "hard facts"


----------



## cel4145

jcx said:


> on style - I didn't invent these informalities - just adopted what is seen on forums - its not writing for textbooks, resumes
> 
> http://www.contentious.com/2004/09/13/grammar-and-punctuation-for-the-web-whats-proper/
> 
> *maybe this link will live a bit longer here?*




It should die. The first three bullet points are poor or out of date (written in 2004), with the analysis about punctuation just plain dumb. And notice the writer DOES say you should capitalize the first word in a sentence, if you bother to read the last bullet point, which is flawed, though, in some of the rest of its points.


----------



## castleofargh

jcx said:


>


 


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






> on style - I didn't invent these informalities - just adopted what is seen on forums - its not writing for textbooks, resumes
> 
> http://www.contentious.com/2004/09/13/grammar-and-punctuation-for-the-web-whats-proper/
> 
> ...


 
  


 no comment about writing properly, I suck too much to say anything ^_^. hey I capitalize the I, took me some efforts to get used to it instead of using the apparently disturbing i. I'm sure that deserves a point for good behavior.
  
  
 about the "2 EE enter in a bar"(where is the joke?), I feel the same. I expect people to always tell me when I'm wrong somewhere and not needing to put on a hazmat suit before telling me. it wouldn't even come to my mind to be offended.  the guy isn't trashing me, he's helping me so that I will now know more than I did yesterday.
  
 about internet, I learned how to behave on the net playing online games, everybody was insulting everybody, and it meant nothing at all. if a guy was insulting my mother on the street I would try to remove a few of his teeth. but online, when a guy cracks up a "that's what your mother said to me last night", I can't help but find it funny.
 internet is internet. forcing people to behave online like in real life, to me that's like when people want to ban a game because they're afraid a kid won't know the difference between a game and reality...
 first time I saw a real turtle I didn't try to jump on it.

  
 QED ^_^
  
  
  
 so it certainly is a small struggle for me when I see places like headfi where everybody has to pretend and behave like a sir.

  
  
  
  
  
  
 now the moderator point of view:
 castleofargh is a jerk and TOS is the law, love thy neighbor.


----------



## RRod

Claim of positive ABX of hi-res in Foobar here. I'm already at my wit's end in that particular thread, so someone else feel free to poke around for how the test was messed up.


----------



## OddE

jcx said:


> I admit engineers can have cultural clashes when talking with the general public - maybe its even regionally amplified with my uni, work experience in the Northeast - a region not known for being steeped in Southern courtesy


 
  
 -I know, I know - I am late to the party, I just wanted to share an anecdote collaborating your point:
  
 A few years ago, my employer threw a pre-Christmas weekend at a semi-swanky hotel for all employees and spouses (the latter being just for show - we were too busy working to maintain any relationships, but anyway...)
  
 As the evening progresses, I (MSc, radio frequency engineering), and two colleagues (MSc, power electronics; PhD marine engineering) are enjoying ourselves by the fireplace, scotches in hand. All of a sudden, the barmaid and a security guard approaches us and tells us we'd better split up and leave, now - before we start fighting.
  
 We look at them, puzzled. We were just getting into a frank (ahem) exchange of views on an engineering issue we'd recently read about in the journal of the Norwegian Society of Engineers, throwing our respective fields of expertise into the discussion with great enthusiasm. It took some convincing explaining to them that we were the best of friends and that what they'd just observed from across the bar was more or less par for the course as we became embroiled in discussion.
  
 To further stress the point that engineers may be a bit off compared to the general population, a few minutes later another colleague of us (BSc, computer science) comes by and asks what that business with the bouncer was all about - he could tell from across the room that we were having a great time and wondered why they'd bother us...)


----------



## krismusic

odde said:


> -I know, I know - I am late to the party, I just wanted to share an anecdote collaborating your point:
> 
> A few years ago, my employer threw a pre-Christmas weekend at a semi-swanky hotel for all employees and spouses (the latter being just for show - we were too busy working to maintain any relationships, but anyway...)
> 
> ...


----------



## sonitus mirus

If I had to make a completely unscientific guess at how I would prioritize audio improvements, this is how I would rate the significance of such things.
  
 Assuming 100% for audio nirvana:
  
*Source Material:* 50% (recording quality, mastering, etc.)
*Source Format:* 5%  (lossy, FLAC, SACD, etc.)
*Playback Equipment:* 20% (the total audio playback chain, including DACs, Amps, and Transducers)
*Room Environment/EQ:* 25% (treatment, speaker placement, ambient noise, etc.)
  
 Just making it up as I drink go.  Anything missing?
  
 Essentially, if the same CD or audio file was played on two different systems or "Playback Equipment", one nearly perfect at 19.2% of the possible 20%, and some other gear that was only 12% of 20%, the 12% gear could sound much better than the 19.2% gear if the room was better treated and EQ was used effectively.
  
 Where does everyone else place value on such things when looking at the total picture?  I'm thinking the Playback Equipment has even a smaller overall influence on the sound quality than I may be suggesting, but I will leave my number where they are for now and hope someone else will play.  I often see audio fans spending gobs of money on equipment that would only bring about a 1% improvement in the overall sound quality, while they could see huge improvements from hooking up an inexpensive EQ in their audio chain.
  
 I realize there is nothing scientific here, at least on its own merit.  I thought this thread was appropriate for this post.  Off with 'is head, if it must go and simply does not belong.


----------



## castleofargh

hard cold numbers for subjective values, I love it. ^_^
  
 personally, I would go for choice of song and signature(headphone,EQ,...) as the main reason of me being happy. and a little something for everything else, with mostly a need for comfort(for headphones/IEMs), no hiss, and ok left/right balance. the rest is an added but not necessary bonus.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

If I may add my own theoretical perspective without the use of numbers.
  
 I would slightly lower the importance of the source material, and increase for room environment and in perhaps equipment
  
 - For me sound quality is a bonus. If it's a performance, or piece of music that I enjoy or am interested in, I can reach 'nirvana' whatever its quality, however it is transmitted.
 - It's nice to have decent equipment to listen at the highest fidelity, but the main importance of the equipment is convenience/accessibility to music, comfort, reliability and effectiveness to the task at hand.
 - Environment - Quite pertinent for me after moving near a busy road which easily affects immersion, and limits the equipment (open headphones) that can be used effectively.
  
***I would add an additional category of 'knowledge', including (but not restricted to) both 'science' related to audio, and experience with equipment - This category enables one to find justified contentment with their given circumstances/equipment, thereby leaving mind to concentrate on music somewhat freely.
***Deepening knowledge of music itself can also increase its appreciation - One example - A longer list of reference points helps one to formulate opinions that are more complex, and reasoned based on a firmer basis - much like a good essay.


----------



## Thad-E-Ginathom

castleofargh said:


> hard cold numbers for subjective values, I love it. ^_^
> 
> ... ... ...


 
  
 I always wondered where those hifi-mag/retailer percentage calculations (x% on stands, y% on cables, etc etc) came from, and my guess is... out of some marketing man's imagination.


----------



## sonitus mirus

For one person always sitting in the same position, it might be rather easy to get end-game equipment set up; though, for anyone looking to fill an entire large room with wonderful sound, it would be much trickier and costlier.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

Science can still deal with estimations. Surveys can seek to measure sentiment that are 'subjective'. E.g. patient experience in hospitals, consumer opinion etc.
 Perhaps a rough and somewhat less than accurate method on its own, but one that can demonstrate a trend of some significance with enough data.

A _basic _theoretical example: 

 1. We assume that all of us purchase equipment and music for the purpose of achieving enjoyment of music/or gear (does not matter which for this example)
     - Ask what do they consider most important in their enjoyment of the hobby. Music? Gear? Other?
  
 2. We assume that most have constraints in this endeavour - financial constraint - an example for this purpose
     - Sort according to income?
  
 3. Assuming the existence of financial constraint, we assume further that we divert funds in the most efficient manner that we see fit.
  
 4. On this basis we calculate out total expenditure of our current gear + music.
  
 5. From that we calculate the proportion of total expenditure spent on each category of components. E.g. Amps, DACs, Music
     - For further accuracy there may be calculations available to compensate for inflation.
     - Spending compared to income
  
 6. The proportion of money spent on each component may indicate a pattern - Where does one consumer put most financial investment/importance in?
     - Back to @sonitus mirus' original question, *where people "prioritise audio improvements"*
     - Does it correlate with no.1? Can one be considered a music lover if they have spent a disproportionately larger amount of money on gear than music? Vice versa.


----------



## uchihaitachi

suntanscanman said:


> Science can still deal with estimations. Surveys can seek to measure sentiment that are 'subjective'. E.g. patient experience in hospitals, consumer opinion etc.
> Perhaps a rough and somewhat less than accurate method on its own, but one that can demonstrate a trend of some significance with enough data.
> 
> A _basic _theoretical example:
> ...


 
 You don't need sufficient data; it's simple enough, for the typical audiophile demand just increases according to price and mystical qualities only constrained by their budgets. (An actual veblen good in action!)
  
 Might make for an interesting linear programming model


----------



## jcx

"maximizing our utility/happiness" unfortunately is done in not exactly Star Trek Vulcan's rational ideal brains
  
 we seem to "reason" with a muddle of shortcuts that work often enough for modern humans to have overran the planet
  
 we are just rational enough to create systems of logic that we can compare our actions against - the picture from psychology, social organization fails like wars, genocide, pollution, economic bubbles, panics, recessions seem to indicate we're not that rational in a global sense
  
 we have recent "behavioral economics" replacing the "rational man" model - "post modern" "identity" concepts (some which just dress up tribalism/clannishness in a more mobile world) are seen working unconsciously in social groups and manipulated consciously by marketing
  
  
 largely audiophiles have embraced the irrationality, raising it to the norm
  
 clearly there is a tension with vendors having a big interest in pushing any dynamic that gets them more, bigger sales - some look like they are using "Phishing for Phools" as a plan, not a criticism
  
 its to the point that a good deal of the justification can be "I'm enough of a connoisseur to justify spending $xxxx when hoi polloi think $xx is extravagant"
  
  
 I think Head-Fi could be a educational and moderating influence to the benefit of the hobby and ourselves as consumers if there were more balance including accepting the presumption of skepticism as a reasoned position, not being treated as an attack - as is the current situation with "offenders" restricted in allowed arguments to a ghetto
  
 I dislike the apparently deliberate feeding of fanboyism, Guru posturing - surely there is a market without creating a socially and intellectually poisoned environment


----------



## Joe Bloggs

rrod said:


> Claim of positive ABX of hi-res in Foobar here. I'm already at my wit's end in that particular thread, so someone else feel free to poke around for how the test was messed up.




Said all I can say in my particular position in response.


----------



## briskly

Is there any particular reason to test a DAC using a 997 Hz sine instead of 1kHz? I figure that 48/96/192 kHz sampling rates are integer multiples of 1kHz, but what difference could we expect from that?


----------



## jcx

sorry if this bores people - but it does, I think, reflect on the role/perception of Sound Science, valuation of "Objectivism" across Head-Fi (and I was too chicken to add it to Moffat's Sponsored thread)
  


baldr said:


> Folks -- if this post does not get deleted...


 


baldr said:


> ...We will see if this post survives deletion.  I hope so....


 
  
 hi Mike,
  
_*We will see if this post survives deletion.  I hope so.*_
  
Could make a humorous tag line – if you weren't already being given “more equal” treatment than most
you already have made what has often been interpreted in the general forums as personal attacks that the rest of us have seen posts deleted for

  
locally its possible for “_*We will see if this post survives deletion.  I hope so*_”. not go over so well either
  
since we have a history – collectively the history of the Sound Science as a grudgingly allowed ghetto after a site wide ban of DBT discussion, our experience here in the ghetto of still facing “hostile” moderation - locked threads, deleted posts and bannings

  
and there's my personal experience with Jason *<redacted>* in the Schiit Happened thread
  
one mentioning bowls of Schiit branded polished Coprolites rhetorically – as an example of what I didn't expect to see 
apparently schiity humor is reserved only for unambiguously fannish posters
  
*<redacted>* 
Jason made a Grammar Nazi rant which still didn't spell out that he would be deleting posts on this rather subjective standard in the future *<redacted>* 
  
Jason publicly chastising me in the thread, dragging out the old “agenda” chestnut
“generously” saying although he considered banning me from the Schiit thread, that I could still post at his sufferance if I only made posts “leaving the place better than I found it”
  
again a rather subjective standard that rather puts a crimp in my calling out Schiit feeding the guru/fanboy dynamic in ways I think damage the hobby
or my questioning his posting from inside that bubble of assumptions, with my pointed but objective facts, quite reasonable Psychoacoustics – my comments staying safely away from “you can't DBT that”
  
considering I'm at least a decade older, and my engineering employment has likely been longer given his time in advertising, book writing – its entirely likely I've spent more hours in front of electronic prototypes with scope probe in hand
  
so, Mike, what would your reaction be if someone your junior tried so hard to “top” you, make you jump through hoops to post in a forum you have years longer presence in?
  
Is it fun yet?
  
or are some people working from a very different interpretation of corrollary #5
  
 Quote:


> *e. Corollary 5: on the other hand, micro-social almost always works, unless you’re a dick.* Finding the small, specific, passionate communities that are interested in your products, whether they are barbecues, espresso machines, audio gear, or high-end bicycle accessories, is almost always worth it. Going out, joining these communities, answering questions that come up, and not selling at all is a wonderful way to get the word out. But don’t think you’re King Salesman of the Universe out to convert the masses, or start attacking other brands, moderators or forum members. One problem: most agencies are too lazy to do this hard work. And it is hard work. _Pay lots of attention to micro-social, and be prepared to post, respond, meet new friends, piss some people off, delight some others, and become part of your specific niche._


 
  
_*We will see if this post survives deletion.  I hope so. *_(which boils down to is it going to be "new regime", castleofargh - or do I get the bird?_*)*_


----------



## RRod

jcx said:


> sorry if this bores people - but it does, I think, reflect on the role/perception of Sound Science, valuation of "Objectivism" across Head-Fi (and I was too chicken to add it to Moffat's Sponsored thread)
> 
> Could make a humorous tag line – if you weren't already being given “more equal” treatment than most
> you already have made what has often been interpreted in the general forums as personal attacks that the rest of us have seen posts deleted for


 
  
 I expect the bread-winners to get some special status here, but they could at least TRY not to be so obvious about it.  At last count I think we on here: take science too seriously, don't like music, and definitely don't like sex unless it's with a bear… I guess the thing that disappoints me is that, in theory, trade members coming into SS could be a valuable resource for answer tech-specific questions, especially when they design the exact devices being discussed on a given thread. Lowered expectaaaaaaaaaaations.
  


jcx said:


> since we have a history – collectively the history of the Sound Science as a grudgingly allowed ghetto after a site wide ban of DBT discussion, our experience here in the ghetto of still facing “hostile” moderation - locked threads, deleted posts and bannings


 
  
 The thing that always gets me re DBT is that we're not even allowed to hold people to it *on this sub-forum.* I mean, all good and fine if they don't want us getting heart rates up on the Pono threads, but can't we at least have our own little world where we don't have to debate that bias exists?


----------



## castleofargh

well, it's not like I'm king of my castle, any group delete and bans weren't my doing(doesn't mean I will never do it, just that I didn't yet or was sleeping when I should have done it). I guess I'm still trying to talk things out first, because it doesn't cost too much to try.
  
 but jcx I have little hope and a hard time letting the post go myself. it's pretty confrontational, even if it clearly comes as a result of how you don't like being shut down for roundabout reasons(something I can very, very much appreciate!!!), it still is on the "let's go to war" side of things.
  
 also headfi doesn't discuss moderation, I do it from time to time when it concerns me, because I clearly came to the job as a kind of wishful buffer. but it is a written rule so anybody can decide to apply that rule and remove your post(and mine). it's about the same thing as talking DBT outside of here. no matter the integrity of the message, it's a necessary and enough offense within the headfi world. it's when the posts stay that moderation was making an effort, not the other way around. I don't adore all the rules in headfi, but you can't argue having to follow them when inside headfi. they decide whatever they want.
  
  
  on a personal level, I did feel that baldr was sometimes allowed things that some noname dude wouldn't be allowed to post. is it because he has special treatment? is it because the modo reading the post felt super insecure about acting on such a famous figure and feared getting e-spanked by Jude? IDK,  it's most likely both. ^_^
 you get people betting their own lives that a power plug made their music amazing, so would it be so strange that people who like baldr don't see his post as offensive as other would? in the end we're all but humans.
 even if headfi was a republic, as it happens republics don't work all that well on the matter of perfect equality of treatment. TBH I wondered a few times why I didn't get banned when other were, for seemingly not being worst than I was. someone somewhere must have liked me a little more, or it was pure luck and no modo read my post? again IDK and perhaps a little bit of both ^_^.
  
 it's hard to get an overview of such a massive website, I'm not sure anybody gets it. now what chicken me can advise you to do, is to red flag a post next time you feel you got disrespected or attacked. might work, might not, time will tell.  but it's the headfi way to defend yourself. open letters don't seem overly effective or appreciated.


----------



## limpidglitch

In norse mythology Baldr was the most beautiful, wisest, kindest and most well-spoken of all the gods, everybody loved him.
 Except Loki of course, who killed him by tricking Hödr to shoot him with an arrow made of mistletoe.
 The body of Baldr was put on his own ship, the biggest and most magnificent around. When Nanna, the wife of Baldr saw this, her heart burst from grief and she was put on the ship alongside him. The ship was launched and set alight.
 All manner of creatures came to witness this last voyage. Odin with his wife Frigg, the Vakyries, and his two ravens, Freyr came in his wagon pulled by a boar. Heimdallr came riding on Gulltoppr, and Freyja came in her chariot pulled by two cats. Great crowds of trolls, gnomes, jötunn and gygr came as well.
 According to the Völva the death of Baldr would signify the beginning of the end of the world and the reign of gods: ragnarok. But afterwards, up from the ashes, a new and brighter world will come. Baldr, together with his brother Hödr, will be resurrected and reunited with the gods that had survived the battle, so they can get back to reminiscing over ancient events and discuss the particularities of the runic alphabet.
  
 So yes, RRod…


----------



## sonitus mirus

limpidglitch said:


> In norse mythology Baldr was the most beautiful, wisest, kindest and most well-spoken of all the gods, everybody loved him.
> Except Loki of course, who killed him by tricking Hödr to shoot him with an arrow made of mistletoe.
> The body of Baldr was put on his own ship, the biggest and most magnificent around. When Nanna, the wife of Baldr saw this, her heart burst from grief and she was put on the ship alongside him. The ship was launched and set alight.
> All manner of creatures came to witness this last voyage. Odin with his wife Frigg, the Vakyries, and his two ravens, Freyr came in his wagon pulled by a boar. Heimdallr came riding on Gulltoppr, and Freyja came in her chariot pulled by two cats. Great crowds of trolls, gnomes, jötunn and gygr came as well.
> ...


 
  
 That is totally preposterous.  You could never get two cats to work together to pull a chariot.


----------



## RRod

limpidglitch said:


> In norse mythology Baldr was the most beautiful, wisest, kindest and most well-spoken of all the gods, everybody loved him.
> Except Loki of course, who killed him by tricking Hödr to shoot him with an arrow made of mistletoe.
> The body of Baldr was put on his own ship, the biggest and most magnificent around. When Nanna, the wife of Baldr saw this, her heart burst from grief and she was put on the ship alongside him. The ship was launched and set alight.
> All manner of creatures came to witness this last voyage. Odin with his wife Frigg, the Vakyries, and his two ravens, Freyr came in his wagon pulled by a boar. Heimdallr came riding on Gulltoppr, and Freyja came in her chariot pulled by two cats. Great crowds of trolls, gnomes, jötunn and gygr came as well.
> ...


 
  
 Just found this so now I have to check it out given all the buildup:


----------



## limpidglitch

Hmm, doesn't look too bad.
 Better that than Burzum's _Dauði Baldrs _at least.


----------



## sonitus mirus

rrod said:


> Just found this so now I have to check it out given all the buildup:


 
  
 Typical BIS, it sounds excellent with a rather significant dynamic range.  I listened to nearly a minute before I realized there was any music being played at my normal volume level.  I had to restart it and crank the volume up quite a bit.  
  
 A bit chaotic for my taste.  Even classical music can be somewhat funky.  This is located very far from funky town.


----------



## castleofargh

I came to enjoy reading this blog, and it's puzzling how many topics that are often about ourselves as humans, seem to fit our daily audio struggles to a fault.    https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/12/biases-and-blunders/
  
 the more time passes, the more I feel like audio websites are in dire need of a psychology section. I use myself to judge audio gear, but I don't know myself. a strange exercise.


----------



## uchihaitachi

I recently built a new computer, and moving my music library which is around 600gb from windows 7 to a windows 10 computer via an external hard drive, just to be sure I ran a md5sum check, and there are quite a few errors appearing... 
  
 Do you guys have any good solutions, to this issue?


----------



## RRod

uchihaitachi said:


> I recently built a new computer, and moving my music library which is around 600gb from windows 7 to a windows 10 computer via an external hard drive, just to be sure I ran a md5sum check, and there are quite a few errors appearing...
> 
> Do you guys have any good solutions, to this issue?


 
  
 What are you using to copy, just straight up copy command? Any time I'm doing backups or full-disc transfers I use rsync, which will verify everything as it goes.


----------



## analogsurviver

uchihaitachi said:


> I recently built a new computer, and moving my music library which is around 600gb from windows 7 to a windows 10 computer via an external hard drive, just to be sure I ran a md5sum check, and there are quite a few errors appearing...
> 
> Do you guys have any good solutions, to this issue?


 
 No idea. But back in the day, I was an early adopter of Win7 - and it sucked in audio compared to the XP big time. It took 7 some year, maybe even 2, to match what the XP could sound. 
  
 I have read that 10 is about the best thing for audio for windows since sliced bread - but in things computer and music, I prefer to keep it conservative. It would take one hell of persuasions for me to even consider 10.


----------



## uchihaitachi

rrod said:


> What are you using to copy, just straight up copy command? Any time I'm doing backups or full-disc transfers I use rsync, which will verify everything as it goes.


 
 Could you provide a link to rsync? I typed in rsync and all kinds of esoteric programs pop up  Thank you in advance!
  
 These errors have been driving me nuts............
  
 Oh and yes I just drag and drop 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 Also wanted to ask, if what I am experiencing is normal?


----------



## RRod

uchihaitachi said:


> Could you provide a link to rsync? I typed in rsync and all kinds of esoteric programs pop up  Thank you in advance!
> 
> These errors have been driving me nuts............
> 
> ...


 
  
 Oh it's a Linux/Mac thing. On Windows you can get it by installing something like Cygwin. I know on Linux the regular cp command makes no guarantees (at least I've never found a checksum option for it).
  
 Note it's worth looking into options for the Windows copy command (or xcopy if that still exists) to see if they have something checksum related.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

Can I ask how these errors would manifest themselves when listening to music? I have my music files (ripped from CD to ALAC) backed up on an external hard drive, coped and pasted from my PC (Win 7).


----------



## uchihaitachi

suntanscanman said:


> Can I ask how these errors would manifest themselves when listening to music? I have my music files (ripped from CD to ALAC) backed up on an external hard drive, coped and pasted from my PC (Win 7).


 
 I doubt it would manifest in any audible artefacts... Especially if they are spread out among various files. But if loads of errors do occur in a single file, it normally sounds to me like the noise when you hear while you plug in a headphone. Do you use cuetools when ripping CDs? Cos, it does a database comparison and informs you whether your rips coincide with the other ripped discs they have on file.
  
 I found a great program called syncovery, that moves, checks all the files, and I ran a md5 check just now with no errors finally!


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> I came to enjoy reading this blog, and it's puzzling how many topics that are often about ourselves as humans, seem to fit our daily audio struggles to a fault.    https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/12/biases-and-blunders/
> 
> the more time passes, the more I feel like audio websites are in dire need of a psychology section. I use myself to judge audio gear, but I don't know myself. a strange exercise.



+1!


----------



## uchihaitachi

castleofargh said:


> I came to enjoy reading this blog, and it's puzzling how many topics that are often about ourselves as humans, seem to fit our daily audio struggles to a fault.    https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/12/biases-and-blunders/
> 
> the more time passes, the more I feel like audio websites are in dire need of a psychology section. I use myself to judge audio gear, but I don't know myself. a strange exercise.


 
 The basis of behavioural economics is in the kahneman tversky paper 'maps of bounded rationality' it's a great read
  
 https://www.princeton.edu/~kahneman/docs/Publications/Maps_bounded_rationality_DK_2003.pdf


----------



## MacacoDoSom

uchihaitachi said:


> I recently built a new computer, and moving my music library which is around 600gb from windows 7 to a windows 10 computer via an external hard drive, just to be sure I ran a md5sum check, and there are quite a few errors appearing...
> 
> Do you guys have any good solutions, to this issue?


 

 Teracopy - Copies and checks or Moves and Checks, can be used as a replacement of windows copy/move and drag 'n drop.


----------



## PDVJAM

Not sure if its correct topic, but I have some interesting story to tell.
Some time ago, I bought LINE5 A985 Headphone Output Switcher. This device allows connect up to four sources to headphones and almost instantly switch between them. Therefore, I grabbed two SD cards with identical music files (all flac 16/44), my iBasso DX90, my CIEM’s and went to local audiophile shop, to my friends. First, I grabbed iBasso DX50 and connected it with DX90 through A985 to my IEM’s. I do not have any SPL meter, so I matched volumes with my ears. I did my best! With DX50 and DX90 it was easy – they both have almost same FW, so volume levels were set to same values. After 15-20 minutes of listening to DX50 and DX90 with instant switching between them I did not noticed ANY differences. Then my friend, owner of this shop, grabbed OPPO PM - do not remember exactly, I think it was PM-3 or PM-2 – and listened to DX50 and DX90 for 10 minutes. His first words after this were “Hmmm, looks like iBasso hiding something from us…”. He did not noticed any differences as well. After DX50, I compared DX90 with QLS 360, Hifiman 603, Hifiman 901 (maybe it was 901S, not sure), Fiio X5, Soundaware M1. I did my best to much their volumes, all EQ were set to off. All this comparison took me about 2 hours. And no differences were noticed, except to Hifiman 603 and Soundaware M1 – they have noticeable recessed mid-high/high frequencies. At least with my multi drivers CIEM’s. That were the only differences I heard. Last year I attempted to compare some DAP’s one by one, just switching my SD card between them. That time I did not noticed any differences as well. After this ‘listening session’ owner of this shop asked me to leave A985 for them, so they could try more comparisons. Several month have passed but they never tried any ‘blind’ comparisonsJ And without them they still hear sound differences between amps, dacs and dapsJ Now I want to replace my DX90 with new L5 Pro. It looks nice. But its price $800. When they arrive to shop, I will try another listening comparison between DX90 and L5 Pro. Not sure I want to pay $800 just for its appearance. Small audiophile inside me still believes that there could be some differences in sound…


----------



## Ruben123

pdvjam said:


> [COLOR=000000]Not sure if its correct topic, but I have some interesting story to tell.[/COLOR]
> [COLOR=000000]Some time ago, I bought LINE5 A985 Headphone Output Switcher. This device allows connect up to four sources to headphones and almost instantly switch between them. Therefore, I grabbed two SD cards with identical music files (all flac 16/44), my iBasso DX90, my CIEM’s and went to local audiophile shop, to my friends. First, I grabbed iBasso DX50 and connected it with DX90 through A985 to my IEM’s. I do not have any SPL meter, so I matched volumes with my ears. I did my best! With DX50 and DX90 it was easy – they both have almost same FW, so volume levels were set to same values. After 15-20 minutes of listening to DX50 and DX90 with instant switching between them I did not noticed ANY differences. Then my friend, owner of this shop, grabbed OPPO PM - do not remember exactly, I think it was PM-3 or PM-2 – and listened to DX50 and DX90 for 10 minutes. His first words after this were “Hmmm, looks like iBasso hiding something from us…”. He did not noticed any differences as well. After DX50, I compared DX90 with QLS 360, Hifiman 603, Hifiman 901 (maybe it was 901S, not sure), Fiio X5, Soundaware M1. I did my best to much their volumes, all EQ were set to off. All this comparison took me about 2 hours. And no differences were noticed, except to Hifiman 603 and Soundaware M1 – they have noticeable recessed mid-high/high frequencies. At least with my multi drivers CIEM’s. That were the only differences I heard.[/COLOR]
> 
> [COLOR=000000]Last year I attempted to compare some DAP’s one by one, just switching my SD card between them. That time I did not noticed any differences as well.[/COLOR]
> ...




Get the Sandisk Sansa at $40 and don't look back. Oh, and post this in the "portable source section" too.


----------



## castleofargh

my own experience is that DAP manufacturers almost all try to get a more or less neutral response on unloaded measurements. so in practice audible differences are often small unless it's for one of those reasons:
  
 - noise floor: maybe not easy to test that at a store or a meet, but most of the time I can tell DAPs apart thanks to the noise floor using a super sensitive IEM. the reason tends to be the amps section of the DAP.
  
 - maximum output: another thing related to the amp section, some simply don't have what it takes to drive certain kinds of headphones. so the difference will be obvious only when using those ^_^.
  
 - impedance: depending on the IEM it might not really be audible, with others you just can't miss the signature changes. AK100 first version anyone? 20ohm output, someone should be in jail for something like that to be sold as a DAP for IEMs.
  
 - low pass filter: could roll off the trebles in a significant way, but again some IEMs take a dive starting 10khz so it would be hard to notice on such IEM. Pono playing 16/44 seems to be an obvious example. to some it's called ruining the sound, to others it's called "sounding analog". ^_^
  
 - coupling caps: if I got that right, with low impedance IEMs, the bass roll off will be stronger as it's the association that ends up becoming a high pass filter, so both the caps and the IEM should have an impact(if I'm wrong please guys tell me). I felt a clear low freq roll off on DX50 and CK4, but at the time I didn't know if it was impedance or caps as my IEM would also lower the bass on higher impedances and I spent very little time with both(really hated both UIs and the sub roll off).
  
 -everything else: which is pretty much all the marketing propaganda that makes us want to buy a DAP, super dac chip, deluxe components, op amp this or that, soldered with unicorn gold poop... : in my experience it actually makes only small audible differences(but the measurements can be very different). as time passes I care less and less about this, but more and more about hiss, impedance, and subs roll off.
  
  
  
  
  
 so if you're careful to get low impedance DAPs, and use a flat impedance IEM that's not too sensitive, chances are that most DAPs will have close to no audible differences. but if you really look for audible differences, then with a few extreme IEMs and headphones, you usually can figure something out. they're usually not identical under all circumstances.
 so it's up to us to get an IEM/headphone that isn't stupidly weird to the point that it's a miracle when you end up with the expected sound. or if you own such IEM/headphone, then you need to find out what requirements are really needed for the source(usually ends up making you buy a portable amp anyway).
  
 personally, I have a hard time justifying a 800$ DAP that usually ends up being android with a 1990 skin over it. in fact those days, I have a hard time justifying a 800$ anything for portable use.
  
  
  
 ps: I would still suggest to try and get a way to volume match that is better than the ear. with DAPs it's hard to get withing 0.1db or less, but it's usually still better than doing it by ear(if you have no choice, try a 1 or 2khz test tone, I usually get less than 0.5db differences that way. but only if you have no choice!!!! ^_^).


----------



## Koolpep

pdvjam said:


> Not sure if its correct topic, but I have some interesting story to tell.
> Some time ago, I bought LINE5 A985 Headphone Output Switcher. This device allows connect up to four sources to headphones and almost instantly switch between them. Therefore, I grabbed two SD cards with identical music files (all flac 16/44), my iBasso DX90, my CIEM’s and went to local audiophile shop, to my friends. First, I grabbed iBasso DX50 and connected it with DX90 through A985 to my IEM’s. I do not have any SPL meter, so I matched volumes with my ears. I did my best! With DX50 and DX90 it was easy – they both have almost same FW, so volume levels were set to same values. After 15-20 minutes of listening to DX50 and DX90 with instant switching between them I did not noticed ANY differences. Then my friend, owner of this shop, grabbed OPPO PM - do not remember exactly, I think it was PM-3 or PM-2 – and listened to DX50 and DX90 for 10 minutes. His first words after this were “Hmmm, looks like iBasso hiding something from us…”. He did not noticed any differences as well. After DX50, I compared DX90 with QLS 360, Hifiman 603, Hifiman 901 (maybe it was 901S, not sure), Fiio X5, Soundaware M1. I did my best to much their volumes, all EQ were set to off. All this comparison took me about 2 hours. And no differences were noticed, except to Hifiman 603 and Soundaware M1 – they have noticeable recessed mid-high/high frequencies. At least with my multi drivers CIEM’s. That were the only differences I heard. Last year I attempted to compare some DAP’s one by one, just switching my SD card between them. That time I did not noticed any differences as well. After this ‘listening session’ owner of this shop asked me to leave A985 for them, so they could try more comparisons. Several month have passed but they never tried any ‘blind’ comparisonsJ And without them they still hear sound differences between amps, dacs and dapsJ Now I want to replace my DX90 with new L5 Pro. It looks nice. But its price $800. When they arrive to shop, I will try another listening comparison between DX90 and L5 Pro. Not sure I want to pay $800 just for its appearance. Small audiophile inside me still believes that there could be some differences in sound…


 

 I have done the same a few times:
  

  

  

  


 Did a blind test with a friend. While we could hear some tiny weeny differences (volume matched as well by ear as much as we could, later with digital recorder). The differences are so minimal when switching back and forth, it's scary. 
  
 Between the DX90 and DX50 - we couldn't spot a difference. The AK100 and AK120 - nope. The only one we could *reliably* differentiate from the pack was the Hifiman901 and Gloveaudio A1 which we concluded sounded the "best" as in the most engaging and natural. But seeing the differences in price....
  
 Anyhow, I recently got a 901 and at first listen - it sounded like poop - my surprise was pretty huge. After a few hours of playing music though it settled and sounded what I heard many months before with a properly run-in one and is now my favorite. I am usually not the burn-in believer, but this DAP (or at least the amp card that was unused before) really changed. I was on vacation and compared it to my AK100 & RSA Predator stack at first listen and after a few hours and the massive difference between them disappeared.
  
 Cheers,
 K


----------



## headwhacker

Volume match by ear doesn't work for me nor the iPhone built-in mic with an SPL Meter app. I have to match by the voltage output. I did a comparison today. No matter what I do can't discern any difference as long as the volume level is tightly matched.


----------



## Ruben123

headwhacker said:


> Volume match by ear doesn't work for me nor the iPhone built-in mic with an SPL Meter app. I have to match by the voltage output. I did a comparison today. No matter what I do can't discern any difference as long as the volume level is tightly matched.


 

 What are you waiting for? The for sale section is waiting for you! Lol


----------



## cel4145

koolpep said:


> Did a blind test with a friend. While we could hear some tiny weeny differences (volume matched as well by ear as much as we could, later with digital recorder). The differences are so minimal when switching back and forth, it's scary.




+10 to this. 

We spend a lot of time explaining that there may be no differences between amps/dacs in ABX. What we don't examine is how/where/if differences exist, the differences do not have a significant impact on the listening experience. 

I'd like to see some tests where

(a) the user picks X number of songs for testing.
(b) the user is invited to use some fraction of those songs to do sighted evaluations of devices which have some minor measurable differences and rate each based on the aesthetic pleasure of the listening experience. 
(c) the user goes without using hifi audio equipment for 72 hours.
(d) in a DBT, the user is asked to rate one of the original devices using some of the songs from his test set not used in the original sighted test. 
(e) wait 48 hours or 72 hours again, and do another device.


----------



## sonitus mirus

koolpep said:


> I have done the same a few times:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Those "tiny weeny differences" you heard were most likely the difference in volume levels since these were not precisely matched.


----------



## Koolpep

sonitus mirus said:


> Those "tiny weeny differences" you heard were most likely the difference in volume levels since these were not precisely matched.


 

 Yep, that could be, especially as we agreed that they didn't make anything "better" between them.


----------



## castleofargh

I tend to buy DAPs for how small they are and how much battery life they have(so bricks just aren't for me). then I look for hiss
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, and check if the impedance messes up with the FR of my multidriver IEMs. when that is cleared and the UI isn't totally stupid, I can pretty much claim that I'll enjoy using it. you can see in my few lame reviews, that to me sound is really a small part of what makes a DAP and that I say they all sound close to a sansa clip when used with the proper IEM. 
  
  
  
  
 still it's like cables but much worst, the possibility that someone will hear a huge difference between 2 DAPs does exist. most of the time you just have to pick the wrong IEM/headphone(for the reasons I mentioned before).

 fitear F111 (could have aligned the bass instead, or 1khz, I felt it made more sense to show it like this in relation to impedance)
 yellow is impedance curve, the rest frequency response of the IEM with different impedances as source. I'm not 100% precise, but even with cables and super cheap 1% resistor I never measured, I seem to fall within 1ohm of online measurements for most of my IEMs.
 going from xduoo X2 (around 0.6ohm) then to the fioo X1(a little over 2ohm) and finish with my sony A15(4ohm), they all sound clearly different. it's no wonder people will go calling one DAP warm, or another cold. it's BS, but it's no wonder.
  
 of course when I listen to those guys with my IE80, only the background hiss can sometimes tell the DAPs apart. because the FR couldn't care less about the DAP's impedance:

 note that I had to use 100ohm just to get more than 1 single curve.
 again yellow is impedance curve.
  
 what is a real pity when reading DAP reviews is how many people mistake the changes caused by such interactions with a specific IEM, for the DAP's very own "color". the mistake is understandable for anybody not familiar with some basic electrical knowledge or missing the specs of his gears, but the result leads to a lot of nonsense, and wild exaggerations about the impact a DAP has on sound.
 this is only frequency response, but the rest tends to also change with impedance relations(crosstalk, distortions, noise) and how much the DAP dislikes low impedance loads.
  
  
  
 and speaking about that, I really wonder at what point a plain cheap but well designed 40ohm IEM offers better signal fidelity than some fancy 1000$ customs with wild impedance swings often reaching below 8ohm nowadays? all things considered except signature, I'm really wondering. I've seen at least some cellphones turning the signal to crap with anything below 16ohm.


----------



## headwhacker

The question is why do iem makers produce muti-driver iems at very low impedance (< 16 Ohms) I understand that each driver is connected in parallel in a multi-driver setup which contributes to a lower overall impedance. Do they see any benefits designing their iems around 8 Ohms or lower impedance? 
  
 Lower impedance means it will suck more current; thus, decreasing battery life shorter. And of course clash with sources with higher output impedance.


----------



## cel4145

headwhacker said:


> The question is why do iem makers produce muti-driver iems at very low impedance (< 16 Ohms) I understand that each driver is connected in parallel in a multi-driver setup which contributes to a lower overall impedance. Do they see any benefits designing their iems around 8 Ohms or lower impedance?
> 
> Lower impedance means it will suck more current; thus, decreasing battery life shorter. And of course clash with sources with higher output impedance.




Good question. I've noticed that BA IEMs tend to be lower impedance. Always thought that might be a consequence of the technology. But would love to know the answer


----------



## PDVJAM

ruben123 said:


> Oh, and post this in the "portable source section" too.


 
  
 Don't think it makes any sense - mature audiophiles just call me with some audiophile insults


----------



## Ruben123

The sad truth unfortunately.


----------



## Ruben123

Arny banned again?


----------



## PDVJAM

castleofargh said:


> so if you're careful to get low impedance DAPs, and use a flat impedance IEM that's not too sensitive, chances are that most DAPs will have close to no audible differences. but if you really look for audible differences, then with a few extreme IEMs and headphones, you usually can figure something out. they're usually not identical under all circumstances.
> so it's up to us to get an IEM/headphone that isn't stupidly weird to the point that it's a miracle when you end up with the expected sound. or if you own such IEM/headphone, then you need to find out what requirements are really needed for the source(usually ends up making you buy a portable amp anyway).
> 
> personally, I have a hard time justifying a 800$ DAP that usually ends up being android with a 1990 skin over it. in fact those days, I have a hard time justifying a 800$ anything for portable use.
> ...


 
  
 Well, my CIEMs have 16.5 Ohm impedance and sensitivity - 111 dB.
 AFAIK, all tested DAPs, except Hifiman 603 and, maybe, Soundaware M1, have near zero output impedance. So, they all should work pretty nice with such CIEMs.
  
 Yes, it would be nice to have SPL meter, but I don't want to pay ~100$ just for several tests


----------



## uchihaitachi

pdvjam said:


> Well, my CIEMs have 16.5 Ohm impedance and sensitivity - 111 dB.
> AFAIK, all tested DAPs, except Hifiman 603 and, maybe, Soundaware M1, have near zero output impedance. So, they all should work pretty nice with such CIEMs.
> 
> Yes, it would be nice to have SPL meter, but I don't want to pay ~100$ just for several tests


 
 Worth getting a decent sound card and rmaa


----------



## PDVJAM

uchihaitachi said:


> Worth getting a decent sound card and rmaa


 
  
 I have ASUS STX and Schiit Modi2U+Magni2U, but I don't know how to perform such measurements...


----------



## castleofargh

pdvjam said:


> Well, my CIEMs have 16.5 Ohm impedance and sensitivity - 111 dB.
> AFAIK, all tested DAPs, except Hifiman 603 and, maybe, Soundaware M1, have near zero output impedance. So, they all should work pretty nice with such CIEMs.
> 
> Yes, it would be nice to have SPL meter, but I don't want to pay ~100$ just for several tests


 
 just get a cable to loop the output of the source into the input of your card, and then you can look at the loudness of the signal with some RTA, or even the calibration pop up of RMAA, or simply with any software that can record and has a VU meter that's precise enough. plenty of ways to go at it if you get creative. you just load some test tone on the DAPs and we're game.
 else there are apps for cellphones doing el cheapo SPL meter. they aren't calibrated, but they still show variations(not sure about 0.1db precision though). in practice I tend to go for electrical measurement, but whatever works best for you and is free ^_^.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Maybe MQA will be the savior of quality music?  Not in the sense that one might expect, but as a consequence of greed.
  
 I'm hoping that the license fees required for equipment to use MQA decoding technology are onerous enough to create a bit of backlash from the manufacturers.  If many consumers are tricked into believing they need MQA for the best sound quality, but the cost of using this proprietary format eats away at the profitability of the DACs, maybe some honest testing will be conducted showing that there is no benefit to the listener.  Let the designers and manufacturer's duke it out.  
  
 Another hope of mine is that with MQA, perhaps there will be a need to create better quality content, and if so, I suspect that it would be cheaper to make a single master to use for all formats.  I'd still opt for the less expensive option if the same master was used, so I'm crossing my fingers that we don't have artificially gimped CDs that should be able to sound exactly like the high resolution versions, but who knows what will happen.
  
 In my own way I am quietly rooting for MQA to flourish, but only to a point.


----------



## castleofargh

if I look how licence fees and proprietary formats "stopped" manufacturers from making apple compatible devices, MQA shouldn't have much to worry about 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
  
 oh well, one day they will pass some dumb law like they often try to in the UK to forbid personal copies. making it illegal to rip a CD, and that will effectively solve the format problem(or make everybody listening to music an outlaw).
 -why are you in prison?
 -I admitted online to have done some ABX.


----------



## prot

..nevermind, the Q was answered already...


----------



## Ruben123

*Got an AK 380 but didnt like its sound and people said you HAVE TO buy the amp so I did it and I like it really much, much better than all other players. Now I use it for critical listening and as back up and for when mowing, when travelling by plane or car I got a 240 at only $1800 but the differences are huge but as back up only I dont bother. Might get the new AK 320 too.*
  
 Such things keep fascinating me. If there even is a difference in SQ between them all, that should be all but audible when in an airplane! Guess the head-fi community consists of the higher to top incomes of USA.


----------



## RRod

ruben123 said:


> *Got an AK 380 but didnt like its sound and people said you HAVE TO buy the amp so I did it and I like it really much, much better than all other players. Now I use it for critical listening and as back up and for when mowing, when travelling by plane or car I got a 240 at only $1800 but the differences are huge but as back up only I dont bother. Might get the new AK 320 too.*
> 
> Such things keep fascinating me. If there even is a difference in SQ between them all, that should be all but audible when in an airplane! Guess the head-fi community consists of the higher to top incomes of USA.


 
  
 At $3500 I'd expect it to drive STAX to self-destructive volumes. But no, need an amp to drive them PM-3s, bruh! Oh this hobby.


----------



## PDVJAM

Same for Ukraine My friend - owner of local audiophile shop. He was told me that hi-end stuff usually buy faster, than cheaper ones. So it's OK.


----------



## Ruben123

I like this site. I think Im going to order a Ruizu X02 player ($13 incl shipping) that can even play FLAC and APE (almost my whole collection, not saying at all I can hear differences though). When it comes here I will certainly compare it to some of my players. Guess such an inexpensive player is a better match for garden work, travelling (more than 8 hours of battery!!) etc.


----------



## krismusic

ruben123 said:


> Guess the head-fi community consists of the higher to top incomes of USA.



There all income levels on here. Those for who diminishing returns hold no fear and those who want to make every pound or dollar spent count.


----------



## Koolpep

krismusic said:


> There all income levels on here. Those for who diminishing returns hold no fear and those who want to make every pound or dollar spent count.




I have seen people on very small salaries, that have no car and share a room in an appartment, use Hugo's with AKs and JH customs. It depends where your priorities lie, for some listening to their music with the best quality possible is a beautiful escape. So, expensive gear has not much to do with the income level.

Cheers,
K


----------



## Ruben123

koolpep said:


> I have seen people on very small salaries, that have no car and share a room in an appartment, use Hugo's with AKs and JH customs. It depends where your priorities lie, for some listening to their music with the best quality possible is a beautiful escape. So, expensive gear has not much to do with the income level.
> 
> Cheers,
> K


 

 Which makes it even worse; the marketing and rich ones who keep saying they really should upgrade their gear - to the poorer of us, who believe all the #### said elsewhere and trapping in the urge of keeping buying the latest stuff even though many wouldnt -maybe- even be able to abx a $100 device vs a $3000 one. It isnt fair. For a few times Ive tried to protect some new newbies but one stops quite quickly when you read all the replies you get.


----------



## PDVJAM

I've just tried one more time to compare iBasso DX90 and Hifiman HM603. One song, volume level matched by ear. I've tried this for 30 minutes. Don't know where the magic of multibit DAC (HM603), but they sounded both well and indistinguishably from each other


----------



## Koolpep

ruben123 said:


> Which makes it even worse; the marketing and rich ones who keep saying they really should upgrade their gear - to the poorer of us, who believe all the #### said elsewhere and trapping in the urge of keeping buying the latest stuff even though many wouldnt -maybe- even be able to abx a $100 device vs a $3000 one. It isnt fair. For a few times Ive tried to protect some new newbies but one stops quite quickly when you read all the replies you get.


 

 They were really happy with their gear - isn't that what counts?
  
 I agree with blind testing - the differences are shockingly small, every time I do it, it scares me. Just recently with 901 vs AP100....


----------



## Ruben123

koolpep said:


> They were really happy with their gear - isn't that what counts?
> 
> I agree with blind testing - the differences are shockingly small, every time I do it, it scares me. Just recently with 901 vs AP100....


 

 Sure that counts, but... if you cant really afford such gear and keep upgrading because of "the huge differences" it makes me sad.


----------



## Koolpep

ruben123 said:


> Sure that counts, but... if you cant really afford such gear and keep upgrading because of "the huge differences" it makes me sad.




Totally agree.

Funny enough my favorite sets to listen to are all not that expensive...


----------



## uchihaitachi

krismusic said:


> There all income levels on here. Those for *who diminishing returns hold no fear *and those who want to make every pound or dollar spent count.


 
 Those who tend to have no scientific basis for their purchases, who more often than not probably end up degrading fidelity rather than improving it.
  
 What I don't understand is, most people would exclaim in terror, if they were given drugs that didn't go through blind tests to ensure that they are effective with minimal unwanted side effects. Yet when it comes to audio, they are so vehemently against the idea of blind testing. I don't understand where this discrepancy stems from....


----------



## prot

ruben123 said:


> *Got an AK 380 but didnt like its sound and people said you HAVE TO buy the amp so I did it and I like it really much, much better than all other players. Now I use it for critical listening and as back up and for when mowing, when travelling by plane or car I got a 240 at only $1800 but the differences are huge but as back up only I dont bother. Might get the new AK 320 too.*
> 
> Such things keep fascinating me. If there even is a difference in SQ between them all, that should be all but audible when in an airplane! Guess the head-fi community consists of the higher to top incomes of USA.




That kind of "hearing" differences can probably be classified as a new form of disease .. one worthy of a pompous name like DifferentiaAbsurdicus. 
Although a good old 'disease' like stupidity may be enough to explain the whole 'mistery'


----------



## krismusic

ruben123 said:


> Which makes it even worse; the marketing and rich ones who keep saying they really should upgrade their gear - to the poorer of us, who believe all the #### said elsewhere and trapping in the urge of keeping buying the latest stuff even though many wouldnt -maybe- even be able to abx a $100 device vs a $3000 one. It isnt fair. For a few times Ive tried to protect some new newbies but one stops quite quickly when you read all the replies you get.



This is one of my motivations for harping on on here about people wildly exaggerating differences between mid price and high end gear. None of it has anything to do with enjoying music IMHO. It becomes something else. I have no interest in "training" my ears to pick out tiny differences between gear and soft wear. If I am going to spend hundreds of pounds or suffer the inconvenience of carting equipment around with me it would have to blow me away. When I heard the K10, I bought it. Nothing else that I have heard has caused me to commit my hard earned cash.


----------



## Ruben123

krismusic said:


> This is one of my motivations for harping on on here about people wildly exaggerating differences between mid price and high end gear. None of it has anything to do with enjoying music IMHO. It becomes something else. I have no interest in "training" my ears to pick out tiny differences between gear and soft wear. If I am going to spend hundreds of pounds or suffer the inconvenience of carting equipment around with me it would have to blow me away. When I heard the K10, I bought it. Nothing else that I have heard has caused me to commit my hard earned cash.


 

 Well it too is sort of fun to read the top of the line music players for instance. Every other new firmware sounds different, let alone every other model.
  
_had a chance to listen to ak320, ak380, ak240 (first time listening) today at a local exhibition._
_comparing ak240 to ak320, i prefer ak320. maybe i have a synergy preference for akm dac._
_somehow i feel ak380 sounds better than ak320, mp3, flac or dsd. just slightly wider, dynamic range. music sounds stronger.
 because i believe it is the power of duralumin on ak380. while holding it, i see ak380 oozing out a purple aura awesomeness that gives me this great feeling when listening to it._
  
 And then there is dual dac daps.


----------



## castleofargh

you're looking at this with objective eyes.
 when I got my first 56k dial up modem, and became a world famous hacker for downloading 1 song in 45mn on napster, I was like a kid on Xmas annoying my GF for those entire 45mn "look look, the stuff is coming from all over the world and in less than an hour I will have the song, how amazingly fast is that!!!!".
 now when I have to wait for 2 actual seconds to open a web page you can ear me swearing from down the street. ^_^
  
 our standards and expectations change dangerously fast as we get used to comfort. when I get the hiss on a DAP 5db down, going from audible quiet to just quieter, nowadays for me it's a huge difference. show that to the me more than 25years ago listening to a worn out stevie wonder album on a turntable, or to "the wall" on K7 tape, I would have been all "dude... seriously? grow up with your first world problem".
  
 given the actual state of audio where sources are all pretty great, it's to be expected that people will even make a mountain of the feeling that they heard a difference. standards have changed.
 not that I really approve those exaggerated posts all over the web, but I do understand why they exist.
 also as a hobby, the less we have to say about sound differences, the more we will tend to abuse superlatives just to try and pretend like things are still interesting. if I spent 3000$ on a DAP, man I tell you I would hear a huge difference even when it's turned off. that would be the sound of my wallet crying most likely, but still I would "really" hear it. all objectivist that I pretend to be, I doubt I would be able to avoid it, if not for doing a blind test and realizing what I'm really hearing. but who in audio does controlled testing? 1 out of 1000 on this forum? probably less. if I didn't have blind tests and measurements, I can tell I would be one of those "night and day" guys.


----------



## uchihaitachi

castleofargh said:


> you're looking at this with objective eyes.
> when I got my first 56k dial up modem, and became a world famous hacker for downloading 1 song in 45mn on napster, I was like a kid on Xmas annoying my GF for those entire 45mn "look look, the stuff is coming from all over the world and in less than an hour I will have the song, how amazingly fast is that!!!!".
> now when I have to wait for 2 actual seconds to open a web page you can ear me swearing from down the street. ^_^
> 
> ...


 
 Even if it's a hobby, don't you think 'audiophiles' owe it to themselves to understand how these machines work, and how hearing works?
  
 If you are a serious enthusiast in anything, the common trend is to research and look deeper into whatever they are interested in, to learn and deepen their understanding. Yet why is it in audio, the reverse happens? There is a religious like dogma where they sweep everything under the rug. What's the fun in that?


----------



## analogsurviver

uchihaitachi said:


> Even if it's a hobby, don't you think 'audiophiles' owe it to themselves to understand how these machines work, and how hearing works?
> 
> If you are a serious enthusiast in anything, the common trend is to research and look deeper into whatever they are interested in, to learn and deepen their understanding. Yet why is it in audio, the reverse happens? There is a religious like dogma where they sweep everything under the rug. What's the fun in that?


 
  
 This coin has two sides - objectivists can be just as easily accused of writing their findings in stone - and stick to them with the same overzealousness as pure subjectivists -  of whatever is last commonly accepted as minimum common denominator in Science. Which can lag behind the true SOTA at the time - sometimes for decades.
  
 It goes as far as claiming better compressed audio PCM is being prophesized as audibly transparent. When RBCD is just lacking in comparison to anything more serious.


----------



## sonitus mirus

analogsurviver said:


>


 
  
 At first, I thought there must be differences that I was hearing.  Then I learned more about human hearing with regards to audio equipment specifications and it didn't seem to indicate that these would make a difference anyone could hear.  I took the time to conduct my own tests, administered as carefully as I could manage to remove any bias.  I was unable to hear any differences, and I began a search to see if anyone else could provide some reliable evidence that might suggest that they could hear any differences.  I'm still waiting.
  
 I believe that a properly configured ABX test is the only reliable way to identify audible differences when the available measurements are not obviously conclusive.  If anyone disagrees, and they have any evidence to support a better testing methodology, I'm all ears. (had to get that in there 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)
  
 Maybe there are differences to be heard, but nobody is providing any proof that I would consider to be valid.  Not everyone will require the same level of proof to be convinced.  I believe my approach is logical and correct, but I also know that I have been wrong before, and I have no credentials on this subject.  I'm just an armchair audio fan.
  
 I've always attempted to be specific in mentioning that I can't be certain that there are no differences, but anyone can demonstrate that a difference could be heard.  In that regard, the coin is double-sided, with only one real option, unless the coin lands perfectly on its side.


----------



## krismusic

I've fooled myself so many times. 
Most recently the difference in quality between Spotify and Tidal. Initially it seemed "night and day". 
Only after careful comparison did it become clear that the differences are subtle. 
Having the level of equipment that I am fortunate enough to have now, any improvement worth spending hundreds of pounds on would have to be substantial. More than barely detectable. 
I am also with Castleofargh. I am old enough to remember listening to cassette and thinking it remarkable that I could record music that I already owned and listen to it in my car!


----------



## headwhacker

sonitus mirus said:


> I believe that a properly configured ABX test is the only reliable way to identify audible differences when the available measurements are not obviously conclusive.  If anyone disagrees, and they have any evidence to support a better testing methodology, I'm all ears. (had to get that in there
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 In my experience, having a tight volume level-matched comparison is the first variable that needs to be remove on any comparison. Even non-blind AB test can benefit.
  
 I did most of my test using an SPL meter app with my iPhone and I can perceive a difference. However, when I used an oscilloscope to match the voltage output and redo the test, my perceived differences instantly disappear or at least made it more difficult to pick up.


----------



## headwhacker

uchihaitachi said:


> Even if it's a hobby, don't you think 'audiophiles' owe it to themselves to understand how these machines work, and how hearing works?
> 
> If you are a serious enthusiast in anything, the common trend is to research and look deeper into whatever they are interested in, to learn and deepen their understanding. Yet why is it in audio, the reverse happens? There is a religious like dogma where they sweep everything under the rug. What's the fun in that?


 
  
 I agree audio as a hobby has become a religion. I am glad CPU frequencies or performance is not something a human sensory organ can perceive. Can't imagine having the same arguments I see in audio happen on PC.


----------



## uchihaitachi

headwhacker said:


> I agree audio as a hobby has become a religion. I am glad CPU frequencies or performance is not something a human sensory organ can perceive. Can't imagine having the same arguments I see in audio happen on PC.


 
 but my intel i7 runs faster with my 99.5% copper wires


----------



## headwhacker

uchihaitachi said:


> but my intel i7 runs faster with my 99.5% copper wires


 
 Do you have the CPU-Z screenshot?


----------



## castleofargh

uchihaitachi said:


> Even if it's a hobby, don't you think 'audiophiles' owe it to themselves to understand how these machines work, and how hearing works?
> 
> If you are a serious enthusiast in anything, the common trend is to research and look deeper into whatever they are interested in, to learn and deepen their understanding. Yet why is it in audio, the reverse happens? There is a religious like dogma where they sweep everything under the rug. What's the fun in that?


 
  
  some people just don't care, they want a car that starts when they turn the key, they don't care how it works. maybe audiophiles are people who are curious about the private life of the band, or the name of the instruments they used on a given album? all the stuff I know nothing about. do I owe it to myself to learn it when I say it's my favorite band? I don't feel like I do. 
 can't blame someone for having no interest in technical stuff, and that stands in any hobby.
 that's my reasonable "people are people" statement.
  
 now the rant:
 the real difference IMO is how the ignorant guys exercise self restrain. in audio they do not, because they don't have to. in any other community a guy would brag 2 or 3 times about something he doesn't know, and be e-destroyed by the members for talking out of place and claiming dangerous misleading nonsense. so it becomes a self regulated system, because people expect to be shamed if they go too far, they think twice before sprouting nonsense.
 it's school logic, you don't stop saying your dad is the strongest in the world and can kill with a finger because you became a reasonable educated person. of course not, you stop because of how you got trolled the last time you tried. it's shame and fear that make people more realistic about what they claim and curious about knowing more not to look like and idiot, not maturity pretenses and mutual respect.
 audiophiles are the kids who grew up without anybody telling them it was wrong to lie or to talk when you don't know. so they never stopped and got very comfortable with doing it to look like a boss all day long.
  
 someone said you were wrong when you claimed you could hear the -110 jitter@17khz?  enter the cheat code "subjectivism" that unlocks everything and let you talk like a god without being accountable for anything you say as long as you don't swear. amazing!!!!
 someone insinuates that you're a moron for saying such nonsense? click on the red flag and whine. the guy will be dealt with. and you will be the one standing in the end with your BS proudly protected.
  
 what a special world.
  
 as a human being it would be silly to reject subjectivism. in fact as an almost objectivist I'm very aware of all the limits in reasoning imposed by subjectivism. individuality imposes to deal in statistics, or to limit our conclusions to the individual tested. it's very limiting. I get that in full, maybe even more than many of those claiming to be subjectivists.
 but subjectivism is a reality, and should be factored as such. not be the sore loser's excuse to end up any time he's wrong by "well it's subjective, so agree to disagree". if it's taste, it doesn't matter what the other guy thinks, I love chocolate better, and that's it. if it's reality, there is only one and someone is wrong. pretending there is a status quo is stupid, using subjectivity as an excuse to run away is plain wrong.
 IMO subjectivism is violated by people who don't care what it means and would call themselves venusians if it would let them get away with even more BS and unaccountability.


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> some people just don't care, they want a car that starts



I'm not technically minded. Unfortunately technical theory bounces off me like a rock! This is something that does not please me. 
It does not mean that I am not interested though. 
I have learnt on here, to listen to people who are very knowledgeable and technically minded. 
I definitely do not "trust my ears"!
It has been my experience that the objectivist view stacks up in reality far more often than the subjectivist.


----------



## Ruben123

So out of real curiosity why in a few weeks a portable media player gets almost 500 pages (!!!!) and more than 7000 posts, I decided to ask what is exactly happening inside the Chord Mojo. It must be some DSP or EQ messing up the sound in a good way.
  
 So i got these replies:
  
_I don't think they do apply any DSP or equalizing on the output signal, the "magic" happens in that FPGA chip they use, and Rob Watts / John Franks use their mojo (pun intended) to provide that special sound   It's not yet another implementation of ESS9018 or Wolfson chip, it's a whole different thing altogether. _
_@Currawong explains that quite well here :_
  


currawong said:


> FPGAs aren't used as DACs, they are custom programmed to do the filtering etc. before the digital data is sent to the DAC.
> The companies that use them tend to be those with engineers that have been designing DACs for decades that don't want to be limited to whatever filters and options that are built into the DA chips.


 
 ------------------------------------------
  
_@Currawong made a great suggestion in his Mojo review and that's to read @Rob Watts posts to get an understanding of what his goal is when designing a DAC. I'm pretty sure it's anti-DSP. You have to understand that his DACs aren't just off the shelf designs but have taken him 30 years to get to this point. Trying to wrap my head around the technicalities I'm beginning to understand why his DACs are so good but I'm no where near knowledgable enough to explain it. Quite simply, as Chord has stated in this thread, the Mojo is technically thousands of times more capable than off the shelf DACs. Or, to put it another way, it digs deep in to the recording and plays music with all the detail and proper timing for our brains to make good sense of it easily. It's the ease of which the Mojo presents the music that I really like._
  
 -------------------------------------------
  
 Well to be fair there seems to be too much magical talk, same as in quackery, to sound any bit near believable.  Also other replies about any DAC vs the Mojo, something you cant compare etc etc. Seems I have my answers lol. If it really is that much better, there must be some software going on messing up the sound.


----------



## analogsurviver

ruben123 said:


> So out of real curiosity why in a few weeks a portable media player gets almost 500 pages (!!!!) and more than 7000 posts, I decided to ask what is exactly happening inside the Chord Mojo. It must be some DSP or EQ messing up the sound in a good way.
> 
> So i got these replies:
> 
> ...


 
 It IS in the software. It is not yet another implementation of any known DAC chip - and it allows to tailor the performance exactly as desired by the developer, not within constraints of any given off the shelf chip hardware. It is a whole different generation of DACs, something that goes way beyond more or less well implemented hardware produced by others. In a way, like comparing building something out of LEGOs with defined discrete size(s) and colour(s) vs something out of modelling clay - where any curve/size/colour is achievable - provided you know how to handle it in order to produce the final object.
  
 And with Mojo, the price came down to mere mortal level. Hugo, whatever version, and certainly DAVE, were simply out of reach. I am looking forward to audition one in reasonable future.
  
 And that software has nothing to do with messing up the sound - it is not DSP as traditionally understood - it is there for the thing to work in the first place.


----------



## Currawong

ruben123 said:


> Well to be fair there seems to be too much magical talk, same as in quackery, to sound any bit near believable.  Also other replies about any DAC vs the Mojo, something you cant compare etc etc. Seems I have my answers lol. If it really is that much better, there must be some software going on messing up the sound.


 
  
 Since you mentioned me...
  
 I can't say I'm qualified to understand fully what Rob Watts programmed into his products, but my over-simplified understanding is that he has taken the Nyquist mathematics to the highest extreme possible in a single device by programming his own code onto an FPGA. That doesn't sound like magical talk to me. Granted, the tech is hard to understand, so it might seem that way. Maybe you should read all his posts, as he goes into lengthy explanations, though they will be hard to understand if you don't understand the technology. What I gather from his posts is that he has been very scientifically objective about his goals and the research that he has done and that has resulted in products which are subjectively enjoyable to listen to music with at the same time as a result.


----------



## headwhacker

ruben123 said:


> So out of real curiosity why in a few weeks a portable media player gets almost 500 pages (!!!!) and more than 7000 posts, I decided to ask what is exactly happening inside the Chord Mojo. It must be some DSP or EQ messing up the sound in a good way.
> 
> 
> Well to be fair there seems to be too much magical talk, same as in quackery, to sound any bit near believable.  Also other replies about any DAC vs the Mojo, something you cant compare etc etc. Seems I have my answers lol. If it really is that much better, there must be some software going on messing up the sound.


 
  
 That's what head-fi hype is about. I bought into the Mojo because of it's output power given the size The price is much more reasonable compared to other chord products. Rob claim that his objective of designing his product is to re-create the analog signal before it enters ADC and not bit-perfect playback of the digital data. I think this is a carefully worded statement saying that he is aiming for absolute transparency. Using the word "transparency" alone doesn't excite audiophiles anymore.
  
 In a way I think he's done a good job. From my tight level-matched listening test, the mojo, like it's sibling the Hugo can be easily matched by a leckerton UHA-6SMKII. At least for the cans I used (HD800 and T51p). Mojo/Hugo just have the advantage of more headroom and options in  digital inputs.


----------



## krismusic

headwhacker said:


> That's what head-fi hype is about. I bought into the Mojo because of it's output power given the size The price is much more reasonable compared to other chord products. Rob claim that his objective of designing his product is to re-create the analog signal before it enters ADC and not bit-perfect playback of the digital data. I think this is a carefully worded statement saying that he is aiming for absolute transparency. Using the word "transparency" alone doesn't excite audiophiles anymore.
> 
> In a way I think he's done a good job. From my tight level-matched listening test, the mojo, like it's sibling the Hugo can be easily matched by a leckerton UHA-6SMKII. At least for the cans I used (HD800 and T51p). Mojo/Hugo just have the advantage of more headroom and options in  digital inputs.



So no manhoosive improvements in soundstage, imageing or other desirable and immediately obvious characteristics?


----------



## analogsurviver

krismusic said:


> So no manhoosive improvements in soundstage, imageing or other desirable and immediately obvious characteristics?


 
 By now, with this state of relatively high quality, night and day differences are, in reality, hard to expect.
  
 It is in detail, in the palette of shades equipment can accurately convey - or fails to do so. No really good component can, today, improve the sound to the point of some really big difference to whatever went on before. Digital in general has only recently became capable of approximately equalling what we once had with top analog equipment - and what some of us still do not find unworthy enough to leave for good. 
  
 I did not hear the Mojo yet - but will at the first opportunity which will present itself. Did hear enough DACs and realized what is a go and what is a definitive no go - and the way Mojo works at least ticks one more "go" box than most.
  
 There is one new "conventional hardware - but latest hardware" DAC/amp out at the moment, which does have a super appeal, regardless of its lowish price, 1/3rd of that of Mojo - the Xduoo X-5. The A/D converter used is about a year old - according to data sheets. And the rest also looks very promising:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/789886/xduoo-xd-05-portable-dac-amp-introduction-impressions
 Only a few pre-production samples were available so far for the audition, so real world impressions/reviews after some time with it are not yet available. Expected to be available in few days, hopefully before christmas. This does have potential - but I will wait a bit before I pull the trigger.


----------



## krismusic

I'm probably being unreasonable dismissing devices that offer incremental improvements. 
Very annoying that all these devices need the very clunky CCK. Bloody Apple. Come up with the super tidy lightning connector and then charge so much in licensing fees that it hobbles aftermarket accessories.


----------



## headwhacker

krismusic said:


> So no manhoosive improvements in soundstage, imageing or other desirable and immediately obvious characteristics?


 
  
 If you use phones that would stay within the power output ranges of the device you compare it is very difficult to perceive any difference as long as the DACs/Amp at the same level.
  
 I used to use an iPhone SPL app and the built-in mic of the iphone to level match the devices I'm comparing. Then I learned this method has a huge deviation which is enough to cause audible imbalance. Using an oscilloscope or an accurate meter is better at making sure the level is very close. The subtle differences I used to hear became indistinguishable. One thing in common about these devices is that they measure well. Their published spec (at least for power output) is accurate. 
  
 I can't say the same for most DAPs I tried so far. All I have/had didn't reach the output they claim on their spec sheet. Worst is their output clips when you push them at their maximum level.
  
 As mentioned in this thread before, the electronics these days have reached a point where it's difficult to screw up a designed DAP, DAC or Amp. If a difference is easily perceivable, it's more than likely intentional or something is wrong with the design.
  
 I see a pattern of DAP makers just cycle through different DAC chips when they release new products and basically claim improvements with everything else essentially the same. Little or nothing is improved on software side which can influence the user experience more than the hardware. Then reviews come along raving/hyping the new product filled with hyperbole with the same flawed methods of comparison.


----------



## headwhacker

krismusic said:


> I'm probably being unreasonable dismissing devices that offer incremental improvements.
> Very annoying that all these devices need the very clunky CCK. Bloody Apple. Come up with the super tidy lightning connector and then charge so much in licensing fees that it hobbles aftermarket accessories.


 
  
 Apple is just one of the options out there . But yeah I agree it's one reason not to use an iDevice as transport. However, I find what Sony did on their walkmans worst than apple. You also need proprietary cable to use their walkmans as transport. For a single-purpose device to have a restriction like that is a head-scratcher.


----------



## prot

castleofargh said:


> but who in audio does controlled testing? 1 out of 1000 on this forum? probably less. if I didn't have blind tests and measurements, I can tell I would be one of those "night and day" guys.



Lots of people do controlled testing .. maybe not 100% proper DBTs but even a simple BT could be quite a revelation too. You dont hear about many of those people cause there is no money in 'most modern stuff sounds same as good' .. you cant sell a magazine or build a forum on that. 

And allow me to seriously doubt that you wouldve been one of those 'night&day' people in any world. It's not tests & measurements that those types lack .. and not information. Actually in the world of internet 'i didnt know' is not a valid escuse anymore .. it's almost a fault.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I'm just looking for something between a peer reviewed AES submission and the wife noticing the song being more alive and fuller from the other room.


----------



## krismusic

sonitus mirus said:


> I'm just looking for something between a peer reviewed AES submission and the wife noticing the song being more alive and fuller from the other room.


----------



## castleofargh

prot said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > but who in audio does controlled testing? 1 out of 1000 on this forum? probably less. if I didn't have blind tests and measurements, I can tell I would be one of those "night and day" guys.
> ...


 

 I feel like I'm playing the devils advocate here, because deep inside I'm with you. but about myself, every time I get a new device to toy with, I use it casually for a few days, and sure enough, just like anybody else, I come up with soundstage this, bass that, less than when I use XX but close to when I use YY...
 I might not call it night& day, but I could make a review and be just as ridiculous as most stuff we read everyday.
 then I take out the switch and try to match the volumes(not always easy depending on the device, but I try). and of wonders of wonders, differences melt like ice in my mouth. some differences usually stay, but the magnitude goes way down 100% of the time. which makes me think that I'm a living exaggerating machine when I use no control.
 already I'm way more moderate and I've done my old reviews that way, sometimes just matching the loudness by ear
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. but it was enough already to make me look like a killjoy compared to other reviews.
 nowadays I have a few low-fi measurement gear, so matching gear, recording, or doing an almost proper blind test(no double) has become my new normal when it comes to test gears. and the conclusions obviously are way more down to earth.
 what if I didn't have all this? what if I had never bought my first switch? IMO, I would still believe that my O2 had way more bass and soundstage than my leckerton (when I fail to tell them apart in blind test). and most likely I would claim it every time the subject would come up. 
 so really what saves me from making a fool of myself are those gears and knowledge of my very human limitations.
  
 about internet and knowledge, again I agree with the idea, and people who spent 10years in the hobby and still don't know that volume matching matters, they just have no excuse.
 but because the audio hobby is such a mess, it's easy to find answers, but pretty hard to be sure they're not BS. I had to unlearn a good deal of preconceptions I got from reading audio reviews by guys who looked like they knew their stuff. so I blame the guy that doesn't even try, but not the guy who tries and get mislead.


----------



## Rob Watts

Quote:


ruben123 said:


> So out of real curiosity why in a few weeks a portable media player gets almost 500 pages (!!!!) and more than 7000 posts, I decided to ask what is exactly happening inside the Chord Mojo. It must be some DSP or EQ messing up the sound in a good way.
> 
> 
> Well to be fair there seems to be too much magical talk, same as in quackery, to sound any bit near believable.  Also other replies about any DAC vs the Mojo, something you cant compare etc etc. Seems I have my answers lol. If it really is that much better, there must be some software going on messing up the sound.



  
 Quote:


currawong said:


> Since you mentioned me...
> 
> I can't say I'm qualified to understand fully what Rob Watts programmed into his products, but my over-simplified understanding is that he has taken the Nyquist mathematics to the highest extreme possible in a single device by programming his own code onto an FPGA. That doesn't sound like magical talk to me. Granted, the tech is hard to understand, so it might seem that way. Maybe you should read all his posts, as he goes into lengthy explanations, though they will be hard to understand if you don't understand the technology. What I gather from his posts is that he has been very scientifically objective about his goals and the research that he has done and that has resulted in products which are subjectively enjoyable to listen to music with at the same time as a result.


 
  
 Since my name got mentioned - there is no magic in Mojo, just thirty years of hard work researching DAC design using carefully controlled listening tests as a tool and making no assumptions. I create IP, and design silicon audio chips too; I have billion dollar semiconductor companies buying my services and patented IP; these companies do not sign multi million $ contracts on magic either.
  
 What is often forgotten is that real science is about what we do not know, not what we do know; and in terms of understanding how the brain processes data from the ears to separate instruments out into separate entities science has very little understanding. My work has been centred upon looking at aberrations that interfere with the brains processing, and I have found some very interesting things - some errors are audible even when they are well below the threshold of audibility of the ears. I often think that the situation is akin to the ears having 16 bit resolution - but put a properly dithered 16 bit signal into a FFT and you can resolve signals well below the 16 bit limit. Thus, small signals that are below the resolution of the ear have important subjective consequences for the brains processing of the ear data.
  
 One major aspect of what I do is centred upon the timing of transients. Mojo has some 500 times more processing power in the interpolation filter than conventional high performance DAC's. This is done because timing is an important perceptual cue - it is something I had studied and realised 30 years ago. You can read more about it here:
  
 http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html
  
 This work is based on a paper published in Physical Review Letters. That physics journal does not believe in magic either.
  
 Now the interpolation filter theory is very straightforward and proven mathematics. You can see more here:
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker%E2%80%93Shannon_interpolation_formula
  
 Now the maths is clear; if you use an infinite tap length infinitely oversampled filter with a sinc response you will perfectly recover the original bandwidth limited analogue signal. My work in this was the realisation thirty years ago that using conventional limited tap length filters would have important timing consequences in that the timing of transients would have an uncertainty; and these timing errors would have serious subjective consequences. That's why for the past 20 years I have been designing and improving my own algorithm to reduce these timing errors and designed extremely long tap length WTA filters. It is not magic just hard science and rigorous listening tests.
  
 But perhaps the academic stuff is not your thing. So take a look at these measurements of Mojo:
  

  





     
  
 This is FFT of Mojo at 2.5v RMS into a 300 ohm load. This is measured using my APX555. What is truly remarkable about this is the absence of any noise floor modulation - you can see this in the red trace with no signal. The noise floor at -175dB is the same whether the output is at 2.5v or nothing. No other DAC at any price (excepting other Chord DAC's) has this complete lack of measured noise floor modulation and its one important attribute as to why Mojo sounds so smooth and refined.
  
 Getting this level of performance is not about magic; there are numerous ways for a DAC to create noise floor modulation, and I had to go to ridiculous lengths to achieve this level of performance.
  
 To conclude; 500 pages in 8 weeks and dozens of awards and 5 star reviews is not magic - just thirty years of very advanced engineering.
  
 Rob


----------



## uchihaitachi

rob watts said:


> Since my name got mentioned - there is no magic in Mojo, just thirty years of hard work researching DAC design using carefully controlled listening tests as a tool and making no assumptions. I create IP, and design silicon audio chips too; I have billion dollar semiconductor companies buying my services and patented IP; these companies do not sign multi million $ contracts on magic either.
> 
> What is often forgotten is that real science is about what we do not know, not what we do know; and in terms of understanding how the brain processes data from the ears to separate instruments out into separate entities science has very little understanding. My work has been centred upon looking at aberrations that interfere with the brains processing, and I have found some very interesting things - some errors are audible even when they are well below the threshold of audibility of the ears. I often think that the situation is akin to the ears having 16 bit resolution - but put a properly dithered 16 bit signal into a FFT and you can resolve signals well below the 16 bit limit. Thus, small signals that are below the resolution of the ear have important subjective consequences for the brains processing of the ear data.
> 
> ...


 
 I have done 600ohm load measurements with the Hugo on loan from a friend using dscope at MIT, and the performance of the benchmark excels in some areas. None of this is still relevant however, considering that at far worse performances, the threshold for transparency seems to be reached anyways even for cheap models like the odac and o2.
  
 I would be more interested in your controlled listening test results. Were there actually people who could tell apart reliably under DBT hugo with other models that fulfill necessary parameters for transparency. Who doesn't love all the additional zeros! But, the impresssions of vast improvements are sadly magic nonetheless imo.


----------



## krismusic

Thanks for joining in the conversation Rob.


----------



## RRod

Could you provide us with some signals where the timing errors reduced by your product should be detectable in other products?
  
 For reference, here is the full paper linked in the comments:
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.4611.pdf
  
 See also this rebuttal:
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06890v1.pdf


----------



## castleofargh

I'm a huge supporter of oversampling, not sure if we need to go that far, but if there are no huge drawback, that's fine by me.
is it zero padding? if it is, what's the attenuation as a result? (I guess RRod you can answer that just as well). not that it actually matters, it's pure curiosity. I only have seen the model for the most basic delta sigma and never thought about what would happen with a lot more.
*edit:* forget this, first because I left half of the question in my head so it looks like I'm asking about the output signal when I was asking about dtft. and second reason to forget it, is that after looking it up a little, I had a wrong idea from looking at some PDF about another DAC where I just didn't see that the dtft graphs were showing linear values instead of DBs(thus my idea that they were doing something special when they really didn't 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ).
  
 personally I don't see portable amps as voltage gain or current gain tools, I'm a hardcore IEM user so unless the source really sucks with current, power is usually not a concern in my life. my actual amp is used as a literal de-hissers for my overly sensitive IEMs. shigzeo mentioned some low hiss and I trust his hiss estimates with my life, so I know it's not for me. but for slightly less sensitive IEMs, portable headphones and apparently given the specs it would also drive my hd650 very well and very loud, then for those uses, it does look like a great pocketable product. 
  
 I'm also curious about the impedance output, it's really great to have amps that are actual near zero ohm at the output, at least on paper, but it rarely happens even for gear with negative feedback. so as almost everybody else sticks above 0.5ohm or so, I wonder what are the drawbacks/difficulties of such a choice?


----------



## sonitus mirus

rrod said:


> Could you provide us with some signals where the timing errors reduced by your product should be detectable in other products?
> 
> For reference, here is the full paper linked in the comments:
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.4611.pdf
> ...


 
  


> _"In this Comment, we demonstrate that the experiment designed and implemented in the original article was ill-chosen to test Fourier uncertainty in human hearing."_


 
  
 That was a nice way to put it.  It reminds me of Bob Stuart's/Meridian's MQA and how their testing methods appeared to be carefully contrived in such a manner that it would be possible to make their claims appear valid.  They jumped to conclusions and ignored ideas that may have refuted these results.
  
 https://mrapodizer.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/mqa-what-is-meridian-hiding/
  
 It is almost as if these guys are trying to sell me something.


----------



## uchihaitachi

sonitus mirus said:


> That was a nice way to put it.  It reminds me of Bob Stuart's/Meridian's MQA and how their testing methods appeared to be carefully contrived in such a manner that it would be possible to make their claims appear valid.  They jumped to conclusions and ignored ideas that may have refuted these results.
> 
> https://mrapodizer.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/mqa-what-is-meridian-hiding/
> 
> It is almost as if these guys are trying to sell me something.


 

 lol


----------



## Rob Watts

rrod said:


> Could you provide us with some signals where the timing errors reduced by your product should be detectable in other products?
> 
> For reference, here is the full paper linked in the comments:
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.4611.pdf
> ...


 
 Demonstrating the timing uncertainty via measurement is not simple. But I have been working on a new test technique to allow this; but it requires a near perfect decimation filter, but this is something I will be doing next year with the pro audio ADC project.
  
 In the mean time here is the stop band performance from Mojo. As you can see the filter is almost an ideal brick wall filter, with no aliasing products visible.
  

  
 This is done using random noise at 0 dBFS with 48 k sample rat sing my APX555.
  
 Rob


----------



## Rob Watts

castleofargh said:


> I'm a huge supporter of oversampling, not sure if we need to go that far, but if there are no huge drawback, that's fine by me.
> is it zero padding? if it is, what's the attenuation as a result? (I guess RRod you can answer that just as well). not that it actually matters, it's pure curiosity. I only have seen the model for the most basic delta sigma and never thought about what would happen with a lot more.
> *edit:* forget this, first because I left half of the question in my head so it looks like I'm asking about the output signal when I was asking about dtft. and second reason to forget it, is that after looking it up a little, I had a wrong idea from looking at some PDF about another DAC where I just didn't see that the dtft graphs were showing linear values instead of DBs(thus my idea that they were doing something special when they really didn't
> 
> ...


 
 Mojo shares the output stage topology from Hugo - a single gain stage with only one negative feedback path. This gain stage is a discrete Class A (300 ohm) rail to rail op-amp hybrid. The only problem I found was making the OP stage fast enough so that stability margins were not compromised. This gain stage does the DAC I to V, analogue filtering, and output drive in a single stage. I get 75 milli ohm output impedance, with a total THD and noise of 0.00017% at 3v RMS 1 kHz into a 300 ohm load.
  
 In terms of design philosophy I treated the gain stage as if it was a power amp - indeed Mojo will drive efficient horn loudspeakers to surprising loud levels. When I first became involved in headphone amp design I was perplexed as to why existing units were so poor technically. It is not difficult getting very low output impedance but is essential for damping factor and to retain low distortion with non-linear headphone loads.
  
 Rob


----------



## analogsurviver

rob watts said:


> Demonstrating the timing uncertainty via measurement is not simple. But I have been working on a new test technique to allow this; but it requires a near perfect decimation filter, but this is something I will be doing next year with the pro audio ADC project.
> 
> In the mean time here is the stop band performance from Mojo. As you can see the filter is almost an ideal brick wall filter, with no aliasing products visible.
> 
> ...


 
 As good as the above result is, I am infinitely FAR more interested in the forthcoming ADC project. Which formats are going to be supported - particularly being interested in DSD256 and above.
  
 DACs outnumber ADCs by a factor of ??? - yet even a perfect DAC can not but reproduce the ADC errors.


----------



## RRod

rob watts said:


> Demonstrating the timing uncertainty via measurement is not simple. But I have been working on a new test technique to allow this; but it requires a near perfect decimation filter, but this is something I will be doing next year with the pro audio ADC project.
> 
> In the mean time here is the stop band performance from Mojo. As you can see the filter is almost an ideal brick wall filter, with no aliasing products visible.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The question is still "what are the audible time benefits from having a reconstruction that is closer to the Whittaker-Shannon ideal?" So we'll just have to wait for your test technique.


----------



## prot

castleofargh said:


> I feel like I'm playing the devils advocate here, because deep inside I'm with you. but about myself, every time I get a new device to toy with, I use it casually for a few days, and sure enough, just like anybody else, I come up with soundstage this, bass that, less than when I use XX but close to when I use YY...
> I might not call it night& day, but I could make a review and be just as ridiculous as most stuff we read everyday.
> then I take out the switch and try to match the volumes(not always easy depending on the device, but I try). and of wonders of wonders, differences melt like ice in my mouth. some differences usually stay, but the magnitude goes way down 100% of the time. which makes me think that I'm a living exaggerating machine when I use no control.
> already I'm way more moderate and I've done my old reviews that way, sometimes just matching the loudness by ear . but it was enough already to make me look like a killjoy compared to other reviews.
> ...


You're doing a very good job as the devil too .. but the night&day people still have no escuse .. it's not 1975, it's 2015 and free info is everywhere, waiting to find a door to your brain.


----------



## moshen

rob watts said:


> To conclude; 500 pages in 8 weeks and dozens of awards and 5 star reviews is not magic - just thirty years of very advanced engineering.
> 
> Rob


 
  
 That was a lot of very awesome info, thanks for detailing it. Have you done well controlled blind studies that the improvements are audible? if so, it seems it would mean quite a bit in adding to our scientific knowledge of where the limits of transparency is. Also, it'd be the first for a DAC or Amp designer to do this, it seems most rely on customer subjective bias. All of the awards and reviews I've seen so far are very subjective and not done in an objective way..


----------



## analogsurviver

moshen said:


> That was a lot of very awesome info, thanks for detailing it. Have you done well controlled blind studies that the improvements are audible? if so, it seems it would mean quite a bit in adding to our scientific knowledge of where the limits of transparency is. Also, it'd be the first for a DAC or Amp designer to do this, it seems most rely on customer subjective bias. All of the awards and reviews I've seen so far are very subjective and not done in an objective way..


 
  
 Objective crowd is doing the greatest of disservice in this matter. Why?
  
 1.) There is absolutely no set of measurements that can correctly describe any piece of audio gear with a decent correlation in subjective domain.
 2.) There is absolutely no commercially available  instrument or set of instruments which could do the 1. )
 3.) There is no denying that any simple single analog stage can sound different. The problem is that most people use inferior associated equipment to test such an advanced component with, both in objective and subjective domains -  which is NOT transparent enough, therefore they can not reach but the false conclusion "no difference heard" .
 4.) The burden of the proof is on the side of those who claim an improvement. In principle very true. However, making the measurements and equipment  capable enough to scientifically prove the claim(s) may well require MUCH more work and finance than making the improvement itself - which can be heard and DBT ABXed under favourable circumstances.
 5. Making these very measurements is bound to be unconventional, is bound to be associated with great delays (on order of approximately a decade) - until peer reviewed and approved. No manufacturer today can afford to pour labour and money into something that has so slow turnaround. This is one of the main reasons progress is not faster - that and patent protection. As competition is unlikely to be willing to pay the required fees to legally use such an improvement, it will resort to any tactics to slow  the progressive manufacturer down - including requiring peer approved evaluation, which definitely can be also used as means of buying time. Either to postpone the inevitable as much as possible or allow the time during which they can themselves come up with something at least comparable.
  
 It does not matter whether the proposed improvement is really good or not - if it means a threat to their profits, it will be fought with any means at their disposal.
  
 Historically, the most prominent recipient of such a "treatment" was Nikola Tesla:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla


----------



## jcx

Psychoacoustics is the Science of exploring perception of sound in reference to "Objective" descriptions of sound from Physical Acoustics, Signal Theory
  
 in the EE domain we have ridiculously finely detailed, verified working theories of Signals, Noise, Digital Analog representation, interconversions
  
 linking those with well established Psychoacoustics lets us predict lots of things in the EE domain can be designed to give errors way below any tested human hearing limits when converted to sound
  
  
  
 Pshychoacoustics isn't "complete", many open and unexplored dimensions remain
  
 but new results seldom invalidate broadly tested previous "facts" - in fact its usually required that a new theory explains previous results at least as well as the old, and gives new Testable predictions
  
 perhaps you need to read : http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm and other works on Engineering/Science/Technology Epistemology
  
 not knowing everything is very different from knowing nothing
  
 metals were smelted, cast, forged before modern chemistry, Phlogiston Theory came and went without changing the facts of metallurgy
  
  
  
 in Audio once you know you can hear differences from properly performed Double Blind Tests, then there are options for ranking subjective impressions than go beyond AB/X:
  


jcx said:


> there is a listening test "Bible" - and a presentation from it: http://www.delta.dk/imported/senselab/AES125_Tutorial_T4_Perceptual_Audio_Evaluation_Tutorial.pdf
> 
> http://www.moultonlabs.com/main/ has a few interesting articles on listening and mastering
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> moshen said:
> 
> 
> > That was a lot of very awesome info, thanks for detailing it. Have you done well controlled blind studies that the improvements are audible? if so, it seems it would mean quite a bit in adding to our scientific knowledge of where the limits of transparency is. Also, it'd be the first for a DAC or Amp designer to do this, it seems most rely on customer subjective bias. All of the awards and reviews I've seen so far are very subjective and not done in an objective way..
> ...


 
  
 open mind is always needed, we can't go anywhere without it. and knowledge that usually is a great help, can sometimes become a blindfold of it's own when we neglect to test something just because it doesn't fit in some other model we know of. I've been a victim of this just this month. and only unhealthy curiosity made me test it in the end when I was sure what to expect(and was wrong^_^). so I look like a jerk when I ask stuff to people, and I look like I have zero self confidence when talking about my stuff, but systematic skepticism is my open mind.
  
  I've thought about it long and hard in my small brain, but blind test is the only thing I will trust when it comes to audibility. maybe we will move on from ABX and use MRI, retinal scans and blood pressure to assess differences, instead of asking the subject for his opinion. and move on from the conscious elements to the subconscious elements. that's an exciting field of research IMO. but the person listening should never ever know what he's listening to. that is a sine qua non condition of audible testing!
  I often ask people blaming blind tests or simple ABX to offer us a viable alternative. I would really be glad to have alternatives that I could use myself. the more the merrier. but sighted evaluation will never ever be accepted as one. so better concentrate on tests that can get some legitimacy when positive.
  
 IMO, AFAIK, TBH etc. ^_^


----------



## Rob Watts

rrod said:


> The question is still "what are the audible time benefits from having a reconstruction that is closer to the Whittaker-Shannon ideal?" So we'll just have to wait for your test technique.


 
 I can tell you the audible benefits of having an interpolation filter that is closer to the ideal - but its just my opinion. My listening tests are simply to allow me to design better audio products, not to give scientific proof.
  
 But its a fact that the timing of transients is a very important perceptual cue - it gets used by the brain for a number of things:
  
 1. Imagery via the interaural delay - time delays from left to right is partially used for left right image location. This delay has a gross resolution of about 4uS (some literature puts it at 10uS).
 2. Timbre. The timbre of instruments is partially determined by transients.
 3. Pitch - bass pitch is determined by the starting transient.
 4. Perception of a note starting and stopping - obviously transients are crucial.
  
 Increasing the tap length and optimizing the algorithm does indeed give subjective improvements in all of those areas. But even if I gave you a number for a notional time domain error test - lets say it was -90dB - you would still need to do careful listening tests to confirm if that number was significant to the brains processing of timing errors. And people would still argue...
  
 What I can say is that as you increase the tap length, the sound quality changes get smaller, its absolutely converging. My current record is 164,000 FIR taps and this is about 14 bit accurate against ideal coefficients.
  
 Rob
  
 Rob


----------



## uchihaitachi

rob watts said:


> I can tell you the audible benefits of having an interpolation filter that is closer to the ideal - but its just my opinion. My listening tests are simply to allow me to design better audio products, not to give scientific proof.
> 
> But its a fact that the timing of transients is a very important perceptual cue - it gets used by the brain for a number of things:
> 
> ...


 
 Sorry to raise this again, but what you have posted so far is all familiar to me, but your comments on listening tests had my interest piqued. Did you have any statistically significant results comparing your products against other products that meet audibly clear thresholds. What do you also mean by 'subjective' improvements?


----------



## Rob Watts

No I don't listen to other products as a listening test - there are too many variables. So a listening test would be very specific with as little variance as possible - say 100,000 taps against 164,000 say, with all other things being constant (even the place and route on the FPGA). I employ listening tests to evaluate specific aberrations, then reduce those aberrations so that you can no longer hear a change - the goal is to be able to hear no difference. From this I will know what the requirements are for specific errors - for example, noise floor modulation, or for small signal linearity requirements for noise shapers.
  
 One of the benefits today is that Verilog simulation tools are so advanced that one can do digital domain measurements that give numbers that you could never measure in the real world. You can then evaluate through subjective listening tests to see if these errors have a consequence - that's why I know with some confidence that some errors that are well below the threshold of audibility are significant as these errors interfere with the brains processing of ear data.
  
 Rob


----------



## krismusic

rob watts said:


> that's why I know with some confidence that some errors that are well below the threshold of audibility are significant as these errors interfere with the brains processing of ear data.
> 
> Rob



That's a very interesting claim. How do you assess these subjective improvements?
I've often thought that placebo and expectation bias must play havoc for an audio designer. How do you screen for them?


----------



## RRod

rob watts said:


> I can tell you the audible benefits of having an interpolation filter that is closer to the ideal - but its just my opinion. My listening tests are simply to allow me to design better audio products, not to give scientific proof.
> 
> But its a fact that the timing of transients is a very important perceptual cue - it gets used by the brain for a number of things:
> 
> ...


 
  
 Of course we agree that timing is important, but again it's all about what's audible in controlled, blind conditions. Subjective arguments for more and more FIR taps smack a lot like arguments for higher and higher sample specs: more is more, and more sounds better, even if only a little bit.
  
 Just as example of the kind of thing we're talking about, here's the result of a little example of taking impulses that are just under 3µs apart, taking them down to 44.1ksps, and then simulating 16x oversampling, eventually going back up to an "analog" rate of ~11MHz using two FIR lengths out of SoX. At 32767 taps, the difference in timing of the peak maximum is maintained exactly, whereas at 1024 taps there is an error of 2 samples (0.18µs) at the pseudo-analog rate. Such results naturally lead to questions like:
 a) Are such errors in peak timing audible?
 b) Are other features of the two filtering processes (ringing, rise times, etc.) audible?
  
 I know I certainly wouldn't want such questions answered via sighted, subjective tests.


----------



## Rob Watts

krismusic said:


> That's a very interesting claim. How do you assess these subjective improvements?
> I've often thought that placebo and expectation bias must play havoc for an audio designer. How do you screen for them?


 
 Absolutely - and I have been guilty of making mistakes before. I have developed techniques to be as neutral an observer as possible, and to accurately characterise the sound quality differences. But actually the real problem with listening tests are not these - the differences are very easy to hear to a skilled listener; the problems start with making value judgements. Far too many designers like a particular sound and are designing to taste. Now this is OK if that is your intention; but I am trying to make something sound as transparent as possible, without ever having the perfect product available - so there is no absolute benchmark. The problem is making value judgements from the listening test as its very easy for a listener to prefer the added distortion or noise modulation.
  
 This is one reason why my listening tests are generally very specific - the ideal is to be able to hear no difference with the adjustment of a specific aberration. Once you get to this position you know you have hit the bottom of the barrel with that particular aberration under test.
  
 Sometimes you hear something very extraordinary - like an impossibly small error, or something that does not make sense technically. Then I use blind listening tests to confirm something unusual. 
  
 Rob


----------



## krismusic

rob watts said:


> Absolutely - and I have been guilty of making mistakes before. I have developed techniques to be as neutral an observer as possible, and to accurately characterise the sound quality differences. But actually the real problem with listening tests are not these - the differences are very easy to hear to a skilled listener; the problems start with making value judgements. Far too many designers like a particular sound and are designing to taste. Now this is OK if that is your intention; but I am trying to make something sound as transparent as possible, without ever having the perfect product available - so there is no absolute benchmark. The problem is making value judgements from the listening test as its very easy for a listener to prefer the added distortion or noise modulation.
> 
> This is one reason why my listening tests are generally very specific - the ideal is to be able to hear no difference with the adjustment of a specific aberration. Once you get to this position you know you have hit the bottom of the barrel with that particular aberration under test.
> 
> ...



Certainly sounds like the methodology of someone sincerely trying to create a genuine product. 
I listened to a Hugo / AK at a meet and honestly could not hear any difference from the iPhone 5S that I was using at the time. I guess that could have been my bias though! (It was the outcome that I wanted to hear).
Would you agree Rob that EE has got to such a sophisticated level that it is now difficult for a specialist manufacturer to improve significantly on mass market offerings such as the iPhone?


----------



## sonitus mirus

Curious to know why these folks with highly trained ears are not utilized to show the masses irrefutable and verifiable evidence that differences can be heard.  I guess it is easier to just complain about the testing methods while continuing to believe that sighted evaluations are the only valid way to audition for lifted veils and other such things.


----------



## analogsurviver

sonitus mirus said:


> Curious to know why these folks with highly trained ears are not utilized to show the masses irrefutable and verifiable evidence that differences can be heard.  I guess it is easier to just complain about the testing methods while continuing to believe that sighted evaluations are the only valid way to audition for lifted veils and other such things.


 
 Curiosity will drive those who truly want the recorded/reproduced sound to be as close to that heard live to any length.
  
 And they are bound to be alone in this quest - at first, at least. I can not flush an entire audio system down the internet pipeline - and files alone, if reproduced over "conventional, supposed to be transparent" equipment will show - more or less - nothing. The minute improvements they do contain will be masked by the equipment that can not reproduce them.
  
 EVERY piece in the chain, from the microphone capsule to finally headphone or loudspeaker, has to be re-examined and scrutinized for any possible defect one can think of - even if it measures "perfect", according to whatever sets of measurements universally accepted at any time, it does not mean it sounds perfect.
  
 I agree that obvious defects in measurements can not be considered acceptable - even if they are subjectively perceived not only as good, but above average.   
  
 And the problem is that almost no one has tackled each and every piece in the chain. Those who produce microphones blame those who produce mixing desks > ADCs> DACs > ....> amps > final transducers - that it is other's fault that the end results is less than what it should have been. You can take any two or more of the above combinations , pointing fingers in whatever direction - and end up with an usual SNAFU.
  
 It takes an entire chain in order to be able to truly show any particular (set of ) improvement(s). 
  
 I am anything but completely against DBT ABX - but in some cases it is either impossible ( PCM vs DSD ), it is awkward or, in extreme cases, an entire waste of time. If it sounds better, closer to LIVE reference - it IS better.
 IF the equipment used is good enough to discern the fine details.
  
 One does not require any detailed analysis of a regular street car vs F1 or Indy car after seeing them accelerate from the grid line - although it can be done.
  
 And just as with automotive, the over the top super extremely expensive solutions that give an edge of below 1%, do, eventually, trickle down to cars in normal use. Improving the car experience for everyone.


----------



## uchihaitachi

sonitus mirus said:


> Curious to know why these folks with highly trained ears are not utilized to show the masses irrefutable and verifiable evidence that differences can be heard.  I guess it is easier to just complain about the testing methods while continuing to believe that sighted evaluations are the only valid way to audition for lifted veils and other such things.




Cos they have products to sell


----------



## Rob Watts

krismusic said:


> Certainly sounds like the methodology of someone sincerely trying to create a genuine product.
> I listened to a Hugo / AK at a meet and honestly could not hear any difference from the iPhone 5S that I was using at the time. I guess that could have been my bias though! (It was the outcome that I wanted to hear).
> Would you agree Rob that EE has got to such a sophisticated level that it is now difficult for a specialist manufacturer to improve significantly on mass market offerings such as the iPhone?


 
 No absolutely not, the differences are not small - at least to my ears/brain. But I would suggest you try it at home - meets are not the best place to hear big changes. I listen to headphones at meets, but only do serious listening back at the hotel. If you think that we are not much better than a phone, take a look at the Mojo thread - you don't get countless of posters saying its the best upgrade they have ever heard without something going on.
  
 One chip company I was designing with used to bring their guys down for listening tests. One individual, who was a practicing musician, could not hear anything, but the rest of the guys could easily hear big differences with subtle changes to code. So it very much depends upon the individual and what people are listening too and their expectations. Remember Edison demos of the first gramophone - Edison managed to convince people under blind conditions that they could not hear the difference of recorded against a real musician in the room.
  
 Rob


----------



## sonitus mirus

rob watts said:


> No absolutely not, the differences are not small - at least to my ears/brain. But I would suggest you try it at home - meets are not the best place to hear big changes. I listen to headphones at meets, but only do serious listening back at the hotel. If you think that we are not much better than a phone, take a look at the Mojo thread - you don't get countless of posters saying its the best upgrade they have ever heard without something going on.


 
  
 I see threads with many posts all raving about a product, especially at Head-Fi, where any attempts to request some legitimacy are frowned upon and censured.  I'm sure most of the paid reviewers will wax poetic, too.  No doubt this is a wonderful product.
  


> Originally Posted by *Rob Watts* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> One chip company I was designing with used to bring their guys down for listening tests. One individual, who was a practicing musician, could not hear anything, but the rest of the guys could easily hear big differences with subtle changes to code. So it very much depends upon the individual and what people are listening too and their expectations. Remember Edison demos of the first gramophone - Edison managed to convince people under blind conditions that they could not hear the difference of recorded against a real musician in the room.


 
  
 Testing or simply a few folks having a drink and listening carefully to some good music on a quality system?


----------



## RRod

rob watts said:


> …you don't get countless of posters saying its the best upgrade they have ever heard without something going on.


 
  
 That seems to be exactly what happens on this forum all the time.


----------



## cel4145

rob watts said:


> No absolutely not, the differences are not small - at least to my ears/brain. But I would suggest you try it at home - meets are not the best place to hear big changes. . . . .




IMO, if you have to listen to the equipment on odd numbered Mondays when the sun is at its zenith after performing Yoga, then there is no big change. It ought to be audible almost anywhere, any time 



rob watts said:


> If you think that we are not much better than a phone, take a look at the Mojo thread - *you don't get countless of posters saying its the best upgrade they have ever heard without something going on.*




Sure you do.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> That seems to be exactly what happens on this forum all the time.




+1

I think it might have been castleofargh who posted this to the thread previously:

http://www.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-that-affect-decisions-2015-8

If should be a required reading before posting opinions on Head-Fi.


----------



## krismusic

rob watts said:


> No absolutely not, the differences are not small - at least to my ears/brain. But I would suggest you try it at home - meets are not the best place to hear big changes. I listen to headphones at meets, but only do serious listening back at the hotel. If you think that we are not much better than a phone, take a look at the Mojo thread - you don't get countless of posters saying its the best upgrade they have ever heard without something going on.
> 
> One chip company I was designing with used to bring their guys down for listening tests. One individual, who was a practicing musician, could not hear anything, but the rest of the guys could easily hear big differences with subtle changes to code. So it very much depends upon the individual and what people are listening too and their expectations. Remember Edison demos of the first gramophone - Edison managed to convince people under blind conditions that they could not hear the difference of recorded against a real musician in the room.
> 
> Rob



Hi Rob. You seem to me to be sincere in your belief in your product. 
When I have funds available I may well try the Mojo. 
I had given up with gear but your attitude and expertise interest me. 
I do have to say that I would not take lots of subjective rave reviews on here too seriously. 
I have fooled myself time and again. 
Once someone is a customer they have a vested interest in validating their purchase. As well as a myriad other psychoacoustic things going on. 
That's why I come to Sound Science. For a bit of sane objectivity. 
I am very interested to read your encounters with more knowledgeable members than I. 
Hopefully the conversation can remain polite and cordial! Thanks for your time.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote:


krismusic said:


> Hi Rob. You seem to me to be sincere in your belief in your product.
> When I have funds available I may well try the Mojo.
> I had given up with gear but your attitude and expertise interest me.
> I do have to say that I would not take lots of subjective rave reviews on here too seriously.
> ...


 
 The conversation is sadly non existent as the gentleman has yet to any concrete examples instead diverting attention to the 'subjectively rave' reviews. But I can't blame him for it, as he has products to sell.


----------



## castleofargh

we tend to be prejudice against business insiders, because we're always afraid that they're doing a marketing stunt. so that puts us in a difficult situation. on one hand we ask for evidence, because that's who we are and how we work. on the other, even if @Rob Watts was providing results from a 50 people's blind test, several of us would still have doubts that it might be a manufactured test.
 of course evidence is better than nothing, but I don't know if we can hope for better than a stalemate (here or with any business insider).
  
 personally I must say that I'm kind of curious about listening to the mojo. when looking for some audio tests about different things, I've been reading about the need for high accuracy gear to hear the improvement of highres, about slew rate, and I always fear people are just hearing the low pass filter at 16/44 when doing resolution tests. on paper this could make for a nice test device where we can't hide behind the op amp being too slow, the DAC chip sounding too "digital", the fact that we use low fi gear so we can't hear a difference...
 so as much as trying to hear if I could tell it apart from a good old odac/o2, I would be curious about trying some format tests with it.
  
  
 oh and I agree with testing at meets being fated to fail. meets are great to discover plenty of stuff, but there is always way too much noise to do any real testing IMO.


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> oh and I agree with testing at meets being fated to fail. meets are great to discover plenty of stuff, but there is always way too much noise to do any real testing IMO.



I haven't ever found external noise to be a problem. Especially when using CIEMS.


----------



## Currawong

sonitus mirus said:


> rob watts said:
> 
> 
> > No absolutely not, the differences are not small - at least to my ears/brain. But I would suggest you try it at home - meets are not the best place to hear big changes. I listen to headphones at meets, but only do serious listening back at the hotel. If you think that we are not much better than a phone, take a look at the Mojo thread - you don't get countless of posters saying its the best upgrade they have ever heard without something going on.
> ...


 
  
 That is a distortion of the truth. Pun intended. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 (There are no "paid reviewers" on Head-Fi, FYI.)


----------



## headwhacker

krismusic said:


> I haven't ever found external noise to be a problem. Especially when using CIEMS.


 
  
 For me it's not about the external noise. It's the presence of someone else waiting behind you and breathing down your neck also eager to test the piece of gear you are checking out.m
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I tend to hurry things up and end with non-conclusive experience.
 I learned that I need time and several count of testing in a quiet environment to get meaningful impressions. That is why meets never appealed to me.


----------



## uchihaitachi

currawong said:


> That is a distortion of the truth. Pun intended.
> 
> (There are no "paid reviewers" on Head-Fi, FYI.)




Yeah but there is blatant censure of negative reviews....


----------



## Roly1650

currawong said:


> That is a distortion of the truth. Pun intended.
> 
> (There are no "paid reviewers" on Head-Fi, FYI.)



I knew exactly what he meant, the key is in the construction of the sentences, the period, (full stop when I went to school), which closes the previous sentence indicates he has concluded talking about Head-Fi and use of the word "too" implies, "in addition to" (Head-Fi), which can remain unsaid, (and/or mentally filled in by the reader), because it's superfluous repetition. FYI.


----------



## sonitus mirus

roly1650 said:


> I knew exactly what he meant, the key is in the construction of the sentences, the period, (full stop when I went to school), which closes the previous sentence indicates he has concluded talking about Head-Fi and use of the word "too" implies, "in addition to" (Head-Fi), which can remain unsaid, (and/or mentally filled in by the reader), because it's superfluous repetition. FYI.


 
  
 I'm no good at Englishing. At least, thats what some were said to me.
  
 Still, Head-Fi does make money on advertising audio equipment, and at least one person that collects some of this money writes product reviews.  In a sense, these impressions are more like sponsored ads.  
  
 It seems that many of the audio equipment magazines and websites rely on the advertisements from the products they review.  A lot of the gear appears to be on loan for these tests/reviews.  There is a conflict of interest with regards to any fair and impartial analysis.  These reviews are far from a Consumer Reports-type investigation, but many treat them as such, and quite frankly a lot of people are essentially being swindled.
  
 The measurements are nearly useless at this point from a perspective of audibility, as practically everything is transparent according to specifications.  Some consumers want to see results from properly monitored testing that would indicate that differences were identifiable.  Neither the manufacturers or a vast number of reviewers are interested, and it doesn't take a genius to understand why.


----------



## Currawong

uchihaitachi said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > That is a distortion of the truth. Pun intended.
> ...


 

 Whose negative reviews were censured, and for what products?
  
 FYI we re-named most active "appreciation" threads to "impressions" threads instead, so as to allow both positive and negative comments about products.


----------



## mmerrill99

It would be wonderful to have measurements that correlate very closely to what we hear.
 What is the understanding of those here as to the state of play with our knowledge of auditory perception?
 Do we yet have enough knowledge about the workings of this perception to be able to know what measurements will give us an accurate measure of how audio will be perceived?


----------



## sonitus mirus

mmerrill99 said:


> It would be wonderful to have measurements that correlate very closely to what we hear.
> What is the understanding of those here as to the state of play with our knowledge of auditory perception?
> Do we yet have enough knowledge about the workings of this perception to be able to know what measurements will give us an accurate measure of how audio will be perceived?


 
  
 This is a good starting place.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/645851/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear


----------



## mmerrill99

sonitus mirus said:


> This is a good starting place.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/645851/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear


 
 Ah, I was hoping for an opinion from those participating here as to my question rather than a direction to a thread which really goes nowhere & doesn't begin to answer my question *"Do we yet have enough knowledge about the workings of this perception to be able to know what measurements will give us an accurate measure of how audio will be perceived?"*


----------



## castleofargh

mmerrill99 said:


> It would be wonderful to have measurements that correlate exactly to what we hear.
> What is the understanding of those here as to the state of play with our understanding of auditory perception?
> Do we yet have enough knowledge about the workings of this perception to be able to know what measurements will give us an accurate measure of how audio will be perceived?


 
  
 for that to exist we would need to have all the same ears and same brains into the same bodies with the same past experiences. then sure we could do it . else what you're asking is if we can guess the sound we will hear from measuring a DAC, without any idea of what the amp and headphone will be. obviously whatever the DAC is if I take 2 very different headphones, I will get 2 very different sounds. well humans are like headphones, they can be similar or very different. with a different one, you record a different signal and get a different experience.  how could we guess what you will hear when we don't even measure your body? that's not expecting progress in measurements, that's expecting magic.
  
  
 and the second problem is that many people expect measurement to tell them about stuff that don't exist(because they're stuff made up in their own head). all the stuff we call mind constructs, pleasure, pain, nostalgia, expectation bias, and even some psycho acoustic perceptions that might not occur to everybody the same way. that's pretty much like asking to see the soul of music on a measurement. it's impossible because the music has no soul, it's just a variation of air pressure. we create the emotion ourselves when we hear a certain piece of music. I am just as important as the music to get that reaction, so obviously measuring only the music will get me only the music. make realistic demands, you'll get realistic answers.
  
  
 now if you're looking into objective interpretations, and thresholds of human hearing, the link above is a good start to get some ideas about the general order of magnitude for a a few given specs.


----------



## mmerrill99

castleofargh said:


> for that to exist we would need to have all the same ears and same brains into the same bodies with the same past experiences. then sure we could do it . else what you're asking is if we can guess the sound we will hear from measuring a DAC, without any idea of what the amp and headphone will be. obviously whatever the DAC is if I take 2 very different headphones, I will get 2 very different sounds. well humans are like headphones, they can be similar or very different. with a different one, you record a different signal and get a different experience.  how could we guess what you will hear when we don't even measure your body? that's not expecting progress in measurements, that's expecting magic.
> 
> 
> and the second problem is that many people expect measurement to tell them about stuff that don't exist(because they're stuff made up in their own head). all the stuff we call mind constructs, pleasure, pain, nostalgia, expectation bias, and even some psycho acoustic perceptions that might not occur to everybody the same way. that's pretty much like asking to see the soul of music on a measurement. it's impossible because the music has no soul, it's just a variation of air pressure. we create the emotion ourselves when we hear a certain piece of music. I am just as important as the music to get that reaction, so obviously measuring only the music will get me only the music. make realistic demands, you'll get realistic answers.
> ...


 
 Thanks for your thoughts on this & your detailed reply
  
 I just don't see your first point - we all don't have such widely varying auditory perception for your point to be valid, otherwise thresholds of human hearing would vary so widely that it would make such a standard meaningless. There are established aspects of the soundfield that are perceived in the same way by the majority of people. So my question related to this shared perception of an audio scene just as we have a shared perception of a visual scene. There is a whole body of ongoing research into auditory perception which takes the view that it works in a similar way, just like all our perceptions, & is worthy of study - they certainly would claim to be scientific, objective & not involved in the study of magic.
  
 As individuals we may focus on different aspects of these scenes at any particular point in time & in that way we may have a different "experience" of the same scene but that doesn't mean our ears or brains work differently - we can also both focus on the same aspects of the scene & have roughly similar experiences of it
  
 As regards the emotional impact of such perception - I'm not talking about that - that is purely individual - I'm asking what measurements people here think there are which explain how we perceive an auditory stream - how this becomes a dynamic auditory scene which we experience, just like we experience a dynamic visual scene? How this is then recreated by our playback equipment & how close this recreated auditory stream is perceived as the illusion that it is meant to portray?
  
 To me, this seems to be fundamental to any engineering discipline which is trying to build an auditory illusion in a way that is believable.


----------



## castleofargh

just because we have a lot in common, doesn't mean we share the same experience. I see a wild list of things that can change and very little information saying that we're really receiving the same data.
 -loudness/equal loudness contour: we don't all have the same sense of loudness, we don't all have the protection mechanism that increases the dampening of the vibrations between the eardrum and cochlea kicking in at the exact same loudness(AFAIK). effectively altering both loudness and frequency response in a potentially different way. same goes in the long run loudness, for the blood cells thing, where we reduce the blood flow to the air cells as apparently a way to reduce the perceived loudness(obviously doesn't work when we exercise or are drunk). does that response work as well for everybody when we don't even all have the same blood pressure, cholesterol, body sizes...?
 -the shape of my body, outer ear and ear canal are different from yours. maybe not much, maybe a good deal. that's a likely audible difference of several DB, and those reflexions of sound will change mostly the frequency response, but also some timing cues a little.
 -let's say I'm a tall dude, the sound reflecting from the ground will not be exactly the same as for a smaller guy standing at the same place.
 -my skull is bigger, the space between my ears is bigger, therefore the delay for the same sound to reach both ears from listening to real life sounds 45degrees on my left is also bigger. let's say the delay is made so that I hear the sound coming from 45degrees on the left on my headphone, a guy with a smaller head will get a delay too long for his usual 45degrees. what impact will that have on the brain if other cues still maintain the 45degrees idea(loudness/signature)?
 -do you think we all have the same exact tympanic membrane with the exact same thickness and flexibility? same exact cochlea with the same number of air cell at each frequency? well I think not. we all have a "microphone" in the ear, but not the same microphone. and it didn't come with a calibration file, our brain has to figure that out by itself with whatever visual information that can confirm auditory information. and for the rest, experience and random guess. but I'm never sure that my brain got it all right as I have no model to compare what I'm getting from my ears. I only ever hear only my ears.
  
 sure we follow mostly the same set of references, and we all roll off the bass and trebles(equal loudness contour) but not all with the same curve. we all identify that trebles are brighter than mid bass, but we're not all as good at determining pitch. we all can tell with a relative confidence where a sound is coming from in real life, and we all have enough experience to understand that a lot of reverb means a room, that almost no trebles means behind a wall or from far away. but that's about it. both speakers and headphones are an artificial representation that doesn't match real life sound. so the starting point for our brain is to say "this is fake". and from there, to get used to it and try to still get a feeling of what it's trying to tell us based on our usual experiences.
 we have experienced the sound of a guitar to the point where we all call it a guitar, but there is nothing to say that we ever heard the same thing. we merely recognize the guitar as "that other thing we already heard, that people call guitar".  just like we all know the sky is blue because we were told that blue was that color we're seeing, but you don't know that your brain receives the same data as I do when looking at the sky. we don't have the same optical accuracy, we don't all have the same number of cells for each frequency(just like for the ears), we don't have the same surface burned by the sun that our brain "photoshops" out of the picture. we don't have the same shape and size of nose masking a great deal of what we still imagine to be a stereo vision(brain photoshop again, taking the nose out almost in real time), if I was to receive your eyes data, for a time I would have a problem because of a different nose. and my brain not used to mask the same area. we effectively never see the world the same way.  some are color blind and miss some cells, some have actually more or even of a kind the average guy doesn't have. so they see things we don't see.
  
 it is the allegory of the cave in full. just because we have never seen or heard anything else, we decide that we're seeing and hearing the real stuff. and because of how we tend to psychologically transfer ourselves onto other people, we kind of expect them to get what we get to. but it's all wrong in different degrees, for different reasons. I'm sure there are guys who hear almost exactly how I hear, but how many? when people say the hd800 is neutral, IDK if it's a language problem or if they really hear it neutral, but I can tell you I'm not! ^_^ and the same way some 3D DSPs sound amazing to some people, and suck for others. because you can't set a measurement that will work for everybody, the best effect can only be achieved by replicating our own usual body specs. that's why I said we need to measure you to know what you will hear. the audio gear alone is only half of the equation and what we can check is that the output signal is close from the original data. measuring fidelity is the major purpose. not telling us what we will hear.


----------



## krismusic

If all the above were relevant to any meaningful extent, it would make the job of anyone designing audio gear near impossible.


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> If all the above were relevant to any meaningful extent, it would make the job of anyone designing audio gear near impossible.


 

 why? all they have to do for a DAC or an amp is make something that keep the signal as close as possible to the original. they don't have to care about us. signal fidelity is still signal fidelity.
  
 the headphone is different because it needs at least a little tuning for the frequency response, and the fact that the sound on the left doesn't reach the right ear make for an unnatural way to listen(as in different from real life listening). FR tuning because electrically flat like speakers would not sound neutral on headphones. so they try to follow some kind of profile, or get some kind of sound the engineer likes, or some test panel likes, and off they go with that. you might find it to sound neutral, I might not. maybe we both won't. but because we have a pretty huge tolerance to variations, and are pretty good at getting used to stuff, as long as it's close to what we find neutral, it should sound good(as in neutral) for both of us in the long run.
  
 headphone manufacturers are all very well aware of this, and even the best dummy heads are only an average ear shape, not mine, not yours with an average ear canal(I saw a vid from RMAF saying that they will now have a bent in the ear canal to try and come closer to measuring like real ears. but it's still 1 shape and couldn't possibly represent everybody.
  
 maybe I'm wrong and exaggerating the possible variations. but the stuff I've read about, headphones/speakers/ears, loudness contour, HRTF etc, all had a tendency to say that we could only aim for some averaging because people are different. speakers being the closest thing we have from the real sound, so just having the speakers be transparent, neutral and well placed is good, the main problem being the room. but even if I see too much into it, headphone neutral is a mess for a reason. and 3D simulations don't work as well on everybody, so am I really exaggerating that much?


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> why? all they have to do for a DAC or an amp is make something that keep the signal as close as possible to the original. they don't have to care about us. signal fidelity is still signal fidelity.
> 
> the headphone is different because it needs at least a little tuning for the frequency response, and the fact that the sound on the left doesn't reach the right ear make for an unnatural way to listen(as in different from real life listening). FR tuning because electrically flat like speakers would not sound neutral on headphones. so they try to follow some kind of profile, or get some kind of sound the engineer likes, or some test panel likes, and off they go with that. you might find it to sound neutral, I might not. maybe we both won't. but because we have a pretty huge tolerance to variations, and are pretty good at getting used to stuff, as long as it's close to what we find neutral, it should sound good(as in neutral) for both of us in the long run.
> 
> ...


 
I didn't intend to shut you down Castleofargh!  
Even though what you say is rather speculative IMHO. 
It's an interesting idea that two people may hear the same headphone differently. 
I bought my CIEMs because I liked the sound signature. They are far from neutral but the designer has created a balance that I like. That is the art of the science for me. 
I would think that anyone hearing the same headphone would have pretty much the same experience. Maybe they don't though!!!
With regard to amps. 
I used to imagine that the aim of the designer would be to create a completely transparent design, straight wire with gain and all that. 
It would appear that many people here do not subscribe to that aim and require the amp to colour the sound. 
If everyone's experience is different it would be very difficult to recommend a product to anyone else! YMMV indeed!


----------



## castleofargh

I didn't feel like you were trying to shut me down. I have some ideas from the stuff I read, there is no saying that I'm right or even that the magnitude of differences isn't much smaller than I let it look like. it's very fine not to agree with me ^_^.
 yeah I let the "colored" amps and DACs aside because that's clearly another train of thought. I don't subscribe, but given that headphones aren't neutral, I kind of understand people thinking that they need something also not neutral to counter the headphone. it's EQ gone wild.
  
 the harman papers on headphones shows that we tend to have a common preferred signature, so that's against what I'm saying even if it only concerns frequency response. but I'm guessing even then it's an average and some more or less significant deviations must have occurred. but then was is because of the test and how difficult it is to be accurate when setting an EQ? or was it because of those small differences in our ears? IDK. headphone is just too divorced from real life hearing for me to grasp the consequences of every little changes.
  
 that's what I was talking about before, the RMAF video about measurements https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_gnxl-uYfQ 
 off topic about RMAF vids of 2015:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



I found this and others super interesting. but I must have weird tastes because there wasn't 1/10th of the public there was for the ludicrous lecture on computer audio myth where the guy makes a millions claims, most of them really weird, but never ever backs up anything with any sort of evidence??? he only goes with fake listening tests(sighted) and him influencing people all along before the listening even begins. IDK where they got that guy, but having the perfect subjectivist pretend to explain computer audio, just wow!!!!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOrjQXyqZvw  if people want to take a look at how to never make a rational lecture, it's a great lesson in that one and only respect.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> I didn't feel like you were trying to shut me down. I have some ideas from the stuff I read, there is no saying that I'm right or even that the magnitude of differences isn't much smaller than I let it look like. it's very fine not to agree with me ^_^.
> yeah I let the "colored" amps and DACs aside because that's clearly another train of thought. I don't subscribe, but given that headphones aren't neutral, I kind of understand people thinking that they need something also not neutral to counter the headphone. it's EQ gone wild.
> 
> the harman papers on headphones shows that we tend to have a common preferred signature, so that's against what I'm saying even if it only concerns frequency response. but I'm guessing even then it's an average and some more or less significant deviations must have occurred. but then was is because of the test and how difficult it is to be accurate when setting an EQ? or was it because of those small differences in our ears? IDK. headphone is just too divorced from real life hearing for me to grasp the consequences of every little changes.
> ...


 
 I agree most headphones are too divorced from real life hearing. That includes anything that uses pads or tips - of any discription.
  
 Enter earspeakers -  Jecklin Float ( and its derivatives, MB, Precide AMT driver equipped variation on the theme ), AKG K 1000, Sony PFR-V1 - they are more or less all listed here, but there might be more.


----------



## sonitus mirus

If anyone is curious to see their own ears' frequency response, there is an online test available that creates equal loudness contours.  
  
 http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html


----------



## mmerrill99

krismusic said:


> If all the above were relevant to any meaningful extent, it would make the job of anyone designing audio gear near impossible.


 
 I agree & so would auditory research be a waste of time. I think what Castle is saying is that there are SOME people who are outliers (I.e. not in the 90% portion of the bell curve) & not that EVERYBODY hears differently - at least I hope that's what he means?
  


castleofargh said:


> I didn't feel like you were trying to shut me down. I have some ideas from the stuff I read, there is no saying that I'm right or even that the magnitude of differences isn't much smaller than I let it look like. it's very fine not to agree with me ^_^.
> yeah I let the "colored" amps and DACs aside because that's clearly another train of thought. I don't subscribe, but given that headphones aren't neutral, I kind of understand people thinking that they need something also not neutral to counter the headphone. it's EQ gone wild.
> 
> the *harman papers on headphones shows that we tend to have a common preferred signature*, so that's against what I'm saying even if it only concerns frequency response. but I'm guessing even then it's an average and some more or less significant deviations must have occurred. but then was is because of the test and how difficult it is to be accurate when setting an EQ? or was it because of those small differences in our ears? IDK. headphone is just too divorced from real life hearing for me to grasp the consequences of every little changes.
> ...


 
 Yes, & Harman also conclude that the 90% section of the bell curve ALL like the same speakers i.e the same sound.
  
 These are the fundamental aspects of auditory perception that interest me & I'm suggesting should be of interest to anybody truly interested in objectivity


----------



## cel4145

sonitus mirus said:


> If anyone is curious to see their own ears' frequency response, there is an online test available that creates equal loudness contours.
> 
> http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html




It's not going to do what they say it is going to do unless your headphones have a perfectly neutral response.


----------



## sonitus mirus

cel4145 said:


> It's not going to do what they say it is going to do unless your headphones have a perfectly neutral response.


 
  
 Yes, my results were a little different between my headphones and my studio monitors, but not by a lot.


----------



## castleofargh

> Originally Posted by *mmerrill99* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I agree & so would auditory research be a waste of time. I think what Castle is saying is that there are SOME people who are outliers (I.e. not in the 90% portion of the bell curve) & not that EVERYBODY hears differently - at least I hope that's what he means?
> 
> ...


 
 well at some point it's a matter of the resolution we're looking at. 2 headphones of the same model won't measure exactly the same(some places will change by 1 or 2db, the impedance might be slightly different... still we will get the same overall signature most of the time. I imagine that humans are about the same, all with minute differences that still fall within the same range for most people. and then indeed a few people with more drastic variations in how they perceive sounds.
 that's like running, we don't all run at the same speed or the same distance, we're all different. but we're all still just humans and won't start to find people running at 88mph(140km/h or whatever sanic). my mention of everything we hear being different is indeed still vastly within human average as you guessed.


----------



## krismusic

It would be fantastic if there was some way of removing psychoacoustics from the evaluation of equipment.


----------



## mmerrill99

castleofargh said:


> well at some point it's a matter of the resolution we're looking at. 2 headphones of the same model won't measure exactly the same(some places will change by 1 or 2db, the impedance might be slightly different... still we will get the same overall signature most of the time. I imagine that humans are about the same, all with minute differences that still fall within the same range for most people. and then indeed a few people with more drastic variations in how they perceive sounds.
> that's like running, we don't all run at the same speed or the same distance, we're all different. but we're all still just humans and won't start to find people running at 88mph(140km/h or whatever sanic). my mention of everything we hear being different is indeed still vastly within human average as you guessed.




We fundamentally disagree & science disagrees with you, so I don't think there's any point in continuing this exchange, maybe others have an opinion they want to share?


----------



## mmerrill99

krismusic said:


> It would be fantastic if there was some way of removing psychoacoustics from the evaluation of equipment.


psychoacoustics is how the signals from the ear are analysed into what we call auditory perception before any higher level emotional areas of the brain are engaged - we can't do without psychoacoustics, it's the way all audio is evaluated & made sense of - it's fundamental without it, is just a random series of binaural nerve impulses that are the result of varying air pressure waves transducer by the mechanical mechanisms of the ear.


----------



## krismusic

mmerrill99 said:


> psychoacoustics is how the signals from the ear are analysed into what we call auditory perception before any higher level emotional areas of the brain are engaged - we can't do without psychoacoustics, it's the way all audio is evaluated & made sense of - it's fundamental without it, is just a random series of binaural nerve impulses that are the result of varying air pressure waves transducer by the mechanical mechanisms of the ear.



Maybe I am using the wrong term. I meant factors such as placebo and expectation bias. Presumably those events happen at those higher emotional areas you mention?


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> We fundamentally disagree & science disagrees with you, so I don't think there's any point in continuing this exchange, maybe others have an opinion they want to share?


 
  
 How about we hear what you think science says first? You seem to want us to say something that you want us to say…


----------



## castleofargh

mmerrill99 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > well at some point it's a matter of the resolution we're looking at. 2 headphones of the same model won't measure exactly the same(some places will change by 1 or 2db, the impedance might be slightly different... still we will get the same overall signature most of the time. I imagine that humans are about the same, all with minute differences that still fall within the same range for most people. and then indeed a few people with more drastic variations in how they perceive sounds.
> ...


 
 how does science disagree with me? please have a look at some papers on HRTF or watch the video I linked before (the one about measurements , not the crap about computer audio myth). 
 if it didn't make any difference from people to people, then there would be no point in making individual HRTF measurements. we could all just use the "default human" stuff and all enjoy realistic 3D spacial cues on headphones and IEMs. and have a precise idea of what neutral is for headphones. but it just doesn't work that way, because we need the sound to be changed by our own body/head for the sound to feel real and give all the right cues. and our bodies are different.
  
 I might be overestimating the impact those variations have on our perception or taste, because I4m not sure to understand that very well. but I'm not making up the variations of sound to the eardrum from people to people even if they listen to the same sound at the same place.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> How about we hear what you think science says first? You seem to want us to say something that you want us to say…


 
 Science is engaged in active investigation of the auditory perception & it's understanding of the underlying mechanisms are not yet as fully developed or as detailed as exists for visual perception. There seem to be many areas of overlap in the processing stages that exist between these two perceptual mechanisms but the full workings are not yet known. Actually, it seems that the accumulation of knowledge in this area has accelerated since the use of EEG, MEG techniques, rather than other perceptual techniques 
  
 My questions are simply to get a feel for what the level of knowledge is here in regard to this area & I'm not looking for agreement with what I say - I'm just stating what I believe are fundamental issues in auditory perception & in our current state of understanding of it but I'm willing to learn new information or be corrected in any of my understanding. However, I fundamentally disagree that we all hear differently - otherwise Harmon would not state, from their extensive blind testing, that we generally converge towards a preference for the same speaker sound. Castle has also correctly stated in this relation to Harmon's headphone frequency curves - we tend to converge towards a preference for the same curve.


----------



## Koolpep

mmerrill99 said:


> Science is engaged in active investigation of the auditory perception & it's understanding of the underlying mechanisms are not yet as fully developed or as detailed as exists for visual perception. There seem to be many areas of overlap in the processing stages that exist between these two perceptual mechanisms but the full workings are not yet known. Actually, it seems that the accumulation of knowledge in this area has accelerated since the use of EEG, MEG techniques, rather than other perceptual techniques
> 
> My questions are simply to get a feel for what the level of knowledge is here in regard to this area & I'm not looking for agreement with what I say - I'm just stating what I believe are fundamental issues in auditory perception & in our current state of understanding of it but I'm willing to learn new information or be corrected in any of my understanding. However, I fundamentally disagree that we all hear differently - otherwise Harmon would not state, from their extensive blind testing, that we generally converge towards a preference for the same speaker sound. Castle has also correctly stated in this relation to Harmon's headphone frequency curves - we tend to converge towards a preference for the same curve.




Not getting it. You just said that we generally (but not individually) converge to something. That statement alone already contains that this is a distribution curve of sorts. Some like it more, some less. Generally though we think this is a pleasing sound curve. Some people have better directional hearing than others. Our outer ears and ear canals are like fingerprints, very individual. Red might the the most chosen favorite color of people. But that doesn't make it the most pleasing color. It says that people generally converge on red as favorite color. 

I mean there are a lot of variants why I hear some headphones different than you. My head shape can influence the seal the pads can achieve, the distance from driver to ear drum is different. I might have a beard or long hair. The scientific measurement heads can be used with different ear shapes and the measurements won't be the same. And these are ears that are made of material that tries it's best to emulate human skin's sound absorption and reflection but of course can't be perfect. .

Just because the majority of people prefers one thing, doesn't mean they all perceive it exactly the same. It's not a logical conclusion that can be made. 

Cheers,
K


----------



## sonitus mirus

I am a bit confused with the idea of hearing differently.  I believe we all basically have the same audio perception with a relatively small variation between healthy individuals.  Same with visual perception.  Yellow appears to be a little brighter than red or blue, which is basically the same for all humans.   Similar to what Harmon found with our hearing, we typically all see the same way, and we can all benefit from a basic calibration setup on our TVs and monitors that would generally result in a better quality picture.  Same thing with transducers and our ears.  There will be slight variations with everyone, but we would all generally like the same type of speakers or headphones.  I may have a preference for more bass or treble than someone else, but that doesn't mean I hear differently, it is simply a preference, like a favorite color, smell, or taste.  
  
 Castle mentioned that the differences in our hearing was compared to allowable manufacturing tolerances with a specific model of headphones.  To me, that would indicate that he believes we all fundamentally hear alike, but that none of us are perfectly exact.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Science is engaged in active investigation of the auditory perception & it's understanding of the underlying mechanisms are not yet as fully developed or as detailed as exists for visual perception. There seem to be many areas of overlap in the processing stages that exist between these two perceptual mechanisms but the full workings are not yet known. Actually, it seems that the accumulation of knowledge in this area has accelerated since the use of EEG, MEG techniques, rather than other perceptual techniques
> 
> My questions are simply to get a feel for what the level of knowledge is here in regard to this area & I'm not looking for agreement with what I say - I'm just stating what I believe are fundamental issues in auditory perception & in our current state of understanding of it but I'm willing to learn new information or be corrected in any of my understanding. However, I fundamentally disagree that we all hear differently - otherwise Harmon would not state, from their extensive blind testing, that we generally converge towards a preference for the same speaker sound. Castle has also correctly stated in this relation to Harmon's headphone frequency curves - we tend to converge towards a preference for the same curve.


 
  
 Harman's curves don't undo decades of research into proper audio spatialization via headphones, which I think was the thrust of castle's comments. Speakers are harder to "get right" than headphones, especially once the room is put into the equation, but once you have a good speaker setup you'll likely be able to slide any person into the sweet spot and have them nod in approval. This somewhat applies to headphones, but the simple fact is that headphones necessarily have to dial-in a bit of HRTF to sound correct (90° azimuth, near-field presentation after all isn't a speaker setup many of us would go for); they can't just be flat.  And since our individual ear/body affects on incoming sound can vary considerably, you can definitely get disagreement when it comes to relative ranking of cans for how well they recreate a 2-channel music listening experience. But I'd agree that a headphone that matches up well to an averaged preference would, of course, do a great job for a wide swath of people. For actual 3D spatialization, though, specifics can matter greatly, especially in terms of front/back reversals and elevation cues.


----------



## mmerrill99

sonitus mirus said:


> I am a bit confused with the idea of hearing differently.  I believe we all basically have the same audio perception with a relatively small variation between healthy individuals.  Same with visual perception.  Yellow appears to be a little brighter than red or blue, which is basically the same for all humans.   Similar to what Harmon found with our hearing, we typically all see the same way, and we can all benefit from a basic calibration setup on our TVs and monitors that would generally result in a better quality picture.  Same thing with transducers and our ears.  There will be slight variations with everyone, but we would all generally like the same type of speakers or headphones.  I may have a preference for more bass or treble than someone else, but that doesn't mean I hear differently, it is simply a preference, like a favorite color, smell, or taste.
> 
> Castle mentioned that the differences in our hearing was compared to allowable manufacturing tolerances with a specific model of headphones.  To me, that would indicate that he believes we all fundamentally hear alike, but that none of us are perfectly exact.


 
 Yes, this is my position too - auditory perception functions in the same way in each of us i.e. the statistical norm that we see in a plot of such such. The same as Harmon's tests shows. One can't use the reasoning that there are outliers & then make the statement that we all hear differently - it's not logical.
  
 I believe where the problem resides in this might be in relation to headphones - as David Griesinger showed, a realistic binaural experience is only achievable for an individual when in-ear microphones are used for recording as this will capture the specific HRTF of that individual.
  
 But  is this specific to headphones & not to the general soundscape that we all experience in the world? I would suggest that is the case - it's a specific condition of headphone use where you are actually bypassing the HRTF of sounds arriving from a distance to the ears.


----------



## castleofargh

when I say different, I mean different as in not identical. I don't mean opposite or with zero common attributes. sound is still sound, ears are still ears, and we all morphologically look alike enough not to be mistaken as being ducks. so the common ground is there undoubtedly. but identical is one thing we are not. 
 some youngsters can hear 20khz, I can't. I can still get a little over 16khz at normal loudness, my mother cannot. sure enough the human hearing is defined as 20hz to 20khz in most books. I don't think I need to go look for daredevil to say that people have different hearing ranges.
 it's not fringe human specs, and it's not reserved to headphones and IEM(even though the differences certainly show up a lot more using those).
  
  
  
  
  


 this I believe is well accepted as a model of how the human ear alters the incoming sounds. but do we all have ears of the same shape reflecting the same quantity of the exact same frequencies? no we don't!
 do we all have the same ear canal length and volume? nope.
 so this graph is only a model that shows what the average human body does to sound. it doesn't tell exactly what my own body does to sound.
  
  
 I'm ok to get my hands dirty and push to the limits of what I believe to know:
 the equal loudness contour has been modified over the years, but always kept the general shape so something did work and does show a tendency. with the peak sensitivity always somewhere in the 3khz to 3.5khz area.
 it is my understanding that such sensitivity is obtained thanks to the ear canal resonance that boosts a given frequency. but how?
 I hope you'll allow me to avoid the real calculations and get away without bothering with temperature and other stuff. instead I'll just use the good old 1/4 length resonator generally accepted for the ear canal. L= speed of sound/(4*frequency) = 344/(4*3000)=0.0287m so 28.7mm
 same thing to reach 3.5khz L'=24.5mm
 does that mean people can actually have ear canals up to 4mm different? those guys seem to think so even if they measure for real instead of using my weird approximations:
 "the mean length of the earcanal measured from the tympanic membrane to the cavam concha was 25.7mm(±1.9mm)." http://www.audiology.org/sites/default/files/journal/JAAA_08_06_06.pdf
 here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23064418   they mention 23.5mn and that "The auditory canal was found to be significantly longer in men than in women, and the volume greater."
 from 23.5 to 25.7mm that's already enough to shift the resonance point a good deal, and those are 2 average values obtained from trials. ^_^
  
 so it doesn't look like my assumptions were too far off the human possibilities. and people do have ear canals of different lengths and volumes. that in turn change the resonance point, and the frequency we are most sensitive to. not by a lot, I doubt many humans have a 50mm ear canal. but obviously enough to move by a few hundred hz. so are we all hearing the same sound?
  
  
 then go for the outer ear, and tell me that with all the sizes and shapes of an ear, the sound is really reflected/masked the same way for everybody and give the same boost at the same frequency. I have a very hard time believing that.
  
  
 I already mentioned how different sizes of head will logically impact sound localization, ITD and ILD will vary with the size and shape of the head being different.
 I'm 1.94m high(6'4"), does that exclude me from being an average person? statistically I guess the answer is yes. I do have a large head that makes it annoying to try and find hats an caps that don't look ludicrous. so maybe it also changes the sound from the left reaching my right ear, and how my brain is used to interpret such a difference, the text books usually talk about a max inter aural delay of 650µs when the sound comes from 90° on one side. how do I know that my big head full of water doesn't create a bigger delay? that would seem pretty obvious. if I have 1cm more between my ears, then I would get about 30µs more delay @90°. what is the distance between my ears? I honestly have no idea. is 1cm a reasonable value? IDK. but is my head bigger than average, sure it is. will the interaural delay be longer, sure i will. I have no idea what the impact could be while listening to a binaural album compared to the average head size. but I'm different in that respect and the sound coming into my ears will also be different. 
 that's very much demonstrated with individual HRTF measurements. the low frequencies usually show little variations, the mids can change a little but tend to also have a recognizable general profile. but past around 8khz it's free for all.
  
 wherever I look I see reasons why people of different shape, gender, size, age will get a different signal reaching their eardrum, and then another different signal reaching the brain. not completely different, and most certainly recognizable, but different. so unless it's a semantic problem, I fail to see how we hear the same thing.
  
  
 about the olive welty trials, do they show the results by tester somewhere? all I remember are average value, so they don't demonstrate anything about people hearing the same thing. and anyway the test was about taste not hearing. and the choices weren't so vast that it could show too many discrepancies. for example the one with the EQ, they only had bass and trebles knobs. that wouldn't tell much about how I might have a resonance at 2.5 or 3.5khz, or if my 6khz was a little too loud. as in such a test, lowering 6khz would mean lowering all the trebles.
 the time delays weren't tested. sound localization wasn't tested. only taste and general shape of a frequency response. which was perfect for the intended purpose of the test. but I don't believe it tells much about your point.


----------



## mmerrill99

Again, thanks for your detailed & considered reply
  
 I think you are splitting hairs here. The differences you have detailed you seem to already have admitted that you are not sure of their importance & yet you seem to be adamant that they negate any possibility of having measurements which can determine how we will perceive audio - which was really what my original question was - what is the understanding of those here with regard to measurements & their relationship to our auditory perception.
  
 Again, I fail to see how you can reconcile the view that our auditory perception is so individualistic that it means measurements are of little significance to what we audibly perceive & yet also understand the Harmon test results re preference for a particular headphone frequency curve or similar preference results for speakers - they even developed a set of loudspeaker measurements that better predict subjective perception of the sound. Sure they aren't testing all possible measurements of headphones or loudspeakers but within the confines of what was tested & measured a statistically significant preference was demonstrated which I don't believe has been contradicted to date.


----------



## RRod

Perhaps another way to put it is:
 If you sat in a room with speakers calibrated to the Harman preference (slightly bass tilted), made a measurement at your eardrum, and did the Harman speaker→headphone correction (a bit less bass and treble), what you would get out would probably not be the Harman headphone average curve. You would get that plus a deviation from the dummy head due to your own physiology. I don't think it has to be much more complicated than that, and I don't think any of us have major issues with their findings on speaker preference or average headphone preference. And I could certainly accept that a broad preference for relative bass/mid/treble levels will have less variance across the populace than the specific treble peaks/dips due to individual HRTFs.


----------



## castleofargh

mmerrill99 said:


> Again, thanks for your detailed & considered reply
> 
> I think you are splitting hairs here. The differences you have detailed you seem to already have admitted that you are not sure of their importance & yet you seem to be adamant that they negate any possibility of having measurements which can determine how we will perceive audio - which was really what my original question was - what is the understanding of those here with regard to measurements & their relationship to our auditory perception.
> 
> Again, I fail to see how you can reconcile the view that our auditory perception is so individualistic that it means measurements are of little significance to what we audibly perceive & yet also understand the Harmon test results re preference for a particular headphone frequency curve or similar preference results for speakers - they even developed a set of loudspeaker measurements that better predict subjective perception of the sound. Sure they aren't testing all possible measurements of headphones or loudspeakers but within the confines of what was tested & measured a statistically significant preference was demonstrated which I don't believe has been contradicted to date.


 
 "yet you seem to be adamant that they negate any possibility of having measurements which can determine how we will perceive audio"  no no no, I'm not. use any of the methods to measure the sound getting to your eardrum and you have it. that's why I mentioned HRTF several times. but the result isn't identical from people to people, meaning that the sound getting to our eardrum isn't the same(given that the measurements were well done). if anything it's you who seem adamant about the idea that we all hear the same thing when there is logical and measurable evidence that we don't. discuss the magnitude of the differences and how they don't really matter in everyday life, but not that we don't have some. 
 I'm not making any judgment about how important it is, nor about how much can be compensated by the brain. I'm just saying that we have different anatomies yielding different changes to the sound that gets to our brain. for the reasons I've explained in the last posts.
  
 take spacial cues, thanks to experience you can calibrate it all year long. you walk on the side of a road and cars are passing by, there is everything you need for the taking. the brain knows the road's shape with visual cues, recognizes the sound of a car, recognizes the doppler effect from the car moving and knows the direction the car takes visually. so whatever sound gets to the ear of different people, they will all end up with an approximately proper position after some time(that because we trust vision over sound, so vision is used to calibrate the ears and not the opposite). because it's not about the real sound at a given position, it's about "I heard this when the car was there, so if I hear it again, the car will be there". it's training to get used to our body mixing cues and experiences. it would work if I had dumbo's ears, it would work if I had 3ears. it's just training with a good visual reference.
 same with a piano vs a guitar, we learned what they should sound like by seeing them and hearing them play or having someone telling us it was a piano. so again for that one we don't need a perfectly calibrated ear, we just need repeated experience as training.
  
 so all those things give us a common ground and when we talk piano we know we're talking about the same thing and we assume that we heard the same thing. but it's not a necessity. even if to me the sound of a piano was celine dion, as long as I have a hearing that is versatile enough to recognize celine dion, I would tell you it's a piano and we would still think we're hearing the same thing because we both identified the piano(although it might not be my favorite instrument in that context 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





).
  
 an analogy would be you and someone else looking at a landscape(I'll assume we all see the same thing when we don't for the same anatomic reasons). you have tainted glasses and your friend doesn't, does that stop you from pointing at stuff and identify them the same way? no problemo, a tree is still a tree, the sky is still the sky, and TBH even color would work pretty fine if you had the glasses on for an hour, as the brain would have spent all that time compensating until it got a vision that was close to what it's used to. so you might be seeing the grass green-ish, the sky blue-ish etc, even with tainted glasses after a time.
 all those common references from experience, plus brain plasticity, that's why many people whatever hearing they really have, will recognize a guitar when it's out of tune(well most people at least). and when trying to find the proper sound for a headphone, they will aim for a more or less common target looking for something they're used to, real life sounds. just like most photographers can deal with white balance and while they'll end up with small differences, they will all use experience to aim toward a common target. what matters isn't that they have the same eyes with the same acuity and same spacing on the skull, or the same number of color cells. what matters is that they have seen the real stuff enough to be able to remember it with reasonable precision and say "that's it" when they come close in the post processing software. but do we see the exact same things? nope. and that is my only point. we're made different with tools that are more or less effective and we reduce the gaps through experience. you notice it with colored glasses when you take them out for a moment, you will see the real world with the wrong compensation and realize how much work the brain had put into making you think you had it right.
 same thing with the ears, you could put some crap on your ears, there are guys who played guinea pigs with horns putting the right sound into the left ear(same thing was done with reversing glasses), after maybe 2weeks the brain gets used to it and given enough time it would be their "real world". left would again be left and things would work out fine. so don't assume we're all the same people, hearing the same thing just because our communication seems to point toward the same results. that proves nothing but brain plasticity.
  
 edit: oh and of course I'm not trying to destroy harman's work, it's the best thing done in years for headphones and I EQ my headphone with something in between diffuse field and harman target, it's great.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> Perhaps another way to put it is:
> If you sat in a room with speakers calibrated to the Harman preference (slightly bass tilted), made a measurement at your eardrum, and did the Harman speaker→headphone correction (a bit less bass and treble), what you would get out would probably not be the Harman headphone average curve. You would get that plus a deviation from the dummy head due to your own physiology. I don't think it has to be much more complicated than that, and I don't think any of us have major issues with their findings on speaker preference or average headphone preference. And I could certainly accept that a broad preference for relative bass/mid/treble levels will have less variance across the populace than the specific treble peaks/dips due to individual HRTFs.


 
 Your example seems very strained to me - the Harmon speaker preference model was, I thought - a fairly flat frequency response without any deviations of significance both on & off-axis (the off-axis being of crucial importance & related to reflected energy). The headphone preference model was some adjustment to this frequency response that gave a better illusion of a room response frequency curve. I'm not sure why one would change a speaker to this model?
  
 But let's go with your example - you state "And I could certainly accept that a broad preference for relative bass/mid/treble levels will have less variance across the populace than the specific treble peaks/dips due to individual HRTFs." Does this not directly contradict the Harmon model i.e a fairly flat frequency response? In other words how could such a preference be established if individual differences due to "specific treble peaks/dips due to individual HRTFs" were important to our auditory perception?


----------



## mmerrill99

OK, Castle - I believe you answered my question - the brain's processing (auditory perception) deals with the individual physiological differences (within reason) & result sin us all hearing pretty much the same!!
  
 Otherwise, Harmon's model wouldn't hold, people couldn't tune a guitar for another to use, piano tuners would be useless & the same applies to all other perceptions - vision, taste, smell, touch
  
 If that is out of the way - my original question was what measurements line up with how our auditory perception will perceive?


----------



## castleofargh

\o/ that I'm ok with ^_^.
 for your question, is it about gear measurements? if so which gear are we talking about? or about human hearing measurements?


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Your example seems very strained to me - the Harmon speaker preference model was, I thought - a fairly flat frequency response without any deviations of significance both on & off-axis (the off-axis being of crucial importance & related to reflected energy). The headphone preference model was some adjustment to this frequency response that gave a better illusion of a room response frequency curve. I'm not sure why one would change a speaker to this model?
> 
> But let's go with your example - you state "And I could certainly accept that a broad preference for relative bass/mid/treble levels will have less variance across the populace than the specific treble peaks/dips due to individual HRTFs." Does this not directly contradict the Harmon model i.e a fairly flat frequency response? In other words how could such a preference be established if individual differences due to "specific treble peaks/dips due to individual HRTFs" were important to our auditory perception?


 
  
 Their experiment looked at differences in how people touched a bass/treble EQ adjustment for both flat speakers in a room and for headphones. They found people like a bit more bass for the speakers, and in fact people preferred relatively more bass and treble out of speakers than with headphones (adjusted for the dummy's head response). That was all I was getting at with mentioning adjustments.
  
 We live every day with our HRTFs, so in essence they sound "flat" to us. But the main thrust of their effect is above 1kHz, so their particulars are basically all "treble" related. Thus something like an overall boost in the bass or treble versus the mids in headphones will tend to have broader consensus than a specific peak/trough in the treble. None of that contradicts Harman's model of an near flat speaker response in a semi-live room.


mmerrill99 said:


> Otherwise, Harmon's model wouldn't hold, people couldn't tune a guitar for another to use, piano tuners would be useless & the same applies to all other perceptions - vision, taste, smell, touch


 
  
 Relative loudness of parts of the frequency spectrum isn't the same as hearing that part of the spectrum out-of-tune. Am I missing something here?


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> Their experiment looked at differences in how people touched a bass/treble EQ adjustment for both flat speakers in a room and for headphones. They found people like a bit more bass for the speakers, and in fact people preferred relatively more bass and treble out of speakers than with headphones (adjusted for the dummy's head response). That was all I was getting at with mentioning adjustments.
> 
> We live every day with our HRTFs, so in essence they sound "flat" to us. But the main thrust of their effect is above 1kHz, so their particulars are basically all "treble" related. Thus something like an overall boost in the bass or treble versus the mids in headphones will tend to have broader consensus than a specific peak/trough in the treble. None of that contradicts Harman's model of an near flat speaker response in a semi-live room.
> 
> Relative loudness of parts of the frequency spectrum isn't the same as hearing that part of the spectrum out-of-tune. Am I missing something here?


 
 The Harmon speaker results showed that the general preference was for speakers with a relatively smooth frequency response with no obvious peaks or dips As well as an off-axis frequency response that was similar. You are talking about the headphone Harmon tests, I believe? 
 What you are saying seems to me to contradict the Harmon findings or, at least to be off-topic so not related? "something like an overall boost in the bass or treble versus the mids in headphones will tend to have broader consensus than a specific peak/trough in the treble" Are you saying that gross changes across bass/treble will be more noticeable than peaks/dips in frequency response? Yes, obviously - the same as adjusting a TV picture's hue, sharpness, saturation, etc will be more noticeable than any individual pixel changes. But this doesn't mean that given two TV screens identical in all but the fact that one has many pixels not working - that the preference of most normal visioned people won't be for the TV with fully working pixels
  
 I'm not sure what this has to do with HRTF or how it relates?
  
 Tuning of a guitar is a process of adjusting the resonance of the strings to vibrate at the correct frequencies - off-tuning = a strings resonance peaks at the wrong frequency


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> The Harmon speaker results showed that the general preference was for speakers with a relatively smooth frequency response with no obvious peaks or dips As well as an off-axis frequency response that was similar. You are talking about the headphone Harmon tests, I believe?
> What you are saying seems to me to contradict the Harmon findings or, at least to be off-topic so not related? "something like an overall boost in the bass or treble versus the mids in headphones will tend to have broader consensus than a specific peak/trough in the treble" Are you saying that gross changes across bass/treble will be more noticeable than peaks/dips in frequency response? Yes, obviously - the same as adjusting a TV picture's hue, sharpness, saturation, etc will be more noticeable than any individual pixel changes. But this doesn't mean that given two TV screens identical in all but the fact that one has many pixels not working - that the preference of most normal visioned people won't be for the TV with fully working pixels
> 
> I'm not sure what this has to do with HRTF or how it relates?
> ...


 
  
 Yes I'm talking about headphones, this is a headphone site  As I said about 3 times before, no one finds it surprising that flat speakers in a semi-live room will sound pretty-near-perfect to everyone. Let's forget the TV example; those kind of things never work. What I'm saying is that if your *personal* at-the-eardrum response to a Harman-kosher speaker setup has a null at 8kHz, and a headphone you try on doesn't produce that same null, then it won't sound "perfect" to your ear, even if the headphone produces the correct result for a dummy head. We seem to be agreeing, so perhaps we should just drop it and move on to measurement or whatever.
  
 On the tuning thing, you're not answering how the Harman results have anything to do with how we hear the relative *pitch* of the fundamental and the overtones and inharmonicities. The results are all amplitude related.
  
 At this point you seem to just want us to say "Harman Harman Harman" until we've said it enough so you're convinced we think it's the end-all-be-all of audiological research, when in fact I haven't seen anyone say the research wasn't anything but good…


----------



## mmerrill99

castleofargh said:


> \o/ that I'm ok with ^_^.
> for your question, is it about gear measurements? if so which gear are we talking about? or about human hearing measurements?


 
 OK, great 
  
 The measurements that I'm talking about what aspects of the soundfield are used by our auditory perception to create the auditory scene that we all create? Obviously, these relate to aspects in the final sound reaching our ears but they also are traceable back to the playback system creating these sounds. Every element in that playback system has a part to play in the formation of that final sound & as in most engineering disciplines there would be a defined specification for achieving this end result.
  
 My question then really becomes what is the defined end result for this engineering? I suspect that it ignores auditory perception & focusses on it' own restricted view of accuracy.
  
 So, to me this is like engineers building a bridge, according to solid engineering principles but ignoring the fact that those using the bridge feel nauseous when crossing it. The bridge can be "proven" as working by all sorts of measurements, etc. but it stops short of judging its suitability for it's "real purpose"


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> Yes I'm talking about headphones, this is a headphone site  As I said about 3 times before, no one finds it surprising that flat speakers in a semi-live room will sound pretty-near-perfect to everyone. Let's forget the TV example; those kind of things never work. What I'm saying is that if your *personal* at-the-eardrum response to a Harman-kosher speaker setup has a null at 8kHz, and a headphone you try on doesn't produce that same null, then it won't sound "perfect" to your ear, even if the headphone produces the correct result for a dummy head. We seem to be agreeing, so perhaps we should just drop it and move on to measurement or whatever.
> 
> On the tuning thing, you're not answering how the Harman results have anything to do with how we hear the relative *pitch* of the fundamental and the overtones and inharmonicities. The results are all amplitude related.
> 
> At this point you seem to just want us to say "Harman Harman Harman" until we've said it enough so you're convinced we think it's the end-all-be-all of audiological research, when in fact I haven't seen anyone say the research wasn't anything but good…


 
 Sure, this is a headphone site but surely it is in the spirit of objectivity to understand the general principles of auditory processing before looking at how they might be best applied to the specific use case of headphone?
  
 No. I don't think Harmon is the final word in this - in fact I find that it is a very specific part of the whole picture but it nonetheless, served to illustrate that we all don't perceive audio differently - which was the first barrier posed against my original question. Now that we have teased out the difference between the physical mechanisms of hearing & the much more important psychoacoustical mechanisms of auditory perception, it seems that the original question is being revisited?


----------



## krismusic

mmerrill99 said:


> the much more important psychoacoustical mechanisms of auditory perception, it seems that the original question is being revisited?



What do you define as psychoacoustics?


----------



## mmerrill99

krismusic said:


> What do you define as psychoacoustics?


 
 I find this definition for psychoacoustics is the most accurate - the study of the perception of sound - I reckon it focusses on the brain processing aspects rather than the mechanical mechanisms of the ear but there are always grey areas when definitions are used to circumscribe anything.


----------



## krismusic

mmerrill99 said:


> I find this definition for psychoacoustics is the most accurate - the study of the perception of sound - I reckon it focusses on the brain processing aspects rather than the mechanical mechanisms of the ear but there are always grey areas when definitions are used to circumscribe anything.



I've always taken the term to describe psychological factors such as placebo and expectation bias. Which I think really get in the way of objective evaluation.


----------



## mmerrill99

krismusic said:


> I've always taken the term to describe psychological factors such as placebo and expectation bias. Which I think really get in the way of objective evaluation.


 
 I know but didn't we exchange these definitions already?
 Agreed that perceptual testing is fraught with many confounding factors which are very difficult to deal with - so difficult that only tests done by professionals trained in the area of perceptual testing are of any note.
  
 The recent moves towards EEG, MEG testing in neuroscience is a welcome departure from the previous, primitive, perceptual testing


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> The recent moves towards EEG, MEG testing in neuroscience is a welcome departure from the previous, primitive, perceptual testing


 
  
 Previous "primitive" perceptual testing has got us files that, to my ears, are indistinguishable from the originals at 128kbps. What kinds of perceptual abilities do you think the developers of codecs like Opus and AAC have overlooked? And why have such abilities not enabled people to distinguish high-rate lossy codecs from their original sources in blind testing? Give us a little bit.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> Previous "primitive" perceptual testing has got us files that, to my ears, are indistinguishable from the originals at 128kbps. What kinds of perceptual abilities do you think the developers of codecs like Opus and AAC have overlooked? And why have such abilities not enabled people to distinguish high-rate lossy codecs from their original sources in blind testing? Give us a little bit.


 
 Sure codecs that use a psychoacoustic model are pretty good but not even the developers of those codecs would claim that they are audibly transparent at 128kbps. I believe that there are many blind test results on Hydrogen Audio showing differences are audible between 128kbps & original.
  
 BTW, I consider them primitive because they have so many confounding variables that need addressing as is defined in the various published standards such as BS.1116 & others 
  
 As to your second question - I'm wouldn't be sure that high rate lossy codecs have not been differentiated in blind testing?


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Sure codecs that use a psychoacoustic model are pretty good but not even the developers of those codecs would claim that they are audibly transparent at 128kbps. I believe that there are many blind test results on Hydrogen Audio showing differences are audible between 128kbps & original.
> 
> BTW, I consider them primitive because they have so many confounding variables that need addressing as is defined in the various published standards such as BS.1116 & others
> 
> As to your second question - I'm wouldn't be sure that high rate lossy codecs have not been differentiated in blind testing?


 
  
 You know for certain that none of the major codecs these days has been testing in an setup that meets the standards? I guess going to the source is the only way to find out.
  
 128k was in reference to *my ears* with Opus, not everyone's ears with anything else. Still, give it a try yourself.
  
 320k mp3 is probably differentiable for some folks with certain material. I have yet to see anything verified for 256AAC or similar Opus and Vorbis rates, but anything on a forum is suspect anyway, in either the negative or affirmative.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> You know for certain that none of the major codecs these days has been testing in an setup that meets the standards? I guess going to the source is the only way to find out.


 I wasn't saying that the codecs are tested without adherence to the published standards for codec testing!!  





> 128k was in reference to *my ears* with Opus, not everyone's ears with anything else. Still, give it a try yourself.
> 
> 320k mp3 is probably differentiable for some folks with certain material. I have yet to see anything verified for 256AAC or similar Opus and Vorbis rates, but anything on a forum is suspect anyway, in either the negative or affirmative.


 
  


 Yea, but it would not be really that surprising if these codecs were not differentiated by such blind testing, would it? - they were developed by using the same blind testing techniques, after all.
  
 My point was that other newer brainwave testing in neuroscience may well reveal more than is possible with the blind testing used in perceptual testing up to now?


----------



## davidsh

There are obviously pros and cons and limitations to either approach.
Your question is interesting, though I'm not qualified to answer, so I won't try


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Yea, but it would not be really that surprising if these codecs were not differentiated by such blind testing, would it? - they were developed by using the same blind testing techniques, after all.
> 
> My point was that other newer brainwave testing in neuroscience may well reveal more than is possible with the blind testing used in perceptual testing up to now?


 
  
 No doubt, but the question then comes back to the old "statistical significance vs. actual significance" problem. My feeling is that if a better-than-baseline signal doesn't actually translate into any conscious discrimination, then it's pretty much just an academic result. My view is that a positive neurological result should be a springboard into an actual sensory test. Perhaps you and others disagree. But I'm reminded of the whole Ōhashi brouhaha whenever this topic comes up.


----------



## castleofargh

I'm also on board with that. when I abx a file, I'm not trying to become a pioneer in science. I'm just checking if I should bother with a given codec that takes a lot of space or not. as soon as you go lossy, you go lossy and that's a fact. so the point isn't super max resolution, the point is storage space vs sound. it's pointless to argue about how a codec fails, if for me on my gears, it works fine at a conscious level. I already know I'm not getting the original file.


----------



## Roly1650

mmerrill99 said:


> Yea, but it would not be really that surprising if these codecs were not differentiated by such blind testing, would it? - they were developed by using the same blind testing techniques, after all.
> 
> My point was that other newer brainwave testing in neuroscience may well reveal more than is possible with the blind testing used in perceptual testing up to now?



So it's fair to say you have no view of or are unaware of null testing, neuroscience or abx are the only viable choices? I would argue that null testing is likely to be more precise than neuroscience, with digital audio it's purely mathematical. And after 150 years of research, science has taught us what the finite limits of human hearing are, so null test results are pretty unequivocal, which is probably why null testing is carefully avoided by those not seeking real answers.
It would seem to me that the neuroscience solution is not likely in a living room near me anytime soon, whereas both abx and null testing can be carried out by anyone, anywhere, testing whatever, providing them with results meaningful to them, (unless of course they don't get the result they expect, god forbid they find out they're under the bell curve along with the rest of us).


----------



## uchihaitachi

roly1650 said:


> So it's fair to say you have no view of or are unaware of null testing, neuroscience or abx are the only viable choices? I would argue that null testing is likely to be more precise than neuroscience, with digital audio it's purely mathematical. And after 150 years of research, science has taught us what the finite limits of human hearing are, so null test results are pretty unequivocal, which is probably why null testing is carefully avoided by those not seeking real answers.
> It would seem to me that the neuroscience solution is not likely in a living room near me anytime soon, whereas both abx and null testing can be carried out by anyone, anywhere, testing whatever, providing them with results meaningful to them, (unless of course they don't get the result they expect, god forbid they find out they're under the bell curve along with the rest of us).




Brain scans will be a source epic confounders. How would you possibly begin to isolate psychoacoustic effects


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> No doubt, but the question then comes back to the old "statistical significance vs. actual significance" problem. My feeling is that if a better-than-baseline signal doesn't actually translate into any conscious discrimination, then it's pretty much just an academic result. My view is that a positive neurological result should be a springboard into an actual sensory test. Perhaps you and others disagree. But I'm reminded of the whole Ōhashi brouhaha whenever this topic comes up.


 
 Ah, but not being able to consciously identify a difference in a blind test does not mean we aren't affected by such difference - in other words we may feel uncomfortable/un-engaged/etc when listening - something that doesn't necessarily show up in A/B testing but yet makes a substantial difference to our listening.
  
 This is one of the reasons why I asked the question I started with - do we know enough about the workings of auditory perception to be able to pin down measurements?
  
 Recent research is providing strong evidence that the auditory system summarizes the temporal details of sounds using time-averaged statistics. This has some consequences for perceptual testing - for instance when two dissimilar "sound textures" are being discriminated, repeats & longer duration samples aids in the discrimination. But when similar "sound textures" are being compared, using repeats & longer duration samples, discrimination performance declined. The explanation appears to be that such statistical representations produce good categorical discrimination, but limit the ability to discern temporal detail.
  
 We still have a lot yet to be discovered about auditory processing - not just peripheral issues but I believe some fundamental issues


----------



## mmerrill99

roly1650 said:


> So it's fair to say you have no view of or are unaware of null testing, neuroscience or abx are the only viable choices? I would argue that null testing is likely to be more precise than neuroscience, with digital audio it's purely mathematical. And after 150 years of research, science has taught us what the finite limits of human hearing are, so null test results are pretty unequivocal, which is probably why null testing is carefully avoided by those not seeking real answers.
> It would seem to me that the neuroscience solution is not likely in a living room near me anytime soon, whereas both abx and null testing can be carried out by anyone, anywhere, testing whatever, providing them with results meaningful to them, (unless of course they don't get the result they expect, god forbid they find out they're under the bell curve along with the rest of us).


 
 When it comes to perceptual testing - null testing has no place! It's the equivalent of the bridge analogy I gave already - you can prove that the bridge works as designed but it can still make people nauseous crossing it due to the frequency of foot falls & the resonance set up in the bridge structure. 
  
  
 Ah you highlight exactly the problem I'm talking about (although you cite it as an advantage) - "whereas both abx and null testing can be carried out by anyone, anywhere, testing whatever, providing them with results meaningful to them, (unless of course they don't get the result they expect, god forbid they find out they're under the bell curve along with the rest of us)."


----------



## mmerrill99

uchihaitachi said:


> Brain scans will be a source epic confounders. How would you possibly begin to isolate psychoacoustic effects


 
 To the layman, this may appear to be the case but it's not necessarily the case


----------



## uchihaitachi

mmerrill99 said:


> To the layman, this may appear to be the case but it's not necessarily the case




You mentioned an EEG, which can still fail to show differences even for individuals who have epilepsy. It is hardly foolproof. I'm curious how you would go about implementing these tests to test for psychoacoustic perception.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Ah, but not being able to consciously identify a difference in a blind test does not mean we aren't affected by such difference - in other words we may feel uncomfortable/un-engaged/etc when listening - something that doesn't necessarily show up in A/B testing but yet makes a substantial difference to our listening.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I asked the question I started with - do we know enough about the workings of auditory perception to be able to pin down measurements?
> 
> ...


 
  
 To be honest, and this isn't directed at you, I'm a bit tired of these arguments relating to warm-fuzzy-feelings during long(ish) listening sessions. It's the obvious place to go when people want to avoid a short test that they can't pass. And the fact is that there is nothing stopping people from making an ABX guess at the end of such a long session.
  
 Can you can define better what you mean by "temporal detail"?


----------



## jcx

> Ah, but not being able to consciously identify a difference in a blind test does not mean we aren't affected by such difference - in other words we may feel uncomfortable/un-engaged/etc when listening - something that doesn't necessarily show up in A/B testing but yet makes a substantial difference to our listening.


 
 people do sometimes show positive discrimination statistics in ABX DBT tests when they don't have a conscious, describable impression of the difference
  
 is that resolving enough for you?


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> To be honest, and this isn't directed at you, I'm a bit tired of these arguments relating to warm-fuzzy-feelings during long(ish) listening sessions. It's the obvious place to go when people want to avoid a short test that they can't pass. And the fact is that there is nothing stopping people from making an ABX guess at the end of such a long session.
> 
> Can you can define better what you mean by "temporal detail"?


 
 Well, I think you are reacting in a knee-jerk way to what you think I said - I told you that current research is uncovering details about auditory perception that should shine a brighter light on what sort of perceptual testing might be optimal for audio
  
 If you want to read up on this research, a search for "Summary statistics in auditory perception" should show a number of papers.
  
 It's interesting the way that A/B testing, which is premised on the unreliability of anything but short term echoic memory, now becomes a test that can be bent in a way that suits people - just so they can answer objections to the fundamentals of the test itself - it's become an a la carte test which loses credibility, as a result - you either believe that echoic memory is the only reliable way to compare small audible impairments or you don't.
  
 It would be good to hear what is the premise that underlies A/B testing?


----------



## mmerrill99

jcx said:


> people do sometimes show positive discrimination statistics in ABX DBT tests when they don't have a conscious, describable impression of the difference
> 
> is that resolving enough for you?


 
 Of course there can be examples of this happening. Does this prove the power of the test?


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> It's interesting the way that A/B testing, which is premised on the unreliability of anything but short term echoic memory, now becomes a test that can be bent in a way that suits people - just so they can answer objections to the fundamentals of the test itself - it's become an a la carte test which loses credibility, as a result - you either believe that echoic memory is the only reliable way to compare small audible impairments or you don't.
> 
> It would be good to hear what is the premise that underlies A/B testing?


 
  
 What people say on this site, quite often, is that after hours of listening they finally "get" that warm fuzzy feeling. There is no requisite to the ABX protocol that I know of that would prevent them from using this feeling to answer either A or B. They'll refuse to do it, of course, because they know they only get that warm and fuzzy feeling if they know beforehand whether it's a hi-res track or not.
  
 The premise underlying proper A/B is the removal of sources of bias unrelated to the production of the waveform that ends up hitting our body. Once that has been ensured then we can move on to whether or not a protocol like ABX is improper for discrimination that happens only after prolonged listening.
  
 Since you seem up on the literature on this stuff, how about you give us a concrete example of a possible effect of musical sound that we can detect but that is not maintained by the Redbook format?


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> > What people say on this site, quite often, is that after hours of listening they finally "get" that warm fuzzy feeling. There is no requisite to the ABX protocol that I know of that would prevent them from using this feeling to answer either A or B. They'll refuse to do it, of course, because they know they only get that warm and fuzzy feeling if they know beforehand whether it's a hi-res track or not.
> >
> > The premise underlying proper A/B is the removal of sources of bias unrelated to the production of the waveform that ends up hitting our body. Once that has been ensured then we can move on to whether or not a protocol like ABX is improper for discrimination that happens only after prolonged listening.
> 
> ...


----------



## uchihaitachi

mmerrill99 said:


>


 
 You are also yet to address my question regarding brain scans, genuinely interested.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


>


 
  
 Quick switching is the only way I've ever detected a difference, as I'm not wont to sit for hours to ferret out these effects when such chunks of time really don't come my way these days. How do you sit and listen for differences?
  
 As far as my Redbook question: It would seem either someone thinks we've got this whole audio thing figured out (in terms of digital format), or they don't think so. You seem to not think so, so I'm asking for avenues that you think are worth going down to find what we're missing, based upon your knowledge of the literature on brain measurements and audio.


----------



## mmerrill99

uchihaitachi said:


> You are also yet to address my question regarding brain scans, genuinely interested.


 
 I can only direct you to papers as it's quite a large topic in the research area but here's *a paper* to start you off in which "Here we used concurrent EEG and MEG recordings to determine how sensory information and prior knowledge are integrated in the brain during speech perception."
  
Or *this 2014 paper* giving an overview "Auditory neuroimaging with fMRI and PET"


----------



## mmerrill99

> Quick switching is the only way I've ever detected a difference, as I'm not wont to sit for hours to ferret out these effects when such chunks of time really don't come my way these days. How do you sit and listen for differences?


 
 To be honest, I'm not that interested in differences detected by home based blind testing as I find it a boring waste of time & of no significance to my everyday enjoyment of music. If I were to try to do it rigorously would be even more time consuming & boring - I'll leave it to researchers. 


> As far as my Redbook question: It would seem either someone thinks we've got this whole audio thing figured out (in terms of digital format), or they don't think so. You seem to not think so, so I'm asking for avenues that you think are worth going down to find what we're missing, based upon your knowledge of the literature on brain measurements and audio.


 
 Well, some people think that perceptual testing isn't needed - that null differences & the audibility thresholds established some time ago are enough to determine if there is a possibility of any audible difference. But here we see *this head-fi thread* where null tests suggest that any differences are below audibility (-90db a any frequency) & yet ultmusicsnob produces numerous foobar ABX stats showing he can detect differences in many files & he gives details of what differences he's detecting & how he has changed his listening from the different aspects he was using to detect differences between RB & high-res audio on *gearslutz forum*


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Well, some people think that perceptual testing isn't needed - that null differences & the audibility thresholds established some time ago are enough to determine if there is a possibility of any audible difference. But here we see *this head-fi thread* where null tests suggest that any differences are below audibility (-90db a any frequency) & yet ultmusicsnob produces numerous foobar ABX stats showing he can detect differences in many files & he gives details of what differences he's detecting & how he has changed his listening from the different aspects he was using to detect differences between RB & high-res audio on *gearslutz forum*


 
  
 It's the same differences every other person who shows positive foobar results talks about, only here he's not even starting with hi-res material, so he's basically saying he can tell a difference when switching between 16/44.1 and an upsample to 24/192. Also, even though he mentions having tried it out, switching artifacts can be a real issue, if even subconsciously. Again, this is stuff to really be fleshed out in actual proctored tests, as anyone can hear things below -90dBFS if they crank up the volume beyond where they actually listen to music.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> It's the same differences every other person who shows positive foobar results talks about, only here he's not even starting with hi-res material, so he's basically saying he can tell a difference when switching between 16/44.1 and an upsample to 24/192. Also, even though he mentions having tried it out, switching artifacts can be a real issue, if even subconsciously. Again, this is stuff to really be fleshed out in actual proctored tests, as anyone can hear things below -90dBFS if they crank up the volume beyond where they actually listen to music.


 
  
 I cited his head-fi jitter audibility results as an example of a positive differentiation of something that a null difference test says should be inaudible in the jitter test files - as someone stated earlier that a null difference test & audibility thresholds were all that was needed
  
 Are you saying this is what he did - use excessively high volume during playback because he explicitly says he didn't?
  
 Well, if we are going to question positive blind test results for false positives then we need to also question blind test negative results for false negatives. Considering that there are no false negative controls in Foobar ABX test results then all results from this test has to be questioned as to validity. It's far easier to consciously or unconsciously deliver false negative trials in blind tests - it doesn't take a determined effort - all it takes is lack of attention/focus on the listening aspect of the trial - this happens all the time when reading, where we think we have read a paragraph but were actually thinking of something else & only when we refocus our attention & start reading the next paragraph do we realise our lapse   
  
 Essentially this qualifies all such home based tests & tests without positive & negative controls as nothing more than anecdotal listening impressions!


----------



## RRod

> Originally Posted by *mmerrill99* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
  
 I explicitly don't believe him 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, or at least I don't believe that he never shirked protocol at any point. Differences below -90dBFS can only be heard if you can hear something at -90dB; have you ever played a -90dB RMS waveform and seen where your volume pot has to be to hear it? For me a 1k square wave at -90 is barely audible at the volume setting I use for my most dynamic tracks, and we're talking about hearing that *with the music playing on top of it*. Yes, paint me skeptical. The only other thing to hear would be the filter artifacts, which should be concentrated above 20kHz; maybe he has super high hearing even at 50y/o.
  
 Home listening tests are for the benefit of the home listener; none of it is to be believed online.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> > I explicitly don't believe him
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


>


 
  
 What is non-objective about discussing how bit-depth and sample-rate changes work? That is what I base my disbelief on. Instead of petering out, you could give some results from scanning-based studies that suggest how the "typical" view of how PCM audio works misses the kinds of things the guy in your ABX example is supposedly hearing.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

rob watts said:


> *What is often forgotten is that real science is about what we do not know, not what we do know;* and in terms of understanding how the brain processes data from the ears to separate instruments out into separate entities science has very little understanding. *My work has been centred upon looking at aberrations that interfere with the brains processing, and I have found some very interesting things - some errors are audible even when they are well below the threshold of audibility of the ears.* I often think that the situation is akin to the ears having 16 bit resolution - but put a properly dithered 16 bit signal into a FFT and you can resolve signals well below the 16 bit limit. Thus, small signals that are below the resolution of the ear have important subjective consequences for the brains processing of the ear data.




Sorry--this being the board room I opened, I can't resist responding to that even though every industry insider instinct in me screams "no".

1. Neat way of discounting our current vast body of existing knowledge on psychoacoustics, gained from endless hours of toil from scientific minds. Much of this knowledge is also empirical rather than theoretical in nature and not really prone to being overturned, as you seem to imply.

2. Are you implying that, when a DAC/amp produces certain kinds of error signals in the actual output compared to the desired output, that even when such error signals of the type you speak of are so low in level as to be inaudible on their own (e.g. via difference recording method or mathematical simulation), they become audible when mixed in with music?

Okay... shall I take decades of research in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking
and throw it all out the window?

Or should I laugh all the way down the corridor while showing you the door? 

(Quick link to http://www.klippel.de/listeningtest/lt/ , where all sorts of distortions can be heard at no less than -60dB or so by anyone who isn't cheating. Hmm, I swear there were more than one distortion test available from this site before... so are you saying you can construct a kind of distortion that can be reliably be heard in music at less than -90dB or so?)



> One major aspect of what I do is centred upon the timing of transients. Mojo has some 500 times more processing power in the interpolation filter than conventional high performance DAC's. This is done because timing is an important perceptual cue - it is something I had studied and realised 30 years ago. You can read more about it here:
> 
> http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html
> 
> This work is based on a paper published in Physical Review Letters. That physics journal does not believe in magic either.




Is that why, when I turn on my 6-band multiband compressor with sharp 30dB transition bands, that I KNOW for a fact mutilates phase and timing response beyond recognition, I hear... exactly nothing changes unless the music signal is exceeding the threshold for compression?

There have been extended research on human perceptibility thresholds for phase shifts in audio reproduction. Majority of this body of research shows vastly less sensitivity to differences in phase response than to frequency response. As I pointed out at the start, such results are also empirical rather than theoretical in nature and not prone to being overturned just because you have a grand new theory of why phase response matters greatly, or a sudden epiphany that it matters greatly _to you_...



> Now the interpolation filter theory is very straightforward and proven mathematics. You can see more here:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker%E2%80%93Shannon_interpolation_formula
> 
> Now the maths is clear; if you use an infinite tap length infinitely oversampled filter with a sinc response you will perfectly recover the original bandwidth limited analogue signal. My work in this was the realisation thirty years ago that using conventional limited tap length filters would have important timing consequences in that the timing of transients would have an uncertainty; and these timing errors would have serious subjective consequences. That's why for the past 20 years I have been designing and improving my own algorithm to reduce these timing errors and designed extremely long tap length WTA filters. It is not magic just hard science and rigorous listening tests.




The major effects of a non-infinite tap length reconstruction lowpass filter that I know of are
1. Phase shift in the case of a non-linear phase filter. Really of no concern to us here, as you can just use a linear phase filter. Unless you use such a long FIR filter that the time delay of the processed signal starts being countable in seconds instead of milliseconds... which isn't really acceptable even in a music only application. Tell me, you wouldn't be forced to use minimum-phase filters for such a long length by any chance?
2. In-band rolloff and incomplete stop-band rejection, the former being possibly audible as... rolloff, the consequence of the latter only being some low level ultrasonic noise in the case of a DAC, possibly becoming audible only through second-order effects such as intermodulation distortion of downstream equipment--one possible reason why many boutique DACs have got away with no lowpass filter whatsoever.

I tried to look up this "timing" thing you mentioned but drew a blank; in any case, I'm sure it would be easy for you to produce a difference signal between your ideal reconstruction filter and more garden-variety filters, for say 16/44.1 audio, and we could all have a listen, on say a 32/384 DAC--at a reasonable sound level compared to the actual music, of course. If we can hear anything from such a difference signal without cranking the volume knob until the music of the corresponding level blasting our eardrums clean through our brains two times over, then we can start discussing possible audibility of this filter optimization while masked by actual music. (I tried to look up "negative auditory masking" and drew a complete blank. If what you said about that were true, you could write a whole new chapter in psychoacoustics and win a Nobel Prize, or something  )



> But perhaps the academic stuff is not your thing. So take a look at these measurements of Mojo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A great result--I wish a FiiO could do that--though I would love to see the listening test showing that a little rise in the noise floor when the amp is playing full blast can actually be heard, compared to zero noise modulation.



> To conclude; 500 pages in 8 weeks and dozens of awards and 5 star reviews is not magic - just thirty years of very advanced engineering.
> Rob




Leaving aside my position at FiiO for a moment, I too wish "thirty years of very advanced engineering" were the only thing that could reap one dozens of magazine awards and 5 star reviews. There would be so much less nonsense to get one's feet stuck in while looking for a truly excellent piece of hardware.

I don't doubt the existence of 30 years of advanced engineering in the Chord line, and I also don't doubt that language of the sort you sprouted above were every bit just as necessary to earn you those awards ... I just wish that weren't the way things worked in this industry.  In any case, I would think that you would have done just fine to leave the objectivists alone in the objectivist board room and take your pitch where it's actually needed or useful


----------



## jcx

"unmasking" is a real Psychoacoustic phenomena - a bit detailed in the conditions and I'm away from my Fastl for the holidays
  
 but a quick search gets key comments like:  


> Unmasking was not observed at absolute threshold or in a simultaneous masking situation


 
  
 in fact I have searched for any commentary on "below the noise floor" hearing - so far most are talking about naive uses of "noise level" as a single number and are otherwise conventionally explained when the critical band frequency selectivity of hearing is considered with the frequency distribution of the noise
  
 I would be quite excited to see refs for hearing below the (frequency dependent) human hearing threshold in quiet - which has been probed with single and multiple simultaneous tones and various bandwidth noise
  
 of course you then have some work to make the case that the threshold in quiet - after minutes of accommodation in a anechoic chamber, when your own pulse becomes audible is relevant to listening to music at enjoyable levels


----------



## Joe Bloggs

jcx said:


> "unmasking" is a real Psychoacoustic phenomena




... which describes how certain sounds which are expected to be masked by other sounds (only becoming audible above a very high threshold) become "unexpectedly" less masked under certain conditions (becoming audible above a lower than expected threshold, but still a higher threshold than the threshold of hearing for the sound presented in quiet isolation) .

I dare say that nowhere will you find a case being made in scientific literature, of a sound being inaudible when presented in isolation in silence, then becoming audible when presented together with complex auditory stimuli (e.g. music). For this hypothetical phenomenon I coined the term "negative masking", distinct from the real phenomenon of "unmasking" as described above...


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> What is non-objective about discussing how bit-depth and sample-rate changes work? That is what I base my disbelief on. Instead of petering out, you could give some results from scanning-based studies that suggest how the "typical" view of how PCM audio works misses the kinds of things the guy in your ABX example is supposedly hearing.


 
 You're jumping the gun a bit here - racing to the finish line & looking for results for what is on-going research.
  
 Firstly there is a lot more to audio than bit-depth & sample-rate so discuss away but realise the perspective of what you are discussing.
  
 What interests me in reproduced audio is it's ability to create a believable auditory illusion - this entails, in my mind, that the sound satisfies the working principles of auditory perception - some of which we are still finding out about 
  
 I'm glad Rob Watts was just brought up & I hope he can contribute again although he probably has better things to do?
 He is a good example of a number of the things we are talking about.
 If I understand him correctly, he is stating that he can hear the secondary effects of aspects of the sound, like noise modulation that is far below what the traditional audibility thresholds would suggest are the limits - in other words he's not hearing the modulating noise itself (at very low db levels) but it's effect on the audible spectrum of music that it is the background to. 
  
 So a couple of questions:
 - do you believe him? If not then there's no point in further discussion
 - have these audibility thresholds been established for the situation that Rob is explaining - the effect of noise modulation on a dynamic music signal?


----------



## mmerrill99

jcx said:


> "unmasking" is a real Psychoacoustic phenomena - a bit detailed in the conditions and I'm away from my Fastl for the holidays
> 
> but a quick search gets key comments like:
> 
> ...


 
 Yes, are you talking about comodulation masking release (CMR) - a well known phenomena in auditory perception. Comodulation Masking Release (CMR) is the decrease in masked thresholds that occurs when the masker is amplitude-modulated. One of the issue with CMR is that they still aren't sure what is the auditory mechanism at the heart of this phenomena. 
  
 You should also look into modulation filter banks in auditory processing to just find out a bit more about this whole area


----------



## sonitus mirus

mmerrill99 said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 He showed us some screen grabs from a scope and said he could easily hear the differences that correlated to what was being displayed,  When asked to provide more details and any information about any listening tests to validate these claims, it was never provided or even discussed.  
  
 We know the measurements are fantastic.  He says that he can hear a very noticeable difference.
  
 If these audible differences are believable, why would there not be evidence to suggest that this is true other than measurements and sighted evaluations?  If someone is trying to sell a device for 10 times the cost of something that probably performs identically from a practical perspective, there should be undeniable proof that it is worth the extra cost.
  
 Citing reviews and marketing fluff as proof, especially in this particular market, does little to convince me.
  
 Call me skeptical for now.


----------



## mmerrill99

joe bloggs said:


> > ... which describes how certain sounds which are expected to be masked by other sounds (only becoming audible above a very high threshold) become "unexpectedly" less masked under certain conditions (becoming audible above a lower than expected threshold, but still a higher threshold than the threshold of hearing for the sound presented in quiet isolation) .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mmerrill99

sonitus mirus said:


> He showed us some screen grabs from a scope and said he could easily hear the differences that correlated to what was being displayed,  When asked to provide more details and any information about any listening tests to validate these claims, it was never provided or even discussed.
> 
> We know the measurements are fantastic.  He says that he can hear a very noticeable difference.
> 
> ...


 
 Ah, no, I wouldn't call you skeptical, I would say you outright don't believe him & have given your reasons both commercial & otherwise. As I said to rrod - this just becomes a clash of belief systems & not worth pursuing!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

> some errors are audible even when they are well below the threshold of audibility of the ears




was Rob's own words based on which I surmised that his position is to claim that an inaudible error signal is now no longer guarantee of a perceptually perfect listening experience in the DAC/amp aspect.

It seems a reasonable enough marketing step to make--especially since Quad had demonstrated a power amplifier that passed the "silent error signal test" way back in the 70s, and I'm sure other source / amplification components have also passed the test not long since. If I literally can't hear the difference between the actual signal produced and the perfect signal target _even when the error itself is produced in isolation on a silent background_, where can you go next to claim that your shiny new DAC/amp goes one better than what's available already? Claim that the difference can only be heard _when the music starts!_ It's all quite logical from a marketing standpoint, even if it flies in the face of established psychoacoustic test results.

And that's all I'm going to say on this matter. I certainly am in no position to take FiiO to war against Chord, Audiolab and Schiit all at the same time, as you seem to want me to do h34r:


----------



## Joe Bloggs

mmerrill99
If you're looking for an audible step forward in your music experience that matters, *beyond the current state of the art in source and amplification components*, I would recommend heavy studying in DSP processing for audio. It's a well known but little appreciated fact that real speakers, listening rooms and headphones (and to some extent, even microphones and recording studios) distort the audio beyond recognition compared to what was to be recorded and hoped to be heard. The sum effect is that, to toil for the DAC and amplifier in a system to reproduce the signal on your CD (or 24/192 DVD-A, or what-have-you) with 100% precision, is like spending years designing a watch to tell the time down to within a millisecond of drift per year... in the wrong time zone.

While others loathe DSP as "messing with the signal", I see it as the only golden chance the "unbork" the signal pre-emptively, before it is borked by the speakers / headphones. Formally it's called e.g. Digital Room Correction for speaker setups.

You can get a starting idea of the amount of effort I spend on DSP here, a screenshot of the software setup for my home loudspeaker system


And here, I compiled a little-known but long list of optimization profiles for lots of headphones.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2372750

And yes, I pay just as much for DSP plugins as I do for audio source / amplification components. I believe that's about the right proportion of investment to make...


----------



## mmerrill99

joe bloggs said:


> was Rob's own words based on which I surmised that his position is to claim that an inaudible error signal is now no longer guarantee of a perceptually perfect listening experience in the DAC/amp aspect.
> 
> It seems a reasonable enough marketing step to make--especially since Quad had demonstrated a power amplifier that passed the "silent error signal test" way back in the 70s, and I'm sure other source / amplification components have also passed the test not long since. If I literally can't hear the difference between the actual signal produced and the perfect signal target _even when the error itself is produced in isolation on a silent background_, where can you go next to claim that your shiny new DAC/amp goes one better than what's available already? Claim that the difference can only be heard _when the music starts!_ It's all quite logical from a marketing standpoint, even if it flies in the face of established psychoacoustic test results.
> 
> And that's all I'm going to say on this matter. I certainly am in no position to take FiiO to war against Chord, Audiolab and Schiit all at the same time, as you seem to want me to do


 
  
 Well, I don't interpret Rob's words as literally as you do & particularly as I see the same thing being said by John Westlake & Jason Stoddard. And no I don't wish or expect you to go head-to-head with these people but you brought Rob Watts yourself
  
 The point that you seem to be missing is that auditory perception is more than just the primary perception of isolated sounds - it's about the secondary effects that sounds have on one another and how these build into an auditory scene. You should look into an area of research called Auditory Scene Analysis for a better understanding of this.
  
 You saw my reference to the unmasking effects involved in CMR & to how auditory processing is not just posited on frequency filter banks but also on modulation filter banks - it's not about the audibility of sounds in isolation.
  
 Yes, Joe, thanks for the links to DSP


----------



## Joe Bloggs

mmerrill99 said:


> You should look into an area of research called Auditory Scene Analysis for a better understanding of this.




I studied it for a year in university...


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> What interests me in reproduced audio is it's ability to create a believable auditory illusion - this entails, in my mind, that the sound satisfies the working principles of auditory perception - some of which we are still finding out about
> I'm glad Rob Watts was just brought up & I hope he can contribute again although he probably has better things to do?
> He is a good example of a number of the things we are talking about.
> If I understand him correctly, he is stating that he can hear the secondary effects of aspects of the sound, like noise modulation that is far below what the traditional audibility thresholds would suggest are the limits - in other words he's not hearing the modulating noise itself (at very low db levels) but it's effect on the audible spectrum of music that it is the background to.
> ...


 
  
 Odd then that you seemed a bit aloof the discussion of HRTF we were having earlier, which to me is an area of research that has actually put a lot of work into figuring out how the human auditory system works. But to answer your questions:
  
 - No, for now I do not believe the assertions because there was no supporting evidence provided other than personal anecdotes based on non-blind testing. To his credit, Mr. Watts had mentioned work towards creating signals to use for listening tests, but until there is pudding there can be no proof in it.
  
 - I do not know. But again, it would seem a simple solution would be to give us a set of equipment + signals where a positive sighted determination was made, and then try to remove bias from the situation. Pictures of the results of hectokilotap filters don't really give us anything.
  
 I don't see why not believing a person destroys discussion. If I said "I don't believe him and *I don't want to discuss why I should*", then sure. But I'm willing to let evidence change my mind on anything, as long as that evidence isn't only people gushing over their equipment in non-blind tests.


----------



## mmerrill99

joe bloggs said:


> I studied it for a year in university...


 
 Cool, so then you should then be very familiar with the concept that auditory processing is not a study of sounds in isolation but rather the processing involved in analysis & interpretation of the audio stream - how the relationship of elements in this stream is of paramount importance to the way we naturally perceive audio & to the similarity & differences between ASA & visual scene analysis?


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> > Odd then that you seemed a bit aloof the discussion of HRTF we were having earlier, which to me is an area of research that has actually put a lot of work into figuring out how the human auditory system works. But to answer your questions:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## sonitus mirus

> Originally Posted by *mmerrill99* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Well, I guess it becomes a difficult discussion when positive ABX test results are rejected on the grounds of honesty & a number of highly regarded audio designers statements about what they perceive are also rejected on whatever grounds


 
  

 It was a good point for further discussion and investigation, but the author vanished.  We have seen others make such claims and show a positive ABX test, but the root of the difference ended up being something in the equipment or with the method of conversion after some careful analysis and bit more digging around.  
  
 A 16/44.1 file sounded a bit different when upconverted to 24/192.  Though only one person could hear this difference, it seems like the conversion process or the equipment used was the culprit.  Nobody was able to rule out the conversion process or the equipment from what I could read.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Sure, we would all like measurements & signals which definitively nail down any possibility of there being an alternative interpretation but I don't think this will happen anytime soon. I would imagine that these audio designers don't see the benefit in putting in the enormous time required (this isn't as simple, as you say) to produce new measurements or new test signals which will convince those who will most likely reject the evidence, anyway.
> 
> Well, I guess it becomes a difficult discussion when positive ABX test results are rejected on the grounds of honesty & a number of highly regarded audio designers statements about what they perceive are also rejected on whatever grounds


 
  
 If a test file was put out that showed one set of products let you discriminate where others couldn't in a controlled test, you'd bet I'd be willing to listen. Nothing near that level has been provided. You say "reject the evidence;" what evidence has been provided that has been controlled to the level that you previously said codec developers should be held to? Why do these engineers get a free pass?


----------



## mmerrill99

sonitus mirus said:


> It was a good point for further discussion and investigation, but the author vanished.  We have seen others make such claims and show a positive ABX test, but the root of the difference ended up being something in the equipment or with the method of conversion after some careful analysis and bit more digging around.
> 
> A 16/44.1 file sounded a bit different when upconverted to 24/192.  Though only one person could hear this difference, it seems like the conversion process or the equipment used was the culprit.  Nobody was able to rule out the conversion process or the equipment from what I could read.


 
 I didn't see ultmusicsnob vanish - he posted over a period of time on a number of different threads on head-fi - all one has to do is a search for his username. He posted his positive ABX results for a number of jitter test files prepared by head-fi inmates.
  
 I've seen the same accusations of dishonest levelled at Amirm on other forums for his positive ABX results of various RB Vs high-res files - again these were prepared by other than him.
  
 It becomes a matter of distrusting those who demand "proof" of listening impressions but then dismiss positive ABX results with accusations of dishonesty


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> If a test file was put out that showed one set of products let you discriminate where others couldn't in a controlled test, you'd bet I'd be willing to listen. Nothing near that level has been provided. You say "reject the evidence;" what evidence has been provided that has been controlled to the level that you previously said codec developers should be held to? Why do these engineers get a free pass?


 
 Those audio developers have done something better than produce a set of test signals - they have produced products that allow somebody to evaluate their work, in whatever way somebody wants


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Those audio developers have done something better than produce a set of test signals - they have produced products that allow somebody to evaluate their work, in whatever way somebody wants


 
  
 We have been talking about phenomena that the engineers themselves have been claiming to hear in their own products, and I am asking what level of rigor you expect from the associated experiment.
  
  


mmerrill99 said:


> I've seen the same accusations of dishonest levelled at Amirm on other forums for his positive ABX results of various RB Vs high-res files - again these were prepared by other than him.
> It becomes a matter of distrusting those who demand "proof" of listening impressions but then dismiss positive ABX results with accusations of dishonesty


 
  
 I'll side with you in way here, in that I think "our" side shouldn't be putting examples out there with any kind of claim that we'll accept a positive result as actual proof. As far as the person you mentioned, probably best to leave that whole can of worms just be a can at this point.


----------



## mmerrill99

> > Originally Posted by *RRod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> > We have been talking about phenomena that the engineers themselves have been claiming to hear in their own products, and I am asking what level of rigor you expect from the associated experiment.
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

first I agree with RRod that showing a positive ABX while it's a good piece of evidence for an argument, it does not make in itself a proof on the matter. even if we forget about distrust(which is hard when the guy passing the test is one selling highres format), all we see is a guy who could pass an ABX, it is yet to determine if he prepared for that test correctly like using the right files(often those test files have some time shift or something), or if maybe his gears introduce an unexpected bias(like a low pass filter that rolls off the treble a lot in 16/44, or some massive IMD coming into the audible range from playing highres).
  
 in such a case I believe the sciency way is to replicate his results. I guess a good way would be for him to go at some other people's home(people who fail the test), and try again with their gears, and those other people to test his gears. if he consistently pass and the files are ok, then it would be compelling for me. if he doesn't, then we would need to measure his gears, and the other gears and try to find out what induces the difference and which one does it the right way.
  
 it's not simple and to be really precise we would need to have that done several times with as many people and gears as we can until we can be confident about what really is the cause of the audible difference(great hearing of the guy, his audio system failing at a given resolution, the test files being wrong, or the actual difference in format).
  
 so yeah, the ABX is only step one.


----------



## sonitus mirus

mmerrill99 said:


> I didn't see ultmusicsnob vanish - he posted over a period of time on a number of different threads on head-fi - all one has to do is a search for his username. He posted his positive ABX results for a number of jitter test files prepared by head-fi inmates.
> 
> I've seen the same accusations of dishonest levelled at Amirm on other forums for his positive ABX results of various RB Vs high-res files - again these were prepared by other than him.
> 
> It becomes a matter of distrusting those who demand "proof" of listening impressions but then dismiss positive ABX results with accusations of dishonesty


 
 I see the ABX references by UltMusicSnob in the Sound Science forum posted on 26/9/2013 and 27/9/2013, there were a few more posts and the last one was 28/9/2013.  Even the thread offsite had people asking questions and making suggestions when that one abruptly ended just as mysteriously.  Maybe he hurt himself playing his test files too loudly?   I was actually surprised that Amir did not know about these tests until someone pointed them out to him much later.  
  
 It is not dishonesty and distrust, it is trust, but verify.  When the agenda is nearly hell-bent in nature, the evidence is simply not particularly convincing on its own merit without any additional vetting.
  
 I'd be curious to know if the people passing an ABX test between RB and HD formats could also hear differences between 2 identical setups playing the same file.  That would be wonderful, then we would have folks hearing veils being lifted on the same equipment purchased from different vendors or from various manufacturing runs.  They might even need to see the full BOM list to make sure the parts used were of sufficient quality.


----------



## mmerrill99

castleofargh said:


> first I agree with RRod that showing a positive ABX while it's a good piece of evidence for an argument, it does not make in itself a proof on the matter. even if we forget about distrust(which is hard when the guy passing the test is one selling highres format), all we see is a guy who could pass an ABX, it is yet to determine if he prepared for that test correctly like using the right files(often those test files have some time shift or something), or if maybe his gears introduce an unexpected bias(like a low pass filter that rolls off the treble a lot in 16/44, or some massive IMD coming into the audible range from playing highres).
> 
> in such a case I believe the sciency way is to replicate his results. I guess a good way would be for him to go at some other people's home(people who fail the test), and try again with their gears, and those other people to test his gears. if he consistently pass and the files are ok, then it would be compelling for me. if he doesn't, then we would need to measure his gears, and the other gears and try to find out what induces the difference and which one does it the right way.
> 
> ...


 
 This is why I favour EEG/MEG/fMRI or other tests that don't involve choice


----------



## mmerrill99

sonitus mirus said:


> I see the ABX references by UltMusicSnob in the Sound Science forum posted on 26/9/2013 and 27/9/2013, there were a few more posts and the last one was 28/9/2013.  Even the thread offsite had people asking questions and making suggestions when that one abruptly ended just as mysteriously.  Maybe he hurt himself playing his test files too loudly?   I was actually surprised that Amir did not know about these tests until someone pointed them out to him much later.
> 
> It is not dishonesty and distrust, it is trust, but verify.  When the agenda is nearly hell-bent in nature, the evidence is simply not particularly convincing on its own merit without any additional vetting.
> 
> I'd be curious to know if the people passing an ABX test between RB and HD formats could also hear differences between 2 identical setups playing the same file.  That would be wonderful, then we would have folks hearing veils being lifted on the same equipment purchased from different vendors or from various manufacturing runs.  They might even need to see the full BOM list to make sure the parts used were of sufficient quality.


 
 I'm not going to rague about it but if you search for his username you get about 8 pages of posts from Aug to Sep 2013 - at 25 posts per page that's about 200 posts (177 posts actually) - not all on the jitter thread but also on other threads & mostly about his Foobar ABX results which I find is a different picture of him than the one you seem to want to portray of someone who disappeared when asked questions!


----------



## sonitus mirus

mmerrill99 said:


> I'm not going to rague about it but if you search for his username you get about 8 pages of posts from Aug to Sep 2013 - at 25 posts per page that's about 200 posts (177 posts actually) - not all on the jitter thread but also on other threads & mostly about his Foobar ABX results which I find is a different picture of him than the one you seem to want to portray of someone who disappeared when asked questions!


 
  
 In the two threads that you linked to, he did abruptly leave.  I didn't mean to suggest that he was chased away because of the questioning.  In one of his replies, he mentioned using the default quality level for the source files instead of the highest quality.   I never saw a retest with a different setting used.  There were a few other questions regarding the procedures that were left unanswered.  It would have been nice to get a little bit more information before he left, or to have some additional tests made following some of the suggestions that were being offered.  Really, all we got were personal insights on what was done to pass the tests without getting too involved in how the test was administered.


----------



## cel4145

sonitus mirus said:


> Really, all we got were personal insights on what was done to pass the tests *without getting too involved in how the test was administered*.




Which should suggest a lack of scientific rigor. Anyone who understands the importance of methodology, also understand the importance of providing information about the methodology along with any discussion of results.


----------



## mmerrill99

sonitus mirus said:


> In the two threads that you linked to, he did abruptly leave.  I didn't mean to suggest that he was chased away because of the questioning.  In one of his replies, he mentioned using the default quality level for the source files instead of the highest quality.   I never saw a retest with a different setting used.  There were a few other questions regarding the procedures that were left unanswered.  It would have been nice to get a little bit more information before he left, or to have some additional tests made following some of the suggestions that were being offered.  Really, all we got were personal insights on what was done to pass the tests without getting too involved in how the test was administered.


 
 Totally untrue! I'm re-reading his posts from *this thread* & contrary to your insinuations he has given all the details of his testing, has followed suggestions for doing it differently & for checking various elements of the procedure & equipment - has described, in detail, what he is picking up as audible differences & has posted excerpts from the files he is using so that others can/have analysed them. Your opinion is very biased & not borne out by the facts which reading ultmusicsnob posts will quickly reveal


cel4145 said:


> Which should suggest a lack of scientific rigor. Anyone who understands the importance of methodology, also understand the importance of providing information about the methodology along with any discussion of results.


  

 You should read ultmusicsnob's posts rather than taking someone else's biased interpretation of them as the basis for your analysis.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Totally untrue! I'm re-reading his posts from *this thread* & contrary to your insinuations he has given all the details of his testing, has followed suggestions for doing it differently & for checking various elements of the procedure & equipment - has described, in detail, what he is picking up as audible differences & has posted excerpts from the files he is using so that others can/have analysed them. Your opinion is very biased & not borne out by the facts which reading ultmusicsnob posts will quickly reveal
> You should read ultmusicsnob's posts rather than taking someone else's biased interpretation of them as the basis for your analysis.


 
  
 Ultmusicsnobs posts are not necessarily fact either… Seems like we have a guy who can literally ABX *everything* on a whim due to "spatial detail", and at no point does anyone say "you know, you really need to come over to my house at this point for me to take the final leap into acceptance." That's really what's needed in these cases. Maybe it's all true; maybe it's all BS. We can literally never know with what has been presented.


----------



## sonitus mirus

mmerrill99 said:


> Totally untrue! I'm re-reading his posts from *this thread* & contrary to your insinuations he has given all the details of his testing, has followed suggestions for doing it differently & for checking various elements of the procedure & equipment - has described, in detail, what he is picking up as audible differences & has posted excerpts from the files he is using so that others can/have analysed them. Your opinion is very biased & not borne out by the facts which reading ultmusicsnob posts will quickly reveal


 
  
 Now there are 3 threads you linked to where UltMusicSnob abruptly vanished in September of 2013 when things were getting interesting.  This last thread had more details, but there was still a lot of coaching from other members to eventually limit some potentially obvious issues with the initial testing setup.  It was really looking like the artifacts being heard, and only by one person, had something to do with processing different sample rates.  Maybe it was equipment related, and it really deserved some more attention to get to the bottom of things.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> Ultmusicsnobs posts are not necessarily fact either… Seems like we have a guy who can literally ABX *everything* on a whim due to "spatial detail", and at no point does anyone say "you know, you really need to come over to my house at this point for me to take the final leap into acceptance." That's really what's needed in these cases. Maybe it's all true; maybe it's all BS. We can literally never know with what has been presented.


 
 No, of course they are not necessarily fact but they are a strong indicator that he can differentiate what he says he can. I believe your view of him as "a guy who can literally ABX *everything* on a whim due to "spatial detail" is disingenuous - he admits when he gets a positive ABX result by chance rather than just submitting it as a positive result.
  
 I find the dismissal of him & his results on this thread reveals a lack of objectivity & distinct lack of curiousity - preferring instead to dismiss results that don't sit comfortably with the gestalt
    
 What I find interesting is his description of how he differentiates these audio samples. It shows how he trains himself to find the audible differences. He finds different differences in RB Vs high res tests than in the jitter file tests & it doesn't involve the normal style of listening
  
 In the ABX test of RB Vs high-res he says "The difference I hear is NOT tonal quality (I certainly don't claim to hear above 22 kHz). I would describe it as spatial depth, spatial precision, spatial detail. The higher resolution file seems to me to have a dimensional soundstage that is in *slightly* better focus. I have to actively concentrate on NOT looking for freq balance and tonal differences, as those will lead you astray every time. I actively try to visualize the entire soundstage and place every musical element in it. When I do that, I can get the difference. It's *very* easy to drift into mix engineer mode and start listening for timbres--this ruins the series every time. Half the battle is just concentrating on spatial perception ONLY."
  
 Whereas in the ABX jitter testing he says "Listening for jitter is *unlike* other ABX comparisons I've done before. If it helps, I try to imagine the sharpest focus of sound in terms of how "narrow" I can hear the piano attack, as though it were a spatial measure. The narrower attack is 'n'. It is difficult because I'm continually tempted to chase mirages of differences in other details. If I stick to "focus" and "narrow" I get a result."
  
 What I believe his posts illustrate is the motivation needed to give ABX tests a fair chance - the self-training, care, attention & focus come from this motivation & is often missing in ABX participants
  
 In this instance, I'm not particularly interested in whether RB VS high-res sounds different or whether it is an artifact of the upsampling - my interest is in how he is able to differentiate these files when measurements say he shouldn't be able to 
  


sonitus mirus said:


> Now there are 3 threads you linked to where UltMusicSnob abruptly vanished in September of 2013 when things were getting interesting.  This last thread had more details, but there was still a lot of coaching from other members to eventually limit some potentially obvious issues with the initial testing setup.  It was really looking like the artifacts being heard, and only by one person, had something to do with processing different sample rates.  Maybe it was equipment related, and it really deserved some more attention to get to the bottom of things.


 
 Again, I don't see him disappear on any of the threads. From my recall of his posts, he used different playback sources, DACs & headphones so if it was equipment related it was very coincidental.


----------



## sonitus mirus

mmerrill99 said:


> Again, I don't see him disappear on any of the threads. From my recall of his posts, he used different playback sources, DACs & headphones so if it was equipment related it was very coincidental.


 
  
 My referral to his disappearance was due to the fact the he was quick to reply and was actively participating, and then abruptly this all ceased late Sept. 2013.  It seems odd that his involvement stopped.  He did not appear to be attacked or ridiculed in any of the threads I managed to read. 
  
 I ran over to HA and searched the listening test forum around the same time frame, especially since xnor was involved in the threads here at Head-Fi, but I didn't run into anything obvious over there that seemed related.
  
 I'm VERY interested and would like to know more.  I was half-serious when I wanted ultmusicsnob to try and ABX two identical files. A positive ABX on that seems just as unlikely, but would have cut right to the chase and we could have probably ruled out that the music was audibly different.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> No, of course they are not necessarily fact but they are a strong indicator that he can differentiate what he says he can. I believe your view of him as "a guy who can literally ABX *everything* on a whim due to "spatial detail" is disingenuous - he admits when he gets a positive ABX result by chance rather than just submitting it as a positive result.


 
  
 Well it's all philosophy then, because you seem to be as eager to believe his result as we are to disbelieve.


mmerrill99 said:


> I find the dismissal of him & his results on this thread reveals a lack of objectivity & distinct lack of curiousity - preferring instead to dismiss results that don't sit comfortably with the gestalt


 
  
 I read all the posts in that thread and the previous thread, so don't talk to me about lacking curiosity. I also took one of the samples and did a conversion to-and-fro from 44.1 to 192 1000 times, and couldn't hear any difference in the resulting files or their difference. Perhaps there are linearity issues in his setup that differ depending upon sample rates. This is why ultimately these things must proctored on a vetted setup.
  
  


mmerrill99 said:


> What I find interesting is his description of how he differentiates these audio samples. It shows how he trains himself to find the audible differences. He finds different differences in RB Vs high res tests than in the jitter file tests & it doesn't involve the normal style of listening
> 
> 
> In the ABX test of RB Vs high-res he says "The difference I hear is NOT tonal quality (I certainly don't claim to hear above 22 kHz). I would describe it as spatial depth, spatial precision, spatial detail. The higher resolution file seems to me to have a dimensional soundstage that is in *slightly* better focus. I have to actively concentrate on NOT looking for freq balance and tonal differences, as those will lead you astray every time. I actively try to visualize the entire soundstage and place every musical element in it. When I do that, I can get the difference. It's *very* easy to drift into mix engineer mode and start listening for timbres--this ruins the series every time. Half the battle is just concentrating on spatial perception ONLY."


 
  
 That's all vague enough as to sound convincing but be totally useless for figuring out what he's claiming to hear.
  


mmerrill99 said:


> What I believe his posts illustrate is the motivation needed to give ABX tests a fair chance - the self-training, care, attention & focus come from this motivation & is often missing in ABX participants


 
  
 So now instead of questioning these results yourself you are denigrating the abilities of people who legitimately try ABX tests and fail. What evidence do you have that these attributes are "often missing from ABX participants"? Because they so often fail as theory says they should?
  


mmerrill99 said:


> In this instance, I'm not particularly interested in whether RB VS high-res sounds different or whether it is an artifact of the upsampling - my interest is in how he is able to differentiate these files when measurements say he shouldn't be able to


 
  
 Well it kind of had to be an artifact of upsampling…


----------



## cel4145

mmerrill99 said:


> You should read ultmusicsnob's posts rather than taking someone else's biased interpretation of them as the basis for your analysis.



Whether or not sonitus mirus's recount of the thread is accurate, it does not negate my claim about the importance of methodology. Are you saying discussing methodology is _not _an important part of relating conclusions? Or just ducking offering a position on that?


----------



## mmerrill99

cel4145 said:


> Whether or not sonitus mirus's recount of the thread is accurate, it does not negate my claim about the importance of methodology. Are you saying discussing methodology is _not _an important part of relating conclusions? Or just ducking offering a position on that?


 
 Absolutely, methodology is of great importance - that's why I told you to read the details of UltMusicSnob's posts to judge for yourself if there is sufficient detail in his posts about how the test was administered


----------



## sonitus mirus

I don't believe any unofficial home ABX test is going to be conclusive evidence that a difference exists. They can be extremely useful, though, mostly only to the person taking the test.
  
 Normally when these tests are performed, they end the discussion and we can all move on.  In those rare instances where differences are being observed, additional tests using alternate methods can be employed in order to eliminate possible reasons for the differences.  Again, normally a cause is identified as being the culprit, the discussion ends and we all move on.
  
 It usually does not have to come down to testing on different equipment, having others try the test on the same equipment, or with a neutral person proctoring the test.  I don't know if UltMusicSnob's testing was at that point or not, but it seems that it was approaching it as the ideas were growing thin.  It is a process.  I may not require a peer reviewed paper to jump on the bandwagon, but I need a little more to go on than one person's experience without any type of verification from a neutral entity.  It was not enough evidence for me to personally make the leap of faith that a difference was actually present with the music formats.
  
 Even if I was the one hearing a difference, I would put myself through the same rigorous process to seek the truth.  Most of us don't get far enough in our ABX testing to bother.


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> *about the olive welty trials, do they show the results by tester somewhere? all I remember are average value, so they don't demonstrate anything about people hearing the same thing*. and anyway the test was about taste not hearing. and the choices weren't so vast that it could show too many discrepancies. for example the one with the EQ, they only had bass and trebles knobs. that wouldn't tell much about how I might have a resonance at 2.5 or 3.5khz, or if my 6khz was a little too loud. as in such a test, lowering 6khz would mean lowering all the trebles.
> the time delays weren't tested. sound localization wasn't tested. only taste and general shape of a frequency response. which was perfect for the intended purpose of the test. but I don't believe it tells much about your point.


 
  
 Just stumbled upon your above post. Actually, there's a publicly available slide presentation of the OW study that includes some individual results:
  
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16343460/Relationship%20between%20Perception%20and%20Measurement%20of%20Headphone%20Sound%20Quality.key.pdf
  
 The most interesting part starting at page 34, measured headphone response variation across subjects. Even though consistency is pretty good overall, inter-subject variability can be surprisingly high at times (just check out HP3 between 2 and 4kHz!).
  
 And that's not even considering ear canal related variation, since these are blocked canal measurements (i.e. mic positioned at the entrance, canal closed), which usually show less variation between individual HRTFs than open canal measurements.
  


castleofargh said:


> edit: oh and of course I'm not trying to destroy harman's work, it's the best thing done in years for headphones and I EQ my headphone with something in between diffuse field and harman target, it's great.


 
  
 100% agreed, it's the most solid study I've seen so far, and the result is a great guideline. But it's no suitable evidence to support the view that we all hear the same, rather the opposite imho.


----------



## mmerrill99

james444 said:


> Just stumbled upon your above post. Actually, there's a publicly available slide presentation of the OW study that includes some individual results:
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16343460/Relationship%20between%20Perception%20and%20Measurement%20of%20Headphone%20Sound%20Quality.key.pdf
> 
> ...


 
 I don't view it in the same way that you do - in fact the whole study suggests the opposite of this view - we tend towards the same sound preference
 If individual differences in hearing were of much import I would expect the conclusions of the study would have mentioned it - in fact the study would be of little use if we didn't have the same auditory perception mechanisms


----------



## Joe Bloggs

mmerrill99 said:


> I don't view it in the same way that you do - in fact the whole study suggests the opposite of this view - we tend towards the same sound preference




Tell that to head-fi. 

Think about it for a moment. All our ears are shaped differently. With most IEMs we'd be lucky if the eartips someone else is using even fits our ears, never mind fitting for the same acoustic result.

Here, have a pair of Philips SHE3590 which I have painstaking tuned to remove all resonance peaks and nulls *for my ears* using the small stock eartips:



Leaving aside the bass cut, the resonance peak frequencies in the treble that were cancelled out by the EQ were 2900, 5100 7800 and 11500Hz.

The SHE3590 can be yours for less than $10, e.g. http://www.amazon.com/Philips-SHE3590BK-28-In-Ear-Headphones/dp/B007TRUTZS , so they are cheap to buy and play with.

You can easily do controlled sine tone testing and look for resonance peaks of any pair of earphones as they occur in your ears using SineGen:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ysrcmejhalnj8ty/SineGen.zip?dl=0

Now, you would make me a very happy man if you tell me that
1. The small tips even fit your ears
2. You hear exactly the same resonance peaks in SineGen as I did, at exactly the same frequencies

Because that would mean I could simply send you my EQ file for these and you would have just as glorious an in-ear listening experience as I did. Every part of the music just snaps into focus. Wicked detail retrieval as though having run a particularly smart HDR sharpening algorithm for a photo in Photoshop. Less sibilance AND more instrument detail. A soundstage that almost explodes out of your head compared to stock.

But I know better :rolleyes:


----------



## uchihaitachi

mmerrill99 said:


> This is why I favour EEG/MEG/fMRI or other tests that don't involve choice


 
 You seem to have a habit of posting slightly related links, and dismissing opinions without providing sufficient evidence. You called me a layman, yet I am a student of Medicine with an engineering background, and understand the limitations and possibilities of the aforementioned scanning methods.  
  
 Suggesting EEG/MEG/FMRI or any other method of scans to analyse psychoacoustics is at the present moment time not possible. Studying the temporal dynamics of neural activities and interactions (or to see the responses to stimuli is possible), but the accurate localization of neural activities to glean any meaningful data to argue for/against what we discuss in this thread is not. 
  
 Even something as basic as functional magnetic resonance imaging acoustic noise were found to confound the results of auditory fMRI experiments especially when studying higher cognitive processing.
  
 So please stop bringing up brain scans as if it's a viable solution to ABX testing for something like lossless vs redbook. Or please enlighten me with the precise procedural steps you would take in implementing such scans to get meaningful data?


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> > Well it's all philosophy then, because you seem to be as eager to believe his result as we are to disbelieve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mmerrill99

uchihaitachi said:


> You seem to have a habit of posting slightly related links, and dismissing opinions without providing sufficient evidence. You called me a layman, yet I am a student of Medicine with an engineering background, and understand the limitations and possibilities of the aforementioned scanning methods.
> 
> Suggesting EEG/MEG/FMRI or any other method of scans to analyse psychoacoustics is at the present moment time not possible. Studying the temporal dynamics of neural activities and interactions (or to see the responses to stimuli is possible), but the accurate localization of neural activities to glean any meaningful data to argue for/against what we discuss in this thread is not.
> 
> ...


 
 I'm not sure what you want exactly - I replied to your last post about this by linking to some overview papers which could be a good place to start reading into this - I don't know all the answers but from my reading I see these testing methodologies being used more often in all areas of cognitive neuroscience including psychoacoustics.
  
 Apologies if you feel slighted by my comment about laymen - I didn't specifically call you a layman just your comment about these techniques being unable to be used in the areas where ABX testing is currently used. I consider myself a layman in the area (I'm no expert) but I've read enough papers to realise that your comment was not representative of what is happening in this field of research & how evolved the analysis of these various brain scanning techniques has become


----------



## castleofargh

> Originally Posted by *mmerrill99* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I don't view it in the same way that you do - in fact the whole study suggests the opposite of this view - we tend towards the same sound preference
> If individual differences in hearing were of much import I would expect the conclusions of the study would have mentioned it - in fact the study would be of little use if we didn't have the same auditory perception mechanisms


 
 to me what it says is that we have mostly the same taste, despite our body receiving different sounds. which could feel pretty amazing until we realize the study is about frequency response. not at all about stereo positioning or overall perception of realism. only frequency response taste.
 and local variations of 1 or 2db, that's almost nothing for us. we get more variations from how we put the headphone ON, the left and right driver, the left and right ear for some people. so we're very used to deal with such variations all the time as if they were nothing. also in the bass and trebles, +2db is actually hard to notice. and harder as we go toward the end of our hearing range.
  
 did you try creating an EQ for something? if I try several times, I get several EQs. they all point toward a similar correction because I have indeed a preferred signature. but just me with myself, I get more variations than what you seem to expect within individuals. don't mistake a tendency(that was clearly demonstrated by harman papers), for us hearing the same(which is a different matter). I think I gave enough morphological examples of how we don't necessarily get the same sound for that. on headphone it's even funnier as seal could be less from hair or the shape of the head/jaw, or the clamping depending on how big my head is/the headband mechanism. all of it changing at the very least, the sub bass, and more depending on the type of headphone.
  
 so it's unrealistic to interpret harman's research for evidence that we all hear the same thing IMO.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> I was talking about curiosity in what was behind his results - there seems to be an appetite to dismiss the results - some suggest dishonesty (which there's really no answer to) & others suggest his playback setup but he states that he has tried various playback chains so I'm less convinced by this argument. On that thread STV04 had, what I consider to be the right level of skepticism Vs curiousity whereas WakiBaki showed the mean-spirited end of the spectrum


 
  
 You know this would be much easier if you didn't reply in the quote... Also, I miss stv014 
  


mmerrill99 said:


> I believe in some posts he gave track timestamps of where he is listening & picking up audible differences - I don't believe that this type of info could be called vague


 
  
 It's vague because terms like "spatial depth, spatial precision, spatial detail" have no actual agreed upon definition. That's a lot different than saying "I hear echo artifacts in the castanets."
  
  


mmerrill99 said:


> I'm not denigrating anybody's abilities - I'm simply pointing out how difficult it is to do such ABX tests in a valid way. As we both already agreed that such testing should be left to professional researchers, I don't understand your objection to what I say - all these criteria are covered in BS.1116 - the recommendation for how to perform audibility testing for differences of small audio impairments?


 
  
 It isn't actually hard to do ABX if the artifacts are at a level where theory says they should be audible, which is another reason why I'm not wont to just throw theory out of the water for one guy on the internet. My objection was to the conclusion that people must be missing something since they are failing ABX tests.
  
  


mmerrill99 said:


> I believe the upsampled files were analysed & didn't show anything untoward that should be audible but then these measurements may not be revealing of the areas that he is identifying audible differences. Curiousity would probably have raised this issue & followed it up?


 
  
 Hence our skepticism. The next step isn't to have a bunch of people online suggest every possible issue that could have arisen, the next step is to get this stuff tested in actual controlled conditions so that we know it's worth our time to investigate. Certainly one step to take is to focus more on time-based artifacts, but why would/should anyone start a new analysis until the poster in question has been under actual supervised conditions?


----------



## mmerrill99

castleofargh said:


> to me what it says is that we have mostly the same taste, despite our body receiving different sounds. which could feel pretty amazing until we realize the study is about frequency response. not at all about stereo positioning or overall perception of realism. only frequency response taste.
> and local variations of 1 or 2db, that's almost nothing for us. we get more variations from how we put the headphone ON, the left and right driver, the left and right ear for some people. so we're very used to deal with such variations all the time as if they were nothing. also in the bass and trebles, +2db is actually hard to notice. and harder as we go toward the end of our hearing range.
> 
> did you try creating an EQ for something? if I try several times, I get several EQs. they all point toward a similar correction because I have indeed a preferred signature. but just me with myself, I get more variations than what you seem to expect within individuals. don't mistake a tendency(that was clearly demonstrated by harman papers), for us hearing the same(which is a different matter). I think I gave enough morphological examples of how we don't necessarily get the same sound for that. on headphone it's even funnier as seal could be less from hair or the shape of the head/jaw, or the clamping depending on how big my head is/the headband mechanism. all of it changing at the very least, the sub bass, and more depending on the type of headphone.
> ...


 
 I guess I haven't expressed myself well enough - I'm saying that the underlying mechanisms of auditory perception are the same & therefore we will all have the same general preference for a soundscape
  
 Headphones are not a good example of this as the way sound is reaching our ears is unnatural - it's why sound seems to come from inside our head. In the same way unnatural synthesiser sounds are also not a good way to evaluate auditory perception.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> You know this would be much easier if you didn't reply in the quote... Also, I miss stv014


 
 I've tried to rectify this but it's a PITA to paste the full post & delete the most of it just to reply to a particular point - then do the same thing again for the next point. Is there any better way than this?
 Yes, stv014 seems to be an open-minded, technically astute poster - didn't know he was gone


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> I've tried to rectify this but it's a PITA to paste the full post & delete the most of it just to reply to a particular point - then do the same thing again for the next point. Is there any better way than this?
> Yes, stv014 seems to be an open-minded, technically astute poster - didn't know he was gone


 
  
 Not that I know of. I blame @castleofargh.
  
 Haven't seen stv014 in quite a while, and he hasn't responded to PMs. Sometimes people actual commit to staying gone, I guess.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

mmerrill99 said:


> I've tried to rectify this but it's a PITA to paste the full post & delete the most of it just to reply to a particular point - then do the same thing again for the next point. Is there any better way than this?
> Yes, stv014 seems to be an open-minded, technically astute poster - didn't know he was gone




Use the BBCode editor instead of the Rich Text editor and it's easy as pie.


----------



## mmerrill99

joe bloggs said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > I've tried to rectify this but it's a PITA to paste the full post & delete the most of it just to reply to a particular point - then do the same thing again for the next point. Is there any better way than this?
> ...



Great, thanks - yes, that's the one!


----------



## upstateguy

rrod said:


> Ultmusicsnobs posts are not necessarily fact either… Seems like we have a guy who can literally ABX *everything* on a whim due to "spatial detail", and at no point does anyone say "you know,* you really need to come over to my house* at this point for me to take the final leap into acceptance." That's really what's needed in these cases. Maybe it's all true; maybe it's all BS. We can literally never know with what has been presented.


 
  
 Gotta double down on what RRod said when it comes to any and all *self administered* tests.
  
 No sense arguing about it.  It was *self administered*, period.


----------



## Ruben123

Found an interesting read about speaker cables with scientific measurements that may surprise you
  
 http://stereos.about.com/od/accessoriesheadphones/a/Do-Speaker-Cables-Make-A-Difference-Science-Weighs-In.htm
  
 At least it did to me.


----------



## castleofargh

rrod said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > I've tried to rectify this but it's a PITA to paste the full post & delete the most of it just to reply to a particular point - then do the same thing again for the next point. Is there any better way than this?
> ...


 
 lol.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 on a french IRC audio chan, the bot has a quote that translates into "it's always castleofargh's fault". ^_^
 I haven't killed or banned anybody(on headfi 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), I think I'll put a body count in my signature when I start doing it, for transparency and so that my enemies will tremble in fear, muhahahahahaha.
  


ruben123 said:


> Found an interesting read about speaker cables with scientific measurements that may surprise you
> 
> http://stereos.about.com/od/accessoriesheadphones/a/Do-Speaker-Cables-Make-A-Difference-Science-Weighs-In.htm
> 
> At least it did to me.


 
 would have made more sense to have the impedance graph from the speaker and the impedance output of the source(unless I missed them?).
 because with a strong crossover, and a super low amp impedance output, it's obvious that any cable with more impedance will have significant impact on the signature.
 also 20foot of 24awg for speaker cable???? who does that? ^_^
 else it looked ok and I see no reason why this couldn't be true.


----------



## watchnerd

ruben123 said:


> Found an interesting read about speaker cables with scientific measurements that may surprise you
> 
> http://stereos.about.com/od/accessoriesheadphones/a/Do-Speaker-Cables-Make-A-Difference-Science-Weighs-In.htm
> 
> At least it did to me.


 
  
 This is all known stuff and is based upon pretty standard rules of thumb regarding length, gauge and resistance vs capacitance trade-offs.  I'm shocked Butterworth didn't already know this.
  
 However, it's not relying upon magical theories about cryogenics or other voodoo.  It's standard electrical theory.


----------



## analogsurviver

ruben123 said:


> Found an interesting read about speaker cables with scientific measurements that may surprise you
> 
> http://stereos.about.com/od/accessoriesheadphones/a/Do-Speaker-Cables-Make-A-Difference-Science-Weighs-In.htm
> 
> At least it did to me.


 
 Good read. No surprises there.
  
 Whenever there is anything to connect that has real world impedance ratios and shifts, cables do matter and will introduce audible difference. The only example where there is no likely measurable difference is a very low output impedance amp driving a very constant resistive load with totally insignificant reactive components.
  
 These differences may be low to very big ( > 3 dB within 20Hz-20kHz range, and even more beyond ) - but they can be audible. And no, it does not require a cable made out of unobtainium, starched with the virgin blood of a dodo bird and priced accordingly. It can be done with cables costing around 2-5 $/EUR per metre - but one has to know what is important in each and every application.


----------



## Ruben123

Im starting to hate science lol
  
 http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue56/abx.htm
  
 Article about how good ABX is and what it delivers us.
  
 About the cable differences: Well of course I know when the impedance of a cable gets high enough it may alter the sound, but I never thought that you needed such a short 24 gauge cable to really have some effects in, of course, sensitive equipment. But even then, VERY thin LONG headphone cables in VERY impedance sensitive headphones CAN have impact on sound it seems. So boutique headphone cable makers DO have a point, theyre probably selling extremely thin and long cables that could have impact on some headphones. But even then, if 24 gauge needs 1m/3ft to get a 0.3dB impact on the sound (in that test) it's barely audible of course and headphone cables are often not any longer than 6ft.


----------



## sonitus mirus

ruben123 said:


> Im starting to hate science lol
> 
> http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue56/abx.htm
> 
> ...


 
  
 My friend's wife was in the kitchen with the dishwasher running and even she claims to hate science.  Therefore, science must be bad. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I normally only find 24 AWG speaker wire on a spool of 50 feet or more.  I suppose someone looking for an inexpensive way to connect speakers in a setup with long runs may choose that option, but it is really meant to be cut to shorter lengths.  Most speaker cable in lengths below 50 feet are much higher gauge, and even a Monoprice search on "speaker cable" or "speaker wire" shows 18 AWG as the lowest available option.


----------



## mmerrill99

upstateguy said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > Ultmusicsnobs posts are not necessarily fact either… Seems like we have a guy who can literally ABX *everything* on a whim due to "spatial detail", and at no point does anyone say "you know, *[COLOR=0000FF]you really need to come over to my house[/COLOR]* at this point for me to take the final leap into acceptance." That's really what's needed in these cases. Maybe it's all true; maybe it's all BS. We can literally never know with what has been presented.
> ...




But then doesn't this logic apply to all cases of ABX results, both positive & negative - none are to be believed?
Why then are such tests called for?


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> But then doesn't this logic apply to all cases of ABX results, both positive & negative - none are to be believed?
> Why then are such tests called for?


 
  
 You do realize that double-blind testing is a standard staple of many other fields, especially drugs, right?
  
 Double-blind testing methodology is the consensus standard for removing human mind-body / placebo / confirmation bias effects.
  
 It's not the methodology that is flawed, it's the execution.  Audio tests aren't conducted with the huge sample sizes, test subjects, and timeframes that we apply to drugs.


----------



## uchihaitachi

mmerrill99 said:


> But then doesn't this logic apply to all cases of ABX results, both positive & negative - none are to be believed?
> Why then are such tests called for?


 
 There's nothing wrong with the methodologies themselves, but the wrongful execution can yield weird results, which does happen quite often. Nonetheless, if I came across two individuals on head-fi where one performed the usual sighted listening evaluations, and one who tried to implement a legitimate test via ABX, I know whose opinion I would trust more.
  
 Even with wrongful executions of DBTs, they can still remove a lot of bias, even something as simple as volume matching that is so often overlooked.
  
  


watchnerd said:


> You do realize that double-blind testing is a standard staple of many other fields, especially drugs, right?
> 
> Double-blind testing methodology is the consensus standard for removing human mind-body / placebo / confirmation bias effects.
> 
> It's not the methodology that is flawed, it's the execution.  Audio tests aren't conducted with the huge sample sizes, test subjects, and timeframes that we apply to drugs.


 
 nice muhle glashutte


----------



## upstateguy

watchnerd said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > But then doesn't this logic apply to all cases of ABX results, both positive & negative - none are to be believed?
> ...


 
  
 Hey WN
  
 It reads like Double M  is referring to *self administered* ABX tests, not double blind tests.
  
 And, of course I  have to agree, with Double M in that it should apply to both positive and negative results, and  Double R that that unusual or unexpected *self testing* results need to be verified by another tester, if they are to be accepted by the general population.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Castleofargh should be a travelling abx and dbt moderator. Take it up a notch from being a forum moderator


----------



## upstateguy

uchihaitachi said:


> nice muhle glashutte


 
  
 Off Topic:
  


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Personally I find it annoying when a reputable company puts a movement that was designed for one of their smaller watches into a large case in order to avoid having to design a movement to fit the case.


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > But then doesn't this logic apply to all cases of ABX results, both positive
> ...


Yes & they mostly don't involve asking the patient if he feels healthier. If there is a perceptual element to the test then it is very carefully controlled to avoid biasing in every aspect



> It's not the methodology that is flawed, it's the execution.  Audio tests aren't conducted with the huge sample sizes, test subjects, and timeframes that we apply to drugs.



Well the methodology is prescribed in published standards so yes, if the execution is flawed then the results are unreliable which is what I'm suggesting with home administered ABX testing - on this we both agree so I guess your post is just to agree with what I said?


----------



## mmerrill99

uchihaitachi said:


> Castleofargh should be a travelling abx and dbt moderator. Take it up a notch from being a forum moderator




Now you're talking - that's the best piece of advice offered on this thread so far


----------



## watchnerd

uchihaitachi said:


> nice muhle glashutte


 
  
 Thanks!  And nice Bach!


----------



## watchnerd

upstateguy said:


> Hey WN
> 
> It reads like Double M  is referring to *self administered* ABX tests, not double blind tests.


 
  
 Self-administered and double-blind are not mutually exclusive.
  
 On my computer, right now, I have a piece of software called 'ABX Tester'.  
  
 I can load in 2 tracks, A and B, and then it will run an ABX test on me.  Assuming they're level matched (and they should already be if I'm doing something simple like comparing transcodes that I created myself), it meets the basic criteria.
  
 It's blind to me and it's double blind because, well, it's just a dumb software program that can't introduce it's own biases.


----------



## krismusic

So out here as a technical numb nuts, what is the best way to evaluate gear? I always figured that if I got a friend to swap a component out and I could identify which I was listening to,then that was a pretty sound basis upon which to form an opinion.


----------



## watchnerd

krismusic said:


> So out here as a technical numb nuts, what is the best way to evaluate gear? I always figured that if I got a friend to swap a component out and I could identify which I was listening to,then that was a pretty sound basis upon which to form an opinion.


 
  
 Evaluate it however you wish.
  
 Nobody is saying you can't like something because you think it looks cooler or has more street cred or or has better built quality or gives you pride of ownership.


----------



## uchihaitachi

krismusic said:


> So out here as a technical numb nuts, what is the best way to evaluate gear? I always figured that if I got a friend to swap a component out and I could identify which I was listening to,then that was a pretty sound basis upon which to form an opinion.


 
 I take measurements.
  
 If it's with regards to file quality, I just use foobar to do ABX.
  
 Swapping a component with volume matching isn't great, as the delay in switching the component can affect your listening. One's auditory memory is far too fallible but it's far better than sighted tests so...


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> Well the methodology is prescribed in published standards so yes, if the execution is flawed then the results are unreliable which is what I'm suggesting with home administered ABX testing - on this we both agree so I guess your post is just to agree with what I said?


 
  
 No, I'm not agreeing with everything you said.
  
 I can self-administer a rigorous double-blind ABX comparing digital audio tracks at home.  And I can do it in a way that is repeatable by others.
  
 However, that is only the necessary conditions, but not the sufficient ones, for peer review.  At a minimum, a large sample size would be needed, the size not only depending on simple statistical significance, but on the number of other variables (e.g. differences in hardware) to do good cohort analysis.


----------



## krismusic

watchnerd said:


> Evaluate it however you wish.
> 
> Nobody is saying you can't like something because you think it looks cooler or has more street cred or or has better built quality or gives you pride of ownership.



I'm not interested in paying money for those reasons.


----------



## watchnerd

krismusic said:


> I'm not interested in paying money for those reasons.


 
  
 What are you interested in paying for?


----------



## castleofargh

uchihaitachi said:


> Castleofargh should be a travelling abx and dbt moderator. Take it up a notch from being a forum moderator


 

 I don't even have a white coat, would I be taken seriously(but I have resistors and crocodile clips as a starting kit)?
 now if I can spend 3 weeks sleeping at the person's home free of charge, I'm ready to test some stuff in the Caribbeans any time. if there is a good spot for windsurf close to it I feel even more scientific.


----------



## krismusic

watchnerd said:


> What are you interested in paying for?



Soundstage and imaging.


----------



## mmerrill99

krismusic said:


> watchnerd said:
> 
> 
> > What are you interested in paying for?
> ...



Yes & I would sum it up as a better illusion of an audio scene which often involves soundstage & imaging, as you say as well as better rendition of low level details.


----------



## watchnerd

krismusic said:


> Soundstage and imaging.


 
  
 That's interesting....are you in the high-directivity or low-directivity camp?


----------



## krismusic

watchnerd said:


> That's interesting....are you in the high-directivity or low-directivity camp?



I had to Google that! I don't understand how those characteristics apply with headphones. Please explain. 
Basically I am trying to crack on enjoying music out of a very simple set up. I constantly read on here of products that people claim would dramatically improve my experience. I'm inclined to call BS 99% of the time. Occasionally I get drawn in and then evaluating gear without bias and placebo seems inordinately difficult.


----------



## watchnerd

krismusic said:


> I had to Google that! I don't understand how those characteristics apply with headphones. Please explain.
> Basically I am trying to crack on enjoying music out of a very simple set up. I constantly read on here of products that people claim would dramatically improve my experience. I'm inclined to call BS 99% of the time. Occasionally I get drawn in and then evaluating gear without bias and placebo seems inordinately difficult.


 
  
 Sorry, my bad. It doesn't apply to headphones.  I tend to think of imaging as mostly a 'speaker thing', as headphones are pretty limited in soundstaging.
  
 The best thing you can do for imaging with a set of headphones is to listen to binaural recordings.


----------



## castleofargh

Kris, the best way to get soundstage is not to use headphones(and even less IEMs) ^_^.
 with headphones, binaural recordings is of course the logical choice, but keep in mind that the headphones must also be chosen for that purpose(usually with a certain signature and a good deal of trebles) instead of just getting one with a signature you like.
 and the next possible step still goes to something like the smyth realiser. having at least a measurements of your ears done with a pair of headphones, and some convolving mean to compensate what needs be, or even simulate other environments.
  
 it's the best possible way, and I'm always amazed to see that it hasn't become something as casual as making a mold to get custom IEMs.
  
 hd800 obviously also comes to mind, I hate the signature, but I don't think anybody will question the "headstage". is it the low distortion? or is it the bright frequency response? probably a little of both but it does something not many headphones seem to do.
  
  
  
 personally I didn't get anything special out of binaural recordings, I have tried a few albums from chesky, but whatever the IEM I tried(from ER4 to IE80), and no matter how well some were recorded, it didn't give me much feeling of having the guys playing in front of me. some people seem to have a blast so I'm quite jealous.


----------



## watchnerd

castleofargh said:


> personally I didn't get anything special out of binaural recordings, I have tried a few albums from chesky, but whatever the IEM I tried(from ER4 to IE80), and no matter how well some were recorded, it didn't give me much feeling of having the guys playing in front of me. some people seem to have a blast so I'm quite jealous.


 
  
 I've actually made a few binaural recordings.  I find the best results come when the microphones in the head and playback phones are from the same manufacturer (in my case, AKG).


----------



## upstateguy

watchnerd said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey WN
> ...


 
  
 Never heard of that software..... Oh well.    So I guess that you're right.  But I still think self testing is for personal edification.


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> Kris, the best way to get soundstage is not to use headphones(and even less IEMs) ^_^.
> with headphones, binaural recordings is of course the logical choice, but keep in mind that the headphones must also be chosen for that purpose(usually with a certain signature and a good deal of trebles) instead of just getting one with a signature you like.
> and the next possible step still goes to something like the smyth realiser. having at least a measurements of your ears done with a pair of headphones, and some convolving mean to compensate what needs be, or even simulate other environments.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the interest Castleofargh. I was really responding to Watchnerd asking me what improvements I would pay for. 
I accept that I have probably got about as far as I can with the mighty K10's, which I am fortunate enough to own. 
My real point was that any further improvement from amps, cables, DAC's etc etc is likely to be small to non existent, having got the headphones right. IMHO. 
I would love to hear the Smythe Realiser. I missed it at CanJam London. 
I used to have a fantastic active car system with a lot of DSP. Definitely the way forward. 
I always wished that I had that much control over a home speaker system. 
I could never afford to do it properly. Much to the neighbours relief!


----------



## davidsh

castleofargh said:


> Kris, the best way to get soundstage is not to use headphones(and even less IEMs) ^_^.
> with headphones, binaural recordings is of course the logical choice, but keep in mind that the headphones must also be chosen for that purpose(usually with a certain signature and a good deal of trebles) instead of just getting one with a signature you like.
> and the next possible step still goes to something like the smyth realiser. having at least a measurements of your ears done with a pair of headphones, and some convolving mean to compensate what needs be, or even simulate other environments.
> 
> ...


 
 I kind of know what you mean. I seem to recall having read that one of the things our brain gets confused about with headphones, even binaural recordings, is forward vs behind. In real life this is easily identified by moving the head, not so with recordings. Chesky recordings are also made to work with both speakers and headphones and as such generally not all out binaural from what I recall having read, rather some sort of middle ground. And then there's the whole HRTF can of worms.
  
 Presently, I'm having a blast at equalizing my new speakers (near-field desktop setup) and using REW for the first time. The bass was really screwed up when I started, much more linear now. Sorrily, that discussion is borderline OT here -_-
 Anything I should/can do about phase-correction?


----------



## uchihaitachi

davidsh said:


> I kind of know what you mean. I seem to recall having read that one of the things our brain gets confused about with headphones, even binaural recordings, is forward vs behind. In real life this is easily identified by moving the head, not so with recordings. Chesky recordings are also made to work with both speakers and headphones and as such generally not all out binaural from what I recall having read, rather some sort of middle ground. And then there's the whole HRTF can of worms.
> 
> Presently, I'm having a blast at equalizing my new speakers (near-field desktop setup) and using REW for the first time. The bass was really screwed up when I started, much more linear now. Sorrily, that discussion is borderline OT here -_-
> Anything I should/can do about phase-correction?


 

 I might be crucified saying this on head-fi, but I would take a solid near field desktop setup over most headphones


----------



## castleofargh

that's obvious to me. but other life forms in the vicinity _*strongly*_ advise me to use headphones instead.


----------



## uchihaitachi

castleofargh said:


> that's obvious to me. but other life forms in the vicinity _*strongly*_ advise me to use headphones instead.


 
 But most other life forms in the vicinity are from the realms of magic.


----------



## castleofargh

uchihaitachi said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > that's obvious to me. but other life forms in the vicinity _*strongly*_ advise me to use headphones instead.
> ...


 

 yeah like unicorns or my GF(is self trolling against TOS?). but I assure you others are real and have potent voices I can hear even through the walls.


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> yeah like unicorns or my GF(is self trolling against TOS?). but I assure you others are real and have potent voices I can hear even through the walls.


 
  
 I had finally gotten rid of neighbors but then added in a wife. Poor speakers just don't get to do much ever, it seems


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> I had finally gotten rid of neighbors but then added in a wife. Poor speakers just don't get to do much ever, it seems




Get the wife some nice headphones to wear _while_ you use your speakers


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> Get the wife some nice headphones to wear _while_ you use your speakers


 
  
 She already has my HD598s; guess I need to go closed-back or IEM


----------



## Roly1650

rrod said:


> I had finally gotten rid of neighbors but then added in a wife. Poor speakers just don't get to do much ever, it seems



Her who has to be obeyed decided that my speakers were perfect to hold her plants up off the floor. The water rings on the teak finish are a marvel of geometric precision, the beauty of which I hadn't considered when I bought them. Still, what's mine is her's and what's her's is her own, she's fair like that. A small(ish) price to pay for actually still being able to use them, (having removed said plants first).


----------



## uchihaitachi

roly1650 said:


> Her who has to be obeyed decided that my speakers were perfect to hold her plants up off the floor. The water rings on the teak finish are a marvel of geometric precision, the beauty of which I hadn't considered when I bought them. Still, what's mine is her's and what's her's is her own, she's fair like that. A small(ish) price to pay for actually still being able to use them, (having removed said plants first).


 
 I heard plants can sometimes help to add 'organicness and naturalness' to the sound. Let me know how it is.


----------



## Ruben123

Well at least I've now heard a dap that actually does have a sound! It seems to try to mimic a powerful one by pushing the bass down but the trebles quite up. I'm talking about the ruizu x02 that also plays flac with an exceptional long battery life, only $11,72 (!!). I don't complain, it has a build in custom eq.


----------



## krismusic

roly1650 said:


> Her who has to be obeyed decided that my speakers were perfect to hold her plants up off the floor. The water rings on the teak finish are a marvel of geometric precision, the beauty of which I hadn't considered when I bought them. Still, what's mine is her's and what's her's is her own, she's fair like that. A small(ish) price to pay for actually still being able to use them, (having removed said plants first).



Prolly a small price to pay for remaining married but I admire your fortitude. I would have been ticked off with the plant malarkey!
Regarding near field systems. The best system I ever had was in my van. Active with a lot of DSP. Superb. 
Life changed and the van had to go. I now travel around a lot on public transport and it's only my CIEM's that keep me sane. I love 'em and even listen to them indoors. In preference to my full size!


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quick question:
  
 If I re-encode a pre-existing FLAC to FLAC again yet in a more decompressed form, is there any loss in quality? I presume not as they are both lossless formats? (I did this by accident all morning... sigh)
  
  
 After this, I encoded the original FLAC to 320 cbr mp3. Just to test things, I also encoded my more decompressed flac (from the initial re-encoding from above) to 320cbr mp3. The file sizes were different... Between these 2 mp3 files, are there any quality differences? and why are the file sizes different?


----------



## watchnerd

uchihaitachi said:


> Quick question:
> 
> If I re-encode a pre-existing FLAC to FLAC again yet in a more decompressed form, is there any loss in quality? I presume not as they are both lossless formats? (I did this by accident all morning... sigh)


 
  
 Lossless is lossless. That shouldn't matter.
  


uchihaitachi said:


> Quick question:
> 
> 
> After this, I encoded the original FLAC to 320 cbr mp3. Just to test things, I also encoded my more decompressed flac (from the initial re-encoding from above) to 320cbr mp3. The file sizes were different... Between these 2 mp3 files, are there any quality differences? and why are the file sizes different?


 
  
 No obvious explanation and IMHO it shouldn't happen.  What software are you using?
  
 If you expand both of the two FLACs to WAV, then convert to 320 CBR MP3, do you get the same results?
  
 That being said, 320 CBR is stupid.  It encodes silence at 320 kbps. LAME V0 is transparent to 320 CBR and much smarter.


----------



## uchihaitachi

watchnerd said:


> Lossless is lossless. That shouldn't matter.
> 
> 
> No obvious explanation and IMHO it shouldn't happen.  What software are you using?
> ...


 
  
 I'm using dbpoweramp for the lossy conversion. 
  
 i will try that, slightly
  
 yeah I used CBR cos I kept getting different file sizes encoding to all bitrates using the small vs big flac... I don't understand just why it's different in file size


----------



## castleofargh

convert to wave, do they weight the same? maybe try diffmaker then to get an idea of how much changed. the going to mp3 to check if something changed is just adding more unknowns IMO.


----------



## uchihaitachi

castleofargh said:


> convert to wave, do they weight the same? maybe try diffmaker then to get an idea of how much changed. the going to mp3 to check if something changed is just adding more unknowns IMO.


 
 Just ried, the wav is slightly different in size very slightly....
  
 I used cuetools to output the Flac from the original to a more decompressed version. Do you think it may be cuetools that added something or took away something?


----------



## james444

Might be related to padding: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=96037


----------



## uchihaitachi

the differences are rather small


----------



## uchihaitachi

james444 said:


> Might be related to padding: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=96037


 
 Oh gosh, this makes sense. Thank you! 
  
 I presume the effects of padding will pass over if the flac is then changed into mp3?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Looking for the experts to poke any holes in my explanation of DSD here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/742609/sony-nw-zx2-hi-end-dap/9915#post_12232943


----------



## watchnerd

joe bloggs said:


> Looking for the experts to poke any holes in my explanation of DSD here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/742609/sony-nw-zx2-hi-end-dap/9915#post_12232943


 
  
 Well, first of all, this footnote is just wrong because it leaves sample rate out of the equation, and there aren't 16.7 million steps between 0 and 1.  What you probably mean to say is that there are 16.7 million possible increments per sample.
  
 "Incidentally, this makes me wonder why one would think this is the closest approximation to vinyl or analog that one can achieve.... DSD is a 1-bit digital signal! It's either 1 or 0! That's as "digital" as it can be! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 24-bit audio does give you 16.7 million steps between 0 and 1 to approximate the analog variations..."
  
 As for this:
  
 "This for example allows CD audio to be "brickwalled" with a near-perfect lowpass filter with a transition band of only a few hundred Hz"
  
 Actually, no.  This is incorrect. One of the benefits of oversampling is the ability to avoid high-order brickwall filters that have a sharp transition band.  Because the filter can implemented at a higher frequency, it can be a lower order, gentler slope -- not a brickwall.
  
 " The *practical* shortcoming of native DSD is simply this: you can't apply any sort of processing on it."
  
 You can if you're willing to convert it to PCM.  That may sound like heresy, but it shouldn't because it was already converted to PCM during the mixing/mastering as DAWs can't process DSD.


----------



## RRod

watchnerd said:


> "This for example allows CD audio to be "brickwalled" with a near-perfect lowpass filter with a transition band of only a few hundred Hz"
> 
> Actually, no.  This is incorrect. One of the benefits of oversampling is the ability to avoid high-order brickwall filters that have a sharp transition band.  Because the filter can implemented at a higher frequency, it can be a lower order, gentler slope -- not a brickwall.


 
  
 I think he meant that the digital filter can be near perfect.
  
@Joe Bloggs
 Honestly DSD isn't so bad as a delivery format (we use delta-sigma all the time, after all), but it's just a completely different beast, seemingly for the purpose of having a completely different beast. I don't really see the point of it, other than to make it just a bit harder for people to play around with their files as they might want to, including, as you point, out making DSP way too hard without just going to PCM...


----------



## watchnerd

rrod said:


> I think he meant that the digital filter can be near perfect.


 
  
 Actually, I wouldn't agree with that, either.  There is no such thing as a perfect filter, either digital or analog.  There is always a trade off in phase, impulse response, etc.  There is no free lunch.  It's just the way the physics / math of signal processing theory works.


----------



## castleofargh

the audible impact of a strong brickwall filter is as far as I know still to be determined. sure it can make a little mess where it is, but if that's 20khz who cares? I would believe that OS and slower low pass filter is in good part a money/make it simple thing. more than an actual need for audio reasons.
  
 now when talking DACs as a whole, I'm all for OS.


----------



## RRod

watchnerd said:


> Actually, I wouldn't agree with that, either.  There is no such thing as a perfect filter, either digital or analog.  There is always a trade off in phase, impulse response, etc.  There is no free lunch.  It's just the way the physics / math of signal processing theory works.


 

 "Near perfect" is far from "perfect"


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> the audible impact of a strong brickwall filter is as far as I know still to be determined. sure it can make a little mess where it is, but if that's 20khz who cares?


 
  
 Evidently lots of people on this site. Of course, don't bother to ask if they can hear 20kHz... what would that have to do with anything!!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

watchnerd said:


> As for this:
> 
> "This for example allows CD audio to be "brickwalled" with a near-perfect lowpass filter with a transition band of only a few hundred Hz"
> 
> Actually, no.  This is incorrect. One of the benefits of oversampling is the ability to avoid high-order brickwall filters that have a sharp transition band.  Because the filter can implemented at a higher frequency, it can be a lower order, gentler slope -- not a brickwall.




My understanding is, oversampling to F= oversampling frequency->digital brickwall below f= original input audio frequency ->gentle analog filter to lowpass below F.

?



> " The *practical* shortcoming of native DSD is simply this: you can't apply any sort of processing on it."
> 
> You can if you're willing to convert it to PCM.  That may sound like heresy, but it shouldn't because it was already converted to PCM during the mixing/mastering as DAWs can't process DSD.




That's not "native" DSD decoding at all, is it :rolleyes:


----------



## watchnerd

rrod said:


> "Near perfect" is far from "perfect"


 
  
 Infinitely far, in fact.


----------



## watchnerd

joe bloggs said:


> That's not "native" DSD decoding at all, is it


 
  
 It's not, but what is?  
  
 If you know of a commercially released DSD recording that didn't go through a DAW for editing, I'll eat my hat.
  
 Okay, I don't actually have a hat.  But still.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Well, my post was written in response to a question of "what's the difference between native and non-native DSD decoding?"

Specifically, converting to PCM for decoding was described as non-native.

Whole point of the post was to describe the two ways of going about decoding DSD...


This part is all right right?


> My understanding is, oversampling to F= oversampling frequency->digital brickwall below f= original input audio frequency ->gentle analog filter to lowpass below F.


----------



## watchnerd

joe bloggs said:


> This part is all right right?


 
  
 Except you can have a gentle digital filter, too, and these days it often is digital instead of analog.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

watchnerd said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > This part is all right right?
> ...




What? Doesn't the last part have to be analog?


----------



## watchnerd

joe bloggs said:


> What? Doesn't the last part have to be analog?


 
  
 No, not at all.
  
 All you care about is that the ultrasonic garbage is cut off and attenuated before it hits the amps.  You can implement that in DSP before it gets converted to analog.


----------



## watchnerd

watchnerd said:


> No, not at all.
> 
> All you care about is that the ultrasonic garbage is cut off and attenuated before it hits the amps.  You can implement that in DSP before it gets converted to analog.


 
  
 Let me clarify this:
  
 This is a specific case that applies when using a DSP-based crossover in conjunction with PWM amplifiers, like you get in some active studio monitors.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

watchnerd said:


> Let me clarify this:
> 
> This is a specific case that applies when using a DSP-based crossover in conjunction with PWM amplifiers, like you get in some active studio monitors.




 .


----------



## Pio2001

watchnerd said:


> As for this:
> 
> "This for example allows CD audio to be "brickwalled" with a near-perfect lowpass filter with a transition band of only a few hundred Hz"
> 
> Actually, no.  This is incorrect. One of the benefits of oversampling is the ability to avoid high-order brickwall filters that have a sharp transition band.  Because the filter can implemented at a higher frequency, it can be a lower order, gentler slope -- not a brickwall.


 
  
 Hi,
 In my understanding, it _is_ correct. Oversampling features sharp filters in the digital domain instead of analog, which is much easier, _and_ a gentler one in the analog domain.
  


watchnerd said:


> Actually, I wouldn't agree with that, either.  There is no such thing as a perfect filter, either digital or analog.  There is always a trade off in phase, impulse response, etc.  There is no free lunch.  It's just the way the physics / math of signal processing theory works.


 
  
 The trade-off between frequency response and transient accuracy is an old legend. There _never_ has been _any_ trade-off about transient accuracy. It is _all_ about frequency response.
  
 The idea comes from a misinterpretation of the oscilloscope visualization of the output signal of a pure pulse. Visualisation produced with a resolution near the MHz. The pulse seems to smear more and more as and when the frequency response is extended close to the cutting frequency, with sharper and sharper filters.
 But in reality, what we see isn't time-smearing, it is ringing. An audiogram visualisation of a musical signal with full frequency range (0 - 22050 Hz for a 44100 Hz digital stream) shows the difference : as and when the digital filter gets sharper, time smearing becomes more and more important on the 22050 Hz frequency line. The timing of everything under 22050 Hz remains perfectly accurate. No smearing at all.
  


castleofargh said:


> the audible impact of a strong brickwall filter is as far as I know still to be determined. sure it can make a little mess where it is, but if that's 20khz who cares? I would believe that OS and slower low pass filter is in good part a money/make it simple thing. more than an actual need for audio reasons.
> 
> now when talking DACs as a whole, I'm all for OS.


 
  
 A listening test about that once existed, and the audio samples should be remade if someone has the technical possibility to do it.
  
 Take a musical sample with a lot of high frequencies, and make lowpassed versions of it at 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 kHz using three kind of filters.
 -A standard lowpass with a soft slope.
 -A lowpass with a cosine frequency profile, as used in DACs or MP3 encoders, something like 0 dB at 19500 Hz, and minus infinite at 20500 Hz, for the 20 kHz version.
 -A true Sinc brickwall : 0 dB at 19998 Hz, minus infinite at 20002 Hz.
  
 I had the chance of listening to the two later ones. Though I could hear up to 14 kHz on pure sines, I could not distinguish the 13 kHz "cosine" filtered sample from the original one. Only at 12 khz could I hear the loss of treble.
 The true brickwall version was extremely interesting : the 14 kHz version sounded exactly like the original, but with a permanent 14 kHz sine added on top of it, whose volume was modulated by the amount of high frequency in the original.
  
 Ringing is just that : a bleep of a fixed frequency playing on top of the music, that is completely unchanged except for that additional note. Hearing it at 12, 13, 14 kHz etc. allows to understand exactly the sonic effect of a too sharp filter in a CD player : your speakers just play a bleep that you can't hear... and this only if your musical program actually contains energy at 22050 Hz. With nothing at this frequency on the CD, there will be no ringing at all, even with a true brickwall filter in your DAC.
  


joe bloggs said:


> My understanding is, oversampling to F= oversampling frequency->digital brickwall below f= original input audio frequency ->gentle analog filter to lowpass below F.
> 
> ?


 
  
 I don't understand your equation. I think that a standard DAC should take the original PCM samples, oversample using a sharp lowpass filter, convert to analog, then filter the analog output with a soft lowpass.


----------



## watchnerd

pio2001 said:


> The trade-off between frequency response and transient accuracy is an old legend. There _never_ has been _any_ trade-off about transient accuracy. It is _all_ about frequency response.
> 
> The idea comes from a misinterpretation of the oscilloscope visualization of the output signal of a pure pulse. Visualisation produced with a resolution near the MHz. The pulse seems to smear more and more as and when the frequency response is extended close to the cutting frequency, with sharper and sharper filters.
> But in reality, what we see isn't time-smearing, it is ringing. An audiogram visualisation of a musical signal with full frequency range (0 - 22050 Hz for a 44100 Hz digital stream) shows the difference : as and when the digital filter gets sharper, time smearing becomes more and more important on the 22050 Hz frequency line. The timing of everything under 22050 Hz remains perfectly accurate. No smearing at all.


 
  
 Sorry, but no. 
  
 The tradeoffs in filters are predicted by the math of signal processing theory, not by what people see on oscilloscopes.  See FIR vs IIR.


----------



## jcx

I'm fine with using context to decide but strictly speaking Oversampling is a ADC technique - using much higher sample frequency than the needed/desired analog signal's bandwidth with the expectation of sample rate reduction to a lower rate, involving digital filtering
  
 when reducing the sample rate an oversampling system has more choices but if you want 20 kHz flat audio response and 44.1k sample rate then you are likely "brickwalling"
  
  
 Upsampling is the interpolation of a given digital stream to a higher sample rate on the DAC side with the higher sample rate interpolated digital representation conversion to analog - and can use digital filters working at the higher sample rate to "brickwall" too
  
 in any case you can only remove frequencies digitally within the Nyquist limit of the higher sample rate, still need analog filtering for antialias or image filtering (including consideration of the reflection about Nyquist of the filter function)
  
  
 so there is much symmetry/overlap in the terminology, practical implementations but still a fundamental difference to keep in mind


----------



## Pio2001

watchnerd said:


> Sorry, but no.
> 
> The tradeoffs in filters are predicted by the math of signal processing theory, not by what people see on oscilloscopes.  See FIR vs IIR.


 
  
 For lowpass filtering in a DAC, linear phase FIR should be used, isn't it ?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

www.head-fi.org/t/794467/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-2016-update


----------



## Ruben123

My dear friends 
Did I miss something or are the Chord Mojo curves not yet posted/discussed about here?


----------



## watchnerd

ruben123 said:


> My dear friends
> Did I miss something or are the Chord Mojo curves not yet posted/discussed about here?


 
  
 I don't know what curves you speak of.


----------



## uchihaitachi

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/cd-dvd-blu-ray/62/776.html?start=5
  
 Is it this what you speak of?


----------



## watchnerd

uchihaitachi said:


> http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/cd-dvd-blu-ray/62/776.html?start=5
> 
> Is it this what you speak of?


 
  
 If those are the curves in question, they're nice specs, but I don't see anything controversial about them.
  
 ???


----------



## Ruben123

Well a month ago the developer Rob came discussing here about timing differences that made the Mojo clearly better than the competition, but we have not had (or have we?) seen any measurements otherwise than claims yet. When I look at the given link, I dont really see something special which should give the Mojo that clearly better sound.


----------



## watchnerd

ruben123 said:


> Well a month ago the developer Rob came discussing here about timing differences that made the Mojo clearly better than the competition, but we have not had (or have we?) seen any measurements otherwise than claims yet. When I look at the given link, I dont really see something special which should give the Mojo that clearly better sound.


 
  
 It's got nice stats, but for $599 for a portable, it should.  And most of the extra improvements in stats are well below the threshold of audibility.
  
 As for "timing differences"....what did he mean by that?
  
 Did he mean reduced jitter?


----------



## Ruben123

watchnerd said:


> It's got nice stats, but for $599 for a portable, it should.  And most of the extra improvements in stats are well below the threshold of audibility.
> 
> *As for "timing differences"....what did he mean by that?*
> 
> *Did he mean reduced jitter?*


 
 No clue what it was, must be somewhere on this topic I think.


----------



## RRod

ruben123 said:


> No clue what it was, must be somewhere on this topic I think.


 
  
 See around this post.


----------



## watchnerd

rrod said:


> See around this post.


 
  
 He uses the term "timing uncertainty"...if he means timing inaccuracy, that's jitter.


----------



## watchnerd

The thing that bugs me about the Chord Mojo is the plastic toy-looking case.
  
 And the stupid 'Mojo' in giant cursive script.
  
 If I'm going to pay $599 for a portable DAC, I want it to look like something better than 1980's-Walkman-Meets-Duplo-Blocks.


----------



## uchihaitachi

watchnerd said:


> The thing that bugs me about the Chord Mojo is the plastic toy-looking case.
> 
> And the stupid 'Mojo' in giant cursive script.
> 
> If I'm going to pay $599 for a portable DAC, I want it to look like something better than 1980's-Walkman-Meets-Duplo-Blocks.


 
 The thing that bothers me about most of the Chord products is the coloured light thing. Looks like a malfunctioning christmas tree.


----------



## watchnerd

uchihaitachi said:


> The thing that bothers me about most of the Chord products is the coloured light thing. Looks like a malfunctioning christmas tree.


 
  
 That, too, now that you mention it.


----------



## krismusic

.


----------



## watchnerd

krismusic said:


> .


 
  
 Indeed.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr.watchnerd on CHORD Mojo "Looks",
  
 Your subjective observations of the Mojo are valid, for you.  
  
 But the Black Case, colors, window, etc are ergonometric interfaces for the Civilian population that appreciate or need their technology to be human friendly.  
  
 CHORD (and the British in general) seem to go deeper into Consumer acceptability than the technical requirements for Scientists like yourself.  
  
 We, perhaps, should applaud an outfit that attempts to appeal to the Wider Marketplace.
  
 Need simple? (me) buy Schiit.  Need a "bit" of nice?, buy CHORD.  
  
 Tony in Michigan
  
 ps. for the record, I don't like that Mojo script!, I written Chord about it but for a $600…..


----------



## Koolpep

watchnerd said:


> The thing that bugs me about the Chord Mojo is the plastic toy-looking case.
> 
> And the stupid 'Mojo' in giant cursive script.
> 
> If I'm going to pay $599 for a portable DAC, I want it to look like something better than 1980's-Walkman-Meets-Duplo-Blocks.


 

 I thought this is sound science? Now there is a discussion about looks and colors and cursive fonts? Seriously? But if that's all there is to criticize on this thing...then I guess it's a good thing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 To be fair: it's a very small device, in all these photos you might see on the net it's a bit blown out of proportion. Once you see this little thing and handle it (case is lovely metal) - it really looks and feels so much better in reality.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## sonitus mirus

I find the entire product line of Chord to be odd in appearance and out of place with more standard, sleek audio equipment that I prefer. It is way overpriced for what it offers.  I realize the design cost is outrageous, but I don't see any benefits at all with the end result.  
  
 I think it has more of a cult following.  Jim Jones and Kool-Aid come to mind.


----------



## krismusic

koolpep said:


> I thought this is sound science? Now there is a discussion about looks and colors and cursive fonts? Seriously? But if that's all there is to criticize on this thing...then I guess it's a good thing.
> 
> To be fair: it's a very small device, in all these photos you might see on the net it's a bit blown out of proportion. Once you see this little thing and handle it (case is lovely metal) - it really looks and feels so much better in reality.
> 
> Cheers!



If we are talking about ergonomics rather than performance. 
I am put off by the fact that to use the Mojo with an iPhone, the CCK has to be used. 
I mentioned this on the Mojo thread and received a response from someone at Chord saying that this is because Apples licensing procedure requires that they disclose so much detail of their design. 
I completely understand that but it is too clunky a work around for a product that is advertised specifically as an upgrade to the performance of smartphones, IMHO. 
Back to performance. 
I heard the Mojo at a show last weekend and the improvement, if any, is very subtle to my ears. 
Maybe too subtle to appreciate from a short listen in the show environment but I remain unconvinced. 
A lot of the enthusiasm on the Mojo thread sounds like classic placebo and expectation bias to me.


----------



## watchnerd

tonykaz said:


> Mr.watchnerd on CHORD Mojo "Looks",
> 
> Your subjective observations of the Mojo are valid, for you.
> 
> ...


 
  
 It has nothing to do with "ergonometric" (I think you're trying to say 'ergonomic') choices. It's their quirky brand identity.
  
 Apple sells stuff to hundreds of millions of consumers, generally considered to have good UI, and they don't look like children's toys.


----------



## uchihaitachi

tonykaz said:


> Mr.watchnerd on CHORD Mojo "Looks",
> 
> Your subjective observations of the Mojo are valid, for you.
> 
> ...


 
 Ergonomics????
  
 At least the Chord products' specs are solid which is normally not the case for majority of 'audiophile grade' products. Kudos to them for that. I had the chord hugo on loan for a while. The 'ergonomics' was terrible. There wasn't enough spacing for thicker cables, the volume control sphere thing is just really weird and hard to control etc.


----------



## Koolpep

watchnerd said:


> It has nothing to do with "ergonometric" (I think you're trying to say 'ergonomic') choices. It's their quirky brand identity.
> 
> Apple sells stuff to hundreds of millions of consumers, generally considered to have good UI, and they don't look like children's toys.


 

 ergonometric is an adjective, same meaning as ergonomic.
*er′go·nom′ic*,  *er′go·no·met′ric* (-nə-mĕt′rĭk)_ adj._
*er′go·nom′i·cal·ly*_ adv._
*er·gon′o·mist* (ûr-gŏn′ə-mĭst)_ n._
  
 Anyhow, this is not language science either but sound science. I find the design as well on the weird side, but in person/in reality, it looks and feels way better than what you think from the photos. I find the idea using colours on the buttons actually quite interesting to convey information without more displays, LEDs and dials. Makes it very clean and simple. Though quirky for sure.


----------



## krismusic

uchihaitachi said:


> Ergonomics????
> 
> At least the Chord products' specs are solid which is normally not the case for majority of 'audiophile grade' products. Kudos to them for that. I had the chord hugo on loan for a while. The 'ergonomics' was terrible. There wasn't enough spacing for thicker cables, the volume control sphere thing is just really weird and hard to control etc.



It's true that Chord are to be applauded for being very public with their specs. How many of them are audible is the question.


----------



## castleofargh

I'd like to see more measurements of those gears(of every gear in fact ^_^). it's hard to say good or back things when we really don't know much. what do they do when driving 16ohm? what do they do when driving 135ohm? those are the stuff that should matter for portable gears no?
 I'm always a little frustrated when something is supposedly superior but no real life usage evidence is offered. if I had a product that was the best at anything, or even just super good at anything, I couldn't stop talking about the specs and how much better mines are. but somehow we keep talking about inside components, design philosophy and sometimes, unloaded measurements that say nothing about actual usage. it's really weird. or maybe not.
 well on the bright side, I don't buy anything because I never buy stuff unless I see what I'm looking for or can test and measure stuff myself. so maybe the audio industry is secretly trying to help me save money?


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> I'd like to see more measurements of those gears(of every gear in fact ^_^). it's hard to say good or back things when we really don't know much. what do they do when driving 16ohm? what do they do when driving 135ohm? those are the stuff that should matter for portable gears no?
> I'm always a little frustrated when something is supposedly superior but no real life usage evidence is offered. if I had a product that was the best at anything, or even just super good at anything, I couldn't stop talking about the specs and how much better mines are. but somehow we keep talking about inside components, design philosophy and sometimes, unloaded measurements that say nothing about actual usage. it's really weird. or maybe not.
> well on the bright side, I don't buy anything because I never buy stuff unless I see what I'm looking for or can test and measure stuff myself. so maybe the audio industry is secretly trying to help me save money?



It's great that you understand the specs. 
Bozo's like me have to go on what we hear. Highly unreliable IME! 
I have come to value threads like this when assessing gear rather than the somewhat wishful thinking that passes for analysis elsewhere on HeadFi. 
Fun though that is!


----------



## castleofargh

more than understanding specs, I'm starting to get some ideas about how they're done. nothing like trying to measure something yourself to realize how important some variables can be. and at the same time, how hard it can be to do something that leads to meaningful conclusions.
 but most measurements are still good enough to separate the dysfunctional product from the rest. and that's really most of what I'm asking for. to get rid of the crap in a pretty box. after than knowing if time super accuracy is better than amplitude super accuracy in a sine signal... that's interesting as a discussion subject, but the sound itself will most likely be just fine anyway.


----------



## james444

Reading tip:
  
http://www.bjorl.org.br/en/sound-pressure-level-generated-by/articulo/X1808869414746693/


----------



## Ruben123

Did read it quickly. So sound pressure level is higher, though due to greater noise blocking the volume itself can be set lower isn't it. Don't exactly know what to conclude.


----------



## dazzerfong

james444 said:


> Reading tip:
> 
> http://www.bjorl.org.br/en/sound-pressure-level-generated-by/articulo/X1808869414746693/


 
 From my quick skim, it looks like the set the output volume to be the same. Under those circumstances, of course IEM's are going to be worse: it's a sealed chamber after all. Does it account for the fact that people use IEM's at a lower volume than earbuds due to their noise-isolation?


----------



## davidsh

I don't see how it could be useful. Seems like a waste of ressources to me.


----------



## james444

ruben123 said:


> Did read it quickly. So sound pressure level is higher, though due to greater noise blocking the volume itself can be set lower isn't it. Don't exactly know what to conclude.


 


dazzerfong said:


> From my quick skim, it looks like the set the output volume to be the same. Under those circumstances, of course IEM's are going to be worse: it's a sealed chamber after all. Does it account for the fact that people use IEM's at a lower volume than earbuds due to their noise-isolation?


 


davidsh said:


> I don't see how it could be useful. Seems like a waste of ressources to me.


 
  
 Agreed, the main conclusion that IEMs have higher SPL than earbuds is pretty obvious and hardly surprising.
  
 But imo, the detailed results make it a worthwhile read. The differences found in resonance (and SPL) peaks between both types of earphones. The variance across subjects regarding SPL and resonance peaks. The significant difference they found between males and females...
  
 Just goes to show again, how averaged HRTF-compensations like Diffuse Field and Olive-Welti are just guidelines and not worth fighting "accuracy flame wars" over between individuals. And, as a side note, raises reasonable doubt about the common practice of using headphone-based compensations for IEMs.
  
 Jm2c.


----------



## krismusic

davidsh said:


> I don't see how it could be useful. Seems like a waste of ressources to me.



I wouldn't want to dismiss this information so readily. I do worry that we stick these things in our ears. The ear was never before subjected to this.


----------



## cel4145

dazzerfong said:


> Does it account for the fact that people use IEM's at a lower volume than earbuds due to their noise-isolation?




Good question. 

I wish the article were in English so I could read it, because I wonder if it actually says anything useful. We already know that IEMs can be designed for high SPL output. But assuming someone listens at the same perceived volume with IEMs vs. earbuds, then shouldn't the SPL at the ear drum be the same? If so, this article is about as useful as saying that bigger speakers can produce more SPL than smaller speakers.


----------



## OddE

cel4145 said:


> Good question.
> 
> I wish the article were in English so I could read it,




-Unless I am missing something, it is - just scroll past the Portuguese abstract, and there you are... 

(I've put it on my to read-list, but haven't gotten around to doing so yet.)


----------



## james444

cel4145 said:


> I wish the article were in English...


 
  
 I should have mentioned that it's in two languages, Portuguese and English. Guess I expected too much from objectivists.


----------



## RRod

james444 said:


> I should have mentioned that it's in two languages, Portuguese and English. Guess I expected too much from objectivists.


 
  
 At least we don't fall for composition fallacies 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 p.s. Good job locking the 24-bit thread, guys. That thing needed to die.


----------



## cel4145

odde said:


> -Unless I am missing something, it is - just scroll past the Portuguese abstract, and there you are...
> 
> (I've put it on my to read-list, but haven't gotten around to doing so yet.)




LOL

Now I just skimmed through it. Definitely doesn't say anything useful.


----------



## Ruben123

Dont understand the audiophile debates last years, it's only about technical and specification talk. It's not any more (well for some decades even I guess) about the pleasure of listening to music, but more to hear (or think you can!!) technical faults in your audio player (it sure is my DAC that is warmer sounding than that DAC, must upgrade). While my portable sound is not really high end (Sandisk Sansa and Samsung i9000 which are regarded as very good - though still cheap so who knows how much better it could be - with Sennheiser HD439 and Havi B3 P1 IEMs) my home setup (Technics amp with Jamo 704 speakers - excellent) is quite a bit better. I took an audio cassette (compact/musicassette) with some classical music on it and with regular Dolby enabled (ancient Technics cassette player too) it sounds excellent.
  
 No noise at all. On paper it must be aweful, but it sounds as lifelike as any CD Ive tried. Without Dolby there is noise, yes. But with Dolby, even at high volumes, the sound is very very good. Everyone knows any digital format, when good enough, is way better than those cheap musicassettes from back then, but even then there is lots of debate about jitter being almost audible or not. Et cetera!!! Please lets go back to where it is about: enjoying music. Most people on this forum seem to have forgotten that.
  
 No debate about cassettes though, maybe I could ABX them with CDs but this one Im listening now gives me enough pleasure. Do I need to know if the same music on CD sounds better? No not for now. I enjoy it and that is what it is about.
  
  
  
 Now something different, the world outside Science on this site is going nuts really. Look at these quotes. It can be said without being yelled at. (link for better reading: http://www.head-fi.org/t/737093/the-pono-player-impressions-thread/1110)
  
  
  
  
  
_PP increases productivity. Once everything sounds right, proper, and at high quality the inspiration just drips from it. Fast songs pump you up, slow songs get you into a groove._
  
_No listening fatigue. No ADHD-NEXT TRACK! after 30 seconds.  No worry about something not sounding good or right or complete like on a phone._
  
_*I truly believe that lossy audio coding is bad for our health. *It was a long journey for me to accept this. Only a few years back I was pushing a streaming service - a block of programming I had designed that was mixing music in a therapeutic way, designing DJ sets based on emotional cycles and grouped themes. I was having fun with the concepts, the crate digging, and the musical journey of the project - but the finished product was falling flat. I used to assume mp3's were getting about 70% and that the quality programming behind it could offset that 30% loss. _
  
_Around that time Neil started calling mp3's 10% files and I bristled at first. 10%? Please, I can hear the song!  Then the light bulb went on. I mix music, I produce records, I have been in some decent studios, I have been to mastering sessions. I know what real quality music sounds like when rendered properly, even digital.  I quickly agreed and understood that we were all spinning in place with mp3/phones because they just can't push the quality we deserve. The compromise at first was accepted, the digital convenience just too enticing to let quality get in the way. But now that we can have quality with convenience quality has gone out of style.  [Not on this board or with pono people, but as a mainstream thing]._
  
_Anyway, story over, long live lossless digital, long live hi-res digital, the sooner perceptual-lossy coding is gone from our music the better!   *Our brains have to work harder to fill in the blanks and this cuts directly into our enjoyment. All that digital distortion, that small paper box sound, that crunchy flat lifeless mp3/mp4 sound - good riddance.*_
  
_*Music can heal,* music can inspire, music is a weapon of love, and it needs to be fully represented by proper rendering. Mp3's = McD's.  Mp4's = Wendy's. They fill you up with food-like substances but will leave you an unhappy person, if not kill you._
  
 ---------------------------------------
 My reply about what, how can you say those things?!
 ---------------------------------------------------------
_I hope we're not starting one of those "objectivist" "science" things again...there is a "Science" thread, I stay away from there, people that want to argue against hi rez (or cables, or many other topics) should go there, stay out of the Pono thread...Never accomplishes a thing posting here._
 ------------------------------------------------------------
_It's not real science, it's science-like talk.  Real science would never determine a hard-limit to the human senses and claim the science is settled on the matter. It's an absurd stance and no true scientific mind would take it. It's out of context in a discussion about quality and music because scientific studies don't cover such trivialities as enjoying music. Modern science is concerned with hearing loss and restoration, weaponizing sound, and using sound for medical purposes - not giving people better music._
  
_Human perception is the great variable that science will never trap for. It's the essence of art, taste, style, and sex. Science will never build the formula for "good" and will never deduce and reduce the secret of musical quality._
  
_Perceptual coding utilizes this confusion to it's advantage. If you can "prove" that most people hear and describe things completely differently, you can claim anything._
  
_Then there's the larger discussion about the war against quality and the hatred of so-called audiophiles, or anyone who gives a **** these days. _
_------------------------------------------------------------------------_
_Well said!_
 ----------------------------------------------------------
_Thanks - they've already banned me from the faux science forum here "for my own good". Nothing like being dismissed over the internet._
  
*There must be other fields were these so-called objectionists are under attack by subjectionists, b/c they seem to retaliate and attack music lovers and music producers unwittingly. *
  
*It's like paint manufacturers telling artists how to paint.*
  
_Actually, it's like chemists that work for paint manufacturers telling me that I can't make a certain color with their product. I can make many more colors with their product than they can. The smart ones with that actual position understand this. The internet keyboard-jockeys understand far less._
  
_I'm not an audiophile, i just can't afford it, but i have produced music for many years so i know all about making a crappy version for the "consumer" since they are disrespected in the process. _


----------



## Koolpep

Quoting:
  
_If you want to get into a discussion on the quality of music, you totally lost me at "Apple Music is 256kbit/s AAC, not lossless but pretty close. the resolution is 16bit/44khz you probably mean bitrate, but for AAC 256kbit/s is quite good"._
  
_Not even subjective as my kids can hear a difference.  In my home system (even my bedroom Linn Kiko) 256 is unlistenable for me as well as anyone in my family.  Yes, there is a huge difference.  I pay the money I pay for my systems as well as personal audio to listen to what i love and in high quality.  _


----------



## RRod

ruben123 said:


> Now something different, the world outside Science on this site is going nuts really. Look at these quotes. It can be said without being yelled at. (link for better reading: http://www.head-fi.org/t/737093/the-pono-player-impressions-thread/1110) …


 
  
 Well there was a reason said person was banned from this particular sub-forum. But yes, there is an almost wild agitation against compression algorithms (to be expected when people stop thinking CDs are even good enough), usually based upon someone's vague recollection of what 128k MP3 sounded like back in 1997. The reality of course is that if you secretly switched out someone's entire collection with -V0 MP3, there is a high probability that they wouldn't be the wiser (unless some little blue light let them know). And any golden ears you might find would probably fall prey to something more modern, like AAC or Opus.
  
 The invective is further enhanced by this narrative that us SS people (Schutzstaffel not Sound Science, apparently) don't actually like music or even listen to music, and also wouldn't know good sound if it hit us with a triangular prism. So of course we're fine with using only 256k of bandwidth rather than 4608k and can't appreciate the extra detail added by moar bits or samples. Some of us even have the cojones to admit that we don't hold various rock titles from the 60s and 70s as the peak of audio fidelity. Oh well.


----------



## limpidglitch

ruben123 said:


> *There must be other fields were these so-called objectionists are under attack by subjectionists, b/c they seem to retaliate and attack music lovers and music producers unwittingly. *


 
  
 I object to being called an objectionist!
 Or maybe I'm the subjectionist in this setting? I'm a bit confused, who're attacking who?
  


ruben123 said:


> *It's like paint manufacturers telling artists how to paint.*
> 
> _Actually, it's like chemists that work for paint manufacturers telling me that I can't make a certain color with their product. I can make many more colors with their product than they can. The smart ones with that actual position understand this. The internet keyboard-jockeys understand far less._


 
  
 It's like neurophysiologists telling me I can't get high by smoking banana peels.
 I'm high on life, yo. I can se colors that don't even exist!


----------



## krismusic

Not wishing to be pedantic but the terms are Objectivist. Someone who demands proof and Subjectivist. Those who trust their emotional responses.


----------



## limpidglitch

krismusic said:


> Not wishing to be pedantic but the terms are Objectivist. Someone who demands proof and Subjectivist. Those who trust their emotional responses.


 
  
 That was kind of the joke.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Would appreciate it if someone would give this an ear
http://www.head-fi.org/t/555263/foobar2000-dolby-headphone-config-comment-discuss/810#post_12496793


----------



## castleofargh

most certainly interested to try, but to avoid lagging behind even more on all the things I've already said I would do(still haven't finalized my review for XTZ... ), I'm afraid this can't go straight on top of my todo list.


----------



## Ruben123

This amazes me so much.

People buy an ak380, saying it's state of the art, best of the best, only getting the special copper edition after some weeks (as an upgrade) and then telling others that "the DAC of the normal 380 is not bad".
Is not bad!!


----------



## RRod

joe bloggs said:


> Would appreciate it if someone would give this an ear
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/555263/foobar2000-dolby-headphone-config-comment-discuss/810#post_12496793


 
  
 What's the channel order for the 7.1 convolution?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

rrod said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > Would appreciate it if someone would give this an ear
> ...




Starting channel Destination channel
FL L
FL R
FR L
FR R
C L
C R
Sub L
Sub R
SL L
SL R
SR L
SR R
BL L
BL R
BR L
BR R

The matching config text file takes care of things.


----------



## RRod

joe bloggs said:


> Starting channel Destination channel
> FL L
> FL R
> FR L
> ...


 
  
 I was going to do this on Linux using the convolver that stv014 (RIP) had made available. I try my best to avoid Wine.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

RRod *I neglected to mention in my original post that I did the convolution wav files at 44.1kHz so that's what you should set your system to resample to...*


----------



## cel4145

This thread has been quiet for awhile. Found a post in our sister forum, Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories, that I thought might interest you guys. 



coltmrfire said:


> I have the stock USB cable that came with my Audio engine D1 DAC/amp combo. When I upgraded to a Schiit Modi 2 DAC, I ordered a PYST USB cable from Schiit as well. First I used the pyst on the Modi for a while. One day got curious and swapped it for the old stock cable and I actually preferred the sound of the stock...it sounded smoother. *To be fair, that cable had much more burn in time.*





USB cables benefit from burn in? 

I wish we had an all powerful artificial intelligence that could data mine Internet conversations about USB cables and find out where this myth originated. Was it instructions from a boutique company? Or, like some of what I read in the intro forum, self-rationalized theories about audio based purely on subjective evaluation?


----------



## ColtMrFire

Oh its the bait thread.


----------



## cel4145

coltmrfire said:


> Oh its the bait thread.




Oh, you weren't serious? I fell for it


----------



## Ruben123

I burn in my keyboard so I can type faster. To do that, I turn my PC on, 4 hours before I'm going to use it. So wonderful it really helps.


----------



## reginalb

ruben123 said:


> I burn in my keyboard so I can type faster. To do that, I turn my PC on, 4 hours before I'm going to use it. So wonderful it really helps.


 
  
 Everybody knows that's not good enough. Something needs to be hitting the keys to truly burn it in. The first 48 hours after purchase, you need to put one of these on a little conveyor belt. It's vital that the conveyor belt be carefully configured on both the x and y axis, so that it gets all keys. Just like running pink noise through your DAP.


----------



## RRod

Anyone else read this and think "if only there were a way to test devices against one another that removed biases due to price tags"?


----------



## SergeSE

rrod said:


> Anyone else read this and think "if only there were a way to test devices against one another that removed biases due to price tags"?


 

 ... and not only think but work on this. I'm pretty sure, there is an audio metric that correlates much much better to perceived audio quality. Results of applying such metrics to portable players are promising - http://soundexpert.org/portable-players


----------



## Joe Bloggs

sergese said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else read this and think "if only there were a way to test devices against one another that removed biases due to price tags"?
> ...




I do not get how you get results where the fidelity figure for playing music or white noise is so much worse than for all the other test tone types. I suspect you have got an alignment problem with these types of signals. E.g. mild changes in phase response over frequency could yield very low correlation between white noise input and output but be very much inaudible as a form of distortion.


----------



## SergeSE

joe bloggs said:


> I do not get how you get results where the fidelity figure for playing music or white noise is so much worse than for all the other test tone types. I suspect you have got an alignment problem with these types of signals. E.g. mild changes in phase response over frequency could yield very low correlation between white noise input and output but be very much inaudible as a form of distortion.


 

 You are almost right, the reason of higher difference between input and output for white noise is phase response over frequency. Time alignment is perfect for all signals. That is why white noise is not appropriate test signal for assessment of perceived audio quality but it is the best signal to reveal phase response inaccuracy of an audio tract. Df values with real-world audio material correlates much better to perceived quality. It is true even in cases of testing psychoacoustic encoders (http://soundexpert.org/news/-/blogs/objective-difference-measurements-to-predict-listening-test-results-). For analog audio circuits the most promising technical signal is Program Simulation Noise. Its Df values are close to df values of real music material.


----------



## RRod

sergese said:


> ... and not only think but work on this. I'm pretty sure, there is an audio metric that correlates much much better to perceived audio quality. Results of applying such metrics to portable players are promising - http://soundexpert.org/portable-players


 
  
 I was thinking more blind testing than measurement. Many audiophiles are aggressively anti-blind-testing, as though not knowing which device is which is some horrible torture reserved for a circle of hell. Given this, it's completely unsurprising to me that prices are on the loony side. Either way, both blind testing and measurement have their typical "worries" that people use against them e.g. "maybe there's something we're not measuring" or "maybe the blind test makes things too stressful".


----------



## reginalb

rrod said:


> I was thinking more blind testing than measurement. Many audiophiles are aggressively anti-blind-testing, as though not knowing which device is which is some horrible torture reserved for a circle of hell. Given this, it's completely unsurprising to me that prices are on the loony side. Either way, both blind testing and measurement have their typical "worries" that people use against them e.g. _*"maybe there's something we're not measuring" or "maybe the blind test makes things too stressful".*_


 
  
 And of course the solution to a couple reasonably possible, but minor issues, is to switch to a completely awful paradigm of sighted testing.


----------



## SergeSE

rrod said:


> I was thinking more blind testing than measurement. Many audiophiles are aggressively anti-blind-testing, as though not knowing which device is which is some horrible torture reserved for a circle of hell. Given this, it's completely unsurprising to me that prices are on the loony side. Either way, both blind testing and measurement have their typical "worries" that people use against them e.g. "maybe there's something we're not measuring" or "maybe the blind test makes things too stressful".


 
  
  


reginalb said:


> And of course the solution to a couple reasonably possible, but minor issues, is to switch to a completely awful paradigm of sighted testing.


 
  
 No one pretends that blind testing is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that blind testing is the worst form of audio quality assessment except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.


----------



## castleofargh

reginalb said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking more blind testing than measurement. Many audiophiles are aggressively anti-blind-testing, as though not knowing which device is which is some horrible torture reserved for a circle of hell. Given this, it's completely unsurprising to me that prices are on the loony side. Either way, both blind testing and measurement have their typical "worries" that people use against them e.g. _*"maybe there's something we're not measuring" or "maybe the blind test makes things too stressful".*_
> ...


 

 IMO the appeal doesn't come from confidence in the result, but from the fact that my sighted evaluation will always agree with me. that is a powerful argument to anybody who doesn't want anybody or anything telling him when he's wrong.
  
 if a tree falls in the forest and I don't know I'm wrong, did it really fall?


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> IMO the appeal doesn't come from confidence in the result, but from the fact that my sighted evaluation will always agree with me. that is a powerful argument to anybody who doesn't want anybody or anything telling him when he's wrong.
> 
> if a tree falls in the forest and I don't know I'm wrong, did it really fall?


 
Hevea brasiliensis, it bounced back.


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> IMO the appeal doesn't come from confidence in the result, but from the fact that my sighted evaluation will always agree with me. that is a powerful argument to anybody who doesn't want anybody or anything telling him when he's wrong.
> 
> if a tree falls in the forest and I don't know I'm wrong, did it really fall?


 
  
 Yeah but in a world where everything agrees with me, then I will always spend just that bit more $$, and then we end up in exactly the situation the post-in-question was addressing. So my feeling is that if people want the prices to be not so insane as to drive people away, you need to full-throatedly, from-the-mountaintop shout "sighted testing doesn't cut it!"


----------



## reginalb

sonitus mirus said:


> If anyone is curious to see their own ears' frequency response, there is an online test available that creates equal loudness contours.
> 
> http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html


 
  
 I've been reading through this thread, I had made a post on here a while ago about my head sometimes hurting with certain DAC/amps when paired with my AKG Q701's Well I just tried out the test at that link, while didn't follow their instructions entirely, I used open back (grado's) headphoens and didn't ensure low background noise, just doing a quick test for fun, but I think I've identified my issue. That 16k signal, even at a relatively low volume for what I could hear, made my head really hurt, to the point that my eyes are watering. So I guess my brain dislikes high pitched sounds. Perhaps I need to be trying out some DAP's with treble rolloff! (or just, you know, use the EQ on the ones that I have)


----------



## Ruben123

reginalb said:


> I've been reading through this thread, I had made a post on here a while ago about my head sometimes hurting with certain DAC/amps when paired with my AKG Q701's Well I just tried out the test at that link, while didn't follow their instructions entirely, I used open back (grado's) headphoens and didn't ensure low background noise, just doing a quick test for fun, but I think I've identified my issue. That 16k signal, even at a relatively low volume for what I could hear, made my head really hurt, to the point that my eyes are watering. So I guess my brain dislikes high pitched sounds. Perhaps I need to be trying out some DAP's with treble rolloff! (or just, you know, use the EQ on the ones that I have)




What about a headphone with milder treble.


----------



## reginalb

ruben123 said:


> What about a headphone with milder treble.


 
  
 I will give that a try, along with a little bit better DAC/amp, who knows if there the inbuilt sound card in my HP laptop wasn't adding some weird noise to the signal.
  
 In unrelated news, I received an ad via email today, from Moon-Audio, advertising a product on a steep discount, from $5,000 to $3,000:
  
 https://www.moon-audio.com/ps-audio-perfectwave-power-plant-10.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=PS%20Audio%20P10&utm_campaign=June%2023%202016
  
 How can they get away with calling this a power generator? From the Moon-Audio description: 
  
 "The P10 PerfectWave Power Plant is the largest and most advanced high-end personal power generating station in the world.  It's capable of powering any size system with pure sine wave power, no other product comes close to a P10′s ability to bring forth all that’s possible from your system and ensures you get the same great performance every time."
  
 Hmm, this is a personal power generating station? Now, sure, power generation is a bit of a misnomer, since a power plant really just converts energy from some form to the AC that arrives in your home. But I always interpreted a power generator to be something that's converting a more raw form of something with high potential energy in to power that we can use. Clearly, this isn't like a gas generator, though that would be awesome. The Moon-Audio listing wasn't clear, so I headed to the producer's site, and got this:
  
 "The PerfectWave P10 Power Plant takes your incoming AC power and converts it to DC, similar to what comes out of a battery, and then with patented PS Audio technology regenerates and produces new sine-wave-perfect, regulated high current AC power..."
  
 What the actual ****. So, it converts your AC to DC, then back to AC? I mean, I know audiophiles will buy some crazy stuff, but seriously?
  
 So I wanted to get to the definition of generator, was I correct?
  
 "...A machine that converts one form of energy into another, especially mechanical energy into electrical energy, as a dynamo, or electrical energy into sound, as an acoustic generator."
  
 OK, well, _technically _you could call it a generator, but a useless one. You end up with the same output type as the input (Though undoubtedly there is energy lost in the process). So I guess you can't get on them too much about their wording, as it's technically correct, but I think it's pretty misleading to call it a generator. Anyway, that was my morning laugh before work today. Now I'm past start time for work, so I guess I should get to it!


----------



## Ruben123

I think it is sort of a UPS -a device with built in battery than constantly charges and outputs HiFi quality angel's pee power for your incredible ak380cu stock. 
Like a notebook. It can (can!!!! ) in very bad wired houses help get rid of interference. But if you have the money for such a device, you too have the money to move to a great new house with swimming pool, house maids etc lol


----------



## Dillan

God I should have sub'd here a while a go. As a technology professional/entrepreneur I tend to look at things from a more technical and science driven perspective. I also am a big believer in double blind testing and just thorough examination and testing in general. A lot of times people will say this or that is better while using different tracks, different times of comparison and just using crazy outlandish reasons. I don't really care either way, people can waste their money and time all they want - but I at least _try _to question and inform people as much as possible.


----------



## jcx

hope it works for you but Sound Science struggles with relevance at head-fi
  
 the format isn't great and the general forum denizens that have been "protected" from fact based arguments seem to want to come here to provoke and then get offended easily


----------



## Dillan

jcx said:


> hope it works for you but Sound Science struggles with relevance at head-fi
> 
> the format isn't great and the general forum denizens that have been "protected" from fact based arguments seem to want to come here to provoke and then get offended easily




Sad really


----------



## castleofargh

"The study, published in the journal's June issue, found that 60 percent of people lied at least once during a 10-minute conversation and told an average of two to three lies. "
 http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-06/uoma-urf061002.php
  
  
+
  
 normal average ignorance
  
  
+
  
  
 people who believe that if it's them talking, then opinion is fact. who will get highly offended when you ask for some evidence of their exotic claims.
  
= 
  
 much wow, very fighting.

  
  
  
  
 of course none of this would happen if people had more curiosity than ego. (not me, I'm perfect!)


----------



## Ruben123

Woof!
It now goes around that the Sony HiFi memory card does really cause better audio quality because the Sony zx2 dap has horrible interference with memory cards. While I do know different cards ask different power from a device, I find it very hard to believe that there is any increase in sound....


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> … people who believe that if it's them talking, then opinion is fact. who will get highly offended when you ask for some evidence of their exotic claims. …


 
  
 Seems lately that it's them believing that belief is science, and so any of us who claim that science doesn't support their beliefs are simply charlatans.


----------



## Ruben123

I get how they think though. We all think the earth is flat. Imagine a scientist came up and said that the earth is round instead because... 
For us, a flat earth makes more sense and reflects what we see. The earth doesn't curve, what is that bs.
Go away scientist. Ban him. Lynch him, kill him quickly. 
*changing cables won't make a difference sir* *QUICKLY BAN HIM WITH THAT BS*


----------



## RRod

ruben123 said:


> I get how they think though. We all think the earth is flat. Imagine a scientist came up and said that the earth is round instead because...
> For us, a flat earth makes more sense and reflects what we see. The earth doesn't curve, what is that bs.
> Go away scientist. Ban him. Lynch him, kill him quickly.
> *changing cables won't make a difference sir* *QUICKLY BAN HIM WITH THAT BS*


 
  
  
 Actually it's more like lots of scientists have already decided the earth is round and have written tons of books on the subject, but they just can't get the word out to people who live where printing presses are considered the devil's work


----------



## sonitus mirus

Just trust your level, it's perfectly flat.


----------



## upstateguy

rrod said:


> ruben123 said:
> 
> 
> > I get how they think though. We all think the earth is flat. Imagine a scientist came up and said that the earth is round instead because...
> ...


 

  Have you guys seen how many flat earth videos are on YouTube?


----------



## Dillan

upstateguy said:


> Have you guys seen how many flat earth videos are on YouTube?




Those same dudes are the ones who flocked to the lessloss black body back in the day. http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html


----------



## krismusic

dillan said:


> Those same dudes are the ones who flocked to the lessloss black body back in the day. http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html



You couldn't make it up! Oh. Wait a minute. They did!


----------



## castleofargh

the all cable thing(but it's the same with highres, DACs, and so many subjects), I feel like some of us objectiwhatevers are as much at fault as the placebophiles. it's very easy in practice to get 2 cables on some low impedance multi BA IEMs and get a very audible signature change. many people who owned a lot of IEMs and tried cables can relate to that. so when we come with our "cables don't make a difference". we're the ones who are wrong and those guys have no choice but to agree with the other side of the argument, and will often feel bullied and antagonized for having said they heard a difference.
 we talk as if people would care about specs before buying gears. they massively don't. most guys care about "is this better?" and they will plug 2 "it's night&day better" devices from some BS review into each other. and that's it. 
 so we should have never taken that "no difference" angle to argue about cables. maybe we were led to that by some annoying straw man argument? maybe by some newly awaken objectivist with to much zeal and not enough understanding? maybe someone just got bored to say the same thing for the billionth time? IDK, all 3 seem very likely to me, and it sure pisses me off when I read a BS post about adding warmth with a little gold in the cable, or increasing soundstage with silver. but cables can sound different when you don't have clue what you're doing and you randomly plug stuff into other stuff looking for "synergy". when talking to the majority of audiophiles, we're dealing with that kind of reasoning. so of course they have experiences that go beyond what nominal usage would do.
  
 our basic way of thinking and our assumptions are different. for the majority of us here, we wouldn't get a 120ohm amp to use with low impedance IEMs. we wouldn't be interested in some strange DAC with fancy philosophy and higher than usual distortions. we wouldn't buy a silver cryo cable at 1000$. so we tend to think about what will happen within more standard conditions, when many people don't even know they're doing something wrong in pairing, settings, or buying something a fortune when it's a poor technological choice with real consequences.
  
 I don't have any magic answer on how to communicate with someone who uses exotic gears for irrational reasons, but we're usually the better informed guys in here on how stuff work. so it's up to us to try and push the information through others in a way that doesn't turn them into blinded haters. and it's kind of our fault when we fail to do it.
  
  
 of course a forum that discourages talking about placebo and blind test in casual conversations is really not helping people become more rational about their gears...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Please, this is the Objectivists Board Room where we discuss what we can do to make these forums better, not the "Saloon" where we get drunk on tales of ...(whatever) in public. This kind of talk in public is doing you guys' reputation no good...


----------



## reginalb

castleofargh said:


> the all cable thing(but it's the same with highres, DACs, and so many subjects), I feel like some of us objectiwhatevers are as much at fault as the placebophiles. it's very easy in practice to get 2 cables on some low impedance multi BA IEMs and get a very audible signature change....


 
  
 I assume this would be related to the low input impedance and the amount of current that different materials allow? The only test I know of is the famous coat hanger speaker wire test, but again, a loudspeaker is not a balanced armature driver.
  
 I've actually never found bass rolloff from my super low impedance UM Merlins, and I've always assumed the impedance at lower frequencies is higher (after all, the lows are handled by a dynamic driver, instead of the balanced armatures for the mids and highs).


----------



## jcx

a problem for iem recable is the mechanics - the weight, low stiffness, smooth finish can be hard to duplicate with hobby wire, insulation, methods
  
  
 a amp could have a tunable negative resistance to just cancel cable R - but then it hits the rails or even oscillates when unloaded
  
  
 another option for the obsessed would be Kelvin sensing out to the driver, and use much finer wire
  
 again requires custom electronics - I have professionally closed feedback loops over 50 feet of twisted pair - but only at Industrial sensor speeds of few kHz
  
  
 how about comparing the cable R/XO Z  (fractional?, maybe 1?) dB bumps to abx thresholds 1st, and then maybe just applying EQ?
  
  
 but yeah there are over enthusiastic "debunkers" who don't allow for the real edge cases, proper calculations


----------



## castleofargh

reginalb said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > the all cable thing(but it's the same with highres, DACs, and so many subjects), I feel like some of us objectiwhatevers are as much at fault as the placebophiles. it's very easy in practice to get 2 cables on some low impedance multi BA IEMs and get a very audible signature change....
> ...


 
 yup impedance mostly with IEMs I guess. the coat hanger IMO is a pretty good cable. but not very practical as IEM cable ^_^.
 we assume that cables will all have like 0.1ohm impedance, because there is no logical reason for them not to. but that's exactly where we fail. some manufacturers will stop at nothing to market a difference as being audio superiority and pray they will get away with it.
 there are also a few rare cases where the manufacturer went with some added resistance on purpose to tune the response of the IEM(like the ER4 for the obvious known stuff, but other IEMs were like that and not always made very public. so going for a custom cable without the added resistors would change the sound. those stuff are a one in 1000 thing, but one unexplained difference is all it takes for the audio world to believe in something weird.
  
 I've played around with a F111 once, I very much like those, but just bending the cable was changing my impedance measurement in a way I have never seen before
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. but it was going as low as 7ohm, how many DAPs will have troubles with such a low impedance? it's very possible that adding 2 or 3 ohm to the cable would let the amp section "breath" a little better on the current side of things. it's hard to guess the actual impact when we're playing so close to the limits of the gears.
 I love the SE846, but I don't buy it because I'm scared of how low its impedance goes at some point. I'm confident that you can create a lot of cable legends by using those IEMs and weirdly specced cables.
 I will never forget the 1+2. anybody who tried those with a few cables has probably revised his opinion on cables changing the sound. I never got to know what was strange on those, if the original cable was strange, or if it's only a very wild and going very low impedance response? IDK. but it was easy to go from nice sound to meh signature. so drawing weird conclusions would be simple.  just like people start calling a DAP warm or cold because of how the impedance changed the sound of the IEM they tried it with. the warm DAP will in fact be cold with another IEM that has it's impedance curve going the other way. it's false conclusions made out of ignorance, but the correlation was seen for real(sometimes^_^).
 with that we have the sources with caps at the output that end up becoming a high pass filter with very low impedance IEMs and will roll off the subs. "this daps has rolled off subs" will say the review. but I use it with a 50ohm headphone and the subs are just fine, so someone is wrong, yet both did experience what they mention.  they may very well have a real experience, and only the conclusion they come up with is total BS.
  
  
 I don't think it's that easy to pin one cause to explain all the weird claims about cables, but there certainly are plenty of real life situations using improper gears and cables that could lead to making weird conclusions from misunderstood correlations. obviously one should know better than to make a rule out of a one time thing, but it's not like audiophiles are educated about the value of repeatability.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> yup impedance mostly with IEMs I guess. the coat hanger IMO is a pretty good cable. but not very practical as IEM cable ^_^.
> we assume that cables will all have like 0.1ohm impedance, because there is no logical reason for them not to. but that's exactly where we fail. some manufacturers will stop at nothing to market a difference as being audio superiority and pray they will get away with it.
> there are also a few rare cases where the manufacturer went with some added resistance on purpose to tune the response of the IEM(like the ER4 for the obvious known stuff, but other IEMs were like that and not always made very public. so going for a custom cable without the added resistors would change the sound. those stuff are a one in 1000 thing, but one unexplained difference is all it takes for the audio world to believe in something weird.
> 
> ...




Welp, I'm just reading this thread and am learning a lot. Perhaps it's about time I delete all my previous posts on every single site I have ever visited and switch to a new account name to hide my shameful ignorance from the world. 0_0


----------



## Dillan

u-3c said:


> Welp, I'm just reading this thread and am learning a lot. Perhaps it's about time I delete all my previous posts on every single site I have ever visited and switch to a new account name to hide my shameful ignorance from the world. 0_0




Probably


----------



## reginalb

castleofargh said:


> yup impedance mostly with IEMs I guess. the coat hanger IMO is a pretty good cable. but not very practical as IEM cable ^_^.
> we assume that cables will all have like 0.1ohm impedance, because there is no logical reason for them not to. but that's exactly where we fail. some manufacturers will stop at nothing to market a difference as being audio superiority and pray they will get away with it.
> there are also a few rare cases where the manufacturer went with some added resistance on purpose to tune the response of the IEM(like the ER4 for the obvious known stuff, but other IEMs were like that and not always made very public. so going for a custom cable without the added resistors would change the sound. those stuff are a one in 1000 thing, but one unexplained difference is all it takes for the audio world to believe in something weird.
> 
> ...


 
  
 So, it sounds like a similar situation as with amplifiers. We make the mistake of saying that they're all inaudibly different, when the case is that they're probably inaudibly different _if they meet a set of minimum specifications. _Now, as you say with cables, we make the erroneous assumption that solid state amplifiers will all meet these specs, because lots of cheap ones today do, in fact, meet those specs. But they certainly don't all. So you tell person A: "All amplifiers sound the same," and they say, well wait a minute, I listed to amplifers C and D with headphone X (which happens to have abnormally low input impedance, or some such quirk) or amplifier D was designed with ears and has some weird distortion or crosstalk, or something, and person A says, "Well, that person clearly doesn't know what he/she is talking about."
  
 I always make sure to couch the conversation. It's _very _possible that there are plenty of sound differences between DAPs. Most people aren't going to be taking out some $10,000 piece of equipment to analyze every DAP they get (and indeed nobody seems to have done so with a great number of these HiFi DAPs) so we don't know what weird thing they're doing that could very well make them sound audibly different. Now, of course, we can get to neutrality for a relatively low price. Go pick up a Clip+ for $40 of Amazon. But that $4,000 DAP might indeed sound different, because of some spec we haven't measured. And some people might indeed prefer that sound. Lots of people like tube amps. They aren't wrong for liking them, though they might think they like them for a set of reasons that is measurably incorrect. The fact that they enjoy the "Tube sound" still isn't wrong. And sometimes, as you say, we are the ones who are wrong for painting with too broad a brush. Forgetting, if you will, that there are lots of manufacturers doing crazy things, and not meeting the minimum requirements for an amp to be audibly transparent.


----------



## Dillan

My philosophy has always been this:

Yea this tube amp might sound different, yea that gold cable might sound different.. But it's because they distort the sound. Some people might find that enjoyable but it is technically inferior when you distort anything. Its funny how people spend so much more money so that the sound can be technically worse. But I admit some distortions can be musical.


----------



## reginalb

dillan said:


> My philosophy has always been this:
> 
> Yea this tube amp might sound different, yea that gold cable might sound different.. But it's because they distort the sound. Some people might find that enjoyable but it is technically inferior when you distort anything. Its funny how people spend so much more money so that the sound can be technically worse. But I admit some distortions can be musical.


 
  
 Right, I think that it's also worth noting that it's probably a sound they could reproduce with a Clip+, Rockbox, and some DSP and EQ. But those same people tend to loathe DSP and EQ. Sure, it could produce identical sound for $40 instead of $4,000, but hey, whatever.


----------



## krismusic

u-3c said:


> Welp, I'm just reading this thread and am learning a lot. Perhaps it's about time I delete all my previous posts on every single site I have ever visited and switch to a new account name to hide my shameful ignorance from the world. 0_0



I feel like that on here. The more I learn the less I know!


----------



## Ruben123

reginalb said:


> So, it sounds like a similar situation as with amplifiers. We make the mistake of saying that they're all inaudibly different, when the case is that they're probably inaudibly different _if they meet a set of minimum specifications. _Now, as you say with cables, we make the erroneous assumption that solid state amplifiers will all meet these specs, because lots of cheap ones today do, in fact, meet those specs. But they certainly don't all. So you tell person A: "All amplifiers sound the same," and they say, well wait a minute, I listed to amplifers C and D with headphone X (which happens to have abnormally low input impedance, or some such quirk) or amplifier D was designed with ears and has some weird distortion or crosstalk, or something, and person A says, "Well, that person clearly doesn't know what he/she is talking about."
> 
> I always make sure to couch the conversation. It's _very _possible that there are plenty of sound differences between DAPs. Most people aren't going to be taking out some $10,000 piece of equipment to analyze every DAP they get (and indeed nobody seems to have done so with a great number of these HiFi DAPs) so we don't know what weird thing they're doing that could very well make them sound audibly different. Now, of course, we can get to neutrality for a relatively low price. Go pick up a Clip+ for $40 of Amazon. But that $4,000 DAP might indeed sound different, because of some spec we haven't measured. And some people might indeed prefer that sound. Lots of people like tube amps. They aren't wrong for liking them, though they might think they like them for a set of reasons that is measurably incorrect. The fact that they enjoy the "Tube sound" still isn't wrong. And sometimes, as you say, we are the ones who are wrong for painting with too broad a brush. Forgetting, if you will, that there are lots of manufacturers doing crazy things, and not meeting the minimum requirements for an amp to be audibly transparent.




Do notice though that there might be a thousand biases in the game here. That, plus that there might be some DSP going on makes it very hard to find if there is a real difference or not. Let's not forget the micro SD card sound differences being discussed now. Seems very unlogical two SDS sound different, though a faulty dap could be an issue. If there should be sound quality enhancements, they should be lower noise etc not better bass, enhanced sound stage and clarity.


----------



## U-3C

krismusic said:


> I feel like that on here. The more I learn the less I know!




Hah, I'm used to that feeling with what I'm studying.

It does get pretty depressing at times. :/


----------



## RRod

People are always happy to shift goalposts if they know it can get them points. So there you are taking about how O($10^3) cable for the HD800 shouldn't make a difference compared to O($10^2) and then they go "ahha but if I hook up a Slinky® as a cable for my IEMs then I can definitely here a difference" and suddenly you're back on your heels discussing EM physics. Of course you were probably not wrong about the original assertion, but in the end you look like a chump. The trick is learning how to avoid these situations whilst still using one's incomplete knowledge to help those who are completely unread on the subject.


----------



## castleofargh

sure, I'm giving it to you guys because you're the ones reading this topic and because you usually have more cards in hand to find out what is going on. I'm not trying to say self proclaimed subjectivists are right and you're wrong. just that they're not all wrong all the time ^_^.
 rhetoric, is a huge problem, and too many people think they can change the value of a voltage if they add enough philosophicamarketing BS to the debate. the everlasting confusion between better and better certainly doesn't help anything. just like when we talk about blind test to find a difference and someone assumes we demand blind test to judge preferences or to shut someone up. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 because there are no 101 education for audiophiles and no ground rules to differentiate reality from taste or placebo, we tend to indeed lose ourselves.
 and I'm very bad at this as I still run anytime someone throws a bone. fool me once shame on you, fool me 272 times...
  
  
 for those feeling insecure about their own knowledge, welcome to the club!
 it's very much the sign or progress IMO. be proud anytime you become able to doubt yourself or have a new question. this all thing is about getting closer to the truth of things to understand them(or at least how they work). it doesn't require blind faith in self like when you try to become world champ of something. the aim is different and so are the requirements ^_^.
 before I started making my own measurements, I was pretty confident that I understood most measurements. oh boy was I wrong. anytime I try something new, I end up with 20 new problems to solve and questions about things I didn't even know existed. but I believe this is that path of knowledge. when you start looking outside you realize how big the world really is.
 and for those who need a little ego boost for the road ^_^  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect


----------



## cel4145

reginalb said:


> Right, I think that it's also worth noting that it's probably a sound they could reproduce with a Clip+, Rockbox, and some DSP and EQ. But those same people tend to loathe DSP and EQ. Sure, it could produce identical sound for $40 instead of $4,000, but hey, whatever.




But they aren't loathe to paying someone else a lot of money to build distortion into an amp. Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> sure, I'm giving it to you guys because you're the ones reading this topic and because you usually have more cards in hand to find out what is going on. I'm not trying to say self proclaimed subjectivists are right and you're wrong. just that they're not all wrong all the time ^_^.
> rhetoric, is a huge problem, and too many people think they can change the value of a voltage if they add enough philosophicamarketing BS to the debate. the everlasting confusion between better and better certainly doesn't help anything. just like when we talk about blind test to find a difference and someone assumes we demand blind test to judge preferences or to shut someone up.
> because there are no 101 education for audiophiles and no ground rules to differentiate reality from taste or placebo, we tend to indeed lose ourselves.
> and I'm very bad at this as I still run anytime someone throws a bone. fool me once shame on you, fool me 272 times...
> ...



I like your ethos Castleofargh.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> sure, I'm giving it to you guys because you're the ones reading this topic and because you usually have more cards in hand to find out what is going on. I'm not trying to say self proclaimed subjectivists are right and you're wrong. just that they're not all wrong all the time ^_^.
> rhetoric, is a huge problem, and too many people think they can change the value of a voltage if they add enough philosophicamarketing BS to the debate. the everlasting confusion between better and better certainly doesn't help anything. just like when we talk about blind test to find a difference and someone assumes we demand blind test to judge preferences or to shut someone up.
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think it was Stephen Hawking who said, "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
  
 That's what a lot of marketing does, isn't it? Show consumers a bit, either to make them feel like they know something more, or to encourage them to do some research on an extremely complex topic, which gives them the illusion of knowledge, that they know something more than others. In my personal experience, this sense of confidence has resulted in quite a bit of money wasted. 
  
 Every time I read a new article, it's like a new dose of depression. I think I'll just stop at a layman's understanding of how audio works.


----------



## Dillan

Some of you might want to read my new thread regarding bias and price: http://www.head-fi.org/t/815376/rising-cost-of-audiophile-equipment-and-important-of-bias-blind-testing


----------



## reginalb

So, I have been trying to figure a good way to do this without stirring up too much of a hornet's nest. But I'm curious, I've been around the web and haven't found a good explanation of the theoretical advantage of a "mulitbit" dac vs a delta sigma. Schiit seems to be the big purveyors of these multi-bit DACs, and they've just released a more moderately priced example ($250). This still seems a touch steep to me, but let's throw that out the window. Is there any possible difference between the Modi multibit and any other "transparent" DAC.
  
 It seems to me that we shouldn't have any trouble perfectly reproducing a digitized waveform with a relatively inexpensive DAC. I think it was in this thread that the creator of the Chord Mojo said that the reason his beats out other DAC/amps is transient timing. If there is an audible (to humans) difference between a Chord and any other DAC isn't even the sort of thing that I'm looking for (today). His claim was that there is something that can be improved upon, and gave a concrete example of what that is. Someone with the wherewithal could test to see if his claims were true. 
  
 What is the equivalent argument for a mulitbit DAC. 
  
@Jason Stoddard 

 Feel free to chime in (or don't if you don't have the time or the patience, I understand completely) with regards to your own DACs.
  
 Here is a quote from one of Jason's posts (*2016, Chapter 5: The Subjectivist/Objectivist Synthesis)*


> ...there is significant evidence that experienced listeners can hear the differences in amplifiers (but not DACs) in Innerfidelity’s recent top-end gear shootout.)


 
  
 Alright, so that seems to make sense to me. It should be easily verifiable if a DAC can _possibly _sound different than another DAC. a null test could inform us here, correct? Jason, is there a measurable or definable characteristic that makes the Modi mulitbit better than the Modi? Or the ODAC or even Fulla for that matter? If so, what is it?
  
 If not measurable, could you tell me what I might hear in a listening test that's different than one of your non-multibit DACs? Even if you can't comment on anyone else's DAC, could you at least describe in a way that's not vague what the difference between a standard Modi and a multibit Modi is?
  
 Also, what does the Schiit burrito filter do? 
  
 I will admit, I am skeptical, but I'm also curious. The Mojo discussion didn't come to anything really, but maybe this one will. I assume that the above quote simply means that Jason accepts that there isn't solid objective _evidence _that an audible difference exists between DACs, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an audible difference, just that there isn't evidence. So Jason, let's say I were to order a Modi multibit, what should I listen for that sounds different than other transparent DAC?


----------



## castleofargh

reginalb said:


> So, I have been trying to figure a good way to do this without stirring up too much of a hornet's nest. But I'm curious, I've been around the web and haven't found a good explanation of the theoretical advantage of a "mulitbit" dac vs a delta sigma. Schiit seems to be the big purveyors of these multi-bit DACs, and they've just released a more moderately priced example ($250). This still seems a touch steep to me, but let's throw that out the window. Is there any possible difference between the Modi multibit and any other "transparent" DAC.
> 
> It seems to me that we shouldn't have any trouble perfectly reproducing a digitized waveform with a relatively inexpensive DAC. I think it was in this thread that the creator of the Chord Mojo said that the reason his beats out other DAC/amps is transient timing. If there is an audible (to humans) difference between a Chord and any other DAC isn't even the sort of thing that I'm looking for (today). His claim was that there is something that can be improved upon, and gave a concrete example of what that is. Someone with the wherewithal could test to see if his claims were true.
> 
> ...


 

 the problem IMO is that the techs have their own strong points, R2R kind of stuff can go super low in noise, but will never hope to get near the linearity of DS as that would mean having amazing matching for all the resistors. so usually we end up with one that has more this somewhere way below audible range vs the other that has more that, also way below the audible range. so deciding objectively which is better would first require some mean to convert one into the other that doesn't exist.  in fact it's hard to know if any of this has any impact on our listening.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Actually I believe Schiit's claim to fame is their "megaburrito" "closed-form" interpolation filter which allegedly yields higher fidelity upsampling by having the upsampled signal pass through the original sample points. (This does make it a precondition that the DAC has at least as many bits as the original signal, otherwise such a claim makes no sense).

I believe that a "correct" interpolation that always passes through the original sample points would require an infinitely steep reconstruction / lowpass filter, whereas a realizable filter that always passes through the original sample points as a precondition would have suboptimal fidelity when the source signal encroaches upon the transition band of the lowpass filter compared to one that allows deviation from the original sample points. I cannot offer mathematical proof of this, but I did find that e.g. Adobe Audition produces an interpolation that passes through the original sample points in its waveform previews but not when asked to perform permanent interpolation. It would seem reasonable to suppose that Adobe found a "megaburrito"-esque interpolation is desirable when the goal is to keep the sample points where they are for visualization, but not when the goal is to resample the audio for actual listening.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/784602/chord-mojo-the-official-thread-please-read-the-3rd-post/16095#post_12511348
http://www.head-fi.org/t/784602/chord-mojo-the-official-thread-please-read-the-3rd-post/16110#post_12511405

Rob (of competing company Chord) gave his own take on the matter, which was also that preserving the original samples in upsampling was problematic.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/784602/chord-mojo-the-official-thread-please-read-the-3rd-post/16170#post_12513178

As for Rob's claims of transient timing, he never responded to this:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/1635#post_12203380

And there you have it--the core technologies of the leading audio companies of two countries, discredited in one post. If anybody took this seriously, the REAL Head-Fi SWAT team will be kicking down the door to my flat in a moment... :rolleyes:


----------



## reginalb

joe bloggs said:


> Actually I believe Schiit's claim to fame is their "megaburrito" "closed-form" interpolation filter which allegedly yields higher fidelity upsampling by having the upsampled signal pass through the original sample points. (This does make it a precondition that the DAC has at least as many bits as the original signal, otherwise such a claim makes no sense).
> 
> I believe that a "correct" interpolation that always passes through the original sample points would require an infinitely steep reconstruction / lowpass filter, whereas a realizable filter that always passes through the original sample points as a precondition would have suboptimal fidelity when the source signal encroaches upon the transition band of the lowpass filter compared to one that allows deviation from the original sample points. I cannot offer mathematical proof of this, but I did find that e.g. Adobe Audition produces an interpolation that passes through the original sample points in its waveform previews but not when asked to perform permanent interpolation. It would seem reasonable to suppose that Adobe found a "megaburrito"-esque interpolation is desirable when the goal is to keep the sample points where they are for visualization, but not when the goal is to resample the audio for actual listening.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hmm, I'd love to hear Mike Moffat's response to your assertions.
  
 Regarding Rob's claims of transient timing - I did notice his lack of response to that post when I was reading through this thread. As I said, he at least stated: "My designs do X better," which allows us to go see if X does (or even can) matter. I have not seen anything like that about the Schiit that I can make heads or tails of. That said, I do thank you for your links, their burrito filtering is something that I've not seen a ton about, though I guess there are probably white papers around somewhere that I might be able to dig up.


----------



## Ruben123

The toxic cable thread is such a nice place to be... Lol
There are even cable experts in it discussing how many hours the burn in should take


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> The toxic cable thread is such a nice place to be... Lol
> There are even cable experts in it discussing how many hours the burn in should take


 
 What if you have a short fuse? Is the burn in any faster?


----------



## Ruben123

Nice to see you again! Welcome back Stan. 

No I think you don't quite understand. Burn in has to happen at a bit higher that listener's volume, with a variety of music or preferably sine waves. Best would be to burn in both ways but since most cables already have their jacks on them... Backwards burning in would be quite hard. If not impossible. Which leaves some rough edges to the sound...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Love all the talk of directionality on cables which carry AC sound signals, as if we only need to hear sound waves that move in one direction... a table fan should make the best loudspeaker there is I guess.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> Nice to see you again! Welcome back Stan.
> 
> No I think you don't quite understand. Burn in has to happen at a bit higher that listener's volume, with a variety of music or preferably sine waves. Best would be to burn in both ways but since most cables already have their jacks on them... Backwards burning in would be quite hard. If not impossible. Which leaves some rough edges to the sound...


 
  
 Nice to be back. I've been far too busy with work, however, I always manage time to listen to music.
  


joe bloggs said:


> Love all the talk of directionality on cables which carry AC sound signals, as if we only need to hear sound waves that move in one direction... a table fan should make the best loudspeaker there is I guess.


 
 So what's the next big thing? SWR in headphone cables? That would be excellent fuel for the fertile imaginations of audiophiles. So how long would a headphone cable for this to become and issue? I'm sure that someone is willing to take that on as audio talking point.


----------



## Ancipital

krismusic said:


> I feel like that on here. The more I learn the less I know!


 
  
 But that's _a good thing_. If you're convinced about your own infallibility, then you're probably suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.


----------



## mulder01

Ok so I was wondering if I could get some objective based suggestions on a reasonably priced 1 box dac/amp combo for an Abyss.  I've never asked this in any other part of the forum because I already know what the answers will be - you need to spend $5k+ or you won't get the most out of them and blah blah blah.  So if we can forget the price tag for a moment and look at the fact that they are a 46 ohm highly resistive planar headphone and go solely off that, I think this is the only place where people are open minded enough to be able to do that.  
  
 I have a friend with an Abyss and he bought a Ragnarok for his and already owned an o2 dac/amp.  He mentioned to me that they were pretty much indistinguishable because the 'voicing' (am I allowed to use that term here?) was very similar.  I looked at the more powerful offering from JDS - the element, but figured that might be similar in sound but just more powerful.  I bought an ifi iDSD micro which I thought would be my dream come true - reasonable price, portable, dac/amp in one, recharges off usb while you're not using it, plenty of power, but it was a bit on the clinical side for me and I found it fatiguing after half an hour or so, so I had to sell.  I am currently using a flagship violectric amp.  Does it matter that it's a flagship amp?  Or do I just like it because of the "house sound" Violectric has?  Probably the latter.  The amp I have is widely considered to be on the "musical" or "warm" or "coloured" rather than "detailed" or "analytical".  I wondered if there was an objectively suitable solution for reasonable money that could be equally as suitable as what I have in specs and in sound signature.
  
 I keep reading all the time about how there's no point in spending big $ on electronics because you can get equal performance for not very much money, and I have to say, especially from the dacs I've tried, and also a bit from the amps I've tried, that I agree.  It's just that while my last purchase of the idsd may have been suitable on paper and subjectively better than the amp I have for some people, I wondered if anyone could suggest anything that would be suitable for the given load (only own one pair of headphones) and likely also suited more to my tastes.  My thinking is, if I can get the same performance for less money, I may as well sell what I've got, buy the budget option and pocket the change, because, well, why not...


----------



## Ancipital

If you're looking at competent* solid state amps, they shouldn't colour the sound anyway, surely? If one did, wouldn't that be a bad sign? Do you want headphones with a different signature? A hybrid amp? Some EQ?
  
 A shallow part of me loves the retro-brutalist look of those Violectric amps, I'd happily swap you a Schiit solid state amp for it *duck*
  
  
  
 *The spec being sufficient for your headphones, and there being no obvious howlers in the design/construction.


----------



## SodaBoy

The Audio-GD NFB-29 and NFB-28 are very good integrated DAC/amps at a reasonable price. The relay-based volume control has excellent channel balance throughout the full range. It is too easy to stick a cheap volume pot into an amp and sell it for north of a grand. Manufacturers like to put up eyepopping numbers like 130 db DNR, but many don't publish channel imbalance figures, I wonder why?
  
 In the DIY world, we pay a lot of attention to the volume control and there are two common approaches that I know of. If there is enough DNR in the DAC, we can control the volume digital side through the DAC, and the amp acts as a wire with gain with no volume pot in the chain. The other approach is analog side, and uses a stepped attenuator, which can come in a variety of implementations. This approach in my opinion provides the best outcomes, but is also the most expensive. In the turnkey world, Resonessence adopts the former approach (digital), while Audio-GD adopts the latter (analog), both are valid approaches.
  
 I don't think it is necessary to spend big money on a setup so long as you keep in mind that price ≠ capability. A $2999 amp is not necessarily better than a $600 one, for many brands you pay for a lifestyle image and exclusivity. The NFB-29H is $680, it comes with everything that I would want and a remote, I'm not aware of anything that even matches it at its price point.


----------



## mulder01

ancipital said:


> If you're looking at competent* solid state amps, they shouldn't colour the sound anyway, surely? If one did, wouldn't that be a bad sign? Do you want headphones with a different signature? A hybrid amp? Some EQ?
> 
> A shallow part of me loves the retro-brutalist look of those Violectric amps, I'd happily swap you a Schiit solid state amp for it *duck*
> 
> *The spec being sufficient for your headphones, and there being no obvious howlers in the design/construction.


 
  
 Don't get me wrong, I like the setup that I have, but hanging out in this part of the forum and continually hearing that you could probably get the same sound a fraction of the price, I feel like I should probably just get something for a fraction of the price and sell the expensive gear and to fund something like a pair of studio monitors or whatever.  
  
 Different dac/amps do tend to have slightly different sounds which was the reason I mentioned my preferences.
  
 SodaBoy, do you know if the general feeling is that the Audio GD stuff is a bit more laid back?  I forgot about those guys...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Honestly, if I already own expensive gear I'm happy with, even I wouldn't deliberately cheap down the system. Irrespective of any possible change in the sound, you never know what your brain can do to your ears after such an operation... :rolleyes:


----------



## Ancipital

mulder01 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I like the setup that I have, but hanging out in this part of the forum and continually hearing that you could probably get the same sound a fraction of the price, I feel like I should probably just get something for a fraction of the price and sell the expensive gear and to fund something like a pair of studio monitors or whatever.
> 
> Different dac/amps do tend to have slightly different sounds which was the reason I mentioned my preferences.
> 
> SodaBoy, do you know if the general feeling is that the Audio GD stuff is a bit more laid back?  I forgot about those guys...


 
  
 The differences will be much more slight with SS amps, mind. Obviously some are better than others, both on paper and in reality, but  if you're looking for different "signatures", messing about with different SS amps won't really help as much as you hope. Consider EQ, or different cans, or even crazy hybrid amps where you can swap tubes around to colour the sound noticeably. Other amps with the specs you want won't give you much of a change, unless they're deficient in some way (except perhaps in your head, which we all suffer from).
  
 That said, if you're are genuinely happy with the sound of what you have, why not keep listening to it? You've spent the money now. I won't lie, it looks cool, I love the design, and I'd swap it for my affordable amp just as a "lookgrade" cheerfully.
  
 Edit: Grr, joe beat me to it, seems I have to read the later posts before replying


----------



## mulder01

Yeah I realise the differences between SS amps will be small, so I just wondered if I had $4k rrp worth of stuff and could replace it with $500 rrp worth of stuff and not notice any difference, why not sell it and pocket the $2-odd k difference and spend it on something else (not headphone related).  My rig is into the 5 figure mark and averages probably about an hour's use a week so sometimes I feel a bit guilty on having probably overspent a bit considering how much use it gets.  I have tried to downsize my whole system in the past and went to listen to a bunch of more reasonably priced gear but I absolutely can't bring myself give up the Abyss no matter what so I wondered if downsizing something else would be worthwhile.  Possibly not though by the sounds of it.  I mean, don't get me wrong, I bought the matching Violectric phono amp for more than I probably needed to spend on a phono amp for the sole reason that it looks cool stacked with their other gear.  So I get the whole pride of ownership thing but just feel a bit guilty about being a bit wasteful and indulgent...  I guess it's not costing me anything to have it sit there though.


----------



## Ancipital

I admire your honesty, I have to say.
  
 One thing I would worry about though, is the purely psychological, subjective aspect. Even if you picked up a $500 amp that people would favour ~50% of the time in a blind test with your current amp*, that may not be enough. You will know that you have changed it, and have sown the seeds of doubt in your own mind- you'll start hearing problems/shortcomings that perhaps aren't there, and start suffering "upgradeitis" again- possibly not saving yourself any money in the longer term.
  
 This might be too cynical a view, and it's not meant to be in any way insulting- I suspect I'd do the same, too. You probably could get a $500 amp that sounds about as good, but you may never like it quite as much, just because you know it's a cheaper unit.
  
 The brain is annoying, and doesn't come with an instruction manual.
  
  
  
 *Assuming that such a beast exists.


----------



## mulder01

Ha yeah thanks I try and be realistic about these things. I would have thought that I could rise above such brain trickery - especially if I had both systems together for a while and could switch between them without noticing a difference before selling. (Assuming that the objectivists are right and there should be no real audible differences between said gear). Perhaps you're right though - even if there was no difference or an inaudible amount of difference, my brain wouldn't let me accept that. Maybe that's the reason people who buy high end cables can't go back to standard ones once they start?


----------



## StanD

ancipital said:


> I admire your honesty, I have to say.
> 
> One thing I would worry about though, is the purely psychological, subjective aspect. Even if you picked up a $500 amp that people would favour ~50% of the time in a blind test with your current amp*, that may not be enough. You will know that you have changed it, and have sown the seeds of doubt in your own mind- you'll start hearing problems/shortcomings that perhaps aren't there, and start suffering "upgradeitis" again- possibly not saving yourself any money in the longer term.
> 
> ...


 
 Are you saying that we are weak minded as Homer Simpson? I do not mix aesthetics with the perception of sound, everyone should try harder or pay up.


----------



## Ancipital

stand said:


> Are you saying that we are weak minded as Homer Simpson? I do not mix aesthetics with the perception of sound, everyone should try harder or pay up.


 
  
 You don't think you do. To baldly deny it as a possibility is anything but objective.


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> Are you saying that we are weak minded as Homer Simpson? I do not mix aesthetics with the perception of sound, everyone should try harder or pay up.


 
  
  


ancipital said:


> You don't think you do. To baldly deny it as a possibility is anything but objective.


 

 Possible, however as Homer would say, "I must resist.....I must resist...."


----------



## cel4145

mulder01 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I like the setup that I have, but hanging out in this part of the forum and continually hearing that you could probably get the same sound a fraction of the price, I feel like I should probably just get something for a fraction of the price and sell the expensive gear and* to fund something like a pair of studio monitors or whatever*.




And speakers are an area where spending $1000 instead of $300 can make a difference. If you would use studio monitors, you'd probably enjoy the benefit of getting some nice ones more than buying an expensive headphone amp.


----------



## cel4145

Saw this quote in someone's signature on another audio forum, and thought it might give some of you guys a laugh. I tracked down the origin. It's from a 1992 survey of preamps in The Audio Critic No. 18 in which the author justifies his choice of preamps:

"I did not look at any tube preamps for the same reason that Car and Driver is not reporting on buggy whips." David A. Rich, PhD

LOL


----------



## mulder01

cel4145 said:


> And speakers are an area where spending $1000 instead of $300 can make a difference. If you would use studio monitors, you'd probably enjoy the benefit of getting some nice ones more than buying an expensive headphone amp.


 
  
 That was the thought, yeah


----------



## 93EXCivic

Is balanced headphone equipment worth the extra cost?
  
 I understand why it might be better. But is there a measurable or audible difference?


----------



## Dillan

93excivic said:


> Is balanced headphone equipment worth the extra cost?
> 
> I understand why it might be better. But is there a measurable or audible difference?




Measurable difference yes.. Audible difference.. Not usually in my opinion. Balanced will generally be louder. If you look at some of the best amps of all time.. They are single ended.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Hi guys

I invite everyone to try out the latest version of Viper4Android
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=68473076#post68473076

Including capability to load 2-channel cross-channel convolution impulse files for full stereo speaker virtualization on headphones  as first posted here www.head-fi.org/t/811837/natural-crossfeed-on-headphones-earphones-for-foobar2000-v2-0-major-update-made-public

So now you can take this capability from foobar2000 onto your Android smartphone or any rootable Android-based DAP 

Check out our Telegram group too 
https://telegram.me/joinchat/DrIy10A1_etYqX2UnJs5YA


----------



## Ancipital

Oh, that looks nice- still not gonna root my device for it though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I might have to play with the Foobar plugin, however.. how did I miss it until now?


----------



## Ruben123

Otherwise get a cheap used phone for few bucks! Worth a try


----------



## Ancipital

Well, I do have my old S3, which is relegated to a simless emergency phone, that I carry when running, but eh.. Not sure I want to carry two phones like a drug dealer, either


----------



## StanD

ancipital said:


> Well, I do have my old S3, which is relegated to a simless emergency phone, that I carry when running, but eh.. Not sure I want to carry two phones like a drug dealer, either


 
 I use my old Verizon/Samsung Galaxy S3 as a DAP. Works real good, native DAC support and custom driver when the app supports it, USBAPP, Neutron, Google Player (Streaming All Access Music subscription) and more.


----------



## Ancipital

stand said:


> I use my old Verizon/Samsung Galaxy S3 as a DAP. Works real good, native DAC support and custom driver when the app supports it, USBAPP, Neutron, Google Player (Streaming All Access Music subscription) and more.


 
  
 Yeah, I have USBAPP, but find that it gets a bit unstable if the USB cable gets unplugged, which has happened a few times when having to push on/off crowded trains. It took an unusual amount of replugging/repowering/app quitting in the right order to stop it spitting its dummy. In the end, I picked up the Onyko player.. even though the UI isn't quite as good, it seems considerably more robust. It's workmanlike, but gets the job done.
  
 I use Neutron when I am just going straight out of the phone, and it does a pretty good job, outside of the flaky UI (which interacts badly with locking, and sometimes also pops itself to front when you haven't locked, but the screen has just turned off). Sound quality is nice, even if the UI is like something from the days of trackers on the Amiga. I keep feeling like I should investigate Neutron's USB DAC support- is it smart enough to only upsample when it's using the phone's onboard DAC?


----------



## StanD

ancipital said:


> Yeah, I have USBAPP, but find that it gets a bit unstable if the USB cable gets unplugged, which has happened a few times when having to push on/off crowded trains. It took an unusual amount of replugging/repowering/app quitting in the right order to stop it spitting its dummy. In the end, I picked up the Onyko player.. even though the UI isn't quite as good, it seems considerably more robust. It's workmanlike, but gets the job done.
> 
> I use Neutron when I am just going straight out of the phone, and it does a pretty good job, outside of the flaky UI (which interacts badly with locking, and sometimes also pops itself to front when you haven't locked, but the screen has just turned off). Sound quality is nice, even if the UI is like something from the days of trackers on the Amiga. I keep feeling like I should investigate Neutron's USB DAC support- is it smart enough to only upsample when it's using the phone's onboard DAC?


 
 USBAPP is hit and miss, they fix bugs and introduce others. IMO it has great potential. I bought the Parameteric EQ add-on, the UI sucks but it sounds great.
 Neutron's DAC support is improving it used to be totally unstable. It does sound very good.
 I use both with Bubble UPnP. USBAPP can lockup in DLNA, that has improved.
 Neutron shows duplicate songs in albums with Bubble. It doesn't do that in folder view, however in that view is shows songs in alphabetic order not track order, very annoying.
 One day they'll get it right.


----------



## Ruben123

Main question now is: how much should one spend on earphones when you can use great eq software?
I'm on an endless search (or an addiction) of finding "the" earphone. For ages it has been the Monoprice 8320@$8. Going to eq then in the very future to make them even sound more flat. In the meantime though I bought some 5 other Monoprice buds because they're great (try them!!! They're really very good, natural), a KZ ZS3, ED9, ED4 and in the near future their first hybrid priced at only $17. 

Most earphones are sold or given away if I don't like them, but now it seems I can fix any earphone with software. Is only the fit important then? Decisions, decisions.... I think though that the earphone that suits me the best, is the one that needs the least software corrections.


----------



## krismusic

ruben123 said:


> Main question now is: how much should one spend on earphones when you can use great eq software?
> I'm on an endless search (or an addiction) of finding "the" earphone. For ages it has been the Monoprice 8320@$8. Going to eq then in the very future to make them even sound more flat. In the meantime though I bought some 5 other Monoprice buds because they're great (try them!!! They're really very good, natural), a KZ ZS3, ED9, ED4 and in the near future their first hybrid priced at only $17.
> 
> Most earphones are sold or given away if I don't like them, but now it seems I can fix any earphone with software. Is only the fit important then? Decisions, decisions.... I think though that the earphone that suits me the best, is the one that needs the least software corrections.



You don't find any downside to these EQ programs? No diminished soundstage, lack of "air", separation etc? I only ask because I have come to the conclusion that DSP is the way forward. I'm using a Creative E5 very happily ATM but I suspect that I am going to tire of it...


----------



## RRod

ruben123 said:


> Main question now is: how much should one spend on earphones when you can use great eq software?


 
  
 Well it really comes down to "what can't you fix with your given EQ." Off the top of my head, other than comfort:
 1.Distortion
 2.Non-minimum-phase behavior (in the case of a typical minimum-phase EQ)
 3.Adjustments that exceed the EQ or system capabilities
 4.Smell
  
 2 is arguably not a huge deal for headphones, because unlike speakers the "room" isn't horrible. 4 makes me think we need a head-fi version of the Seinfeld BO episode. EQ can't really help with 1, though you may notice less distortion given the particulars. 3 is just practical stuff; for example, an EQ setting requiring a big pre-cut could lead to issues in getting enough volume out of low-level recordings.


----------



## Ruben123

Only flirted with the viper and electriQ software a bit. Also I don't get why the sound stage would get less? It would get less if I wanted it to.


----------



## krismusic

ruben123 said:


> Only flirted with the viper and electriQ software a bit. Also I don't get why the sound stage would get less? It would get less if I wanted it to.



Just a comment from an audio friend of mine. He claims EQ reduces soundstage.


----------



## Ruben123

Eq enhanced sound stage. With eq you change the frequency response of an earphone and as far as I know, sound itself is not much more than a FR


----------



## RRod

krismusic said:


> Just a comment from an audio friend of mine. He claims EQ reduces soundstage.


 
  
 As you move speakers around your head, the frequency response at the ear canal / eardrum changes, so it makes sense that we might perceive frequency response changes in headphones as affecting the "soundstage".


----------



## Ruben123

rrod said:


> Well it really comes down to "what can't you fix with your given EQ." Off the top of my head, other than comfort:
> 1.Distortion
> 2.Non-minimum-phase behavior (in the case of a typical minimum-phase EQ)
> 3.Adjustments that exceed the EQ or system capabilities
> ...



So yes indeed one should keep the best sounding earphone that needs to be eqed the least. Which is good because my two filled Sansa clip players can't use those .irs files


----------



## upstateguy

rrod said:


> ruben123 said:
> 
> 
> > Main question now is: how much should one spend on earphones when you can use great eq software?
> ...


 
  
 I'm a big fan of EQ but I've never been able to EQ resolution.
  
 I can boost the highs on my 650s, play with the bass, but no matter what I do I can't get the clarity out of them that I get from my T-1s....


----------



## RRod

upstateguy said:


> I'm a big fan of EQ but I've never been able to EQ resolution.
> 
> I can boost the highs on my 650s, play with the bass, but no matter what I do I can't get the clarity out of them that I get from my T-1s....


 
  
 To match up my PM-3 with my HD800, I used binaural mics + Room EQ Wizard to optimize the filter settings. Just doing it by ear and hand will probably miss enough dBs here and there to make things unconvincing.


----------



## U-3C

ancipital said:


> Well, I do have my old S3, which is relegated to a simless emergency phone, that I carry when running, but eh.. Not sure I want to carry two phones like a drug dealer, either




I literally carry two phones on me: one iPhone 5s, my main tool for otg productivity/entertainment, and an old dying Samsung S3, rooted + V4A, just for listening to music. 

All my non-audio enthusiastic friends probably think I'm crazy and need to see a doctor. Maybe they are right! 

Then, I'm enjoying my Philips SHE3590 out of my S3 and my friend with his HD600 just stares at me like I'm a madman. 

o (・∀・) o


----------



## U-3C

krismusic said:


> Just a comment from an audio friend of mine. He claims EQ reduces soundstage.




Using Joe Bloggs' crossfeed plugin and the soundstage is great. If going from cheap in ears to HD800 is 100%, I'd say the setting makes it 500%. 

Okay, I'm exaggerating. Maybe only 450%. My bad.


----------



## upstateguy

rrod said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a big fan of EQ but I've never been able to EQ resolution.
> ...


 
  
 I never heard them, how do you like those OPPOs?
  
 I'm sure you can approach similar sound signatures, but if the resolving ability of the PM-3s is not equal to the 800s, there's that to contend with.
  
 EDIT:  don't you find that the more crap you do to the original signal the more diminished the resolution becomes?


----------



## castleofargh

u-3c said:


> ancipital said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I do have my old S3, which is relegated to a simless emergency phone, that I carry when running, but eh.. Not sure I want to carry two phones like a drug dealer, either
> ...


 

 I bought my first smartphone a few months ago to use with BT headphones and sometimes with my DAC/amp. and indeed Viper is on it, it's half the reason why I bought an android phone.
 my phone to call people is still a dumbphone, I charge it once every 7 to 10days when I actually use it and that to me is greatness. I can't look at 9gag while I poop outside my home, but that is something I accept to lose for actual battery life. the idea that I should be fine with plugging everything for charge every night displeases me way more than it should.


----------



## RRod

upstateguy said:


> I never heard them, how do you like those OPPOs?
> 
> I'm sure you can approach similar sound signatures, but if the resolving ability of the PM-3s is not equal to the 800s, there's that to contend with.
> 
> EDIT:  don't you find that the more crap you do to the original signal the more diminished the resolution becomes?


 
  
 I liked them well enough to want to completely change their sound signature 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 With my current EQ + crossfeed settings they sound great; I need to re-measure a sine sweep to see how close to the HD800 they are. But they are pretty comfortable, isolate well (HD800 are not at-work cans), and look sleek.
  
 I think we're getting to the issue of fuzzy terminology: What is "resolution" exactly? There is nary a breath, key click, or foot shuffle that I can hear on the HD800 that I can't hear on the PM-3.
  
 Edit: To address your edit: No. If I posted what a sine sweep in the L channel turns into in the R channel after all my EQ + crossfeed settings you would probably spit out your coffee, but it sounds great, and doesn't leave me wanting*. The only thing I ever find wanting is more output power from my iPod, so at work I keep my old Magni around to provide more juice and save some battery life from the iPod.
  
 *wanting in terms of what I expect out of a 7 year old DAP running free software.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> I bought my first smartphone a few months ago to use with BT headphones and sometimes with my DAC/amp. and indeed Viper is on it, it's half the reason why I bought an android phone.
> my phone to call people is still a dumbphone, I charge it once every 7 to 10days when I actually use it and that to me is greatness. I can't look at 9gag while I poop outside my home, but that is something I accept to lose for actual battery life. the idea that I should be fine with plugging everything for charge every night displeases me way more than it should.




I love the old phones. Especially when they have a place to tie a strap on, assuming that the durability and the long battery life actually fails and it drops (or you rage-smash it) on the ground. If only companies decide to add a simple place to loop a strap on so it will never fall off the hand and hit the ground, but nah, flagship thousand dollar phones definitely do not deserve something this cheap and simple! You gotta have dat gorilla glass and dat ceramic cover and dem 200 dollar shock absorbing cases with the most creative marketing names evar~ Those will definitely do the trick of keeping phones lasting long enough for their loyal fans until it is worth upgrading~

\(>v<)/

Once, my old phone was lost many years ago when I still went to school. I found it at the lost and found, but the strap was gone. Someone took it. I guess it's proof that there is still demand for this feature, so maybe companies can consider it? :/

Heck, my cheap 10 dollar Chinese MP3 player from 10 years ago has one! Punching a hole on a case and keeping it relativity sturdy shouldn't be that hard, right? But then again, Apple just went through the trouble of getting rid of a hole that's been around for a century, so maybe the science behind it is far greater than I thought. What can an idiot like me know? :rolleyes:


----------



## Ancipital

castleofargh said:


> I bought my first smartphone a few months ago to use with BT headphones and sometimes with my DAC/amp. and indeed Viper is on it, it's half the reason why I bought an android phone.
> my phone to call people is still a dumbphone, I charge it once every 7 to 10days when I actually use it and that to me is greatness. I can't look at 9gag while I poop outside my home, but that is something I accept to lose for actual battery life. the idea that I should be fine with plugging everything for charge every night displeases me way more than it should.


 
  
 Make... calls? I've heard of that, I think.


----------



## limpidglitch

castleofargh said:


> I bought my first smartphone a few months ago to use with BT headphones and sometimes with my DAC/amp. and indeed Viper is on it, it's half the reason why I bought an android phone.
> my phone to call people is still a dumbphone, I charge it once every 7 to 10days when I actually use it and that to me is greatness. I can't look at 9gag while I poop outside my home, but that is something I accept to lose for actual battery life. the idea that I should be fine with plugging everything for charge every night displeases me way more than it should.


 
  
 I bought a new phone about a month ago, have had to charge it a grant total of two times since then, and yes, it's a dumbphone™.
 Looks like one of those burners you see on crime shows, black and anonymous, makes me feel like right deviant.

 Never seriously thought about going heavily for DSP; I'm more in favour of letting my brain figure out all the inconsistencies and iron things out on its own. Given enough time it seems to do so nicely. I mean, if I already have all that processing power available, I might as well utilize it, right?


----------



## upstateguy

> Originally Posted by *RRod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> <snip>
> I think we're getting to the issue of fuzzy terminology: What is "resolution" exactly? There is nary a breath, key click, or foot shuffle that I can hear on the HD800 that I can't hear on the PM-3.
> ...


 
  
 Resolution is hard to describe but easy to hear.  It's an increase in clarity, and depth.
  
 Listen to this internet radio station:  http://5.135.178.219:8003/stream
  
 Now listen to the same station in a higher bit rate:   http://sr7.inmystream.info:9100/stream.flac
  
 There's a very slight volume difference but gain ride it and see if the higher bit rate has more resolution than the lower bit rate.  Listen to the voices.  There's a difference in quality.  That's resolution. (IMHO)


----------



## castleofargh

maybe call this perceived resolution, as opposed to factual resolution?
  
 because I thought increased resolution meant lower noise at quiet levels and much more noises in the ultrasounds.


----------



## RRod

upstateguy said:


> Resolution is hard to describe but easy to hear.  It's an increase in clarity, and depth.
> 
> Listen to this internet radio station:  http://5.135.178.219:8003/stream
> 
> ...


 
  
 That's not much of a definition, though, because someone else is likely to say something different. And I've never heard anything in comparing headphones that sound like the difference between lossy codec bitrates.


----------



## StanD

upstateguy said:


> Resolution is hard to describe but easy to hear.  It's an increase in clarity, and depth.
> 
> Listen to this internet radio station:  http://5.135.178.219:8003/stream
> 
> ...


 
 People have tried doing that using  actual files under proper conditions and haven't been able to prove anything.


----------



## U-3C

I've been wondering about this video:
  

  
 Since the topic of resolution has been brought up, I thought it might be a good time to ask for some opinions/insight. By this, I hope to kindly ask for serious insight/feedback on what he/other people said, and not just simply brushing others' opinions to the side and dismissing/degrading peoples' comments. I know this is a touchy subject so I hope this isn't too much to ask for.
  
 ._.
  
 Cheers~


----------



## RRod

u-3c said:


> I've been wondering about this video:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Just sampled a few snippets. Typical stuff that sounds technically correct (aliasing occurs, pre-ringing occurs), but glosses over the issue of audibility of these artifacts, which is typical because nobody with a tape deck behind them ever wants to admit they can't ABX 24/192 from 16/44.1.


----------



## icebear

rrod said:


> Just sampled a few snippets. Typical stuff that sounds technically correct (aliasing occurs, pre-ringing occurs), but glosses over the issue of audibility of these artifacts, *which is typical because nobody with a tape deck *behind them ever wants to admit they can't ABX 24/192 from 16/44.1.


 
 +1
 and what btw is the size, or time period of the "analog pre-ringing" (not sure what's the correct term for the magnetic blurr that inevitably can't be prevented) caused by the width of the tape head compared to the digital pre ringing caused by filtering artefacts? Analog open reel tapes are the latest craze (again) and they supposedly sound clearly better than a vinyl record. Still if you start digging into comparable inaccuracies of the signal reproduction between analog tape and digital formats then the question quickly comes up, if a lot of the claimed "problems" of digital are actually relevant and consequently do the marketing prescribed fixes in the latest generation of products make a difference other than in the consumer's wallet?


----------



## upstateguy

rrod said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > Resolution is hard to describe but easy to hear.  It's an increase in clarity, and depth.
> ...


 
  
 I was just trying to give you an idea of what I was talking about when I mentioned "resolution".  Like I said, it's hard to describe but easy to hear.  I don't want to fight over the words used to describe "resolution" as long as you know what I'm talking about. 
  
 Some amps have more resolution than others and so do some headphones.  Can we agree on this?
  
EDIT:  there's a difference in sound quality, air and space in the recording.  How would you describe what resolution is?
  


castleofargh said:


> maybe call this perceived resolution, as opposed to factual resolution?
> 
> because I thought increased resolution meant lower noise at quiet levels and much more noises in the ultrasounds.


 
  
 OK, call it what you like.  As long as you know what I'm referring to. 
  


stand said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > Resolution is hard to describe but easy to hear.  It's an increase in clarity, and depth.
> ...


 
  
  
 Hi Stan
  
 It was just an audible example of what I was referring to when I used the word "resolution".  I'm not trying to make a statement regarding bit rates. 
  
 There is a difference in sound between those two examples.  Can you hear it?
  
 Regards


----------



## RRod

upstateguy said:


> I was just trying to give you an idea of what I was talking about when I mentioned "resolution".  Like I said, it's hard to describe but easy to hear.  I don't want to fight over the words used to describe "resolution" as long as you know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Some amps have more resolution than others and so do some headphones.  Can we agree on this?
> 
> EDIT:  there's a difference in sound quality, air and space in the recording.  How would you describe what resolution is?


 
  
 You seem to be talking about the difference between compression settings, which are not the kind of differences I hear among amps or headphones. That's our disconnect.


----------



## StanD

upstateguy said:


> I was just trying to give you an idea of what I was talking about when I mentioned "resolution".  Like I said, it's hard to describe but easy to hear.  I don't want to fight over the words used to describe "resolution" as long as you know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Some amps have more resolution than others and so do some headphones.  Can we agree on this?
> 
> ...


 
 Comparing unknown sources is not a proper test. One has to know the exact makeup. Take an original hirez sample and convert it your self using the proper tools and then to a proper abx test. Anything else is not a valid test.


----------



## james444

upstateguy said:


> It was just an audible example of what I was referring to when I used the word "resolution".  I'm not trying to make a statement regarding bit rates.
> 
> There is a difference in sound between those two examples.  Can you hear it?


 
  
 To my ears there's a slight difference in tonal balance between these streams, particularly noticeable with female vocals, which sound a tad darker on the lower bitrate stream. Subjectively, perceived resolution is indeed a little higher with the flac stream, but I'd think that's mostly due to more treble presence. I don't have a real-time spectrum analyzer to verify these impressions, but if you open both streams in VLC player and EQ down everything but the 16KHz band, the difference in treble presence becomes pretty obvious imo.


----------



## sonitus mirus

james444 said:


> To my ears there's a slight difference in tonal balance between these streams, particularly noticeable with female vocals, which sound a tad darker on the lower bitrate stream. Subjectively, perceived resolution is indeed a little higher with the flac stream, but I'd think that's mostly due to more treble presence. I don't have a real-time spectrum analyzer to verify these impressions, but if you open both streams in VLC player and EQ down everything but the 16KHz band, the difference in treble presence becomes pretty obvious imo.


 
  
 Tonal balance?  Seriously?  Ok.  Has anyone verified that the sources are identical?


----------



## StanD

james444 said:


> To my ears there's a slight difference in tonal balance between these streams, particularly noticeable with female vocals, which sound a tad darker on the lower bitrate stream. Subjectively, perceived resolution is indeed a little higher with the flac stream, but I'd think that's mostly due to more treble presence. I don't have a real-time spectrum analyzer to verify these impressions, but if you open both streams in VLC player and EQ down everything but the 16KHz band, the difference in treble presence becomes pretty obvious imo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Again, you have no validation as to the quality differences in the steamed sources and their processing at transmission.


----------



## Ancipital

upstateguy said:


> I was just trying to give you an idea of what I was talking about when I mentioned "resolution".  Like I said, it's hard to describe but easy to hear.  I don't want to fight over the words used to describe "resolution" as long as you know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Some amps have more resolution than others and so do some headphones.  Can we agree on this?


 
  
 It almost sounds like you're reaching for something related to the mystic "resolving power"- something to do with frequency response meets impulse response, with a soupcon of slew rate to taste? Maybe. Perhaps.


----------



## upstateguy

rrod said:


> You seem to be talking about the difference between compression settings, which are not the kind of differences I hear among amps or headphones. That's our disconnect.


 
  
 I'm only using the compression differences to illustrate what I hear in some amps and headphones.  If you need a more concrete example, my M^3 amp has less resolution than my GS-1 amp and my T-1s are more resolving than my 650s or 880s.
  


stand said:


> Comparing unknown sources is not a proper test. One has to know the exact makeup. Take an original hirez sample and convert it your self using the proper tools and then to a proper abx test. Anything else is not a valid test.


 
  
 Not speaking to compression algorithms, just using it as an illustration.  What I'm talking about are amps and headphones... some being capable of rendering a higher resolution than others.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

It's difficult to understand the definition of an ambiguous term like "resolution" when it's described as the sum of two other ambiguous terms like clarity and detail. 

Resolution is the smallest delta or interval between two values that a device is capable of producing a measurably different output for. 

In frequency: 
Start with some nominal CW... Say 1KHz. If there is no measurable difference in the output spectrum until you step to 1001Hz, then your device has a 1Hz resolution. 

In amplitude:
Amplitude is even easier, it's usually defined by the bit resolution and full scale voltage of the DAC. If the DAC rail to rail is 5V and uses 12 bits, then the resolution is ~1.22mV.

In time:
Maybe clock rate (i.e. Fs for the DAC) combined with jitter measurements for the clock source to provide worst case delta time between samples? 

The point is all of these are based on hardware measurements. So what type of resolution are you talking about and what does source material have to do with the "resolution" of an amplifier? 

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## upstateguy

grumpyoldguy said:


> <snip>....So what type of resolution are you talking about and what does source material have to do with the "resolution" of an amplifier?


 
  
 As you know from following what I've written, I'm *not* talking about source material at all except to use it as an illustration. 
  
 What I'm referring to is that some amps and some headphones are capable of rendering a higher resolution than others.  Would you agree with this?
  
 Cheers


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

upstateguy said:


> grumpyoldguy said:
> 
> 
> > <snip>....So what type of resolution are you talking about and what does source material have to do with the "resolution" of an amplifier?
> ...




I've been following very little of it. I was just confused about the vague definition and use of differences in source material to try to clarify something that is inextricably hardware related. 

For my clarification, what are you defining as resolution? Please try avoid using other general and equally ambiguous terms in your definition. I ask because I need to know what you're actually asking before I can answer your question.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## upstateguy

grumpyoldguy said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > grumpyoldguy said:
> ...


 
  
 You have nothing in your profile.  What amps and headphones do you have?  I'll be able to focus you in once I know what equipment you have.


----------



## Argyris

Resolution is one of those things that always mystifies me when it comes up in audio discussions. My gut tells me it's just another subjective term, since I've never once heard a headphone I felt was noticeably more resolving (i.e. picked up details I could not hear on other headphones) than any other. I've heard headphones that tend to smooth over detail (e.g. Koss PortaPro and SP330), and I've heard headphones that seem to highlight it (e.g. DT880, NAD HP50), but careful listening reveals that the same amount of information is there in every case.
  
 My feeling is that what people consider highly resolving performance comes from a combination of good extension and tonal balance (i.e. not rolled off or peaky in the treble, reasonably neutral), along with low distortion and lack of driver ringing. My feeling is also that, since this is such a nebulous term, it's become a byword of audio subjectivists to justify the high price of their gear. I've often seen claims that two headphones sound similar, but that the (often much) more expensive one is "more resolving." It's an easy claim to make and a very difficult one to test.
  
 Maybe in some cases, though, there's actually something to this. A common example is the HD 598 vs the HD 600. I've often read that these two have similar tonal balance, but that the former is more "lo-fi" than the latter, and this difference is usually attributed to driver resolution. My suspicion is that it's likely a combination of all the factors I mentioned earlier that contributes to this impression, rather than any intrinsic ability of the HD 600 driver to "resolve better" than the HD 598 one. 
  
 I realize that this whole discussion might seem pedantic, but I'm trying to get to the root of the issue, and the audio world is a minefield of purported fine distinctions. I guess the question that needs to be asked is, if resolution as audiophiles claim to hear it is indeed a function of the factors I listed, is this word such a bad description of what they're hearing? Granted, attributing it to some mystical driver capability isn't doing us any favors if indeed there is no appreciable/audible difference between drivers' raw ability to reproduce minute detail, but if other aspects of the presentation get in the way of perceiving that detail, one could possibly argue that the end result is the same even if the stated cause is wrong.
  
 Just thinking out loud and stirring the pot a bit.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

upstateguy said:


> grumpyoldguy said:
> 
> 
> > upstateguy said:
> ...




What? If the definition changes based on the HW, then it's not a very good definition. 

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

argyris said:


> Resolution is one of those things that always mystifies me when it comes up in audio discussions. My gut tells me it's just another subjective term, since I've never once heard a headphone I felt was noticeably more resolving (i.e. picked up details I could not hear on other headphones) than any other. I've heard headphones that tend to smooth over detail (e.g. Koss PortaPro and SP330), and I've heard headphones that seem to highlight it (e.g. DT880, NAD HP50), but careful listening reveals that the same amount of information is there in every case.
> 
> My feeling is that what people consider highly resolving performance comes from a combination of good extension and tonal balance (i.e. not rolled off or peaky in the treble, reasonably neutral), along with low distortion and lack of driver ringing. My feeling is also that, since this is such a nebulous term, it's become a byword of audio subjectivists to justify the high price of their gear. I've often seen claims that two headphones sound similar, but that the (often much) more expensive one is "more resolving." It's an easy claim to make and a very difficult one to test.
> 
> ...




You might be right, but I'd rather not speculate and instead challenge someone who uses the term to define it in an appropriate manner. That is, I want to understand the measurable qualities that contribute to this otherwise ambiguous term. 

I also want to find out why people use ambiguous terms when we have well defined measurements to describe whatever behavior is being discussed... But that's another story, and one I suspect I will never get to the bottom of. 

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## upstateguy

grumpyoldguy said:


> <snip>
> What? If the definition changes based on the HW, then it's not a very good definition.
> 
> Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


 
  
 I don't know why you won't list some of your gear?  I might be able to relate it to you better through your own gear if I knew what it was.
  
 Perhaps you could think of defining "resolution" like you would think of defining a color.  Easy to see, but not so easy to describe.  In a similar way, resolution is easy to hear but as you see in this thread, it is apparently to describe. 
  
 Maybe you could think of it as a form of audio clarity.  We all can recognize someone's voice over a cell phone.  The better the phone, or perhaps the better the speakers in the phone, the greater the resolution, and more real the voice sounds. 
  
 How about your laptop speakers?  Not much resolution there.  Laptop speakers are good enough to identify the voice of a singer and hear every instrument, drum beat and cymbal strike, but plug in a pair of headphones and the resolution increases by an order of magnitude.
  
 So now you tell me, what's your *definition* of the *difference* between the sound coming from laptop speakers and headphones plugged into the same computer? 
  
 A difference that is easy to hear but hard to assign a definition to.  I'd like to call that difference "resolution".


----------



## Ruben123

If you mean that by resolution, it's as easy as how big the frequency response is. Phone and laptop speakers often have a fr starting at 1khz to around 4-6k.


----------



## Argyris

grumpyoldguy said:


> You might be right, but I'd rather not speculate and instead challenge someone who uses the term to define it in an appropriate manner. That is, I want to understand the measurable qualities that contribute to this otherwise ambiguous term.
> 
> I also want to find out why people use ambiguous terms when we have well defined measurements to describe whatever behavior is being discussed... But that's another story, and one I suspect I will never get to the bottom of.
> 
> Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


 
  
 So would I. Unfortunately, it's a highly antagonistic relationship between the subjectivist and objectivist perspectives. The fact that this forum has essentially been cordoned off behind radioactive yellow DO NOT CROSS tape is one indication of this, and the skirmishes that occur when one side ruffles the other's feathers are another. And before somebody comes in here and complains about the ridicule and bashing that sometimes happen when threads run through their initial topic (I'm as guilty of it as anyone), keep in mind that on greater Head-Fi this place is regularly referred to as the Science Fiction forum, with the ever-present undertone that the people who frequent it are some kind of quacks in denial. It goes both ways, people. It's the classic "Us vs Them", and while both sides are at times guilty here, to the effect that I'm not going to pick one and say they're "worse" with it, that isn't really my point. My point is that this attitude exists and that it complicates any efforts we can make into investigating what (if any) empirical basis plays into the phenomena attested to in the audio world.
  
 So all we can do is speculate about these things, unless somebody from Team Subjective wants to elucidate us without pigeonholing or lecturing us, and without us dogpiling.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

upstateguy said:


> grumpyoldguy said:
> 
> 
> > <snip>
> ...




Because what I own shouldn't change the definition of an ostensibly measurable quality of all amplifiers. 

Color, clarity... You're using vague, ambiguous terms again. Please tell me what measurable qualities you are talking about. 

Why are you comparing two different devices or pieces of hardware? Surely any measurable quality would stand on it's own and not need some arbitrary and subjective comparison??

The difference between laptop speakers and headphones is quantized using a large array of measurements. Frequency response, sensitivity, distortion, impedance are just a few of these measurements. 

It sounds to me like you have no idea what you mean when you use the term resolution... You're using it as a catch-all term to describe anything and everything which you have no idea how to describe in objective terms. I always like to know what I'm talking about before I talk about it. 

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

argyris said:


> grumpyoldguy said:
> 
> 
> > You might be right, but I'd rather not speculate and instead challenge someone who uses the term to define it in an appropriate manner. That is, I want to understand the measurable qualities that contribute to this otherwise ambiguous term.
> ...




I don't understand why it should be perceived as antagonistic. It does not seem unreasonable to ask someone to explain what they mean in universally accepted terms... Common language is precisely what avoids confrontation. It's a shame that people take it the wrong way. 

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## Ruben123

argyris said:


> So would I. Unfortunately, it's a highly antagonistic relationship between the subjectivist and objectivist perspectives. The fact that this forum has essentially been cordoned off behind radioactive yellow DO NOT CROSS tape is one indication of this, and the skirmishes that occur when one side ruffles the other's feathers are another. And before somebody comes in here and complains about the ridicule and bashing that sometimes happen when threads run through their initial topic (I'm as guilty of it as anyone), keep in mind that on greater Head-Fi this place is regularly referred to as the Science Fiction forum, with the ever-present undertone that the people who frequent it are some kind of quacks in denial. It goes both ways, people. It's the classic "Us vs Them", and while both sides are at times guilty here, to the effect that I'm not going to pick one and say they're "worse" with it, that isn't really my point. My point is that this attitude exists and that it complicates any efforts we can make into investigating what (if any) empirical basis plays into the phenomena attested to in the audio world.
> 
> So all we can do is speculate about these things, unless somebody from Team Subjective wants to elucidate us without pigeonholing or lecturing us, and without us dogpiling.


 

 At a cable topic someone looked for a better cable, so I asked: you are not going for another cable for positive sound changes are you? The war already started so I posted another link to a Sound Science topic about cables, got lots of cynical **** over my body and before I knew I was already banned from the topic without any notify. Well ok then.


----------



## castleofargh

that's why I suggested to call it "perceived resolution" in that instance, as it seemed to fit and made it clear enough that the word wasn't used in the most objective sense.
@upstateguy gave plenty enough examples for us all to know he meant audible differences, so we know he didn't mean bit depth or frequency range or screen resolution ^_^ or new year resolution, but simply basic perceived quality.
 I also don't think resolution was the best term for such use, but by now we all know what he meant, so maybe let's move on?


----------



## headwhacker

It always happen someone tries to describe audio in terms of visual terminology. It hardly fits if it does does any bit. I for one use the term "resolution" only to realize that it's just perceived difference in what I hear


----------



## Argyris

ruben123 said:


> At a cable topic someone looked for a better cable, so I asked: you are not going for another cable for positive sound changes are you? The war already started so I posted another link to a Sound Science topic about cables, got lots of cynical **** over my body and before I knew I was already banned from the topic without any notify. Well ok then.


 
  
 I don't deny that that kind of stuff happens. That's what I meant when I said this forum and all its discussion topics are sequestered off from the site proper. I don't even bother trying to start a debate or bring up an alternate viewpoint outside of this forum, since I know it's not allowed. I just say my piece about my own personal experience and leave it at that. Since that is, on the surface, just another set of subjective impressions, unabashed subjectivists don't quite know what to do with it so they usually just leave me alone. It's more or less how I've gotten by for nearly six years now on the site without any real problems, unless you count the occasional jerk I just couldn't let get away with something. And to be honest, none of the times I got into it with people were ever worth it.
  


grumpyoldguy said:


> I don't understand why it should be perceived as antagonistic. It does not seem unreasonable to ask someone to explain what they mean in universally accepted terms... Common language is precisely what avoids confrontation. It's a shame that people take it the wrong way.


  
  
 Sadly, that's what happens when you restrict one side of an argument. It becomes a sort of protected space where people eventually feel like anything that challenges their perspective needs to be stamped out. It becomes personal; they define themselves by their beliefs and invest themselves in the lore that surrounds them, and discussing it critically means opening themselves up to the possibility that they may be mistaken. This is where the antagonism comes from: you've got the dominant culture that feels entitled to keep their giant echo chamber free of discordant notes, and the minority culture that finally gets sick of being treated like second class citizens so they occasionally lash out, which just brings more restriction and recrimination and builds up even more ill will between the two sides.
  
 Not everybody is like this, of course. A lot of people are pretty chill overall, even if they lean subjectivist. They just want to have a good time and discuss gear. But I've seen some pretty jerkish stuff on Head-Fi, and some people who can't even handle differing _subjective_ impressions from theirs, let alone anything approaching the objectivist viewpoint. Popular impressions threads often explode because of this kind of intolerance, and that's even with no input from objectivists (obviously).
  
 Whatever. This is Head-Fi. I take the bad with the good (there's plenty of the latter to go around), and while sometimes it irritates me that people who believe like I do have our discussion banished to this forum, at the end of the day there are far too many other things to capture my attention.


----------



## upstateguy

ruben123 said:


> If you mean that by resolution, it's as easy as how big the frequency response is. Phone and laptop speakers often have a fr starting at 1khz to around 4-6k.


 
  
 Hi Ruben123
  
 I would think that frequency response would be the answer to what "perceived resolution" is _(if I must call it that)_ but look at this this example.  I have 2 amps. Both are rated at 20Hz-20kHz but one of them has more of the stuff in question than the other.  Btw, were you ever able to hear what I'm talking about? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  


grumpyoldguy said:


> Because what I own shouldn't change the definition of an ostensibly measurable quality of all amplifiers.
> 
> Color, clarity... You're using vague, ambiguous terms again. Please tell me what measurable qualities you are talking about.
> 
> ...


 
  





  Great job of dancing around. 
  
 One would think that a person who makes a point of buying $100 USB cables because they "measure better", is already quite familiar with the way things sound, relative to measurements, and *knows exactly what I'm talking about*.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 But since you made such a point of it, I'll leave it to you to describe for the rest of us, what I know you're completely aware of, in  _proper_ Objective terms.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Still, it would be nice to know what you've connected your $100 usb cables to. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  
  
 No one is going to believe that you would plug a $100 usb cable into a $40 Fiio K1 and listen with an old pair of iPod ear buds. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 So come on, fess up, you must have some great stuff.   Tell us what equipment you have.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Hey, just thought of this.  If a guy buys $100 usb cables, what does he use for interconnects?


----------



## Ruben123

I don't hear differences between amps but then I don't have tried many. It two amps don't sound the same I'd say one is faulty. I have heard more resolution with better gear, for instance heading singers breathe.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about when you use the word resolution. That's why I asked the question. 

I provided definitions for three different types of resolution in an earlier post, you didn't pick any one of them. 

And now you're deflecting. Because you really have no clue what you mean when you say resolution. 

I'll take some advice from the mod and stop discussing this. I hope you'll take some advice and learn what you're talking about before you talk about it. 

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## upstateguy

ruben123 said:


> I don't hear differences between amps but then I don't have tried many. It two amps don't sound the same I'd say one is faulty. *I have heard more resolution *with better gear, for instance heading singers breathe.


 
  
 OK, so you have heard what I've been talking about and you're calling it the same thing I did, *resolution*.
  
 Not to argue with someone who agrees that they can hear resolution, but if one amp has more resolution than another amp, they don't sound the same, do they?


----------



## U-3C

Well, back to the original question since it's been cleared up a bit:

No, I don't find a better amp more "resolving" than another cheaper one, at least out of the few I've heard.

Of you mean more details, then no, everything I hear in one amp, I can hear it in another. If there is a difference, the more I compare, the more apparent it should be, but usually it's the opposite. The more I compare, the more I realize that I hear just the same, that the difference is just an illusion (is this logic a fallacy though?  )

If you mean one amp handles music better, a better experience, that of drives headphones in a way that sounds better, more dynamic bass but not overpowering, more realistic mids without pushing it forward and more crisper highs without making things harsh even though it has the same sound signature (very vague thing that I can't even described properly, but I think that's something along the lines of what people say when they say am amp is not resolving that another), then no. If there is a difference, playing with DSP can usually give me much more, and playing with EQ can also take the difference away, so the difference usually is just the sound signature it provides.

If you mean things like crosstalk? Maybe that cam affect the quality, thus that effect is what you mean by "resolution?" If that's what you mean...maybe? But I still don't hear much of a difference between equally transparent amps. Then again I've passed the age of twenty so my ears are probably schiit, unlike the majority of people on this website. :/

Since you gave the example of laptop speakers, is it the extension of the frequency response huge resolution you mean? If that's the case...well, all my dac amps go way over what I can hear, without any real distortion, so no, I don't find one lacks sub-bass or if the other one is more "veiled." 

I don't know. I don't hear much of a difference between my onboard and my neutral dac/amp, no matter how hard I want them to have a difference. One by default plays with the sound sig, so it isn't neutral, but once I made the sound balanced, nah, there isn't anything that I can hear better (if that's what you mean by resolution) on one over the other. They may have a bit distortion at higher volumes, but backing it down a bit usually gets rid of issues. Things like tube amps and such may intentionally distort the sound. I'm curious how much software tweaks can overcome the hardware limitations.

I always envy people who can justify their purchase. I can't no matter how hard I try, yet I still want to buy more, just because I know there must be a difference...maybe if I compare the Orpheus to what I have now, I'll finally understand what everyone is going crazy about. 

On the other hand, some people who have listened to the Orpheus have been very honest: they are the best headphones the person has ever heard. They are about 8% better than something like Sennheiser 300~500 dollar headphones.


----------



## upstateguy

grumpyoldguy said:


> I honestly have no idea what you're talking about when you use the word resolution. That's why I asked the question.
> 
> I provided definitions for three different types of resolution in an earlier post, you didn't pick any one of them.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think you've read the thread and by now you know exactly what I'm talking about....  So please choose what ever definition satisfies you.
  
 I still would like to know what your $100 usb cables area connected to.  Why is it a secret?
  
  
  
  
  
 I want to repeat this because interconnects have measurements too.  If a guy buys $100 usb cables, what does he use for interconnects?


----------



## Ancipital

u-3c said:


> Well, back to the original question since it's been cleared up a bit:
> 
> No, I don't find a better amp more "resolving" than another cheaper one, at least out of the few I've heard.


 
  
 Hell, I _*really* _do- comparing the Schiit Magni 2 Uber with the Jotenheim (SE or balanced), the latter makes a lot of transients and small details clearer and more audible. I'm not sure why (I don't have atomicbob-style measurements to hand) but would _guess _that it's partly down to slew rate, as well as possibly a more linear response across the frequency range. There are details that I simply can't hear through the Magni (even if I let it have a bit more volume), which come through nicely on the Jot, no matter which set of headphones I use.
  
 Not that the Magni 2U is bad for the price (not much more than an O2 desktop), it's a little gem, but it is a little.. "slow", for want of a better term. A better amp will handily beat it.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

upstateguy said:


> grumpyoldguy said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly have no idea what you're talking about when you use the word resolution. That's why I asked the question.
> ...




I bought all of my gear from the clearance section at Walmart on Black Friday. Survived the stampede through the fish tank section. 

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## U-3C

ancipital said:


> Hell, I _*really*_ do- comparing the Schiit Magni 2 Uber with the Jotenheim (SE or balanced), the latter makes a lot of transients and small details clearer and more audible. I'm not sure why (I don't have atomicbob-style measurements to hand) but would _guess_ that it's partly down to slew rate, as well as possibly a more linear response across the frequency range. There are details that I simply can't hear through the Magni (even if I let it have a bit more volume), which come through nicely on the Jot, no matter which set of headphones I use.
> 
> Not that the Magni 2U is bad for the price (not much more than an O2 desktop), it's a little gem, but it is a little.. "slow", for want of a better term. A better amp will handily beat it.




I see. Funny you mentioned slew rate, I was going to add in the comment that I plan to get a tube amp or something that is notoriously coloured just due to things like that too see if it indeed affects the "resolution." But I took it out of my comments because I gotta stop finding reasons for me to buy more stuff. 

Glad to hear you find the Jotenheim better!  I always wanted to hear more details on my music, things that I've never been able to hear before. Switching headphones makes me notice more, but that's just because they emphasize different sound signatures. I'm was always able to notice the same details as they are still there if I switch back and compare. The difference in sound just adds contrast so I notice it more... unless it's between my old skullcandy and my Apple Earpods. The difference between Apple and cheap Skullcandy is night and day. 

Sadly, that's the only "night and day" experience I've ever had. Apple to Phillips SHE3590? Nope. Xiaomi Piston 3? Nah. AD700x? Not really. Q701? Nay. HD600?...I like the HD600! But things I can't notice? No, not really. HD800? SR-007? So underwhelming...  And that's just headphones, not dacs or amps.


----------



## upstateguy

u-3c said:


> Well, back to the original question since it's been cleared up a bit:
> 
> No, *I don't find a better amp more "resolving" than another cheaper one,* at least out of the few I've heard.
> 
> ...


 
  
*"I don't find a better amp more "resolving" than another cheaper one"*
 What do you mean by a better amp?  The O2 is a very resolving amp.
  
*"I don't hear much of a difference between my onboard and my neutral dac/amp" **[ I haven't listened to any onboard in years but when I did I didn't hear much of a difference either]*
  
 What is you neutral dac/amp?
  
 I think you have a handle on what I mean by resolution.  It's all the things you mentioned that increase (for lack of a better term) the _clarity_ of the music.  Not more bass, for instance, just a cleaner clearer bass (as in being able to hear more defined notes). Subjectivists refer to it as a more articulated bass.
  
 I don't think you can say that two amps, for instance, have different sound signatures and at the same time say they sound the same. I'm not sure you can even say they sound similar.
  
 I also think that amps which have different levels of _resolution_, clarity or what ever you want to call it, don't sound the same either.  They may sound similar, but not the same.


----------



## RRod

ancipital said:


> Hell, I _*really* _do- comparing the Schiit Magni 2 Uber with the Jotenheim (SE or balanced), the latter makes a lot of transients and small details clearer and more audible. I'm not sure why (I don't have atomicbob-style measurements to hand) but would _guess _that it's partly down to slew rate, as well as possibly a more linear response across the frequency range. There are details that I simply can't hear through the Magni (even if I let it have a bit more volume), which come through nicely on the Jot, no matter which set of headphones I use.
> 
> Not that the Magni 2U is bad for the price (not much more than an O2 desktop), it's a little gem, but it is a little.. "slow", for want of a better term. A better amp will handily beat it.


 
  
 This is the point where we say "blind test or didn't happen." And again, slew rate is something quantifiable, and can be compared to what is, say, the maximal slew rate required for a theoretical reconstruction of a waveform into a given amp + load. See here for some discussion on what's required for CD playback. Your subjective sensation that the Jotenheim beats the Mag2U is as valid as my subjective sensation that the Fulla does just as well as a V200.


----------



## U-3C

upstateguy said:


> [COLOR=0000FF]*"I don't find a better amp more "resolving" than another cheaper one"*[/COLOR]
> What do you mean by a better amp?  The O2 is a very resolving amp.
> 
> [COLOR=0000FF]*"I don't hear much of a difference between my onboard and my neutral dac/amp"*[/COLOR] *[ I haven't listened to any onboard in years but when I did I didn't hear much of a difference either]*
> ...




I see.

I was referring to the onboard Realtek solution that you find on most motherboards these days (mine is pretty neutral after installing custom drivers), my iPhone 5s' onboard (pretty neutral), the cheap DACport Slim (neutral) and a Chord Mojo (no idea. I borrowed it without permission so I didn't do research in advance or measure it).  People keep telling me the Mojo is a bad pairing with the HD800 so...I guess I need to spend more money or maybe I'm just deaf as I'm over the age of 8. :/


----------



## upstateguy

ancipital said:


> u-3c said:
> 
> 
> > Well, back to the original question since it's been cleared up a bit:
> ...


 
  
  
 I heard that the Jotenheim is really good too.  I wonder how good the slide in dac is?
  
 And btw, good descriptors for an increase in resolution, "*makes a lot of transients and small details clearer and more audible"*.
  
 I don't know what a slow amp is.  What does that mean?
  


u-3c said:


> ancipital said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, I _*really*_ do- comparing the Schiit Magni 2 Uber with the Jotenheim (SE or balanced), the latter makes a lot of transients and small details clearer and more audible. I'm not sure why (I don't have atomicbob-style measurements to hand) but would _guess_ that it's partly down to slew rate, as well as possibly a more linear response across the frequency range. There are details that I simply can't hear through the Magni (even if I let it have a bit more volume), which come through nicely on the Jot, no matter which set of headphones I use.
> ...


 
  
 Today's slew rate is usually such a small number that I wonder what it effects or how audible it is. 
  
 Because there are two amplifiers, going balanced doubles the slew rate, doubles the noise, and doubles the distortion that would be present in a single ended amp.


----------



## Ruben123

When in the sound science forum, if like to see facts that back up the claims about a more resolving amp. If an amp matches flat, is should not be different from another.


----------



## Ancipital

u-3c said:


> Sadly, that's the only "night and day" experience I've ever had. Apple to Phillips SHE3590? Nope. Xiaomi Piston 3? Nah. AD700x? Not really. Q701? Nay. HD600?...I like the HD600! But things I can't notice? No, not really. HD800? SR-007? So underwhelming...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Shame on you for using "night and day", that's the first refuge of magic cable maniacs 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
  


u-3c said:


> I was referring to the onboard Realtek solution that you find on most motherboards these days (mine is pretty neutral after installing custom drivers), my iPhone 5s' onboard (pretty neutral), the cheap DACport Slim (neutral) and a Chord Mojo (no idea. I borrowed it without permission so I didn't do research in advance or measure it).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 People overstate the driving ability of the Mojo's amp- I found that my HD650 (for example) sounded flat and lifeless out of it, very distinctly anaemic bass, even if it could go loud. It's ok with my HE400i, but they're quite easy to drive. 
  
 Yet more "no, it doesn't sound the same" rears its head when the Mojo is feeding the Magni 2U, though- it's noticeably less clear than using the Modi Multibit on DAC duty. Ironically, the difference is less stark through the Jotenheim- both DACs sound pretty decent, so it'd be a harder ABX, I suspect.


----------



## upstateguy

grumpyoldguy said:


> I bought all of my gear from the clearance section at Walmart on Black Friday. Survived the stampede through the fish tank section.
> 
> Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


 
  
 LOL 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




    OK, biggest question on HF.  What did GrumpyEddie get in Walmart's clearance section on Black Fri that was worthy of plugging a $100 usb cable into? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  


rrod said:


> ancipital said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, I _*really* _do- comparing the Schiit Magni 2 Uber with the Jotenheim (SE or balanced), the latter makes a lot of transients and small details clearer and more audible. I'm not sure why (I don't have atomicbob-style measurements to hand) but would _guess _that it's partly down to slew rate, as well as possibly a more linear response across the frequency range. There are details that I simply can't hear through the Magni (even if I let it have a bit more volume), which come through nicely on the Jot, no matter which set of headphones I use.
> ...


 
  
 You are always soooo technical. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







  Do headphone amps even include slew rate in their specs?
  
 I've heard that same anecdotal report from some other sources regarding the Jotenheim.  Haven't had a chance to hear it myself.  It might turn out to be a really _resolving_ amp like the Gilmore amps and the O2.
  
  


u-3c said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > *"I don't find a better amp more "resolving" than another cheaper one"*
> ...


 
  
 Were you using the Mojo as an dac/amp or just a dac to an external amp?


----------



## upstateguy

ruben123 said:


> When in the sound science forum, if like to see facts that back up the claims about a more resolving amp. If an amp matches flat, is should not be different from another.


 
  
 Can an amp the measures flat have more resolution than another amp that measures flat?


ancipital said:


> u-3c said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly, that's the only "night and day" experience I've ever had. Apple to Phillips SHE3590? Nope. Xiaomi Piston 3? Nah. AD700x? Not really. Q701? Nay. HD600?...I like the HD600! But things I can't notice? No, not really. HD800? SR-007? So underwhelming...
> ...


 
  
 More doesn't sound the same.....  but maybe in this case the reason is the measurements are not the same.


----------



## castleofargh

my problem with perceived resolution is that it presupposes I can tell which is the sound with the highest fidelity. and I personally have a all lot of reasons to doubt that we can(aside from something obviously wrong of course). 
 for example, what if some harmonic distortions bring a feeling of added texture to the bass? I effectively feel and hear more "details", but they weren't on the record so it's not increased resolution right? but what if I think it is? where is my reference sound? I never had it. I wasn't in the studio when they recorded, I wasn't in the studio at the end of the mastering, all I have is the illusion that I should somehow know how an album must sound. this is preposterous when you look at it rationally.
 just thinking that the piano should sound like this or like that, that's deciding that the mastering came out with that sound but we have no idea that it is so. when is it justified confidence and when is it delusion? I vote 2 almost all the time.
  
 with years passing I'm more and more of the opinion that human senses are poor tools for signal integrity verification. if resolution is supposedly linked to anything objective, like hearing more of the details of the album, then it should be estimated objectively. and that's it. my microphone can't tell if it prefers a given amp, so I let my senses be the judge of that. to each it's job and talent.
  
  
 edit: BTW I don't think that's being an objectivist. it just makes more sense whatever the target we're after to use the proper tool for the task.


----------



## Ancipital

rrod said:


> This is the point where we say "blind test or didn't happen."


 
  
 Yeah, but you wouldn't if you had been wincing with shock transitioning between the two, there's no doubt. Whatever the cause, and (if you cast your mind back), I clearly said I didn't know which specific measurements cast light on the differences, they are two very different amps. They differ to  the extent that the better of the two was actually a little uncomfortable to listen to at first, due to my being used to the very much less detailed performance of the first. With appropriate test material (lots of layers and buried sharp sounds) and the HD650 it'd be like shooting fish in a barrel. With other material with irksome highs/transients on the HE400i, it'd be likewise- whatever the cause.
  
 Because I am not a foaming-at-the-mouth ideologue, I tend to reserve the hassle of a blind test for when it has actual value, because there's actual doubt. I did end up having to do that to an extent, as I feared that on the Jotunheim and HD650, it was suddenly annoyingly possible to distinguish 256k AAC from lossless with a following wind. I wasn't sure if my brain was playing tricks on me, though. Podunk ABXing gave me 80%-ish success rate on the material that was bothering me (over 20 attempts), whereas it was hovering somewhere around 50% (around the "guesswork level") give or take on the Magni 2U, using the same DAC and headphones.
  
 I have been blinking semi-comprehending as a bunch of Atomicbob's measurements of the Jotu. As far as I can tell, it measures very well, but my eyes were glazing over a bit, as it's very thorough, and I'm a bit of a nub.
  
 However, blind test between them to confirm that one of these amps does a noticeably better job than the other? Go for it, if your personal doubts are driving you crazy- and enjoy in good health. I'll keep my powder dry for when I feel actual doubt about something, as my time and motivation is finite.


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> my problem with perceived resolution is that it presupposes I can tell which is the sound with the highest fidelity. and I personally have a all lot of reasons to doubt that we can(aside from something obviously wrong of course).


 
  
 I agree. From years of experience on the portables forum, usually the phones with (strategic) upper mid or treble spikes receive the most praise for sounding exceptionally "detailed" and "resolving".
  
 As a visual analogy, I enhanced contrast and sharpness in some of my photos, then saved them as highly compressed JPEGs... and people would still tell me they look more "detailed" than the originals.


----------



## Ancipital

castleofargh said:


> my problem with perceived resolution is that it presupposes I can tell which is the sound with the highest fidelity. and I personally have a all lot of reasons to doubt that we can(aside from something obviously wrong of course).


 
  
 Yeah, that's fair. I'm still chasing obvious quality bottlenecks- and feeling smug at the big differences. I'll be into diminishing returns soon enough, and will be needing to question my own judgement, too.
  
 I have got to the point where stuff is higher fidelity than I am used to, and I can ABX out lossy compressed material- _if _I cherry pick the test material. That's the start of the danger zone


----------



## RRod

ancipital said:


> Yeah, but you wouldn't if you had been anywhere near both of them, as it'd make you look like a bit of an assclown. Whatever the cause, and (if you cast your mind back), I clearly said I didn't know which specific measurements cast light on the differences, they are two very different amps. They differ to  the extent that the better of the two was actually a little uncomfortable to listen to at first, due to being used to the very much less detailed performance of the first. With appropriate test material (lots of layers and buried sharp sounds) and the HD650 it'd be like shooting fish in a barrel. With other material with irksome highs/transients on the HE400i, it'd be likewise- whatever the cause.
> 
> Because I am not a foaming-at-the-mouth ideologue, I tend to reserve the hassle of a blind test for when it has actual value, because there's actual doubt. I did end up having to do that to an extent, as I feared that on the Jotunheim and HD650, it was suddenly annoyingly possible to distinguish 256k AAC from lossless with a following wind. I wasn't sure if my brain was playing tricks on me, though. Podunk ABXing gave me 80%-ish success rate on the material that was bothering me (over 20 attempts), whereas it was hovering somewhere around 50% give or take on the Magni 2U, using the same DAC and headphones.
> 
> I'll be delighted to blink semi-comprehending as a bunch of Atomicbob's measurements of both amps, to see what happens, of course. However, blind test between them to confirm that one of these amps does a noticeably better job than the other? Go for it, if your personal doubts are driving you crazy- and enjoy in good health. I'll keep my powder dry for when I feel actual doubt about something, as my time and motivation is finite.


 
  
 So you don't want to do a proper test between them, that's fine. Being able to suddenly distinguish things can be chucked up to just wanting to do better and thus focusing better on the test, which is of course why measurements are helpful. Given what's on Schiit's site, they match up pretty well on all the common metrics, but something crazy can always go on. Assuming you created the 256k AAC file yourself, I'm sure folks here and on other forums would love to know what samples you are listening to. And I care about the truth, not coming across as an assclown. I didn't actually mean for my previous post to rile things up, but was just pointing out that in the absence of any measurement to account for a difference, all we have left is proper subject testing.


----------



## Ancipital

rrod said:


> So you don't want to do a proper test between them, that's fine. Being able to suddenly distinguish things can be chucked up to just wanting to do better and thus focusing better on the test, which is of course why measurements are helpful. Given what's on Schiit's site, they match up pretty well on all the common metrics, but something crazy can always go on. Assuming you created the 256k AAC file yourself, I'm sure folks here and on other forums would love to know what samples you are listening to. And I care about the truth, not coming across as an assclown. I didn't actually mean for my previous post to rile things up, but was just pointing out that in the absence of any measurement to account for a difference, all we have left is proper subject testing.


 
  
 Yeah, sorry, I was way too harsh- my attention was distracted, and I forgot not to be an assclown myself. I went back and ninja-edited, but you're too fast for me. Apologies, you didn't deserve that.
  
 I absolutely don't want to do a blind test between the two amps, as it'd be a poor choice in time/reward terms- bordering on the irrational.
  
 As to the recording for ABXing the 256k AAC, I was using Redbook FLAC from HDTracks of the new Macy Gray "Stripped" album. I then converted it to 256k AAC, using the Apple encoder, under Foobar's converter function. I can't remember which tracks I used, annoyingly (they are all reduced to a sort of jazz mush anyway), but do remember that the trick to it was listening to the transients in the percussion mainly. It usually only took a few bars, with the right sounds.
  
 Edit: Also, when the bass does the odd loose vibrating "buzz", you lose a lot of the attack of the sound'.. does AAC ever suffer from temporal smearing? I can't remember.


----------



## U-3C

upstateguy said:


> LOL      OK, biggest question on HF.  What did GrumpyEddie get in Walmart's clearance section on Black Fri that was worthy of plugging a $100 usb cable into? :atsmile:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Dac/amp. Again, I borrowed it without permission so I don't know anything about it. I just know it's often talked about and a person had one, so I took it for a while.


----------



## upstateguy

castleofargh said:


> my problem with perceived resolution is that it presupposes I can tell which is the sound with the highest fidelity. and I personally have a all lot of reasons to doubt that we can(aside from something obviously wrong of course).
> for example, what if some harmonic distortions bring a feeling of added texture to the bass? I effectively feel and hear more "details", but they weren't on the record so it's not increased resolution right? but what if I think it is? where is my reference sound? I never had it. I wasn't in the studio when they recorded, I wasn't in the studio at the end of the mastering, all I have is the illusion that I should somehow know how an album must sound. this is preposterous when you look at it rationally.
> just thinking that the piano should sound like this or like that, that's deciding that the mastering came out with that sound but we have no idea that it is so. when is it justified confidence and when is it delusion? I vote 2 almost all the time.
> 
> ...


 
  
 You obviously have thought things through very carefully.  I can't take issue with anything you've said.
  
 But when you hear an amp that is a little bit cleaner and clearer throughout the spectrum you know it. 
  
 I don't think resolution is necessarily about how close a recorded instrument is to a real instrument, but how clearly you can hear the recorded sound.
  
 For instance, my 650s sound more like a real piano to me than my T-1s, but my T-1s have a much cleaner and clearer sound. 
  
 I find a similar thing with amps. When I play back a flac recording on my M^3 it sounds really good but when I play the same flac recording on my GS-1 it sounds much cleaner and clearer with an almost holographic sound stage. And even though I have no measurements to support any of this, I think it's audible enough for almost anyone in this thread to be able to hear.


----------



## castleofargh

oh don't get me wrong, we're amazing creatures and we can identify stuff that would make the best supercomputer go mad. I'm not trying to belittle human kind or your senses and experience.
 but pretty much all my interest in the objective side of audio comes from one and only question: when can I trust myself? and if statistically I might be right about what I think I'm hearing most of the time(and more as I get more experience maybe?), it doesn't remove the certainty that sometimes I'm wrong/fooled/biased. what's the value of a tool if it's reliability is questioned and we don't have any clear cue as to when it can be trusted?
 I use my sight and sense of balance to stay standing, sometimes I'll try to show off too much and end up falling. I know it can happen, I know it's rare(unless windsurf/snowboard/drunk and cocky). but I also know it did happen and will happen again. the difference is that when it does, I instantly know that something went wrong. I don't stay on the floor(/water/snow) thinking I'm standing up.
 now when I try assessing the objective quality of sound by ear, if I don't rely on actual objective data I will not know when I'm wrong. and that's what bugs me. not being wrong or the possibility of being wrong, I've long accepted that as normal daily reality, but to stay wrong without knowing it, that I don't like at all. it's anti progress, it opposes learning. so of course my confidence crumbles in that situation and I only get it back about objective quality of sound after I can confirm them with some matter of control or objective evidence. in a way, objective measurement is the cold floor. on my face telling me that I just fell, or under my feet telling me that I'm standing like a boss with the right impression about the objective quality of a device.
  
  
 is that weird?


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> oh don't get me wrong, we're amazing creatures and we can identify stuff that would make the best supercomputer go mad. I'm not trying to belittle human kind or your senses and experience.
> but pretty much all my interest in the objective side of audio comes from one and only question: when can I trust myself? and if statistically I might be right about what I think I'm hearing most of the time(and more as I get more experience maybe?), it doesn't remove the certainty that sometimes I'm wrong/fooled/biased. what's the value of a tool if it's reliability is questioned and we don't have any clear cue as to when it can be trusted?
> I use my sight and sense of balance to stay standing, sometimes I'll try to show off too much and end up falling. I know it can happen, I know it's rare(unless windsurf/snowboard/drunk and cocky). but I also know it did happen and will happen again. the difference is that when it does, I instantly know that something went wrong. I don't stay on the floor(/water/snow) thinking I'm standing up.
> now when I try assessing the objective quality of sound by ear, if I don't rely on actual objective data I will not know when I'm wrong. and that's what bugs me. not being wrong or the possibility of being wrong, I've long accepted that as normal daily reality, but to stay wrong without knowing it, that I don't like at all. it's anti progress, it opposes learning. so of course my confidence crumbles in that situation and I only get it back about objective quality of sound after I can confirm them with some matter of control or objective evidence. in a way, objective measurement is the cold floor. on my face telling me that I just fell, or under my feet telling me that I'm standing like a boss with the right impression about the objective quality of a device.
> ...




Is that weird? No .

Is it certain that we are living in the real reality? No.  

Maybe we are all bound in life support containers, with wires feeding us dreams of the world going on as our robot overlords want us to believe~

\(>v<)/

That's a great explanation though. I think I'll quote you or refer to your post in the future if I ever need to balance out a discussion between people about the pros of objective measurements.


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Is that weird? No .
> 
> Is it certain that we are living in the real reality? No.
> 
> ...


 
 Mr. Smith can explain this.


----------



## Argyris

I guess my take is that, even if we were are all living in a simulated world, I'd at least like to understand as much about that simulation as possible, rather than create my own fantasies to explain things. Somewhere in that simulation would be reflected the values and intentions behind its creation (or else merely the fundamental natural laws that govern its existence), and if I can't learn to see beyond my own perception and beliefs, I won't ever discover those underlying principles.
  
 I'm feeling extra philosophical this morning, it seems.


----------



## StanD

argyris said:


> I guess my take is that, even if we were are all living in a simulated world, I'd at least like to understand as much about that simulation as possible, rather than create my own fantasies to explain things. Somewhere in that simulation would be reflected the values and intentions behind its creation (or else merely the fundamental natural laws that govern its existence), and if I can't learn to see beyond my own perception and beliefs, I won't ever discover those underlying principles.
> 
> I'm feeling extra philosophical this morning, it seems.


 
 I prefer hacking the simulation to do my bidding. I will create a wire with gain.


----------



## james444

u-3c said:


> Is it certain that we are living in the real reality? No.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 For the brave ones, a tiny peek outside your containers. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  


Spoiler: Proceed at your own risk...



http://www.wikia.com/MediaKit?uselang=en-US

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/mediakit2/images/f/f9/Wikia_AudienceTargetingGuide.pdf


----------



## upstateguy

castleofargh said:


> oh don't get me wrong, we're amazing creatures and we can identify stuff that would make the best supercomputer go mad. I'm not trying to belittle human kind or your senses and experience.
> but pretty much all my interest in the objective side of audio comes from one and only question: when can I trust myself? and if statistically I might be right about what I think I'm hearing most of the time(and more as I get more experience maybe?), it doesn't remove the certainty that sometimes I'm wrong/fooled/biased. what's the value of a tool if it's reliability is questioned and we don't have any clear cue as to when it can be trusted?
> I use my sight and sense of balance to stay standing, sometimes I'll try to show off too much and end up falling. I know it can happen, I know it's rare(unless windsurf/snowboard/drunk and cocky). but I also know it did happen and will happen again. the difference is that when it does, I instantly know that something went wrong. I don't stay on the floor(/water/snow) thinking I'm standing up.
> now when I try assessing the objective quality of sound by ear, if I don't rely on actual objective data I will not know when I'm wrong. and that's what bugs me. not being wrong or the possibility of being wrong, I've long accepted that as normal daily reality, but to stay wrong without knowing it, that I don't like at all. it's anti progress, it opposes learning. so of course my confidence crumbles in that situation and I only get it back about objective quality of sound after I can confirm them with some matter of control or objective evidence. in a way, objective measurement is the cold floor. on my face telling me that I just fell, or under my feet telling me that I'm standing like a boss with the right impression about the objective quality of a device.
> ...


 
  
 Always the voice of reason...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 But what about preferences developed over time?  I agree that trying to assess the objective quality of sound by ear is not only a very difficult thing but also unreliable. But over time we all have developed preferences for one piece of equipment over another.  I have a bunch of amps, both portable and desktops, and I have a pretty good idea of how they sound and which ones sound better than others... these are preferences that I have developed over years of listening to them.  This is not a blind test, an ABX or a few listening sessions but an extended accumulation of listening exposures to various equipment.  Is it not reasonable that these preferences can be trusted? 
  
 Most of us have "go to" equipment.  Although based on nothing more than subjective assessments made over time, rather than objective measurements, we have never the less been able to narrow down what we think sounds best and use it more often than the other equipment we have.  In doing this haven't we have unconsciously made the decision to trust our impressions.
  
 It would be curious to see if our "go to" equipment measures as the best of what we have.
  
 On the other hand,* never mind*. 
  
 I wrote this in 2009:
  
_.....I spent 2 weeks of my 30 day trial carefully listening to the Neko in the same "traditional way" we all use to evaluate components.  I did some switching back and forth, as we all do, after I had a good handle on what its sound signature was (or so I thought).  Comparing by unplugging and replugging only reinforced the impressions I formed.  The real surprise came during the 2 hours when I hooked the two DACs up in tandem__ [using 2 identical computers] __and discovered I couldn't tell them apart.......  _


----------



## StanD

upstateguy said:


> Always the voice of reason...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 "Mind over what matters," let's call this a new expression. Since echoic memory lasts for a few seconds I am not surprised at your experience.


----------



## Argyris

upstateguy said:


> But what about preferences developed over time?  I agree that trying to assess the objective quality of sound by ear is not only a very difficult thing but also unreliable. But over time we all have developed preferences for one piece of equipment over another.  I have a bunch of amps, both portable and desktops, and I have a pretty good idea of how they sound and which ones sound better than others... these are preferences that I have developed over years of listening to them.  This is not a blind test, an ABX or a few listening sessions but an extended accumulation of listening exposures to various equipment.  Is it not reasonable that these preferences can be trusted?


 
  
 This is either a very convenient or very inconvenient argument, depending on which camp you happen to belong to, or which side you're arguing. The issue, as I'm sure you're aware, is that this sort of claim is very difficult to test. My feeling is that there will never be a convincing answer to these sort of questions solely through ABX. For this, we need to dig down into the fundamental science. If we can independently quantify the limits of human perception (e.g. how small a difference in <insert parameter here> can the most sensitive human detect), then measure two pieces of gear in every possible metric we can think of, we can determine that if the differences fall inside the limits of that most sensitive human, no matter what a listener may feel on the subject, there is no way they can possibly hear a difference, over time or otherwise.
  
 This method in itself is difficult, since we still have to use some form of controlled testing to establish human perception limits for these specific parameters. It's not exactly the most compelling research subject, so it might be a bit of a struggle convincing somebody to supply a grant. Plus, having been obliquely exposed to the process of designing experiments back in my other life when I studied psychology, I know that it's often incredibly difficult to eliminate all the variables when trying to measure minuscule effects.
  
 Where I think ABX can (and should) be applied is in cases where owners claim massive, obvious differences between pieces of gear, that invariably vanish once an ABX test is in progress. Anything that gets the "night and day" description should show up in such a test. I'd be satisfied if at least these sorts of exaggerated claims finally got the kibosh, so we could start concentrating on the more subtle claims I've seen mentioned even by members of this very thread.


----------



## castleofargh

upstateguy said:


> Always the voice of reason...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 my post was about objective information and reliability of my senses. so it's to know for myself, or to know that I'll share proper information with others. 2 things I happen to value a lot. it wasn't at all about taste. my taste doesn't follow objectivity or reason most of the time. I don't always prefer to eat what's objectively best for me(pringles+nutella+coca cola, the breakfast of champions). I don't always enjoy music because of the quality of the recording or the fidelity of the sound getting in my ears. but then again sometimes I do, those are but a few of all the variables that impact my decisions and preferences.
 also euphony isn't an objective quality but we base a great deal of personal audio decisions on it. so there is that. maybe the problem is how too many people mistake euphony for fidelity.
  
  
 about your never mind question, the devices I use the most are portable one(not the best start), and within portable gears I own, not the ones that measure the best. in fact they're not even the ones I prefer when it comes to sound only in a quiet room. but I value convenience of use and isolation in a way that really makes my audio experience better(in my mind^_^). 
 of course I wouldn't come on headfi and tell people that something has superior sound if the reason isn't even sound at all. that would be pure disinformation. and I'm afraid that a great deal of people do just that. because they assume that they can indeed rely on how they feel to judge the objective qualities of sound. "I love it therefore it's the best objective sound" is without a doubt the most used fallacy you can find on audio forums.
 some think a little bit further and will tell you that they're subjectivists and what they like most is effectively the best for them. and that's my kind of subjectivism, I'm perfectly fine with it and agree that we should care for what we enjoy. we do not need the approval of some guys on the web to know if we enjoy a sound. but then many of those self proclaimed subjectivists forget how to subject when they try to force feed their "X is better than Y" claims in a forum. because if everybody is different and they know it, shouldn't they be the first to consider that what they like doesn't have to be the best for anybody else? or is that a form of self centered subjectivism that doesn't think "we're all unique", but instead "the world revolves around me and the only real world for everybody is mine"?
  we're usually presented with the allegory of the cave at some point in school, it's fun and everybody can get the concept behind it. but ironically enough, nobody thinks that it's us in the cave.


----------



## spruce music

castleofargh said:


> my post was about objective information and reliability of my senses. so it's to know for myself, or to know that I'll share proper information with others. 2 things I happen to value a lot. it wasn't at all about taste. my taste doesn't follow objectivity or reason most of the time. I don't always prefer to eat what's objectively best for me(pringles+nutella+coca cola, the breakfast of champions). I don't always enjoy music because of the quality of the recording or the fidelity of the sound getting in my ears. but then again sometimes I do, those are but a few of all the variables that impact my decisions and preferences.
> also euphony isn't an objective quality but we base a great deal of personal audio decisions on it. so there is that. maybe *the problem is how too many people mistake euphony for fidelity.*
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Yes, this is a large, large part of the divide between subs and obs.  People mistake euphony for fidelity.  Or people mistake preference for fidelity.  They mistakenly assume they will always prefer what is highest fidelity. The mistakenly believe they will always hear what is highest fidelity.


----------



## StanD

spruce music said:


> Yes, this is a large, large part of the divide between subs and obs.  People mistake euphony for fidelity.  Or people mistake preference for fidelity.  They mistakenly assume they will always prefer what is highest fidelity. The mistakenly believe they will always hear what is highest fidelity.


 
 Many people mistakenly believe what they hear in one sample/condition is different in another sample/condition when it's the same. Or they believe a forum based myth, like some Amp (which has a flat FR) is sibilant.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> "Mind over what matters," let's call this a new expression. Since echoic memory lasts for a few seconds I am not surprised at your experience.


 
  
 Would there be any credence to the assertion that long-term memory can come into play for things like DACs and amps? (honest question)


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> Would there be any credence to the assertion that long-term memory can come into play for things like DACs and amps? (honest question)


 
 IMO you can remember your general impressions but not for a proper comparative analysis. My belief is that all good Amps and DACs pretty much sound the same, yes I'm sure there is junk out there, expensive as well as cheap. If one is looking for real audio differences they should be looking at their headphones/IEMs for joy.
 Echoic memory is a human condition that cannot be ignored.


----------



## spruce music

rrod said:


> Would there be any credence to the assertion that long-term memory can come into play for things like DACs and amps? (honest question)


 

 One those things where something can't easily be disproven though one can show there isn't likely anything going on except your mind being human.
  
 Echoic memory: our minds it would seem hold the exact raw sensory date for a few seconds.  Blind testing shows if selections are kept very short with instant switching the ability to discriminate real differences by hearing is at a maximum.  As compared sound selections grow to exceed echoic memory results grow less discerning.  Differences have to be larger to be reliably detected. It makes sense.  Seems once echoic memory is gone those sensory inputs get compressed maybe something like MP3s do only these are sensory MP3s..  Mid and long term memory discards some info and probably attaches metadata that may include non-sound things like emotions etc.  The long term memory comparisons of multiple long term memory events seem almost as if you are hearing it again.  But that is an illusion.  It also increases the chances that information not part of sound itself could muddy the waters.
  
 On the other hand, it would be possible that continued exposure and the fact much more intensive processing could go on, might mean repeated exposures could nevertheless tease out genuine differences even using compressed long term memory info. Just like one can analyze MP3 recordings and learn useful things despite such a recording having thrown out 85% of the original information in the original signal.  Most/many seem to experience this as so.  But you also know how bias, and sighted knowledge of what has been heard hugely corrupt the reliability of such a process.   There is plenty of info the way you feel you have learned more from long term listening is in fact not for real or not to the extent it feels real.  Yet the brain is big into pattern matching and even if waters of perception are muddied it is possible there is some of that which is true.   The big confounder to showing such is the case or making use of it is the natural apparently universal tendency of humans to hear differences when we know there actually is not a difference.  In face of such conditions almost any other info can skew one to hear something which isn't there.
  
 So long term revealing things short term auditioning doesn't is unlikely and at best so murky as to be useless.  Yet I too experience how it feels.  I swear some gear is a touch ripe in the low end and sluggish.  Other gear is a bit hard sounding.  Yet other gear is open and pleasingly lively.  Those perceptions persist and seemed renewed everytime I hear the gear. Play them side by side and all difference is gone.  Look at measured performance and there simply isn't difference enough it could be the way I hear it.  Plus whenever I have heard differences that did hold up in side by side or serial comparisons there has always been a very measurable difference that would account for it. Those are real.  Most confoundingly the two experiences felt just about the same.  The real difference feeling no more certain or otherwise than the difference that wasn't really there.


----------



## RRod

Thanks! That's the kind of summary I was looking for.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

In case we're still on the topic of "resolution" 

I do hear a difference in "resolution" between different headphones. I also hear a big difference in resolution after I dial in a pair of headphones using parametric EQ. For a pair of headphones with particularly big sharp peaks and dips, I can make a "low-res" version of my precise EQ that follows the big trends in bass mid and treble EQ but not the individual EQ peaks / dips, and I'd hear the same sound, except more grainy / shouty / sizzly and less "resolving".


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> In case we're still on the topic of "resolution"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Perhaps by EQ'ing you are affecting the timbre of the instruments.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> Perhaps by EQ'ing you are affecting the timbre of the instruments.


 
  
 We get back to what exactly people mean by "resolving." There's this one excerpt I think of as an example, which involves a descending phrase with a tuba and contrabassoon. On my PM-3, nothing abnormal seems to happen, but on my HD800 I hear, vividly, a rattling sound coming from the contrabassoon. If I EQ my PM-3 to sound like my HD800, the rattle pops out as expected. So I might call the HD800 more resolving than the PM-3, but is it more resolving than the EQed PM-3? My feeling is "no".


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> Perhaps by EQ'ing you are affecting the timbre of the instruments.




Oh definitely. Usually the timbre sounds like poop to me before EQing on all but the best of headphones or loudspeaker setups. 

(those very best headphones or loudspeaker setups don't sound like poop but still benefit from further tuneup)


----------



## StanD

Which brings us back to my shaking head about people and their beliefs about Amps. Yes there are going to some bad actors, but for the most of reality amps shouldn't make much of if any difference. Of course I wouldn't expect someone to use a high impedance OTL Tube amp to drive low impedance Planars or worse a Dynamic Headphone with a wild impedance curve. So as Joe and RRod assert, it's in the headphones/speakers.... It's refreshing to post with reasonable people.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> Which brings us back to my shaking head about people and their beliefs about Amps. Yes there are going to some bad actors, but for the most of reality amps shouldn't make much of if any difference. Of course I wouldn't expect someone to use a high impedance OTL Tube amp to drive low impedance Planars or worse a Dynamic Headphone with a wild impedance curve. So as Joe and RRod assert, it's in the headphones/speakers.... It's refreshing to post with reasonable people.


 
  
 But of course that isn't the philosophy you are held to. You are held to "ALL amps sound the same" because that's what we "think" here in SS. And then some guy comes along and says "well this amp I made out the metal strands from twist-ties and old washers doesn't sound as good as my Ragnarok" and they say "SEE, YOU ARE DISPROVED!"
  
 sorry rant


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> Which brings us back to my shaking head about people and their beliefs about Amps. Yes there are going to some bad actors, but for the most of reality amps shouldn't make much of if any difference. Of course I wouldn't expect someone to use a high impedance OTL Tube amp to drive low impedance Planars or worse a Dynamic Headphone with a wild impedance curve. So as Joe and RRod assert, it's in the headphones/speakers.... It's refreshing to post with reasonable people.




Well usually it's a BA or multi-BA IEM that has a wild impedance curve but apart from that, yeah.


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> Well usually it's a BA or multi-BA IEM that has a wild impedance curve but apart from that, yeah.


 
 Many Sennheiser cans have an impedance rise in the mid bass or a bit higher. Look at the HD600 in the first curve. Check out the HD558 in the second graph.


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> But of course that isn't the philosophy you are held to. You are held to "ALL amps sound the same" because that's what we "think" here in SS. And then some guy comes along and says "well this amp I made out the metal strands from twist-ties and old washers doesn't sound as good as my Ragnarok" and they say "SEE, YOU ARE DISPROVED!"
> 
> sorry rant


 
 Not to worry, that micro rant is nothing compared to the attacks I've experienced at the hand of various forum mobs. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  And I'm polite to them, which doesn't always matter.


----------



## upstateguy

spruce music said:


> Yes, this is a large, large part of the divide between subs and obs.  *People mistake euphony for fidelity.  Or people mistake preference for fidelity. * They mistakenly assume they will always prefer what is highest fidelity. The mistakenly believe they will always hear what is highest fidelity.


 
  
 But is it possible that one amp, dac or headphones sounds cleaner and clearer than another?
  


rrod said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > "Mind over what matters," let's call this a new expression. Since echoic memory lasts for a few seconds I am not surprised at your experience.
> ...


 
  
 I wasn't talking about long term memory and although it sounded like it, I wasn't talking about preference either.  What I meant was that we can hear some stuff as cleaner and clearer than some other stuff, even though all of it sounds "pretty much" the same.
  


stand said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > Would there be any credence to the assertion that long-term memory can come into play for things like DACs and amps? (honest question)
> ...


 
  
 I agree with you but the operative words are *"Pretty Much".  *My Woo3 and my M^3 share a similar sound signature and my GS-1 and O2 share a different sound signature.  I'm calling that one "more resolution" because it seems cleaner and clearer.


spruce music said:


> <snip>
> .......  Yet I too experience how it feels.  I swear some gear is a touch ripe in the low end and sluggish.  Other gear is a bit hard sounding.  Yet other gear is open and pleasingly lively.  Those perceptions persist and seemed renewed everytime I hear the gear. Play them side by side and all difference is gone.  Look at measured performance and there simply isn't difference enough it could be the way I hear it.  Plus whenever I have heard differences that did hold up in side by side or serial comparisons there has always been a very measurable difference that would account for it. Those are real.  Most confoundingly the two experiences felt just about the same.  The real difference feeling no more certain or otherwise than the difference that wasn't really there.


 
 I had the same experience but without being able to measure the gear.
  


rrod said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps by EQ'ing you are affecting the timbre of the instruments.
> ...


 
 I took a look at your charts.... impressive.
  


rrod said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > Which brings us back to my shaking head about people and their beliefs about Amps. Yes there are going to some bad actors, but for the most of reality amps shouldn't make much of if any difference. Of course I wouldn't expect someone to use a high impedance OTL Tube amp to drive low impedance Planars or worse a Dynamic Headphone with a wild impedance curve. So as Joe and RRod assert, it's in the headphones/speakers.... It's refreshing to post with reasonable people.
> ...


 
  
 Maybe that's the problem.... maybe *we *are in *castleofargh's* cave and don't allow ourselves to hear differences because it's not in our belief system???
  
 Btw, that all dacs sound the same doesn't fly because as you know from the DiffMaker "difference file" I sent you, my Stello DA100 has 2 different sounds.  One in the bypass mode and one in the 192 upscale mode.  There are other dacs that have a similar feature.  Some are switchable and some are not.  So which sound sounds like all the other dacs, the bypass sound or the upscale sound? 
  
 My Pico dac upscales to 24/96 with a Wolfson chip and my NorthStar is even more complicated,(from the web site) "The digital receiver and upsampler until 96kHz-24bit is a Crystal CS8420-CS; the second upsampling until 192kHz-24bit is made by NPC SM5849AF. The Crystal CS4396-KS a 192kHz-24bit is the DAC."
  
 These dacs do not sound the same.
  
 I also have a NOS Constantine Plus that doesn't sound as good, or like either the Pico or the NorthStar, which is why I don't use it anymore.
  
 I'm away for the weekend, but when I get back maybe some more DiffMaker files.  [I really hate all this testing]
  
 (end of my rant)


----------



## castleofargh

in my case, it's not my own cave and outside, but more like a maze full of different rooms underground. I get out of one and think wow I was such a narrow minded guy, now I know better, here is the real world. and I basically reproduce all my previous mistakes forgetting that if it wasn't the end of the road all the other times, it's probably not this time either. ^_^ but it's just so hard to imagine a world we don't even suspect to exist.
  
  
  
  
  
 about DACs and amps I believe there is misunderstanding. nobody is saying that they all sound the same in all conditions. that's obviously impossibru!!!!!  when we imply that amps or DACs sound the same, we do have prerequisites.
 for DACs I'd say:
 to have them volume matched. if you volume match at the amp, some gain associations might result is more of less problems(could be as bad as clipping) that could be audible. so we preemptively control the volume level to avoid getting differences for such a reason(I'd also avoid 100% digital volume, at least for the test itself).
  
 to have them obey nyquist(I love how the spell check suggests "nudist") pretty well, no BS output without filters or stuff like that.
  
 to have them measure real close to flat. it may seem silly on a DAC, but some will have a gentler low pass that starts very soon and creates a few DB variations in the trebles. also in general flat within +/-1db, well that's still up to 2db variations. so better not get delusional about some false sense of security because we think everything is dead flat. it's worth checking with measurements.
  
 that they simply measure well enough to expect transparency.
  
  
 for amps I'd add:
 impedance bridging. that does not guaranty the same signature but should guaranty variations limited to 1db or less from non flat headphone impedance. avoid possible variations from a poor electrical damping(not sure it matters on most headphones, but with speakers it certainly can). also if the impedance of the headphone is big enough, we don't have to worry about weird effects like bass roll off because of caps at the output, or very very bad crosstalk, distortions, added noises because the headphone have way too low an impedance and the current flow would impact the circuits and components.  so with one rule, we reduce the chances for audible differences from many potential causes.
  
 and obviously volume matching and some matter of gain common sense. like avoiding to get an amp with a 30X gain if it's to feed IEMs. that way we limit the risks for background noise because of too much gain, and we also reduce the risk of getting channel imbalance on some volume controls.
  
  
 now do the opposite of all this and sure enough you'll be able to pass most blind tests. ^_^ 
 that's what it means IMO to say that most DACs and amps sound the same, it means they can sound the same if we do it right. and as fidelity has only one sound, the ability to get the same sound from 2 devices is what we aim for. it means they both were done right. it's an objective approach about fidelity and audible transparency, not a quest about personal taste. if you look for devices that sound different, it's also very possible to set situations where that would happen more often than not, and to buy designs that are made to have a "custom sound". those are 2 different approaches, I personally favor the idea of using DSP to compensate the headphone that will never be transparent. others look for DAC and amps as countermeasures for the headphone, with a non flat signature and possibly more. so not only those guys can find conditions where most devices will sound differently, but manufacturers also create non transparent designs because there is a demand for it.
 so all DACs sound the same is the same BS as all cables sound the same. now can I get transparent sounding DACs or cables from many different manufacturers? yes. IMO, with the proper conditions, most will in fact sound the same.


----------



## StanD

@upstateguy When I say "Pretty much sound the same" I'm not quite in ballpark with what you said, quoted below:
  
_I agree with you but the operative words are *"Pretty Much". * My Woo3 and my M^3 share a similar sound signature and my GS-1 and O2 share a different sound signature.  I'm calling that one "more resolution" because it seems cleaner and clearer._
  
 I'm more in the camp that, excluding bad products, some amps are marginal due to design or other factors and might sound different (perhaps not for good reasons), all good Amps should sound the same. IMO Amps that are designed to have increased coloration are not on my menu, I want a transparent Amp, If my headphones are a problem, then I bought the wrong headphones.
 Then there's how an Amp can be misused:

Using amps that are designed for high impedance headphones with low impedance cans. I'm not a fan of Amps with high output impedances.
Not having a low enough impedance for headphones that require it for damping.
Not having a low enough impedance for headphones that require it because the headphones have a wild impedance curve.
 An Amp or DAC with a high TIMD or other distortion is a bad amp. It is easy to design a good amp, this is not the 1960's where Class B amps were foisted on the public. There is no excuse for a bad FR, other than a bad design.
 I'm sure there are other cases to be found.
 The same design issues go for DACs, if it's designed well it should sound swell. As I've stated a number of times in the past, human beings have a high threshold for JDD (Just Detectable Distortion) and properly designed devices can easily surpass our ability to detect, however, it appears that the ability of out imagination exceeds all.


----------



## sonitus mirus

stand said:


> @upstateguy When I say "Pretty much sound the same" I'm not quite in ballpark with what you said, quoted below:
> 
> _I agree with you but the operative words are *"Pretty Much". * My Woo3 and my M^3 share a similar sound signature and my GS-1 and O2 share a different sound signature.  I'm calling that one "more resolution" because it seems cleaner and clearer._
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think you are sitting in my seat at the ballpark. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 To me, this isn't really debatable from a rational perspective.  The measurements provide firm reasoning that there is not much of any practical difference to be heard.  This applies to both expensive and inexpensive transducers.  Otherwise, where is this elusive, undeniable proof?   If the sound quality is clearer and cleaner, it is probably only in the listener's head.  If any blind testing is done to try and remove bias, that is when the excuses and ridiculous "theories" that attempt to discredit well-established principles of scientific methodologies are made.  Then we usually have to refer to the logical fallacies guidebook, and the more experienced debaters bully the discussion into realms of absurdity that completely lose focus on the original topic being discussed.   It is entertaining, so I'm still hanging around reading the forum; usually while listening to lossy music streamed from a subscription service with millions of songs played via a cheap DAC and a pair of mid-quality, powered studio monitors.  It sounds fantastic.


----------



## StanD

sonitus mirus said:


> I think you are sitting in my seat at the ballpark.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I just love the made up jargon or misuse of real terms. I'm still figuring out how an amp adds delay, well my guitar amp has reverb. Euphonic is abused in many ways, it could men anything. Or how about the Amp makes music fast, didn't know it can change the tempo of the music. What's next, changing the time signature, to a waltz?


----------



## RRod

upstateguy said:


> I took a look at your charts.... impressive.
> 
> 
> Maybe that's the problem.... maybe *we *are in *castleofargh's* cave and don't allow ourselves to hear differences because it's not in our belief system???
> ...


 
  
 And yet despite such results from DSP, here we are talking about trying to affect the sound signature via amps. As far as allowing myself to hear differences, I desperately wanted my V200 + Bifrost combo to sound better than a Magni + Realtek, but it didn't once I tried a volume-matched, blind test. Our belief system here admits things like cognitive bias exist. As far as your files, I indicated in my PM response that I didn't see a whole lot that should be audible, but it would be much easier to quantify things with a sine sweep rather than music excerpts; our belief system here also includes test signals.


----------



## U-3C

rrod said:


> And yet despite such results from DSP, here we are talking about trying to affect the sound signature via amps. As far as allowing myself to hear differences, I desperately wanted my V200 + Bifrost combo to sound better than a Magni + Realtek, but it didn't once I tried a volume-matched, blind test.


 
  
 Same. No matter how hard I try, I just can't find a difference between my onboard and my dedicated dac/amp. It keeps making me want to buy more, something that people claim to pair well with, or take advantage of what I have, just to justify my purchase and so that my investment has not gone to waste. I really do wish there was a difference, but there isn't. This constant reminder is what's keeping me from wasting money on more stuff (though it seems I'm not doing a good job at it... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ).
  
 If I had to nitpick, I'd say my dedicated dac/amp is even less convenient than using my onboard with cable clutter/used desk space as well as driver issues, and it has a higher noise floor with sensitive IEMs. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Strangly, when I advise people to not purchase what I have bought based on my experience, I often get attacked on as if I'm some evil satanic entity that derives pleasure from keeping people from unlocking their headphones' true potential. 0.0 I find saying sorry a lot helps to make people listen more, but it often makes people distort my argument into something they want to hear, even though the whole point of my comment is to state the exact opposite, based on my experience.


----------



## StanD

Just think of the void in the forums if there weren't myths and BS to argue about. Some people live for that. Cable magic, Amps that have too much treble or Amps that eliminate sibilance in headphones (one off my favs) it goes on and on. Let's not even start with ps jitter or the superhuman audiophiles with ultrasonic hearing.


----------



## RRod

u-3c said:


> Strangly, when I advise people to not purchase what I have bought based on my experience, I often get attacked on as if I'm some evil satanic entity that derives pleasure from keeping people from unlocking their headphones' true potential. 0.0 I find saying sorry a lot helps to make people listen more, but it often makes people distort my argument into something they want to hear, even though the whole point of my comment is to state the exact opposite, based on my experience.


 
  
 Everyone wants his synergy combo to be the most special thing in the world, and thus everything is taken personally. I've come to the point where the synergy I want is how my ears actually hear sounds in the real world, so DSP it is! 
  


stand said:


> Just think of the void in the forums if there weren't myths and BS to argue about. Some people live for that. Cable magic, Amps that have too much treble or Amps that eliminate sibilance in headphones (one off my favs) it goes on and on. Let's not even start with ps jitter or the superhuman audiophiles with ultrasonic hearing.


 
  
 Yes, if people couldn't talk about the Gumby has a drier sound than the Pokey, especially when heard through a Blockhead, what could we talk about? I find the sibilance thing great too. People will talk about it with total seriousness as they look at two FR graphs that are completely flat.


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> Everyone wants his synergy combo to be the most special thing in the world, and thus everything is taken personally. I've come to the point where the synergy I want is how my ears actually hear sounds in the real world, so DSP it is!
> 
> 
> Yes, if people couldn't talk about the Gumby has a drier sound than the Pokey, especially when heard through a Blockhead, what could we talk about? I find the sibilance thing great too. People will talk about it with total seriousness as they look at two FR graphs that are completely flat.


 
 That sibilance thing makes me laugh uncontrollably, good thing that I'm NOT incontinent. If I suggest that they get a pair of headphones that that doesn't make them squint, they get mad.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> That sibilance thing makes me laugh uncontrollably, good thing that I'm NOT incontinent.


 
  
 Yeah...I just facepalm myself. Woops, sorry, my headphones fell off during a facepalm. Let me leave this discussion to grab them.
  
 -_-;


----------



## Joe Bloggs

upstateguy said:


> Maybe that's the problem.... maybe [COLOR=0000FF]*we*[/COLOR] are in *castleofargh's* cave and don't allow ourselves to hear differences because it's not in our belief system???
> 
> Btw, that all dacs sound the same doesn't fly because as you know from the DiffMaker "difference file" I sent you, my Stello DA100 has 2 different sounds.  One in the bypass mode and one in the 192 upscale mode.  There are other dacs that have a similar feature.  Some are switchable and some are not.  So which sound sounds like all the other dacs, the bypass sound or the upscale sound?
> 
> ...




Diffmaker results don't mean much... you can take results from one DAC, apply different amounts of phase shift only ramping up towards 20kHz and 0Hz (as you might get from different reconstruction filters and DC rejection filters respectively), this will be enough to throw DiffMaker comparisons completely off yet make not an iota of difference in listening.

This post http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/1815#post_12658143
explains (me) and acknowledges (SergeSE) the big effect of phase shift on things like diffmaker results, but SergeSE oversells the audibility of said phase changes.


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> Diffmaker results don't mean much... you can take results from one DAC, apply different amounts of phase shift only ramping up towards 20kHz (as you might get from different reconstruction filters), this will be enough to throw DiffMaker comparisons completely off yet make not an iota of difference in listening.


 
 Now and try to explain that to the _true believers_. I wonder how many of them actually spend time enjoying music?


----------



## RRod

joe bloggs said:


> Diffmaker results don't mean much... you can take results from one DAC, apply different amounts of phase shift only ramping up towards 20kHz and 0Hz (as you might get from different reconstruction filters and DC rejection filters respectively), this will be enough to throw DiffMaker comparisons completely off yet make not an iota of difference in listening.
> 
> This post http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/1815#post_12658143
> explains (me) and acknowledges (SergeSE) the big effect of phase shift on things like diffmaker results, but SergeSE oversells the audibility of said phase changes.


 
  
 I tried using Diffmaker to compare downsamples I made of some of 2Ls "test bench" stuff to what they offered, and it quickly became clear that they really like mixed-phase filters.


----------



## spruce music

joe bloggs said:


> Diffmaker results don't mean much... you can take results from one DAC, apply different amounts of phase shift only ramping up towards 20kHz and 0Hz (as you might get from different reconstruction filters and DC rejection filters respectively), this will be enough to throw DiffMaker comparisons completely off yet make not an iota of difference in listening.
> 
> This post http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/1815#post_12658143
> explains (me) and acknowledges (SergeSE) the big effect of phase shift on things like diffmaker results, but SergeSE oversells the audibility of said phase changes.


 

 Yes, you are correct.  Diffmaker is very picky and gets thrown off all kinds of ways.  However, if you get deep nulls they usually are real.  Shallow nulls, maybe or maybe it just got confused.
  
 In a thread on another board they loopback test ADC/DACs vs the digital original.  Often something will show merely a 30 db null.  Yet the only difference is what you described.  A wee bit of response droop or phase shift below 5 hz or between 19 and 20 khz.  Then you see results of something like a Pacific Microsonics unit with nulls nearly 90 db.  You know that unit is near technical perfection.  Yet it might sound little or even no different than other units with lesser results.


----------



## StanD

Read from the below post/link and enjoy the subjective fun.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/16125#post_12873672


----------



## Ruben123

Unfortunately no more subjective fun for me in the Cables threads. Had posted 3 posts, 1 asking if a guy was looking for sound differences for a cable he was looking for, 1 for linking to the sound science section to a cables myth thread and another one I have forgotten (and cant look up). Not been warned, just blocked for the whole cables topic/thread. That is really censor nazi-ism. Wow!


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> Unfortunately no more subjective fun for me in the Cables threads. Had posted 3 posts, 1 asking if a guy was looking for sound differences for a cable he was looking for, 1 for linking to the sound science section to a cables myth thread and another one I have forgotten (and cant look up). Not been warned, just blocked for the whole cables topic/thread. That is really censor nazi-ism. Wow!


 
 I wonder how much of the protectionism of the cable threads has to do with business interests?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

In the spirit of the "Objective board room", I should mention that there is no merit in posting stuff simply to get people riled up and have "fun" if that's all you expect to get out of it. The mods have explained elsewhere why they administer their sanctions, it's more a crowd control thing than deciding who is right or wrong.


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> In the spirit of the "Objective board room", I should mention that there is no merit in posting stuff simply to get people riled up and have "fun" if that's all you expect to get out of it. The mods have explained elsewhere why they administer their sanctions, it's more a crowd control thing than deciding who is right or wrong.


 
 I'll bring up a point to bring balance and no longer get into tennis matches as it brings out some nasty behavior in some of the zealots in the mob. I find it deplorable that so many people both new and old to audio are misled by myths and waste time and money chasing unicorns. Sometimes others support the points that I bring up which helps. Occasionally a noob will PM me for real advice and expresses appreciation for some honesty.
 Crowd control that favors the rumor mill mob?


----------



## VNandor

stand said:


> I wonder how much of the protectionism of the cable threads has to do with business interests?


 

 Probably it doesn't have too much to do with business interests because a couple of internet-guys "debunking" the cable myth won't have much if any impact on sales. However, posts about why cables doesn't make a difference in the cable sub-forum will piss off a lot of people and will lead to thread crapping. (Instead of magically making the cable believers to spend their money on something else.) So I guess the main reason to moderate is to maintain a place for subjectivists to talk about cables which, by the way, could potentially affect sales but I imagine that link is quite loose.


----------



## spruce music

vnandor said:


> Probably it doesn't have too much to do with business interests because a couple of internet-guys "debunking" the cable myth won't have much if any impact on sales. However, posts about why cables doesn't make a difference in the cable sub-forum will piss off a lot of people and will lead to thread crapping. (Instead of magically making the cable believers to spend their money on something else.) So I guess the main reason to moderate is to maintain a place for subjectivists to talk about cables which, by the way, could potentially affect sales but I imagine that link is quite loose.


 

 I imagine otherwise.  I imagine if we were privy to the data it would very clear cut.


----------



## U-3C

One huge issue I personally experience with audio recommendations is that it usually encourages a "buy more" vs a "buy less" mentality, even though many people think they are offering advice for a good value for money purchase (multi hundred dollar headphones, dac/amps like the Chord Mojo, etc. that "offer great value," so one should buy them instead, even if one doesn't need the extra features). I just talked to a person who recommended buying an amp for a headphone based on his experience. The recommendation was given to someone who is clearly struggling with budget and created a thread asking if s/he needs an amp, or if onboard audio is enough. The person is led to believe that s/he really needs an amp, and s/he stated that s/he can allocate 50 dollars max for the dac/amp. Based on the discussion, I believe the person is already struggling even for that 50 dollars.

The other person giving advice (extremely nice and helpful, BTW. Nothing against the person) recommended either getting something like an O2 or a Magni, or it's better to buy other headphones, based on his/her experience. When I told him/her that based on my experience, the amp doesn't make that much of a difference, s/he sent me links to test songs with large dynamic range for future reference. S/he said that s/he thought it was better to be safe than sorry. 

Again, nothing against the person, and I'm thankful for the resources s/he sent me and the help s/he offered others in the past. I just want to use this example to highlight a common problem.

I was asking the OP of the thread if s/he listens to very quiet music, as I wanted to stress that music with great dynamic range are the ones that really bring out the need for an amp. I also went on to talk about what a dac/amp does and when one may need one. This made my posts very boring and weird as it's not a simple "yes" or "no" answer, but I think it's important and I hope the OP of that thread will buy the headphones, then know what to look for to judge if s/he ever needs an amp. Aside from simply assuming the person will need one and recommending him/her to buy more, I think most people really should look deeper into why one will or will not benefit from an amp in their specific case and base recommendations off of that. In this case, the other person helping out simply recommended getting the O2 or a Magni (what many may consider as end game amps and costs twice as much as the budget the OP stated), giving the impression for people who are getting in the hobby that it's either go this route, or it's not even worth it to get those headphones. In this case, I do not see a single benefit of an amp with what I listen to. The other person giving the recommendations sees a huge benefit. I can't say either of us is wrong as the benefit of an amp is purely subjective. The first thing we should have sorted out is figure out where the OP seeking our help lies on the spectrum, as the two of us giving advice are clearly on the two opposite extremes. Also, both of us are giving advise based on our personal experience, not just parroting stuff we read elsewhere on the Internet.

In this case, the OP of that thread wanted to buy a pair of headphones that were on sale for 110 dollars, which is probably how the OP managed to squeeze out another 50 dollars for an amp. I think something that can help when giving advice is to remind yourself this: it might not mean much compared to your HD800 that's plugged into a WA22, but for some, that fifty dollars might be all a person has in the world. 

With this in mind, people might be more engaged in finding what a person in need can really benefit from, rather than parroting or making up advice that are extremely vague and can be misleading for inexperienced newcomers (making them think that dac/amps/cables/768kbps high res audiophile-grade audio files are not simply worth the extra cost, but a required pairing that you _better_ get if you buy XYZ headphones).


----------



## U-3C

...

"Audiophile-grade audio file."

Why does this sound so funny?


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> ...
> 
> "Audiophile-grade audio file."
> 
> Why does this sound so funny?


 
 +1


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> +1




Hey, we reached 2016!!!



Okay, I'll stop with my terrible jokes, back on topic.


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Hey, we reached 2016!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I'm already on the next year. Another rotten joke


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> <an excellent discussion>


 
  
 That's a very thorough practical discussion of what bothers me as well. The typical newcomer post in an impressions thread these days begins with something like, "I know I need a good amp for <insert awesome headphone>, so is it worth it or should I get <insert inferior headphone> instead if I can't afford a complete system right now?" The amping requirement isn't a question; it's a statement. So before you even start the discussion, you're already behind the eight ball, and once the half a dozen predictable, sycophantic responses of "yep, it's totally worth it, but don't bother with <insert awesome headphone> if you can't get a good amp for it" roll in, you might as well just pack up.
  
 This kind of advice stands against what this hobby should be all about, which is helping people find their audio nirvana. Instead, the notion that there's a minimum price of entry that's significantly more expensive than the headphone itself (once you've budgeted for amps, DACs, cables, Clever Little Clocks) has driven, by my count, at least four people I've seen in the past few months away from buying the headphone they wanted. In at least one such instance, the person walked away completely, ending up with nothing. *How can this be the desired outcome?*
  
 It isn't, at least not from the standpoint of the potential buyer who has been led to believe that the headphone they want is out of reach for ancillary reasons, nor that of the bystander (e.g. me) who has to watch powerlessly as the subjectivists convince yet another newcomer to spend money they don't need to (and might not even have), or just drive them away entirely. I can't account for how others parse things, but for my part, if there's even a chance that I could end up giving bogus advice, I either educate myself further, stud everything I say with caveats and disclaimers, or just flat out don't say anything at all--this last one especially when I perceive whatever I say:
  
 a) will likely be heeded without much question or additional research or thought (e.g. a total newbie will likely just do whatever the majority of people tell them to), and/or
 b) might cause damage (e.g. unnecessary expenditure, time and effort wasted, ultimately a poor recommendation for a given person, buying into unsubstantiated claims, etc.).
  
 Being a strong believer in Hanlon's Razor, I'm not going to attribute malicious motives to the state of things on Head-Fi, though we all know the tropes--they're a common part of objectivist discussions. I don't think Joe Subjectivist has put any thought into economics or politics when he offers the type of advice I've detailed in this post. He's just doing what he's seen countless others on the site do and likely thinks nothing more of it. My feeling is that this type of behavior is just what happens when you have a strongly dominant culture--despite its perfunctory auspices of inclusiveness and tolerance, it has no interest in accepting dissenting viewpoints. When these viewpoints become inconvenient for such a culture, its more outspoken adherents will simply demand that those offering said viewpoints be silenced, a demand which site administrators and moderators, in an effort to quell all the ensuing arguments, will simply comply with.
  
 EDIT: Reworded one sentence to make it sound less melodramatic. Don't need somebody latching onto that one bad sentence and missing the point of the entire post.


----------



## StanD

I wonder how many people have been influenced by the old "scaling"  rap and blown a wad of cash on an Amp and then hear amazing things that aren't there any more than any other Amp?


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> I wonder how many people have been influenced by the old "scaling"  rap and blown a wad of cash on an Amp and then hear amazing things that aren't there any more than any other Amp?


 
  

 "Hey guys, first post here. I recently bought an HD600/800. They sound a bit <insert something vague and subjective, that some may hate and others may love>. Do I need an amp to get the best sound?


 "Get an amp with the the HD600/800! You absolutely need one. What were you thinking, getting those headphones without an amp??!!! Oh, and welcome to Head-Fi. Sorry about your wallet~ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 "


 "Thanks! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I just got an amp. I can't hear much of a difference though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 "


 "Give it some time. What amp did you get?Are your headphones and you amp burnt in?"


 "I've just given them about two weeks of burning. I think I hear a difference, but I don't know. Still not that big of a difference compared to my phone... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 "


 "Ahhhhhh...It's a bad pairing. Those don't drive your headphones well. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Try getting the XYZ expensive tube amp, or this SS amp that only costs a few hundred dollars, making it a great value for money! Those headphones you have are great because they scale well with better equipment."


 "Um...still don't hear that magical audio nirvana people are telling me about...."


 "Oh oh oh!!! Did you get this cable? Did you listen to music via flac lossless or dsd?"


 "...yes I did...

 <insert photo of epic looking ( and epic costing) headphone setup>

 ...and mp3 vs flac isn't really a night and day difference either..."


 "Hm...I don't know man...maybe your ears aren't the best. Consider yourself lucky! \(^_^)/ BTW, nice headphone setup. You can't go wrong with it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 "


 "I see...thank you. Really, thank you very much for your time. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 All the best."
  
  
  
  
 ^^Sound familiar?


 Maybe the poor fellow just didn't like the sound of the headphones and should have simply sold/traded them for something else...


----------



## Ruben123

What an accurate post! Seen so many of these.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> What an accurate post! Seen so many of these.


 
 Or about that new Amp and how they can hear things in recordings that they were never able to hear before. Some even swear that they can tell in a proper A/B test, of course they never would dare do so under proper conditions (witnessed). Never underestimate the power of a shiny new toy fueled by the forum mob's incessant chanting.


----------



## RRod

u-3c said:


> With this in mind, people might be more engaged in finding what a person in need can really benefit from, rather than parroting or making up advice that are extremely vague and can be misleading for inexperienced newcomers (making them think that dac/amps/cables/768kbps high res audiophile-grade audio files are not simply worth the extra cost, but a required pairing that you _better_ get if you buy XYZ headphones).


 
  
 So much this. How often do people recommend an O2 or MM stack as a low-cost option, when the real low-cost option might be "just plug the headphones into your sound card"? Frankly my Realtek is perfectly fine at handling my HD800 with loud material, but being a classical fan I have way too much stuff that needs more juice, so I have a used Fulla I got for $50 that does smashingly and that I can easily carry around if need be.


----------



## castleofargh

let's not do the same mistake we're accusing others of doing. the motivations for the average guy aren't mine, probably aren't yours, and are almost never the elitist "it's the last 0.0001% that counts the most". as objectivism is mostly rejected in audio, we're left with advice from people who interpret everything, including science, with how they feel about it. in this little bunker/prison of sound science we tend to be well informed about bias and placebo, but the average joe isn't(and at least that part is headfi's and most audio forum's fault). the all audio lingo using objective terms in a subjective way, looks rather good and convincing when you're an outsider looking to treat yourself with a nice audio toy. "wow I asked for help and look at that guy with all those words I don't understand and that unbreakable confidence that I need a silver cable, he must be legit". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 of course from my point of view, total confidence and flowery language are 2 of the stuff that trigger my spider senses, "danger, danger!". but how do you explain that to the guy who doesn't know what the words mean or what the devices are or do? I really wish I had a good answer to this, but I don't. sadly the options are still trust somebody on the web, or try the stuff yourself.
  
  
 then we could indeed look at all this from a capitalist perspective, yes manufacturers are happy when they don't actually need to deliver in quality and people still buy thinking they do. yes headfi is a business. yes margins made on cables are some of, if not the biggest in the industry. all that can't possibly have zero impact, but I wouldn't go into paranoia mode just yet.
  
 we can look at the entertainment side of things. if you enjoy the music more when listening to a device than another, if happiness is what I really want, doesn't that legitimize the purchase of the more enjoyable device? what if the reason for it being more enjoyable is BS, or the color of the box or the propaganda from the manufacturer? well what of it? if I'm still happier then it's a success.
 so some gear may indeed bring absolutely nothing more while costing 100 times+ marketing, but from such a standpoint, the entertainment industry is delivering, kind of. selling dream isn't illegal as long as you don't claim objective superiority that isn't there. for that indeed making everything about subjective concepts provides marketing with an unlimited supply of BS to focus on with zero danger of being sued for false advertising. we didn't really get the girlzzz when we bought Axe body spray. I'm a little disappointed but I can't sue and many would say that I was stupid for ever thinking it would happen(analogy power over 9000).
 another level of entertainment is the audio hobby itself. from my point of view, it's a dead thing that rejects blind test and objective data(unless it's part of the marketing) to avoid looking in the mirror. if we looked at measurements the way we look at them for computer things, cameras, or TV screens, the objective winners would be considered to be the best products. there wouldn't be all the buzzing around unknown stuff, there wouldn't be those bad products that were a success thanks to marketing and delusional buyers. it would be a boring hobby in comparison. I know what I'd like this hobby to be, but I also know that I'm not everybody else.
  
 we can pretend that the world needs ideals and more rational behavior, and of course it does. but do not mistake what should be, for what most people truly desire. if most people were interested in factual evidence to support claims, hydrogen would be so hyped right now, and this section would launch all the new products with series of measurements and DBT.  most actual political candidates would be banned from participating in any election... let's not make fun of the unicorn people if it's only to talk about our own fantasy world. we don't have stupid stuff on TV at prime time because the media industry tries to keep us dumb, we have what most people ask for, and it's most likely the same for audio forums, maybe there is a conspiracy trying to keep people away from blind test and supported evidence, or maybe there were all kind of audio forums and most of the ones focusing on facts died from having nobody on them?
 what would Darwin say? ^_^
  
  
 I know I'm not offering any solution, the obvious solution is information, better informed people usually make better decisions.  but we can't force people to learn what doesn't interest them.


----------



## StanD

@castleofargh In the USA TV Adverts for drugs have warnings about the possible side effects, such as various forms of death or disease that can result from the use of their product. Perhaps audio products should also have warnings about possible emotional distress from believing the horse poo that they spew, especially cables.
 I feel bad for the innocent lay person that gets hoodwinked by the forum mob into either overspending or feeling bad about what they already have or can afford which in all likelihood would do a fine job if it.


----------



## Ruben123

One small problem: the average Joe CAN'T be informed here on head fi because if you try that, you'll receive a ban. The upside is down here, really not how it should be. But this site isn't about the best audio, but about money, the best subjective audio, the misleading etc. A shame really. Why don't we all move to hydrogen?


----------



## Ancipital

ruben123 said:


> One small problem: the average Joe CAN'T be informed here on head fi because if you try that, you'll receive a ban. The upside is down here, really not how it should be. But this site isn't about the best audio, but about money, the best subjective audio, the misleading etc. A shame really. Why don't we all move to hydrogen?


 
  
 I think most people already are there, as well as on the other headphone site that can't be named.


----------



## castleofargh

ruben123 said:


> One small problem: the average Joe CAN'T be informed here on head fi because if you try that, you'll receive a ban. The upside is down here, really not how it should be. But this site isn't about the best audio, but about money, the best subjective audio, the misleading etc. A shame really. Why don't we all move to hydrogen?


 

 that's just not true. I sure know how it feels, I've been myself locked out of topics. but you're wrong on the cause/consequence thing. each time I got locked out it wasn't a matter of who was right or even a matter of the topic discussed. it happened because a good deal of people got pissed at me. and TBH the reason doesn't even matter, mob effect because I dared say to a famous guy that I believe he's wrong, or simply because I try to bring science in a crowed that is scared of it. or because I'm being a dick, or, let's not forget this one, because I talked about blind test and placebo when TOS demands to go to sound science for that.
 in any of those situations people will flag the post/s a few times and a modo will act on it. if everybody is going nuts reading a post, then the quickest way to calm things down is to deal with the poster.  please don't jump from "I was right" and "I got locked out", correlation to the conclusion: "therefore they ban truth". even the worst modo on this forum doesn't think like that. if you were wrong the result would be the same, truth is not the deciding element.
  
  
 now if you don't feel like headfi is a place you can enjoy, then of course I'd suggest to go see if the grass is greener in other places. internet is big. I enjoy a little bit of this, a little bit of that, but I haven't found a place I would call e-home. the closest thing in audio is probably this sub section and you bunch of objective loserzzz.


----------



## spruce music

castleofargh said:


> that's just not true. I sure know how it feels, I've been myself locked out of topics. but you're wrong on the cause/consequence thing. each time I got locked out it wasn't a matter of who was right or even a matter of the topic discussed. it happened because a good deal of people got pissed at me. and TBH the reason doesn't even matter, mob effect because I dared say to a famous guy that I believe he's wrong, or simply because I try to bring science in a crowed that is scared of it. or because I'm being a dick, or, let's not forget this one, because I talked about blind test and placebo when TOS demands to go to sound science for that.
> in any of those situations people will flag the post/s a few times and a modo will act on it. if everybody is going nuts reading a post, then the quickest way to calm things down is to deal with the poster.  please don't jump from "I was right" and "I got locked out", correlation to the conclusion: "therefore they ban truth". even the worst modo on this forum doesn't think like that. if you were wrong the result would be the same, truth is not the deciding element.
> 
> 
> now if you don't feel like headfi is a place you can enjoy, then of course I'd suggest to go see if the grass is greener in other places. internet is big. I enjoy a little bit of this, a little bit of that, but I haven't found a place I would call e-home. the closest thing in audio is probably this sub section and you bunch of objective loserzzz.


 

 I think maybe he is saying truth should be a factor. 
  
 If the site is overun with people who get involved in the lucrative subjective side of audio, and mob rule or mob unrest gets someone banned or locked out of a topic, then rather de facto it is about catering to the largest crowd, and ergo about keeping the most money flowing in.  I am not suggesting anyone handle their site catering to the smallest crowd.  However things could be a bit different when its truth against majority.  Certainly the easy low hassle way is go with the crowd since the bigger the crowd the bigger the money.    Since this is probably the largest forum in anything related to audio it is pretty clear how it has been handled.  And yes, if we don't like it we can go somewhere else.


----------



## Ruben123

castleofargh said:


> that's just not true. I sure know how it feels, I've been myself locked out of topics. but you're wrong on the cause/consequence thing. each time I got locked out it wasn't a matter of who was right or even a matter of the topic discussed. it happened because a good deal of people got pissed at me. and TBH the reason doesn't even matter, mob effect because I dared say to a famous guy that I believe he's wrong, or simply because I try to bring science in a crowed that is scared of it. or because I'm being a dick, or, let's not forget this one, because I talked about blind test and placebo when TOS demands to go to sound science for that.
> in any of those situations people will flag the post/s a few times and a modo will act on it. if everybody is going nuts reading a post, then the quickest way to calm things down is to deal with the poster.  please don't jump from "I was right" and "I got locked out", correlation to the conclusion: "therefore they ban truth". even the worst modo on this forum doesn't think like that. if you were wrong the result would be the same, truth is not the deciding element.
> 
> 
> now if you don't feel like headfi is a place you can enjoy, then of course I'd suggest to go see if the grass is greener in other places. internet is big. I enjoy a little bit of this, a little bit of that, but I haven't found a place I would call e-home. the closest thing in audio is probably this sub section and you bunch of objective loserzzz.


 

 You may (or not) be completely right, but as I havent had any warning and as I have been blocked to all the Cables threads in the forum, it at least feels a bit unfair, silly and a handy method to block objectivists from subjectivists' forums. I wasnt causing fights too, not using rude words or something. But it was in, I think, a topic where the manufacturer himself was quite active, which has made me wondering...
  
 If only people there on Hydrogen had the same usernames as here


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> You may (or not) be completely right, but as I havent had any warning and as I have been blocked to all the Cables threads in the forum, it at least feels a bit unfair, silly and a handy method to block objectivists from subjectivists' forums. I wasnt causing fights too, not using rude words or something. But it was in, I think, a topic where the manufacturer himself was quite active, which has made me wondering...
> 
> If only people there on Hydrogen had the same usernames as here


 
 Perhaps this site should be named _Methane_.


----------



## U-3C

_*Sigh*_

I just read a person who just got into the hobby, and got pretty much the exact same setup as I did at first, and I see the person is confused as s/he can't hear a difference.

People are already going through the usual routine I've posted before on him/her. I feel so hurt reading the discussion.


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> _*Sigh*_
> 
> I just read a person who just got into the hobby, and got pretty much the exact same setup as I did at first, and I see the person is confused as s/he can't hear a difference.
> 
> People are already going through the usual routine I've posted before on him/her. I feel so hurt reading the discussion.


 
 After a few Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters, one doesn't care if they can head a difference.


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> _*Sigh*_
> 
> I just read a person who just got into the hobby, and got pretty much the exact same setup as I did at first, and I see the person is confused as s/he can't hear a difference.
> 
> People are already going through the usual routine I've posted before on him/her. I feel so hurt reading the discussion.


 
  
 I know how you feel. It sucks to see the same pattern play out, over and over, and be powerless to stop it.
  
 People (audio subjectivists and devil's advocate trolls, most likely) will probably argue, "why are you getting so worked up about it?" or "what's it matter if it makes them happy?" I guess the answers are "because I'm a human, therefore I have empathy" and "because they're being taken in and encouraged to buy things they don't need and which haven't been verified to actually do anything." It's like seeing somebody who is perfectly healthy and happy being convinced to spend hundreds of dollars a month on bogus health supplements with no verifiable effects but a whole community of people who claim they "feel better" after having taken them.
  
 I've struggled to find an applicable comparison, and I think this one works. I'm sure it's not original, but at least it's not melodramatic, and it gets around the problem a lot of comparisons have where it's implied that participants are knowingly and maliciously perpetrating a scam. In my comparison, the people in both groups _should_ know better; they _should_ know there's no scientific basis for their claims, and there's a boatload of scientific evidence for the effects of placebo and confirmation bias on the human mind. This information is out there for anybody who wants to educate themselves. And yet, both groups persist in buying into the mythology and encouraging others to do so, as well as telling them to ignore the skeptics. Why do they do this? At this point it's a question for psychology.


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> I know how you feel. It sucks to see the same pattern play out, over and over, and be powerless to stop it.




I do want to stop this one though. This one is just too similar to my personal setup. The person might have been influenced by some of the stuff I've posted online, when I was going around asking what amp I should get for that setup. 

However, I fear that I will get screamed at, as usual, for telling the person to trust his/her ears and that there is indeed little difference. I don't know how to continue from there once people attack me unless I give in or use vague enough terms so people distort what I say until they think that we are actually on the same page and it's just a misunderstanding, when it clearly isn't.

I'm almost sacred to give my opinion regarding high end dac/amps now. I want to give my honest opinion, but people often call me out as being unknowledgeable, having poor ears, being a troll, or just having poor taste/enjoy listening to inferior music in general (this one was from the representative of a company I bought a product from, and it really hurt as I felt almost betrayed, as if I inherently do not belong to this circle/I simply do not deserve to enjoy good music  I just exited by complying and posting smiles so people won't keep poking fun at me), thus do not see the benefit of their audiophile product.

Edit: just looked around for threads about onboard and this is what I can find with a quick google search on the most recent posts...





Three quarters of all clicks go to the top five links given by Google. How can one argue against all that overwhelming "evidence."


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> I do want to stop this one though. This one is just too similar to my personal setup. The person might have been influenced by some of the stuff I've posted online, when I was going around asking what amp I should get for that setup.
> 
> However, I fear that I will get screamed at, as usual, for telling the person to trust his/her ears and that there is indeed little difference. I don't know how to continue from there once people attack me unless I give in or use vague enough terms so people distort what I say until they think that we are actually on the same page and it's just a misunderstanding, when it clearly isn't.
> 
> ...


 
  
 You could try a PM. Maybe just explain how things are around here, that if you were to say what you really feel in the thread you'd likely get dogpiled and possibly even cited and blocked for derailment. As long as you come across as taking the person under your wing and let them know it's okay if they don't hear a difference, and that neither they, their gear nor their musical taste are somehow deficient; it might do some good. I'm sure the thread turned into a mass of incredulity and "upgrade" suggestions after this person's post, so a lifeline to get away from that kind of bedlam might be welcomed.
  
 EDIT: Never change the clause structure and grammatical cases in a sentence multiple times; you'll always miss something and have to edit it again.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Where's this post / poster at, I suppose I might have enough swing around here to say something in public about it and not lose miserably and / or we could go pm as Argyris suggests.


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> Where's this post / poster at, I suppose I might have enough swing around here to say something in public about it and not lose miserably and / or we could go pm as Argyris suggests.


 
  
 Unfortunately, this one is not on Head-Fi, but Massdrop.
  
 It's also been surprisingly quiet. Maybe I overdramatized everything with a super long reply I made on that discussion and nobody feels like talking now.
  
 0_0;


----------



## Argyris

My signature walls of text have that effect sometimes. I guess I just feel like I want to get a rebuttal for every possible argument people could make about what I've said into my post, before they even say anything at all. Before I know it, it ends up being seven paragraphs long. And, thinking about it, it probably succeeds, since if I've managed to rebut all the arguments, nobody would bother making them, meaning the thread would seem to slow down until somebody breaks the silence on a different subject...
  
 ...THAT MEANS I WIN!


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> My signature walls of text have that effect sometimes. I guess I just feel like I want to get a rebuttal for every possible argument people could make about what I've said into my post, before they even say anything at all. Before I know it, it ends up being seven paragraphs long.


 
  
 Hahaha!
  
 Speaking of which, just as an opportunity to learn something/correct anything before I spread false information, is this inaccurate in any way, and if so, why?
  



> Originally Posted by *U-3C*:
> 
> "The main priority of dac/amps IMO should be to fix issues that you have, not to improve sound. If there is nothing wrong with your onboard, getting a dac might only add inconvenience due to cable clutter and driver issues.
> 
> ...


 


  
 I'm still wondering about this common belief that the AKG K7## phones need serious amping or else one shouldn't even consider getting them. I can see the impedance curve go a bit wild at higher frequencies, but why won't more people just admit that the sound isn't something they like is beyond me. I guess this is common with headphones with a new name. It might take a few more years/decades before people settle down and accept it for what it is.
  
 Or maybe I just need to try some hipster chuuubes with them and reach audio nirvana despite massacring objective measurements all the way to the moon.


----------



## krismusic

argyris said:


> At this point it's a question for psychology.



I think the psychology of HeadFi could provide a very interesting thesis topic for somebody!


----------



## Don Hills

stand said:


> After a few Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters, one doesn't care if they can head a difference.


 
  
 One part Midori. One part Cointreau. One part lemon juice. Gold leaf flakes. Garnish with lemon slice.


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> After a few Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters, one doesn't care if they can head a difference.


 
  
  


don hills said:


> One part Midori. One part Cointreau. One part lemon juice. Gold leaf flakes. Garnish with lemon slice.


 
 I just spoke with Zaphod Beeblebrox and that is not the correct recipe.
 Try this instead:

Take the juice from one bottle of Ol' Janx Spirit.
Pour into it one measure of water from the seas of Santraginus V — Oh, that Santraginean seawater! Oh, those Santraginean fish!
Allow three cubes of Arcturan Mega-gin to melt into the mixture (it must be properly iced or the benzene is lost).
Allow four litres of Fallian marsh gas to bubble through it, in memory of all those happy hikers who have died of pleasure in the Marshes of Fallia.
Over the back of a silver spoon float a measure of Qualactin Hypermint extract, redolent of all the heady odours of the dark Qualactin Zones, subtle, sweet and mystic.
Drop in the tooth of an Algolian Suntiger. Watch it dissolve, spreading the fires of the Algolian Suns deep into the heart of the drink.
Sprinkle Zamphuor.
Add an olive.

 Never drink more than two at a time.


----------



## uchihaitachi

krismusic said:


> I think the psychology of HeadFi could provide a very interesting thesis topic for somebody!


 

 Basic behavioural economics, mixed in with a healthy dose of fraudulent marketing.
  
 If you are interested, look up some papers by Kahneman and Tversky


----------



## StanD

Here's another example of the power of forum auto-suggestion.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/16185#post_12882978


----------



## Ancipital

stand said:


> Here's another example of the power of forum auto-suggestion.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/16185#post_12882978


 
  
 Or, you know, _the HD6x0 sound really good on high-spec amps_. Too many people here using O2-level amps and pontificating, which is eunuch in a brothel-level stuff


----------



## U-3C

Massdrop has me more addicted than Head-Fi. Maybe because I can purchase directly on the site and it always triggers my "it's a good deal. I should get it " mentality.

However, reading the thread of the higher end dac/amps always gets me a bit frustrated.





Remind me never to buy this Yulong. It must sound terrible!



I don't know. This reviewer explained from a layman's perspective why the product doesn't make much sense compared to stuff he owns that cost half the price, as he can't hear a difference between all the neutral amps. He recommended people to get other solutions as he thinks this is poor value for the money.

"He didn't bother to mention it has a clean amplification and low noise floor. Therefore, his review should be discredited."

Isn't that an amplifiers most basic goal? -_-;

This ticks me off so much because if you don't look at exotic solutions that intentionally colours the sound, those are the most basic requirements an amp should have. "He didn't mention it has a low noise floor and a beautiful-" NO **** SHERLOCK WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD AT LEAST GET WHEN YOU PAY 500 DOLLARS FOR A REFERENCE DAC/AMP? Is this product a miracle because it doesn't turn out to be a noisier, worse performing dac/amp than your old onboard? :mad:

Oh, I also have a 30 dollar Class A amp! It's Class A! Therefore it must be awesome! 



It's funny because people in this thread simply dismissed the reviewer's words even though he took the time and effort to get the products, compare, and provide his honest belief despite saying very different things from the general crowd. At the same time, people in this discussion are actually giving advice to people about things they themselves never heard about. "Don't get XYZ because although I've never heard it, I doubt it's implementation." "Get ABC instead. I don't own it myself, but I trust ***** and the ABC offers such good value for money, it will absolutely destroy XYZ. In fact, I might sell my XYZ for the ABC."

^^^...so you are basically doing wishful thinking, giving blind advice based on that thinking, and rejecting advice from people who have heard the setup if it does not suit what you believe...

-_-;

Nothing wrong with voicing an opinion. I've never heard the specific dac/amp so I won't comment on it, but to grotesquely distort another person's opinion (even if if it's based on an anecdote) just because it doesn't meet your own speculations just isn't right, especially when the responses were made when the product was on sale, so many who are deciding if they need the dac/amp take those responses as reviews. It's fine to not agree. Heck, it's better to have people speak differently even if they are wrong, as that causes debate and it can strengthen the understandings of those who are right if those conflicts are resolved. However, to discredit a person while not providing anything meaningful arguments to the discussion and confidently assume you won...hmmm...especially when this person in particular is considering selling this setup...because s/he now thinks it's not the best value for money... -_-;

Maybe my brain isn't functioning properly like everyone else's. I should probably sign up for a course on logic someday to ground me back to reality.


----------



## StanD

ancipital said:


> Or, you know, _the HD6x0 sound really good on high-spec amps_. Too many people here using O2-level amps and pontificating, which is eunuch in a brothel-level stuff


 
 I find the whole deal about HD600 scaling to be humorous. If an amp is transparent, and has enough voltage swing to drive a 300 Ohm can like the HD600 to an adequate SPL with enough headroom, you're in business. Since the DR of most recordings are limited by the 16 bit source (96 dB), one doesn't need stellar DR for headroom. All the rave about multi-bit DACs are contained to 16 bits, so all the audiophiles in this growing camp have stopped blowing their 24 bit horns and chanting about the need for astronomical DR.


----------



## Ancipital

stand said:


> I find the whole deal about HD600 scaling to be humorous.


 
  
 You can probably stop there. The rest is superfluous.


----------



## StanD

ancipital said:


> You can probably stop there. The rest is superfluous.


 
 Yes I forgot we're in Technical Purgatory.


----------



## castleofargh

it's certainly possible that something sounds "better" for one reason or another and escape measurements(or not) while being really audible. as we usually stop at 1khz stuff, it might not always tell the all story or ensure audible transparency. but as testimonies come from zero control, you can never tell if it means anything or if it's the delusional and self reassuring rant of someone. 
 in such a situation I trust nobody and care even less if they're super confident. but it doesn't mean they're wrong, only that it's a waste of time to debate the reality of something without any evidence. I'm not big in the belief business, so I don't care how confident or famous somebody is, it will not convince me of anything, I want to get convincing evidence of the possibility or at least enough evidence to want to look into it. the rest, to me, is a waste of time and argument now.
  
  
  
 about the "you didn't listen to it so you can't talk". I want to answer, "you didn't taste poisonous food, so you shouldn't tell others that it's poisonous". we're lucky that knowledge isn't limited to personally experiencing something.  on the other hand if that was the case, it would be a sure solution to having too many humans on the planet. I imagine darwin awards would have non stop news channels.


----------



## StanD

@castleofargh These days, most Amps (other than dirt cheap fleabay cr@p and the like) have a flat FR and distortion levels better than we (humans) can detect. Sure you can find junk, but it's easy enough to find a great SS Headphone Amp for around $100 that can drive most headphones. Just look at a Schiit Magni 2.
 Edit: I'm not a fan of Class D amps.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> [...]about the "you didn't listen to it so you can't talk". I want to answer, "you didn't taste poisonous food, so you shouldn't tell others that it's poisonous". we're lucky that knowledge isn't limited to personally experiencing something.  on the other hand if that was the case, it would be a sure solution to having too many humans on the planet. I imagine darwin awards would have non stop news channels.




So true! However, I guess I should specify a bit. In the particular case I mentioned before, the person disregarded one person's experience because the person did not mention stuff that should be common sense, and didn't decorate it with beautiful words. If it is something that contributes to the discussion or challenges it, great. In fact, this is desired.

How ever, in this particular case, it's more like, "He did not mention that the amp is clean and class A and has low noise floor and is beautiful...which is kinda in the description anyways and everybody knows about it...but he didn't say it and talked about the negative things others without hands on experience do _not _know about and that I don't like to hear...so hate him and his reviews so don't bother watching. He's unknowledgeable." That's kinda poisoning the well, so people reading will learn to disregard this reviewer even if there are valuable points mentioned, don't you think?  

Maybe I'm just angry that I just missed something I've been looking forward to for a while. :/ Please ignore my pointless rant.


----------



## Ancipital

stand said:


> @castleofargh These days, most Amps (other than dirt cheap fleabay cr@p and the like) have a flat FR and distortion levels better than we (humans) can detect. Sure you can find junk, but it's easy enough to find a great SS Headphone Amp for around $100 that can drive most headphones. Just look at a Schiit Magni 2.
> Edit: I'm not a fan of Class D amps.


 
  
 So you believe* that no amp will perform audibly better than a Magni 2 with HD6x0? That's an impressively well-informed assertion. Nice to know that my ability to blindly distinguish between a Magni 2U and a Jotenheim puts me in the superhero category, too. Clearly the fact that the two amps measure so differently only has a bearing for beings like me from the planet Krypton.
  
 BTW, you might want to consider the meaning of "objective" some day. 
  
  
 *I did originally write "think", but that's a little too strong for this context. We're definitely into "believe" territory here.


----------



## U-3C

You know, I'm listening to the Focal Utopia right now out of my portable dac, which I use both as an amp and a dac in line out configuration for a full sized desktop amp that I'm recommended to use.

It takes some time to switch from one to the next, and it's not the most ideal listening environment, but the amp definitely isn't a night and day difference. I'm at a point that I can't say I cannot tell a difference, but I can't say I can either.

It's just one bit more experience to tell me that the impact of good solid state amps aren't as strong as many say it is.

If I buy this setup, I'm sure one night, when it's raining, I'll play some relaxing music for the night and enjoy the moonlight while everyone else is busy chasing their dreams. I'll be sleepless the next day and that's okay.

I have the strong belief that the "night and day" experience is triggered during these times, when you are just in the mood for enjoying music and discovering your headphones. It's especially true if you had this experience the first time you listen to a pair of headphones/dac/amp. Will it last forever? No. Can you achieve the same results at one fifth the price? Maybe. Probably. But when you post those experiences online and people misinterpret them as reviews, that you will only get that unique experience if you buy better equipment, or that you are missing out on something...and when companies take advantage of that. That's when I get a bit upset. If they were in my case where they had little money to spare, but was told to spend it to chase something that isn't there, then I get more upset. 

By the way, the Focal Utopia sound nice. 

If I was to rate my extremely modded Q701 + Mr. Joe Bloggs' Viper4Android projects as 99%, I'll call these 103% with the same dsp.

I'm in the mood right now so I'm generous. 103%. The score might drop if I am not in the mood.

They are soooooooooooo comfy though...



\(;v/


----------



## RRod

ancipital said:


> So you believe* that no amp will perform audibly better than a Magni 2 with HD6x0? That's an impressively well-informed assertion. Nice to know that my ability to blindly distinguish between a Magni 2U and a Jotenheim puts me in the superhero category, too. Clearly the fact that the two amps measure so differently only has a bearing for beings like me from the planet Krypton.


 
  
 Well if you want to be objective, you'll provide us with the files you used and any differences in things like volume out of each amp that might be apropos to the results. Previously you had asserted that your results were kind of slap-dash, so if you want to refer to them as proof, wet our beaks a little.


----------



## StanD

ancipital said:


> So you believe* that no amp will perform audibly better than a Magni 2 with HD6x0? That's an impressively well-informed assertion. Nice to know that my ability to blindly distinguish between a Magni 2U and a Jotenheim puts me in the superhero category, too. Clearly the fact that the two amps measure so differently only has a bearing for beings like me from the planet Krypton.
> 
> BTW, you might want to consider the meaning of "objective" some day.
> 
> ...


 
 Do your homework and learn at what threshold human beings can detect distortion and you find that most modern amps exceed our ability to detect distortion, by a large margin. Also you might want to learn about human echoic memory and see how that affects comparisons. Then there's Fletcher-Munson, Equal Loudness Curves, so you should be very careful about volume matching. Then there's expectation bias.
 Can you explain the exact conditions of your tests? Perhaps your statement, " You might want to consider the meaning of 'objective' some day," was not appropriate.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

ancipital said:


> If you're looking at competent* solid state amps, they shouldn't colour the sound anyway, surely? If one did, wouldn't that be a bad sign? Do you want headphones with a different signature? A hybrid amp? Some EQ?
> 
> A shallow part of me loves the retro-brutalist look of those Violectric amps, I'd happily swap you a Schiit solid state amp for it *duck*
> 
> ...




This is what you wrote one month ago... before you got into those super fancy amps, I suppose. I did explain to you before why the HD6x0 are really quite easy to drive and why the bass hump and its attendant impedance hump actually lie at the easiest-to-drive part for the amp. Perhaps if I had gone further to explain that yes, the HD6x0 do sound a bit veiled to most--veiled by a somewhat humped midbass--and a touch of parametric EQ, say -4dB centred at 130Hz, bandwidth 2.2 / Q 0.6 would go much much further in unveiling them than any amp upgrade would, you won't be where you are today.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

In practice I've seen that home-run blind tests are more likely to mislead than enlighten, the most recent example was when I painstaking prepared two line-in recordings of Viper4Android 2.3.4.0 vs the newest version 2.5.0.5... only to have the tester pass 14/16 ABX trials and further confirming his bias that the old version sounds "better" and "more punchy". The kicker? He'd somehow turned off volume levelling between the two samples and admitted to hearing the "more punchy" sample to simply be louder. Damned if I can ever get him to re-run his ABX test, of course...

In practicse I've always shied away from A/B tests, blind or otherwise. Me being just as human as the next... human, when presented with two sounds that are more identical than different, will nevertheless inevitably find spurious "differences" (caused by anything from different headphone positioning to a random drift of thought affecting the mood listening to one device but not another) that become self-reinforcing (confirmation bias). Instead, I'm content in the fact that my tuned up rig with headphone correction EQ and loudspeaker virtualization sounds better than the same headphones, plainly driven, out of any other DAC/amp I've ever heard--and in THAT there is no audible doubt.


----------



## uchihaitachi

joe bloggs said:


> In practice I've seen that home-run blind tests are more likely to mislead than enlighten, the most recent example was when I painstaking prepared two line-in recordings of Viper4Android 2.3.4.0 vs the newest version 2.5.0.5... only to have the tester pass 14/16 ABX trials and further confirming his bias that the old version sounds "better" and "more punchy". The kicker? He'd somehow turned off volume levelling between the two samples and admitted to hearing the "more punchy" sample to simply be louder. Damned if I can ever get him to re-run his ABX test, of course...
> 
> In practicse I've always shied away from A/B tests, blind or otherwise. Me being just as human as the next... human, when presented with two sounds that are more identical than different, will nevertheless inevitably find spurious "differences" (caused by anything from different headphone positioning to a random drift of thought affecting the mood listening to one device but not another) that become self-reinforcing (confirmation bias). Instead, I'm content in the fact that my tuned up rig with headphone correction EQ and loudspeaker virtualization sounds better than the same headphones, plainly driven, out of any other DAC/amp I've ever heard--and in THAT there is no audible doubt.


 
 This is why I used to go to really go to town at uni, when I had access to ridiculous analysis machines 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 but of course, head-fiers have better hearing than carefully calibrated analysers right


----------



## Ancipital

joe bloggs said:


> In practicse I've always shied away from A/B tests, blind or otherwise. Me being just as human as the next... human, when presented with two sounds that are more identical than different, will nevertheless inevitably find spurious "differences" (caused by anything from different headphone positioning to a random drift of thought affecting the mood listening to one device but not another) that become self-reinforcing (confirmation bias).


 
  
 This is why you have proper tests, run by proper personnel, in proper conditions. I don't have access to Sean Olive's lab, but have had access to proper testing run by longstanding published and reputable AES/EBU members, and it's a bit of a revelation. A bunch of confused wazzocks with O2 amps and a burning evangelical zeal are somewhat less impressive, for some reason.
  
 Get proper scientists and engineers to run your tests for you, and you can't bias them.
  
 (..and sometimes they let you borrow their gear to blast your favourite tunes, which is the best part...)


----------



## uchihaitachi

ancipital said:


> This is why you have proper tests, run by proper personnel, in proper conditions. I don't have access to Sean Olive's lab, but have had access to proper testing run by longstanding published and reputable AES/EBU members, and it's a bit of a revelation. A bunch of confused wazzocks with O2 amps and a burning evangelical zeal are somewhat less impressive, for some reason.
> 
> Get proper scientists and engineers to run your tests for you, and you can't bias them.
> 
> (..and sometimes they let you borrow their gear to blast your favourite tunes, which is the best part...)


 
 Or you can analysers, and test the relevant products under load. They are exponentially more sensitive than human hearing, and if all relevant parameters are far below levels of hearing, you can be rest assured that they should sound the same ceteris paribus...
  
 Have you also considered that people here may also be engineers?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

ancipital said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > In practicse I've always shied away from A/B tests, blind or otherwise. Me being just as human as the next... human, when presented with two sounds that are more identical than different, will nevertheless inevitably find spurious "differences" (caused by anything from different headphone positioning to a random drift of thought affecting the mood listening to one device but not another) that become self-reinforcing (confirmation bias).
> ...




Your problem is, suppose you can ABX the Magni and the "Jotenheim" (whatever that is) for real, with all confounding factors contained:

There is no reason at all to suppose that being able to tell a difference means the "Jotenheim" is the better amp.

And of course, once you move beyond merely trying to distinguish A and B into trying to "identify" A and B, you always have at least a 50% chance of guessing right.

If you guess right, all your pre-biases regarding the superiority of the Jotenheim are of course confirmed.

All I can say is, from what I've heard of all the premium DACs and amps I can test (and I know an audiophile friend with quite a few of them), none can touch my smartphone driving my headphones unamped, with headphone calibration and my own HRTFs virtualizing my home speaker system courtesy of Viper4Android. All the differences you are hearing between amplifiers simply fades into insignificance. But of course, if you don't know anything about this technical stuff, I guess you'll have to settle for paying thousands for differences I can hardly hear. "Eunuch in a brothel party", indeed...

:rolleyes: 

(and I sure as heck ain't gonna lug a "Jotenheim" around with my smartphone even if someone gifted me one)

And I once thought you could be my friend... but oh the nasty things you've been saying these last few pages?


----------



## StanD

@Joe Bloggs I posted the below in another thread. The math was easy.
_If you do the math, the Amp would need a very high output impedance to create this effect. An Amp with a 10 Ohm output impedance would only reduce the level at a 300 Ohm load by 0.282 dBV, If the impedance goes up to 600 Ohms then it would reduce the level by 0.140 dBV. That's a difference of 0.142 dBV which is inaudible. Change the Amp's output impedance from 10 Ohms to 100 Ohms and the difference from the same two load points becomes 1.16 dBV, again not very significant. IMO don't buy an Amp with an output impedance much greater than 100 Ohms. Most Amps have a far lower output impedance, so I wouldn't lose sleep about my HD600._


----------



## Ancipital

uchihaitachi said:


> Or you can analysers, and test the relevant products under load. They are exponentially more sensitive than human hearing, and if all relevant parameters are far below levels of hearing, you can be rest assured that they should sound the same ceteris paribus...
> 
> Have you also considered that people here may also be engineers?


 
  
 I can analysers? With cheezeburgr?
  
 You do measurements like THD when that's what you're after. You use blind perceptual testing when you're investigating things like intelligibility of details, or preferences. Right tool for the job, innit?


----------



## uchihaitachi

ancipital said:


> I can analysers? With cheezeburgr?
> 
> You do measurements like THD when that's what you're after. You use blind perceptual testing when you're investigating things like intelligibility of details, or preferences. Right tool for the job, innit?


 
 forgot to type use,
  
 Measurements are all encompassing. If two amps that you desire to test, show differences that are BELOW audible thresholds, then they are for all intents and purposes the same to your ears.
  
 So far most reasonably competent SS amps that I have come across, have shown differences that are below audible thresholds (especially with easy to drive cans), so you can in fact save yourself the trouble of organising blind tests, when they often end up failing to eliminate biases as they are rarely properly conducted.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> @Joe Bloggs
> I posted the below in another thread. The math was easy.
> _If you do the math, the Amp would need a very high output impedance to create this effect. An Amp with a 10 Ohm output impedance would only reduce the level at a 300 Ohm load by 0.282 dBV, If the impedance goes up to 600 Ohms then it would reduce the level by 0.140 dBV. That's a difference of 0.142 dBV which is inaudible. Change the Amp's output impedance from 10 Ohms to 100 Ohms and the difference from the same two load points becomes 1.16 dBV, again not very significant. IMO don't buy an Amp with an output impedance much greater than 100 Ohms. Most Amps have a far lower output impedance, so I wouldn't lose sleep about my HD600._




I think distortion from too much voltage swing demand would be what you need to worry about for the HD6x0, but in this metric there's nothing special about the 100Hz hump.


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> I think distortion from too much voltage swing demand would be what you need to worry about for the HD6x0, but in this metric there's nothing special about the 100Hz hump.


 
 Voltage swing is up to picking the right amp with the voltage swing to deliver the max desired SPL for the given set of headphones. The FiiO E12 is surprisingly good with the HD600. IMO for the most part, the thing about scaling is another one of those forum things, either the amp can drive them and is a good amp, or not. Having more clean power than required for the max DR does nothing useful but can drain a wallet, however, it makes for entertaining banter on the audiophile forums.


----------



## uchihaitachi

stand said:


> Voltage swing is up to picking the right amp with the voltage swing to deliver the max desired SPL for the given set of headphones. The FiiO E12 is surprisingly good with the HD600. IMO for the most part, the thing about scaling is another one of those forum things, either the amp can drive them and is a good amp, or not. Having more clean power than required for the max DR does nothing useful but can drain a wallet, however, it makes for entertaining banter on the audiophile forums.


 
 http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/08/obsessed-audiophiles-in-japan-are-installing-their-own-power-poles-to-improve-sound/


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

uchihaitachi said:


> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/08/obsessed-audiophiles-in-japan-are-installing-their-own-power-poles-to-improve-sound/




This is flipping ridiculous. 

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## StanD

uchihaitachi said:


> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/08/obsessed-audiophiles-in-japan-are-installing-their-own-power-poles-to-improve-sound/


 
 Someone has lost touch with reality.


----------



## cel4145

grumpyoldguy said:


> This is flipping ridiculous.




No doubt. 

Someone want to post this in the cables forum and see if there are any bites? 

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2016/09/20/the-far-corners-the-skin-effect-and-albanias-organike-cables/

:evil:


----------



## Argyris

It would be amusing just to see the replies. Possibly depressing and dismaying, though, as well.


----------



## roy_jones

I have come here to voice my annoyance at having to try to navigate this site given the complete lack of awareness of the science of sound perception among 95% of posters here. 

 I am very grateful that there is a haven where we can come and complain about how frustrating it can be to deal with posters who are naive to electrical engineering realities when discussing products.  If I were an experimental psychologist, I might come to head-fi to study the remarkable capacity to self-deceive when it comes to beliefs about audio.
  
 It is hilarious and disturbing.  PT Barnum would have loved head-fi.


----------



## krismusic

roy_jones said:


> I have come here to voice my annoyance at having to try to navigate this site given the complete lack of awareness of the science of sound perception among 95% of posters here.
> 
> 
> I am very grateful that there is a haven where we can come and complain about how frustrating it can be to deal with posters who are naive to electrical engineering realities when discussing products.  If I were an experimental psychologist, I might come to head-fi to study the remarkable capacity to self-deceive when it comes to beliefs about audio.
> ...



I hear you! It's only people trying to enjoy themselves I guess. It does render the site fairly useless for recommendations though.


----------



## Argyris

Something that always gets me is when I report something like "The DT880 has lower- and mid-treble emphasis, sometimes resulting in sibilance" or "The HD 600's bass rolls off after about 100 Hz" I'll invariably get something like "What amp/DAC do you use?" or "Do you use lossless/hi-rez files?" You can't even meaningfully talk about a product's flaws because somebody will immediately swoop in and claim that, whatever it is, _their_ amp (or, even worse, an amp they've only heard once or don't even own!) fixes the issue, it's not actually the headphone, compressed or CD quality tracks aren't good enough, and blah blah blah...
  
 ...freakin' NO. It's no wonder manufacturers continue to release flawed headphones at high prices. Nobody can even hold them to the fire without half a dozen sycophants immediately popping up to smooth over any criticism by claiming it's all due to gear synergy or file format. When everything's subjective, apparently nothing's real. Except some things _are_ real. If a headphone's treble is so rough it's the sonic equivalent of getting licked by a giant cat with a foot-wide tongue, there isn't an amp on the planet that's going to solve that, unless it literally blows itself up and takes the headphone with it, thereby prompting you to buy a better headphone. No, the headphone is flawed, and this needs to come to light, so that more people don't buy it and so that whomever made it knows they released a dud and that they need to do better next time.
  
 And let's not forget what happens in impressions threads when you're trying to pin down some sound descriptions of a new headphone. It's like navigating a hall of mirrors after downing a healthy dose of NyQuil. You don't know what's actually there and what isn't because people keep contradicting one another, claiming that the flaw one person hears isn't actually a flaw because amp! or DAC! So does the flaw exist at all? Is it a case where the one person just got used to the flaw (meaning you might as well) but attributed the improvement to some audiophile tomfoolery or other, or is it genuinely bad but this person has convinced themselves that it isn't because they bought a different amp/DAC/cable?
  
 Ugh! That's the problem when you refuse to separate what's real from what isn't. Everything you say becomes unreliable, and therefore nearly useless. The best I can often do is pick up on trends. If lots of people mention sibilance and harshness, even if a bunch of them claim their magic amp solves it, then I can safely say the headphone sounds like our cat tongue example from above and can be discounted. Less easy to divine is tonality, since you get people who claim the amp can completely change a headphone, and of course they have two amps, so you have no idea which of the two radically different signatures they report (if either!) is accurate.
  
 I dunno. If you dig deeply enough into the waffle, it's usually possible to extract some useful information. I've gotten way too good at skipping entire paragraphs relatively quickly when I can tell there's nothing useful in them, and sometimes specific posters just never manage to add anything of value (often nonetheless posting incessantly), especially if they're doing things like already contemplating which aftermarket cable they want to buy/make for the headphone and it hasn't even arrived yet.
  
 I could probably keep going, but I think you guys get the point. I don't exactly feel animosity toward any of the types of people I've mentioned (though I have to say the ones from the first paragraph do get on my nerves if I run through a lot of them in a row). I just have to battle through the pervasive subjectivism to mine out nuggets of stuff that's actually real. It's like getting aluminum from bauxite--it's in there, it just might not be apparent at first, and when you're done you've got at least three quarters worth of the mass you have to get rid of.


----------



## StanD

I've been told that since joining the forums, the hangman has been convinced to use silver cables when conducting his business. Balanced, of course.


----------



## Ancipital

argyris said:


> Ugh! That's the problem when you refuse to separate what's real from what isn't. Everything you say becomes unreliable, and therefore nearly useless. The best I can often do is pick up on trends. If lots of people mention sibilance and harshness, even if a bunch of them claim their magic amp solves it, then I can safely say the headphone sounds like our cat tongue example from above and can be discounted. Less easy to divine is tonality, since you get people who claim the amp can completely change a headphone, and of course they have two amps, so you have no idea which of the two radically different signatures they report (if either!) is accurate.


 
  
 Yes, except that this really is the case. Go plug HD650 into a Magni 2U, listen for a while, then move it onto a Jotenhiem. Even the terminally cloth-eared will hear how much clearer the bass is, even if they haven't yet learned to qualitatively distinguish in the mids and lows. Bass can be a make or break thing, when the amp isn't quite up to the job- so worth listening for distortion/lack of detail there as an easy starter. On one, they sounds like a mediocre and flabby pair of headphones with the sort of low frequency slop that you'd expect of a really cheap dynamic driver- on the other, they sound like that the manufacturer's hard sell would have you believe.
  
 (Throw a bunch of your favourite redbook in there, especially nicely layered rock, and it's not hard to notice. "The Bends", "OK Computer", "The Dark Side Of The Moon", that sort of obvious stuff is an easy starting point. Choose something you know well, and A/B it.. you'll soon get to the point where you can pick out which is which blind.)
  
 People who can't manage this, feeling awkward because they they haven't learned to pick out differences like the cool kids, can always spend some time with:
  
 http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.co.uk/
  
 (..it's actually kinda fun.)
  
 In other shocking news- cables really can make a difference- _when they are awful_! I tried a set of those funny Linium cables, you know, the hair thin ones (I believe it was "Linium Music" for MMCX) yesterday, and could only stand listening for about 30 seconds. I was going Mojo to SE535 with this cable, and it was so harsh and bright, it made me wince. Seriously- what on earth? Was the impedance all wrong for the source and transducers or what? I'd love to know.


----------



## uchihaitachi

ancipital said:


> Yes, except that this really is the case. Go plug HD650 into a Magni 2U, listen for a while, then move it onto a Jotenhiem. Even the terminally cloth-eared will hear how much clearer the bass is, even if they haven't yet learned to qualitatively distinguish in the mids and lows. Bass can be a make or break thing, when the amp isn't quite up to the job- so worth listening for distortion/lack of detail there as an easy starter. On one, they sounds like a mediocre and flabby pair of headphones with the sort of low frequency slop that you'd expect of a really cheap dynamic driver- on the other, they sound like that the manufacturer's hard sell would have you believe.
> 
> (Throw a bunch of your favourite redbook in there, especially nicely layered rock, and it's not hard to notice. "The Bends", "OK Computer", "The Dark Side Of The Moon", that sort of obvious stuff is an easy starting point. Choose something you know well, and A/B it.. you'll soon get to the point where you can pick out which is which blind.)
> 
> ...




I am curious how exactly you conduct your A/B.

Do elaborate, so that I can glean an idea of where all the biases are managing to creep in.


----------



## Ancipital

uchihaitachi said:


> I am curious how exactly you conduct your A/B.
> 
> Do elaborate, so that I can glean an idea of where all the biases are managing to creep in.


 
  
 Sitting about two meters away from the amps, on a sofa, back to amps. HD650 with the stock 3m cable. Lovely assistant to swap cables (or pretend to) between amps. Pre-arranged shonky "by ear" volume matching marked with a sharpie. 100% success over 20 very boring attempts.Had I cared more, I would have used work's user testing lab to completely isolate me from any tells, but frankly, not worth the effort- it's not a subtle difference. Anyone who couldn't hear it probably should stick with an O2 amp and some ATH-M50x or use the speakers built into their TV, and save an awful lot of money.


----------



## RRod

Ah, the ne plus ultra of subjectivist argument: You just don't listen well enough. As though learning how various typical EQ adjustments sound somehow helps in detecting the small FR changes one would expect in comparing flat, low-impedance amps. And when something hard becomes easy, that should be the first clue one is messing something up. I assume there is some local ordinance preventing you from making measurements on any of this, of course. Where them files at?


----------



## Ancipital

Ah, the first 


rrod said:


> Ah, the ne plus ultra of subjectivist argument: You just don't listen well enough.


 
  
 Ah, the fundamentalist zeal of the NWAVguy fan, it's about as objective as young earth creationism. See, I can play lazy insults, too- even though there's a kernel of truth in it. The people in this subforum are becoming as predictable as the $2000 mains cable maniacs.
  
 Go perform your own tests, or maybe use atomicbob's excellent work, if you want measurements of both amps. As for headphone measurements, I'm not about to build a rig or borrow the Audio Section's rig from a few hundred miles away- why would I? There's really very little payoff for trying to impress a bunch of people whose groupthink makes you facepalm that hard, as you're no more about evidence than the Jehovah's Witnesses outside the railway station. It won't increase the sum total of human knowledge, but merely produce more stream of consciousness whining from the usual suspects.


----------



## uchihaitachi

ancipital said:


> Ah, the first
> 
> Ah, the fundamentalist zeal of the NWAVguy fan, it's about as objective as young earth creationism. See, I can play lazy insults, too- even though there's a kernel of truth in it. The people in this subforum are becoming as predictable as the $2000 mains cable maniacs.
> 
> Go perform your own tests, or maybe use atomicbob's excellent work, if you want measurements of both amps. As for headphone measurements, I'm not about to build a rig or borrow the Audio Section's rig from a few hundred miles away- why would I? There's really very little payoff for trying to impress a bunch of people whose groupthink makes you facepalm that hard, as you're no more about evidence than the Jehovah's Witnesses outside the railway station. It won't increase the sum total of human knowledge, but merely produce more stream of consciousness whining from the usual suspects.


 
 fundamentalist zeal of NWAVguy fan? Most members in this subforum were active before he was even around... I don't see how a scientific approach with an understanding of the engineering principles behind audio is being fundamentalist. By that line of reasoning, most scientists and engineers are 'fundamentalist'. Present us with evidence, and we won't question you twice.
  
 The burden of proof is on you though based on your claims. I'm just very surprised that Schiit audio would make amps, that deviates so far from neutrality that it's so audibly clear. It would save everybody a whole lot of time and energy if you were able to provide evidence, instead of throwing veiled ad hominems at each other.


----------



## RRod

ancipital said:


> Ah, the first
> 
> Ah, the fundamentalist zeal of the NWAVguy fan, it's about as objective as young earth creationism. See, I can play lazy insults, too- even though there's a kernel of truth in it. The people in this subforum are becoming as predictable as the $2000 mains cable maniacs.
> 
> Go perform your own tests, or maybe use atomicbob's excellent work, if you want measurements of both amps. As for headphone measurements, I'm not about to build a rig or borrow the Audio Section's rig from a few hundred miles away- why would I? There's really very little payoff for trying to impress a bunch of people whose groupthink makes you facepalm that hard, as you're no more about evidence than the Jehovah's Witnesses outside the railway station. It won't increase the sum total of human knowledge, but merely produce more stream of consciousness whining from the usual suspects.


 
  
 Actually I own Schiit products like you, only I happen to believe they haven't previously released stuff that was not audibly transparent. And I knew exactly what people over at the Jot thread would be saying the second the amp was announced, so let's call it pot/kettle on predictability. I am well acquainted with atomicbob's measurements, wherein he'll show something go from -110dB to -120dB and everyone will go "aha! I KNEW I heard a difference!". You don't want to provide anything more, fine: no reason for me to worry about updating my prior belief based on any of this.


----------



## cel4145

ancipital said:


> Ah, the first
> 
> Ah, the fundamentalist zeal of the NWAVguy fan, it's about as objective as young earth creationism. See, I can play lazy insults, too- even though there's a kernel of truth in it. The people in this subforum are becoming as predictable as the $2000 mains cable maniacs.




The goal of sciences is to be predictable. Well, unless you think audio science is about the position and momentum of sub atomic particles


----------



## Ruben123

ancipital said:


> Sitting about two meters away from the amps, on a sofa, back to amps. HD650 with the stock 3m cable. Lovely assistant to swap cables (or pretend to) between amps. Pre-arranged shonky "by ear" volume matching marked with a sharpie. 100% success over 20 very boring attempts.Had I cared more, I would have used work's user testing lab to completely isolate me from any tells, but frankly, not worth the effort- it's not a subtle difference. Anyone who couldn't hear it probably should stick with an O2 amp and some ATH-M50x or use the speakers built into their TV, and save an awful lot of money.


 
 Vol matching by ear isnt enough, the smallest difference makes them sound - different- as you could expect. Using a SPL meter would be better


----------



## uchihaitachi

with lovely pink noise


----------



## StanD

ancipital said:


> :
> :
> In other shocking news- cables really can make a difference- _when they are awful_! I tried a set of those funny Linium cables, you know, the hair thin ones (I believe it was "Linium Music" for MMCX) yesterday, and could only stand listening for about 30 seconds. I was going Mojo to SE535 with this cable, and it was so harsh and bright, it made me wince. Seriously- what on earth? Was the impedance all wrong for the source and transducers or what? I'd love to know.


 
 What magic! A thin cable sounds so very different. Let's see, the SE535 has an spec'd impedance of 36 Ohms. We can see from the below impedance curve that any possible peak will be centered around 1 kHz. First thing is that for audio purposes a cable is resistive, not reactive. There will be no appreciable inductive or capacitive effects for this range of resistance/impedance in the audio band in an audio cable. It is absurd to think that any cable would have a resistance high enough to create a bandpass for this case that would be audible in any way.
 The spec's impedance for this brand of cables range from 1.5 Ohms to 4.5 Ohms, not enough to do damage. The one you mentioned is 2 Ohms definitely not a problem..


----------



## Ancipital

Not just _different _but _terrible_. However, I was seeking useful suggestions about what was so badly wrong, not inept sneering from someone with a tenuous grasp on things. 
  
 I'm done, you are as patience-depletingly wedded to stale circular narratives and groupthink as the magical cable subjective nutballs.


----------



## krismusic

ancipital said:


> Not just _different_ but _terrible_. However, I was seeking useful suggestions about what was so badly wrong, not inept sneering from someone with a tenuous grasp on things.
> 
> I'm done, you are as patience-depletingly wedded to stale circular narratives and groupthink as the magical cable subjective nutballs.



It would be nice if you could be polite when writing on an Internet forum.


----------



## StanD

ancipital said:


> Not just _different _but _terrible_. However, I was seeking useful suggestions about what was so badly wrong, not inept sneering from someone with a tenuous grasp on things.
> 
> I'm done, you are as patience-depletingly wedded to stale circular narratives and groupthink as the magical cable subjective nutballs.


 
 Apparently when you can no longer make up stories you resort to insults. I have no need of vaulting an insult your way, you have already done so on your own.


----------



## castleofargh

Quote:


ancipital said:


> Ah, the first
> 
> 
> rrod said:
> ...


 
  
 of course it's predictable. because you do not have a point, you did not perform a meaningful A/B test. it doesn't matter that you're right or wrong, I want to insist on this because you seem to get mad in a "it's the truth you idiots" kind of way. it's not the content of the claim that is an issue, it's that you're making a claim without anything to demonstrate it. for all I know you didn't match level anything correctly so your test is wrong for the specific purpose of testing audible differences (applies to cables too BTW), and by consequence is not conclusive. but then if the experiment is inconclusive, no claim should be made from it. and that's basically what people in here don't accept. it's personal only because you're the one making the claim you maybe shouldn't be making.
  
 anyway, if you have a point to make, it's sound science so try to bring reliable evidence including a proper description of the tests you've done. or try to express your opinions as opinions. if you don't have the means to do fancy tests, then be reasonable and tell us that you felt like this and that. 
 antagonizing the entire section because you didn't like 2 posts like you just did, is that your idea of being the rational and reasonable one? and nwavguy out of nowhere, seriously? I thought only Marv was still psychologically broken and needed to bring him up in topics once a month to keep the rage alive. a month ago you were curious about everything and open to dialog, what happened in such a short time that makes you post judgmental crap like this? I hope it's because you just had a poor day and you'll be back to being your cool self soon.


----------



## StanD

I think he bought a new Amp and has new toy syndrome.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

ancipital said:


> Sitting about two meters away from the amps, on a sofa, back to amps. HD650 with the stock 3m cable. Lovely assistant to swap cables (or pretend to) between amps. Pre-arranged shonky "by ear" volume matching marked with a sharpie. 100% success over 20 very boring attempts.Had I cared more, I would have used work's user testing lab to completely isolate me from any tells, but frankly, not worth the effort- it's not a subtle difference. Anyone who couldn't hear it probably should stick with an O2 amp and some ATH-M50x or use the speakers built into their TV, and save an awful lot of money.




You yourself called your "volume matching" "shonky" "'by ear'", why should we call your conclusions anything but shonky and subjective? :rolleyes:

And of course, if there's a terrible difference to actually be heard, there's a good chance that either of your two amps--not necessarily the bad sounding one--is defective. :rolleyes:

To walk away from the results of such shonky testing, more confident in your biases than ever, instead of testing your equipment and methodology, is just shonkiness at its best. 

To mention your shonky methodology in the same breath as "Sean Olive's lab" is either an insult to Sean Olive or testament to just how badly you need the services of said lab. :rolleyes:


----------



## Argyris

stand said:


> I think he bought a new Amp and has new toy syndrome.


 
  
 Seems like it. I can't shake the feeling he was saying completely different stuff a few weeks ago.
  
 He's got a point somewhat about the circular discussions in Sound Science, though arguably that's just because last I checked the laws of physics haven't changed. The same amps and DACs and cables that sounded indistinguishable from one another before still sound indistinguishable from one another now. It's hard to really find anything new to talk about, if you look at it like that. As a result, a lot of what comes up in these threads is members expressing frustration about their various experiences elsewhere on the site. Arguably it's not very inviting or friendly, but that's just what you get when you have a jaded minority who aren't allowed to discuss their views freely anywhere else on the site.
  
 I think where some people who eventually turn and balk at this forum have a problem is they don't understand that an objectivist viewpoint on audio is fundamental by nature. There's no leeway for kinda, sorta. If you accept that the basic underlying principles don't allow for audible differences unless the measured differences exceed the human perception threshold, this applies to everything. I've read complaints that there's no discussion allowed, that objectivists are too rigid. People who say this are clearly missing the point. Objectivists aren't just less-subjective subjectivists; it's a different viewpoint entirely. It eschews the concepts of magic and belief and endeavors to isolate what actually exists and matters from what doesn't. If you can't measure it, and if in a blind test it disappears, it doesn't exist. If you _can_ measure it and still can't find it in a blind test, it's meaningless. If at any time new factors can be measured, or existing factors can be measured more accurately, the cycle of testing is repeated and the conclusions, if warranted, are altered based on the results of the new testing. And if at any time a single test produces a result that contradicts that of the vast majority of similar tests, it should be seen as suspect and investigated for possible confounding factors. That's not being stubborn or overly rigid or zealous. That's applying basic scientific method.
  
 Maybe some people don't want to use science. Maybe they just want to come to a forum and say whatever tickles their subjective fancy. Whatever floats their boat, but objectivists are not somehow deficient if people who don't understand or share the objectivist philosophy find their own views incompatible.


----------



## StanD

Ancipital just got a new Schiit Jotunheim and has gone OCD on that thread. Like I said new toy syndrome.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/818323/schiit-jotunheim-review-preview-head-fi-tv/1260#post_12885692


----------



## Argyris

stand said:


> Ancipital just got a new Schiit Jotunheim and has gone OCD on that thread. Like I said new toy syndrome.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/818323/schiit-jotunheim-review-preview-head-fi-tv/1260#post_12885692


 
  
 I know the feeling. I find it difficult not to be over the moon about the HD 600, even months after I bought mine. I guess if I were prompted, though, I could point to measurements to back up the gist of what I say about it (e.g. a frequency plot will pretty much correlate with the description of its sound I give), and I'm careful to also point out where I think it's flawed so as not to give the impression that it's the best at everything.
  
 It can be difficult balancing enthusiasm for a pursuit with an objective viewpoint, especially if a purchase is involved. I've done worse than I've been doing with my HD 600 in the past, with other purchases. Because of this, I try not to get on people too much when they go out of character fanboying, unless they get really abusive or disruptive. Then there's no excuse.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Shouldn't audiophiles owe it to themselves to understand how the principles behind audio work?
  I never understood that aspect of this hobby. For example it would be ludicrous for a petrolhead to not have at least an elementary grasp of how a car fits together and how the international combustion engine works.


----------



## sonitus mirus

uchihaitachi said:


> Shouldn't audiophiles owe it to themselves to understand how the principles behind audio work?
> I never understood that aspect of this hobby. For example it would be ludicrous for a petrolhead to not have at least an elementary grasp of how a car fits together and how the international combustion engine works.


 
  
 It would be like claiming that a car with flames painted on the sides or having a red "R" emblem on the hatch makes it faster.  You just have to drive it.


----------



## StanD

sonitus mirus said:


> It would be like claiming that a car with flames painted on the sides or having a red "R" emblem on the hatch makes it faster.  You just have to drive it.


 
 I wonder what would happen if an overzealous Amp owner painted flames on the side of their shiny new Amp. What letter do you recommend for the hatch?


----------



## Don Hills

sonitus mirus said:


> It would be like claiming that a car with flames painted on the sides or having a red "R" emblem on the hatch makes it faster.  You just have to drive it.


 
  
 I enjoy driving my car more when I've just washed and waxed it, even though I know that objectively it's no faster or smoother.


----------



## StanD

don hills said:


> I enjoy driving my car more when I've just washed and waxed it, even though I know that objectively it's no faster or smoother.


 

 Should be faster, waxing reduces air friction/drag.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Ancipital just got a new Schiit Jotunheim and has gone OCD on that thread. Like I said new toy syndrome.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/818323/schiit-jotunheim-review-preview-head-fi-tv/1260#post_12885692




He lost me in that post when he said "faster." What is a "faster" amp? Or is it _audiophile descriptive adjective syndrome_: the tendency to use any positive sounding adjective to rhapsodize about the wonders of a new piece of equipment even though it does not make logical sense?


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> He lost me in that post when he said "faster." What is a "faster" amp? Or is it _audiophile descriptive adjective syndrome_: the tendency to use any positive sounding adjective to rhapsodize about the wonders of a new piece of equipment even though it does not make logical sense?


 
 I just love it when they say, "faster." Does that mean it changes the tempo of the music? That's what faster means to me. Hmmm, that would mean the music finishes before it completes playing. That's a good trick. How about decay, or PRaT and a whole slew of other words used to excuse misconceptions and create entertaining stories?


----------



## Argyris

I've always interpreted PRaT to be a signature thing, whereby certain sound signatures (most likely V-shaped ones) artificially emphasize the rhythmic component of the music. Used in this manner I don't see anything wrong with the term. However, if we started using the term for two headphones with very similar signatures, or if we stopped defining it specifically and just used it as a synonym for "the headphone I paid more for sounds better", then it just becomes another part of the typical audiophile jargon.
  
 Decay I'm less convinced on. If you have a driver that is excessively slow to stop moving, at some point I suppose it could become noticeable. I'm not sure at which point that would be, though--it's not like anybody could create a driver with a freely variable decay characteristic to test. The way I usually see the term used in the audiophile world, though, has to do with the headphone somehow affecting long term (> 1 sec) musical events, which I'm just not convinced can happen. I could almost see it with cymbals, if you have a tuning that simultaneously lacks upper treble extension and has hyped up lower treble. The attack portion of the cymbal crash would be emphasized and the decay deemphasized--I've heard something like this in headphones like the MDR-V6/7506, but it's very much a signature issue, not a driver one. If anything, the ringing in the impulse response for that headphone would indicate the driver is moving longer in that frequency range than it should. I'm probably guilty of using the term "decay" in the past for this particular phenomenon (since it's reasonably common on lower end stuff), but I'm always careful to explain what I mean whenever I use such a term.
  
 Keep in mind everything above has to do with headphones. The use of either of these two terms to describe an amp or DAC or cable has been pointedly left out of the discussion.


----------



## cel4145

argyris said:


> Decay I'm less convinced on. If you have a driver that is excessively slow to stop moving, at some point I suppose it could become noticeable.




I'm glad your brought that up. I have no doubt that transient response differences can be audible. But I have been wondering at what point does reducing the decay even more stop providing an audible difference? 

I just sprung for a major speaker upgrade, an Ascend Acoustics Horizon center channel. And I got their optional RAAL tweeter. Everyone who has heard it swears the RAAL tweeter is incredible and worth the upgrade over Ascend's NrT tweeter that is the standard tweeter. Here is the difference in the impulse response: 



It does sound really good. 

I went with the RAAL not only because of that, but because it has very little roll of as you shift the horizontal listening window. Which is great because I might sit in the center or to either side of it, and so not having the highs roll off is a plus. 

However, now as I consider their Sierra Towers, I'm thinking would I be able to hear the decay difference, based on what the impulse response shows? $700 for the upgraded tweeters in the towers. It should be a noticeable difference for that much, right? But, could it be people have convinced themselves of the benefit of something that is barely, or not audible at all.


----------



## StanD

My amusement comes from when people use decay in terms of the envelope not the waveform. As in an instrument's note plays longer, which is the context that I raised this term. Now that is completely insane.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> However, now as I consider their Sierra Towers, I'm thinking would I be able to hear the decay difference, based on what the impulse response shows? $700 for the upgraded tweeters in the towers. It should be a noticeable difference for that much, right? But, could it be people have convinced themselves of the benefit of something that is barely, or not audible at all.


 
  
 Pet peeve: graphs with different axis limits 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 If we ignore distortion then all is FR and phase, I guess is how I think of this kind of thing.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> Pet peeve: graphs with different axis limits




I know. Tyll does the same thing with some of his headphone impulse measurements over at innerfidelity.


----------



## Don Hills

stand said:


> Should be faster, waxing reduces air friction/drag.


 
 Drag strip tickets, or it didn't happen.


----------



## Ruben123

stand said:


> I just love it when they say, "faster." Does that mean it changes the tempo of the music? That's what faster means to me. Hmmm, that would mean the music finishes before it completes playing. That's a good trick. How about decay, or PRaT and a whole slew of other words used to excuse misconceptions and create entertaining stories?




What do you mean? Faster means more speed. Isn't that hard really, is it? Just quicker music. Makes some 3 hours taking operas easier to listen to.

Though I think I can understand what is meant. Everybody knows 'in the air tonight', imagine it with a bloated mid bass and lower miss and reduced highs. Then imagine it, with a very detailed, slight v shaped fr. With cleaner bass (drums) and hi hat details in the highs. Must sound like the beat of the drums itself take less time.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> What do you mean? Faster means more speed. Isn't that hard really, is it? Just quicker music. Makes some 3 hours taking operas easier to listen to.
> 
> Though I think I can understand what is meant. Everybody knows 'in the air tonight', imagine it with a bloated mid bass and lower miss and reduced highs. Then imagine it, with a very detailed, slight v shaped fr. With cleaner bass (drums) and hi hat details in the highs. Must sound like the beat of the drums itself take less time.


 
 When I ask for clarification, all I get get is confusion followed by anger. I begin to think that some people actually think the music plays faster as in less time.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

While we're on the topic of nonsensical descriptors...

How do people get away with using *visual* descriptors for explaining something they *hear*?? 

How on god's green earth does that make any sense? At all?

Holographic, sparkly, etc. etc. etc. It's all garbage. 

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

Also, I just came from another thread where I asked someone to explain something that did not make sense to me. 

I got a lot of "go try it yourself". One guy tried to send me on a scavenger hunt which I called him out on... Turns out he was sending me out for a bunch of irrelevant information. But then we got to the crux of the problem with these forums... A lot of responses stating "we are consumers not engineers" followed by wildly inaccurate speculation on EE theory. 
If you don't know the answer, that's perfectly fine... But just say that instead of trying to pretend like you do. 

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> While we're on the topic of nonsensical descriptors...
> 
> How do people get away with using *visual* descriptors for explaining something they *hear*??
> 
> ...


 

 Or how about meteorological terms, like, "Airy."


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> grumpyoldguy said:
> 
> 
> > While we're on the topic of nonsensical descriptors...
> ...




That one is the worst! It doesn't even mean anything!

I'm going to start describing things in terms of smells outside of this forum. Maybe then people will understand what I'm saying. 

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> Or how about meteorological terms, like, "Airy."


 
  
 Synesthetic descriptions are fine up to a point (bright/dull), but when you start describing a DAC as "vegetal" something is probably wrong.
  
 The interplay of descriptions and measurement is actually quite fascinating on here. What matters is consistency rather than audibility. So if everyone calls a DAC vegetal, and that DAC has ANY measurable characteristic different from other DACs, then everything is consistent if we map that characteristic to that description and this makes everyone happy, even if the characteristic itself is inaudible. So of course we end up with two ways of ticking people off: 1) dare to make audibility an issue and 2) use the wrong description (I found this DAC fruity!).


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> Synesthetic descriptions are fine up to a point (bright/dull), but when you start describing a DAC as "vegetal" something is probably wrong.
> 
> The interplay of descriptions and measurement is actually quite fascinating on here. What matters is consistency rather than audibility. So if everyone calls a DAC vegetal, and that DAC has ANY measurable characteristic different from other DACs, then everything is consistent if we map that characteristic to that description and this makes everyone happy, even if the characteristic itself is inaudible. So of course we end up with two ways of ticking people off: 1) dare to make audibility an issue and 2) use the wrong description (I found this DAC fruity!).


 
 How about, "I found this DAC's owner fruity!"


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> How about, "I found this DAC's owner fruity!"


 
  
 I guess to be more on point, what got to me about this latest episode wasn't any thesaurus work, but just the slew (pardon the pun) of amazing assertions that someone just couldn't bother to treat as amazing. In one fell swoop we got "I can AB transparent DACs", "I can AB 256 AAC", and "These two things interact." Three spectacular abilities and complete resistance to making a real case for having them. Hell if you can show all three of those with ease you deserve to call things airy and vegetal.


----------



## Argyris

grumpyoldguy said:


> While we're on the topic of nonsensical descriptors...
> 
> How do people get away with using *visual* descriptors for explaining something they *hear*??
> 
> ...


 
  
 Because there aren't very many words in the English language to describe sound. Language evolves over time and adapts to the situation, otherwise whenever new concepts came about we would have no way to describe them. I don't see anything wrong with using sight words in this case, as long as the usage is consistent and actually refers to something real, instead of just being a vague term thrown around to establish a _je ne sais quoi_ for an expensive product.

 I've often wondered if there are other languages out there (particularly non-Indo-European ones, since we seem to know the most about those) that have a more detailed vocabulary for sound than English. That latter hasn't got much to work with for pure sound descriptors, but it has a comparatively massive vocabulary for what we can see, amassed from the various languages English has had active contact with in the past millennium. Clearly sight has historically been much more important than sound to English speakers, though this could very well be universal--if there are any college linguists reading, there's a thesis topic for you.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

argyris said:


> grumpyoldguy said:
> 
> 
> > While we're on the topic of nonsensical descriptors...
> ...




Of course there is.... It's not like engineering textbooks are written in iambic pentameter. 

And with all of the resources available through the internet and things like open courseware, there is no reason to not have a familiarity with some of the basics. 

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Of course there is.... It's not like engineering textbooks are written in iambic pentameter.
> 
> And with all of the resources available through the internet and things like open courseware, there is no reason to not have a familiarity with some of the basics.
> 
> Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


 

 That's right:
 Airy i.e., express the high frequency content.
 Fast, i.e. attack (envelope).


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

I thought they used "bright" to express high frequency content...
  
 See how quickly this falls apart?


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> I thought they used "bright" to express high frequency content...
> 
> See how quickly this falls apart?


 

 Yes, give me two graphs to start with:

FR
Impedance curves for dynamic cans.
 Ringing (edge transition) and some waveforms are nice too. Although most audiophiles wouldn't know what to really make of these other than FR.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

I got yelled at the last time I asked for anything technical.


----------



## U-3C

rrod said:


> Synesthetic descriptions are fine up to a point (bright/dull), but when you start describing a DAC as "vegetal" something is probably wrong.
> 
> The interplay of descriptions and measurement is actually quite fascinating on here. What matters is consistency rather than audibility. So if everyone calls a DAC vegetal, and that DAC has ANY measurable characteristic different from other DACs, then everything is consistent if we map that characteristic to that description and this makes everyone happy, even if the characteristic itself is inaudible. So of course we end up with two ways of ticking people off: 1) dare to make audibility an issue and 2) use the wrong description (I found this DAC fruity!).


It's official. From now on, all my dacs are fruity. 

I don't care how they sound. They are just fruity. The term is vague enough to cover all of them.


----------



## Argyris

I honestly prefer vegetal. Not sure why. Maybe it just sounds more exotic.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

argyris said:


> I honestly prefer vegetal. Not sure why. Maybe it just sounds more exotic.




Let's compromise and go tomato-like. Is it a fruit? Is it a vegetable? Nobody knows...

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


----------



## sonitus mirus

grumpyoldguy said:


> Let's compromise and go tomato-like. Is it a fruit? Is it a vegetable? Nobody knows...
> 
> Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon


 
  
 We can't even agree on how "tomato" is supposed to be pronounced. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 And now for some music...


----------



## StanD

argyris said:


> I honestly prefer vegetal. Not sure why. Maybe it just sounds more exotic.


 

 Mine are all carnivores.


----------



## StanD

For those into cables and bondage, enjoy the below. This is a rare moment when it's OK to fight back, I think.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/820977/does-a-better-quality-usb-cable-influence-sound/15#post_12892748


----------



## Don Hills

rrod said:


> ...  Hell if you can show all three of those with ease you deserve to call things airy and vegetal.


 
  
 I consider such people to be "airy and vegetal" between the ears.


----------



## cel4145

Am I going to get in trouble talking about room influence in the Cables forum? There's a review of a Yamaha receiver, and I am pointing out how can you know what the receiver really sounds like with room influence going on. Is room influence a Head-Fi taboo topic? 

BTW: Lots of those interesting descriptions we've been discussing here. Apparently the receiver has a "creamy, buttery hint" to its sound, has an "organic" sound, and never feels "fast."


----------



## alffla

grumpyoldguy said:


> While we're on the topic of nonsensical descriptors...
> 
> How do people get away with using *visual* descriptors for explaining something they *hear*??
> 
> ...


 
 Not trying to dispute your point - but how would we go about describing the sound otherwise? 
  
 I would love to have better vocabulary in trying to describe sound so I agree, but it seems that the current status quo of using visual terms such as airy, bright, muddy, holographic is as best as we can come up with without trying to imagine the sound by looking at FR graphs and such.
 And when people say muddy, it seems useful enough as a rough impression to what the sound of the product is like - as muddy usually describes a lack of clarity and separation. Airy and bright are used to describe products with slightly more 'hiss' (I suppose!?) when things like cymbals and hats are reproduced...


----------



## StanD

alffla said:


> Not trying to dispute your point - but how would we go about describing the sound otherwise?
> 
> I would love to have better vocabulary in trying to describe sound so I agree, but it seems that the current status quo of using visual terms such as airy, bright, muddy, holographic is as best as we can come up with without trying to imagine the sound by looking at FR graphs and such.
> And when people say muddy, it seems useful enough as a rough impression to what the sound of the product is like - as muddy usually describes a lack of clarity and separation. Airy and bright are used to describe products with slightly more 'hiss' (I suppose!?) when things like cymbals and hats are reproduced...


 

 There are many words that can be used to describe sound that are direct and to the point, however, audiophiles prefer their own slang for I what I suspect is entertainment value and the avoidance of accuracy. One can use an adverb that denotes magnitude to any portion of the FR, e.g., excessive treble, inadequate sub bass, hollow due to the lack of midrange, etc. Distortion could be directly addressed as to type and conditions that evoke it. There are other terms that are specific, e.g., sibilant, strident, etc. 
 The term soundstage alone is not adequate but would require further descriptive text which many times is filled with other non-descriptive terms, however, when that happens it is the fault of the author.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> BTW: Lots of those interesting descriptions we've been discussing here. Apparently the receiver has a "creamy, buttery hint" to its sound, has an "organic" sound, and never feels "fast."


 
  
 Sad that I'm only partially making things up when I bring up "vegetal." Organically vegetal? I should use other green tea terms, though I might need to change "mouthfeel" into "earfeel."


----------



## 93EXCivic

How about this sound wheel from the AES conference?


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> Sad that I'm only partially making things up when I bring up "vegetal." Organically vegetal? I should use other green tea terms, though I might need to change "mouthfeel" into "earfeel."




I think the goal should be to combine an organically vegetal DAC with a meaty amp and some fruity speakers to make sure one is getting a well rounded meal of audio


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> I think the goal should be to combine an organically vegetal DAC with a meaty amp and some fruity speakers to make sure one is getting a well rounded meal of audio


 
  
 So does DSP take the role of MSG in all this: it makes stuff taste better but people get mad if they know you put it in there?


----------



## krismusic

Something I have been thinking for some time now. I don't know if it is of interest here but I hope it's kind of relevant. 
It seems to me unarguable ( is anything on here?!) that listening to music on headphones is a miniaturisation of a large scale event. 
People seem to spend large sums of money and great effort in trying to ignore that fact. 
It is as if people expect that if they buy the right equipment they will have the illusion that they are listening to a symphony orchestra in a concert hall. 
The reality is that you are listening to tiny drivers very close to, or even, in your ears. 
Different equipment will give you tiny differences in presentation but nothing mind blowing. 
Unless perhaps the Smyth Realiser!...


----------



## RRod

krismusic said:


> Something I have been thinking for some time now. I don't know if it is of interest here but I hope it's kind of relevant.
> It seems to me unarguable ( is anything on here?!) that listening to music on headphones is a miniaturisation of a large scale event.
> People seem to spend large sums of money and great effort in trying to ignore that fact.
> It is as if people expect that if they buy the right equipment they will have the illusion that they are listening to a symphony orchestra in a concert hall.
> ...


 
  
 I guess I think of it as "the sound entering my ears is the sound entering my ears". What is blowing into my two ears should be virtualizable by only two transducers, especially when they are clamped to my skull. The other aspects (interaction with visual stimuli, whole-body vibrations) of the experience might be missing, but what's going into our ears should be within the powers of good cans. Now how you make that happen is getting to your point: whatever actual differences there are among amps, DACs, cables, whatever, are peanuts compared to the actual processing something like the Realiser is doing to try an recreate a virtual environment. So yeah, we get lots of flowery language about different cans and amps, but what exactly is the truth upon which we are qualifying all this?


----------



## U-3C

alffla said:


> Not trying to dispute your point - but how would we go about describing the sound otherwise?
> 
> I would love to have better vocabulary in trying to describe sound so I agree, but it seems that the current status quo of using visual terms such as airy, bright, muddy, holographic is as best as we can come up with without trying to imagine the sound by looking at FR graphs and such.
> And when people say muddy, it seems useful enough as a rough impression to what the sound of the product is like - as muddy usually describes a lack of clarity and separation. Airy and bright are used to describe products with slightly more 'hiss' (I suppose!?) when things like cymbals and hats are reproduced...





...it seems my understanding of "airy" is completely off... I thought it meant bright, thin, natural and thus has no ear piercing hiss...

...does that even make sense?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

alffla said:


> Not trying to dispute your point - but how would we go about describing the sound otherwise?
> 
> I would love to have better vocabulary in trying to describe sound so I agree, but it seems that the current status quo of using visual terms such as airy, bright, muddy, holographic is as best as we can come up with without trying to imagine the sound by looking at FR graphs and such.
> And when people say muddy, it seems useful enough as a rough impression to what the sound of the product is like - as muddy usually describes a lack of clarity and separation. Airy and bright are used to describe products with slightly more 'hiss' (I suppose!?) when things like cymbals and hats are reproduced...


 
  
 In terms of measurable parameters. For example soundstage is a result of phase and amplitude control, among other parameters... so speak in those terms... "holographic soundstage" is literally a meaningless description... Not only does it mean something different to everyone but something you *see* can be holographic... not something you *hear*.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> ...it seems my understanding of "airy" is completely off... I thought it meant bright, thin, natural and thus has no ear piercing hiss...
> 
> ...does that even make sense?


 

 Oh you mean some what vegetal without sacrificing fruitiness?


----------



## StanD

At this point I'm going to ask Arthur Dent if I can borrow his Babel Fish.
http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Babel_Fish
  
 On another note, I think that I threw wet blanket on this cable thread, 19+ hours and counting. I'm sure it won't last much longer.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/820977/does-a-better-quality-usb-cable-influence-sound/15#post_12892748


----------



## Ruben123

Like the discussion but can't join unfortunately. Have fun Stan (watch out for the mod eh!).


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> Like the discussion but can't join unfortunately. Have fun Stan (watch out for the mod eh!).


 
 I'll draw the line at Vogon poetry so as not to tick him off.


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> ...it seems my understanding of "airy" is completely off... I thought it meant bright, thin, natural and thus has no ear piercing hiss...
> 
> ...does that even make sense?


 
  
 The way I've always used it is to indicate a headphone with excellent treble extension, and most likely elevated upper treble (> 10 kHz) response. This is well above the range of sibilance and has the effect of emphasizing the space around musical elements (hence "air") and extending the soundstage illusion outward at its extremes, rather than significantly affecting the tonal balance directly. It also helps if the headphone is otherwise neutral or treble-tilted, since this sort of signature deemphasizes the lower harmonics, making the higher (quieter) ones more noticeable.
  
 The DT880 is a prototypical airy sounding headphone by this definition. In fact, it and the K701/2 were rather amusingly referred to as "airhead" cans once upon a time, riffing on the popular basshead moniker.


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> The way I've always used it is to indicate a headphone with excellent treble extension, and most likely elevated upper treble (> 10 kHz) response. This is well above the range of sibilance and has the effect of emphasizing the space around musical elements (hence "air") and extending the soundstage illusion outward at its extremes, rather than significantly affecting the tonal balance directly. It also helps if the headphone is otherwise neutral or treble-tilted, since this sort of signature deemphasizes the lower harmonics, making the higher (quieter) ones more noticeable.
> 
> The DT880 is a prototypical airy sounding headphone by this definition. In fact, it and the K701/2 were rather amusingly referred to as "airhead" cans once upon a time, riffing on the popular basshead moniker.




Since you mentioned the k7## series, I want to mention how people are always looking for a good amp for it. I can kinda understand why, but it's gotten to the point that I can't even comment on it anymore as anything against the need for a good pairing is automatically disregarded, even though it's so important know that saying "XYZ paired with ABC sounds good" means nothing. What do you mean by it sounds good???!!! 

If I say my Samsung S3 paired with my Philips SHE3590 and some DSP sounds epic, very few will believe me. They might say it's subjective or blame my ears (another subjective thing), but it's the same with other pairings. If you say one pairing is good or bad... Other people will just assume that's what they should get, and then they will buy it. Some will like it, and some will hate it. What you may love can easily be what others hate the most. 

People still recommend headphones with this in mind, but when it comes to dac/amps, it is suddenly thrown out the window and people are always recommending good pairings instead of actually looking into what they want to achieve. It's no longer "I have this issue, but I don't feel like buying another headphone. What should I do too fix it?" or "I am looking for ABC, how can I achieve that? " Rather, it's "I have this headphone. Now, what amp should I get?"

A person just asked if XYZ plugged into an iPhone and paired with the Q701 is good, as the person wishes to have a more mobile setup. I just wanted to ask, "What on Earth do you mean by 'good?'" I have that very setup and a mobile dac/amp that is better than the one s/he is asking about, and here's the best setup I can recommend: just plug the damn thing into your phone's headphone jack. -_-;

Of course, people will immediately call me out, but hey, for me, that's indeed a "good pairing." If you can call me out and call my opinion as being subjective and personal to my case, what makes you any more special, as neither of us knows what the person himself/herself likes? 

If you want to avoid all subjective issues, why not just do this: recommend the best EQ program on iOS,and maybe a cheap but clean amp if it's not loud enough, and let the person tweak the sound to his/her heart's unique desire-

Woops, looks like I just got banned from that section (joking).


----------



## Argyris

All subjective opinions are equal but some subjective opinions are more equal than others.


----------



## castleofargh

Every day I spend my time
 Drinkin' wine, feelin' fine
 Waitin' here to find the sign
 That I can understand - yes I am


----------



## alffla

u-3c said:


> ...it seems my understanding of "airy" is completely off... I thought it meant bright, thin, natural and thus has no ear piercing hiss...
> 
> ...does that even make sense?


 
  
  


argyris said:


> The way I've always used it is to indicate a headphone with excellent treble extension, and most likely elevated upper treble (> 10 kHz) response. This is well above the range of sibilance and has the effect of emphasizing the space around musical elements (hence "air") and extending the soundstage illusion outward at its extremes, rather than significantly affecting the tonal balance directly. It also helps if the headphone is otherwise neutral or treble-tilted, since this sort of signature deemphasizes the lower harmonics, making the higher (quieter) ones more noticeable.
> 
> The DT880 is a prototypical airy sounding headphone by this definition. In fact, it and the K701/2 were rather amusingly referred to as "airhead" cans once upon a time, riffing on the popular basshead moniker.


 
  
 Argyris put it way more eloquently and clearly than I did, this is exactly what I imagine when I read reviews that say a sound is 'airy'. I suppose "airy" isn't so bad of a descriptor after all? Vegetal, on the other hand...
  


grumpyoldguy said:


> In terms of measurable parameters. For example soundstage is a result of phase and amplitude control, among other parameters... so speak in those terms... "holographic soundstage" is literally a meaningless description... Not only does it mean something different to everyone but something you *see* can be holographic... not something you *hear*.


 
  
 Yeah, I agree holographic is pretty meaningless. I think the best descriptors of soundstage really try to describe how far away from the ears or deep inside the head the sound seems to be coming from? I'm actually interested in how soundstage is created actually. How are drivers or multidrivers 'tuned' to change their phase and amplitude to create a sense of soundstage anyway?


----------



## Argyris

I remember when I started in earnest with personal audio back in 2010, the descriptions of large soundstage intrigued me. I was truly excited about the prospect of a headphone doing something radically different from the "headphone" presentation I was used to. I remember when my DT880 first arrived I was disappointed that, while the sonic illusion certainly seemed "larger" (something that's really difficult to put into words), it didn't really get too far outside my head. It certainly wasn't a concert hall in my bedroom experience. It was merely a different version of the typical "in the head" headphone presentation. Over time I grew to appreciate it for what it was, and I accepted that headphones weren't ever going to do anything appreciatively different without different recording techniques (e.g. binaural recordings) or additional processing (e.g. something like the Smyth Realiser).


----------



## alffla

Yeah, I think suppose the large claims of enormous soundstage in reviews with all the flowery language are a little over the top, but I guess it's unrealistic to expect that a tiny IEM  plugged straight into our ears / slightly bigger but still small headphone just covering our head could create a soundstage mimicking an actualy stage or concert hall. Those are just the pros and cons of IEMs vs cans vs speakers.


----------



## krismusic

argyris said:


> I remember when I started in earnest with personal audio back in 2010, the descriptions of large soundstage intrigued me. I was truly excited about the prospect of a headphone doing something radically different from the "headphone" presentation I was used to. I remember when my DT880 first arrived I was disappointed that, while the sonic illusion certainly seemed "larger" (something that's really difficult to put into words), it didn't really get too far outside my head. It certainly wasn't a concert hall in my bedroom experience. It was merely a different version of the typical "in the head" headphone presentation. Over time I grew to appreciate it for what it was, and I accepted that headphones weren't ever going to do anything appreciatively different without different recording techniques (e.g. binaural recordings) or additional processing (e.g. something like the Smyth Realiser).







alffla said:


> Yeah, I think suppose the large claims of enormous soundstage in reviews with all the flowery language are a little over the top, but I guess it's unrealistic to expect that a tiny IEM  plugged straight into our ears / slightly bigger but still small headphone just covering our head could create a soundstage mimicking an actualy stage or concert hall. Those are just the pros and cons of IEMs vs cans vs speakers.



That's pretty much what I was saying. 
Once you accept the limitations and adjust your expectations it becomes a lot easier to stop spending money chasing unicorns and get on with listening to your music. 
I look at the elaborate rigs that people put together and wonder what they are trying to achieve. You are just listening to a bit of music !
Acknowledging all this might just keep me out of the snake oil merchants clutches and away from ever more Byzantine "solutions". 
Unless I am really missing something. 
I do have a Smyth Realiser on order!


----------



## Argyris

krismusic said:


> I do have a Smyth Realiser on order!


 
  
 Now _there's_ some impressions I'm interested in reading.


----------



## krismusic

argyris said:


> Now _there's_ some impressions I'm interested in reading.



It will be interesting as I was "blown away" by the demo at CanJam. 
All my audio fantasies fullfiled at once! 
It remains to be seen if someone technically fairly inept, i.e. Me! can replicate anything like in my own home.


----------



## StanD

There are different aspects of SQ or how we perceive sound. I do not find it necessary to describe them with audio slang that has no real meaning or lengthy strings of words (even if they are accurate). Short and to the point, as long as it is accurate and understandable, which may be not be entertaining for a forum flash mob.


----------



## RRod

krismusic said:


> It will be interesting as I was "blown away" by the demo at CanJam.
> All my audio fantasies fullfiled at once!
> It remains to be seen if someone technically fairly inept, i.e. Me! can replicate anything like in my own home.


 
  
 And the reason they were fulfilled (and why I ordered one too), is that if you read their stuff it isn't a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about "holography" but actual proper implementation of binaural virtualization as discussed in actual technical books on the subject. 
  


argyris said:


> I remember when I started in earnest with personal audio back in 2010, the descriptions of large soundstage intrigued me. I was truly excited about the prospect of a headphone doing something radically different from the "headphone" presentation I was used to. I remember when my DT880 first arrived I was disappointed that, while the sonic illusion certainly seemed "larger" (something that's really difficult to put into words), it didn't really get too far outside my head. It certainly wasn't a concert hall in my bedroom experience. It was merely a different version of the typical "in the head" headphone presentation. Over time I grew to appreciate it for what it was, and I accepted that headphones weren't ever going to do anything appreciatively different without different recording techniques (e.g. binaural recordings) or additional processing (e.g. something like the Smyth Realiser).


 
  
 That's because headphones as dumb transducers can have a single frequency/phase response (since the channels will be symmetric but for error) and, well, that's about it. They can't do any interaural differences in timing, loudness, or frequency response, let alone make these things dynamic by allowing for head tracking. Any differences in perceived "headstage" for a given track are thus due to the suggestion of a speaker soundstage made by their overall FR/phase.


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> I remember when I started in earnest with personal audio back in 2010, the descriptions of large soundstage intrigued me. I was truly excited about the prospect of a headphone doing something radically different from the "headphone" presentation I was used to. I remember when my DT880 first arrived I was disappointed that, while the sonic illusion certainly seemed "larger" (something that's really difficult to put into words), it didn't really get too far outside my head. It certainly wasn't a concert hall in my bedroom experience. It was merely a different version of the typical "in the head" headphone presentation. Over time I grew to appreciate it for what it was, and I accepted that headphones weren't ever going to do anything appreciatively different without different recording techniques (e.g. binaural recordings) or additional processing (e.g. something like the Smyth Realiser).


 

 I had the same feeling when I got the AD700X (massive soundstage? Hmmm.....), the Q701 (maybe I didn't get a proper amp?), and when I tried the HD800 (ummmmmm...) and HD800s (I won't even comment anymore. Nice headphones though!). I was so underwhelmed. Not really with the HD800 and especially not the HD800s, as I've kinda already expected it by then, but it was still underwhelming, to know how little it a "gigantic out-of-head soundstage experience" is.
  
 Hearing someone talk about soundstage being massive immediately ticks my nerves, as I feel like it's yet another thing that gets inexperienced newcomers excited. Many people put huge emphasis on getting the biggest soundstage, even compromising other things to achieve it, when the difference isn't really that big, and they might as well have gone with something else.
  
 Indeed, I've also learnt to appreciate "soundstage" as how it is, but I can still enjoy my cheap IEMs with their almost as large (or small 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) "soundstage" and be perfectly comfortable with admitting it (it seems to tick people on gaming forums off more than on audio enthusiast forums, interestingly enough).
  
 ...that is, until, I discovered Joe Bloggs-sama's amazing crossfeed project, which introduced me to the world of DSP. Now _THAT_ is a true out of head experience.
  
 And it's free~!
  
 o(^_^)b
  
  
 ----------------------
  
 People at headphone stores do tend to give me a weird look when I say I'm using DSP on my phone to listen to the expensive headphones though. But that's okay. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
  
 ---------------------
  
 Maybe now I'm a loyal DSP subjectivist?


----------



## krismusic

u-3c said:


> I had the same feeling when I got the AD700X (massive soundstage? Hmmm.....), the Q701 (maybe I didn't get a proper amp?), and when I tried the HD800 (ummmmmm...) and HD800s (I won't even comment anymore. Nice headphones though!). I was so underwhelmed. Not really with the HD800 and especially not the HD800s, as I've kinda already expected it by then, but it was still underwhelming, to know how little it a "gigantic out-of-head soundstage experience" is.
> 
> Hearing someone talk about soundstage being massive immediately ticks my nerves, as I feel like it's yet another thing that gets inexperienced newcomers excited. Many people put huge emphasis on getting the biggest soundstage, even compromising other things to achieve it, when the difference isn't really that big, and they might as well have gone with something else.
> 
> ...



Having heard the Realiser I am very interested in DSP. Unfortunately nothing seems to be available for the iPhone.


----------



## StanD

krismusic said:


> Having heard the Realiser I am very interested in DSP. Unfortunately nothing seems to be available for the iPhone.


 
 You can get Neutron player for iDevices, It has a parametric EQ, Crossfeed or Surround Sound for a DSP effect. On android it works with many external DACs, on the App Store it says that it supports DACs.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/neutron-music-player/id766858884?mt=8


----------



## krismusic

stand said:


> You can get Neutron player for iDevices, It has a parametric EQ, Crossfeed or Surround Sound for a DSP effect. On android it works with many external DACs, on the App Store it says that it supports DACs.
> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/neutron-music-player/id766858884?mt=8



Thanks Stan. I guess it won't work with Tidal. I'll check it out for other music though.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> People at headphone stores do tend to give me a weird look when I say I'm using DSP on my phone to listen to the expensive headphones though. But that's okay.


 
  
 I don't understand why there is a conception that signal processing necessarily reduces the quality of the audio... If it's done correctly, you should always still have 80+dB of SFDR... that distortion is going to be inaudible. And it's probably better than distortion you'll pick up in the analog section (keyword probably.. not really sure about it).


----------



## Joe Bloggs

krismusic said:


> Having heard the Realiser I am very interested in DSP. Unfortunately nothing seems to be available for the iPhone.




You're on the Mac side for a computer too? Otherwise you could just try the foobar plugin on the PC first.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Invitation post

"Hello there,

Would you mind posting your question as a new thread in the Sound Science subforum? (link to forum) You might find a very different set of answers there, especially as this forum's rules forbid certain viewpoints from being expressed anywhere other than in this specific subforum. "

Such an obvious solution to the Outside Sound Science ROE problem, why haven't I thought of this before? :blink:


----------



## krismusic

joe bloggs said:


> You're on the Mac side for a computer too? Otherwise you could just try the foobar plugin on the PC first.



My PC is ancient.


----------



## StanD

krismusic said:


> Thanks Stan. I guess it won't work with Tidal. I'll check it out for other music though.


 

 I use it on Android and can get music from a UPnP/FLNA source like Bubble UPnP. I have a Google All music subscription and stream from their library using Bubble to a variety of different players. It appears that selection of apps for music on Android are way ahead of iOS. Perhaps you can find something like Bubble on iOS.


----------



## Argyris

joe bloggs said:


> Invitation post
> 
> "Hello there,
> 
> ...


 
  
 It might get deleted as being off topic or inflammatory (disparaging Head-Fi or some such), but I guess we won't know unless somebody tries it.
  
 I had an idea along the same lines, of creating a beginner's guide thread in here which we could link to (and maybe put in our signatures) whenever a newcomer starts asking for advice. Such a hypothetical thread would cover all the most commonly held notions in the audio world and (gently) explain that there's little to no scientific basis for any of it, with the focus being on how to find gear that meets the requirements of a particular headphone and is high quality and inexpensive. Some links to helpful utility sites (like that Audiobot 9000 one that calculates how loud a given headphone/amp pairing will be) could be included to help answer that most common question: "I just bought <headphone>. Will <amp> be enough to power it?"
  
 A positive, friendly attitude (not the grousing us jaded hacks get up to on a regular basis in here) is important, as well as not getting too far into the technical weeds and not being too long. That last one precludes me from writing it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I'll admit I haven't searched very thoroughly--maybe something like this has already been tried?


----------



## cel4145

joe bloggs said:


> Invitation post
> 
> "Hello there,
> 
> ...




Not even worth messing with. There are too many other forums on the Internet where people can discuss audio science freely.


----------



## krismusic

argyris said:


> It might get deleted as being off topic or inflammatory (disparaging Head-Fi or some such), but I guess we won't know unless somebody tries it.
> 
> I had an idea along the same lines, of creating a beginner's guide thread in here which we could link to (and maybe put in our signatures) whenever a newcomer starts asking for advice. Such a hypothetical thread would cover all the most commonly held notions in the audio world and (gently) explain that there's little to no scientific basis for any of it, with the focus being on how to find gear that meets the requirements of a particular headphone and is high quality and inexpensive. Some links to helpful utility sites (like that Audiobot 9000 one that calculates how loud a given headphone/amp pairing will be) could be included to help answer that most common question: "I just bought . Will  be enough to power it?"
> 
> ...



Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Needs someone competent to write it though. If you had the time and energy, you could write something and others could contribute/edit?



cel4145 said:


> Not even worth messing with. There are too many other forums on the Internet where people can discuss audio science freely.



HeadFi seems to be the site that appears if you innocently Google anything to do with headphones though!


----------



## krismusic

stand said:


> I use it on Android and can get music from a UPnP/FLNA source like Bubble UPnP. I have a Google All music subscription and stream from their library using Bubble to a variety of different players. It appears that selection of apps for music on Android are way ahead of iOS. Perhaps you can find something like Bubble on iOS.



Yes. Android seems to have a lot going for it. What type of app is Bubble ? i.e. What would term should I search in IOS App Store?


----------



## StanD

krismusic said:


> Yes. Android seems to have a lot going for it. What type of app is Bubble ? i.e. What would term should I search in IOS App Store?


 

 Bubble connects to Clouds like, Google Music, Google Drive, Qobuz, Amazon Cloud Drive and a few more. It hen streams it to players via UPnP/DLNA. At one time I looked at the App Store and didn't find things that could pass along Internet music streaming services like Google Music. I did find one app that has great EQ and could receive from Google Music, however, it has been a buggy experience. The Google Player app on Android offers some EQ, the iOS offers none. I have a Touch 5th gen and was expecting much more and ended up disappointed.


----------



## krismusic

stand said:


> Bubble connects to Clouds like, Google Music, Google Drive, Qobuz, Amazon Cloud Drive and a few more. It hen streams it to players via UPnP/DLNA. At one time I looked at the App Store and didn't find things that could pass along Internet music streaming services like Google Music. I did find one app that has great EQ and could receive from Google Music, however, it has been a buggy experience. The Google Player app on Android offers some EQ, the iOS offers none. I have a Touch 5th gen and was expecting much more and ended up disappointed.



It seems this is not going to work unless I jump ship from Apple. 
Even then it sounds like an Internet connection is needed. I usually listen offline. 
A shame that Tidal cannot be supported directly by Neutron.


----------



## StanD

krismusic said:


> It seems this is not going to work unless I jump ship from Apple.
> Even then it sounds like an Internet connection is needed. I usually listen offline.
> A shame that Tidal cannot be supported directly by Neutron.


 
 The Google Play app allows you to select which albums, songs or playlists that you want to cache for offline listening, and change the selections at will, On Android you can even select which storage device you want that stored on, external micro sd card. I live in both Android and Apple worlds and much prefer Android.


----------



## krismusic

stand said:


> The Google Play app allows you to select which albums, songs or playlists that you want to cache for offline listening, and change the selections at will, On Android you can even select which storage device you want that stored on, external micro sd card. I live in both Android and Apple worlds and much prefer Android.



Yup. It's a shame the digital world has this division.


----------



## StanD

krismusic said:


> Yup. It's a shame the digital world has this division.


 

 Unfortunately, Apple is a closed system. Good build quality, high prices, lately weak on innovation. They need Steve Jobs, unfortunately he's not available.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

krismusic said:


> HeadFi seems to be the site that appears if you innocently Google anything to do with headphones though!




And yet I just had a post (maybe more) deleted and a warning issued for using facts to correct someone who was sending people off with untrue information. If HF is what comes up first in Google, audio consumers are doomed.


----------



## Ruben123

grumpyoldguy said:


> And yet I just had a post (maybe more) deleted and a warning issued for using facts to correct someone who was sending people off with untrue information. If HF is what comes up first in Google, audio consumers are doomed.




Welcome to the club. Watch out, just a little bit more truth to the wrong place and you'll never see us again.


----------



## U-3C

****WARNING: I CURRENTLY HAVE NEW TOY SYNDROME****
  
 I have just heard a fake tube amp, and I love the sound! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 This thing costs about 30 bucks and  is not neutral at all, but I subjectively like it paired with my AD700x over a neutral sounding dac. I guess I'll call this my end game. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 It also acts as a small hand warmer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 ____________________________________________
  
 On a more serious note, I deliberately bought an amp that adds "tube" sound (according to people who reviewed it), as I was curious about what all the hype was about. Having listened to it for a while, I can see why people claim "it gives more soundstage" or "it is a good pairing with XYZ and has poor synergy with ABC." I don't quite want this to become a discussion where people point guns at me to make me conduct measurements. I don't have the money to buy the equipment! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 The sonic changes are well within the power of EQ, but at least I can understand a bit better the more exaggerated comments on how dac/amps alter the sound. The effect on me will probably die down over time, as it might simply be due to me hearing music I'm used to through a different lens. I am interested in reviewers creating honest follow up reviews on how their impressions changed over time, especially regarding how certain equipment compair to others. Not sure how happy people who bought products based on certain reviews will be though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Funny, I often get the impression that tubes smoothen out the highs and make the sound warmer. This little "tube" amp actually has some bass roll off (based on a quick FR sweep) and (subjectively) as a result, appears to bring out the highs more and give the illusion of better clarity and soundstage, which came as a small surprise (does this even make sense? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ).
  
 Don't know if I worded that right. I think I didn't, but I've seen more sloppy descriptions of this amp so I guess no Head-Fi police will come to my house and confiscate my keyboard. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I'm looking forward to doing a small test on my friends where they will listen to the two amps sighted, blind, and with both choices actually  hooked to the same amp, but the volunteer thinks it's two different amps. I already know the answer, but I'm more interested in the terminology they use to describe the sound.
  
 ____________________________________________
  
 Say, can 1 or 2 dB of channel imbalance give the illusion of increased soundstage?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 ____________________________________________
  
 It's so pretty~


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> Now I have heard a fake tube amp, and I love the sound!
> 
> This thing costs about 30 bucks and  is not neutral at all, but I subjectively like it paired with my AD700x over a neutral sounding dac. I guess I'll call this my end game.
> 
> ...




Think about how you actually perceive where a sound is coming from. What do you suppose the free space loss for a signal in the audio band is over six or inches? Not much. 1 or 2dB by any measure is substantial. But also keep in mind that amplitude difference is just one factor. Relative phase and frequency response in each channel are other contributing factors.


----------



## U-3C

grumpyoldguy said:


> Think about how you actually perceive where a sound is coming from. What do you suppose the free space loss for a signal in the audio band is over six or inches? Not much. 1 or 2dB by any measure is substantial. But also keep in mind that amplitude difference is just one factor. Relative phase and frequency response in each channel are other contributing factors.


 
  
 Alright! Thanks for the insight.
  
 o(^_^)o


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> Alright! Thanks for the insight.
> 
> o(^_^)o




Sorry I don't have a better answer. It's a non trivial question.


----------



## U-3C

grumpyoldguy said:


> Sorry I don't have a better answer. It's a non trivial question.


 
  
 No need to apologize! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Just a random question that popped into my head as I typed that.
  
 I'm currently scratching my head on what is it that is making me subjectively prefer this amp over my more neutral ones. I wish to EQ a similar effect onto my mobile devices. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I know my Q701 sound ear piercingly bright when I plug them in, so I guess there's also some impedance mismatch in play here? Or am I just being an idiot as I have no degree in EE...


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> No need to apologize!
> 
> Just a random question that popped into my head as I typed that.
> 
> ...




Not sure you'll be able to recreate it perfectly. Sound is more than just the frequency response. Audible harmonics are one example. 

Since impedance varies by frequency, it is possible that at higher frequencies you are getting more gain. Or at lower frequencies you are getting less gain. I sometimes wonder how local maxima are perceived.


----------



## U-3C

grumpyoldguy said:


> Not sure you'll be able to recreate it perfectly. Sound is more than just the frequency response. Audible harmonics are one example.
> 
> Since impedance varies by frequency, it is possible that at higher frequencies you are getting more gain. Or at lower frequencies you are getting less gain. I sometimes wonder how local maxima are perceived.


 
  
 Yeah. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Maybe I can strap a battery onto this tube amp and carry it in a dedicated leather bag for a mobile listening setup?


----------



## StanD

@U-3C Most people can't notice a 1 dB difference. Also are you talking dBV, dBW or dBSPL? An Increase of 6dBV, 3dBW and 10dBSPL represent an increase of 2X so they are not the same story, nor a measurement of the same property.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Somebody should create a tube with an LED in it that can be powered by a watch battery.  They make LED candles already, this would be a similar principle.  A standalone product that would be lit to appear like a glowing, powered tube.  Just set this mock tube on top of any amp, or even a shoebox for that matter.  They would be inexpensive to make and they could be sold at various quantities in packs so that dozens of them could be placed on and around the audio gear.  Psychologically, this could potentially improve the listening enjoyment.  In some cases, they might even show a measurable improvement compared to real tube amplifiers.


----------



## Ruben123

sonitus mirus said:


> Somebody should create a tube with an LED in it that can be powered by a watch battery.  They make LED candles already, this would be a similar principle.  A standalone product that would be lit to appear like a glowing, powered tube.  Just set this mock tube on top of any amp, or even a shoebox for that matter.  They would be inexpensive to make and they could be sold at various quantities in packs so that dozens of them could be placed on and around the audio gear.  Psychologically, this could potentially improve the listening enjoyment.  In some cases, they might even show a measurable improvement compared to real tube amplifiers.


 

 Would be fun to try. "Sir, I here have two the same amps... one is based on the tube principle, the other is an SS from the inside." "Oh wow I hear so much more details, more musical sound, more harmonics and a more intimate feel." "Excuse me sir, I was supposed to put this tube on the other amp. Youve listened to the same amp twice."


----------



## StanD

When you can't explain what doesn't even exist, resort to magic.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/782824/schiit-fire-and-save-matches-bifrost-multibit-is-here/2355#post_12903490
 I'm afraid to think of how many people are led astray by this kind of story telling and end up spending money that they could use more fruitfully on other more important things.


----------



## U-3C

sonitus mirus said:


> Somebody should create a tube with an LED in it that can be powered by a watch battery.  They make LED candles already, this would be a similar principle.  A standalone product that would be lit to appear like a glowing, powered tube.  Just set this mock tube on top of any amp, or even a shoebox for that matter.  They would be inexpensive to make and they could be sold at various quantities in packs so that dozens of them could be placed on and around the audio gear.  Psychologically, this could potentially improve the listening enjoyment.  In some cases, they might even show a measurable improvement compared to real tube amplifiers.




One of the biggest reasons I got this little amp was for a small psychological boost in experience. I just wanted something that glowing on my table. 

I guess it works as I intended it to work. ^_^


----------



## briskly

stand said:


> @U-3C Most people can't notice a 1 dB difference. Also are you talking dBV, dBW or dBSPL? An Increase of 6dBV, 3dBW and 10dBSPL represent an increase of 2X so they are not the same story, nor a measurement of the same property.


 

 The decibel is defined by ratio of power. Double pressure or voltage represents 6 dB. 10 dB SPL roughly relates to a change of perceived loudness at 1 kHz by a factor of 2, but represents 10x power and ~3.16 the pressure.
 Units of dB SPL and dBV reference a ratio compared to a certain value, generally 20 micropascals and 1 Volt rms.
  
  


ruben123 said:


> Would be fun to try. "Sir, I here have two the same amps... one is based on the tube principle, the other is an SS from the inside." "Oh wow I hear so much more details, more musical sound, more harmonics and a more intimate feel." "Excuse me sir, I was supposed to put this tube on the other amp. Youve listened to the same amp twice."


 
  
 Reminiscent of JJ Johnston's old tube/transistor amp comparison. The story starts before 20 minutes in.


----------



## StanD

The point being that most people cannot tell the difference of 1 dB as anything significant.


----------



## Ruben123

stand said:


> The point being that most people cannot tell the difference of 1 dB as anything significant.




I can. If you tell me there is a db difference, I bet I can hear it. Just tell me that there is an increase and it's easy to spot. Important thing is you DO have to tell me right.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> When you can't explain what doesn't even exist, resort to magic.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/782824/schiit-fire-and-save-matches-bifrost-multibit-is-here/2355#post_12903490
> I'm afraid to think of how many people are led astray by this kind of story telling and end up spending money that they could use more fruitfully on other more important things.




Yep. I think a lot of this is about spending more money in pursuit of a hobby that quickly plateaus. Assuming one doesn't collect various headphones, $1500 can get you a top end set of headphones and transparent dac/amp. One has reached a ceiling where there is no realistic path (from a sound science perspective) to better audio quality. 

I hang out a lot over on AVS. People are constantly upgrading by buying better speakers, adding subs, getting room treatments. Upgrading receivers because of additional features (not for better DAC). Adding additional speakers for better surround sound (Atmos must be huge boon to some speaker companies). There are SO many upgrade paths, and a larger percentage of people seem willing to accept that more on amps/dacs doesn't typically = better sound quality. Heck. My subwoofers in my living room cost more than a Yggy, and there is direct, obvious, measurable benefit from having spent that much. Here, people just run out of things to do with their money.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> I can. If you tell me there is a db difference, I bet I can hear it. Just tell me that there is an increase and it's easy to spot. Important thing is you DO have to tell me right.


 

 That's right, you wouldn't want to go _blind_, would you?


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Yep. I think a lot of this is about spending more money in pursuit of a hobby that quickly plateaus. Assuming one doesn't collect various headphones, $1500 can get you a top end set of headphones and transparent dac/amp. One has reached a ceiling where there is no realistic path (from a sound science perspective) to better audio quality.
> 
> I hang out a lot over on AVS. People are constantly upgrading by buying better speakers, adding subs, getting room treatments. Upgrading receivers because of additional features (not for better DAC). Adding additional speakers for better surround sound (Atmos must be huge boon to some speaker companies). There are SO many upgrade paths, and a larger percentage of people seem willing to accept that more on amps/dacs doesn't typically = better sound quality. Heck. My subwoofers in my living room cost more than a Yggy, and there is direct, obvious, measurable benefit from having spent that much. Here, people just run out of things to do with their money.


 
 You have to admit, test equipment can tell the difference, however, they cannot appreciate the difference. Yet we can't hear the difference yet somehow some folks can appreciate the difference. Go figure.


----------



## Ruben123

stand said:


> That's right, you wouldn't want to go _blind_, would you?




No sure not! Lots of problems when going blind. Night and day differences fade away.


----------



## krismusic

cel4145 said:


> Yep. I think a lot of this is about spending more money in pursuit of a hobby that quickly plateaus. Assuming one doesn't collect various headphones, $1500 can get you a top end set of headphones and transparent dac/amp. One has reached a ceiling where there is no realistic path (from a sound science perspective) to better audio quality.
> 
> I hang out a lot over on AVS. People are constantly upgrading by buying better speakers, adding subs, getting room treatments. Upgrading receivers because of additional features (not for better DAC). Adding additional speakers for better surround sound (Atmos must be huge boon to some speaker companies). There are SO many upgrade paths, and a larger percentage of people seem willing to accept that more on amps/dacs doesn't typically = better sound quality. Heck. My subwoofers in my living room cost more than a Yggy, and there is direct, obvious, measurable benefit from having spent that much. Here, people just run out of things to do with their money.



I think this is so true. I have said before, listening to music, to me, is an essentially passive activity. People want to turn the equipment into a hobby. Collecting together the "right" components for ultimate "synergy"and audio nirvana beyond the reach of those with less knowledge. I was told that listening properly, picking out all the audiophile characteristics is not passive but takes work.
Fineif thats what you want to do. Me, I just want to listen to some music to improve my day . I'm a sucker for high quality sound though. I am tired of that being exploited.


----------



## Argyris

For me, as I explained in the HD 600 thread, it's about meeting a threshold of minimum performance in order to enjoy my music without being bugged by audible issues (e.g. sibilant treble, obviously incorrect tonality, etc.). An HD 600 plus whatever I plug it into that offers enough voltage to get it up to volume passes that threshold for me at the moment. It's not perfect (the bass rolloff has been been beaten to death by this point), but it's close enough that I don't have to think about it anymore. That's all I was looking for nearly six years ago when I started my headphone journey in earnest, and now that I have it, I'm fairly content. There's always the question of finding something comparable that I can use portably (all my current options have their own issues), but it's something I'm willing to patiently wait for, rather than buy every possible contender along the way and analyze to death where they succeed and where they fall down, and how they supposedly improve when used with XYZ gear....
  
 What I'm saying with all this is that to me it's always been about the goal, the endgame. Owning the actual gear isn't very important to me. Some people are proud of how much they spent and proud of owning certain gear. I actually regret how much I spent before trying the HD 600 (much of it is worn or outright beat up through use and therefore unsalable), and to me, once new toy syndrome wears off, the gear just becomes a means to an end. Want to listen to some music or bang on a virtual piano in my DAW? Put on the headphones and plug them into the audio interface, or amp, or computer, or whatever.
  
 I'll always appreciate how good it sounds, because I remember what it was like before, but that's not the same thing as pride of ownership. If Sennheiser came up with a legitimate successor to the HD 6x0 line that kept the same tonality but slightly improved other metrics across the board, I might buy it if were reasonably priced and the differences were actually audible. But if not, there isn't some part of me that would feel inadequate because I still had the "old" and "inferior" HD 600. It wouldn't suddenly sound worse to me just because I happen to know there's a slightly improved version out there.
  
 Some people involved in personal audio would just have to buy the new one; it would bother them simply to know that it's out there, and no matter the price, they'd have to have it. They'd convince themselves what they currently have is now crap and that the newest shiny (once they've bought it) is sonic gold in comparison, and they'd gush about it with all the other people who bought one. They'd get to be a member of the club, get to administer impressions to all the relatively new Head-Fi'ers asking about the new headphone. It would make them feel so proud. Then somebody will pop in and claim that they paired the new headphone with <expensive amp> and/or <expensive DAC> and that WOW, _night and day difference_. And then it's off to the races to buy one of _those_, and the cycle begins anew.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> The point being that most people cannot tell the difference of 1 dB as anything significant.


 
 I agree with this 1 dB difference as anything significant for "most people". But just like it has been stressed - by you and others in "science/objective" threads ( particularly when A/B ing anything, be it sighted or blind ) , I will keep the 0.2dB or less as the limit when loudness differences are concerned. Re-calculated to power, voltage, etc levels that produce this said 0.2dB difference in SPL. I do it constantly while recording - and re-measuring the levels back at home would usually yield differences < 0.2 dB. The same goes for my producer/mastering guy; he is reliably capable of correcting any gain changes I am forced to make while recording ( the LAST person on this earth to ask how loud he/she/they will go are the musicians themselves...) to within 0.2dB - using residual noise during the pauses as the easiest way of doing it , or, in case there is no pause available, using various takes of the same music recorded at different gain settings . All it takes is dedication and concentration required. 
  
 1 dB difference in level can be one hell of a lot audible - in case whatever combination of amplifier and headphones/loudspeakers is just below the clipping point, say producing 1%THD at "-1dB" and hard clipped at "0dB" - where THD goes trough the roof.  And please - no "if this is the case, something is incorrectly designed" - electrostatic headphones/amps belong to this category. Yes, uncompressed recordings of live music or live mic feed are required to trigger this phenomenon - but why do you think Stax decided to make available technology first used for 009 in other, less expensive phones - if not primarily for increased SPL output /easier amp life/better overall performance ? It is reportedly much more than 1 dB - and may well mean I am interested in purchasing "new Lambdas with higher efficiency" - whatever their official designation may be. Regardless, I will be still running my Lambda Pros.
  
 One could also argue that a tube amp, sooooo maligned here, behaves much more "civilized" in above described scenario. It would go from say 1%THD to say 10%THD - and not trough the roof as its SS counterpart. I agree that in principle there always should be enough headroom not to drive solid state amp into hard clipping - but real life does not always allow for it.


----------



## StanD

@analogsurviver It's easy to make 0.2 dB gain corrections when you have a meter. Anyone who listens 1 dB below the clipping point of any decent Amp is going to go deaf, even if they listen to polka music. The argument of driving their amp into hard clipping vs. soft clipping is ridiculous as one doesn't want either condition for playback conditions, this is an argument for guitar players that like to overload their Amps and completely out of context. So I see that you're back to looking for fringe cases in order to make pointless points in a "science/objective" thread.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> @analogsurviver It's easy to make 0.2 dB gain corrections when you have a meter. Anyone who listens 1 dB below the clipping point of any decent Amp is going to go deaf, even if they listen to polka music. The argument of driving their amp into hard clipping vs. soft clipping is ridiculous as one doesn't want either condition for playback conditions, this is an argument for guitar players that like to overload their Amps and completely out of context. So I see that you're back to looking for fringe cases in order to make pointless points in a "science/objective" thread.


 
@StanD No meter required - because ears are that sensitive. We only use meter(s) after - to verify what was arrived at by ear.
  
 I did say it takes uncompressed recording or live mic feed - and under no circumstances will the music reproduced to full real life SPL sound loud, as peaks are very short duration. Be it percussion, brass, soprano, ... take your pick. If commercially available recordings are used, they are most of the time normalized and compressed - classical and jazz included, not necessary limited to more popular genres. 
  
 One can reduce the bandwidth in low frequencies ( in order to eliminate strongly asymetric sound of brass, effectively doubling the perceived SPL of the system that would otherwise clip - not by 1 dB, but by half - 3 or 6 dB, depending if one calculates power or voltage - (latter appropriate for electrostatics ) ) ; one can reduce content above 20 khz ( so the equipment downstream will have an easier time ) , one can compress whatever remains to whatever ratio one wishes or is told to do ; thus arriving at "master". All of the above is being used on daily basis in innumerable studios around the globe, limiting the true dynamics of the music by more than 10 dB - usually a lot more.
  
 I have to be VERY careful with volume on my own recordings; I try to capture whatever source within limitations of the recorder, reproducing a low level dynamic range music such as violin and high dynamic range as percussion can require more than 10, sometimes 20 dB+ correction with volume in order for the reproduction to be close to SPL perceived live. For violin I can not imagine SPL requirement to exceed say 100 dB SPL; percussion can easily exceed 120 dB SPL, even if violin can sound subjectively louder. I particularly remember the remark of a  cello player; he said that the orchestra has to hold back during violin concerto(s) - funny thing is, that the highest peak during Prokofiev*s 2nd vln concerto was - solo violin, by as much as 3 dB ! Levels exceeding 110 dB SPL in live music are extremely short in duration and we do not perceive them as loud per se - attempting to play a commercial recording at volume setting appropriate for an uncompressed recording can be terrifyingly loud and can result in equipment ( reversible ) and hearing ( irreversible ) damage.
  
 So, equipment loafing with commercial recordings can well be hard clipped by true to life recording - and this distinction has to be borne in mind. If we go to Stax Lambdas : Lambda Pro could exceed its spec by about 1 dB - up to 113 dB SPL without distress. Is this enough for music "live" ? No. The latest version(s) are capable of x dB SPL more ( I would have to check exactly how much this x is, but it is more than 3 dB ) - which brings the new Lambda to something really usable for "live" recordings - thus allowing say Mahler*s 2nd finale to be recorded and reproduced without constraints. There are usually some 300 people making as much organized noise as possible - only to be "silenced" by the few last whacks on tympani .  Let*s say those loud tympani last - together, combined - for two seconds; at least 3-4 dB more SPL is required than for anything else ( enlarged symphonic orchestra, 200 or so strong choir, gong, organ - all fff in the finale ) - and the effect is lost if those tympani have to be subdued in recording.  Yes, I admit this is an extreme case, but it is far from uncommon; Mahler*s music has firmly established itself as core repertoire of today*s orchestras.
  
 In case anyone is not familiar with Mahler*s 2nd - there are moments of complete silence, too; which can slowly grow into a softest of choirs - or instant  volcanic eruption of the orchestra.


----------



## castleofargh

can I agree with both of you? ^_^
  
 for casual listening, 1db is nothing. there is most certainly more difference than this between 2 headphones of the same model. and if we're talking about a global gain change, then surprisingly or not, I find it pretty hard to notice 1db or less. it's one of those things that is clearly audible, but hard to consciously notice if we don't have a rapid switching method.
 now with anything allowing rapid side by side comparison, it's fairly easy to notice 1db in the midrange. when I was torturing myself with Joe bloggs tutorial that required to make equal loudness contour with different IEMs, I would make several for each IEM to check if my results were consistent/reliable. and I would usually get less than 0.5db variations in the 1-2khz area. but I would easily get up to 4db sometimes at 40hz or 15khz. so depending where it happens and how much practice we have, I agree that 1db can be of significance and indeed serious tests should try to get within 0.1db of volume matching as usually suggested for good reasons(when we have devices that can offer such precision).
  
 the clipping thing does happen way more than it should, but I would still be inclined to check and find settings or gears to avoid clipping(digital or analog), instead of considering how to get the most enjoyable clipping sound. so that argument for tubes never weighted in my choices. but it's fair to imagine that between inter sample clipping, albums  already clipped, bad gain configurations/pairing, bad use of DSP, the opportunity for clipping is real for somebody who never cared to learn anything about how to set a playback system.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> In case anyone is not familiar with Mahler*s 2nd - there are moments of complete silence, too; which can slowly grow into a softest of choirs - or instant  volcanic eruption of the orchestra.


 
  
 As an example from a recording:
A soft section
A loud section (faded-in/out for your pleasure)


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> As an example from a recording:
> A soft section
> A loud section (faded-in/out for your pleasure)


 
 Well, that "loud" section is quite sedated ( compressed ...) - and it fades out before the real thing - tympani - kicks in. The quiet section in real life is limited by the self-noise of the venue ( and/or microphones/preamp self noise ) - there are ( very brief ) pauses with nothing sung or played.
  
 From commercially available recordings, the one with the most believable dynamic range I am aware of is on Telarc CD - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahler-Symphony-No-2-Resurrection/dp/B000003CSZ . It is a far cry from the above examples - but still not completely true to the source. But be careful  when playing this CD; establish what represents safe playback level for your equipment first.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> Well, that "loud" section is quite sedated ( compressed ...) - and it fades out before the real thing - tympani - kicks in. The quiet section in real life is limited by the self-noise of the venue ( and/or microphones/preamp self noise ) - there are ( very brief ) pauses with nothing sung or played.
> 
> From commercially available recordings, the one with the most believable dynamic range I am aware of is on Telarc CD - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahler-Symphony-No-2-Resurrection/dp/B000003CSZ . It is a far cry from the above examples - but still not completely true to the source. But be careful  when playing this CD; establish what represents safe playback level for your equipment first.


 
  
 I don't see how you can call one 3s (non-faded) loud section "compressed" or low in dynamic range, but fine. It was just an example anyway of an actual recording for those unfamiliar. I don't have the Slatkin Telarc, only Levi. I ordered me a copy so we'll see. The Levi is about 1.5dB louder in the loudest passage compared to the example recording (but with 2dB smaller max peak) after loudness matching. If that's what you call a "far cry" then it's certainly possible the Stalkin is a further cry.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> I don't see how you can call one 3s (non-faded) loud section "compressed" or low in dynamic range, but fine. It was just an example anyway of an actual recording for those unfamiliar. I don't have the Slatkin Telarc, only Levi. I ordered me a copy so we'll see. The Levi is about 1.5dB louder in the loudest passage compared to the example recording (but with 2dB smaller max peak) after loudness matching. If that's what you call a "far cry" then it's certainly possible the Stalkin is a further cry.


 
 I have 10+ Mahler 2nd recordings - including two consecutive by the same recording engineer.  And it is very interesting how he went about getting more/truer to real sound on CD from one to the next. I hope to get to record it under favourable conditions in reasonable future - the two "takes" I did get to record were done under less than optimal conditions - for the third time I hope to finally get decent conditions ...
  
 Going to live concerts helps - a lot. Problem with live concerts is the sad fact that the best seats have the highest prices - for a reason. If they are season concerts, one might wait for a really good seat - like for a place in the home of the elderly, only one way to get a free place...  Sometimes, these places are even inherited, compounding getting the good seat even further... So, very few get to hear the performance in the best possible way - which is inherently reserved for - The Microphone. Even the conductor does not get to hear the performance as a listener in the best seat ; move a couple of seats off to either left or right , front or rear from that sweet spot - and it is altogether different story sonicaly. It may even affect the "judgement" of an orchestra to have "too weak/too quiet string section" - comment by an inexperienced listener on the right balcony, after the concert given by the "little known" London Symphony Orchestra ... I was only a couple seats from the person that made this comment - and, indeed, compared to a more optimum seat closer to the middle of the hall ( expensive tickets...) , it DID sound as described  !
  
 It was amusing but not funny to record various sections of an orchestra from the player*s seat using binaural recording; believe me, the last person to ask how a symphony orchestra sounds is a player of a symphony orchestra.  The player within orchestra hears, besides him/herself, his/hers close neighbour(s) and louder parts of everybody else - nothing even remotely resembling the sound of the orchestra anywhere where the audience might seat and listen.
  
 Regarding compression : a tough one to explain without samples that have been recorded free of compression - and trough equipment that allows this dynamic range to pass unaltered. Once heard BOTH together ( no real result if compressed recording is played on "perfect" equipment - and the same result if "perfect" recording is played on usual, even high-end equipment ) - no longer "guessing" which recording has been compressed and which not. To complicate the matters further - most studio gear available commercially compresses the audio signal, unknown to the recording engineer - and without even the requirement to use the box with the front plate reading Compressor ...


----------



## StanD

What a lark. Human being's cannot detect 0.2bB differences in volume. If one plays back the some sound with a 1 dB change in volume, back to back, one can perceive a very small change, some people cannot. Put a 5 second gap between the sounds and everyone, except a supreme being, will not be able to tell the difference. Of course some people cannot accept that human beings have limitations and even insist that we can hear ultrasonic frequencies.
 DR is a funny thing and recording music is fraught with compromises that some fail to acknowledge. A listener in the audience is subject to ambient noise levels and the DR they experience ifs far lower than direct microphone recording or the use of transducers. In any case the recording process and the user playback experience are worlds apart. For example direct microphone recording excludes the audience's experience of phase differences, delays and reverberation. This whole thing about superhuman perceptive abilities is a joke played upon susceptible audiophiles.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well let's not get into too long a pedant's discussion of recording/playing Mahler  I agree with you on lots of this. Having played last desk viola in Mahler 1, right in front of the trombones, I can assure you I never want to hear a stage perspective of this stuff and would like some of that hearing back, please. I only have 6 Mahler 2s (Levi, Litton, Gielen, Inbal, Bernstein, Bertini); the first 4 are all pretty similar in dynamic range to the point where I don't judge them based on it. The Bernstein is about 3dB "hot", and Bertini 3dB more above that, so that in comparison to the first four it sounds unacceptable to me. I have only been to two live performances, and one was in the parterre, but I don't remember my ears feeling any more messed up than after a true loud home listening session. I'm sure the live performances are more dynamic, since the conductor has about 20dB of noise floor over my listening room to work with. That doesn't matter much to me, because I'm not sound-treating my house any time soon.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> What a lark. Human being's cannot detect 0.2bB differences in volume.


 
  
 There was a thread a while back where somebody was hearing differences between AAC and FLAC on some online test. It turned out the standout difference was 0.2dB of gain, which I was able to ABX but ONLY with the help of quick switching. To say one could match that well by ear willy-nilly is indeed hard to believe.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> What a lark. Human being's cannot detect 0.2bB differences in volume. If one plays back the some sound with a 1 dB change in volume, back to back, one can perceive a very small change, some people cannot. Put a 5 second gap between the sounds and everyone, except a supreme being, will not be able to tell the difference. Of course some people cannot accept that human beings have limitations and even insist that we can hear ultrasonic frequencies.
> DR is a funny thing and recording music is fraught with compromises that some fail to acknowledge. A listener in the audience is subject to ambient noise levels and the DR they experience ifs far lower than direct microphone recording or the use of transducers. In any case the recording process and the user playback experience are worlds apart. For example direct microphone recording excludes the audience's experience of phase differences, delays and reverberation. This whole thing about superhuman perceptive abilities is a joke played upon susceptible audiophiles.


 
 Really? A binaural recording - or to be super honest - _*binaural natural *_ recording ( a real person wearing mikes on his/hers own head, seating in "the best" seat ) does get to experience and record all phase differences, delays and reverberation - with zero difference in ambient noise levels, SPL levels of the orchestra, etc - and, when played back trough proper set of headphones, does give an almost 1:1 facsimile of the original performance heard live - save for the tactile sensation of bass, which can be added trough the use of the dedicated subwoofer(s) for headphone listening. There are a few threads on (headphone + subwoofer) theme on head-fi.
  
 Above described binaural natural is the type of recording with the very least compromise possible - far closer to reality than anything else.
  
 This is WHY I am so adamant regarding... well, everything, including requirement to support response way past 20 kHz. If you are (part of ) the microphone yourself, you certainly can not say you did not  get to hear the performance live - exactly there. And human memory for sound is not soooo poor as some would like to suggest; if you remember hearing say the decay of the piano lasting almost to total silence live that is being cut short far faster by listening to the recording, there is something wrong with the recording - don*t you agree ? It took me many years to try to correlate various aspects of subjective impressions with objective performance of the equipment - and would have preferred if the requirements for the equipment that passes above test would not be so stringent and consequently costly.


----------



## VNandor

stand said:


> What a lark. Human being's cannot detect 0.2bB differences in volume. If one plays back the some sound with a 1 dB change in volume, back to back, one can perceive a very small change, some people cannot. Put a 5 second gap between the sounds and everyone, except a supreme being, will not be able to tell the difference.


 
 I once took a blind test (audiocheck.net) to see what's the smallest difference between amplitudes I can still detect. Blind testing an 1dB (I assume it was dBV) difference was trivial and 0.5 dB difference was still passable. I personally failed the 0.2dB test, maybe if I tried it with a closed headphone...


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> Well let's not get into too long a pedant's discussion of recording/playing Mahler  I agree with you on lots of this. Having played last desk viola in Mahler 1, right in front of the trombones, I can assure you I never want to hear a stage perspective of this stuff and would like some of that hearing back, please. I only have 6 Mahler 2s (Levi, Litton, Gielen, Inbal, Bernstein, Bertini); the first 4 are all pretty similar in dynamic range to the point where I don't judge them based on it. The Bernstein is about 3dB "hot", and Bertini 3dB more above that, so that in comparison to the first four it sounds unacceptable to me. I have only been to two live performances, and one was in the parterre, but I don't remember my ears feeling any more messed up than after a true loud home listening session. I'm sure the live performances are more dynamic, since the conductor has about 20dB of noise floor over my listening room to work with. That doesn't matter much to me, because I'm not sound-treating my house any time soon.


 
 Well, we should exchange our 2nds - I have none of those listed by you, with Inbal and Bernstein on some of the other Mahler symphonies in my library.. To bad there is so much water in between... and yes, at least half of my 2nds are on vinyl.
  
 This is head-fi - primarily intended for listening with headphones. Therefore comments regarding requirements for the listening room should not carry much weight. Of course I also prefer listening to loudspeakers - IF there are suitable conditions. Living in a bloc of flats, playing - say - uncompressed recording of Mahler*s 2nd in the evening starting say at 8:00 PM on loudspeakers would create an "earthquake" around 10 PM - and lead to all sorts of trouble with neighbours. Also, the noise floor in domestic environment tends to be higher than in a (good) concert hall, further diminishing the DR.
  
 It is possible to recreate the live experience with headphones that is far closer to what can be ( reasonably ) achieved with loudspeakers. The higher is the DR of the music/recording, the more true this statement becomes. I have a particularly diehard loudspeaker-loving headphone-hating friend ; guess what, last time I was there, he boasted he added - HEADPHONES to his system ... He realised, at last, that although his speakers are adequate, his listening room will never allow for certain qualities in sound; mainly because of too small size . Very few of us are blessed with a big enough listening room ... for me, it is unfortunately only wishful thinking.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Really? A binaural recording - or to be super honest - _*binaural natural *_ recording ( a real person wearing mikes on his/hers own head, seating in "the best" seat ) does get to experience and record all phase differences, delays and reverberation - with zero difference in ambient noise levels, SPL levels of the orchestra, etc - and, when played back trough proper set of headphones, does give an almost 1:1 facsimile of the original performance heard live - save for the tactile sensation of bass, which can be added trough the use of the dedicated subwoofer(s) for headphone listening. There are a few threads on (headphone + subwoofer) theme on head-fi.
> 
> Above described binaural natural is the type of recording with the very least compromise possible - far closer to reality than anything else.
> 
> This is WHY I am so adamant regarding... well, everything, including requirement to support response way past 20 kHz. If you are (part of ) the microphone yourself, you certainly can not say you did not  get to hear the performance live - exactly there. And human memory for sound is not soooo poor as some would like to suggest; if you remember hearing say the decay of the piano lasting almost to total silence live that is being cut short far faster by listening to the recording, there is something wrong with the recording - don*t you agree ? It took me many years to try to correlate various aspects of subjective impressions with objective performance of the equipment - and would have preferred if the requirements for the equipment that passes above test would not be so stringent and consequently costly.


 
 That's it back to ultrasonic hearing and other audio mythology. Echoic Memory limitations are very real.


----------



## StanD

vnandor said:


> I once took a blind test (audiocheck.net) to see what's the smallest difference between amplitudes I can still detect. Blind testing an 1dB (I assume it was dBV) difference was trivial and 0.5 dB difference was still passable. I personally failed the 0.2dB test, maybe if I tried it with a closed headphone...


 

 Put a 5 second gap (silence) between the 1 dB change and you will not be able to tell the difference, that's just how human beings work. Echoic Memory limitations have been researched and proven long ago. Until one experiences this first hand, it's hard to believe.


----------



## analogsurviver

vnandor said:


> I once took a blind test (audiocheck.net) to see what's the smallest difference between amplitudes I can still detect. Blind testing an 1dB (I assume it was dBV) difference was trivial and 0.5 dB difference was still passable. I personally failed the 0.2dB test, maybe if I tried it with a closed headphone...


 
 I personally prefer open headphones - the most open of them all, the AKG K-1000.
  
 But only in very quiet environment; the noise of the nearby compact disk player can be intrusive, not to say a typical computer.  In noisy environment, I use closed - or better yet - IEM phones. The higher the isolation, the more likely the ability to detect small differences in sound.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> It is possible to recreate the live experience with headphones that is far closer to what can be ( reasonably ) achieved with loudspeakers.






Much popular music concerts have bass that one can feel as much as hear. A headphone can never achieve that. 

With the advent of object oriented sound, the live concert effect will be even easier to produce with multiple speaker systems.


----------



## sonitus mirus

rrod said:


> Having played last desk viola in Mahler 1, right in front of the trombones, I can assure you I never want to hear a stage perspective of this stuff and would like some of that hearing back, please.


 
  
 It just seems like I could play the timpani with a couple of hours of practice. I know, I'm a total ignoramus when it comes to orchestras.
  

  
 But then there is this guy.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> Well, we should exchange our 2nds - I have none of those listed by you, with Inbal and Bernstein on some of the other Mahler symphonies in my library.. To bad there is so much water in between... and yes, at least half of my 2nds are on vinyl.
> 
> This is head-fi - primarily intended for listening with headphones. Therefore comments regarding requirements for the listening room should not carry much weight. Of course I also prefer listening to loudspeakers - IF there are suitable conditions. Living in a bloc of flats, playing - say - uncompressed recording of Mahler*s 2nd in the evening starting say at 8:00 PM on loudspeakers would create an "earthquake" around 10 PM - and lead to all sorts of trouble with neighbours. Also, the noise floor in domestic environment tends to be higher than in a (good) concert hall, further diminishing the DR.
> 
> It is possible to recreate the live experience with headphones that is far closer to what can be ( reasonably ) achieved with loudspeakers. The higher is the DR of the music/recording, the more true this statement becomes. I have a particularly diehard loudspeaker-loving headphone-hating friend ; guess what, last time I was there, he boasted he added - HEADPHONES to his system ... He realised, at last, that although his speakers are adequate, his listening room will never allow for certain qualities in sound; mainly because of too small size . Very few of us are blessed with a big enough listening room ... for me, it is unfortunately only wishful thinking.


 
  
 The record industry seems to think that me giving you a copy of Levi's 2nd would somehow destroy spacetime, but thankfully used CDs are still a reasonable source for collectors. Re headphones: my HD800 still bleed like a stuck pig, so while reflections of the listening room might not matter noise sure does. This is true even for my PM-3 at work, which still let in a good bit of the noise they use to "calm" us here. As far as DR, I have a lot of classical CDs/downloads, and positively none of them have much, musically, going on below -70dBFS RMS. That means that anything more dynamic is pretty much its own paradigm of listening, because it DOES require rooms that are quieter than you will get just buying a house in the 'burbs. I mean, what's the point of making recordings where you have to be in a concert hall to appreciate them? I might as well go to a concert 
  


sonitus mirus said:


> It just seems like I could play the timpani with a couple of hours of practice. I know, I'm a total ignoramus when it comes to orchestras.


 
  
 It seems that way, until you pick up two sticks and try to even keep a beat  A kit drummer would of course take to the stroke quickly enough, but then you have to TUNE the bloody things... in the middle of a piece... without anyone in the audience hearing you.


----------



## uchihaitachi

rrod said:


> It seems that way, until you pick up two sticks and try to even keep a beat  A kit drummer would of course take to the stroke quickly enough, but then you have to TUNE the bloody things... in the middle of a piece... without anyone in the audience hearing you.


 
 and count flawlessly, even though there are often hundreds of bars of rests


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> It seems that way, until you pick up two sticks and try to even keep a beat  A kit drummer would of course take to the stroke quickly enough, but then you have to TUNE the bloody things... in the middle of a piece... without anyone in the audience hearing you.


 
  
  


uchihaitachi said:


> and count flawlessly, even though there are often hundreds of bars of rests


 
 Well, he does need to take a break.


----------



## StanD

I just had an audiophile epiphany, Most of the forum mob spends time studying the prevailing myths about as much kit as possible so they can sound clever while spreading the gospel or feel better about their purchases. Some of what carries on in threads makes my head spin, especially when people are in direct contradiction, often using vague terms to describe equipment that they may have never even listened to. I've decided that it is best to view this as entertaining.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> I just had an audiophile epiphany, Most of the forum mob spends time studying the prevailing myths about as much kit as possible so they can sound clever while spreading the gospel or feel better about their purchases. Some of what carries on in threads makes my head spin, especially when people are in direct contradiction, often using vague terms to describe equipment that they may have never even listened to. I've decided that it is best to view this as entertaining.




It's weird when people then try to back up what they say with science...and both sides start doing the same thing. 0_0;

Then you have two sides presenting completely contradicting facts and people start to lean towards the popular one, usually the one that suits their beliefs (always made easier by using more vague terms). 


----------

I just got called out as being tone deaf on another forum because I recommended the OP of a thread to stick with onboard unless s/he has any issues, as s/he it's getting a new computer and does not know if a sound card is necessary. I wanted the person to get the computer and try out the audio first, report back if there are issues so people on the forum can help troubleshoot the issues. If all else fails, then We can help judge if a dedicated sound processor is necessary (as 20 to 30 dollars worth of a sound card should usually only be spent if you really can't solve things that are bugging you. It probably won't improve audio fidelity at all with newer high end motherboards like the one the OP is getting).

Another person went on rambling about how onboard audio is terrible due to its poor drivers (I agree to some degree. Custom drivers can do wonders though), lack of good default DSP (again, custom free drivers/dsp FTW *\(^_^)/* ) and how it is noisy, makes weird whines, buzzes and pops based on what s/he is doing (potential emi and grounding issues, I assume? I wouldn't put all the blame on the onboard audio), stating it as a fact that all onboard audio are like that and they will never bother to fix it. The person used many big terms and names to sound like s/he knows what s/he is talking about. 

Maybe the person thinks that s/he does know what s/he is talking about. 

Maybe the person just needs a cheap external dac with optical in to connect to his past dedicated soundcard or onboard audio. In my opinion, that should get rid of a lot of issues that s/he is complaining about.  

When I explained some things the person can try to eliminate the issues, as the OP of the thread may bump into similar problems once s/he gets the new computer, I got this interesting reply:

_"I have no idea what you mean by a noise floor. All I know is that on ANY output connected, be it on the front or back connectors, speakers or headset, the realtek onboard on that system outputs an aggravating buzz at best, and a snap-crackle-pop that is offensive at worst."_

I guess the person suddenly had a moment and started being rather aggressive to the other people replying to the OP, talking about how onboard audio (by realtek) and newer sound cards by Asus and Creative do not bother with fixing issues and that older sound cards are the only ones truly worth it as they deliver "real 5.1 surround sound." Eventually, after s/he couldn't find people who agreed with him/her, s/he posted a video that demonstrates the differences between the DSP s/he was trying to explain (the very old EAX that nobody really cares much about).

Perhaps the person was trying to search for a common voice (after calling some of the most reputable people on the site tone-deaf)? But...sound it's subjective and the only feedback the person got so far is that it sounds worse with his/her DSP of choice. 0_0;

Contradicting info in this case is indeed entertaining. Kinda want to see the person's face when reading people's feedback. The person did call all of us tone-deaf, after all.


----------



## StanD

@U-3C You should have replied that you may be tone deaf but at least you can hear ultrasonic frequencies. I wonder if that person knows what tone deaf means?
 What this about ground problems when using the internal sound card? That makes no sense, ground loops occur when connecting to external components like DACs and Amps. Although it isn't always easy, I learned not to take crazy stuff to heart, or at least try not to.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> @U-3C
> You should have replied that you may be tone deaf but at least you can hear ultrasonic frequencies. I wonder if that person knows what tone deaf means?
> What this about ground problems when using the internal sound card? That makes no sense, ground loops occur when connecting to external components like DACs and Amps. Although it isn't always easy, I learned not to take crazy stuff to heart, or at least try not to.




I see.

Since you mentioned ground problems don't exist with internal sound cards (did I understand this correctly?), may I ask for a reason why (hopefully in layman's terms)?

The reason I ask is both because I have zero understanding of how this works, and because I recall watching videos where people will record sound via the mic in on onboard audio and internal dedicated sound cards when they touch and let go of their metal computer chassis. It was to demonstrate that touching the chassis makes certain noises go away. 

I always assumed it was because of some grounding issue. If not, or if it is impossible and it's simply my poor memory playing tricks on me, please let me know so I can correct myself! o:


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> I see.
> 
> Since you mentioned ground problems don't exist with internal sound cards (did I understand this correctly?), may I ask for a reason why (hopefully in layman's terms)?
> 
> ...


 

 A ground loop occurs when a ground path potential difference between devices that are plugged into different power/mains outlets are connected by a cable. IN other words the grounds of both devices are at different potentials and current flows between them via the audio cable grounds. This can usually be fixed by:

Plug all of the devices into adjacent sockets on the same power strip
Lift the ground pin on one of the device's power/mains plug. Some might decline this for safety reasons, others will dismiss the safety issue.
Using a USB Galvanic Isolator if a DC is in the path.
 Many times touching the chassis ground of your computer will bring your body to the same ground potential and prevent hum and noise from being induced into the high gain high impedance mic input. You might have a poorly shielded cable/wiring going to the Mic input which makes it easier to pick up hum/noise from your body. t is also possible that the card is defective or poorly designed and the Mic input is not grounded properly, internally. This is not a ground loop issue.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> I just had an audiophile epiphany, Most of the forum mob spends time studying the prevailing myths about as much kit as possible so they can sound clever while spreading the gospel or feel better about their purchases. Some of what carries on in threads makes my head spin, especially when people are in direct contradiction, often using vague terms to describe equipment that they may have never even listened to. I've decided that it is best to view this as entertaining.




It can definitely be entertaining sometimes. 

That is, until the forum mob members who have plenty of disposable income to spend suck in an 18 to 20 year old who then has to eat peanut butter and jelly for three months and forgo having money to go out and be a teenager in order to pay for a more expensive DAC. Or when they take out extra college loans which are meant for living expenses to cover a $1000 headphone amp. Or when they explain that it will be another two weeks working at Burger King to pay for the FOTM headphone which is the "best ever!" when the person already has several headphones that are comparable in quality. Or when the growth of their music collection suffers because they are spending their budget on high res audio instead of CD quality. 

Audiophoolery is not a victim less crime!!! :mad:


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> It can definitely be entertaining sometimes.
> 
> That is, until the forum mob members who have plenty of disposable income to spend suck in an 18 to 20 year old who then has to eat peanut butter and jelly for three months and forgo having money to go out and be a teenager in order to pay for a more expensive DAC. Or when they take out extra college loans which are meant for living expenses to cover a $1000 headphone amp. Or when they explain that it will be another two weeks working at Burger King to pay for the FOTM headphone which is the "best ever!" when the person already has several headphones that are comparable in quality. Or when the growth of their music collection suffers because they are spending their budget on high res audio instead of CD quality.
> 
> Audiophoolery is not a victim less crime!!! :mad:




Yep. 

Quoting Benchmark Media on whether or not one should pay more for hi-res audio: 

"Buy more music instead."


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 One piece of overpriced BS can pay for years of a streaming service, Hirez not necessary.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

cel4145 said:


> It can definitely be entertaining sometimes.
> 
> That is, until the forum mob members who have plenty of disposable income to spend suck in an 18 to 20 year old who then has to eat peanut butter and jelly for three months and forgo having money to go out and be a teenager in order to pay for a more expensive DAC. Or when they take out extra college loans which are meant for living expenses to cover a $1000 headphone amp. Or when they explain that it will be another two weeks working at Burger King to pay for the FOTM headphone which is the "best ever!" when the person already has several headphones that are comparable in quality. Or when the growth of their music collection suffers because they are spending their budget on high res audio instead of CD quality.
> 
> Audiophoolery is not a victim less crime!!! :mad:




This sounds more like a problem with someone who does not have their priorities in order. That's not the "forum mob's" fault.

Edit:
I've come to understand that when someone solicits opinions, they are doing just that. The only time I have a problem with a response is when someone asks a specific question and they get a garbage response back that is not based on any real fact. Particularly when people start with "well I don't understand the technical details" but then proceed to wildly speculate about it anyway. Then get upset when someone calls them out on it. If they don't know the answer, why the hell are they replying in the first place?


----------



## dazzerfong

grumpyoldguy said:


> This sounds more like a problem with someone who does not have their priorities in order. That's not the "forum mob's" fault.
> 
> Edit:
> I've come to understand that when someone solicits opinions, they are doing just that. The only time I have a problem with a response is when someone asks a specific question and they get a garbage response back that is not based on any real fact. Particularly when people start with "well I don't understand the technical details" but then proceed to wildly speculate about it anyway. Then get upset when someone calls them out on it. If they don't know the answer, why the hell are they replying in the first place?


 

 ​As much as I hate to agree with him, I agree. It's ultimately entirely on the person buying it, whether they were mislead or not. _Caviat emptor_, as they say.


----------



## castleofargh

one decides on his priorities, I often give priority to ease of use before sound quality for example. in an audiophile hobby that could seem messed up, but I'm happier that way. I'm always interested in facts and fidelity variables, but that will in the end be only a small factor in my decisions. if somebody wants highres or uber clock anti jitter gizmo, he might desire those stuff because of false advertising and ignorance, and we can try to explain things we know to him, but still he does what he wants to do, and that's important.
 I'm all for providing information to others so that they can actually make informed decisions, and I'm also all about whistle blowers warning everybody else against scams. those are IMO the duties of a concerned and sharing community. but I'm against telling people what they should do(aside from safety, law and stuff like that). because that implies my set of priorities forced upon somebody else. I wish to "fight" ignorance(including mine), not individuality.
  
 it's always annoying when someone tries to force his own priorities onto someone else. we annoy subjectivists when we insist that signal fidelity matters, and we get annoyed when a guy is overselling his overpriced crap gear as "the bestest of things" when we know for a fact that it measures worst than a few 150$ devices. this goes both ways but it's just one problem, a guy thinking that the world is watching through his eyes with his own set of priorities.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

castleofargh said:


> one decides on his priorities, I often give priority to ease of use before sound quality for example. in an audiophile hobby that could seem messed up, but I'm happier that way. I'm always interested in facts and fidelity variables, but that will in the end be only a small factor in my decisions. if somebody wants highres or uber clock anti jitter gizmo, he might desire those stuff because of false advertising and ignorance, and we can try to explain things we know to him, but still he does what he wants to do, and that's important.
> I'm all for providing information to others so that they can actually make informed decisions, and I'm also all about whistle blowers warning everybody else against scams. those are IMO the duties of a concerned and sharing community. but I'm against telling people what they should do(aside from safety, law and stuff like that). because that implies my set of priorities forced upon somebody else. I wish to "fight" ignorance(including mine), not individuality.
> 
> it's always annoying when someone tries to force his own priorities onto someone else. we annoy subjectivists when we insist that signal fidelity matters, and we get annoyed when a guy is overselling his overpriced crap gear as "the bestest of things" when we know for a fact that it measures worst than a few 150$ devices. this goes both ways but it's just one problem, a guy thinking that the world is watching through his eyes with his own set of priorities.




I don't disagree with most of what you are saying. 

But in this case I was just pointing out that perhaps paying for school or eating is a little more important than getting the latest piece of audio gear because someone on a forum recommended it with the persistance of a used car salesman.


----------



## StanD

To me one big problem is the unsuspecting layperson doesn't know what to believe and is susceptible to the cries of the crowd and might believe in the numbers of people spouting stories. Once they fall to the dark side of the force, they are lost and so is their wallet.


----------



## Argyris

stand said:


> To me one big problem is the unsuspecting layperson doesn't know what to believe and is susceptible to the cries of the crowd and might believe in the numbers of people spouting stories. Once they fall to the dark side of the force, they are lost and so is their wallet.


 
  
 That's what bothers me. We can say whatever we like about it, but the fact is, most people place their trust in the masses. They figure if lots of other people are doing something, it must be right, so they choose to do it, too. Especially if they don't know much about a given field, they'll just adopt the prevailing wisdom. And if somebody speaks against the masses and is dogpiled, a newcomer will often just assume that the outlier is a nut of some kind making a long-debunked argument and ignore them.
  
 The problem is that the "masses" in this case are the tiny minority of people involved in the personal audio hobby. The vast majority of people would take one look at the claims routinely uttered here ($1,000 cables improving the sound? Amps and DACs making a humongous difference in sound? The need to run a headphone with a 200 mW maximum input with multiple _watts_ of power to "drive it correctly"?) and say it's ridiculous. But when you enter one of the places where people who actually believe this stuff congregate, they become the majority. Usually since you pretty much have to want to believe this stuff in order to seek out such a community in the first place, it makes sense that you'd have such a high concentration of audio subjectivists, and the overall influence such a community would have on the world at large would be minuscule. The aberration in the case of Head-Fi is that it's also the leading resource for information about headphones, so lots of newcomers end up coming here for advice and end up getting indoctrinated into the subjectivist viewpoint. It _does_ matter what gets said here. People end up spending a lot of money as a consequence of what gets said here.


----------



## StanD

Here's an example of a post that I questioned. Once again someone makes up stuff and just throws it over the wall. I wonder how he'll respond.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/551345/hifiman-he-500-he-as-in-high-end-proving-to-be-an-enjoyable-experience-in-listening/17970#post_12923870


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> To me one big problem is the unsuspecting layperson doesn't know what to believe and is susceptible to the cries of the crowd and might believe in the numbers of people spouting stories. Once they fall to the dark side of the force, they are lost and so is their wallet.




Groupthink is never a substitute for making an informed decision accounting for all factors, including what is within one's means.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> To me one big problem is the unsuspecting layperson doesn't know what to believe and is susceptible to the cries of the crowd and might believe in the numbers of people spouting stories. Once they fall to the dark side of the force, they are lost and so is their wallet.






grumpyoldguy said:


> Groupthink is never a substitute for making an informed decision accounting for all factors, including what is within one's means.




Groupthink is a different phenomenon from naive newbies coming to the website and expecting to get good advice, not knowing that much advise is suspect. Their situation is more about wrong expectations. 

I'm not even sure groupthink applies to what happens with more established members on the forum except in the way that their rationalizations support each other.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

cel4145 said:


> Groupthink is a different phenomenon from naive newbies coming to the website and expecting to get good advice, not knowing that much advise is suspect. Their situation is more about wrong expectations.
> 
> I'm not even sure groupthink applies to what happens with more established members on the forum except in the way that their rationalizations support each other.




The fact that science and engineering is relegated to a sub forum of a sub forum and not allowed anywhere else is plenty evidence that groupthink is an epidemic at HF. 

But I will concede that I used the term incorrectly in my original statement. Let me clarify...

The forum mob has nothing to lose by recommending hundreds or thousands of dollars of garbage. If the purchaser blindly takes the advice of strangers on the internet... Well, you know what they say about a fool and his money.

Instead, the purchaser is best served by investigating the opinions and experiences of others and using that to supplement an informed decision. 

With the vast resources of the internet, there is absolutely no reason to not be able to gather the knowledge to make an informed decision. Especially in the case that was presented here, where a student has to decide between paying for tuition or buying an overpriced piece of audio equipment at the recommendation of a forum mob. 

It's audio, not brain surgery, a basic understanding of analog design and signal processing is first semester, freshman year stuff. Anyone can do it.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> The fact that science and engineering is relegated to a sub forum of a sub forum and not allowed anywhere else is plenty evidence that groupthink is an epidemic at HF.
> 
> But I will concede that I used the term incorrectly in my original statement. Let me clarify...
> 
> ...


 

 Freshman stuff for EE has a prerequisite of Calculus and Physics. I found the EE courses available in the Sophomore year of a 5 year BS degree. So I would think that the layperson might find it difficult to find the truth beyond the chanting of the forum mobs and gobs of confusing articles provided by Professor Google. Once the purchase has been made there is a good chance they will hear what they want because of the monetary commitment. Maddening isn't it.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Freshman stuff for EE has a prerequisite of Calculus and Physics. I found the EE courses available in the Sophomore year of a 5 year BS degree. So I would think that the layperson might find it difficult to find the truth beyond the chanting of the forum mobs and gobs of confusing articles provided by Professor Google. Once the purchase has been made there is a good chance they will hear what they want because of the monetary commitment. Maddening isn't it.




The physics and calculus are needed to understand why things behave the way they do... Not that they do behave the way they do. 

Of course the solution to the problem you're talking about is to unbanish those who have been exiled to this sub-sub-forum. 

I participated in a forum once (unrelated to audio) where you were not allowed to respond to posts unless you actually knew what you were talking about and had first hand experience. Mods and forum members were quick to put into place anyone who ignored this rule or were caught speculating. 

The mods at HF could better serve the community by imposing the same restrictions. Instead they choose to delete sane posts to protect the delicate personalities of ill-informed members.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > Freshman stuff for EE has a prerequisite of Calculus and Physics. I found the EE courses available in the Sophomore year of a 5 year BS degree. So I would think that the layperson might find it difficult to find the truth beyond the chanting of the forum mobs and gobs of confusing articles provided by Professor Google. Once the purchase has been made there is a good chance they will hear what they want because of the monetary commitment. Maddening isn't it.
> ...




Without knowing the why you're down to one bunch of people's words against another's--and the word of the average head-fier is that much closer and more "common sense" seeming than that of some obscure electronic engineer's.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> The physics and calculus are needed to understand why things behave the way they do... Not that they do behave the way they do.
> 
> Of course the solution to the problem you're talking about is to unbanish those who have been exiled to this sub-sub-forum.
> 
> ...


 
 The craziest forums are in the Cable Zone. Sometimes I wonder if sales comes before reality.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> Without knowing the why you're down to one bunch of people's words against another's--and the word of the average head-fier is that much closer and more "common sense" seeming than that of some obscure electronic engineer's.




And if we had to bet on the credibility of one source over the other, I would think Vegas would take the engineer. 

But that's not really the point. The point is that it shouldn't be incumbent on others to do your due diligence for you.


----------



## castleofargh

who to trust is a complicated issue. the average guy looking to get an audio device would of course expect to get better intel from an audio forum. it doesn't necessarily work all that well in practice but that's not his fault. anytime I'm a little sick and look up the symptoms on the web, people usually suggest that it's the bubonic plague or that I need to reboot my router. I reboot it each time I'm sick and I'm still alive, so I conclude that it was the right answer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 instead of making lists of every stupid claim we can read, ending up looking like yet another mob ourselves, let's focus on providing a better answer when we have one. if it's hard to do on the specific topic(I feel you), you can always come to sound science make a topic and elaborate on the "problem". provide the right answer and a good argumentation as to why it's the right answer. then next time the same BS claim is made, you can simply link toward that more relevant answer, avoid e-jail time, and maybe help a few readers see things for what they are.
 I won't pretend that it will change much, but at least that way we try to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.
 we could also track down every single overconfident idiot and torture them with a spork until they learn to shut the F up when they don't know the answer. but I've been told that torture wasn't effective in the long run. and it might go against TOS a tiny little bit. so making a post with a proper explanation in this sub section still seems to me like the better option for the time being.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> who to trust is a complicated issue. the average guy looking to get an audio device would of course expect to get better intel from an audio forum. it doesn't necessarily work all that well in practice but that's not his fault. anytime I'm a little sick and look up the symptoms on the web, people usually suggest that it's the bubonic plague or that I need to reboot my router. I reboot it each time I'm sick and I'm still alive, so I conclude that it was the right answer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I wonder if linking to a post in the Reality (Science) Forum will result in a ban? This seems like a good suggestion, however, if I get banned, it's all you fault.


----------



## cel4145

grumpyoldguy said:


> The physics and calculus are needed to understand why things behave the way they do... Not that they do behave the way they do.




I disagree that physics and calculus are key knowledge areas necessary for them to understand. The root of the forum mob's problem is that they value sighted subjective evaluation, and the explanations for why that is untrustworthy are mostly rooted in psychology. Take Psych 101 and understand how flawed human perception is, couple it with a little learning on the side as to how that applies to the audio hobby, then sprinkle in a little scientific methodology from psych, and they'd be more open minded to accepting scientific conclusions without necessarily understanding the underlying engineering.

For instance, I don't know jack about how a DAC chip works from an electronics stand point other than it converts digital to analog. But what I do understand--that there is a threshold where it's accurate within the range of human hearing--doesn't require a college level courses in engineering, math, or science.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

cel4145 said:


> I disagree that physics and calculus are key knowledge areas necessary for them to understand. The root of the forum mob's problem is that they value sighted subjective evaluation, and the explanations for why that is untrustworthy are mostly rooted in psychology. Take Psych 101 and understand how flawed human perception is, couple it with a little learning on the side as to how that applies to the audio hobby, then sprinkle in a little scientific methodology from psych, and they'd be more open minded to accepting scientific conclusions without necessarily understanding the underlying engineering.
> 
> For instance, I don't know jack about how a DAC chip works from an electronics stand point other than it converts digital to analog. But what I do understand--that there is a threshold where it's accurate within the range of human hearing--doesn't require a college level courses in engineering, math, or science.




But to be able to compare them in any reasonable way you have to under what is meant by spurious performance, causes of harmonic distortion, FFTs, impulse response, gain, attenuation, etc. 

Otherwise all you have is conjecture and speculation. 

These concepts don't require an understanding of calculus or physics. Hell, the only time I even use calculus is in algorithm design. But it does require some reading and understanding.


----------



## cel4145

grumpyoldguy said:


> But to be able to compare them in any reasonable way you have to under what is meant by spurious performance, causes of harmonic distortion, FFTs, impulse response, gain, attenuation, etc.




No I don't. Someone else who understands the engineering can tell me when the measurements on DACs show distortion that should be outside the range of human hearing, and I'll stick with the cheaper one. I'll listen to that person, not the ones swearing up and down that they can hear increased sound stage, more bass emphasis, and all the crap about expensive DACs that comes from the sighted evaluation crowd who all believe their hearing trumps what a knowledgeable audio science person can tell me. 

It's really not that hard. LOL


----------



## HotIce

cel4145 said:


> I disagree that physics and calculus are key knowledge areas necessary for them to understand. The root of the forum mob's problem is that they value sighted subjective evaluation, and the explanations for why that is untrustworthy are mostly rooted in psychology. Take Psych 101 and understand how flawed human perception is, couple it with a little learning on the side as to how that applies to the audio hobby, then sprinkle in a little scientific methodology from psych, and they'd be more open minded to accepting scientific conclusions without necessarily understanding the underlying engineering.
> 
> For instance, I don't know jack about how a DAC chip works from an electronics stand point other than it converts digital to analog. But what I do understand--that there is a threshold where it's accurate within the range of human hearing--doesn't require a college level courses in engineering, math, or science.


 
  
 There has been plenty of studies which showed the human hearing to be unable to detect changes which are much higher than the physically measured differences among many components they claim to be able to discern.
 I have always been open to be proven wrong, but when you mention the only thing which would actually show this being possible, a professionally conducted A/B test, there is always very little attendance.


----------



## Argyris

hotice said:


> I have always been open to be proven wrong, but when you mention the only thing which would actually show this being possible, a professionally conducted A/B test, there is always very little attendance.


 
  
 Not since Bob Carver. Now, the subjectivists react with hostility and filibusters whenever asked to prove what they're hearing is real. They say that it's just a hobby and what difference does it make to you if they're wrong, that they're entitled to their "opinion" and therefore shouldn't be questioned, that they don't have anything to prove to you, that only a completely tone deaf person couldn't hear the difference and that maybe you just can't hear as well as them, and a hundred other predictable responses. They complain that the tests aren't set up to show what they're hearing, despite claiming that the differences are massive and should therefore be easy to spot. They lately cling to the notion that the differences will only show up over long term listening, which is a rather convenient argument since it's very difficult to disprove in an experiment (never mind that what we know about human hearing and what Stan keeps bringing up, the brevity of echoic memory, is quite enough to disprove any such notion--but then you'd have to accept the science, which subjectivists flatly refuse to do).
  
 And note the contradictions--when they converse among themselves, they gush about massive differences that they hear instantly, but when questioned by an objectivist, if they don't go the hostile route, they immediately retreat into the blind-tests-don't-show-this or it-only-shows-up-over-time arguments.
  
 Quite clearly, audio is sentient. It knows when subjectivists are being tested, and it quickly clams up so as to embarrass them.


----------



## StanD

They can never accept the point I keep bringing up about the endless parades about how every new model is vastly better than the previous, with no end in sight. I then bring up that we do not evolve in our lifetime which makes keeping an improving perception in pace with this parade an impossibility, especially since our perceptive limits have already been eclipsed by modern hardware. I guess some folks think they are superhumans, some claim to hear ultrasonic frequencies. Loudspeakers and headphones produce far more distortion than DACs and Amps, yet the mob claims that they can perceive distortion levels 2 orders of magnitude smaller than speakers and headphones and thus can hear better than 0.01% distortion levels. I bring up what JDD (Just Detectable Distortion) is and they scoff at it. And so I've learned not to be upset at this madness, but instead find it humorous, otherwise I'd go mad. I also make it a point to take the high road and not hurl nasties, even when frustrated.


----------



## spruce music

stand said:


> They can never accept the point I keep bringing up about the endless parades about how every new model is vastly better than the previous, with no end in sight. I then bring up that we do not evolve in our lifetime which makes keeping an improving perception in pace with this parade an impossibility, especially since our perceptive limits have already been eclipsed by modern hardware. I guess some folks think they are superhumans, some claim to hear ultrasonic frequencies. Loudspeakers and headphones produce far more distortion than DACs and Amps, yet the mob claims that they can perceive distortion levels 2 orders of magnitude smaller than speakers and headphones and thus can hear better than 0.01% distortion levels. I bring up what JDD (Just Detectable Distortion) is and they scoff at it. And so I've learned not to be upset at this madness, but instead find it humorous, otherwise I'd go mad. I also make it a point to take the high road and not hurl nasties, even when frustrated.


 

 Yes, I like your points.  If each device said to slightly improve depth, and space and ease etc. etc. etc. was only  a 1% improvement (and they claim far larger than this) we would all have gear that would display recorded depth hundreds of feet past the rear wall, wider than a football stadium,  space of an aircraft hanger and so at ease as to be beyond belief by now.  Yet, somehow that hasn't happened. 
  
 Hey maybe all gear degrades rapidly, but slow enough not to notice.  After one year, any new gear, performing the same as old gear when it was new, is 10% better.  So you are really just reliving getting up to speed every so often.  Hell it makes more sense than most theories about this stuff.  And it doesn't make sense.
  
 When you realize some of the basic limits of our hearing stop just short of being agitated by brownian noise of air molecules the improvements in audibility are obviously beyond physically possible.  Yet, yet, I hear it and it must be so..............PLEASE GIVE IT UP!


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

cel4145 said:


> No I don't. Someone else who understands the engineering can tell me when the measurements on DACs show distortion that should be outside the range of human hearing, and I'll stick with the cheaper one. I'll listen to that person, not the ones swearing up and down that they can hear increased sound stage, more bass emphasis, and all the crap about expensive DACs that comes from the sighted evaluation crowd who all believe their hearing trumps what a knowledgeable audio science person can tell me.
> 
> It's really not that hard. LOL




Got it, so you want others to do the work and not contribute back to the community. Are you a millennial by any chance?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> cel4145 said:
> 
> 
> > No I don't. Someone else who understands the engineering can tell me when the measurements on DACs show distortion that should be outside the range of human hearing, and I'll stick with the cheaper one. I'll listen to that person, not the ones swearing up and down that they can hear increased sound stage, more bass emphasis, and all the crap about expensive DACs that comes from the sighted evaluation crowd who all believe their hearing trumps what a knowledgeable audio science person can tell me.
> ...




What?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> What?




What's confusing about that statement?

If someone does not want to take the time to get educated about their so-called hobby, why are they into that hobby in the first place? Let alone participating in a community whose sustainability depends on knowledgable members...


----------



## gikigill

grumpyoldguy said:


> Got it, so you want others to do the work and not contribute back to the community. Are you a millennial by any chance?


 

 Are you a baby-boomer by any chance?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

gikigill said:


> Are you a baby-boomer by any chance?




Nope. I'm grumpy and old, but not that old.


----------



## castleofargh

I stick to that rule:


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> If someone does not want to take the time to get educated about their so-called hobby, why are they into that hobby in the first place? Let alone participating in a community whose sustainability depends on knowledgable members...




I don't see how this statement connects with the statement you quoted, never mind that you would exclude 99% of all members here with this statement...


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> I don't see how this statement connects with the statement you quoted, never mind that you would exclude 99% of all members here with this statement...




Previous poster simply wanted someone to interpret the data for him instead of learning how to do it himself. 

HF clearly has a problem. If you think that 99% of members are that problem, then it's worse than I imagined.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> Previous poster simply wanted someone to interpret the data for him instead of learning how to do it himself.
> 
> HF clearly has a problem. If you think that 99% of members are that problem, then it's worse than I imagined.




You could say he suffers from the "appeal to authority" fallacy but admit it, we've all done it, and dangit, I've forgotten the where the proof for 95% of what I "know" comes from. And there are worse authorities to appeal to than scientists and engineers...

Besides, he was only describing the fallback position other members can take when confronted with decisions regarding things they can't understand on their own. Not his own stance.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> Besides, he was only describing the fallback position other members can take when confronted with decisions regarding things they can't understand on their own. Not his own stance.




Maybe I was confused by his use of first person pronouns, like "I" and "me". When speaking about others, people typically use terms like "they".

You don't necessarily need the proof to accompany your posts... Just as long as you've done at least a cursory check on the information. If you miss a detail another knowledgable member can correct it. Collaboration and collective knowledge is what drives a community like this. But the knowledge needs to be there in the first place.


----------



## krismusic

grumpyoldguy said:


> Got it, so you want others to do the work and not contribute back to the community. Are you a millennial by any chance?







gikigill said:


> Are you a baby-boomer by any chance?



Ha ha. Touché!




joe bloggs said:


> You could say he suffers from the "appeal to authority" fallacy but admit it, we've all done it, and dangit, I've forgotten the where the proof for 95% of what I "know" comes from. And there are worse authorities to appeal to than scientists and engineers...
> 
> Besides, he was only describing the fallback position other members can take when confronted with decisions regarding things they can't understand on their own. Not his own stance.



I am an older guy. I don't understand electrical theory and many other things. I guess I am not academic. 
However. I love good sound quality. I am very grateful for the knowledge and patience that I have been shown by members on here who do understand the theory and sometimes manage to stop me wasting time and money. 
GRUMPYOLDGUY, I am sure that there are things in life that you are not knowledgeable about and that you turn to experts for information and advice as necessary. That doesn't mean you are lazy. It means you have the good sense to ask for help.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

krismusic said:


> Ha ha. Touché!
> I am an older guy. I don't understand electrical theory and many other things. I guess I am not academic.
> However. I love good sound quality. I am very grateful for the knowledge and patience that I have been shown by members on here who do understand the theory and sometimes manage to stop me wasting time and money.
> GRUMPYOLDGUY, I am sure that there are things in life that you are not knowledgeable about and that you turn to experts for information and advice as necessary. That doesn't mean you are lazy. It means you have the good sense to ask for help.




Of course there are things I don't know about. And in those cases I ask friends who do. But I don't call those things my hobby either. I don't actively participate in those communities, because I have nothing to contribute.

There's nothing wrong with someone coming here to ask questions. There is something wrong with people who come here and start speculating when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about, refuse to learn about it, and argue endlessly with those who do know about it.


----------



## krismusic

grumpyoldguy said:


> Of course there are things I don't know about. And in those cases I ask friends who do. But I don't call those things my hobby either. I don't actively participate in those communities, because I have nothing to contribute.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with someone coming here to ask questions. There is something wrong with people who come here and start speculating when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about, refuse to learn about it, and argue endlessly with those who do know about it.



Agree 100% with your last statement.


----------



## StanD

It would be nice if everyone on the Earth was an EE, however, I don't think it's fair or practical to expect the layperson to study calculus, physics and tons of electronics just so they can enjoy listening to music. Should they spend years studying so they understand Fourier analysis or how to bias a Class A Amp so that it has a low distortion and a wide DR without relying on negative feedback and not overheat?
 There is so much to learn that it would be an unrealistic expectation, even though it would solve the issues I have with the chanting forum mobs. Hmmm....


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> It would be nice if everyone on the Earth was an EE, however, I don't think it's fair or practical to expect the layperson to study calculus, physics and tons of electronics just so they can enjoy listening to music. Should they spend years studying so they understand Fourier analysis or how to bias a Class A Amp so that it has a low distortion and a wide DR without relying on negative feedback and not overheat?
> There is so much to learn that it would be an unrealistic expectation, even though it would solve the issues I have with the chanting forum mobs. Hmmm....




Well, as I said, the basics are sufficient. You don't need to know how to write an FFT algorithm recursively in matlab to know what it does, how to use it and interpret a plot of one. I mean really, we're talking about a couple of hours on Wikipedia here. 

But lets say you're right. Let's say it it is wholly unreasonable to spend half a day on a weekend trying to understand the basics of something they call a hobby, before going online and providing unsuspecting people guidance and information. 

Is it still reasonable for them to pretend they know what they're talking about and use ridiculous terminology to mask their ignorance? Is it reasonable for them to answer the questions of honest newbies with wild speculation and mislead them down the same path? Is it reasonable for them to get angry and yell at people who try to correct them and get the right information out there?


----------



## Brooko

GRUMPYOLDGUY said:
			
		

> .
> The mods at HF could better serve the community by imposing the same restrictions. Instead they choose to delete sane posts to protect the delicate personalities of ill-informed members.




Is it just me finding the irony of what you're suggesting - that Mods "choose" to delete sane posts, and then you talking about the "ill-informed" in the same sentence?

Mods don't get to choose. We have to be impartial. We are guided by a set of rules which everyone should know - it's in the TOS and Posting Guidelines which each member agrees to when signing up. We don't make the rules - we simply apply them.

The issue I see a lot of the time is people making critical judgement of Moderators - when it's those same people who are singularly I'll-informed about what we do. And when we do our jobs and enforce the same rules - who is it that invariably cops some form of sarcasm or abuse? Oh yes - the Mods - when all we are doing is applying the rules of the forum.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

brooko said:


> Is it just me finding the irony of what you're suggesting - that Mods "choose" to delete sane posts, and then you talking about the "ill-informed" in the same sentence?
> 
> Mods don't get to choose. We have to be impartial. We are guided by a set of rules which everyone should know - it's in the TOS and Posting Guidelines which each member agrees to when signing up. We don't make the rules - we simply apply them.
> 
> The issue I see a lot of the time is people making critical judgement of Moderators - when it's those same people who are singularly I'll-informed about what we do. And when we do our jobs and enforce the same rules - who is it that invariably cops some form of sarcasm or abuse? Oh yes - the Mods - when all we are doing is applying the rules of the forum.




You seem to have missed the part where I suggested a rule change. 

But you're right... The fact that I said mods "choose" to delete sane posts is simply wrong. Better phrasing would be that the rules here are structured so that mods are forced to delete sane posts to protect the delicate personalities of ill-informed members. 

You are 100% right. I apologize for misspeaking.


----------



## bfreedma

grumpyoldguy said:


> Well, as I said, the basics are sufficient. You don't need to know how write an FFT algorithm recursively in matlab to know what it does and how to use it and interpret a plot of one. I mean really, we're talking about a couple of hours on Wikipedia here.
> 
> But lets say you're right. Let's say it it is wholly unreasonable to spend half a day on a weekend trying to understand the basics of something they call a hobby.
> 
> Is it still reasonable for them to pretend they know what they're talking about and use ridiculous terminology to mask their ignorance? Is it reasonable for them to answer the questions of honest newbies with wild speculation and mislead them down the same path? Is it reasonable for them to get angry and yell at people who try to correct them and get the right information out there?


 
  
 While I fundamentally agree with you in principle, that isn't the reality or even a possible reality on Head-FI or most other internet communities.  Being realistic, it's going to require a lot more than half a day for most people starting from the ground floor to understand the technology at the level you want them to participate at.
  
 Expecting reasonableness to dictate posting on the internet?  Sounds like an impossible task.
  
 I'm not defending how we have been herded into Sound Science, or Head-FI's approach to punishing those who try to inject facts into subjective discussions, but it is what it is and those who run this site have clearly made a decision about how they want to moderate it.  Most likely based on their profit model - it does take funding to keep this site running.


----------



## Brooko

bfreedma said:


> While I fundamentally agree with you in principle, that isn't the reality or even a possible reality on Head-FI or most other internet communities.  Being realistic, it's going to require a lot more than half a day for most people starting from the ground floor to understand the technology at the level you want them to participate at.
> 
> Expecting reasonableness to dictate posting on the internet?  Sounds like an impossible task.
> 
> I'm not defending how we have been herded into Sound Science, or Head-FI's approach to punishing those who try to inject facts into subjective discussions, but it is what it is and those who run this site have clearly made a decision about how they want to moderate it.  Most likely based on their profit model.




How have the people here been "herded" into SS? You choose to be here - like any other part of the forum. And we have no problems with people giving their own opinions anywhere on the forums as long as they stick to the rules. And again I find the some of the comments slightly ironic. Apparently we "punish" (really?) people for injecting facts - yet in your post you make conjecture about moderation set up to protect a profit model - when I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.

Many of the rules are set up simply to keep the peace. It would be really nice if everyone was reasonable enough to listen to both sides of a debate. Sadly (just my experience) there are too many extreme views on both sides from people who simply don't want to take the time to listen and acknowledge each other's right to a difference of opinion. Personally I would love to allow the reference to placebo or ABX testing throughout the forum - but I don't make the rules. I do know they are there so the forums stay relatively peaceful. Inevitably when the rules are broken, things escalate, tempers flare, and usually both sides descend to name calling or worse.


----------



## bfreedma

brooko said:


> How have the people here been "herded" into SS? You choose to be here - like any other part of the forum. And we have no problems with people giving their own opinions anywhere on the forums as long as they stick to the rules. And again I find the some of the comments slightly ironic. Apparently we "punish" (really?) people for injecting facts - yet in your post you make conjecture about moderation set up to protect a profit model - when I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> Many of the rules are set up simply to keep the peace. It would be really nice if everyone was reasonable enough to listen to both sides of a debate. Sadly (just my experience) there are too many extreme views on both sides from people who simply don't want to take the time to listen and acknowledge each other's right to a difference of opinion. Personally I would love to allow the reference to placebo or ABX testing throughout the forum - but I don't make the rules. I do know they are there so the forums stay relatively peaceful. Inevitably when the rules are broken, things escalate, tempers flare, and usually both sides descend to name calling or worse.


 
  
 I think you misinterpreted my intent on the "profit model" statement.  Head-Fi (I'm assuming) relies on advertising for much of it's revenue.  It would be hard to maintain advertisers if their products were constantly being challenged in every forum on this site, thus the posting rules.  It wasn't a comment on moderation, just about the reality of running a for profit web site.
  
 As to being herded into SS, it seems hard to argue against that given the site rules.  Again, not arguing over the moderation rules, just stating the facts.  There are rules against posting on many topics in the majority of this site.  No ABX.  No real challenges to support claims with factual data.  Yet in Sound Science, the reverse is not true and it turns into a free for all.
  
 Just to be clear, I'm not complaining about the site rules or moderation, just stating what those rules are.


----------



## Brooko

By here's the rub. You can still challenge people outside SS. Simply relate your own experiences. Let others relate theirs as well regardless of whether you think it's tosh or not. People claim cable differences - I relate my own opposite experience but back it up with measurements. People claim burn in with an IEM. So I measure it when it arrives and again a month later. There is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. But the secret is not telling people they are wrong. It's showing an alternative view with facts to back it up - then letting whoever reads draw their own inference.


----------



## bfreedma

brooko said:


> By here's the rub. You can still challenge people outside SS. Simply relate your own experiences. Let others relate theirs as well regardless of whether you think it's tosh or not. People claim cable differences - I relate my own opposite experience but back it up with measurements. People claim burn in with an IEM. So I measure it when it arrives and again a month later. There is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. But the secret is not telling people they are wrong. It's showing an alternative view with facts to back it up - then letting whoever reads draw their own inference.


 
  
 Fair enough, though it does seem like every time measurements are brought up outside of Sound Science, it creates a stir that requires moderation.
  
 Appreciate and understand your feedback.


----------



## cel4145

grumpyoldguy said:


> Got it, so you want others to do the work and not contribute back to the community. Are you a millennial by any chance?




No. I'm an older Generation X who is wise enough to one doesn't have time to learn and know everything, but one can get good at validating the credibility of information in other ways. Based on that lame assumption dripping, ad hominem attack you just made, I would not rely on you as a credible source of information. :rolleyes:


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

cel4145 said:


> No. I'm an older Generation X who is wise enough to one doesn't have time to learn and know everything, but one can get good at validating the credibility of information in other ways. Based on that lame assumption dripping, ad hominem attack you just made, I would not rely on you as a credible source of information. :rolleyes:




So yes, then.


----------



## cel4145

brooko said:


> And we have no problems with people giving their own opinions anywhere on the forums as long as they stick to the rules.




That's not true. Head-Fi is a business and is certainly allowed to make it's own rules, but let's not pretend it's more welcoming than it is. 

The Head-Fi Terms of Service specifically says, 

"If what you want to post includes words/phrases like "placebo," "expectation bias," "ABX," "blind testing," etc., please post it in the Sound Science forum."

http://www.head-fi.org/a/terms-of-service

The policy tries to be nice by saying "please," but an effective ban on terms central to being able to explain one's scientific perspective is an example of intolerance and censorship, not a welcoming of all opinions.


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> How have the people here been "herded" into SS? You choose to be here - like any other part of the forum. And we have no problems with people giving their own opinions anywhere on the forums as long as they stick to the rules. And again I find the some of the comments slightly ironic. Apparently we "punish" (really?) people for injecting facts - yet in your post you make conjecture about moderation set up to protect a profit model - when I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> Many of the rules are set up simply to keep the peace. It would be really nice if everyone was reasonable enough to listen to both sides of a debate. Sadly (just my experience) there are too many extreme views on both sides from people who simply don't want to take the time to listen and acknowledge each other's right to a difference of opinion. Personally I would love to allow the reference to placebo or ABX testing throughout the forum - but I don't make the rules. I do know they are there so the forums stay relatively peaceful. Inevitably when the rules are broken, things escalate, tempers flare, and usually both sides descend to name calling or worse.


 
 I find that in most cases I've found a way to provide a balance to the conversation. It is not easy for the tech savy as one is held to a different standard as all too often I get an insult hurled my way, should I respond in kind (which I stopped doing long ago) I would be the one to get banned,  Many times I remind people to behave nicely in a polite manner and at times it works. Should any on the science minded team up, the thread gets sanitized and some science folk are kicked off the thread. Yet the subjective mob can go on an on, even toss around some insults and get away with it. For a long time, I have avoided getting drawn into such situations, however it is not fair. Just try and say something on a Cable thread and see what happens.
 So I've found a way to bring some balance to some threads, it takes patience and careful posting where one has to keep their head. Fair, IMO it is not.


----------



## Argyris

I understand the reason for the rules. I get that circular discussions don't solve anything and usually devolve into shouting matches. In idle moments I've run it round and round my head trying to come up with a better system, but every incarnation of rules and site organization I come up with has problems, often worse than what we have now. I feel like the issue is a fundamental one, that Head-Fi currently serves two purposes:
  
 1) It's largely a subjectivists' playground
 2) It's the leading source for information about headphones, particularly for newcomers to personal audio
  
 In order to make the site optimally good at one, its proficiency at the other must inevitably suffer. If it concentrates on remaining a hangout for subjectivists, then it will be overwhelmingly their viewpoint that newcomers are exposed to, with all the encouragement to spend fabulous sums of money on superfluous gear that that entails and few arguments against. Those just seeking advice on which headphone will fit their budget are poorly served by a community that will routinely try to convince them, based on dubious claims and unreliable impressions*, to buy upstream gear that often totals up to more than the cost of the headphone itself. If, on the other hand, for the sake of newcomers all unsubstantiated claims about equipment were banished to a subforum in the same manner that objectivist topics are, then a lot of subjectivists would simply leave and traffic (and revenues) would plummet. Obviously it's no fun if nobody's around or if everybody's restricted in what they can say (just ask any objectivist). Those just looking for a place to chill with a bunch of like-minded people are poorly served by a community that assails or moderates everything they say.
  
 I accept that Head-Fi has struck the balance it thinks is best, for whatever reasons and to fulfill whatever objectives it may have. On its site, it can set whatever rules it sees fit. I accept this. I just don't always agree with it.
  
 *Unreliable in the respect that human senses are easily fooled, and that human minds are highly suggestible and can be easily influenced by personal investment in a belief


----------



## HotIce

argyris said:


> Not since Bob Carver. Now, the subjectivists react with hostility and filibusters whenever asked to prove what they're hearing is real. They say that it's just a hobby and what difference does it make to you if they're wrong, that they're entitled to their "opinion" and therefore shouldn't be questioned, that they don't have anything to prove to you, that only a completely tone deaf person couldn't hear the difference and that maybe you just can't hear as well as them, and a hundred other predictable responses. They complain that the tests aren't set up to show what they're hearing, despite claiming that the differences are massive and should therefore be easy to spot. They lately cling to the notion that the differences will only show up over long term listening, which is a rather convenient argument since it's very difficult to disprove in an experiment (never mind that what we know about human hearing and what Stan keeps bringing up, the brevity of echoic memory, is quite enough to disprove any such notion--but then you'd have to accept the science, which subjectivists flatly refuse to do).
> 
> And note the contradictions--when they converse among themselves, they gush about massive differences that they hear instantly, but when questioned by an objectivist, if they don't go the hostile route, they immediately retreat into the blind-tests-don't-show-this or it-only-shows-up-over-time arguments.
> 
> Quite clearly, audio is sentient. It knows when subjectivists are being tested, and it quickly clams up so as to embarrass them.


 
  
 Ultimately, it's their own money, so they should be free to SCAM themselves 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 I see audio gear as tools to listen music. So, music is the hobby, and gear is ... gear.
 For them the hobby is collecting gear, and music becomes a tool that allows them to be led into believing they are better off throwing their own money towards to the XYZ device.
  
 As 3E (with soul sold to CS) with passion of designing audio gear, I secretly hope that the new device I am working on will have The Magic Sound, but it always end up like "pretty much sounds like the one before" (unless the current or previous had fatal flaws) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 So that's another hobby, not exactly cheap itself


----------



## Argyris

hotice said:


> Ultimately, it's their own money, so they should be free to SCAM themselves


 
  
 I guess it's one of those things that just bothers me. I was always the type of person who tried to stop his friends making bad choices and getting themselves hurt. Needless to say, I seldom succeeded, and eventually I learned that sometimes people are just bound and determined to make bad decisions, and that it's not up to me to save them. I also learned that it might be better to seek out friends who don't keep making destructive decisions, as we might have more in common. I was right about this, incidentally. This might just be another of those things that I'll need to back away from, and perhaps just avoid situations where it's happening as there's really nothing I can do.
  
 But it just breaks my heart, not when people buy the hype (and then buy the gear), but when they _walk away_ from the headphone they want because they believe a bunch of people who tell them they need to spend at least as much as the headphone costs on back end gear, otherwise it's not worth it. As somebody who wholeheartedly agrees with your philosophy that the point of getting involved with personal audio is finding gear that lets one connect with the music, and having recently found my long term realization of that goal in my HD 600 (to replace my DT880, which functioned in this capacity for over six years), it just makes me sad. Knowing how much musical joy my current setup gives me, and watching somebody give up on it like that--I guess all I can do is shake my head and move on.


----------



## U-3C

Woah, a lot has been going on since the last time I checked this thread! 

I know this has already been resolved, but... 






grumpyoldguy said:


> [...]Are you a millennial by any chance?
> 
> [...]What's confusing about that statement?
> 
> If someone does not want to take the time to get educated about their so-called hobby, why are they into that hobby in the first place? Let alone participating in a community whose sustainability depends on knowledgable members...





I just wanna listen to good music...being an uneducated millennial that can't read EE diagrams ain't gonna stop that! And I'm not even a millennial! 

\(;v/





grumpyoldguy said:


> There's nothing wrong with someone coming here to ask questions. There is something wrong with people who come here and start speculating when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about, refuse to learn about it, and argue endlessly with those who do know about it.




The sad part is, when people just start, they are essentially a blank slate. They know nothing. The majority of the people (based on my personnel experience) helping out to "teach" these newcomers on how audio works are the ones who don't know what they are talking about. 

If you are brought up in a world where everyone around you says that the world is flat, the world will therefore be flat. It's the truth that you are exposed to and those around you will make it sound logical. 

Heck, even today, some still believe the world is flat and they teach that I their children. I wouldn't blame a 2 year old kid for not being open minded and for trusting their parents. Although it's a bit exaggerated, some people do come to Head-Fi as a blank slate, having no previous experience in audio. What is unfortunate is that many of these "stubborn" people who "refuse to learn" may also have gone down the same path. I'd blame the system, not the people for this. 

And of all places they are required to post first for purchasing advice, I'm sure SS is not the most popular. 

Now, onto finding the next amp that increases soundstage, sounds more resolving and removes digital glare while making highs airier, gives vocals more authority and improves bass texture and makes listening less fatiguing. There's this rock that is lubricated in the oil of some Atlantic serpent. Swallowing it in one go while praying to the headphone god's under a full moon apparently does the trick!


----------



## spruce music

argyris said:


> I understand the reason for the rules. I get that circular discussions don't solve anything and usually devolve into shouting matches. In idle moments I've run it round and round my head trying to come up with a better system, but every incarnation of rules and site organization I come up with has problems, often worse than what we have now. I feel like the issue is a fundamental one, that Head-Fi currently serves two purposes:
> 
> 1) It's largely a subjectivists' playground
> 2) It's the leading source for information about headphones, particularly for newcomers to personal audio
> ...


 

 I think you have described it well.  I think it would have been possible with audio prior to the internet to have some journalistic integrity in regards to how things work.  For magazines to have educated customers.  They do anyway, but educate how?  At one time Audio magazine did measurements, reviews, had periodic articles on the basics of how things work.  Then subjectivist publications took over.  While they have educational articles from time to time, they mostly by reviews and opinions push the subjectivist ideas.  Everyone's opinion is good, you can theorize any whacky way you wish if it sounds like what you imagine could be true.  There is a lack of grounding in reality.  Ironically Stereophile does some of the better independent measurements available, but never really let contradictions in performance interfere with subjective impressions. 
  
 Anyway, no surprise most forums are overwhelmingly subjectivist in orientation.  People don't like being told they are wrong even when they know in their heart they don't know what they are theorizing about. Nor are they willing to test their perceptions.  Much more appealing to only do listening in a way that bolsters your opinion of your perceptive abilities.  If some other testing indicates otherwise just claim it is somehow wrong.


----------



## VNandor

grumpyoldguy said:


> Well, as I said, the basics are sufficient. You don't need to know how to write an FFT algorithm recursively in matlab to know what it does, how to use it and interpret a plot of one. I mean really, we're talking about a couple of hours on Wikipedia here.
> 
> But lets say you're right. Let's say it it is wholly unreasonable to spend half a day on a weekend trying to understand the basics of something they call a hobby, before going online and providing unsuspecting people guidance and information.
> 
> Is it still reasonable for them to pretend they know what they're talking about and use ridiculous terminology to mask their ignorance? Is it reasonable for them to answer the questions of honest newbies with wild speculation and mislead them down the same path? Is it reasonable for them to get angry and yell at people who try to correct them and get the right information out there?


 
 Audio is an extremely complex subject. If you want to debate audibility first you would have to understand and know how the electric components work, then do serious research about the mechanical parts, after that comes some anatomy, and after figuring out how our ears work, then it's time to learn some psychology and neuroscience. After you know all these stuff, then you can make a truly informed call whether something makes an audible difference or not. See where am I going? The basics may be enough if you want to pwn a newbie/ignorant forum member but if you want to have a serious and meaningful discussion, then it's not.
  
 A lot of us probably can't even design a dac or amp but we still say that DAC X and DAC Y must sound transparent because flat FR, low distortion blah blah blah, while we don't even know how the measurements were taken we just cited. So don't act like we are so much better just because we took our time and read some wiki pages, we still just make assumptions and speculate just in a slightly more informed way.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> Woah, a lot has been going on since the last time I checked this thread!
> 
> I know this has already been resolved, but...
> I just wanna listen to good music...being an uneducated millennial that can't read EE diagrams ain't gonna stop that! And I'm not even a millennial!
> ...




The world is flat theory might hold true for third world countries... This forum exists on the internet, therefore it stands to reason members have access to the internet and access to reputable, cited information. Your analogy is severely flawed.


----------



## cel4145

grumpyoldguy said:


> So yes, then.




Listen Head-Fi newbie with only 336 posts. After you get to 1000, we discuss whether or not your contributions have been useful to the community and how long it will take you to catch up with mine


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

cel4145 said:


> Listen Head-Fi newbie with only 336 posts. After you get to 1000, we discuss whether or not your contributions have been useful to the community and how long it will take you to catch up with mine




I'm sure there are members here with very large post counts that have never provided anything of techical merit/value. Post count is not a very good metric. 

The larger point I'm trying to make is that if you plan on participating in a community in a more meaningful way than just popping in to ask a question, it seems like educating yourself a little to benefit the sustainment of the community is a small price for admission.


----------



## krismusic

grumpyoldguy said:


> I'm sure there are members here with very large post counts that have never provided anything of techical merit/value. Post count is not a very good metric.
> 
> The larger point I'm trying to make is that if you plan on participating in a community in a more meaningful way than just popping in to ask a question, it seems like educating yourself a little to benefit the sustainment of the community is a small price for admission.



Guilty as charged. Hopefully there are other ways of contributing to the forum other than with technical knowledge. Otherwise I'm screwed!
OLDGRUMPYGUY your posts are starting to sound very prescriptive. There are many ways to relate to this hobby and this forum IMHO.


----------



## U-3C

grumpyoldguy said:


> The world is flat theory might hold true for third world countries... This forum exists on the internet, therefore it stands to reason members have access to the internet and access to reputable, cited information.




You'd be surprised how many people still believe the world is flat and is on the internet trying to prove so. 

:eek:

Though I acknowledge that my analogy was flawed. I originally wanted to change it as I wrote that post, but I decided to keep it as a joke. 

I didn't think people will actually take it this seriously...


----------



## StanD

Gentlemen, let's keep in mind there are unassuming naïve victims that ask questions believing that they are getting good advice from the mob. The anecdotes sound convincing to neophytes and hilarious to the informed. Yet in many circumstances they believe the mob. Today I got a PM from someone thanking me, I think they were afraid to post to the thread knowing they would get their ears pulled and neck stretched.


----------



## krismusic

stand said:


> Gentlemen, let's keep in mind there are unassuming naïve victims that ask questions believing that they are getting good advice from the mob. The anecdotes sound convincing to neophytes and hilarious to the informed. Yet in many circumstances they believe the mob. Today I got a PM from someone thanking me, I think they were afraid to post to the thread knowing they would get their ears pulled and neck stretched.



Good stuff.  I do worry about people spending money they cannot easily afford on gear that is of no real benefit to them. 
Im equally concerned that reading effusive posts for products, I get very tempted myself. 
It amazes me that there are products that promise the moon on a stick, that have enthusiastic supporters on here that in reality make no difference to the enjoyment of music whatever.


----------



## spruce music

krismusic said:


> Good stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Yes that is an interesting phenomena is it not?  People get very perturbed over something that makes no difference.
  
 As Mark Twain said:
  
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”


----------



## StanD

krismusic said:


> Good stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Often I think the mob's membership enjoys the banter and one-upmanship more than listening to music. I think that's pretty sad.


----------



## krismusic

stand said:


> Often I think the mob's membership enjoys the banter and one-upmanship more than listening to music. I think that's pretty sad.



I must admit I probably spend as much time on here as I do listening to music. For all the nonsense HeadFi is still a very interesting place with some good people discussing interesting things.


----------



## castleofargh

not really going where I hoped it would go. you guys are aware that the last few pages are exactly how a topic ends up locked, right? shooting in all directions, puny little battles about nothing in particular, blaming the modos or the business model of the very website you're posting on, etc.  admins are just as susceptible as the next guy and this topic isn't really Nobel prize material right now.
 if you have to complain, try to offer a solution. if you don't believe there is a solution, why bother complaining?
  
  
  about some of what has been said, here is my own take on things:
  
 -admins care about the rules, not about who's got the truth. it can look wrong for those who prioritize facts(I know I whine about that a lot), but if fact checking had been a priority, then the TOS would say so. mind blown!
 another problem is that modos aren't all knowing. who thought I became sound science modo because I was the most knowledgeable guy out there about sound and science?
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 QED, checkmate, game set and match!  ^_^
  
  
 -what I would like to suppress if I had mighty rule making powers, are people debating objective realities as if they were a matter of opinion. that really makes no sense, can't possibly be justified and is often pretty easy to spot. if the anti blind test TOS is all about avoiding shiit storms, why is nothing done against people who pretend that ohm's law is subjective? I wish we had some TOS to limit that. because it could really clean up topics and make people stick to opinion or actual knowledge when they happen to have some, instead of "I bought a dog 10mn ago, so now I'm a dog expert, let me tell you all about it is an affirmative confident way".
 or a real ******** Man but sadly it's a fiction character.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

vnandor said:


> Audio is an extremely complex subject. If you want to debate audibility first you would have to understand and know how the electric components work, then do serious research about the mechanical parts, after that comes some anatomy, and after figuring out how our ears work, then it's time to learn some psychology and neuroscience. After you know all these stuff, then you can make a truly informed call whether something makes an audible difference or not. See where am I going? The basics may be enough if you want to pwn a newbie/ignorant forum member but if you want to have a serious and meaningful discussion, then it's not.
> 
> A lot of us probably can't even design a dac or amp but we still say that DAC X and DAC Y must sound transparent because flat FR, low distortion blah blah blah, while we don't even know how the measurements were taken we just cited. So don't act like we are so much better just because we took our time and read some wiki pages, we still just make assumptions and speculate just in a slightly more informed way.




I disagree, I don't think it's overly complicated. But I do think it's a good idea to know what you're talking about before you talk about it. 

As to your other point... Most reputable reviewers will disclose their test setup. Those who are more technically inclined can easily pick up when something doesn't seem right and question test setup if necessary. Again, an advantage to having an educated membership. 




krismusic said:


> Guilty as charged. Hopefully there are other ways of contributing to the forum other than with technical knowledge. Otherwise I'm screwed!
> OLDGRUMPYGUY your posts are starting to sound very prescriptive. There are many ways to relate to this hobby and this forum IMHO.



I don't think someone who doesn't have technical knowledge can accurately compare and discuss hardware, no. You have to know what you're talking about in order to talk about. But those people can certainly still provide UI or usage tips, find products within a price range, etc. But no, I don't think it makes sense for such people to discuss the technical merits of said equipment. And that is not an unreasonable statement either.


----------



## Brooko

My statement
  


brooko said:


> And we have no problems with people giving their own opinions anywhere on the forums *as long as they stick to the rules.*


  

 Your reply
  
 Quote:


cel4145 said:


> *That's not true. *Head-Fi is a business and is certainly allowed to make it's own rules, but let's not pretend it's more welcoming than it is.
> 
> The Head-Fi Terms of Service specifically says,
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm just pointing out how ridiculous your post is.  As long as people stay within the rules, they can express any opinion.  You then tell me what I said is false - and quote the rules to me?  I'm hoping (again) you can see that in fact its your post that is wrong.  We weren't talking about censorship (and that is your view of it - ask a lot of other members here,a nd they'd say it was the site owners choice, and a way to keep the peace).
  
 You know the rules - simply follow them.  Stan does it.  So do I.  And you can make a difference in the forums.  Simply proffer an opinion, back it with fact, and give an alternate POV.  The issues arise when people try to shove it down other's throats - and that intolerance happens as much from the objectivists as the subjectivists.  Too many like having the last say - and that's where things escalate.  How much better do you think this place would be if there were more (sane/simple) examples of opposing opinions posted.
  
 I'll go back to the likes of burn-in.  Its a debate that will never be won by either side.  In the beginning I would try to quote articles, explain expectation bias, and basically argue to the point of no return.  All that gets is escalation, and useful posts deleted.  Now when someone claims burn in on an IEM I know, and I have the data - I simply counter it with my own experience and post the empirical data showing there is no change.  Sometimes I'll also point out that changing the position in the ear (or tips) will change frequency far more than "burn-in".  After that you leave them to it.
  
 No-one gets offended or uppity.  No escalation.  But then just maybe someone will come along with the same question - see your post, and have a little more information to make an informed decision.
  
 And I don't have to use words like ABX or placebo either.
  
 It's possible to achieve.  If the forum was truly censored - do you think I would be able to do this?


----------



## Brooko

stand said:


> I find that in most cases I've found a way to provide a balance to the conversation. It is not easy for the tech savy as one is held to a different standard as all too often I get an insult hurled my way, should I respond in kind (which I stopped doing long ago) I would be the one to get banned,  Many times I remind people to behave nicely in a polite manner and at times it works. _Should any on the science minded team up, the thread gets sanitized and some science folk are kicked off the thread. Yet the subjective mob can go on an on, even toss around some insults and get away with it. _For a long time, I have avoided getting drawn into such situations, however it is not fair. Just try and say something on a Cable thread and see what happens.
> So I've found a way to bring some balance to some threads, it takes patience and careful posting where one has to keep their head. Fair, IMO it is not.


 
  
 If you see that happening - let me know.  Mods aren't perfect, and sometimes we miss stuff - and sometimes the easier route will be taken to try and get things back on track.
  
 But what you may not be seeing is when an altercation happens, and the "objective team" have been overly blunt - skirting to the edge of the rules (and starting to step over them), and they are the ones flagged.  We can't kick someone if they've made their opinion known but stayed within the rules. You also won't see where we've PM'd someone and asked them to simply tone it down, and then been verbally abused by the person we are trying to bring on track.  Invariably in these sorts of situations - the worst abuse and accusations come from the more objective extremes (just my experience in the short time I've been a Moderator). 
  
 Its sad to say - but it does thicken your skin, and possibly does colour your next reaction to a similar situation.  Mods are people too.  And many of us have better things to do than clean up after others have "had their fun".
  
 But all of us love being in the community.  And kudos where its due Stan - I really like your posts.  Intelligent, backed with facts, and presented well.  More people should eb posting like this. If they did - then you'd notice an eventual shift in culture.


----------



## HotIce

brooko said:


> I'll go back to the likes of burn-in.  Its a debate that will never be won by either side.  In the beginning I would try to quote articles, explain expectation bias, and basically argue to the point of no return.  All that gets is escalation, and useful posts deleted.  Now when someone claims burn in on an IEM I know, and I have the data - I simply counter it with my own experience and post the empirical data showing there is no change.  Sometimes I'll also point out that changing the position in the ear (or tips) will change frequency far more than "burn-in".  After that you leave them to it.


 
  
 Wouldn't it be nice, if in the whole history of audio fidelity, at least once, they'd decide to shut all us up, and actually puts facts behind their words, and prove that, yes, they can detect differences even when eyes (or other senses beside hearing) are not part of the picture?


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> If you see that happening - let me know.  Mods aren't perfect, and sometimes we miss stuff - and sometimes the easier route will be taken to try and get things back on track.
> 
> But what you may not be seeing is when an altercation happens, and the "objective team" have been overly blunt - skirting to the edge of the rules (and starting to step over them), and they are the ones flagged.  We can't kick someone if they've made their opinion known but stayed within the rules. You also won't see where we've PM'd someone and asked them to simply tone it down, and then been verbally abused by the person we are trying to bring on track.  Invariably in these sorts of situations - the worst abuse and accusations come from the more objective extremes (just my experience in the short time I've been a Moderator).
> 
> ...


 
 I've learned not to get into insults as it accomplishes nothing, as Friday said, "Just The Facts." If anyone gets nasty, I politely ask them to stop, sometimes they comply or they'll start up another time on some other post labeling me as an objective technical type which I find amusing since they are arguing about  the technology that brings them the hobby itself. Sometimes a tennis match ensues, I've learned to point this out, finalize my case and state that we should move on. Usually it works out. I'm not expecting a large shift as it is easy to be fooled by one's perceptive/psychoacoustic limitations and many people truly believe what they think they hear and are not willing to understand what has really happened. As I've said, I feel bad for the newbie or layperson that is misled by such circumstances and wastes time, money and effort. The odd thing is that many times, they join the mob. I'll just have to chalk that up to life, take it in stride and move along. Turn up the music as that always works.


----------



## old tech

I came across this recent thread in the Steve Hoffman forum.  It was a laugh reading some of the magical thinking of their contributors - typically from the analog is best crowd.  Their understanding of digital audio, or audio generally, and the belief that their super hearing abilities is higher than musicians participating in controlled studies (like the Meyer and Moran study) is cringe material.
  
 What is unfortunate though is that while we have people with these delusions, it will continue the steady supply of fodder to snake oil and the real causes of poor sounding music, ie mastering and implementation remains unaddressed.
  
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/is-192khz-really-necessary.606676/


----------



## Argyris

I made it through a page and a half. No better or worse than many similar discussions I've skimmed through on Head-Fi, which basically means my limit is about that much before I have to stop.
  
 Here's a thought, though: wouldn't it be a dirty trick if some of the people releasing these "high rez" tracks were actually subtly altering the mix so as to make the higher bandwidth ones sound different--maybe a tiny high shelf boost to add artificial clarity? I know some very early compact discs were like that, except it's not subtle at all. I once had (might still have it buried somewhere) a Jethro Tull greatest hits disc from 1985 that sounded like somebody turned up the tweeter 10 dB higher than the woofer and midrange driver in a three-way speaker. It was so tinny and "crystalline fake" for lack of a better term. Obviously it was heavily tweaked to make it sound that way, most likely so that the layman could hear a difference in the then-new and very expensive compact disc format. How else were they going to convince Joebob McJoebob to buy all his Rolling Stones albums over again?


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

old tech said:


> I came across this recent thread in the Steve Hoffman forum.  It was a laugh reading some of the magical thinking of their contributors - typically from the analog is best crowd.  Their understanding of digital audio, or audio generally, and the belief that their super hearing abilities is higher than musicians participating in controlled studies (like the Meyer and Moran study) is cringe material.
> 
> What is unfortunate though is that while we have people with these delusions, it will continue the steady supply of fodder to snake oil and the real causes of poor sounding music, ie mastering and implementation remains unaddressed.
> 
> http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/is-192khz-really-necessary.606676/


 


> If you're not noticing some 192 kHz files sounding better than 96 kHz now, you may end up getting gear in the future that allows you to hear a difference. I wasn't hearing a difference with 192 kHz till I got some new gear. For me it's worth keeping the 192 kHz files because I don't know what kind of gear and where the tech will be in the future.
> 
> High-res can be tricky. One of my beliefs about high-res is that some of the high-res benefit depends on the synergy that happens between some AD converters and some DACs. If you happen to have a DAC that synergizes well with the AD converter used for a high-res album you've got then you're more likely to hear the 192 kHz as being better than if you have a DAC that doesn't synergize well with the AD converter. What's going on? Why? I don't know. I intend to explore. That's part of being an audiophile. That's also why I need to keep my 192 kHz files, even the ones that I don't currently think sound spectacular with my current DACs.


----------



## spruce music

old tech said:


> I came across this recent thread in the Steve Hoffman forum.  It was a laugh reading some of the magical thinking of their contributors - typically from the analog is best crowd.  Their understanding of digital audio, or audio generally, and the belief that their super hearing abilities is higher than musicians participating in controlled studies (like the Meyer and Moran study) is cringe material.
> 
> What is unfortunate though is that while we have people with these delusions, it will continue the steady supply of fodder to snake oil and the real causes of poor sounding music, ie mastering and implementation remains unaddressed.
> 
> http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/is-192khz-really-necessary.606676/


 

 Oh you aren't making headway there at hoffman forums.  People have pointed out the truth often enough.  Anytime the thread goes away from the analog first snake oil, toward something related to reality the mods don't remove 'offending' posts.  They disappear the entire thread.  I have seen them have threads a month long hundreds of posts that people put lots of time into.  It begins to go a way they don't like, they disappear it.  Information they don't want seen, they disappear it.  I am not talking outrageous aggressive approaches either, just people calmly explaining how real digital works vs how some of the folks there imagine.  Such undesired information will be disappeared.  A user involved in more than a couple or three of those also gets disappeared.


----------



## Argyris

It's always the indefensible that's most vehemently defended.


----------



## cel4145

brooko said:


> I'm just pointing out how ridiculous your post is.  As long as people stay within the rules, they can express any opinion.  You then tell me what I said is false - and quote the rules to me?  I'm hoping (again) you can see that in fact its your post that is wrong.  We weren't talking about censorship (and that is your view of it - ask a lot of other members here,a nd they'd say it was the site owners choice, and a way to keep the peace).




Sure it's perceived as censorship to forbid use of certain terms, and it's not like those terms are hate words. And sure what you said can be perceived as not completely truthful because of how you replied to bfreedma as if everyone is welcome as long as they stick to the rules. The rules are not welcoming to objectivists. 

And I don't buy it's "a way to keep the peace" among members, although I don't doubt that's the party line. IMO, it's about Head-Fi's business model. If it wasn't about the business model, then obviously, the best community is one that's just as open to both subjectivists and objectivists perspectives. Head-Fi could make it work if management wanted it to. 



brooko said:


> You know the rules - simply follow them.  Stan does it.  So do I.  And you can make a difference in the forums.




Have you forgotten that I already have? Many, many times? I just got tired of feeling like a second class member who, if I used accepted scientific terms, could be reported and modded. There are plenty of places to have civil discussions about audio on the Internet that don't forbid talking about some parts of audio science.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I think it's not about a business model in terms of pandering to audio companies so much as a simple desire to have as many people visit the forums as possible. A "nation" of the people, by the people, necessarily has to have rules that cater to the people it's composed of. Head-Fi simply couldn't have attained its premier status among portable audio interest sites without rules made for the majority of people. And though I wish the rules would be more in my favor, I can't deny the fact that the way this site is run, has been a roaring success in terms of popularity.

Head-Fi can continue on its popular path while making concessions to science... or you can transplant rules from hydrogenaudio here and watch as angered hobbyists leave the site in droves until head-fi becomes about as popular (not) as hydrogenaudio.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

When you think about it, the internet has spawned some sort of worldwide natural-selection based de facto democracy. Although site owners are not directly elected, the rise and fall of websites are a result of a worldwide election, you cast your vote by visiting the site. And head-fi holds lots and lots of votes. Even the (grudging?) votes of those in this thread.


----------



## Brooko

cel4145 said:


> Have you forgotten that I already have? Many, many times? I just got tired of feeling like a second class member who, if I used accepted scientific terms, could be reported and modded. There are plenty of places to have civil discussions about audio on the Internet that don't forbid talking about some parts of audio science.


 
  
 Sorry - I re-read my last post, and the section on advice on how to get a more fact based view outside SS wasn't directed at you (although it might have appeared that way).  It was more a general comment.  I've always had high regard for your posts also - and especially the help you've given a lot of newbies to the site.  I definitely didn't want to cause friction.


----------



## StanD

Gentlemen, what we have here is a spirited discussion held in polite terms. I commend everyone for this. By the way, where are the ladies? Otherwise, I'd be able to say, "Ladies and Gentlemen."


----------



## cel4145

joe bloggs said:


> I think it's not about a business model in terms of pandering to audio companies so much as a simple desire to have as many people visit the forums as possible. A "nation" of the people, by the people, necessarily has to have rules that cater to the people it's composed of. Head-Fi simply couldn't have attained its premier status among portable audio interest sites without rules made for the majority of people. And though I wish the rules would be more in my favor, I can't deny the fact that the way this site is run, has been a roaring success in terms of popularity.




And I would say it's likely to be more of a success if it was equally open to everyone. IMO, the success has more to do with the focus of the website on headphones than it does the rules which ban certain types of speech. 



joe bloggs said:


> Head-Fi can continue on its popular path while making concessions to science... or you can transplant rules from hydrogenaudio here and watch as angered hobbyists leave the site in droves until head-fi becomes about as popular (not) as hydrogenaudio.




Who has suggested making it anything like Hydrogenaudio? That is way across to the other end of the spectrum. There are many audio websites that don't make rules that cater more toward subjectivists or objectivists like Hyrdogenaudio or Head-Fi .


----------



## cel4145

brooko said:


> Sorry - I re-read my last post, and the section on advice on how to get a more fact based view outside SS wasn't directed at you (although it might have appeared that way).  It was more a general comment.  I've always had high regard for your posts also - and especially the help you've given a lot of newbies to the site.  I definitely didn't want to cause friction.




Well, and I understand your point of view because I used to feel the same way. I just reached a point where I kept asking myself why do I want to spend time helping people in the forums here where, based on the rules, my views are not really wanted? It honestly feels like a form of discrimination for me, and I'm just not comfortable with that any more since it doesn't have to be that way.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Well, and I understand your point of view because I used to feel the same way. I just reached a point where I kept asking myself why do I want to spend time helping people in the forums here where, based on the rules, my views are not really wanted? It honestly feels like a form of discrimination for me, and I'm just not comfortable with that any more since it doesn't have to be that way.


 

 I haven't given up yet.


----------



## krismusic

stand said:


> I haven't given up yet.



I think I will! Someone was asking about an amp for his IEMs on the Noble thread. I tried suggesting he didn't need it but we are now off to the races with a Fiio and everyone happily chatting about stacking a Mojo. I'm fairly sure all this is bollo but I am told I should try the Mojo for a month for the improvements to reveal themselves. Hey ho!


----------



## castleofargh

cel4145 said:


> Well, and I understand your point of view because I used to feel the same way. I just reached a point where I kept asking myself why do I want to spend time helping people in the forums here where, based on the rules, my views are not really wanted? It honestly feels like a form of discrimination for me, and I'm just not comfortable with that any more since it doesn't have to be that way.


 

 why keep going? because we're not helping for popularity, but for the few guys you're actually helping from time to time.
 in my natural habitat I'm an egoistic *******, but so many people have spent time to help me on the internet over the years, that even I felt like I should give something back from time to time when I can and it's not time to watch a TV show.
  
  
 pro tip to those who wish to be popular, never post to sound science and never admit that you're reading posts in it! that's step one.
 step 2 is : buy anything new, if you can get it 20mn before anybody else, go for it and instantly post a meaningless review so that you're the first to do it. it will be crap but that doesn't matter at all, you'll get all the glory anyway and people will look up to you and ask you stuff as if you were the designer of the device.
 I'm joking and at the same time it soooo true.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> why keep going? because we're not helping for popularity, but for the few guys you're actually helping from time to time.
> in my natural habitat I'm an egoistic *******, but so many people have spent time to help me on the internet over the years, that even I felt like I should give something back from time to time when I can and it's not time to watch a TV show.
> 
> 
> ...


 
 If you add terms like organic, expansive soundstage, euphonic, et. you can't go wrong. You can even use contradictory terms a long as they are in the vogue.
 So when are you posting that review, I'm looking forward to it. Try not to use Voltaire's approach to the religious establishment.


----------



## castleofargh

I can't do what I suggest I'm way too slow/lazy. the fastest I've done was for a walkman that had almost no significant difference compared to the 2 previous models except an added SD card slot. and even then it took me 2 weeks to post the review. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I'm usually several months too late for fame.
  
 you'd think that Brooko could do it with all the stuff he gets to demo. but then he lives in a corner of the round flat earth map, and demos get delivered in coconuts using Australian Welcome swallow. that takes significantly more time than when delivered by Barn swallow like it's done in Europe and America, because the Welcome doesn't really migrate much. so they're not trained for delivery of coconut packages over long distances. and that's why IMO he's not yet governor of California.
 it's science.


----------



## gikigill

Looks like the training paid off Castle.


----------



## StanD

A review is like a fine French _whine_, it should be savored. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I like Brooko's reviews, he puts real effort into them.


----------



## gikigill

I treat reviews as the Gospel/Kuran/Gita/Torah et al. 

I never read them.(or take them seriously)


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> why keep going? because we're not helping for popularity, but for the few guys you're actually helping from time to time.




I'm still helping people with audio. Just in places where objectivists views are welcome throughout the forums. It seems much more productive.


----------



## istfleur

Hello, that's my first post in this sub-forum and the second on this site. I've seen a lot of people talking and reviewed the EE Zeus R, a lot of them say it's the best earphone for now. I'd like to hear your views on it and, probably, if you know other earphones that best the EE Zeus R. Thanks for your help.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

krismusic said:


> I think I will! Someone was asking about an amp for his IEMs on the Noble thread. I tried suggesting he didn't need it but we are now off to the races with a Fiio and everyone happily chatting about stacking a Mojo. I'm fairly sure all this is bollo but I am told I should try the Mojo for a month for the improvements to reveal themselves. Hey ho!




I've actually had manufacturers tell me the same thing... Can you believe that?

"You have to buy our product and use it past the return period to know what it does."

Talk about snake oil and shady sales tactics...


----------



## limpidglitch

istfleur said:


> Hello, that's my first post in this sub-forum and the second on this site. I've seen a lot of people talking and reviewed the EE Zeus R, a lot of them say it's the best earphone for now. I'd like to hear your views on it and, probably, if you know other earphones that best the EE Zeus R. Thanks for your help.


 
  
 Sure, why not, they're probably fine.
 If not, add some EQ/expensive cables/amp/DAC/pixie dust.
  
 Glad to be of service, please come again!
  
 I love contributing to the community.


----------



## krismusic

istfleur said:


> Hello, that's my first post in this sub-forum and the second on this site. I've seen a lot of people talking and reviewed the EE Zeus R, a lot of them say it's the best earphone for now. I'd like to hear your views on it and, probably, if you know other earphones that best the EE Zeus R. Thanks for your help.



A more helpful answer might be that there is no such thing as best. 
The sound that you enjoy may well be different to my preference. 
All TOTL CIEM's have different presentations. 
You cannot beat getting to listen to a demo model before buying although having said that, I have such trouble getting a seal that my K10's were a bit of a punt. 
I guess plenty of research on here and elsewhere on the internet then a deep breath! HTH!



limpidglitch said:


> Sure, why not, they're probably fine.
> If not, add some EQ/expensive cables/amp/DAC/pixie dust.
> 
> Glad to be of service, please come again!
> ...



I know you think you are joking but that's just the sort of snark that gives Soud Science a bad name. Not very welcoming for the guys second post!


----------



## alffla

istfleur said:


> Hello, that's my first post in this sub-forum and the second on this site. I've seen a lot of people talking and reviewed the EE Zeus R, a lot of them say it's the best earphone for now. I'd like to hear your views on it and, probably, if you know other earphones that best the EE Zeus R. Thanks for your help.


 
 Yea like the above post, "best" is VERY subjective. I'm a huge IEM fan and I've tried everything from budgetest options to most expensive stuff including the Zeus R, and it's not the best _for me. _To me, the Zeus R has very powerful and 'dynamic' (sorry for the vague terms guys. Best I can do without measurements.) low end, and the highs are probably one of the clearest and smoothest highs which at the same time sound _very _wide (This was done by listening to the hi hats and cymbals on Plini's Handmade Cities - I have never heard them sound like they come from so wide of my head with any of the other IEMs I've tried so far). But what I don't like about it is that its mids, especially for male vocals, sound really recessed. They're a bit better for female vocals but still not intimate enough for my liking. 

 Hope my subjective review won't rile anyone up in this subforum!


----------



## krismusic

Is it a fact that multi driver BA's present are difficult to drive properly and benefit from a better amp than that in my phone?


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Much popular music concerts have bass that one can feel as much as hear. A headphone can never achieve that.
> 
> With the advent of object oriented sound, the live concert effect will be even easier to produce with multiple speaker systems.


 
 Please do read - and quote - what I have actually written. There was a remark regarding the tactile sensation ( feel ) of bass - trough use of subwoofer(s) dedicated specifically for headphone listening. There are threads on head-fi regarding specifically the use of subwoofers for headphone listening.
  
 I can pull and quote anyone*s comment/post out of the context and slap a similar bashing photo to it - too.
  
 As much as the digital DSP wizards would like to believe you otherwise, there is no way to replicate the acoustics of a real concert hall venue in small(ish) home rooms using loudspeakers. Some fake look-alike at best - but not anything truly approaching the real thing. Headphones can recreate the correct illusion - provided they are aided by the subwoofer(s) - even in real home room size(s). 


stand said:


> That's it back to ultrasonic hearing and other audio mythology. Echoic Memory limitations are very real.


 
 If you can not hear limitations of recordings - or, to be more exact, the equipment used to produce those recordings, from memory of innumerable live concerts and rely exclusively on ABing, then you have basically said everything is wonderfully perfect and no further advances in recording and reproducing music are needed or even possible. One can AB RBCD recording till Hell freezes over and beyond and reach that same conclussion - based on what is being ABed, one would be correct.
  
 It is an altogether different story when one compares live mic feed or a good HiRez recording ( even PCM ) to what remains after truncation to RBCD. And, no , you CAN NOT perform AB live versus recorded sound - because there is no musician that can play, at the press of a button, each and every time exactly the same music, with exactly the same (to within 0.2 dB ) dynamics, etc. Takes ( to be precise : peaks ) of the same song by the same choir in the same room through the same mics/preamps set at the same gain can vary by up to approx 3 dB one from another - and even if a very precise instrumentalist would be used, he/she would not be able to - repeatedly, for the purpose of ABing - play within 0.2 dB loudness.


----------



## krismusic

analogsurviver said:


> Please do read - and quote - what I have actually written. There was a remark regarding the tactile sensation ( feel ) of bass - trough use of subwoofer(s) dedicated specifically for headphone listening. There are threads on head-fi regarding specifically the use of subwoofers for headphone listening.
> 
> I can pull and quote anyone*s comment/post out of the context and slap a similar bashing photo to it - too.
> 
> ...



This sounds interesting. Any links to use of subwoofers with headphones?


----------



## limpidglitch

krismusic said:


> I know you think you are joking but that's just the sort of snark that gives Soud Science a bad name. Not very welcoming for the guys second post!


 
  
 No joke, it's the truth.
 I know next to nothing about the EE Zeus R, but chances are that it will be fine. And most of the alternatives, as long as they're getting a moderate amount of positive buzz, are likely to be just fine. To me they all seem a bit over the top, but I'm a cheap sod, and he's obviously got some money to burn.


----------



## analogsurviver

krismusic said:


> This sounds interesting. Any links to use of subwoofers with headphones?


 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/496521/headphones-subwoofer/15
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/57805/history-of-the-akg-k1000   Here the member of the original design team for the K-1000 writes about using subwoofer(s) ( or, IIRC, normal full range speaker(s) used as subwoofers ) with K-1000 . It just does not get better than that ...
  
 There may be more threads on this topic - just search for "subwoofer + headphones", etc.


----------



## krismusic

analogsurviver said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/496521/headphones-subwoofer/15
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/57805/history-of-the-akg-k1000   Here the member of the original design team for the K-1000 writes about using subwoofer(s) ( or, IIRC, normal full range speaker(s) used as subwoofers ) with K-1000 . It just does not get better than that ...
> 
> There may be more threads on this topic - just search for "subwoofer + headphones", etc.



Thanks for this. My neighbors may not thank you! 
I've heard the AKG1000. Superb.


----------



## analogsurviver

krismusic said:


> Thanks for this. My neighbors may not thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 No problem - but neighbours may well think "where the hell this unrelated rumble is coming from..."
  
 I have yet to do it at home - but have heard such a setup.


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> Is it a fact that multi driver BA's present are difficult to drive properly and benefit from a better amp than that in my phone?


 

 yes but certainly not hard to drive as is "needing power". it can be a problem because multi BA can sometimes reach crazy low impedance at certain frequencies, and that is indeed hard for most amps. when the impedance of the load(IEM) goes really low, it becomes more and more like a short circuit for the amp(no energy dissipated in the load).
 how bad it gets into a particular impedance at a particular frequency for a particular amp isn't exactly something you can just guess, and most acclaimed portable amps are in fact powerhouses to drive non portable low sensitivity headphones. so absolutely not what we're concerned about here.
 measurements of the amp section into low impedance loads are what we would really need and what you'll almost never find on a manufacturer's webpage. at best if they're a little honest about it, they will give some casual "16-300ohm" for the range of headphones you should use, it could mean nothing at all, or it could mean that stuff below 16ohm can go into distortion real fast. but again without actual confirmation with specific measurements, your guess is as good as mine. usually we're back to "listen yourself" and casual astrology.
  
  
  
  
 about analogsurviver's comment on subs, Floyd Toole mentioned a few times that we might not even need actual subs to replace the lack of tactile bass. vibrations from any source can subjectively do wonders even if they're not at the proper frequency or rhythm. to dumb it down, if we shake a little, it seems to feel more realistic than if we have only headphones.
 now obviously using subwoofers to compensate for the lack of subwoofers, that should work very well ^_^. I just need to go assassinate all my neighbors first.
 I never got to try the stuff that makes your chair vibrate with the music, was that a total bust or are there people actually enjoying that stuff?


----------



## StanD

@analogsurviver now that your back into ultrasonics, what is the upper frequency bound of your hearing?


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> yes but certainly not hard to drive as is "needing power". it can be a problem because multi BA can sometimes reach crazy low impedance at certain frequencies, and that is indeed hard for most amps. when the impedance of the load(IEM) goes really low, it becomes more and more like a short circuit for the amp(no energy dissipated in the load).
> how bad it gets into a particular impedance at a particular frequency for a particular amp isn't exactly something you can just guess, and most acclaimed portable amps are in fact powerhouses to drive non portable low sensitivity headphones. so absolutely not what we're concerned about here.
> measurements of the amp section into low impedance loads are what we would really need and what you'll almost never find on a manufacturer's webpage. at best if they're a little honest about it, they will give some casual "16-300ohm" for the range of headphones you should use, it could mean nothing at all, or it could mean that stuff below 16ohm can go into distortion real fast. but again without actual confirmation with specific measurements, your guess is as good as mine. usually we're back to "listen yourself" and casual astrology.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the reply Castleofargh. It doesn't help that Noble don't give the impedance of the K10. 
I have tried a couple of amps but heard no difference. Or at least I did but then after extended listening decided it was just placebo!
Maybe I have tried the wrong amp but the improvement would have to be substantial to induce me to cart a stack around and give up the freedom of just slipping my phone into my top pocket. 
Regarding the sub. I came across bass shakers. They sound as if they could be a neighbour friendly option.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

krismusic said:


> A more helpful answer might be that there is no such thing as best.
> The sound that you enjoy may well be different to my preference.
> All TOTL CIEM's have different presentations.
> You cannot beat getting to listen to a demo model before buying although having said that, I have such trouble getting a seal that my K10's were a bit of a punt.
> ...




Why? It's what he would be told in any other sub forum, except using different words.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Please do read - and quote - what I have actually written. There was a remark regarding the tactile sensation ( feel ) of bass - trough use of subwoofer(s) dedicated specifically for headphone listening. There are threads on head-fi regarding specifically the use of subwoofers for headphone listening.




That's headphones + a big speaker. That's hardly headphones. Not to mention, there are issues with doing that. For instance, there goes using open headphones. How do you deal with time alignment issues? At least all of the people I've seen experimenting with subwoofers and headphones on Head-Fi aren't using DSP to correct for that. 



analogsurviver said:


> I can pull and quote anyone*s comment/post out of the context and slap a similar bashing photo to it - too.




I thought you would like the photo 



analogsurviver said:


> As much as the digital DSP wizards would like to believe you otherwise, there is no way to replicate the acoustics of a real concert hall venue in small(ish) home rooms using loudspeakers. Some fake look-alike at best - but not anything truly approaching the real thing. Headphones can recreate the correct illusion - provided they are aided by the subwoofer(s) - even in real home room size(s).




How is it that a pair of headphones, which have two transducers can do it, but not a multiple speaker array? Please explain why that is even logically true? LOL


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

cel4145 said:


> That's headphones + a big speaker. That's hardly headphones. Not to mention, there are issues with doing that. For instance, there goes using open headphones. How do you deal with time alignment issues? At least all of the people I've seen experimenting with subwoofers and headphones on Head-Fi aren't using DSP to correct for that.
> I thought you would like the photo
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Phase adjusting audio paths is trivial with the right software... I wouldn't be too worried about that.
  
 But I'm pretty sure headphones will not be able to recreate a live concert either. If this guy has found a way to do it, he should patent the idea immediately because he's going to be a billionaire. Why would people pay money to go to a concert and have to deal with parking/drug users/portapotties when they could just have a private concert in their own home every night. Heck, they could even use a live recording to really get an immersive effect.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> That's headphones + a big speaker. That's hardly headphones. Not to mention, there are issues with doing that. For instance, there goes using open headphones. How do you deal with time alignment issues? At least all of the people I've seen experimenting with subwoofers and headphones on Head-Fi aren't using DSP to correct for that.
> I thought you would like the photo
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Well, I can see no reason why one could not use open headphones with a subwoofer.  AKG K-1000 are THE most open headphones practically possible - anything else is far, far more closed - yet they have been used with subwoofer for over a quarter of century. At least by one of the original design team members.
  
 You do not necessarily need DSP to correct for time alignment issues. Practical way would be finding good spot(s) for subwoofer(s) in the first place, followed by placing the "headphone listening seat" where there are minimum time alignment issues. Or you can go crazy with DSP, correcting for each and every possible position for "headphone seat"  in any given room, with as many "headphone seats" as desired , up to the maximum that can be crammed into given space. No prize for guessing which approach I prefer - remember, I DO listen to analogue and DSD sources and the very last thing in the world I would like is the necessity to use any DSP in order to be able to listen to analogue or DSD.
  
 Human being has throughout evolution learned how to get by with two ears, with which we can determine the direction from which sound is coming; in 3D, accurate enough to survive in real world. Two transducers close enough to the ear that do not alter the natural hearing ( no earpads, no tips, no nothing touching/surrounding the ear, and certainly nothing inserted into the ear canal ) can, with binaural recording or conventional simple miked recording properly processed, do the trick. In other words, AKG K-1000 approach. The only thing this approach is incapable of is deep/loud bass - as cancellation inevitably takes its toll below certain frequency given the dimension of transducers can not vary appreciably from what is used in the K-1000.
  
 Enter the subwoofer...
  
 Or, I can bring you to tears by showing perhaps world*s most  dedicated listening room using speakers - STILL with just a SINGLE optimum listening chair - using 10 + Electrostatic big panel radiators in 3 stories high room/building - plus required DSP. Unless I win multiple lottery in quite a few successive occasions in forseeable time, I can not see it anytime soon ;  and STILL I would be not satisfied with such a setup, as it would, no doubt about it, compromise any analogue/ DSD source.


----------



## Argyris

Some people get by with a pair of iBuds. I envy them.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I hope that said analogue / DSD tracks you're listening to without DSP, over headphones (that you claim gives you a more lifelike experience than loudspeakers), are at least binaural recordings.


----------



## krismusic

argyris said:


> Some people get by with a pair of iBuds. I envy them.



Indeed!


----------



## analogsurviver

joe bloggs said:


> I hope that said analogue / DSD tracks you're listening to without DSP, over headphones (that you claim gives you a more lifelike experience than loudspeakers), are at least binaural recordings.


 
 Your hope is fulfilled _chez moi . _I have quite a large library of my own DSD  binaural masters - predominantly  but not exclusive of classical music, mostly recorded live. Including ( legal ) recording of  Wienerphilharmoniker rehearsal in my town in 2008 - too bad permission for recording the concert has not been granted.
  
 The first CD issued with my recording in 2006 was binaural - back then recorded directly to CD-R. It has been a long journey of incremental improvements from those beginnings ever since - but here is one of the songs  from this first release available on YT ;  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgES_Gi1rQA
 at present, better equipment and particularly better skill produce much better results. 
  
 Given the more market, I would be recording almost exclusively binaural. Main obstacle is poor availability and high costs of headphones truly capable of  acceptable performance with binaural. 
  
 For binaural:  AKG K-1000 > Jecklin Float > Stax Lambda Pro/Diffuse Field EQ > anything else . I would like to stress I have not tried the HD800 with binaural yet - no idea how it fares in this scenario.
  
 But it is funny how much of the above sensation is available in as humble IEM as Havi B3 Pro ... certainly not the above level, but can surpass many full size cans. One that I found totally inadequate for binaural was Audioquest Nighthawk, for example. I sincerely do hope it was a bad sample and not representative of a properly functioning headphone.
  
 Back in the day, Deutsche Gramophon released a few LPs recorded in binaural - starting with a demo LP for Sennheiser Unipolar 2000 electret headphones, which was essentially a compilation of DG*s binaural library. IIRC there were about 10 binaural recordings released by DG. I particularly remember the Saint Saens 3rd Organ Symphony with Barenboim, also available as CD in the Originals series : http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/en/cat/4746122
 Later, there was another German label issuing binaurally recorded ( Kunstkopf ) LPs whose name escapes my memory at the moment - but it is what was later re-released as Stax binaural series of CDs, which are sporadically available on ebay etc. JVC in Japan also released a few binaural recordings on LP, of which most known are Adventures In Binaural  https://www.discogs.com/No-Artist-Adventure-In-Binaural/release/2747277 and https://www.discogs.com/No-Artist-Adventure-In-Binaural-Vol-2/release/3240557
  
 It was/is not much binaural available on vinyl - yet it was enough for the lifelong "infection".  IIRC, there were very few pop/rock records recorded in binaural, Lou Reed being the first to employ binaural for his  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Hassle


----------



## U-3C

limpidglitch said:


> Sure, why not, they're probably fine.
> If not, add some EQ/expensive cables/amp/DAC/pixie dust.
> 
> Glad to be of service, please come again!
> ...




If you are upset with the usual replies people give regarding high end audio equipment, please don't give the same advice with sarcasm to people who don't know any better. 






istfleur said:


> Hello, that's my first post in this sub-forum and the second on this site. I've seen a lot of people talking and reviewed the EE Zeus R, a lot of them say it's the best earphone for now. I'd like to hear your views on it and, probably, if you know other earphones that best the EE Zeus R. Thanks for your help.




I'm really really sorry for that...



This thread was just in a sort of heated debate with people frustrated with how Head-Fi works.

Maybe start a new thread here and ask again?

Again, really really sorry about that...


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> @analogsurviver now that your back into ultrasonics, what is the upper frequency bound of your hearing?


 
 For a pure sine wave, approx 14 kHz. It can vary a bit either way depending on how rested or tired I am - and, of course, it gets worse when having cold or similar condition. This at my 56 years of age.
  
 The trouble is, back in mid 80s ( age about 25 ), I was a nightmare for my audiologist - or, more precisely, for his/hers equipment. After two or three times after they "tested" me due to request of my then employer, they had to request the service of the equipment ( I have pinpointed - exactly - which switch/potentiometer/whatever malfunctions ) to fix all the issues - mostly lurking at the higher frequencies and lower volumes. The fourth and subsequent years they decided to "pass" testing my hearing... - it got obviously too expensive for them, lol !
  
 No wonder - I have been developing my own electrostatic earspeaker system/high voltage amp at the time.  I do not wish to go into any more detail/description of that - suffice to say is that in many ways it is still not surpassed, some 30 years later. In storage since the turn of the milenium - too dangerous, voltage and, particularly, current required to drive ES driver to as high level of quality _as determined by ears _is, unfortunately, deadly several times over. 
  
 I had the same idea back then as realized last year by Sennheiser in their Orpheus 2; but, 30 years ago, there were unfortunately no semiconductors with required characteristics available. Now, recent semiconductors have finally allowed about the same quality of driving the ES driver as my behemoth amp, but at the upper still safe electrical output. In other words, the story about the un_importance_ of - cables. Something that is here almost always taken for granted as being totally irrelevant to sound quality. Electrostatic headphone is perhaps the deadliest trap for this kind of a propos "wire does not matter in the slightest" kind of thinking/attitude.  The other one, also involving capacitance of the cable as its main culprit, is the moving magnet ( fixed coil, to include all variations on the theme ) phono cartridge. Both cases measurable and documentable to produce audible differences. 
  
 Trouble is, regardless if I can no longer hear sine wave of say 20 kHz, I can still pinpoint equipment that does - or does not - reproduce high frequencies well above 20 kHz. During recent demo/decision making which venue to use for the final recording of harpsichord/classical guitar duo, I made my friend at the dealer*s totally revamp the intended system for this demo; mainly because the speakers in question rolled off rather steeply just above 20 kHz. I went ballistic in about 10 seconds into the reproduction of master I know to be good to 45-50 kHz ( a chore : in order to be able to use spectrum analizer, DSD has to be converted into WAV ( BWF to be exact ) of 192/24 , to allow for spectrum analysis up to 96 kHz ) . But, I persevered - and from the intended system, there was absolutely nothing left for the actual demo held the next day. 
  
 Those levels above 20 kHz are TINY; yet failing to reproduce them is like soup without any salt. And boy, how AUDIBLE it is - especially if the equipment can not reproduce it - if you have heard it live or on equipment that can do a good recording justice.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> For a pure sine wave, approx 14 kHz. It can vary a bit either way depending on how rested or tired I am - and, of course, it gets worse when having cold or similar condition. This at my 56 years of age.
> 
> The trouble is, back in mid 80s ( age about 25 ), I was a nightmare for my audiologist - or, more precisely, for his/hers equipment. After two or three times after they "tested" me due to request of my then employer, they had to request the service of the equipment ( I have pinpointed - exactly - which switch/potentiometer/whatever malfunctions ) to fix all the issues - mostly lurking at the higher frequencies and lower volumes. The fourth and subsequent years they decided to "pass" testing my hearing... - it got obviously too expensive for them, lol !
> 
> ...


 

 So you can't hear above 14 kHz and yet you can subjectively determine what is above 20 kHz. Sorry but that sounds like a stretch of the imagination to me..


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> So you can't hear above 14 kHz and yet you can subjectively determine what is above 20 kHz. Sorry but that sounds like a stretch of the imagination to me..


 
 It does not matter how it sounds to you. Fact is that I have consistently been choosing wide band equipment throughout my entire life - provided it was at least "adequate" in officially audible 20-20k band. Make no mistake - band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz, when correctly reproduced, is the most important - and above and below better be quiet if not at least very good. However, recording and reproduction over 20 khz makes - to me at least - that decisive difference between live and recording. With the advance of HiRez digital, it became relatively inexpensive  to do so. Analogue record, as much as I like it, can not reproduce - under normal circumstances - much beyond 27 kHz when the analog master lacquer ( or DMM ) master is cut in realtime. This can be doubled to approx 54 kHz with half-speed mastering. Analogue tape recorders , from which half-speed master can be cut, that are reasonably flat all the way to 50 KHz,  are not known to me. Some sellers of outstanding LPs from bygone age really do go sometimes overboard; there is no such thing as half-speed mastered direct to disk recording.
  
 Which leaves us with HiRez - which, depending on format/file size, can be flat to beyond 100 kHz - what I would call as "enough".


----------



## limpidglitch

u-3c said:


> If you are upset with the usual replies people give regarding high end audio equipment, please don't give the same advice with sarcasm to people who don't know any better.


 
  
 Oh lighten up. It was an honest answer served with a few drops of bitter, I'm sure he can take it.


----------



## spruce music

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I can see no reason why one could not use open headphones with a subwoofer.  AKG K-1000 are THE most open headphones practically possible - anything else is far, far more closed - yet they have been used with subwoofer for over a quarter of century. At least by one of the original design team members.
> 
> You do not necessarily need DSP to correct for time alignment issues. Practical way would be finding good spot(s) for subwoofer(s) in the first place, followed by placing the "headphone listening seat" where there are minimum time alignment issues. Or you can go crazy with DSP, correcting for each and every possible position for "headphone seat"  in any given room, with as many "headphone seats" as desired , up to the maximum that can be crammed into given space. No prize for guessing which approach I prefer - remember, I DO listen to analogue and DSD sources and the very last thing in the world I would like is the necessity to use any DSP in order to be able to listen to analogue or DSD.
> 
> ...


 

 I once owned the Stax electrostat phones.  Very open backed.  They were most pleasurable having music over my speaker system for the bass, and an added benefit.  Sit 10 ft from the speakers and adjust volume just so.  You heard the phones and a 10 millisecond delay from the speakers at lower volume.  Gave a nice bloom and spacious quality to the music without covering anything up.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> It does not matter how it sounds to you. Fact is that I have consistently been choosing wide band equipment throughout my entire life - provided it was at least "adequate" in officially audible 20-20k band. Make no mistake - band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz, when correctly reproduced, is the most important - and above and below better be quiet if not at least very good. However, recording and reproduction over 20 khz makes - to me at least - that decisive difference between live and recording. With the advance of HiRez digital, it became relatively inexpensive  to do so. Analogue record, as much as I like it, can not reproduce - under normal circumstances - much beyond 27 kHz when the analog master lacquer ( or DMM ) master is cut in realtime. This can be doubled to approx 54 kHz with half-speed mastering. Analogue tape recorders , from which half-speed master can be cut, that are reasonably flat all the way to 50 KHz,  are not known to me. Some sellers of outstanding LPs from bygone age really do go sometimes overboard; there is no such thing as half-speed mastered direct to disk recording.
> 
> Which leaves us with HiRez - which, depending on format/file size, can be flat to beyond 100 kHz - what I would call as "enough".


 
 IMO all of this ultrasonic and Hires stuff is what many would call snake oil. As I've said before, "A man's got to know his limitations" or at least Harry Callahan said that. I think you'd have a hard time selling this business on this thread.


----------



## cel4145

grumpyoldguy said:


> Phase adjusting audio paths is trivial with the right software... I wouldn't be too worried about that.




Sure. But the people I see doing subwoofers and headphones on this forum have enough trouble just figuring out a configuration to get sound out of the subwoofer and the headphone at the same time. LOL


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Sure. But the people I see doing subwoofers and headphones on this forum have enough trouble just figuring out a configuration to get sound out of the subwoofer and the headphone at the same time. LOL


 
 You may be right on this observation - but they at least realize the problem and are trying to do something in order to get a remedy. Remember how small was listening to headphones say 20 years ago ? Compare that to today... If today*s headphone world is reasonably satisfied with reproducing approximately right tonality and (ahhhmmmm to this one.... ) dynamic range, tomorrow reproducing accurate space cues might be added, the day after tomorrow the tactile feel of bass.
  
 The only question is how much time is "one tomorrow" - or the time needed to develop the required techniques plus the time the price simmers down enough to allow for reasonably massive use by at least above average demanding consumers.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> IMO all of this ultrasonic and Hires stuff is what many would call snake oil. As I've said before, "A man's got to know his limitations" or at least Harry Callahan said that. I think you'd have a hard time selling this business on this thread.


 
 It is not about selling anything. At least not at this stage. It takes one hell lot of a time from the initial idea to getting the first, usually unsatisfactory "technology demonstrator", then satisfactory "technology demonstrator" - not to mention the time required to convince the naysayers and status quo defenders like yourself to listen at least in earnest - without clear bias there is nothing that can possibly be heard, let alone superior to whatever has been going on before.  Getting musicians to try something new that none of them has heard (of) before is difficult enough - yet it is nothing compared to issues with publishers/record labels.
  
 Once upon a time, people were living in caves - without those "troublemakers" dissatisfied with caves, we would still be living in them.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Well my bias is clearly against this ultrasonic hocus pocus. It is difficult enough to get 20-20k playing properly and to my ears no system has ever been satisfactory in this range without requiring extensive EQ treatment *among other things*.



The fact is my DSP system of choice for either headphones or speakers takes over 50% of one CPU core to run *at 44.1kHz sample rate* and still drops out from time to time when I'm doing something leisurely like watching a 1080p movie in surround or upmixed to surround using my setup...

And without the DSP, it doesn't sound like soup without salt. It tastes more like salt without soup. In other words, totally unpalatable, not worthy to be called a music system. And, at least on the headphone side, it is not for want of premium headphones.

So excuse me if I would take 44.1kHz and DSP over anything else without DSP any day.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> It is not about selling anything. At least not at this stage. It takes one hell lot of a time from the initial idea to getting the first, usually unsatisfactory "technology demonstrator", then satisfactory "technology demonstrator" - not to mention the time required to convince the naysayers and status quo defenders like yourself to listen at least in earnest - without clear bias there is nothing that can possibly be heard, let alone superior to whatever has been going on before.  Getting musicians to try something new that none of them has heard (of) before is difficult enough - yet it is nothing compared to issues with publishers/record labels.
> 
> Once upon a time, people were living in caves - without those "troublemakers" dissatisfied with caves, we would still be living in them.


 
 That's funny bats use ultrasonics and they live in caves. What's next, can you see infrared and ultraviolet? It's time to accept human limitations and stop making up stuff. The end of the chain doesn't deliver this bandwidth, so if done it's still a waste despite the fact that we can't hear it.


----------



## bfreedma

stand said:


> That's funny bats use ultrasonics and they live in caves. What's next, can you see infrared and ultraviolet? It's time to accept human limitations and stop making up stuff. The end of the chain doesn't deliver this bandwidth, so if done it's still a waste despite the fact that we can't hear it.


 
  
 If I spend enough time in my man cave, do you think I'll start to develop bat like ultrasonic hearing?


----------



## StanD

bfreedma said:


> If I spend enough time in my man cave, do you think I'll start to develop bat like ultrasonic hearing?


 
 If you do, it's because your going batty. Not a good thing, so unlike _some folks_, don't try hearing things that we simply cannot hear.


----------



## analogsurviver

joe bloggs said:


> Well my bias is clearly against this ultrasonic hocus pocus. It is difficult enough to get 20-20k playing properly and to my ears no system has ever been satisfactory in this range without requiring extensive EQ treatment *among other things*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 To each his/hers own.
  
 Decent speakers and/or headphones do not need DSP to sound palatable. I am familiar with and respect your EQ work - but excuse me, I would take "flat enough, although not perfect" headphone/speaker with wideband signal over DSP and 44.1kHz any day.  My experience is if it is not correctable by a good analogue parametric EQ, it is not worth bothering with. It is not (only) about flat response, it is more about transient response. The sharper the resonance and the sharper the correction filter required, the more chance it will go wrong - big time. A couple dBs here or there but non-resonant is less objectionable than persistent ringing at some frequency;  even if  a digital filter/DSP/whatever would be perfect, the mass etc of a real transducer requiring so massive correction will always be lagging.  Try as you might - DSP till death - Philips cheap IEMs ( I have bought them, largely because of your recommendation ) will never sound anything like say Stax IEM. I do realize that baby Stax still does need correction(s) - yet it can take these corrections and remain clean, fast and effortless. Philips will remain grainy in the treble no matter what. I certainly do not want to say that Philips IEMs are not worth their money - on the contrary - but they do have their limitations. I am perfectly aware comparing two products this different in price is not fair - but at the end of the day, it is either I am satisfied with something - or not. I find the treble of most dynamic phones hard, defficient and unnatural - with very few exceptions. I might decide to re-acquire Audio Technica ATH-7 or ATH-8 electret phones - again after say 20+ years. Now they are seriously lacking in bass and brute dynamics/loudness - but I never ever had any listening fatigue with said phones on material that is within their envelope - "bleeding ears" is something totally alien to these phones. . There are better headphones for treble - but ATH7/8 is a safe bet to get most of the detail without ever going overboard with shrillness, grainy sound, etc, etc - depending how you want to call it.   DSP can not turn seriously defficient headphone into a world beater: like always, prevention ( fast wideband next-to-nonresonant transducer ) is always better than cure ( say Philips IEM + DSP ) - even if on paper (or computer screen ...) it looks better.
  
 I would never accept DSP for analogue sources.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

analogsurviver said:


> I would never accept DSP for analogue sources.




Hate to break it to you, but the industry is trending the other way. Far more money is being invested in the development of largely digital solutions with a simple analog front end. These solutions use far less power, are far more capable with better performance, and in many cases substantially cheaper.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> I would never accept DSP for analogue sources.






grumpyoldguy said:


> Hate to break it to you, but the industry is trending the other way. Far more money is being invested in the development of largely digital solutions with a simple analog front end. These solutions use far less power, are far more capable with better performance, and in many cases substantially cheaper.




analogsurvivor is into different technology, like CD mats. Some people prefer technology that doesn't actually do anything scientifically because then it doesn't degrade the analog signal. It just magically makes it better


----------



## Argyris

My main issue with some of the newer technology that will inevitably become the standard isn't conceptual. It's that it's still in its infancy, and it's largely aimed at the consumer market, which isn't as exacting as I am. Take wireless headphones, for instance. The cheap amps they stick in these things usually hiss audibly, and the overall performance tends to be poor, with a wildly unbalanced response that's often all over the place and usually obscenely mid-bass boosted.
  
 My concern isn't that the technology is inherently incapable of producing a headphone I can enjoy--I'm fully convinced that, with some work, it absolutely can, and I honestly can't wait. I hate headphone cables with a passion. No, my concern is that the companies that make the kinds of headphones I like won't transition over in time and will be marginalized/driven out of business, leaving behind the big box makers to decide that hissy and uneven and overly mid-bassy is "good enough" for the mainstream market and to never improve on the technology. Of course some boutique companies might then pop up and release grossly overpriced wireless headphones that fix these issues, but then I'm stuck paying a ridiculous upcharge just to get the performance I already have for effectively $280 in my HD 600.
  
 That's why I wish that instead of burying their heads in the sand and banging on about the ostensibly inherent superiority of current technology, audiophiles would start pressuring companies like Sennheiser et al to get ahead of the curve and embrace and improve upon the new technology, yielding equipment that actually sounds good using it. Instead, they cling to their $$$$(...) cables and amps and DACs and watch idly as companies like Apple start rolling the ball that will eventually make everything we all own obsolete.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Any time you listen to real instruments in a real acoustic environment, the room resonances cause phase shifts that swamp any phase effects of any transducer.


Red: My correction curve for the Beyerdynamic DT880 (including a sharp notch above 10kHz that shouldn't even be there, I don't know how it got there. So the phase and group delay analyses may look worse than they actually are)

Green: Frequency response derived from impulse response measurements of my listening environment...


Phase response of the Beyer headphones correction filter


Phase response of the room measurement...


Group delay of the Beyer correction filter impulse response


Group delay of the room measurement impulse response


And the actual impulse waveforms--top: room response, bottom: Beyer EQ impulse

Interestingly, the above room response is taken from the impulses I put into stereo convolver to simulate loudspeaker soundfield when wearing headphones. And I and some others find the soundfield much more natural and lifelike when this simulation is added and hence the impulse response "mutilated" as shown above. :rolleyes:


----------



## analogsurviver

grumpyoldguy said:


> Hate to break it to you, but the industry is trending the other way. Far more money is being invested in the development of largely digital solutions with a simple analog front end. These solutions use far less power, are far more capable with better performance, and in many cases substantially cheaper.


 
 I know that and am aware of it.
  
 The way I see digital/DSP in audio : it is slow to set up, it is fragile, it lets you down when most needed.
  
 Two examples: 
  
 1. ) VU/Peak Hold meter on laptop : for some strange reason, computers DO have will, if not mind, of their own. They would not recognize Device A trough its USB input 1, but trough all of the other USB inputs; Device B malfunctions on USB input 3, but works perfectly on others .... - and so on and on. Stick any device ( like ADC sound card) into any other USB input that works with that device, but was not used for that particular device the last recording session when EVERYTHING was working properly - and computer will, for some reason known only to itself, recalibrate the input gain for the ADC sound card. In Windows, this goes from 0 to 100% - which is theoretical. From 29 to 31% is almost 3 dB change - and damn thing would take at least some 15 minutes wrestling before the levels are , finally, fixed at what they should be point. This requires external reference signal - since you can not possibly rely on the laptop. I carry an additional recorder just for this purpose. Compare this to plugging the mains and signal cables to analog VU/Peak Meter and pressing the power  button - works perfectly every time...  Yes, analog box is a 19" rack job at about 8 kg, and, yes, it does cost, for this sole function alone, around $400-500 (  depending on your luck in used market , no analog VU/Peak Meters made in decades - and correspondingly in high demand ) - but whenever possible, I prefer it to ANY laptop scenario. That said laptop has to be bog quiet - as certainly I would not want to record its fan noise instead of quiet parts of the reverberation of any given acoustics, thus compromising something I craved and fought for for a considerable time. I record almost exclusively on location, preferably in the same acoustic space as the musicians, preferably somewhere damn close to the best seat in that venue - which rules any whirling of HDDs,  let alone fans out.
  
 2.) Proliferation of digital mixing consoles being controlled by tablets : We had to endure the "computer would not have it any other but its own way"  during recent concert. The poor guy tapping that tablet simply could not get the third band with completely different instruments etc right - as digititis would, for a (n+1) times, return to basically the settings for the previous band. The guy did the set of Band 1 and Band 2, if not excellently, certainly decent and much better than average - so, he clearly was not novice and knew what he was doing. After more than 30 minutes, I had to leave because of the last bus - and was told afterwards that it took another 20 or so minutes before Band 3 could start playing for real. It all had the  toll to shorten the performance of Band 3 to ... 10 minutes or so. 
  
 Because it was an open air concert, with the deadline for silence at 01:00 or 1 AM.


----------



## analogsurviver

joe bloggs said:


> Any time you listen to real instruments in a real acoustic environment, the room resonances cause phase shifts that swamp any phase effects of any transducer.
> 
> 
> Red: My correction curve for the Beyerdynamic DT880 (including a sharp notch above 10kHz that shouldn't even be there, I don't know how it got there. So the phase and group delay analyses may look worse than they actually are)
> ...


 
 Quite true - with one, but unfortunately, fatal flaw.
  
 Whenever you are listening to any live performance, you do get to listen to the effects you describe above as being so much greater in magnitude than the defects of the headphone transducers themselves. And the acoustics, however flawed they might be according to any of the objectively measured parameters, do tend to aid the intentions of composers/musicians. Sometimes , the acoustics can have a determined influence on a composer - such as in the case of Bruckner. When I "complained" about Bruckner this Bruckner that to a friend who is a principal flutist in our symphonic orchestra, he simply replied: " Go and visit the church where Bruckner has been the organist for much of his career - you'll understand it in a couple of seconds why his music is as it is ..."
  
 I try to record music as heard by the listener in the best seat in any given venue. That, of course, includes recording - as faithfully as possible - any "defects" of the venue(s) listed in your post. 
  
 Ever listened to instruments recorded in an anechoic chamber ? They may sound "perfect" - but it is as removed from reality as picture of a scantily clad blonde young woman nicely laughing at you against the blackness of the space - in order to highlight her by providing for as much of the contrast as possible; in reality, she would no longer be laughing, in an instant she would be - dead.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I fail to see your disagreement with my post--you might have missed the part where I'm not *correcting* for the phase distortions introduced by the room acoustics, but indeed embracing them and adding them into the headphone listening experience of plain stereo recordings, via convolution. And the point was that not only are such gross aberrations compared with the most aggressive of headphone EQ not found aberrant, they are actually an essential part of a realistic listening experience.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

analogsurviver said:


> I know that and am aware of it.
> 
> The way I see digital/DSP in audio : it is slow to set up, it is fragile, it lets you down when most needed.




Sorry, this is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time... Latency through a hardware based digital system is on the order of microseconds (sometimes an order of magnitude less!!) and a software based one milliseconds... After the initial latency it's still sample by sample, so there is virtually no difference. Are you actually suggesting the microseconds of latency is too slow and bothersome???

As for robustness, this is another ridiculous statement. Digital hardware has a substantially lower failure rate than an analog equivalent and is capable of operating in far wider conditions.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Sorry, this is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time... Latency through a hardware based digital system is on the order of microseconds (sometimes an order of magnitude less!!) and a software based one milliseconds... After the initial latency it's still sample by sample, so there is virtually no difference. Are you actually suggesting the microseconds of latency is too slow and bothersome???
> 
> As for robustness, this is another ridiculous statement. Digital hardware has a substantially lower failure rate than an analog equivalent and is capable of operating in far wider conditions.


 
 Why not whinge about microseconds when you can hear ultrasonics. Analog is just enjoying himself with convoluted statements with his visits to science forums.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Ever listened to instruments recorded in an anechoic chamber ? They may sound "perfect" - but it is as removed from reality as picture of a scantily clad blonde young woman nicely laughing at you against the blackness of the space - in order to highlight her by providing for as much of the contrast as possible; in reality, she would no longer be laughing, in an instant she would be - dead.


 
 Another meaningless *analog*y.


----------



## analogsurviver

grumpyoldguy said:


> Sorry, this is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time... Latency through a hardware based digital system is on the order of microseconds (sometimes an order of magnitude less!!) and a software based one milliseconds... After the initial latency it's still sample by sample, so there is virtually no difference. Are you actually suggesting the microseconds of latency is too slow and bothersome???
> 
> As for robustness, this is another ridiculous statement. Digital hardware has a substantially lower failure rate than an analog equivalent and is capable of operating in far wider conditions.


 
 OK - ever experienced an iffy USB contact - either cable or plug on the computer ? That is BIG issue in real life when you have to transport the equipment. If contact is lost for an infinitesimal part of a second, the computer can go crazy, resetting itself to some setting who knows how much time in its history removed from realtime - and it is frantically punching in the correct settings all over again. If it happens just before the beginning of a live concert - you are toast. I meant mainly  this kind of trouble as "not being robust" - if and when connections are OK, computers usually work well enough ( except at powering up, the blues of going back to who know when back in its history - or default setting - can strike without any warning or false inputs from the operator - putting operator at great stress if and when any additional time simply does not exist ). 
  
 All damn connectors that are soldered directly to PCB, without any soft wire to absorb the connecting and disconnecting the cable, are a ticking time bomb - usually going off at the time it will do the most damage ( worst case scenario - after having positioned mics perfectly, somebody requires tidying up the cables. You oblige, everything looks neat, no cable visible anywhere - but a connector decides to go to ever hunting grounds at that last moment and all the hard work with preparation goes to waste - not to mention the angry customer who ends withot the recording... - it DID happen ! ). On RCAs, I try as much as I possibly can to replace/modify the RCAs so that they do have some soft wire loop instead of direct solid metal rod/collar/whatever soldered to the PCB; it is either solder joint that breaks ( and becomes iffy ... ) or the solid metal part of the connector itself.. With USBs, it is nearly impossible to modify them with soft wire in most cases because there is simply no space for that soft wire loop.  
  
 My otherwise beloved, revered and worshipped preamp, the AGI 511, is notoriously known for these female RCA breakages; luckily, the central signal pin usually breaks, making the contact and sound trough that contact impossible - not the ground that could lead to downstream equipment damage. I got extremely lucky and found a seller on ebay selling these female RCAs , NOS from at least 25 years, if not more, back in time last year - after I figured out just how to solder the required 20 or so mm soft wire to the central collar to connect to the very dedicated PCB carrying all the RCAs for the entire preamp. It is time consuming as hell, as you have to desolder the RCA which was first mounted by insertion into the PCB, then bending its four "legs" for the outer ground shield connection, then soldering these four grounds and fifth central signal lug ( the one prone to breaking ).Desoldering without breaking those four ground contacts is nothing to be looking forward to - but, given the patience and decent tools, can be done. It is a major PITA to replace these RCAs with any other known type - as that means new RCA PCB design and most panel mount female RCAs are simply too large to accommodate into pattern governed by the holes for the RCAs in the back plate.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

analogsurviver said:


> OK - ever experienced an iffy USB contact - either cable or plug on the computer ? That is BIG issue in real life when you have to transport the equipment. If contact is lost for an infinitesimal part of a second, the computer can go crazy, resetting itself to some setting who knows how much time in its history removed from realtime - and it is frantically punching in the correct settings all over again. If it happens just before the beginning of a live concert - you are toast. I meant mainly  this kind of trouble as "not being robust" - if and when connections are OK, computers usually work well enough ( except at powering up, the blues of going back to who know when back in its history - or default setting - can strike without any warning or false inputs from the operator - putting operator at great stress if and when any additional time simply does not exist ).
> 
> All damn connectors that are soldered directly to PCB, without any soft wire to absorb the connecting and disconnecting the cable, are a ticking time bomb - usually going off at the time it will do the most damage ( worst case scenario - after having positioned mics perfectly, somebody requires tidying up the cables. You oblige, everything looks neat, no cable visible anywhere - but a connector decides to go to ever hunting grounds at that last moment and all the hard work with preparation goes to waste - not to mention the angry customer who ends withot the recording... - it DID happen ! ). On RCAs, I try as much as I possibly can to replace/modify the RCAs so that they do have some soft wire loop instead of direct solid metal rod/collar/whatever soldered to the PCB; it is either solder joint that breaks ( and becomes iffy ... ) or the solid metal part of the connector itself.. With USBs, it is nearly impossible to modify them with soft wire in most cases because there is simply no space for that soft wire loop.
> 
> My otherwise beloved, revered and worshipped preamp, the AGI 511, is notoriously known for these female RCA breakages; luckily, the central signal pin usually breaks, making the contact and sound trough that contact impossible - not the ground that could lead to downstream equipment damage. I got extremely lucky and found a seller on ebay selling these female RCAs , NOS from at least 25 years, if not more, back in time last year - after I figured out just how to solder the required 20 or so mm soft wire to the central collar to connect to the very dedicated PCB carrying all the RCAs for the entire preamp. It is time consuming as hell, as you have to desolder the RCA which was first mounted by insertion into the PCB, then bending its four "legs" for the outer ground shield connection, then soldering these four grounds and fifth central signal lug ( the one prone to breaking ).Desoldering without breaking those four ground contacts is nothing to be looking forward to - but, given the patience and decent tools, can be done. It is a major PITA to replace these RCAs with any other known type - as that means new RCA PCB design and most panel mount female RCAs are simply too large to accommodate into pattern governed by the holes for the RCAs in the back plate.




Guy, you think digital hardware is inferior because of connector lifespan? That's absolutely nuts. 

To answer your question, no, I have not experienced an "iffy" USB connector, whatever that means. 

This sounds like a very clear case of someone stuck in the past because they don't understand the present.


----------



## StanD

So it's up to fringe cases and crappy hardware rather than the way things go for most of us. With that train of thought one should never leave their home lest they be struck down by lightning or hit my a meteor. Perhaps analogsurvivor should change his handle to analogsurvivalist. I don't think the rest of us want to live in fear.


----------



## analogsurviver

grumpyoldguy said:


> Guy, you think digital hardware is inferior because of connector lifespan? That's absolutely nuts.
> 
> To answer your question, no, I have not experienced an "iffy" USB connector, whatever that means.
> 
> This sounds like a very clear case of someone stuck in the past because they don't understand the present.


 
 So, you must live in an ideal world where nothing ever fails.
  
 Not so in real life - it is pure wishful thinking. Connector lifespan is usually much lower than actual device*s - what good is a perfect amp, computer or whatever electronics - if it can not be connected reliably ? I know it is trivial - that is why it can be so maddening at times.
  
 Repeat : it takes about one minute to unpack, connect and power up - ALWAYS perfect so far - an analog VU/Peak Hold meter - whereas with PC and ADC sound card can be anything from three minutes to whatever the damn thing decides to test your nerves on any particular ocasion; if it is a live recording and you miss a few bars at the beginning because of thing like that, the customer will refuse to pay and "recommend" you to his/her friends. 
  
 I hope this is at least "1 bit" more understandable - because it can affect your pocket.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

analogsurviver said:


> So, you must live in an ideal world where nothing ever fails.
> 
> Not so in real life - it is pure wishful thinking. Connector lifespan is usually much lower than actual device*s - what good is a perfect amp, computer or whatever electronics - if it can not be connected reliably ? I know it is trivial - that is why it can be so maddening at times.
> 
> ...




You're grossly exaggerating failure rates to match up your narrative with what you imagine to be a problem with digital technology in your mind. 

That's sad. It's regressive thinking like that which stifles innovation. Maybe you deserve my username more than I do. 

Sorry, but digital is a far more robust solution.

Edit:
I can't believe I'm actually arguing about connector failure rates right now. This is absurd... I'm going to wait for this discussion to move on before posting again.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> So, you must live in an ideal world where nothing ever fails.
> 
> Not so in real life - it is pure wishful thinking. Connector lifespan is usually much lower than actual device*s - what good is a perfect amp, computer or whatever electronics - if it can not be connected reliably ? I know it is trivial - that is why it can be so maddening at times.
> 
> ...


 

 A professional photographer carries a spare camera body, multiple lenses, flashes, etc. so you might consider carrying spare kit.  Also failure rates are not high enough to be so frightened. If it happens to you with that kind of frequency, either you are hexed or you are not taking proper care of your kit.


----------



## analogsurviver

grumpyoldguy said:


> You're grossly exaggerating failure rates to match up your narrative with what you imagine to be a problem with digital technology in your mind.
> 
> That's sad. It's regressive thinking like that which stifles innovation. Maybe you deserve my username more than I do.
> 
> Sorry, but digital is a far more robust solution.


 
 Hmmm - I have a friend who is running the national health insurance organization*s "computers". It HAS to work 24/7, 365/366/year.
  
 HE is getting tired of server in his home music setup - and wants simply to press the button and listen to some music after returning home from staring at computer screens all day. No menus, mouse & all that digital nuisance. Whenever I requested him to play a certain song I knew he has it or was even given by me, it took ages before he finally could dig it out of the server. 
  
 I simply do not want to be put up with that - end of story. I will go to whatever "computer" lengths when required and really can not be done without it;  but it ruins much of the joy I have listening to music. Given the possibility to listen to the same music either on computer or analogue, I would choose analogue in 98+% of cases.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Hmmm - I have a friend who is running the national health insurance organization*s "computers". It HAS to work 24/7, 365/366/year.
> 
> HE is getting tired of server in his home music setup - and wants simply to press the button and listen to some music after returning home from staring at computer screens all day. No menus, mouse & all that digital nuisance. Whenever I requested him to play a certain song I knew he has it or was even given by me, it took ages before he finally could dig it out of the server.
> 
> I simply do not want to be put up with that - end of story. I will go to whatever "computer" lengths when required and really can not be done without it;  but it ruins much of the joy I have listening to music. Given the possibility to listen to the same music either on computer or analogue, I would choose analogue in 98+% of cases.


 
 You act like failures are occurring all the time, that's ridiculous. If you want 100% access get a high availability cluster of servers and a DR site. I don't see why analog has a lower failure rate than digital. You should stop making out as if a few fringe cases that you site are the norm as that is plain silly.


----------



## U-3C

...how on Earth did we get to arguing about connection failure rates...? :blink: 

In all my years, aside from once when a person stepped onto my headphone jack, never have I experienced issues with connections. 

My father freaks out when he sees that I have to many USB devices plugged in though (legit freaks out). He's always worried that I'll fry something as I'm putting so much stress on my computer. 

"Relax dad, it's just a mouse, a keyboard and a dac! There's literally about ten more empty ports on the back of my computer for usage. I'm sure my computer can handle three just fine!  "


----------



## analogsurviver

u-3c said:


> ...how on Earth did we get to arguing about connection failure rates...?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 In home environment, one usually connects whatever setup once "almost for all" - and rarely changes much. Connection failures are really rare.
  
 In the the "acoustics scouting" for the present female choir Christmas CD , I had to set up and dismantle the whole setup 4 times - in a single day. For every single church we had at our disposal, so we could decide which will be used for the final recording based on these preliminary recordings. It is a "little" different than at home; add vibration due to constant transportation, etc - you should be able to get the picture.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> You act like failures are occurring all the time, that's ridiculous. If you want 100% access get a high availability cluster of servers and a DR site. I don't see why analog has a lower failure rate than digital. You should stop making out as if a few fringe cases that you site are the norm as that is plain silly.


 
 You forgot something - things I use have to be (trans)portable. Most of the time, solutions proposed are not even available, let alone practical or cost effective. Taken together, I can barely carry/roll/whatever the minimum equipment required - looking more like an octopus than a human being in the process. Except octopuses do not haul giant 50 kg cases behind them...
  
 In 5 hours I will be on a train to Italy for tomorrow*s recording session.
  
 Off to quick sleep ...


----------



## U-3C

analogsurviver said:


> In home environment, one usually connects whatever setup once "almost for all" - and rarely changes much. Connection failures are really rare.
> 
> In the the "acoustics scouting" for the present female choir Christmas CD , I had to set up and dismantle the whole setup 4 times - in a single day. For every single church we had at our disposal, so we could decide which will be used for the final recording based on these preliminary recordings. It is a "little" different than at home; add vibration due to constant transportation, etc - you should be able to get the picture.




Thing is... I move between multiple homes on a weekly basis, involving quite a bit of driving on the terrible terrible roads of the province I live in, as well as move my mobile workstation, which includes my entire audio setup, between different work areas on a daily basis. I've been doing this for years and use my mobile setup exclusively for my work and for personal entertainment. Things get unplugged and replugged multiple times a day. 

5 years later, nothing has malfunctionend yet. In the past, I had a motherboard that fried because the computer was left to handle a heavy rendering workload for a long time during a hot summer day, but that setup was about to die anyways after almost 5 years of use. That computer was bought 10 years ago, and I didn't get a high quality one back then because I didn't know a thing about computers. Still, it was just the motherboard with burnt traces. No connection failure issues. :/

I can see why this may be an issue for you due to your uses, but I doubt for the majority of the people, it won't make much of a difference. For those who don't move stuff around, sound is probably what matters more, and I definitely don't think a type of connector with a high failing rate will affect sound that much but I've never visited the cable threads so please feel free to prove me wrong. 0_0;

Maybe I'm living in an alternate reality, but just from the standpoint of connections... I simply cannot relate to what you have been saying about connection failures. Aside from a person stepping on an angled headphone jack once, I've never had a single connection fail on me... 

:blink:

This is even weirder than talking about hearing ultrasonic sounds... Can we get back to that topic? I'm actually interested and hope to learn more about it. 

So far, I'm with Joe Bloggs. I'll take 44.1 khz with DSP any day over anything higher but without DSP. The difference is simply too great for me to ignore. In fact, I lock everything at 44.1 khz even if I happen to have higher res audio files.

...

"Audio Files."

I JUST CAN'T HELP BUT NOTICE THAT!

 .


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver drags us into his own professional world. so plenty of the things he talks about can very much be true for his practice, but let's not forget that they have absolutely nothing to do with the average amateur listening to a few of his beloved albums at home.
  
 -yes binaural recording is one serious solution for headphones, but within the massive quantity of albums released up to this day, binaural is a drop in the ocean(for many reasons). we can't make a case about how to get the good sound if most albums aren't in fact available through that solution. it's not that the idea is wrong, it's just totally impractical for the average guy.
  
 -yes speakers in a room will be different from real live sound and ultimately binaural recording and headphones could come closer to the original than mastered on speakers and played back on speakers at home. but again, most albums are mastered on speakers so the only actual reference we can use is how it should sound on speakers in a treated room. even if a few masters try to stick mostly to how it sounded, the end result is the same. the reference sound is now the sound from speakers in the studio. and headphones without DSP are way off once this is the reference we get to play with. I believe that DSPs can bring the experience closer to some reference on speakers. it could also help to get closer to the original music, but for that we would need everything done while recording with fidelity and headphone playback in mind. to this day it's a niche within a niche IMO.
  
 -yes USB isn't exactly robust or ideal for professionals moving stuff around several times a weeks. but most people reading those posts are at home and won't have to unplug or move anything for months or years. so again it's not a dumb argument, but it's really out of place for amateur audiophiles trying to get a more realistic sound at home.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I ask one simple question:

Why should a digital setup have more connections to fail than an analog setup?

If you're truly going all digital, you should have nothing more than a couple of mics, a USB interface capable of taking said amount of mics, and a PC.

Everything else would be done via virtual instruments, virtual plugins or simply done in post on the computer.





> 1. ) VU/Peak Hold meter on laptop : for some strange reason, computers DO have will, if not mind, of their own. They would not recognize Device A trough its USB input 1, but trough all of the other USB inputs; Device B malfunctions on USB input 3, but works perfectly on others .... - and so on and on. Stick any device ( like ADC sound card) into any other USB input that works with that device, but was not used for that particular device the last recording session when EVERYTHING was working properly - and computer will, for some reason known only to itself, recalibrate the input gain for the ADC sound card. In Windows, this goes from 0 to 100% - which is theoretical. From 29 to 31% is almost 3 dB change - and damn thing would take at least some 15 minutes wrestling before the levels are , finally, fixed at what they should be point. This requires external reference signal - since you can not possibly rely on the laptop.




Or you could, you know, write down the numbers you used for all the sliders in Control Panel -> Sound -> (device) -> Levels last time, and dial them right back in?

That's assuming you have any reason NOT to plug the same device back into the same port in the first place. Mark your ports with the devices they're supposed to connect with. If you have multiple copies of the same device, the computer will remember the different settings for each copy depending on which port you plug them into--that's the reason for your "problem" in the first place.

All in all this sounds like the fault of someone who refuses to learn the new technology properly rather than any innate fault of the new technology.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> You forgot something - things I use have to be (trans)portable. Most of the time, solutions proposed are not even available, let alone practical or cost effective. Taken together, I can barely carry/roll/whatever the minimum equipment required - looking more like an octopus than a human being in the process. Except octopuses do not haul giant 50 kg cases behind them...
> 
> In 5 hours I will be on a train to Italy for tomorrow*s recording session.
> 
> Off to quick sleep ...


 

 Another tangential story that has nothing to do with the failure rates of connections. I plug wires into an out of my computers and smart devices constantly and don't have any failures. There are spec's, MTBF for one that are not low enough to cause concern. Stop making up stories or inflating a rare failure that you may have had. Enjoy your train ride.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> The way I see digital/DSP in audio : it is slow to set up, it is fragile, it lets you down when most needed.


 
  
 I can't tell for sure but it appears you are purporting to be a professional recording engineer.  I've heard this amount/level of complete baloney countless times from audiophiles but it's rather shocking to hear it from a pro recording engineer. Let's just look at a few points:
  
 You can't hear an isolated sine waves above 14kHz but you can hear sine waves far higher than that, and in fact well beyond even the theoretical mechanical limits of human physiology, providing that those sine waves are accompanied by a plethora of other sine waves (within the audible band) of far greater magnitude?! You're joking right?
  
 Your comments about Bruckner, venue acoustics and live performance, musicians/composers, etc., appear to be contradictory and lack some fundamental basic understanding of acoustics + the perception of a live performance. It's for this reason that acoustic ensembles, particularly larger ensembles, are almost always professionally recorded with mic arrays (inc., commonly some spot mics) rather than with a single stereo pair.
  
 No, I can't remember ever having had a USB connector fail, which invalidates a whole swath of your argument! One of the great things about digital recording compared to analogue is that the vast majority of the time you just plug it in, switch on and it instantly and consistently provides it's optimal performance. Of course, sometimes digital equipment fails but generally it's at least as reliable as analogue gear (and commonly more so) and has the substantial added advantage of not needing almost constant maintenance (alignment/calibration, etc.) in order to perform optimally. It's simply not even a vaguely close contest, analogue is far more fragile, even more so if going portable!
  
 If you were an experienced commercial recording engineer, spouting baloney for marketing reasons, why wouldn't you be avoiding the sound science forum like the plague?! The only alternative I can think of, is someone whole heartedly infected by audiophile insanities "having a go" at recording. Maybe there's another alternative (that I haven't thought of) which can explain the apparently insane/ignorant arguments though?
  
 G


----------



## spruce music

gregorio said:


> If you were an experienced commercial recording engineer, spouting baloney for marketing reasons, why wouldn't you be avoiding the sound science forum like the plague?! The only alternative I can think of, is someone whole heartedly infected by audiophile insanities "having a go" at recording. Maybe there's another alternative (that I haven't thought of) which can explain the apparently insane/ignorant arguments though?
> 
> G


 
 Drain bamage?
  
 In the analogue world there are no parity bits to correct errors?


----------



## StanD

spruce music said:


> Drain bamage?
> 
> In the analogue world there are no parity bits to correct errors?


 

 Parity bits are for error detection, not correction. Doesn't matter anyway, I'm sure that he cleans his connectors and uses the most expensive unobtanium cables to be found. I guess that I've just opened the door for a lecture on cables like we've never heard before.


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> -yes speakers in a room will be different from real live sound




For me, 90% of the live music I listen to, the music was originally created with "speakers in a room." I have yet to find that any of my headphones recreate that sound better than speakers in _my_ room.


----------



## sonitus mirus

cel4145 said:


> For me, 90% of the live music I listen to, the music was originally created with "speakers in a room." I have yet to find that any of my headphones recreate that sound better than speakers in _my_ room.


 
  
 I would assume that an overwhelming majority of any recorded music is analyzed and mastered using speakers in a room before it becomes readily available for consumers.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> For me, 90% of the live music I listen to, the music was originally created with "speakers in a room." I have yet to find that any of my headphones recreate that sound better than speakers in _my_ room.


 

 Yet once recorded we only need to play it back. Unless binaural it was probably recorded using multiple microphones at different locations so I wouldn't be so sure that one gets the same playback as the live experience. In any case if you enjoy any particular recordings, that's a good thing no matter how you play it back.


----------



## castleofargh

cel4145 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > -yes speakers in a room will be different from real live sound
> ...


 

 maybe I expressed that wrongly, my argument was that in playback with speakers you're adding a second room and a different soundstage that ideally shouldn't exist if we were to capture the original room correctly(but of course we don't even do that and most instruments are recorded in mono anyway). headphones and appropriate DSPs could lead to a closer version of the ideal original sound because of that IMO. I'm not saying we have that right now, just talking about what could be done if all the audio chain was organized around such idea. be it in the recording room with almost untouched albums(if people desire that, I know I don't), or something more fun like recording in binaural in the mastering room at the position where the sound engineer did his job? that could be nice I guess on a properly EQed headphone. the sound as it was heard by the guy mastering it. ^_^
 but then we would still miss the tactile bass with headphones so nobody's perfect but I see ultimately a bigger potential for fidelity with headphones(and a woofer).


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> maybe I expressed that wrongly, my argument was that in playback with speakers you're adding a second room and a different soundstage that ideally shouldn't exist if we were to capture the original room correctly(but of course we don't even do that and most instruments are recorded in mono anyway). headphones and appropriate DSPs could lead to a closer version of the ideal original sound because of that IMO. I'm not saying we have that right now, just talking about what could be done if all the audio chain was organized around such idea. be it in the recording room with almost untouched albums(if people desire that, I know I don't), or something more fun like recording in binaural in the mastering room at the position where the sound engineer did his job? that could be nice I guess on a properly EQed headphone. the sound as it was heard by the guy mastering it. ^_^
> but then we would still miss the tactile bass with headphones so nobody's perfect but I see ultimately a bigger potential for fidelity with headphones(and a woofer).




I wouldn't see an ultimate potential over object oriented sound which would seem more likely to be better able to simulate the same spatial presentation as another room, whereas headphones only have two transducers to try to achieve that with. So I'm really looking forward to when we get some good blu-ray concerts in Atmos or DTS:X to see what it can do


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> I wouldn't see an ultimate potential over object oriented sound which would seem more likely to be better able to simulate the same spatial presentation as another room, whereas headphones only have two transducers to try to achieve that with. So I'm really looking forward to when we get some good blu-ray concerts in Atmos or DTS:X to see what it can do


 
  
 You can do object-oriented sound with headphones, but you have the nuisance of the HRTF. Eventually we'll be able to get a $2 scan of our ears with lasers instead of paying top $$ for a Smyth unit that still requires mini-mics and test signals.


----------



## sonitus mirus

rrod said:


> You can do object-oriented sound with headphones, but you have the nuisance of the HRTF. Eventually we'll be able to get a $2 scan of our ears with lasers instead of paying top $$ for a Smyth unit that still requires mini-mics and test signals.


 
 Eventually we might be able to simply tap into our brains so that we can experience sounds, sights, smells, tastes, and touch like it were actually happening in reality.  Maybe we already have.  Maybe you selected the hyper-realism package, and you won't know the truth of your actual existence until the game is over.  Ha!


----------



## StanD

sonitus mirus said:


> Eventually we might be able to simply tap into our brains so that we can experience sounds, sights, smells, tastes, and touch like it were actually happening in reality.  Maybe we already have.  Maybe you selected the hyper-realism package, and you won't know the truth of your actual existence until the game is over.  Ha!


 

 However this is done, just make sure the software isn't hosted on MS Windows using a chip embedded in one's head, because that's one BSOD you won't walk away from.


----------



## RRod

sonitus mirus said:


> I would assume that an overwhelming majority of any recorded music is analyzed and mastered using speakers in a room before it becomes readily available for consumers.


 
  
 Was recently watching something out of 2L and though they seem to like the HD800 for monitoring, they still seem to have invested just a bit in speakers. Cans in lower R corner are HD700, which the composer seems to be using instead of the HD800 in other parts of the video.


----------



## Argyris

Well, I tried. 
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/16425#post_12941200


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> Well, I tried.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/16425#post_12941200




A person just asked me about the soundstage of the Schiit Fulla and how it compares to the dac I'm using. I didn't even want to get into the topic of how the illusion of soundstage is created despite my strong urge to type down a full lecture (more like parroting what I read online...  ), as I fear my poor communications skills and my lack of actual audio knowledge might do more harm than good. :/

Kudos to you for wording it so well! I might as well just quote what you wrote every time somebody asks me about what they should do to chase a humongous soundstage. 

Since the dac I use is an entry level one, most people asking these questions about this dac probably don't even know if a large soundstage is what they really want. That was me some time ago. Now, I'll trade my Q701 and my AD700x any day for a pair of HD600.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> I can't tell for sure but it appears you are purporting to be a professional recording engineer.  I've heard this amount/level of complete baloney countless times from audiophiles but it's rather shocking to hear it from a pro recording engineer. Let's just look at a few points:
> 
> You can't hear an isolated sine waves above 14kHz but you can hear sine waves far higher than that, and in fact well beyond even the theoretical mechanical limits of human physiology, providing that those sine waves are accompanied by a plethora of other sine waves (within the audible band) of far greater magnitude?! You're joking right?
> 
> ...


 
 Well, you obviously do not know I have chosen DSD recording, which is, of course - digital - as means that most closely approximates analogue. In some ways, it is superior to analogue tape, in some it is (DSD128) still worse.  I certainly agree whatever digital recorder ( that does not rely on pesky USBs...)  is far more robust than any analogue recorder.
  
 I did not mention the last friday and saturday I had demo of my own master DSD recordings at our yearly audio show.  You should have seen the sheer number of yaws dropped. Perhaps the most interesting comment came from a close friend who worships Slovenian doyen of audio engineers, Mr. Aco Razbornik - who has each and every credential as a recording engineer one can possibly think of - provided that recording can be done in a studio. That means recording "dirty" musicians.- per my definition, "clean" musicians are those whom we can hear without them to know what electricity is ( OK, if we neglect lighting for them to see sheet music ), whereas "dirty" musicians are those who have to plug in into any kind of amplification/loudspeakers in order to be heard. Please note that I DO like and appreciate "dirty" musicians equally well if not better than "clean" ones - except that is not my thing as a recording engineer. I would only touch "dirties" IF it is played in a truly good hall or in open air, provided that PA is well above average>excellently executed - which is rare and approaching Mission Impossible. I was lucky to have recorded one such gig in binaural 2 or 3 years ago - too bad my binaural mics were not yet quite up to the level they are now, otherwise it would have been a reference recording of a truly great emerging band - _Prismojeni profesorji bluesa /  _(english version - Wacky Blues Professors https://www.facebook.com/Prismojeni-Profesorji-BluesaWacky-Blues-Professors-889985047768232/?fref=ts who, after playing 250+ live gigs last year in Slovenia, decided to go on "student leave/tour/whatever" to the USA where they are currently playing at various venues, river boats included - don*t  miss to see their show live if you happen to see it advertised in your area!!! Here their first CD  - but remember, they are infinitely better live : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9nwq6RZTR0  Here probably the best compromise between video and SQ they issued on YT : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOxoVxllXSw  One more interesting thing regarding PPB/WBP ; when we went to listen to my recording of theirs to my another friend*s place, they played classical music in their car; question whether this was standard practice got an answer : "Almost exclusively..."
  
 That friend of a close friend is no slouch in music - the son of Slavko Avsenik, the famous leader of the Ansambel bratov Avsenik , https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansambel_bratov_Avsenik -  https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavko_Avsenik_mlaj%C5%A1i . Furthermore, due to the chain of events, I got to know him personally as a _competitor - _he has family ties with the members of a certain choir. Due to the previous history with the singers who comprise this relatively newly formed choir (2 years or so, "dropouts" from other choirs I have been working with previously, due mostly to family reasons that once again found the time to follow their musical desires), I have almost been 100% sure I will get to record all their performances. It turned out I have to share it, about 50:50, with him - for "peace in the house" reasons.
  
 So, what did Mr. Avsenik say in the conversation what he thinks of me as a recording engineer ? " He ( analogsurviver ) hears things most people do not recognize at all " - that from the direct competition. About the fairest comment one can possibly make by listening to , I assume,  something else than DSD128 masters on equipment over which I have no control of.
  
 Here is a song from the first ever concert given by this choir, in a setting that SHOULD be favourable ( church I know well and is my go to church for live recordings ), but turned into nightmare on this particular recording - because due to the fact that the priest forgot there were TWO masses held that day instead of one and furthermore, my another friend had a rehearsal of his  recorder quartet that played in frame of the second mass. So, I arrived at 14:00 or 02:00AM, to give myself much more than needed time to set everything up well before the rehearsal of "my" choir would commence. The beginning of "my" choir concert was at 20:00 or 08:00PM - with the first possibility for me to place any microphone at 19:40 or 07:40 AM - and one can not do much during mere 10 minutes to which the choir had its rehearsal cut short due to the change of events on that particular day. Remember, this is not DSD128 master, but whatever highest quality YT supported at the time of upload :
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb3CUjjdOCQ
  
  
 The best "natural habitat" for listening to my DSD128 masters would be, in ascending order :
  
 1. Maggies ( as big/good you can afford/get ) powered by "enough" ( lots of good amps to choose from  ) >
 2. King*s Audio King III electrostatics from China http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/kingsound/1.html, again powered by "enough" - which, in this case, is REALLY tough on amps, as in the treble they dip below 1 ohm   and their reactive nature of impedance is far too tough nut to crack for normal amps. The one I have heard that is (almost) satisfactory is the Acoustat TNT 200 - which has been built specially to drive electrostatcs. It can power the IIIs to satisfactory level up to say Mozart symphony or large(r) choir; beyond that, two (in a bridged mode ) are required. But don*t demo this unless you can afford it - I can*t but did ...
 Both of these setups require fairly large room - do not consider any in small(ish) rooms if good result is expected.
 3.Whatever dynamic speaker that can, at least partially, emulate the above - but with MUCH improved SPL or dynamic range. I managed to play back my recording of Mahler*s 2nd finale I thought was clipped when listening to Maggies with a BIG amp on some ATC ( will have to ask for the model no... )  - but only just.  Please note this is extreme and not required for more than 99.9% of music.
  
 And, for binaural recordings, AKG K-1000 ( + subwoofer ).
  
 From all of the above, it should be crystal clear I am not joking.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Parity bits are for error detection, not correction. Doesn't matter anyway, I'm sure that he cleans his connectors and uses the most expensive unobtanium cables to be found. I guess that I've just opened the door for a lecture on cables like we've never heard before.


 
 Ha - WRONG !
  
 I , usually, do not have time to clean the connectors. It takes some 2-3 minutes to do a single RCA - male or female - times say 40 it is quite time consuming. Last time I did a thorough job, my producer begged me to stop doing it - he heard way too much errors in the choir he is also a member of - the tenor.
  
 I DID go trough the roof regarding connector reliability - or sheer ability to make a reliable contact in the first place. For cables I solder together myself , the connectors of choice are Neutrik models - either pro (with a spring loaded connect ground first ) or their lower priced REAN version ; both feature cable clamping arrangement that makes any cable twisting/pulling within the connector itself ( the usual mode of failure ) next to impossible and are as reliable as it gets. However, any soldered connector does not seal the cable from the atmosphere and hence oxidation - or, (in)famous copper rot ( it turns into a green mess - please do not say you never saw that ) over a period of time. Recently I got the chance to get factory made cable by Mogami ( Mogami part WR-10, made with Mogami 2965 cable with only approx 65pF/metre capacitance ) at an ridiculously discounted clearance price - which close even this oxidizing gap with moulded plastic connectors. The only really appealing quality of silver/silver plated cables is the fact that silver protects itself with oxidation and, although initially more expensive than copper, can in the long run prove to be more cost effective ( several replacements of Cu cable required over lifetime of an Ag cable ) - but at the lengths required for recording, it is ( at the present ) too much $$$ for me.  
  
 I do realize some cables are, in particular application, better than the others. In real life, cost/performance ratio has to be factored in.  I find it amusing but not funny to what lengths with cable audiophools can go - while ignoring a ton of garden variety capacitors in whatever boxes they use connected to those cables. RBCD lovers have it easy regarding cables; but try to connect a really low output low impedance phono cartridge ( equal to or less than 0.1mV RMS output and 5 ohm impedance ), you*ll get it pretty soon why, for example, no longer produced XLO phono cable fetches such high prices on used market... - because, taken overall, it DOES provide for better sound in this application. You will again say it is a fringe case; yes, it is - but it is equally real.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Ha - WRONG !
> 
> I , usually, do not have time to clean the connectors. It takes some 2-3 minutes to do a single RCA - male or female - times say 40 it is quite time consuming. Last time I did a thorough job, my producer begged me to stop doing it - he heard way too much errors in the choir he is also a member of - the tenor.
> 
> ...


 

 Cleaning cables are part of maintenance, not cable failures. Green copper rot is not a common problem, many times is has to do with extreme environmental conditions or poor storage.
 A good solder connection has nothing to do with oxidation of the connectors, so I don't see any relevant meaning to your statement. If you are getting solder onto the connecting surfaces, that would be a mistake on your part.
 If twisting and pulling on a cable causes failures, then you are not getting a cable designed for such a use case. That would be your fault for purchasing or constructing a cable not intended for this use case.
 Copper, Silver or Unobtainium are all useless talking points. You should refrain from using fringe cases or concoctions as a means of establishing points. I look forward to your next long entertaining post.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> From all of the above, it should be crystal clear I am not joking.


 
  
 Oh dear, that's what I was afraid of! Thank you though, all your talk of dirty/clean musicians, DSD being nearly as good as analogue, what equipment to listen to your masters and of course your demo recording, at least you've completely put my mind at rest regarding the two alternatives I was musing.
  
 G


----------



## james444

Get a chance to listen to analogsurviver's binaural stuff and you might realize he has an excellent understanding of recording and venue acoustics. Sometimes the proof is in the pudding. Jm2c.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Cleaning cables are part of maintenance, not cable failures. Green copper rot is not a common problem, many times is has to do with extreme environmental conditions or poor storage.
> A good solder connection has nothing to do with oxidation of the connectors, so I don't see any relevant meaning to your statement. If you are getting solder onto the connecting surfaces, that would be a mistake on your part.
> If twisting and pulling on a cable causes failures, then you are not getting a cable designed for such a use case. That would be your fault for purchasing or constructing a cable not intended for this use case.
> Copper, Silver or Unobtainium are all useless talking points. You should refrain from using fringe cases or concoctions as a means of establishing points. I look forward to your next long entertaining post.


 
 I meant the oxydation of the cable itself, not the connectors, caused by the part of the cable close to the connector (that allows soldering,  say 1/2" ) being exposed to surrounding atmosphere - which, over time, will allow the oxidation across the whole length of the cable. Factory made cables that have RCA/cable joint sealed with moulded plastic , as the Mogami  mentioned, do not allow this to happen - and fare better over long periods of time ( say at least 5 years ). 
  
 From your above remark above, one might conclude I do not know how to solder.
  
 Ever replaced SMD - pin to pin INCOMPATIBLE - ICs - and the thing not only worked, but worked better than the original ? 
  
 I did.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

analogsurviver said:


> [1] I meant the oxydation of the cable itself, not the connectors, caused by the part of the cable close to the connector (that allows soldering,  say 1/2" ) being exposed to surrounding atmosphere - which, over time, will allow the oxidation across the whole length of the cable.
> 
> [2] Ever replaced SMD - pin to pin INCOMPATIBLE - ICs - and the thing not only worked, but worked better than the original ?
> 
> I did.


 
  
 [1] **facepalm**
  
 [2] You mean you can solder a thin gauge wire from a pin to a PCB? ZOMG what an astonishing feat... You should start touring and talking about your experiences to CCA production techs. 
  
 Any chance we can get back to some actual sound science discussion?


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> I meant the oxydation of the cable itself, not the connectors, caused by the part of the cable close to the connector (that allows soldering,  say 1/2" ) being exposed to surrounding atmosphere - which, over time, will allow the oxidation across the whole length of the cable. Factory made cables that have RCA/cable joint sealed with moulded plastic , as the Mogami  mentioned, do not allow this to happen - and fare better over long periods of time ( say at least 5 years ).
> 
> From your above remark above, one might conclude I do not know how to solder.
> 
> ...


 

 I never said that you can't solder. If I have a critical cable I'll put a bead of silicon rubber or epoxy to seal the end of the insulation and exposed wires to help prevent oxidation. I think you're putting more into this cable thing than there really is. Sure there will be an occasional failure, however, if you are experiencing frequent cable problems that would not be normal and you would have to find out why this is happening to you.
 I've soldered plenty enough, even wirewrapped prototypes with over 100 IC's. Let's not get into a contest on fabricating cables. etc.
 How about some new topics in sound science rather than more of the same stuff rehashed.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

I just came from a thread where a dude bought some cork coasters from Walmart to help mechanically isolate his power conditioner from vibrations through the shelf it was sitting on... He claimed it made his system sound too "floaty"... Of all the jibberish I've read on these forums, I've never once come across the term "floaty"... But I guess it's pretty accurate... his power conditioner is now "floating" about a 1/16th of an inch off the shelf because of the coasters.... *sigh* you can't make this stuff up...


----------



## sonitus mirus

grumpyoldguy said:


> I just came from a thread where a dude bought some cork coasters from Walmart to help mechanically isolate his power conditioner from vibrations through the shelf it was sitting on... He claimed it made his system sound too "floaty"... Of all the jibberish I've read on these forums, I've never once come across the term "floaty"... But I guess it's pretty accurate... his power conditioner is now "floating" about a 1/16th of an inch off the shelf because of the coasters.... *sigh* you can't make this stuff up...


 
  
 Floaty is a good one.  Hopefully they weren't talking about their stool.  
  
 In the last year, we have these mentions:
  
Floataganza!


----------



## krismusic

sonitus mirus said:


> Floaty is a good one.  Hopefully they weren't talking about their stool.
> 
> In the last year, we have these mentions:
> 
> Floataganza!



Good grief!


----------



## sonitus mirus

krismusic said:


> Good grief!


 
  
 Yep!  My new favorite quote: "There was an instant veil of artificiality removed."  From ball bearings resting on clothespins, no less.


----------



## spruce music

sonitus mirus said:


> Yep!  My new favorite quote: "There was an instant veil of artificiality removed."  From ball bearings resting on clothespins, no less.


 

 What, no hard pinned in sound?


----------



## Argyris

I could kind of see that word used to describe a sound signature that lacks fundamental and bass extension, which would lack a solid foundation and would therefore sound "floaty". Of course there are better ways of describing this effect, including the sentence I just typed before this one.


----------



## StanD

Some people will buy into anything, no matter how strange it may sound. Remember the one about putting dull razor blades under a pyramid and they would be sharpened overnight? I wonder what would happen if I put my headphones under a pyramid. Would they become strident, airy or just experience a treble boost? I don't think that idea that might sell on the forums.
  
 So what's with this overexcitement with R2R DACs? They're all 16 bit and that limits the resolution and DR to about 96 dBV. Last year people were getting into a twist about 32 bits. Imagine the wattage required to truly harness that and the resulting SPL might level the neighborhood. Good thing there isn't any source material that could rise to the occasion.


----------



## castleofargh

stand said:


> Some people will buy into anything, no matter how strange it may sound. Remember the one about putting dull razor blades under a pyramid and they would be sharpened overnight? I wonder what would happen if I put my headphones under a pyramid. Would they become strident, airy or just experience a treble boost? I don't think that idea that might sell on the forums.
> 
> So what's with this overexcitement with R2R DACs? They're all 16 bit and that limits the resolution and DR to about 96 dBV. Last year people were getting into a twist about 32 bits. Imagine the wattage required to truly harness that and the resulting SPL might level the neighborhood. Good thing there isn't any source material that could rise to the occasion.


 

 I wondered about that myself. we've had years about how fidelity was a sabre DAC(when the other chipsets where doing just fine with the proper implementation IMO). now sabre has a new chipset with specs that make the old one look like crap. but somehow nobody cares, and R2R is "the real sound".
 I see 2 rational explanations:
 - there was a breach in the time continuum and we're all back in 1980 but a few of us kept our original memories(alien technology being incompatible with pringles or some other typical problem with alien technology including the usual gremlins).
 - audio is a fashion show and a joke of a hobby where nobody cares about what's good or practical. only that it's trendy and clearly different from last season's product so that you can shame people who use a 2 years old device.


----------



## Argyris

castleofargh said:


> I see 2 rational explanations:
> - there was a breach in the time continuum and we're all back in 1980 but a few of us kept our original memories(alien technology being incompatible with pringles or some other typical problem with alien technology including the usual gremlins).
> - audio is a fashion show and a joke of a hobby where nobody cares about what's good or practical. only that it's trendy and clearly different from last season's product so that you can shame people who use a 2 years old device.


 
  
 I'm going with option number two, though number one would be kind of cool in its own, videogame plot-esque way.
  
 Also, I need to ask: a quick Google search for "R2R" turned up resistor ladders, like the old Covox Speech Thing. Given the reference to the 1980s...surely this isn't what we're talking about here, is it?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

argyris said:


> I'm going with option number two, though number one would be kind of cool in its own, videogame plot-esque way.
> 
> Also, I need to ask: a quick Google search for "R2R" turned up resistor ladders, like the old Covox Speech Thing. Given the reference to the 1980s...surely this isn't what we're talking about here, is it?




An R2R DAC uses a bunch of voltage dividers so that each bit contributes a corresponding weighted voltage to the output. Or in other words.... Yes.


----------



## gikigill

Yet to see a single R2R DAC that was markedly better than a decent DS implementation. Skipped a totaldac and the Yggdrasil to stick with my pretty basic existing DS


----------



## Ruben123

sonitus mirus said:


> Floaty is a good one.  Hopefully they weren't talking about their stool.
> 
> In the last year, we have these mentions:
> 
> Floataganza!




Read the 2nd post: http://www.head-fi.org/t/693686/great-bargain-isolation-discovery/30

Makes you wanna try it eh! It sure makes me wondering, how great is their imagination? I mean you can't expect those enormous changes by "isolating" your setup?!


----------



## Argyris

Absurdity is imagination without the temperance of reality.


----------



## gregorio

james444 said:


> Get a chance to listen to analogsurviver's binaural stuff and you might realize he has an excellent understanding of recording and venue acoustics. Sometimes the proof is in the pudding.


 
  
 No, it's not. Anyone with the cash can buy a good quality binaural mic setup, place it in the best seat in the house, press record and get a decent or good binaural recording. Except for knowing which cables to plug in where and the very basics of gain staging, pretty much no understanding (or skill) of recording or venue acoustics is required, let alone an "excellent understanding"! Particularly from the mid '80s onwards (and even well before that in some respects) commercial large ensemble recording took a different tack, the tack of creating as close to an ideal perception of a performance rather than just capturing the actual sound waves from the best seat in the house. Now that does take knowledge and skill!
  
 The proof is in the pudding but a rare/strange few seem willing/able to overlook significant faults in a pudding (faults most others would find completely unacceptable) due to some spurious promise of authenticity.
  
 G


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> No, it's not. Anyone with the cash can buy a good quality binaural mic setup, place it in the best seat in the house, press record and get a decent or good binaural recording. Except for knowing which cables to plug in where and the very basics of gain staging, pretty much no understanding (or skill) of recording or venue acoustics is required, let alone an "excellent understanding"! Particularly from the mid '80s onwards (and even well before that in some respects) commercial large ensemble recording took a different tack, the tack of creating as close to an ideal perception of a performance rather than just capturing the actual sound waves from the best seat in the house. Now that does take knowledge and skill!
> 
> The proof is in the pudding but a rare/strange few seem willing/able to overlook significant faults in a pudding (faults most others would find completely unacceptable) due to some spurious promise of authenticity.
> 
> G


 
 Well, that tack of creating as close to an ideal perception of a performance than just capturing the actual sound waves from the best seat in the house involves compromise(s) - more ( usually much more ) than 2 mikes, mixing desk, processing, plugins, etc, etc - which is as perfect recipe for the disaster as one might possibly think of. It will invariably impair the personal decisions how it should sound - by whoever is doing it; at best, it would be a "fake according to ...." and not the reproduction of the real thing.The result is the usual "correct" recording - devoid of true life, fire and passion of a live performance. Depending on how (un)successful the efforts of various commercially available recordings are, I can calmly say none are good enough - mine included, with few exceptions. The closest came IMO Ken Kreisel in his recordings for M&K direct to disk series http://www.kreiselsound.com/timeline.php and in recent times, partially,  2L from Norway - but it takes much more understanding and knowledge than just buying off the shelf equipment  and learning which cable goes to which input/output - plus some fundamental knowledge of gain.
  
 I have written more than enough/too much regarding what I consider to be relevant regarding the possible ways of improvement. And will not go further - into any detail. I have revealed way too much already. It takes a fair use of one*s "processor" between the ears - provided the said processor is not brainwashed/brain dead from the results of the modern mainstream education - even after rebooting it several times. 
  
 Why on earth would artists whom I have never met or even heard of before be seeking my contact if not for the fact they heard whatever little of DSD master remains on commercially issued CDs that I have recorded - if not for the fact they liked my pudding better than anyone else*s ?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

There's a bajillion artists out there. Your work is bound to tickle at least *some* artists' fancy.

In September this year I was invited to join the largest, most popular team of Android system sound modders out there. Every day hundreds of users pile praise on the dev team. In my two months' membership, I have been continually bewildered by my inability to detect any effect from the current build of the mod, beneficial or otherwise. Finally, at my own expense, I bought a recording kit for the lead developer himself, who agreed to make a recording. Result--same null results, even from his own development smartphone.

Popularity is no guarantee of merit--never mind the fact that, if you were to argue your merit based on popularity, you should first be engineering for the most popular commercial classical recording label out there! For every big name you can name who has come your way, I'm sure others can name 10 bigger names who swear by, say, the chief sound engineer at, say, EMI Classics... or whatever mainstream label whose recordings you were dissing just now...


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> There's a bajillion artists out there. Your work is bound to tickle at least *some* artists' fancy.
> 
> In September this year I was invited to join the largest, most popular team of Android system sound modders out there. Every day hundreds of users pile praise on the dev team. In my two months' membership, I have been continually bewildered by my inability to detect any effect from the current build of the mod, beneficial or otherwise. Finally, at my own expense, I bought a recording kit for the lead developer himself, who agreed to make a recording. Result--same null results, even from his own development smartphone.
> 
> Popularity is no guarantee of merit--never mind the fact that, if you were to argue your merit based on popularity, you should first be engineering for the most popular commercial classical recording label out there! For every big name you can name who has come your way, I'm sure others can name 10 bigger names who swear by, say, the chief sound engineer at, say, EMI Classics... or whatever mainstream label whose recordings you were dissing just now...


 

 This just goes to show us the power of belief/expectation and how that influences perception. So when as you say, "Every day hundreds of users pile praise," that's almost like mass hysteria but without a threat.


----------



## analogsurviver

joe bloggs said:


> There's a bajillion artists out there. Your work is bound to tickle at least *some* artists' fancy.
> 
> In September this year I have been invited to join the largest, most popular team of Android system sound modders out there. Every day hundreds of users pile praise on the dev team. In my two months' membership, I have been continually bewildered by my inability to detect any effect from the current build of the mod, beneficial or otherwise. Finally, at my own expense, I bought a recording kit for the lead developer himself, who agreed to make a recording. Result--same null results, even from his own development smartphone.
> 
> Popularity is no guarantee of merit--never mind the fact that, if you were to argue your merit based on popularity, you should first be engineering for the most popular commercial classical recording label out there! For every big name you can name who has come your way, I'm sure others can name 10 bigger names who swear by, say, the chief sound engineer at, say, EMI Classics...


 
 I have been selling CDs in retail for more than 10 years - last 5 years exclusively classics. I did - HAD to - listen to them at the time; although there is no tougher torture to endure music heard at home over weekend from the original LP monday morning at job on CD - because the customer wanted to listen to it. 
  
 And it is precisely because I got disgusted by then recent recording on major labels - EMI Classics included - that I said ENOUGH , quit the job and started developing an alternative, but more importantly, better way of recording. I am not interested in the run of the mill quality recording as practiced by majors, I am interested in quality recordings for whoever is interested in quality first.
  
 Many full moons ago, in the days when vinyl was the only game in town,  Harmonia Mundi France was quite a big leap in front of the majors as far as sheer sound quality is concerned. Fast forward to present day - and they have lowered their once so high standards for sound quality to the level of everybody else.  
  
 Go out and get any CD on Harmonia Mundi by Bernarda Fink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernarda_Fink - and then get the second "regular" CD by Vokalna Akademija Ljubljana http://valval.si/en/ ( VAL, 2016 ) - where there are two songs where Bernarda has joined the forces with VAL, one of the very best amateur choirs in the world. She did not choose the VAL to accompany her in concert given at the ceremony of Republic of Austria for presenting her the award for achievements in culture - over many other more known, but not better ensembles - for nothing...
  
 And LISTEN. 
  
 But not on toys like Android. There is no app in the universe that can free so small portable devices of inherent flaws this small size necessitates.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I'd rather evaluate recordings YOU did for the sake of the argument.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> This just goes to show us the power of belief/expectation and how that influences perception. So when as you say, "Every day hundreds of users pile praise," that's almost like mass hysteria but without a threat.




Well it's not so simple. It incorporates dozens of sound effects libraries, including one that is freely available as a standalone app, albeit one that is notoriously difficult to install and get running. The whole mod has gathered more followers and momentum than said standalone app, but said standalone app has turned out to be the only thing that consistently works across devices. So rather than it being literally a whole lot of nothing, you could say this is more like the inverse of the story of the stone soup, with the mysterious rock at the bottom of the pot, held in low regard by some, turning out to be the only nutritious element in the pot a lot of the time. :rolleyes:

The latter app is also the only element of the mod that has an actual user interface that lets you change settings on the fly. The other elements purport to be fixed effects that require reflashing of the ROM to change. So users are flashing one of the many many variants of the mod and reporting differences between all of them, when right now I suspect they're all the same thing--in which case this would be like a mass social gag experiment demonstrating the fallability of echoic memory...


----------



## james444

gregorio said:


> No, it's not. Anyone with the cash can buy a good quality binaural mic setup, place it in the best seat in the house, press record and get a decent or good binaural recording. Except for knowing which cables to plug in where and the very basics of gain staging, pretty much no understanding (or skill) of recording or venue acoustics is required, let alone an "excellent understanding"! Particularly from the mid '80s onwards (and even well before that in some respects) commercial large ensemble recording took a different tack, the tack of creating as close to an ideal perception of a performance rather than just capturing the actual sound waves from the best seat in the house. Now that does take knowledge and skill!
> 
> The proof is in the pudding but a rare/strange few seem willing/able to overlook significant faults in a pudding (faults most others would find completely unacceptable) due to some spurious promise of authenticity.
> 
> G


 
  
 Well, what do I know, I'm just on the consumer side of things: a regular (though recently less so) concert goer, who happens to prefer this guy's binaural recordings over most other stuff when it comes to lifelike spatiality.
  
 So would you please enlighten me, as to what significant and completely unacceptable faults my rare/strange breed is overlooking? And since we're in the objectivist's board room, would you kindly point out the objective criteria that make your "close to an ideal perception of a performance" more lifelike and spatially accurate than the "sound waves from the best seat in the house"?
  
 Always willing to learn from a pro, and should this tasty pudding prove in fact unfit for consumption, then so be it. But so far your arguments have been quite vague and hardly convincing.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

james444 said:


> Well, what do I know, I'm just on the consumer side of things: a regular (though recently less so) concert goer, who happens to prefer this guy's binaural recordings over most other stuff when it comes to lifelike spatiality.
> 
> So would you please enlighten me, as to what significant and completely unacceptable faults my rare/strange breed is overlooking? And since we're in the objectivist's board room, would you kindly point out the objective criteria that make your "close to an ideal perception of a performance" more lifelike and spatially accurate than the "sound waves from the best seat in the house"?
> 
> Always willing to learn from a pro, and should this tasty pudding prove in fact unfit for consumption, then so be it. But so far your arguments have been quite vague and hardly convincing.




Who's this analogsurvivor in real life and what recordings of his are you listening to


----------



## analogsurviver

joe bloggs said:


> I'd rather evaluate recordings YOU did for the sake of the argument.


 
*I* have recorded all of the VAL CDs so far...


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> *I* have recorded all of the VAL CDs so far...




Cowboy tunes?


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> *I* have recorded all of the VAL CDs so far...


 
  
 Is the below link it? They call it a "Russian bootleg label" or is it something else? Doesn't seem to carry the type of content that you've been discussing
https://www.discogs.com/label/222999-Val-Records


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Is the below link it? They call it a "Russian bootleg label" or is it something else?
> https://www.discogs.com/label/222999-Val-Records


 
 DigitalPropellerHeads ( Trademark, Copyright, etc & so forth) bunch on this thread, obviously, can not  - or wish not - to read/follow the links posted. Despite being - digital ...


----------



## james444

Lol, he only just linked to the site like minutes ago and mentioned VAL three times or so.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> DigitalPropellerHeads ( Trademark, Copyright, etc & so forth) bunch on this thread, obviously, can not  - or wish not - to read/follow the links posted. Despite being - digital ...


 

 Are you trying to label us with an insult? Sometimes one misses or forgets a link if it was in a post that was on a previous page relative to the last mention.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

http://valval.si/en/recordings/audio


----------



## analogsurviver

james444 said:


> Well, what do I know, I'm just on the consumer side of things: a regular (though recently less so) concert goer, who happens to prefer this guy's binaural recordings over most other stuff when it comes to lifelike spatiality.
> 
> So would you please enlighten me, as to what significant and completely unacceptable faults my rare/strange breed is overlooking? And since we're in the objectivist's board room, would you kindly point out the objective criteria that make your "close to an ideal perception of a performance" more lifelike and spatially accurate than the "sound waves from the best seat in the house"?
> 
> Always willing to learn from a pro, and should this tasty pudding prove in fact unfit for consumption, then so be it. But so far your arguments have been quite vague and hardly convincing.


 
 Just a correction - none of my recordings in your possession are binaural. They have been recorded with custom made DIY Jecklin Disk - as the commercially available version is appalling in its multifarious mistakes and simplifications for easier manufacture.
  
 My latest binaural recordings reproduced over AKG K-1000 sound quite a bit more convincing than Jecklin Disk - but, as mentioned more than once, the market is still more speaker than headphone oriented - and I have to eat too. Jecklin Disk is still the second best option for listening on headphones - leaving most of the more conventional recordings in the dust.
  
 As the time for the recording on location is ALWAYS limited, I usually have the time to adjust only one microphone - and in such cases, it is Jecklin Disk. IF and WHEN I can do both JD and binaural - both well - I will do it. Unfortunately, these opportunities are few and far in between.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Are you trying to label us with an insult? Sometimes one misses or forgets a link if it was in a post that was on a previous page relative to the last mention.


 
 The same question can be asked about "cowboy songs" ( BTW, there ARE good cowboy songs ... ) and "Russian bootleg label ".
  
 Sometimes, it takes some of your own medicine to realize it was uncalled for and inappropriate in the first place - it is not particularly pleasant on the receiving end, isn*t it ?


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> The same question can be asked about "cowboy songs" ( BTW, there ARE good cowboy songs ... ) and "Russian bootleg label ".
> 
> Sometimes, it takes some of your own medicine to realize it was uncalled for and inappropriate in the first place - it is not particularly pleasant on the receiving end, isn*t it ?


 

 I didn't say anything about cowboy songs so don't hang that hat on me. I Googled up a link and what I found referred it as a "Russian Bootleg label." I asked about it because it didn't seem right and even stated, "Doesn't seem to carry the type of content that you've been discussing." You shouldn't read it as insulting as I didn't remember any previous link. All you had to do is post back the link, even if you had posted it a page or two back. Joe was kind enough to do just that.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> I didn't say anything about cowboy songs so don't hang that hat on me. I Googled up a link and what I found referred it as a "Russian Bootleg label." I asked about it because it didn't seem right and even stated, "Doesn't seem to carry the type of content that you've been discussing." You shouldn't read it as insulting as I didn't remember any previous link. All you had to do is post back the link, even if you had posted it a page or two back. Joe was kind enough to do just that.


 
 Fair enough - "cowboy" was @cel4145. But the link was only a few posts back.
  
 I did post the link(s) for some of my recordings on YT - not sooo long ago, less than a week - from which it is possible to decipher more about me than I ever remember revealed for any of the head-fi members still on this thread.


----------



## RRod

joe bloggs said:


> Popularity is no guarantee of merit--never mind the fact that, if you were to argue your merit based on popularity, you should first be engineering for the most popular commercial classical recording label out there! For every big name you can name who has come your way, I'm sure others can name 10 bigger names who swear by, say, the chief sound engineer at, say, EMI Classics... or whatever mainstream label whose recordings you were dissing just now...


 
  
 You would think from the arguing on here that the engineers at all these labels had NEVER heard a real symphony orchestra in their life, and of course neither have the composers / conductors / soloists who are there vetting the final product with them. Surely they have all been instructed by some higher authority to produce a "typical" recorded orchestral sound. Personally I feel the standards in classical are high enough that getting a truly BAD sounding recording is something you almost intentionally have to do these days.


----------



## james444

analogsurviver said:


> Just a correction - none of my recordings in your possession are binaural. They have been recorded with custom made DIY Jecklin Disk - as the commercially available version is appalling in its multifarious mistakes and simplifications for easier manufacture.
> 
> My latest binaural recordings reproduced over AKG K-1000 sound quite a bit more convincing than Jecklin Disk - but, as mentioned more than once, the market is still more speaker than headphone oriented - and I have to eat too. Jecklin Disk is still the second best option for listening on headphones - leaving most of the more conventional recordings in the dust.
> 
> As the time for the recording on location is ALWAYS limited, I usually have the time to adjust only one microphone - and in such cases, it is Jecklin Disk. IF and WHEN I can do both JD and binaural - both well - I will do it. Unfortunately, these opportunities are few and far in between.


 
  
 Thanks for your explanation, I stand corrected. They still sound amazingly lifelike and spatially convincing to me, and less clinical than e.g. the Chesky recordings I've heard (admittedly though, that's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison). The Mozart Requiem in particular is easily among my favorite recordings of this piece.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> DigitalPropellerHeads ( Trademark, Copyright, etc & so forth) bunch on this thread, obviously, can not  - or wish not - to read/follow the links posted. Despite being - digital ...






analogsurviver said:


> The same question can be asked about "cowboy songs" ( BTW, there ARE good cowboy songs ... ) and "Russian bootleg label ".







analogsurviver said:


> Fair enough - "cowboy" was @cel4145. But the link was only a few posts back.




That was obviously a joke, if you took a moment to recognize the big smiley face underneath the pitcure. It's what came up in when I selected the phrase "VAL CDs" in your post and let Chrome run a Google search. 

But since you want to belabor this issue and defend being rude, I'll be blunt. This "DigitalPropellerHeads" tired a long time ago of your subjectivist diatribes. I often have better things to do with my time, and I am not going to go back and read through them to see if there is a link. I was just curious what recording work you did.


----------



## spruce music

analogsurviver said:


> Just a correction - none of my recordings in your possession are binaural. They have been recorded with custom made DIY Jecklin Disk - as the commercially available version is appalling in its multifarious mistakes and simplifications for easier manufacture.
> 
> My latest binaural recordings reproduced over AKG K-1000 sound quite a bit more convincing than Jecklin Disk - but, as mentioned more than once, the market is still more speaker than headphone oriented - and I have to eat too. Jecklin Disk is still the second best option for listening on headphones - leaving most of the more conventional recordings in the dust.
> 
> As the time for the recording on location is ALWAYS limited, I usually have the time to adjust only one microphone - and in such cases, it is Jecklin Disk. IF and WHEN I can do both JD and binaural - both well - I will do it. Unfortunately, these opportunities are few and far in between.


 

 I like omni mikes and the Jecklin disk.  I however hear almost a hole in the middle effect.  Not quite a hole, but almost.  I sometimes on recordings have converted the two channels to sum and difference signals like in MS recordings.  Then raise the sum signal by 3-4 db before going back to stereo.  This helps with the weak middle I perceive. Others don't complain of it so maybe it is just me.  Recordings I made always seem to have a weak middle and I hear it in those others have made.  Experimenting with thicker disks seems to be a step in the right direction though I haven't come up with a configuration that fixes the issue.


----------



## gregorio

james444 said:


> would you kindly point out the objective criteria that make your "close to an ideal perception of a performance" more lifelike and spatially accurate than the "sound waves from the best seat in the house"?


 
  
 I'm not sure what you mean by "objective criteria", at least as it would apply to creating a better subjective recording? When we're at a live performance of say an orchestra, what we perceive is based on a whole bunch of biases. Even if we're sitting in the best seat in the house we do not accurately perceive the "sound waves from the best seat in the house". Using your example of spacial accuracy for example, the brain will tend to reduce the perceived amount of reverb and concentrate more on the direct sound of what you're looking at (the orchestra). Likewise, if we look at a particular musician in the orchestra, our brain will tend to focus more on the sound of that musician and in effect raise the perceived level of that musician relative to the other musicians. The brain will also tend to significantly reduce the volume of background noise (inc. audience noise), unless there's a noise which is not part of the brain's already accepted/masked pattern of background noise, a fact which is also of particular significance in film sound.
  
 When listening to an audio recording we obviously don't have those visual cues of the live performance and therefore our perception is always going to be different, even if the recording were a perfectly accurate capture of the sound waves at that seating position. There are additional biases at a live performance which affect our perception, biases which have nothing to do with audio and can therefore never be captured by an audio recording, the excitement and expectation bias of a live performance should be obvious examples. It should be obvious to anyone that audio formats beyond human hearing are not the answer, nor is an old, fringe stereo mic technique.
  


analogsurviver said:


> Well, that tack of creating as close to an ideal perception of a performance than just capturing the actual sound waves from the best seat in the house involves compromise(s) - more ( usually much more ) than 2 mikes, mixing desk, processing, plugins, etc, etc - which is as perfect recipe for the disaster as one might possibly think of. It will invariably impair the personal decisions how it should sound - by whoever is doing it; at best, it would be a "fake according to ...." and not the reproduction of the real thing.


 
  
 Yes, it does involve compromises, it virtually always does, the question is; which provides the least compromises? Virtually no commercial recordings of large acoustic ensembles use just a stereo pair any more, because the compromises are too great! I understand that complex multi-mic'ing arrays, mixing desks and processing is apparently beyond your knowledge/ability and would therefore be "as perfect a recipe for disaster" as you personally can think of. However, there's quite a few educated, skilled and experienced pro recording engineers out there who aren't so scared/ignorant of the standard tools of the trade.
  
 Yes, I'm aware of the "fake according to ..." crowd. Fortunately they are a fringe minority with no influence and pretty much everyone in the industry just ignores them as a bunch of nutters, the only exceptions being those few in the industry specifically trying to exploit those nutters. What's more fake than using imperfect headphones/speakers in a completely different environment to reproduce sound waves which no one at the performance perceived anyway?
  


analogsurviver said:


> It takes a fair use of one*s "processor" between the ears - provided the said processor is not brainwashed/brain dead from the results of the modern mainstream education - even after rebooting it several times.


 
  
 Agreed. Although there is something even worse than a brainwashed victim of mainstream audio education, a brainwashed audiophile! At least the victim of education should have a basic understanding of the science, even though they often can't apply it creatively. The audiophile on the other hand doesn't even have that, as demonstrated by statements which apparently seem perfectly logical to them but completely insane to anyone with even a high school education!
  
 G


----------



## analogsurviver

james444 said:


> Thanks for your explanation, I stand corrected. They still sound amazingly lifelike and spatially convincing to me, and less clinical than e.g. the Chesky recordings I've heard (admittedly though, that's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison). The Mozart Requiem in particular is easily among my favorite recordings of this piece.


 
 I agree with your observation regarding Chesky recordings , which were/are mainly recorded and produced by Bob Katz. 
  
 You can believe me I did not like the fact that the  technically even far better recording of Pergolesi*s Stabat Mater from the same venue as used for Mozart/Czerny Requiem will never see the light of day in its entirety - because of the playing. Not a single bit ... 
  
 I am looking forward to forthcoming recordings with the new lineup of VAL - both under "studio" conditions in our best concert hall, the big hall of Cankarjev Dom 
 http://www.cd-cc.si/en/
  

  
 with a stellar piano accompanist who is a professor at Mozarteum and one of the top tenors of our days as soloist - as well as live concert in the church of St.Jacob (a couple of days later ) - where the Requiem has been recorded live.
  
 It is nice to be again recording two of my former CD customers : the conductor and the solo tenor.  We are remaining in close relationship from the day they first put a foot in "my" shop.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "objective criteria", at least as it would apply to creating a better subjective recording? When we're at a live performance of say an orchestra, what we perceive is based on a whole bunch of biases. Even if we're sitting in the best seat in the house we do not accurately perceive the "sound waves from the best seat in the house". Using your example of spacial accuracy for example, the brain will tend to reduce the perceived amount of reverb and concentrate more on the direct sound of what you're looking at (the orchestra). Likewise, if we look at a particular musician in the orchestra, our brain will tend to focus more on the sound of that musician and in effect raise the perceived level of that musician relative to the other musicians. The brain will also tend to significantly reduce the volume of background noise (inc. audience noise), unless there's a noise which is not part of the brain's already accepted/masked pattern of background noise, a fact which is also of particular significance in film sound.
> 
> When listening to an audio recording we obviously don't have those visual cues of the live performance and therefore our perception is always going to be different, even if the recording were a perfectly accurate capture of the sound waves at that seating position. There are additional biases at a live performance which affect our perception, biases which have nothing to do with audio and can therefore never be captured by an audio recording, the excitement and expectation bias of a live performance should be obvious examples. It should be obvious to anyone that audio formats beyond human hearing are not the answer, nor is an old, fringe stereo mic technique.
> 
> ...


 
 I am aware there is quite a few educated, skilled and experienced pro recording engineers out there - but who said the standard tools of the trade were the best ? Or the thinking one is forced to use in order to be able to use those standard tools of the trade ? 
  
 If I listen to practically all and any commercially available recordings, I can hear those "standard tools of the trade" - and not in a positive way. What is more, I would practically never use any of those - because not only they are useless,  but put more correctly, in 99.9% of cases they are detrimental to quality sound. It is true that I do not have practically any knowledge of complex multi mike arrays - because I have yet to hear a convincing naturally sounding recording done this way. Sorry, if something does not sound right - and I mean fundamentally un-right or wrong - I have little interest of investigating an obviously inherently flawed approach; let alone studying it and throwing money and time into this bottomless pit. 
  
 All of the above can be recorded with two microphones - and reproduced on quality 2-channel system. But you have to throw the "business as usual, using standard tools of the trade" book away - as far as you possibly can.
  
 Often good conceptcs did not come trough because of the poor execution of the idea back then when they originated - usually because the technology has not been at an acceptably (enough ) high level at the time. Which certainly does not dismiss them in theory - or practically in real life using present day techniques and materials.
  
 Most educated/skilled/experienced pro sound engineers would never gather the courage to modify and/or develop their recording rig from ground up - and try as you might, using stock equipment will produce good, acceptable results - but it will never provide for the truly outstandingly great ones. None of the top recording engineers I have heard (of) use off the shelf commercially available equipment in stock form.
  
 The degree of attention to the minutest detail I use in modifying equipment made by others - or designing my own -  goes way beyond the comprehension of most pro engineers. No school available can teach them experience I gathered in the last 4 decades of tinkering with audio - with constant reference to the real thing, sound heard live.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> I am aware there is quite a few educated, skilled and experienced pro recording engineers out there - but who said the standard tools of the trade were the best ? Or the thinking one is forced to use in order to be able to use those standard tools of the trade ?
> 
> If I listen to practically all and any commercially available recordings, I can hear those "standard tools of the trade" - and not in a positive way. What is more, I would practically never use any of those - because not only they are useless,  but put more correctly, in 99.9% of cases they are detrimental to quality sound. It is true that I do not have practically any knowledge of complex multi mike arrays - because I have yet to hear a convincing naturally sounding recording done this way. Sorry, if something does not sound right - and I mean fundamentally un-right or wrong - I have little interest of investigating an obviously inherently flawed approach; let alone studying it and throwing money and time into this bottomless pit.
> 
> ...


 

 A Recording Engineer, top or otherwise, is not an EE, thus is not going to have the skills necessary to properly modify electronic equipment. It is more likely that he or she will end up worse off.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] ... but who said the standard tools of the trade were the best ?
> [2] Or the thinking one is forced to use in order to be able to use those standard tools of the trade ?
> 
> [3] If I listen to practically all and any commercially available recordings, I can hear those "standard tools of the trade" - and not in a positive way.
> ...


 
  
 1. Everyone who uses them, everyone who employ those who use them and everyone who buys the products made by those who use them. You obviously don't know how standard tools of the trade become "standard".
 2. Only someone who is brainwashed would think others are forced into a way of thinking.
 3. Of course you can hear them and of course they're not positive, your an audiophile, you couldn't possibly say any different and still be an audiophile!
 4. Yep, that's what all us real pros do for a living, waste our time using useless tools, deliberately trying to degrade sound quality.
 5. Convincing to an audiophile, no problem: Say it was recorded with the world's most expensive tube/interconnects/power cords/DAC, that the resolution up to 50MHz is femtotastic, distort the signal some and add some more pseudo-science BS .
 6. Yep, the trouble with brainwashed audiophiles (or pretty much anyone brainwashed) is that they don't realise they're brainwashed and are therefore not interested in educating themselves out of being brainwashed.
 7. Huh, stereo mic'ing was business as usual for many years but that book was thrown away and superseded decades ago, you seem to be arguing against yourself!
 8. Not only the comprehension of most pro engineers but the comprehension of pretty much any sane person with a modicum of sound science understanding!
  
 We're not going to get anywhere, the recording you posted (where you only had 10 mins to position a mic) I think sounds atrocious, I would have been too ashamed to even let my closest confidant hear it, let alone post it on a public forum. But you're an audiophile, to you it sounds great, better even than one of the most respected audio engineers on the planet, who you disparage. You marvel at your ultrasonic content that us mere humans can't even hear, let alone appreciate, while being oblivious to horrendous noises us humans find unacceptable. You are never going to be convinced by the likes of me or by science, facts, the industry or even common sense, there are enough similarly brainwashed audiophiles to maintain your unwavering belief in your superhuman abilities. Why bother investigating or studying the science and how recording is done professionally when you're superhuman and therefore the science doesn't apply to you anyway? But then why come to the science forum, surely it's beneath you? And why do so many of your posts sound like nothing more than you advertising yourself, surely your time would be better spent marketing to gullible audiophiles rather than to us on this forum?
  
 G


----------



## castleofargh

headfi has rules, if you find that posts are getting out of hand, please flag them and pufffff better than Copperfield:
  <----- summoning the high quality modo buddy Vulcan 300  "good for you Gash, no one has a friend like that".
  
 I know it's hard, but guys, try to defeat the argument and not the people. analogsurviver did drag us into his life and that was IMO a mistake because now everything is related to his life and job in some ways. but let's stay civil. I'm such a passive modo but I'm starting to consider just removing the last few days of this topic and be done with it. "the voices, the voices made me do it!!!".


----------



## Brooko

[Mod Comment]
  
 I'm going to go one further than Castle.  If you can't keep these threads civil - then I'll simply start removing people.  And I'll do it by the rules.  EG you make a personal attack - you get evicted.  That goes for everyone. And Analogue Survivor - do you really need to be here?  I would suggest that your presence here borders on trolling.  Posting what you're posting in a thread where objectivists gather is simply non constructive.  If you want to carry on this type of discussion - start your own thread.  For now - you are being evicted from this thread.
  
 No more personal attacks OK guys.  You know the rules.


----------



## StanD

Now that order has been restored, someone should pick a new topic for discussion.
 Or how about why is a 16 bit R2R ladder DAC thought to be better than a Delta Sigma DAC? I think I may have brought up in this thread that many of those singing praise to R2R (Multi-Bit) previously thought their favorite D/S DAC was the bee's knees (cat's meow) and now it can't touch the new kid on the block.


----------



## Argyris

Could it possibly be the vinyl factor? The idea that an older technology has some intangible quality about it that makes it "better" than later technology. If so, then I wonder what other blasts from the past we'll be seeing resurrected and praised.
  
 Or maybe it's the Apple effect, since Schiit has used this technology and bragged about it in their flagship DAC, so now it's suddenly the "in" thing.
  
 Maybe next somebody will make a high-end DAC from discrete resistors instead of a chip, claiming that it's "warmer" or more "organic" or "fruitier" or whatever than the Analog Devices AD5791 Schiit is using.
  
 Speaking of which, I found the AD5791 on Mouser. Anybody able to explain why the three different versions of it cost vastly different amounts? The spec sheets and associated links look identical across all three.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Now that order has been restored, someone should pick a new topic for discussion.
> Or how about why is a 16 bit R2R ladder DAC thought to be better than a Delta Sigma DAC? I think I may have brought up in this thread that many of those singing praise to R2R (Multi-Bit) previously thought their favorite D/S DAC was the bee's knees (cat's meow) and now it can't touch the new kid on the block.




The most obvious answer seems the most likely: because the marketing prose told them it was better.


----------



## StanD

I remember reading some posts by some guys with some vintage R2R DACs claiming they were, in magical audiophile terms, far better than any of the current D/S DACs. Sometimes stuff like this takes on a life of its own and spins out of control. Suddenly people are searching for used vintage R2R DACs and having out of body experiences with their new found treasures.
 Once there is a demand, some companies will make the product, engage in marketing spin and charge appropriately. Schiit has produced a number of products, including upgrade plugin boards in a variety of product classes at uncommonly low prices, so at least they aren't into gouging their customers' wallets. Even so I am not temped to upgrade my Bifrost Uber to R2R or the newer D/S plugin board. I will also assert that my other D/S DACs are not in any danger.


----------



## Ruben123

But is there a difference between the DACs? I don't care I'd it measures better, if it sounds the same why would anybody care? Never heard that one shouldn't buy old CD players or so. Only the very old ones maybe but even then I'm not sure. They are tested right?


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> ... but I'm starting to consider just removing the last few days of this topic and be done with it. "the voices, the voices made me do it!!!".


 


brooko said:


> ...  I would suggest that your presence here borders on trolling.  ...  If you want to carry on this type of discussion - *start your own thread*.


 
  
 There's already such a thread and you could just move the last few days over there. Oh, and possibly read this post (if time permits). Thanks!


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> I remember reading some posts by some guys with some vintage R2R DACs claiming they were, in magical audiophile terms, far better than any of the current D/S DACs. Sometimes stuff like this takes on a life of its own and spins out of control. Suddenly people are searching for used vintage R2R DACs and having out of body experiences with their new found treasures.
> Once there is a demand, some companies will make the product, engage in marketing spin and charge appropriately. Schiit has produced a number of products, including upgrade plugin boards in a variety of product classes at uncommonly low prices, so at least they aren't into gouging their customers' wallets. Even so I am not temped to upgrade my Bifrost Uber to R2R or the newer D/S plugin board. I will also assert that my other D/S DACs are not in any danger.




That would make sense, too. Schiit saw an opportunity to make a new/old type of DAC that almost no one has. And now that it sells for more on the website, everyone believes it to be better.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> That would make sense, too. Schiit saw an opportunity to make a new/old type of DAC that almost no one has. And now that it sells for more on the website, everyone believes it to be better.


 

 I still can't get over that the same people that were excited about 24 and even 32 bits are now so enthusiastic about 16 bit with just 96 dBV of resolution. Many of the same people want Amps with enormous amounts of power that far exceed their headphone's requirements and pine for vast amounts of headroom that can never be achieved. Yet they are thrilled to go to 16 bit R2R DACs.
 When I've tried to explain this conundrum, it for the most part, if you can pardon the expression, it falls upon deaf ears.
 I wonder how much dBSPL one could realize if they could fully harness 32 bits with Amps and speakers to go to the max? Could one level a city block with such a rig?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> I still can't get over that the same people that were excited about 24 and even 32 bits are now so enthusiastic about 16 bit with just 96 dBV of resolution. Many of the same people want Amps with enormous amounts of power that far exceed their headphone's requirements and pine for vast amounts of headroom that can never be achieved. Yet they are thrilled to go to 16 bit R2R DACs.
> When I've tried to explain this conundrum, it for the most part, if you can pardon the expression, it falls upon deaf ears.
> I wonder how much dBSPL one could realize if they could fully harness 32 bits with Amps and speakers to go to the max? Could one level a city block with such a rig?




Why is 32 bits necessarily louder than 16 bits? Couldn't I keep the reference voltage the same and simply get better precision without increasing the full scale amplitude voltage? It would be like adding 16 extra fractional bits to the DAC word.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> I still can't get over that the same people that were excited about 24 and even 32 bits are now so enthusiastic about 16 bit with just 96 dBV of resolution. Many of the same people want Amps with enormous amounts of power that far exceed their headphone's requirements and pine for vast amounts of headroom that can never be achieved. Yet they are thrilled to go to 16 bit R2R DACs.
> When I've tried to explain this conundrum, it for the most part, if you can pardon the expression, it falls upon deaf ears.
> I wonder how much dBSPL one could realize if they could fully harness 32 bits with Amps and speakers to go to the max? Could one level a city block with such a rig?




The problem is that their epistemology is based on (1) a form of rationalism with the primary premise, "If I can hear better sound, then it must be true that it exists." Then (2) they apply their own form of skepticism based on the premise that science is often wrong, so it must be wrong when it doesn't support their anecdotal experience. So referencing science and engineering can never work to counter their anecdotal experience because it has already been negated by the 2nd premise. It can only work as a valid argument for those that haven't fully embraced that epistemological model because you still have a chance to adjust their frame for understanding audio.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Why is 32 bits necessarily louder than 16 bits? Couldn't I keep the reference voltage the same and simply get better precision without increasing the full scale amplitude voltage? It would be like adding 16 extra fractional bits to the DAC word.


 

 Then much of the lower portion of the range will be below the noise floor and serve no purpose. Either end of the imaginary DR has issues, a conundrum.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> The problem is that their epistemology is based on (1) a form of rationalism with the primary premise, "If I can hear better sound, then it must be true that it exists." Then (2) they apply their own form of skepticism based on the premise that science is often wrong, so it must be wrong when it doesn't support their anecdotal experience. So referencing science and engineering can never work to counter their anecdotal experience because it has already been negated by the 2nd premise. It can only work as a valid argument for those that haven't fully embraced that epistemological model because you still have a chance to adjust their frame for understanding audio.


 

 I know what you mean. When I try to explain that science and engineering has brought them all of the nice goodies we are discussing, that point is either ignored or dismissed by some hand waving. Sometimes, someone gets the point.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

cel4145 said:


> The problem is that their epistemology is based on (1) a form of rationalism with the primary premise, "If I can hear better sound, then it must be true that it exists." Then (2) they apply their own form of skepticism based on the premise that science is often wrong, so it must be wrong when it doesn't support their anecdotal experience. So referencing science and engineering can never work to counter their anecdotal experience because it has already been negated by the 2nd premise. It can only work as a valid argument for those that haven't fully embraced that epistemological model because you still have a chance to adjust their frame for understanding audio.


 
 Yes, it really makes sense. 
  
 I just want to give a copy of "The demon-haunted world" to everyone on this forum.


----------



## cel4145

extremegamerbr said:


> Yes, it really makes sense.
> 
> I just want to give a copy of "The demon-haunted world" to everyone on this forum.




Too bad Sagan isn't around so we could have him write a chapter on audiophiles. LOL


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Too bad Sagan isn't around so we could have him write a chapter on audiophiles. LOL


 

 He might be overwhelmed as there are _*Billions*_ and *Billions* of Audio myths.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> I know what you mean. When I try to explain that science and engineering has brought them all of the nice goodies we are discussing, that point is either ignored or dismissed by some hand waving. *Sometimes, someone gets the point.*




You must be finding the rare few that are not totally entrenched in that epistemology. But that's the hard part here on Head-Fi: so many already are probably beyond convincing. It's been demonstrated that people resist major paradigm shifts, and that's the situation here. It would be hard for them to shake those beliefs. 

The bigger implication is the sociological/cultural impact of Sagan's book ExtremeGamerBR referenced. People in our society (both audiophiles and not) use the same types of premises to reject accepted science, and logic based on science, to support their personal experiences, their political beliefs, or even just the fact they are feeling stubborn that day about considering something new.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Then much of the lower portion of the range will be below the noise floor and serve no purpose. Either end of the imaginary DR has issues, a conundrum.




Looking at Chord Mojo as an example, the noise floor is about -150dBFS... That means one could get about 25 bits of resolution. Shy of 32, but this is a portable device. Chord DAVE noise floor is about -178dBFS, giving about 29 bits of resolution. I think the technology is getting close to allowing 32 bits of resolution. Or am I not understanding the data correctly?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > Then much of the lower portion of the range will be below the noise floor and serve no purpose. Either end of the imaginary DR has issues, a conundrum.
> ...




Where are you getting this? Chord themselves are advertising no more than 125dB dynamic range for the Mojo and 127dB A-weighted for the Dave (A-weighted being the equivalent of PMPO for wattage :rolleyes: )


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> Where are you getting this? Chord themselves are advertising no more than 125dB dynamic range for the Mojo and 127dB A-weighted for the Dave (A-weighted being the equivalent of PMPO for wattage :rolleyes: )




Some third party measurements, I'll find them again in the morning and post them.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > Where are you getting this? Chord themselves are advertising no more than 125dB dynamic range for the Mojo and 127dB A-weighted for the Dave (A-weighted being the equivalent of PMPO for wattage :rolleyes: )
> ...




If they are spectral analyses (showing noise floor as a function of frequency) then they have nothing to do with the broadband noise floor we're talking about. Noise floor as a function of frequency depends on the size of the FFT window used; the larger the FFT window, the finer the frequency divisions, and the less energy contained in each division (hence lower dB levels)


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> If they are spectral analyses (showing noise floor as a function of frequency) then they have nothing to do with the broadband noise floor we're talking about. Noise floor as a function of frequency depends on the size of the FFT window used; the larger the FFT window, the finer the frequency divisions, and the less energy contained in each division (hence lower dB levels)




Understood. Disregard my comment then.


----------



## gregorio

stand said:


> I wonder how much dBSPL one could realize if they could fully harness 32 bits with Amps and speakers to go to the max? Could one level a city block with such a rig?


 
  
 No, one would level the entire city! A full 32bits would in theory have a dynamic range of 192dB. In order to hear the least significant bit, the starting point of this dynamic range would have to be equivalent to or above the noise floor of the listening environment, let's say 50dBSPL, so peak output of the 32bit system would have to be somewhere around 242dBSPL. Off the top of my head, there's only a couple of things on earth capable of creating pressure waves of that magnitude; massive, explosive volcanic eruptions and thermonuclear warheads! Unfortunately, we've already demonstrated that the latter will level an entire city, rather than just one block.
  
 G


----------



## StanD

gregorio said:


> No, one would level the entire city! A full 32bits would in theory have a dynamic range of 192dB. In order to hear the least significant bit, the starting point of this dynamic range would have to be equivalent to or above the noise floor of the listening environment, let's say 50dBSPL, so peak output of the 32bit system would have to be somewhere around 242dBSPL. Off the top of my head, there's only a couple of things on earth capable of creating pressure waves of that magnitude; massive, explosive volcanic eruptions and thermonuclear warheads! Unfortunately, we've already demonstrated that the latter will level an entire city, rather than just one block.
> 
> G


 

 I didn't bother doing the full Monty of math because in the past working it for lesser amounts it was already way over the top and knowing the log nature it doesn't take much imagination to see the outcome. So we can market the system under a product name like, "Volcano Sound" or "Nuke Audio."
  
 This is why I brought up this topic, it's another dysfunctional belief in the world of audio. So we can further think about, *how much DR is really available in recorded material?* What is the ambient noise in a live recording that limits the end product? Even studio recordings use microphones or pickups for instruments. Then there's the use of limiters and compressors. Thus most recordings have baked in limitations, probably for reasons both practical and many times due to the music's genre. So when the crowd went wild for Hirez 24 bit, I scratched my head. When some were proclaiming 32 bits I really shook my head. In the end, *how much DR is really available in recorded material?*
 For those that are into Vinyl, how much can a stylus take and stay in the groove?


----------



## gregorio

grumpyoldguy said:


> Couldn't I keep the reference voltage the same and simply get better precision without increasing the full scale amplitude voltage? It would be like adding 16 extra fractional bits to the DAC word.


 
  
 That's exactly what does happen and exactly why you need to increase the full scale amplitude voltage! Each additional data bit we use doubles the number of values available for encoding the waveform's amplitude and therefore doubles the precision, or conversely, halves the amount of quantisation error. Quantisation error is heard as noise when converted back to analogue and therefore each additional bit of data effectively reduces the noise floor by 6dB, due to the doubling of the precision. The difference between 16bit and 24bit is 8 times more precision, which equates to a 48dB lower noise floor. Of course, that's only in theory, in practice a noise floor 48dB lower than the -96dB noise floor of 16bit puts us in the realm of the noise created by sub atomic particles colliding, which we can't reproduce, transmit through air or obviously hear (except apparently if you're an audiophile lol). So the only way to hear that additional 48dB below the noise floor of 16bit is to massively amplify it (the voltage).
  
 Another way to think about all this digital stuff it is that we have (theoretically) a perfect recording of infinite precision/resolution at any bit depth, even with just one bit of data! However, with very few bits, the amount of quatisation error is so great that our infinite resolution recording is almost completely swamped by digital noise. Because it's digital noise though, we can apply digital techniques to deal with it, which is essentially how SACD works (with only one bit).
  


stand said:


> So we can further think about, *how much DR is really available in recorded material?*


 
  
 A good a pertinent question! The most dynamic pro recording mics available have a dynamic range around about 90dB or so. Many of the most common, high quality studio favourites have less. The ubiquitous U87 for example, has a dynamic range of around 72dB. All studio mics, as far as I'm aware, have a dynamic range within the limits of 16bit. The move to 24bit for professional recording was nothing directly to do with resolution, fidelity or the dynamic range of what we were recording, the larger dynamic range simply meant that we had a lot more head-room when recording. If recording a dynamic source, with a mic which has say an 80dB dynamic range, we've got to quite precisely set our mic-preamp to fall within the dynamic range of the 16bit (96dB) window. That's effectively 16dB of head/foot room to play with. A trivial task when mixing but tricky when recording as we don't know how high the peaks are going to be until they happen, by which time it's too late. 24bit provides a much bigger window of opportunity, we can afford to set our mic-pres much lower, giving ourselves much more headroom for unexpected peaks, while not worrying about loosing anything at the bottom end of 96dB dynamic range window. A real boon, even more so if you've got a whole bunch of mic inputs to simultaneously set and monitor. Of course, come mastering and distribution all the peaks in the music are already defined, so of course there's no point of headroom and our 80dB dynamic range recording easily (and perfectly!) fits in our 16bit format with bits to spare but the marketers and audiophiles said; hang on, the recording was 24bit, 24bit must be better than 16bit, it's more bits and all the studios use it, so that's what I want too!
  
 Obviously I've only mentioned the limitations of the actual mics capturing the sound, we've also got to look at the the dynamic range of instruments/voices and noise floors of recording locations, so the whole thing gets even more silly!
  
 G


----------



## StanD

The only reason I can see for use of more than 16 bits is to normalize the 16 bit data for use in DSP and sound processing software as to avoid numerical overflow. This has nothing to do with the final product used by consumers.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

gregorio said:


> That's exactly what does happen and exactly why you need to increase the full scale amplitude voltage! Each additional data bit we...


 
  
 Great post! I always like to see your point of view.
  
 Thanks!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> The only reason I can see for use of more than 16 bits is to normalize the 16 bit data for use in DSP and sound processing software as to avoid numerical overflow. This has nothing to do with the final product used by consumers.




Well if you're like me... :rolleyes:


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> Well if you're like me...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Only if you can hear ultrasonic frequencies with 32 bit resolution.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

http://www.head-fi.org/t/823444/i-bought-the-hd600-whats-next-amps#post_12954966

Any more technical input on the issue of frequency response shift caused by underpowering distortion? The distortion was simulated using a compressor set to instant attack and release, with a hard knee for hard clipping or a soft knee for soft clipping.


----------



## StanD

Here's a thought, thinking some more about R2R DACs. 16 bit Data for audio produces data that is a signed integer, meaning the range of data is 15 bits with a sign bit. Isn't that between +32767 and -32768? That would make the range about 90.3 dBV not the 96 dBV we're always talking about. Oh mama, don't tell that to the audiophiles.
 I'm going to have to find a way to break this info to the connoisseurs of Multibit DACs. First I'll have to find my helmet.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> Here's a thought, thinking some more about R2R DACs. 16 bit Data for audio produces data that is a signed integer, meaning the range of data is 15 bits with a sign bit. Isn't that between +32767 and -32768? That would make the range about 90.3 dBV not the 96 dBV we're always talking about. Oh mama, don't tell that to the audiophiles.
> I'm going to have to find a way to break this info to the connoisseurs of Multibit DACs. First I'll have to find my helmet.


 
  
 You can make a bijective map to {0, 65535} which has the requisite 96dB range, so you don't lose anything from the sign bit.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

rrod said:


> You can make a bijective map to {0, 65535} which has the requisite 96dB range, so you don't lose anything from the sign bit.




In fact many DACs use offset binary format for the input.


----------



## Ruben123

Could someone explain very short what a headphone amp does to a headphone that is driven to normal listening volumes without an amp?
  
 I thought, if you find the volume you hear OK, you dont need an amp because an amp boosts volume, or when your device has too few power for the bass to sound OK (clipping) you could use an amp. But what is it with mA and mV and mW to power. I can understand if you have a high imp headphone (say 500 ohms) there are at the same power and voltage less mA left, so you need an amp that has enough mA. But is it otherwise too, that you -could- need an amp for low imp (say 12 ohms) in-ears, with, say a Lithium based device of 3,7V? It seems weird.


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> You can make a bijective map to {0, 65535} which has the requisite 96dB range, so you don't lose anything from the sign bit.


 
  
  


grumpyoldguy said:


> In fact many DACs use offset binary format for the input.


 
 Sorry guys we're measuring AC, even if you offset the signal so it is not zero based you will *not* get 96 dB. Power is measured by V  not Vp-p.  In other words the voltage used to calculate power is not peak to peak, it's RMS. So if you have a sine wave, it is the difference between the peak and midpoint multiplied by 0.707 so one will get the same result.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Sorry guys we're measuring AC, even if you offset the signal so it is not zero based you will *not* get 96 dB. Power is measured by V  not Vp-p.  In other words the voltage used to calculate power is not peak to peak, it's RMS. So if you have a sine wave, it is the difference between the peak and midpoint multiplied by 0.707 so one will get the same result.




I'm not so sure. 

With 16 bits, the smallest output I can produce is 0x0001... Whatever level that represents. I can double that exactly 15 times... 0x8000 and 1 LSB shy of 16 times... 0xFFFF. Each doubling is a 6dB gain. So I can get almost 96dB between the smallest and largest value.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> Sorry guys we're measuring AC, even if you offset the signal so it is not zero based you will *not* get 96 dB. Power is measured by V  not Vp-p.  In other words the voltage used to calculate power is not peak to peak, it's RMS. So if you have a sine wave, it is the difference between the peak and midpoint multiplied by 0.707 so one will get the same result.


 
  
 Well that's fine, then a 20-bit converter has 114dB instead of 120, and the relative differences between converters are still maintained. Just as long as said 16-bit converter can still reconstruct both {-1,0} and {-32768,32767}.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> I'm not so sure.
> 
> With 16 bits, the smallest output I can produce is 0x0001... Whatever level that represents. I can double that exactly 15 times... 0x8000 and 1 LSB shy of 16 times... 0xFFFF. Each doubling is a 6dB gain. So I can get almost 96dB between the smallest and largest value.


 

 I don't think so, the highest positive value is 32767, which will equate to 90.3 dB above the minimum possible signal value of 1.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> I don't think so, the highest positive value is 32767, which will equate to 90.3 dB above the minimum possible signal value of 1.




Offset binary format, max value is 65535. To be honest, I'm not sure how the DC offset plays into it. I think the concept still holds though. Say the reference is 5V, then the smallest value is 0V, then 5/65536 V after that. I can double this value just shy of 16 times, per my previous post.


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> Well that's fine, then a 20-bit converter has 114dB instead of 120, and the relative differences between converters are still maintained. Just as long as said 16-bit converter can still reconstruct both {-1,0} and {-32768,32767}.


 
 I've been trying to bring up the point that audiophiles seek huge DR and power/headroom from their Amps and DR/SNR from their DACs when their R2R MultiBit DACs do not create output that justifies such a demand.
 Excluding R2R DACs and venturing into hirez audio we come to a different set of circumstances. 24 and 32 bit content can't be truly realized due to noise floors and unachievable SPL levels that would either deafen the listener or create a geological event.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Offset binary format, max value is 65535. To be honest, I'm not sure how the DC offset plays into it. I think the concept still holds though. Say the reference is 5V, then the smallest value is 0V, then 5/65536 V after that. I can double this value just shy of 16 times, per my previous post.


 
 You cannot double zero as the result would also be zero. Thus the minimum resolvable value is 1. We are measuring audio, not DC. A DC offset of 1/2 the range of a single rail Class A Amp would put a large voltage across one's transducers, not a good thing as it would most likely cause heat, perhaps a fixed mechanical displacement and maybe damage the transducers. Audio equipment is designed to avoid this scenario. A Class A Amp in that scenario would use a DC blocking capacitor or output transformer, either of which normalizes around zero to avoid this problem. As I've said a signed 16 bit integer is +32767 to -32768 so my previous calculation of 90.3 dB is where it's at. We do not measure RMS power using Vp-p.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> You cannot double zero as the result would also be zero. Thus the minimum resolvable value is 1. We are measuring audio, not DC. A DC offset of 1/2 the range of a single rail Class A Amp would put a large voltage across one's transducers, not a good thing as it would most likely cause heat, perhaps a fixed mechanical displacement and maybe damage the transducers. Audio equipment is designed to avoid this scenario. A Class A Amp in that scenario would use a DC blocking capacitor or output transformer, either of which normalizes around zero to avoid this problem. As I've said a signed 16 bit integer is +32767 to -32768 so my previous calculation of 90.3 dB is where it's at. We do not measure RMS power using Vp-p.




Which is why I'm doubling 1, not zero. And why I'm just shy of being able to double 16 times and not exactly 16 times. The 1 LSB short of the 16th doubling causes us to fall short of the 96dB, but not by much (I'm too lazy to quantize it at the moment).

I'm not suggesting using a DC voltage as test output. When I say DC offset, I mean the output is not centered at 0V, in my example it is centered at 2.5V. This still produces a valid waveform, and the DC offset can easily be removed in the circuit design. So I stand by the 96dB number, and I think all of the Google results agree with me (you got me to start doubting myself)... 

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement. One can easily find equivalent Vpp from Vrms measurement and vice versa.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Which is why I'm doubling 1, not zero. And why I'm just shy of being able to double 16 times and not exactly 16 times. The 1 LSB short of the 16th doubling causes us to fall short of the 96dB, but not by much (I'm too lazy to quantize it at the moment).
> 
> I'm not suggesting using a DC voltage as test output. When I say DC offset, I mean the output is not centered at 0V, in my example it is centered at 2.5V. This still produces a valid waveform, and the DC offset can easily be removed in the circuit design. So I stand by the 96dB number, and I think all of the Google results agree with me (you got me to start doubting myself)...
> 
> Also, I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement. One can easily find equivalent Vpp from Vrms measurement and vice versa.


 
 dBV = 20 Log10 V/Vref
 We can simply use the integer numbers for the calculation. VRef is 1 and V is 32767 resulting in 90.3 dB. 1 is the minimum resolvable reference value, you cannot use 0.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> dBV = 20 Log10 V/Vref
> We can simply use the integer numbers for the calculation. VRef is 1 and V is 32767 resulting in 90.3 dB. 1 is the minimum resolvable reference value, you cannot use 0.




Max is 65535, not 32767.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Max is 65535, not 32767.


 
 That is not correct. We are not measuring DC. I explained the need to normalize. We use RMS to measure not peak to peak, that is why 32767 not 65535. This is basic EE.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> That is not correct. We are not measuring DC. I explained the need to normalize. We use RMS to measure not peak to peak, that is why 32767 not 65535. This is basic EE.




Okay, let's step aside from the main discussion to address this first:

Why do you think RMS and peak to peak are not interchangeable? They most assuredly are, and the relationship is clearly defined.... Vrms = Vpp/[2*sqrt(2)]

As you say, this is basic EE.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Here's a thought, thinking some more about R2R DACs. 16 bit Data for audio produces data that is a signed integer, meaning the range of data is 15 bits with a sign bit. Isn't that between +32767 and -32768? That would make the range about 90.3 dBV not the 96 dBV we're always talking about. Oh mama, don't tell that to the audiophiles.
> I'm going to have to find a way to break this info to the connoisseurs of Multibit DACs. First I'll have to find my helmet.




NOOOOO!!! Don't admit failure! If you do so, you'll discredit yourself--and science--with the multibitheads for all eternity! :etysmile:


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Okay, let's step aside from the main discussion to address this first:
> 
> Why do you think RMS and peak to peak are not interchangeable? They most assuredly are, and the relationship is clearly defined.... Vrms = Vpp/[2*sqrt(2)]
> 
> As you say, this is basic EE.


 

 They are not interchangeable in power level computations. It would be OK to use in a ratio based computation. In that case (Peak to Peak) the minimum signal would be 2 not 1 yielding the same result, 90.3 dB.


----------



## gregorio

stand said:


> Excluding R2R DACs and venturing into hirez audio we come to a different set of circumstances. 24 and 32 bit content can't be truly realized due to noise floors and unachievable SPL levels that would either deafen the listener or create a geological event.


 
  
 You're nearly there (lol), assuming a noise floor of 50dBSPL in the listening environment, 24bit (144dB dynamic range) above that is about 3 times more level than the amount needed to cause death (180dBSPL). 32bit is indeed effectively a (massive, explosive) geological event. However, we don't need to go to hirez to get silly, we've already got that with 16bit! 96dB above a 50dB noise floor already puts us several times above the pain threshold and into the region of catastrophic hearing damage (deafness) with a relatively short amount of exposure. And, if we're talking about noise shaped 16bit, we're getting uncomfortably close to instant death again! In practise, virtually no commercial releases exceed 60dB dynamic range and the vast majority have at least 3 times less.
  
 G


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> They are not interchangeable in power level computations. It would be OK to use in a ratio based computation. In that case (Peak to Peak) the minimum signal would be 2 not 1 yielding the same result, 90.3 dB.




Okay, so we can use them interchangeably since we are talking about ratios... Alas, we are making progress. 

Now let's get back to dynamic range. I'll put it in generalized terms...

I can represent some range of voltage, X using N bits. This means I can resolve to X/2^N. I can think of it in terms of voltage or binary value, it doesn't matter...

DR = 20*log10(X/[X/2^N])
 = 20*log10(X*2^N/X)
 = 20*log10(2^N)

Or 

DR = 20*log10(2^N/1)
 = 20*log10(2^N)

Working through the math, I see now that my premise of being an LSB short was false. 

For 16 bits the result is:
20*log10(65536) = 96.33dB

Here are some links that might help, since you don't seem to believe me:

http://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/sbaa055
http://blog.prosig.com/2008/04/14/what-is-db-noise-floor-dynamic-range/


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Okay, so we can use them interchangeably since we are talking about ratios... Alas, we are making progress.
> 
> Now let's get back to dynamic range. I'll put it in generalized terms...
> 
> ...


 
 Sorry but if your using p-p then it would be 20*log10(65536/2) = 90.3dB
 The minimum signal would be 2 bits p-p. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Sorry but if your using p-p then it would be 20*log10(65536/2) = 90.3dB
> The minimum signal would be 2 bits p-p. You can't have it both ways.




Absolutely not. Toggling just the LSB is still a valid waveform.


----------



## StanD

gregorio said:


> You're nearly there (lol), assuming a noise floor of 50dBSPL in the listening environment, 24bit (144dB dynamic range) above that is about 3 times more level than the amount needed to cause death (180dBSPL). 32bit is indeed effectively a (massive, explosive) geological event. However, we don't need to go to hirez to get silly, we've already got that with 16bit! 96dB above a 50dB noise floor already puts us several times above the pain threshold and into the region of catastrophic hearing damage (deafness) with a relatively short amount of exposure. And, if we're talking about noise shaped 16bit, we're getting uncomfortably close to instant death again! In practise, virtually no commercial releases exceed 60dB dynamic range and the vast majority have at least 3 times less.
> 
> G


 

 I do my critical or even enjoyable listening in an environment somewhat less than having a 50 dBSPL noise floor. I always mention the limited DR of recordings and what can be truly realized. Mentioning earthquakes and instant death will scare the audiophiles. We should considering measuring such Amps using the Richter Scale.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

But please, don't take my word for it. TI, ADI, Maxim, etc are all major manufacturers of DACs... I encourage you to look at their datasheets and whitepapers. You will find they say the same thing I am.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Absolutely not. Toggling just the LSB is still a valid waveform.


 

 This has nothing to do with toggling. A reference signal (usually sinewave) goes symmetrically around the zero reference point and thus will not go over the threshold to register less than 2 bits p-p.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> This has nothing to do with toggling. A reference signal (usually sinewave) goes symmetrically around the zero reference point and thus will not go over the threshold to register less than 2 bits p-p.




It absolutely does not need to do that. Again, please look at the datasheets and whitepapers.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> It absolutely does not need to do that. Again, please look at the datasheets and whitepapers.


 
 Then you can have 96 dB, I'll keep to 90.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Then you can have 96 dB, I'll keep to 90.




Well, I hope at some point you will look at it, and be happy to get your 6dB back. 

Of course, as you said (and made an excellent point), the recording and mastering is the real bottleneck.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Well, I hope at some point you will look at it, and be happy to get your 6dB back.
> 
> Of course, as you said (and made an excellent point), the recording and mastering is the real bottleneck.


 

 Consider one last thing. We zero reference audio as it is an AC signal. We don't like DC offsets because of pops and clicks or worse things.
 A 1 bit p-p signal centered around zero will not cross a threshold to register as a 1 is either direction. I think this is true. Since we're dealing with a discontinuous signal it would take 2 bits p-p to register. Let's leave it alone, we have bigger bits to fry.
 I think that few audiophiles believe in the limitations of their sources. Take Vinyl for instance.


----------



## Argyris

stand said:


> I think that few audiophiles believe in the limitations of their sources. Take Vinyl for instance.


 
  
 Once the initial novelty wore off, I never developed a real affinity for the sound of vinyl. I didn't grow up with it, so that's probably why. Of course there's a subjective rabbit hole to go down here. I can't voice my displeasure with vinyl without six subjectivists immediately telling me it's because my broke ass can't afford the five- or six-figure setup necessary to "get the most" out of vinyl. Funny thing is, I'd bet the cost of such a system that most of the people who extol the superiority of vinyl don't own such expensive setups themselves, so once again we have a subjectivist disconnect. Am I to believe that, by the aforementioned logic, these people would actually enjoy digital more since their setups aren't apparently good enough for vinyl to "take the lead", or are the ostensible benefits of the format actually available for less money? If the former, then that's just plain ridiculous; if the latter, then clearly my impressions are valid and I don't need to hear some obscenely expensive setup to change my mind.
  
 To the subjectivist, it's both at different times--when it's their own setup they're listening to, that they've sunk their money and personal investment into, vinyl is clearly superior. But when a doubter enters the room, then nothing but a system only Bill Gates could afford will unlock the true potential, but trust me, vinyl is still better!
  
 To the objectivist, of course, it's simply a matter of personal taste. Some people just like that sound better. That's perfectly fine. But, by any measurable standard, vinyl is an inferior medium to any modern digital format. Now there's no shame in preferring the technically inferior option if there's something about it that one particularly likes. We don't hear charts. We hear sound, and if we're not in the hobby solely to collect gear, we hear music, and anything that gets somebody tangibly closer to the music is fine in my book. But one needs to be able to separate their personal impressions and preferences from reality, something that, as we've discussed at length in this thread, subjectivists find very difficult to do.


----------



## StanD

argyris said:


> Once the initial novelty wore off, I never developed a real affinity for the sound of vinyl. I didn't grow up with it, so that's probably why. Of course there's a subjective rabbit hole to go down here. I can't voice my displeasure with vinyl without six subjectivists immediately telling me it's because my broke ass can't afford the five- or six-figure setup necessary to "get the most" out of vinyl. Funny thing is, I'd bet the cost of such a system that most of the people who extol the superiority of vinyl don't own such expensive setups themselves, so once again we have a subjectivist disconnect. Am I to believe that, by the aforementioned logic, these people would actually enjoy digital more since their setups aren't apparently good enough for vinyl to "take the lead", or are the ostensible benefits of the format actually available for less money? If the former, then that's just plain ridiculous; if the latter, then clearly my impressions are valid and I don't need to hear some obscenely expensive setup to change my mind.
> 
> To the subjectivist, it's both at different times--when it's their own setup they're listening to, that they've sunk their money and personal investment into, vinyl is clearly superior. But when a doubter enters the room, then nothing but a system only Bill Gates could afford will unlock the true potential, but trust me, vinyl is still better!
> 
> To the objectivist, of course, it's simply a matter of personal taste. Some people just like that sound better. That's perfectly fine. But, by any measurable standard, vinyl is an inferior medium to any modern digital format. Now there's no shame in preferring the technically inferior option if there's something about it that one particularly likes. We don't hear charts. We hear sound, and if we're not in the hobby solely to collect gear, we hear music, and anything that gets somebody tangibly closer to the music is fine in my book. But one needs to be able to separate their personal impressions and preferences from reality, something that, as we've discussed at length in this thread, subjectivists find very difficult to do.


 

 Some folks like watching the wheel go round and round, it's hypnotizing. As you inferred, after spending a truckload of money on an audio setup, it's got to sound incredible, or else.....


----------



## Ruben123

argyris said:


> Once the initial novelty wore off, I never developed a real affinity for the sound of vinyl. I didn't grow up with it, so that's probably why. Of course there's a subjective rabbit hole to go down here. I can't voice my displeasure with vinyl without six subjectivists immediately telling me it's because my broke ass can't afford the five- or six-figure setup necessary to "get the most" out of vinyl. Funny thing is, I'd bet the cost of such a system that most of the people who extol the superiority of vinyl don't own such expensive setups themselves, so once again we have a subjectivist disconnect. Am I to believe that, by the aforementioned logic, these people would actually enjoy digital more since their setups aren't apparently good enough for vinyl to "take the lead", or are the ostensible benefits of the format actually available for less money? If the former, then that's just plain ridiculous; if the latter, then clearly my impressions are valid and I don't need to hear some obscenely expensive setup to change my mind.
> 
> To the subjectivist, it's both at different times--when it's their own setup they're listening to, that they've sunk their money and personal investment into, vinyl is clearly superior. But when a doubter enters the room, then nothing but a system only Bill Gates could afford will unlock the true potential, but trust me, vinyl is still better!
> 
> To the objectivist, of course, it's simply a matter of personal taste. Some people just like that sound better. That's perfectly fine. But, by any measurable standard, vinyl is an inferior medium to any modern digital format. Now there's no shame in preferring the technically inferior option if there's something about it that one particularly likes. We don't hear charts. We hear sound, and if we're not in the hobby solely to collect gear, we hear music, and anything that gets somebody tangibly closer to the music is fine in my book. But one needs to be able to separate their personal impressions and preferences from reality, something that, as we've discussed at length in this thread, subjectivists find very difficult to do.


 

 I have a quite revealing 70s setup (does that even exist?! lol) and I collect vinyl, well, a bit then. In the age of downloading all music I just want to have some of my most beloved music on vinyl, just to have something, to spin a vinyl. On my revealing setup, the warmish (rolled off) vinyl sound, sounds actually quite nice. Relaxing. Like if you sit in a chair with some nice whiskey, a cigar, in winter, listening to music while you fall half asleep. Why am I not a subjectivist lol
 Not because I think it is better, but different. Vinyl sounds much else than CD. Idk I buy my records for around $0,60-1,20 each so if I find a nice Mozart's opera or Beethoven's symphony, why not buying it.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> I have a quite revealing 70s setup (does that even exist?! lol) and I collect vinyl, well, a bit then. In the age of downloading all music I just want to have some of my most beloved music on vinyl, just to have something, to spin a vinyl. On my revealing setup, the warmish (rolled off) vinyl sound, sounds actually quite nice. Relaxing. Like if you sit in a chair with some nice whiskey, a cigar, in winter, listening to music while you fall half asleep. Why am I not a subjectivist lol
> Not because I think it is better, but different. Vinyl sounds much else than CD. Idk I buy my records for around $0,60-1,20 each so if I find a nice Mozart's opera or Beethoven's symphony, why not buying it.


 
 You're not making crazy claims about super SQ, just trying to enjoy some sound, I can understand that. You can probably get the same warm sound with a little EQ. Where do you find Vinyl at this prices? You find NOS Vinyl? These days there's some price gouging going on.


----------



## spruce music

stand said:


> Consider one last thing. We zero reference audio as it is an AC signal. We don't like DC offsets because of pops and clicks or worse things.
> A 1 bit p-p signal centered around zero will not cross a threshold to register as a 1 is either direction. I think this is true. Since we're dealing with a discontinuous signal it would take 2 bits p-p to register. Let's leave it alone, we have bigger bits to fry.
> I think that few audiophiles believe in the limitations of their sources. Take Vinyl for instance.


 

 With dither the effective range goes to about -110 to -120 db.  That is something you can demonstrate as true.  So study how two's complement works to realize your 96 db range or simply think about dither and don't worry either way.  Dither tpdf style uses 3 db so you have 93 db dynamic range left, but the sound within the dither pushes effective SNR to around -120 db.  It is also true that with some sine waves you can encode over a range of about 99 db without dither.  Think of peak overshoot of the signal between samples. This is also what is confusing you about needing to cross a +1 and -1 threshold to encode a signal.  You can have a signal that creates plus 1 and minus 1 samples here and there and have lots of zero samples in between depending upon the frequencies involved.


----------



## cel4145

argyris said:


> Once the initial novelty wore off, I never developed a real affinity for the sound of vinyl. I didn't grow up with it, so that's probably why.




That's not it. I grew up with vinyl. Don't miss it at all 



argyris said:


> I can't voice my displeasure with vinyl without six subjectivists immediately telling me it's because my broke ass can't afford the five- or six-figure setup necessary to "get the most" out of vinyl.




The "you can't afford it" and "the I know better because of my expensive audio collection" type comments should be modded on Head-Fi. It's just wrong to imply that others don't have the right to speak because they haven't (or can't) spend the money on it. This is the worst kind of audiophile elitism.


----------



## StanD

spruce music said:


> With dither the effective range goes to about -110 to -120 db.  That is something you can demonstrate as true.  So study how two's complement works to realize your 96 db range or simply think about dither and don't worry either way.  Dither tpdf style uses 3 db so you have 93 db dynamic range left, but the sound within the dither pushes effective SNR to around -120 db.  It is also true that with some sine waves you can encode over a range of about 99 db without dither.  Think of peak overshoot of the signal between samples. This is also what is confusing you about needing to cross a +1 and -1 threshold to encode a signal.  You can have a signal that creates plus 1 and minus 1 samples here and there and have lots of zero samples in between depending upon the frequencies involved.


 

 I didn't consider shaped dithering. I know what it can do for single frequency tome perception. I didn't see any studies on how it works out with actual musical content.


----------



## spruce music

stand said:


> I didn't consider shaped dithering. I know what it can do for single frequency tome perception. I didn't see any studies on how it works out with actual musical content.


 

 I don't know of studies of the effect off hand.  Probably because none are needed.  Once you know it works what is there to prove?
  
 You can take music with signals below the ostensible 96 db noise floor, and save it as dithered and non-dithered 16 bit.  You can amp up the dithered one and hear the music among the hiss.  The truncated one will either have nasty distortion or nothing depending on the particulars of the original signal.
  
 This is one of those things that gets rather tedious.  It is theoretically so.  It is demonstrably so.  And over and over and over and over the old myth crops up about it.  TPDF dithered 16 bit has effective 110-120 db dynamic range.   More heavily shaped dither can better that in the regions our hearing is most sensitive.
  
 I could go to the trouble of processing some music, showing screen shots etc etc.  Making files available to download and hear yourself. I don't know that I have done it on this forum.  Others have.  How much is enough to convince people? I have reduced the music until the peaks are -98 db.  Then save it as dithered 16 bit.  You can amp it up and hear music in the hiss.  Whether the amplification is digital or analog you get it either way. Do the same with 16 bit truncation and you get silence in the saved file.


----------



## StanD

spruce music said:


> I don't know of studies of the effect off hand.  Probably because none are needed.  Once you know it works what is there to prove?
> 
> You can take music with signals below the ostensible 96 db noise floor, and save it as dithered and non-dithered 16 bit.  You can amp up the dithered one and hear the music among the hiss.  The truncated one will either have nasty distortion or nothing depending on the particulars of the original signal.


 

 Are there any samples of music to listen to? I just wonder what the music would sound like under those conditions as opposed to a simple sine wave.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> Are there any samples of music to listen to? I just wonder what the music would sound like under those conditions as opposed to a simple sine wave.


 
  
 Anything with a fade-out to or fade-in from 0 should work. Amp up the very beginning of, say, Blackened by Metallica and you'll hear the "blzzt" caused by truncation. Examples are easy enough to make if you want to compare dither/shaped vs. lopped-off.


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> Anything with a fade-out to or fade-in from 0 should work. Amp up the very beginning of, say, Blackened by Metallica and you'll hear the "blzzt" caused by truncation. Examples are easy enough to make if you want to compare dither/shaped vs. lopped-off.


 

 When I get some time I'll experiment. I'll be interested in what the practical affect is on real-world listening to music.


----------



## spruce music

stand said:


> Are there any samples of music to listen to? I just wonder what the music would sound like under those conditions as opposed to a simple sine wave.


 
 https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz0l73g2k1hlv4v/76%20db%20gain%20-96%209%20db%20Miles%20Davis%20-%20Flamenco%20Sketches.wav?dl=0
  
 Okay here you go.  30 seconds worth that should download quickly as it is a small file. I took a piece of music.  Reduced level until peaks were at -96.9 dbfs.  Saved it as dithered 16 bit.  Opened it up in an editor, digitally amped it 76 db and saved again as dithered 16 bit.  I used TDPF dither which has a rather flat spectrum.  If I were do this with some shaped dither the hiss would be lower and the music clearer.  You should be able to hear the music enough to identify it.  Obviously not high fidelity, but the full musical signal is embedded in the dither.


----------



## spruce music

stand said:


> When I get some time I'll experiment. I'll be interested in what the practical affect is on real-world listening to music.


 

 The practical effect is that any signal part of the music from 0 dbfs to somewhere around -120 db is there to be heard.  So even with redbook CD, any music played with 120 db peaks will not be shortchanging you on any information.  Further I could supply you with the music I linked earlier before the 76 db of gain is applied.  While the signal level will be at -93.3 db RMS level, the music is within that. Letting you hear it is a waste of time because almost certainly even with gain turned up you'll hear nothing.  If your system can play very loudly you might maybe hear it though probably it will be swamped by ambient room noise.  Since we have another 20 db of retrievable signal below a level you already cannot hear, then there is no worry about losing details with musical reproduction even with "mere" 16 playback.


----------



## spruce music

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kqq3uvxzm7t3qfe/70db%20gain-969%20shaped%20dither%20Miles%20Davis%20-%20Flamenco%20Sketches.wav?dl=0
  
 Since I went this far.  Same 30 second bit of music.  Reduced level till there were only peaks of -96.9 dbfs.  Saved as 16 bit file with shaped dither this time.  Opened this, applied only 70 db of gain.  Saved again with shaped dither.
  
 I think you'll find music more clearly heard this way.  Saving twice with shaped dither is also something of a no no.  Yet it still works okay.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> grumpyoldguy said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely not. Toggling just the LSB is still a valid waveform.
> ...







grumpyoldguy said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > This has nothing to do with toggling. A reference signal (usually sinewave) goes symmetrically around the zero reference point and thus will not go over the threshold to register less than 2 bits p-p.
> ...







stand said:


> grumpyoldguy said:
> 
> 
> > It absolutely does not need to do that. Again, please look at the datasheets and whitepapers.
> ...




StanD If you agree that a signal fluctuating between 0 and 1 out of -32768 to 32767 should be distinguishable, do you then think that a signal fluctuating between -0.5 and 0.5 shouldn't? Because we apply dithering, a signal "falling between the cracks" shouldn't matter--they're either both distinguishable or both not.


----------



## StanD

spruce music said:


> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kqq3uvxzm7t3qfe/70db%20gain-969%20shaped%20dither%20Miles%20Davis%20-%20Flamenco%20Sketches.wav?dl=0
> 
> Since I went this far.  Same 30 second bit of music.  Reduced level till there were only peaks of -96.9 dbfs.  Saved as 16 bit file with shaped dither this time.  Opened this, applied only 70 db of gain.  Saved again with shaped dither.
> 
> I think you'll find music more clearly heard this way.  Saving twice with shaped dither is also something of a no no.  Yet it still works okay.


 

 Thanks, I downloaded the files and will listen later when I have a suitable listening conditions.


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> @StanD If you agree that a signal fluctuating between 0 and 1 out of -32768 to 32767 should be distinguishable, do you then think that a signal fluctuating between -0.5 and 0.5 shouldn't? Because we apply dithering, a signal "falling between the cracks" shouldn't matter--they're either both distinguishable or both not.


 

Excluding any thoughts of dither as that was not in my original consideration as most references defining 16 bit refer to a 96 dB DR for 16 bits are without dithering.
 First case, A sinewave would be symmetrical about 0 and would require a +/1 swing. What would comprise a 1 bit swing? Have the wave, noise, a distorted signal?
 Second case, there are no half bits.
  
 My point was if we exclude dithering, I question the common assertion of 96 dB being questionable as in practical use, for example, a symmetrical sinewave (centered around zero) would require 2 bits peak to peak yielding 90 dB. That's all, I was challenging the common 96 dB number based upon another viewpoint.


----------



## castleofargh

stand said:


> Excluding any thoughts of dither as that was not in my original consideration as most references defining 16 bit refer to a 96 dB DR for 16 bits are without dithering.
> First case, A sinewave would be symmetrical about 0 and would require a +/1 swing. What would comprise a 1 bit swing? Have the wave, noise, a distorted signal?
> Second case, there are no half bits.
> 
> My point was if we exclude dithering, I question the common assertion of 96 dB being questionable as in practical use, for example, a symmetrical sinewave (centered around zero) would require 2 bits peak to peak yielding 90 dB. That's all, I was challenging the common 96 dB number based upon another viewpoint.


 
 I fail to follow your logic about this. are you talking about a specific part in a specific design? isn't the digital side of things kept with 0 at one end of the available values? and then on the analog side of things, well you just measure the output of the DAC and the actual dynamic depends on the model of DAC.
  if the concern was about having a chipset labeled with a given bit number failing to achieve a good X6 times that value in DB, well I have a 32bit sabre DAC and it seems to fail by more than one bit in that respect ^_^.
 I figure I'm missing something in your last posts.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> I fail to follow your logic about this. are you talking about a specific part in a specific design? isn't the digital side of things kept with 0 at one end of the available values? and then on the analog side of things, well you just measure the output of the DAC and the actual dynamic depends on the model of DAC.
> if the concern was about having a chipset labeled with a given bit number failing to achieve a good X6 times that value in DB, well I have a 32bit sabre DAC and it seems to fail by more than one bit in that respect ^_^.
> I figure I'm missing something in your last posts.


 
 1/2 bit is not a viable value, as in +/- 0.5 bits p-p, that's all. For example if you presented the equivalent analog signal to an ADC, ideally it wouldn't register.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> 1/2 bit is not a viable value, as in +/- 0.5 bits p-p, that's all. For example if you presented the equivalent analog signal to an ADC, ideally it wouldn't register.


 
  
 It is achievable for D/A conversion with an AC coupled connector... but I suppose that's well outside the scope of what we're talking about.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

castleofargh said:


> I fail to follow your logic about this. are you talking about a specific part in a specific design? isn't the digital side of things kept with 0 at one end of the available values? and then on the analog side of things, well you just measure the output of the DAC and the actual dynamic depends on the model of DAC.
> if the concern was about having a chipset labeled with a given bit number failing to achieve a good X6 times that value in DB, well I have a 32bit sabre DAC and it seems to fail by more than one bit in that respect ^_^.
> I figure I'm missing something in your last posts.


 
  
 Yes, but I think we are talking about what is theoretically achievable with an ideal analog section. 
  
 DAC word formats can be either offset binary (0 - 2^N-1) or two's complement (-2^(N-1) - 2^(N-1)-1). They effectively represent the same thing though... 2^N steps to represent a range of voltages.


----------



## SSSN

Guys, would you consider RMAA to be a good tool to discern a DAC's quality?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > I fail to follow your logic about this. are you talking about a specific part in a specific design? isn't the digital side of things kept with 0 at one end of the available values? and then on the analog side of things, well you just measure the output of the DAC and the actual dynamic depends on the model of DAC.
> ...




It would reguster just fine if errors are accumulated.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

sssn said:


> Guys, would you consider RMAA to be a good tool to discern a DAC's quality?




Depends on the quality of the measuring hardware (analog input) backung the RMAA measurement.


----------



## SSSN

I use a Creative EMU 0404


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> It would reguster just fine if errors are accumulated.


 

 What errors? If you're integrating, noise averages out to zero. If one doesn't cross the 1/2 bit threshold during a ample period, you don't get to 1.


----------



## spruce music

I think what is throwing you off is forgetting about quantization noise.  It is true you can only have an undithered signal of  -90.3 db.  Quantization noise is below -90.3, and is roughly -96 db.  So the SNR of such a 16 bit system is indeed 96 db when comparing full scale max signal to the noise floor.  You could say the dynamic range is only 90.3 or equivalent to N-1 bits x 6.02 db.  While the SNR is still -96 db or N bits x 6.02 db. 
  
 The quantization noise is not much signal related at high signal levels, but is with low signal levels and quantization noise really becomes quantization distortion. 
  
 Now dither increases noise thereby decreasing SNR.  But effectively reduces quantization distortion while effectively increasing dynamic range to -120 db or so.
  
 If this seems wrong think about any 8 bit audio you have heard.  It has a hiss sort of like old analog tape due to the quantization error/noise that is the noise floor for such a system.


----------



## spruce music

This is a follow up to the last post.  In this screen shot the upper view is where I created a 441 hz sine wave that had the peaks just reaching -90.3 db and was saved as undithered 16 bit.  If you reduce it any further, even a tenth of a db you only get all zeroes when saved as undithered 16 bit.  The lower view is the same 441 hz tone at the same level saved as dithered 16 bit.
  
  
  
 Now you may know single sample impulses like those in the undithered wave actually have all frequencies.  So you end up with the 441 hz and all of the harmonics up to 22 khz.  Here is an FFT.  In fact all the harmonics are equal in amplitude to the fundamental 441 hz tone.  It simply looks different on the FFT on screen. The 441 hz component is only at -118 db while the total signal is right at the noise floor of the sixteen bit system because you also have all the harmonics at -118 db.

  
  
  

 The following is the dithered FFT.  Note the 441 hz tone and simply dithered noise in this spectrum.  Also notice the level of the 441 hz tone is spot on.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

edited


----------



## spruce music

sssn said:


> I use a Creative EMU 0404


 

 The limit is the quality of your measuring device.  The Emu 0404 is pretty darn good.  Not state of the art, but basically good.
  
 http://archimago.blogspot.com/
  
 You can read some of the old blogs by this guy.  He made his measurements with various software, including RMAA, using an EMU 0404 until recently.  I think a few months back he purchased a newer ADC.  So with proper use the EMU can do quite well for most purposes.
  
 In this blog in particular he was using an EMU 0404 to compare several DACs.
 http://archimago.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=49


----------



## RRod

spruce music said:


> The following is the dithered FFT.  Note the 441 hz tone and simply dithered noise in this spectrum.  Also notice the level of the 441 hz tone is spot on.


 
  
 Just to be pedantic, the noise is due to dithering *and* shaping. You can technically shape the distortion products from your truncated sine wave without having to add dither, which is its own fun little exercise.


----------



## spruce music

rrod said:


> Just to be pedantic, the noise is due to dithering *and* shaping. You can technically shape the distortion products from your truncated sine wave without having to add dither, which is its own fun little exercise.




Even better is subtractive dither.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> Depends on the quality of the measuring hardware (analog input) backung the RMAA measurement.


 
  
 This.
  
 The software tool is almost irrelevant... as long as the hardware can provide good quality data adding minimal or no distortion, you can do all the processing you like. 
  
 I happen to have access to many matlab licenses, if and when I get some ADC hardware, this is what I'll be using to do my post processing.


----------



## StanD

It's awfully quiet around here. Which brings up a question. How does the increased SNR of most tube Amps vs. SS Amps come into play? How does it affect the real performance and DR?


----------



## watchnerd

stand said:


> It's awfully quiet around here. Which brings up a question. How does the increased SNR of most tube Amps vs. SS Amps come into play? How does it affect the real performance and DR?


 
  
 Most tube amps are noisier.
  
 How much you can hear this depends upon how much masking and quiet passages there are in your music.
  
 But if you don't play music and turn up the volume, the difference is obvious.


----------



## StanD

watchnerd said:


> Most tube amps are noisier.
> 
> How much you can hear this depends upon how much masking and quiet passages there are in your music.
> 
> But if you don't play music and turn up the volume, the difference is obvious.


 

 Let's get more specific. We already know that "Most tube amps are noisier" and those other points. Do most tube amps have SNR's in the low to mid 90's dB? How does that play into perception, especially if one has sensitive headphones? How much sensitivity makes this more obvious? If the SNR is that low, does it make sense to dream about a DAC with a great DR or SNR?


----------



## Ruben123

@StanD I forgot to reply on your question regarding vinyl. I buy them at recycle/ second hand stores (dont know the English word, but those charity shops etc). Im going to collect CDs too I think, since getting music online from Gluck for instance isnt that easy, you would occasionally find a vinyl or CD and then at least have something. Vinyl might not be the best but for around $1,50 why not.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Let's get more specific. We already know that "Most tube amps are noisier" and those other points. Do most tube amps have SNR's in the low to mid 90's dB?


 
  
 I think it varies greatly by design.
  


> How does that play into perception, especially if one has sensitive headphones?


 
  
 For me, a high noise floor with sensitive IEMs is very distracting, particularly for audio files with a lot of dynamic range. I have a tube amp, that incidentally has quite a high noise floor, and it's frustrating to listen to during quieter parts of songs. That said, the ear, seems to me, is not so great in terms of instantaneous dynamic range... during the louder sections of songs, the noise floor disappears from perception.  
  


> How much sensitivity makes this more obvious?


 
 I think this also varies by (DAC/amp) design. 0 dB SPL is supposedly the threshold of human hearing... so any IEM or headphone that produces this output (well, slightly higher) for given nominal level of the noise floor could be audible (I say could because some people may have hearing loss). As to when it becomes obvious... I think it varies by individual, again due to things like hearing loss.   
  


> If the SNR is that low, does it make sense to dream about a DAC with a great DR or SNR?


 
 I had to read this a couple of times. I think you're asking if SNR performance of a tube amplifier is low, does it make sense to want a DAC with high SNR or dynamic range to pair with it. First, I think on the analog side dynamic range and SNR are inescapably linked... I would think of dynamic range as an SNR measurement for a full scale input. That said  I think it's irrelevant where the bottleneck is in this situation... just that there is one. Ideally one would have analog equipment capable of matching or exceeding the digitally achievable dynamic range.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> @StanD I forgot to reply on your question regarding vinyl. I buy them at recycle/ second hand stores (dont know the English word, but those charity shops etc). Im going to collect CDs too I think, since getting music online from Gluck for instance isnt that easy, you would occasionally find a vinyl or CD and then at least have something. Vinyl might not be the best but for around $1,50 why not.


 

 Do you get good Vinyl at that price or are the records scratchy and/or worn out?


----------



## Ruben123

stand said:


> Do you get good Vinyl at that price or are the records scratchy and/or worn out?


 

 Depends, but if they look like that I most of the time dont buy them. Unless for instance in an opera of 3 vinyls only one side has a small scratch, I can live with that.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> I think it varies greatly by design.
> 
> 
> For me, a high noise floor with sensitive IEMs is very distracting, particularly for audio files with a lot of dynamic range. I have a tube amp, that incidentally has quite a high noise floor, and it's frustrating to listen to during quieter parts of songs. That said, the ear, seems to me, is not so great in terms of instantaneous dynamic range... during the louder sections of songs, the noise floor disappears from perception.
> ...


 
 I think that I didn't say that correctly. I line with my other questions, I meant that is the Amp's SNR was not very good (low to mid 90's dB) does it make sense to dream about a DAC with a great DR or SNR? My bad....


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> I think that I didn't say that correctly. I line with my other questions, I meant that is the Amp's SNR was not very good (low to mid 90's dB) does it make sense to dream about a DAC with a great DR or SNR? My bad....




Yeah, I managed to pick that up. I just had to think about it in context of the other questions. I'm not sure why I didn't do that in the first place. Definitely not your fault.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Yeah, I managed to pick that up. I just had to think about it in context of the other questions. I'm not sure why I didn't do that in the first place. Definitely not your fault.


 

 np
 I see audiophiles with tube Amps that have an SNR around 95 dB that are into DACs with 20 dB or SNR above their Amp. I'm not so sure they'll really be able to take advantage of this.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> np
> I see audiophiles with tube Amps that have an SNR around 95 dB that are into DACs with 20 dB or SNR above their Amp. I'm not so sure they'll really be able to take advantage of this.




They're not able to take advantage of it. But they'll swear up and down they can hear the benefits. Our mere mortal ears just aren't as good as theirs.


----------



## headdict

grumpyoldguy said:


> They're not able to take advantage of it. But they'll swear up and down they can hear the benefits. Our mere mortal ears just aren't as good as theirs.


 

 You have to take into account the magic synergetic effect of combining these components, which not only doubles triples the overall SNR, but at the same time happens to perfectly compensate for all the shortcomings unwanted characteristics of the chosen headphones.


----------



## castleofargh

to me it's clearly always a matter of finding what's worst, and I'm changing devices to solve my worst problem at the time,often it's not even an audio problem, I'm bad at being elite audiophile.
 many elements can try to crash my solo party going on inside my headphone/IEM. but at one time under one set of conditions, it's always the loudest problem that I will notice and get mad at. the SNR of sources is a problem only when the headphone is very sensitive, when I'm listening quietly, and the noises in the room are super low/the IEM super isolating. the obvious answer to such specific problem would be to get a less sensitive IEM.
 if you want to stick to the sensitive headphone/IEM, like I do for portable gears because somehow the IEMs with signatures I really enjoy often seem to have ludicrously high sensitivity
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, then indeed a noisy amp can suck bad. increasing the output of the music usually achieves a better signal to noise ratio, and it even works with environmental noises. but I happen to dislike loud music(anything loud really, I often behave like a jerk and ask people to lower their voices when they're talking to me(it's a great way not to make new friends BTW!) so cranking up the volume knob soon becomes my new problem even though SNR is amazing and hiss not my biggest problem anymore.
  
 obviously you can guess that with that mindset, the DAC is an element I don't even think about when it comes to noise. even with a hifimediy+amp I could get pretty clean audio when I tried it, so if a DAC was making audible noises, I would just send it back for a refund.


----------



## StanD

@castleofargh Sometimes depending where the noise originates from, using  an LPAD to attenuate the Amps output might solve one's issue, as long as there's enough gain. Since you don't care for loud, then that might do the trick. Lucky for me my IEMs aren't' that sensitive. I have a FiiO E12 for portable use and it can be switched to low gain which is plenty enough for IEMs.


----------



## castleofargh

all the portable amps I bought so far have pretty much been doing that for me, glorified and expensive voltage dividers that took a lot of place in my pocket ^_^. and the one I've kept those last few years is low noise and has negative gain. so we're on the same page here.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> all the portable amps I bought so far have pretty much been doing that for me, glorified and expensive voltage dividers that took a lot of place in my pocket ^_^. and the one I've kept those last few years is low noise and has negative gain. so we're on the same page here.




Care to recommend some of the ones you use?

I'm using my old S3 as my dap, but it's very noisy and is bothering me even on the go. I also fried the headphone jack on my tablet. Unfortunately, the current dac I use draws too much power so my tablet freaks out, and the dac also has a high noise floor so I might as well just stick with the onboard on my s3. The reviews I read at the time all claimed that the background was ink black. Complaints started to emerge after my purchase about the very noticeable noise floor though... 

(If it's possible, is there a cheap dac/amp that you recommend that has optical in?)

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Ruben123

u-3c said:


> Care to recommend some of the ones you use?
> 
> I'm using my old S3 as my dap, but it's very noisy and is bothering me even on the go. I also fried the headphone jack on my tablet. Unfortunately, the current dac I use draws too much power so my tablet freaks out, and it also has a high noise floor so I might as well just stick with the onboard on my s3. The reviews I read all claimed that the background was ink black at the time. Complaints started to emerge after my purchase about the very noticeable noise floor though...
> 
> ...


 

 Ive read excellent things about the Topping NX1 for years and it can be had at around $25 from Aliexpress.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> all the portable amps I bought so far have pretty much been doing that for me, glorified and expensive voltage dividers that took a lot of place in my pocket ^_^. and the one I've kept those last few years is low noise and has negative gain. so we're on the same page here.


 

 On the occasion when I use headphones with the portable Amp. it supplies voltage gain for my HD600's or output current for my Hifiman Planars. The only IEMs I have that truly benefit from this are my lower impedance multi element BA IEMs.


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Care to recommend some of the ones you use?
> 
> I'm using my old S3 as my dap, but it's very noisy and is bothering me even on the go. I also fried the headphone jack on my tablet. Unfortunately, the current dac I use draws too much power so my tablet freaks out, and it also has a high noise floor so I might as well just stick with the onboard on my s3. The reviews I read all claimed that the background was ink black at the time. Complaints started to emerge after my purchase about the very noticeable noise floor though...
> 
> ...


 

 I also use my old S3 as a DAP. I turned off all radios that I could except for WiFi to prevent RFI. The USB port is fragile, I blew out an S3 when connecting to a desktop DAC that demanded too much power. So I use a powered hub that does not work when the power is off, some will revert to draining too much from the S3 and bang. I've used the FiiO E18 (DAC/Amp) with it as it does not draw juice from the phone. It did get some measure of RFI/EMI sandwiched with the phone when the cellular radio was operating. When not sandwiched, there was very little interference, if at all. It has no optical input.


----------



## castleofargh

u-3c said:


> Care to recommend some of the ones you use?
> 
> I'm using my old S3 as my dap, but it's very noisy and is bothering me even on the go. I also fried the headphone jack on my tablet. Unfortunately, the current dac I use draws too much power so my tablet freaks out, and it also has a high noise floor so I might as well just stick with the onboard on my s3. The reviews I read all claimed that the background was ink black at the time. Complaints started to emerge after my purchase about the very noticeable noise floor though...
> 
> ...


 
 last time I used optical connection was in the minidisc era, so I'm afraid I can't help you there.
 I now have a leckerton uha760 for maybe 3years, I made a long and boring review in case you wonder what I think of it.it didn't get a lot of love on this site, but the uha6MKII did(now discontinued I believe).
  asking @shigzeo or reading his reviews on different blogs/websites is step one of any informed search for clean background on IEMs. if something is hissy on sensitive IEMs he'll tell you about it. might not look like much, but it's something I failed to read from too many otherwise serious reviewers. so he's my personal reference when I can't try myself.


----------



## castleofargh

stand said:


> I also use my old S3 as a DAP. I turned off all radios that I could except for WiFi to prevent RFI. The USB port is fragile, I blew out an S3 when connecting to a desktop DAC that demanded too much power. So I use a powered hub that does not work when the power is off, some will revert to draining too much from the S3 and bang. I've used the FiiO E18 (DAC/Amp) with it as it does not draw juice from the phone. It did get some measure of RFI/EMI sandwiched with the phone when the cellular radio was operating. When not sandwiched, there was very little interference, if at all. It has no optical input.


 
 RFI is indeed something to account for, yet another noise that too many reviewers usually forget to talk about even though so many people use a cellphone as source.
 this hobby just loves focusing on the most irrelevant stuff and just omits all the really significant and annoying ones.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

Makes any sense resample my songs to 24/96 (Sox Resampler plugin - default settings, Best) with Fiio K1 (with max sample rate of 24/96 - or any other DAC with this max sample rate)?
  
 Maybe Sox is a better resampler than the DAC?
  
 Sorry for my poor english.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> RFI is indeed something to account for, yet another noise that too many reviewers usually forget to talk about even though so many people use a cellphone as source.
> this hobby just loves focusing on the most irrelevant stuff and just omit all the really significant and annoying ones.


 

 I find the drumbeat of audiophile myths most annoying.


----------



## castleofargh

extremegamerbr said:


> Makes any sense resample my songs to 24/96 (Sox Resampler plugin - default settings, Best) with Fiio K1 (with max sample rate of 24/96 - or any other DAC with this max sample rate)?
> 
> Maybe Sox is a better resampler than the DAC?
> 
> Sorry for my poor english.


 

 delta sigma DACs will increase the sample rate at values way above stuff like 96 or 192 anyway. so it feels at best unnecessary to me.
 on some anecdotal devices with a really lame filter for 44.1khz, maybe there could be a benefit to avoid that sample rate entirely? but in general I wouldn't suggest it.
 but of course you can just try and make your own opinion on your own device. that's usually the best option.


----------



## U-3C

ruben123 said:


> Ive read excellent things about the Topping NX1 for years and it can be had at around $25 from Aliexpress.




Unfortunately, I need a dac more than a stand alone amp, as the headphone out of my tablet is fried, so it won't work with that amp. Thanks for the recommendation though! \(^_^)/

 Fixing the tab will cost about 40 dollars. Just looking to see if there are cheaper options. 


---------

Say, do any of you have experience with HiFimeDIY's cheaper offerings? Like their little 30 dollar android usb dac, or their cheap spidif-in only dac?

Can't really find much in depth reviews about them.

The reason I wish to have optical-in is because I prefer the virtual surround on my pc for gaming, yet onboard picks up noise once the the pc is under load, so I wish to pass onboard + Dolby Headphones -> Optical-In dac ( and mandate -> O2 amp or something if I feel rich someday).

All suggestions are highly appreciated. ;v;


----------



## reginalb

https://www.amazon.com/Colorfly-C10-32GB-Pocket-Player/dp/B011NNWTDS
  
 Think anyone will go for a $137 installation service for an MP3 player?


----------



## Argyris

reginalb said:


> https://www.amazon.com/Colorfly-C10-32GB-Pocket-Player/dp/B011NNWTDS
> 
> Think anyone will go for a $137 installation service for an MP3 player?


 
  
 Probably not. After all, they might screw up the woodiness and vegetal quality of the sound somehow. Only qualified audiophiles should handle audiophile-quality equipment. The delicate quantum nano carbon fiber electromagnetic nexus of the carefully-matched, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% pure conic parabolic explodium-alloy internal components might be damaged otherwise.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

argyris said:


> Probably not. After all, they might screw up the woodiness and vegetal quality of the sound somehow. Only qualified audiophiles should handle audiophile-quality equipment. The delicate quantum nano carbon fiber electromagnetic nexus of the carefully-matched, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% pure conic parabolic explodium-alloy internal components might be damaged otherwise.




What's the over-under on the percentage of people that will spend the coin on this thing and just use it as a transport anyway?


----------



## headwhacker

Just as I thought Benchmark DAC2 will escape any audiophile alchemy(mod) as it is supposed to be way above the spec race.
  
 http://www.mysoundaffairs.com/products/benchmark-dac2-family-modification.
  
 The site is supposed to be the main local distributor/retailer for Benchmark.


----------



## U-3C

headwhacker said:


> Just as I thought Benchmark DAC2 will escape any audiophile alchemy(mod) as it is supposed to be way above the spec race.
> 
> http://www.mysoundaffairs.com/products/benchmark-dac2-family-modification.
> 
> The site is supposed to be the main local distributor/retailer for Benchmark.




...

I just wanna say to every person who is considering the mod: 

"Before modifying it, have you tried flipping your Benchmark dac upside down?"

Then look for feedback on how marvelous it now sounds... 

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3211-Review-Benchmark-DAC1-%28Modified%29&p=48449&viewfull=1#post48449


-----------------

I really want to build an O2 for fun, as an intro to soldering, but getting the components for the O2 with the stuff I want shipped here is pretty much the same as buying a B-stock O2 from JDS Labs, plus the warranty.

:/

I don't need the O2. I just want to build it. However, for a 10 dollar difference, it doesn't make sense to build one from scratch, and if so, I might as well just not get one as I don't need it.

What to do... What to do...


----------



## castleofargh

headwhacker said:


> Just as I thought Benchmark DAC2 will escape any audiophile alchemy(mod) as it is supposed to be way above the spec race.
> 
> http://www.mysoundaffairs.com/products/benchmark-dac2-family-modification.
> 
> The site is supposed to be the main local distributor/retailer for Benchmark.


 
 "previously submerged by the background noise levels".  I'm always up for hilarious one liners and this one is gold, plated with more gold.


----------



## Ruben123

I also got a nice one about mods.
  
 I got me some earphones as of late and Im really amazed by some claims made by people, regarding mods. It seems it is all because of suggestion and imagination. About closing holes and in-/decreasing the bass is written quite a lot. So on earphone 1, closing them makes the sound much warmer/bassier, while on another one it kills the bass. Seems weird to me, because what I remember is closing them causes the sound to become more bassy. And indeed, this particular earphone with mods doesnt sound any different with the holes open or closed, and if they do, they sound bassier (as I expected, but hard to hear as the differences are or quite minimal or I cannot remove the tape over the holes too quickly resulting in too much time lost between listening and comparing), though the mod member keeps telling the bass gets much less and if I dont hear it, it is my source gear, music quality etc etc. Though probably his mind telling him he hears less bass is enough for him to actually hear less bass, even though there is (a tiny bit) more.
  
 Then: removing the back of the earphone (custom in-ear style). Which should, as "expected", give a more breathable, airier sound with much more sound stage. At least, I would expect that, and so does he. I compared the earphone to a not modded one, and the modded one that should be airy etc, sounded much warmer instead with certainly less "air"and "sound stage". Could it be suggestion to the modifier? I certainly hear exactly the opposite of what he hears. Which brings me to the following. A certain black DAP sounds warmer and more precise than the same grey one, which of course sounds a bit brighter. What amazes me the most, is that the modded earphone sounds even much better than the original one, as he claims, but to be honest it sounds like *****. So he believes that much into the suggestion, that even something _worse_ sounds better. 
  
 Though he too is such a guy that yells at members who are saying sources dont difffer much in quality.


----------



## Argyris

castleofargh said:


> "previously submerged by the background noise levels".  I'm always up for hilarious one liners and this one is gold, plated with more gold.


 
  
 I find that the extra gold plating on the gold makes the one liners sound much better, with a blacker background and better dynamics. It's a night and day difference, and I suggest everybody out there get their golden one liners gold plated. The additional expense is totally worth it.


----------



## Ruben123

argyris said:


> I find that the extra gold plating on the gold makes the one liners sound much better, with a blacker background and better dynamics. It's a night and day difference, and I suggest everybody out there get their golden one liners gold plated. The additional expense is totally worth it.


 

 Certainly my headphones with gold plated 3.5mm jacks sound better, warmer, more musical, than those with silver jacks. Must be due to the jack.


----------



## U-3C

My chrome plated ones were cold and brittle. Maybe that's why!

I thought the coldness I sense was simply due to winter coming!

: o


----------



## Argyris

ruben123 said:


> I also got a nice one about mods.
> 
> I got me some earphones as of late and Im really amazed by some claims made by people, regarding mods. It seems it is all because of suggestion and imagination. About closing holes and in-/decreasing the bass is written quite a lot. So on earphone 1, closing them makes the sound much warmer/bassier, while on another one it kills the bass. Seems weird to me, because what I remember is closing them causes the sound to become more bassy. And indeed, this particular earphone with mods doesnt sound any different with the holes open or closed, and if they do, they sound bassier (as I expected, but hard to hear as the differences are or quite minimal or I cannot remove the tape over the holes too quickly resulting in too much time lost between listening and comparing), though the mod member keeps telling the bass gets much less and if I dont hear it, it is my source gear, music quality etc etc. Though probably his mind telling him he hears less bass is enough for him to actually hear less bass, even though there is (a tiny bit) more.
> 
> ...


 
  
 What really gets me is people get this idea that they're brilliant, and that any inexplicable parts of their headphone don't need to be there. So in their brilliance, they take them out and bask in the supposed improvement, all the while patting themselves on the back and wondering why some idiot put that stuff in there in the first place. I've seen numerous examples of people ripping carefully-applied damping rings and fabric out of their headphones and claiming that it made things sound "more open." No, what it likely did is cause the treble to ring uncontrollably and the midbass to bloat up, as that's usually what the damping is there to stop.
  
 There are instances where this kind of thing can actually help. The well known example of the HD 55x having a piece of foam stuck behind the driver to differentiate it from the more expensive HD 59x is one such instance. There are even measurements that suggest this is a valid modification, though they no longer exist (they disappeared when the amicable buccaneers set sail for a new port, meaning I couldn't link them here even if they still existed). But this is far from the norm, and it was arrived at the same way as many far less effective modifications have been, and based on the same flawed reasoning that a bare driver in a cup will sound better because it's unobstructed.
  
 A good example of this philosophy failing miserably is basically any (John) Grado product. Granted, some people like Grados for what they are, but the problem is the claims of purity and freedom from resonance that are plastered all over the company's site. In reality, the completely undamped driver rings like a bell, and the small, rigid cups (and the bowl pads on higher end SR models) interact with the driver and produce a characteristic resonance right around 2 kHz. Just sticking the driver in the cup without any treatment hasn't resulted in a more "pure" or "open" sound. Intuitively, you'd think it would, but that's not how physics works. The system needs some kind of acoustic damping to eliminate the resonance and driver ring, and that's why companies like Sennheiser pay their engineers lots of money to stick all that unidentifiable (to the layman) stuff inside the cups.


----------



## Argyris

ruben123 said:


> Certainly my headphones with gold plated 3.5mm jacks sound better, warmer, more musical, than those with silver jacks. Must be due to the jack.


 
  
 Yeah, silver sucks, which is why I'm officially changing my Head-Fi name to Hrysos, because gold > silver.


----------



## StanD

Never underestimate the power of an audiophile's imagination.


----------



## reginalb

u-3c said:


> I really want to build an O2 for fun, as an intro to soldering, but getting the components for the O2 with the stuff I want shipped here is pretty much the same as buying a B-stock O2 from JDS Labs, plus the warranty.
> 
> :/
> 
> ...


 
  
 If the thing that you want to do with it is build it, then the price is inconsequential. As you say, you don't need an O2. You want to build an O2. Buying one already built wouldn't make sense, because it's not what you want. So you're comparing two different products, and they aren't substitutes.


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> ...
> 
> I just wanna say to every person who is considering the mod:
> 
> ...


 
  
 Build it, change one of the components to an identically-spec'ed but somehow interesting one (e.g. an unusual brand), claim that one component makes it sound COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from any other O2 (so much more vegetal!), then sell it for double. If people are going to be ridiculous, you might as well profit from it.


----------



## StanD

argyris said:


> Build it, change one of the components to an identically-spec'ed but somehow interesting one (e.g. an unusual brand), claim that one component makes it sound COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from any other O2 (so much more vegetal!), then sell it for double. If people are going to be ridiculous, you might as well profit from it.


 

 Now that's evil. Standard upscale Audio Market Practice.


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> Build it, change one of the components to an identically-spec'ed but somehow interesting one (e.g. an unusual brand), claim that one component makes it sound COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from any other O2 (so much more vegetal!), then sell it for double. If people are going to be ridiculous, you might as well profit from it.




I...I can't do it. It's just for myself and myself only. ;v;

My struggle is: learning to build this thing offers me no practical benefits. 

On the other side...think of all the cheap delicious food I can buy in Chinatown...

._.


----------

Then again, if I'm making it for profit, I technically can't really deviate from the original design due to the CC license on it. :/


----------



## StanD

I just love some of the colorful statements like,  "_a soundstage that seemed 1,000 feet wide and by far the best realism I have yet to experience out of any hi-fi rig even after attending 6 Head-Fi meets_..."
http://www.head-fi.org/t/782824/schiit-fire-and-save-matches-bifrost-multibit-is-here/2400#post_12972818
  
 Edit: This is the kind of exaggerations that have a bad influence on the unsuspecting newcomer.


----------



## Argyris

stand said:


> Now that's evil. Standard upscale Audio Market Practice.


 
  
 My arid sense of humor gets me in trouble again.


----------



## james444

ruben123 said:


> I also got a nice one about mods.
> 
> I got me some earphones as of late and Im really amazed by some claims made by people, regarding mods. It seems it is all because of suggestion and imagination. About closing holes and in-/decreasing the bass is written quite a lot. So on earphone 1, closing them makes the sound much warmer/bassier, while on another one it kills the bass. Seems weird to me, because what I remember is closing them causes the sound to become more bassy.


 
  
 That's not necessarily a nonsense, because dynamic driver based IEMs may be tuned with front and rear vents. And blocking a front vent increases bass, whereas blocking a rear vent decreases it. Taping a vent and poking a pinhole usually has a milder effect than blocking the vent entirely. Here's an example, the effect of various vent mods on the JVC FX700:
  

  
 Source: Rin Choi's analysis of the FX700: http://rinchoi.blogspot.co.at/2013/02/i-d-like-to-thank-james-for-letting-me.html
  
 And here's a more in-depth discussion of IEM modding: http://rinchoi.blogspot.co.at/2013/02/on-modification-of-sony-mh1.html
  
  
 However... I'll have to agree with you, some people just seem to regurgitate bits and pieces they overheard, while having not the slightest idea what they're talking about.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> I just love some of the colorful statements like,  "_a soundstage that seemed 1,000 feet wide and by far the best realism I have yet to experience out of any hi-fi rig even after attending 6 Head-Fi meets_..."
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/782824/schiit-fire-and-save-matches-bifrost-multibit-is-here/2400#post_12972818
> 
> Edit: This is the kind of exaggerations that have a bad influence on the unsuspecting newcomer.




Yep, should I pretend I'm a new guy and ask about this 1000 feet like soundstage and get the same setup, and see if it's actually or narrower than what I currently have? 

I can't imagine a soundstage that wide, like, how do you even listen to music? Must be so diffused as I don't know anyone who actually mixes music by trying to capture a soundstage like that.

-------------

I need to go to one if these meets one day, bring my S3 with EQ, and tape it to a metal case and seal it. 

Or maybe just have a metal case with only a wire collecting the "line in" and "headphone out" and turn on EQ, calling it my personal dac. Wonder how mixed the feedback will be.


----------



## Ruben123

james444 said:


> That's not necessarily a nonsense, because dynamic driver based IEMs may be tuned with front and rear vents. And blocking a front vent increases bass, whereas blocking a rear vent decreases it. Taping a vent and poking a pinhole usually has a milder effect than blocking the vent entirely. Here's an example, the effect of various vent mods on the JVC FX700:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks for the links. For sure I have heard differences in earphones with holes open and closed, but wth oher in-ears, I dont hear any difference at all, or only so slight, that it could be imagination too. Blind testing in-ears with tape is hard so then Im ok with saying to me they sound equal  But certainly I have heard differences in others!


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Yep, should I pretend I'm a new guy and ask about this 1000 feet like soundstage and get the same setup, and see if it's actually or narrower than what I currently have?
> 
> I can't imagine a soundstage that wide, like, how do you even listen to music? Must be so diffused as I don't know anyone who actually mixes music by trying to capture a soundstage like that.
> I need to go to one if these meets one day, bring my S3 with EQ, and tape it to a metal case and seal it.
> ...


 

 Unfortunately exaggeration is the metal of forum audiophiles. sometimes this stuff takes on a life of its own and spins out of control. That's when the forum flash mob starts a new myth. This kind of thing is very unfortunate as the layperson doesn't know what to believe and might be inclined to accept some half baked story because a number of people cheer it on.


----------



## watchnerd

u-3c said:


> Yep, should I pretend I'm a new guy and ask about this 1000 feet like soundstage and get the same setup, and see if it's actually or narrower than what I currently have?
> 
> I can't imagine a soundstage that wide, like, how do you even listen to music? Must be so diffused as I don't know anyone who actually mixes music by trying to capture a soundstage like that.


 
  
 I would consider a soundstage that wide a defect, a distortion -- no real world performance venue is that big.


----------



## tkteo

u-3c said:


> Yep, should I pretend I'm a new guy and ask about this 1000 feet like soundstage and get the same setup, and see if it's actually or narrower than what I currently have?
> 
> I can't imagine a soundstage that wide, like, how do you even listen to music? Must be so diffused as I don't know anyone who actually mixes music by trying to capture a soundstage like that.


 
  
 I find it laughable that the mantra is about wide soundstage, as if all performance venues are "wide". I mean, if a jazz performance takes place in a smaller setting, then what the heck is a wide sounstage???


----------



## Argyris

I was going to post something similar about tuning holes, but uncharacteristically I decided that the post I was writing was already too long so I axed that part. Anyway, my Titan 1 / EX1 has 11 tuning holes on each earpiece. Measurements indicate that lower treble increases and mid- and upper treble decrease the more holes are covered, until all 11 are blocked on each earpiece, at which point the bass explodes:
  

  
 I've never tried intentionally blocking these holes, so I haven't definitively heard the effect. However, it's possible that, depending on the fit, more or fewer of these holes are blocked each time one refits the earphones. The upshot is that this set of IEMs might well sound different on different listening sessions or to different people, depending on their ear geometry. I can't be absolutely sure, but I know that I've personally had the impression that sometimes the Titan 1 sounds fatiguing to me, and sometimes it stops just short of this, all of this on the same material but on different listening sessions. It could be the tuning holes that are doing this, but it could also be simple mood differences between sessions, or fit variance apart from anything the holes are doing, or that I'm full of concentrated bat guano. I'm willing to accept it if any (or more than one) of these is true.


----------



## U-3C

Say, I have a question about how dacs feeding into amps work. 

If I have a dac/amp that has audible hiss in line out configuration, say the DACport Slim, and I plug it into another amp, say an O2. Will the hiss be amplified, or will it go away? 

I have zero understanding of how amps work. I thought that if there is a high noise floor with your dac, it will automatically be amplified as well, or at least fed through the amp and into the headphones you are using. However, I've heard that some people, when plugging their DACport (which has a high noise floor) into the O2, all the hiss is gone.

I'm curious about how this works. Maybe they just turned down the volume on the O2 until the noise is inaudible, or is there some reason for this? 

Thanks in advance for helping a noob! 

o(^_^)o


----------



## spruce music

u-3c said:


> Say, I have a question about how dacs feeding into amps work.
> 
> If I have a dac/amp that has audible hiss in line out configuration, say the DACport Slim, and I plug it into another amp, say an O2. Will the hiss be amplified, or will it go away?
> 
> ...


 

 The hiss and anything else on the output will be amplified.  Now assuming the hiss is audible at normal listening levels, you'll turn down the volume and the hiss will be no more audible than before at the same listening levels.
  
 I do see the DACport has a high and low gain setting.  If you have some hiss, and select the low gain setting it probably lowers hiss or makes it perhaps inaudible.  You then are feeding it into another amp so you don't need the extra gain.  If the other amp is hiss free, then your DACport slim might also be hiss free in this configuration.


----------



## U-3C

spruce music said:


> The hiss and anything else on the output will be amplified.  Now assuming the hiss is audible at normal listening levels, you'll turn down the volume and the hiss will be no more audible than before at the same listening levels.
> 
> I do see the DACport has a high and low gain setting.  If you have some hiss, and select the low gain setting it probably lowers hiss or makes it perhaps inaudible.  You then are feeding it into another amp so you don't need the extra gain.  If the other amp is hiss free, then your DACport slim might also be hiss free in this configuration.




Thanks for your reply. I guess the person just turned down the volume on the O2. 

Unfortunately, noise is still present at low gain, and the volume control is digital on the DACport, so lowering it won't decrease the noise. CEntrance does offer a mod to decrease the noise after many people have complained about it, only it costs 99 usd.


----------



## castleofargh

argyris said:


> I was going to post something similar about tuning holes, but uncharacteristically I decided that the post I was writing was already too long so I axed that part. Anyway, my Titan 1 / EX1 has 11 tuning holes on each earpiece. Measurements indicate that lower treble increases and mid- and upper treble decrease the more holes are covered, until all 11 are blocked on each earpiece, at which point the bass explodes:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never tried intentionally blocking these holes, so I haven't definitively heard the effect. However, it's possible that, depending on the fit, more or fewer of these holes are blocked each time one refits the earphones. The upshot is that this set of IEMs might well sound different on different listening sessions or to different people, depending on their ear geometry. I can't be absolutely sure, but I know that I've personally had the impression that sometimes the Titan 1 sounds fatiguing to me, and sometimes it stops just short of this, all of this on the same material but on different listening sessions. It could be the tuning holes that are doing this, but it could also be simple mood differences between sessions, or fit variance apart from anything the holes are doing, or that I'm full of concentrated bat guano. I'm willing to accept it if any (or more than one) of these is true.


 
 now now, don't forget the holes on the nozzle and the tiny vent next to the cable ^_^.
 I've fooled around a little on the ex1 with measurements because I really enjoy that IEM(EQed!!!) but the trebles are really way too much for me as is, even compared to the er4sr
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.  but the ex1 has such a fun and extended low end
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 that I tried to get a signature I enjoy with AHB(advanced hole blocking technology) ^_^. as almost always, I find those "mods" to fail at being a complete substitute to EQ when it comes to just changing the FR. so I just forgot about plumber job and just EQed them how I liked. anyway I'd make a µSD with crossfeed and inverted channels to use them over the ear, so adding a little EQ to the tracks was really a formality at this point. but it's probably not the simple answer.


----------



## castleofargh

u-3c said:


> spruce music said:
> 
> 
> > The hiss and anything else on the output will be amplified.  Now assuming the hiss is audible at normal listening levels, you'll turn down the volume and the hiss will be no more audible than before at the same listening levels.
> ...


 

 some noise will increase with the volume setting of the device, others won't. you need to find out which it is you get to know if you can lower it or not with an added amp. if it's kind of a fixed hiss that doesn't increase with music loudness, then most likely you could max out the DACport to get the biggest dynamic range between the hiss and music, and then just lower the volume level with an extra amp or a voltage divider of sort, like getting the shure cable with the volume control?


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Unfortunately exaggeration is the metal of forum audiophiles. sometimes this stuff takes on a life of its own and spins out of control. That's when the forum flash mob starts a new myth. This kind of thing is very unfortunate as the layperson doesn't know what to believe and might be inclined to accept some half baked story because a number of people cheer it on.




I have a theory that people have been enculturated to believe that exaggerated prose about products is acceptable to repeat and believable to embrace, thanks to the thousands of hours of exposure they have had to marketing prose in printed ads and in television commercials. And it starts as early as 4 years old on cartoon channels. In fact, I didn't let my son watch network cable in his early years (we used DVDs) so he wouldn't succumb to how every toy he saw on TV was some greatest, latest thing that he had to have. Seems to have worked. He's more of a skeptical consumer than most of his peers. 

So from a very early age, people have been trained to hope that the exaggerated descriptions they see of products will be how they perceive them. And of course, thanks to confirmation bias, they often do. Advertising and marketing are the bane of developing an objective mind.


----------



## Argyris

While I agree that the advertising / confirmation bias feedback cycle plays a big part once things get going, this is my take on the driving force behind it all. People who are deeply involved in something inevitably feel a sense of pride, especially if it involves paying attention to fine distinctions that most other people ignore. People in this situation often feel like this particular aspect of their being makes them superior to others, at least in this sense. Therefore, when it comes to outspoken subjectivist audiophiles, _of course_ they hear a difference between different amps and DACs. How could a superior being like themselves _not_ hear it? After all, the other superior beings with whom they associate can hear the difference; admitting that there's a possibility that they themselves can't means they don't get to be part of the exclusive club anymore.
  
 You can see it in the way people in this situation regard those who claim not to hear a difference. They immediately zero in on alleged source deficiencies ("Which amp? Which DAC?"), and then listener deficiencies ("Some of us just have better hearing"), and then finally character flaws ("You're too closed-minded") to explain it away. When extolling the fabulous purported benefits of their latest expensive purchase, they assert that only a total tin ear would not hear the improvement. By placing non-hearers in a lesser group, they reassert their superiority, which then reinforces their belief in the validity of their subjective appraisal. Their hearing acuity and attention to detail are so profoundly superior, even science can't find an explanation, which is why those nuts over in the Science Fiction section are all wrong.
  
 In other words, it's a feedback cycle of recursive back slapping in the members only club. Humans do this constantly, with all sorts of different things, and often without even thinking about it. They want more, bigger, faster, even if it makes no appreciable or measurable difference. _They_ can tell the difference, and if _you_ can't, maybe you're just not as good as them, and you need to go sit at the little kids' table with the rest of unsophisticated humanity and let people like _them_, the big kids, sit at the grown ups' table and talk to one another about things you will never understand. Go away with your science, your logic. _We're_ not wrong. We can't be, because we're better than you.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> some noise will increase with the volume setting of the device, others won't. you need to find out which it is you get to know if you can lower it or not with an added amp. if it's kind of a fixed hiss that doesn't increase with music loudness, then most likely you could max out the DACport to get the biggest dynamic range between the hiss and music, and then just lower the volume level with an extra amp or a voltage divider of sort, like getting the shure cable with the volume control?




I got the cheapest volume control I can find on eBay for one dollar, at the horror of CEntrance. 

Can I ask: is the Shure one provide greater fidelity, or does it work the same as any random one found in eBay.

I only turn down volume control on mine a slight bit (rotated 2 to 5 degrees from full volume) so I believe the differences should be inaudible for me (but what do I know?). I'm curious about how it works though.


----------



## StanD

@cel4145 @Argyris Perhaps much of this is a need for attention? Followed by anger at those that might question their storyline. After one puts their money down on a purchase and creates a story for the forums, at that point the train has left the station. Sometimes I am surprised at how many people board the train after reading an incredible tale of off world SQ.


----------



## castleofargh

u-3c said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > some noise will increase with the volume setting of the device, others won't. you need to find out which it is you get to know if you can lower it or not with an added amp. if it's kind of a fixed hiss that doesn't increase with music loudness, then most likely you could max out the DACport to get the biggest dynamic range between the hiss and music, and then just lower the volume level with an extra amp or a voltage divider of sort, like getting the shure cable with the volume control?
> ...


 

 well if the volume control cable works like a voltage divider, you can expect the IEM to "see" a relatively small impedance. but if the cable is basically a resistor in series(and those do exist, I have one), then lower the volume, the higher the impedance with all that could imply for the IEM(mostly signature change if you're using BA drivers).  I've never tried the shure thingy, but when I brought up the question about impedance variation to brooko, he said it didn't change the frequency response when he used it to volume match his gears, which is an encouraging sign.


----------



## cel4145

argyris said:


> While I agree that the advertising / confirmation bias feedback cycle plays a big part once things get going, this is my take on the driving force behind it all. People who are deeply involved in something inevitably feel a sense of pride, especially if it involves paying attention to fine distinctions that most other people ignore. People in this situation often feel like this particular aspect of their being makes them superior to others, at least in this sense. Therefore, when it comes to outspoken subjectivist audiophiles, _of course_ they hear a difference between different amps and DACs. How could a superior being like themselves _not_ hear it? After all, the other superior beings with whom they associate can hear the difference; admitting that there's a possibility that they themselves can't means they don't get to be part of the exclusive club anymore. . . .




I agree with what you say, but I think what you are describing solidifies it. The consumerist/advertising culture sets them up to be open to it and embrace it. Then once they join a group, it's a cascading effect and it just gets worse.


----------



## headwhacker

argyris said:


> While I agree that the advertising / confirmation bias feedback cycle plays a big part once things get going, this is my take on the driving force behind it all. People who are deeply involved in something inevitably feel a sense of pride, especially if it involves paying attention to fine distinctions that most other people ignore. People in this situation often feel like this particular aspect of their being makes them superior to others, at least in this sense. Therefore, when it comes to outspoken subjectivist audiophiles, _of course_ they hear a difference between different amps and DACs. How could a superior being like themselves _not_ hear it? After all, the other superior beings with whom they associate can hear the difference; admitting that there's a possibility that they themselves can't means they don't get to be part of the exclusive club anymore.
> 
> You can see it in the way people in this situation regard those who claim not to hear a difference. They immediately zero in on alleged source deficiencies ("Which amp? Which DAC?"), and then listener deficiencies ("Some of us just have better hearing"), and then finally character flaws ("You're too closed-minded") to explain it away. When extolling the fabulous purported benefits of their latest expensive purchase, they assert that only a total tin ear would not hear the improvement. By placing non-hearers in a lesser group, they reassert their superiority, which then reinforces their belief in the validity of their subjective appraisal. Their hearing acuity and attention to detail are so profoundly superior, even science can't find an explanation, which is why those nuts over in the Science Fiction section are all wrong.
> 
> In other words, it's a feedback cycle of recursive back slapping in the members only club. Humans do this constantly, with all sorts of different things, and often without even thinking about it. They want more, bigger, faster, even if it makes no appreciable or measurable difference. _They_ can tell the difference, and if _you_ can't, maybe you're just not as good as them, and you need to go sit at the little kids' table with the rest of unsophisticated humanity and let people like _them_, the big kids, sit at the grown ups' table and talk to one another about things you will never understand. Go away with your science, your logic. _We're_ not wrong. We can't be, because we're better than you.


 
  
 The "phenomenon" you described can be well observed in other aspect of society like Fashion where a designer bag's value is only as high as the name attached to it. Same as wine etc. No science required. But audio, especially digital audio? Most people ignores the fact that the technology that creates the gears we enjoy only follows the Science behind it.
  
 You won't see the same discussions on other hobbies that involves technology. Not even on car forums.


----------



## cel4145

headwhacker said:


> But audio, especially digital audio? Most people ignores the fact that the technology that creates the gears we enjoy only follows the Science behind it.




No doubt. All of those people definitely think the science is great when it creates something they want to buy. But then science is crap when it comes to telling them that sighted comparisons are flawed. It's the science is only believable when it's convenient to me perspective.


----------



## castleofargh

headwhacker said:


> The "phenomenon" you described can be well observed in other aspect of society like Fashion where a designer bag's value is only as high as the name attached to it. Same as wine etc. No science required. But audio, especially digital audio? Most people ignores the fact that the technology that creates the gears we enjoy only follows the Science behind it.
> 
> You won't see the same discussions on other hobbies that involves technology. Not even on car forums.


 
 fully agree with that. for wine, objective variables such as chemical composition are not very helpful for the casual consumer. even the most loyal customers seeking mostly to get trashed, will do just fine finding what they want through empirical research^_^(repeatability is key, I always said so!!!). trying to bring science to wine amateurs becomes a curiosity, like a side hobby more than something you really need to appreciate wine.
  
 and for amateur audio to some extent it's the same. you can go buy whatever you find pretty or nice sounding, go home, get music and have fun. in that respect subjectivity does work just fine.
  
 when it becomes stand up comedy is anytime a guy decides that his ears know everything to the point that he forgets to use the stuff floating in between. I call it "the third ear". it's the enlightened state that Stephen Hawking has been chasing his entire life where everything can be explained under one theory: "I listened, therefore I know".
  
 this blessed state allows you to tell when an album sounds like the real thing, even though you never heard the real thing. you can also tell which single component in a device is the cause for whatever you dislike in the sound like how Naoto Miura does in "clockwork planet" when he removes his headphone to find the mechanical problems by ear, but applied to electronic as well. in comparison, Pete Dayton fixing the car by ear in "lost highway" looks like a total noob.  the third ear is all knowing and all powerful, it can also send unlimited power into a headphone while staying at the same loudness to improve dynamic, bass, soundstage, you name it we got some. the third ear can free people of any known scientific model and really make you free of saying anything about everything with absolute certainty.
  
 of course rational people like myself who lack the third ear, can't do anything but rage against their own inability to escape the laws of physics. as a solution, I suggest to go watch the Doctor Strange movie which is pretty informative even if more focused on eyes than ears.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> fully agree with that. for wine, objective variables such as chemical composition are not very helpful for the casual consumer. even the most loyal customers seeking mostly to get trashed, will do just fine finding what they want through empirical research^_^(repeatability is key, I always said so!!!). trying to bring science to wine amateurs becomes a curiosity, like a side hobby more than something you really need to appreciate wine.
> 
> and for amateur audio to some extent it's the same. you can go buy whatever you find pretty or nice sounding, go home, get music and have fun. in that respect subjectivity does work just fine.
> 
> ...


 

 I saw Dr. Strange yesterday. We bought our tickets online with reserved seating so we could arrive 15 minutes late and avoid the onscreen adverts. Looks like we should have arrived 24 minutes late as that is how long it took for the movie to start. It's outrageous how they can insult a customer that pays for a ticket and lie as to the start time to slip in advertising. The 3D was good, however, the soundstage was far less than a thousand feet.


----------



## reginalb

stand said:


> I saw Dr. Strange yesterday. We bought our tickets online with reserved seating so we could arrive 15 minutes late and avoid the onscreen adverts. Looks like we should have arrived 24 minutes late as that is how long it took for the movie to start. It's outrageous how they can insult a customer that pays for a ticket and lie as to the start time to slip in advertising. The 3D was good, however, the soundstage was far less than a thousand feet.


 
  
 I (and many other people) love the previews.


----------



## cel4145

Some of you might enjoy this new post over at AVS where the person is trying to pretend they are not a subjectivist: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2633553-objective-vs-subjective-non-sense.html

Interestingly enough, the post is titled "Objective vs Subjective Non-sense" and I find most of the post to be nonsense. LOL


----------



## castleofargh

cel4145 said:


> Some of you might enjoy this new post over at AVS where the person is trying to pretend they are not a subjectivist: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2633553-objective-vs-subjective-non-sense.html
> 
> Interestingly enough, the post is titled "Objective vs Subjective Non-sense" and I find most of the post to be nonsense. LOL


 

   his description of objectivists is text book "appeal to ignorance". some kind of "we don't measure it so it doesn't exist". the guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
 I imagined he was just anti objectivism and ignorant, but then reading his post further down, I feel like he also doesn't have a clue what subjectivism is. the clever guys hiding behind subjectivism as a rhetorical argument to avoid losing on the internet aren't subjectivists. a subjectivist is exactly like an objectivist. he's not delusional, mistaking his feelings for reality, he just decided that his feelings were more important to him than reality when making his choices. so if the red cable feels like it sounds better or simply looks better to him, then he buys the red cable because placebo can also have positive impacts so it's all good.
 as soon as one decides to try and convince the rest of the world that his preferences are based on real factual superiority, he stops being a subjectivist.
  
 what he's talking about is like an argument between an ignorant false objectivist and an ignorant false subjectivist. so of course it's nonsense.


----------



## HotIce

cel4145 said:


> Some of you might enjoy this new post over at AVS where the person is trying to pretend they are not a subjectivist: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2633553-objective-vs-subjective-non-sense.html
> 
> Interestingly enough, the post is titled "Objective vs Subjective Non-sense" and I find most of the post to be nonsense. LOL


 
  
 Yeah, why would you trust a 1mK digital thermometer telling you that two objects have the same surface temperature.
 I tell you that they are different, because I am touching them with my high precision hands, and they feel different to me.
 Trust me, not the 1mK precision instrument!


----------



## Argyris

castleofargh said:


> his description of objectivists is text book "appeal to ignorance". some kind of "we don't measure it so it doesn't exist". the guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
> I imagined he was just anti objectivism and ignorant, but then reading his post further down, I feel like he also doesn't have a clue what subjectivism is. the clever guys hiding behind subjectivism as a rhetorical argument to avoid losing on the internet aren't subjectivists. a subjectivist is exactly like an objectivist. he's not delusional, mistaking his feelings for reality, he just decided that his feelings were more important to him than reality when making his choices. so if the red cable feels like it sounds better or simply looks better to him, then he buys the red cable because placebo can also have positive impacts so it's all good.
> as soon as one decides to try and convince the rest of the world that his preferences are based on real factual superiority, he stops being a subjectivist.
> 
> what he's talking about is like an argument between an ignorant false objectivist and an ignorant false subjectivist. so of course it's nonsense.


 
  
 Yep, it's like he decided to set up two straw men and make them battle one another, Rock'em Sock'em Robots-style.


----------



## StanD

reginalb said:


> I (and many other people) love the previews.


 

 Perhaps they should give two times, one for the beginning of the previews and the other for when the movie actually starts.


----------



## Argyris

stand said:


> Perhaps they should give two times, one for the beginning of the previews and the other for when the movie actually starts.


 
  
 Theaters need to install Adblock.


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> his description of objectivists is text book "appeal to ignorance". some kind of "we don't measure it so it doesn't exist". the guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
> I imagined he was just anti objectivism and ignorant, but then reading his post further down, I feel like he also doesn't have a clue what subjectivism is. the clever guys hiding behind subjectivism as a rhetorical argument to avoid losing on the internet aren't subjectivists. a subjectivist is exactly like an objectivist. he's not delusional, mistaking his feelings for reality, he just decided that his feelings were more important to him than reality when making his choices. so if the red cable feels like it sounds better or simply looks better to him, then he buys the red cable because placebo can also have positive impacts so it's all good.
> as soon as one decides to try and convince the rest of the world that his preferences are based on real factual superiority, he stops being a subjectivist.
> 
> what he's talking about is like an argument between an ignorant false objectivist and an ignorant false subjectivist. so of course it's nonsense.







argyris said:


> Yep, it's like he decided to set up two straw men and make them battle one another, Rock'em Sock'em Robots-style.




I think I think it's possible he's serious, not just trolling, and going through some kind of identity crisis. Can you imagine having those strawman arguments going on in your head?


----------



## Argyris

cel4145 said:


> Can you imagine having those strawman arguments going on in your head?


 
  
 That must be what it's like to be a politician.


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> That must be what it's like to be a politician.


 
  
 Ouch.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> I think I think it's possible he's serious, not just trolling, and going through some kind of identity crisis. Can you imagine having those strawman arguments going on in your head?


 
 When an audiophile hears voices, they need help. First thing is to drop the mids so they're not as forward.


----------



## U-3C

Say, why is it that some companies market separate dacs and amps as superior to dac/amp combos?

I know Schiit kinda made it a big deal on their site along with their belief that R2R is better than everything else, but what exactly are the benefits?

Also, I look forward to comparisons of the HD650 with the HD6XX. Especially the comparisons featuring the sonic differences of the cables.


----------



## gikigill

Still struggling to find any difference in an R2R vs DS DAC provides they are both reasonably specced and well built.


----------



## watchnerd

gikigill said:


> Still struggling to find any difference in an R2R vs DS DAC provides they are both reasonably specced and well built.


 
  
 In the case of Schiit, it's reasonably likely that the real secret sauce is the "mega combo burrito" DSP filter.  I believe at some point Jason said something to the effect of "the filter is the DAC".


----------



## castleofargh

u-3c said:


> Say, why is it that some companies market separate dacs and amps as superior to dac/amp combos?
> 
> I know Schiit kinda made it a big deal on their site along with their belief that R2R is better than everything else, but what exactly are the benefits?
> 
> Also, I look forward to comparisons of the HD650 with the HD6XX. Especially the comparisons featuring the sonic differences of the cables.


 

 yup and then after all the times they said separate pieces are better, "I invented the standalone DAC" and "we won't do it". boom jotunheim
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 and nobody cares anymore. that device seems to measure just fine, so what was so bad about all in one solutions? losing one of the opportunities for ground loop trouble
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




?
  
  at this point I wonder if R2R didn't make a comeback based only on: "it's rare so it's got to have value".
  
 fashion technology. having as many boxes as you can is going to be so 2016 very soon. and then it will come back again. novelty is superior even when novelty is old tech apparently. tell them Shirley:


----------



## StanD

Here's a good one. Of course I didn't include the HD600 load as measuring its capacitance and inductance would not be as simple as hooking up  a meter as it's not just one component. In any case the math shows that the relative differences between different cables should be meaningless to audio. I should have brought up that the wave length of audio vs the length of a headphone cable is meaningless as to reflections but I didn't want to get into a discussion of SWR and transmission lines and create a new fury about something that doesn't apply.
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/16575#post_12996760


----------



## castleofargh

too late I already whined like a raging illuminati objectivist on that one. as you know, our secret group will never be able to take over the world if people keep noticing the changes in cables, so I have to be propaganda active. 
seriously, what will square wave show? that they contain ultra high frequencies we do not care about, and that those can be very different from cable to cable. well it's true, but then what?


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> too late I already whined like a raging illuminati objectivist on that one. as you know, our secret group will never be able to take over the world if people keep noticing the changes in cables, so I have to be propaganda active.
> seriously, what will square wave show? that they contain ultra high frequencies we do not care about, and that those can be very different from cable to cable. well it's true, but then what? 

 And he claims to be an EE???? I believe I mentioned that what one sees on the oscilloscope and hears are two different matters. One has to understand what they are looking at and what that really means. Perhaps he will undertake my suggested DIY cable and use brown zip cord.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Interestingly, there's someone already called Joe Bloggs on avsforum.com with over 3000 posts. If you think that's me, no it's not. This is me 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/members/8404792-joe0bloggs.html


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> Interestingly, there's someone already called Joe Bloggs on avsforum.com with over 3000 posts. If you think that's me, no it's not. This is me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Perhaps you have an evil twin brother that you don't know about?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Perhaps you have an evil twin brother that you don't know about?










Doubt many people will get the reference.


----------



## Ruben123

joe bloggs said:


> Interestingly, there's someone already called Joe Bloggs on avsforum.com with over 3000 posts. If you think that's me, no it's not. This is me
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/members/8404792-joe0bloggs.html




I'd write the site owner or admin a letter...


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> Interestingly, there's someone already called Joe Bloggs on avsforum.com with over 3000 posts. If you think that's me, no it's not. This is me
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/members/8404792-joe0bloggs.html




Is the person intentionally using _your_ name, or abusing _your_ reputation, or does it just seem like a coincidence?


----------



## reginalb

u-3c said:


> Is the person intentionally using _your_ name, or abusing _your_ reputation, or does it just seem like a coincidence?


 
  
 Using an old avatar of his here, so I don't think it's coincidence. But the profile linked only has 91 posts from what I see.


----------



## U-3C

reginalb said:


> Using an old avatar of his here, so I don't think it's coincidence. But the profile linked only has 91 posts from what I see.




Hmmm... Very well. 



castleofargh said:


> yup and then after all the times they said separate pieces are better, "I invented the standalone DAC" and "we won't do it". boom jotunheim
> and nobody cares anymore. that device seems to measure just fine, so what was so bad about all in one solutions? losing one of the opportunities for ground loop troubleh34r: ?
> 
> at this point I wonder if R2R didn't make a comeback based only on: "it's rare so it's got to have value".
> ...




So aside from the ability to physically switch the dac and amp and make the design style look consistent, there really isn't much of a reason to get two bulky units after all...

I always wondered: there are so many dac/amp combo units out there that are smaller, cooler, and are almost universally accepted to be better than the entry level Schiit stack...so why does Schiit insist that separate units are better, especially when I don't see anyone, even Schiit themselves, talk about it...

Right now, I just want a good looking dac/amp on the cheap to serve as a furniture piece, a good looking but cheap quarter inch adapter, 'cause I want the headphones I own to look good, and a mobile dac that doesn't kill my phones battery and sounds about as clean as the onboard on my old iPhone.


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> I always wondered: there are so many dac/amp combo units out there that are smaller, cooler, and are almost universally accepted to be better than the entry level Schiit stack...so why does Schiit insist that separate units are better, especially when I don't see anyone, even Schiit themselves, talk about it...


 
  
 Probably the same philosophy as behind separate amps and preamps and tuners back in the hi-fi era. Separating the components out cuts down on the chance of interference and lets each device devote more space to a better design and/or circuit layout than if they all had to go in the same case. Also, you can mix and match components, which I can see being a legitimate plus if you wanted to use a particular separate tuner that worked well in your reception area.
  
 Apart from the latter instance, I have no idea if any of this actually matters, either in hi-fi equipment or in headphone amps, or if it's just another audiophile myth. Could be a bit of both depending on the implementation.


----------



## castleofargh

IDK if we can really conclude that all in one is better or inferior or the same. because there will always be a matter of point of view. how big a box can you make before people stop buying it? for those believing cables ruin sound(and they never opened any device to see the lame looking wires that are inside), 2 boxes mean another cable where "it matters". 2 boxes mean 2 separated power design, but the truth is, some devices have separated power designs in one box for different stages or whatever.
 then some audiophiles want to pick every screw in there sound system because it makes them believe they participated in creating the good sound, "I'm an artist too!".
  I'm sure there are some situations where shielding and grounding can be more or less of a brainstorm for the designers with separated boxes.
 it's not exactly the same way speakers with integrated amps offer good price performance because the amp is made for the speaker exactly. so no need to worry about other loads or other gains, the amp only has to be good enough for one usage.  we could think about this for DAC/amps too, but TBH connecting a DAC to an amp is not as demanding in versatility, the amp input will always have really high impedance and while we could think of fine tuning the gain, in today's DACs it will go between 1V and 3.5V, so while still a little significant in db for SNR or clipping levels, it's unlikely to turn a turd into gold if the user has any sort of common sense.
 my opinion is that it's nice to have choices, but personally I really don't care if it's one or 10 boxes. I care about the sound coming out, how it measures and how it feels to me. on the same idea, I'm pretty satisfied with the stuff I have in my room and as portable gears, but good looking devices are one of those stuff I have never cared for. and at times, it shows ^_^.


----------



## StanD

argyris said:


> Probably the same philosophy as behind separate amps and preamps and tuners back in the hi-fi era. Separating the components out cuts down on the chance of interference and lets each device devote more space to a better design and/or circuit layout than if they all had to go in the same case. Also, you can mix and match components, which I can see being a legitimate plus if you wanted to use a particular separate tuner that worked well in your reception area.
> 
> Apart from the latter instance, I have no idea if any of this actually matters, either in hi-fi equipment or in headphone amps, or if it's just another audiophile myth. Could be a bit of both depending on the implementation.


 
 Combining units means that an audiophile doesn't need $500 interconnects, that's bad for business. You get everything from one vendor, that's bad for someone's business On a more practical view, there's less chance of a ground loop.


----------



## cel4145

u-3c said:


> I always wondered: there are so many dac/amp combo units out there that are smaller, cooler, and are almost universally accepted to be better than the entry level Schiit stack...so why does Schiit insist that separate units are better, especially when I don't see anyone, even Schiit themselves, talk about it...




Doesn't support upgraditis as well to have them combined. "I wonder if I would get better sound if I upgraded my DAC?" "Now that I have new headphones, probably get better sound from a more powerful amp." And one doesn't have to upgrade both at once, so easier to see spending the money.

And don't forget separates permits the lunacy of searching for the perfect DAC/amp synergy.


----------



## Argyris

I wonder what would happen if more headphones were like the HD 6x0 family, with easily replaceable driver modules, and if these modules were readily available on the market. I wonder if audiophiles would take to buying these modules for whichever headphone they had and mixing and matching in order to "improve" the channel balance and related qualities like imaging. After all, why trust the factory equipment that matches each channel's output to within 0.5 dB tolerance (or whichever threshold is desired) when you can trust your ears instead?
  
 At least with the HD 6x0, there's probably so little difference between individual modules these days that it wouldn't really matter; it would just be yet another instance of a mountain being made out of a molehill or a salt flat. But other headphones' drivers aren't so consistent; there's potential for some pretty horrendous channel mismatches, especially if the average volume is similar enough not to make the imbalance readily apparent. It would simply kill the imaging and make everything sound off, as certain frequency ranges were biased to one side or the other. But, it certainly would sound "different", and of course that would translate into "better" no matter what the reality actually is.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Combining units means that an audiophile doesn't need $500 interconnects, that's bad for business. You get everything from one vendor, that's bad for someone's business On a more practical view, there's less chance of a ground loop.


 
  
 For portable even that's not an issue. 
  
 I use separate devices because the Chord Mojo only has digital volume control... Rather attenuate in the analog world than digital, at least theoretically.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> For portable even that's not an issue.
> 
> I use separate devices because the Chord Mojo only has digital volume control... Rather attenuate in the analog world than digital, at least theoretically.


 

  Chord Mojo, digital by calculation, yuck, or a digitally controlled analog attenuator, yes?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Chord Mojo, digital by calculation, yuck, or a digitally controlled analog attenuator, yes?


 
  
  
 Not really sure. Digitally controlled pot would be nice... but I don't think so from the block diagrams I've seen. 
  
 Of course I can't run it with unity gain either... because for a full scale input, I think that's a 5.3Vrms output level (What?)
  
 Edit:
 This, by the way, is why I firmly believed this device is way overhyped.


----------



## castleofargh

you guys really have a practical problem with digital volume control(actual digital, not talking about digital control on amps)? I'm pretty much only using digital attenuation with foobar or DAPs, and then there is EQ and replaygain. in fact I'm kind of against the 0db digital level in practice because of intersample clipping that sometimes happens on stupidly mastered albums(also too close to 0db).


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

castleofargh said:


> you guys really have a practical problem with digital volume control(actual digital, not talking about digital control on amps)? I'm pretty much only using digital attenuation with foobar or DAPs, and then there is EQ and replaygain. in fact I'm kind of against the 0db digital level in practice because of intersample clipping that sometimes happens on stupidly mastered albums(also too close to 0db).


 
  
 Not particularly... as I say, I have to use it for the Mojo because of the ridiculously loud output level.
  
 But given a choice between digital and analog I would much rather have analog. On the analog side an ideal device yields no loss of information, on the digital side you necessarily lose data.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Not particularly... as I say, I have to use it for the Mojo because of the ridiculously loud output level.
> 
> But given a choice between digital and analog I would much rather have analog. On the analog side an ideal device yields no loss of information, on the digital side you necessarily lose data.


 

 Well scaling to less bits is a consequence and then quantizing to less steps is a bad plan, I'll take an old fashioned volume pot any day. I'd be pretty grumpy too if I was in your situation. I haven't seen many complaints regarding the Mojo, then again I don't go looking for this DAC's story.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Well scaling to less bits is a consequence and then quantizing to less steps is a bad plan, I'll take an old fashioned volume pot any day. I'd be pretty grumpy too if I was in your situation. I haven't seen many complaints regarding the Mojo, then again I don't go looking for this DAC's story.


 
  
 That's because Chord can do no wrong as far as the audiophiles are concerned.... 
  
 To be fair though, the sensitivity for my IEMs is an Earth-shattering 133 dB SPL / 1Vrms...


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> That's because Chord can do no wrong as far as the audiophiles are concerned....
> 
> To be fair though, the sensitivity for my IEMs is an Earth-shattering 133 dB SPL / 1Vrms...


 

 Holy cow, which IEMs are those?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Holy cow, which IEMs are those?


 
  
 Andromeda from Campfire Audio
  
 The impedance supposedly swings quite a bit too with frequency... 12.8Ohms is at 1KHz, but it could go lower than that resulting in some frequencies being even louder...


----------



## castleofargh

the way I see it, yes analog volume control should add lower noise levels than the equivalent digital volume control. but how often will that resulting noise be the loudest noise in the system? on the other hand most analog volume controls in my life have had balance issues, more or less, but imbalance isn't something happening only at -XXdb. or have been something with few fixed stepped levels and I got annoyed when I couldn't get the precise loudness I wanted. so when I have a choice, I tend to set the analog gain the best I possibly can for good balance(on the O2 it was almost a sport to find low level with good balance around 0.2V), and then I adjust the few last dbs with digital setting.
  
 the mojo is clearly made to output a good deal of voltage, so it wouldn't be my first choice for IEMs. also the hugo had some nasty hiss when I tried one, so I've got a preconception against the genius chord designs. but for low sensitivity headphones those devices seem like a solid option.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

castleofargh said:


> the way I see it, yes analog volume control should add lower noise levels than the equivalent digital volume control. but how often will that resulting noise be the loudest noise in the system? on the other hand most analog volume controls in my life have had balance issues, more or less, but imbalance isn't something happening only at -XXdb. or have been something with few fixed stepped levels and I got annoyed when I couldn't get the precise loudness I wanted. so when I have a choice, I tend to set the analog gain the best I possibly can for good balance(on the O2 it was almost a sport to find low level with good balance around 0.2V), and then I adjust the few last dbs with digital setting.
> 
> the mojo is clearly made to output a good deal of voltage, so it wouldn't be my first choice for IEMs. also the hugo had some nasty hiss when I tried one, so I've got a preconception against the genius chord designs. but for low sensitivity headphones those devices seem like a solid option.


 
  
  
 I'm not as concerned about noise as I am resolution... with digital volume control, I lose an LSB every time I attenuate ~6dB even in a perfect world... with analog volume control, I technically don't lose anything (barring negative SNR, but we're making "perfect world" comparisons). In other words with digital control I can only get within 1LSB of zero, with analog control I can theoretically get infinitely close to zero. 
  
 I paired the Mojo with an "amp" which actually attenuates... so this how I get my analog volume control with this set up. But because the Mojo spits out 5.3Vrms (presumably full scale, unity gain) I still have to use some digital attenuation on the Mojo to prevent overdriving my "amp".  I'm something like 25dB down using the digital attenuation on the Mojo... I could probably use less, but quite frankly I can't tell an audible difference by doing so and prefer having more usable range on the "amp".


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> the way I see it, yes analog volume control should add lower noise levels than the equivalent digital volume control. but how often will that resulting noise be the loudest noise in the system?




In the case of the DACport Slim and HD, the noise is quite high and since it's a digital volume control, that noise isn't going anywhere. Funny, as CEntrance marketed it as being a perfect pairing for the SE864. Many people started questioning the first reviewer as his review sounds like a poorly done sales pitch, and people with the SE864 are clearly not hearing the ink black background the guy swears by. : P



castleofargh said:


> on the O2 it was almost a sport to find low level with good balance around 0.2V), and then I adjust the few last dbs with digital setting.




I feel like getting the O2 and setting it to 1x gain, max out my dac/amp with a digital control, and just use the volume control on the O2 to get rid of the hiss, or around with both.


----------



## castleofargh

grumpyoldguy said:


> I'm not as concerned about noise as I am resolution... with digital volume control, I lose an LSB every time I attenuate ~6dB even in a perfect world... with analog volume control, I technically don't lose anything (barring negative SNR, but we're making "perfect world" comparisons). In other words with digital control I can only get within 1LSB of zero, with analog control I can theoretically get infinitely close to zero.
> 
> I paired the Mojo with an "amp" which actually attenuates... so this how I get my analog volume control with this set up. But because the Mojo spits out 5.3Vrms (presumably full scale, unity gain) I still have to use some digital attenuation on the Mojo to prevent overdriving my "amp".  I'm something like 25dB down using the digital attenuation on the Mojo... I could probably use less, but quite frankly I can't tell an audible difference by doing so and prefer having more usable range on the "amp".


 
 IDK, with my gears I'm never in a situation where quantization is the loudest noise, so I never really subscribed to the bit perfect idea. still yeah your IEM and 5V, that's a lot to reduce.
  


u-3c said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > the way I see it, yes analog volume control should add lower noise levels than the equivalent digital volume control. but how often will that resulting noise be the loudest noise in the system?
> ...


 
 I like the SE864 but didn't buy it because of the ludicrously low impedance. nowadays anytime I see extreme specs, instead of looking for a device that would work, I just run away. made my audiophile life way easier.
 I have odac/O2 and 1X/2.5X voltage gain settings, so 1X is still 2V and at least on the one I have, channel imbalance shows up pretty soon when I turn down the knob. if you're going to build one, you might want to look for a better pot than the default one.


----------



## spruce music

Here is a quote from Jriver about 64 bit volume control digitally.
  
The precision offered by Media Center's 64bit audio engine is billions of times greater than the best hardware can utilize. In other words, it is bit-perfect on all known hardware.

 To demonstrate the incredible precision of 64bit audio, imagine applying 100 million random volume changes (huge changes from -100 to 100 dB), and then applying those same 100 million volume changes again in the opposite direction.

 Amazingly, you will have the exact same signal at 32bit after 200 million huge volume changes as when you started.

 In other words, this incredible number of changes results in a bit-perfect output at 32bit, which is the highest hardware output bitdepth (most high-end hardware is 24bit).

 This also means one volume change or a series of 100 million volume changes that add up to the same net result is bit-identical. 
  
 When you consider the Chord Mojo is a 32 bit DAC, I don't see a problem.  Volume wise a 192 db volume range.  64 bit volume control and there should be no issues to alter sound.  Even the finest hand trimmed resistor switched analog volume control won't be as balanced channel to channel or totally clean as using digital volume in this piece of gear because the resistors will add thermal noise higher than digital volume processing noise .   Reduce your 133 db output down to 0 db and with 32 bits first you will be in the analog noise floor of the DAC.  Second you would still have 59 db of volume control accuracy in the DAC chip, and thirdly you can't hear it by then anyway. 
  
 Pretty much once you have at least 32 bit volume control you have no issues related to digital volume and that is true even with a 24 bit DAC being fed.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> if you're going to build one, you might want to look for a better pot than the default one.




Any recommendations and maybe some info on how that works/where to order individual components for the O2 online? 

Total noob with this stuff right here.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> Any recommendations and maybe some info on how that works/where to order individual components for the O2 online?
> 
> Total noob with this stuff right here.




Digikey, avnet, arrow... All good vendors.

Edit:
Watch out for the min buy on some these parts... Don't accidentally end up getting a reel of 10,000 when all you need is 5.


----------



## U-3C

grumpyoldguy said:


> Watch out for the min buy on some these parts... Don't accidentally end up getting a reel of 10,000 when all you need is 5.


 
  
 Thanks for that reminder! Kinda scratching my head on that one. On Mouser, I might need to purchase a few thousand more components than I need. Same thing on some of the other ones you've mentioned. :/
  
 I feel like I might as well just buy a kit from eBay or JDS Labs.
  
 What do you guys think about this? It's a bit cheaper than what Mouser gave me due to their free shipping:
  
 http://www.ebay.ca/itm/O2-Amp-DIY-Kit-Objective2-Amplifier-Objective-2-/182101212657?hash=item2a6613fdf1:g:XaYAAOSw8aNXGOAo
  
 I plan to purchase the enclosure with appropriate front/rear plates, volume knob, 1/4 inch headphone jack, rear power jack and power adapters from JDS Labs. Is there anything else I need?
  
 Not sure what I should look for in terms of potentiometers though... any suggestions on what to get and how I can get one on the cheap (i.e. no 30 dollars worth of shipping?  )
  
 Thanks for all your insights!


----------



## castleofargh

u-3c said:


> Any recommendations and maybe some info on how that works/where to order individual components for the O2 online?
> 
> Total noob with this stuff right here.


 
 ok I have a method, but this isn't simple, so try to follow:
 in headfi's search bar, type "O2" and ask anything you want in the first topic(it works even if you actually type the quotation marks in the search bar! and we say magic doesn't exist...). plenty of people there have made one and a few really know their stuff, including the forever nice JDS guy.
  
  
  
  




 personally I'm a coward and I'm lazy, so I bought it built and really don't know much. I spent 10mn with a multimeter trying to find good balance around 0.2V as I said, got lucky and did find a good balance. I've never touched it since that day(I just measure again from time to time to check that I didn't move the knob by accident when turning it ON and OFF). I'm useless.


----------



## headwhacker

u-3c said:


> In the case of the DACport Slim and HD, the noise is quite high and since it's a digital volume control, that noise isn't going anywhere. Funny, as CEntrance marketed it as being a perfect pairing for the SE864. Many people started questioning the first reviewer as his review sounds like a poorly done sales pitch, and people with the SE864 are clearly not hearing the ink black background the guy swears by. : P
> I feel like getting the O2 and setting it to 1x gain, max out my dac/amp with a digital control, and just use the volume control on the O2 to get rid of the hiss, or around with both.




I learned about how ugly audiophile marketing for the first time with Centrance Hifi-M8. They heavily marketed it and overhyped as a one size fits all audio source/DAC/Amp. Supposed to drive high impedance headphones to very sensitive iems. The truth is it did not drive anything very well. I found that in many cases it struggles to drive my T1 and it hisses on my JH16. 

But the worst part is they claimed it has a fully balanced output. On my experience with it, I can't discern a difference between the 3.5 jack and the xlr output. But the hypers and many of the reviewers insisted the xlr output is better. (the usual soundstage, dynamics etc is wider, bigger mumbo jumbo) Until someone opened the case and cried foul. The circuit design and components are too few and simple to have a balanced topology. 

When confronted, their defense was they only claimed the M8 to have a "balanced impedance" and not a fully balanced DAC/Amp.(which I think don't mean anything and they just came up with it out of thin air).

However, the owner/founder made an earlier post claiming his product to be fully balanced. When he was reminded of his earlier post/claim, the only response was a very deafening silence.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> ok I have a method, but this isn't simple, so try to follow:
> in headfi's search bar, type "O2" and ask anything you want in the first topic(it works even if you actually type the quotation marks in the search bar! and we say magic doesn't exist...). plenty of people there have made one and a few really know their stuff, including the forever nice JDS guy.
> 
> 
> ...





Yaaaas of course, how can I forget???!! 

xD

I literally spend 99.99999999999999939536633785% of my time on Head-Fi reading this one thread to avoid the horrors of Audiophilia, and it's gotten to a point that I forgot there are other things on Head-Fi! 

Thanks for the reminder. I guess I'll start harassing other threads now~ :3



headwhacker said:


> However, the owner/founder made an earlier post claiming his product to be fully balanced. When he was reminded of his earlier post/claim, the only response was a very deafening silence.




Don't really know what to say about Michael Goodman and his team. Many people claim that this product I bought is so much better than everything else, and they even prove it with measurements, yet it left such a poor impression for me. The way Michael Goodman responds to people doesn't really build trust, especially since they've already had multiple "oops" moments that they brushed off with seemingly random/improvised fixes, how they always remain very vague/ambiguous about their products, and how they always talk about their jitter measurements and the ability to decode dsd when people ask what's up with problems regarding the product. They are also VERY lenient on how they round up their specs and how they word things to make themselves sound fancy. 

The few emails and messages I've exchanged with CEntrance didn't really leave a good impression either, with Goodman putting me and some of my friends down to promote his product. I find that the company is really marketing themselves to the stereotypical audiophile elite rather than actually wanting to help people out.


----------



## Argyris

I learned long ago that you can either laugh at the crazy stuff in the world or cry about it, and crying's no fun. I'll break down on occasion and go into a rant, but most of the time I just have to sit back and have a good guffaw at some of the stuff I come across in the audiophile world. The elites will seemingly believe just about anything. Like for instance...


  
 ...I'm sure somebody out there would buy it (both figuratively and literally) if I a prominent manufacturer of audiophile equipment were to claim that plush toys placed in the listening space can drastically improve the sound. And of course...
  

  
 ...multiple units will intensify the effect. Or, perhaps you prefer clocks:
  

  
 Notice how Rarity is also present here...the effects of the clock and the plush stack! You see, the clock, while bringing some much needed precision to the sound compared to an analog model, also adds a bit of digital glare. The plush counteracts this by adding some softness, a slight plush thickness, if you will, that makes the sound simply fabulous. And strangely vegetal, though I haven't quite placed where this is coming from. Maybe I need to burn Rarity in for another 300 hours, or do something about the temperature in that room during the summer.


----------



## headwhacker

u-3c said:


> Yaaaas of course, how can I forget???!!
> 
> xD
> 
> ...




I have a similar impression about their company as well. They seem to take advantage of audiophile myths just to sell a product under the guise of "we just give what the customer wants". Also I find their spec sheets for their products useless. They use very vague units just to describe the output power of their amps for example.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

u-3c said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, there's someone already called Joe Bloggs on avsforum.com with over 3000 posts. If you think that's me, no it's not. This is me
> ...







reginalb said:


> u-3c said:
> 
> 
> > Is the person intentionally using _your_ name, or abusing _your_ reputation, or does it just seem like a coincidence?
> ...




You guys have got it all backwards 

1. "Joe Bloggs" is known to be a placeholder name for when the actual identity of the person is unknown. That there are so few Joe Bloggs on the internet is a wonder, really.
2. I said, "Joe Bloggs" was already taken on avsforums.com . So I could only register as "Joe0Bloggs". And I only posted 91 posts there, compared to that Joe Bloggs' 3xxx posts.
:rolleyes:


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> You guys have got it all backwards
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Americans know him as John Doe or John Smith. As a infant he was known as Baby Doe.


----------



## StanD

headwhacker said:


> I learned about how ugly audiophile marketing for the first time with Centrance Hifi-M8. They heavily marketed it and overhyped as a one size fits all audio source/DAC/Amp. Supposed to drive high impedance headphones to very sensitive iems. The truth is it did not drive anything very well. I found that in many cases it struggles to drive my T1 and it hisses on my JH16.
> 
> But the worst part is they claimed it has a fully balanced output. On my experience with it, I can't discern a difference between the 3.5 jack and the xlr output. But the hypers and many of the reviewers insisted the xlr output is better. (the usual soundstage, dynamics etc is wider, bigger mumbo jumbo) Until someone opened the case and cried foul. The circuit design and components are too few and simple to have a balanced topology.
> 
> ...


 

 P.T. Barnum is attributed to saying, "There's a sucker audiophile born every minute."


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

Is there any reason to think that two current DACs, correctly manufactured, have a different sound?
  
 I was watching this:
  

  
 My english and knowledge is limited, but I understand that the ADC/DAC was capable of restoring the exactly same signal of the original analogue. If an old ADC/DAC like the one he is using is capable of that, ANY DAC of this decade must be able to do so, right?
  
 I can be completely wrong, if yes, please, sorry me.


----------



## Mr Rick

extremegamerbr said:


> Is there any reason to think that two current DACs, correctly manufactured, have a different sound?
> 
> I was watching this:
> 
> ...




  
  
 Some, like me, will agree with you.  Others will not. It's the nature of the hobby.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

mr rick said:


> Some, like me, will agree with you.  Others will not. It's the nature of the hobby.


 
 I would like to know why they don't agree. I want to learn how these things works. I can be wrong, no problem, but I want to know why.


----------



## Mr Rick

extremegamerbr said:


> I would like to know why they don't agree. I want to learn how these things works. I can be wrong, no problem, but I want to know why.


 
  
 Because they believe they hear a difference. And it's fruitless to disagree with what another person hears, or thinks they hear.


----------



## watchnerd

extremegamerbr said:


> Is there any reason to think that two current DACs, correctly manufactured, have a different sound?
> 
> I was watching this:
> 
> ...




  
 Yes -- if the digital part is done right, there should be more similarities than differences between competent DACs.  What differences remain are probably below the threshold of audibility.
  
 No -- even if the digital part is bit-perfect and clock-perfect, a crappy analog stage can still ruin the results by introducing noise, distortion, or simply lacking enough output voltage.
  
 It's all about the implementation.


----------



## spruce music

watchnerd said:


> Yes -- if the digital part is done right, there should be more similarities than differences between competent DACs.  What differences remain are probably below the threshold of audibility.
> 
> No -- even if the digital part is bit-perfect and clock-perfect, a crappy analog stage can still ruin the results by introducing noise, distortion, or simply lacking enough output voltage.
> 
> It's all about the implementation.


 

 Proper implementation of the analog stage is trivial in the extreme these days.  Crappy analog would be incompetent design, and there is on good reason for it.


----------



## watchnerd

spruce music said:


> Proper implementation of the analog stage is trivial in the extreme these days.  Crappy analog would be incompetent design, and there is on good reason for it.


 
  
 And yet eBay is full of designs using expensive DAC chips combined with incompetent analog stages.


----------



## StanD

watchnerd said:


> And yet eBay is full of designs using expensive DAC chips combined with incompetent analog stages.


 

 Apparently incompetence is not in short supply.


----------



## watchnerd

stand said:


> Apparently incompetence is not in short supply.


 
  
 I blame the buyers who want a 32bit/384khz/DSD capable DAC for <$50 40 30.
  
 An entrepreneurial designer in Shenzen can only do so much if he wants that price point, but also the latest DAC chip.


----------



## StanD

watchnerd said:


> I blame the buyers who want a 32bit/384khz/DSD capable DAC for <$50 40 30.
> 
> An entrepreneurial designer in Shenzen can only do so much if he wants that price point, but also the latest DAC chip.


 

 32 bits, so who is interested in starting an earthquake?


----------



## castleofargh

I've got that idea where 32bit DACs are almost 24bit of the pulse modulated stuff(well less than that, but effectively that after noise shaping and stuff) always changing to follow the oversampled signal. and the 8bit left are more of a gain switch with plenty of values, where the setting picked doesn't move unless you change the volume setting. so you don't care if that part has plenty of noise when switching, if the linearity is poor, or if the switch is fast enough. because it's basically not active when you listen to music.
 is that right or was it something I dreamed of again?


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> I've got that idea where 32bit DACs are almost 24bit of the pulse modulated stuff(well less than that, but effectively that after noise shaping and stuff) always changing to follow the oversampled signal. and the 8bit left are more of a gain switch with plenty of values, where the setting picked doesn't move unless you change the volume setting. so you don't care if that part has plenty of noise when switching, if the linearity is poor, or if the switch is fast enough. because it's basically not active when you listen to music.
> is that right or was it something I dreamed of again?


 
  
 I thought that the best DACs couldn't get past around 21 or 22 bits of effective DR.


----------



## castleofargh

obviously I'm talking about the chipsets marketed as 32bit.


----------



## watchnerd

stand said:


> 32 bits, so who is interested in starting an earthquake?


 
  
 You'd need a microphone capable of recording 196 dB first....


----------



## Arpiben

watchnerd said:


> You'd need a microphone capable of recording 196 dB first....



Second a very cold temperature for reducing thermal noise...


----------



## spruce music

arpiben said:


> Second a very cold temperature for reducing thermal noise...


 

 Yes, and by then you have liquified air and most listeners become shall we say.....brittle.


----------



## StanD

watchnerd said:


> You'd need a microphone capable of recording 196 dB first....


 

 I don't need no stink'in microphone, I can generate that in software.


----------



## watchnerd

stand said:


> I don't need no stink'in microphone, I can generate that in software.


 
  
 Didn't realize you were an EDM producer...


----------



## StanD

watchnerd said:


> Didn't realize you were an EDM producer...


 

 I can write software to generate the data. I can even provide it in ultrasonic form for the most gifted of audiophiles.


----------



## Ruben123

How hard would it be to let audiophiles abx an empty file against one with ultrasounds only?


----------



## watchnerd

stand said:


> I can write software to generate the data. I can even provide it in ultrasonic form for the most gifted of audiophiles.


 
  
 Right...so you're an EDM producer....


----------



## watchnerd

ruben123 said:


> How hard would it be to let audiophiles abx an empty file against one with ultrasounds only?


 
  
 Is that lossy or lossless utrasonic?


----------



## Ruben123

watchnerd said:


> Is that lossy or lossless utrasonic?


 excellent question. I'd go for an abcx then. So both! Three times listening to silence, how peaceful and relaxing....


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> How hard would it be to let audiophiles abx an empty file against one with ultrasounds only?


 
 I'd like to have them ABX two empty files.


----------



## Argyris

stand said:


> I can write software to generate the data. I can even provide it in ultrasonic form for the most gifted of audiophiles.


 
  
 Is it possible to be killed by a sound of sufficient amplitude that falls outside the range of human hearing, such that the victim hears nothing? I assume no because some of the energy would resonate through the body and directly stimulate the eardrum.


----------



## cel4145

argyris said:


> Is it possible to be killed by a sound of sufficient amplitude that falls outside the range of human hearing, such that the victim hears nothing? I assume no because some of the energy would resonate through the body and directly stimulate the eardrum.




I've read that 19hz is the resonant frequency of your eyeball. Although I would imagine at an SPL loud enough to have it cause physical damage to the eye, you'd probably hear it.


----------



## spruce music

cel4145 said:


> I've read that 19hz is the resonant frequency of your eyeball. Although I would imagine at an SPL loud enough to have it cause physical damage to the eye, you'd probably hear it.


 

 Here is a diagram with resonate frequencies of other body parts.
  
 http://listentothisnoise.com/post/59772917907/whats-the-resonant-frequency-of-your-eyes-what


----------



## StanD

argyris said:


> Is it possible to be killed by a sound of sufficient amplitude that falls outside the range of human hearing, such that the victim hears nothing? I assume no because some of the energy would resonate through the body and directly stimulate the eardrum.


 

 I'll bet that the CIA and KGB worked that out long ago. You can also check the AES for papers.


----------



## cel4145

Maybe we are on to something here. 

Can someone write a pseudo-science paper about how boutique cables cause some kind of physical health problem when used over the long term? Be sure to use a lot of jargon so that the cable heads will buy into the conclusions because they can't understand it. :etysmile:


----------



## HotIce

stand said:


> I'll bet that the CIA and KGB worked that out long ago. You can also check the AES for papers.


 
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device
  
 Not exactly outside of human hearing, but using high SPL, directional, sound waves in not new.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ba72e0a4-0cf1-41fc-8111-fddc0d9e8e93


----------



## U-3C

Yeah...I was just going to mention sound cannons. They've been used to repel peaceful protesters recently in the US.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> Yeah...I was just going to mention sound cannons. They've been used to repel peaceful protesters recently in the US.


 
  
 You mean the people obstructing traffic, burning flags, and shouting obscenities in the streets because of the election results?
  
 I don't really care about that third thing, but the first two are safety concerns if nothing else... Using an LRAD was smart, good way to use non lethal force against a large group of people.


----------



## U-3C

grumpyoldguy said:


> You mean the people obstructing traffic, burning flags, and shouting obscenities in the streets because of the election results?
> 
> I don't really care about that third thing, but the first two are safety concerns if nothing else... Using an LRAD was smart, good way to use non lethal force against a large group of people.




No no, I was referring to peaceful protests that have nothing to do with the elections.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> No no, I was referring to peaceful protests that have nothing to do with the elections.


 
  
 Ah okay, sorry, I read something about NYPD using LRADs on Trump protesters, I thought you were referring to that.


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Yeah...I was just going to mention sound cannons. They've been used to repel peaceful protesters recently in the US.


 

 Beans, beans good for the heart. The more you eat the more you ....


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> Beans, beans good for the heart. The more you eat the more you ....




Lool!

To be honest, I really wish I had a good looking 1/4 inch adapter. Nothing wrong with normal ones. It's just I wish can find some cheap ones that look nice. Brainwavz used to give out one that looked pretty cool with one of their flagship iems, but not anymore. Same with cables. I wish I can get a high quality, durable and nice looking cable for a cheap price. The cables on Xiaomi Piston iems are some of my favourite cause they feel soooo nice...

Speaking of fancy cables, if I go to the home of an active member of a cables thread and bring a pet with itchy paws/teeth...


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Lool!
> 
> To be honest, I really wish I had a good looking 1/4 inch adapter. Nothing wrong with normal ones. It's just I wish can find some cheap ones that look nice. Brainwavz used to give out one that looked pretty cool with one of their flagship iems, but not anymore. Same with cables. I wish I can get a high quality, durable and nice looking cable for a cheap price. The cables on Xiaomi Piston iems are some of my favourite cause they feel soooo nice...
> 
> Speaking of fancy cables, if I go to the home of an active member of a cables thread and bring a pet with itchy paws/teeth...


 
 Fancy cables might become cat toys if you have a resident feline. You can always decorate your cables/adaptors with cat toys.


----------



## StanD

Here we go again with cable magic. I don't understand how people come up with this stuff.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/16710#post_13011219


----------



## watchnerd

stand said:


> Here we go again with cable magic. I don't understand how people come up with this stuff.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/16710#post_13011219


 
  
 The best shock therapy I would recommend for most audiophiles regarding cables is to see what is used in most professional environments.
  
 It's pretty much all mundane microphone cabling from Canare, Belden, etc.  Ditto for interconnects.
  
 The microphone might cost $2000 (because a good mic makes a huge difference), but the cable will be relative cheap....(because spending more than 'good enough' doesn't make a difference).


----------



## Argyris

stand said:


> Here we go again with cable magic. I don't understand how people come up with this stuff.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/16710#post_13011219


 
  
 Wherever the teachings of reason and science do not reach or are discouraged, the belief in magic is strong.


----------



## StanD

argyris said:


> Wherever the teachings of reason and science do not reach or are discouraged, the belief in magic is strong.


 

 The dark side of the force is strong in the audiophiles.


----------



## StanD

watchnerd said:


> The best shock therapy I would recommend for most audiophiles regarding cables is to see what is used in most professional environments.
> 
> It's pretty much all mundane microphone cabling from Canare, Belden, etc.  Ditto for interconnects.
> 
> The microphone might cost $2000 (because a good mic makes a huge difference), but the cable will be relative cheap....(because spending more than 'good enough' doesn't make a difference).


 

 Some people find it hard to use something that isn't expensive.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> Some people find it hard to use something that isn't expensive.




Oh that's the easy part. Just ask for more money. Donate the extra weight that you don't want to charity~


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Oh that's the easy part. Just ask for more money. Donate the extra weight that you don't want to charity~


 
 I say that charity begins at home, I donate to the local food bank. I give money, they're not interested in audiophile kit.


----------



## headwhacker

Cable cooker, anyone?

http://www.head-fi.org/t/803271/violectric-hpa-v280-slim-and-powerful-balanced-hpa/90#post_13059636


----------



## watchnerd

headwhacker said:


> Cable cooker, anyone?
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/803271/violectric-hpa-v280-slim-and-powerful-balanced-hpa/90#post_13059636


 
  
 I prefer mine grilled.


----------



## pinnahertz

I will admit to frying a few....


----------



## VNandor

I never do that.It makes the treble too hot.


----------



## HotIce

You know, I thought it was a joke, but it isn't! Holy FSCK! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  

  
  
 I cannot believe how far people go for scamming others, and how others go in their will to be scammed!


----------



## headdict

I always order my cables al dente.


----------



## watchnerd

hotice said:


> You know, I thought it was a joke, but it isn't! Holy FSCK!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Starting at only $999!
  
 Perfect for entry-level placebophiles...


----------



## watchnerd

P.S.
  
 If I did want to "burn in" my cables, I would just do it with a signal generator for pennies on the dollar....


----------



## spruce music

The below is from the maker of the cable cooker.  Me if I believed in such stuff, I would just send a square or sawtooth wave through the system for awhile.
  
_Firstly, the Cable Cooker's output signal combines high voltage, high current, plus a swept square wave covering the range of 0 DC to just a hair over 40Khz. This steady-state signal outputs 125 mA on the low-level circuit (for interconnects) and approx. 1.9 Amperes on the high-level circuit (for speaker cables & power cables). The Cable Cooker utilizes an outboard 12V / 2.5A universal switching power supply. Steady-state voltage output measures out at approx. 11.8V on the low-level circuit and 11.4V on the high-level circuit.

 The high-level circuit is also used for various audio transformers and all manner of high-quality capacitors such as Audience Auricaps, Dueland CAST, Jupiter's, Mundorf's, and V-Caps (the Teflon varieties as well). And not to be remiss, the Cable Cooker does an outstanding job on a host of passive AC line conditioners, including Audience (they pre-condition theirs before shipping), Acoustic Revive, Audio Magic, BPT, Isoclean, Oyaide, Running Springs, Sound Application, Synergistic Research (they pre-condition theirs as well), and yes, even various models of Shunyata.

 To further elucidate the swept square wave's capabilities (per jap's comments re: "frequency. The higher the better."), please note that while the upper frequency is calibrated (via oscilloscope) to just over 40Khz, this calibration does not take into account the harmonics that reach into the megahertz. The "higher the better" indeed._


----------



## Don Hills

spruce music said:


> _ ... The Cable Cooker utilizes an outboard 12V / 2.5A universal switching power supply. __ ... _


 
  
 That's good news - it can be replaced by a high quality LPS.


----------



## watchnerd

don hills said:


> That's good news - it can be replaced by a high quality LPS.


 
  
 If you upgrade the power cord in the Cable Cooker to a fancy Furutech model does it cook better?


----------



## spruce music

watchnerd said:


> If you upgrade the power cord in the Cable Cooker to a fancy Furutech model does it cook better?


 

 No elsewhere the makers of this device say they haven't found a good power cord cooker.  Though they have plans to work on one.  Seems that should have been a first priority doesn't it?  HA, like rationality enters into it.


----------



## spruce music

don hills said:


> That's good news - it can be replaced by a high quality LPS.


 

 Are we sure?  I mean if smooth high frequencies are part and parcel of the LPS, maybe the nasty switching noise of a switching supply work with the square waves to aid break in.


----------



## watchnerd

spruce music said:


> Are we sure?  I mean if smooth high frequencies are part and parcel of the LPS, maybe the nasty switching noise of a switching supply work with the square waves to aid break in.


 
  
 I think it's time to bring back the TICE Clock.....


----------



## StanD

I see that this figamajig/doohickey extends to nearly 40 KHz. That should please those in the ultrasonic camp.


----------



## headdict

Has anyone tried this place? Is it recommendable?
  
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ARPGQCG6YPo%2FT9LxQT8c_TI%2FAAAAAAAAFDY%2F8ILO9GM8GDM%2Fs1600%2Fcable%2Bgrill.JPG&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftiminphuket-restaurants.blogspot.com%2F2012%2F06%2Fcable-grill-at-premium-outlet.html&h=1066&w=1600&tbnid=DH_i5mcnYWvp1M%3A&vet=1&docid=xTmsoBDmNbVNyM&ei=oe1GWKytI4KPsAH93YjQCA


----------



## cel4145

I don't understand how it makes sense for me to buy a cable cooker for $1000 when my cables cost, at most, $20 to $30 a pair???


----------



## Mr Rick

cel4145 said:


> I don't understand how it makes sense for me to buy a cable cooker for $1000 when my cables cost, at most, $20 to $30 a pair???


 
 Obviously, you need these:
  
 http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=1MIMSHD120


----------



## watchnerd

I was amused by this bit on the FAQ for the new Fulla 2:
  
 "Can I use a fancier cable to get better sound?
You can do whatever you’d like, including dancing by the light of the full moon and making small, non-living sacrifices to the audiophile gods.
 
No, seriously.
We are being serious.
 
I’m asking specifically about the cable.
As long as it’s a USB 2.0-rated cable, 2m or less in length, terminated with a micro USB plug on one end, you can use it, sure.
 
And it’ll sound better?
Probably about as much as taping $100 bills to your headphones. Or sending the $100 bills to us. We prefer the latter.
 
You’re messing with me!
Just a little."
 
Are the guys at Schiit cable skeptics?


----------



## cel4145

mr rick said:


> Obviously, you need these:
> 
> http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=1MIMSHD120





There was a guy in the Head-Fi computer forum telling people to buy expensive power cords and interconnects that cost more than the Audioengine A5+ he was using them with. So there's "I think your crazy to spend a lot on cables." But then there's a whole 'nuther level of insanity that comes from spending more on cables than the electronics and speakers combined. I just don't understand how that can be rationalized as logical even if one does believe in the benefits of cables. LOL


----------



## spruce music

cel4145 said:


> I don't understand how it makes sense for me to buy a cable cooker for $1000 when my cables cost, at most, $20 to $30 a pair???


 

 Hey, if you'll paypal me $10, I'll send you a special FLAC file that will work almost as good as the cable cooker.  Surely if you have a few pairs of even $20 cables it will be worth it to you.  Imagine how much better it will all sound.  There is a chance the cable cooker file does more for cheap cables.  The electronic stress relief is much greater in a stressed $20 cable than in an already somewhat relieved by design $12,000 cable. 
  
 EDIT to ADD: my special file is generated by a hard to come by vacuum tube circuit which is part of why it will work so well.


----------



## U-3C

watchnerd said:


> I was amused by this bit on the FAQ for the new Fulla 2:
> 
> "Can I use a fancier cable to get better sound?
> [COLOR=8F8F8F][COLOR=000000]You can do whatever you’d like, including dancing by the light of the full moon and making small, non-living sacrifices to the audiophile gods.[/COLOR][/COLOR]
> ...




Haha, that used to be *THE* FAQ.
When they took it out, I felt so sad. Great to see it back. ^_^


----------



## castleofargh

I have this detailed as cable inventory


> arguing that special cables improve the sound because you heard one such cable, is like arguing that morons have great success in life after seeing the kardashians on TV.


 
 the Shiit bit is funnier/nicer and will surely convince way more people that a 500$ usb cable may not be what they need to get rainbows coming out of their headphones.
 I see that as a very beneficial action for the audio hobby, but wonder how many elite audiophiles they have antagonized with this. it's a gain some/lose some kind of move that the audio industry usually avoids like a plague. then again Shiit is by no mean the usual audio insider. ^_^


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> I have this detailed as cable inventory
> the Shiit bit is funnier/nicer and will surely convince way more people that a 500$ usb cable may not be what they need to get rainbows coming out of their headphones.
> I see that as a very beneficial action for the audio hobby, but wonder how many elite audiophiles they have antagonized with this. it's a gain some/lose some kind of move that the audio industry usually avoids like a plague. then again Shiit is by no mean the usual audio insider. ^_^




It's interesting, as they sell expensive stuff, and their marketing is designed to nudged people towards that stuff (as good branding should be).

For those that make gun of expensive things such as cables, dacs, amps, Schiit seems very friendly and funny. Fit those who do believe it, Schiit doesn't directly attack them. 

"We won't say expensive cables are garbage directly. Most claim they don't hear a difference and are fine with buying a 3 dollar cable from monoprice, just like they are fine with buying our magnificent/modi, or even plugging it into their phone as they claim to not hear a difference over the multi thousand dollar dacs and amps."

"..."

"But common, you know you can. :evil:"

Really can push people to upgrade over time and buy into audiophilia, while justifying their purchases because they are with Schiit.


----------



## StanD

C'mon fellas, it's Christmas time, get in the holiday spirit and but a few expensive cables and a pair of Beats cans. They make great gifts.


----------



## Argyris

stand said:


> C'mon fellas, it's Christmas time, get in the holiday spirit and but a few expensive cables and a pair of Beats cans. They make great gifts.


 
  
 It'd be rather amusing to send the Beats to one's audiophile friends and the cable to one's Beats-loving friends. Neither one would like their gift, but the audiophiles would be especially incensed.


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> It'd be rather amusing to send the Beats to one's audiophile friends and the cable to one's Beats-loving friends. Neither one would like their gift, but the audiophiles would be especially incensed.




Buy epic headphones, but paint them so they look like Beats. 

Let them hate the sound and give it to a real Beats fan. Over the weeks the paint will fall of and the audiophile will cry at reality.


----------



## StanD

argyris said:


> It'd be rather amusing to send the Beats to one's audiophile friends and the cable to one's Beats-loving friends. Neither one would like their gift, but the audiophiles would be especially incensed.


 

 You are a very cruel person.


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Buy epic headphones, but paint them so they look like Beats.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 You are also a very cruel person.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> You are also a very cruel person.


 Senpai promoted me from being just "cruel" to being "very cruel!"

Yay~ 

\(^o^)/ :3 <3


----------



## HiFiChris

u-3c said:


> argyris said:
> 
> 
> > It'd be rather amusing to send the Beats to one's audiophile friends and the cable to one's Beats-loving friends. Neither one would like their gift, but the audiophiles would be especially incensed.
> ...


----------



## headwhacker

^ LOL


----------



## james444

Too long too quiet in here. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Here's a discussion carried over from the Campfire Audio Vega (and Dorado and Lyra II) thread. Feel free to add your 2c...
  


jalo said:


> James I finally am able to listen to the above two pieces. First of all, thanks for the links, just love Al Stewart's performance. Unfortunately I do not have those two songs in my repertoire so I just listened from my iPad with the Vega with my Crystal cable. Like Twister, I want to preface it by saying I think you are a straightforward guy, I read your review on the Fibass prior to my purchasing the can. So I have only positive attitude toward you. But I listened to the highlighted words three times with the Vega and just cannot hear any sibilance or even close to it. I am going to try it on my desktop with my HD800 which you know is known to be bright and report back. I know my hearing range and 6 to 10 kHz range I am normal.


 


mimouille said:


> Based on all the testimonials above, it seems that, as Shotgunshane suggested, the appearance of sibilance is mostly due to a combination of ear canal shape and tip used. In any case, even with the worst combo, James did say sibilance is limited...so I think we should not make a huge story out of it.


 


james444 said:


> Sorry @Mimouille, as much as I agree we should not make a huge story out of it, your post is simply a misconception of what @shotgunshane and I were saying, so I'll try to provide a step-by-step clarification:
> 
> We're talking about two things:
> 
> ...


 


jalo said:


> James, what do you have if you add a W and a M together?


 


jalo said:


> James that was a dumb joke. Sorry about that. But in terms of wave analysis, at any given point a positive value is always canceled by an equal negative value and hence a perfect M shape wave plus a perfect W shape wave will basically give you a straight line as they pretty much cancel each other out. I use this example to illustrate a point for why the frequency chart is not a very good measure to judge the sound of a phone and also seasoned audiophile knows that two phones can have similar frequencies but can sound very different. It all depends on how they are tuned. In the case of the HD800, there are two ways by which one can reduce the brightness. First one can reduce the brightness by reducing it at the source that produce the brightness, second one can reduce the brightness by increasing the warmth and hence reduce the effect of the brightness. My HD800 is never sibilant because of the second reason. We headfiers know this too well. We use copper wire, dampener, tube amps etc. to balance out the brightness of a sound to out liking.
> 
> The limitation of a frequency chart is that when a phone is measured, they shoot a sine wave or some equal amount of measure to evaluate a phone and then select two variables, amplitude and frequency, to show the characteristics of a particular phone but that is not how musical wave behaves in natural setting. Any given sound of a phone exists in the space of at least four dimensions, time, frequency, phase and amplitude, and with many other factors affecting the perception of it. It is equivalent to looking at one eye, one nose and one ear on a woman's face to determine how beautiful this woman is not to say beauty perception is in the eyes of the beholder. For instance, on your spectrograph of the Vega, you correctly pointed out that there is an increase of energy at around the 7 kHz region but if you look at the time that lasted it is about or less than one millisecond. The time required for human auditory perception is around 0.66 uSecond to 1.66 millisecond. In other words, at any given time, many of us will not even be able to hear that energy spike because it does not exist in the perceptible time domain even though it is there.
> 
> ...


 


james444 said:


> @Jalo, I don't mean to be disrespectful either, but it took me quite some time and effort to phrase and structure my explanation in an easily comprehensible way, in order to (hopefully) make even newbies understand that the Vegas have (1) an objectively measurable treble peak that (2) *may or may not *be subjectively heard as sibilance. At no point did I suggest to anybody that they ought to hear sibilance. The fact that you're insinuating this, shows that you did not get the core argument of my post.
> 
> Tbh, I really don't know what to make of your wall-of-text like reply that mixes bits of wave and acoustics theory with subjective convictions in a seemingly random and elusive way. *I hope you don't mind if I carry this discussion over to the sound science forum, because for one, it doesn't belong to a dedicated Campfire Audio IEM thread anyway, and for another, I'm neither an engineer nor a scientists and there are some real pros over there that can probably help to shed more light on certain arguments in your post.*


 
  
 ^ This (the bolded part)


----------



## watchnerd

james444 said:


> Too long too quiet in here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 This seems pretty clear from the data.
  
 Not sure what the controversy is.
  
 If people have a different set of measurements that tell a different story, they should share it.


----------



## U-3C

I have a question about amps.

I've heard time and time again that amps can distort when the volume is cranked too high. Sometimes I see measurements about how distortion increases at max volumes for phones, especially with low impedance headphones. I'm curious about why, whether or not these two things I've mentioned are the same phenomenon or if they are in fact different, as well as any other info on phenomenons with similar effects (amps distorting at different volumes), but caused by other reasons, that I am unaware of.

Can someone kindly satisfy the curiosity of a noob? If I'm asking the wrong questions, please tell me how/what I should ask instead so I can behave properly! o(^_^)o


----------



## watchnerd

u-3c said:


> I have a question about amps.
> 
> I've heard time and time again that amps can distort when the volume is cranked too high. Sometimes I see measurements about how distortion increases at max volumes for phones, especially with low impedance headphones. I'm curious about why, whether or not these two things I've mentioned are the same phenomenon or if they are in fact different, as well as any other info on phenomenons with similar effects (amps distorting at different volumes), but caused by other reasons, that I am unaware of.
> 
> Can someone kindly satisfy the curiosity of a noob? If I'm asking the wrong questions, please tell me how/what I should ask instead so I can behave properly! o(^_^)o


 
  
 All amps begin to distort as they reach their output limit.  Ultimately, they will start clipping (chopping the tops off waves).
  
 Phones have amps in them, too (albeit low power).  Same phenomenon.


----------



## james444

watchnerd said:


> This seems pretty clear from the data.
> 
> Not sure what the controversy is.
> 
> If people have a different set of measurements that tell a different story, they should share it.


 
  
 Yup, it seems pretty clear to me too. But his reply seems to question the validity of FR measurements in general and perceptibility of the ringing shown in particular:
  


jalo said:


> The limitation of a frequency chart is that when a phone is measured, they shoot a sine wave or some equal amount of measure to evaluate a phone and then select two variables, amplitude and frequency, to show the characteristics of a particular phone but that is not how musical wave behaves in natural setting. Any given sound of a phone exists in the space of at least four dimensions, time, frequency, phase and amplitude, and with many other factors affecting the perception of it. It is equivalent to looking at one eye, one nose and one ear on a woman's face to determine how beautiful this woman is not to say beauty perception is in the eyes of the beholder. For instance, on your spectrograph of the Vega, you correctly pointed out that there is an increase of energy at around the 7 kHz region but if you look at the time that lasted it is about or less than one millisecond. The time required for human auditory perception is around 0.66 uSecond to 1.66 millisecond. In other words, at any given time, many of us will not even be able to hear that energy spike because it does not exist in the perceptible time domain even though it is there.


 
  
 And then there's the part about the 7kHz having to be "a foundation sound, not an overtone". I have no idea why that would be even relevant in the context of sibilance. In my understanding, the matter is pretty straightforward: articulating consonant sounds like s, sh, or z is known to generate acoustic energy in the 6-8kHz range. So, if a phone tends to overemphasize that range, we may hear sibilance (an exaggeration of s, sh, or z) as a result. What could one be possibly missing here regarding fundamentals and overtones?
  


jalo said:


> Furthermore, the 7th khz has to be the foundation sound and not the overtone of a foundation sound as that will take it out of our auditory perception range of 20 khz. But regardless of all these technicalities, we headfiers has the ultimate spectrogram that allow us to capture all of the factors and that is our listening. That is why the majority of the users of Vega do not hear sibilance even though on a two dimensional chart it shows a spike in the 7 kHz region.


----------



## VNandor

As far as I know, sound is not four dimensional becuase phase is esentially timing.
 Whether the 7kHz being a fundamental or an overtone does not matter in this context, I'm quite sure about that.
  
 Judging by his second sentence in the last quote, I think you won't convince him of anything by any measurement.


----------



## castleofargh

u-3c said:


> I have a question about amps.
> 
> I've heard time and time again that amps can distort when the volume is cranked too high. Sometimes I see measurements about how distortion increases at max volumes for phones, especially with low impedance headphones. I'm curious about why, whether or not these two things I've mentioned are the same phenomenon or if they are in fact different, as well as any other info on phenomenons with similar effects (amps distorting at different volumes), but caused by other reasons, that I am unaware of.
> 
> Can someone kindly satisfy the curiosity of a noob? If I'm asking the wrong questions, please tell me how/what I should ask instead so I can behave properly! o(^_^)o


 

 low impedance headphones let current flow more freely(a cable is basically a load with super low impedance and a short circuit is what you don't want to happen to your amp^_^, all the energy goes back into the amp itself instead of being dissipated into the load).  and if you crank up the volume, you increase voltage, as a result you can reach a point where the total power is beyond what the poor cellphone can do. for the same voltage, there will always be more current sent into the low impedance headphone, so more power to be generated by the amp.
 but because it's so straight forward, most of the time just lowering the volume level a little will get back to what the amp can do. that's why discussing driving ability without a specific output target is a little silly. almost everything can drive almost everything at low enough levels.
  
 anyway the measure has a use, but it can feel more dramatic than it really is. my good old fiio X1 will distort into 16ohm when maxed out. but it's fine 1 or 2 steps lower on a scale of 0 to 100 for the volume setting. and of course it's very fine for everything below that point. the actual loudness I'm using with my IE80 is around 10 to 15 out of 100 ^_^ and I never ever come close to pushing the X1 into distortion. maxed out measurements will reveal high disto into 16ohm, as they should and show that you can go beyond what the amp can do into that load. as an interpretation, I'd avoid using IEMs with an even lower load(beware of multidrivers if you're unsure about how low the impedance swings are going), until you can find more specific information about the limits of the that amp section.
  
 as for the opposite example, a high impedance headphone will oppose the current strongly, so most likely the total power will mainly be a matter of getting your music to be loud enough(a voltage question).
 so yeah there can be a relation between impedance of the load and disto of the amp, you aren't crazy yet.


----------



## castleofargh

@james444 here are my attemts to argue your point:
   
1/ are all the pairs of that IEM showing the same signature and same extra mojo at 7khz? having a few pairs measured would strongly suggest that you do have an objective and consistent result and a valid point.

 2/ placement into the ear canal could shift some resonance just enough for the guy to get extra energy not where it's most annoying for sibiliance? I can easily replicate something like that with etymotic as they have such a wide margin for the insertion depth, but maybe it's still doable in your case?
  
 and that's about it. what he says is irrelevant IMO. while your explanation is pretty straight forward.
  
  
 #efriend  #unfairtrial


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> low impedance headphones let current flow more freely(a cable is basically a load with super low impedance and a short circuit is what you don't want to happen to your amp^_^, all the energy goes back into the amp itself instead of being dissipated into the load).  and if you crank up the volume, you increase voltage, as a result you can reach a point where the total power is beyond what the poor cellphone can do. for the same voltage, there will always be more current sent into the low impedance headphone, so more power to be generated by the amp.
> but because it's so straight forward, most of the time just lowering the volume level a little will get back to what the amp can do. that's why discussing driving ability without a specific output target is a little silly. almost everything can drive almost everything at low enough levels.
> 
> anyway the measure has a use, but it can feel more dramatic than it really is. my good old fiio X1 will distort into 16ohm when maxed out. but it's fine 1 or 2 steps lower on a scale of 0 to 100 for the volume setting. and of course it's very fine for everything below that point. the actual loudness I'm using with my IE80 is around 10 to 15 out of 100 ^_^ and I never ever come close to pushing the X1 into distortion. maxed out measurements will reveal high disto into 16ohm, as they should and show that you can go beyond what the amp can do into that load. as an interpretation, I'd avoid using IEMs with an even lower load(beware of multidrivers if you're unsure about the how low the impedance swings are going), until I can find more specific information about the limits of the that amp section.
> ...




I see! Thanks for the detailed explanation!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

u-3c said:


> I see! Thanks for the detailed explanation!




Were you by any chance looking for an explanation of distortion of overdriven *head*phones as well?


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> Were you by any chance looking for an explanation of distortion of overdriven *head*phones as well?




More knowledge of always welcomed.


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> More knowledge of always welcomed.


 
 Without knowledge you would have a distorted view of audio.


----------



## james444

vnandor said:


> As far as I know, sound is not four dimensional becuase phase is esentially timing.
> Whether the 7kHz being a fundamental or an overtone does not matter in this context, I'm quite sure about that.
> 
> Judging by his second sentence in the last quote, I think you won't convince him of anything by any measurement.


 
  
 Thanks, I wasn't sure whether phase and timing represent the same dimension.
  
 As for your last sentence, I'm realist enough to know that. But I'd be content with people realizing that @shotgunshane and I didn't just make up the sibilance issue, even if they don't hear the sibilance themselves.
  


castleofargh said:


> @james444 here are my attemts to argue your point:
> 
> 1/ are all the pairs of that IEM showing the same signature and same extra mojo at 7khz? having a few pairs measured would strongly suggest that you do have an objective and consistent result and a valid point.
> 
> ...


 
  
 1/ measurements are from the _other _site (you know, your second favorite one . Afaik they repeat them a few times to ensure consistency, and they measured two different units with extremely similar results.
  
 2/ I'd think one could, although insertion margin isn't anywhere near the Ety's. I personally don't own the Vegas... had a lengthy audition as a potential buyer, but sibilance and over-emphasized bass turned me off. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion was never about whether @Jalo or anyone else _ought _to hear the sibilance, rather that going by a CSD like this, it's not very surprising that some of us _do_ hear it.


----------



## warrior1975

It's definitely there. I've heard it, fortunately not too much... But I don't have a lot of hours logged with my Vegas (they still on tour)...


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Without knowledge you would have a distorted view of audio.




Is that why people are able to sell $10k boxes of dirt, a bag of fishtank decorations for $200, and green stickers for $100?


Be kind, please rewind.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> Is that why people are able to sell $10k boxes of dirt, a bag of fishtank decorations for $200, and green stickers for $100?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 And people believe the same promises that the same politicians make each time they are pandering for votes, year after year. Now that's what I call a rewind.


----------



## Ruben123

grumpyoldguy said:


> Is that why people are able to sell $10k boxes of dirt, a bag of fishtank decorations for $200, and green stickers for $100?
> 
> 
> Be kind, please rewind.




Does this device correct that positive high energy treble sound in DVD which is caused by the constant forward play? Where can i buy it?


----------



## U-3C

ruben123 said:


> Does this device correct that positive high energy treble sound in DVD which is caused by the constant forward play? Where can i buy it?




Yep! As it spins, the light you see on the DVD is not the reflection of your environment's lighting as the ignorant pseudoscience noobs will like to tell you, but the dispersion of the harshness trapped between the layers of the disk, which usually translate into energy that bleeds into the analogy section of your setup in the form of digital glare if not dispelled correctly! :0



joe bloggs said:


> Were you by any chance looking for an explanation of distortion of overdriven *head*phones as well?




Well, jokes aside, can you kindly share explanations on how headphones distort when they have too much power for a layman?

-------------

I often hear people talk about how a certain amp just doesn't have enough power for a certain headphone (say the infamous AKG K701 and it's variants), that the bass just isn't strong enough because said amp lacks the power to properly drive the headphones. The headphones, however, only accept 200mW as their rated max input, yet people claim about that throw out over an entire watt doesn't seem to have enough power. 

What exactly happens after you go past that point? Also, does anyone know if the AKG headphone ratings are conservative to have a bit of headway, or if 200 mW really should be respected (say because 201 mW will already start to cause terrible distortion/will damage headphones).

A bit exaggerated, but I hope you all get the idea.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

u-3c said:


> Well, jokes aside, can you kindly share explanations on how headphones distort when they have too much power for a layman?
> 
> -------------
> 
> ...




Well headphones and drivers can distort in a lot of ways (some I can't even understand or explain to myself), but the distortion mode most simply associated with overpowering is overexcursion--where the amplifier attempts to drive the driver diaphragm past its rated maximum displacement from its resting position at the crest of each wave, so the diaphragm fails to reach the intended position and possibly warps, creating a mechanical equivalent of clipping.

Overpowering headphones simply in the sense of connecting them to a too-powerful amplifier may not do any damage unless it is done with the intent / result of playing them extra crazy loud, louder than a sane person should tolerate with the phones actually strapped to his ear. See, the actual power going through the headphones is as much a function of the volume the system is actually set to as of the power the amplifier is capable of--if the volume setting is low it doesn't matter that the amplifier has insane power on tap, and if the volume is crazy high even an underpowered amplifier can possibly do damage when amplifying certain signals.

The usual problem with overamping of course is a high noise floor. In fact I seem to have effectively subscribed to a philosophy of underamping all my headphones as much as I can get away with.


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> Well headphones and drivers can distort in a lot of ways (some I can't even understand or explain to myself), but the distortion mode most simply associated with overpowering is overexcursion--where the amplifier attempts to drive the driver diaphragm past its rated maximum displacement from its resting position at the crest of each wave, so the diaphragm fails to reach the intended position and possibly warps, creating a mechanical equivalent of clipping.
> 
> Overpowering headphones simply in the sense of connecting them to a too-powerful amplifier may not do any damage unless it is done with the intent / result of playing them extra crazy loud, louder than a sane person should tolerate with the phones actually strapped to his ear. See, the actual power going through the headphones is as much a function of the volume the system is actually set to as of the power the amplifier is capable of--if the volume setting is low it doesn't matter that the amplifier has insane power on tap, and if the volume is crazy high even an underpowered amplifier can possibly do damage when amplifying certain signals.
> 
> The usual problem with overamping of course is a high noise floor. In fact I seem to have effectively subscribed to a philosophy of underamping all my headphones as much as I can get away with.




I see. Thanks for the reply!

I wish I can underamp my IEMs too.

Too much noise from the amp itself and the volume switch is digital. ;A;


----------



## castleofargh

you can't send 1W of power into a 50ohm device if you set the loudness at 1V.  having an amp that can do 1 or 2 W into 50ohm mean it can do it at much higher voltages in that load, and voltage is related to loudness. so to send more power into the headphone you have to go louder!!!!!!!
 sure enough you could have an amp too weak for your desired loudness into a headphone(like I explained last page), but once you've reached "enough", everything more will still use the same "enough" at the same loudness. you might be burning 5W into some class A stuff, but it's not what will go into the headphone/load.
 the main issue is that people arguing about power usually don't understand electricity(a small detail ^_^). they also usually don't understand that max power is a maximum value ^_^. they just assume the entire world can be decrypted from how the music felt using a given amp. so while we're arguing about power, we're not. and I'm still doing it at least once a month and I'm tired of it.
  
 it's good to have a little  safety cushion of power because it's not always that easy to estimate the power needs from the specs we're given. for starters it's for a 1khz signal, we don't really know how things go at 30hz or 16khz(both for the amp and the headphone). also not all songs will be smashed onto 0db in the digital domain, and not all DACs will deliver exactly 2V.  so the estimated loudness is just that, estimated. and it's good to have a little safety margin if you lack all the information. still, if your amp can drive the load at 110 or 115db without significant distortions, it would be surprising that you'd get yourself in a situation where it's not "enough" in practice for your use. 
 being wrong by a full 50% when estimating the voltage will only result in the sound being 6db quieter, because of the log nature of our hearing, once were close to a value, it's kind of difficult to completely miss ^_^.
  
 personally I'm a little like Joe, not trying to "underamp" whatever that means, but because I almost never go to 90db peak when listening to music. I'm usually closer to 60-70db and that makes having an amp that can do 140db into my headphone very useless to me. that often brings troubles instead of better sound, need for adjustable gain for easy setting at my loudness how do you like it when you just touch the knob and boom it's too loud? I sure don't. need for a real good amp otherwise so much gain can mean a lot of background noise. depending on the volume control, I'll be way more likely to have channel imbalance.  so I really don't share the dream of a 10W amp for my hd650.


----------



## headwhacker

castleofargh said:


> you can't send 1W of power into a 50ohm device if you set the loudness at 1V.  having an amp that can do 1 or 2 W into 50ohm mean it can do it at much higher voltages in that load, and voltage is related to loudness. so to send more power into the headphone you have to go louder!!!!!!!
> sure enough you could have an amp too weak for your desired loudness into a headphone(like I explained last page), but once you've reached "enough", everything more will still use the same "enough" at the same loudness. you might be burning 5W into some class A stuff, but it's not what will go into the headphone/load.
> the main issue is that people arguing about power usually don't understand electricity(a small detail ^_^). they also usually don't understand that max power is a maximum value ^_^. they just assume the entire world can be decrypted from how the music felt using a given amp. so while we're arguing about power, we're not. and I'm still doing it at least once a month and I'm tired of it.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yeah it gets tiring to argue about power for a headphone. Just saw one post from HD800 thread asking whether the Mojo has enough power to drive the headphone. As expected someone jump in suggesting HD800 need more power and went on to recommend an expensive amp. I thought of responding but I'm I stopped anticipating that it will just end into fruitless argument. Perhaps should just pmed the guy to come over here


----------



## watchnerd

u-3c said:


> Yep! As it spins, the light you see on the DVD is not the reflection of your environment's lighting as the ignorant pseudoscience needs will like to tell you, but the dispersion of the harshness trapped between the layers of the disk, which usually translate into energy that bleeds into the analogy section of your setup in the form of digital glare if not dispelled correctly! :0
> Well, jokes aside, can you kindly share explanations on how headphones distort when they have too much power for a layman?
> I often hear people talk about how a certain amp just doesn't have enough power for a certain headphone (say the infamous AKG K701 and it's variants), that the bass just isn't strong enough because said amp lacks the power to properly drive the headphones. The headphones, however, only accept 200mW as their rated max input, yet people claim about that throw out over an entire watt doesn't seem to have enough power.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have the K701.  I have used them with my ridiculously over-powered MJ2, as well as my new weeny Fulla 2.
  
 There is nothing in the impedance curve to claim they're hard to drive:
  

 Most head-fi users appear to be idiots and can't get over the fact that 90% of a set of headphones sound is built-in, innate, and won't change except in minor ways with changes in amplification, assuming the amp is competent and operating within specs.
  
 The K701 are intentionally light on the bass.  If you want head thumping bass, get different cans.


----------



## VNandor

watchnerd said:


> I have the K701.  I have used them with my ridiculously over-powered MJ2, as well as my new weeny Fulla 2.
> 
> There is nothing in the impedance curve to claim they're hard to drive:
> 
> ...


 
 As far as I know a headphone amp with high output impedance will drive a headphone badly if the headphone have a varying impedance throughout the frequencies.
  
 Maybe people first power their k701 with a cheap  amp that have a high output impedance (and happen to not have a lot of power), then upgrade to a new shiny one with a low output impedance (that happen to have a lot of power) and then start to notice the night and day differences which might be actually there to some extent and attribute those changes to more power.


----------



## HotIce

The impedance curve does not tell you whether they are hard to drive. Sensitivity tells you.
 Plus, hard to drive from an impedance POV depends on the amp topology.
 A 600 Ohms HP might be ideal for a transformer-less tube amp able to provide only a few mA current supply, but a very large voltage swing, while at the same time be a nightmare for a 5V fed amp, able to sink 1+A current, but very shy on voltage swing.
 A 16 Ohms HP will paint a reverse picture given the the HPs.
 But even in the case, for example, of a 600 Ohm HP driven by am amp with only +-2V swing ... if the HP has a 110dB/mW sensitivity, you might be good.
 Phase of HP impedance is also important to the potential troubles an amp might have driving it, if it uses NFB (most of them are).
 Capacitive loads are more troublesome than inductive ones, as output voltage (from which NFB is taken) lags behind current (which is usually very close in phase to input).


----------



## StanD

When I explain that unused power serves no purposes and if they could harness it they might risk harming their ears with excessive SPL exposure and possibly fry their cans. Some people get it and others get belligerent. I just love it when they think that have gobs of extra power will Improve their bass response.


----------



## StanD

hotice said:


> The impedance curve does not tell you whether they are hard to drive. Sensitivity tells you.
> Plus, hard to drive from an impedance POV depends on the amp topology.
> A 600 Ohms HP might be ideal for a transformer-less tube amp able to provide only a few mA current supply, but a very large voltage swing, while at the same time be a nightmare for a 5V fed amp, able to sink 1+A current, but very shy on voltage swing.
> A 16 Ohms HP will paint a reverse picture given the the HPs.
> ...


 

 A capacitive load represents a decreasing impedance (heavier load) as frequency increases. depending on the capacitance and amp that can lead to instability. Luckily headphone cables have capacitances of at most a couple hundred picofarads.


----------



## watchnerd

vnandor said:


> As far as I know a headphone amp with high output impedance will drive a headphone badly if the headphone have a varying impedance throughout the frequencies.


 
  
 Pretty much every headphone has varying output impedance with frequency.
  
 Headphone amps with high output impedance can have problems, period.


----------



## watchnerd

hotice said:


> The impedance curve does not tell you whether they are hard to drive. Sensitivity tells you.


 
  
 Yes, it does.  The impedance curve tells you what kind of voltage vs current swings, and phase angles, are required from the amp.
  
 This is why Stereophile publishes impedance curves for speakers.  It's not all simply about sensitivity.


----------



## StanD

watchnerd said:


> Pretty much every headphone has varying output impedance with frequency.
> 
> Headphone amps with high output impedance can have problems, period.


 

 Planar magnetic/Orthos are considered resistive not reactive as they do not have varying impedance curves (audio). It's an amp with a high output impedance that does poorly with a headphone with a varying impedance curve. Depending on the numbers it forms a sort of filter, usually bandpass, which affects the resulting FR. A low impedance amp solves that issue. If that low impedance amp can swing a good Vp-p then life is good. You can see in the below images where the bandpass peaks might occur in the mid bass regions.


----------



## HotIce

stand said:


> A capacitive load represents a decreasing impedance (heavier load) as frequency increases. depending on the capacitance and amp that can lead to instability. Luckily headphone cables have capacitances of at most a couple hundred picofarads.


 
  
 Yeah, luckily enough most of them steer to inductive at higher frequencies, but it's more than a few pF from cables.
 To push a phase at -30deg at 200Hz you need some bunch of nF in the driver coils.


----------



## StanD

hotice said:


> Yeah, luckily enough most of them steer to inductive at higher frequencies, but it's more than a few pF from cables.
> To push a phase at -30deg at 200Hz you need some bunch of nF in the driver coils.
> 
> 
> ...


 
 An true audiophile never lets the facts interfere with a good story.


----------



## HotIce

watchnerd said:


> Yes, it does.  The impedance curve tells you what kind of voltage vs current swings, and phase angles, are required from the amp.
> 
> This is why Stereophile publishes impedance curves for speakers.  It's not all simply about sensitivity.


 
  
 It paints half of the picture. Please go back and read what I said.
 Even if your amp is able to provide only few mW (either because it has low voltage swing on an high Z HP, or because it has low current sink capabilities on a low Z HP), if you have a very efficient HP, you will still be fine.
 What matters is *SPL*, and that's a multiply between supplied power and efficiency. Ignoring the latter is like talking about electrical power talking about V, and ignoring I (or Z FWIW).


----------



## watchnerd

hotice said:


> It paints half of the picture.


 
  
 Yes, and the other half is impedance curves and how the amp can handle it.
  
 Nobody is saying sensitivity doesn't matter. But it's only half the picture.


----------



## briskly

stand said:


> Planar magnetic/Orthos are considered resistive not reactive as they do not have varying impedance curves (audio). It's an amp with a high output impedance that does poorly with a headphone with a varying impedance curve. Depending on the numbers it forms a sort of filter, usually bandpass, which affects the resulting FR. A low impedance amp solves that issue. If that low impedance amp can swing a good Vp-p then life is good. You can see in the below images where the bandpass peaks might occur in the mid bass regions.


 
 Shouldn't that be a resonant filter? The hump is from the back EMF linked to the driver's mechanical resonance. Clamping the driver more or less makes it look like an RL circuit in the audio range.


----------



## castleofargh

I agree with all the half pictures, they're very pretty too^_^. but we're drifting away from power.
 is a more powerful amp(more than an estimated 115db at 1khz with less that 1%THD into the 1khz load value) the answer for the impedance of a headphone climbing up to impedance heaven in the trebles? or a headphone drawing an impedance hill in the mid bass? we're still using a fixed preferred loudness when listening so that won't change, so what will be the concrete difference?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 also for 2017 I suggest that when talking about audiophiles doing something wrong, we call them bunnies. so that it doesn't look like we're so judgmental(I'm doing it all the time, but it's still wrong. do what I say, not what I do! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).


----------



## StanD

briskly said:


> Shouldn't that be a resonant filter? The hump is from the back EMF linked to the driver's mechanical resonance. Clamping the driver more or less makes it look like an RL circuit in the audio range.


 
 Yes, I said filter, however, I avoid adding more technical terms because the "bunnies" (as castleofargh refers to....) will get a new technical term to _distort_ and grouse over. I try to explain this to the bunnies as a volume control (voltage divider) that varies with frequency.


----------



## HotIce

To answer that question, typical music power vs frequency distribution needs to be brought into the picture.
 The energy in the higher frequencies drops dramatically, so the output power requirements at those frequencies become less stringent.
  
 http://sound.whsites.net/articles/fadb.htm


----------



## StanD

hotice said:


> To answer that question, typical music power vs frequency distribution needs to be brought into the picture.
> The energy in the higher frequencies drops dramatically, so the output power requirements at those frequencies become less stringent.
> 
> http://sound.whsites.net/articles/fadb.htm


 

 But...but.. it is there and I must have the capability of reaching 120 dB SPL at all frequencies, ultrasonic included. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 **sarcasm**


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> I agree with all the half pictures, they're very pretty too^_^. but we're drifting away from power.
> is a more powerful amp(more than an estimated 115db at 1khz with less that 1%THD into the 1khz load value) the answer for the impedance of a headphone climbing up to impedance heaven in the trebles? or a headphone drawing an impedance hill in the mid bass? we're still using a fixed preferred loudness when listening so that won't change, so what will be the concrete difference?
> 
> 
> ...




Bunnies for the win!

(Looking forward to being banned for excessive bunny references next year!)


----------



## istfleur

I have a question. If an iem produces hiss with all sources it pairs with even the source this is believed to be the best ever made(AK 380) "not my own opinion", shouldn't this be considered as a design flaw? 
But i see many reviewers claiming it's the best iem they've ever heard.
Need some lights please.


----------



## castleofargh

istfleur said:


> I have a question. If an iem produces hiss with all sources it pairs with even the source this is believed to be the best ever made(AK 380) "not my own opinion", shouldn't this be considered as a design flaw?
> But i see many reviewers claiming it's the best iem they've ever heard.
> Need some lights please.


 

 as a total hiss hater(maybe you know ^_^), I absolutely consider an excessive sensitivity to background hiss to be a design flaw. we could also put the blame on the sources that don't have a practical noise floor low enough for such IEMs. but at least one side didn't care and went for extreme silliness. I look at those IEMs like I would a formula1. it's impressive, and all, but if I can't get passed the speed bump on my street, it's useless crap to me.
  
 now why some people don't mind?
 -many people simply listen to music so loud that they mask the hiss with music.
 -many others will use IEMs in very noisy places where the little hiss can't compete with the train, the cars... so they don't really care under those circumstances.
 -quite a few in here have little love for the amp section of most DAPs, and add some nice portable amps. some of which have a very quiet background noise.
 -not all reviewers are philanthropists. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 still I hate hiss. I don't understand how people can be obsessed about jitter down -120db at 18khz, or can't stop talking about the night and day BS improvements of highres, but then let actual clear audible noise go as if it was nothing.


----------



## Brooko

How about y'all stick to debating the point and not labelling the people. I know it's meant in jest - but I also know that without doubt one or two of you are likely to take Castle's suggestion literallly and start talking about "bunnies" in open forum. If it's contextually used in a derogatory or insulting manner - you will be moderated.

And Castle - you should know better .....


----------



## StanD

If an IEM is simply too sensitive to be practical one can make an LPAD (2 resistors per channel) to cure this.


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> How about y'all stick to debating the point and not labelling the people. I know it's meant in jest - but I also know that without doubt one or two of you are likely to take Castle's suggestion literallly and start talking about "bunnies" in open forum. If it's contextually used in a derogatory or insulting manner - you will be moderated.
> 
> And Castle - you should know better .....


 

 You are right. I don't think anyone here would be dumb enough to use the term anywhere else, even in jest. By the way, what's wrong with bunnies? This one lived in my front yard for three years before she disappeared. She would almost let me get close enough to put headphones on her.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> as a total hiss hater(maybe you know ^_^), I absolutely consider an excessive sensitivity to background hiss to be a design flaw. we could also put the blame on the sources that don't have a practical noise floor low enough for such IEMs. but at least one side didn't care and went for extreme silliness. I look at those IEMs like I would a formula1. it's impressive, and all, but if I can't get passed the speed bump on my street, it's useless crap to me.
> 
> now why some people don't mind?
> -many people simply listen to music so loud that they mask the hiss with music.
> ...




Any recommendations for cheaper dac/amps that have no hiss? You mentioned someone before (forgot the name) who calls oneself the "Hiss God," but that reviewer tends to look at things that are quite pricy for me.


----------



## Brooko

Context Stan, context. A baboon is also an incredible creature. Use it to describe people with certain traits though - and it takes on a new meaning.

Context.


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> Context Stan, context. A baboon is also an incredible creature. Use it to describe people with certain traits though - and it takes on a new meaning.
> 
> Context.


 

 I thought you knew I was kidding. All that moderating is making you too serious.


----------



## Brooko

I don't get a choice mate. Part of the job here is to make sure the message is clearly understood. I start joking about it - people think it is OK to use those terms. Then next time I look like a complete hypocrite when I have to moderate based on the rules.

And yes - I knew you were kidding. But it doesn't change the way I have to approach it.


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> I don't get a choice mate. Part of the job here is to make sure the message is clearly understood. I start joking about it - people think it is OK to use those terms. Then next time I look like a complete hypocrite when I have to moderate based on the rules.
> 
> And yes - I knew you were kidding. But it doesn't change the way I have to approach it.


 

 Tough luck dude, no fun for you. At least you have a sense of humor.


----------



## castleofargh

brooko said:


> How about y'all stick to debating the point and not labelling the people. I know it's meant in jest - but I also know that without doubt one or two of you are likely to take Castle's suggestion literallly and start talking about "bunnies" in open forum. If it's contextually used in a derogatory or insulting manner - you will be moderated.
> 
> And Castle - you should know better .....


 

 you're right, I said that as buddy modo because there was a lot of bashing going on buried under sarcasm. but then I ruined everything by using my own joke to bash people.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I edited my last post to make it bunny-less and sarcasm free light.
  
 again, do as I say, not as I do, I'm a very bad model.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> you're right, I said that as buddy modo because there was a lot of bashing going on buried under sarcasm. but then I ruined everything by using my own joke to bash people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## U-3C

But bunnies are cute and awesome and cute! ;o;

Recently I drew a small comic thing for fun about bunnies. Not sure if I should share it though as it has nothing to do with audio... ;-;


----------



## Joe Bloggs

vnandor said:


> As far as I know a headphone amp with high output impedance will drive a headphone badly if the headphone have a varying impedance throughout the frequencies.
> 
> Maybe people first power their k701 with a cheap  amp that have a high output impedance (and happen to not have a lot of power), then upgrade to a new shiny one with a low output impedance (that happen to have a lot of power) and then start to notice the night and day differences which might be actually there to some extent and attribute those changes to more power.




There are plenty of cheap amps with low O.I and plenty of powerful amps with high O.I. Matter of fact I would argue it is more likely for a powerful amp to have high O.I. because it is a design challenge to make a high power amp with low O.I. and prevent it from blowing itself up in case of shorts.



watchnerd said:


> vnandor said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know a headphone amp with high output impedance will drive a headphone badly if the headphone have a varying impedance throughout the frequencies.
> ...




Except that headphones with impedances in the hundreds range were often designed with amps having a deliberate 120ohm output impedance in mind.


----------



## watchnerd

> Except that headphones with impedances in the hundreds range were often designed with amps having a deliberate 120ohm output impedance in mind.


 
  
 When in doubt, follow the 1/8th rule.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

ruben123 said:


> Does this device correct that positive high energy treble sound in DVD which is caused by the constant forward play? Where can i buy it?




Yes, if you PayPal me $500, I will send you one. Free shipping.


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> There are plenty of cheap amps with low O.I and plenty of powerful amps with high O.I. Matter of fact I would argue it is more likely for a powerful amp to have high O.I. because it is a design challenge to make a high power amp with low O.I. and prevent it from blowing itself up in case of shorts.
> Except that headphones with impedances in the hundreds range were often designed with amps having a deliberate 120ohm output impedance in mind.


 
 The old 120 Ohm thing was a goofy non standard for an amp or integrated receiver designed for speakers to have a series output resistor for headphones which generally were of low impedance. I believe it was a poor attempt at attenuation. So in specific, how was the headphone designed for that specific amp output impedance impedance?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> The old 120 Ohm thing was a goofy non standard for an amp or integrated receiver designed for speakers to have a series output resistor for headphones which generally were of low impedance. I believe it was a poor attempt at attenuation. So in specific, how was the headphone designed for that specific amp output impedance impedance?




You've got me


----------



## Ruben123

grumpyoldguy said:


> Yes, if you PayPal me $500, I will send you one. Free shipping.




What a steal !!!1!11!!


----------



## castleofargh

not giving up on power (or more like wishing to burry the matter for good in my head), can those who know more, deal with some type of practical cases?
  like for a headphone where impedance does rise a great deal with high freqs, because it's not just resistive. can power do anything special about it while we're still set at a normal loudness for the midrange(listening condition)?
 from what I understand, the impedance variations pretty much just become part of the driver's signature(frequency response), as the voltage value at a frequency will depend on the ratio between the headphone and the amp at that frequency.
 as for current, well the amp has enough of it and the headphone is the limiting factor. or the amp doesn't and we end up with a mess instead of the music signal.
  
 so how would an amp with more potential max power output change anything under those circumstances compared to any amp that already provides enough for the headphone not to distort like mad at a set loudness?
  
  
  
 for all the situations where the amp design leads to problems in low or high freqs, or more affinity with certain loads, I tend to assume that it's a design matter, not about power. still, when will the estimation for 1khz be so wrong at other freqs that it's worth looking beyond the 1khz specs in practice? and what would be a safe margin for those exotic cases?


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> not giving up on power (or more like wishing to burry the matter for good in my head), can those who know more, deal with some type of practical cases?
> like for a headphone where impedance does rise a great deal with high freqs, because it's not just resistive. can power do anything special about it while we're still set at a normal loudness for the midrange(listening condition)?
> from what I understand, the impedance variations pretty much just become part of the driver's signature(frequency response), as the voltage value at a frequency will depend on the ratio between the headphone and the amp at that frequency.
> as for current, well the amp has enough of it and the headphone is the limiting factor. or the amp doesn't and we end up with a mess instead of the music signal.
> ...


 

 Well we know that an impedance curve only affects FR if an amp's output impedance is high enough to become a factor. What about sensitivity/efficiency varying with frequency? That is another factor that one can say is the root of FR. That may have some non electrical reasons i.e. mechanical, acoustic.....
 I don't see how any power above the required headroom for an amp that delivers cleanly would have any value other than the forum banter of audiophiles seeking magic. Some of them get it, many do not.
 On a last note/question, since the DR of recorded music is somewhat limited, how much headroom in one's kit is really necessary?


----------



## Ruben123

This is rather interesting http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/pono-player-and-promises-fulfilled
A blind test of music players. Cheaper music players sound quite the same but the more expensive ones sound different. How? Why? On purpose? I can't remember having seen measurements of the ak240 showing a non flat fr, but maybe that's the loaded vs unloaded thingie castle keeps telling us about. That would/could mean, that the design of the more expensive players is bad, I guess (?).


----------



## watchnerd

ruben123 said:


> This is rather interesting http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/pono-player-and-promises-fulfilled
> A blind test of music players. Cheaper music players sound quite the same but the more expensive ones sound different. How? Why? On purpose? I can't remember having seen measurements of the ak240 showing a non flat fr, but maybe that's the loaded vs unloaded thingie castle keeps telling us about. That would/could mean, that the design of the more expensive players is bad, I guess (?).


 
  
 If one believes neutrality is the most important aspect of a playback system, yes, that would be bad.
  
 But not everyone agrees in the primacy of neutrality.


----------



## Ruben123

I thought that was the definition of high fidelity  from neutral you could eq your sound to almost everything if you have a good device. I don't see why you need multiple $$$$$ devices for that, of which the differences are that small that you need extensive blind testing to be sure what you're hearing is correct. 
Also tyll talks about increased clarity, space and blackness of the sound in balanced. If anyone is able to explain that...? Besides from the underpowered headphone or different impedance point of view.


----------



## U-3C

ruben123 said:


> I thought that was the definition of high fidelity
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well, "fidelity" and "faithful reproduction of music" isn't exactly...well..."musical" for most people here.
  
 Despite what the general atmosphere here tries to make people believe, people aren't really searching for hi-fi stuff here. There are proper terms for "High-Fidelity," which I'm sure everyone is familiar with. They are called: "boring," "cold," "analytical," "dry," "lifeless," "unbearable," "sounds like ass," "too bright/harsh," "needs a 20k dollar tube amp and a 200k balanced cable to wake them up and get the true sound that the headphones are meant to deliver," etc. etc. etc.


----------



## castleofargh

ruben123 said:


> This is rather interesting http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/pono-player-and-promises-fulfilled
> A blind test of music players. Cheaper music players sound quite the same but the more expensive ones sound different. How? Why? On purpose? I can't remember having seen measurements of the ak240 showing a non flat fr, but maybe that's the loaded vs unloaded thingie castle keeps telling us about. That would/could mean, that the design of the more expensive players is bad, I guess (?).


 

 yes I want to be loaded. and measurements too. money for everybody! ^_^
 I half forgot about all this and started reading the funny comments, then I found myself and thought "damn boy you want some salt to go with all that salt?". I'm really just an A-hole.


----------



## GuyUnder

SE vs balanced -- I can't say that I've noticed a difference that couldn't be expalined by the fact that the circuit is either balanced or it's single-ended, and crossing the boundry between the two requires a loss of audio quality from summing or whatever method is used to translate balanced to SE and vice-versa. Also, balanced outputs have stronger signals compared to SE so scientifically leveling the volume for testing is a chore. The theory is generally understood that balanced is superior due improved performance of the power supply, and also the fact that DAC chips in a balanced configuration have greatly improved noise performance.
  
 I will say this: I read that the impact of balanced cable upgrades is less than the impact of SE cable upgrades. Last night I tested a pair of high-quality Better Cables XLR interconnects against the Audio Sensibility Statement SE (7N OCC copper, braided copper shield, Furutech plugs, cryo treated, direction controlled). At first brush I thought the Statements were more dynamic, more revealing and smoother (ie, less stridency in piano notes and crescendos). But going back and forth a few times, I believe I was able to narrow it all down to a veil being lifted; details I thought at first were new, were actually there before just less obvious. Stridency was there before and after, just less harsh. Etc. A thin sheen of noise/hash/greyness was lifted, so the sound of keys hitting the felt board of a piano become more obvious. Notes emerged from deeper down, and decayed back out into a deeper space, which gave an illusion of more dynamics. During crashing crescendos, no miracle was being worked, but it was less hashed. Piano harmonics sounded more like piano harmonics and less like ringing noise.
  
 Better Cables products aren't junk, they are very well-regarded.


----------



## cel4145

ruben123 said:


> This is rather interesting http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/pono-player-and-promises-fulfilled
> A blind test of music players. Cheaper music players sound quite the same but the more expensive ones sound different. How? Why? On purpose? I can't remember having seen measurements of the ak240 showing a non flat fr, but maybe that's the loaded vs unloaded thingie castle keeps telling us about. That would/could mean, that the design of the more expensive players is bad, I guess (?).




To me, his conclusions are flawed based upon these observations he made of his testing:



> This test pitted the Pono Player against a Galaxy Note 4 and an Apple iPad Air. This was actually the hardest test to get a reliable grip on identifying the various players. Primarily, I think, because the tonal balance and dynamic authority was very similar between the three. Where in the previous test it seemed the high-end players had good power supplies and output amplifiers giving them stronger bass response and, in the case off the AK240, strong treble articulation, in this case the two handheld devices had about the same amount of bass response and dynamic puch as the Pono, and the treble level was similar as well.
> 
> Because differences were so small I had to rely more on a subjective approach—just relaxing and sensing how the music was affecting me. Usually it would take me 5-15 minutes of listening and slowly switching back and forth between sources before I could determine which was the Pono Player.




His conclusions are based on his confirmation bias, not the experience he had, an attempt to rationalize away the obvious conclusion here: if it is that hard to tell the difference between a Pono Player and Note 4 or iPad Air, then the difference is not significant. Spend your money on new headphones or buy more music. Instead, we got this elaborate justification from the audiophile in him that can't let go of expensive equipment as to why the Pono Player is so great


----------



## watchnerd

guyunder said:


> SE vs balanced -- I can't say that I've noticed a difference that couldn't be expalined by the fact that the circuit is either balanced or it's single-ended, and crossing the boundry between the two requires a loss of audio quality from summing or whatever method is used to translate balanced to SE and vice-versa. Also, balanced outputs have stronger signals compared to SE so scientifically leveling the volume for testing is a chore. The theory is generally understood that balanced is superior due improved performance of the power supply, and also the fact that DAC chips in a balanced configuration have greatly improved noise performance.
> 
> I will say this: I read that the impact of balanced cable upgrades is less than the impact of SE cable upgrades. Last night I tested a pair of high-quality Better Cables XLR interconnects against the Audio Sensibility Statement SE (7N OCC copper, braided copper shield, Furutech plugs, cryo treated, direction controlled). At first brush I thought the Statements were more dynamic, more revealing and smoother (ie, less stridency in piano notes and crescendos). But going back and forth a few times, I believe I was able to narrow it all down to a veil being lifted; details I thought at first were new, were actually there before just less obvious. Stridency was there before and after, just less harsh. Etc. A thin sheen of noise/hash/greyness was lifted, so the sound of keys hitting the felt board of a piano become more obvious. Notes emerged from deeper down, and decayed back out into a deeper space, which gave an illusion of more dynamics. During crashing crescendos, no miracle was being worked, but it was less hashed. Piano harmonics sounded more like piano harmonics and less like ringing noise.
> 
> Better Cables products aren't junk, they are very well-regarded.


 
  
 1. There is a separate sub-forum for subjective reviews of cables.  This might be better suited to that location.
  
 2. Pros use XLR, but don't use fancy pricey exotic cables.  Canare, Belden, etc with Neutrik connectors. Be like the pros.


----------



## GuyUnder

watchnerd said:


> 1. There is a separate sub-forum for subjective reviews of cables.  This might be better suited to that location.
> 
> 2. Pros use XLR, but don't use fancy pricey exotic cables.  Canare, Belden, etc with Neutrik connectors. Be like the pros.


 
  
 "Pros" are generally not audiophiles, and I would dare say the majority have not heard high-end audio even once. Have you actually listened to modern music?
  
 I note you don't own any hi-fi headphones? The Mjolnir 2 is very respectable -- I have one with with some nice NOS tubes -- but your other gear appears to be lo-fi?


----------



## watchnerd

guyunder said:


> "Pros" are generally not audiophiles, and I would dare say the majority have not heard high-end audio even once. Have you actually listened to modern music?
> 
> I note you don't own any hi-fi headphones? The Mjolnir 2 is very respectable -- I have one with with some nice NOS tubes -- but your other gear appears to be lo-fi?


 
  
 1. You don't see all my gear here.  It's a head fi site, so I don't list my Martin Logan or Dynaudio speakers
  
 2. I work with pros regularly. Many own high end gear at home.
  
 3. None of this is relevant.


----------



## GuyUnder

watchnerd said:


> 1. You don't see all my gear here.  It's a head fi site, so I don't list my Martin Logan or Dynaudio speakers
> 
> 2. I work with pros regularly. Many own high end gear at home.
> 
> 3. None of this is relevant.


 
  
 Okay. Why do pros produce such horrible records today?


----------



## watchnerd

guyunder said:


> Okay. Why do pros produce such horrible records today?


 
  
 They produce what clients want.
  
 And if you work in classical and jazz, as I do, it's not horrible.
  
 And, again, has nothing to do with the cables they use.


----------



## GuyUnder

watchnerd said:


> They produce what clients want.
> 
> And if you work in classical and jazz, as I do, it's not horrible.
> 
> And, again, has nothing to do with the cables they use.


 
  
 Wait....you have auditioned higher-end cables, right?
  
 Which ones did you try? Your reference system? Findings?


----------



## gikigill

Pros produce horrible stuff so it can be played loud enough on the worst transducer possible that's powered by a phone with an equally bad amp.


----------



## watchnerd

guyunder said:


> Wait....you have auditioned higher-end cables, right?
> 
> Which ones did you try? Your reference system? Findings?


 
  
 I have participated DBT testing of expensive audiophile cables vs Canare/Belden cables at a test administered by Dolby Labs; but that's not really relevant; I'm a single data point.
  
 This is the Sound Science Forum -- my personal experience doesn't matter.  Nor yours, if it's sighted and uncontrolled.
  
 You should read up on the DBT cable studies if you want to post about this topic here.


----------



## GuyUnder

watchnerd said:


> I have participated DBT testing of expensive audiophile cables vs Canare/Belden cables at a test administered by Dolby Labs; but that's not really relevant; I'm a single data point.
> 
> This is the Sound Science Forum -- my personal experience doesn't matter.  Nor yours, if it's sighted and uncontrolled.
> 
> You should read up on the DBT cable studies if you want to post about this topic here.


 
  
 Okay, so you haven't auditioned any cables in a meaningful manner. But, opinions don't matter right? So let's try this: I can unplug my LessLoss Original AC cable from my Furutech GTX-D NCF(R) receptacle that is used to power my DAC, and then take a regular AC cable and use it to power my DAC from my Tripp Lite Isobar power strip. I will hear a massive increase in noise floor, hash/glare, etc. If it was possible to ABX test it, I am positive that I would ace it without difficulty. I can't imagine anyone with a functioning sense of hearing not being able to tell the difference.
  
 So, instead of asking me to prove it, let me ask you if there is any way to measure this phenomena?


----------



## watchnerd

guyunder said:


> Okay, so you haven't auditioned any cables in a meaningful manner.


 
  
 The opposite -- I have auditioned cables in the most meaningful manner.
  
  
 Quote:


guyunder said:


> But, opinions don't matter right? So let's try this: I can unplug my LessLoss Original AC cable from my Furutech GTX-D NCF(R) receptacle that is used to power my DAC, and then take a regular AC cable and use it to power my DAC from my Tripp Lite Isobar power strip. I will hear a massive increase in noise floor, hash/glare, etc. If it was possible to ABX test it, I am positive that I would ace it without difficulty. I can't imagine anyone with a functioning sense of hearing not being able to tell the difference.
> 
> So, instead of asking me to prove it, let me ask you if there is any way to measure this phenomena?


 
  
 As you say, opinions don't matter.  Data does.
  
 So you can do two things:
  
 1. Do a DBT ABX test
  
 2. Measure it electrically
  
 #2 is easier.  If the noise floor really is above the threshold of audibility it should be blatantly obvious.


----------



## U-3C

guyunder said:


> Okay, so you haven't auditioned any cables in a meaningful manner. But, opinions don't matter right? So let's try this: I can unplug my LessLoss Original AC cable from my Furutech GTX-D NCF(R) receptacle that is used to power my DAC, and then take a regular AC cable and use it to power my DAC from my Tripp Lite Isobar power strip. I will hear a massive increase in noise floor, hash/glare, etc. If it was possible to ABX test it, I am positive that I would ace it without difficulty. I can't imagine anyone with a functioning sense of hearing not being able to tell the difference.
> 
> So, instead of asking me to prove it, let me ask you if there is any way to measure this phenomena?




Just to clarify, you're using the same power supply for both?

If it's that audible, I think even a cellphone's mic can be used to measure it... :blink:


----------



## castleofargh

guyunder said:


> SE vs balanced -- I can't say that I've noticed a difference that couldn't be expalined by the fact that the circuit is either balanced or it's single-ended, and crossing the boundry between the two requires a loss of audio quality from summing or whatever method is used to translate balanced to SE and vice-versa. Also, balanced outputs have stronger signals compared to SE so scientifically leveling the volume for testing is a chore. The theory is generally understood that balanced is superior due improved performance of the power supply, and also the fact that DAC chips in a balanced configuration have greatly improved noise performance.
> 
> I will say this: I read that the impact of balanced cable upgrades is less than the impact of SE cable upgrades. Last night I tested a pair of high-quality Better Cables XLR interconnects against the Audio Sensibility Statement SE (7N OCC copper, braided copper shield, Furutech plugs, cryo treated, direction controlled). At first brush I thought the Statements were more dynamic, more revealing and smoother (ie, less stridency in piano notes and crescendos). But going back and forth a few times, I believe I was able to narrow it all down to a veil being lifted; details I thought at first were new, were actually there before just less obvious. Stridency was there before and after, just less harsh. Etc. A thin sheen of noise/hash/greyness was lifted, so the sound of keys hitting the felt board of a piano become more obvious. Notes emerged from deeper down, and decayed back out into a deeper space, which gave an illusion of more dynamics. During crashing crescendos, no miracle was being worked, but it was less hashed. Piano harmonics sounded more like piano harmonics and less like ringing noise.
> 
> Better Cables products aren't junk, they are very well-regarded.


 

 this is the sound science section, in a topic called "the objectivist board room". so I can only guess that you don't know what objective means, else surely you wouldn't have made this post. if you have information to share with us about your cables, provide measurements, or results and methods for your blind tests. you know objective stuff. the rest really has nothing to do here and as suggested, you are objectivity free in the dedicated cable subsection. 
  
 when I read "cryo treated, direction controlled", all I understand are the last 2 syllables.


----------



## Argyris

cel4145 said:


> To me, his conclusions are flawed based upon these observations he made of his testing:
> His conclusions are based on his confirmation bias, not the experience he had, an attempt to rationalize away the obvious conclusion here: if it is that hard to tell the difference between a Pono Player and Note 4 or iPad Air, then the difference is not significant. Spend your money on new headphones or buy more music. Instead, we got this elaborate justification from the audiophile in him that can't let go of expensive equipment as to why the Pono Player is so great




I like Tyll a lot and value his reviews and insight very highly, but I've often perceived that he seems to have a battle within him between subjectivist and objectivist forces, and it's almost like he feels the need to apologize for or qualify it when the objective reality doesn't match up with common subjectivist supposition. For instance, he freely admits that measurements don't support the notion that (properly functioning) cables can change the sound perceptively, but he attests that he still hears a difference, albeit a very small one. It's like part of him wants to burst out and say the whole thing is bunk, but the other part clings to the subjective notions, so he kind of plays both sides.

Just to be clear, I think the world of him and certainly would never suggest any of this is intentionally misleading or nefarious. Rather, I think it's simply a case of ambivalence and an aversion to coming down hardline in one camp or the other for fear of missing something important because of a personal bias. He seems very committed to keeping an open mind, which, to be sure, is a good quality when you're testing stuff--sometimes the results can be unexpected. Part of objective testing is running the tests even if you "know" what the results will be.

EDIT: Went off topic with unneeded elaboration.


----------



## cel4145

argyris said:


> I like Tyll a lot and value his reviews and insight very highly, but I've often perceived that he seems to have a battle within him between subjectivist and objectivist forces, and it's almost like he feels the need to apologize for or qualify it when the objective reality doesn't match up with common subjectivist supposition. For instance, he freely admits that measurements don't support the notion that (properly functioning) cables can change the sound perceptively, but he attests that he still hears a difference, albeit a very small one. It's like part of him wants to burst out and say the whole thing is bunk, but the other part clings to the subjective notions, so he kind of plays both sides.
> 
> Just to be clear, I think the world of him and certainly would never suggest any of this is intentionally misleading or nefarious. Rather, I think it's simply a case of ambivalence and an aversion to coming down hardline in one camp or the other for fear of missing something important because of a personal bias. He seems very committed to keeping an open mind, which, to be sure, is a good quality when you're testing stuff--sometimes the results can be unexpected. Part of objective testing is running the tests even if you "know" what the results will be.
> 
> EDIT: Went off topic with unneeded elaboration.




Oh, no need to apologize for heading off topic  I agree. With him you can often see the tug of war between, on the one hand, following the science and, on the other, wanting to be part of the buy in that much of the audiophile community gives to all of the expensive equipment that there is little evidence to support provides any benefit. 

I just thought that whole review was really interesting because he wrote a conclusion that clearly was making his preconceived notions about the Pono Player fit the data of his research process. At the very least, his data suggested than he should have had more doubt that his final remarks demonstrated. Instead, we got a glowing affirmation of the Pono Player. 

Maybe one day he'll make the leap to true enlightenment


----------



## watchnerd

cel4145 said:


> Oh, no need to apologize for heading off topic
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Can a journalist?
  
 Once you become an objectivist, it's much harder to write copy.
  
 You can always do pages of tests, like Julian Hirsch way back when....


----------



## StanD

At one point the "journalist" and his business grows where he must maintain an audience and possibly advertisers. What would you expect to happen? A morph to an entertainer/editorialist creating a narrative that appeals to a greater following, number of clicks, increase of revenue? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 We're only  human.


----------



## watchnerd

stand said:


> At one point the "journalist" and his business grows where he must maintain an audience and possibly advertisers. What would you expect to happen? A morph to an entertainer/editorialist creating a narrative that appeals to a greater following, number of clicks, increase of revenue?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Moral:
  
 Only trust audio reviews from people who have day jobs.
  
 And who also own measuring equipment.
  
 That's much of what I like about Audio Science Review.


----------



## HotIce

Pretty much.
 If you are in the business, there's only some far you can go wearing your objectivist mask.
 Coming off with a review where you state that, to your ears, a $50 eBay DAC sounds exactly like a $2500 hyperbit, ring-what, zero-phase-filter, 200KHz audio band, 1MHzx64bit DAC, will get you a lot of heat to deal with, and be bad for your reviewer business.


----------



## watchnerd

hotice said:


> Pretty much.
> If you are in the business, there's only some far you can go wearing your objectivist mask.
> Coming off with a review where you state that, to your ears, a $50 eBay DAC sounds exactly like a $2500 hyperbit, ring-what, zero-phase-filter, 200KHz audio band, 1MHzx64bit DAC, will get you a lot of heat to deal with, and be bad for your reviewer business.


 
  
 This is why I don't tell people about my DACs.


----------



## StanD

Perhaps we can start a thread about using a 160m ham radio transmitter because we can hear the RF and that improves sound stage, etc. That might excite the ultrasonic crowd. Before long there will be *glowing* reviews, as long as it's a tube amp. It's funny how a narrative that panders to a crowd can take on a life of its own. Well, I guess that's the creatures we are.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> Perhaps we can start a thread about using a 160m ham radio transmitter because we can hear the RF and that improves sound stage, etc. That might excite the ultrasonic crowd. Before long there will be [COLOR=FF0000]*glowing*[/COLOR] reviews, as long as it's a tube amp. It's funny how a narrative that panders to a crowd can take on a life of its own. Well, I guess that's the creatures we are.




If people can literally start a thread about diamond player cables out a box of dirt and actually get it to sell for 10k, that is nothing. Generate hype and people will always speak highly of it, either due to expectation bias or fear or groupthink or whatever.

Happy new year/end of year everyone.


----------



## StanD

What is the emotional aspect? Many people that are not technically versed are willing to accept some myth and join the crowd that runs with it despite being provided a scientific/engineering reason that would dispel the myth. Many will instead dispel the technical reason that would debunk the myth even if it's based upon the same science/engineering that created the narrative in question. Go figure.


----------



## castleofargh

Tyll has done more to bring measurements to headphone amateurs than all of us here combined, so maybe let's not be so fast to engrave "slave to the marketing subjectivism" on his back just yet.
  
 he tries to create a bridge between subjective perception and objective data, sometimes it's obvious and it works, sometimes not so much and the conclusions are debatable, and a few times we have contradictory results and somebody will pick a side when he really shouldn't. it's the most difficult part of the hobby to find correlations not because they agree with us but because we can demonstrate causality.
 with Pono he must have known before doing it that there would be some action from 2 very motivated sides, so I'm guessing the so called blind test has probably been an attempt at establishing a middle ground. IMO it was a bad move, but it's not like he abused any data to make weird claims, in the end his opinion is mainly subjective and as such having some biases is not only ok but expected.


----------



## watchnerd

castleofargh said:


> Tyll has done more to bring measurements to headphone amateurs than all of us here combined, so maybe let's not be so fast to engrave "slave to the marketing subjectivism" on his back just yet.
> 
> he tries to create a bridge between subjective perception and objective data, sometimes it's obvious and it works, sometimes not so much and the conclusions are debatable, and a few times we have contradictory results and somebody will pick a side when he really shouldn't. it's the most difficult part of the hobby to find correlations not because they agree with us but because we can demonstrate causality.
> with Pono he must have known before doing it that there would be some action from 2 very motivated sides, so I'm guessing the so called blind test has probably been an attempt at establishing a middle ground. IMO it was a bad move, but it's not like he abused any data to make weird claims, in the end his opinion is mainly subjective and as such having some biases is not only ok but expected.


 
  
 You would have made a terrible revolutionary -- where is your 'put them up against the wall' attitude?


----------



## Ruben123

What I still dont get with Tyll's measurements, is what he actually hears. Does he hear it, or doesnt he? It should not be surprising "low end devices" all sound the same. They are mass products so excellent components could be gotten for cheap, contrary to audiophile players probably (of which at max a few thousands are made). Also the AK240 measures flat, but it should have enhanced bass as Tyll says. How could this be? Or is that the loaded/unloaded measurements thing. Then the balanced/single ended thing. Why could with more power, the sound be different? Flat=flat right? But since flat=! flat, since loaded=! unloaded, what does this actually mean? How could Tyll have a hard time hearing differences between players "objectively" but when he listens to the players "subjectively", differences are more clear. ?!?!?!?!??! If players sound the same, as he said he objectively thought so, then they DO sound the same. Right? How could emotions affect the perception of sound? Is this any scientific at all? As I thought, when he thought he heard the Pono, it was the Pono. But he could almost hear not any difference between the players, my mind is ###### up by this. 
  
 And then the experience thing, see here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/810821/serious-question-why-is-the-ak380-four-thousand-dollars/105#post_13131307
 It was such a nice thread, perhaps I derailed it but I didnt say anything wrong I guess. Though as I dont have experience with audiophile cables, I  must be lying or so, not knowing what Im talking about. Well, a cable is a cable, and when it's good, it is. When it's not, it's not. Feel free to reply over there, I always got some issues when old dude shows up. Bring up the word "placebo" and all kinds of attacks come from everywhere. And this quote, I think, describes the audiophile failure the most.
_I have had stock cables and custom cables and I can hear a difference.  Is my experience valid?  My JH Angies sound different with a stock balanced cable then they do with a Moon Audio Black Dragon balanced cable.  And my Moon Audio Silver Dragon balanced cable sounds different from the Black Dragon.  If I hear these differences (or if I have, say, an A&K 380 and I hear differences between it and another DAP), is my experience valid?  Either my experience has a value or it doesn't.  If not, than most of us should leave this forum to those who deal in certainties and absolutes._
  
 You could indeed wonder what benefits this web site has, when experience (incl non blind testing, experience etc) >>>>>> measurements and scientific facts.
  
 End rant. Happy New Year.


----------



## HotIce

It is not worth the time to try to talk the self-scamming folks out of their world.
 Ultimately, let their own money be dispersed at their will.
 The fact that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has been able, in a scientifically and public AB test, to pick apart the $1500 cable against the Home Depot $10 one, should speak by itself.
 Think about it. You are the marketing manger of the ACME company selling $1500 cables.
 How badly would you want to have some publicly recognized AB test where folks are able to pick your cable over the cheaper alternatives?
 My guess, they'd sell their Mom by lease, had they the chance.


----------



## Argyris

castleofargh said:


> Tyll has done more to bring measurements to headphone amateurs than all of us here combined, so maybe let's not be so fast to engrave "slave to the marketing subjectivism" on his back just yet.
> 
> he tries to create a bridge between subjective perception and objective data, sometimes it's obvious and it works, sometimes not so much and the conclusions are debatable, and a few times we have contradictory results and somebody will pick a side when he really shouldn't. it's the most difficult part of the hobby to find correlations not because they agree with us but because we can demonstrate causality.
> with Pono he must have known before doing it that there would be some action from 2 very motivated sides, so I'm guessing the so called blind test has probably been an attempt at establishing a middle ground. IMO it was a bad move, but it's not like he abused any data to make weird claims, in the end his opinion is mainly subjective and as such having some biases is not only ok but expected.


 
  
 That's more or less what I was saying. I'm not going to label him as anything more than a human being trying to make sense of the complicated reality of personal audio, from the numerous variables that need to be tested on the objective side, to the vagaries of psychoacoustics and personal listening bias, to the external influence from the strong opinions of both objectivists and subjectivists. There's a lot to contend with here, and it must be said that being able to parse it all while maintaining an open mind and threading that personal needle between what you think you perceive and what the tests show, knowing that maybe a new kind of testing will be devised or a different facet of the data will be exposed that explains the disconnect, is a tall order, and one that Tyll has consistently pulled off.
  
 What doesn't need to be said, and yet what can't be said enough, is how much Tyll has done for the personal audio world. What's unique about his output is that we get a lot of insight into his thought process and review methodology. Most people writing in his field just dash off a bunch of subjective copy without any objective data to back it up (or contradict it, as the case may sometimes be), nor any frame of reference as to where they're coming from, what sort of sound they like, etc. With Tyll, we know all of these things, and whether or not we agree with his subjective findings or personal preferences, the objective data is nonetheless right there for us to look at and draw our own conclusions.
  
 His reviews and objective testing are also special in that they give us building blocks to learn more about personal audio in general, rather than just being relevant to whatever specific device is being discussed. I've learned from him, for instance, that one of the most important things to look at in a headphone is its time domain performance. I would never have even known how to interpret the square wave and impulse graphs (and, for example, how they clearly show why the SRH440, despite a good frequency contour, sounds tizzy and unrefined in the treble) if it weren't for one of Tyll's earlier articles that went into depth about how different square wave shapes correlate roughly to different sound signatures. It's one of the first things I look at now whenever new measurements come out.


----------



## StanD

@Ruben123 I added my perspective.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/810821/serious-question-why-is-the-ak380-four-thousand-dollars/105#post_13131916


----------



## Joe Bloggs

argyris said:


> His reviews and objective testing are also special in that they give us building blocks to learn more about personal audio in general, rather than just being relevant to whatever specific device is being discussed. I've learned from him, for instance, that one of the most important things to look at in a headphone is its time domain performance. I would never have even known how to interpret the square wave and impulse graphs (and, for example, how they clearly show why the SRH440, despite a good frequency contour, sounds tizzy and unrefined in the treble) if it weren't for one of Tyll's earlier articles that went into depth about how different square wave shapes correlate roughly to different sound signatures. It's one of the first things I look at now whenever new measurements come out.




Hmm? I would say that the SRH440 looked like they would have the problem you describe from day 1 in the FR chart, with the peak around 10kHz. And I would still argue that square wave charts don't tell you anything the FR and impulse response charts tell you, and even the latter doesn't tell much, seeing as most headphones thoroughly EQed to flat would have a near-perfect impulse response while those that don't (mostly multi driver earphones) don't deviate in impulse response enough to matter audibly, given our insensitivity to overall phase shifts applied equally to all sounds.


----------



## castleofargh

to all I wish a happy full revolution of the wet rock around the big burning thing in the sky from an arbitrary reference position! let that insignificant moment in time bring you all joy and health.
  
 for most of the USA, Canada, and a few other places, I'm talking to you from the future, I'm in 2017 and the message is sent to you guys in 2016. that's how strong objectivism can be. time travel!


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> to all I wish a happy full revolution of the wet rock around the big burning thing in the sky from an arbitrary reference position! let that insignificant moment in time bring you all joy and health.
> 
> for most of the USA, Canada, and a few other places, I'm talking to you from the future, I'm in 2017 and the message is sent to you guys in 2016. that's how strong objectivism can be. time travel!




Can I kindly copy paste this thing to my Facebook page? ;v;

It's already New Year here in Canada...I think? :blink:


----------



## watchnerd

castleofargh said:


> to all I wish a happy full revolution of the wet rock around the big burning thing in the sky from an arbitrary reference position! let that insignificant moment in time bring you all joy and health.
> 
> for most of the USA, Canada, and a few other places, I'm talking to you from the future, I'm in 2017 and the message is sent to you guys in 2016. that's how strong objectivism can be. time travel!


 
  
 Since you're talking about time, can you please state your reference frame relative to CMB?
  
 So much easier to then determine how close we all are to C, and thus who is already in the future...


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> to all I wish a happy full revolution of the wet rock around the big burning thing in the sky from an arbitrary reference position! let that insignificant moment in time bring you all joy and health.
> 
> for most of the USA, Canada, and a few other places, I'm talking to you from the future, I'm in 2017 and the message is sent to you guys in 2016. that's how strong objectivism can be. time travel!


 
 ˙ʎɐןǝp ǝsɐɥd ɐ ɟo ןןǝɥ ǝuo ǝʌɐɥ ʇsnɯ sǝuoɥdpɐǝɥ ɹnoʎ


----------



## Ruben123

Wow how did you do that? 

Nice to have seen your posts in the topic btw. Happy New Year everybody!


----------



## sonitus mirus

ruben123 said:


> Wow how did you do that?
> 
> Nice to have seen your posts in the topic btw. Happy New Year everybody!


 
  
 Maybe StanD is in Australia?


----------



## HotIce

ruben123 said:


> Wow how did you do that?
> 
> Nice to have seen your posts in the topic btw. Happy New Year everybody!


 
  
 ǝɯ pǝdlǝɥ ǝlƃooפ ʇnq ǝɹns ʇ,uɐʍ I
  





  
 http://www.upsidedowntext.com/


----------



## Ruben123

sonitus mirus said:


> Maybe StanD is in Australia?




I laughed too hard


----------



## Ruben123

hotice said:


> ǝɯ pǝdlǝɥ ǝlƃooפ ʇnq ǝɹns ʇ,uɐʍ I
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.upsidedowntext.com/




My magical cable company told me that they've seen somehow, Stan's from Australia.. they're all about magic aren't they!!


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> My magical cable company told me that they've seen somehow, Stan's from Australia.. they're all about magic aren't they!!


 

 I've heard NJ called many names, however, Down Under is new to me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think the weather's much warmer there right now, so I might not mind it except getting headphones and fancy cameras over there can be a very expensive proposition.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Dirty Business - New Riders of the Purple Sage
 Just Can't Be - Flying Burrito Brothers
 Fake Plastic Trees - Radiohead
  
 Just the last three songs of a random shuffle from Google Play from my library.  
  
 This is a wonderful time to be alive for music lovers.


----------



## StanD

sonitus mirus said:


> Dirty Business - New Riders of the Purple Sage
> Just Can't Be - Flying Burrito Brothers
> Fake Plastic Trees - Radiohead
> 
> ...


 

 She sings a nice song too but it's not a wonderful time to be living outdoors right now. At least not in my front yard.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> She sings a nice song too but it's not a wonderful time to be living outdoors right now. At least not in my front yard.




;o;

Save the poor bird!!!! Bring the bird inside! If you are cold, so is it! Bring it inside, warm it up!!!!!


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> ;o;
> 
> Save the poor bird!!!! Bring the bird inside! If you are cold, so is it! Bring it inside, warm it up!!!!!


 

 They never complain and I provide all the food they can eat. A couple of days a go my wife heard a little bell tinkling in the house. One of my neighbor's little ankle biter dogs snuck into the house when my wife came through the door. She found it in the kitchen looking up at her with "cute big eyes." I asked my wife if the bell was _strident_ and she looked at me as if I lost my mind. Apparently she isn't an audiophile.


----------



## sonitus mirus

stand said:


> She sings a nice song too but it's not a wonderful time to be living outdoors right now. At least not in my front yard.


 
  
 It is very cold here, but not nearly as cold and snowy as other places are right now.
  
 I optimistically played this, but it didn't help warm things up.


----------



## StanD

sonitus mirus said:


> It is very cold here, but not nearly as cold and snowy as other places are right now.
> 
> I optimistically played this, but it didn't help warm things up.


 
 Perhaps you need a tube amp to warm things up.


----------



## sonitus mirus

stand said:


> Perhaps you need a tube amp to warm things up.


 
  
 Nah, got a class A solid state keeping the room toasty.


----------



## RRod

sonitus mirus said:


> It is very cold here, but not nearly as cold and snowy as other places are right now.
> 
> I optimistically played this, but it didn't help warm things up.


 
  
 Wonder what our friend in the other thread would think of the sonics.


----------



## StanD

sonitus mirus said:


> Nah, got a class A solid state keeping the room toasty.


 
 Me too, If you want it to cool down you'll have to listen loud. I prefer SS.


----------



## sonitus mirus

stand said:


> Me too, If you want it to cool down you'll have to listen loud. I prefer SS.


 
  
 Yes, put that energy to good use.


----------



## castleofargh

ok I set my O2 to output an outstanding 35mVRMS(party time! unlimited powaaaaa), but let me just say, it's good that I don't have to rely on it to heat the room.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> Perhaps you need a tube amp to warm things up.




My tube amp is bright as hell, but I still use it as a hand warmer. ^_^

Funny, a recent review claimed that as well all tube amps, this tube amp makes the sound warm and euphoric. Funny. I hear everything but that. It sounds very bright and harsh to me, so I kinds want to question the setup the person used and the amp the person was comparing it to. There person must be using a very bright amp previously if they were to can this new amp warm. 0.0


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> They never complain and I provide all the food they can eat. A couple of days a go my wife heard a little bell tinkling in the house. One of my neighbor's little ankle biter dogs snuck into the house when my wife came through the door. She found it in the kitchen looking up at her with "cute big eyes." I asked my wife if the bell was _strident_ and she looked at me as if I lost my mind. Apparently she isn't an audiophile.


 

  
  
 On a more serious note so we don't get banned for going off topic:
  
 I often notice people congratulate others for purchasing a device. One does not even wait for them to try it and hear their feedback. One simply congratulates them for making a purchase. There have been times when I wanted to congratulate someone for deciding that they do not want to make a purchase after all (because they are usually very very sad and I want to cheer them up. These people are often on a really tight budget, cannot squeeze in a dac/amp and have overcome the belief that not buying a dac/amp is sacrilege). I feel quite scared to do so as I feel that I might start a flame war. Even suggesting that one does not need an amp sometimes result in so much hate...and the people can't even explain why because they themselves are on the thread because they want to purchase their first amp!  I can't even think about congratulating them sincerely, and even if I do, it's usually misunderstood as a congratulations that their ears aren't good enough to hear a difference, so they should be satisfied with who they are and what they can do (sometimes conveys a sense of elitism). :/
  
 Anyone have a similar feeling? How do you usually deal with convincing someone who is struggling with a budget and that you believe does not need to purchase better dac/amps, or say you want to convince them to not go with another, cheaper headphone, because they have the belief that since they don't have a great amp to pair with a certain headphone, it's not even worth purchasing the headphone they want?
  
  
 Also, any opinions on this?
  
 I acknowledge the person may have difficulties expressing his/her ideas in English due to language difficulties...but I'm not sure if even the basic concept of this opinion really makes sense...


----------



## castleofargh

opinions from casual listening aren't objective facts. we could really explain/solve a all lot of questions/problems/disagreements if that tiny little detail was in everybody's mind.


----------



## watchnerd

u-3c said:


> Anyone have a similar feeling?


 
  
 Yes. 
  
 The typical attitude is that a) improvements in sound require purchases (as opposed to other optimizations) b) that almost any purchase that is more costly must be an improvement c) that 'different' is 'better'.
  
 This attitude is held so deeply by so many posters (maybe the majority) that questioning it marks you as a heretic, in doing so, you are questioning the wisdom of everything they've bought into.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

watchnerd said:


> Yes.
> 
> The typical attitude is that a) improvements in sound require purchases (as opposed to other optimizations) b) that almost any purchase that is more costly must be an improvement c) that 'different' is 'better'.
> 
> This attitude is held so deeply by so many posters (maybe the majority) that questioning it marks you as a heretic, in doing so, you are questioning the wisdom of everything they've bought into.


 
  
 Look at the Chord Poly thread for confirmation of this phenomenon. People are justifying the cost by claiming the audio quality vastly outperforms the alternatives... Keep in mind these claims are being made sight unseen and without a single measurement available. 
  
 "The audio quality is great because it's expensive" instead of "it's expensive because the audio quality is great". 
  
 Absolute nonsense going on over there.


----------



## Ruben123

u-3c said:


> On a more serious note so we don't get banned for going off topic:
> 
> I often notice people congratulate others for purchasing a device. One does not even wait for them to try it and hear their feedback. One simply congratulates them for making a purchase. There have been times when I wanted to congratulate someone for deciding that they do not want to make a purchase after all (because they are usually very very sad and I want to cheer them up. These people are often on a really tight budget, cannot squeeze in a dac/amp and have overcome the belief that not buying a dac/amp is sacrilege). I feel quite scared to do so as I feel that I might start a flame war. Even suggesting that one does not need an amp sometimes result in so much hate...and the people can't even explain why because they themselves are on the thread because they want to purchase their first amp!  I can't even think about congratulating them sincerely, and even if I do, it's usually misunderstood as a congratulations that their ears aren't good enough to hear a difference, so they should be satisfied with who they are and what they can do (sometimes conveys a sense of elitism). :/
> 
> ...


 

 If you only knew how many (almost) fights/wars Ive had on this forum because I advised people not to buy an amp for their in-ears, for instance. Or having bought a ridiculously high priced headphone, not liking its sound, and following others' recommendations of getting a seperate amp, dac or another dap all the way. Or another headphone cable, power cable and so on. Sometimes I try to help and keep new members away from those silly buys, but I might as well not do that. In another forum Ive seen claims that all Apple's devices sound different but even though I have never heard one, looking at the measurements (forbid me!!), they should all sound somewhat the same. Well those of which Ive seen the measurements then. The iPhone is then compared to a Fiio player of $200 and it HAS to be better than the iPhone but some member found the iPhone better but that cannot be true... seen those threads all over the site. Just get some popcorn and have a laugh is the best I guess, since they wont listen anyhow.


----------



## watchnerd

grumpyoldguy said:


> Look at the Chord Poly thread for confirmation of this phenomenon. People are justifying the cost by claiming the audio quality vastly outperforms the alternatives... Keep in mind these claims are being made sight unseen and without a single measurement available.
> 
> "The audio quality is great because it's expensive" instead of "it's expensive because the audio quality is great".
> 
> Absolute nonsense going on over there.


 
  
 It's not even released yet, is it?
  
 I've never even seen a real photo, just renderings.


----------



## castleofargh

well there is also a real sense of community. when you get some device, you can get your 15mn of fame, and you belong to the group of people who have the cool stuff(at least in your mind and theirs). often enough to share something is all you need to make friends online. and for some messed up reason, earn respect for your opinions. I expect this to have value in itself. a forum is a social interaction and you don't need to have the device yet, to start benefiting from the social perks of calling yourself owner of device XXXXXX. 
 ------edit: look at all the benefits and fame we get from belonging to sound science, people just adore us. (bad example?)^_^
  
  
 we tend to pretend like we're all here for sound and some biased concept of fidelity, but that's only a very small part of why we spend time on a forum even after we've found what to buy. most people break a device, look to replace it, come online to ask questions, make a choice and never come back. us being here on a regular basis goes way beyond the quest for good gears.
  how some groups encourage themselves into mass delusion is more of a side effect and usually just goes to reassure people in that group and strengthen the bonds they have. it's ludicrous for people outside, but no doubt it's pretty enjoyable when you're part of it. at least as long as the illusion lasts.
 then you go buy a new stuff thinking it will get you to the same kind of happy place the last one did. expectations can surely become as important as actually having a good device. the real value of something rarely has any relation to how coveted it is. I always remember as a young kid the lunch at school was less than 50cents in today's dollar value, there was a part paid by the town OFC, but TBH it was far from amazing even for that type of usually underwhelming establishments. anyway we had cod fish(I hope I'm translating the right group of fishes ^_^) in everything at least 4 times a week, and it was seen as the trash of the sea. basically, proteins for less money would have been earth worms.
 nowadays, because the "trash" has been over exploited, it's harder to get, the price has gone up and now some people treat it as a quality product in many restaurants. so it's still the same group of fishes, unless Darwin pressed fast forward while sitting on the remote. was I eating quality food for almost nothing as a kid? or are people today paying a lot of money to eat the trash of the sea just because of offer/demand? ^_^ point of view is everything.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

watchnerd said:


> It's not even released yet, is it?
> 
> I've never even seen a real photo, just renderings.


 
  
 Nope, you can't buy it anywhere yet.
  
 There's some real fanboy nonsense going on around (t)here... I've noticed something similar for ALO offerings.


----------



## krismusic

grumpyoldguy said:


> Nope, you can't buy it anywhere yet.
> 
> There's some real fanboy nonsense going on around (t)here... I've noticed something similar for ALO offerings.



Perhaps people have a touching faith in a company that has produced some pretty ground breaking products?


----------



## watchnerd

krismusic said:


> Perhaps people have a touching faith in a company that has produced some pretty ground breaking products?


 
  
 AKA fanbois.


----------



## krismusic

watchnerd said:


> AKA fanbois.



Fair enough.


----------



## StanD

You guys are bad for business and are going to cause a recession in the audio industry.


----------



## warrior1975

krismusic said:


> Perhaps people have a touching faith in a company that has produced some pretty ground breaking products?




I have no problem with that. What is bothersome is when someone questions what the company did and people come down on that person. Or the manufacturer themselves going on attack against the same person. 

There was definitely some harsh comments coming from Chord in the Poly thread...


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

warrior1975 said:


> I have no problem with that. What is bothersome is when someone questions what the company did and people come down on that person. Or the manufacturer themselves going on attack against the same person.
> 
> There was definitely some harsh comments coming from Chord in the Poly thread...




There still are. The guy who made the Raspberry Pi based solution tried to clarify the meaning of his post and the guy who runs the company responds with "I used to play with that kind of stuff when I was a kid too. You can't even begin to compare what you did to the magnificence I have created. You all are too dumb to get it"

Ridiculous. He lost at least one customer with that post.


----------



## headwhacker

grumpyoldguy said:


> There still are. The guy who made the Raspberry Pi based solution tried to clarify the meaning of his post and the guy who runs the company responds with "I used to play with that kind of stuff when I was a kid too. You can't even begin to compare what you did to the magnificence I have created. You all are too dumb to get it"
> 
> Ridiculous. He lost at least one customer with that post.


 
  
 If Chord manages to completely avoid stutters/interference using that 2.5Ghz channel wifi, then perhaps the price maybe justified. Otherwise, the talk of "sophisticated processor, can't find anything similar to off the shelf components" is nonsense if streaming suffers the same problems as other more capable, complete and device available out there. I think the poly as an add-on is good for Mojo, but the price I feel is ..... 
  
 I think if they just made a USB cable and sold it for 499, they won't get as much disappointing comments from most people complaining now about Poly.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

headwhacker said:


> If Chord manages to completely avoid stutters/interference using that 2.5Ghz channel wifi, then perhaps the price maybe justified. Otherwise, the talk of "sophisticated processor, can't find anything similar to off the shelf components" is nonsense if streaming suffers the same problems as other more capable, complete and device available out there. I think the poly as an add-on is good for Mojo, but the price I feel is .....
> 
> I think if they just made a USB cable and sold it for 499, they won't get as much disappointing comments from most people complaining now about Poly.




Even it had 5GHz it would be overpriced. The cost is just not on par with the capability. 

Further, we're in sound science, so we all know that adding wireless transceivers in such close proximity to the Mojo with no galvanic isolation on the USB is never going to improve measured performance, it's going to make it worse. So all of these people saying we have to wait to hear it and measure it, are just setting themselves up for disappointment... and this guy from Chord is feeding right into it... Why? To drum up pre sales? It could be the best board design on the planet, it's still not going be to better than a DAP or other transport with no wireless capability. Which, I might add, can be had for a hell of a lot cheaper. 

The need to have bluetooth and wifi on the Poly isn't a good thing. They should have designed it with physical controls and the option to shutoff wireless. I'm speculating they just wanted to rush to market to capitalize on the success of Mojo. Obviously I can't know that for sure, but with that pricing, it sure feels like it.


----------



## U-3C

I briefly went through the thread. £900. "Extremely good value." For a Bluetooth connection. 

I think we need a proper definition of evaluating what is a "good value." Especially for a product that isn't even out yet so nobody could test them.

What next, a £900 cable being an extremely good value? A $9000 box of dirt also bring totally worth it? 

...

...oh wait... D:


----------



## headwhacker

The Poly thread brings out the worst from most people in this hobby. At least 3 people already asked if they can use Mojo/Poly with Bluetooth headphones. Yet the same people will go into lengths to argue about the merits of the product.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

headwhacker said:


> The Poly thread brings out the worst from most people in this hobby. At least 3 people already asked if they can use Mojo/Poly with Bluetooth headphones. Yet the same people will go into lengths to argue about the merits of the product.




The worst? Or what was always there?


----------



## watchnerd

So glad I never bought a Chord product.
  
 I think their industrial design looks like Playskool toys.  But on top of that I've read other "secret sauce" comments from their designers before and been unimpressed by how they stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## Ruben123

But what does it do? I clearly have no clue what it does. You can't plug your headphones in, so what is it, then?


----------



## U-3C

ruben123 said:


> But what does it do? I clearly have no clue what it does. You can't plug your headphones in, so what is it, then?




I think it adds Bluetooth or wifi...or something. 

Honestly no idea. Chord send to keep saying, "It adds xyz tech with 10 layers in the PCB design and ABC amount of components. It is amazing and you should appreciate it."

They don't seem to actually say what the Poly actually does that makes it special. Slap this thing without your Mojo. So it allows you to play music wirelessly from your phone. No cable needed now to connect the devices. 

...

"Ummm.... So what's so special that this thing does again?"

^^ Never really got a definitive answer aside from how awesome the multiple processors are.


----------



## watchnerd

ruben123 said:


> But what does it do? I clearly have no clue what it does. You can't plug your headphones in, so what is it, then?


 
  
 It takes money from your pocket and puts it into Chord's pocket.
  
 That's its main purpose.


----------



## Ruben123

u-3c said:


> I think it adds Bluetooth or wifi...or something.
> 
> Honestly no idea. Chord send to keep saying, "It adds xyz tech with 10 layers in the PCB design and ABC amount of components. It is amazing and you should appreciate it."
> 
> ...





?????????
So your phone could via the chord connect to a WiFi or BT source? My phone could do that without a device and is from 2010. I keep understanding less... Watchnerds interpretation seems the best to me


----------



## HotIce

Or, either you can use your phone to stream directly to the DAC, or turn your phone into a DLNA player with the available apps, and stream from anywhere into the DAC.


----------



## U-3C

ruben123 said:


> ?????????
> So your phone could via the chord connect to a WiFi or BT source? My phone could do that without a device and is from 2010. I keep understanding less... Watchnerds interpretation seems the best to me




That's what is bugging anyone. It's common sense to question what the Poly does so special to improve the sound... Especially when a USB OTG cable comes with the mojo (I think. Don't quote me on that) to connect it to your phone. Convenience, sure. But that much money...for a wireless connection? What makes it worth it?

Yet it seems that chord isn't answering even such an obvious question, with people even making their own custom solutions to question what's the design choice behind using these exotic, complex, priority solutions to solve these issues. There's got be a reason to choose then I've things that you can buy off the shelf"for pennies," as the person who did the raspberry Pi thing days it. It seems to also be in chord's best interest to explain so they can die why everyone should buy their product. 

Digging through the thread, I can't find any real answer...


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> I think it adds Bluetooth or wifi...or something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 It brings wireless capability directly to the Mojo, think of it as a Chromecast Audio designed specifically to mate with the Mojo.
  
 Like the Chromecast Audio, both still require a phone to control it.
  
 Except you can get a Chromecast Audio for about $20.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

watchnerd said:


> So glad I never bought a Chord product.
> 
> I think their industrial design looks like Playskool toys.  But on top of that I've read other "secret sauce" comments from their designers before and been unimpressed by how they stand up to scrutiny.


 
  
 I've only seen block diagrams of how this "pulse array DAC" works... it looks an awful lot like an R-2R network driven by external DFFs. Of course there is no explanation from Chord about what it really is, other than "it's revolutionary and 532532x better than a conventional DAC" 
  
 I have a Mojo, and I like it for its size and portability, but not much else.


----------



## U-3C

grumpyoldguy said:


> It brings wireless capability directly to the Mojo, think of it as a Chromecast Audio designed specifically to mate with the Mojo.
> 
> Like the Chromecast Audio, both still require a phone to control it.
> 
> Except you can get a Chromecast Audio for about $20.




Someone should just go and ask..."aside from the expensive, complicated components and design, what exactly does this do that the Chromecast Audio can't achieve? I'll be buying one instead of the Poly sadly if I can't learn about what it really does better."

"It has x cores, y layered PCB, z amount of intricate components, yada yada yada..."

"Okay, so it basically does nothing better while using note expensive, complex stuff?"

"We are the best engineering team and are innovating-"

"Got it! Thanks for your help on recommending the Chromecast~  I'll quote your advice you to my friends so they also get the Chromecast. Cheers and many thanks again! <3 "


----------



## HotIce

grumpyoldguy said:


> It brings wireless capability directly to the Mojo, think of it as a Chromecast Audio designed specifically to mate with the Mojo.
> Like the Chromecast Audio, both still require a phone to control it.
> Except you can get a Chromecast Audio for about $20.


 
  
 An existing phone is even cheaper 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Like $0 ... OK, maybe $3.99 if you buy the non free versions of the apps (assuming you want to turn your phone into a DLNA player - AKA renderer mode).


----------



## cel4145

I want a Poly, so I can come to this thread and say, "you guys are just jealous because you don't have one!" 

Of course, not sure what I would do with it. Don't have a Mojo. But you know it's got all that cool tech, so must be worth it?


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> I want a Poly, so I can come to this thread and say, "you guys are just jealous because you don't have one!"
> 
> Of course, not sure what I would do with it. Don't have a Mojo. But you know it's got all that cool tech, so must be worth it?




My speakers can play music without wires! No wires between my cord mojo and my ears either as I don't need to wear headphones!

But really...I can only imagine the Poly bring used at home. In such a place, there are _countless_ competitive products that allow you to connect your phone to whatever audio solution you have with receivers and such for headings/speakers... The only thing you can do that kinda makes sense is if you place your phone somewhere and you would want to hold your dac with you, linked to your headphones, and your phone is far away... But common, the chord mojo is still kind of a chunky DAC. That plus the Poly and the device is still a considerable size. It still doesn't seem very practical,. Why not just use a USB OTG cable and your phone? If you have place for a mojo+Poly, I'm sure mobile phones these days are thinner than that...


----------



## pila405

@watchnerd, you might not like the company, but the mojo measures very well. And it's portable.


----------



## uchihaitachi

pila405 said:


> @watchnerd, you might not like the company, but the mojo measures very well. And it's portable.


 
 So do products at about half of the price, and without the ridiculous lighting....
  
 Take the leckerton for example, it's more portable, lighter, measures well and is half the price?


----------



## Ruben123

My sansa clip measures extremely well and it's only $40


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

ruben123 said:


> My sansa clip measures extremely well and it's only $40


 
  
 But is it made in the UK?


----------



## U-3C

grumpyoldguy said:


> But is it made in the UK?



Honestly... Where is the UK after the great political turmoil of 2016... Is it going to be in Asia now? 

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bXoJGnAc6LU[/video]


----------



## Ruben123

grumpyoldguy said:


> But is it made in the UK?




There you had me...


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> Honestly... Where is the UK after the great political turmoil of 2016... Is it going to be in Asia now?


 
  
 Sacrilege... if you believe Chord, there is not a single Asian fab house on the planet that could make this board.


----------



## U-3C

grumpyoldguy said:


> Sacrilege... if you believe Chord, there is not a single Asian fab house on the planet that could make this board.




Ahhh, i c i c!

So all the Azns that kicked ass in school prefer working on engineering that does not involve challenges such as understanding the complex, near immeasurably small differences in cables and work on them for audiophiles? They'd rather work on lowly rocket science instead? 

----------

I'm a little lost on the Poly thread. "Not all phones have an SD card reader" does not seem like a very convincing it even logical answer give out of you want to make someone spend that much money on what seems like a WiFi receiver/SD card reader combo that outputs to a dac...

There discussion really seems to get heading into a very uncomfortable territory (jokes probably should not be pulled off anymore as I sense a flame war building up) and I feel like maybe I should just stay out of it to prevent negatively influencing the thread, or even get people modded.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> Ahhh, i c i c!
> 
> So all the Azns that kicked ass in school prefer working on engineering that does not involve challenges such as understanding the complex, near immeasurably small differences in cables and work on them for audiophiles? They'd rather work on lowly rocket science instead?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Exactly. Very unqualified. 
  
 I pointed out that it would be cheaper to buy a phone that does have an SD card reader than to buy a Poly... but I'm sure like all of my other comments, that will fall on deaf ears over at Chord as well. 
  
 I don't think it's getting that heated. I did stretch things a bit by giving the guy from Chord a little bit of what he's been giving everyone else for the last several days. I've all but told him he's too dumb to understand, as he's spent so much time telling us.


----------



## GuyUnder

A lot of people have learned that USB audio is garbage due to dirty bus power and self-noise generated by the USB receiver in their DACs. There are two common approaches to deal with this: conditioning the USB connection and decoupling USB from the playback chain. The Poly provides an easy and effective means for Mojo owners to eliminate USB from the chain, so if you own a Mojo and also care about audio quality, the Poly is practically a no-brainer unless you're heavily invested USB conditioning already.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

guyunder said:


> A lot of people have learned that USB audio is garbage due to dirty bus power and self-noise generated by the USB receiver in their DACs. There are two common approaches to deal with this: conditioning the USB connection and decoupling USB from the playback chain. The Poly provides an easy and effective means for Mojo owners to eliminate USB from the chain, so if you own a Mojo and also care about audio quality, the Poly is practically a no-brainer unless you're heavily invested USB conditioning already.




By introducing two RF transceivers?? This is a valid solution to you? All you're doing is substituting one problem for another.

In fact you're not even substituting one problem for another, because the data path with the Poly is still through USB! All you're doing is adding more sources for noise and moving them closer to the Mojo.


----------



## cel4145

u-3c said:


> My speakers can play music without wires! No wires between my cord mojo and my ears either as I don't need to wear headphones!
> 
> But really...I can only imagine the Poly bring used at home. In such a place, there are _countless_ competitive products that allow you to connect your phone to whatever audio solution you have with receivers and such for headings/speakers... The only thing you can do that kinda makes sense is if you place your phone somewhere and you would want to hold your dac with you, linked to your headphones, and your phone is far away... But common, the chord mojo is still kind of a chunky DAC. That plus the Poly and the device is still a considerable size. It still doesn't seem very practical,. Why not just use a USB OTG cable and your phone? If you have place for a mojo+Poly, I'm sure mobile phones these days are thinner than that...




I can see someone not wanting to have wires connected to their phone to use their music on the Mojo. £499 to turn the Mojo into a DAP with wireless streaming capability--that's what they are doing here. But it's only half a DAP since there is no screen on it. Even though you are not connecting it to your phone, you still have to use a phone with it operate it. How silly. (lol)

Now if they had put a screen on it with an OS for a music playback app, and then then streaming apps, that would have been a little more reasonable.


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> I can see someone not wanting to have wires connected to their phone to use their music on the Mojo. £499 to turn the Mojo into a DAP with wireless streaming capability--that's what they are doing here. But it's only half a DAP since there is no screen on it. Even though you are not connecting it to your phone, you still have to use a phone with it operate it. How silly. (lol)
> 
> Now if they had put a screen on it with an OS for a music playback app, and then then streaming apps, that would have been a little more reasonable.


 

 That's my main confusion. As other people call it, an "invisible wire."
  
 Because although it's wireless...it's suppose to allow you to control music with your phone...so that means the phone is in your hands anyways...so what's the point again? If you are standing up, the phone is in your hand, choosing the music in your hand, and the poly+mojo is in your pocket...Doesn't really make sense. A proper usb cable with adequate shielding does not cost that much...And I definitely do not see something like the Poly as being of "good value" for offering a better audio experience.
  
 I can indeed envision a few applications (such as controlling things that do not feed to headphones, say speakers) where this may be more useful and convenient, but only by a bit, and definitely not for 600 dollars, especially when you have other options (like the Chromecast Audio that Grumpy pointed out, and countless other options that receive audio transmission wirelessly). In the few situations that I can picture this to work, you don't really need the form factor of the Poly+Mojo. :/


----------



## limpidglitch

grumpyoldguy said:


> I pointed out that it would be cheaper to buy a phone that does have an SD card reader than to buy a Poly... but I'm sure like all of my other comments, that will fall on deaf ears over at Chord as well.


 
  
 Ah, so it's a Made for iPhone™ product then?
 It's all starting to make sense.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> That's my main confusion. As other people call it, an "invisible wire."
> 
> Because although it's wireless...it's suppose to allow you to control music with your phone...so that means the phone is in your hands anyways...so what's the point again? If you are standing up, the phone is in your hand, choosing the music in your hand, and the poly+mojo is in your pocket...Doesn't really make sense. A proper usb cable with adequate shielding does not cost that much...And I definitely do not see something like the Poly as being of "good value" for offering a better audio experience.
> 
> I can indeed envision a few applications (such as controlling things that do not feed to headphones, say speakers) where this may be more useful and convenient, but only by a bit, and definitely not for 600 dollars, especially when you have other options (like the Chromecast Audio that Grumpy pointed out, and countless other options that receive audio transmission wirelessly). In the few situations that I can picture this to work, you don't really need the form factor of the Poly+Mojo. :/




I picked up a Chromecast on my way home from work... I'm powering it with a random portable charger I had lying around and optical going into Mojo. I'm currently using it to listen to Tidal from my phone, no USB cable. Saved myself $565 (!!)... If I invest in some shorter cables and a smaller/flatter battery I could have a Poly replacement for under $75 in a damn small footprint.


----------



## krismusic

grumpyoldguy said:


> I picked up a Chromecast on my way home from work... I'm powering it with a random portable charger I had lying around and optical going into Mojo. I'm currently using it to listen to Tidal from my phone, no USB cable. Saved myself $565 (!!)... If I invest in some shorter cables and a smaller/flatter battery I could have a Poly replacement for under $75 in a damn small footprint.



Apologies for my ignorance. What does the Chromecast actually do?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

krismusic said:


> Apologies for my ignorance. What does the Chromecast actually do?




As far as I can tell... the same thing a Poly is supposed to do.


----------



## StanD

So let me get this straight. The same audiophiles that ranted against Bluetooth are now embracing it since a highly hyped overly expensive doohickey has arrived on the scene. Doesn't the same crowd worship hirez uncompressed files? Now they are ready to embrace as they say compressed lowrez Bluetooth? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I'm so confused.
 I have to confess, when I commute I commit audiophile sins, Bluetooth and Bose (QC35). You'd be surprised (or not) as to how well SBC sounds when on EDR under Bluetooth 4. Apt-x need not apply.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> So let me get this straight. The same audiophiles that ranted against Bluetooth are now embracing it since a highly hyped overly expensive doohickey has arrived on the scene. Doesn't the same crowd worship hirez uncompressed files? Now they are ready to embrace as they say compressed lowrez Bluetooth? :blink:  I'm so confused.
> I have to confess, when I commute I commit audiophile sins, Bluetooth and Bose (QC35).




That's not even the half of it. These same people also want this new device to support Bluetooth headphones... but don't try to explain to them that doing so would bypass the DAC in the Mojo.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> That's not even the half of it. These same people also want this new device to support Bluetooth headphones... but don't try to explain to them that doing so would bypass the DAC in the Mojo.


 
 That might start a riot.


----------



## headwhacker

grumpyoldguy said:


> That's not even the half of it. These same people also want this new device to support Bluetooth headphones... but don't try to explain to them that doing so would bypass the DAC in the Mojo.


 
  
 Tell me about it, It's becoming a chore to tell people and explain why it does not make sense. I bet once Poly arrives and Chord adds bluetooth headphone support on Poly someone will claim their Bluetooth headphone sounded better with Mojo+Poly.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

headwhacker said:


> Tell me about it, It's becoming a chore to tell people and explain why it does not make sense. I bet once Poly arrives and Chord adds bluetooth headphone support on Poly someone will claim their Bluetooth headphone sounded better with Mojo+Poly.




I believe it. Poly isn't even available yet and there is already a contingent of people claiming it sounds better than anything else out there.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> So let me get this straight. The same audiophiles that ranted against Bluetooth are now embracing it since a highly hyped overly expensive doohickey has arrived on the scene. Doesn't the same crowd worship hirez uncompressed files? Now they are ready to embrace as they say compressed lowrez Bluetooth? :blink:  I'm so confused.
> I have to confess, when I commute I commit audiophile sins, Bluetooth and Bose (QC35). You'd be surprised (or not) as to how well SBC sounds when on EDR under Bluetooth 4. Apt-x need not apply.




It streams true lossless over Wifi, too. hew:


----------



## Brooko

If you want a real laugh - read from about here onward : http://www.head-fi.org/t/728236/ifi-idsd-micro-dsd512-pcm768-dac-and-headphone-amp-impressions-reviews-and-comments/7290#post_13162077
  
 Pure audiophool BS


----------



## U-3C

brooko said:


> If you want a real laugh - read from about here onward : http://www.head-fi.org/t/728236/ifi-idsd-micro-dsd512-pcm768-dac-and-headphone-amp-impressions-reviews-and-comments/7290#post_13162077
> 
> Pure audiophool BS


 

 ...*cough.*
  
 Whatever cable the poor person must have used in advance must have been really, really terrible. I wonder if a cheap ferrite bead would have fixed it all... 0.0;
  
 I feel like just following people now and see how they grow on this forum. Preferably follow new people and see if they either dive deeper into a certain territory, or decide to convert into another religion (join us here at SS, the dark side of the force! The dark side has all the cool tech!  ).


----------



## headwhacker

Cheap USB cable you say. What about cheap toslink cable. Someone claiming difference between 2 toslink cable.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/784602/chord-mojo-dac-amp-faq-in-3rd-post/28875#post_13162507


----------



## watchnerd

brooko said:


> If you want a real laugh - read from about here onward : http://www.head-fi.org/t/728236/ifi-idsd-micro-dsd512-pcm768-dac-and-headphone-amp-impressions-reviews-and-comments/7290#post_13162077
> 
> Pure audiophool BS


 
  
 This is like reading fanfic erotic stories...the flowery language, the emotion, the elation.  It's just porn.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

brooko said:


> If you want a real laugh - read from about here onward : http://www.head-fi.org/t/728236/ifi-idsd-micro-dsd512-pcm768-dac-and-headphone-amp-impressions-reviews-and-comments/7290#post_13162077
> 
> *redacted*




I hear something snapping in Brooko's poor moderator brain...


----------



## Ruben123

grumpyoldguy said:


> That's not even the half of it. These same people also want this new device to support Bluetooth headphones... but don't try to explain to them that doing so would bypass the DAC in the Mojo.




But did you know you also need an ak380 to get the best out of your mojo? The sound is much more refined than using your ak240, imagine when poor you would use a normal phone....


----------



## Argyris

My experience with occasionally going and reading through the audiophile escapades that are often linked in this thread (as opposed to just reading the comments in here about them, which is what I usually do) is like how I perceive skunk spray. Objectively and from memory, I know it's awful, and sometimes I can catch a whiff of it from far off on certain summer evenings, but the distance dilutes the effect enough to where sometimes I forget just how bad it really is. Then one sprays right outside my window, and I'm reminded that it's a hundred times worse when it's right in front of you.
  
 Maybe I'm just increasingly sensitive to it these days, but I feel like Head-Fi has shifted significantly to the extreme subjectivist side (from an already comfortably subjectivist majority) in just the past few years, to the point that what happens regularly on the site is the kind of stuff I might have at one time put into a parody if I were really trying to make it sound stereotypical and ridiculous.
  
 It's not like this in any other hobby I'm interested in. For instance, I've been inching my way back into music creation lately, so I've been doing a lot of research on various keyboards, controller boards, software instruments, etc., which involves a copious amount of forum lurking. I have to say, as hyperbolic as some of the stuff I've read about music gear can be ("IT SOUNDS JUST LIKE A REAL PIANO!"), the truly ludicrous and/or zealous posts tend to be few in number and are confined mostly to new members who are just living out some new product rush. More experienced users' posts tend to be more nuanced and realistic, sometimes even jaded.
  
 It strikes me that the personal listening hobby is the only one I'm involved with in which the reverse is often true, where long time members may have started off believing all the hyperbole and mythical notions, and instead of eventually coming to the conclusion that things are rarely as good as they're made out to be, that many claims are downright false and unverifiable, and that there are hard limitations on the actual capabilities of the gear involved; they instead plunge even deeper into the subjectivism and hype train and become more convinced, not less, of the absolute incontrovertibility of relativism and superlative. And yes, in that last sentence I purposely made as many words as possible conflict with one another.
  
 This isn't really a post about which community I prefer. It's more a reflection on how spending some time in a different place makes you more aware, when you return, of the idiosyncrasies of the one you usually haunt, since you're usually there so often that you become numb to it. Coming back after a few weeks spent predominantly elsewhere and reading some of the linked threads, I'm struck by how _breathtakingly_ extreme the subjectivism and self confirmation bias are on Head-Fi.


----------



## Argyris

I just saw this linked from an Android Central comment--in a basic sense it accomplishes the wireless smartphone playback aspect of the Poly + Mojo combo (if I understand correctly, that is; the Chord site's copy makes my head feel a bit like it's full of jelly), except much more compactly and for much less money (of course):

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bluewave-wireless-hifi-headphone-amplifier-bluetooth-headphones#/
  
 Amusingly, I had the idea for just such a device years ago, down to the clip. Even back then there were rumors about Apple ditching the headphone port, and really, the writing is on the wall for the ultimate fate of wired headphones in the mainstream market and has been for some time. Since I'm unwilling to step down to using anything from among the current rather lackluster wireless headphone offerings, something like the Bluewave would eventually become a necessity if I nonetheless wanted to get rid of the wire. Not to mention, currently the Android market is following blindly in Apple's footsteps (as usual) and collectively ditching the headphone jacks from its latest phones, meaning if I wanted to use any of my current headphone stable I'd need to carry around an external amp or suffer an adapter dongle, anyway. My Nexus 5X will probably hang on for another year, and then it's time for a new (probably headphone jack-less) phone. Hopefully the Bluewave (or something like it) is available at the time, and for around the promised price of just under $100.
  
 I was worried that there might not be enough interest in the mainstream market for such a device and that it would be one of the boutique amp brands that made it, forcing me (and anyone else interested in the concept) to pay three or four times as much for subjectivist "benefits" like useless upsampling, a designer DAC and whatever the hell else. That said, the advertising copy on the Bluewave campaign page claims the device will make music sound noticeably better, so even this marginally more mainstream-oriented product seems to be using the subjectivist angle to sell.

 Whatever. What I'd really like is for somebody like FiiO to take a crack at the wireless amp + DAC concept. I wouldn't even mind if they made it the same form factor and relative size as my Q1 (at least in their initial offering) if they felt they couldn't offer a quality product any smaller, though the small size and ability to clip it anywhere on your clothing make the Bluewave the ideal form factor for this sort of thing, IMO.


----------



## james444

brooko said:


> If you want a real laugh - read from about here onward : http://www.head-fi.org/t/728236/ifi-idsd-micro-dsd512-pcm768-dac-and-headphone-amp-impressions-reviews-and-comments/7290#post_13162077
> 
> Pure *audiophool *BS


 
  
 I'd like to propose the term "*bunny*" as a slightly more benign sounding synonym.


----------



## watchnerd

james444 said:


> I'd like to propose the term "*bunny*" as a slightly more benign sounding synonym.


 
  
 Wasn't bunny banned (for some reason I still don't get...)?


----------



## watchnerd

argyris said:


> Coming back after a few weeks spent predominantly elsewhere and reading some of the linked threads, I'm struck by how _breathtakingly_ extreme the subjectivism and self confirmation bias are on Head-Fi.


 
  
 I concur, although WBF is just as bad, perhaps worse.
  
 I think a few things feed into it:
  
 1. Manufacturers need to sell gear to make money.  Finding new customers is harder than selling upgrades to existing ones.  So even if they know a lot it is hyperbole, it's not in the their interest to point this out at all or at least not too loudly.
  
 2. Sites sell sponsorships to #1.  Same conflict of interest, no reason to police out of control subjectivist claims.
  
 3. Dealerships are a dying institution, so the ability to compare / contrast, hear trade offs in person is diminished unless you attend a meet up.
  
 4. Headphones / head-fi hasn't yet entered the real of the priciest 2-channel stuff, where 'high end' these days seems to start at $25k per component, which is enough of a sticker shock to act as a limiting factor on large chunks of the user base.  So it's easier justify the next upgrade if it's *only* $200 for a cable, $1000 for better cans, $800 for a better amp, etc.
  
 4. Many sites wield the ban hammer if you question strong subjectivist claims, which means there is no contrasting information, the net result being an echo chamber that whips itself into religious ecstasy about the newest 'miracle'.


----------



## HotIce

argyris said:


> I just saw this linked from an Android Central comment--in a basic sense it accomplishes the wireless smartphone playback aspect of the Poly + Mojo combo (if I understand correctly, that is; the Chord site's copy makes my head feel a bit like it's full of jelly), except much more compactly and for much less money (of course):
> 
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bluewave-wireless-hifi-headphone-amplifier-bluetooth-headphones#/
> 
> ...


 
  
 After having gotten a pair of B&W P7 BT, it became clearer to me that the future is wireless.
 BT HPs can sound great, and the beauty of not having cables around you, and drop another 1..2 pieces of gear, is just that good to pass on.
 You do have the drawback of extra weight for battery (mainly) and circuitry, but it can be made manageable.
 The P7 is not the most comfortable HP I own, but truth is, independently from the BT gear, that is a sturdy HP.
 The key is extra sensitive drivers, so battery requirements (and size -> weight) drops.
 Circuitry wise, you notice that many of the glorified HP amps around the audiophile community, are just a glorified opamp with some frosting on top.
 From DAC POV, one of the most used DACs for me, if the tiny winy DAC within the Apple Lightning -> 30pin connector, which teaches that you can make tiny DACs 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Sooner some ASIC embedding BT receiver, DAC, and AMP, might show up, the size of nothing.
  
 Vastly increasing sales of BT HPs seems to confirm the trend.


----------



## U-3C

james444 said:


> I'd like to propose the term "*bunny*" as a slightly more benign sounding synonym.




Bunnies~! <3 :3


----------



## Brooko

james444 said:


> I'd like to propose the term "*bunny*" as a slightly more benign sounding synonym.




Yep - ouch. Walked into that one didn't I. A Mod guilty of labelling someone - after advising you guys that we shouldn't. I'll leave my post there as a reminder that no-one should do it. And I apologise unreservedly (I shall admonish myself severely)


----------



## U-3C

hotice said:


> After having gotten a pair of B&W P7 BT, it became clearer to me that the future is wireless.
> BT HPs can sound great, and the beauty of not having cables around you, and drop another 1..2 pieces of gear, is just that good to pass on.
> You do have the drawback of extra weight for battery (mainly) and circuitry, but it can be made manageable.
> The P7 is not the most comfortable HP I own, but truth is, independently from the BT gear, that is a sturdy HP.
> ...




The P7 are a beautiful pair of headphones. :O

Never tried them, but I did try the P5 series 2. Hated the sound personally (though I think I know what B&W was going for), but indeed a beautiful construction. The only gripe I had was the cable and its locking mechanism. It's a rubbery, bouncy one like the one on the Philips SHE3590. Lots of friction, which tends to get caught on stuff and gets pulled off. Very frustrating when you have to go through these things multiple times a day: 






Even though I move my cables out if the way, my IEMs still get tugged/smashed to the ground once in a while. The locking mechanism in the P5, though cool, doesn't really make me happy as I'd rather the cable disconnect with a strong tug than a mechanism that reinforces the connection when the cable is clearly under high stress.

Fix the sound and remove the stupid cable, and it will be perfect! 

P7 + wifi = Perfection.

Q. E. D.


-----------

^makes sense? 0v0


----------



## U-3C

brooko said:


> Yep - ouch. Walked into that one didn't I. A Mod guilty of labelling someone - after advising you guys that we shouldn't. I'll leave my post there as a reminder that no-one should do it. And I apologise unreservedly (I shall admonish myself severely)




As Castle says..."Do as I say, not as I do." 

...

...wait...he was the one that said we should use the term bunnies but he stopped doing that act of labeling...


----------



## warrior1975

brooko said:


> Yep - ouch. Walked into that one didn't I. A Mod guilty of labelling someone - after advising you guys that we shouldn't. I'll leave my post there as a reminder that no-one should do it. And I apologise unreservedly (I shall admonish myself severely)




I've already reported your posts to the mods sir.


----------



## watchnerd

u-3c said:


> P7 + wifi = Perfection.
> 
> Q. E. D.
> 
> ^makes sense? 0v0


 
  
 So how is a budding audio tweakist gearslut placebophile supposed to have his needs met with BT headphones and WiFi?
  
 There's nothing left to do!


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

HF has hit an all time low...
  
 "Here's the math that shows an AK100 can easily drive HD800s"
  
 "I don't believe numbers. Numbers lie."
  
 What the hell are you supposed to say to that?!


----------



## watchnerd

grumpyoldguy said:


> HF has hit an all time low...
> 
> "Here's the math that shows an AK100 can easily drive HD800s"
> 
> ...


 
  
 where was that said?


----------



## uchihaitachi

On a separate topic, what do you guys set/recommend setting for the computer audio. 16 or 24, and at what khz? I presume the most prudent option would be to have the same settings for my itunes playback?
  
 I am not sure if upsampling or downsampling would be the better option. I had no idea but my new motherboard seems to support 24/192 (not that i have those recordings at that resolution), although several albums at higher resolution that red book parameters. Advice would be appreciated!


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

watchnerd said:


> where was that said?


 
  
 Poly thread


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

uchihaitachi said:


>


 
  
 I don't expect there would be an audible difference, but it would probably be best to match the source file.


----------



## GuyUnder

If you are running a Windows system, here are my recommendations in order:

1. Use a bit-perfect driver. WASAPI, kernel streaming, and ASIO. If you have to, use ASIO4ALL. The Windows audio mixer must be bypassed.

2. Use of a USB filter, such as the Jitterbug, iPurifier, etc. If using TOSlink, use either a glass quartz or high grade plastic core cable. If using an RCA plug SPDIF connection make sure you are using a high quality cable rated for 75 ohms.

3. Use of a dedicated audio PC with minimal noise: fanless, minimal components, SSD on external power or diskless using a NAS. Low ripple or a linear PSU. Use of an audio optimizer like Fidelizer.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

guyunder said:


> If you are running a Windows system, here are my recommendations in order:
> 
> 1. Use a bit-perfect driver. WASAPI, kernel streaming, and ASIO. If you have to, use ASIO4ALL. The Windows audio mixer must be bypassed.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Only the first item answers his question.... and even then, it doesn't really.
  
 I get the suspicion from the rest of your answers that sound science isn't your most frequented forum....


----------



## GuyUnder

I assume his concern is for getting the best audio out of his system.

I post here now and then, generally for educational purposes.


----------



## gregorio

guyunder said:


> 1. I assume his concern is for getting the best audio out of his system.
> 
> 2. I post here now and then, generally for educational purposes.


 
  
 1. So why did you suggest spending money on items which do not improve the quality of the audio?
  
 2. Try reading this forum rather than posting or, try posting questions rather than advice. You'll find that much more effective for your education, if that is your purpose!
  
 G


----------



## U-3C

guyunder said:


> If you are running a Windows system, here are my recommendations in order:
> 
> 1. Use a bit-perfect driver. WASAPI, kernel streaming, and ASIO. If you have to, use ASIO4ALL. The Windows audio mixer must be bypassed.
> 
> ...




0.0;


----------



## uchihaitachi

grumpyoldguy said:


> Only the first item answers his question.... and even then, it doesn't really.
> 
> I get the suspicion from the rest of your answers that sound science isn't your most frequented forum....


 
 I was thinking he was joking around lol
  
 You think redbook specs would be best? For both outputs?


----------



## cel4145

argyris said:


> Whatever. What I'd really like is for somebody like FiiO to take a crack at the wireless amp + DAC concept. I wouldn't even mind if they made it the same form factor and relative size as my Q1 (at least in their initial offering) if they felt they couldn't offer a quality product any smaller, though the small size and ability to clip it anywhere on your clothing make the Bluewave the ideal form factor for this sort of thing, IMO.




Or, after GRUMPYOLDGUY's description of his DIY portable Chromecast Audio, how about one of those with a headphone amp added and a built in rechargeable battery? Everything else is already there


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> Or, after GRUMPYOLDGUY's description of his DIY portable Chromecast Audio, how about one of those with a headphone amp added and a built in rechargeable battery? Everything else is already there


 

 Considering he threw out the idea while he was ranting and literally slapped a whole functional product together on his way home from work, I'm sure creating one with a more elegant chassis isn't that hard or expensive...unless you want to make a solution with multiple processors strapped on a 10 layer PCB and charge 600 bucks.
  
 R&D at its finest.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> Considering he threw out the idea while he was ranting and literally slapped a whole functional product together on his way home from work, I'm sure creating one with a more elegant chassis isn't that hard or expensive...unless you want to make a solution with multiple processors strapped on a 10 layer PCB and charge 600 bucks.
> 
> R&D at its finest. :rolleyes:




I think someone who was more inclined than I (read: not a lazy slob) would be able to easily put something together that would be more product-like.


----------



## U-3C

grumpyoldguy said:


> I think someone who was more inclined than I (read: not a lazy slob) would be able to easily put something together that would be more product-like.




If even a lazy person can find such a good solution, why bother spend another 565 dollars?


----------



## GuyUnder

All my recommendations will improve audio quality.

1. Use of a bit-perfect driver stops the Windows audio mixer from compromising the sound.

2. The use of a USB filter / isolator attenuates noise from the bus power which greatly improves DAC performance. 

3. Building a dedicated audio PC with decoupled disk storage eliminates noise from moving parts and SSD power from the rails. A high grade PSU reduces power noise; a linear PSU helps eliminate leakage currents. A fully tuned Windows results in less EMI and noise from the CPU.

You don't have to spend thousands on power and transport chain products (like I have) to get very good audio from a PC. Everyone can use an ASIO driver and a $50 Jitterbug which will give anyone a level of quality about 80% of my reference chain.


----------



## watchnerd

u-3c said:


> If even a lazy person can find such a good solution, why bother spend another 565 dollars?


 
  
 Placebophile street cred.
  
 Audio enthusiasts used to get kudos for doing stuff on the cheap / and or building stuff themselves.
  
 Now most are just consumers focused on bling to impress each other.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

uchihaitachi said:


> I was thinking he was joking around lol
> 
> You think redbook specs would be best? For both outputs?




I think the best general rule of thumb is to do your best to maintain a bit perfect data path. If your source material is red book, then yes, I would use red book settings in Windows.


----------



## HotIce

guyunder said:


> All my recommendations will improve audio quality.
> 
> 1. Use of a bit-perfect driver stops the Windows audio mixer from compromising the sound.


 
  
 Just set your device to the maximum sample-size/bitrate that your device+PC+OS can safely support, and you can drop SW which all it does it selecting them according to source format.
 As far as computer audio libraries doing re-sampling, nowadays all such libraries have achieved a pretty high standard.
 From authors of a popular player (foobar2000 - which might have interest in claiming their SW sounding better than others WRT re-sampling qualities):
  
 http://www.foobar2000.org/FAQ
  
Does foobar2000 sound better than other players? No. Most of “sound quality differences” people “hear” are placebo effect (at least with real music), as actual differences in produced sound data are below their noise floor (1 or 2 last bits in 16bit samples). foobar2000 has sound processing features such as software resampling or 24bit output on new high-end soundcards, but most of the other mainstream players are capable of doing the same by now.


  
  


> 2. The use of a USB filter / isolator attenuates noise from the bus power which greatly improves DAC performance


 
  
 Any decent DAC already has filtering in front of the DAC power source. And for decent I don't mean $1K+.
 Even a $2 LC filter, in the proper place within the DAC circuitry, can drop noise to insignificant level.
 None of my DACs requires USB "purifiers", and the USB cables leading to them are not exactly short.
  
  


> 3. Building a dedicated audio PC with decoupled disk storage eliminates noise from moving parts and SSD power from the rails. A high grade PSU reduces power noise; a linear PSU helps eliminate leakage currents. A fully tuned Windows results in less EMI and noise from the CPU.


 
  
 A few things which helps reminding:
  

USB is digital
USB packets have CRC
If noise (or "bad" cables 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) mucks up a USB packet, CRC verification fails, and it gets re-transmitted
If re-transmission rate so high that the downstream device is let starve (according to sample-size/bitrate combo) for data, you have audio skips
Otherwise, if despite re-transmissions you are within the required device feeding parameters, there are no effects whatsoever in the audio reproduction

Audio skips are a definitely audible event, no need to guess or invoke spiritual AB tests
There is no soundstage compression, of female vocals souding congested, or cellos missing their vibe ... the sound just cracks

If you don't hear audio skips, you need no USB purifiers, beautifiers, magic software managers, or voodoo rituals


----------



## GuyUnder

hotice said:


> Just set your device to the maximum sample-size/bitrate that your device+PC+OS can safely support, and you can drop SW which all it does it selecting them according to source format.
> As far as computer audio libraries doing re-sampling, nowadays all such libraries have achieved a pretty high standard.
> From authors of a popular player (foobar2000 - which might have interest in claiming their SW sounding better than others WRT re-sampling qualities):
> 
> ...


 
  
 The author of Foobar is wrong.
  
 DACs, even little baby ones that rely on ICs for everything, do of course smooth out power supplies. However, when we are discussing noise introduced by USB, the dirty bus noise gets into the power network (rails and ground plane), and even DACs with galvanic isolation on the input (which are uncommon by itself) do not stop all of the noise. The other source of noise is the USB receiver processing USB data which it does at approximately 8 kHz. DACs heavily rely on their clocks to correct the worst jitter introduced by the USB connections, but those crystal oscillators based clock circuits are very sensitive to noise. 
  
 USB data is digital, the electric impulse that carries the data is analogue.
  
 USB audio streams do not perform error correction, they are real-time.
  
 Poor quality cables with poor shielding, no EMI rejection, low-quality conductors, fails to conform to USB cable standards, etc, help with introducing jitter.
  
 Breaks in audio occur when the stream is unintelligible and the DAC can't fix it. Jitter introduced by time errors caused by bad cables, naked USB power lines and self-noise, etc, smears the signal in a slight way that nevertheless has a large impact on sound quality. Anyone can buy a Jitterbug for $50 and see the difference for themselves. The Jitterbug simply filters the USB's signal and power lines, and that by itself will have a large impact. The Schiit Wyrd strips the USB bus power and rebuilds the signal from its own power supply and clock (essentially an audio-grade powered USB hub). Higher up the technical competence chain, you have products like the UpTone REGEN that go through further isolation and conditioning of power. Lots of people simply decouple USB from their chain entirely using products that carry audio over Ethernet (which is 100% galvaniaclly isolated from the source). If you have a PCM-only DAC, you'd be better off using SPDIF or AES (which ALSO generate self-noise on the receiver, but they operate at a much slower rate compared to USB so the problem isn't nearly as bad).
  
 If I wasn't so heavy into ultra high-rate DSD, I'd probably just connect to my DAC with a high quality TOSlink cable and call it a day as it is completely immune to power noise and EMI.


----------



## U-3C

guyunder said:


> Poor quality cables with poor shielding, no EMI rejection, low-quality conductors, fails to conform to USB cable standards, etc, help with introducing jitter.


 

 But...it literally takes pennies to get a cable that conforms to USB cable standards and has proper shielding...0.0
  
 If it doesn't conform to USB cable standards...why is it even being purchased...


----------



## spruce music

guyunder said:


> The author of Foobar is wrong.
> 
> DACs, even little baby ones that rely on ICs for everything, do of course smooth out power supplies. However, when we are discussing noise introduced by USB, the dirty bus noise gets into the power network (rails and ground plane), and even DACs with galvanic isolation on the input (which are uncommon by itself) do not stop all of the noise. The other source of noise is the USB receiver processing USB data which it does at approximately 8 kHz. DACs heavily rely on their clocks to correct the worst jitter introduced by the USB connections, but those crystal oscillators based clock circuits are very sensitive to noise.
> 
> ...


 

 Do you realize that there is no clock embedded in the USB audio connection?
  
 Do you realize the Regen has been measured and shown by more than one person to introduce additional noise?
  
 Do you realize SPDIF does have an embedded clock that will introduce some additional jitter unlike USB?
  
 Do you realize when using asynchronous USB for audio the crystal clock right next to the actual DA itself is used which will give the lowest jitter (again because USB has no embedded clock to which audio must synch to)?
  
 Do you realize the errors the Jitterbug talks about would cause an obvious momentary drop out, and for the most part those nearly never happen with USB audio?
  
 Do you realize people like Gordon Rankin (Wavelength audio) tested lots of boutique audiophile USB cables and found many of them fail to conform to the USB standards, while simple cables like the Belden USB cables conform to the standards just fine?
  
 Do you have any knowledge of digital audio that didn't come from an ad in an audiophile magazine or reviews of gear in audiophile magazines?


----------



## HotIce

guyunder said:


> The author of Foobar is wrong.


 
  
 Right, of course he is  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  


> DACs, even little baby ones that rely on ICs for everything, do of course smooth out power supplies. However, when we are discussing noise introduced by USB, the dirty bus noise gets into the power network (rails and ground plane), and even DACs with galvanic isolation on the input (which are uncommon by itself) do not stop all of the noise. The other source of noise is the USB receiver processing USB data which it does at approximately 8 kHz. DACs heavily rely on their clocks to correct the worst jitter introduced by the USB connections, but those crystal oscillators based clock circuits are very sensitive to noise.


 
   
 And you think DACs clock generation circuitry taps straight into the USB VBUS w/out extra filtering and regulation?
  
  
 Quote:


> USB data is digital, the electric impulse that carries the data is analogue.


 
  
 USB signal is digital, transmitted in differential form. But the D+ and D- lines are carrying a signal which switches between two voltage levels.
 The waveform you can see with an oscilloscope might not be a perfect square wave (even because of the pretty high output impedance - due to mandatory output resistors, and L/C line characteristics), but that does not mean it is analogue 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  


> USB audio streams do not perform error correction, they are real-time.


 
   
 Even iso-chronus channels carry CRC information, and bad packets dropped as such by the device, creates very much audible effects.
 Same issue, the device finds itself w/out data to play for a given time window.
 No voodoo rituals necessary to discover if you have these problems.
 And if you don't you can avoid auto-scamming yourself with the magic conditioners du-jour.
  
  
  
 Quote:


> Poor quality cables with poor shielding, no EMI rejection, low-quality conductors, fails to conform to USB cable standards, etc, help with introducing jitter.
> 
> Breaks in audio occur when the stream is unintelligible and the DAC can't fix it. Jitter introduced by time errors caused by bad cables, naked USB power lines and self-noise, etc, smears the signal in a slight way that nevertheless has a large impact on sound quality. Anyone can buy a Jitterbug for $50 and see the difference for themselves. The Jitterbug simply filters the USB's signal and power lines, and that by itself will have a large impact. The Schiit Wyrd strips the USB bus power and rebuilds the signal from its own power supply and clock (essentially an audio-grade powered USB hub). Higher up the technical competence chain, you have products like the UpTone REGEN that go through further isolation and conditioning of power. Lots of people simply decouple USB from their chain entirely using products that carry audio over Ethernet (which is 100% galvaniaclly isolated from the source). If you have a PCM-only DAC, you'd be better off using SPDIF or AES (which ALSO generate self-noise on the receiver, but they operate at a much slower rate compared to USB so the problem isn't nearly as bad).
> 
> If I wasn't so heavy into ultra high-rate DSD, I'd probably just connect to my DAC with a high quality TOSlink cable and call it a day as it is completely immune to power noise and EMI.


 
  
 s/Higher up the technical competence chain/Higher up the SCAM chain/g
  
 But, as usual, we are always ready to setup up a scientific A/B test where you audiophile ears can show us how it's done, and detect the effects of conditioners, purifiers, magic software, over a straight, decently designed DAC.


----------



## GuyUnder

spruce music said:


> Do you realize that there is no clock embedded in the USB audio connection?
> 
> Do you realize the Regen has been measured and shown by more than one person to introduce additional noise?
> 
> ...


 
  
 The edge of the electrical impulse of the USB signal is the clock.
  
 I doubt the information regarding the REGEN considering the lengthy degree of engineering and research that went into this product.
  
 SPDIF is susceptible to jitter of course, but the trade-off with USB's severe failings are generally positive.
  
 I don't know who Gordon Rankin is. I'm sure he could cherry pick "boutique" cables which don't conform to USB standards and/or under-perform.


----------



## watchnerd

hotice said:


> And you think DACs clock generation circuitry taps straight into the USB VBUS w/out extra filtering and regulation?


 
  
 Even my cheapie $50 HiFiBerry Digi+ Pro board has 2 oscillator chips to create a clock signal independent of any bus.


----------



## GuyUnder

hotice said:


> Right, of course he is
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 All you need to do is buy a $50 Jitterbug. It can't be that hard...


----------



## Brooko

guyunder said:


> All you need to do is buy a $50 Jitterbug. It can't be that hard...


 
  
 I trialled both the Jitterbug and the iPurifier2 - Twister6 sent me the Jitterbug.
  
 Neither made any difference - and the iPurifier2 was actually measurably noisier.  Still below the noise floor though.  My uptake from actually blind-testing both products - waste of my money.  Thank goodness I won one, and the other was a loaner.
  
 Alex also sent me an Audioquest USB cable to try.  It was pretty.  There was no audible differences.


----------



## HotIce

guyunder said:


> All you need to do is buy a $50 Jitterbug. It can't be that hard...


 
  
 That looks like an awful amount of money for an LC filter?


----------



## GuyUnder

brooko said:


> I trialled both the Jitterbug and the iPurifier2 - Twister6 sent me the Jitterbug.
> 
> Neither made any difference - and the iPurifier2 was actually measurably noisier.  Still below the noise floor though.  My uptake from actually blind-testing both products - waste of my money.  Thank goodness I won one, and the other was a loaner.
> 
> Alex also sent me an Audioquest USB cable to try.  It was pretty.  There was no audible differences.




What is your source chain?


----------



## james444

guyunder said:


> What is your source chain?


 
  
 The most predictable counterquestion in audiophile discussions.


----------



## Brooko

Mostly PC > iDSD, but tried it with the NFB-12, Aune X1S, and even a DAC Box RS which I was reviewing (had them both at the same time - so made sense).  I can only relate my own experience - but neither device made any difference (with exception of the iPurifier2 which increased the THD+N)
  
 PC is home built - about 3 years old.  Jitterbug was tested with T1 and iPurifier2 with HD800S.  Can't see what the chain has to do with anything though.


----------



## spruce music

guyunder said:


> The edge of the electrical impulse of the USB signal is the clock.
> 
> I doubt the information regarding the REGEN considering the lengthy degree of engineering and research that went into this product.
> 
> ...


 

 Gordon Rankin developed the code for asynchronous USB audio which is what nearly all quality USB DAC inputs use.  You can add him to the list of people who understand digital audio that you don't know about with Monty.  Besides if boutique cables were half of what they claimed to be there would be no cherry picking possible.  What they are is digital patent medicine hucksters push on the naive audiophiles. 
  
 The USB signal is for transferring data.  It has no connection to the clocking of audio data for playback.  Got it....NO connection....zero as in nothing.  One of USB audio's significant strengths is being divorced from the clock allowing data to be clocked out by crystal clocks that don't need to synch to an external clock.  You might know this if you knew anything not from audiophile press clippings about digital audio.
  
 I am well aware of the development of Regen.   The measurements are correct, it increases noise, specifically 8 khz noise in the output of DACs.  You betray your placebo-phile leanings by writing about USB severe failings.  USB has several strengths.  The failings were methodically developed to create a problem in the minds of audiophiles that products like the Regen claim to solve when there isn't one. Going from one of the key developments of computer based audio, those hucksters have inculcated a fear of USB connections that is like that of zombies.  A PT Barnum hall of fame achievement that. USB audio is so good it leaves little room for improvement.  So they develop the reverse idea and profit from fixing a non-problem and making people afraid of the issues with a sensible, measurably high fidelity, inexpensive way to play back audio.


----------



## gregorio

spruce music said:


> Gordon Rankin developed the code for asynchronous USB audio which is what nearly all quality USB DAC inputs use.  You can add him to the list of people who understand digital audio that you don't know about with Monty.  ...


 
  
 Now why did you have to go and do that? Bringing facts and science into the science forum and objectivity to a thread about objectivity, that's just disrespectful to members like GuyUnder. I mean honestly, at least use some flowery metaphors and quote something pertinent from the Nordhost Cables website. I've got half a mind to report you to the mods! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 G


----------



## GuyUnder

brooko said:


> Mostly PC > iDSD, but tried it with the NFB-12, Aune X1S, and even a DAC Box RS which I was reviewing (had them both at the same time - so made sense).  I can only relate my own experience - but neither device made any difference (with exception of the iPurifier2 which increased the THD+N)
> 
> PC is home built - about 3 years old.  Jitterbug was tested with T1 and iPurifier2 with HD800S.  Can't see what the chain has to do with anything though.




The iDSD has an iPurifier built into it.

The NFB-12 I can't comment on. Audio-gd gear typically have very robust circuits and so may see less benefit from a filter. Likewise I can't comment on the other 2 products, except that there is a Head-Fi review that said he couldn't tell the difference with the X1S while he could with other DACs.


----------



## GuyUnder

spruce music said:


> Gordon Rankin developed the code for asynchronous USB audio which is what nearly all quality USB DAC inputs use.  You can add him to the list of people who understand digital audio that you don't know about with Monty.  Besides if boutique cables were half of what they claimed to be there would be no cherry picking possible.  What they are is digital patent medicine hucksters push on the naive audiophiles.
> 
> The USB signal is for transferring data.  It has no connection to the clocking of audio data for playback.  Got it....NO connection....zero as in nothing.  One of USB audio's significant strengths is being divorced from the clock allowing data to be clocked out by crystal clocks that don't need to synch to an external clock.  You might know this if you knew anything not from audiophile press clippings about digital audio.
> 
> I am well aware of the development of Regen.   The measurements are correct, it increases noise, specifically 8 khz noise in the output of DACs.  You betray your placebo-phile leanings by writing about USB severe failings.  USB has several strengths.  The failings were methodically developed to create a problem in the minds of audiophiles that products like the Regen claim to solve when there isn't one. Going from one of the key developments of computer based audio, those hucksters have inculcated a fear of USB connections that is like that of zombies.  A PT Barnum hall of fame achievement that. USB audio is so good it leaves little room for improvement.  So they develop the reverse idea and profit from fixing a non-problem and making people afraid of the issues with a sensible, measurably high fidelity, inexpensive way to play back audio.




A lot of boutique cable manufacturers simply make DIY style cables with no special geometry shielding or other technology.

The statement that USB audio has no connection to the clock is false. The clock reference is the square wave of a digital signal. You're trying to hard to make me "wrong" on something.

In regards to the conspiracy theory about manufacturers I have no comment.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

guyunder said:


> You're trying to hard to make me "wrong" on something.




All due respect, I don't think anyone has to "try" with much of what you have claimed here.


----------



## HotIce

guyunder said:


> The statement that USB audio has no connection to the clock is false. The clock reference is the square wave of a digital signal.


 
  
 So it is suddenly a square wave and a digital signal? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 BTW, the USB level signaling clock, and the DAC internal clock, are two totally different things.


----------



## castleofargh

guyunder said:


> All you need to do is buy a $50 Jitterbug. It can't be that hard...


 
 this reminds me of anticheat systems in online games when I was a valiant low+ veteran
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. some hacks weren't detected and we all had the obvious question "why don't you guys buy the hack and find how it works and how to stop it?" one of those was like 20$ surely they could afford it. and the answer was always the same. "we don't buy hacks because that would mean giving money to the very people making a living with cheats". it's a philosophical problem. a sort of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" kind of logic. I personally won't buy any magic box of any sort just for the sake of testing them on problems I know I don't have. I will never give money to A&K(I was very fine with iriver and sensible pricing), I will never buy a 300$ or more cable, I will not buy a DAC just to have MQA, I will not buy a pono just to check if there is non linearity into a given load or how much power I can actually use into a few loads....
  
 I give my money for stuff I suspect to be great, not for stuff I suspect to have no or a negative impact and very little factual data on the effect. if a tech was to consistently improve stuff objectively, it would be so simple to demonstrate it objectively and get golden street creds for that. when a products spends too much on marketing talking about the technology and too little demonstrating the effect, you can often make your own conclusion.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> this reminds me of anticheat systems in online games when I was a valiant low+ veteran . some hacks weren't detected and we all had the obvious question "why don't you guys buy the hack and find how it works and how to stop it?" one of those was like 20$ surely they could afford it. and the answer was always the same. "we don't buy hacks because that would mean giving money to the very people making a living with cheats". it's a philosophical problem. a sort of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" kind of logic. I personally won't buy any magic box of any sort just for the sake of testing them on problems I know I don't have. I will never give money to A&K(I was very fine with iriver and sensible pricing), I will never buy a 300$ or more cable, I will not buy a DAC just to have MQA, I will not buy a pono just to check if there is non linearity into a given load or how much power I can actually use into a few loads....
> 
> I give my money for stuff I suspect to be great, not for stuff I suspect to have no or a negative impact and very little factual data on the effect. if a tech was to consistently improve stuff objectively, it would be so simple to demonstrate it objectively and get golden street creds for that. when a products spends too much on marketing talking about the technology and too little demonstrating the effect, you can often make your own conclusion.




50 dollars is a lot too for many people... 

*Thinks of all the cheap food I can buy in Chinatown*

In this case, it's not even spending money to figure out the hack, which will result in some benefit. It's straight out telling one to sirens money on something they don't need, when they were asking a completely unrelated question: what settings should I put my computer on.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

castleofargh said:


> this reminds me of anticheat systems in online games when I was a valiant low+ veteran
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Exactly. It's the same problem I'm having in another thread...
  
 The "you should just buy it to see if the claims are true" mentality is nonsense. It should be the burden of the person making the claims to substantiate them... Why should I pay X amount of dollars to do your job for you?


----------



## watchnerd

Why do I need a $20/$30/$50  Arglebargle 2000 Jitter B' Gone or similar device of any kind if all my jitter measures below what is audible?
  
 I don't take meds for conditions I don't have.


----------



## GuyUnder

You can buy it from Amazon and return it no questions asked if it makes no difference?

The Jitterbug is a filter. It probably won't do much for a battery-operated device that has clean power to begin with. It also won't do a lot for systems that uses galvanic isolation on the input (the filtering is built into the gear in that case).

If you want step up to isolation / regeneration, the Schiit Wyrd is effective at $100, and will likely have a positive effect on a wider range of products but it's powered so not mobile.

In the realm of computer audio tweaks and upgrades these are cheap and effective.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

guyunder said:


> You can buy it from Amazon and return it no questions asked if it makes no difference?
> 
> The Jitterbug is a filter. It probably won't do much for a battery-operated device that has clean power to begin with. It also won't do a lot for systems that uses galvanic isolation on the input (the filtering is built into the gear in that case).
> 
> ...


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

guyunder said:


> You can buy it from Amazon and return it no questions asked if it makes no difference?
> 
> The Jitterbug is a filter. It probably won't do much for a battery-operated device that has clean power to begin with. It also won't do a lot for systems that uses galvanic isolation on the input (the filtering is built into the gear in that case).
> 
> ...


 
  
 Edit: Nah. I'm going to stick with the meme.


----------



## watchnerd

guyunder said:


> You can buy it from Amazon and return it no questions asked if it makes no difference?


 
  
 I don't take aspirin to try out to see if it "makes a difference" when I don't have a headache.
  
 I don't have audible jitter.  How do I know this?
  
 1. All my devices have jitter measurements below the audible threshold.
  
 2. I know what jitter sounds like; I've done listening tests where you can increase the jitter to hear what it sounds like.
  
 3. I don't hear the sounds of jitter when I play music.
  
 Ergo, I don't need to buy random things that claim  to solve problems I don't have.


----------



## U-3C

guyunder said:


> You can buy it from Amazon and return it no questions asked if it makes no difference?
> 
> The Jitterbug is a filter. It probably won't do much for a battery-operated device that has clean power to begin with. It also won't do a lot for systems that uses galvanic isolation on the input (the filtering is built into the gear in that case).
> 
> ...




I thought in the realm of computer audio tweaks...cheap means free? :blink: I certainly found many free solutions that far surpassed amazing audio gear that cost s thousands, no matter how hard I try to compare, to a point that I actually upset the guys at local audio retailers. 

50 dollars for many, including me, is a lot to spend, especially for such small things.


----------



## Brooko

guyunder said:


> The iDSD has an iPurifier built into it.
> 
> The NFB-12 I can't comment on. Audio-gd gear typically have very robust circuits and so may see less benefit from a filter. Likewise I can't comment on the other 2 products, except that there is a Head-Fi review that said he couldn't tell the difference with the X1S while he could with other DACs.


 
  
 I'm a bit confused here.  Apparently the Wyrd or iPurifier2 or Jiitterbug would all increase my fidelity (your claim) when already I've measured the iPurifier2 and it introduces distortion, not reduces it. I've also run blind tests with the Jitterbug, and noticed no difference.
  
 My question to you - have you run a volume matched blind test with any of this gear you've suggested, and been able to tell the difference to a statistically relevant level?  I'm guessing by your posts so far - the answer to that would be no.  If yes - and we could arrange it - would you be willing to take part in an experiment in controlled conditions (so it could actually be independently monitored)?
  
 Now you're telling em if I have a decent DAC - then the results wouldn't be noticeable.  I pretty much knew that already - but thanks.  Most DACs are decently made now - even stuff that some people would turn their noses at because they are too cheap.  But I digress.
  
 Furthermore - you've stated that the developers of Foobar are wrong with their statement regarding placebo and real music - but have not said why.  I'd suggest you demonstrate it - and show some empirical testing, as the personal tests I've run would indicate I can't tell the difference with upsampling or downsampling after volume matching (feel free to tell my I have tin-ears at this stage - that is the normal route after questioning my audio chain). 
  
 Thirdly - can you explain this:


> The statement that USB audio has no connection to the clock is false. The clock reference is the square wave of a digital signal. You're trying to hard to make me "wrong" on something.


 
  
 So you're saying a digital signal now has analogue components?  I am thoroughly confused.  Or maybe its you.  I'm trying to be really polite here - but the hole you're digging, in this particular thread, just gets deeper and deeper.  Perhaps you'd like to quit while you're behind?


----------



## cel4145

I wish this member would go post this observation from the Realtek discussion thread in the Chord Mojo thread so we could watch the uproar: 



bzzzzzt said:


> Just stumbled upon this post. There is some real truth here. I have owned several DACs. I just assumed my new 2016 Realtek DAC would suck. _It managed to boot my Chord Mojo off my system._




:evil:


----------



## watchnerd

cel4145 said:


> I wish this member would go post this observation from the Realtek discussion thread in the Chord Mojo thread so we could watch the uproar:


 
  
 Live by the hype, die by the hype.
  
 Now Realtek will be crowned a 'Mojo killer' and become FOTM for a while.


----------



## nick_charles

watchnerd said:


> I don't have audible jitter.  How do I know this?
> 
> 2. I know what jitter sounds like; I've done listening tests where you can increase the jitter to hear what it sounds like.


 
  
 Interesting, how did you get such a wonderous jitter inducer and how much jitter was audible to you ? I've never owned even a cheap device where I suspected jitter to be an issue. But if you really want possibly audible jitter you need to spend a lot of money..McIntosh Jitter


----------



## watchnerd

nick_charles said:


> Interesting, how did you get such a wonderous jitter inducer and how much jitter was audible to you ? I've never owned even a cheap device where I suspected jitter to be an issue. But if you really want possibly audible jitter you need to spend a lot of money..McIntosh Jitter


 
  
 I've done it two ways:
  
 1. Used a VST plugin for ProTools to add it to my own mixes to see what happens.  This allowed me to gradually increase the jitter.
  
 2. There are several online tests.  Try this one: http://www.cranesong.com/jitter_1.html
  
 Also, this one: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,106076.0.html


----------



## warrior1975

cel4145 said:


> I wish this member would go post this observation from the Realtek discussion thread in the Chord Mojo thread so we could watch the uproar:
> :evil:







watchnerd said:


> Live by the hype, die by the hype.
> 
> Now Realtek will be crowned a 'Mojo killer' and become FOTM for a while.




That would cause quite the stir... The Internet could very well explode. I'd definitely enjoy the reactions.


----------



## U-3C

Hey, I always enjoyed my onboard realtek over my CEntrance hi-fi DAC! The CEntrance DAC is actually a noisier due to some usb issues when I tested it, but it's not audible at all.

My onboard is also dead quiet while my dedicated DAC has a very high noise floor (and to think they advertised it for the SE846, claiming it's a perfect pairing.  )


----------



## GuyUnder

brooko said:


> I'm a bit confused here.  Apparently the Wyrd or iPurifier2 or Jiitterbug would all increase my fidelity (your claim) when already I've measured the iPurifier2 and it introduces distortion, not reduces it. I've also run blind tests with the Jitterbug, and noticed no difference.




In the case of the iDSD that is the expected result as the iDSD has an iPurifier built into it. You've admitted that you tested the Jitterbug mostly with the iDSD.



> My question to you - have you run a volume matched blind test with any of this gear you've suggested, and been able to tell the difference to a statistically relevant level?  I'm guessing by your posts so far - the answer to that would be no.  If yes - and we could arrange it - would you be willing to take part in an experiment in controlled conditions (so it could actually be independently monitored)?




I run comparisons all the time. Due to the nature of these experiments blind testing is impossible. Where volume is a concern I do my best by ear. Generally if I feel a difference seems to be attributable to a slight volume imbalance I would chalk it up to "in my head" or really a level imbalance. I often go back to old configurations and gear to double-check that Ive actually achieved an upgrade.

I've taken ABX tests (using Foobar ABX add-on) for certain sound tests but I found them overall useless as minute differences between, for example -- 96kHz and 44.1kHz -- were quickly muddled after minutes of rapid ABX switching.



> Furthermore - you've stated that the developers of Foobar are wrong with their statement regarding placebo and real music - but have not said why.  I'd suggest you demonstrate it - and show some empirical testing, as the personal tests I've run would indicate I can't tell the difference with upsampling or downsampling after volume matching (feel free to tell my I have tin-ears at this stage - that is the normal route after questioning my audio chain).




The technology and understanding of neuroscience doesn't exist yet to empirically measure with accuracy the true quality of music that is perceived by the listener.

Anyone should be able to tell the difference between a NOS DAC and a modern DS DAC when, for example, playing a CD through them. I would agree that a minor difference of aliasing present between a 44.1 kHz sample as a 96 kHz sample would be difficult to tell apart from one another (especially with lower-end gear...). The difference is there but as mentioned above, minute.

Thirdly - can you explain this:



> So you're saying a digital signal now has analogue components?  I am thoroughly confused.  Or maybe its you.  I'm trying to be really polite here - but the hole you're digging, in this particular thread, just gets deeper and deeper.  Perhaps you'd like to quit while you're behind?




You're trying to hard. Digital signals are 1s and 0s. 1s and 0s are turned into analogue square waves traveling across analogue lines with resistance, capacitance, etc. The rises and falls are chopped up into time blocks; if the clock didn't exist the square wave could not be interpreted successfully and therefore no communication is possible. Of course, I understand perfectly what yourself and others are referring to by "clock" is the WRDCLK signal, which USB audio does not carry. It's just that you guys are trying to hard to jump on me for something I said "wrong".

It's exactly because the receiver has no sync with the transmitter's clock timing it has to make educated guesses about imperfect anaolog square waves coming in.

BTW, just to show off, this is what I bought and am waiting for delivery. That's a USB controller card with a 24MHz OCXO on external power! It would be great if it solves my noisy DSD512 problem...


----------



## U-3C

guyunder said:


> In the case of the iDSD that is the expected result as the iDSD has an iPurifier built into it. You've admitted that you tested the Jitterbug mostly with the iDSD.
> I run comparisons all the time. Due to the nature of these experiments blind testing is impossible. Where volume is a concern I do my best by ear. Generally if I feel a difference seems to be attributable to a slight volume imbalance I would chalk it up to "in my head" or really a level imbalance. I often go back to old configurations and gear to double-check that Ive actually achieved an upgrade.
> 
> I've taken ABX tests (using Foobar ABX add-on) for certain sound tests but I found them overall useless as minute differences between, for example -- 96kHz and 44.1kHz -- were quickly muddled after minutes of rapid ABX switching.
> ...




-_-;

You realize you are contradicting yourself and are labeling exactly how you fall under confirmation bias right?

...

Just to add a bit so I don't seem like spam... The jitterbug is a filter that is advertised to be chain together for even better results. Two or three in a row is even better than one, so they claim. How come stringing it together doesn't work in this case.

If it adds noise and distortion...it adds noise and distortion. Why would it magically not work and make things worse in this case, just because he has a special DAC?

Also, cool thing you showed off...what about it? 0.0;


----------



## headwhacker

u-3c said:


> Hey, I always enjoyed my onboard realtek over my CEntrance hi-fi DAC! The CEntrance DAC is actually a noisier due to some usb issues when I tested it, but it's not audible at all.
> 
> My onboard is also dead quiet while my dedicated DAC has a very high noise floor (and to think they advertised it for the SE846, claiming it's a perfect pairing.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yeah the Hifi-M8 is the prime example of a product that is full of hype but doesn't make anything it supposed to do, well. 
  
 They even ride the hype and deliberately claim features which are false (e.g. the balanced output). You have to pay them to lower the noise floor so you can use your SE846. But then you can no longer use your full-size headphone because the mod will just decrease the power output so it can lower the noise floor.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

guyunder said:


> brooko said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a bit confused here.  Apparently the Wyrd or iPurifier2 or Jiitterbug would all increase my fidelity (your claim) when already I've measured the iPurifier2 and it introduces distortion, not reduces it. I've also run blind tests with the Jitterbug, and noticed no difference.
> ...




I would assume that he means measuring the USB signal directly rather than the resulting sound.

As for the rest--Typical audiophile mentality--thinks you are above the common findings of psychoacoustics. Things that have been proven to actually make no difference "obviously" makes a difference in your mind so any test results that contradict this--even self-administered tests--are quickly discarded. :rolleyes:


----------



## U-3C

headwhacker said:


> Yeah the Hifi-M8 is the prime example of a product that is full of hype but doesn't make anything it supposed to do, well.
> 
> They even ride the hype and deliberately claim features which are false (e.g. the balanced output). You have to pay them to lower the noise floor so you can use your SE846. But then you can no longer use your full-size headphone because the mod will just decrease the power output so it can lower the noise floor.




A cheap 1 dollar inline volume control thingy from eBay solved the truck. CEntrance was like NO!!! BUT THE FIDELITY!!!! IT MAY RUIN-

Screw you guys. If I can find a 1 dollar solution to make me enjoy my music and that doesn't have any audible issues or permanent effects on the device, even a toddler will cost that over paying you more to fix your mistakes. 

This product isn't the Hi-fi M8 by the way, it's the DACport Slim/HD. I guess CEntrance is going on a streak these days with their modding/we-screwed-up-and-couldnt-hide-our-laziness-so-how-about-tip-us-100-bucks-to-fix-our-issues! Their thread for the Hi-fi Skyn doesn't lack very upset customers and prior are still waiting for their Mixerface product to be delivered...two years after it was promised, but with no explanation of what is going on. A bit of transparency well at least engine some empathy, but simply not giving any details at all in what is going on has made even the most loyal fans rather grumpy. By the way, according to reports of people who have the "upgraded" model of the DACport Slim/HD, they didn't really fix the issues and the noise floor is just as high. Go figure.


----------



## BzzzzzT (Jul 4, 2018)

.


----------



## Brooko

guyunder said:


> Due to the nature of these experiments *blind testing is impossible.* *Where volume is a concern I do my best by ear*. Generally if I feel a difference seems to be attributable to a slight volume imbalance I would chalk it up to "in my head" or really a level imbalance. I often go back to old configurations and gear to double-check that Ive actually achieved an upgrade.
> 
> I've taken ABX tests (using Foobar ABX add-on) for certain sound tests but *I found them overall useless as minute differences between, for example -- 96kHz and 44.1kHz -- were quickly muddled after minutes of rapid ABX switching.*
> The technology and understanding of neuroscience doesn't exist yet to empirically measure with accuracy the true quality of music that is perceived by the listener.


 
  
 Sorry - but probably best we avoid each other as the three statements you just made above can be translated to:
  

No - I've never tested properly (but I'll still make claims I cannot substantiate)
I'm prepared to call my ear more accurate than an SPL meter or multi-meter (therefore ignoring the reality of psycho-acoustics - louder sounds better)
When actually performing blind testing - and realising I can't really tell things apart - I'll blame the test rather than accept the reality that there is no audible difference and I'm guessing)
  
 I'll leave you to the guys here.  Basically if thats the extent of your methodology - then there is nothing more to say.
  
 Have fun on the forums


----------



## Brooko

BTW - I didn't really understand the clock debate - but as clocking generally has to do with jitter, and I've never heard a system with actually audible jitter before, again I simply fail to see the relevance of adding a device to any system fixing an issue which isn't there.
  
 I suppose it can make it look pretty - the iP2 had some nice LEDs.  But again I really can't see the point.


----------



## watchnerd

guyunder said:


> Where volume is a concern I do my best by ear.





>


 
  
 Why are you unable to measure SPLs to set volume?
  
 Matching by ear isn't really good enough.


----------



## castleofargh

the jitterbug as far as I understood it, is mainly a filter. and what does a filter do to a square wave? ^_^ not making it squarer that's for sure. so what can possibly be the technical benefit if we're not crippled by noise at whatever frequency it filters?
  
  
@GuyUnder I'll stick to the fundamentals:
 you don't do what's needed for proper control testing, yet find it perfectly relevant to make all sort of claims based on those exact improper tests. why?
 all while doing the exact opposite to dismiss abx with as a reason, that it doesn't agree with your belief on something. I'm not sure if you realize it, but you're in the wrong section of the forum. telling us you don't carefully level match, is the same as telling us "do not believe anything I will tell you from this point on".
  
 I wouldn't go as far as saying we're all objectivists(I never felt like one myself), but we do care that objective claims be backed up by objective means. those are the ways of our little tribe.


----------



## sonitus mirus

watchnerd said:


> Why are you unable to measure SPLs to set volume?
> 
> Matching by ear isn't really good enough.


 
  
 It just seems so odd that those that have a passion for obtaining excellent audio quality can be so dismissive of legitimate attempts to find it.
  
 Is it a lack of critical thinking?  Is it ignorance, willful or otherwise?  Does doubt frighten them in some manner?  Is it indoctrination?  Is it misplaced trust in our own senses? 
  
 What makes some people continually want to seek out discomfirmation and others to simply hold true to beliefs without any type of proof?  
  
 While there is certainly no box that anyone belongs to, generally speaking, both sides think that they are open-minded and the other is biased, yet the scientific method relies on open-mindedness at its core.  I'm confident that my approach is the more impartial, as I requires evidence that attempts to remove prejudices that may influence the results.  But I am always open to the notion that I may be wrong. It's my nature, or at least what I perceive my nature to be, though further testing is required. 
  
 Oh well, I'm happy being ostracized by the masses in a hobby that I enjoy.


----------



## gregorio

guyunder said:


> 1. In the case of the iDSD that is the expected result as the iDSD has an iPurifier built into it.
> 2.Due to the nature of these experiments blind testing is impossible.
> 3. I've taken ABX tests (using Foobar ABX add-on) for certain sound tests but I found them overall useless as minute differences between, for example -- 96kHz and 44.1kHz -- were quickly muddled after minutes of rapid ABX switching.
> 4. The technology and understanding of neuroscience doesn't exist yet to empirically measure with accuracy the true quality of music that is perceived by the listener.
> ...


 
  
 1. "Expected result", expected by what, how was that expectation created? It certainly wasn't created by the science, so that leaves; marketing BS and testimonials from shills and those who have already fallen for the marketing BS. And, you stated (here or in another thread) that you apparently "certainly don't suffer from expectation bias" and yet here you are completely contradicting yourself?!
  
 2. Just because you personally find something difficult, cannot figure out how to do it or just can't be bothered, does NOT mean it's "impossible"! Your misuse of the word "impossible" as part of such a weak excuse doesn't even stand up to scrutiny in a pub conversation, let alone here in the science forum!
  
 3. Then don't "rapidly" switch, switch slowly or however you want, to optimise your chances of identifying the difference! Of course you're not interested in this simple fact, you're only interested in any excuse, regardless of how irrational or pathetic, to support your marketing driven beliefs and faith in your resultant perception!
  
 4. And again, more mis-information which shouldn't be capable of fooling even a high school student and here you are trying to peddle it against the whole world of science? "Quality" is a relative term and a subjective opinion, which therefore varies (sometimes wildly) from person to person and for this reason there is no such thing as a "true quality". Therefore, there obviously can't be a measurement for it. I can see how this argument/misuse of language might work on a gullible audiophile actively looking for any excuse to validate their flawed belief but how can you possibly think it would work here in a science forum?
  
 5. Yep, educating oneself does take considerable effort. From the perspective of someone who "can't be bothered" (see #2 above), I can see how educating oneself could be viewed as "trying too hard". Of course, that's not a valid excuse for ignorance and worst still, trying to argue from a position of ignorance with those who have put in some effort.
  
 6. OK. You've demonstrated you don't understand much about digital audio, now you're demonstrating you don't understand analogue audio either! Analogue audio is where something (an electrical current in this case) is used as an analogue to the acoustic sound pressure waves being recorded/reproduced. Unless your entire CD collection is of nothing other than 1.4mHz square waves, what's passing down you USB cable is NOT an analogue signal! The problem with an analogue signal is that being analogous, anything which contaminates that signal is reproduced. Pretty much the WHOLE reason why digital audio was invented in the first place, is because it's not susceptible to signal contamination. Apart from the fact that it's also an electrical current, what's passing down your USB cable has nothing in common with an analogue electrical signal! Within fairly extreme limits, it does not matter what quality or how contaminated that electrical current is, how perfectly square it is or is not or how much noise it contains, the digital data can still be recovered perfectly. In fact, the USB protocol does not even assume a square wave, it assumes an "eye" shaped signal and the USB specs are based on how this "eye pattern" is handled. So whether you've got an "ipurified" USB signal makes absolutely no difference, unless you make the square wave so perfect that it no longer complies with the USB specs (eye pattern)!
  
 7. Oh dear! That might be viewed as "showing off" amongst the more extreme audiophile forums you're obviously more accustomed to but here it accomplishes the EXACT OPPOSITE! What you're actually "showing off" is your ignorance of jitter and your gullibility in actually buying snake oil. Embarrassment would actually be the appropriate response, rather than "showing off"! There's still time though, maybe one day you'll learn enough about how digital audio actually works and then the embarrassment will set in .. or maybe not, maybe you'll remain proudly ignorant and never realise you've been duped, who knows?
  
 G


----------



## watchnerd

sonitus mirus said:


> It just seems so odd that those that have a passion for obtaining excellent audio quality can be so dismissive of legitimate attempts to find it.
> 
> Is it a lack of critical thinking?  Is it ignorance, willful or otherwise?  Does doubt frighten them in some manner?  Is it indoctrination?  Is it misplaced trust in our own senses?
> 
> What makes some people continually want to seek out discomfirmation and others to simply hold true to beliefs without any type of proof?


 
  
 Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.  Admitting that one has blown huge amounts of money on stuff that doesn't matter very much, does nothing, or worse, is harmful, is a hard truth to face.
  
 Also, it seems like most of today's hobbyists are consumers -- believing a new piece of gear is the answer to everything.  
  
 As opposed to pursuing a process to identify weaknesses in an audio chain and correct them, some of which may not require new gear at all.
  
 TLDR; most audiophiles these days seem more interested in bragging about gear than how they got the best sound possible for the least money


----------



## U-3C

watchnerd said:


> Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.  Admitting that one has blown huge amounts of money on stuff that doesn't matter very much, does nothing, or worse, is harmful, is a hard truth to face.
> 
> Also, it seems like most of today's hobbyists are consumers -- believing a new piece of gear is the answer to everything.
> 
> ...


Happy 3000th post! o(^_^)b

I'm curious what people will fit GuyUnders's standards. People who didn't bother with expensive DACs are dismissed. People who have experience with a large range of gear, from cheap to HOLYSCHIITTOPOFTHELINE expensive stuff and everything in between is dismissed. People who developed the very stuff GuyUnder uses or benefits from is mocked at. 

GuyUnder, what you think is great or amazing sounding can easily sound like crap to others. It's not right or wrong. People just like different things. Claiming something is garbage based on pseudoscience really won't get you anywhere.

I'm sure by now you should know that you don't really understand much of how audio really work. What you seek to find here does not exist. You won't find any appreciation for showing off what you bought or for sharing what you have read online. This is clear to pretty much every one on this thread. If you can't offer advice that makes sense, please don't offer it to people who are equally confused.

*I deserve a pure bang on the head for being a hypocrite, as unlike many others here, I didn't spend my life to professionally study how audio works and to gather a deep understanding of how to make good music/sound .


----------



## GuyUnder

gregorio said:


> 1. "Expected result", expected by what, how was that expectation created? It certainly wasn't created by the science, so that leaves; marketing BS and testimonials from shills and those who have already fallen for the marketing BS. And, you stated (here or in another thread) that you apparently "certainly don't suffer from expectation bias" and yet here you are completely contradicting yourself?!




You're trying too hard. The expected result is that a filtering product has no or very limited effect (i.e., not readily perceptible) on a product with a superior filtering technology built into it.



> 2. Just because you personally find something difficult, cannot figure out how to do it or just can't be bothered, does NOT mean it's "impossible"! Your misuse of the word "impossible" as part of such a weak excuse doesn't even stand up to scrutiny in a pub conversation, let alone here in the science forum!




You're being foolish. No one is going to go through the extreme logistics blind testing of gear requires. The level of time, effort and human support that would require on a frequent basis makes blind testing virtually impossible.



> 3. Then don't "rapidly" switch, switch slowly or however you want, to optimise your chances of identifying the difference! Of course you're not interested in this simple fact, you're only interested in any excuse, regardless of how irrational or pathetic, to support your marketing driven beliefs and faith in your resultant perception!




ABX testing software is specifically designed to allow rapid switching -- because the listener is expected to identify areas of difference and quickly compare them back to back to defeat the effects of audio memory. In fact, that is part of the ABX protocol -- have you actually taken any ABX challenges? The problem is, human audio perception isn't that convenient and likes to smear details over time, so the details I heard on the first pass quickly became impossible to tell apart. Less than half way through the 44.1 vs 96 test I literally couldn't tell the difference between the two and resorted to gut reactions because the software didn't have an option for "I don't know".



> 4. And again, more mis-information which shouldn't be capable of fooling even a high school student and here you are trying to peddle it against the whole world of science? "Quality" is a relative term and a subjective opinion, which therefore varies (sometimes wildly) from person to person and for this reason there is no such thing as a "true quality". Therefore, there obviously can't be a measurement for it. I can see how this argument/misuse of language might work on a gullible audiophile actively looking for any excuse to validate their flawed belief but how can you possibly think it would work here in a science forum?




You're trying too hard. Audio perception is heavily tied to neuroscience, so obviously we have no means currently of quantifying it.



> 5. Yep, educating oneself does take considerable effort. From the perspective of someone who "can't be bothered" (see #2 above), I can see how educating oneself could be viewed as "trying too hard". Of course, that's not a valid excuse for ignorance and worst still, trying to argue from a position of ignorance with those who have put in some effort.




You really are trying too hard.



> 6. OK. You've demonstrated you don't understand much about digital audio, now you're demonstrating you don't understand analogue audio either! Analogue audio is where something (an electrical current in this case) is used as an analogue to the acoustic sound pressure waves being recorded/reproduced. Unless your entire CD collection is of nothing other than 1.4mHz square waves, what's passing down you USB cable is NOT an analogue signal! The problem with an analogue signal is that being analogous, anything which contaminates that signal is reproduced. Pretty much the WHOLE reason why digital audio was invented in the first place, is because it's not susceptible to signal contamination. Apart from the fact that it's also an electrical current, what's passing down your USB cable has nothing in common with an analogue electrical signal! Within fairly extreme limits, it does not matter what quality or how contaminated that electrical current is, how perfectly square it is or is not or how much noise it contains, the digital data can still be recovered perfectly. In fact, the USB protocol does not even assume a square wave, it assumes an "eye" shaped signal and the USB specs are based on how this "eye pattern" is handled. So whether you've got an "ipurified" USB signal makes absolutely no difference, unless you make the square wave so perfect that it no longer complies with the USB specs (eye pattern)!




In you're effort to make me wrong over something you've unfortunately made yourself look ignorant. Did you know that square waves, just like sine waves, have a sound?

[VIDEO]https://youtu.be/1I3op4IKCMM[/VIDEO]

Of course I know the USB operates at frequencies far beyond human hearing, but the principal remains.



> 7. Oh dear! That might be viewed as "showing off" amongst the more extreme audiophile forums you're obviously more accustomed to but here it accomplishes the EXACT OPPOSITE! What you're actually "showing off" is your ignorance of jitter and your gullibility in actually buying snake oil. Embarrassment would actually be the appropriate response, rather than "showing off"! There's still time though, maybe one day you'll learn enough about how digital audio actually works and then the embarrassment will set in .. or maybe not, maybe you'll remain proudly ignorant and never realise you've been duped, who knows?




Jealous? It cost me $420 you know. Does any of your gear have an OCXO? I doubt it!


----------



## U-3C

Quote: 





guyunder said:


> You're trying too hard. The expected result is that a filtering product has no or very limited effect (i.e., not readily perceptible) on a product with a superior filtering technology built into it.
> You're being foolish. No one is going to go through the extreme logistics blind testing of gear requires. The level of time, effort and human support that would require on a frequent basis makes blind testing virtually impossible.
> ABX testing software is specifically designed to allow rapid switching -- because the listener is expected to identify areas of difference and quickly compare them back to back to defeat the effects of audio memory. In fact, that is part of the ABX protocol -- have you actually taken any ABX challenges? The problem is, human audio perception isn't that convenient and likes to smear details over time, so the details I heard on the first pass quickly became impossible to tell apart. Less than half way through the 44.1 vs 96 test I literally couldn't tell the difference between the two and resorted to gut reactions because the software didn't have an option for "I don't know".
> You're trying too hard. Audio perception is heavily tied to neuroscience, so obviously we have no means currently of quantifying it.
> ...


 

 ​...you're trying waaaay to hard...
  





  
 Also...did you really quote that video? What is the argument again? What is it suppose to prove? -_-;
  
 And...did you really have to throw out, of all things, the price of some component you bought to justify something (how does that even work)? Does any of your gear have a Plesant Hearth? I doubt it! It cost 600 bucks you know and I assembled it yesterday. It glows too! Jealous? :^D


----------



## cel4145

watchnerd said:


> Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.  Admitting that one has blown huge amounts of money on stuff that doesn't matter very much, does nothing, or worse, is harmful, is a hard truth to face.




+1

And once someone has done it for decades, then definitely why would we ever expect them to change? Gotta get them when they are relatively new to the hobby.


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> +1
> 
> And once someone has done it for decades, then definitely why would we ever expect them to change? Gotta get them when they are relatively new to the hobby.


 

 ​*cough*

 One of my friend's cheap 5 dollar headphones broke. First thing I did was drag him around the city to listen to all the top headphone shops, from the Stax Omega 2 to the HD800 to all the popular mid-fi products out there. I also carried my headphones and my laptop, and we listened/compared until we were kicked out.
  
 He ended up being very happy with a 10 dollar headphone upgrade with dsp, as I showed him just how little you get going from 10 dollars plus dsp to $5k worth of setup.
  
  
 Head-Fi does feel like it has reached an all-time low. Not that I've been here long or that I've scanned the entire site. I just feel like my world view of the site has collapsed and my faith in most of the humans on this site is completely lost. I usually think the 5 year old kids I interact with are quite stupid, but even they show at least some critical thinking skills, even with their curiosity and ignorance!


----------



## cel4145

guyunder said:


> You're being foolish. No one is going to go through the extreme logistics blind testing of gear requires. The level of time, effort and human support that would require on a frequent basis makes blind testing virtually impossible.




So instead, people give up and spend lots of money on things that they CANNOT know without blind testing whether or not it's better? That makes a lot of sense.


----------



## watchnerd

cel4145 said:


> +1
> 
> And once someone has done it for decades, then definitely why would we ever expect them to change? Gotta get them when they are relatively new to the hobby.


 
  
 It's like asking someone to convert religions at that point.


----------



## watchnerd

guyunder said:


> No one is going to go through the extreme logistics blind testing of gear requires.


 
  
 Uh....I have, more than a few times.  At home.  Using my wife and a folding screen between me and the gear.  No rapid switching, just leave a setup it in place for a few hours or even days
  
 It's single blind, and not worthy of publication, but for me it was very educational to see what I could actually hear.  
  
 Also, there are these guys, who did it in a local group:
  
http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm


----------



## U-3C

watchnerd said:


> It's like asking someone to convert religions at that point.


 

 ​People who do convert, though usually look at everything and have a much better understanding of both religions than those who grow up in a religion, so when they convert, they tend to hold the values and customs of the new religion much higher than those born in an environment of said religion. Ironic in some sense, but indeed, these outsiders tend to practice a religion more faithfully, as it was an active choice and not just because it's what they were told to do. These people can usually attack defend both religions much better than natives of said religions as they went through the conflicts for themselves and had to look at everything, while natives of a certain religious community may simply uphold certain values and disregard others without actually knowing why.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

guyunder said:


> gregorio said:
> 
> 
> > 1. "Expected result", expected by what, how was that expectation created? It certainly wasn't created by the science, so that leaves; marketing BS and testimonials from shills and those who have already fallen for the marketing BS. And, you stated (here or in another thread) that you apparently "certainly don't suffer from expectation bias" and yet here you are completely contradicting yourself?!
> ...




Again, I'm assuming he measured the raw USB signal going through / not going through the "purifier" rather than the sound coming out of the iDSD.



> > 2. Just because you personally find something difficult, cannot figure out how to do it or just can't be bothered, does NOT mean it's "impossible"! Your misuse of the word "impossible" as part of such a weak excuse doesn't even stand up to scrutiny in a pub conversation, let alone here in the science forum!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's why we leave it to the pros and psychoacoustics research scientists to do it. And they already did. And we're not going to listen to you try to throw decades of scientific work out the window because you think you heard something while casually plugging your headphones into one thing or another.



> > 3. Then don't "rapidly" switch, switch slowly or however you want, to optimise your chances of identifying the difference! Of course you're not interested in this simple fact, you're only interested in any excuse, regardless of how irrational or pathetic, to support your marketing driven beliefs and faith in your resultant perception!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Could it be... that "you don't know"... because you don't know? To put it more precisely.... you only "knew" which was which when you were LOOKING at the files, not listening to them.



> > 4. And again, more mis-information which shouldn't be capable of fooling even a high school student and here you are trying to peddle it against the whole world of science? "Quality" is a relative term and a subjective opinion, which therefore varies (sometimes wildly) from person to person and for this reason there is no such thing as a "true quality". Therefore, there obviously can't be a measurement for it. I can see how this argument/misuse of language might work on a gullible audiophile actively looking for any excuse to validate their flawed belief but how can you possibly think it would work here in a science forum?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




To explain it in terms of neuroscience is hard, sure. To quantify what can be distinguished and what can't in terms of listening test results, no, we don't need any of that.

Then too we have gone into plenty of technical details as to why there shouldn't even BE any differences in the sound to be heard. By your own admission any USB audio device reclocking the signal on their end wouldn't suffer from any jitter effects unless the signal were lost completely. Well newsflash, any asynchronous USB device does just that.



> > 6. OK. You've demonstrated you don't understand much about digital audio, now you're demonstrating you don't understand analogue audio either! Analogue audio is where something (an electrical current in this case) is used as an analogue to the acoustic sound pressure waves being recorded/reproduced. Unless your entire CD collection is of nothing other than 1.4mHz square waves, what's passing down you USB cable is NOT an analogue signal! The problem with an analogue signal is that being analogous, anything which contaminates that signal is reproduced. Pretty much the WHOLE reason why digital audio was invented in the first place, is because it's not susceptible to signal contamination. Apart from the fact that it's also an electrical current, what's passing down your USB cable has nothing in common with an analogue electrical signal! Within fairly extreme limits, it does not matter what quality or how contaminated that electrical current is, how perfectly square it is or is not or how much noise it contains, the digital data can still be recovered perfectly. In fact, the USB protocol does not even assume a square wave, it assumes an "eye" shaped signal and the USB specs are based on how this "eye pattern" is handled. So whether you've got an "ipurified" USB signal makes absolutely no difference, unless you make the square wave so perfect that it no longer complies with the USB specs (eye pattern)!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




...point? Should we start plugging headphones instead of USB audio devices into our USB ports now?



> > 7. Oh dear! That might be viewed as "showing off" amongst the more extreme audiophile forums you're obviously more accustomed to but here it accomplishes the EXACT OPPOSITE! What you're actually "showing off" is your ignorance of jitter and your gullibility in actually buying snake oil. Embarrassment would actually be the appropriate response, rather than "showing off"! There's still time though, maybe one day you'll learn enough about how digital audio actually works and then the embarrassment will set in .. or maybe not, maybe you'll remain proudly ignorant and never realise you've been duped, who knows?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why should anyone be jealous of how somebody wastes their money?


----------



## watchnerd

joe bloggs said:


> Well newsflash, any asynchronous USB device does just that.


 
  
 The number of people who simultaneously use USB reclockers with asyncrhonous USB DACs that have their own internal clock oscillators (usually 2 of them)... well, it just blows my mind how doing so even makes any sense to them.
  
 Unless, of course, they don't understand how any of it works at all.  In which case it makes perfect sense.


----------



## GuyUnder

I commented on the analog transmission of digital signals. Trying too hard to find fault in something I said several posters jumped on it.

Although I'm starting to wonder now if they are legitimately confused about the difference between digital and analog.

Digital is 1s and 0s. But 1s and 0s are an imaginary concept that is useful for our brains but don't exist as entities in the natural world. So to make physical devices that can operate off of this imaginary concept, we have to create some form of physical approximations. The answer we arrived at is the on-off or high-low gate based on voltage swings over a period of time. This is the square wave and exists purely in the analog domain. It distorts and degrades during transmission like any other analog signal.

Let's go further.

Not only are digital signals in the analog domain during transmission -- they are ALWAYS in the analog domain, from your disk drive until the moment it enters the output stage of the DAC. What is happening in your CPU, RAM, DAC, etc, are very minute and rapid switching of analog signals.


----------



## watchnerd

guyunder said:


> I commented on the analog transmission of digital signals. Trying too hard to find fault in something I said several posters jumped on it.
> 
> Although I'm starting to wonder now if they are legitimately confused about the difference between digital and analog.
> 
> Digital is 1s and 0s. But 1s and 0s are an imaginary concept that is useful for our brains but don't exist as entities in the natural world. So to make physical devices that can operate off of this imaginary concept, we have to create some form of physical approximations. The answer we arrived at is the on-off or high-low gate based on voltage swings over a period of time. This is the square wave and exists purely in the analog domain. It distorts and degrades during transmission like any other analog signal.


 
  
 Are you trying to describe quantization error?


----------



## gregorio

guyunder said:


> 1. You're being foolish.





> 2. The level of time, effort and human support that would require on a frequent basis makes blind testing virtually impossible.





> 3. You really are trying too hard. In you're effort to make me wrong over something you've unfortunately made yourself look ignorant. Did you know that square waves, just like sine waves, have a sound?
> 
> 4. Jealous? It cost me $420 you know.





> 5. Does any of your gear have an OCXO?


 
  
 1. Ah, hypocrisy! Perfect example, well done.
  
 2. So now you've gone from "impossible" to "virtually impossible". Keep going and you'll get there, eventually!
  
 3. There's two answers to this: A. No they don't, square waves can't travel through air and even if they could, the ear can't respond to them. Instead of actual square waves, we have to generate an approximation of a square wave by modulating sine waves. B. Square waves are greenish with a rather bitter after-taste.
 "A" is the product of an education, which took quite some time and effort. "B" is complete nonsense which I made up in 5 seconds and took virtually no effort.
 You're right, just making up nonsense is way, way easier but then I'd have to be astonishingly stupid in order to post made up nonsense on a science forum. Not only astonishing stupid from the point of view of being completely ignorant but astonishingly stupid from the point of view of not even being able to realise when everyone responding is trying to tell me I'm ignorant and astonishingly stupid!! Thanks for precisely demonstrating my point, you're not trying hard enough, not by a long, long way!
 4. That's funny. Paying $420 and not learning your lesson, now that's a waste.
 5. Sorry, no. I only work with high-end professional audio equipment, I don't listen to consumer equipment much these days and I certainly do NOT buy snake oil, even relatively cheap $420 snake oil.
  
 I won't bother responding to any of your other points, they're just made-up nonsense and you wouldn't understand my answers anyway.
  
 G


----------



## VNandor

guyunder said:


>


 
 Cool. it's not surprising after all, since any kind of waveform have a sound except if the waveform we are talking about is a flat line. But what does square waves having a sound have to do with the topic? The signal that passes through the USB cable is carrying information for your DAC, it's not connected to your headphone by any means. I mean what's the point of this video?
  
 EDIT: Just to be more precise, if we look at the waveform as a function that can be differentiated and the function's derivative is other than 0 then it's going to have a "sound" if I'm not mistaken so yeah, square waves don't fit into this description but the actual movement of the transcuder/actual electrical waveform does.


----------



## watchnerd

vnandor said:


> Cool. it's not surprising after all, since any kind of waveform have a sound except if the waveform we are talking about is a flat line. But what does square waves having a sound have to do with the topic? The signal that passes through the USB cable is carrying information for your DAC, it's not connected to your headphone by any means. I mean what's the point of this video?


 
  
 Man, if only my speakers / headphones had infinitely fast rise-time so they could reproduce square waves!


----------



## spruce music

watchnerd said:


> Man, if only my speakers / headphones had infinitely fast rise-time so they could reproduce square waves!


 

 What you really mean is, "Man, if only my ears had infinitely fast rise-time so they could hear reproduced square waves as square!"


----------



## watchnerd

spruce music said:


> What you really mean is, "Man, if only my ears had infinitely fast rise-time so they could hear reproduced square waves as square!"


 
  
 Are you saying I don't have Golden Ears with with hearing that defies the laws of physics and biology?
  
 How dare you!


----------



## GuyUnder

You guys are seriously contorting yourselves out of shape.

A square wave does not have infinitely fast rise and fall times. The difference between a 1 and a 0 is infinite, and can only exist in our imagination. We pretend that a voltage change across a given threshold inbetween slices of time is a 1 or a 0. It's a useful approximation. This just an educational statement I'm not trying to make point.

But if I was going to make a point -- it would be that we don't hear 1s and 0s. We also don't hear electrical currents. What we hear is air pressure hitting our audio reception system (ears), which includes tiny little hairs that fire signals into our brain when excited by even exceedingly minute amounts that are difficult to measure without purpose built lab equipment.

Also, why are high grade clocks great in pro audio, but snake oil for audiophiles?


----------



## spruce music

watchnerd said:


> Are you saying I don't have Golden Ears with with hearing that defies the laws of physics and biology?
> 
> How dare you!


----------



## spruce music

guyunder said:


> You guys are seriously contorting yourselves out of shape.
> 
> A square wave does not have infinitely fast rise and fall times. The difference between a 1 and a 0 is infinite, and can only exist in our imagination. We pretend that a voltage change across a given threshold inbetween slices of time is a 1 or a 0. It's a useful approximation. This just an educational statement I'm not trying to make point.
> 
> ...


 

 Clocks in pro audio are for using several different pieces of gear that must all be in synch on the clock cycles.  Otherwise drift of the various devices would make a mess of things.
  
 http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/does-your-studio-need-digital-master-clock
  
 This might be educational.  External clocking increases jitter on an ADC.  Using external master clocks is not for low jitter.  It is for keeping multiple devices on the same clock signal.


----------



## VNandor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave
  
 If you look up the definition part you can see that a square wave, by definition has infinitely fast rise and fall times. You can also read that it's not achievable in real systems.


----------



## watchnerd

guyunder said:


> You guys are seriously contorting yourselves out of shape.
> 
> A square wave does not have infinitely fast rise and fall times.


 
  
 a) We're joking
 b) Yes, the perfect square wave has infinite rise and fall times
 c) In the physical world, it doesn't exist
 d) That's why we're joking
  
  


guyunder said:


> But if I was going to make a point -- it would be that we don't hear 1s and 0s. We also don't hear electrical currents. What we hear is air pressure hitting our audio reception system (ears), which includes tiny little hairs that fire signals into our brain when excited by even exceedingly minute amounts that are difficult to measure without purpose built lab equipment.


 
  
 Yes, we're all aware that we hear air pressure.
  
 What's your point?
  


guyunder said:


> Also, why are high grade clocks great in pro audio, but snake oil for audiophiles?


 
  
 I do recordings and volunteer with the local symphony.  When you have to synchronize multiple ADDA devices across multiple tracks, it's a different situation from home replay.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

guyunder said:


> You guys are seriously contorting yourselves out of shape.
> 
> A square wave does not have infinitely fast rise and fall times. The difference between a 1 and a 0 is infinite, and can only exist in our imagination. We pretend that a voltage change across a given threshold inbetween slices of time is a 1 or a 0. It's a useful approximation. This just an educational statement I'm not trying to make point.
> 
> ...




OT: who's trying too hard, posting all through the night presumably on Australia / NZ time trying to convert everyone in the Sound Science forum to the ways of audio voodoo? 

Anyway.

The point everyone here is making is, USB audio is a digital transmission protocol. Your square waves (imperfect they may be in the real world) are used to represent digital 1's and 0's. How good or bad these square waves look like has no bearing on the final sound unless they get so bent out of shape that a 1 gets read as a 0 and vice versa.

The only caveat to this was that "synchronous" mode USB audio devices extracted their audio clocks from these square waves, so any imperfections in this wave train resulted not in errors in the data, but in an erratic rate at which the data is read and in turn played out. Voila, jitter. Asynchronous mode USB audio eliminates this error vector: the connection effectively becomes a pure data connection, the audio data is buffered on the USB audio device and played back according to the clock on the USB device, in a way no different from a standalone music player that happens to possibly be drawing power via USB.

Finally: due to the nature of digital audio, a glitch in the transfer (reading a 0 for a 1 or vice versa) in the case of abovementioned extremely poor connection would 99% of the time result in serious glitching (consider: each audio sample is made up of at least 16 bits. The probably magnitude of error in flipping one of these bits is akin to replacing one random digit of a 16-digit number with a random number. How big / small do you think the average error would be?) or complete loss of connection (consider: bit stream consists not only of bits representing samples, but also probably error checking and protocol related info. Corruption of these would lead to stream not being recognized at all by USB device)


----------



## Brooko

guyunder said:


> *You guys are seriously contorting yourselves out of shape.*
> 
> A square wave does not have infinitely fast rise and fall times. The difference between a 1 and a 0 is infinite, and can only exist in our imagination. We pretend that a voltage change across a given threshold inbetween slices of time is a 1 or a 0. It's a useful approximation. This just an educational statement I'm not trying to make point.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The bit I highlighted has to stop  - from all posters.  Comment on the matters at hand - not the people. OK.
  
 Gregorio - that goes for you too.


----------



## watchnerd

There are 3 main ways that I can think of where USB can mess up digital audio:
  
 1. Data loss.  If it's small enough, the error correction circuitry handles it.  If it's large, you get drop outs.
  
 2. Jitter.   Not really an issue with USB itself in asynchronous systems as the DAC controls the clock unilaterally.  Any jitter asynchronous USB systems have is inside the DAC.  Takes a lot to be audible.
  
 3. Noise.  Highly measurable. Might be audible if the receiving DAC is poorly isolated.  But if it measures low enough, don't worry about it.
  
  
 Those are the only major ones I can think of.


----------



## Argyris

spruce music said:


> What you really mean is, "Man, if only my ears had infinitely fast rise-time so they could hear reproduced square waves as square!"


 
  
 You know, if I could pick any one of my senses to upgrade, despite my enjoyment of personal audio it would not be my ears. It would be my eyes. I want to see the world the way the mantis shrimp does.


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> You know, if I could pick any one of my senses to upgrade, despite my enjoyment of personal audio it would not be my ears. It would be my eyes. I want to see the world the way the mantis shrimp does.


 

 ​Things may get confusing very fast and your brains would be overloaded and you will never be able to appreciate human art again as everything is either messy because people splatter on things that they can't see, or everything is dull, as everyone only works within their own limited view.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

argyris said:


> spruce music said:
> 
> 
> > What you really mean is, "Man, if only my ears had infinitely fast rise-time so they could hear reproduced square waves as square!" :wink_face:
> ...




I might need an upgrade in my sense of aesthetics if I meet you sporting your new visual upgrade :blink:


----------



## spruce music

argyris said:


> You know, if I could pick any one of my senses to upgrade, despite my enjoyment of personal audio it would not be my ears. It would be my eyes. I want to see the world the way the mantis shrimp does.


 

 Me too.  But you'll need some really broadband sunglasses when outside.


----------



## watchnerd

argyris said:


> You know, if I could pick any one of my senses to upgrade, despite my enjoyment of personal audio it would not be my ears. It would be my eyes. I want to see the world the way the mantis shrimp does.


 
  
 That would suck, I would never want that.  I think it would drive me crazy to see colors others can't see.  And they would think I'm crazy, too.


----------



## castleofargh

watchnerd said:


> argyris said:
> 
> 
> > You know, if I could pick any one of my senses to upgrade, despite my enjoyment of personal audio it would not be my ears. It would be my eyes. I want to see the world the way the mantis shrimp does.
> ...


 

 there is a woman who was showed to be an active tetra chromat, but it was within the visual range, so no super power, just more nuances.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> there is a woman who was showed to be an active tetra chromat, but it was within the visual range, so no super power, just more nuances.




Yep, but still no Mantis shrimp. X)


----------



## watchnerd

castleofargh said:


> there is a woman who was showed to be an active tetra chromat, but it was within the visual range, so no super power, just more nuances.


 
  
 So mutants with enhanced abilities *are* real....


----------



## spruce music

watchnerd said:


> That would suck, I would never want that.  I think it would drive me crazy to see colors others can't see.  And they would think I'm crazy, too.


 

 U-3C and I would see it.  And we could laugh at those who don't.  All good naturedly of course. 
  
 I did know a fellow who had extreme visual acuity.  I saw him do the eye chart during physicals where I worked.  He could easily rattle off the 20/8 chart.  Meaning he could see from 20 feet away what a normal person sees at 8 feet.  Think about it, that is like permanently having 2.5x zoom compared to other people with good vision.  Those who knew him already knew his vision was extraordinary.  He would all the time say do you see so and so over there.  No we couldn't.  If a good pair of binocs were available we could look and every time he really saw what he claimed to see. 
  
 Of course I haven't run across that I could tell the hearing equivalent to that.


----------



## cel4145

watchnerd said:


> That would suck, I would never want that.  I think it would drive me crazy to see colors others can't see.  And they would think I'm crazy, too.




Haven't you noticed that women say men can't match colors? It's because on average women see more colors than men do. And yes, as a result, we drive each other crazy over it:

"Honey, that shirt doesn't match those pants."
"What are you talking about? Goes together fine."

LOL


----------



## watchnerd

cel4145 said:


> Haven't you noticed that women say men can't match colors? It's because on average women see more colors than men do. And yes, as a result, we drive each other crazy over it:
> 
> "Honey, that shirt doesn't match those pants."
> "What are you talking about? Goes together fine."
> ...


 
  
 Nope. I'm a snappy dresser.  Get compliments from women on it.
  
 On the other hand, my wife smells stuff I never can.


----------



## U-3C

Well, my job depends on color, so I can't afford to work on things other people can't see. Might look good for me, buy is strange or others as I spend too much time on things that nobody can possibly notice.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> ​Things may get confusing very fast and your brains would be overloaded and you will never be able to appreciate human art again as everything is either messy because people splatter on things that they can't see, or everything is dull, as everyone only works within their own limited view.




Damn. Way to kill the man's dream.


----------



## gregorio

guyunder said:


> You guys are seriously contorting yourselves out of shape.
> 
> [1] A square wave does not have infinitely fast rise and fall times. [2] The difference between a 1 and a 0 is infinite, and can only exist in our imagination. We pretend that a voltage change across a given threshold inbetween slices of time is a 1 or a 0. It's a useful approximation. This just an educational statement I'm not trying to make point.
> 
> [3] Also, why are high grade clocks great in pro audio, but snake oil for audiophiles?


 
  
 1. It's really not so difficult to understand. Look at this image:

 At the leading edge the negative half (lower value) of the cycle is connected to the positive half (higher value) by a vertical line and as the x-axis is time, this means that the amount of time taken for the transition between the negative and positive halves of the square wave is zero, IE. The end of the negative half and the beginning of the positive half occur at the same moment in time. It should be obvious that this is a physical impossibility in the real world: A speaker cone cannot be in two different places at the same moment in time, the air molecules through which the wave is travelling cannot be in two different places at the same time and of course the human ear drum cannot be in two different places at the same time! There has to be some amount of time for the speaker cone/air molecules/ear drum to move from the end of the negative half to the positive half of the square wave but of course that means they would be connected by a sloping line rather than a vertical line which in turn means the square wave is no longer "square".
  
 2. Who is the "we" you're referring to? I presume it must be audiophiles similar to yourself because it's certainly not scientists or those who created the USB specs. The fact it's an approximation (rather than perfect square waves) is completely irrelevant because the 0's and 1's can be perfectly reconstructed from these approximations, regardless of how approximate they are (up to a pretty broad limit). So what are you saying? The CPU in my computer is doing billions of calculations per second across billions of transistors communicating with each other using electrical currents to represent 0's and 1's. So you're saying that either a CPU has an "imagination" or that it can't possibly work because all the billions of approximations per second would lead to constant errors? Err, thanks for that "education" but it educates/says more about you personally than it does about how the transference of digital data actually works.
  
 3. As has been explained in other responses, there are circumstances in pro audio where external clocks are unavoidable. There have of course been examples of excessively "high grade" clocks in the pro audio world. The difference between the pro audio and audiophile worlds is that pros generally understand and therefore accept the valid measurements/science used to identify snake oil products and reject the marketing/testimonials/etc which contradicts it. This is pretty much the opposite of the more extreme audiophiles, who believe ONLY their (marketing biased) perception and therefore MUST reject the measurements and the science (or pervert it, to "fit"). The Rubidium atomic clock used in the SOS article linked to by Spruce Music is such a snake oil product because the measurements demonstrate and the science dictates that the clock recovery circuitry is the defining factor of ultimate clock accuracy, not the clock generating the signal entering that circuitry. My clocking scheme probably cost around 10 times more than yours but the components which originate the clock signal probably cost somewhat less.
  


spruce music said:


> I did know a fellow who had extreme visual acuity.


 
  
 Maybe "golden ears" has a different meaning in the audiophile world than in the pro audio world? (serious question, I don't know). In the pro audio world the term is a euphemism, most/all of those described as "golden eared" have ears which actually perform relatively poorly! What sets them apart from others isn't what their ears are capable of responding to but their ability to dissect what they are hearing and consciously identify factors which others are not consciously aware they're hearing. This takes natural ability, skill and considerable experience and most/all of those described as golden eared are therefore at least middle aged (and therefore their ears have deteriorated and are certainly less acute than those of say a normal/average child).
  
 G


----------



## headdict

watchnerd said:


> That would suck, I would never want that.  I think it would drive me crazy to see colors others can't see.  And they would think I'm crazy, too.


Apparently audiophiles do better than you.


----------



## watchnerd

headdict said:


> Apparently audiophiles do better than you.


 
  
 Audiophiles see more colors?


----------



## asymcon

watchnerd said:


> Audiophiles see more colors?


 
 Or more octaves of colours?


----------



## headdict

They hear things that others can't without feeling crazy about it. Or so they say.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

headdict said:


> They hear things that others can't without feeling crazy about it. Or so they say.




They usually manage to do the opposite and make budding audiophiles feel crazy for NOT hearing the things they hear... Definitely doing much better than watchnerd


----------



## HotIce

guyunder said:


> You guys are seriously contorting yourselves out of shape.
> 
> A square wave does not have infinitely fast rise and fall times. The difference between a 1 and a 0 is infinite, and can only exist in our imagination. We pretend that a voltage change across a given threshold inbetween slices of time is a 1 or a 0. It's a useful approximation. This just an educational statement I'm not trying to make point.
> 
> But if I was going to make a point -- it would be that we don't hear 1s and 0s. We also don't hear electrical currents. What we hear is air pressure hitting our audio reception system (ears), which includes tiny little hairs that fire signals into our brain when excited by even exceedingly minute amounts that are difficult to measure without purpose built lab equipment.


 
  
 The difference between 1 and 0 is 1 in all the math books I have around here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 The derivative at the edge x, is not infinite either. Depending on which eyes you see it, can be either not existing (does not satisfy mathematical definition), or it's the Dirac function (when using "distribution" eyes).
 What tends to infinite is the limit of the derivative of a function converging to the step function.
  
 But I think you are utterly confused about what analog and digital signaling is. And you clearly showed this many times along your rather long post trail.
 A signal is, well, a signal. A way from one entity to communicate some information to another entity.
 The other entity takes the signal, and transforms it into some other kind of information.
 Let's call s=s(t) the signal and F = F(s(t)) the other entity transfer function.
 An analog transfer function/signal is a function F whose intent is to map F(x) != F(y) for every x != y (math nerds would prolly call it bijection 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).
 The line out from a DAC to an amp, is one of the many examples.
 USB, no.
 In USB all the possible values assumed by the D+ and D- lines, are mapped by the FUSB() transfer function into (for each D line, as USB is differential):
  
 FUSB(x) = HI if x=s(t) >= Vhi
 FUSB(x) = LO if x=s(t) <= Vlo
 FUSB(x) = dont-care if x > Vlo && x < Vhi
  
 So let's take x1=Vhi and x2=Vhi+eps with eps>0, we have x1 != x2 but FUSB(x1) == FUSB(x2) == HI.
 Not analog.
  
 Clearly, in nature, there is no instantaneous change, and the physical fields are continuous.
 An electric field changing instantaneously would create an infinite magnetic field (just for example), which would make many things unhappy around there.
 But a continuously changing physical field, does not make the signal analog.


----------



## watchnerd

joe bloggs said:


> Definitely doing much better than watchnerd


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> They usually manage to do the opposite and make budding audiophiles feel crazy for NOT hearing the things they hear... Definitely doing much better than watchnerd




I'm noticing with people that just get into audio (me not being an exception) often claim to hear a difference when getting a "better" solution, especially those who want to bee an audiophile. And using something different automatically means it's better, and the fact that it may be a subtle difference is also seen as proof that one has more sensitive ears. Biases are often unknown to people who are not total number jerks like us so anything that affects one's perception of sound can be seen as a ticket to having the elitist label of being a proud audiophile with good ears. Those who don't hear a difference should therefore be happy and settle for what they can hear by saving some money (because they are inherently interior to us who can clearly hear a difference). First time buyers are also the most excitable and tend to post their impressions as reviews before they really get to know the device.

 When I first bought a cheap pair of Xiaomi Pistons, I war going to write a full review. Heck, a month ago, I found that 2000+ worded draft and went on a witch hunt to ensure that I destroyed all evidence of such audiophoolery. :3

It's really hard to fight these impulses and impressions that may easily be coloured and can mislead other people. I guess I was lucky, because I just ended up spending an hour a day comparing my new headphones with what I had before...for 3 months. And I noticed things so wonderful in my new headphones, and everything does match so many impressions that other people have posted. Then I finally felt certain that I know the differences between the different headphones I have; that I can write full comparisons...and I open my eyes and What THEY WERE THE WRONG HEADPHONES WHAT AM I HEARING OMG THEY SUDDENLY SOUND DIFFERENT THE BASS ISN'T LIKE HOW I JUST DESCRIBED SO IS THE TREBLE SO ARE THE MIDS I SWEAR THEY JUST SOUNDED LIKE THE PISTONS AND NOT THE EARPODS A WHILE AGO BUT THEY DON'T NOW WHAT IS GOING ON???!!!!! And alas, I realised that almost all my impressions are false and I only hear what I think I hear (heavily influenced by reviews I read before purchasing). Mid forward on the Earpods and rolled off sub-bass and treble, vs the piston's v shaped signature. It's quite a shock to believe that you can mess it up, and sadly, people who seem to dig deep into these things haven't had this shock yet. Completely overthrows ones belief system, which is quite cruel. 

Alas I discovered the unbelievaable flaws of sighted tests and I stopped showing off my new audio toys to my friends as if I am superior to them. And to this day, I still enjoy my Earpods. Sadly I lost them a few days ago and I'm so depressed now even though I have headphones costing twenty times more. People seem to look at me word when i say the Earpods are quite nice. But hey, I got Tyll from InnerFidelity to quote and he never openly claimed that cables and high res audio is BS so I'm always good. XD

*Mindless rant is over. Just moved and my new room is in a state of complete chaos. My ocd's ticking and is bleeding into my replies on Head-Fi. XD


----------



## GuyUnder

I don't think you were addled by sighted and expectation biases. More likely you suffered from audio memory smearing. 
  
 Besides, I don't think anyone would have a severe expectation bias over $6 headphones.


----------



## VNandor

guyunder said:


> I don't think you were addled by sighted and expectation biases. More likely you suffered from audio memory smearing.
> 
> Besides, I don't think anyone would have a severe expectation bias over $6 headphones.


 

 You do realize that doing tests sighted do not improve auditory memory, right?


----------



## cel4145

u-3c said:


> I'm noticing with people that just get into audio (me not being an exception) often claim to hear a difference when getting a "better" solution, especially those who want to bee an audiophile.




Yeah. I have also seen people new to audio rationalize their way to making generalizations about audio equipment or even audio principles, simply based on their limited individual experience. 

This even happens before they get exposed to some of the subjectivist insanity. My point being that I don't think this is always learned by becoming part of a community like Head-Fi, although it can certainly be reinforced.


----------



## U-3C

guyunder said:


> I don't think you were addled by sighted and expectation biases. More likely you suffered from audio memory smearing.
> 
> Besides, I don't think anyone would have a severe expectation bias over $6 headphones.




Except I was heavily affected by this bias. This happened multiple times and I tried really hard to prove it wrong before I finally admitted it. The changes were as fast and as slow as I wanted. I tried everything I can because it didn't make sense at first. ^_^ And to make sure I was sane, I grabbed 10 friends to test and same. The brain is so easily tricked, just based on the mood, and the effect far surpasses that of many refinements in audio gear. 

Key to enjoying music: be happy and not worry about your stuff~ ^~^ Or be very very sad and listen to sad music, or be sad and listen to happy music. They all work and all over different flavours. :blink:

Still so sad my Earpods are missing (should listen to music now I guess???!!). ;_; I actually wear them over ear because it changes the sound significantly in a way I like. Completely subjective and everyone has different ears shapes so everyone will hear differently. Same thing with my SHE3590 and my Q701. Pressing them even a bit changes the sound in enjoyable or unbearable ways. My friend clearly didn't hear the same things I heard and it takes me a long time to find the position that I enjoy most. Amazing how little changes affect the sound, and sadly, these are things that you can't know about in reviews, especially with the quickly hyped up ones as everyone posting their impressions so quickly.

Where did the Earpods goooooooooooooo... ;~;


----------



## GuyUnder

hotice said:


> The difference between 1 and 0 is 1 in all the math books I have around here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 The mathematical formula are useful for engineering, but worthless in a context of understanding natural phenomena which is what we are discussing. The natural phenomena in question are electrical currents. Are square waves, in fact, electrical currents? Do they differ fundamentally from sine waves? No, square waves do not, in fact, differ fundamentally from sine waves; both are electrical currents being transmitted through conductive material.
  
 Electrical currents are not information.
  
 Electrical currents are not sound.
  
 Electrical currents exist in the analog domain. Period.
  
 The difference between analog sound and digital sound, which this thread seems so hung up over, isn't a difference between different but similar things -- it's the difference between mathematically-approximated sine waves and actual sine waves. The difference between a photograph and a painting, you could say.


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> Yeah. I have also seen people new to audio rationalize their way to making generalizations about audio equipment or even audio principles, simply based on their limited individual experience.
> 
> This even happens before they get exposed to some of the subjectivist insanity. My point being that I don't think this is always learned by becoming part of a community like Head-Fi, although it can certainly be reinforced.




If it's the most simple and obvious reason that appears to make sense, why bother dig deeper?

One reason why pseudoscience is so poplar is because of that: it makes claims that are bold and obvious, and if one does not have a solid foundational understanding, one cannot distinguish right from wrong. Showing a glimpse of truth helps appeal, but does not show the whole story. Pseudoscience can easily integrate things that the average Joe accepts, and ignore things that are complex. A more scientific approach is difficult because you need to go deeper, which many simply do not have the interest or time to understand, and resort to common sense. Sadly, this common sense is heavily influenced by biases. How can the earth be round and spinning? If it is, we will be slidding off, and we need to grab on to trees so this giant spinning ball won't throw us off. Birds and things that we throw straight up in the air will magically move in one direction, just like how am apple will be left behind you if you throw it sideways when riding a horse! Water won't be smooth! And so on. A glimpse into what we don't know, although uncomfortable, can give us a greater understanding of things, and is often dinner by overthrowing previous beliefs.

You mentioned that these beliefs and rationalisations are common to people even before they arrive on Head-Fi. But Head-Fi is nothing. This is a common problem that people are aware of thousands of years ago. Prime example is the allegory of the cave. Our common sense is based on our world view, and we don't know that much as we only have so limited time to learn. If we get a glimpse of something else, it leads to a while new realm of discoveries, but everyone goes through different things. That's why everyone world view is different. And that's also why we were suppose to trust experts to handle things they specialise in, but because their understanding of a subject (in any field) is so different from people who did not spend years or decades to truly understand something, acting as an advisor often feels like this:

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg[/video]

:^D

*Currently posting between activities so I don't have time to double check or to refine. Typing on the top of my head so don't judge me words too literally. Just trying to convey a general idea but can't seem to shorten it into one sentence without time to think before posting.


----------



## HotIce

Oh boy ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 Quote:


guyunder said:


> The mathematical formula are useful for engineering, but worthless in a context of understanding natural phenomena which is what we are discussing.


 
  
 The "mathematical" formula was to try to make you understand what a USB transmission logic looks like, this you showed to be very confused about.
  


> The natural phenomena in question are electrical currents.


 
  
 No, actually, when it comes to electrical signaling, in many protocols, the specification talks about voltages, not currents.
 Since you seem to be strolling through this thread via Google searches, you may want to look up the difference between the two 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  


> Are square waves, in fact, electrical currents?


 
  
 This is the same as saying "Are cars, in fact, Audis?" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 A wave is a physical field changing in time.
 Provided the limitation in physics of creating perfect square waves, you can have electrical field, magnetic field, ... "square" waves.
  
  


> Do they differ fundamentally from sine waves?


 
  
 Yes they are, but that is not the point. You keep confusing square vs sine vs all the things in the middle, with digital vs analog.
 Despite many people in this thread tried to explain it to you in lame terms.
  
 But at this point the Troll Level you brought upon this thread overflowed the limits, so I suggest you carry all the misinformation into a Cable thread of your choice.


----------



## U-3C

guyunder said:


> The mathematical formula are useful for engineering, but worthless in a context of understanding natural phenomena which is what we are discussing. The natural phenomena in question are electrical currents. Are square waves, in fact, electrical currents? Do they differ fundamentally from sine waves? No, square waves do not, in fact, differ fundamentally from sine waves; both are electrical currents being transmitted through conductive material.
> 
> Electrical currents are not information.
> 
> ...




But a painting can be made exactly like a photo!

 : D

Sorry. Bad joke.

Anyways, I just have a hard time understanding why all this is necessary.

Yes there are all these things that claim to fix issues... But what are these issues and do these issues even exist in the first place?


----------



## gregorio

guyunder said:


> [1] The mathematical formula are useful for engineering,
> [2] but worthless in a context of understanding natural phenomena which is what we are discussing.


 
  
 1. Glad we can agree on this point. Because what we're discussing; the USB protocol, DACs, source components and USB cables, are ALL products of engineering! Unless your saying that DACs, etc., are natural phenomena which are mined or grow on trees?
  
 2. It's been explained to you, using language a child can understand all the way up to language a university student can understand, that a square wave is not a natural phenomena and could not possibly be a natural phenomena. 
  
 Even the forum mod has told you to stop with the nonsense and post some actual facts or not to post. What, do you think you're accomplishing?
  
 G


----------



## Brooko

[Mod Comment]
  
 Guy - unfortunately at this stage - and in this forum - your arguments are just becoming silly.  The DAC sees digital audio as either a 1 or 0 - and translates it to an analogue signal.  A square wave has no relevance until it becomes analogue.  There are not different degrees of 1 or 0.  There is only 1 or 0.
  
 At this stage - if you keep up with your current posting - and at the request of several members of this thread - I will have no choice but to evict you from it.  I'd invite you to take these guys advice (many here are audio engineers with vast knowledge), and actually learn a little about the subjects they are talking about.  I can tell you that the points you are trying to make are clearly wrong. This thread, and others like it in Sound Science are an amazing resource - and most of these guys are very willing to help people understand the actual science behind audio if they are willing to open their minds.  Unfortunately constantly denying what is already known to be fact does not bode well for your future in this section.
  
 So last chance - keep up with current MO, and I have to take it at face value (trolling) - which means an eviction.  Over to you.


----------



## limpidglitch

hotice said:


> Despite many people in this thread tried to explain it to you in lame terms.


 
  
 Hey, I take exception to this. We might be laymen and -women, but that doesn't make us (or our explanations) lame.


----------



## warrior1975

gregorio said:


> 1. Glad we can agree on this point. Because what we're discussing; the USB protocol, DACs, source components and USB cables, are ALL products of engineering! Unless your saying that DACs, etc., are natural phenomena which are mined or grow on trees?
> 
> *2. It's been explained to you, using language a child can understand all the way up to language a university student can understand, that a square wave is not a natural phenomena and could not possibly be a natural phenomena.*
> 
> ...




I normally consider myself a somewhat smart guy, but in light of the bolded sentence, I feel like a complete idiot. Lol. You guys lost me at sine wave.


----------



## gregorio

warrior1975 said:


> I normally consider myself a somewhat smart guy, but in light of the bolded sentence, I feel like a complete idiot. Lol. You guys lost me at sine wave.


 
  
 Being a "smart guy" doesn't mean that you (or anyone else) is born with the understanding of how audio works. It just means you have the capacity to understand, providing we have an appropriate starting point. So, you should definitely NOT "feel like a complete idiot", or, if you do, join the club! Everyone, including all the famous producers, engineers and scientists who invented audio recording technology and the art it contains, were at one time effectively "complete idiots"! All we therefore need to do is ascertain your appropriate starting point and as you're a smart guy, we should be able to quickly progress from there. Have you read this post #3040, specifically point #1? If so and you're still confused, no problem we'll just find an even earlier starting point.
  
 Bare in mind that much of the last few pages have been aimed at someone professing to already have a high level of understanding of audio, high enough even to argue with those who do it for a living. It's a shame it got so heated and derailed, to the point that it's made you feel an idiot.
  
 BTW, just in case there's any doubt, due to what's been posted previously, there's absolutely no sarcasm intended in this response.
  
 G


----------



## castleofargh

can I try another answer, yet the same? ^_^
  
 a square wave can be seen as a fairly simple signal with a very simple shape, but in the analog domain they are equivalent to an infinite number of sine waves at different frequencies, and the properties of waves make is so that they can all add up to one single signal with the desired shape. (same idea as an impulse response, it's a rather simple and short signal but it contains an infinite number of frequencies, or at least all those that weren't filtered).

 while we imagine that turning ON and OFF any circuit is generating square waves, in practice anything having an impact on some frequencies, will have an impact on the shape of the square wave. like even a basic cable will roll off very high frequencies at some point, so instead of transmitting a perfectly identical signal, the high freqs included in the square wave will be rolled off. plus any extra noise is made of yet other frequencies adding up to the final shape of the signal. the time needed to go from 0 to max amplitude is not truly instantaneous but that one is pretty intuitive, electricity doesn't move faster than light ^_^. 
  
  
  
 oh, and feeling silly is the best. when I feel like I don't know anything, it's one of those rare moments when I'm actually sure of something.


----------



## gregorio

With all due respect castofargh, and despite the fact that nothing you stated was inaccurate, I'm not sure that's an "appropriate starting point". For example, explaining how we can frequency modulate sine waves to approximate an audible square wave will only confuse someone who doesn't yet have a reasonably solid basic concept of what square waves and sine waves actually are. Maybe we should wait for warrior1975's response and ascertain what is the appropriate starting point for him?
  
 G


----------



## watchnerd

Yes, square waves, impulse response, and sine waves are all just a Fourier Transform away from each other.
  
 But the problem with describing these in terms of signal processing math is that it makes no sense if you don't understand signal processing math. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 It's also completely unnecessary for understanding how signals in a USB cable affect a DAC.


----------



## castleofargh

I'm so sad, it's the first time someone suggested that I lack pedagogy, in the last 2 hours. ^_^  (it's horrible because it's true).


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> I'm so sad, it's the first time someone suggests that I lack pedagogy, in the last 2 hours. ^_^  (it's horrible because it's true).


 
  
 Don't feel too bad.  I just had a pot of tomato sauce "explode" on me when I went to stir it. (air bubble of something)  Actually, feel worse for my loved ones, as I stripped out of my clothes right there in the kitchen and immediately put my soiled clothes in the wash to avoid any stains.  My youngest will need therapy, I'm told.


----------



## pinnahertz

sonitus mirus said:


> Don't feel too bad.  I just had a pot of tomato sauce "explode" on me when I went to stir it. (air bubble of something)  Actually, feel worse for my loved ones, as I stripped out of my clothes right there in the kitchen and immediately put my soiled clothes in the wash to avoid any stains.  My youngest will need therapy, I'm told.


 
 Thanks for that.  I didn't need that image in my head.
  
 Of the pot, I mean.


----------



## watchnerd

castleofargh said:


> I'm so sad, it's the first time someone suggests that I lack pedagogy, in the last 2 hours. ^_^  (it's horrible because it's true).


 
  
 I was thinking it was more of just a plain case of being a complete pedanthole.


----------



## dazzerfong

For those who don't understand the relationship between sine and square waves: https://i.stack.imgur.com/27HVo.gif
  
 Graphically shows how one gets the frequency from a square wave, and what the frequency actually means in terms of signal processing.


----------



## spruce music

dazzerfong said:


> For those who don't understand the relationship between sine and square waves: https://i.stack.imgur.com/27HVo.gif
> 
> Graphically shows how one gets the frequency from a square wave, and what the frequency actually means in terms of signal processing.


 

 Thanks for that.  I had seen a while ago, and wished I had bookmarked it to show to others.


----------



## U-3C

Not solely focused on audio, but a person I know that is very into psychology just posted an interesting post on Facebook that is somewhat relevant to a previously discussed topic.


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> Not solely focused on audio, but a person I know that is very into psychology just posted an interesting post on Facebook that is somewhat relevant to a previously discussed topic.


 
  
 That was one of the first things my cognitive psychology textbook from many years ago stated: the authors were asking you to distrust your own mind. It set the tone for the whole section that followed.

 It made me think about a period in my own life that I consider to have been filled with good memories. I can remember the things I enjoyed doing, of course, and I can roughly correlate them to a time period and chronological order, but what I have real trouble remembering is all the mundane things that, logically, I would have had to have been doing at the same time. In fact, much of the time would have been devoted to these very things, and yet if I just sit back and let the nostalgia take hold, it's like the entire period was one long unbroken string of awesome. Logically, it's impossible. For instance, I was still in school during most of it (near the end of spring/beginning of summer), and presumably would only have had time to enjoy myself on weekends (or maybe the occasional free evening), and yet I have no memory of school during that period. If I wasn't willing to logically work out things that had to have been taking place concurrently (like school), I would be fully prepared to accept a warped and generally improved overall memory of that period.
  
 Clearly my mind is playing tricks, simplifying things, and just generally not getting things right. I've learned not to fully trust anything my mind comes up with unless I can refer to some hard external evidence that what I'm thinking is logical and possible.


----------



## Brooko

Just letting you know - our "friend" Guy Under is actually a formerly banned member. As soon as I know he's seen his PM - his account will be banned.  For those flagging his posts - please don't - there is no longer any need.
  
 And please do not reply to this message / post - nor mention his status (it is against forum rules).  I am simply leaving this with you so you are aware.  This ends the matter.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> I'm so sad, it's the first time someone suggests that I lack pedagogy, in the last 2 hours. ^_^  (it's horrible because it's true).


 
  
 Yep, don't feel too bad. My first ever formal lecture (to second year degree students) was a disaster. The official observer had to stop the lecture after 20mins because I'd over-estimated the students' level and they were becoming ever more bored and distracted as they had no idea what I was talking about. The rest of the lecture was an unstructured mess of pure ad libbing as I tried to work out an appropriate level and re-engage them. I overheard some of the students discussing the lecture after it was over ... not my proudest achievement!!
  
 G


----------



## warrior1975

Thank you guys for the advice. I will check that first link out today, and see where it takes me.


----------



## HotIce

One has to wonder what the appropriate behavior is, when you have a guy whom you already beaten up over rather frivolous claims in other threads, which, even though he proclaims itself not having a clue in electrical engineering, suggests to give a few turns to a random pot lowering the voltage of the amp section rail, because "it gives better linearity" and "the original 9v voltage is too strong" (?!?!?) for opamps which can take double that.
 Oh, that, and changing a few random capacitors w/out a clue of the schematic 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 But after that change, "it sounds fabolous" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/809203/fx-audio-dac-x6-2016-release-potential-sub-100-king/60#post_13175949
  
 I think I will shut up ... after all, $80 is not too much of a price, for learning not to trust a random dude off the internet with your electronics


----------



## watchnerd

hotice said:


> One has to wonder what the appropriate behavior is, when you have a guy whom you already beaten up over rather frivolous claims in other threads, which, even though he proclaims itself not having a clue in electrical engineering, suggests to give a few turns to a random pot lowering the voltage of the amp section rail, because "it gives better linearity" and "the original 9v voltage is too strong" (?!?!?) for opamps which can take double that.
> Oh, that, and changing a few random capacitors w/out a clue of the schematic
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## U-3C

Computer on fire? I guess it finally has enough power and analogue warmth to it now. :3

Found my Earpods. So so soooooooo happy now~

Since I don't have a multi billion dollar DAC to fix the terrible terrible sound of expensive headphones, I should just stick to my Earpods for better sound over hifi options!


----------



## gregorio

warrior1975 said:


> Thank you guys for the advice. I will check that first link out today, and see where it takes me.


 
  
 Get back to us and let us know if it makes sense now or if it's still not entirely clear.
  
 G


----------



## warrior1975

Yes, will do. I plan on reading it today at work. Being its a holiday and all, technically my office should be closed.


----------



## StanD

In light of recent events, I would like to nominate the below as an additional moderator. I know him personally as he and his buddies frequent my front yard. He has a good work ethic and shows no favor. And he has excellent hearing, something that can be appreciated on an audio based web site.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> In light of recent events, I would like to nominate the below as an additional moderator. I know him personally as he and his buddies frequent my front yard. He has a good work ethic and shows no favor.


 
 Can your friend watch over all the bunnies? They reproduce fast and spread far and wide! Especially as spring is coming!


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Can your friend watch over all the bunnies? They reproduce fast and spread far and wide! Especially as spring is coming!


 
 We used to have those and chipmunks, the hawks have cleaned them out last year and they have steered clear ever since. The squirrel population has rebounded and now the hawks are back on the job, moderating.


----------



## cel4145

Thought some of you guys would appreciate this:



If it was stated somewhere on the Internet, it's all good, right?


----------



## watchnerd

cel4145 said:


> Thought some of you guys would appreciate this:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was stated somewhere on the Internet, it's all good, right?


 
  
 The placebophile corollary:


----------



## U-3C




----------



## watchnerd

u-3c said:


>


 
  
 Wait...
  
 Are you saying that isn't true?


----------



## U-3C

watchnerd said:


> Wait...
> 
> Are you saying that isn't true?




Trust it. It's a random picture on the internet. o(>v0)b


Since ghost peppers have been mentioned regarding improving audio fidelity, maybe someone can experiment with that too if one wants to enjoy music while recovering from illness? :^D

_DisclaimerIamnotresponsibleforanyterribleterribleterriblethingsthatmayhappentoyou._


----------



## watchnerd

u-3c said:


> Trust it. It's a random picture on the internet. o(>v0)b
> 
> 
> Since ghost peppers have been mentioned regarding improving audio fidelity, maybe someone can experiment with that too if one wants to enjoy music while recovering from illness? :^D
> ...


 
  
 Oh, I have some Ghost Pepper ground up powder....


----------



## bfreedma

watchnerd said:


> u-3c said:
> 
> 
> > Trust it. It's a random picture on the internet. o(>v0)b
> ...




No. Just no.....

But if you really feel the need to take one for the team in the name of Sound Science, I'll send you some Carolina Reapers and Trinidad 7 Pot Douglahs that I grew and dried. At 2 million scovilles, they're twice as hot as the ghost pepper. Though much like the red book vs. Hi-Rez discussion, I'm sure the difference in your output will not be audible.


----------



## U-3C

bfreedma said:


> No. Just no.....
> 
> But if you really feel the need to take one for the team in the name of Sound Science, I'll send you some Carolina Reapers and Trinidad 7 Pot Douglahs that I grew and dried. At 2 million scovilles, they're twice as hot as the ghost pepper. Though much like the red book vs. Hi-Rez discussion, I'm sure the difference in your output will not be audible.




I swear I won't be able to feel a difference. It's definitely enough to overload our senses though I never actually looked into the science behind it. If anyone wants to educate me, please feel free. A live double blind test would of course be favourable, though I can't imagine how to create an ideal controlled environment. 

Anyone wanna take a bullet for the team (and market this into the other forums? :^D ) for science?


----------



## bfreedma

u-3c said:


> I swear I won't be able to feel a difference. It's definitely enough to overload our senses though I never actually looked into the science behind it. If anyone wants to educate me, please feel free. A live double blind test would of course be favourable, though I can't imagine how to create an ideal controlled environment.
> 
> Anyone wanna take a bullet for the team (and market this into the other forums? :^D ) for science?




The New Mexico State University Chili Pepper Institute has a ton of information: https://cpi.nmsu.edu

Capsaicin definitely releases endorphins in quantity, so it actually might be interesting to see if it impacts our perception of audio. I have no idea how to set up a controlled test, but I'll EAT one and post entirely an subjective opinion. I'm also not doing 10 trial runs to gather data.

Who knows, I might start selling part of next year's crop as "audiophile" chilies.


----------



## watchnerd

u-3c said:


> I swear I won't be able to feel a difference. It's definitely enough to overload our senses though I never actually looked into the science behind it. If anyone wants to educate me, please feel free. A live double blind test would of course be favourable, though I can't imagine how to create an ideal controlled environment.
> 
> Anyone wanna take a bullet for the team (and market this into the other forums? :^D ) for science?


 
  
 If you're going to stick peppers up your butt, I think we definitely need double blind.
  
 Nobody wants to see that process.


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> Trust it. It's a random picture on the internet. o(>v0)b
> 
> 
> Since ghost peppers have been mentioned regarding improving audio fidelity, maybe someone can experiment with that too if one wants to enjoy music while recovering from illness? :^D
> ...


 
  
 I grow those on the patio every year. They make awesome fajitas and stir fry, among other things. I've even got a bag full of frozen ones from harvests past. Looks like I'm set for audio experiments.


----------



## Ruben123

By now I've seen it that often that people wonder if their lovely to-buy gear will last 5 years. What the heck? I'm using 39 years old gear, still lasting. I can't remember ever having something braking on me, except for that it was my own fault. And even if the $$$$ gear lasts 5 years, who on this website still has it by then? No one I guess


----------



## watchnerd

ruben123 said:


> By now I've seen it that often that people wonder if their lovely to-buy gear will last 5 years. What the heck? I'm using 39 years old gear, still lasting. I can't remember ever having something braking on me, except for that it was my own fault. And even if the $$$$ gear lasts 5 years, who on this website still has it by then? No one I guess


 
  
 Sorry, I'm not understanding the objectivist or Sound Science angle to your post.
  
 Can you elaborate?


----------



## Ruben123

watchnerd said:


> Sorry, I'm not understanding the objectivist or Sound Science angle to your post.
> 
> Can you elaborate?




I forgot the statistics, my bad.


----------



## cel4145

bfreedma said:


> The New Mexico State University Chili Pepper Institute has a ton of information: https://cpi.nmsu.edu
> 
> Capsaicin definitely releases endorphins in quantity, so it actually might be interesting to see if it impacts our perception of audio. I have no idea how to set up a controlled test, but I'll EAT one and post entirely an subjective opinion. I'm also not doing 10 trial runs to gather data.
> 
> Who knows, I might start selling part of next year's crop as "audiophile" chilies.




If you do actually go through with this, be sure to start a discussion thread. Then we can hype it up!


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

bfreedma said:


> Who knows, I might start selling part of next year's crop as "audiophile" chilies.


 
  
 This is not a bad idea, actually. There's a whole ecosystem (pun kind of intended) of products to be had here ... For example, you could sell special audiophile dentures that crush the chili in the perfect way to maximize the effect and also avoid bone conduction to prevent any kind of destructive interference with the audio. 
  
 Oh man... if Chord can charge $600 for a crappier Chromecast Audio, imagine how much you could charge for these babies...


----------



## U-3C

grumpyoldguy said:


> This is not a bad idea, actually. There's a whole ecosystem (pun kind of intended) of products to be had here ... For example, you could sell special audiophile dentures that crush the chili in the perfect way to maximize the effect and also avoid bone conduction to prevent any kind of destructive interference with the audio.
> 
> Oh man... if Chord can charge $600 for a crappier Chromecast Audio, imagine how much you could charge for these babies...




Couldn't follow the Poly thread anymore (a little too hard to read, sorry  ).

When you mention "crapper," are you being sarcastic, or did Chord actually release enough info to show that their Poly indeed is worse than the Chromecast Audio?


----------



## briskly

cel4145 said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > The New Mexico State University Chili Pepper Institute has a ton of information: https://cpi.nmsu.edu
> ...


 
 Take the chatter over here.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/769840/tasting-audiophile-clams-and-meats


----------



## bfreedma

cel4145 said:


> If you do actually go through with this, be sure to start a discussion thread. Then we can hype it up!


 
 Will do. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Should I put it in Sound Science or Cables and Tweaks Forums?  I'm definitely not going to claim any test rigor, so unless we all want to have a little fun with it here, it won't really be a proper thread.


----------



## U-3C

briskly said:


> Take the chatter over here.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/769840/tasting-audiophile-clams-and-meats




That looks delicious! Anyone wanna fund me a test for that???!! I swear I'll write a full 300 word report on the full experience for all of you!!! \(@v@)/

-------------

On a more serious note, I'm curious about how to find info about the noise floor, as it's the biggest thing that is bothering me right now with my DAC, and nobody seems to bother to mention it in reviews, as if the specs sheet tells it so there's no point in even mentioning it.

The specs sheet for my DAC says this:

"Noise Floor 7 µV RMS (A-weight), max gain"

Can anyone explain what that means, and as a rule of thumb, how does it stand? Is it very below average, very good, just a marketing term used to confuse people and don't tell anything without more info on the reference used, just a made up pseudoscientific term, etc.?

Just to add a bit, on max gain, the DAC I use can output "2.9 V rms / +11.5 dBu." Can someone kindly explain how to use this in calculations to find the noise floor?

Thanks. ^_^


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> That looks delicious! Anyone wanna fund me a test for that???!! I swear I'll write a full 300 word report on the full experience for all of you!!! \(@v@)/
> 
> -------------
> 
> ...




It means that with the volume turned all the way up and no input there is a 7uV RMS output. But that measurement is not just off a meter... they've weighted it to make it look better than it is*. You can figure out how loud that actually is (dB SPL) if you know the output impedance of the DAC/amp, sensitivity of your IEMs/headphones, and impedance of your IEMs/headphones. 

*A-weighting is dumb. As far as I can tell it's only purpose to hide things the manufacturer is afraid of and to allow them to report higher than measured specs so they can charge more money. The whole thing about how the ear works is a bunch of garbage.


----------



## cel4145

bfreedma said:


> Will do. :eek:
> 
> Should I put it in Sound Science or Cables and Tweaks Forums?  I'm definitely not going to claim any test rigor, so unless we all want to have a little fun with it here, it won't really be a proper thread.




Cables forum. No discussion of DBT, confirmation bias, or anything like that should cloud discussion of your evaluation. 

I wonder if Cholula works better with rock or jazz? Or I suppose I could stereotype and guess it works best on Rodrigo y Gabriela


----------



## castleofargh

u-3c said:


> On a more serious note, I'm curious about how to find info about the noise floor, as it's the biggest thing that is bothering me right now with my DAC, and nobody seems to bother to mention it in reviews, as if the specs sheet tells it so there's no point in even mentioning it.
> 
> The specs sheet for my DAC says this:
> 
> ...


 
 it's typically impractical or most of the time you find yourself with values not relevant to your use. noise being almost the only part of fidelity I still care about, I'm always very concerned that some sources will be noisy on my sensitive IEMs.
 you can try to crunch numbers all day long, with SNR and max voltage you end up like in your example with a voltage for noise(but here, A weighted... ok), even then it doesn't mean you'll have that once loaded and with a different setting. on some devices lowering the volume level and/gain will also lower the noise, on other gears it won't change a thing. IMO until you get the opportunity to check for yourself, the best information is to find a few noise obsessed people with really sensitive IEMs who tried the gear, and ask them. it's horrible that in sound science I'm suggesting to trust subjective opinions, but in practice that's what worked the best for me. 
 of course you must only care for those specific people, because for each noise paranoid dude with sensitive gears and ears, you'll get 50 guys swearing on their mother's pudding that there is no audible noise. so subjective, but stay away from vox populi.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> it's typically impractical or most of the time you find yourself with values not relevant to your use. noise being almost the only part of fidelity I still care about, I'm always very concerned that some sources will be noisy on my sensitive IEMs.
> you can try to crunch numbers all day long, with SNR and max voltage you end up like in your example with a voltage for noise(but here, A weighted... ok), even then it doesn't mean you'll have that once loaded and with a different setting. on some devices lowering the volume level and/gain will also lower the noise, on other gears it won't change a thing. IMO until you get the opportunity to check for yourself, the best information is to find a few noise obsessed people with really sensitive IEMs who tried the gear, and ask them. it's horrible that in sound science I'm suggesting to trust subjective opinions, but in practice that's what worked the best for me.
> of course you must only care for those specific people, because for each noise paranoid dude with sensitive gears and ears, you'll get 50 guys swearing on their mother's pudding that there is no audible noise. so subjective, but stay away from vox populi.




I will officially provide this service for other people now with all the DACs I own~ ^o^

Not scientific by any means, but I'll record the noise from my sensitive iems so if I ever have more than one DAC, I'll be able to create a very small library of videos that can be compared relative to each other. Unless someone pays me 300k to create a somewhat proper measuring rig and school me for the years on audio engineering theory.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> It means that with the volume turned all the way up and no input there is a 7uV RMS output. But that measurement is not just off a meter... they've weighted it to make it look better than it is*. You can figure out how loud that actually is (dB SPL) if you know the output impedance of the DAC/amp, sensitivity of your IEMs/headphones, and impedance of your IEMs/headphones.
> 
> *A-weighting is dumb. As far as I can tell it's only purpose to hide things the manufacturer is afraid of and to allow them to report higher than measured specs so they can charge more money. The whole thing about how the ear works is a bunch of garbage.


 
_"But that measurement is not just off a meter... they've weighted it to make it look better than it is*.  *A-weighting is dumb. As far as I can tell it's only purpose to hide things the manufacturer is afraid of and to allow them to report higher than measured specs so they can charge more money. The whole thing about how the ear works is a bunch of garbage."_
  
 Interesting opinion of the internationally standardized A-weighting curve ( IEC 61672:2003). As far as the whole thing about how the ear works being a "bunch of garbage",  well, science disagrees with you rather completely.  The sensitivity of the the human hearing system to sounds at low levels has been thoroughly researched, and well documented.  The A-weighting curve was intended to mimic hearing frequency response at low levels (40 phon), as applied to SPL measurements.  Its use in fully electronic noise measurements does create a bit of ambiguity (what SPL corresponds to either max output or the noise level?), but it can be assumed, especially in a modern digital audio system, that noise floors will be low enough for the A-weighting curve to be relevant.  For electronics noise measurements, A-weighted figures are meaningful, but would be more meaningful if unweighted figures were presented as well.  The curve rolls off low frequency response below 1kHz, de-emphasizing low frequency noise, and also rolls off above 10kHz.  Both sections of the curve make sense in low-level noise evaluation.  Comparing unweighted and A-weighted noise figures to each other give us an indication of the low frequency content.  Since low frequencies are far less audible at low levels, the curve gives us a better idea of how the noise level will sound subjectively.
  
 Low frequency noise weighting is used commonly in evaluating noise in acoustic spaces.  ANSI standard Noise Curves (NC - ANSI S12.2-2008) are a family of curves that relate to specific SPL in octave bands.  The NC40 curve lines up fairly well with the low frequency portion of the A-weighting curve (which is a single curve, not a family).
  
 @U-C3: _"__"Noise Floor 7 µV RMS (A-weight), max gain"

 Can anyone explain what that means, and as a rule of thumb, how does it stand? Is it very below average, very good, just a marketing term used to confuse people and don't tell anything without more info on the reference used, just a made up pseudoscientific term, etc.?"_
  
 The formula for this calculation is: *dB = 20 * Log (Vout / Vin),  -112dB=20*Log (2.9 / .000007) ** The added weighting scales a non-weighted result for more agreement with percieved audibility of low level noise.*
  
 In the example, the noise is -112dB below maximum output with the gain all the way up.  It's likely that an unweighted measurement would place the noise 10dB higher, based on the typical spectral density of purely electronic noise in critical bands.  Even though 24 bit quantization theoretically has a range of 144dB, you won't find a DAC or ADC doing much better than 112dBA.  So typical, and good at the same time.   The figure is used in marketing, it is slightly confusing and incomplete, but is not a made-up pseudoscientific term.  What's missing is the test conditions.  We might assume it has a digital signal with no signal, not even LSB jitter.  But some DACs go into a "mute" condition when that happens, or when no bit stream is present.  So we don't know, but it's within the realm of typical 24 bit DAC performance.  What will that noise sound like with your high sensitivity IEMs plugged in?  Hard to say without knowing the IEM sensitivity, but you won't run the gain all the way up, and we don't know if the noise floor changes with gain or not.  But assuming it does, which would be expected to a point,  and you adjust that gain so average listening level at say 90dB SPL, that residual noise will be far below the threshold of hearing, and far, far below any residual noise found in any recording.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> _"But that measurement is not just off a meter... they've weighted it to make it look better than it is*.  *A-weighting is dumb. As far as I can tell it's only purpose to hide things the manufacturer is afraid of and to allow them to report higher than measured specs so they can charge more money. The whole thing about how the ear works is a bunch of garbage."_
> 
> Interesting opinion of the internationally standardized A-weighting curve ([COLOR=252525] [/COLOR]IEC
> [COLOR=252525] 61672:2003)[/COLOR]. As far as the whole thing about how the ear works being a "bunch of garbage",  well, science disagrees with you rather completely.  The sensitivity of the the human hearing system to sounds at low levels has been thoroughly researched, and well documented.  The A-weighting curve was intended to mimic hearing frequency response at low levels (40 phon), as applied to SPL measurements.  Its use in fully electronic noise measurements does create a bit of ambiguity (what SPL corresponds to either max output or the noise level?), but it can be assumed, especially in a modern digital audio system, that noise floors will be low enough for the A-weighting curve to be relevant.  For electronics noise measurements, A-weighted figures are meaningful, but would be more meaningful if unweighted figures were presented as well.  The curve rolls off low frequency response below 1kHz, de-emphasizing low frequency noise, and also rolls off above 10kHz.  Both sections of the curve make sense in low-level noise evaluation.  Comparing unweighted and A-weighted noise figures to each other give us an indication of the low frequency content.  Since low frequencies are far less audible at low levels, the curve gives us a better idea of how the noise level will sound subjectively.
> ...




To be clear, the "it's a bunch of garbage" comment is in reference to using how the ear works as justification for changing the measurements of a device, not a dismissal of the very much understood knowledge of how the ear actually works. 

I don't care that it's standardized, A weighting shouldn't even exist. When I look up the measurements of a device, I want the measurements of that device. Period. 

If I were caught changing measurements by our customers, the company I work for would be blacklisted from ever doing business with them again. But in audio, it's the standard. Ridiculous.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> To be clear, the "it's a bunch of garbage" comment is in reference to using how the ear works as justification for changing the measurements of a device, not a dismissal of the very much understood knowledge of how the ear actually works.
> 
> I don't care that it's standardized, A weighting shouldn't even exist. When I look up the measurements of a device, I want the measurements of that device. Period.
> 
> If I were caught changing measurements by our customers, the company I work for would be blacklisted from ever doing business with them again. But in audio, it's the standard. Ridiculous.


 
 It's not changing measurements in audio, it's making them more meaningful in relation to actual audibility.  It's as if your customers asked you how heavy your product is, and the weight you quoted included the shipping container.  They don't care about that, they're  not going to use the container.   They only want a measurement of what they're actually going to use.  A-weighting removes the inaudible noise, and measures only the noise the customer will actually hear.  Your "shipping weight" (product and shipping materials) figure is accurate too, just not applicable, or of interest to the customer's use.  
  
 Unweighted measurements are also accurate, but they don't represent how a noise floor will sound.  I suppose you also object to band limiting a noise measurement to below 20kHz.  Yet, technically, that should also be done even while using an A-weighting filter because we can't hear ultrasonic noise.  
  
 I agree, I'd like to see unweighted noise too, but not exclusively.  I need to see both.  Or better, a spectrum of that noise.  But if it has to be a single number, A-weighted is probably the most meaningful.
  
 But I do appreciate that you have an opinion that is in direct opposition to they way audio has been measured and evaluated (not just writing specs) for the last 50+ years, and is in place because of some serious research.
  
 I can't say it any better than *this*, a company that deals in measurement devices, not audio gear:
  
_"The human ear responds more to frequencies between 500 Hz and 8 kHz and is less sensitive to very low-pitch or high-pitch noises. The frequency weightings used in sound level meters are often related to the response of the human ear, *to ensure that the meter is measuring pretty much what you actually hear.*_
_*It is extremely important that sound level measurements are made using the correct frequency weighting* - usually A-weighting. *For example, measuring a tonal noise of around 31 Hz could result in a 40 dB error if using C-weighting instead of A-weighting."*_

So if you like the 40dB error, then go unweighted. 

(C-weighting is, of course, not unweighted, it does have a curve, but it's quite flat compared to A-weighting)


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> It's not changing measurements in audio, it's making them more meaningful in relation to actual audibility.  It's as if your customers asked you how heavy your product is, and the weight you quoted included the shipping container.  They don't care about that, they're  not going to use the container.   They only want a measurement of what they're actually going to use.  A-weighting removes the inaudible noise, and measures only the noise the customer will actually hear.  Your "shipping weight" (product and shipping materials) figure is accurate too, just not applicable, or of interest to the customer's use.
> 
> Unweighted measurements are also accurate, but they don't represent how a noise floor will sound.  I suppose you also object to band limiting a noise measurement to below 20kHz.  Yet, technically, that should also be done even while using an A-weighting filter because we can't hear ultrasonic noise.
> 
> ...

If they're getting 40dB error, then they need new test equipment. 

The audibility of something is irrelevant when characterizing the hardware. The hardware is the hardware, period. 

And I doubt if I comb through these forums I will find a single post that says "Oh boy, 10dB noise figure? Man I'm glad they used an A weighted measurement, that's so much more relatable to me now!! Praise the sun god!"


----------



## headdict

grumpyoldguy said:


> The audibility of something is irrelevant when characterizing the hardware. The hardware is the hardware, period.


 
  
 What's the use of (audio related) hardware characteristics if they are (to a large extent) irrelevant to audibility?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

headdict said:


> What's the use of (audio related) hardware characteristics if they are (to a large extent) irrelevant to audibility?




How is a measurement taken straight from the test equipment irrelevant?

I think I agree with pinnahertz, I would be okay with it if unweighted measurements were also provided. But I still argue that a weighted measurement is just an opportunity for manufacturers to hide poor performance.


----------



## bfreedma

headdict said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by GRUMPYOLDGUY The audibility of something is irrelevant when characterizing the hardware. The hardware is the hardware, period. What's the use of (audio related) hardware characteristics if they are (to a large extent) irrelevant to audibility?




Marketing?.....

I think the importance of electronics that don't have audible issues and don't attempt to address Nyquist is because audibly flat response is relatively easily achieved there. Transducers are more variable, so trying to fix it in the hardware vs. via EQ has, IMO, two significant issues:

1. The EQ needed to address various headphones, recordings and individual hearing isn't static, so a hardware based solution isn't very flexible

2. It's going to get messy when you have hardware in the playback chain, each with it's own manufacturers implementation of a Nyquist (or other curve) based solution


----------



## headdict

grumpyoldguy said:


> How is a measurement taken straight from the test equipment irrelevant?
> 
> I think I agree with pinnahertz, I would be okay with it if unweighted measurements were also provided. But I still argue that a weighted measurement is just an opportunity for manufacturers to hide poor performance.


 

 I think we have very different opinions on what contributes to the meaningfulness or relevance of a measurement. Maybe it's because I'm not an engineer and thus not interested in any technical details that have no effect on my enjoyment of music.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

headdict said:


> I think we have very different opinions on what contributes to the meaningfulness or relevance of a measurement. Maybe it's because I'm not an engineer and thus not interested in any technical details that have no effect on my enjoyment of music.




So the same measurement with weighting means something more to you? Why? See my example above... what does a 10dB noise figure mean to you? Now what does it mean to you if I tell you it's weighted?


----------



## headdict

grumpyoldguy said:


> So the same measurement with weighting means something more to you? Why? See my example above... what does a 10dB noise figure mean to you? Now what does it mean to you if I tell you it's weighted?


 

 I suppose the weighting takes characteristics of human hearing into account. That's why it is more meaningful to me than the corresponding unweighted number, as I expect it to be more closely related to my music perception. The unweighted number might be interesting in some other respect, but why should I care? If it tells me something about a shortcoming of the hardware that is however not reflected in the weighted number, why is it relevant to me as a music listener?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

headdict said:


> I suppose the weighting takes characteristics of human hearing into account. That's why it is more meaningful to me than the corresponding unweighted number, as I expect it to be more closely related to my music perception. The unweighted number might be interesting in some other respect, but why should I care? If it tells me something about a shortcoming of the hardware that is however not reflected in the weighted number, why is it relevant to me as a music listener?




Sorry, would you mind answering the question first before countering it with your own?

But to answer your new question... I'm almost positive the number doesn't matter to you either way.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> If they're getting 40dB error, then they need new test equipment.
> 
> The audibility of something is irrelevant when characterizing the hardware. The hardware is the hardware, period.
> 
> And I doubt if I comb through these forums I will find a single post that says "Oh boy, 10dB noise figure? Man I'm glad they used an A weighted measurement, that's so much more relatable to me now!! Praise the sun god!"


 
_1. If they're getting 40dB error, then they need new test equipment._
  
_2, The audibility of something is irrelevant when characterizing the hardware. The hardware is the hardware, period._
  
_3. And I doubt if I comb through these forums I will find a single post that says "Oh boy, 10dB noise figure? Man I'm glad they used an A weighted measurement, that's so much more relatable to me now!! Praise the sun god!"_
  
 1. If your profession was audio engineering you'd know that every single audio performance measurement system from the multi-kilo$ AP right down to the free REW includes several standardized weighting filters.  Every SPL meter worth anything over $10 has weighting filters.  No new equipment needed.  It's a question of relevance.  And correctly applied weighting in noise measurements is very, very relevant. 
  
 2. Not if it's audio hardware.  Sorry, that's completely naive.  In audio equipment the measurement "holy grail" is audible correlation of measured parameters.  In fact, it's about all that matters.
  
 3. You won't.  Because there's no such thing as a 10dB noise figure.  All noise figures must reference something like full output, a specific sound pressure, even thermal noise in a stated resistor, there MUST be a reference, and the noise figure is a ratio.  
  
 What you wouldn't understand unless you've done it is, you can measure two devices unweighted, they measure very close to, or exactly the same noise level, but one sounds much quieter than the other.  So, what do you do?  Publish unweighted and misleading noise specs?  That's what weighted measurements attempt to reconcile.  To understand why one device (or acoustic space) sounds noisier than another you must...absolutely MUST...take hearing response into account.  Every single audio engineer knows this, and applies it.  You can take hearing response into account with fixed weighting filters, or plotted curves and spectrum analysis, but you have to do it or you aren't engineering anything.


----------



## headdict

grumpyoldguy said:


> Sorry, would you mind answering the question first before countering it with your own?
> 
> But to answer your new question... I'm almost positive the number doesn't matter to you either way.


 

 The exact figure means nothing to me and I wasn't arguing about that. I'm just trying to understand whether (and why) I need to care about an unweighted figure, given that I'm not interested in the characteristics of the hardware itself, but just in the results I can get out of it.
  
 Sorry if I'm not expressing myself clearly most of the time. Not only am I not an engineer, but English is not my first language either, as you probably have noticed.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> _1. If they're getting 40dB error, then they need new test equipment._
> 
> _2, The audibility of something is irrelevant when characterizing the hardware. The hardware is the hardware, period._
> 
> ...


 
  
 1. Just because they include features to alter the actual measurement, doesn't mean they should. By the way, I was addressing your point that if you don't use weighting you somehow end up with a 40dB error... The implication of needing weighting to correct a 40dB error in the raw measurement is that your test equipment is completely broken. 40dB is a lot. A LOT. 
  
 2. This is absolutely ridiculous... If the dynamic range measures 120dB, then the dynamic range is 120dB, full stop. This is the measurement of the hardware. If you change that value because the ear behaves differently than your test equipment, you're no longer characterizing the hardware, you're characterizing a system that includes the hardware and some industry organization's definition of the standard ear. This is dumb. When I look at hardware specs, I want the damn hardware specs.


----------



## Brooko

grumpyoldguy said:


> 1. Just because they include features to alter the actual measurement, doesn't mean they should. By the way, I was addressing your point that if you don't use weighting you somehow end up with a 40dB error... The implication of needing weighting to correct a 40dB error in the raw measurement is that your test equipment is completely broken. 40dB is a lot. A LOT.


 
  
 Aren't you being a little disingenuous here - and arguing for the sake of arguing.  Anyone with a little common sense can see that he is referring to what you can hear at the ear (and there is the 40dB difference).  It has nothing to do with the measuring equipment's accuracy.
  
 The A-weighted is compensated to adjust for what is heard at the ear.  And even though you may not like it - it is considered to be a standard.  And in many cases is a lot more useful than raw data. I use it a lot.  And normal people can understand it a lot more easily than if I gave them the raw uncompensated data.
  
 For your uses it may not reflect what YOU want. But the assertion it is dumb simply because you don't find it useful for yourself is perhaps a little narcissistic - don't you think?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

brooko said:


> Aren't you being a little disingenuous here - and arguing for the sake of arguing.  Anyone with a little common sense can see that he is referring to what you can hear at the ear (and there is the 40dB difference).  It has nothing to do with the measuring equipment's accuracy.
> 
> The A-weighted is compensated to adjust for what is heard at the ear.  And even though you may not like it - it is considered to be a standard.  And in many cases is a lot more useful than raw data. I use it a lot.  And normal people can understand it a lot more easily than if I gave them the raw uncompensated data.
> 
> For your uses it may not reflect what YOU want. But the assertion it is dumb simply because you don't find it useful for yourself is perhaps a little narcissistic - don't you think?




No, that's not what I got from the excerpt he posted which said C weighting can result in 40dB error compared to A weighting. And that C weighting was relatively flat. 

My point is that it's an incredibly dumb standard that doesn't exist for products higher up in the spectrum. When I report SNR or dynamic range measurements to our customer, it better be the real number, and not "weighted"... otherwise, as I said, the company I work for would be blacklisted by that customer. And this makes complete sense, because they want to know the capabilities of the hardware, period. 

What I think is naive is that someone would actually believe that if you told the average consumer that the dynamic range was a 126dB A weighted that it would be of anymore significance or understandable to them then if you told them it's 120dB without any weighting. 

The only conclusion one can reasonably come to regarding the purpose of weighting is to give manufacturers the ability to hide shortcomings in their designs.


----------



## Brooko

But which is more useful to the average consumer - number relative to what they hear, or the raw data. Assuming that because you want a figure a certain way does not mean everyone does. And both report the same data. As long as it is stated as A-weighted, I fail to see the problem.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

brooko said:


> But which is more useful to the average consumer - number relative to what they hear, or the raw data. Assuming that because you want a figure a certain way does not mean everyone does. And both report the same data. As long as it is stated as A-weighted, I fail to see the problem.




126dB dynamic range is no more relatable than 120dB. The problem is that I'm making the 120dB figure up... I have no idea what the real dynamic range of this hardware is because the manufacturer has opted to only publish this weighted figure. I think if you're completely honest with yourself, you'll also think that they do so not because this figure is somehow more relatable to the average consumer*, but because it allows them to publish a number that is higher than it really is. 

*Because it's not more relatable to the average consumer IMO. It's not like they don't understand what a dynamic range of 120dB is, but if you tell them it's 126dB A weighted they magically understand it. I just had to explain to someone that 0dBV is not the same thing as a muted output because dB is a log scale. It blows my mind that anyone thinks a weighted measurement is somehow makes the figure understandable or useful to a layperson.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> 1. Just because they include features to alter the actual measurement, doesn't mean they should. By the way, I was addressing your point that if you don't use weighting you somehow end up with a 40dB error... The implication of needing weighting to correct a 40dB error in the raw measurement is that your test equipment is completely broken. 40dB is a lot. A LOT.
> 
> 2. This is absolutely ridiculous... If the dynamic range measures 120dB, then the dynamic range is 120dB, full stop. This is the measurement of the hardware. If you change that value because the ear behaves differently than your test equipment, you're no longer characterizing the hardware, you're characterizing a system that includes the hardware and some industry organization's definition of the standard ear. This is dumb. When I look at hardware specs, I want the damn hardware specs.


 
 1.  Yeah, I get it.  Everyone is wrong...but you, the guy who doesn't work in audio.  Righto. I posted that quote from an instrumentation web site, and yes, they are correct.  You can be off by 40dB measuring acoustic noise unweighted.  Subsonic noise is the key.  It's huge, and inaudible.  
  
 2. Dynamic range and noise floor aren't the same thing, and that might be the start of your misunderstanding.  You still don't seem to understand the purpose of weighting.  It isn't to characterize something like dynamic range, it's purpose is to characterise the audibility of a noise floor.  Two very different things.  Both have their purpose, both are valid, neither is "dumb".  Unweighted hardware specs won't tell you how the noise floor sounds.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> 1.  Yeah, I get it.  Everyone is wrong...but you, the guy who doesn't work in audio.  Righto. I posted that quote from an instrumentation web site, and yes, they are correct.  You can be off by 40dB measuring acoustic noise unweighted.  Subsonic noise is the key.  It's huge, and inaudible.
> 
> 2. Dynamic range and noise floor aren't the same thing, and that might be the start of your misunderstanding.  You still don't seem to understand the purpose of weighting.  It isn't to characterize something like dynamic range, it's purpose is to characterise the audibility of a noise floor.  Two very different things.  Both have their purpose, both are valid, neither is "dumb".  Unweighted hardware specs won't tell you how the noise floor sounds.




If weighting is not used for dynamic range measurements, please explain to me why manufacturers publish dynamic range measurements with A weighting.


----------



## pinnahertz

Lemme see if this works.  Here's a weighting demo FLAC file.  It has two noise signals on it, 8 seconds each.  Play this file at low volume, it should be audible, but quietly.  Listen to both signals as many times as you like.
  
 Both measure within 1dB of each other with a unweighted flat meter.  Do they sound like they are the the same loudness?
  
 The first signal also has more than 10dB higher peak energy than the second.  Does it sound that way?
  
 With an A-weighting filter, the first signal measures more than 14dB lower than the second.  
  
 Which measurement weighting represents the audible result better?
  
*weighting demo flac*


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> Lemme see if this works.  Here's a weighting demo FLAC file.  It has two noise signals on it, 8 seconds each.  Play this file at low volume, it should be audible, but quietly.  Listen to both signals as many times as you like.
> 
> Both measure within 1dB of each other with a unweighted flat meter.  Do they sound like they are the the same loudness?
> 
> ...




I downloaded it, will try it out tomorrow evening and report back. Thanks for putting it together.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> If weighting is not used for dynamic range measurements, please explain to me why manufacturers publish dynamic range measurements with A weighting.


 
 Sure.  DR and S/N are often confused, or considered to be identical.  It's a fine point, but technically, they aren't.  You can, for example, record signal below noise and consider that part of the total dynamic range.  Total DR in a digital system assumes the reference is 0dBFS.  When specific DR meters are used to evaluate recorded signals, no weighting (other than that required for a DR meter) is used.  But those readings use a dynamic reference related to the content, as the result is a differential.
  
 S/N Ratio requires a reference, but may not always be a digital value, and sometimes is not stated (that's a big problem!).  For example, S/N Ratio of a power amp will reference a particular power output level or a level at which a certain amount of distortion occurs.  The total DR of that amp will be greater than S/N it the S/N reference is something other than clipping.


----------



## castleofargh

I must be missing something here, if it's about measurement of the device, it's done under certain conditions and that gives a result.  at no point it's a matter of weighting being good or bad IMO.
 the problem is that specs for consumers come too often with nomenclatures as if written by a 2 year old dog that doesn't know what it's doing(AKA marketing guys). and what's worst, some of the mistakes/omissions are made on purpose.
  
 I believe Grumpy's grumpiness comes from that, because that's the origin of mine too. ^_^


----------



## pinnahertz

castleofargh said:


> I must be missing something here, if it's about measurement of the device, it's done under certain conditions and that gives a result.  at no point it's a matter of weighting being good or bad IMO.
> the problem is that specs for consumers come too often with nomenclatures as if written by a 2 year old dog that doesn't know what it's doing(AKA marketing guys). and what's worst, some of the mistakes/omissions are made on purpose.
> 
> I believe Grumpy's grumpiness comes from that, because that's the origin of mine too. ^_^


 
 No doubt.  But let's be clear that misleading or ambiguous specifications and well-research measurement technology are two different things.  One may be the misuse or incomplete use of the other.  That doesn't make a measurement technology like noise weighting curves nonsense, or a deliberate attempt to inflate numbers.  I get just as grumpy about the way devices are specified as anyone. Can't even count the number of times I've tried to verify manufacturers specs with real testing, only to discover just how much they've distorted reality.  But I just happen to have used weighting curves for many years for their intended purpose: to better correlate a measurement with what is perceived.  It's not the weighting curve that lies or inflates the figures, it's how specifications are written...no reference, no test conditions, etc.  Makes the spec meaningless, and impossible to verify. 
  
 The problem we have with noise specifications is as soon as you state them they are used for comparison with other devices. Because hearing is sensitive to spectrum, the only way to properly do a noise measurement is to display the full spectrum, but that's a graph, and consumers don't understand graphs.  Graphs are also hard to standardize and compare, and take way too much interpretation.  So we dumb it down to a single figure, and try to make it relevant with weighting.  Actually, noise is the easy one.  Distortion specs are a total nightmare, almost none have any real meaning when it comes to audibility until you get to pretty big numbers. Again, that doesn't invalidate the measurement technique, the problem lies in how to present the data so somebody can make even a little sense out of it. 
  
 Of course marketing lies.  That's true in every product, not just audio.  But the same measurement technology can be used to expose a lie as was used in creating the spec, it's just a question of application and truthfulness.


----------



## Arpiben

pinnahertz said:


> No doubt.  But let's be clear that misleading or ambiguous specifications and well-research measurement technology are two different things.  One may be the misuse or incomplete use of the other.  That doesn't make a measurement technology like noise weighting curves nonsense, or a deliberate attempt to inflate numbers.  I get just as grumpy about the way devices are specified as anyone. Can't even count the number of times I've tried to verify manufacturers specs with real testing, only to discover just how much they've distorted reality.  But I just happen to have used weighting curves for many years for their intended purpose: to better correlate a measurement with what is perceived.  It's not the weighting curve that lies or inflates the figures, it's how specifications are written...no reference, no test conditions, etc.  Makes the spec meaningless, and impossible to verify.
> 
> The problem we have with noise specifications is as soon as you state them they are used for comparison with other devices. Because hearing is sensitive to spectrum, the only way to properly do a noise measurement is to display the full spectrum, but that's a graph, and consumers don't understand graphs.  Graphs are also hard to standardize and compare, and take way too much interpretation.  So we dumb it down to a single figure, and try to make it relevant with weighting.  Actually, noise is the easy one.  Distortion specs are a total nightmare, almost none have any real meaning when it comes to audibility until you get to pretty big numbers. Again, that doesn't invalidate the measurement technique, the problem lies in how to present the data so somebody can make even a little sense out of it.
> 
> Of course marketing lies.  That's true in every product, not just audio.  But the same measurement technology can be used to expose a lie as was used in creating the spec, it's just a question of application and truthfulness.


 
  
 Marketing lies and therefore technical specifications lie by omission, meaning the results are true but only under specific conditions.
 Manufacturers technical advertise their products having in mind what competitors do advertise even if nonsense. As you rightly stressed it, this is true for every product (non audio included), consumer or prosumer ones.
 Manufacturers may select a golden item (more restrictive specs) for publishing results. Production items will have larger specs.
 But manufacturers do not use weighting curves or FFT windows for tailoring specs.Fully agreeing with your above comments.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> Sure.  DR and S/N are often confused, or considered to be identical.  It's a fine point, but technically, they aren't.  You can, for example, record signal below noise and consider that part of the total dynamic range.  Total DR in a digital system assumes the reference is 0dBFS.  When specific DR meters are used to evaluate recorded signals, no weighting (other than that required for a DR meter) is used.  But those readings use a dynamic reference related to the content, as the result is a differential.
> 
> S/N Ratio requires a reference, but may not always be a digital value, and sometimes is not stated (that's a big problem!).  For example, S/N Ratio of a power amp will reference a particular power output level or a level at which a certain amount of distortion occurs.  The total DR of that amp will be greater than S/N it the S/N reference is something other than clipping.




Dynamic range is an SNR measurement with a full scale input (in the context of a DAC, which is the example I was going for). It sounds like we agree on this. 

I don't think I saw an explanation in your post about why manufacturers report DR specs with A weighting if you say weighting is not used for DR measurements. I might have missed it though. 

Still haven't had a chance to play with your test file, it's still on my todo list though.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> Dynamic range is an SNR measurement with a full scale input (in the context of a DAC, which is the example I was going for). It sounds like we agree on this.


 
 True, but only when applied to a digital system.  There are dynamic range measurements of analog system, which have no 0dBFS (full scale) reference, or even a well defined clipping/overload point (think analog tape, as an example), hence, much of the confusion.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> True, but only when applied to a digital system.  There are dynamic range measurements of analog system, which have no 0dBFS (full scale) reference, or even a well defined clipping/overload point (think analog tape, as an example), hence, much of the confusion.




In such cases I would expect the 1dB compression point to be used. But we're diverging from the topic of discussion here... You say A weighting is not used for DR measurements, yet manufacturers report DR with A weighting. Why is this?


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> In such cases I would expect the 1dB compression point to be used. But we're diverging from the topic of discussion here... You say A weighting is not used for DR measurements, yet manufacturers report DR with A weighting. Why is this?


 
 There may be no such thing as a 1dB compression point (power amps, for example).  
  
 As to A-weighted DR specs...that would be a case of "creative" spec writing. 
  
 Did you really have to ask???


----------



## pinnahertz

To clarify, if the specs were written as "perceived dynamic range", then A-weighting could be used.  Otherwise, it should not be, but often is anyway.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> There may be no such thing as a 1dB compression point (power amps, for example).
> 
> As to A-weighted DR specs...that would be a case of "creative" spec writing.
> 
> Did you really have to ask???




Power amps are precisely where P1dB is relevant. 

And yes, I had to ask. Because this is central to the point of weighted measurements being of less value than an unweighted measurement.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> Power amps are precisely where P1dB is relevant.
> 
> And yes, I had to ask. Because this is central to the point of weighted measurements being of less value than an unweighted measurement.


 
 "Power amps are precisely where P1dB is relevant."
  
 Haven't actually tested many of these, huh?  Some...most...clip pretty hard.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> "Power amps are precisely where P1dB is relevant."
> 
> Haven't actually tested many of these, huh?  Some...most...clip pretty hard.




I work on RF systems for a living. I work with PAs everyday, and one of the most basic measurements we take as part of any system level test is P1dB.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> I work on RF systems for a living. I work with PAs everyday, and one of the most basic measurements we take as part of any system level test is P1dB.


 
 It's a little different with audio amps.  If an amp clips hard, you probably don't want to use a 1% THD point or 1dB compression point as a reference because it's already sounding terrible, so not a fair reference point.  If the amp clips more gently, then yes, that might be ok.


----------



## Ruben123

Stickers my friends, it's now stickers that are used to change the ak380. Different colours, different sounds. It's real!


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

ruben123 said:


> Stickers my friends, it's now stickers that are used to change the ak380. Different colours, different sounds. It's real!



http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina47.htm

^ These guys should've applied for a patent.


----------



## Ruben123

grumpyoldguy said:


> http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina47.htm
> 
> ^ These guys should've applied for a patent.


 I know the site add will drop the link in the AK thread


----------



## watchnerd

ruben123 said:


> Stickers my friends, it's now stickers that are used to change the ak380. Different colours, different sounds. It's real!


 
  
 Huh? What are you going on about?


----------



## Ruben123

watchnerd said:


> Huh? What are you going on about?




See the ak380 thread. My magical pebbles link has not survived for long before it got deleted by mods. There was absolutely no trolling in my post and why would linking to magical pebbles be prohibited but reviewing stickers of $$ be encouraged? Everyone knows those things cant do something... Right? Oh well some people already want to buy them themselves! Wow


----------



## watchnerd

ruben123 said:


> See the ak380 thread.





>


 
  
 Link?


----------



## Ruben123

watchnerd said:


> Link?




http://www.head-fi.org/t/763752/astell-kern-ak380/7590#post_13183919

And further


----------



## castleofargh

obviously you're trolling. you forgot to mention that those are *quantum* stickers. so of course they escape the laws of classical physics. what did you expect?
 we have absolute *uncertainty* about the stickers, and the oily thing is clearly a *principle*, therefore the setup in the picture is Heisenberg approved.


----------



## CraftyClown

castleofargh said:


> obviously you're trolling. you forgot to mention that those are *quantum* stickers. so of course they escape the laws of classical physics. what did you expect?
> we have absolute *uncertainty* about the stickers, and the oily thing is clearly a *principle*, therefore the setup in the picture is Heisenberg approved.


 
  
 and with that glowing endorsement I have just purchased 10,000 of them and will cover my whole body with them.
  
 Look at me mum, I'm an audiophile!!!


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

ruben123 said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/763752/astell-kern-ak380/7590#post_13183919
> 
> And further



 
I can't tell if these people are serious or not.


----------



## Ruben123

grumpyoldguy said:


> I can't tell if these people are serious or not.




Spoiler: they are. They really are. Not surprising since they also get $$$ golden USB cables to charge their devices because cheap cables might distort the electron flow in the battery.


----------



## pinnahertz

They are serious but don't take them seriously.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> Lemme see if this works.  Here's a weighting demo FLAC file.  It has two noise signals on it, 8 seconds each.  Play this file at low volume, it should be audible, but quietly.  Listen to both signals as many times as you like.
> 
> Both measure within 1dB of each other with a unweighted flat meter.  Do they sound like they are the the same loudness?
> 
> ...


 
  
 When I listened, it sounded to me that the second half was louder than the first.
  
 Then I brought the data into matlab and generated these two plots:
  

 Using this code:
  


> [y,Fs] = audioread('weighting_demo.flac','native');
> sig1 = y(1:8*Fs);
> sig2 = y(8*Fs+1:end);
> N1 = 2^nextpow2(length(sig1));
> ...


 
  
 These plots indicate to me that my initial impression was mostly correct... There is some low frequency content in the first half that I wasn't sure how to compare to the second half. In my simple mind, the arithmetic mean of these data points is a good place to start to characterize something that should be evenly distributed. The answers were:
  
 1st Half: ~-4.3
 2nd Half: ~+11.1
  
 Which yields an average difference of ~15.4dB
  
 Which is pretty damn close to what you say an A-weighted filter would produce... So, why do I need weighting? I listened first, noticed a difference, processed the data second without using any weighting and confirmed what I heard.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

ruben123 said:


> Spoiler: they are. They really are. Not surprising since they also get $$$ golden USB cables to charge their devices because cheap cables might distort the electron flow in the battery.


 
  


pinnahertz said:


> They are serious but don't take them seriously.


 
  
 My faith in humanity has collapsed.


----------



## castleofargh

craftyclown said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > obviously you're trolling. you forgot to mention that those are *quantum* stickers. so of course they escape the laws of classical physics. what did you expect?
> ...


----------



## Ruben123

Love you guys
Wait I can't measure the love right now, never mind me


----------



## CraftyClown

ruben123 said:


> Love you guys
> Wait I can't measure the love right now, never mind me


 
  
 I think we need a double blind love test... also the title of a porn film for the optically challenged.


----------



## cel4145

Sci-fi writing that makes no sense:



> Quantum X2 products actively produce energy to stimulate the electronic components. Once powered up, Quantum X2 resonance will be delivered to the rest of the audio equipment via current and optimizes the entire audio system’s electron and proton characteristic. Every Quantum X2 applied on the signal transmission path of audio equipment and cables produces 75cpm of far-infrared radiation and high density negative ions to further eliminate electrostatic charge within the audio equipment. The far-infrared and negative ions energy spread throughout the entire system via the signal transmission path improves music playback atmosphere, soundstage, timbre, dynamics and musical fidelity.




http://recordclean.com.au/telos-quantum-x2-stickers.html

It's basically "blah, blah, blah ....improves music playback atmosphere, soundstage, timbre, dynamics, and music fidelity." So people buy $100 packs of stickers based on science that they can't understand because it's not real? ROFL


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> When I listened, it sounded to me that the second half was louder than the first.
> 
> Then I brought the data into matlab and generated these two plots:
> 
> Which is pretty damn close to what you say an A-weighted filter would produce... So, why do I need weighting? I listened first, noticed a difference, processed the data second without using any weighting and confirmed what I heard.


 
 Your data processing produced the same results of an A-weighting filter.  So why do you need weighting?  Clearly YOU don't, but not everyone is a Matlab jedi.  It's a simple network that can be inserted ahead of a wideband RMS meter to get results that correlate well with what we hear.  Using the wideband RMS meter alone would produce the wrong result. 
  
 edit: However, if you're doing audio measurements that involve accountability and traceability, or verification of others specifications, you'll want that nasty A-weighting filter.  That way if someone asks if you're noise measurement is A-weighted, you can say "yes", and not try to talk them into believing in your Matlab prowess instead. 
  
 It's an industry standard.


----------



## bfreedma

cel4145 said:


> Sci-fi writing that makes no sense:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm really struggling to find empathy for the purchasers. I can see how people get pulled into the pseudo-science marketing of amps, dacs, and even cables. It's challenging for many people new to the hobby to understand which specs are marketing hype and what may be audible. 

But stickers....? You really need to abandon all rational thought to not at least seriously question $100 stickers.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> Your data processing produced the same results of an A-weighting filter.  So why do you need weighting?  Clearly YOU don't, but not everyone is a Matlab jedi.  It's a simple network that can be inserted ahead of a wideband RMS meter to get results that correlate well with what we hear.  Using the wideband RMS meter alone would produce the wrong result.




Wait a minute... so the reason for weighting now is that it allows manufacturers to get a measurement that is "good enough" as cheaply as possible?

This doesn't seem like a very good reason to me. They should do the damn job right, or not do it all. 

And it's not like I'm expecting a layperson/consumer to use matlab and a reference grade capture card to get this data themselves... That implies it is the burden of the consumer to understand what they purchased after they've already paid the money for a product. It should be the responsibility of the manufacturer to do this. 

And by the way, you don't need to be a matlab jedi to throw that script together... it's literally a two minute job.


----------



## Argyris

cel4145 said:


> Sci-fi writing that makes no sense:
> http://recordclean.com.au/telos-quantum-x2-stickers.html
> 
> It's basically "blah, blah, blah ....improves music playback atmosphere, soundstage, timbre, dynamics, and music fidelity." So people buy $100 packs of stickers based on science that they can't understand because it's not real? ROFL


 
  
 C'mon, don't be too hard on the copy writer. The technobabble writer from 90s Star Trek had to get a job somewhere.


----------



## headdict

grumpyoldguy said:


> Wait a minute... so the reason for weighting now is that it allows manufacturers to get a measurement that is "good enough" as cheaply as possible?
> 
> This doesn't seem like a very good reason to me. They should do the damn job right, or not do it all.


 
  
 That is the point! Good enough is all most people need. (Not most people on head-fi, though.) I would say it's not only a very good reason, but the key to success. Such products should or course be sold as cheaply as they are constructed.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

headdict said:


> That is the point! Good enough is all most people need. (Not most people on head-fi, though.) I would say it's not only a very good reason, but the key to success. Such products should or course be sold as cheaply as they are constructed.




I'm appalled at how low the bar is set. Cutting corners should be admonished, not encouraged or embraced. This is nuts.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> Wait a minute... so the reason for weighting now is that it allows manufacturers to get a measurement that is "good enough" as cheaply as possible?
> 
> This doesn't seem like a very good reason to me. They should do the damn job right, or not do it all.
> 
> ...


 
 I never said "good enough" or "cheap".  
  
 "And by the way, you don't need to be a matlab jedi to throw that script together... it's literally a two minute job."
 How unrealistic.  I don't use Matlab.  I guarantee  it would take way...I mean WAY...longer than 2 minutes.
  
 It's an industry standard.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> I never said "good enough" or "cheap".
> 
> "And by the way, you don't need to be a matlab jedi to throw that script together... it's literally a two minute job."
> How unrealistic.  I don't use Matlab.  I guarantee  it would take way...I mean WAY...longer than 2 minutes.
> ...




This discussion isn't about the use of matlab, it's use is simply ancillary to the larger point that weighting is not needed. 

Standard or not, at best it can be used to merely approximate a proper measurement and at worst can be used to exaggerate true measured values. However long it may have taken you to use matlab to analyze that file, it took me two minutes... and as you were so quick to point out, I don't even work in the audio industry. By that measure it does not seem unreasonable to expect a manufacturer to do the job right and report the actual measurement. 

I won't be able to change your mind about this, nor will you mine... so let's just leave it.


----------



## warrior1975

Did you guys check out machina dynamica? Lol... This is too funny. They even have a review up on 6moons.

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/machinadynamica2/ib.html

Look at their website, some of the most ridiculous things ever. I really thought it was a joke... But I'm not too sure seeing reviews on 6moons and a couple of other websites.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> This discussion isn't about the use of matlab, it's use is simply ancillary to the larger point that weighting is not needed.
> 
> Standard or not, at best it can be used to merely approximate a proper measurement and at worst can be used to exaggerate true measured values. However long it may have taken you to use matlab to analyze that file, it took me two minutes... and as you were so quick to point out, I don't even work in the audio industry. By that measure it does not seem unreasonable to expect a manufacturer to do the job right and report the actual measurement.
> 
> I won't be able to change your mind about this, nor will you mine... so let's just leave it.


 
 You're right, I know nothing about Matlab.  And I don't need to to accomplish valid audio measurements, there are far better tools.  I don't care if it took you 2 seconds or 2 years, it's not a tool you'll find any guy using to crank through a stack of measurements on audio gear.  Think learning curve, though I doubt you'd cut me any slack on that.  
  
 Your implication is the use of a weighting curve is doing the job wrong, and deliberately misleading.  This is incorrect, and I'll stand by that. 
 Any specification can be made to be misleading.  It doesn't take a weighting network to do that. 
  
 Back in your post #3104 you said, _"__*A-weighting is dumb. As far as I can tell *it's only purpose to hide things the manufacturer is afraid of and to allow them to report higher than measured specs so they can charge more money.* The whole thing about how the ear works is a bunch of garbage."_  I don't share your opinion, nor would any professional working in audio.  The curve is standardized industry wide, as are guidelines as to how and when it should be used.   I recognize it as a valid tool that can and should be used correctly, but often isn't. Nothing new about that, any tool can be misused, intentionally or accidently.  I'll be you can find a parallel in RF without much trouble. Power measurement comes to mind, but even though I've spend quite a few years around RF, I'm sure you would know better than I. 
  
 No, you're not going to change my mind on A-weighting.  I am surprised that someone not in audio has such a strong opinion in opposition to any audio professional, though.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> ruben123 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.head-fi.org/t/763752/astell-kern-ak380/7590#post_13183919
> ...


 
  
  


ruben123 said:


> Spoiler: they are. They really are. Not surprising since they also get $$$ golden USB cables to charge their devices because cheap cables might distort the electron flow in the battery.


 
 Those distorted electrons are stored in the battery and can wreak audio havoc later.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

stand said:


> Those distorted electrons are stored in the battery and can wreak audio havoc later.




The particles in the stickers actually consist of special "gestapo electrons" that keep those rebel electrons in check. Makes sense.


----------



## StanD

grumpyoldguy said:


> The particles in the stickers actually consist of special "gestapo electrons" that keep those rebel electrons in check. Makes sense.


 
 I propose Prozac infused Protons to alleviate depressed audio that is too laid back. If it can be packaged, it can be marketed.


----------



## Argyris

They ought to make the CCT of the screens on high end DAPs variable. Surely a cooler color temperature on the screen will impact the audio somehow--increasing treble, decreasing fundamental, and skewing the sound toward a cooler, more analytical tonality; similarly a warmer setting would boost the midbass and lower midrange, lower everything above and including the presence region, and thus impart an overall warmer, more euphonic sound.
  
 It makes as much sense as a freakin' sticker.


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> They ought to make the CCT of the screens on high end DAPs variable. Surely a cooler color temperature on the screen will impact the audio somehow--increasing treble, decreasing fundamental, and skewing the sound toward a cooler, more analytical tonality; similarly a warmer setting would boost the midbass and lower midrange, lower everything above and including the presence region, and thus impart an overall warmer, more euphonic sound.
> 
> It makes as much sense as a freakin' sticker.




And take out anything related to EQ that is put there to achieve that! The extra electrons used to store that info in the storage surely will affect the analogue section of the DAP as electrons all have charge or some other sciency stuff related to magnets and sub-atomic things that nobody but the creators of the DAP can understand. You know, cause science. 

It's not that hard either... Only a small third party software change that costs a measly $99.99 plus shipping.


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> And take it anything related to EQ that is put there to achieve that! The extra electrons used to store that info in the storage surely will affect the analogue section of the DAP as electrons all have charge or some other sciency stuff related to magnets and sub-atomic things that nobody but the creators of the DAP can understand. You know, cause science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Now, now. You know very well that stereotypical audiophiles superstitiously reject virtually all forms of EQ (apart from uber expensive passive units, which, being uber expensive and often full of tubes, are of course an acceptable exception). If you did something like that, which, you know, _actually_ _changed_ the sound, they'd sniff it out and pile on you for it.
  
 I once wondered how these purist sorts rectify the fact that virtually all music employs some form of EQ or other processing in its production. I figured I had them in an inescapable contradiction here (ha!).
  
 And then the buggers discovered that little snag and started listening to purposely non-post-produced music! In some cases, exclusively. Honestly, it shouldn't have surprised me that sufficiently committed audiophiles would eschew well over 99% of all recorded music and limit themselves to the tiny selection that fits their "fidelity" penchant--after all, these sorts have long since stopped listening to the music at all, so I suppose they don't even care what they listen to as long as it fits the dogma.


----------



## Ruben123

u-3c said:


> And take it anything related to EQ that is put there to achieve that! The extra electrons used to store that info in the storage surely will affect the analogue section of the DAP as electrons all have charge or some other sciency stuff related to magnets and sub-atomic things that nobody but the creators of the DAP can understand. You know, cause science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Only good if $999 >


----------



## Ruben123

argyris said:


> They ought to make the CCT of the screens on high end DAPs variable. Surely a cooler color temperature on the screen will impact the audio somehow--increasing treble, decreasing fundamental, and skewing the sound toward a cooler, more analytical tonality; similarly a warmer setting would boost the midbass and lower midrange, lower everything above and including the presence region, and thus impart an overall warmer, more euphonic sound.
> 
> It makes as much sense as a freakin' sticker.


 

 Or change the color of the audio player itself.... and let people think there are major differences in sound. And ask an even more premium price!! *sure it sounds better, it looks better and is more expensive*


----------



## Argyris

ruben123 said:


> Only good if $999 >


 
  
 Actually, he put enough 9's (four of them), I just think that for something acceptable to the modern personal listening audiophile he put the decimal point in the wrong place. It belongs at the end.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> pinnahertz said:
> 
> 
> > Your data processing produced the same results of an A-weighting filter.  So why do you need weighting?  Clearly YOU don't, but not everyone is a Matlab jedi.  It's a simple network that can be inserted ahead of a wideband RMS meter to get results that correlate well with what we hear.  Using the wideband RMS meter alone would produce the wrong result.
> ...




This is not working at all is it.

An unweighted noise level measurement would not go through any FFT processing at all. You would simply take the RMS power of the waveform in the time domain. And the RMS power of the first waveform with the inaudible low and high freqs is undoubtedly higher than that of the second waveform.

Put it this way: the unweighted SNR of any raw DSD stream would be below 0dB. Now, I have no love for any DSD format, but that is not a fair characterization of their SNR performance at all.

Finally: you averaged the power of all the frequencies. That's a weighting curve in and of itself.

P.S. probably the only real reason you're objecting to A-weighted noise measurements is that they are strictly lower than unweighted measurements? That makes about as much sense as rejecting all digital EQs because they lower the volume level...


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> Actually, he put enough 9's (four of them), I just think that for something acceptable to the modern personal listening audiophile he put the decimal point in the wrong place. It belongs at the end.




True dat! It was actually suppose to be the period. Replace the current period with that one and it's all good! 

EQ removal for $9999 only. Shipping not included.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> This is not working at all is it.
> 
> An unweighted noise level measurement would not go through any FFT processing at all. You would simply take the RMS power of the waveform in the time domain. And the RMS power of the first waveform with the inaudible low and high freqs is undoubtedly higher than that of the second waveform.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Seems perfectly fine to use FFTs here... we're comparing the spectrum of one with the other, not looking for absolutes.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> Seems perfectly fine to use FFTs here... we're comparing the spectrum of one with the other, not looking for absolutes.




That's tantamount to saying one shouldn't use frequency weighting except it's fine to use frequency weighting.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Here, have some full scale -0dB "noise":
https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtuiwfIBRYFEhmTBchcBQpWCcpWd

Have some music drowned in more of that fullscale "noise", SNR waay below 0dB:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtuiwfIBRYFEkUDiBefFVotztp37

If these aren't enough to convince you of the utility of real psychoacoustic frequency weighting (in contrast to the matlab script you banged together in two minutes) I don't know what will :rolleyes:


----------



## pinnahertz

joe bloggs said:


> Here, have some full scale -0dB "noise":
> https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtuiwfIBRYFEhmTBchcBQpWCcpWd
> 
> Have some music drowned in more of that fullscale "noise", SNR waay below 0dB:
> ...


 
 The second example....Beautiful!  Thanks!
  
 Careful with those measurements, we measure noise with RMS.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> That's tantamount to saying one shouldn't use frequency weighting except it's fine to use frequency weighting.




No, it's not.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> Here, have some full scale -0dB "noise":
> https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtuiwfIBRYFEhmTBchcBQpWCcpWd
> 
> Have some music drowned in more of that fullscale "noise", SNR waay below 0dB:
> ...




You're still missing the point about characterizing the hardware, not the person's ability to hear. 

Listen to this, listen to that... you guys sound like the ridiculous subjectivists you make fun of. 

The hardware behaves the way the hardware behaves. Period.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > Here, have some full scale -0dB "noise":
> ...




I don't make fun of anybody in these forums.

If you think my proposal is not rigorous enough, ABX it. Take my fullscale "noise" signal, compare with any noise signal you care to generate and ABX them. You win if you hear whatever noise signal (of however small amplitude you prefer) to be more quiet than my signal. (hint: my fullscale noise signal is audibly totally silent to any living person's ears, unless your playback equipment is faulty)


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> I don't make fun of anybody in these forums.
> 
> If you think my proposal is not rigorous enough, ABX it. Take my fullscale "noise" signal, compare with any noise signal you care to generate and ABX them. You win if you hear whatever noise signal (of however small amplitude you prefer) to be more quiet than my signal. (hint: my fullscale noise signal is audibly totally silent to any living person's ears, unless your playback equipment is faulty)




No, just make passive aggressive comments with pointed sarcasm. But hey, at least you know what side of the line you're on. 

Again, with listening tests. What I hear isn't the point of measuring hardware... what the hardware does is the point of measuring hardware. It's really that simple.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> Again, with listening tests. What I hear isn't the point of measuring hardware... what the hardware does is the point of measuring hardware. It's really that simple.




Then you're in the same boat as people who think that a $99999 10 ton behemoth that reduces jitter from 0.1ps to 0.05ps or THD from 0.05% to 0.01% would make all the world's difference in sound quality, when they really ought to be looking elsewhere for their audio improvements.

Really, does the fact that a noise that unweighted is as loud as can possibly be recorded, is in fact totally inaudible, not move you in the slightest?

Or do you not even know what an "unweighted" noise measurement consists of?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> Then you're in the same boat as people who think that a $99999 10 ton behemoth that reduces jitter from 0.1ps to 0.05ps or THD from 0.05% to 0.01% would make all the world's difference in sound quality, when they really ought to be looking elsewhere for their audio improvements.




No. I'm in the boat that thinks if a 10 ton behemoth reduces jitter from 0.1ps to 0.05ps, the measurements - without any changes to them - should reflect that. It has nothing to do with whether or not I would spend my money on it (I wouldn't, regardless of cost).


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > Then you're in the same boat as people who think that a $99999 10 ton behemoth that reduces jitter from 0.1ps to 0.05ps or THD from 0.05% to 0.01% would make all the world's difference in sound quality, when they really ought to be looking elsewhere for their audio improvements.
> ...




Really, we're discussing these things, and you're able to entertain your notion of what a correct noise measurement should be, only because it almost never matters either way in electronics lala-land.

Here in the real world, I am very glad to have swapped my 40mm computer case fan that makes x dB of noise centered at 1kHz for a 80mm one that makes x+10 dB of noise centered at 100Hz, thank you very much.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> Really, we're discussing these things, and you're able to entertain your notion of what a correct noise measurement should be, only because it almost never matters either way in electronics lala-land.
> 
> Here in the real world, I am very glad to have swapped my 40mm computer case fan that makes x dB of noise centered at 1kHz for a 80mm one that makes x+10 dB of noise centered at 100Hz, thank you very much.




Back to audio... If the hardware does that, then the measurements should it also. You shouldn't have to change the measurement to hide it because it's less perceptible to the ear. 

You could make the same decision (about the fan) without the weighting AND have more accurate measurements on the hardware in the process. 

Bottom line, the hardware does what the hardware does. And we're talking about hardware measurements. How am I the only one on this side of the discussion??


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> Really, does the fact that a noise that unweighted is as loud as can possibly be recorded, is in fact totally inaudible, not move you in the slightest?
> 
> Or do you not even know what an "unweighted" noise measurement consists of?




I didn't see this in your original post. 

I would rather see the noise in the inaudible part of the spectrum and make that decision for myself. Like your choice to pick a case fan with noise at 100Hz instead of 1KHz... You made that decision without needing the measurements modified for you. So you saw what the hardware does and made a decision accordingly.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> I didn't see this in your original post.
> 
> I would rather see the noise in the inaudible part of the spectrum and make that decision for myself. Like your choice to pick a case fan with noise at 100Hz instead of 1KHz... You made that decision without needing the measurements modified for you. So you saw what the hardware does and made a decision accordingly.




Thanks for taking the time to re-view the post.

So what if the spec you wanted were reduced to just one number (as it is in real life)?

Larger computer case fans are of course advertised as having lower dB(A) than smaller case fans, exactly because they rotate at a lower rpm (frequency) while moving more air (unweighted dB). They certainly don't come with unweighted dB markings along with a big frequency chart. I only changed things around the fit your worldview, hoping you'd see the ass-backwardness of it all...


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> Again, with listening tests. _*What I hear isn't the point of measuring hardware... what the hardware does is the point of measuring hardware.*_ It's really that simple.


 
 Highlighted the real take-away.  What you've just defined is meaningless audio measurements.  In audio (unlike RF, BTW), what you measure should relate, as much as possible, to what you hear. If measurements show you can't hear it, then you shouldn't hear it.  Your wide-band unweighted noise measurement would not reflect that, in fact, would in most cases be quite misleading, as in the posted example files.  Yes, it accurately shows what the hardware does, but it inaccurately represents how it will be perceived.  In essence, lying, with respect to what anyone could actually hear.  Audio has no purpose unless it is perceived.  It's the tree falling in the forest thing. 
  
 In audio, nothing but the perceived result matters.  The challenge in measurement is correlation with perception.  While A-weighting might not do that perfectly, it's a whole heck of a lot closer in many cases than a wide-band measurement.  
  
 I don't fault an RF guy with not knowing or understanding this (unless he's a broadcast RF guy, in which case...shame!).  But please realize that you are the lone voice in the audio wilderness here.  The entire audio industry recognizes the need, application, and benefits of using band-limited, and weighted, noise measurement techniques in electronics and acoustics.  You're the only one saying it's nonsense.  And I'm not talking of just recent digital audio history, I'll go all the way back to the beginning of high fidelity in the late 1940s.  Heck, even before that if you wanted to ever make a meaningful noise measurement on a turntable.  
  
 Now, rather than continuing to opine, why don't you cite a few references that concur with your idea?  Might start with the J-AES.


----------



## james444

Here's how the whole thing started:
  


u-3c said:


> On a more serious note, *I'm curious about how to find info about the noise floor, as it's the biggest thing that is bothering me right now with my DAC*, and nobody seems to bother to mention it in reviews, as if the specs sheet tells it so there's no point in even mentioning it.
> 
> The specs sheet for my DAC says this:
> 
> ...


 


grumpyoldguy said:


> It means that with the volume turned all the way up and no input there is a 7uV RMS output. But that measurement is not just off a meter... they've weighted it to make it look better than it is*. You can figure out how loud that actually is (dB SPL) if you know the output impedance of the DAC/amp, sensitivity of your IEMs/headphones, and impedance of your IEMs/headphones.
> 
> **A-weighting is dumb. As far as I can tell it's only purpose to hide things the manufacturer is afraid of and to allow them to report higher than measured specs so they can charge more money. The whole thing about how the ear works is a bunch of garbage.*


 
  ...
 ...
 ...
 ...

 6 days and 7 pages later_:_
  
 Quote:


grumpyoldguy said:


> Again, with listening tests. *What I hear isn't the point of measuring hardware... *what the hardware does is the point of measuring hardware. It's really that simple.


 
  
 AFAICS, @U-3C was bothered by noise he *heard* and wanted to know how the specs relate to that.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

james444 said:


> Here's how the whole thing started:
> 
> 
> AFAICS, @U-3C
> was bothered by noise he *heard* and wanted to know how the specs relate to that.




And the measurements, without weighting would have told him that. Too bad the entire industry apparently opposes good engineering practice.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> And the measurements, without weighting would have told him that.


 
 Nope, and we've shown that.


grumpyoldguy said:


> Too bad the entire industry apparently opposes good engineering practice.


 
_"Everyone else is wrong, and I'm right". _
  
 Next time reality comes around, grab it and hold on tight.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> Nope, and we've shown that.
> _"Everyone else is wrong, and I'm right"._
> 
> Next time reality comes around, grab it and hold on tight.




No, you haven't. You've shown that when you try to oversimplify then you need weighting. 

People who work in the rest of the spectrum disagree with you. So, when reality comes around, grab it and hold tight.


----------



## U-3C

james444 said:


> Here's how the whole thing started:
> 
> 
> AFAICS, @U-3C
> was bothered by noise he *heard* and wanted to know how the specs relate to that.




I'm just reading the pages everyday and I feel very very bad now.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> I'm just reading the pages everyday and I feel very very bad now.


 
  
 Why? It's a good discussion...


----------



## U-3C

grumpyoldguy said:


> Why? It's a good discussion...




I'm worried it'll get into a nasty argument/fight.


----------



## sonitus mirus

u-3c said:


> I'm worried it'll get into a nasty argument/fight.


 
  
 Everyone participating appears to be respectful in their disagreements.  Good argument.  I'm enjoying it for the content.  I say no worries needed.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

u-3c said:


> grumpyoldguy said:
> 
> 
> > Why? It's a good discussion...
> ...




I thought you were just feeling very very bad about what's going on in the *other* threads around here these few days..


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> I thought you were just feeling very very bad about what's going on in the *other* threads around here these few days..




Nah, I get a good laugh out of those.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> People who work in the rest of the spectrum disagree with you.


 
 Of course you do.  It's the rest of the spectrum...it's not audible.  They'd be correct, and so would I.  
  
 My RF background is broadcast centric, and I've been at it a while, so lets try this analogy.
  
 You've got a high power RF amplifier.  It's a tube rig, and the final is biased Class C.  Now, everyone knows class C is highly efficient, but the waveform that comes out is triangular, and full of lots of harmonics.  The plate tank takes care of them a little, but not enough.  So the last thing you connect to your Class C amp before the transmission line and antenna is a harmonic filter to get all the spurs down to a level acceptable to your spectrum neighbors and the FCC.  All good so far?
  
 Do you care what the spectrum is at the PA plate?  Do you cafe what the spectrum is at the input to the harmonic filter?  Well, you might, but what's important is what comes off the antenna and gets radiated out into the world.  That's VERY important, and that's why we measure it.  We look for spurs, intermod products, etc.  That means we look at the final result with all the filtering before the measurement sample port, or antenna.  And there, if it's all working, spurs should be 80dB below carrier or more.  We ignore what's on the PA plate.  We good?  
  
 When we measure audio devices, there are several filters in line too. They aren't like a stub-tuned harmonic filter, more like bandpass cavity, but they're there.  Think DAC > preamp/amp > transducer (speaker and room or headphones/IEM) > ears and brain.  The preamp/amp is a filter, though hopefully not in the audio band or somewhat above it (except for deliberate EQ).  The transducer is a filter, and a pretty wild one, especially if it's a speaker in a room.  Then we hit the ear/brain combo.  Big filter there, and it's dynamic, it changes with specific SPL.  But it's got this huge low pass filter too, with one break point at 20kHz or so, another down at 5-8kHz, and if you're older, even lower.  There's a high-pass filter too, breaking at 1kHz, and sloping down and frequency drops.  Think several cavities, setup as a variable bandpass, tuned dynamically.  
  
 The problem is, unlike the transmitter and antenna, we don't have a sample port.  We have no way to pick off a representative sample of what the ear/brain is actually getting.  So, we must do our best to characterize human hearing and it's filter network independently, then replicate that filter and stick it ahead of our wide band RMS meter to simulate what will be heard when we listen/measure low level noise.  Looking at the audio device wide band without weighting is like measuring your Class C rig at the PA plate or harmonic filter input.  It's wide band, and full of spurs.  But we don't care about that, we even expect it.  So we take a valid measurement after the harmonic filter and antenna. The spurs are attenuated, and that's reality.  If we could install a directional coupler in our heads and grab a sample directly from our brain post auditory nerve and squirt it into our meter or FFT, we wouldn't need a weighting filter.  But until that surgery is perfected, we'll just have to simulate that part of the system and predict how it will behave.  
  
 It's all about trying to match measurements to what we hear.  It's not easy, it's not perfect, but if we don't take low level human hearing characteristics into account, what we have will get us into trouble because we have these weird figures that don't match how it sounds.   We don't do that in any other part of electronics, it's unique to audio.  
  
 Hope that helps.


----------



## castleofargh

what's annoying is the blurred line between bad measurement and bad use of it. a given measurement can be well done and give the proper data relative to what it's measuring. how badly someone decides to interpret it shouldn't be blamed on the measurement. when I post a RAW frequency response to show variations between 2 of my IEMs and somebody decides to believe that a neutral sounding IEM should have a flat line, it's not the measurement's or my fault.
 and it's the same thing with weighting, when some people abuse it and "forget" to specify it's a weighted measurement just to show a better number. or when a consumer doesn't think to question the lack of proper nomenclature, it's not the measurement's fault.
 I started agreeing with Grumpy because I'm pissed of at all the spec abuse that is allowed in audio, but I have to say I don't understand why that should be directed at weighted measurements. those can have some use, and in some cases, they do better relate to subjective perception of noise. so if the question we try to answer is subjective perception of noise, why would weighting be at fault?
 I feel that the concern is legitimate, but aimed at the wrong target. people do stuff, measurements are only love, I have some as pet and they never disappoint me(cat lady argument).


----------



## pinnahertz

castleofargh said:


> what's annoying is the blurred line between bad measurement and bad use of it. a given measurement can be well done and give the proper data relative to what it's measuring. how badly someone decides to interpret it shouldn't be blamed on the measurement. when I post a RAW frequency response to show variations between 2 of my IEMs and somebody decides to believe that a neutral sounding IEM should have a flat line, it's not the measurement's or my fault.
> and it's the same thing with weighting, when some people abuse it and "forget" to specify it's a weighted measurement just to show a better number. or when a consumer doesn't think to question the lack of proper nomenclature, it's not the measurement's fault.


 
 My personal gripe is S/N figures without a stated reference, bandwidth and weighting.  Just a number.  Or a set of FR numbers with no tolerance stated.  Distortion with no mention of level.  Hard to confirm if you go and actually test the device.  An example I've mentioned before is a little Tripath amp rated a some impressive power figure, but with no stated distortion at that power. 50W or something.  Except, if you like your distortion below 1%, it's actually a 15W amp, which I found by testing it.  I called the company and complained, they played dumb.  Too bad too, it's not a bad little amp.


----------



## Arpiben

pinnahertz said:


> Of course you do.  It's the rest of the spectrum...it's not audible.  They'd be correct, and so would I.
> 
> My RF background is broadcast centric, and I've been at it a while, so lets try this analogy.
> 
> ...


 
  
 No need to worry about your RF background. IMHO, your filter analogy is quite good.
  
 Another example is measuring the Receive Level at an Antenna port. It will bring you different results depending on Carrier filtered (weighted) or not filtered (unweighted).
 1° With unfiltered measurement the power meter and its sensor will average the receive level within sensor and antenna wide frequency range.
 2° With a carrier filter (pass-band) the instrument will provide the desired carrier's receive level.
  
 For better idea: sensor range (0-26GHz)  / Antenna range 1 GHz / Carrier 28MHz
 N.B. At the unprobable case that your carrier is the only one in the wide RF both measurement will provide same results.


----------



## gregorio

This argument is going nowhere because IMHO both of you are both right and wrong. dB(A) is certainly a useful measurement, unweighed noise measurements are also useful. An example being the dB(A) of SACD where most of noise is ultrasonic and therefore gives a low dB(A) measurement but being ultrasonic does not necessarily mean inaudible (due to IMD), which is presumably why Sony requires all SACD players to implement a 50kHz LPF. In the pro-audio equipment world, some/many manufacturers provide both un-weighted and dB(A) noise measurements as part of their standard published specs. A far preferable alternative IMHO.
  
 G


----------



## Arpiben

gregorio said:


> This argument is going nowhere because IMHO both of you are both right and wrong. dB(A) is certainly a useful measurement, unweighed noise measurements are also useful. An example being the dB(A) of SACD where most of noise is ultrasonic and therefore gives a low dB(A) measurement but being ultrasonic does not necessarily mean inaudible (due to IMD), which is presumably why Sony requires all SACD players to implement a 50kHz LPF. In the pro-audio equipment world, some/many manufacturers provide both un-weighted and dB(A) noise measurements as part of their standard published specs. A far preferable alternative IMHO.
> 
> G


 
  
 I have no experience in Audio, but as far as I understood ITU BS 468-4 or IEC 61672 it doesn't help me knowing if the A weighted instrument is for example having or not a 20 kHz LP filter. Same goes for unweighted measurements do they have or not a PB 0-20kHz PB filter ( ITU BS 468-4 Annex2) ?
 Regarding IMD, and again by analogy with RF (may be wrong), the non linearities may be found at different levels: record, playing and measuring level. Agreeing with you regarding the 'inaudible' point but skeptical about unweighted or weighted's measurement ability to quantify IMD.


----------



## Dulalala

I just saw someone claim that putting soap on vinyl makes it sound better... some poor guy responded to that comment. I refuse replying to such comments because I don't want to get into an argument but it's sort of silly that people believe such ridiculous things.
 I also feel bad for people who get hauled into these beliefs. I once saw someone post that he bought a dedicated DAC/Amp, yet heard no difference between it and his current device and was asking why that was so. No one replied to his post...


----------



## U-3C

dulalala said:


> I just saw someone claim that putting soap on vinyl makes it sound better... some poor guy responded to that comment. I refuse replying to such comments because I don't want to get into an argument but it's sort of silly that people believe such ridiculous things.
> I also feel bad for people who get hauled into these beliefs. I once saw someone post that he bought a dedicated DAC/Amp, yet heard no difference between it and his current device and was asking why that was so. No one replied to his post...


No one replied to my posts either... 

So now I hunt down such posts and reply to them as much as I can. You can call me a part-time professional at this now.


----------



## Dulalala

u-3c said:


> No one replied to my posts either...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I'd rather PM the guy and tell him not to believe such ... things... I thought audiophile bs was pretty bad already when it came to things like cable until I stumbled across the things posted in this thread... I did try a "high quality" cable though, copper litz I believe (didn't buy it too expensive and since the shop offered to let me I didn't see why not), the shop keeper tried to convince me to buy it for the same price stating it was a "bargain" for the price and offered it to me for 500 SGD. But after demoing it I had to politely decline for obvious reasons and leave because it felt rather uncomfortable declining his "offer" and continuing to stay to demo equipment.


----------



## watchnerd

pinnahertz said:


> My personal gripe is S/N figures without a stated reference, bandwidth and weighting.  Just a number.  Or a set of FR numbers with no tolerance stated.  Distortion with no mention of level.  Hard to confirm if you go and actually test the device.  An example I've mentioned before is a little Tripath amp rated a some impressive power figure, but with no stated distortion at that power. 50W or something.  Except, if you like your distortion below 1%, it's actually a 15W amp, which I found by testing it.  I called the company and complained, they played dumb.  Too bad too, it's not a bad little amp.


 
  
 In the US, I think there are actually legal guidelines about amp power claims after a bunch of lying in the 1970s.


----------



## Dulalala

dulalala said:


> I just saw someone claim that putting soap on vinyl makes it sound better... some poor guy responded to that comment. I refuse replying to such comments because I don't want to get into an argument but it's sort of silly that people believe such ridiculous things.
> I also feel bad for people who get hauled into these beliefs. I once saw someone post that he bought a dedicated DAC/Amp, yet heard no difference between it and his current device and was asking why that was so. No one replied to his post...


 
 Forgot to mention... It has to be horitcultural soap... not sure what that is but normal soap just wouldn't work now would it... it's not expensive enough


----------



## Arpiben

watchnerd said:


> In the US, I think there are actually legal guidelines about amp power claims after a bunch of lying in the 1970s.


 
  
 Something like Maximum Output Power has to be specified as a value you can achieve continuously.
 Previously, some manufacturers were providing reachable peak values for a very short time (few ms) without mentionning it.
  
 Nowadays the values are probably closer to reality. But not all manufacturers are writing how long you can stay at let's say maximum current before thermal or other protections start acting and switch off the output.


----------



## pinnahertz

watchnerd said:


> In the US, I think there are actually legal guidelines about amp power claims after a bunch of lying in the 1970s.


 
 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations are found in CFR Part 432 - "POWER OUTPUT CLAIMS FOR AMPLIFIERS UTILIZED IN HOME ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS".  They relate to power output only.  Regulation violations have legal consequences.  Enforcement is a problem.
  
 Electronic Industries Association (EIA) has another standard, "SE-101-A".  Standards, not regulations.
  
 Consumer Electronics Association has a standard relating to mobile electronics - CEA-2006-A.  Again, a standard, not a regulation.
  
 The FTC regulations include a required 1 hour warm up period with the device operated a 1/8 power with a 1kHz sine wave (except for subwoofers) in 77 degrees F, 25 degrees C ambient, still air. The power rating must be obtainable for 5 minutes at any frequency within specified operating band (that part of the regulation addresses protection). All tone and EQ must be set for flattest response.
  
 Nothing in the above relates to specifications other than power output and distortion (<2%).  While the 2% THD  point would be easy to determine and provides for a consistent reference point, distortion spectrum isn't specified, or rate of distortion onset either, so the actual audibly of distortion at rated power would be a bit fudgy with some designs.  Fairly consistent for the majority of SS amps, though.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> Of course you do.  It's the rest of the spectrum...it's not audible.  They'd be correct, and so would I.
> 
> My RF background is broadcast centric, and I've been at it a while, so lets try this analogy.
> 
> ...




Well, yes, of course we care about the output at the PA and characterize that as well... but, I understand your point that the system level measurement is taken at the antenna element array. 

But....

The analogy does not translate. When you use weighting to compensate for the brain/ear you are moving the horn from the antenna element array to the IF output on the receiver. 

When you characterize the transmitter, you characterize the transmitter... not at the receiver which will have it's own characteristics and transfer function. 

This is what I'm trying to say about audio hardware. Give us the raw measurements so we can understand what the actual hardware does. After all, isn't that the point of hardware characterization? To characterize the hardware? I'll hire an audiologist if I want to characterize my ears.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

gregorio said:


> This argument is going nowhere because IMHO both of you are both right and wrong. dB(A) is certainly a useful measurement, unweighed noise measurements are also useful. An example being the dB(A) of SACD where most of noise is ultrasonic and therefore gives a low dB(A) measurement but being ultrasonic does not necessarily mean inaudible (due to IMD), which is presumably why Sony requires all SACD players to implement a 50kHz LPF. In the pro-audio equipment world, some/many manufacturers provide both un-weighted and dB(A) noise measurements as part of their standard published specs. A far preferable alternative IMHO.
> 
> G




I think I mentioned earlier that I would have far less issue with weighted measurements if they were reported alongside unweighted measurements. 

But there are two problems, both of which I think have been commented on in this discussion:

1. Audio manufacturer's, for some reason that is completely lost on me, either have no clue on how to take measurements (or perhaps lack the desire to do so correctly) or have no clue on how to present them. In the entire world of analog components, audio is the only sector where I have seen this to be true. It absolutely boggles the mind. Perhaps it's because consumers don't care or take them to task on it, or because consumers don't understand them so manufacturer's get away with it. Or.....

2. If manufacturer's report two sets of numbers and at face value, one is listed as higher than the other, it reduces the perceived value of the product and manufacturers start having to answer some uncomfortable questions about their pricing. Good and complete measurements means more accountabilty for pricing... some of these manufacturer's would quickly go out of business.

(Removed swearing)


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

u-3c said:


> No one replied to my posts either...
> 
> So now I hunt down such posts and reply to them as much as I can. You can call me a part-time professional at this now.




Haha, there is something Robin Hood-esque about this.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> Well, yes, of course we care about the output at the PA and characterize that as well... but, I understand your point that the system level measurement is taken at the antenna element array.
> 
> But....
> 
> The analogy does not translate. When you use weighting to compensate for the brain/ear you are moving the horn from the antenna element array to the IF output on the receiver.


 
 In broadcast RF we characterize the entire system, all the way through the receiver output.  In fact, to accomplish all the required transmission chain tests you have to use a receiver (monitor). 


grumpyoldguy said:


> When you characterize the transmitter, you characterize the transmitter... not at the receiver which will have it's own characteristics and transfer function.


 
 ...and you'll have characterized half of the total system. Anything that happens in the entire chain can impact the receiver output.  I'm not saying you wouldn't characterize just the transmitter alone (post filters and antenna) at some point, but it's the entire chain that matters.  


grumpyoldguy said:


> This is what I'm trying to say about audio hardware. Give us the raw measurements so we can understand what the actual hardware does. After all, isn't that the point of hardware characterization? To characterize the hardware?


 
 Yes, and you'll have characterized the hardware, but you won't actually understand what it's doing unless you consider the end use.  You've said several times, you want to see unweighted measurements so you can decide...something or other. On what basis would you make your decision? Would your decision consider the entire system, including human hearing? If not, you're completely missing the point.


grumpyoldguy said:


> I'll hire an audiologist if I want to characterize my ears.


 
 And that wouldn't be exactly what you'd get. Ever seen an audiologist's report? Guess what...they're weighted! You have to scale measured hearing loss against the "norm", and that has to be normalized so all the data can fit on a readable chart. Sorry, weighting again. Apart from that a standard audiologist will measure hearing to 8kHz, missing more than the top octave.  The raw data from a hearing test would be difficult to use at best.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> In broadcast RF we characterize the entire system, all the way through the receiver output.  In fact, to accomplish all the required transmission chain tests you have to use a receiver (monitor).
> ...and you'll have characterized half of the total system. Anything that happens in the entire chain can impact the receiver output.  I'm not saying you wouldn't characterize just the transmitter alone (post filters and antenna) at some point, but it's the entire chain that matters.
> Yes, and you'll have characterized the hardware, but you won't actually understand what it's doing unless you consider the end use.  You've said several times, you want to see unweighted measurements so you can decide...something or other. On what basis would you make your decision? Would your decision consider the entire system, including human hearing? If not, you're completely missing the point.
> And that wouldn't be exactly what you'd get. Ever seen an audiologist's report? Guess what...they're weighted! You have to scale measured hearing loss against the "norm", and that has to be normalized so all the data can fit on a readable chart. Sorry, weighting again. Apart from that a standard audiologist will measure hearing to 8kHz, missing more than the top octave.  The raw data from a hearing test would be difficult to use at best.




In RF, RF we characterize the transmitter if we're designing a transmitter. There can be a hundred different receiver implementations each with their own response. When I demonstrate the antenna to the customer, I don't give them the measured performance of all of those receivers, or worse yet, an "industry standard definition of a receiver"... it's their responsibility to take all of that data and determine if that will fit into their integrated system application. 

The purpose of characterizing a piece of hardware is to characterize THAT piece of hardware. Not anything else in the system! I don't understand why this is so difficult to accept. I will make the determination for myself if that component is right for my system... Just as the customer's of the company I work for will make their own decision...

When I request hardware measurements for a piece of hardware, I want the measurements for that hardware... Not the simulated results of some generic end application. I really can't make it any simpler than that. Maybe I've just been an EE for too long and things that are common sense to me are unreasonable to others. But this really doesn't seem like it should be such a stretch here. 

I have not seen an audiologists report, but I would make sure before I paid them that they understood what I was expecting as a deliverable. And that would be absolute SPLs at discrete frequencies, probably from 10Hz to 22KHz, indicating the threshold of what is audible to me. It does not seem like an unreasonable request. What the hell is it with audio people that make them so opposed to actual measurements??


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> In RF, RF we characterize the transmitter if we're designing a transmitter. There can be a hundred different receiver implementations each with their own response. When I demonstrate the antenna to the customer, I don't give them the measured performance of all of those receivers, or worse yet, an "industry standard definition of a receiver"... it's their responsibility to take all of that data and determine if that will fit into their integrated system application.


 
 How would to evaluate the performance of, say, a modulated oscillator in an FM transmitter? Wouldn't you have to demodulate the signal? In standard FM broadcast, we have that, and a whole bunch of parameters in the stereo generator to characterize. To do that the carrier must be demodulated, that takes a receiver. Monitors used for measurement have very wide band IF stages, but if you want to know what the real received signal is doing, you have to place a more typical band-limitation, compete with phase and amplitude response, before the demod. In FM stereo that chain changes L/R channel separation, main to subchannel crosstalk, and distortion. We care about those things, and the only way to evaluate them is to analyze the entire system, not just one little block.


grumpyoldguy said:


> The purpose of characterizing a piece of hardware is to characterize THAT piece of hardware. Not anything else in the system! I don't understand why this is so difficult to accept.


 
 Good engineering practice wouldn't ignore any of the total system, even if the effort is being applied to one block.


grumpyoldguy said:


> I will make the determination for myself if that component is right for my system... Just as the customer's of the company I work for will make their own decision...


 
 Based on a partial picture of the total system performance? Wow.


grumpyoldguy said:


> When I request hardware measurements for a piece of hardware, I want the measurements for that hardware... Not the simulated results of some generic end application. I really can't make it any simpler than that.


 
 You have a strange understanding of a measurement technique.


grumpyoldguy said:


> Maybe I've just been an EE for too long and things that are common sense to me are unreasonable to others. But this really doesn't seem like it should be such a stretch here.


 
 Is it too big a stretch to open the possibility that some other EE might recognize the value of a weighted noise measurement?


grumpyoldguy said:


> I have not seen an audiologists report, but I would make sure before I paid them that they understood what I was expecting as a deliverable. And that would be absolute SPLs at discrete frequencies, probably from 10Hz to 22KHz, indicating the threshold of what is audible to me. It does not seem like an unreasonable request. What the hell is it with audio people that make them so opposed to actual measurements??


 
  
 Have fun the next time you visit an audiologist. They use gear pre-programmed to present collected data after conditioning it to be useful. All of them.  You'd be asking them for a wideband voltage measurement at the input to the test headphones transducer.  That would ignore transducer response and normal hearing response (and tell you nothing very useful).


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> How would to evaluate the performance of, say, a modulated oscillator in an FM transmitter? Wouldn't you have to demodulate the signal? In standard FM broadcast, we have that, and a whole bunch of parameters in the stereo generator to characterize. To do that the carrier must be demodulated, that takes a receiver. Monitors used for measurement have very wide band IF stages, but if you want to know what the real received signal is doing, you have to place a more typical band-limitation, compete with phase and amplitude response, before the demod. In FM stereo that chain changes L/R channel separation, main to subchannel crosstalk, and distortion. We care about those things, and the only way to evaluate them is to analyze the entire system, not just one little block.
> Good engineering practice wouldn't ignore any of the total system, even if the effort is being applied to one block.
> Based on a partial picture of the total system performance? Wow.
> You have a strange understanding of a measurement technique.
> ...




I would evalute the performance of the LO in a transmitter by tapping off the LO path into an RF scope and spec an. Not by sticking a receiver on the the other end and trying to characterize it that way. That would be ridiculous. 

You also continue to not understand that when I characterize the transmitter, I want to do just that - characterize the transmitter - not the received signal. If I wanted to characterize that, I would characterize the receiver. 

Good engineering practice is to design the transmitter to be the best transmitter it can, irrespective of the receiver performance. But the next time you demo an RF transmitter using the characteristics of the receiver, please let me know whether or not your company gets downselected. I suspect they would be out of the running pretty quick. 

You seem to be under the impression that someone else needs to tell me whether or not something will meet the requirements of my system. Almost as if you think I'm too dumb to set my own requirements and evaluate the performance of the upstream hardware against the required end-to-end performance. Maybe that's the problem with the audio industry... they just think we're all too dumb to think for ourselves and they are somehow saving us all from our own idiocy. That would explain a LOT. 

I think you're the one with the strange understanding of measurement. I honestly do believe you actually think it's completely appropriate to characterize a piece of hardware not in terms of the measurement of that hardware, but in terms of the measurement of something entirely different. That's just mind blowing to me. 

I have not seen an audiologist or had a need too... "pre programmed to condition the data to be useful"... unweighted data is useful. Remember, in this hypothetical situation I asked for a threshold in dB SPL at discrete frequencies... not some pre-transducer RMS voltage. Although with a little math it could be easily calculated without having to change the measurement at all.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> I would evalute the performance of the LO in a transmitter by tapping off the LO path into an RF scope and spec an. Not by sticking a receiver on the the other end and trying to characterize it that way. That would be ridiculous.


 
 How about the distortion in the modulation characteristic of a modulated oscillator producing FM? You're not pulling that off with a scope. Or a spectrum analyzer.


grumpyoldguy said:


> But the next time you demo an RF transmitter using the characteristics of the receiver, please let me know whether or not your company gets downselected. I suspect they would be out of the running pretty quick.


 
 I don't believe I've ever said I design RF systems, or work for anyone who does. The single biggest problem here is massive assumption. Including that one's own knowledge is directly transferable to any other area of study without considering the requirements within that area of study.


grumpyoldguy said:


> You seem to be under the impression that someone else needs to tell me whether or not something will meet the requirements of my system. Almost as if you think I'm too dumb to set my own requirements and evaluate the performance of the upstream hardware against the required end-to-end performance.


 Another massive assumption. I don't think any of those things. I'm sure you know  your own requirements better than anyone. 





grumpyoldguy said:


> Maybe that's the problem with the audio industry... they just think we're all too dumb to think for ourselves and they are somehow saving us all from our own idiocy. That would explain a LOT.


 
 No, I don't think any of that is true either. 





grumpyoldguy said:


> I think you're the one with the strange understanding of measurement. I honestly do believe you actually think it's completely appropriate to characterize a piece of hardware not in terms of the measurement of that hardware, but in terms of the measurement of something entirely different. That's just mind blowing to me.


 
 No, I've never said anything like that. I've advocated the consideration of the entire system, and the end goal. I don't think focussing on a performance aspect that doesn't relate to the end goal is productive. 





grumpyoldguy said:


> I have not seen an audiologist or had a need too... "pre programmed to condition the data to be useful"... unweighted data is useful. Remember, in this hypothetical situation I asked for a threshold in dB SPL at discrete frequencies... not some pre-transducer RMS voltage.


 
 Well, that's a relief. You won't get those numbers, but at least you're after SPL. Problem is, you'dl have a response curve, and no idea what it should be. The audiologist would normalize the data and plot against "normal", then weight against the norm vs age and sex. Oops, I said "weight".  





grumpyoldguy said:


> Although with a little math it could be easily calculated without having to change the measurement at all.


 
 A little math, and a whole lot of data. You don't have the transducer efficiency vs frequency data, nor do you have hearing response at threshold data.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

pinnahertz said:


> How about the distortion in the modulation characteristic of a modulated oscillator producing FM? You're not pulling that off with a scope. Or a spectrum analyzer.
> I don't believe I've ever said I design RF systems, or work for anyone who does. The single biggest problem here is massive assumption. Including that one's own knowledge is directly transferable to any other area of study without considering the requirements within that area of study.





I work at a much lower level than your example... I'm more concerned about things like LO drift, VCO settling times, gain flatness, etc.. These things contribute to overall performance, so we tend to focus on that. So, I don't know the answer to your question... I suppose you could use a VSA function - so yes, on a spectrum analyzer - which, yes, would demod the signal. It's very rarely that anyone really tests an individual component of a system at this level though... In fact, I can't think of a single instance. Typically that's something the customer will (pay someone to) do with their integrated system to characterize system level performance. IME, that's usually done at the field test stage by post processing captured metrics at the receiving end of the system. It's not used to indicate performance of any one component though, as you would like it to be in the context of audio. If my goal was to quickly characterize (read: estimate) the entire system... then weighting could accomplish that. But the purpose of measurements on a single piece of hardware is to characterize that piece of hardware, not the entire system. 

You acknowledge that consumer is best suited to identify their own requirements, but then support this method of measurement that obscures from the actual behavior of the piece of hardware they are seeking information about. This is contradictory in the most fundamental sense. 

Advocating consideration of the entire system is fine. You don't need weighted measurements to do that. You need to know exactly how each and every component in the system behaves, and all weighted measurements donis obscure that. In that regard, not only do you not need weighted measurements, but weighted measurements are counterproductive!

I'm not continuing the pursuit of the audiologist topic because it's wholely unrelated to the topic. But as a parting note on that subject, if we have exact measurements in the transducer datasheet, we would have what need for that particular component to evaluate the system. If those measurements are obscured by weighting, we don't.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

No consumer audio hardware is going to come with a whole datasheet just to characterize thd+n. It's always just going to be one number. Not two numbers (dBa and dB), but one. You get to choose one number that means more for your ears than the other. Take it or leave it.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> No consumer audio hardware is going to come with a whole datasheet just to characterize thd+n. It's always just going to be one number. Not two numbers (dBa and dB), but one. You get to choose one number that means more for your ears than the other. Take it or leave it.




I refer you to the datasheets for parts from TI, AD, Maxim, etc. etc. etc. Pages and pages of plots and detailed measurements. 

Just because something is the way it is, doesn't mean that is how it should be. When will audio wake up an realize they are the exception, not the rule? And what's worse, there is an attitude opposing more transparency and better information, as evidenced by your post. It's sad, really.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > No consumer audio hardware is going to come with a whole datasheet just to characterize thd+n. It's always just going to be one number. Not two numbers (dBa and dB), but one. You get to choose one number that means more for your ears than the other. Take it or leave it.
> ...




I'm not opposed to it, just stating the fact that it will never happen for marketing reasons.

Given that the market wants it simplified to a single number, dBa is better than dB. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> I work at a much lower level than your example... I'm more concerned about things like LO drift, VCO settling times, gain flatness, etc.. These things contribute to overall performance, so we tend to focus on that. So, I don't know the answer to your question... I suppose you could use a VSA function - so yes, on a spectrum analyzer - which, yes, would demod the signal. It's very rarely that anyone really tests an individual component of a system at this level though... In fact, I can't think of a single instance.


 
 Your answer illustrates my point precisely. You're an expert in your field, but the example I gave is not uncommon at all. It's just not in your area of expertise. Yet you insist it isn't done at all! Yes, it's done and important...in wide-band, broadcast FM. I don't fault you for not knowing that. I do have a problem with the assumption that something cannot be true at any time just because you've never seen it done in your area of expertise.


grumpyoldguy said:


> Typically that's something the customer will (pay someone to) do with their integrated system to characterize system level performance. IME, that's usually done at the field test stage by post processing captured metrics at the receiving end of the system. It's not used to indicate performance of any one component though, as you would like it to be in the context of audio.


 
 Nope, not true. It's done by every manufacturer of a broadcast FM exciter, right up until they started using digitally synthesized modulation.


grumpyoldguy said:


> If my goal was to quickly characterize (read: estimate) the entire system... then weighting could accomplish that. But the purpose of measurements on a single piece of hardware is to characterize that piece of hardware, not the entire system.


 
 Still missing the point: it's not about speed. I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better. I suggest you research the application of weighting filters in noise measurement yourself.


grumpyoldguy said:


> You acknowledge that consumer is best suited to identify their own requirements, but then support this method of measurement that obscures from the actual behavior of the piece of hardware they are seeking information about. This is contradictory in the most fundamental sense.


 
 Weighted noise measurements don't obscure anything, the relate the measurement to what is actually heard.


grumpyoldguy said:


> Advocating consideration of the entire system is fine. You don't need weighted measurements to do that. You need to know exactly how each and every component in the system behaves, and all weighted measurements donis obscure that. In that regard, not only do you not need weighted measurements, but weighted measurements are counterproductive!


 
 Wrong. You're ignoring the application, which is reproduced audio that is to be heard by a hearing system with built-in nonlinearities. That's the part of the "system" that you must handle with a predictive weighting curve.


grumpyoldguy said:


> r /> I'm not continuing the pursuit of the audiologist topic because it's wholely unrelated to the topic. But as a parting note on that subject, if we have exact measurements in the transducer datasheet, we would have what need for that particular component to evaluate the system. If those measurements are obscured by weighting, we don't.


 
 You brought that one up.  I've had my hearing tested in detail, and have sat with my mother many times at her audiologist.  Her hearing loss figures wouldn't fit on a linear graph, and would make no sense unless weighted against a "normal" for her age.  
  
 And in my parting comment here, it's clear you still don't understand what weighting does. Do you understand the term "normalize" as it applies to data analysis? Same thing, an applied curve. Do you object to the use of the decibel in volume measurement too? That's a nonlinear scaling function that, by your definition, obscures the true linear data. We use the dB because it helps our otherwise linear measurements correlate with the wide range of hearing, and it's nonlinear response to stimulus. You can use the same modification in perceived physical force, light brightness, and several other things. So, you don't like the dB either?
  
 What do you say we just drop this now?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

It's like saying computer reviews should drop all application benchmark testing and just publish the GFLOPs ratung of the CPU for every operation it can perform, the C2 C3 etc. times of the memory used, the bus speed, the hard disk read and write speed for data on the inside track, the outside track, the GPU vertex and pixel shading rates, amount of VRAM, VRAM C2 speed, etc. etc. If he's a Photoshop user, at no point should Photoshop be launched and tested, let alone any benchmarks employing Photoshop. :rolleyes: Wonder how well he'll do at choosing a computer to buy this way?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> It's like saying computer reviews should drop all application benchmark testing and just publish the GFLOPs ratung of the CPU for every operation it can perform, the C2 C3 etc. times of the memory used, the bus speed, the hard disk read and write speed for data on the inside track, the outside track, the GPU vertex and pixel shading rates, amount of VRAM, VRAM C2 speed, etc. etc. If he's a Photoshop user, at no point should Photoshop be launched and tested, let alone any benchmarks employing Photoshop. :rolleyes: Wonder how well he'll do at choosing a computer to buy this way?




Benchmarks are supplied in addition to the detailed low level specs including things FLOPS (available in manufacturer data sheet) and memory latency numbers (even Best Buy has this on their product pages).

Edit:
And yes, when I built my latest computer I did it selecting parts with the best individual specs for the price I was willing to pay for them. Because that's how you design a system. It's not rocket science, despite you trying to deliberately make it look as such. You must be part of the audio industry... the ones who think everyone is an idiot but them, and they know better than us what we need.


----------



## pinnahertz

grumpyoldguy said:


> You must be part of the audio industry... the ones who think everyone is an idiot but them, and they know better than us what we need.


 
 I take exception with the above insult.  It's just another one of those huge assumptions.  I personally don't classify Grumpy as an idiot, not in the slightest, quite the opposite.  I do think that each area of specialization requires knowledge of issues and techniques that are unique to that area, and that it is presumptuous to think that because someone is an expert in one area, he's also an expert in every other area. We can't all be experts, and most experts are only experts in their specific field.  It's nice to have the humility to keep learning, and avoid sclerosis of the brain. 
  
 There are extreme views everywhere.  I also, at this point, will allow for the disagreement, out of respect for everyone's personal ideas.  But trading insults is really counterproductive.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

grumpyoldguy said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > It's like saying computer reviews should drop all application benchmark testing and just publish the GFLOPs ratung of the CPU for every operation it can perform, the C2 C3 etc. times of the memory used, the bus speed, the hard disk read and write speed for data on the inside track, the outside track, the GPU vertex and pixel shading rates, amount of VRAM, VRAM C2 speed, etc. etc. If he's a Photoshop user, at no point should Photoshop be launched and tested, let alone any benchmarks employing Photoshop. :rolleyes: Wonder how well he'll do at choosing a computer to buy this way?
> ...




Choosing individual components based on component performance is indeed the way to go when building your own system, but that also breaks the analogy, because then you'd be an amp DIYer rather than an amp buyer. So let me restate: if buying a whole prebuilt computer (branded amp) mainly for Photoshop (listening to music, specifically looking at noise levels as humanly audible), would you look at component specs (which would be like quoting noise spec of individual chips used as though that were the system noise level, a practice not unknown among minor brands), synthetic benchmarks (which would be like unweighted noise measurements) or actual Photoshop benchmarks (weighted noise measurements)?


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

joe bloggs said:


> Choosing individual components based on component performance is indeed the way to go when building your own system, but that also breaks the analogy, because then you'd be an amp DIYer rather than an amp buyer. So let me restate: if buying a whole prebuilt computer (branded amp) mainly for Photoshop (listening to music, specifically looking at noise levels as humanly audible), would you look at component specs (which would be like quoting noise spec of individual chips used as though that were the system noise level, a practice not unknown among minor brands), synthetic benchmarks (which would be like unweighted noise measurements) or actual Photoshop benchmarks (weighted noise measurements)?




The analogy is not broken, because in audio the system consists of DAC -> Amp -> Headphones. What you are suggesting (in terms of DIY) is the equivalent of designing one's own ASIC for the GPU. 

When I select a DAC, I want the measurements for that DAC. Not DAC -> Ear. 

The next problem is the completeness of provided measurements, but one problem at a time. 

I don't think anyone can deny that there is severe shortcomings in the specs that audio manufacturers provide. Ignore the whole weighting thing for now, because for pages we have gone nowhere in that discussion. The specs are often incomplete, out of context, etc. Let's just leave this on that common ground.

Edit:
And by the way, even in selecting prebuilt machines, I still look at individual components of those machines. It's why assemblers allow you to select "upgrades" when configuring the machine.


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> Of course you do.  It's the rest of the spectrum...it's not audible.  They'd be correct, and so would I.
> 
> My RF background is broadcast centric, and I've been at it a while, so lets try this analogy.
> 
> ...


 

 I've been AWOL for a little while and have been catching up on this thread, It's nice to see that unlike an audiophile centric thread, no blood was shed.
 That bit about the harmonic filter reminds me of being 10 years old and my friend and I building spark gap transmitters, sans filters. We must have pissed off a lot of of people, we lived in NYC. TV and radio listeners were not pleased, but we did learn Morse code. Lucky for our neighborhood, we learned about filters and then moved onto proper active circuitry. We should have gotten our HAM licenses first, that way we would have learned about the evils of RFI before keying the gap.
  
 Edit: Here's anther audiophile term that I just love, magical.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/551345/hifiman-he-500-he-as-in-high-end-proving-to-be-an-enjoyable-experience-in-listening/18090#post_13212407


----------



## U-3C

So quiet...

Gonna just post this here for fun. 

o(^_^)b


----------



## watchnerd

u-3c said:


> So quiet...
> 
> Gonna just post this here for fun.
> 
> o(^_^)b


 
  
  
 If your system was better and you were listening to hi-rez you wouldn't mistake a 6 for a 9.


----------



## U-3C

watchnerd said:


> If your system was better and you were listening to hi-rez you wouldn't mistake a 6 for a 9.




But animals that have more sensitive ears, smoke and wear a tie clearly claims that it's "g" and not "6" or "9!" :0


----------



## watchnerd

u-3c said:


> But animals that have more sensitive ears, smoke and wear a tie clearly claims that it's "g" and not "6" or "9!" :0


 
  
 I don't know what you're talking about.  I didn't see any animal, just some guy in a beard.  And it was clearly saying '9' not 'g'.
  
 Maybe you need to upgrade your cables...


----------



## U-3C

watchnerd said:


> I don't know what you're talking about.  I didn't see any animal, just some guy in a beard.  And it was clearly saying '9' not 'g'.
> 
> Maybe you need to upgrade your cables...


What do you recommend? Someone told me to get rubber ones instead of the usual copper ones that I have.

Is it still not enough? T.T

I'm practically broke thanks to those cables...


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> What do you recommend? Someone told me to get rubber ones instead of the usual copper ones that I have.
> 
> Is it still not enough? T.T
> 
> I'm practically broke thanks to those cables...


 

 Tell the truth, you've been using Bluetooth without apt-x.


----------



## Dulalala

u-3c said:


> What do you recommend? Someone told me to get rubber ones instead of the usual copper ones that I have.
> 
> Is it still not enough? T.T
> 
> I'm practically broke thanks to those cables...


 
 No no you need quantum stickers to truly complete your set up... without these the music won't be perfect.


----------



## watchnerd

u-3c said:


> What do you recommend? Someone told me to get rubber ones instead of the usual copper ones that I have.
> 
> Is it still not enough? T.T
> 
> I'm practically broke thanks to those cables...


 
  
 Metallic hydrogen.


----------



## icebear

watchnerd said:


> Metallic hydrogen.


 

 Proof is still out on that one, I'd say.
 And objectively any use in a home application might be a little tricky apart from the commercial aspects, even if it does exist


----------



## watchnerd

icebear said:


> Proof is still out on that one, I'd say.
> And objectively any use in a home application might be a little tricky apart from the commercial aspects, even if it does exist


 
  
 It exists now:
  
 https://phys.org/news/2017-01-metallic-hydrogen-theory-reality.html


----------



## icebear

watchnerd said:


> It exists now:
> 
> https://phys.org/news/2017-01-metallic-hydrogen-theory-reality.html


 

 It existed for a short period of time under super critical lab conditions.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 QUOTE [..., and even if it *only exists in this diamond anvil cell at high pressure*, it's a very fundamental and transformative discovery."]
  
 Any measurements e.g. like conductivity?


----------



## StanD

icebear said:


> It existed for a short period of time under super critical lab conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 NJT _hires_ conductors.


----------



## ThomasHK

So here's the thing...
  
 I'm an industry insider (I work on headphones for different brands... don't ask, I don't tell, it's not why I'm here). 
 I have studied sound and acoustics and dsp
 I have worked for 6+ now in audio R&D
 I consider myself a healthy mix of objectivist (you need measurements) and subjectivist (but you need to listen to it too). 
  
 And yet this year I've bought (in order) Shure SE846, Oppo HA-2, O2 amp, Mojo, AK70... over the course of say 4 months.
  
 Why?
  
 THE HYPE IS REAL 
 OUTPUT IMPEDANCE OMG TOO HIGH
 BETTER DEPTH AND MORE 3D BECAUSE FPGA > ESS GLARE
 OMG SUCH A CUTE LITTLE PLAYER
  
 (i.e. Head-Fi...)
  
 And then today this little box arrived... 
  

  
 Crap... 
  
 confirmation bias is a *****!!


----------



## headwhacker

thomashk said:


> So here's the thing...
> 
> I'm an industry insider (I work on headphones for different brands... don't ask, I don't tell, it's not why I'm here).
> I have studied sound and acoustics and dsp
> ...


 
  
 I have one coming for myself as well. My bias' days are numbered.


----------



## StanD

thomashk said:


> So here's the thing...
> 
> I'm an industry insider (I work on headphones for different brands... don't ask, I don't tell, it's not why I'm here).
> I have studied sound and acoustics and dsp
> ...


 
 I have the same switch, however, I already knew about my human weaknesses and stopped fooling myself long long ago.


----------



## Argyris

thomashk said:


> confirmation bias is a *****!!


 
  
 You had the courage to test yourself. That's a lot more than the vast majority of audiophiles can say. When confronted with the prospect of testing, typical subjectivist audiophile types usually rationalize their inability to pass (should they actually submit to testing) by making up suppositions that somehow the differences they claim online are "night and day" can only be heard over long periods of time, which (conveniently) cannot be accounted for in an A/B test. Or, far more commonly, they'll refuse to test at all, claiming that they don't need to prove anything to anybody, that the hobby should be about enjoying oneself, etc.
  
 They're afraid. They're afraid they'll discover that all the time, all the emotional investment, and, probably most importantly, _all the money_ they've put into this hobby was worthless. The last one must particularly sting, especially when they think about all the things they could have bought instead. And, if you take away most of the back end gear, for many long-time Head-Fi'ers that takes with it a significant chunk of the hobby. For one thing, it brings the ballooning costs of flagship headphones in recent years into sharper focus: when you can no longer convince yourself that the roughness and sibilance you're hearing in your latest generation flagship can be cured (or indeed _has_ been cured) by buying an expensive amp or DAC or cable, it's a lot harder to forgive super expensive headphones for having these flaws in the first place.
  
 Being an objectivist often means that the gear aspect of personal listening becomes boring and stagnant. But, to me, that just means I can devote nearly all my time to actually listening to music through my headphones, which is why I got into this stuff in the first place.


----------



## castleofargh

I've upgraded mine to output high res audio. makes it easier to A/B differences.


----------



## ThomasHK

argyris said:


> You had the courage to test yourself. That's a lot more than the vast majority of audiophiles can say. When confronted with the prospect of testing, typical subjectivist audiophile types usually rationalize their inability to pass (should they actually submit to testing) by making up suppositions that somehow the differences they claim online are "night and day" can only be heard over long periods of time, which (conveniently) cannot be accounted for in an A/B test. Or, far more commonly, they'll refuse to test at all, claiming that they don't need to prove anything to anybody, that the hobby should be about enjoying oneself, etc.
> 
> They're afraid. They're afraid they'll discover that all the time, all the emotional investment, and, probably most importantly, _all the money_ they've put into this hobby was worthless. The last one must particularly sting, especially when they think about all the things they could have bought instead. And, if you take away most of the back end gear, for many long-time Head-Fi'ers that takes with it a significant chunk of the hobby. For one thing, it brings the ballooning costs of flagship headphones in recent years into sharper focus: when you can no longer convince yourself that the roughness and sibilance you're hearing in your latest generation flagship can be cured (or indeed _has_ been cured) by buying an expensive amp or DAC or cable, it's a lot harder to forgive super expensive headphones for having these flaws in the first place.
> 
> Being an objectivist often means that the gear aspect of personal listening becomes boring and stagnant. But, to me, that just means I can devote nearly all my time to actually listening to music through my headphones, which is why I got into this stuff in the first place.


 
  
 I hear you on all points 
  
I'm just a little mad at myself for having gotten caught up (briefly I might add) in a vicious upgrade cycle, although I obviously understand audio and psychoacoustics quite well. But this silly little box definitely locked things in perspective again.
  
 I'm sober again!
  
 EDIT: this guy however... http://www.head-fi.org/t/633511/pictures-of-your-portable-rig-part-xvi/22770#post_13244534


----------



## VNandor

thomashk said:


> So here's the thing...
> 
> I'm an industry insider (I work on headphones for different brands... don't ask, I don't tell, it's not why I'm here).
> I have studied sound and acoustics and dsp
> ...


 

 1.If you don't hear a difference you are obviously deaf, since my friend/wife/dog/fish heard the improvements from two rooms away.
 2.ABX is not a valid form of testing and the results should not be trusted.
 3. Unless the switch box costed 10000$, it degrades the signal to the point it masks the differences.
  I could have forgotten some of the best of Head-Fi counter arguments against blind testing.
  
 On a more serious note I've done some blind tests using foobar's abx plugin and I failed a lot before I figured out I can tick the keep playback position box. Looking at spectograms to know what to listen to also helped in some cases. Point is, sometimes I missed subtle but nonetheless audible differences. Of course these problems are present in sighted listening tests as well as a whole bunch of others as an added bonus.


----------



## HotIce

The switch-box degrades the signal? Let's AB test that one over a straight connection. That tends to quiet the argument over that, down 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 As far as knowing what to listen if you want to detect changes, between components ...
 A long time ago, back at university. we did an 3 way blind test among one $$$, state of the art, solid state amplifier, vs a $$$ state of the art valve amplifier, vs. a $100 (of todays money) amplifier built off a popular electronics magazine kit.
 Amps where SPL volume matched at the listening position, and during the test, the listening room composition (in terms of persons and objects, and their positions) was kept constant.
 We invited a lot of people (from friends, to audiophiles, to sound magazines reviewers - of these, only one showed up), and about 50 showed up.
 Long story short, test was random, and nobody could reliably tell them apart ... besides an audiophile friend of mine, which had 100% detection on the amplifier we built off the kit.
 After much pressure (and wine) on how he did it, it turned out, the ground screw was a bit lose, and was making the amp generate a very minor 50Hz buzz, which was totally undetectable when music was on, but could be heard (if you focused on it) on silence during record changes.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> 1.If you don't hear a difference you are obviously deaf, since my friend/wife/dog/fish heard the improvements from two rooms away.


 
 A deaf person has little or no hearing. That definition makes the above fairly inflamatory, don't you think?


vnandor said:


> 2.ABX is not a valid form of testing and the results should not be trusted.


 
 No kidding? Wow. I'll have to let all scientific researchers, in particularly the medical and drug developers that they've been doing it wrong for 100 years!
  
 So, you don't acknowledge perceptual / expectation bias and placebo? Ok then.


vnandor said:


> 3. Unless the switch box costed 10000$, it degrades the signal to the point it masks the differences.


 
 I have this box, it's about 12x17x6, has a bunch of connectors on it and a several switches on the front. It weighs about 100 pounds, and is 24K gold plated. It costs about $10000. Does that mean that regardless of what's inside it can't possibly degrade the signal? Are you not aware that a $2 switch has absolutely no impact on the signal, and in fact, those types of switch contacts are found in just about every piece of audio gear, even the $10,000 stuff?  


vnandor said:


> I could have forgotten some of the best of Head-Fi counter arguments against blind testing.


 
 Well, none given so far...


vnandor said:


> On a more serious note I've done some blind tests using foobar's abx plugin and I failed a lot before I figured out I can tick the keep playback position box. Looking at spectograms to know what to listen to also helped in some cases. Point is, sometimes I missed subtle but nonetheless audible differences. Of course these problems are present in sighted listening tests as well as a whole bunch of others as an added bonus.


 
 You made it a sighted test. And yes, sighted testing is a lot of fun, biased, and therefore invalid. Placebo is real, and why people are "cured" by them every day.  That's all well documented, regardless if one's personal belief system allows for reality or not.


----------



## pinnahertz

hotice said:


> The switch-box degrades the signal? Let's AB test that one over a straight connection. That tends to quiet the argument over that, down
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
*Doyle Lonnegan*: Your boss is quite a card player, Mr. Kelly; how does he do it?

*Johnny Hooker*: He cheats.


----------



## VNandor

pinnahertz said:


> A deaf person has little or no hearing. That definition makes the above fairly inflamatory, don't you think?
> No kidding? Wow. I'll have to let all scientific researchers, in particularly the medical and drug developers that they've been doing it wrong for 100 years!
> 
> So, you don't acknowledge perceptual / expectation bias and placebo? Ok then.
> ...


 

 By "best" counter arguments, I've meant the most funny to read.
  
  


pinnahertz said:


> You made it a sighted test. And yes, sighted testing is a lot of fun, biased, and therefore invalid. Placebo is real, and why people are "cured" by them every day.  That's all well documented, regardless if one's personal belief system allows for reality or not.


 
 I think you misunderstood something there. What I've tried to say is that, I tried to ABX some files and I couldn't. Then, I looked at the spectogram of the files, so I could make a rough guess what to listen to. Then after that, I ABXed the files again and passed. It's still a blind test. I didn't test while I was looking at the spectograms and playing music and be like a-ha now I hear a difference. I looked at the spectograms then took the abx test again but with more succes this time.


----------



## Ruben123

pinnahertz said:


> A deaf person has little or no hearing. That definition makes the above fairly inflamatory, don't you think?
> No kidding? Wow. I'll have to let all scientific researchers, in particularly the medical and drug developers that they've been doing it wrong for 100 years!
> 
> So, you don't acknowledge perceptual / expectation bias and placebo? Ok then.
> ...




Im sure it was mostly sarcasm


----------



## icebear

ruben123 said:


> Im sure it was mostly sarcasm


 

 He obviously didn't get it as the OP hasn't used any smiley's. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I was so much more fun though seeing people taking it for real and run with it


----------



## watchnerd

pinnahertz said:


> A deaf person has little or no hearing. That definition makes the above fairly inflamatory, don't you think?
> No kidding? Wow. I'll have to let all scientific researchers, in particularly the medical and drug developers that they've been doing it wrong for 100 years!
> 
> So, you don't acknowledge perceptual / expectation bias and placebo? Ok then.
> ...


 
  
 I think you need to turn up the knob on your satire detector....


----------



## U-3C

thomashk said:


> I hear you on all points
> 
> I'm just a little mad at myself for having gotten caught up (briefly I might add) in a vicious upgrade cycle, although I obviously understand audio and psychoacoustics quite well. But this silly little box definitely locked things in perspective again.
> 
> ...




It's hard to fight it. You are talking about decade of marketing designed to make the skeptics abandon their critical judgement and for new comers to fall away from credible knowledge. 

When I first got my "audiophile" setup, I thought I was insane so I grabbed all the random strangers, all the close friends I can to test. Without telling them it's a 500 USD setup, people have no idea why I purchased all this weird, exotic stuff that can't even do basic things for an enjoyable experience.

"BUT BUT BUT THIS IS A CLEAN AMP WITH SO MUCH POWER AND AN DRIVE XYZ AND-!"

Dude, it's noisier than my phone, less convenient, requires cables and extra charging, and it doesn't sound any different, unless you ignore the considerable noisy output. I got better results with my 10 dollar item with DSP than the focal utopia, which I audited once.



^^Now go say that somewhere else, and look at all the hate you will get, many of which are from people who never tried the headphones and are not even relying on their ears, but blind faith.


----------



## Argyris

I think part of why I was amenable from the onset to the objectivist stance is that, contrary to so many people involved with personal audio, I actually dislike using audio gear. As in, interfacing with the physical devices themselves. I'd love it if we all lived in magical fairy land where we could have HD 600 + sub bass sound piped directly into our ears from the aether, without having to strap cups to or insert little silicone tips into our ears, and without having to deal with cables and separate amplifiers (when our source isn't powerful enough on its own, like my Nexus 5X) or any of the rest of it. I find my current arrangement of HD 600 + FiiO Q1 (the latter when necessary) tolerable, but only because it's as minimal as I can get.
  
 When your goal is to have as little as possible chained together to achieve your sonic goal, it makes you skeptical of equipment as a whole, which is a far cry from the enthusiasm many people have for each component. This skepticism has primed me to accept testing that invalidates most of the claims made in the audiophile world.
  
 In a way, you might say I'm biased in the opposite direction of the subjectivist, except that I don't think it can ever be a bad thing to be biased in favor of the truth (at least, as best as we can currently understand it). At the very least, it makes things a lot cheaper!


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> Im sure it was mostly sarcasm


 

 I think our friend PinHz has been in one audiophile grudge match too many and requires an objective intervention to recalibrate his sense of sarcasm.


----------



## pinnahertz

stand said:


> I think our friend PinHz has been in one audiophile grudge match too many and requires an objective intervention to recalibrate his sense of sarcasm.


 
 Geez, you guys.  All right already, all of you.  
  
 I goofed!  I popped into the thread near the end and I admit to not reading all of the 3256 posts ahead of it or, or even the previous 10.  I also needed that intervention just a bit earlier over in the Computer Audio sub-forum (OMG, is it loony in there!).  Hopping from _that_ to this...well, _that_ was stupefying . 
  
 But thanks.  Taking...deep breath...and...exhaling....sarcasm sensor recalibrated, troll filter readjusted....moving on.


----------



## U-3C

pinnahertz said:


> Geez, you guys.  All right already, all of you.
> 
> I goofed!  I popped into the thread near the end and I admit to not reading all of the 3256 posts ahead of it or, or even the previous 10.  I also needed that intervention just a bit earlier over in the Computer Audio sub-forum (OMG, is it loony in there!).  Hopping from _that_ to this...well, _that_ was stupefying .
> 
> But thanks.  Taking...deep breath...and...exhaling....sarcasm sensor recalibrated, troll filter readjusted....moving on.




I see that people are joking with you a bit when you were taking an argument seriously and because of that, I'm worried that the jokes may have upset you. 

I do value what you posted and I really don't wish to see anyone upset because of a misunderstanding, so if it is indeed the case, I hope everyone can acknowledge it and stop the jokes. 

Please?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

NOOOO! What's life without jokes?


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> NOOOO! What's life without jokes?


 Nothing wrong with jokes. Just not jokes that hurt others.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Well the original joke was not directed at anybody, but pinnahertz took it the wrong way; all the subsequent posts were to straighten him out with a bit of joshing mixed in. No harm in any of it as far as I see.


----------



## Dulalala

Now I usually drive my HD800S out of my phone (oh the heresy) since it's much more convenient and I've never had any issue with it, but the other day, I decided to plug it into my Fiio E07K (which is plugged into my computer) and I noticed for a specific song, it sounded a little different (specifically the vocals sounded a bit farther?). Curious, I decided that try an ABX test but I realized I couldn't reliable get them to the same volume. When I did, one part would sound (eg the bass) would the same but another part (eg treble) would sound different. Note that this was done by ear and was probably very inaccurate. Anyone have any advice etc for me?


----------



## StanD

dulalala said:


> Now I usually drive my HD800S out of my phone (oh the heresy) since it's much more convenient and I've never had any issue with it, but the other day, I decided to plug it into my Fiio E07K (which is plugged into my computer) and I noticed for a specific song, it sounded a little different (specifically the vocals sounded a bit farther?). Curious, I decided that try an ABX test but I realized I couldn't reliable get them to the same volume. When I did, one part would sound (eg the bass) would the same but another part (eg treble) would sound different. Note that this was done by ear and was probably very inaccurate. Anyone have any advice etc for me?


 

 The HD800S is a higher impedance headphone than is typically used with phone/smartphones which usually requires a bit more voltage swing than phones/smartphones are designed for. That said, those cans are 102 dB at 1 VRMS. Depending on they type of music and volume that you listen to, might be good enough. If you listen to music that is highly compressed (volume) you might be just fine. Otherwise having the ability to go to a higher peak volume might be in order. So 108 dB would require 2 VRMS and 114 dB would require 4 VRMS. I would be very surprised if your phone can deliver 4 VRMS, which you might not require. Research your phone and consider the other aspects that I mentioned. Then buy a $500 headphone cable, just kidding on that last thing.


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> Well the original joke was not directed at anybody, but pinnahertz took it the wrong way; all the subsequent posts were to straighten him out with a bit of joshing mixed in. No harm in any of it as far as I see.


 
 No harm, unless he's too sensitive. We could fix that with an LPAD.


----------



## Dulalala

stand said:


> The HD800S is a higher impedance headphone than is typically used with phone/smartphones which usually requires a bit more voltage swing than phones/smartphones are designed for. That said, those cans are 102 dB at 1 VRMS. Depending on they type of music and volume that you listen to, might be good enough. If you listen to music that is highly compressed (volume) you might be just fine. Otherwise having the ability to go to a higher peak volume might be in order. So 108 dB would require 2 VRMS and 114 dB would require 4 VRMS. I would be very surprised if your phone can deliver 4 VRMS, which you might not require. Research your phone and consider the other aspects that I mentioned. Then buy a $500 headphone cable, just kidding on that last thing.


 
 I listen to music at a relatively low volume. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding voltage swing is difference between the maximum positive and negative voltage values and a lack of voltage would cause issues such as clipping. So if I don't listen to very high volumes, and I don't hear any clipping that shouldn't be the issue? Unless there are other things that voltage swing affects?
  
 Now I guess my main question to begin with was really just if there is an audible difference between amps. I understand there will be differences in real world situations as nothing can perfectly amplify a signal without an issues but is that difference audible? There seems to be a varying opinion, one side saying there is no difference and another saying there is and personally I have noticed difference between some amps but I've also noticed no difference between others. I don't know if this is because of personal bias, placebo effect or because I've failed to volume match them properly. Also, I can't tell which is better? as none of them don't sound bad? just different to me at least. Never had an issue with it but I was just curious about the reasoning behind it. Sorry for asking a lot! I don't have a background in electrical engineering so feel free to educate me if I'm completely wrong!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

dulalala said:


> I listen to music at a relatively low volume. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding voltage swing is difference between the maximum positive and negative voltage values and a lack of voltage would cause issues such as clipping. So if I don't listen to very high volumes, and I don't hear any clipping that shouldn't be the issue? Unless there are other things that voltage swing affects?
> 
> Now I guess my main question to begin with was really just if there is an audible difference between amps. I understand there will be differences in real world situations as nothing can perfectly amplify a signal without an issues but is that difference audible? There seems to be a varying opinion, one side saying there is no difference and another saying there is and personally I have noticed difference between some amps but I've also noticed no difference between others. I don't know if this is because of personal bias, placebo effect or because I've failed to volume match them properly. Also, I can't tell which is better? as none of them don't sound bad? just different to me at least. Never had an issue with it but I was just curious about the reasoning behind it. Sorry for asking a lot! I don't have a background in electrical engineering so feel free to educate me if I'm completely wrong!




Well if one of the amps has a higher impedance it could sound more bassy with the HD800S, what with its impedance hump in the bass. Now if you were comparing your smartphone with a direct computer soundcard output this would be the first thing I'd suspect as some soundcards do have quite high impedance. But I think neither a smartphone nor a FiiO E07K would have this issue.

Beyond that, it could be some digital gremlins in either your phone or your computer (hidden DSP programs, etc.) that is changing the sound. Try running a sine sweep like this from your phone and your E07K to your computer's line in: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hzbf2dowvn5lmxr/48kHz%200.7%2030s%20sweep%20log.flac?dl=0

Analyzing the frequency response of the result can be a little tricky but you can just open the waveform in Audacity in dB view and have a rough idea how the responses are different or same. Spectrogram view can also be helpful to see if there are any noticeable distortion harmonics (either as a result of inaccurate recording settings or some digital gremlins like SRC)

(I feel like I'm endangering my career by just responding to this post in earnest... :rofl: )


----------



## pinnahertz

u-3c said:


> I see that people are joking with you a bit when you were taking an argument seriously and because of that, I'm worried that the jokes may have upset you.



 Nope, apart from feeling like a doof. 





u-3c said:


> I do value what you posted and I really don't wish to see anyone upset because of a misunderstanding, so if it is indeed the case, I hope everyone can acknowledge it and stop the jokes.
> 
> Please?


 
 Nah, keep the jokes coming, at my expense or someone else's. I don't care a wit.


----------



## pinnahertz

joe bloggs said:


> Well the original joke was not directed at anybody, but pinnahertz took it the wrong way; all the subsequent posts were to straighten him out with a bit of joshing mixed in. No harm in any of it as far as I see.


 
 It's all good.


----------



## castleofargh

> Originally Posted by *Dulalala* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I listen to music at a relatively low volume. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding voltage swing is difference between the maximum positive and negative voltage values and a lack of voltage would cause issues such as clipping. So if I don't listen to very high volumes, and I don't hear any clipping that shouldn't be the issue? Unless there are other things that voltage swing affects?
> 
> Now I guess my main question to begin with was really just if there is an audible difference between amps. I understand there will be differences in real world situations as nothing can perfectly amplify a signal without an issues but is that difference audible? There seems to be a varying opinion, one side saying there is no difference and another saying there is and personally I have noticed difference between some amps but I've also noticed no difference between others. I don't know if this is because of personal bias, placebo effect or because I've failed to volume match them properly. Also, I can't tell which is better? as none of them don't sound bad? just different to me at least. Never had an issue with it but I was just curious about the reasoning behind it. Sorry for asking a lot! I don't have a background in electrical engineering so feel free to educate me if I'm completely wrong!


 
  nobody is saying "all amps sound the same", what guys like myself are saying is that amps could and ideally should sound the same as we're pretending to aim for fidelity and fidelity doesn't have 10 different sounds. measurable differences will always exist and basically it's only a matter of having those variations be big enough for humans to notice them.  some crave those differences thinking it's evidence of an upgrade, others think that if it clearly reached audibility threshold, it's because at least one amp is crap.
 the argument isn't on facts, those do not change(alternative facts?). the argument is about what people desire and idiots turning everything said into black and white battles.
  
 to go back to an example of 2 amps not sounding the same, most frequency specs in 20hz-20khz will be given with something like +/- 1 or 2db accuracy unless we're talking specific measurement of one specific sample. +/-1db means up to 2db variations. depending where it is, depending on the type of variations between 2 amps, we could feel it.
 this can become an even bigger variation when a load is involved. the specs for the FR will usually come from unloaded measurement, we have plenty of amp designs that will roll off the trebles or the low end once presented with a load.
 the other obvious case is impedance, not all amps have low impedance, and some designs can't even claim a steady one over frequencies. the potential for a change in signature and other usually less significant variables is always here.
  
 now can 2 designers make each an amp that will sound the same using a hd800? of course they can. when they don't, it can be because they feel the need to have their own signature, the same way headphone manufacturers do it. some just plain suck and make amps with poor fidelity. and some do a good job but they just built the amp for a specific range of use. to take an extreme case, a 120ohm tube amp was never built to drive a 15ohm IEM. and that again becomes a fake argument about facts when people with different desires will have made different purchases:
 my family tree says I'm 1/27Th objectivist on my father's side. when I buy an amplifier, I look for SS amps because they can just measure objectively better for less money. I will never buy a 120ohm amp, I might tolerate up to 4ohm on cheap portable stuff, but I see no reason why I should use a desktop amp above 1ohm. I will never buy an amplifier with a very obvious "house sound", because to me it screams lack of fidelity. I would also check objectively and subjectively that there is nothing rolling off too strongly in my audible range with the loads I intend to use. I would check power specs as much as possible. all those small basic precautions will obviously lead me to own amps with very little variations from on another. again it's not a matter of facts, only what I as a user desire and chose.
 now you take the average guy on my cherish hd650's topic, he'll often be using tube amps, perhaps rolling them with often a very audible change in sound. those amps are usually not below 1ohm, and from one to the next, the impedance and other internal designs could change a good deal, that increases the chances to get a different sound out of a given load.
 so here I am thinking that amps can and should be wire with gain, while the other dude never owned 2 amps with the same audible sound and can tube roll them like crazy, so of course he believes that amps are an essential part of "tuning" music. it has been so his all audio life. by ignoring electrical rules and technical requirements for fidelity, the chances to get a different sound rise exponentially.


----------



## Argyris

dulalala said:


> Now I guess my main question to begin with was really just if there is an audible difference between amps. I understand there will be differences in real world situations as nothing can perfectly amplify a signal without an issues but is that difference audible? There seems to be a varying opinion, one side saying there is no difference and another saying there is and personally I have noticed difference between some amps but I've also noticed no difference between others. I don't know if this is because of personal bias, placebo effect or because I've failed to volume match them properly. Also, I can't tell which is better? as none of them don't sound bad? just different to me at least. Never had an issue with it but I was just curious about the reasoning behind it. Sorry for asking a lot! I don't have a background in electrical engineering so feel free to educate me if I'm completely wrong!


 
  
 The answer is really that if you can't find any significant difference or form a preference, why force yourself to do so, or question your assessment?
  
 Your experience suggests that you didn't find a convincing difference (or, in some cases, any difference) between any of the amps you tested. This is entirely expected given that instances of people being able to tell the difference between two properly functioning amps in a blind test are at best rare (and then, of course it depends on which amps were used and how well the test was administered), and to my knowledge nobody has ever passed a blind test trying to discern between two different properly functioning DACs or cables. Different headphones, of course, are readily discerned, even sometimes in cases where it's two examples of the same model being tested. This just shows that the difference between even two individual units of the same headphone model dwarfs the difference between any two amps, DACs or cables.
  
 I'm going to take a different route than the EE aspect of the issue. I'm going to use a bit of logic and build up a case. When it comes to audio equipment, so often we hear from subjectivists that we need to trust our ears, with the implication (or explicitly stated retort) being that objectivists spend all their time reading charts. Funny thing is, we objectivists _do_ trust our ears. We do so when, divorced from all considerations of price and prestige, and in a controlled environment, we test to see if we can hear a difference between two pieces of equipment. And if we can't, then we trust that result, regardless of what the price tags and audiophile sales copy might say. Using our ears--and only our ears--we have determined that there is no audible difference.
  
 This is a pretty good reflection of where we are on this issue--virtually all the testing I've seen indicates that the massive differences attested to by the average subjectivist invariably dissolve once a blind test is administered. At this point it's instructive to start looking at measurements for many different pieces of tested equipment to see how much they deviate from one another on paper, paying particular attention to the extremes (which are nonetheless inaudibly different). From there we can extrapolate that since few (if any) amps and probably no DACs or cables will fall appreciably outside the deviation extremes we've established, it's a reasonable assumption that any given piece of properly functioning and properly selected backend equipment (e.g. adequate voltage swing, proper damping factor) should be indiscernible from any other, all other factors being equal. Obviously, it's better to test for yourself than to follow a hypothesis, but testing isn't always feasible (i.e. you may not own the piece of equipment or have easy access to it). I don't think in this instance it's unreasonable to determine that if tested models _a, b _and _c_ are all audibly indiscernible, and that if _d_ falls within the measurement extremes of _a, b _and _c_, that _d_ will also be audibly indiscernible from _a, b_ and _c_.
  
 The objectivist concludes from all the above that once the technical requirements for the backend (e.g. voltage and damping) are achieved, there's no sense expending any more effort there--it's best spent on headphones or music, unless one needs additional systems (e.g. one for work, one for home) or just happens to like something about a particular device that's unrelated to its performance (e.g. aesthetics).
  
 As I said in an earlier comment, this does tend to take a lot of the mystique out of the personal listening hobby, since it restricts the vast majority of upgrading to the headphones themselves. This fact alone is why there are so many people on Head-Fi and elsewhere who swear up and down about all the massive differences they hear in gear. To them, the hobby is not about opening a window into their music so much as it is about collecting gear--take that away from them and there wouldn't be much left for them to do here.


----------



## StanD

dulalala said:


> I listen to music at a relatively low volume. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding voltage swing is difference between the maximum positive and negative voltage values and a lack of voltage would cause issues such as clipping. So if I don't listen to very high volumes, and I don't hear any clipping that shouldn't be the issue? Unless there are other things that voltage swing affects?
> 
> Now I guess my main question to begin with was really just if there is an audible difference between amps. I understand there will be differences in real world situations as nothing can perfectly amplify a signal without an issues but is that difference audible? There seems to be a varying opinion, one side saying there is no difference and another saying there is and personally I have noticed difference between some amps but I've also noticed no difference between others. I don't know if this is because of personal bias, placebo effect or because I've failed to volume match them properly. Also, I can't tell which is better? as none of them don't sound bad? just different to me at least. Never had an issue with it but I was just curious about the reasoning behind it. Sorry for asking a lot! I don't have a background in electrical engineering so feel free to educate me if I'm completely wrong!


 

 And the higher the voltage (more power) the louder you can go without clipping. If you are not getting any distortion on peaks and things are loud enough to satisfy you then you are good to go. Many audiophiles want more power (wattage) than required just because the number is higher and they think that more is better.
 If that is not an issue and things don't sound right (unlikely) then there is something wrong with the device (possible) or it is designed poorly (unlikely) or it's a placebo/expectation event (possible). Nothing that a $500 cable won't solve (still kidding, unless placebo can be helpful). I try not to let my imagination run wild as that can be both expensive and foolish.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> I try not to let my imagination run wild as that can be both expensive and foolish.


 
 But mainly because it's expensive.


----------



## Dulalala

​@Joe BloggsI'll try that and see what I get but honestly I'm a bit doubtful it's got to do with the player. I've tried different players on my phone to see if any was "better" than another, but from my experience they all ended up sounding the same... or at least indiscernible to me.
@castleofargh Definitely gave me a better insight into things. But just to be clear are solid state amps (sometimes) designed to sound different or is that only regarding tube amps? I'm not sure if I misunderstood what you were saying.
@Argyris Well I just wanted to know for the sake of learning. No real reason to be honest. Pursuit of knowledge is always fun and not being ignorant about the things around you is always nice. Though I have to agree with them to an extent, collecting gear is also kind of fun in it's own way.
@StanD I'll try the sine wave thing mentioned earlier. If that comes out as the same, then I can probably limit it to placebo. If I did spend $500 on a cable, I probably wouldn't be very happy since most of my cables break due to negligence relatively fast unfortunately...
  
 Thanks for all the response!


----------



## castleofargh

tube was just an obvious example, but just like you have some tube amps that are very transparent, you can find solid state stuff that are very "colored".


----------



## wink

.... and the ones that don't work at all have the most neutral sound.........


----------



## StanD

wink said:


> .... and the ones that don't work at all have the most neutral sound.........


 

 Good on ya.


----------



## sonitus mirus

pinnahertz said:


> It's all good.


 
  
 Also good practice for the all too frequent legitimate post that is absolutely serious in all of its absurdity.


----------



## watchnerd

argyris said:


> I'd love it if we all lived in magical fairy land where we could have HD 600 + sub bass *sound piped directly into our ears* from the aether, *without having to strap cups to or insert little silicone tips into our ears*


 
  
 But we do!
  
 They're called "speakers".


----------



## StanD

Here's another example of the power of audiophile imagination. The belief takes on a life of its own and spreads like wildfire. I feel sorry for the naïve or layperson that gets their wallet burned.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/17625#post_13269504


----------



## U-3C

I keep hearing people talking about the new best value, how XYZ is better than all the other products until you get to a price range of ABC. However, I have yet to hear anytime actually air they just bought something brand new, that costs more, and it actually sounds worse. 

If audio was so subjective, why doesn't anyone who gets a new cable ever openly claim that they feel the soundstage is worse, that it doesn't sound as good, etc.? I always hear: I bought ABC. It's an upgrade. Sometimes, it's a giant killer. But if so many Giants are killed... Where are their bodies when a person buys it brands new and confirms, yes, this new DAC is indeed worse than the cheaper one I had for months?

Oh, wait, these voice do exist. They are just buried by other people's questions about the person's hearing and other poor components in the setup and not using high res audio yada yada yada. 

Why am I smiling, it's not funny at all.


----------



## warrior1975

Really good posts. I struggle mightily to hear differences between dacs, daps, and definitely cables. I recently purchased a Schiit Modi MB to pair with my Valhalla 2,and,yes it sounds great... But then again, so does my dap. There is no way in hell I could tell the difference between my dap or the Schiit stack. I even went ahead and purchased an AQ Vodka cable, for Schiits and giggles. Zero difference. None. 

I also buy cables, mostly for aesthetic reasons, and there have been times when I think I hear a difference, but I know it's placebo... I just want to hear a difference. 

Between my daps, that's another difficult are to hear a difference. For me, the easiest way to hear a difference is in the bass. Forget Sound stage... Seems impossible most of the time. When I do hear a difference, again, I think it's my mind. The only other obvious area is power. After that, things get a bit messy for me. Takes me multiple times to check for differences in treble and mids.

 I drove myself mad yesterday going back and forth between my CFA Vegas and Sony EX800st. Spent an hour and they sounded more alike than not. Again, bass was the easiest way for me to determine which was which.


----------



## StanD

Well, if you want to hear a difference don't compare electronics or wires, compare headphones and or IEMs.


----------



## warrior1975

Good point. Lol. I do that as well... With iems that have a similar sound signature, not as easy to hear the differences either for me.


----------



## StanD

warrior1975 said:


> Good point. Lol. I do that as well... With iems that have a similar sound signature, not as easy to hear the differences either for me.


 

 I tend to buy cans and IEMs that follow a sound profile that pleases me so they tend to sound similar. My HE500's and HD600's sound similar, however, the HE500's have a deeper sub bass extension and better transient response. I have to listen for the differences, but the sub bass of the HE500 is very apparent with certain music. Try two good amps that can drive the load and the only differences will be imagined.


----------



## warrior1975

Bass, like I said earlier, is by far the easiest way for me to hear a difference. When I have some more free time, I'll be doing more abing... But just between my IEMS. Not interested in abing cables, dacs, daps, etc. Too tiresome and not enjoyable for me at all.


----------



## StanD

warrior1975 said:


> Bass, like I said earlier, is by far the easiest way for me to hear a difference. When I have some more free time, I'll be doing more abing... But just between my IEMS. Not interested in abing cables, dacs, daps, etc. Too tiresome and not enjoyable for me at all.


 

 I wouldn't be so quick to say that. If I put on a pair of HD700's the strident treble is immediately apparent to me. If not for that excessive treble peak, they would be really nice.


----------



## warrior1975

True, that's an excellent point. For what I normally buy or go for though, it's usually bass. I don't believe I've ever purchased anything that's known to be excessively bright, minus my Sony ex1000.


----------



## U-3C

Take my advice: don't bother with the AB testing and just enjoy the music. If you already have such a hard time telling a difference, comparing then won't really end up with some better listening experience. Things like your mood swing might even have a greater influence.

There was a time I went crazy with AB testing, because I can't hear any difference but kept searching for one. In the end, maybe there is, who knows, but I'd rather think they no not exist as I can't verify it. After I got over trying to listen to my equipment instead of the music, I can enjoy the music much more, whether it's on the go with my cellphone and cheap IEMs or if it's my home setup.


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Take my advice: don't bother with the AB testing and just enjoy the music. If you already have such a hard time telling a difference, comparing then won't really end up with some better listening experience. Things like your mood swing might even have a greater influence.
> 
> There was a time I went crazy with AB testing, because I can't hear any difference but kept searching for one. In the end, maybe there is, who knows, but I'd rather think they no not exist as I can't verify it. After I got over trying to listen to my equipment instead of the music, I can enjoy the music much more, whether it's on the go with my cellphone and cheap IEMs or if it's my home setup.


 
 Your problem has to do with cables.Obviously you're not using platinum wires with uranium cores.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> Your problem has to do with cables.Obviously you're not using platinum wires with uranium cores.


But but but...last time you guys suggested a different cable as well as those quantum stickers that some were sticking inside their DAPs...

TAT


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> But but but...last time you guys suggested a different cable as well as those quantum stickers that some were sticking inside their DAPs...
> 
> TAT


 
 You should avoid that quantum tech unless you want to end up like Max Headroom.


----------



## fishslinger

I have just been testing my phone (Samsung S7) vs various separate components (Chromecast Audio, SMSL Sanskrit, Schiit Magni). The phone appears to be as good as or better than the components. I did pink noise frequency range tests and tones, checking for harmonics


----------



## cel4145

u-3c said:


> Take my advice: don't bother with the AB testing and just enjoy the music. If you already have such a hard time telling a difference, comparing then won't really end up with some better listening experience. Things like your mood swing might even have a greater influence.
> 
> There was a time I went crazy with AB testing, because I can't hear any difference but kept searching for one. In the end, maybe there is, who knows, but I'd rather think they no not exist as I can't verify it. After I got over trying to listen to my equipment instead of the music, I can enjoy the music much more, whether it's on the go with my cellphone and cheap IEMs or if it's my home setup.




I like your point about mood swings. 

When I listen to my Grados for a day or so, and then switch back to my NAD HP50, the HP50 sound dead, dull, and lifeless. But, after a short while, my ears adjust to the different frequency response and they sound great. And then Grados, when I switch back once adjusted to the HP50, sound way overly aggressive in upper mids/treble at first. So even outside of confirmation bias effects, I am very aware that my brain is fickle about telling me what to like.


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> I like your point about mood swings.
> 
> When I listen to my Grados for a day or so, and then switch back to my NAD HP50, the HP50 sound dead, dull, and lifeless. But, after a short while, my ears adjust to the different frequency response and they sound great. And then Grados, when I switch back once adjusted to the HP50, sound way overly aggressive in upper mids/treble at first. So even outside of confirmation bias effects, I am very aware that my brain is fickle about telling me what to like.




Definitely! I am used to a pair of sightly v-shaped IEMs for on the go listening, though once I only had access to a very bassy set of IEMs. At first, I was like HOLY SCHIEEET DAT BASS!!!! MAKE IT STOP!!!(>QAQ)> 

_ Reference video at 0:51._

[video]https://youtu.be/ipZY0qGrA9Y?t=51[/video]

Eventually, I adjusted to them. Now although I got the old ones back, for a long time, I could not listen to them because my once favorite IEMs are now so thin and dead to my ears.

Unfortunately (or fortunately?) I forgot the bassy IEMs at my parents' place last time I visited them, so I've been stuck with the old ones for a few months.  They have never sounded better (if I ignore the poor noise isolation when on public transport  ).

There are just way too many random things occuring that can already get in the way of changing my perception of sound no matter how hard I try to make things consistent. Might as well just stick to something I know works, that has no issues, and get all this worrying out of the way between me and the music.


----------



## Rockin_Zombie

Getting adjusted to a new sound is very true. I suspect this is why a lot of vendors recommend 2593235235 hours of "burn-in", so that you get used to their "just-another-gear" sound signature .
  
 After owning many many headphones I have found that this rule of thumb works very well for me:
  
 1. Listening for fun? Get something bassy.
  
 2. Commuting? Get something bassier, there's low-level white noise outside.
  
 3. Critical lisitening? Get something dead neutral.
  
  
 When you switch bassy - > neutral, everything sounds too harsh at first. The other way, everything sounds muffled. I love the variation though.


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Definitely! I am used to a pair of sightly v-shaped IEMs for on the go listening, though once I only had access to a very bassy set of IEMs. At first, I was like HOLY SCHIEEET DAT BASS!!!! MAKE IT STOP!!!(>QAQ)>
> 
> _Reference video at 0:51._
> Eventually, I adjusted to them. Now although I got the old ones back, for a long time, I could not listen to them because my once favorite IEMs are now so thin and dead to my ears.
> ...


 
 I think you need an audiophile intervention and some hypnotherapy. Don't worry, you will recover.


----------



## StanD

Here's an interesting one.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/551345/hifiman-he-500-he-as-in-high-end-proving-to-be-an-enjoyable-experience-in-listening/18150#post_13287014


----------



## Argyris

stand said:


> Here's an interesting one.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/551345/hifiman-he-500-he-as-in-high-end-proving-to-be-an-enjoyable-experience-in-listening/18150#post_13287014


 
  
 A more direct way to achieve a smoother high end I would think would be, instead of spending hundreds of dollars on a cable, to just take the paper bills themselves and place them over the transducer. One might have to cut some strategically placed holes in them in order to stop the bills impeding too much sound, but then, if you're willing to throw multiple hundreds of dollars at the problem anyway, destroying the money doesn't really matter and in fact gives you multiple chances at experimentation to find the best sound.
  
 What's the betting that the hundred dollar bill will be said to sound better than the one dollar bill?
  
 Actually, about a year ago I did spend ~$280 on an upgrade that resulted in significantly smoother treble and better overall sound. I bought an HD 600.


----------



## StanD

argyris said:


> A more direct way to achieve a smoother high end I would think would be, instead of spending hundreds of dollars on a cable, to just take the paper bills themselves and place them over the transducer. One might have to cut some strategically placed holes in them in order to stop the bills impeding too much sound, but then, if you're willing to throw multiple hundreds of dollars at the problem anyway, destroying the money doesn't really matter and in fact gives you multiple chances at experimentation to find the best sound.
> 
> What's the betting that the hundred dollar bill will be said to sound better than the one dollar bill?
> 
> Actually, about a year ago I did spend ~$280 on an upgrade that resulted in significantly smoother treble and better overall sound. I bought an HD 600.


 

 Aw c'mon if you spent an additional $280 on a cable the SQ would have to sound better, or else you'd be out of $280. I wonder how much of that thinking affects people? Or the endless chanting about audio magic on the forums, call it auto-suggestion at its finest.


----------



## U-3C

I miss it when this was the FAQ for the entire Schiit website...


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> I miss it when this was the FAQ for the entire Schiit website...


 
  
 Hmm. They had the taping money to your headphones idea before I did. Seems like I'm onto something here...


----------



## Koei

Right..cables.. interconnects, speaker wire, headphones cables...I can understand how people can believe in those things. But power cables, can anyone here explain the logic behind that?


----------



## StanD

koei said:


> Right..cables.. interconnects, speaker wire, headphones cables...I can understand how people can believe in those things. But power cables, can anyone here explain the logic behind that?


 

 Never underestimate the power of the human imagination.


----------



## castleofargh

I'd guess:
 the desire to participate in making the sound better(counter to being the passive listeners we actually are). the desire to be reassured about everything.  the idea that once you put more than 1000$ into each and every piece of equipment, somehow the signal becomes snob and will get "dirty" from passing into a 5$ people's cable.
 and of course the typical logic failure of drawing conclusions from a single anecdote(always a big winner in the audio world). where somewhere along his audio trip, the guy got to try some special cable that absolutely didn't respond to the proper spec requirements of a power cable and indeed changed the sound compared to another cable. a strange reasoning that often amounts to thinking lottery tickets are a good way to make a living because I know a guy who won big once.
  
  
 then the self justifications that come after are another matter.


----------



## spruce music

You think that is crazy.  How about the growing_ 'consensus' _that ethernet cables effect audio quality significantly in computer based playback.  You can't reasonably talk people out of it either.
  
 Look at this $5495 8 foot ethernet cable from Audioquest.
 https://www.amazon.com/263-Audioquest-Diamond-Ethernet-Cable/dp/B0073HJVSK/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1489196039&sr=1-3&keywords=audioquest+ethernet+cable
  
 Or if you need HDMI consider this Audioquest $13,499  HDMI cable on Amazon.
 https://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-Diamond-52-49-Braided-Cable/dp/B00IL3TZSQ/ref=pd_sbs_23_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B00IL3TZSQ&pd_rd_r=V4PFM0PKMQFMEWA27H21&pd_rd_w=33quY&pd_rd_wg=n8Etb&psc=1&refRID=V4PFM0PKMQFMEWA27H21
  
 I do like the attitude of the people reviewing these on Amazon.  Quite entertaining reading those.


----------



## pinnahertz

stand said:


> Never underestimate the power of the human imagination.


 
 The logic?  
  
 Sure: If it's expensive, it must be better.  
  
 Start with a generic power cable.  Swap the generic parts for exotic materials, add a dash of mysticism and magic, wrap it up in a glitzy jacket and invent some terminology like Antielectric Pressure Gradient Cable, os some such horse hocky, and extol its virtues with glowingly ambiguous testimonials ("I can honestly say I have never heard a cable like this!"...means you can't hear any cable at all.)  Market to the elite illuminati audiophile.  They WILL hear the difference.
  
 Done.  There's always plenty of money for boutique products, if executed well.


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> The logic?
> 
> Sure: If it's expensive, it must be better.
> 
> ...


 

 What kills me is that their house wiring is made from standard cheap run of the mill copper wire, junction boxes, etc. that can be found in Home Depot or the like. What happens when they realize that?


----------



## StanD

Oh lord here's some more science fiction, hot off the presses.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/17805#post_13331031


----------



## Rockin_Zombie

stand said:


> Oh lord here's some more science fiction, hot off the presses.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/17805#post_13331031


 
 I can attest to this. I have two DACs, one has no soundstage and the other one is MASSIVE with plenty of microdetail.
  
  
 Cuz the first one is broken. Did I say no soundstage? I meant no sound.


----------



## Koei

spruce music said:


> You think that is crazy.  How about the growing_ 'consensus' _that ethernet cables effect audio quality significantly in computer based playback.  You can't reasonably talk people out of it either.
> 
> Look at this $5495 8 foot ethernet cable from Audioquest.
> https://www.amazon.com/263-Audioquest-Diamond-Ethernet-Cable/dp/B0073HJVSK/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1489196039&sr=1-3&keywords=audioquest+ethernet+cable
> ...


 

 Uuuh. Networking standards have built in error correction. If it makes a difference the cable you are using is so broken that the error correction can't even make sense of it.


----------



## StanD

rockin_zombie said:


> I can attest to this. I have two DACs, one has no soundstage and the other one is MASSIVE with plenty of microdetail.
> 
> 
> Cuz the first one is broken. Did I say no soundstage? I meant no sound.


 

 Wiseguy, at first I thought you meant it. There seems to be no end to audiophile mysticism, the forums are full of it.


----------



## Rockin_Zombie

stand said:


> Wiseguy, at first I thought you meant it. There seems to be no end to audiophile mysticism, the forums are full of it.


 
 haha tell me about it. For the love of anything holy or unholy, I don't know how a DAC can change soundstage so much, unless there's something seriously wrong with it. I can understand slight change here and there based on the reconstruction filter being used, but the changes are barely audible. Except transducers, nothing makes a night and day difference in audio quality, unless we are talking about insufficient power. If your DAC is coloring your music it's a POS.


----------



## StanD

rockin_zombie said:


> haha tell me about it. For the love of anything holy or unholy, I don't know how a DAC can change soundstage so much, unless there's something seriously wrong with it. I can understand slight change here and there based on the reconstruction filter being used, but the changes are barely audible. Except transducers, nothing makes a night and day difference in audio quality, unless we are talking about insufficient power. If your DAC is coloring your music it's a POS.


 
 There is no end to it. Soundstage seems to be the rage. How an Amp, tube or DAC can magically create intra dimensional sound travel truly escapes me. There seems to be a name for every imaginative audio escapade. These fantasies take on a life of their own and spread like wildfire. I am completely gobsmacked and yet entertained by all of this.


----------



## pinnahertz

stand said:


> There is no end to it. Soundstage seems to be the rage. How an Amp, tube or DAC can magically create intra dimensional sound travel truly escapes me. There seems to be a name for every imaginative audio escapade. These fantasies take on a life of their own and spread like wildfire. I am completely gobsmacked and yet entertained by all of this.


 
 There was a preamp in the early 1980s that had what was, essentially, a "soundstage" control.  If you left it dead center, you got normal stereo.  All the way left, it narrowed to mono, turn to the left, you got progressively more hyper-stereo, essentially cross-feed, then ended up at Left minus Right.   Nice control, never was another like it.  Of  course, I still own one....
  
 http://kenrockwell.com/audio/apt/holman-preamplifier.htm


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> There was a preamp in the early 1980s that had what was, essentially, a "soundstage" control.  If you left it dead center, you got normal stereo.  All the way left, it narrowed to mono, turn to the left, you got progressively more hyper-stereo, essentially cross-feed, then ended up at Left minus Right.   Nice control, never was another like it.  Of  course, I still own one....
> 
> http://kenrockwell.com/audio/apt/holman-preamplifier.htm


 

 No self respecting audiophile would have anything that limits ultrasonics and this thing has a filter. The mere suggestion could start a cr@p storm in the forums.


----------



## Ruben123

stand said:


> Oh lord here's some more science fiction, hot off the presses.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/17805#post_13331031




You should remove the word science from your sentence.


----------



## pinnahertz

stand said:


> No self respecting audiophile would have anything that limits ultrasonics and this thing has a filter. The mere suggestion could start a cr@p storm in the forums.


 
 No self respecting audiophone would have tone controls engaged either.  With tone controls bypassed the ultrasonic filter is also bypassed, -3dB point is then 150kHz.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> You should remove the word science from your sentence.


 

 Well it is Science Fiction, just like those movies when a man made virus escapes the lab and turns the world into a planet overrun with audiophile zombies with ultrasonic hearing.


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> No self respecting audiophone would have tone controls engaged either.  With tone controls bypassed the ultrasonic filter is also bypassed, -3dB point is then 150kHz.


 

 Who needs tone controls, isn't that what tubes are for?


----------



## VNandor

stand said:


> Who needs tone controls, isn't that what tubes are for?


 

 No, tubes are for opening up the soundstage and lifting the veil of certain headphones.


----------



## nick_charles

koei said:


> Uuuh. Networking standards have built in error correction. If it makes a difference the cable you are using is so broken that the error correction can't even make sense of it.


 
  
 Not Ethernet though, Ethernet is not "reliable" in the strictest sense of the word. If you want guaranteed reliability with Ethernet you have to implement it elsewhere, duff frames just get thrown away, in fairness it is typically much more reliable than 802.11 but not without problems. Though as I say this it strengthens the case for not worrying too much about the damn cable as hopefully the reliability is handled elsewhere. I teach a *very* basic and often wildly misleading (UG) course in comms principles but have never investigated audio over Ethernet - summer project perhaps...Anyone point to a good primer on Ethernet based audio ?


----------



## Koei

nick_charles said:


> Not Ethernet though, Ethernet is not "reliable" in the strictest sense of the word. If you want guaranteed reliability with Ethernet you have to implement it elsewhere, duff frames just get thrown away, in fairness it is typically much more reliable than 802.11 but not without problems. Though as I say this it strengthens the case for not worrying too much about the damn cable as hopefully the reliability is handled elsewhere. I teach a *very* basic and often wildly misleading (UG) course in comms principles but have never investigated audio over Ethernet - summer project perhaps...Anyone point to a good primer on Ethernet based audio ?


 
 True I guess, I was thinking about TCP.


----------



## pinnahertz

stand said:


> Who needs tone controls, isn't that what tubes are for?


 
 Last time I tried to adjust tone by rotating a tube, I broke the pins off.


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> Last time I tried to adjust tone by rotating a tube, I broke the pins off.


 

 That's your mistake, you should roll them not rotate them. Just make sure that they don't go over the edge of a table and hit the floor.


----------



## pinnahertz

stand said:


> pinnahertz said:
> 
> 
> > Last time I tried to adjust tone by rotating a tube, I broke the pins off.
> ...



I start with them already on the floor. That way they can't fall and roll farther. You should see an 833 rolling down stairs though. Fun, fun!


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> I start with them already on the floor. That way they can't fall and roll farther. You should see an 833 rolling down stairs though. Fun, fun!


 
 Was it microfunic?


----------



## pinnahertz

stand said:


> Was it microfunic?


 
 Yeah, but not after it hit the fifth step.


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> Yeah, but not after it hit the fifth step.


 

 Sounds like a harmony. Is that what they mean when they say it's musical? Or do you prefer a minor third?


----------



## Don Hills

stand said:


> Well it is Science Fiction, just like those movies when a man made virus escapes the lab and turns the world into a planet overrun with audiophile zombies with ultrasonic hearing.


 
  
 Technology to the rescue. Instead of hanging a cross or garlic around your neck, hang one of those ultrasonic cat and dog repellers.


----------



## StanD

don hills said:


> Technology to the rescue. Instead of hanging a cross or garlic around your neck, hang one of those ultrasonic cat and dog repellers.


 

 Not so sure it would work. Last Spring I had a squirrel invade my attic, she had two babies. I tried a number of ways to get them to leave. One failed method was an ultrasonic deterrent. It really pissed them off because they were running all over the place. Suddenly it got quiet. I go up to the attic and they are on the rafters looking at me, laughing. The device was on the floor, the wire to the wall wart was pulled out of the device and the connecter was chewed off. To quote Yogi, "Smarter than the average audiophile."


----------



## StanD

OK, so we're back to you can never have enough power. Check this one out.
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/17835#post_13338983


----------



## Koei

stand said:


> OK, so we're back to you can never have enough power. Check this one out.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/17835#post_13338983


 

 ​Considering clipped amps ruin drivers I always err on the side of caution by having more power .


----------



## Joe Bloggs

koei said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so we're back to you can never have enough power. Check this one out.
> ...




Clipped amps ruin tweeters on multi-way speakers. Doesn't really apply to headphones...


----------



## Koei

joe bloggs said:


> Clipped amps ruin tweeters on multi-way speakers. Doesn't really apply to headphones...


 
 Really? Are drivers in headphones that different?


----------



## StanD

koei said:


> ​Considering clipped amps ruin drivers I always err on the side of caution by having more power .


 
 If you mean amps that are driven into clipping, then it would boil down to if it is driving your headphones past their max power rating. If not then your headphones are safe, however, you will not be enjoying the music.


----------



## Koei

stand said:


> If you mean amps that are driven into clipping, then it would boil down to if it is driving your headphones past their max power rating. If not then your headphones are safe, however, you will not be enjoying the music.


 

 ​But why is that different for headphones, because speakers don't like an amp being driven into clipping.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

koei said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > If you mean amps that are driven into clipping, then it would boil down to if it is driving your headphones past their max power rating. If not then your headphones are safe, however, you will not be enjoying the music.
> ...




The contention is that flattopped waveforms generated by clipping amps produce high levels of power at the harmonic distortion frequencies i.e. treble, and tweeters are ill equipped to deal with the extra power--tweeters generally have lower power handling capacity than woofers.

If you're driving a fullrange speaker or headphone driver, it has a single power handling capacity rating, and this doesn't really change with the frequency makeup.

Multi-driver headphone usually means ultra-sensitive multi-BA IEMs, which you're MUCH more likely to blow up because of overpowered amps than of underpowered amps, simply because of how little power it takes to power them...


----------



## StanD

koei said:


> ​But why is that different for headphones, because speakers don't like an amp being driven into clipping.


 
 Is it that certain tweeters might have a low power rating and that one might generate too much power for them due to the harmonics generated due to the clipping? In normal music the high frequency content is much lower than mids and bass. Just thinking about it, not necessarily the definitive answer.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Yes but even that is under contention, e.g. http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/clipping-amps-and-blowing-tweeters.570917/


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> Yes but even that is under contention, e.g. http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/clipping-amps-and-blowing-tweeters.570917/


 

 I like this answer.
_Somewhere there is a discussion at Rane. The general upshot was that it isn't the clipping that usually destroys tweeters, but that when an amplifier is turned up too loud, the high frequency content is increasingly amplified while the volume doesn't increas. For example, with a fifty watt amplifier, the treble content is maybe a few watts. If the amplifer is very over driven, the treble content would increas to 20 or so watts (when the amplifier doesn't have a bass note to clip) and this increase in energy is too much for most tweeters - i.e. its when the amplifier isn't clipping the bass notes that the tweeters get destroyed._


----------



## StanD

This will probably create a Schitt Storm. Got to find my helmet in a hurry.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/538255/sennheiser-hd-600-impressions-thread/17850#post_13340614


----------



## dvw

A signal consists of multiple frequency. A clipped waveform has some DC component to it. An inductor (speakers) appearsto DC as just a wire. So the DC content is what destroys the speaker if it is large enough.


----------



## nick_charles

koei said:


> True I guess, I was thinking about TCP.


 
  
 yep, TCP when you absolutely 100% have to get every bit correct EVENTUALLY but it is generally considered too sloooooooooooooooow for "real-time" applications. I did a quick search and could not find any **canonical** (or reputable) source suggesting that Audio Over Ethernet implements reliability other than ''it is reliable cos we say so"* but I wait happily to be contradicted* - but given that bog standard CAT5E is capable of 1000Mbps I am skeptical that better cables would really make a difference...


----------



## HotIce

Not really 100% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ... as it is a per packet 16bit checksum.
 If you want close to 100%, you need to use stronger checksum-ing at application level.
 For Audio, it does not really matter, but if you are sending commands to a Mars rover (for which, you most definitely not use TCP anyway 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) millions of miles away, you really don't want to trust a 16bit checksum.


----------



## nick_charles

hotice said:


> Not really 100%
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have a question for you re checksums but I'll do it via PM , though not sure my students will like being told that TCP is not really reliable after all but it will make for a killer question for their final..


----------



## dvw

nick_charles said:


> yep, TCP when you absolutely 100% have to get every bit correct EVENTUALLY but it is generally considered too sloooooooooooooooow for "real-time" applications. I did a quick search and could not find any **canonical** (or reputable) source suggesting that Audio Over Ethernet implements reliability other than ''it is reliable cos we say so"* but I wait happily to be contradicted* - but given that bog standard CAT5E is capable of 1000Mbps I am skeptical that better cables would really make a difference...


 
 TCP does not have a speed limitation. It is just a protocol. Howeve, you are right it is not suitable for real time application. The reason is when there is data loss , it will resend AND adjust the transfer rate. So if there is a lot of lost data, the transfer rate will get slower and slower. I was at a technology demo. The guy was showing a video with alot of other traffic. The video was smooth but gets slower and slower. He was cheating by using TCP. If you only watch 10 sec it will be okay but over a longer period then it is not. He sheepishly acknowledged the cheat. Without using TCP, the video becomes jittery. The key is you need better bandwidth allocation and set priority in streaming real time data.


----------



## Arpiben

nick_charles said:


> yep, TCP when you absolutely 100% have to get every bit correct EVENTUALLY but it is generally considered too sloooooooooooooooow for "real-time" applications. I did a quick search and could not find any **canonical** (or reputable) source suggesting that Audio Over Ethernet implements reliability other than ''it is reliable cos we say so" *but I wait happily to be contradicted* - but given that bog standard CAT5E is capable of 1000Mbps I am skeptical that better cables would really make a difference...




Speed or error corrections are not issues. Latency is the main limitation for real time applications.
Cables,fibers and air (RF transmission)delays signals around a few nanoseconds per meter.
Packetisation / depacketisation meaning the process to convert the signals into packets and vice versa is adding around 2.5 ms per process.
Buffers you may encounter in your signal path are adding latency around 1ms each.
In a point to point audio Ethernet link (not bandwidth shared), the 5-10ms latency is not an issue.
In a shared bandwidth IP network (not audio only dedicated) audio packets latency will vary and have bigger values...
Without congestion, Mobile networks are supposed to have end to end latencies of 10ms (4G) / 5ms (future 5G).
Do note that DACs are also adding a few ms delay with jitter buffers and interpolation filters.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

dvw said:


> A signal consists of multiple frequency. A clipped waveform has some DC component to it. An inductor (speakers) appearsto DC as just a wire. So the DC content is what destroys the speaker if it is large enough.




...no?


----------



## StanD

dvw said:


> A signal consists of multiple frequency. A clipped waveform has some DC component to it. An inductor (speakers) appearsto DC as just a wire. So the DC content is what destroys the speaker if it is large enough.


 
  
  


joe bloggs said:


> ...no?


 

@dvw How much DC component? If you integrate an asymmetrical signal you might find some DC offset, I suspect that this should not be an issue in practice. Do you expect to have a very loud pulse waveform that has a crazy duty cycle?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> dvw said:
> 
> 
> > A signal consists of multiple frequency. A clipped waveform has some DC component to it. An inductor (speakers) appearsto DC as just a wire. So the DC content is what destroys the speaker if it is large enough.
> ...




If the original signal has no DC offset should we expect one after we clip it?


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> If the original signal has no DC offset should we expect one after we clip it?


 
 In theory it's riding on a complex waveform (all of the music) so anything is possible, asymmetric clipping, albeit unlikely to be significant. In the big picture it probably averages out to nothing. I wouldn't be losing sleep over it, would you? I thought not.
  
I think we have to be careful not to seek out esoteric reasons or just any old theory and expect that to be the real reason for something or another. Some folks enjoy doing that, not me. I suspect that you would agree.


----------



## dvw

stand said:


> @dvw How much DC component? If you integrate an asymmetrical signal you might find some DC offset, I suspect that this should not be an issue in practice. Do you expect to have a very loud pulse waveform that has a crazy duty cycle?


 
 A perfect symmetric square wave will have no DC component. However, clipping is caused by limitation of the voltage swing or current limited. In practice, you will need a perfect symmetry in plus and minus supply to maintain perfect symmetry. If not you created a DC offset. The amplitude of the DC depends on severity of the clipping and the duty cycle as well as the time period. The Telarc release of the 1812 overture has a warning that it might damage equipment because there is a huge cannon shot at the end. If you do not have adequate power, you will blow the speaker. In my case, I have glasses shaked off the table but no blown speaker. A reality check is today's music are very compressed and we do not have large variation in amplitude in today's recording. So unless you are playing the music very loud, you should not see this happens,
  
 And also clipping also creates significant amount of high frequency component. But I don't know the impact of that.


----------



## StanD

dvw said:


> A perfect symmetric square wave will have no DC component. However, clipping is caused by limitation of the voltage swing or current limited. In practice, you will need a perfect symmetry in plus and minus supply to maintain perfect symmetry. If not you created a DC offset. The amplitude of the DC depends on severity of the clipping and the duty cycle as well as the time period. The Telarc release of the 1812 overture has a warning that it might damage equipment because there is a huge cannon shot at the end. If you do not have adequate power, you will blow the speaker. In my case, I have glasses shaked off the table but no blown speaker. A reality check is today's music are very compressed and we do not have large variation in amplitude in today's recording. So unless you are playing the music very loud, you should not see this happens,
> 
> And also clipping also creates significant amount of high frequency component. But I don't know the impact of that.


 
 This is an unlikely scenario...I will sleep well tonight, unless it snows some more.


----------



## castleofargh

1/ measure the amp with an equivalent load at usual loudness/voltage to make sure there is no clipping.
 2/ there is no 2/
  
 this feels to me like the argument for tube amp about how clipping sounds nicer with a tube. it sure is true, but why would we go and use a system that clips in the first place?


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> 1/ measure the amp with an equivalent load at usual loudness/voltage to make sure there is no clipping.
> 2/ there is no 2/
> 
> this feels to me like the argument for tube amp about how clipping sounds nicer with a tube. it sure is true, but why would we go and use a system that clips in the first place?


 
 +1
 Clipping for a normal listener, as I said an "unlikely scenario," for a loud lead electric guitarist, very likely.


----------



## pinnahertz

stand said:


> dvw said:
> 
> 
> > A perfect symmetric square wave will have no DC component. However, clipping is caused by limitation of the voltage swing or current limited. In practice, you will need a perfect symmetry in plus and minus supply to maintain perfect symmetry. If not you created a DC offset. The amplitude of the DC depends on severity of the clipping and the duty cycle as well as the time period. The Telarc release of the 1812 overture has a warning that it might damage equipment because there is a huge cannon shot at the end. If you do not have adequate power, you will blow the speaker. In my case, I have glasses shaked off the table but no blown speaker. A reality check is today's music are very compressed and we do not have large variation in amplitude in today's recording. So unless you are playing the music very loud, you should not see this happens,
> ...



I have analyzed the effects of clipping extensively to determine its impact on DC offset, RMS power, high frequency content and how all of that might relate to the idea that clipping blows drivers. I can add more detail later when I'm not typing with two thumbs, but the short story is: clipping to an audibly objectionable extent doesn't do any of that. Moving up into clipping increases RMS energy more slowly than it would without clipping. In short, the entire clipping thing is myth.


----------



## pinnahertz

dvw said:


> A perfect symmetric square wave will have no DC component. However, clipping is caused by limitation of the voltage swing or current limited. In practice, you will need a perfect symmetry in plus and minus supply to maintain perfect symmetry. If not you created a DC offset.


 
 This is not correct. Asymmetrical power supply rails do not necessarily cause a DC offset. In fact, usually not. For clipping to be consistently asymmetrical an amplifier would have to suffer a rather significant design flaw. Lacking that, musical signals are remarkably symmetrical. There are individual instruments and voices that have some asymmetry, but once combined into a mix with ambience, the result is average symmetry.  If an amp has severely asymmetrical rails and is AC coupled, hard clipping will momentarily shift the baseline.  But if the amp is DC coupled, that will not happen at all.  A momentary baseline shift is not DC in any case, it's AC, because it is changing, and thus won't ever have the high RMS equivalent of DC.


dvw said:


> The amplitude of the DC depends on severity of the clipping and the duty cycle as well as the time period.


 
 Actually, assuming the amp doesn't have a DC offset at idle, asymmetrical clipping (again, related to a design flaw) would cause a variable offset at worst. If the amp is DC coupled, even asymmetrical clipping won't cause a DC offset.


dvw said:


> The Telarc release of the 1812 overture has a warning that it might damage equipment because there is a huge cannon shot at the end.


 
 That was true.


dvw said:


> If you do not have adequate power, you will blow the speaker.


 
 That is not true. Driver damage is caused by two things: thermal damage caused by high RMS power and physical damage caused by over-excursion. Either one would be more likely with MORE amp power, not less.  And a clipping amp produces less power than the same input, same gain, but no clipping. 


dvw said:


> And also clipping also creates significant amount of high frequency component. But I don't know the impact of that.


 
 This is actually not true. The additional HF energy caused by clipping is minimal, and contributes virtually nothing to the total energy of the signal. There is no question that clipping should be avoided. However, the persistent misconception that clipping damages speakers is wrong for several reasons. Clipping does not impress DC, does not significantly raise HF content, and does not produce more power more quickly than a non-clipping amp. Rather, the reverse is true. If anyone still cares about this tangential subject I can post a graph of unclipped RMS vs clipped RMS power, which will make it obvious that an unclipped amp can and does produce far more damaging power than an clipping amp.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I did some investigation and the results are ambiguous.

Firstly, the additional HF energy is indeed minimal within the audible range:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/823444/i-bought-the-hd600-whats-next-amps#post_12954966

Where it gets interesting is in supersonic frequencies. Square waves have infinite bandwidth and depending on the bandwidth of the amplifier and sharpness of the clipping, the frequency response of the clipped signal can extend way, way beyond the audible range and even the operable range of the tweeters. Here I take a sample music clip at 44.1kHz, resample it to 384kHz, boost it by 20dB (with attendant clipping) and analyse the frequency response before and after:



Looking at the orange tail it seems there is indeed quite a bit of excess supersonic power. How much, exactly? I amplified the same clip by 20dB again, clipping one copy while keeping the other unclipped (using floating point processing) and filtered out pretty much all content below 22kHz. The result is as follows:


Lest there is any confusion, the bottom waveform is from the clipped copy.

Per the FR analysis of the 1st graph, most of the energy of this excess waveform lie in the "low" frequencies just above 20kHz, frequencies the amplifier is most likely going to pass through and the tweeter respond to.


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> I did some investigation and the results are ambiguous.
> 
> Firstly, the additional HF energy is indeed minimal within the audible range:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/823444/i-bought-the-hd600-whats-next-amps#post_12954966
> ...


 
 The legend in the lower graph seems a bit small to read the scale. So what are the actual levels delivered to the tweeter and how high does one have to crank up the volume to get anything significant?


----------



## pinnahertz

joe bloggs said:


> I did some investigation and the results are ambiguous.
> 
> Firstly, the additional HF energy is indeed minimal within the audible range:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/823444/i-bought-the-hd600-whats-next-amps#post_12954966
> ...


 
 Your level references are a bit ambiguous.  What you have to do is normalize the unclipped waveform to 0dBFS first, then apply gain.  BTW 20dB past clipping is absurd.  Never happens because nobody could actually do that.  Preamps would not be capable of driving an amp that hard, and it would sound so incredibly awful it wouldn't be tolerated for more than a few seconds.  Try +3dB (sounds horribly, but is entirely possible to do), on up to +10dB.  
  
 As to the HF spectrum, thats great, but did you look at the level of the resulting HF above 20K?  Did you translate that to power applied?  DId you look at total RMS over time?  If you do you'll quickly see it's simply a non-issue, even at the absurd +20dB level.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

pinnahertz said:


> As to the HF spectrum, thats great, but did you look at the level of the resulting HF above 20K?  Did you translate that to power applied?  DId you look at total RMS over time?  If you do you'll quickly see it's simply a non-issue, even at the absurd +20dB level.




No but if you simply look at the bottom waveform graph it translates to waveforms approaching full scale with exclusively frequencies above 22.05kHz which seems pretty dangerous to me.

At somewhere close to 20dB past clipping granted but still.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > I did some investigation and the results are ambiguous.
> ...




Well it's relative to full scale, where one would assume that "full scale" here would be "pretty dang loud" given that it's clipping.

No nothing scientific here, move along...


----------



## pinnahertz

joe bloggs said:


> No but if you simply look at the bottom waveform graph it translates to waveforms approaching full scale with exclusively frequencies above 22.05kHz which seems pretty dangerous to me.


 
 But what you are looking at there is a graph of very brief peak energy, not RMS.  Even so, most land below the .5 point, which would be 6dB below 0dBFS.  If you had a 100W amp, those peaks land at 25W (peak).   If you apply RMS analysis over a reasonably time window, I'm sure you'd find them many, many dB down, like at least another 10dB or more, placing them at 2W or so.   Remember, drivers are blown by heating.  RMS is "heating value".  You can't do this by just looking a peak energy.
  


joe bloggs said:


> At somewhere close to 20dB past clipping granted but still.


 
 Please understand that 20dB past clipping is a ridiculous amount of clipping, and far, far beyond any real life situation.  As I said before, it's actually impossibly for a preamp to drive a power amp 20dB past clipping without the preamp clipping first.  And if you actually listen to the audio you get at that point, nobody would stand for that for a tiny instant.  What you are doing is saying "If you drive a car at 300mph into a brick wall, you totally destroy the car...and the wall".  Sure, but you can't actually do that.  
  
 Drop your analysis to something realistic, like 5dB of clipping, run RMS analysis on the result, you'll find reality.  I took my analysis up from clipping threshold to +10dB in 1dB steps just to see what happened, and even that was past any real-life possibility.


----------



## StanD

Fact or fiction? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




http://www.head-fi.org/t/748067/official-schiit-magni-modi-2-uber-thread/2340#post_13364889


----------



## pinnahertz

stand said:


> Fact or fiction?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 It's fact that people are posting their subjective opinions.


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> It's fact that people are posting their subjective opinions.


 

 I think the fact is that many people hear what they want to. Sometimes that could be subjective + deceptive.


----------



## U-3C

Basically the Schiit stack is often seen as the best value setup, where you will see the biggest jump and afterwards, you will see only very little improvement even if you spend big bucks (something that most people agree on), and you are telling me that you can only notice a small improvement over the dreaded on-board audio of a cell phone...something most people have in their pockets (yes, not all onboard audio are equal, I know, but still, purple usually mock flagship cellphones all the time)? 0w0

Even if it isn't placebo or subjective preference. Even if it is objectively superior... It's only by a little bit. That giant stack is just possibly a little better than your tiny cellphone. And what about all those countless better (it slightly worse) amps out there that are actually noisy as hell?  I paid a hundred bucks plus shipping hoping for a clear upgrade from my on-board, only to get noisier sound and lower battery life because the company had to stick a class A amp inside for marketing purposes. Because class A apparently equals clean. 

And of course, we all know about how biases can get involved to make that "small difference" highly exaggerated so that's a whole new can of worms.


----------



## Argyris

I wonder if the "more money = better" line of thinking applies to the ostensibly crappy built in sound on computers. For instance, would people claim that my 13-inch rMBP sounds better than my Chromebook 15, a computer that cost about a grand less than the former? I can't hear a difference, because of course there isn't one (there's probably a maximum volume difference, but if so I can't even recall which it favors), but I wonder what the consensus among subjectiphiles would be. Surely they'd say the Mac was better, while immediately qualifying that statement by saying that a standalone amp would offer a substantial improvement in sound over either.
  
 BTW, I'm not arguing that a separate amp wouldn't offer higher maximum output--for both machines even with the volume turned up to max the onboard audio isn't quite loud enough for some of my classical collection.


----------



## LazyListener

@Argyris  There are no pure objectivists or pure "subjectiphiles" as you put it.  When it comes to hearing, or really any human perception, it is inherently subjective.  Some people are more influenced by things that have absolutely nothing to do with the hearing, like price or appearance, while others are less influenced by such factors.
  
 To answer your question, not everyone will say your MBP sounds better than the Chromebook.  Some will be influenced by the price difference, others no so much.
  
 For me personally, if the internals were the same, and I did an A/B sited test, volume matched, I would probably initially think I didn't hear a difference, but if I kept listening, may convince myself that maybe, just maybe the MBP sounds better.  I wouldn't be sure.  At worst, I'd say it's a small difference, not worth the price difference.


----------



## LazyListener

u-3c said:


> Basically the Schiit stack is often seen as the best value setup, where you will see the biggest jump and afterwards, you will see only very little improvement even if you spend big bucks (something that most people agree on), and you are telling me that you can only notice a small improvement over the dreaded on-board audio of a cell phone...something most people have in their pockets (yes, not all onboard audio are equal, I know, but still, purple usually mock flagship cellphones all the time)? 0w0
> 
> Even if it isn't placebo or subjective preference. *Even if it is objectively superior... It's only by a little bit*. That giant stack is just possibly a little better than your tiny cellphone. And what about all those countless better (it slightly worse) amps out there that are actually noisy as hell?
> 
> ...


 
 I'm assuming by "objectively" you mean that which can be measured with instrumentation?
  
 Define "little."  Little is a value judgement, inherently subjective.  What you consider little, I may think is a lot.  To know what little is we must know what "a lot" is.  Also, what may appear little in objective measurements may translate to a lot in terms of the perceived sound.


----------



## castleofargh

it's funny because last time I tried to explain the objective/subjective audio nightmare to a friend, what he got out of my description was that objectivists were the only ones to care about subjectivity. and I was like


----------



## StanD

Upon occasion I've brought along my Schiit Asgard 2 and an A/B switch to a friend's place to compare with their mega buck amp, most often a tube amp, you know the diehard audiophile tube type. For those that are not aware, the Asgard 2 is a well designed DC coupled Class A SS Amp that sells new for a mere $250. Put that in a cute wooden case and it could easily sell for 4 or more times the price. Upon more than one occasion we were easily able to pick out the expensive tube amp, when playing loudly. During a quiet passage or pause, you could hear the noise of the tube amp. Oops. One time when asked what they could do about it, I recommended two courses of action, replace the amp with SS Amp, or after tapping a tube and hearing the microphonic crash, I said, "Replace the tube." I usually get to hear the proclamation, "But...but..it's supposed to be the best amp, TOTL."


----------



## mindbomb

Although it certainly isn't a tube amp, idk if the asgard line is the greatest representative of objectivism. It is single ended instead of push pull, so it doesn't have the even harmonic distortion cancellation. It is also has no negative feedback. These are subjectivist impulses, right?


----------



## StanD

mindbomb said:


> Although it certainly isn't a tube amp, idk if the asgard line is the greatest representative of objectivism. It is single ended instead of push pull, so it doesn't have the even harmonic distortion cancellation. It is also has no negative feedback. These are subjectivist impulses, right?


 
 I think the below specs are well below the human threshold of detectable distortion. One doesn't need tons of negative feedback to compensate for a sloppy design if the circuits are biased properly. There is a small amount of negative feedback in this amp. I like this amp because of the careful design and it can keep your hands warm in the winter.
  
 Frequency Response: 20Hz-20Khz, -0.1db, 2Hz-400KHz, -3dB
 THD: Less than 0.008%, 20Hz-20KHz, at 1V RMS, high gain mode (worst case)
 IMD: Less than 0.010%, CCIF at 1V RMS, high gain mode (worst case)
 SNR: More than 102db, unweighted, referenced to 1V RMS, in low gain mode


----------



## StanD

Here we go again, plastic fantastic. This brings up visions of making an Aluminum foil hat to shield my thoughts from aliens. I'll not argue with his response as it would probably go nowhere, I said my piece and hope the layperson gets the point.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/628254/fiio-e18/2280#post_13388961


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> I think the below specs are well below the human threshold of detectable distortion.


 
  
 Matter of "detectable distortions" or more common term "threshold of audiobility" is most sophisticated in audio.
  
 Little example. When we say that ultrasound is inaudible, we see can results of researches of brain activity on ultrasound.
  
 And we don't know exactly give the brain activity real sound chnges or not.


----------



## sonitus mirus

yuri korzunov said:


> Matter of "detectable distortions" or more common term "threshold of audiobility" is most sophisticated in audio.
> 
> Little example. When we say that ultrasound is inaudible, we see can results of researches of brain activity on ultrasound.
> 
> And we don't know exactly give the brain activity real sound chnges or not.


 
  
 There is a lot of controversy surrounding this study, and scientists have failed to reproduce these results.
  
 https://web.archive.org/web/20120626185652/http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/labnote/lab486.html
  
 http://www.hificritic.com/uploads/2/8/8/0/28808909/classic-sc10-do_we_need_an_ultrasonic_bandwidth.pdf


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

Sonitus Mirus,
  
 Thank you for links. I will read it.


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> Matter of "detectable distortions" or more common term "threshold of audiobility" is most sophisticated in audio.
> 
> Little example. When we say that ultrasound is inaudible, we see can results of researches of brain activity on ultrasound.
> 
> And we don't know exactly give the brain activity real sound chnges or not.


 

 I sure that given enough SPL a person will perceive ultrasonics, but not in a musical sense, more like due physical damage and discomfort. I think our application is for musical enjoyment not harmful effects. I have never seen a credible reproducible scientific study proving any musical application. I bundle ultrasonic perception in the category of magical cables and other audio mythology.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> I sure that given enough SPL a person will perceive ultrasonics, but not in a musical sense, more like due physical damage and discomfort. I think our application is for musical enjoyment not harmful effects. I have never seen a credible reproducible scientific study proving any musical application. I bundle ultrasonic perception in the category of magical cables and other audio mythology.


 
  
 I don't sure about harm for health. I suppose, for record of musical instruments it is not matter.
  
 But you describe playback ultrasound on ideal apparatus. But real apparatus have non-linear distortions.
 So ultrasound stuff generate aduible products by ultrasound (intermodulations).
 Level of the products depend on level ultrasound and non-linearity of the apparatus.
 These products may be inaudible (below "threshold of audibility").
  
 Here experiment with cutting ultrasound above 20 kHz (probably original record contains legacy ultrasound noise by sigma-delta modulation): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67_3Qmbq8Y4
  
 I wondered, why ultrasound playback are demanded, but ultraviolet don't 
 In the article I compared ultrasound and ultraviolet http://samplerateconverter.com/content/ultrasound-ultraviolet-audio-optics


----------



## StanD

I wouldn't expect a large enough ultrasonic content in recorded music. Playback from a CD is Nyquist limited, DACs have filters and musical instruments have limited upper harmonic levels, etc......  Most of the noise is from audiophiles seeking something to opine about. Perhaps one day there will be an "Audiophile Symphonic Orchestra" with a section of dog whistles, next to the violins and ultrasonic motion sensors.


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> Here experiment with cutting ultrasound above 20 kHz (probably original record contains legacy ultrasound noise by sigma-delta modulation): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67_3Qmbq8Y4


 
 I don't bother with hirez audio since there is no tangible benefit from such media.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> Playback from a CD is Nyquist limited, DACs have filters and musical instruments have limited upper harmonic levels, etc......


 
  
 There are aliases in ultrasound range. It is especially problematic for 44/48 kHz, because need 2 kHz transient band.
  
 Analog filters begin "work" only after oversampling and digital pre-filtering into DAC.


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> There are aliases in ultrasound range. It is especially problematic for 44/48 kHz, because need 2 kHz transient band.
> 
> Analog filters begin "work" only after oversampling and digital pre-filtering into DAC.


 
 I don't remember having any problematic ultrasonic content, meaningful or otherwise, in any music that I have, so I'll not be losing any sleep over this.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> I don't remember having any problematic ultrasonic content, meaningful or otherwise, in any music that I have, so I'll not be losing any sleep over this.


 

 Results depend on implementation of apparatus. Need learn each case separatelly.


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> Results depend on implementation of apparatus. Need learn each case separatelly.


 
 I haven't seen or heard from anyone lining up here with such issues.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> I haven't seen or heard from anyone lining up here with such issues.


 

 I had several feedback about noise by ultrasound. Also you can seen it in video in post.
  
 Last such feedback I got from my customer after checking different band filters (3 filter mode) during conversion DSF or ISO (I don't remember exactly).
 For 100 kHz band his apparatus have some noise at output. If he used 20 or 27 kHz band during audio file conversion, all sound ok.
  
 Other customer more like sound in 100 kHz mode then 20 or 27 kHz. His apparatus work ok with such band.
  
 Except non-linearity some apparatus may have different filtering, that may reduce or don't the noise.


----------



## Dillan

I think the guy is onto something BIG with the dog whistle orchestra section for audiophiles.


----------



## StanD

dillan said:


> I think the guy is onto something BIG with the dog whistle orchestra section for audiophiles.


 
 They've just adopted an official name, the K9s.


----------



## LazyListener

dillan said:


> I think the guy is onto something BIG with the dog whistle orchestra section for audiophiles.


 

 Don't laugh.  This is a potential market - musical enjoyment for dogs.  Research if ultrasonics stimulate any pleasure regions of dogs' brains.  Then manufacture audio equipment just for dogs.  Filthy rich will buy it.


----------



## StanD

lazylistener said:


> Don't laugh.  This is a potential market - musical enjoyment for dogs.  Research if ultrasonics stimulate any pleasure regions of dogs' brains.  Then manufacture audio equipment just for dogs.  Filthy rich will buy it.


 

 Wideband DACs for dogs.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

For exact understanding, I say, that I consider ultrasound perceprion from point of view of experimental proofs. Because I use it in work.
  
 And practical experience show that we hear up to 20 kHz. Other opinions I collect for future. Maybe the future give us new information.
  
 There are some researches about brain response to ultrasound ARTICLES | Journal of Neurophysiology
  
 But, I think, here need wait for more researches.


----------



## castleofargh

music content tends to go downhill as frequencies go up, looking at the stuff I have in high-res, most of it is like -25 to -40db at 20khz compared to the bass. and it keeps going down above 20khz. IMO that alone should put a silencer on how important high-res is. 1% distortions create crap as high as -40db, and people are fine saying that it's usually goes unnoticed on headphones at most frequencies.
 now let's look at our equal loudness contour and here we go again, 20khz alone is maybe 10 to 20db less audible than even 1khz and small chance that the sensitivity comes back up at 30khz ^_^.
 then of course there are the headphones/IEMs used. in this case we see everything, from almost no attenuation, to -60db at 20khz.
 the result on average is probably music that would mostly go unnoticed if it was in the midrange. instead we're talking frequencies we fail to hear at normal loudness...
  
 to me discussing about pushing the goalpost from 22khz to 24khz because some devices just suck or roll off too much of the audible range with such sample rate, that's something fine. I'd argue that some devices do a good job so just stop buying crap. but the attraction of even cheap and/or exotic gears performing better is not without interest. everything beyond that is silly for playback purpose and based on no relevant information whatsoever. it's not like we're just wondering and keeping an open mind because it's a new science. as consumers we've seen a rebranding of the same subject again and again for the better of the last 20 years. and I'm sure professionals were at it long before.
 and so far, here are the conclusive reasons to use high sample rates for playback:
 -
 -
 -
 -


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

I don't know history of high resolution.
 But I suspect step to high resolution was done for avoiding DAC's analog filter issue.
  
 Maybe later this real target of high resolution was transformed to "transfer ultrasound for better fidelity".
 Though currently no reliable evidence that ultrasound make a sound better.


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> I don't know history of high resolution.
> But I suspect step to high resolution was done for avoiding DAC's analog filter issue.
> 
> Maybe later this real target of high resolution was transformed to "transfer ultrasound for better fidelity".
> Though currently no reliable evidence that ultrasound make a sound better.


 
 To those that frequent this forum, ultrasonic audio is not considered to be relevant to human beings and audio. I doubt that you will find many fans of high res lurking here either as that is the food of audiophiles and the marketing types that prey upon them.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> To those that frequent this forum, ultrasonic audio is not considered to be relevant to human beings and audio. I doubt that you will find many fans of high res lurking here either as that is the food of audiophiles and the marketing types that prey upon them.




Especially people who keep praising how warmer and Jess harsh their new headphones are.


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Especially people who keep praising how warmer and Jess harsh their new headphones are.


 
 Is that before or after burn in? Here's a fav, why would anyone think that a DAC requires burn in?


----------



## Dillan

I believe in some form of burn in with headphones as in the drivers expand and aren't as stiff etc after hundreds or even thousands of hours of use. But burn in with cables and dacs are a joke. I see it all the time too.


----------



## castleofargh

the effect of burn-in is any change for any reason subjectively felt without any control. so if you adopt such wild spread definition, it's wise to say burn in is real. because your friend dropping the DAC in the stairs is burn in, listening to a song 2 months later with a different volume level is burn in, listening to music before or after the morning coffee, is burn in. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 burn in is real, it's imagination, it's life, it's time and oxidization. burn in is the universe and all in it.
  
 now when it comes to magnitude of variations over time and the hilarious idea that I know how to control and optimize the resulting sound using my special sauce of pink noise and Carmina Burana played in reverse. that's way beyond religion and optimism. again without any form of controlled testing and many pairs of the same gear, even wishful thinking would lead to finding the idea silly.
 and yet very smart and educated people do it, "just in case" as a routine after purchasing gear. I don't get it and always had a hard time doing something for no legitimate reason just because I was told to do it.
 when I just received a device, I let the package rest in my room for a few hours if outside it's really hot of really cold. because sometimes stuff are stored under really poor conditions. I got the habit of doing this for camera lenses where minding potential thermal chock can be a nice idea to avoid humidity or whatever creeping into the lens. and I just do the same for most gears because I'm guessing some stuff may or may not enjoy heat or movements when almost frozen or super hot from a day in a dark delivery truck under the sun. that's my personal burn in, I wait a little sometimes ^_^.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

dillan said:


> I believe in some form of burn in with headphones as in the drivers expand and aren't as stiff etc after hundreds or even thousands of hours of use.


 
   
 I think, that long work headphones may as improve as degrade it features. Like any mechanical system. Need consider each case separatelly.
  
  
 Quote:


dillan said:


> But burn in with cables and dacs are a joke. I see it all the time too.


 
 I suppose, cable's cooper wires some change its internal structure with time as any physical object. Current inside, probably, impact to it.
 But I don't sure, that it is visible for end-user as change electrical resistance, inductivity or capacity.
 Isolation with time lose initial features.
 If warm will enough high, it degrade features of cable rather.
 But usual work in music mode havn't visible impact to cable, I suppose.
  
  
 DAC, amp during work seance get self-warm impact. It change work mode of electronic components.
  
  
 For digital parts it can lead to breaking work or, sometimes, to temporary fixing some mechanical bug, that sensitive to warming.
 Recommended found the place of the bug and replace the component, or re-solder it 
 For quartz resonator need time (after switch on) for warming and get work mode.
  
 Analog parts after changing temperature change features and work mode. It lead to changes of features and sound. It will better or worse depend on each device. I don't sure, that these changes may be audible.
  
 Warming/burning as long work can as improve as degrade features of DAC, amp with time. Probablity of degrading is higher. Because electronic components lose properties with time and began work in other mode.


----------



## LazyListener

I know products labeled "hi-res" are supposed to have an expanded frequency response, but to me, high resolution is not about frequency, it's about speed and transient response.  The Oppo PM-3 I had for a while, obviously had a higher resolution ability.  It was especially apparent with electronic music.  Skrillex sounded completely different, like nothing I'd ever heard before.  There was so much more fine detail in the synthesized riffs.  It was like going from Standard Definition TV to Ultra High Definition 4K.  And this was with standard 320 Kbps Spotify Premium streams.  Interestingly, the HD 650 is labeled "Hi-Res" but didn't have anywhere near the resolution of the PM-3.  So to me, that label means nothing.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

lazylistener said:


> but to me, high resolution is not about frequency, it's about *speed* and *transient response*.


 
  
 Sorry for my English, I can't understand: what are these parameters?
  
 For synchronizing, you may point to Wikipedia, as example.


----------



## pinnahertz

yuri korzunov said:


> Sorry for my English, I can't understand: what are these parameters?
> 
> For synchronizing, you may point to Wikipedia, as example.


 
 Don't worry about it.  Speed and Transient Response are  inseparable from frequency response.  His post was subjective impressions described by using those terms, not literal.  So there are no parameters.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

pinnahertz said:


> Don't worry about it.  Speed and Transient Response are  inseparable from frequency response.  His post was subjective impressions described by using those terms, not literal.  So there are no parameters.


 

 I know, that is "impulse response". But I don't know that is "speed".
  
 Impulse response is back-FFT of frequency response. I.e. impulse response is time domain representation (I don't sure that "representation" is corect term) of frequency response.
  
  
 About "speed": it may be speed of digital stream. It defined by band of discrete signal in analog form.
 Analog form here it is physical realization (in electricity) of digital signal.
 But this meaning of "speed" term is not applicable to analog audio signal.


----------



## LazyListener

By transient response, I meant the speed of the driver.  How quickly it's able to go from rest, to motion, back to rest.  It's widely known that planar magnetic drivers are generally "faster" than dynamic drivers.  I guess it's similar to the high resolution, crisp, ultra-detailed treble that electrostatic speakers are able to reproduce.  It's no coincidence that I was able to discern this with electronic music that features synthesizers that are able to reproduce notes very quickly.  I didn't hear much of a difference with other music.  Skrillex tends to use fairly fast synthesized riffs, and the notes were much more defined with the planar PM-3 than I'd ever heard before.  I was literally hearing detail I'd not heard before.  Even EQing various treble frequencies with other headphones never revealed these fine details before.
  
 I guess, for me, resolution = detail, and frequency response doesn't tell me how detailed a headphone sounds.  The resolution (detail) can't simply be a function of only frequency response.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

First need define: what is "detail"/"resolution" in common terms that defined mathematically.
  
 Are you agree that unchanged signal passed thru audio system keep 100% input information (100% of details) at output?


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> ... I suspect step to high resolution was done for avoiding DAC's analog filter issue. ... Maybe later this real target of high resolution was transformed to "transfer ultrasound for better fidelity".


 
  
 The issue of analogue filters was effectively solved with oversampling, without the need for "hires". >16bit was very useful for it's extra headroom when recording and >44.1 was useful for certain types of mix processing and avoiding potential issues with the decimation filter. Both of these >44.1kS/s issues eventually went away as greater processing power became available and software design improved. The need for >16bit files during recording is still with us, although the change in the late 1990's from 20bit to 24bit brought no practical benefits.
  
 When I first started using "hires" in the early 1990's it wasn't called "hires" and the >16bit (20bit) came long before the jump to sample rates beyond 44.1/48kS/s. No one I knew thought in terms of ultrasound being audible or of directly improving fidelity, just in terms of potential benefits to digital filtering and certain types of processing (particularly the cumulative affects) within the audible band. At the time, pretty much all of our most commonly used recording equipment rolled-off at around 20kHz anyway and I never thought that >16/48 would ever become available to consumers. With hindsight that was naive, while there was (and is) no practical/fidelity benefit to consumers, I failed to foresee that there could be a significant benefit in terms of marketing. Only with the start of marketing of >16/44.1 to consumers were the terms "hires" and "high def" applied to audio, probably in an attempt to apply the early success of High Definition TV to music sales.
  
 Quote:


lazylistener said:


> [1] I know products labeled "hi-res" are supposed to have an expanded frequency response, but to me, high resolution is not about frequency, it's about speed and transient response.
> [2] It was especially apparent with electronic music.  Skrillex sounded completely different, like nothing I'd ever heard before.  There was so much more fine detail in the synthesized riffs.
> [3] It was like going from Standard Definition TV to Ultra High Definition 4K.


 
  
 1. Transient response is the same for 16/44.1 as for "hires" except beyond the audible band.
 2. That's particularly strange because of all the music genres EDM is the one which benefits the least from hires!
 3. No, it's nothing like that at all! The differences between SDTV and even the latest Premium/Super/HDR UHD (4K) are all within the capabilities of the human eye. The differences between 16/44.1 and hires are all outside the capabilities of the human ear! In you want to make loose comparisons with TV, the cassette would standard def, Vinyl would be HD and CD (16/44.1) would be beyond even the latest UHD 4K specs.
  
 Most probably the huge quality differences you're hearing are nothing more than perceptual biases (caused by marketing) or maybe they are real but caused by comparing different masters. Either way, your use of the term "hires" and your explanation for what you're hearing (or think you're hearing) are both incorrect.
  
 G


----------



## castleofargh

high resolution devices don't mean much(well the all high res thing doesn't mean much really). the big guys decided that resolution above 16/44 is high resolution. and that's it. 
 but marketing is using that without any care for the fidelity at the output of the device. DACs and DAP are labeled high res as long as they can play high res files, as in read them without having to down convert.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  the output could be the crappiest ever they don't care they have the legal excuse to use the term and can always fall back on pretending that they only meant high res compatible all along if somebody complains.
 as for headphones, just looking at distortions figures and FR make them high res unable.
  
 the idea of speed a @lazylistener uses it is confusing because it brings a heavy baggage of preconceptions that seem obvious even to those who don't understand sound, yet absolutely fails when put to the test. like transient sounds and how they're audible yet contain ultrasounds so somehow ultrasounds must be audible in some way and we need that speed to make them sound right. if that was true, it should be easy to pass a blind test where one of the track is band limited to 44khz. the maximum speed is hard limited, but people massively fail such a simple test. IMO that demonstrates how the only speed one needs is the speed to reconstruct the audible range. else why do I fail the blind test against highres signals and high frequency content?
 so by extension, I consider talks about the headphone's speed to also be a wild guess. the headphone has a different signature, and different distortion figures compared to another headphone, which is more than enough to create a different perception of sound. you deciding it has anything to do with speed because of some subjective interpretation of a feeling of speed is cherry picking one potential cause among many without any evidence that one variable is more involved than any other one. that's a guess, nothing more.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> the effect of burn-in is any change for any reason subjectively felt without any control. so if you adopt such wild spread definition, it's wise to say burn in is real. because your friend dropping the DAC in the stairs is burn in, listening to a song 2 months later with a different volume level is burn in, listening to music before or after the morning coffee, is burn in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Aw man, before burn in, I swear I could hear a voice in my DAC whispering in the background, "Paul is dead" and it was backwards. I was getting ready for an exorcism, thankfully the burn in got rid of the evil spirit. OK, so maybe I'm being a bit extreme, but some of the songs of burn in praise are reminiscent of this.


----------



## pinnahertz

yuri korzunov said:


> About "speed": it may be speed of digital stream. It defined by band of discrete signal in analog form.
> Analog form here it is physical realization (in electricity) of digital signal.
> But this meaning of "speed" term is not applicable to analog audio signal.


 
 It's a wrong usage of the term. He used the wrong term to describe something subjective.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> The issue of analogue filters was effectively solved with oversampling...


 
  
 Absolutelly..
  
 In music production used ADC. There high sample rates of capturing also need for solving analog filter issue.
  
 If there used downsampling, higher sample rates allow use digital filters with lesser ringing.
  
 Therefore why need decreasing of sample rate to distribute to end-user?


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> [1] In music production used ADC. There high sample rates of capturing also need for solving analog filter issue.
> 
> [2] If there used downsampling, higher sample rates allow use digital filters with lesser ringing.
> 
> [3] Therefore why need decreasing of sample rate to distribute to end-user?


 
  
 1. Yes, I was referring to the analogue filters in both DACs and ADCs.
 2. Theoretically yes but that's not the point of oversampling in ADCs. Oversampling solves the issue of analogue anti-alias filters and also improves SNR.
 3. In a sense your question is actually backwards! The typical oversampling at very high (multi mHz) rates in ADCs can only be achieved with very limited bit depth resolution. The process within an ADC is not one of simply down-sampling but of (in effect) exchanging sample frequency for bit depth. We can't simply distribute this high sample rate/low bit depth to consumers because we can't process high sample rate/low bit depth, so we have to convert to a standard PCM rate in order to mix/produce and master a recording. Then the question becomes the reverse of your question; Why up-sample (and bit depth reduce) the master to distribute to the end-user?
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> Why up-sample (and bit depth reduce) the master to distribute to the end-user?


 
  
  
 In my opinion, better way is distributing master as is (better in float point format - if DAW project was done so).
  
 DAC may have different distortions for different resolutions.
  
 For using better resolution mode of the DAC, we may adjust resolution of master audio file. Also PCM to DSD  or back may be changed.


----------



## Argyris

I found the "Hi-Res" badge on my HD 600 box a bit amusing, since it's on a headphone from 20 years ago, not some new, mondo expensive four figure flagship. It'd almost be better if they _didn't_ certify older designs from a business perspective. Make people think that the badge actually means something and that they have to spend megabux in order to obtain equipment that carries it. Personally I'm a lot more concerned with what the response between 20 Hz to about 18 kHz looks like, since that's what I can actually hear, and above about 22 kHz is where all my music taps out, anyway.
  
 A much more useful certification would be for headphones whose deviation from a standard target curve is less than +/- 3 dB, with some grace given for bass and upper treble extension (open dynamics all have trouble with the former, and the latter isn't easy to measure). Of course that would require having a standard curve everybody agrees on, which won't happen anytime soon (if ever), but some variation of the so-called Harman curve (it has a proper designation now, but damned if my Google-fu can turn it up at the moment) would be a good place to start.


----------



## StanD

argyris said:


> I found the "Hi-Res" badge on my HD 600 box a bit amusing, since it's on a headphone from 20 years ago, not some new, mondo expensive four figure flagship. It'd almost be better if they _didn't_ certify older designs from a business perspective. Make people think that the badge actually means something and that they have to spend megabux in order to obtain equipment that carries it. Personally I'm a lot more concerned with what the response between 20 Hz to about 18 kHz looks like, since that's what I can actually hear, and above about 22 kHz is where all my music taps out, anyway.
> 
> A much more useful certification would be for headphones whose deviation from a standard target curve is less than +/- 3 dB, with some grace given for bass and upper treble extension (open dynamics all have trouble with the former, and the latter isn't easy to measure). Of course that would require having a standard curve everybody agrees on, which won't happen anytime soon (if ever), but some variation of the so-called Harman curve (it has a proper designation now, but damned if my Google-fu can turn it up at the moment) would be a good place to start.


 

 Don't worry so much, in a few years you won't be able to hear much above 12 kHz, so enjoy it while you can. Besides, generally headphones are wonky (FR) if not rolled off above 12 or15 kHz or so. So one might ask how important is above that to really enjoy listening to music and how much of that spectrum is just plain tizzy fizzy sound. Back in the day of CRT TVs, when I walked into a TV store I would nuts from the sound of the chorus of horizontal sweep oscillators and deflection circuits. If I remember correctly the HD600 takes a nosedive before12 KHz and yet they sound pretty darned good.
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD600.pdf


----------



## U-3C

Speaking of which, I remember someone mentioned something about headphone frequency range specs being vague or misleading in the HD600 thread a while ago. I can't remember it clearly nor can I find it.

However, I am curious about how it works though. Do you guys know how the frequency range that are often put on the boxes of headphones are measured and what they mean? As well as how much it can or cannot be used as a reference for anything?

The post I mentioned was something about how in any practical real world scenario, the headphones can't reach anywhere near the published specs, but since everyone posts these numbers, Sennheiser fire the same to not look bad. Someone was kind of upset about Sennheiser "lying." Don't know anything about this stuff so I can't really find the words for a proper sounding question, but I am curious about how it works.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

u-3c said:


> Do you guys know how the frequency range that are often put on the boxes of headphones are measured and what they mean? As well as how much it can or cannot be used as a reference for anything?


 
  
 I suppose, primarily with panoramic auto SPL meter (acoustic pressure method) in anechoic room.
  
 As test signal used sweep tone.
  
 May be somebody use other methods.
  
 Deviation 1 dB about average value in full band is good for electro-mechanical system.


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> [1] In my opinion, better way is distributing master as is (better in float point format - if DAW project was done so).
> 
> [2] DAC may have different distortions for different resolutions.


 
  
 1. The question would then become what is "as is"? At a certain level, this question is unanswerable, even by the mix and mastering engineers who made the recording! The other issue is, what's the point? If the recording ends up using say 12bits of dynamic range and has no useful information above 22kHz, what would be the point in distributing it in a 384kS/s 64bit container?
  
 2. I would expect those distortions to be inaudible, otherwise I would consider that DAC to be faulty/very poorly designed.
  
 G


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> Speaking of which, I remember someone mentioned something about headphone frequency range specs being vague or misleading in the HD600 thread a while ago. I can't remember it clearly nor can I find it.
> 
> However, I am curious about how it works though. Do you guys know how the frequency range that are often put on the boxes of headphones are measured and what they mean? As well as how much it can or cannot be used as a reference for anything?
> 
> The post I mentioned was something about how in any practical real world scenario, the headphones can't reach anywhere near the published specs, but since everyone posts these numbers, Sennheiser fire the same to not look bad. Someone was kind of upset about Sennheiser "lying." Don't know anything about this stuff so I can't really find the words for a proper sounding question, but I am curious about how it works.


 
 You can look at http://www.innerfidelity.com/ for articles. Measuring a headphone's FR is tricky due to each human being's head's varying acoustic properties, sound absorption, etc. They use fake heads, even the placement of headphones on a head causes variances. Then there's compensation curves.
  
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/approaching-head-measurements#QpcMbwiP8CL3f35P.97  Includes the HD600
  
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-frequency-response-part-one#s82iihwrxudtWWTD.97
  
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/first-crunched-data-harman-head-measurement-session#rO7ojy3y0vXww99T.97


----------



## gregorio

argyris said:


> Make people think that the badge actually means something and that they have to spend megabux in order to obtain equipment that carries it.


 
  
 That's the whole point about HD/HiRes audio, it doesn't actually mean anything, it's ONLY about making people think it does. The typical studio tools and workflow mixes up all the bit depths and sample rates and that's even without considering if all those bits and sample frequency are being used in the first place!
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> 1. The question would then become what is "as is"? At a certain level, this question is unanswerable, even by the mix and mastering engineers who made the recording! The other issue is, what's the point? If the recording ends up using say 12bits of dynamic range and has no useful information above 22kHz, what would be the point in distributing it in a 384kS/s 64bit container?
> 
> 2. I would expect those distortions to be inaudible, otherwise I would consider that DAC to be faulty/very poorly designed.
> 
> G


 

 > The question would then become what is "as is"?
  
 In format od DAW project.
  
 > what would be the point in distributing it in a 384kS/s 64bit container?
  
 384kS/s it is 384 kHz?
  
 Implemetation conversion high resolution to low sample rates is too complex and have more ringing due lack inaudible band, that may be used as transient band.
  
 Better way purchase high resolution files and convert it to DAC's optimal (minimum distortions) resolution.
  
  
  
 > I would expect those distortions to be inaudible, otherwise I would consider that DAC to be faulty/very poorly designed.
  
 Achieving of absolutelly identical features for 2 instances of product or its modes is technically impossible.
  
 But probably ideal products and developers exists somewhere


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> [1] In format od DAW project.
> 
> [2] 384kS/s it is 384 kHz?
> [3] Implemetation conversion high resolution to low sample rates is too complex and have more ringing due lack inaudible band, that may be used as transient band.
> ...


 
  
 1. There isn't really a format of the DAW (or DAWs). The mix only exists virtually, in RAM, when it's time to print the mix, then a format is chosen and the mix is truncated to 24bit or dithered to 16bit. The only way of having the mix in the DAW format is to own that DAW, all the software plugins employed in that mix and of course the DAW session. That would likely be very expensive and the producer/mix engineer will not generally allow a copy of the DAW session to leave the studio.
 2. 384,000 samples per second.
 3. I don't understand what you mean.
 4. Not sure what you mean here either. Absolutely identical or ideal isn't required.
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> 1. There isn't really a format of the DAW (or DAWs). The mix only exists virtually, in RAM, when it's time to print the mix, then a format is chosen and the mix is truncated to 24bit or dithered to 16bit. The only way of having the mix in the DAW format is to own that DAW, all the software plugins employed in that mix and of course the DAW session. That would likely be very expensive and the producer/mix engineer will not generally allow a copy of the DAW session to leave the studio.
> 2. 384,000 samples per second.
> 3. I don't understand what you mean.
> 4. Not sure what you mean here either. Absolutely identical or ideal isn't required.
> ...


 

 1. Yes. DAW is big complex of software and hardware. There may be different interfaces between modules.
  
 3. Downsamplig filter to 44 kHz have 2 kHz transient band for -200 dB digital filter. For minimization ringing need so tricks for design such filter. If sample rate 192 kHz, filter may have transient band 20 .. 96 kHz. That significantly simplify design for minimization of ringing.
  
  
 4. > I would expect those distortions to be inaudible, otherwise I would consider that DAC to be faulty/very poorly designed
  
 What there border in numbers between "faulty/very poorly designed" and "good designed"?


----------



## LazyListener

yuri korzunov said:


> First need define: what is "detail"/"resolution" in common terms that defined mathematically.
> 
> Are you agree that unchanged signal passed thru audio system keep 100% input information (100% of details) at output?


 

 I'll leave it to you "objectivists" to define what detail or resolution translates to in terms of math or objective measurements.  For me, it means hearing everything that can be heard based on the original recording.  Some headphones are better at revealing the detail that is there, while others are less able to do so.  Many factors at play.  Some have to do with the headphone.  Others with the listener.  So just focus on the headphone and the equipment.
  
 I'm not sure what you mean by "unchanged" signal?  I do not agree that 100% input information (details) is always revealed at output.  Each output device (headphone) varies in its ability to reproduce the original signal.  Each headphone "distorts" the original signal in some way.  A headphone only provides a representation of the input signal, not an identical reproduction.


----------



## LazyListener

gregorio said:


> 1. Transient response is the same for 16/44.1 as for "hires" except beyond the audible band.
> 2. That's particularly strange because of all the music genres EDM is the one which benefits the least from hires!
> 3. No, it's nothing like that at all! The differences between SDTV and even the latest Premium/Super/HDR UHD (4K) are all within the capabilities of the human eye. The differences between 16/44.1 and hires are all outside the capabilities of the human ear! In you want to make loose comparisons with TV, the cassette would standard def, Vinyl would be HD and CD (16/44.1) would be beyond even the latest UHD 4K specs.
> i
> ...


 

 2.  How does EDM benefit "the least" from Hi-Res?  From your recent comments overall and reply #3, it seems you're saying no music benefits at all from Hi-Res.
 3.  I'll accept the way you framed this.  I'm not sure Hi-Res music files above 16/44.1 add any real world, subjective auditory benefits.  However, I was not referring to Hi-Res sources.  I was referring to headphones, some having a higher resolution capability than others.  The PM-3 to me sounded ultra-detailed and higher resolution than any headphone I've ever heard, especially noticeable with Skrillex tracks.  It sounded like listening to an electrostatic speaker versus a dynamic driver box speaker.  I attribute at least some of this to the faster planar magnetic driver, but I'm sure there's more to it.  I'm willing to bet that it's not simply a matter of frequency response.  I've heard the same music on some bright, trebly headphones, and the synths never sounded so fast and detailed like with the PM-3.  Ultimately, I didn't like the PM-3 because of this dry, analytical tonality and poor soundstage, but Skrillex and similar electronic music with fast synths sounded superbly detailed on them.
  
 I think when "objectivists" are quick to try to explain away what people think they hear as "perceptual biases" caused by marketing, it's because they don't have an answer as to what objective measurement could account for the perceived differences.  BTW, they were not different masters.  They were the same Spotify Premium 320 Kbps ogg vorbis streams.  Again, I was comparing resolution ability of headphones, some labeled as Hi-Res.  I was not talking about Hi-Res source files.


----------



## LazyListener

castleofargh said:


> high resolution devices don't mean much(well the all high res thing doesn't mean much really). the big guys decided that resolution above 16/44 is high resolution. and that's it.
> but marketing is using that without any care for the fidelity at the output of the device. DACs and DAP are labeled high res as long as they can play high res files, as in read them without having to down convert.
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Agreed.  So I'm here providing a guess that the planar magnetic driver in the PM-3 has at least something to do with the individual notes I was able to hear in the fast, synthesized riffs used by Skrillex.  I'm guessing the planar magnetic driver's speed over that of dynamic drivers has at least something to do with what I heard.  I know that doesn't tell the complete story.  There are other factors.  Frequency response being only one of them.  The HE400S is also planar magnetic, but I didn't hear the same detail like I did with the PM-3.
  
 So I'm asking you objectivists, if you know, why did the PM-3 sound so much more detailed with fast, electronic synthesized riffs, than any other headphone I've heard before (and I've heard dozens, some quite detailed in their own right).  If you can, please provide an objective reasons that would explain my subjective impression.
  
 Or if you prefer, put another way, what objective factors, outside of frequency response, are responsible for the detail/resolution of a headphone.  Which are bigger factors and which are smaller factors?  Could planar magnetic driver versus dynamic driver not be one of those factors?


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

lazylistener said:


> I'll leave it to you "objectivists" to define what detail or resolution translates to in terms of math or objective measurements.  For me, it means hearing everything that can be heard based on the original recording.  Some headphones are better at revealing the detail that is there, while others are less able to do so.  Many factors at play.  Some have to do with the headphone.  Others with the listener.  So just focus on the headphone and the equipment.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "unchanged" signal?  I do not agree that 100% input information (details) is always revealed at output.  Each output device (headphone) varies in its ability to reproduce the original signal.  Each headphone "distorts" the original signal in some way.  A headphone only provides a representation of the input signal, not an identical reproduction.


 
  
 Little example from my musician's life:
 Evening our band cool play music with great sound. After repetition we turn off apparatus.
 Next morning we turn on apparatus. Began play, but sound was far not so good as yesturday. Warming of apparatus changed nothing.
 It happened several times.
  
 I suppose, what we hear (or think that hear) may be placed in our head. In evening we had big energy inside and sound was better for us. Morning, we havn't good mood. And sound was worse for us.
  
 Real devices loss information anyway. But as ideal (reference point) I consider zero changes.
  
  
 I meant "unchanged signal" as identical by waveform. [Input signal]-[Output signal]=Zero.
  
 Ideal measurement this identity may be applied for digital signals only. If be more exact in integer format only.
  
 For analog signal we limited by precision of measurement tools.


----------



## CarlosUnchained

Cringe


----------



## gregorio

lazylistener said:


> 2.  How does EDM benefit "the least" from Hi-Res?  From your recent comments overall and reply #3, it seems you're saying no music benefits at all from Hi-Res.
> 3.  I'll accept the way you framed this.  I'm not sure Hi-Res music files above 16/44.1 add any real world, subjective auditory benefits.
> 4.  I think when "objectivists" are quick to try to explain away what people think they hear as "perceptual biases" caused by marketing, it's because they don't have an answer as to what objective measurement could account for the perceived differences.


 
  
 2. By definition, EDM is mostly constructed with synths and samplers, it's very heavily processed and in addition is just about the most highly compressed music genre. So fewer bits are required for the limited dynamic range and there aren't all the natural harmonics to worry about, so no benefit of high sample rates either. In practise, no one can tell Hires from CD in blind testing any way, so hires is only really of theoretical benefit for any music genre.
  
 3. IMO, subjective auditory benefits are the only benefits of Hires and that there aren't any objective auditory benefits.
  
 4. In general "objectivists" are quick to explain what people think they hear as "perceptual biases" caused by various forms of marketing/suggestion because that's what ALL the reliable evidence indicates and, there is no objective measurement which accounts for many of the reported perceived differences! The problem with any argument counter to this, a massive logical hole! Which is simply: *If we can't objectively measure it, we can't record it.* This is true of audio recording since it was invented in the C19th to the latest digital technology. Tape recorders, ADCs, etc., contain no magic spells, they are entirely science/engineering based devices, which effective measure/convert energy which is stored and then replayed. Therefore, if you are hearing something which cannot be objectively measured then it cannot be anything other than a trick of your perception ("perceptual biases")! For example, have a look at this brief video, there is not, nor can there ever be, an objective audio measurement of the difference between baa and faa.
  


yuri korzunov said:


> 1. Yes. DAW is big complex of software and hardware. There may be different interfaces between modules.
> 
> 3. Downsamplig filter to 44 kHz have 2 kHz transient band for -200 dB digital filter. For minimization ringing need so tricks for design such filter. If sample rate 192 kHz, filter may have transient band 20 .. 96 kHz. That significantly simplify design for minimization of ringing.
> 
> 4. What there border in numbers between "faulty/very poorly designed" and "good designed"?


 
  
 1. So we can't actually write a DAW format file, let alone distribute the mix or master "as is".
  
 3. Maybe when mixing lots of channels together there could be accumulated ringing effects with say 44.1kS/s. But even then, in the vast majority of cases, it's more of a potential or theoretical problem than an actual audible one. I don't really see ringing as a practical problem in modern consumer DAC design though.
  
 4. Numbers which correspond with the limits of audibility, plus a bit of a safety margin.
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> 1. So we can't actually write a DAW format file, let alone distribute the mix or master "as is".
> 
> 3. Maybe when mixing lots of channels together there could be accumulated ringing effects with say 44.1kS/s. But even then, in the vast majority of cases, it's more of a potential or theoretical problem than an actual audible one. I don't really see ringing as a practical problem in modern consumer DAC design though.
> 
> 4. Numbers which correspond with the limits of audibility, plus a bit of a safety margin.


 
 1. However, we can. Project DAW created in certain resolution despite geterogenous resolutions of processing. There is not sequential processing in different resolution. There complex scheme (parallel-sequiential). Own DAW's processings may be in project resolution. Hence, if we havn't obvious reasons to change resolution, better way is saving master in project's resolution, in my opinion.
  
 2. I also don't consider ringing as big evil, because music have small differences between samples, as rule.
  
 Need consider that music production applications work in real time.
 Steep linear phase IIR filter for 44 kHz demands more coefficients, than "lazy" one for high sample rate value.
 So delay between acoustical sound and response at speakers is increased. If delay will mpre several milliseconds it may cause discomfort during monitoring.
  
 4. Ok. Let bound 0,001% THD, or -130 dB aliases and absolute threshould of ear listening.
  
 Also which is value of dispersion of threshould of ear listening for different peoples?


----------



## U-3C

yuri korzunov said:


> I suppose, primarily with panoramic auto SPL meter (acoustic pressure method) in anechoic room.
> 
> As test signal used sweep tone.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the response! 



stand said:


> You can look at http://www.innerfidelity.com/ for articles. Measuring a headphone's FR is tricky due to each human being's head's varying acoustic properties, sound absorption, etc. They use fake heads, even the placement of headphones on a head causes variances. Then there's compensation curves.
> 
> http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/approaching-head-measurements#QpcMbwiP8CL3f35P.97  Includes the HD600
> 
> ...




Thanks to you too!

However, I was referring to the spec that states XYZ headphone can go from 20 Hz to 100000000 GHz. Any idea how those are measured and how it may be useful in any case? People seem to just ignore it so I'm curious if it has any purpose, as well as any practices that companies do to make the numbers look nicer or misleading.


----------



## castleofargh

u-3c said:


> ...
> 
> However, I was referring to the spec that states XYZ headphone can go from 20 Hz to 100000000 GHz. Any idea how those are measured and how it may be useful in any case? People seem to just ignore it so I'm curious if it has any purpose, as well as any practices that companies do to make the numbers look nicer or misleading.


 
 that's very precisely meaningless data. we usually have no idea about the criteria used to get those values so you can as well write 3 billion trillion gigahertz as a number alone never meant anything. obviously it's not about flat response... because headphones. so what is it? +/-10db relative to 1khz? +/-60db relative to the quietest part in the mid range?  any sound at all at that frequency measured in anechoic chamber with a laser because they didn't have a microphone able to record that?  the only purpose of those numbers is BS marketing.
 unless of course what they mean is clearly explained, but good luck with that.


----------



## Dillan

I always cringe when cable makers describe in detail exactly how their cables change the sound. It makes me angry in some cases.. guess I shouldn't let it bother me.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> that's very precisely meaningless data. we usually have no idea about the criteria used to get those values so you can as well write 3 billion trillion gigahertz as a number alone never meant anything. obviously it's not about flat response... because headphones. so what is it? +/-10db relative to 1khz? +/-60db relative to the quietest part in the mid range?  any sound at all at that frequency measured in anechoic chamber with a laser because they didn't have a microphone able to record that?  the only purpose of those numbers is BS marketing.
> unless of course what they mean is clearly explained, but good luck with that.




Okay, thanks for clearing that up! 


: )


----------



## Argyris

dillan said:


> I always cringe when cable makers describe in detail exactly how their cables change the sound. It makes me angry in some cases.. guess I shouldn't let it bother me.


 

 I'm starting to come around to the view that, in cases where people are gullible enough to eat up that kind of marketing crap and the breathlessly sycophantic rhapsodizing of audiophile subjectivists who affirm that it's true (because they literally bought it), maybe it's best to just say that a fool and his money are soon parted and leave it at that.
  
 Still gets me, though, when they tell somebody who clearly just doesn't like the headphone they recently bought and would be much happier with something else that all they need to do is spend twice the cost of the headphone itself on an amp/DAC/cable, and that will somehow magically solve all their problems. Or that unless they're willing to spend a thousand bucks minimum on an amp and DAC, and unless they're willing to push 10 watts through a 200 mW max input headphone, they shouldn't even think about the HD 6x0.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

dillan said:


> I always cringe when cable makers describe in detail exactly how their cables change the sound. It makes me angry in some cases.. guess I shouldn't let it bother me.


 

 I don't mind expensive cables. In my opinion, cables must look according connected apparatus.
  
 Different interconnection analog and digital cables may cause different catching of noise. It may be obviously detected by background noise during silence of a system after changing of cable.
 But, probably, it is not matter of expensive cables.
  
 However I don't look for sound transparency from cable to cable. May be transparency is issues of cheapest analog cables. As example with damaged isolation.
  
 But damaged or long digital cable can give faults of transferring digital data. It lead to pauses. Probably, clicks there, but it depend on algorithm of processing, I suppose.


----------



## Intensecure

castleofargh said:


> that's very precisely meaningless data. we usually have no idea about the criteria used to get those values so you can as well write 3 billion trillion gigahertz as a number alone never meant anything. obviously it's not about flat response... because headphones. so what is it? +/-10db relative to 1khz? +/-60db relative to the quietest part in the mid range?  any sound at all at that frequency measured in anechoic chamber with a laser because they didn't have a microphone able to record that?  the only purpose of those numbers is BS marketing.
> unless of course what they mean is clearly explained, but good luck with that.



Wait, wut?
My Sonys are rated at 3-100,000khz, says so on the box - you mean to say that those bats hammering against my windows are a coincidence?


----------



## StanD

intensecure said:


> Wait, wut?
> My Sonys are rated at 3-100,000khz, says so on the box - you mean to say that those bats hammering against my windows are a coincidence?


 
 No, they wanted to _hang_ out with you.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> No, they wanted to _hang_ out with you.




That was soooooooo bad.

...

I love it.


----------



## StanD

u-3c said:


> That was soooooooo bad.
> 
> ...
> 
> I love it.


 

 I was above doing that, but it didn't stop me from doing it.


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> 1. However, we can. Project DAW created in certain resolution despite geterogenous resolutions of processing. There is not sequential processing in different resolution. There complex scheme (parallel-sequiential). Own DAW's processings may be in project resolution. Hence, if we havn't obvious reasons to change resolution, better way is saving master in project's resolution, in my opinion.
> 
> 2. I also don't consider ringing as big evil, because music have small differences between samples, as rule.
> Need consider that music production applications work in real time.
> ...


 
  
 1. I don't really understand what you're saying but we can't write a distributable file in the project format. Typically we start with 24bit tracks, although they can be 16bit, other audio formats or some combination. Once these tracks are loaded into the DAW and any type of processing applied (even something as simple as changing the output level), we now have values of the internal mix buss to consider. Additionally we've got the bit depths and sample rates of each individual processor, which commonly varies. Just taking the master buss output, we've typically got 64bit float or 56bit fixed at whatever the sample rate chosen. How can this be written to a file format and distributed? Which audio file format?
  
 2. Again, it's not clear what you mean. I agree that ringing isn't much of an issue but not sure what you mean by "delay" and "more coefficients". Filtering and other processing at higher sample rates requires more calculations/resources, for example at 192kS/s there are four times more samples per second which have to be processed compared to 44.1.
  
 4. This is entertainment, not a weapon! 130dB is the threshold of pain and will cause hearing damage. In practice, pretty much all commercial recordings are 60dB or less.
 4a. The average plus a margin of error for "different peoples". EG. 20Hz - 20kHz.
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> 1. I don't really understand what you're saying but we can't write a distributable file in the project format. Typically we start with 24bit tracks, although they can be 16bit, other audio formats or some combination. Once these tracks are loaded into the DAW and any type of processing applied (even something as simple as changing the output level), we now have values of the internal mix buss to consider. Additionally we've got the bit depths and sample rates of each individual processor, which commonly varies. Just taking the master buss output, we've typically got 64bit float or 56bit fixed at whatever the sample rate chosen. How can this be written to a file format and distributed? Which audio file format?
> 
> 2. Again, it's not clear what you mean. I agree that ringing isn't much of an issue but not sure what you mean by "delay" and "more coefficients". Filtering and other processing at higher sample rates requires more calculations/resources, for example at 192kS/s there are four times more samples per second which have to be processed compared to 44.1.
> 
> ...


 

 1. I don't understand why you noted 56 bit.
 I will consider blow only DAW projects in 32/64-bit float point formats.
 In DAW data must stored in 32/64-bit float point format. May be some DAWs work unexpectable and I don't touch it here.
 Processing may (depend on DAW, interface, plugin) have other resolution.
 But results stored in native DAW project resolution (32/64-bit float point format).
 Both these format may be stored in WAV or AIFF audio files.
  
 2. In my post I was mistaken. There need IIR replace to FIR.
 Finite impulse response filter (FIR) easy allow to achieve linear phase response.
 It based on principle of convolution.
 To calculate current value, need have number values before current value.
 If we want calculate output response for sample #1000, that risen at current time. FIR have length #500.
 For calculation us need samples from #750 to #1250.
 I.e. output response of FIR filter have delay 250 samples.
  
 4. For me it is not entertainment. It is work.
 I develop algorithms for records, where level significantly lower -60 dB. I always keep in mind ability for any music production project as target.
  
 In audio no exact values. Because we can't access to foreign brain. Our brain also don't display numbers.
 There are some measured numbers. By experience we approximatelly know how it may sound.
 But, I think, nodody will guarantee subjective quality of sound, if he wait that will need to prove it.
  
 You written above: "Numbers which correspond with the limits of audibility, plus a bit of a safety margin."
  
 But I can't imagine how it possible. So I asked you for illustration of absence of *exact* link between measured numbers and real perception (limit of audibility).


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> 1. I don't understand why you noted 56 bit.
> [1a] Both these format may be stored in WAV or AIFF audio files.
> 4. You written above: "Numbers which correspond with the limits of audibility, plus a bit of a safety margin." But I can't imagine how it possible. So I asked you for illustration of absence of *exact* link between measured numbers and real perception (limit of audibility).


 
  
 1. That's the mix buss resolution of ProTools TDM systems, of which there are still many in current use.
 1a. Aiff has a maximum bit depth of 32bits, Wav the same as far as I'm aware. Regardless of whether it's technically possible to store bit greater than 32, I don't know of any DAWs which will write higher than 32bit files. Again, what you're suggesting is impossible and not to mention impractical.
  
 4. I gave you the freq range which has been widely accepted for decades.
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> 1. That's the mix buss resolution of ProTools TDM systems, of which there are still many in current use.
> 1a. Aiff has a maximum bit depth of 32bits, Wav the same as far as I'm aware. Regardless of whether it's technically possible to store bit greater than 32, I don't know of any DAWs which will write higher than 32bit files. Again, what you're suggesting is impossible and not to mention impractical.
> 
> 4. I gave you the freq range which has been widely accepted for decades.
> ...


 
  
 > Both these format may be stored in WAV or AIFF audio files.
 Ok. But it problematic for frocessing.
  
 > Aiff has a maximum bit depth of 32bits
 I'm sorry. I was wrong. AIFF support integer formats only standard way. Bit depth 1 ... 2^15 or 2^16 (16 bit variable that contains bit depth in chunk header). Though there standard limitation 32 bit per sample (one channel).
 Float point may be stored in AIFF, but need reading it as raw data.
  
 > Wav the same as far as I'm aware.
  
 For WAV bit depth is 1 ... 2^15 or 2^16 and there is standard subtype, that allow store float point values.
 If you want, you can use bit depth 1 ... 2^16.
  
 Main issue there in maximal file length with big size of samples/channel number.
 But it solved via WAV RF64 format (size 2^63 bytes) http://samplerateconverter.com/content/wav-64-bit-rf64-mbwf
  
 > Regardless of whether it's technically possible to store bit greater than 32, I don't know of any DAWs which will write higher than 32bit files.
  
 I suppose, today we can see not last DAWs  Also we don't know about absolutelly all DAWs.
  
  
 > Again, what you're suggesting is impossible and not to mention impractical.
  
 These words are abstract for me  When DAW end all processing, audio stuff stored float point format.
 Why do need other rounding (truncation bit depth, altering sample rate), if will need further processing?
 It may be not only resampling, but room correction.
  
  
 > I gave you the freq range which has been widely accepted for decades.
  
 May be it is single (or one among a few?) case, where you can link numbers with perception as close as possibly.
 Except significant individual deviation of upper and lower limits.
  
_Update information about AIFF (AIFF-C) and float point:_
  
 see (page 6) http://www-mmsp.ece.mcgill.ca/Documents/AudioFormats/AIFF/Docs/QT4Reference-extract.pdf
 "... QuickTime 3 has built-in support to decompress the following additional audio
 formats:
  
 single-precision floating point
  
 double-precision floating point ..."


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> 1. For WAV bit depth is 1 ... 2^15 or 2^16 and there is standard subtype, that allow store float point values. Main issue there in maximal file length with big size of samples/channel number. But it solved via WAV RF64 format.
> 
> 2. I suppose, today we can see not last DAWs  Also we don't know about absolutelly all DAWs.
> 3. These words are abstract for me  When DAW end all processing, audio stuff stored float point format.
> ...


 
  
 1. Wav natively supports 32bit float but not 64bit float as far as I'm aware. The RF64 variant increases the header size to allow greater than 4GB file size but not the data chunk size. I'm not absolutely certain of this though.
  
 2. We don't need to know all DAWs, just the most common commercially used ones, ProTools for example, which does not write greater than 32bit float files.
  
 3. No, none of the DAW processing is stored at all, it exists only virtually until a print format is chosen and then the mix is truncated or dithered down to that file format. Typically that would be 24 or 16bit and occasionally 32bit float as mentioned before. Even if it were possible, you're talking about massively increasing audio file sizes for the only benefit of avoiding truncation errors way below the thermal noise floor and several thousand times below the noise floor of the recording!
  
 4. Yes, those figures would be for exceeding few people and probably no adults, for the vast majority it would be a smaller range.
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> 1. Wav natively supports 32bit float but not 64bit float as far as I'm aware. The RF64 variant increases the header size to allow greater than 4GB file size but not the data chunk size. I'm not absolutely certain of this though.
> 
> 2. We don't need to know all DAWs, just the most common commercially used ones, ProTools for example, which does not write greater than 32bit float files.
> 
> ...


 
  
 1. It is not "natively"? See (page 11) http://www-mmsp.ece.mcgill.ca/Documents/AudioFormats/WAVE/Docs/multichaudP.pdf
  
 "An Example Using WAVEFORMATIEEEFLOATEX"
  
 May be you know that popular DAW (including audio editors) can't recognize WAV 32-bit float?
  
 2. I don't see source codes of the DAW. But 32-bit float is good enough for futher processing, in my opinion.
  
 3. Results of calculations may be stored in RAM or on disk in a temporary file. "Virtually" it is third way?
 Any conclusions possibly only arter learning source codes of a DAW.
 Thermal noise is matter of ADC and DAC.
 But, in my opinion, processing must be performed below this level for avoiding errors above the level.
  
 As example, try perform simplest 0.1 dB gain altering in integer format.
  
 So 32-bit float point format is minimal demanded, as I think.
 64-bit float point format allow avoid overload, if used big number of multiplications and sum.


----------



## StanD

So what is the practical use of a 0.1 dB gain adjustment if a human being could not possibly perceive this?


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> So what is the practical use of a 0.1 dB gain adjustment if a human being could not possibly perceive this?


 
  
 Human perception to level altering by collected information (not exact, approximate value) about 1...2 dB.
  
 Accept worse case 1 dB.
  
 Precision of measurement or altering recommended 3 ... 10 times better than changing range. It linked with suppositious normal distribution of error.
 So precision measutrement and altering is accepted about 0.1 dB.
  
 Why it need practically?
  
_Example:_
 After resampling overload may caused (oversampled peak level upper 0 dB, so-called "true peak level").
 If calculations will performed in integer, signal may be finally damaged.
 In float point it is not matter. Gain decrease on overload value.
  
 Here my practical implementation this algorithm http://samplerateconverter.com/content/how-maximize-loudness-audio-file-and-avoid-overload
 However, I don't round to 0.1 gain altering for calculations. There it have no sense. Because all calculations performend in 64-bit float point.
 For display used rounding for minimizing of details.
  
  
 As rule level measurer in DAW have 0.1 dB precision.
 So altering with 0.1 dB or better precision will displayed as 0.1 dB error in DAW.
 It is 10 times better than supposed audible altering of level.


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> Human perception to level altering by collected information (not exact, approximate value) about 1...2 dB.
> 
> Accept worse case 1 dB.
> 
> ...


 

 So, in other words, if one is not clipping it has no value. If one is clipping, reducing to a larger value that is still not audibly perceivable to a human will suffice.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> So, in other words, if one is not clipping it has no value. If one is clipping, reducing to a larger value that is still not audibly perceivable to a human will suffice.


 

 For float point formats overload may not be fixed.
 But it depend on, how it will processed further.
  
 In my opinion, in pro-audio, if overload 1 dB, need decrease gain on 1 dB with precision at least 10 times more.
 All work clear and no questions by users. Otherwise it waste attention of user for learning: why today there is 1 dB, but yesturday was 0.5 dB?
  
 However for integer formats both 1.0 dB and 0.1 dB are problematical.
*1 dB is 1.12201845430196, 0.1 dB is 1.0115794542599.*
 For performing such calculations float point formats are preferable.


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> For float point formats overload may not be fixed.
> But it depend on, how it will processed further.
> 
> In my opinion, in pro-audio, if overload 1 dB, need decrease gain on 1 dB with precision at least 10 times more.
> ...


 

 To human ears this is all indistinguishable.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> To human ears this is all indistinguishable.


 
  
 Processing can be used for analysis too.


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> 1. May be you know that popular DAW (including audio editors) can't recognize WAV 32-bit float?
> 
> 2. I don't see source codes of the DAW. But 32-bit float is good enough for futher processing, in my opinion.
> 
> ...


 
  
 1. I know the opposite! The most popular commercial DAW is ProTools and it can read and write 32bit float wavs!
  
 2. So is 24bit, which is the standard bit depth of mix files delivered to the mastering engineer. However, neither 24bit nor 32bit float are the native resolution of current commercial DAWs, which is what you're arguing for!
  
 3. No, they're only stored in RAM (virtually), they cannot be stored on disk as a file (temporary or otherwise).
 3a. No problem at all. I've been doing 0.1dB gain changes in ProTools for nearly 20 years. Most of which were on ProTools TDM systems (fixed point).
  
 4. 24bit is the industry standard for audio file exchange, both the music industry and the film industry. 32bit float does not have any more precision than a 24bit integer file, but allows for recoverable overload. 64bit just allows even more overload and lower truncation artefacts for even more processing steps and has comparable precision to the 56bit fixed used for summing in the older TDM systems. None of this affects the consumer though, who doesn't apply hundreds of processors/processing steps, 16bit is more than sufficient as a distribution format. There is absolutely no advantage to distributing 64bit/56bit files, only the disadvantage of increased file size.
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> 1. I know the opposite! The most popular commercial DAW is ProTools and it can read and write 32bit float wavs!
> 
> 2. So is 24bit, which is the standard bit depth of mix files delivered to the mastering engineer. However, neither 24bit nor 32bit float are the native resolution of current commercial DAWs, which is what you're arguing for!
> 
> ...


 
  
 1. Yes.
  
 2. and 3. Do you learned program source codes?
  
 > they cannot be stored on disk as a file (temporary or otherwise)
  
 How you detect it? It may depend on available memory.
  
 > No, they're only stored in RAM (virtually)
  
 It is really. It is physical electricity 
  
 > I've been doing 0.1dB gain changes in ProTools for nearly 20 years. Most of which were on ProTools TDM systems (fixed point).
  
 That I wrote above it is my _*opinion*_, based on experience and theoretical values also described above.
  
 You can base you _*opinion*_ on other values.
 But it is not _*absolute truth*_.
  
  
  
 > 24bit is the industry standard for audio file exchange, both the music industry and the film industry.
  
 Some times ago it was 16 bit. Before it was multichannel analog tape.
 I explained above why need new "standard".
  
  
 > 32bit float does not have any more precision than a 24bit integer file, but allows for recoverable overload.
 Try release processing in 24 and 32 bit, and compare noise level. Noise level is quantization error. The error value is precision.
  
  
 > 64bit just allows even more overload and lower truncation artefacts for even more processing steps and has comparable precision to the 56bit fixed used for summing in the older TDM systems.
  
 In C/C++ programming language no 56 bit values. So why need consider this format now?
  
  
 > None of this affects the consumer though, who doesn't apply hundreds of processors/processing steps, 16bit is more than sufficient as a distribution format. There is absolutely no advantage to distributing 64bit/56bit files, only the disadvantage of increased file size.
  
  
 There real dynamic range is not 100 dB. Need consider signal/noise ratio.
 Lesser level mean lesser signal/noise ratio.
  
 Let's maximal loud sound have level about 0 dB.
  
 Rustle of leaves (very quiet signal) have level about -100...110 dB, as example.
  
 Acoustically rustle of leaves have some signal/noise ratio.
  
 But for 16-bit record rustle of leaves have signal/noise ratio about 0 dB - drown in distortions.


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> To human ears this is all indistinguishable.


 
  
  


yuri korzunov said:


> Processing can be used for analysis too.


 
 One can use tools for analysis, however, there is no need to burden content creation or consumers with unnecessary overhead that has no redeeming value. One has to reach a point where anything more is unnecessary.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> One can use tools for analysis, however, there is no need to burden content creation or consumers with unnecessary overhead that has no redeeming value. One has to reach a point where anything more is unnecessary.


 

 Made separate masters for analysis and consumers?


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> Made separate masters for analysis and consumers?


 
 Or for most content producers the exercise is an unnecessary errand?


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> Or for most content producers the exercise is an unnecessary errand?


 

 Sorry for my English, but I'm not sure in correct understanding of meaning of the question.


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> Sorry for my English, but I'm not sure in correct understanding of meaning of the question.


 

 It was rhetorical in nature. The meaning is that it is probably not necessary for most if not all content producers.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> It was rhetorical in nature. The meaning is that it is probably not necessary for most if not all content producers.


 

 I hope, you can express an opinion of most or all producers


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> I hope, you can express an opinion of most or all producers


 
 I'll be glad to accommodate your request. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 If anyone asks for additional features like a 250 kHz upper end FR, I'll deny _hearing_ it.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> I'll be glad to accommodate your request.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Why is 250 kHz?
  
 What is FR?
  
 Who will ask you?


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> Why is 250 kHz?
> 
> What is FR?
> 
> Who will ask you?


 

 FR = Frequency Response.
 Ultrasonic FR is a point of humor
 Who will ask me is another point of humor, however, one can never tell.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> FR = Frequency Response.
> Ultrasonic FR is a point of humor
> Who will ask me is another point of humor, however, one can never tell.


 
  
 Clear.


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> 2. and 3. Do you learned program source codes?
> 
> [4] How you detect it? It may depend on available memory.
> [5] It is really. It is physical electricity
> ...


 
  
 2&3. I do not need to learn source code, I've read the manual/white papers and spoken with the programmers. Here's a white paper from 10-15 years ago.
  
 4. One monitors disk usage or asks the programmers. We're talking about software for commercial use, not home use/consumers, so we absolutely must know what is written to disk as this impacts performance and therefore system specification requirements. Again, no DAW I'm aware of writes temp summing buss files, nothing is written to disk until printing!
  
 5. It's in RAM, which is based on electricity.
  
 6. Those "other values" are having actually done it for a couple of decades and the thousands of others who also do it every day. That's about as "absolute truth" as it gets! You can theorise it's impossible all you like but all you have to do is ask someone who still owns a Protools TDM system, (other the me, if you don't believe me).
  
 7. You should compare the quantisation noise level! With 16bit it's about 30 times lower than the noise floor of the recordings themselves, which is why a new "standard" is not required!
  
 8. There is no quantisation noise level difference between 24bit and 32bit float!
  
 9. DSP chips do not work on C/C++, C/C++ code has to be compiled into the machine code relevant to the chip's instruction set. The DSP chips used in Protools TDM systems were Motorola 56bit DSP chips. You stated that we should distribute the original resolution of the  DAW, ProTools TDM is still a commonly used commercial DAW and therefore to fulfil your desire a format would have to be able to deal with that resolution.
  
 10. That's an ironical statement! Your example does not work in practice precisely because you have FAILED to consider signal/noise ratio!!
 10a. Let's actually look at the SNR or your example in practice:
 For leaves to be rustling there obviously needs to be some wind and the rustling has to be higher in level than the wind to be distinguishable. In the real world, that means the rustling is going to have to be at least about 60dBSPL. If that corresponds to -100dBFS then 0dBFS would correspond to 160dBSPL! Ignoring the fact that we can't actually record these SPL levels, if we were to scale this down to a listening environment then you won't be able to hear those leaves rustling at any bit depth! It would be beyond the limits of (un noise-shaped) 16bit and beyond the recording or listening environment noise floor with 24bit or higher, either way, it's inaudible due to SNR! Actually, when mixing films, I have to deal with rustling leaf noise reasonably often and due to SNR, it's level can never be lower than about -60dBFS (and typically needs to be much higher), which is of course well within the limits of 16bit. This doesn't just apply to leaf rustling of course; at any sensible listening level (well below pain/hearing damage) there is nothing audible outside the range allowed by 16bit.
  
 Without wishing to appear rude/insulting, I find it pretty shocking that a developer would not know the above. Maybe not the product specific details (of say ProTools) but the basic principles of why your suggestion (and above example) are nonsense in practice. It wouldn't be difficult in theory to create a format and write the DAW summing buss to a file, no one has ever done this simply because there are NO practical benefits/advantages, not even for file exchange between professionals, let alone for consumers! Maybe one day 64bit float files (for example) will be available to consumers but if so, it will be purely for marketing purposes, not for any practical SQ purposes.
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> 2&3. I do not need to learn source code, I've read the manual/white papers and spoken with the programmers. Here's a white paper from 10-15 years ago.
> 
> 4. One monitors disk usage or asks the programmers. We're talking about software for commercial use, not home use/consumers, so we absolutely must know what is written to disk as this impacts performance and therefore system specification requirements. Again, no DAW I'm aware of writes temp summing buss files, nothing is written to disk until printing!
> 
> ...


 
  
 > 2&3. I do not need to learn source code, I've read the manual/white papers and spoken with the programmers. Here's a white paper from 10-15 years ago.
  
 The paper dated 2001 (bottom of page 12). May be there something changed after 10-15 years? 
  
 > 4. We're talking about software for commercial use, not home use/consumers, so we absolutely must know what is written to disk as this impacts performance and therefore system specification requirements. Again, no DAW I'm aware of writes temp summing buss files, nothing is written to disk until printing!
  
 Consuming of disk usage for DAW is low cost operation, comparing math. So it may be below threshold visibility on monitor, as example.
 If you mean modern Pro Tools, it can work in usual "consumer's" Mac. I like it.
  
 > Again, no DAW I'm aware of writes temp summing buss files, nothing is written to disk until printing!
  
 Do you exactly know what inside any DAW any version?
  
 If we have enough memory, we can do all in RAM. What is trouble to use cache file? It don't impact to sound 
  
  
 > 6. Those "other values" are having actually done it for a couple of decades and the thousands of others who also do it every day. That's about as "absolute truth" as it gets! You can theorise it's impossible all you like but all you have to do is ask someone who still owns a Protools TDM system, (other the me, if you don't believe me).
  
 I design signal processing software and systems since 1990's, including career of project manager and team lead. Probably, I have a bit practical knowledges 
  
  
 > 7. You should compare the quantisation noise level! With 16bit it's about 30 times lower than the noise floor of the recordings themselves, which is why a new "standard" is not required!
  
 How you get 30 times? Show calculations, please.
  
  
 > 8. There is no quantisation noise level difference between 24bit and 32bit float!
  
 Show numbers and calculations, please.
  
 > 9. DSP chips do not work on C/C++, C/C++ code has to be compiled into the machine code relevant to the chip's instruction set.
 Software may be written on C. And compiled for DSP processor.
  
 > The DSP chips used in Protools TDM systems were Motorola 56bit DSP chips.
 In latest versions of hardware used these chips? Show proof link, please.
  
  
 > You stated that we should distribute the original resolution of the  DAW, ProTools TDM is still a commonly used commercial DAW and therefore to fulfil your desire a format would have to be able to deal with that resolution.
  
 No. I suggest, distribute in native resolution of DAW's *project*. I suppose, it is environment without 56 bit.
  
  
 > 10a.
  
 If you consider noise shaping, there need reserve of band. Easiest way to create the reserve is increasing o sample rate.
  
 You can reduce bit depth to 1 bit. And expand sample rate. It will work like 24 and more bit.
 But it is DSD 
 About complex of features [sample rate+operation band+reserve of band for noise+stability of noise shaper(modulator)] see here.


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> [1] The paper dated 2001 (bottom of page 12). May be there something changed after 10-15 years?
> 
> 4. If you mean modern Pro Tools, it can work in usual "consumer's" Mac. I like it.
> 
> ...


 
  
 1. Such as?
 4. Sure it can, it can even work on a cheap laptop. I'm talking about commercial use though! Hundreds of channels, hundreds of processors, limited bandwidth.
 5. I know enough, particularly about ProTools. Do you have any evidence of any DAW which does write summing buss caches?
 5a. Data bandwidth. Why write a high data density file when there's absolutely no benefit and when data bandwidth may already be at a premium? It's nonsensical!
 6. Then what you're suggesting is even more shocking!!!
 7. Typical dynamic range (signal to noise floor) of commercial recordings is 60dB or less. Which is more than 30dB less than that allowed by CD (without noise shaping). 30dB expressed as a voltage ratio is about 30 times (or precisely, 31.623 times).  How could you not know this if you've been a developer since the 90's?
 8. I can't be bothered! If you want to prove there is more precision and less quantisation error in a 32bit float file rather than 24bit integer, go ahead, let's see your calculations?
 9. That's what I said.
 9a. What has latest version got to do with it? I'm talking about versions commonly used commercially, that includes both ProTools TDM (56bit) and Protools HDX (64bit float).
 10. How can it be the native resolution of the DAW without 56bit if the native resolution of the DAW is 56bit?
 10a. If you read my reply, I wasn't considering noise-shaping. If I were, it would make your argument even sillier!
  
 G


----------



## Arpiben

@Yuri Korzunov
  
 Without any wish to interfere in the discussion, but for sake of clarity let me try to summarize my understanding:

Your wish or suggestion is to have a distribution in native resolution of DAW's project,
Your goal is to develop your own DAW or improve existing DAWs for pro & consumer end users.
  
 My maths years are quite far away but I do understand rounding,floating, etc issues.
 Nevertheless what I would be more interested in is what would be the added value or benefits of such?
 Can you estimate the advantages you are expecting?
 Rgds.


----------



## gregorio

arpiben said:


> @Yuri Korzunov
> 
> Your wish or suggestion is to have a distribution in native resolution of DAW's project,
> 
> Nevertheless what I would be more interested in is what would be the added value or benefits of such?


 
  
 The advantage of a DAW's resolution over say 24bit resolution is truncation or rounding errors down well below the -300dB level instead of at around -138dB. That's nonsense of course as far as the consumer is concerned, as even truncation 100 times higher in level (than -138dB) is typically inaudible. However this (-138dB) level of truncation/rounding error is a potential consideration when cumulatively summing together hundreds of such truncation/rounding processes which can occur during the processing/mixing of a recording.
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

arpiben said:


> @Yuri Korzunov
> 
> Without any wish to interfere in the discussion, but for sake of clarity let me try to summarize my understanding:
> 
> ...


 

 Hi @Arpiben,
  
 > Your wish or suggestion is to have a distribution in native resolution of DAW's project,
  
 Yes. Though may be some copyholders don't want do it by probable piracy reason.
 But technically, there no isuues.
  
 > Your goal is to develop your own DAW or improve existing DAWs for pro & consumer end users
  
 I thought about it. Currently we don't ready to creating serious DAW (midi+audio+automation+multy hardware compatibility), due limited resources.
 Though during development of our converter software we got successfull, as I think, implementations of technologies for 1-bit audio, that may be scaled in other products.
  
 I hope, this year we can show our new software (though as free demo). While I will not sound, that it is software (surprise . In the end of March 2017 it began to work in first approach.
  
  
 > Nevertheless what I would be more interested in is what would be the added value or benefits of such?
 > Can you estimate the advantages you are expecting?
  
 In studio workflow we have:
 1. Recording
 2. Mixing
 3. Post-production.
  
 First stage is taken in integer, of course. But it may be transformed to float point easy way for further calculations.
  
 Last two stages may passed thru several DAWs.
 Implementation of calculations are easier (transparent for programmer) in float point format.
 You worry nothing. Neither rounding, nor overload (especially for 64-bit float).
 Any time you can scale signal to frames that you need and almost don't lose something.
 You do many processings, but noise level remains about -170 ... 200 dB.
 Some pluging may work in integer format, as example. But, probably, with time it will replaced to new plugins that have float point interface and processing.
  
 Hence, for better keeping of quality, all-record transfer thru DAWs may be implemented in float point.
  
  
 I permanently collect information that is possible do with audio files.
  
 There are DSPs of end-users:
 1. Re-sampling/re-bit-depth/re-PCM/DSD.
 2. Room correction.
 3. Sound enchancing.
  
 I'd like keep studio quality (noise level) until DAC input.
  
  
*Resume*: for further end-user processings, I'd prefer float-point-audio-file distribution.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> The advantage of a DAW's resolution over say 24bit resolution is truncation or rounding errors down well below the -300dB level instead of at around -138dB. That's nonsense of course as far as the consumer is concerned, as even truncation 100 times higher in level (than -138dB) is typically inaudible. However this (-138dB) level of truncation/rounding error is a potential consideration when cumulatively summing together hundreds of such truncation/rounding processes which can occur during the processing/mixing of a recording.
> 
> G


 

 What about multiplying 24 bit integer on 0.9957367252 and same in pure integer environment?
 1000 times.
 For FIR as example?


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> What about multiplying 24 bit integer on 0.9957367252 and same in pure integer environment?
> 1000 times.
> For FIR as example?


 
  
 You're joking right, how can you not know this? Do that 1000 times at say 56bit or even 48bit integer and the error is where, somewhere down around -200dBFS? About 1,000 times below the error from truncating to 24bit which is another 100 or so times lower than audibility, that's just ridiculous!
  
 Quote:


yuri korzunov said:


> *Resume*: for further end-user processings, I'd prefer float-point-audio-file distribution.


 
  
 Honestly, that's a beginners misunderstanding, let alone a developer with 20 years experience! What's going on here, it this attempt at obfuscation leading up to marketing your product?
  
 The response to this for others: There is some benefit to higher integer or floating point processing capability if the end-user is going to be applying further processing. HOWEVER, this is an issue of the processing environment, NOT of the distribution format! This is the same basic issue as in the studio: We record at 16 or 24bit and then mix in a much higher bit depth environment. Although in the studio we often apply hundreds of different processor instances (and therefore thousands or many tens of thousands of calculation steps) rather than just one or a few processors.
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

> You're joking right, how can you not know this? Do that 1000 times at say 56bit or even 48bit integer and the error is where, somewhere down around -200dBFS? About 1,000 times below the error from truncating to 24bit which is another 100 or so times lower than audibility, that's just ridiculous!
  
 56bit and 48bit integer are not standard formats of PC programming languages.
 Also PC's CPU/FPU work with standard 32/64-bit float, isn't it?
  
 Do you know real alternatives between 24 and 32/64-bit floats with overload and precision advantages?
  
  
 Also:
  
 FIR's coefficient multiplication precision impact to exactness on filter features. It is not only noise matter.
  
 As example, for DSD modulator filter (there IIR, as rule) precision is big matter for providing of stability.
 Of course, it can be released on integer calculations. But it harder in design efforts. Or you need incease headroom reserve for input level overload. Why it need?
  
  
 Quote:


gregorio said:


> Honestly, that's a beginners misunderstanding, let alone a developer with 20 years experience! What's going on here, it this attempt at obfuscation leading up to marketing your product?
> 
> The response to this for others: There is some benefit to higher integer or floating point processing capability if the end-user is going to be applying further processing. HOWEVER, this is an issue of the processing environment, NOT of the distribution format! This is the same basic issue as in the studio: We record at 16 or 24bit and then mix in a much higher bit depth environment. Although in the studio we often apply hundreds of different processor instances (and therefore thousands or many tens of thousands of calculation steps) rather than just one or a few processors.
> 
> G


 
  
 > Honestly, that's a beginners misunderstanding, let alone a developer with 20 years experience!
  
 What you develop?
  
  
  
 > What's going on here, it this attempt at obfuscation leading up to marketing your product?
  
 "Obfuscation" and "marketing" it's technical argues? 
  
 I don't have label. I don't sell records. For my business is not matter there are either 24 bit or 32-bit float or other format.
*Give me 16-bit. I will process it *
  
  
  
 > We record at 16 or 24bit and then mix in a much higher bit depth environment. Although in the studio we often apply hundreds of different processor instances (and therefore thousands or many tens of thousands of calculation steps) rather than just one or a few processors.
  
 You written: "hundreds". It's so.
 Many algorithms mathematically are non-integer.
  
 It is reasons for using of float point and worry nothing about problems with:
  
 1. implemetation non-integer math as integer,
 2. precision and
 3. overload.


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> [1] > Honestly, that's a beginners misunderstanding, let alone a developer with 20 years experience! What you develop?
> 
> [2] "Obfuscation" and "marketing" it's technical argues?
> [3] You written: "hundreds". It's so. Many algorithms mathematically are non-integer.
> ...


 
  
 1. Hundreds of commercial music, TV and film products and you? Not that it matters though, this is all basic digital audio signal processing, something even audio engineering students are taught.
 2. Exactly!!
 3. I can't believe you still are not getting it. Is it even possible for a developer not to know? Those are all valid reasons for the processing environment to be say 32 or 64bit float, NOT the audio distribution format!!
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> 1. Hundreds of commercial music, TV and film products and you? Not that it matters though, this is all basic digital audio signal processing, something even audio engineering students are taught.
> 2. Exactly!!
> 3. I can't believe you still are not getting it. Is it even possible for a developer not to know? Those are all valid reasons for the processing environment to be say 32 or 64bit float, NOT the audio distribution format!!
> 
> G


 
  
 > Although in the studio we often apply hundreds of different processor instances (and therefore thousands or many tens of thousands of calculation steps) rather than just one or a few processors.
  
 I'm about number of applied processing.
  
 > Hundreds of commercial music, TV and film products and you?
  
 What you mean?
  
  
 > Is it even possible for a developer not to know?
  
 Also technical argue?
  
  
 > Honestly, that's a beginners misunderstanding, let alone a developer with 20 years experience!
  
 What you develop?


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> [1] I'm about number of applied processing.
> [2] Also technical argue? [3] What you develop?


 

 1. Why? You think a consumer is going to apply more processors than a mastering engineer or Re-recording Mixer?
 2. No, it's not possible to have a technical argument with someone who doesn't know or is trying to obfuscate the technicalities, that's my point!
 3. Hundreds of commercial music, TV and film products.
 What have you developed? And, what has what I've or you've developed go to do with knowing the basics of DAW digital signal processing?
  
 G


----------



## StanD

Sounds like this another attempt to fondle some esoteric concepts that lack any practical application and couldn't possibly add value to the human experience. All I see here is an endless technical argument that eschews any real application. I think we should move onto some other topic.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> 1. Why? You think a consumer is going to apply more processors than a mastering engineer or Re-recording Mixer?
> 2. No, it's not possible to have a technical argument with someone who doesn't know or is trying to obfuscate the technicalities, that's my point!
> 3. Hundreds of commercial music, TV and film products.
> What have you developed? And, what has what I've or you've developed go to do with knowing the basics of DAW digital signal processing?
> ...


 
  
  
 > No, it's not possible to have a technical argument with someone who doesn't know or is trying to obfuscate the technicalities, that's my point!
  
 Interestingly, what is my profit from "obfuscation"?
  
  
  
 > You think a consumer is going to apply more processors than a mastering engineer or Re-recording Mixer?
  
 See here.
  
  
  
 > Honestly, that's a beginners misunderstanding, let alone a *developer* with 20 years experience!
 > Hundreds of commercial music, TV and film products.
  
 How called your job?
  
  
  
 > And, what has what I've or you've developed go to do with knowing the basics of DAW digital signal processing?

 In DAW used some especial kind of digital signal processing?
  
  
 You wrote:
 > What's going on here, it this attempt at obfuscation leading up to marketing your product?
 > What have you developed?
  
 You don't know what is my business? Why you write: "obfuscation leading up to marketing your product"?
  
 I develop audio conversion software. Go to link at my signature and check my skills.
  
 Unfortunatelly, previous my works in radio communication branch you can't download from Internet and install at PC


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> [1] Interestingly, what is my profit from "obfuscation"?
> [2] "You think a consumer is going to apply more processors than a mastering engineer or Re-recording Mixer?" See here.
> [3] In DAW used some especial kind of digital signal processing?
> [4] You don't know what is my business? Why you write: "obfuscation leading up to marketing your product"?


 
  
 1. You're joking right? It's a common audiophile marketing tactic to obfuscate the facts and solve "problems" which are way beyond audibility.
 2. So that would be a "no" then. You also wrote in your referenced post: "I'd like keep studio quality (noise level) until DAC input." - The noise floor of the recording after mastering would typically be -60dBFS or higher, therefore a dynamic range of 60dB. What would you gain exactly by distributing this 60dB dynamic range in say a 64bit float file instead of a 16bit file? And don't keep saying "truncation or rounding error when processing", because you can simply load that 16bit file into a 32 or 64bit container for processing and keep truncation or rounding error way below what's even possible to reproduce!
 3. Because unless there's an unbelievable lack of knowledge/understanding here, that's the only explanation which makes sense!
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> 1. You're joking right? It's a common audiophile marketing tactic to obfuscate the facts and solve "problems" which are way beyond audibility.
> 2. So that would be a "no" then. You also wrote in your referenced post: "I'd like keep studio quality (noise level) until DAC input." - The noise floor of the recording after mastering would typically be -60dBFS or higher, therefore a dynamic range of 60dB. What would you gain exactly by distributing this 60dB dynamic range in say a 64bit float file instead of a 16bit file? And don't keep saying "truncation or rounding error when processing", because you can simply load that 16bit file into a 32 or 64bit container for processing and keep truncation or rounding error way below what's even possible to reproduce!
> 3. Because unless there's an unbelievable lack of knowledge/understanding here, that's the only explanation which makes sense!
> 
> G


 
  
 Sorry, but it is very interesting:
 > Honestly, that's a beginners misunderstanding, let alone a *developer* with 20 years experience!
 > Hundreds of commercial music, TV and film products.
  
 How called your job?


----------



## LazyListener

gregorio said:


> 2. By definition, EDM is mostly constructed with synths and samplers, it's very heavily processed and in addition is just about the most highly compressed music genre. So fewer bits are required for the limited dynamic range and there aren't all the natural harmonics to worry about, so no benefit of high sample rates either. In practise, no one can tell Hires from CD in blind testing any way, so hires is only really of theoretical benefit for any music genre.
> 
> 3. IMO, subjective auditory benefits are the only benefits of Hires and that there aren't any objective auditory benefits.
> 
> 4. In general "objectivists" are quick to explain what people think they hear as "perceptual biases" caused by various forms of marketing/suggestion because that's what ALL the reliable evidence indicates and, there is no objective measurement which accounts for many of the reported perceived differences! The problem with any argument counter to this, a massive logical hole! Which is simply: *If we can't objectively measure it, we can't record it.* This is true of audio recording since it was invented in the C19th to the latest digital technology. Tape recorders, ADCs, etc., contain no magic spells, they are entirely science/engineering based devices, which effective measure/convert energy which is stored and then replayed. Therefore, if you are hearing something which cannot be objectively measured then it cannot be anything other than a trick of your perception ("perceptual biases")! For example, have a look at this brief video, there is not, nor can there ever be, an objective audio measurement of the difference between baa and faa.


 
 2.  Still don't understand why you say EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res.  You seem to be of the opinion that Hi-Res sources with sampling rates above 44.1 khz don't provide ANY perceivable auditory benefit, and I don't necessarily disagree.  If that's the case then genre should make no difference.  Whether the music is created electronically or acoustically should make no difference.  Digital processing, dynamic range, number of bits, all that should make no difference.  Sampling rates above 44.1 khz either have a perceivable auditory benefit or they don't, regardless of music genre.
  
 4.  So my basic argument here was that the PM-3 made the fast synths in some Skrillex songs sound hyper detailed, probably due, at least in part, to the planar magnetic design.  You were quick to offer up that what I heard was probably "perceptual biases" from marketing.  Why would you jump to that conclusion?  I think it's more likely that the headphones themselves had something to do with what I heard.  Physical characteristics of the headphones would obviously be an objective thing, not subjective.  Why jump to subjective explanation without offering possible objective explanations?
  
 "If we can't objectively measure it, we can't record it."  This is probably true.  However, we are not talking about recording.  We are talking about hearing.  Recording is limited by the capabilities of the instruments and equipment used to record.  Measuring equipment is also limited in its capabilities.  Is it possible that human hearing may have capabilities that today's instrumentation cannot objectively measure?  Is it possible that science hasn't discovered the necessary methodology yet to accurately and objectively measure certain aspects of human hearing?  Are you comfortable in saying that science has discovered everything there is to know about accurately and objectively being able to measure and explain human hearing?
  
 Not with the McGurk Effect again.  I'm not saying perceptual biases don't exist.  Baa and Faa is easily explained -- years and years of conditioning to associate specific lip and mouth movements with specific sounds.  How did Oppo, the maker of the PM-3 headphone, or even the headphone industry as a whole, pre-condition me to associate something (what, I don't know) with the incredible detail in Skrillex riffs I heard?  Or is it more likely that some objective aspect of the headphones themselves was responsible for what I heard?  You can't tell me that all headphones have the same ability to reproduce detail and that all the variations in detail that people hear are due to subjective biases.
  
 My question to all you objectivists, is can the planar magnetic driver design provide a faster and more detailed (better resolving) headphone than a dynamic driver design?  Also, which objective measurements of a headphone would show the level of detail and resolution that a headphone is capable of?


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

lazylistener said:


> My question to all you objectivists, is can the planar magnetic driver design provide a faster and more detailed (better resolving) headphone than a dynamic driver design?  Also, which objective measurements of a headphone would show the level of detail and resolution that a headphone is capable of?


 
  
 1. Details may be considered as specrtral components.
  
 2. Distortions and noise may mask these details.
  
 3. Distortions measurement may be covered as measurement input/output amplitude response for each frequency in operation band.
 For measurements may be used SPL-meter and generator.
  
 4. Operation band have different unevenness for each level value. It is other projection of point #3.
  
 I consider unevenness of band in range 0 ... 20 kHz as good.
  
 5. Main issue during considering of measurements, that published in manuals results may be integrated or fragmentary.
 However comparison of detailed results (point #3 and #4) may also cause ussiues of comparison.
 Because one tested headphomes may better work at higher levels, but other - for lower levels, as example.
 So we can't estimate absolute advantages one of headphones.
 Also need refer to ear sensitivity frequency curve.


----------



## LazyListener

stand said:


> Sounds like this another attempt to fondle some esoteric concepts that lack any practical application and couldn't possibly add value to the human experience. All I see here is an endless technical argument that eschews any real application. I think we should move onto some other topic.


 

 While I personally don't mind them discussing whatever topic they desire, as long as it's not off-topic entirely, I also much more appreciate discussion linking objective measurements and concepts to some real world perceivable experiences.
  
 With that said, maybe someone can answer my question:  Which objective measurements of a headphone quantify the perceivable detail/resolution we hear?  I know frequency response is one of them.  Harmonic distortion, another?  What else?  Also, do the existing gamut of measurements tell us the whole story about detail/resolution of a headphone, or is it possible that our ears are objectively picking up certain aspects of the sound that existing equipment and testing methods do not completely capture?  Please don't get into subjectivity and how the brain perceives sound.  Let's try to stay "objective" shall we?


----------



## LazyListener

How is frequency response of a headphone typically measured?  Is it a tone sweep with only a specific frequency being generated at one time?  If this is true, then you do not have a wide range of frequencies (bass and treble) interacting with each other in the earcup chamber like you do with music, which would affect the sound, no?  So a frequency response test of a headphone is not a real world scenario, because with music playing, you have a bunch of varying frequencies being generated very quickly and interacting with one another.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

lazylistener said:


> How is frequency response of a headphone typically measured?  Is it a tone sweep with only a specific frequency being generated at one time?  If this is true, then you do not have a wide range of frequencies (bass and treble) interacting with each other in the earcup chamber like you do with music, which would affect the sound, no?  So a frequency response test of a headphone is not a real world scenario, because with music playing, you have a bunch of varying frequencies being generated very quickly and interacting with one another.


 
  
 1. Yes. Seep sine. Or fixed sine via step. Better way sequientially.
 For measurements, other cup should be muted acoustically. Electrical disconnection may cause changes in electrical scheme of headphome and cause changing of measurement results.
  
 Measured headphone cup shouls be isolated from foreign environment. As example, placed in acoustic isolated anechoic box/room.
  
 In headphome cup need insert stub with microphone. I suppose, as the stub may be used ear model from materials what same to human head (there may be different detalization, including modeling skin and bones, or integrated acoustic response).
  
 I'm not headphone manufacturer. I talk, how I would do it.
  
  
 2. Music it is kit of sines at different frequencies.
  
 Quality defined, how provided transfer 1 sine at 1 frequency.
 If it provided with distortions, in music you will have these distortions too.
  
  
 Music too complex signal for estimation of audio device. We can't decode results.
  
 3. There also other details, like intermodulations (you mentioned "interacting with one another.").
 But how it will interact defined by measurements in points #3 and #4 from my previous post.


----------



## StanD

lazylistener said:


> How is frequency response of a headphone typically measured?  Is it a tone sweep with only a specific frequency being generated at one time?  If this is true, then you do not have a wide range of frequencies (bass and treble) interacting with each other in the earcup chamber like you do with music, which would affect the sound, no?  So a frequency response test of a headphone is not a real world scenario, because with music playing, you have a bunch of varying frequencies being generated very quickly and interacting with one another.


 
 I posted this several pages back, perhaps it'll answer some questions.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room/3420#post_13397774


----------



## castleofargh

apparently a drunk compatriot of mine proved once and for all that cables do matter as he died trying to climb down from the 9Th floor of his apartment using an Ethernet cable.


----------



## gregorio

lazylistener said:


> 2.  Still don't understand why you say EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res.  You seem to be of the opinion that Hi-Res sources with sampling rates above 44.1 khz don't provide ANY perceivable auditory benefit, and I don't necessarily disagree.  If that's the case then genre should make no difference.  Whether the music is created electronically or acoustically should make no difference.  Digital processing, dynamic range, number of bits, all that should make no difference.  Sampling rates above 44.1 khz either have a perceivable auditory benefit or they don't, regardless of music genre.
> 
> 4.  So my basic argument here was that the PM-3 made the fast synths in some Skrillex songs sound hyper detailed, probably due, at least in part, to the planar magnetic design.  You were quick to offer up that what I heard was probably "perceptual biases" from marketing.  Why would you jump to that conclusion?
> 
> ...


 
  
 2. Samplers and syths have restricted dynamic ranges and frequency ranges compared to many acoustic instruments or groups of acoustic instruments. Hires digital audio formats allows the recording of those frequencies produced by acoustic instruments which are beyond the limits of standard res. Whereas with EDM there is generally nothing beyond the frequency limit of standard res to capture/record. Now whether we can hear or be audibly influenced by those frequencies that some acoustic instruments produce beyond the 22kHz limit of standard res is another question, the answer to which IMO is "no". But purely from the point of accuracy (rather than audibility) EDM and other electronic genres benefit the least from hires.
  
 4. Because your use of the term "high resolution" was incorrect. "High resolution" is a term with the specific meaning of digital audio formats which exceed CD format. That meaning is was I was therefore responding to, not your incorrect use of it to describe the performance of your headphones.
  
 4a. No, it's definitely true! Recording is essentially converting one form of energy into another form (acoustical energy into electrical energy) and then converting that electrical energy into another form of energy (or a digital encapsulation of that energy) for storage and then reversing that process for reproduction. How could we perform any of these conversion processes if we can't measure what we're converting from or what we're converting to? Audio recording is a well established technology (science + engineering), no magic involved!
 4b. Of course we're talking about recordings, what else is it that you're listening to on your headphones?
 4c. No I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is that your question (and my, your or anyone else's answer to it) is completely irrelevant! Maybe there is something that that science cannot explain or measure but if there is, it doesn't exist in the recordings to which you're listening because recording is a technology and can only contain what is explained and measurable!
  
 5. Really, have you never heard of marketing? The WHOLE POINT of marketing is to create biases and in addition to the marketing of the specific product, there is also the longer term marketing of the company itself, it's brand-name/reputation relative to other similar companies selling. In addition to this, there are other even longer term pre-conditioning biases, for example the expectation that a far more expensive product (headphone) has superior performance compared to a cheaper one. There is no doubt that your perception is influenced by biases but there are also differences between headphones well within the limits of audibility, so it's impossible to say how much of your observation/opinion of your headphones is based on actual audible factors and how much is based on figments of your perception. However, just to re-iterate, I was responding to your use of "high resolution" in regards to certain digital audio formats, which would have necessitated your observations/opinions of differences being due solely to figments of your perception.
  
 G


----------



## VNandor

Just to point out, at least some of the synths are capable to make ultrasonic sound. It can be many many times "louder" than any real-world instrument. I also doubt that synths has less dynamic range than a recording, I cold easily make a sine that went from ~ -70dBFS to 0dBFS. Isn't that 70dB of dynamic range which most likely surpasses a lot of recordings?
 Of course it might not be a matter since edm uses a lot of compression and limiting, and so far, I haven't seen any edm producers using a 0-96kHz EQ or using oversampling to preserve ultra high frequencies. I also haven't seen a single high resolution release from any electronic music producer.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> Just to point out, at least some of the synths are capable to make ultrasonic sound.


 
 Yes, the analog synths could produce ultrasonics. And we live in a time when there is a fascination with analog synths, so they are fairly thick on the ground.  But digital synths and sampling synths seem to be hanging at 16/48, thus very little ultrasonic capability.  


vnandor said:


> It can be many many times "louder" than any real-world instrument.


 
 Analog synth ultrasonic content may possibly be "louder" than some instruments, but it would be incorrect to say "louder than any real world instrument". It's kind of a moot point anyway because regardless of how the sound originates it still must be captured, recorded, manipulated then made into some form that can be distributed. And that form is 16/44.1, so it doesn't matter what the original sound has for ultrasonics, they're gone either way by the time the recording gets to release.


vnandor said:


> I also doubt that synths has less dynamic range than a recording, I cold easily make a sine that went from ~ -70dBFS to 0dBFS. Isn't that 70dB of dynamic range which most likely surpasses a lot of recordings?


 
 The fact that you could doesn't mean that it's useful musically. The fact is, EDM music is some of the lowest dynamic range of any type made today. Playing a synth patch, assuming a touch/velocity sensitive keyboard, still has to be very limited in dynamic range because it's impossible to actually play a patch with 70dB of touch sensitive dynamic expression built in. It's a matter of performability, and how you get that all into an already loud/dense mix. I'll back up gregorio here. Synths have more restricted dynamic range than many acoustic instruments.


----------



## pinnahertz

lazylistener said:


> 4.  So my basic argument here was that the PM-3 made the fast synths in some Skrillex songs sound hyper detailed, probably due, at least in part, to the planar magnetic design.


 
 I'm confused by what is meant by a "fast synth". I listened to some Skillex, I don't hear anything I would describe as "fast" other than many notes being played quickly. 


lazylistener said:


> You were quick to offer up that what I heard was probably "perceptual biases" from marketing.  Why would you jump to that conclusion?  I think it's more likely that the headphones themselves had something to do with what I heard.  Physical characteristics of the headphones would obviously be an objective thing, not subjective.  Why jump to subjective explanation without offering possible objective explanations?


 
 Sure, the headphones presentation complimented what you like about the music, most likely in simple frequency response though. The results of the physical nature of the construction of headphones is always a difference in performance. But when you add to that perception bias, that's when you get what you think you are hearing.


lazylistener said:


> My question to all you objectivists, is can the planar magnetic driver design provide a faster and more detailed (better resolving) headphone than a dynamic driver design?  Also, which objective measurements of a headphone would show the level of detail and resolution that a headphone is capable of?


 
 First of all, "faster" is a term being misapplied to a particular set of listener observations. In reality the term implies something to do with speed. Speed and FR are inseparable when you include amplitude (as you must). If you change speed, you change response for a given amplitude. Once you increase speed such that response and amplitude within the audio band are no longer modified (by speed being too slow), it no longer affects the signal being presented.  More likely what you're referring to is transient response, measured by damping and overshoot.  That's somewhat related to high frequency response, but is more complex, and not simply a "speed" issue, though many misidentify it as such.
  
 The planar magnetic folks tout those drivers as being detailed and "fast".  They actually use the terms.  " ...planar magnetic diaphragm moves faster and with far greater accuracy to the input signal."--from Audeze.  Now, what do you think you'll hear if you read all of that and bought the headphones?  Moreover, is it true?  Turns out, yes, some of the planar magnetics show good transient response with minimal overshoot and good damping.  But, so do many dynamics.  In fact, when you look at tests of both you'll see remarkably similar transient response in some cases.  Some IEM designs actually beat the PMs in terms of overshoot and damping (oh, and price). 
  
But the big differences are, and always have been, Frequency Response.


----------



## VNandor

pinnahertz said:


> Yes, the analog synths could produce ultrasonics. And we live in a time when there is a fascination with analog synths, so they are fairly thick on the ground.  But digital synths and sampling synths seem to be hanging at 16/48, thus very little ultrasonic capability.
> Analog synth ultrasonic content may possibly be "louder" than some instruments, but it would be incorrect to say "louder than any real world instrument". It's kind of a moot point anyway because regardless of how the sound originates it still must be captured, recorded, manipulated then made into some form that can be distributed. And that form is 16/44.1, so it doesn't matter what the original sound has for ultrasonics, they're gone either way by the time the recording gets to release.
> The fact that you could doesn't mean that it's useful musically. The fact is, EDM music is some of the lowest dynamic range of any type made today. Playing a synth patch, assuming a touch/velocity sensitive keyboard, still has to be very limited in dynamic range because it's impossible to actually play a patch with 70dB of touch sensitive dynamic expression built in. It's a matter of performability, and how you get that all into an already loud/dense mix. I'll back up gregorio here. Synths have more restricted dynamic range than many acoustic instruments.


 

 Seems like you didn't read the second part of my post and other people's post in general.
  
 You also missed the point why I noted that a synth can make much louder ultrasonic sound than an instrument would. Gregorio said edm wouldn't profit of high resolution because synths has a more limited bandwidth and less dynamic range compared to an instrument. I pointed out that those limitations aren't presented because of the synthesisers. Theoretically one could make a more dynamic sound with more more high frequency content with a synth than with an instrument. So it could benefit from high resolution just as much as any instrument. However practically speaking the "just as much benefit" is zero of course because we don't really hear anything above 20kHz and the point of the drop is to be loud.
  
 As a side note, I used FL studio's sytrus (software) to see if I can make ultrasonics. It's a digital FM (or PM if you want to get technical) synthesiser. I assume it's not the only digital synth that can do such things.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> apparently a drunk compatriot of mine proved once and for all that cables do matter as he died trying to climb down from the 9Th floor of his apartment using an Ethernet cable.


 

 The elevator/lift has a much better cable and the ride is much more comfortable.
 Talk about ultrasonics, that Ethernet cable goes way over that FR and see what good that did him.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> Seems like you didn't read the second part of my post and other people's post in general.



 ??? 





vnandor said:


> You also missed the point why I noted that a synth can make much louder ultrasonic sound than an instrument would.



No, I didn't miss that, I responded to it. And my response was, they could, but it doesn't matter. 





vnandor said:


> Gregorio said edm wouldn't profit of high resolution because synths has a more limited bandwidth and less dynamic range compared to an instrument.



And he is correct. 





vnandor said:


> I pointed out that those limitations aren't presented because of the synthesisers.



A digital synth is every bit as limited in bandwidth as a digital recording. Acoustic instruments don't have those limits. Gregorio is right. 





vnandor said:


> Theoretically one could make a more dynamic sound with more more high frequency content with a synth than with an instrument.



 Theoretically I could make a synth with spectrum well into the RF band. But we don't do that. And we aren't talking about a theoretical, non-existant device, we're talking about reality. 





vnandor said:


> So it could benefit from high resolution just as much as any instrument. However practically speaking the "just as much benefit" is zero of course because we don't really hear anything above 20kHz and the point of the drop is to be loud.



So, you're saying a synth would benefit from high resolution as much as any, but that benefit is zero. In terms of audible benefit, I agree. In terms of reproducing a waveform accurately, I would say some acoustic instruments do have ultrasonic content, some analog synths could (depending on the patch), but typically don't. No digital synth has ultrasonic content. If reproducing ultrasonic content is important to fully and accurately reproducing a waveform, then high res benefits some acoustic, some analog and no digital synths. But we don't care about that, it's unimportant to audibility, so why are we still talking about it then? 





vnandor said:


> As a side note, I used FL studio's sytrus (software) to see if I can make ultrasonics. It's a digital FM (or PM if you want to get technical) synthesiser. I assume it's not the only digital synth that can do such things.


 
 So, not knowing your results, I would assume the maximum frequency to come through the final DAC depends on the sampling frequency. So, if the software's algorithms will run at 96kHz, and you output to a DAC at 96kHz, you could get ultrasonics. But it doesn't matter because a commercial recording isn't released at 96kHz.


----------



## VNandor

> A digital synth is every bit as limited in bandwidth as a digital recording. Acoustic instruments don't have those limits.


 
 Acoustic instruments do not have this limit, however how loud harmonics are have a limit. In a recording, the content above 20kHz is tipically below -50dB and if you record instruments, it will always be. With a synth it's possible to make a sound that gets completely lost after downsampling to 44.1kHz. Therefore theoretically a genre that uses synths has more potential benefits from hi-res than a recording (if you record instruments).


> And we aren't talking about a theoretical, non-existant device, we're talking about reality.So, you're saying a synth would benefit from high resolution as much as any, but that benefit is zero. In terms of audible benefit, I agree. In terms of reproducing a waveform accurately,


 
 I think we weren't talking about reality. We were talking about how electronic music would benefit less from high resolution than recorded music. It doesn't have to do much with reality. At least I replied in this context.
  
  


> No digital synth has ultrasonic content. If reproducing ultrasonic content is important to fully and accurately reproducing a waveform, then high res benefits some acoustic, some analog and no digital synths.


 
 You are mistaken if you think all digital synth operates at 44.1kHz or if you think it always downsamples the output to 44.1 kHz. Digital synths in fact, can produce ultasonic content.


pinnahertz said:


> But we don't care about that, it's unimportant to audibility, so why are we still talking about it then?So, not knowing your results, I would assume the maximum frequency to come through the final DAC depends on the sampling frequency. So, if the software's algorithms will run at 96kHz, and you output to a DAC at 96kHz, you could get ultrasonics. But it doesn't matter because a commercial recording isn't released at 96kHz.


 
 I used 192kHz in the daw and my souncard operates 192kHz as well. The highest harmonic of the tone I created were at ~96kHz. (Again, using a digital synth). The synth can do a 64x oversampling and I assume the standard sampling rate of the synth would be 44.1kHz. If I had a daw and  a sound card capable of doing 384kHz sampling rate and could use the synth in that daw, I could get it to produce even higher harmonics but this is a speculation on my part. I guess the original reason to include oversampling was to reduce/remove  possible alias artifacts.
  
 We can agree on that none of this matters, however assuming a synth has a more limited dynamic range than an instrument is flat out wrong. 
  
 If you recorded an instrument at 192kHz sampling and downsampled it to 44.1 kHz you would only lose the extremely quiet higher harmonics, which is only a little part of the sound. You can synthesize a sound that has the fundamental at 40kHz so after downsampling to 44.1kHz all the sound would be lost.
  
 After all a synthesizer might be more band limited than an instrument but in the case above, the synth would clearly benefit much more from a higher sampling rate than the recording.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> Acoustic instruments do not have this limit, however how loud harmonics are have a limit. In a recording, the content above 20kHz is tipically below -50dB and if you record instruments, it will always be.


 
 Be careful with absolutes like "always". Many percussion instruments have ultrasonic content, and lots of it. Anything that involves striking metal, for example. As for your "typical" figures of -50dB, as you might know, for any dB figure to be meaningful it must have a reference (it's a ratio after all). A struck triangle will get you ultrasonics above -50dB relative to it's fundamental (that's the reference).


vnandor said:


> With a synth it's possible to make a sound that gets completely lost after downsampling to 44.1kHz.


 
 True with acoustic instruments too. Point?


vnandor said:


> Therefore theoretically a genre that uses synths has more potential benefits from hi-res than a recording (if you record instruments).


 
 Perhaps, again if we're looking at waveform accuracy and not audibility. But the same is true of certain acoustic instruments, so I see absolutely no point in the differentiation.


vnandor said:


> I think we weren't talking about reality. We were talking about how electronic music would benefit less from high resolution than recorded music. It doesn't have to do much with reality.


 
 Any discussion of benefit as it relates to audio recording must be related to reality. So far you keep referencing the theoretical, not reality.


vnandor said:


> You are mistaken if you think all digital synth operates at 44.1kHz or if you think it always downsamples the output to 44.1 kHz. Digital synths in fact, can produce ultasonic content.


 
 I didn't say 44.1. My example was 48, but small point. I never mentioned downsampling.
  
 Now perhaps we should define what a digital "synth" is. I was referring to self-contained hardware synthesizers with or without keyboards. I haven't done an exhaustive search, but so far I don't find a single one that goes beyond 48kHz, though I admit mostly it is not a published specification. With the extensive processing involved I would not expect a 96kHz synth to be practical or necessary.


vnandor said:


> I used 192kHz in the daw and my souncard operates 192kHz as well. The highest harmonic of the tone I created were at ~96kHz. (Again, using a digital synth).


 
 I believe I've already mentioned that combination: software and a sound card. That's not what I was referring to. But assuming you have that, what's your final output? And your release format? My point is, it doesn't matter.


vnandor said:


> The synth can do a 64x oversampling and I assume the standard sampling rate of the synth would be 44.1kHz.


 
 Oversampling and the ability to produce ultrasonics are two very different things. And you might be assuming a bit much. Have you actually produced a sound and applied spectrum analysis? Might this not be a rather special case confined you that specific combination?


vnandor said:


> If I had a daw and  a sound card capable of doing 384kHz sampling rate and could use the synth in that daw, I could get it to produce even higher harmonics but this is a speculation on my part. I guess the original reason to include oversampling was to reduce/remove  possible alias artifacts.


 I would speculate that internal processing in a software synth is more limited by processor speed, patch complexity, and the degree of polyphony. Demanding the software do all of that but at 384kHz would be not only pointless but would demand compromises in what the synth could do. The first choice I would think would be to drop polyphony. But, software synths have to run inside a DAW, and that DAW has lots of other things to do. Generating infinite ultrasonics from a synth would be the first thing a developer would eliminate in favor of system performance.
  
 I think it unlikely that the ability of a software synth to output ultrasonics actually tracks DAW sampling rate.  But it wouldn't matter if it did as all of that is inaudible and getting filtered off for release to the world.


vnandor said:


> We can agree on that none of this matters, however assuming a synth has a more limited dynamic range than an instrument is flat out wrong.


 
 Assuming we are talking about he same thing...dynamic range = total variance between loud and soft. No, I don't agree, because if a synth were programmed for wider dynamic range as a result of velocity than a piano, for example, it would become unplayable. So possible, not practical, not done.


vnandor said:


> vnandor said:
> 
> 
> > If you recorded an instrument at 192kHz sampling and downsampled it to 44.1 kHz you would only lose the extremely quiet higher harmonics, which is only a little part of the sound. You can synthesize a sound that has the fundamental at 40kHz so after downsampling to 44.1kHz all the sound would be lost.
> ...


----------



## gregorio

vnandor said:


> Just to point out, at least some of the synths are capable to make ultrasonic sound.
> It can be many many times "louder" than any real-world instrument. I also doubt that synths has less dynamic range than a recording, I cold easily make a sine that went from ~ -70dBFS to 0dBFS. Isn't that 70dB of dynamic range which most likely surpasses a lot of recordings?
> I also haven't seen a single high resolution release from any electronic music producer.


 
  
 There's a few misconceptions here and with your subsequent posts, mostly due to an error in nomenclature. It's not even really your error in nomenclature but an error in the industry.
  
 Most of the instruments used in EDM are called "synths" but really aren't. Even the slightly more accurate term of "soft-synths" is still inaccurate because they are not really synthesizers. Most of them are effectively elaborate sample manipulation and playback devices, almost like a sort of mini "rack" of equipment (including compressors, delays, reverbs, etc.). Apart from some synth envelop type options many of these "synths" don't really "synthesize" anything! The sounds they produce are typically patches which are often fairly complex and ultimately based on some standard (or even low) res sample which is looped and highly processed. Some of this processing may indeed create ultra-sonic content, compression IMD for example, but that can be achieved/maintained by the soft-synth locally up-sampling and then down-sampling.
  
 Secondly, with an actual synth, yes, theoretically you can create almost any amount of frequency range and a large dynamic range BUT, I was not responding to what is theoretically possible but the reality of the EDM marketplace. What EDM is designed for (large and loud but limited dynamic and frequency range PA systems), how synths are employed in this genre in practise and how EDM is mixed/produced.
  
 G


----------



## StanD

Classically Synths are comprised of Analog Computer circuitry. They fell into two categories; Additive or Subtractive. Subtractive being the original method where VCF's (Voltage Controlled Filters) affected tone and VCF's (Voltage Controlled Amplifiers) in conjunction with Envelope Generators (ADSR's) dynamically controlled loudness to create plucked or bowed sounds. Subtractive means that one removed harmonics by filtering. Typically Additive was accomplished by adding overtones and possibly nonharmonic content by using Frequency Modulation (FM). Musicians found Subtractive to be the most intuitive means of creating sounds. I wouldn't really call samplers as EMS instruments, they're more like a digital version of a Mellotron.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

vnandor said:


> After all a synthesizer might be more band limited than an instrument but in the case above, the synth would clearly benefit much more from a higher sampling rate than the recording.


 
  
 Benefit from higher sample rates is not ultrasound abilty, it is way of solving issues of analog filters ADC and DAC, that havn't steep transient band (band betweep pass and stop band).


----------



## VNandor

pinnahertz said:


> True with acoustic instruments too. Point?


 
 I didn't know acoustic instruments could make sounds with the fundamental being above 22kHz.
  
 I also didn't know there are acoustic instruments with more than negligible amount (in terms of power) of frequencies over 22kHz. I assumed the ~-50dBFS because that's what I've seen after plotting the spectrum of some high resolution recordings when I first heard about it years ago.
  


pinnahertz said:


> Oversampling and the ability to produce ultrasonics are two very different things. And you might be assuming a bit much. Have you actually produced a sound and applied spectrum analysis? Might this not be a rather special case confined you that specific combination?


 
  My soundcard is set to 192kHz. The daw is set to192kHz. I rendered the project in 192kHz. Yes, I did. This is how I know there was a harmonic at 96kHz.


vnandor said:


> I used 192kHz in the daw and my souncard operates 192kHz as well. The highest harmonic of the tone I created were at ~96kHz. (Again, using a digital synth).


 
  
  


pinnahertz said:


> Assuming we are talking about he same thing...dynamic range = total variance between loud and soft. No, I don't agree, because if a synth were programmed for wider dynamic range as a result of velocity than a piano, for example, it would become unplayable. So possible, not practical, not done.


 
 I referred to a piece of software as a "digital synth" (and apparently, I might be wrong on that). Instead of pushing the buttons of a keyboard, I can make an envelope for velocity.
  
  


pinnahertz said:


> I think it unlikely that the ability of a software synth to output ultrasonics actually tracks DAW sampling rate.  But it wouldn't matter if it did as all of that is inaudible and getting filtered off for release to the world.


 
 The whole point is, what would happen if someone released electronic music 192kHz instead of 44.1kHz? Since there are software snyths that can go well above 22kHz and they are being used by music producers, there could be frequencies that were cut off due to the 44.1kHz distribution format instead of the 192kHz. One could deliberately make music where the waveform of the 44.1kHz vs. 192kHz would noticeably differ. Because the synths' bandwith isn't limited to 22kHz.
  
  
  


gregorio said:


> 2. Samplers and syths have restricted dynamic ranges and frequency ranges compared to many acoustic instruments or groups of acoustic instruments.


 
 This is what provoked me to join to the discussion. After your post, I'm not entirely sure what counts as a synth but the softwares edm producers use are often not limited in terms of frequency and dynamic range compared to acoustic instruments.
   
 Quote:


gregorio said:


> Secondly, with an actual synth, yes, theoretically you can create almost any amount of frequency range and a large dynamic range BUT, I was not responding to what is theoretically possible but the reality of the EDM marketplace. What EDM is designed for (large and loud but limited dynamic and frequency range PA systems), how synths are employed in this genre in practise and how EDM is mixed/produced.
> 
> G


 
 Okay, to me it appeared as if you were responding to what is theoretically possible to do with synths. I agree that in practice, edm doesn't benefit from 192kHz/24bit because noone deliberately creates ultrasonics and edm is typically being brickwalled. However none of this have to do anything with the synths' capabilities which I just had to point out.


----------



## gregorio

vnandor said:


> Okay, to me it appeared as if you were responding to what is theoretically possible to do with synths. I agree that in practice, edm doesn't benefit from 192kHz/24bit because noone deliberately creates ultrasonics and edm is typically being brickwalled. However none of this have to do anything with the synths' capabilities which I just had to point out.


 
  
 Yes but what I posted was in response to this: "_Still don't understand why you say EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res._" So I was specifically responding to synth use in EDM. Don't worry about being confused about what is called a synth, the once obvious lines between synth, sampler and electronic keyboard starting getting blurred about 25 or so years ago and today the term "synth" is applied to pretty much any electronic instrument, even though most of them can't actually synthesize sound.
  
 There's a massive gulf between what is theoretically possible and how many instruments are actually used in practice and this isn't a new thing, it started many decades ago with the electric guitar. 
  
 G


----------



## Dillan

I hate the phrase "trust your ears".


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> I didn't know acoustic instruments could make sounds with the fundamental being above 22kHz.


 
 I never said that. IF an acoustic "isntrument" made a sound with a fundamental above 22kHz it wouldn't be functioning as an instrument because every bit of that sound would be inaudible.


vnandor said:


> I also didn't know there are acoustic instruments with more than negligible amount (in terms of power) of frequencies over 22kHz.


 
 Any harmonics -20dB or lower below the fundamental have negligible power, but we should not discuss this in terms of power, it will be confusing.


vnandor said:


> I assumed the ~-50dBFS because that's what I've seen after plotting the spectrum of some high resolution recordings when I first heard about it years ago.


 
 Ah yes, but "plotting the spectrum"...there's a sticky problem. Music is full of transients. The bandwidth of the analysis window affects the analysis response time. Narrower/higher resolution increases response time, and will artificially plot transient signals below their real value. That sort of analysis is not straight forward at all, and is usually very misleading.  If you don't do it right, you get the wrong answer.


vnandor said:


> My soundcard is set to 192kHz. The daw is set to192kHz. I rendered the project in 192kHz. Yes, I did. This is how I know there was a harmonic at 96kHz.


 
 Out of curiosity, how do you know this?


vnandor said:


> The whole point is, what would happen if someone released electronic music 192kHz instead of 44.1kHz? Since there are software snyths that can go well above 22kHz and they are being used by music producers, there could be frequencies that were cut off due to the 44.1kHz distribution format instead of the 192kHz. One could deliberately make music where the waveform of the 44.1kHz vs. 192kHz would noticeably differ. Because the synths' bandwith isn't limited to 22kHz.


 
 As I see it, the "whole point" is that if it isn't audible, it's not music. Music must be audible. It doesn't matter if an instrument produces sound above 22kHz or not.


vnandor said:


> This is what provoked me to join to the discussion. After your post, I'm not entirely sure what counts as a synth but the softwares edm producers use are often not limited in terms of frequency and dynamic range compared to acoustic instruments.


 
 I did a quick survey of 14 commercial sample libraries.  I found that, when stated at all, the sampling frequency is 44.1.  I found one at 48, and one at 96.  Most never state sampling rate, but if it were anything other than 44.1 or 48 it would be a marketing "advantage" to say so.  Since they don't, I have to assume they are at 44.1 or 48, with 44.1 being far and away the most common.  That places a hard limit on ultrasonic content that no acoustic instrument has.  While that would technically differentiate a sample/synth from an acoustic instrument, in practice it doesn't matter.  For acoustic sample libraries, the ones that spec it at all are at 24 bit depth.  One was 16 bit.  Most aren't stated, but again, if it's more than 16 bit it becomes a marketing point and would be stated so.  However, no sample would ever use much more 12 bits because these samples are acoustic recordings in acoustic spaces with acoustic noise floors, etc. 
  
 Apart from soft synths (and I question even that), it doesn't seem that the typical hardware digital synth runs over 48kHz.  Analog synths of course likely have no HF limit.  The theoretical dynamic range of a synth is limited by practical playability.  So, again, we're arguing theory vs practice.  The piano is one of the more dynamic acoustic instruments, but typically sits in a DR of 30-40dB, from barely striking a not to full out bashing with all your might.  Average piano dynamics within music is more like 15dB.  So, again, you may be able to build a synth patch with 70dB of DR, but you couldn't actually play it and make music with it, so what's the point?  It'll never show up in a recording of music of any kind.


vnandor said:


> Okay, to me it appeared as if you were responding to what is theoretically possible to do with synths. I agree that in practice, edm doesn't benefit from 192kHz/24bit because noone deliberately creates ultrasonics and edm is typically being brickwalled. However none of this have to do anything with the synths' capabilities which I just had to point out.


 
 I agree you did point out that some synths could theoretically have greater dynamic and frequency capabilities than most acoustic instruments. Please understand that, while theoretically true, it has no bearing on music creation or recording.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

dillan said:


> I hate the phrase "trust your ears".


 

 If no other instruments or skills, why not?
  
 However, it is not reason for claims about that it is right way.


----------



## CarlosUnchained

dillan said:


> I hate the phrase "trust your ears".


 
  
  
 Don't trust your ears, but trust others ears even less.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

carlosunchained said:


> Don't trust your ears, but trust others ears even less.


 

 I don't see any difference between ear's owners


----------



## Argyris

Trusting one's "ears" doesn't actually mean trusting one's hearing, but rather one's perception of sound, which is inextricably clouded by emotion and conscious and subconscious bias. Most commonly, if someone believes they will hear something (e.g. a difference between a cheap piece of gear and an expensive one), they _will_ most likely "hear" it. Where people then get into trouble is they attribute what they "heard" to the acuity of their hearing, or perhaps the perceptiveness of their mind in general. They then conclude that they somehow have better ("golden") ears than those who can't hear what they (the golden eared audiophile) can, and that anybody who claims there is no difference just isn't blessed with their hearing or powers of perception. In reality, they may have simply gotten caught in a feedback loop wherein the result is always what they expect it to be because it's now important to them, on an emotional and identity basis, to be able to "hear" a "difference".
  
 It's this emotional investment, not only in the stable of expensive gear many audiophiles acquire, but also in the notion that owning it and being able to detect minute differences between functionally identical items places them in elite company, that drives subjectivist audiophiles' general loathing of blind testing and sound science. The alternative would be to face the possibility that, no, they don't necessarily have better hearing or perception than others. And, even if they did, absent visual confirmation they might not be able to tell the difference between a $10,000 cable and a coat hanger any better than the average listener or objectivist could. A simple blind test would of course clear up the matter. However, since nobody can force them to take a blind test and prove that they can indeed hear the difference, the subjectivist is free to disparage the process and the scientific basis behind it, choosing instead to, as the phrase goes, _trust their ears_.
  
 When it comes to minute differences, or audio gear or software of dubious value, I am wary of any variation of the "trust your ears" mantra. I _don't_ trust my, or anyone else's, ears, because I know that they are easily fooled by a myriad of factors.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

argyris said:


> A *simple* blind test would of course clear up the matter.


 
  
 Unfortunatelly, double blind test is not simple as seems at first sight.
 It is big laboratory test with methodics, that demands for development accounting many infinitesimal details.


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> Unfortunatelly, double blind test is not simple as seems at first sight.
> It is big laboratory test with methodics, that demands for development accounting many infinitesimal details.


 
  
 That all depends on what is being tested and what level of confidence is required from the result. In many, if not most cases a simple blind test is sufficient. If we take as an example the McGurk Effect, what does a big, methodical, double blind laboratory test teach us that the simplest of blind tests doesn't?
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> what does a big, methodical, double blind laboratory test teach us that the simplest of blind tests doesn't?


 
  
 Better "marketing" objective proofs


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> Better "marketing" objective proofs


 
  
 ? The McGurk Effect doesn't have any marketing.
  
 G


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> ? The McGurk Effect doesn't have any marketing.


 

 Do I mentioned the effect?


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> Do I mentioned the effect?


 
  
 No you didn't but that's because you mis-quoted me!!


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

We discussed *pure audio* double blind test before your post. Not audio-visual effect.


----------



## StanD

argyris said:


> Trusting one's "ears" doesn't actually mean trusting one's hearing, but rather one's perception of sound, which is inextricably clouded by emotion and conscious and subconscious bias. Most commonly, if someone believes they will hear something (e.g. a difference between a cheap piece of gear and an expensive one), they _will_ most likely "hear" it. Where people then get into trouble is they attribute what they "heard" to the acuity of their hearing, or perhaps the perceptiveness of their mind in general. They then conclude that they somehow have better ("golden") ears than those who can't hear what they (the golden eared audiophile) can, and that anybody who claims there is no difference just isn't blessed with their hearing or powers of perception. In reality, they may have simply gotten caught in a feedback loop wherein the result is always what they expect it to be because it's now important to them, on an emotional and identity basis, to be able to "hear" a "difference".
> 
> It's this emotional investment, not only in the stable of expensive gear many audiophiles acquire, but also in the notion that owning it and being able to detect minute differences between functionally identical items places them in elite company, that drives subjectivist audiophiles' general loathing of blind testing and sound science. The alternative would be to face the possibility that, no, they don't necessarily have better hearing or perception than others. And, even if they did, absent visual confirmation they might not be able to tell the difference between a $10,000 cable and a coat hanger any better than the average listener or objectivist could. A simple blind test would of course clear up the matter. However, since nobody can force them to take a blind test and prove that they can indeed hear the difference, the subjectivist is free to disparage the process and the scientific basis behind it, choosing instead to, as the phrase goes, _trust their ears_.
> 
> When it comes to minute differences, or audio gear or software of dubious value, I am wary of any variation of the "trust your ears" mantra. I _don't_ trust my, or anyone else's, ears, because I know that they are easily fooled by a myriad of factors.


 

 I'm a sceptic, so like Sgt. Schultz, "I hear nothing."
 Hmmm, audiophile coat hangers at $10K a pop, sounds like a solid business plan.


----------



## U-3C

stand said:


> I'm a sceptic, so like Sgt. Schultz, "I hear nothing."
> Hmmm, audiophile coat hangers at $10K a pop, sounds like a solid business plan.




Add an upgrade option for $5k, where you include stickers! Of course, for best results on the most mathematically correct place to stick them by the efforts themselves, add on another $500 per sticker assembly fee!


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

Price is not matter if you know what you buy.
 If apparaus have 10k price, why don't purchase cables for 1k?
 It is not sound quality. But it is quality of consumption. Aestetical and other reasons.
  
 I suppose, that car for maximal price, is not fastest in the world, as example.


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> Price is not matter if you know what you buy.
> If apparaus have 10k price, why don't purchase cables for 1k?
> It is not sound quality. But it is quality of consumption. Aestetical and other reasons.
> 
> I suppose, that car for maximal price, is not fastest in the world, as example.


 
 I'm not a fan of car analogies. My Ferrari came with a diamond studded USB cable, platinum wires.


----------



## gregorio

yuri korzunov said:


> We discussed *pure audio* double blind test before your post. Not audio-visual effect.


 
  
 Actually the original statement was "simple blind test" not double blind tests. And, why do you think it's called a *blind* test if there's no connection with "visual"?
  
 G


----------



## StanD

gregorio said:


> Actually the original statement was "simple blind test" not double blind tests. And, why do you think it's called a *blind* test if there's no connection with "visual"?
> 
> G


 

 I saw that coming, D'oh.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

gregorio said:


> Actually the original statement was "simple blind test" not double blind tests. And, why do you think it's called a *blind* test if there's no connection with "visual"?


 
  
 Why you think, that I think so?


----------



## VNandor

> With a synth it's possible to make a sound that gets completely lost after downsampling to 44.1kHz.


 
  
 Quote:


pinnahertz said:


> True with acoustic instruments too. Point?


 


pinnahertz said:


> I never said that. IF an acoustic "isntrument" made a sound with a fundamental above 22kHz it wouldn't be functioning as an instrument because every bit of that sound would be inaudible.


 
  
 You said it's possible to make a sound with acoustic instruments that will get completely lost after downsampling it to 44.1kHz. How is that possible without the fundamental being above 22kHz, or without the sound containing only frequencies above 22kHz?
  
    
 Quote:


vnandor said:


> My soundcard is set to 192kHz. The daw is set to192kHz. I rendered the project in 192kHz. Yes, I did. This is how I know there was a harmonic at 96kHz.


 
  
 Quote:


pinnahertz said:


> Out of curiosity, how do you know this?


 
 Wow, really? Think a little bit. How would YOU find out the sampling rate of your soundcard/daw/rendered project?
  
 I know I would look at my soundcard's settings:
  
 Then I would check the daw's settings:
  
 This is how I would check the rendered file: 
  
 This is the spectrum analysis of the file, using audacity's less than ideal plot spectrum function:
 If you look closely you can see this is probably a plot of a 5kHz square wave.
  
 Since you seem to be skeptical about me and my statements I recommend you to download the waveform and draw your own conclusions from it. I hope the link works.
  
 https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1RKepESfvrWWHJyNFV0UWFJQW8
  


pinnahertz said:


> I agree you did point out that some synths could theoretically have greater dynamic and frequency capabilities than most acoustic instruments. Please understand that, while theoretically true, it has no bearing on music creation or recording.


 

 Yes. I understand that.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> You said it's possible to make a sound with acoustic instruments that will get completely lost after downsampling it to 44.1kHz. How is that possible without the fundamental being above 22kHz, or without the sound containing only frequencies above 22kHz?


 
 Some of the harmonics of an acoustic sound could be above 22kHz. The will be completely lost after reconstruction filtering at 44.1, downsampling or not. If an acoustic even produces a fundamental above 22kHz, it's second harmonic will be above 44kHz (and so on) the event will be inaudible, and therefore not a "sound".


vnandor said:


> Wow, really? Think a little bit. How would YOU find out the sampling rate of your soundcard/daw/rendered project?


 
 I know how I would do it. I asked how you did it. Thank you for the explanation.


vnandor said:


> Since you seem to be skeptical about me and my statements...


 
 I have a healthy skepticism about just about everything. It's not personal, it's specific. I was curious. I well know how to evaluate ultrasonic content, and have no need to download anything.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> Wow, really? Think a little bit. How would YOU find out the sampling rate of your soundcard/daw/rendered project?
> 
> Since you seem to be skeptical about me and my statements I recommend you to download the waveform and draw your own conclusions from it. I hope the link works.


 
 How did you get the output of the sound card back into Audacity?
  
 Why would you think a 5kHz square wave sampled at 192kHz would be a valid and meaningful signal to generate with a music synthesizer?  Clearly it is technically possible, but why would anybody do that?  What you have done is chosen an example to illustrate the vast number of ultrasonic harmonics in a hypothetical wave form, but the example has no bearing on reality and practical usage of a synth in EDM.  The only thing less relevant would be a square wave with its fundamental about the audible range.  
  
 It's as relevant as saying "100% of people who drink water die."  And that's true too.


----------



## VNandor

pinnahertz said:


> How did you get the output of the sound card back into Audacity?
> 
> Why would you think a 5kHz square wave sampled at 192kHz would be a valid and meaningful signal to generate with a music synthesizer?


 
 Because I wanted to demonstrate that a synth can create frequencies beyond audibility. You assumed it's only possible with analog synths which is clearly not true if a software that was made to generate tones for music counts as a synth. I used a square wave because predicting the outcome of a sine wave being modulated by an other sine wave which is being modulated by a triangle wave, then being filtered and then distorted is kind of hard compared to predicting the outcome of a square wave. How would I know that the plot is wrong if I used some sick wob-wob dubstep bass?
  


pinnahertz said:


> What you have done is chosen an example to illustrate the vast number of ultrasonic harmonics in a hypothetical wave form, but the example has no bearing on reality and practical usage of a synth in EDM.


 
 Yes, I've done exactly that. How did you expect me to come up with something relevant to audibility when we were discussing high resolution? Again, the only thing that bothered me was that people seemed to assume that snyths can't go above 22kHz and must contain less high frequencies than acoustic intruments due to some technical limitations. Which is not always true. It doesn't contain ultrasonic frequencies because its not audible so why would any producer bother to synthesize it in the first place?
  
  


pinnahertz said:


> How did you get the output of the sound card back into Audacity?


 
 I didn't get the output of the sound card back into audacity. I loaded my rendered file into it. If you think my analysis is wrong either point out to the problem or consider doing your own.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> Because I wanted to demonstrate that a synth can create frequencies beyond audibility.


 
 You certainly did that.


vnandor said:


> You assumed it's only possible with analog synths which is clearly not true if a software that was made to generate tones for music counts as a synth.


 
 Yes, I had not considered the case of a software synth. You proved me wrong.


vnandor said:


> I used a square wave because predicting the outcome of a sine wave being modulated by an other sine wave which is being modulated by a triangle wave, then being filtered and then distorted is kind of hard compared to predicting the outcome of a square wave. How would I know that the plot is wrong if I used some sick wob-wob dubstep bass?


 
 You certainly did that.


vnandor said:


> Yes, I've done exactly that. How did you expect me to come up with something relevant to audibility when we were discussing high resolution?


 
 Not possible, so I never expected you to.


vnandor said:


> Again, the only thing that bothered me was that people seemed to assume that snyths can't go above 22kHz and must contain less high frequencies than acoustic intruments due to some technical limitations. Which is not always true.


 
 Yes, you've proven your point. Now place that point within the confines of reality, and we're good.


vnandor said:


> It doesn't contain ultrasonic frequencies because its not audible so why would any producer bother to synthesize it in the first place?


 
 No idea.


vnandor said:


> I didn't get the output of the sound card back into audacity. I loaded my rendered file into it.


 
 OK, thanks. I'm a little confused as to why the sound card settings were important then, since the synth not putting a digital audio stream but was just generating a file, unless the synth bases its output file on soundcard settings. Seems odd, but certainly possible.  Software synths I'm familiar with base their resolution on the host app, not the sound card.  But whatever, it's a silly small point, let's not beat it up.


vnandor said:


> If you think my analysis is wrong either point out to the problem or consider doing your own.


 
 You have an amazing ability to misquote, misread, and imply things in my post that are not there. If I ask questions about your methodology it's because you hadn't provided details. The point of asking a question is to obtain more information. A question is not an accusation, at least, not the ones I've been asking.
  
  I don't think there's anything wrong with what you've done.  But, let's be clear about what your demo proves: The results of your demonstration prove the point that _some_ software synths can output ultrasonic content.   Your demo does not address what comes out of digital hardware synths and samplers, nor software synths universally, nor which type of synth is most used,  nor the likelihood of anyone needing to create a 5kHz square wave for it's musical properties, nor the likelihood of the presence of incidental ultrasonics from any type of synth, nor how many EDM recordings are even made in high res.  
  
 And the core question, "Does EDM benefit from high res" is not impacted at all by your demo.  You even agree on that. 
  
 I don't think a clinical and hypothetical case is relevant to the discussion about EDM benefitting or not from high resolution.


----------



## LazyListener

@VNandor
  
 Thanks for explaining how synths don't inherently have a limited dynamic range when compared to acoustic instruments.  Some people here almost convinced me otherwise.  And although I don't have the technical expertise/understanding that some here do, something intuitively and innately didn't sound right about synths having a limited dynamic range vs acoustic instruments.  If anything, I thought the opposite would be true.  If it's limited, it's because of practical reasons specifically chosen by EDM creators, not because the synths themselves are inherently limited.
  
 Is it safe to say now that EDM does not benefit any less or any more than other music genres from Hi-Res, since all Hi-Res is outside human audibility?


----------



## pinnahertz

lazylistener said:


> @VNandor
> 
> Thanks for explaining how synths don't inherently have a limited dynamic range when compared to acoustic instruments


 
 Wow. That's what you got? He did nothing of the kind.
  
 The _*only*_ thing proven was that certain synths, under certain very specific (atypical and non-musical) settings can product ultrasonic content.
  
 That's it. That's all.


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> Wow. That's what you got? He did nothing of the kind.
> 
> The _*only*_ thing proven was that certain synths, under certain very specific (atypical and non-musical) settings can product ultrasonic content.
> 
> That's it. That's all.


 

 Ultrasonic content that has no intrinsic value.


----------



## gregorio

lazylistener said:


> [1] And although I don't have the technical expertise/understanding that some here do, something intuitively and innately didn't sound right about synths having a limited dynamic range vs acoustic instruments.
> 
> [2] Is it safe to say now that EDM does not benefit any less or any more than other music genres from Hi-Res, since all Hi-Res is outside human audibility?


 
  
 1. Most of audio is fairly intuitive, PROVIDING you have a fairly reasonable technical understanding of it! If you don't, there are quite a few things in modern audio which can appear completely counter-intuitive. The "synths" typically used in EDM do indeed have inherently limited dynamic ranges (!) and even on those EDM tracks which employ true synthesisers, they are used with a very limited dynamic range. Also, modern electronic music genres took off in the 1990s and was at least as much, if not more reliant on samplers than on synths. The Akai S1000 was almost ubiquitous at one time, it had a max sampling rate of 44.1kHz but was commonly used at a rate of 22.05kHz and had a max bit depth of 16bit, which means in practice the raw samples were typically 8-12 bit.
  
 2. It's "safe to say" that EDM does not AUDIBLY benefit any more or less than any other genre from hires but not so safe to say just "benefit" on it's own without the qualification of "audibly". Furthermore, as mentioned, EDM started with many of it's elements at particularly low bit and sample rates and even today the use of "low-fi" processors (processors which deliberately reduce bit and/or sample rates) is pretty much restricted to EDM and other related electronic sub-genres. So of just about all music genres, EDM would have the least to gain from hires.
  
 G


----------



## VNandor

lazylistener said:


> If it's limited, it's because of practical reasons specifically chosen by EDM creators, not because the synths themselves are inherently limited.


 
 This is exactly what I tried to say, except I pointed out that it's not true for all synths.


lazylistener said:


> inherently limited.
> Is it safe to say now that EDM does not benefit any less or any more than other music genres from Hi-Res, since all Hi-Res is outside human audibility?


 
 I would say so. However if we made the (most likely wrong) assertion that Hi-Res is not outside of human audibility EDM still wouldn't practically benefit from it because no EDM producers use synths in a way it would produce Hi-Res content. But this shouldn't be attributed to the synths limitations exclusively, since some synths can do that.


pinnahertz said:


> You certainly did that.
> Yes, I had not considered the case of a software synth. You proved me wrong.
> You certainly did that.
> Not possible, so I never expected you to.
> Yes, you've proven your point. Now place that point within the confines of reality, and we're good.


 
 Great, we agree on this.
   
 Quote:


gregorio said:


> *2. Samplers and syths have restricted dynamic ranges and frequency ranges compared to many acoustic instruments or groups of acoustic instruments.* Hires digital audio formats allows the recording of those frequencies produced by acoustic instruments which are beyond the limits of standard res. Whereas with EDM there is generally nothing beyond the frequency limit of standard res to capture/record.


 
  Again, to put in context what I've said, this is what bothered me. The conclusion is right (192kHz sampling rate won't change a thing in edm) but the causation is not or at least not always. (edm usually doesn't have anything beyond 22kHz *due to the synths' and samplers' restrictions.*) The parts in bold.
  
 EDM wouldn't contain frequencies beyond 22kHz even if it was released in 192kHz because synths are pretty much never used to create ultrasonic content despite the fact some of them actually can do it.
  
  
@pinnahertz
 To demonstrate the dynamic range of a synth, I created an automation clip that goes from the lowest possible value to the highest and linked it to a synth's volume. After rendering this project (in 24bit) I had to amplify the quiet part by ~130dB to be as loud as the loud part. The amplification was done by audacity's amplify function. I think I should note that the amplified signal was distorted quite a bit. I think this implies that a synth's dynamic range can be as much as 130dB. Which in practice means that I can either create so quiet signals it won't be heard ever, or I can create signals so loud it makes people to go deaf in a couple of seconds.
 Unfortunately, I don't own all the software synths that ever existed so it might be fair to imply not all software synths can do this.


----------



## gregorio

vnandor said:


> [1] Again, to put in context what I've said, this is what bothered me. The conclusion is right (192kHz sampling rate won't change a thing in edm) but the causation is not or at least not always. (edm usually doesn't have anything beyond 22kHz *due to the synths' and samplers' restrictions.*) The parts in bold.
> [2] To demonstrate the dynamic range of a synth ...


 
  
 1. You can't "put in context what you've said", if it's in response to an out of context statement that I've made! I've given a specific example in my previous post, of probably the most widely used sampler in commercial electronic music (throughout the 90's and early 00's) was indeed very restricted (often to just 22.05kS/s) and the "synths" were limited to 44.1 or 48kS/s and small dynamic ranges as well.
  
 2. No one is questioning the potential dynamic range of some true synthesisers. What you've demonstrated could be applied to almost anything. An electric guitar for example has a dynamic range from little more than the un-resonated twang of a string, up to 130dBSPL. However, it's never actually played with that dynamic range; in say a stadium gig with the guitar at 130dBSPL no one, not even the guitarist himself would hear just a string twang! Despite this potentially massive dynamic range, in practical usage, the electric guitar probably has the smallest dynamic range of any instrument in a rock band! To a slightly more limited extent, the same is true of many acoustic instruments as well! You can get well over 130dBSPL out of a trumpet but it's full dynamic range is (virtually) never employed because of tonal quality and/or balance considerations. As an audio engineer (and consumer), I'm not interested in what instruments can theoretically achieve, I'm only interested in what they actually achieve during performance.
  
 G


----------



## VNandor

Whatever. I've shown the theoretical limits of a synth that's being used by at least a few edm producers nowadays. I've also noted how these limits are way beyond of what's practically needed. At this point I have nothing else left to say.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> Whatever. I've shown the theoretical limits of a synth that's being used by at least a few edm producers nowadays. I've also noted how these limits are way beyond of what's practically needed. At this point I have nothing else left to say.


 
 16//44 is way beyond what is practically needed for most music.
  
 I have a device on my workbench right now that could generate an audio signal with harmonics up to 40mHz. I has a VCF input.  I could, theoretically, use it to make music.
  
 So what?
  
 None of this is relevant to the discussion.   The question was, "Could EDM benefit from high res?" The answer is no.


----------



## gregorio

vnandor said:


> Whatever. I've shown the theoretical limits of a synth that's being used by at least a few edm producers nowadays.


 
  
 Again, you were very keen that what you stated was taken in context and apparently just as keen to take what I stated out of context!
  
 If we close mic almost any acoustic instrument we'll get at least some content above the Nyquist point of 44.1kS/s. Therefore, just about any genre of music which employs acoustic instruments is likely to theoretically benefit hires. With EDM on the other hand, the vast majority contains nothing above 22.05kHz to start with and much/most of the EDM ever produced is restricted by the instruments (samplers/synths) themselves. I'm sure there are at least some exceptions, EDM tracks which employ instruments capable of higher than 22.05kHz and even some tracks where the synths have actually been used to create ultrasonic freqs. But in general these tracks are in the minority or tiny minority as opposed to genres which include acoustic instruments, where almost every one of them would likely contain ultrasonic freqs.
  
 Therefore, my statement that EDM is a genre which would benefit from hires the least is, in general, correct! And, as using instruments in EDM which are actually incapable of >22.05kHz is common, then it's also fair to say that it's due, in general, to the restrictions of those instruments (samplers and synths)!
  
 G


----------



## LazyListener

gregorio said:


> Again, you were very keen that what you stated was taken in context and apparently just as keen to take what I stated out of context!
> 
> If we close mic almost any acoustic instrument we'll get at least some content above the Nyquist point of 44.1kS/s. Therefore, just about any genre of music which employs acoustic instruments is likely to theoretically benefit hires. With EDM on the other hand, the vast majority contains nothing above 22.05kHz to start with and much/most of the EDM ever produced is restricted by the instruments (samplers/synths) themselves. I'm sure there are at least some exceptions, EDM tracks which employ instruments capable of higher than 22.05kHz and even some tracks where the synths have actually been used to create ultrasonic freqs. But in general these tracks are in the minority or tiny minority as opposed to genres which include acoustic instruments, where almost every one of them would likely contain ultrasonic freqs.
> 
> ...


 

 Depends on what you mean by "benefit."  I thought we'd already established that Hi-Res does not benefit EDM less or more than any other genre when it comes to what's audible (even though I'm not entirely convinced of this). I've been reading that some soft synths and plugins do benefit from recording at hi-res due to processing overhead, anti-aliasing, etc. resulting in a better (clearer, smoother, less grainy) sounding final product.  Read more in link below.
  
 Some acoustic instruments do generate ultrasonics, but depending on the recording process, post-processing, and final intended distribution, those ultrasonics may or may not end up in the final product.  Same thing with synthesizers.  Synths are purpose built instruments, limited by processing power of hardware.  There are soft synths capable of hi-res, and PCs fast enough to run them at hi-res.  In many ways, synthesizers are less limited than acoustic instruments.  They're just as capable in terms of dynamic range and ultrasonics, if not more so.  So EDM producers do have "instruments" capable of hi-res and ultrasonics at their disposal.  It's the EDM producers' personal choices that are imposing these "limits" on the genre, not the instruments themselves, when it comes to Hi-Res.  Also, the vast amount of music EDM producers distribute will be in the form of compressed digital audio or CD,neither of which benefit audibly from Hi-Res, so it's no surprise that most probably choose not to use Hi-Res synths.  As I mentioned earlier, some apparently do believe that using high sample rates helps in processing, anti-aliasing, yielding a better (as defined earlier, since you have a habit of quoting people out of context) sounding final product.
  
 https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/927226-top-edm-producers-who-work-high-sample-rates.html


----------



## LazyListener

gregorio said:


> 1. Most of audio is fairly intuitive, PROVIDING you have a fairly reasonable technical understanding of it! If you don't, there are quite a few things in modern audio which can appear completely counter-intuitive. The "synths" typically used in EDM do indeed have inherently limited dynamic ranges (!) and even on those EDM tracks which employ true synthesisers, they are used with a very limited dynamic range. Also, modern electronic music genres took off in the 1990s and was at least as much, if not more reliant on samplers than on synths. The Akai S1000 was almost ubiquitous at one time, it had a max sampling rate of 44.1kHz but was commonly used at a rate of 22.05kHz and had a max bit depth of 16bit, which means in practice the raw samples were typically 8-12 bit.
> 
> 2. It's "safe to say" that EDM does not AUDIBLY benefit any more or less than any other genre from hires but not so safe to say just "benefit" on it's own without the qualification of "audibly". Furthermore, as mentioned, EDM started with many of it's elements at particularly low bit and sample rates and even today the use of "low-fi" processors (processors which deliberately reduce bit and/or sample rates) is pretty much restricted to EDM and other related electronic sub-genres. So of just about all music genres, EDM would have the least to gain from hires.
> 
> G


 

 1.  Still don't see how synths used in EDM have inherently limited dynamic range.  Let's stick to what's used today, not years or decades ago.  The fact that they may be used with a limited dynamic range is obvious.  Limits are imposed all the time in the creative process, EDM or any other music creation.
  
 2.  So we agree that EDM does not audibly benefit from Hi-Res.  Neither do other genres.  So how does EDM inaudibly benefit from Hi-Res, if at all?
  
      I don't see use of "low-fi" processors used in electronic music creation as an explanation or reason for why EDM would have the least to gain from Hi-Res.  Thought we agreed that Hi-Res benefits (or it doesn't) all genres equally.


----------



## LazyListener

yuri korzunov said:


> Little example from my musician's life:
> Evening our band cool play music with great sound. After repetition we turn off apparatus.
> Next morning we turn on apparatus. Began play, but sound was far not so good as yesturday. Warming of apparatus changed nothing.
> It happened several times.
> ...


 

 Totally agree.  Many factors outside of the listening equipment itself MAY affect how it sounds to us at any given time.  However, in my case with the PM-3 headphone and Skrillex songs, this music sounded very different, much more detailed than I had heard it on many other headphones before.  I even had several headphones at home at the same time and compared back to back with PM-3, over several days (and nights).  My "hearing" didn't change based on any of these factors you mentioned.  The PM-3 sounded supremely detailed with Skrillex every time.
  
 Agreed, in terms of digital signal, it's a stream of zeroes and ones that can be easily measured at input and output, and compared, to see if it's unchanged.


----------



## LazyListener

yuri korzunov said:


> 1. Yes. Seep sine. Or fixed sine via step. Better way sequientially.
> For measurements, other cup should be muted acoustically. Electrical disconnection may cause changes in electrical scheme of headphome and cause changing of measurement results.
> 
> Measured headphone cup shouls be isolated from foreign environment. As example, placed in acoustic isolated anechoic box/room.
> ...


 

 Ahh yes, intermodulations.  This is sound waves of various frequencies interacting with one another?  I'm sure this has a huge impact on the amount of detail we hear.  I can see how up until the point where sound is produced, measurements are relatively easy.  However, once sound waves are generated and start interacting with their environment and with themselves, things get a lot more complicated when it comes to testing/measuring.  And this is even before the sound waves hit our ears, at which point all bets are off.


----------



## LazyListener

gregorio said:


> 2. Samplers and syths have restricted dynamic ranges and frequency ranges compared to many acoustic instruments or groups of acoustic instruments. Hires digital audio formats allows the recording of those frequencies produced by acoustic instruments which are beyond the limits of standard res. Whereas with EDM there is generally nothing beyond the frequency limit of standard res to capture/record. Now whether we can hear or be audibly influenced by those frequencies that some acoustic instruments produce beyond the 22kHz limit of standard res is another question, the answer to which IMO is "no". But purely from the point of accuracy (rather than audibility) EDM and other electronic genres benefit the least from hires.
> 
> 4. Because your use of the term "high resolution" was incorrect. "High resolution" is a term with the specific meaning of digital audio formats which exceed CD format. That meaning is was I was therefore responding to, not your incorrect use of it to describe the performance of your headphones.
> 
> ...


 
  
 2.  "Whereas with EDM there is generally nothing beyond the frequency limit of standard res to capture/record."  That's because electronic music isn't recorded, it's created electronically.  There is no recording (capture of sound waves) with electronic music, like there is with acoustical music.  Whether or not electronic music contains something "beyond the frequency limit of standard res" is entirely up to the producer.  It comes down to creative choice.
  
 4.  I may have used the term "high resolution" incorrectly at first, but I quickly posted that in my case I was referring to the resolution of headphones.
  
 4a/b/c.  It appears you missed the broad context of what I was saying.  Recording is one thing, like you mentioned.  But hearing is something different altogether.  Not everything recorded is heard the same way by all.  In fact, it's probably heard differently by each person.  On top of that, there's the process of reproducing a recording, and every device model (speaker, headphone) reproduces sound differently.  So even before you get to the subjective hearing aspects, you have devices that each provide a different interpretation/presentation of the recording.
  
 5.  All familiar with the marketing aspects you mention.  Still, IMO, it was wrong of you to jump to the conclusion that what I heard was due to marketing.  A good objectivist should focus on objective explanations and rule those out first before mentioning possible subjective explanations.  FYI, price did not influence me.  It's a $400 headphone and I thought several less expensive ones I tried back to back sounded better overall.  Brand did not influence me.  Don't have a particularly high or low regard for Oppo.  Looks did not influence me.  PM-3 looked nice, well made, good materials, yet still finished several slots down in the sound quality dept.  Planar magnetic driver did not influence me.  Also tried the HE400S planar magnetic and Skrillex didn't sound particularly special with them.  PM-3 did sound super detailed with those Skrillex tracks, unlike the other headphones, but like I said before, too dry and analytical overall with poor soundstage.  FYI, I really don't put much value on most marketing crap like how a headphone looks.  My focus is sound and comfort.  I know price is not indicative of sound quality.  While I do respect certain brands like Sennheiser, AKG, and Beyerdynamic, due to their decades of expertise in sound capture and reproduction, I've heard headphones I don't like from each of them.  So based on all that, I'd say it's more likely some objective aspects of the PM-3 were responsible for making Skrillex tracks sound "high resolution" to me, not some silly marketing tactic.
  
 Again, I did mention that I was referring to resolution of headphones early on, even before your post I believe.  Water under the bridge.  Let's move on.


----------



## LazyListener

pinnahertz said:


> I'm confused by what is meant by a "fast synth". I listened to some Skillex, I don't hear anything I would describe as "fast" other than many notes being played quickly.
> Sure, the headphones presentation complimented what you like about the music, most likely in simple frequency response though. The results of the physical nature of the construction of headphones is always a difference in performance. But when you add to that perception bias, that's when you get what you think you are hearing.
> First of all, "faster" is a term being misapplied to a particular set of listener observations. In reality the term implies something to do with speed. Speed and FR are inseparable when you include amplitude (as you must). If you change speed, you change response for a given amplitude. Once you increase speed such that response and amplitude within the audio band are no longer modified (by speed being too slow), it no longer affects the signal being presented.  More likely what you're referring to is transient response, measured by damping and overshoot.  That's somewhat related to high frequency response, but is more complex, and not simply a "speed" issue, though many misidentify it as such.
> 
> ...


 
 This is probably the most useful response I've gotten on this question of how awesome Skrillex sounded with the PM-3.  (Not to say other responses haven't been useful.  They have.  I learned a lot.)
  
 Yes, I mean notes being played quickly.  Skrillex has some high frequency fairly fast riffs.  With the PM-3, I was hearing more individual notes and texture within these riffs, compared to other headphones I've heard them on.  I'm sure frequency response had something to do with it, but I highly doubt EQing other cans to a similar FR would provide the same result.
  
 Transient response.  Yes, I mentioned this in my earlier posts, but was told I was using incorrect or subjective terminology.  I was guessing that the planar magnetic driver design allowed for a faster transient response, hence the increased amount of fine detail in fast riffs.  You say that some dynamic drivers have similar transient response, but that's only some.  Maybe I've never heard a dynamic driver with the "speed" of the PM-3's planar magnetic driver.
  
 I tend to ignore what manufacturers state about their headphones (in one ear, out the other).  All I care about is the sound (and comfort).


----------



## LazyListener

pinnahertz said:


> Wow. That's what you got? He did nothing of the kind.
> 
> The _*only*_ thing proven was that certain synths, under certain very specific (atypical and non-musical) settings can product ultrasonic content.
> 
> That's it. That's all.


 

 In earlier posts, he showed how synths are also not inherently limited in dynamic range, just like they are not limited in producing ultrasonics.  Inherently, synths are only limited by the creative minds used to write their software, and the processing power of the hardware they run on, both of which are continually evolving.  Please don't mention human audibility (that's a given).


----------



## VNandor

lazylistener said:


> In earlier posts, he showed how synths are also not inherently limited in dynamic range, just like they are not limited in producing ultrasonics.  Inherently, synths are only limited by the creative minds used to write their software, and the processing power of the hardware they run on, both of which are continually evolving.  Please don't mention human audibility (that's a given).


 
 I mentioned that in practice, it doesn't mean that producing music at so high sampling rate is possible.
  
 For some reason, when I played that square wave my CPU load reached ~50% or so and this is only one synth doing one very basic thing. It caused my computer to lag, and I heard clicks and pops every sec or so. Of course I could still render it but I couldn't play it in real time (without the mentioned problems). Granted, producers will have better hardware than I but producing music involves a lot of processing. I don't think it's possible to have a combination of hardware and software that let's you to do the whole producing in 192kHz. At least not yet. They aren't (always) inherently limited but practically, they always are, to some extent.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

lazylistener said:


> However, in my case with the PM-3 headphone and Skrillex songs, this music sounded very different, much more detailed than I had heard it on many other headphones before.


 
  
 Of course, difference may be audible each time. I suppose, it depend on value of difference.


----------



## pinnahertz

lazylistener said:


> In earlier posts, he showed how synths are also not inherently limited in dynamic range, just like they are not limited in producing ultrasonics.


 
 Not at all. He showed a case of a software synth generating a signal deliberately chosen to produce ultrasonics, but would never by chosen to make music. He did not address all "synths", not even close. It's one specific case, and while it may occur in other software synths as well, it's not representative of "synths" at all, certainly not being used to produce musical signals.


lazylistener said:


> Inherently, synths are only limited by the creative minds used to write their software, and the processing power of the hardware they run on, both of which are continually evolving.


 
 If only it were that simple. The real limitation in producing sound in a synth is a combination of the usability of the tools, understanding of the technology, and a very strong artistic sense. The strong need of both technical aptitude and artistic aptitude occurs strongly in synth programming. That combination is rare in individuals, they generally favor one aptitude strongly over the other, but is the real limit.


lazylistener said:


> Please don't mention human audibility (that's a given).


 
 Good you understand that.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> I mentioned that in practice, it doesn't mean that producing music at so high sampling rate is possible.
> 
> For some reason, when I played that square wave my CPU load reached ~50% or so and this is only one synth doing one very basic thing. It caused my computer to lag, and I heard clicks and pops every sec or so. Of course I could still render it but I couldn't play it in real time (without the mentioned problems).


 
 So your example wasn't even playable. That scales what you have "proven" down just a bit.


vnandor said:


> Granted, producers will have better hardware than I but producing music involves a lot of processing. I don't think it's possible to have a combination of hardware and software that let's you to do the whole producing in 192kHz. At least not yet.


 
 Might it not be that you were asking your specific software synth to do something it was never intended to do? I have a lowly laptop with several different DAW apps, each of which can run tracks and tracks of software synths running patches rich and complex. No delays, and I have yet to find the track limit, played live without rendering. The composite mix is far more demanding demanding than generating a simple square wave.


vnandor said:


> They aren't (always) inherently limited but practically, they always are, to some extent.


 
 If you want to verify, download a function generator app and try your squarewave with that. I'll be it works just fine and doesn't tax your CPU.
  
 Sounding more and more like what you've proven is that your software synth can't actually produce that signal in a playable form.


----------



## StanD

vnandor said:


> I mentioned that in practice, it doesn't mean that producing music at so high sampling rate is possible.
> 
> For some reason, when I played that square wave my CPU load reached ~50% or so and this is only one synth doing one very basic thing. It caused my computer to lag, and I heard clicks and pops every sec or so. Of course I could still render it but I couldn't play it in real time (without the mentioned problems). Granted, producers will have better hardware than I but producing music involves a lot of processing. I don't think it's possible to have a combination of hardware and software that let's you to do the whole producing in 192kHz. At least not yet. They aren't (always) inherently limited but practically, they always are, to some extent.


 
 Intel will be glad to have you buy a new system with the latest and greatest CPU. After that Synth developers will be glad to consume all available CPU cycles for some new doodad and so the viscous cycle continues. By the way which CPU/Clock are you running? Did you check to see what else was going on your PC while you were running the synth software? You have enough RAM to avoid paging?


----------



## VNandor

pinnahertz said:


> So your example wasn't even playable. That scales what you have "proven" down just a bit.


 
  
  
  
 Let me explain that. First of all, I could render the project without any problems and I could play it back without any problems. (Just as I've already said that in my prevoious post). What I couldn't do well is to play the synth real time inside the daw when I applied a high amount of oversampling under the "draft" tab.


 I wouldn't even need to use that by the way, and only enable it for rendering. However if a producer wanted to hear how the rendered file is going to sound then the oversampling under the draft tab must be the same as under the render tab. The plugin's help  point out to that if you don't believe me.

 I just activated it out of curiousity to see what happens. Then I concluded that, practically it cannot be used that way (using high amount of  real time oversampling) as it quickly overloads my CPU so ultimately it doesn't help and makes the sound even more different than the rendered file would be.
 As for why I activated it for rendering, the spectrogram I showed wouldn't look nearly as convincing without oversampling.
 I'm not sure if you were misinterpreting what I was saying on purpose or you really just didn't understand it.
  
  
  
  
  


pinnahertz said:


> Might it not be that you were asking your specific software synth to do something it was never intended to do


 
 Well I asked the software to do 64x oversampling real time. It's probably there because in some cases it has its uses. I've already noted I didn't "have to" use it, I only used it to see how my computer reacts. What I had to use is the oversampling for rendering.
  
  


pinnahertz said:


> Sounding more and more like what you've proven is that your software synth can't actually produce that signal in a playable form.


 
 Just to make sure you get what I'm saying, I repeat again the .wav file could be played back perfectly. The problems I mentioned were only present when I tried to play the synth inside the daw.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> Let me explain that. First of all, I could render the project without any problems and I could play it back without any problems. (Just as I've already said that in my prevoious post). What I couldn't do well is to play the synth real time inside the daw when I applied a high amount of oversampling under the "draft" tab.
> 
> <snip!>
> 
> Just to make sure you get what I'm saying, I repeat again the .wav file could be played back perfectly. The problems I mentioned were only present when I tried to play the synth inside the daw.


 
 You created an *unplayable* synth patch you could _*only use after rendering*_ to prove that "synths produce ultrasonics".  
  
 Got it.


----------



## spruce music

vnandor said:


> Let me explain that. First of all, I could render the project without any problems and I could play it back without any problems. (Just as I've already said that in my prevoious post). What I couldn't do well is to play the synth real time inside the daw when I applied a high amount of oversampling under the "draft" tab.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't even need to use that by the way, and only enable it for rendering. However if a producer wanted to hear how the rendered file is going to sound then the oversampling under the draft tab must be the same as under the render tab. The plugin's help  point out to that if you don't beleive me.
> ...


 

 Well I think you should get an award for persisting beyond all reason until you push an irrelevant point into total irrelevance.  Maybe we could call it irrelevance squared?


----------



## VNandor

pinnahertz said:


> You created an *unplayable* synth patch you could _*only use after rendering*_ to prove that "synths produce ultrasonics".
> 
> Got it.


 
 It did produce ultrasonics. There rendered file was what I expected. I could play the patch if I didn't use real time oversampling. I think you are doing this on purpose.


----------



## VNandor

spruce music said:


> Well I think you should get an award for persisting beyond all reason until you push an irrelevant point into total irrelevance.  Maybe we could call it irrelevance squared?


 
 Seriously, I was just nitpicking the statements like these.


pinnahertz said:


> Yes, the analog synths could produce ultrasonics. And we live in a time when there is a fascination with analog synths, so they are fairly thick on the ground.  But digital synths and sampling synths seem to be hanging at 16/48, thus very little ultrasonic capability.


 
  


gregorio said:


> 2. Samplers and syths have restricted dynamic ranges and frequency ranges compared to many acoustic instruments or groups of acoustic instruments.


 
  
 Both ones has been adressed since, what I missed from these is something like "practically" or in "any real life applications" or anything else along these lines.
  
 And after that the arguing continues because apparently, the spectra of the waveform I created with an actual software that is being used edm producers is not good enough to prove the theoretical limits of the synth is beyond what they seemed to assume. The theoretical limits, I think I should stress it again, not the practical one. But when I made the post, I didn't know they meant practical limits because they didn't mention it.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

Spectrum of syntesizer at analog output is infinite. Due aliases for digital one though  For analog one harmonics distributed to infinity. It is matter of noise floor and spectrum anayzer sensitivity.
  
 What can limit dynamic range of synthesizer? Implementation only.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> It did produce ultrasonics. There rendered file was what I expected. I could play the patch if I didn't use real time oversampling. I think you are doing this on purpose.


 
 YES, I am.  And here's why:


lazylistener said:


> In earlier posts, he showed how _*synths are also not inherently limited in dynamic range*_, just like_* they are not limited in producing ultrasonics.*_


 
 That's what some people are getting from your posts.  It's one post by one user, but he no doubt reflects many, many more who are not active participants.
  
 The conclusion in that post  is completely wrong and misleading.  We already have several posts that seem to have been mislead by your misinformation.  
  
 "Synths" is the first problem.  "Synths" were not used.  What we have here is one example of a specific software synth that was coaxed deliberately. and with effort, into producing ultrasonics.  That example doesn't represent "Synths" in general at all, nor their lack of dynamic or frequency limitations, it represents_* one specific case where the user deliberately forced the result.   *_
 I'll give you a little credit for noting the situation was impractical, but that's not what some people are getting from this. 
  
 To prove what Lazy is saying you'd have to look at the output of a huge number of synths, both software and hardware, of all the different types, sample a wide range of patches, look at the resulting spectra, then draw your conclusions.  Or, do what I did, look at the raw technology, the sample rates involved, and the practical application of synths in general.  
  
 I have no idea why it's important to cling to the heavily biased theoretical example. The demonstration was good and correctly done, but has no relevance to the real world of "synths" producing ultrasonics.
  
 The continual reinforcement of it is, in my opinion, irresponsible, as it advances an idea that influences incorrect conclusions by others.


----------



## sonitus mirus

You guys still at it?
  
 Too bad this study didn't include EDM as one of the 10 music genres tested. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
Dynamic Range Across Music Genres and the Perception of Dynamic Compression in Hearing-Impaired Listeners
  
 Now I finally know where Schlager stands with regards to dynamic range.


----------



## StanD

sonitus mirus said:


> You guys still at it?
> 
> Too bad this study didn't include EDM as one of the 10 music genres tested.
> 
> ...


 

 Hearing impaired audiophiles can hear ultrasonics, so they could do the ultrasonic EDM thing.


----------



## pinnahertz

sonitus mirus said:


> You guys still at it?
> 
> Too bad this study didn't include EDM as one of the 10 music genres tested.
> 
> ...


 
 This link made it all worth while.  Thanks!


----------



## pinnahertz

stand said:


> Hearing impaired audiophiles can hear ultrasonics, so they could do the ultrasonic EDM thing.


 
 Ultrasonic EDM: dogs and bats shuffling and fist-pumping.  Can't wait.


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> Ultrasonic EDM: dogs and bats shuffling and fist-pumping.  Can't wait.


 
 It'll make for an interesting mosh pit.


----------



## LazyListener

vnandor said:


> I mentioned that in practice, it doesn't mean that producing music at so high sampling rate is possible.
> 
> For some reason, when I played that square wave my CPU load reached ~50% or so and this is only one synth doing one very basic thing. It caused my computer to lag, and I heard clicks and pops every sec or so. Of course I could still render it but I couldn't play it in real time (without the mentioned problems). Granted, producers will have better hardware than I but producing music involves a lot of processing. I don't think it's possible to have a combination of hardware and software that let's you to do the whole producing in 192kHz. At least not yet. They aren't (always) inherently limited but practically, they always are, to some extent.


 
  
 We didn't really get into how "possible" it is to produce EDM at high sample rates, given today's hardware.  I've read some posts over at gearslutz.com (posted a link in one of my earlier posts) that show some producers are doing just that.  Not sure if it's 192, but at least 96 kHz.
  
 What you showed was that synths are no more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments.  At least that's what I got from your posts and experiments.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  I'm assuming you did this, because like me, you interpreted Gregorio's comments that EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res because the genre has limited dynamic range and no ultrasonic content.  There's an implication in that statement that electronic music in inherently more limited than other genres in dynamic range and ultrasonics.  I believe you showed that is not the case.


----------



## LazyListener

pinnahertz said:


> Not at all. He showed a case of a software synth generating a signal deliberately chosen to produce ultrasonics, but would never by chosen to make music. He did not address all "synths", not even close. It's one specific case, and while it may occur in other software synths as well, it's not representative of "synths" at all, certainly not being used to produce musical signals.
> If only it were that simple. The real limitation in producing sound in a synth is a combination of the usability of the tools, understanding of the technology, and a very strong artistic sense. The strong need of both technical aptitude and artistic aptitude occurs strongly in synth programming. That combination is rare in individuals, they generally favor one aptitude strongly over the other, but is the real limit.
> Good you understand that.


 

 He did that theoretical experiment to show that synths are not any more limited in dynamic range than acoustic instruments.  Therefore, EDM as a genre is inherently no more limited in dynamic range than other genres.  Any limitation of dynamic range in EDM stems from creative choice by the producers in order to generate the intended musical experience.  Sure, EDM may have more compressed dynamic range than other genres, like Classical, but again, that stems from creative choice, not from limitations of the equipment/instruments used to create the music.  I'm sure if EDM producers wanted to they could make electronic music with as wide a dynamic range as any other music genre.  Same goes for ultrasonic content.
  
 Never said he addressed all synths.  Never knew any of our discussions had to apply to all synths.
  
 I was not referring to limitations in *producing *sound in a synth (creative process).  I was referring to limitations of synthesizers themselves.  Their capabilities are typically limited by the processing power of hardware they run on, and of course the creativity of the programmers that create the synth software.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

> What you showed was that synths are no more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments.  At least that's what I got from your posts and experiments.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  I'm assuming you did this, because like me, you interpreted Gregorio's comments that EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res because the genre has limited dynamic range and no ultrasonic content.  There's an implication in that statement that electronic music in inherently more limited than other genres in dynamic range and ultrasonics.  I believe you showed that is not the case.


 
 If music stuff don't contains ultrasonic content it is not reason obligatorily to use 44 kHz.
  
 Analog filter of ADC is sloping. It catch ultrasound content besides synth (noise, interference, microphone and analog inputs).
  
 1. For cutting ultrasound content and decimation to 44 kHz need use steep digital filter. In pro audio suppression aliases there about -170...200 dB. I suppose, such value need for "transparent" work with records. "Transparent" here mean "work and don't worry about degrading sound".
  
 2. At output DAC we have sloping filter issue again. If we will oversample 44 kHz to higher sample rates, there need also steep digital filter with suppression -130 dB or better (level noise floor at DAC). Because analog filter is slope.
  
 Thus for record 44 kHz need 2 times use steep digital filter with significant ringing instead 1 or 2 times of non-steep filters.


----------



## LazyListener

pinnahertz said:


> YES, I am.  And here's why:
> That's what some people are getting from your posts.  It's one post by one user, but he no doubt reflects many, many more who are not active participants.
> 
> The conclusion in that post  is completely wrong and misleading.  We already have several posts that seem to have been mislead by your misinformation.
> ...


 

 I get what you're saying.  I do.  But Gregorio made comments that synths have limited dynamic range and no ultrasonic content.  There is an implication there, whether intended or not, that synths are more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments.  There were even some comparisons being made with synths and acoustical instruments.  Apparently, Gregorio wasn't clear enough in his statement.  If I can see that implication there, others will too, as VNandor apparently did.  VNandor simply pointed out that synths don't necessarily have to have dynamic range any more limited than acoustical instruments.  Same with ultrasonics.  Now you're bringing up some synths but not all.  Doesn't matter.  We were discussing synths in general.  No one claimed that all synths have wide dynamic range or ultrasonics, just that some do or can be made to do so.


----------



## pinnahertz

lazylistener said:


> What you showed was that synths are no more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments.  At least that's what I got from your posts and experiments.  Correct me if I'm wrong.


 
 You ARE wrong, and I've already corrected you.


lazylistener said:


> I'm assuming you did this, because like me, you interpreted Gregorio's comments that EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res because the genre has limited dynamic range and no ultrasonic content.  There's an implication in that statement that electronic music in inherently more limited than other genres in dynamic range and ultrasonics.


 
 It is, and that's irrefutable. Take several examples of EDM and run them through the TT Dynamic Range Meter, and a spectrum analyzer capable of looking at ultrasonics.  Note the results. EDM is very DR limited, and has no ultrasonic content.  Now, do the same with another genre, like Classical, since it's been mentioned.  Note the results, and compare them.  You'll find way more dynamics.  


lazylistener said:


> I believe you showed that is not the case.


 
 No, he did not. He showed that one software synth could be forced into generating a waveform with ultrasonic content.  His experiment had nothing to do with EDM or music of any kind.


----------



## pinnahertz

lazylistener said:


> He did that theoretical experiment to show that synths are not any more limited in dynamic range than acoustic instruments.


 
 The experiment showed nothing at all about dynamic range. It showed ultrasonic content only.


lazylistener said:


> Therefore, EDM as a genre is inherently no more limited in dynamic range than other genres.  Any limitation of dynamic range in EDM stems from creative choice by the producers in order to generate the intended musical experience.  Sure, EDM may have more compressed dynamic range than other genres, like Classical, but again, that stems from creative choice, not from limitations of the equipment/instruments used to create the music.  I'm sure if EDM producers wanted to they could make electronic music with as wide a dynamic range as any other music genre.


 
 You are contradicting yourself.  You say:
_"EDM as a genre is inherently no more limited in dynamic range than other genres." _
 then:
_"Any limitation of dynamic range in EDM stems from creative choice by the producers in order to generate the intended musical experience." _
 and:
_"Sure, EDM may have more compressed dynamic range than other genres,..." _
  
 So...which is it?  It's not limited in dynamic range, but it has more compressed dynamic range than other genres?  Sorry, you can't have both, it's one or the other.
  
 The fact is, the choices being made by EDM producers and musicians make it one of *the* most limited dynamic range genres today. It can't be both unlimited and limited at the same time, it's one or the other, and the choice is highly compressed, limited DR. That  limited DR partially defines the genre.


lazylistener said:


> Same goes for ultrasonic content.


 
 Not, not at all.  The issue of ultrasonic content is completely different.  The results of dynamic range limiting are all unmistakably audible, and the result of choice. Ultrasonics are not audible, not ever. Nobody's making an artistic choice to produce them or not. Incidental ultrasonics are not there in EDM because of a bandwidth limit of the device making the sound, or the bandwidth limit of the recording system. That's nothing like dynamic range. They are two entirely separate things.


lazylistener said:


> Never said he addressed all synths.  Never knew any of our discussions had to apply to all synths.


 
 You're once again contradicting yourself.


lazylistener said:


> What you showed was that _*synths*_ are no more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments.


 
 Notice: you've used the word, "_*synths*_", that's more than one synth, and in context, "all" is easily implied because you related "synths" to an undefined number of "acoustic instruments". He tested exactly  one synth. He forced it to produce ultrasonics by generating a non-musical, unplayable patch, and taxed his system to do so. That simply does not represent anything more than his specific software synth in his specific application (non-musical).
  
 The conclusion you're drawing goes like this: On October 15, 1997 Andy Green drove a car at 760mph/1223kph. So you conclude that "cars" can go up to 760mph/1223kph.
  
 But the above is incorrect. The car Andy drove was powered by two huge jet engines producing 111,000 brake horsepower, and weighed 10 tons. It wasn't street legal, and couldn't turn a corner on a residential street. You can call it a "car" because it had wheels, engines, a means of steering, speed control, and stopping. But to make the statement, based on that experiment, that "cars" can go up to 760mph/1223kph is just plain misleading and incorrect.
  
 VNandor tested *one software synth* creating an unusual patch chosen specifically for its potential to produce ultrasonic content, then had to render it to make it playable.  That's the software synth equivalent of a purpose-built supersonic jet powered car. 
  
 To then conclude that "synths are no more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments" from that experiment is just plain wrong. He proved one thing, and one thing only: the specific software synth he used could be made to produce a waveform with ultrasonic content. That's it, nothing more.
  
 I've already posted with regard to the range of other synths, a great many of which are still hardware-based.  As Gregorio posted, many if not most synths use waveform samples as their basis of sound generation.  Those samples are manipulated and combined to create new sounds.  It's a digital process that starts with samples, most of which are 44.1 or 48kHz sampling frequency and thus have no ultrasonic content.  The synths that use them don't create ultrasonics for that and many other reasons.  Analog synths, both vintage and modern, have some ultrasonic capability, but the waveform would have to approximate a square wave to do so.  Square waves are one of the basic waveforms analogy synths use, but they aren't very musical.  The first thing you do in creating a musically useful sound is to mix it with another waveform, and/or run that square wave into a filter...and there goes  your ultrasonics.  
  
 You really have no idea what any other synth could create in the ultrasonic region, and none have been tested here.  But a good solid understanding of the technology tells the story.  Ultrasonics are rare to non-existent in synthesizer output, deliberate and extreme attempts to produce them notwithstanding.


----------



## LazyListener

Quote:


pinnahertz said:


> The experiment showed nothing at all about dynamic range. It showed ultrasonic content only.
> You are contradicting yourself.  You say:
> _"EDM as a genre is inherently no more limited in dynamic range than other genres." _
> then:
> ...


 

 You and Gregorio have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees, and love to cherry-pick specific statements for arguments' sake.
  
 EDM as a genre GENERALLY has limited dynamic range because of creative choice, not because today's synthesizer technology limits dynamic range or ultrasonics.  Better?  Happy now?  I'm sure you'll find something to pick apart in that statement, too.  Nothing is limiting electronic music producers from creating electronic music with the same dynamic range as other genres, other than creative choice.  Synthesizers (some, not all, never claimed all, you started arguing about some vs all) do have the ability to create music with wide dynamic range and ultrasonics, and at high resolutions.
  
 When I said same goes for ultrasonics, that's to be taken in context with the statements I made immediately preceding that statement.  Yet you start replying about audibility.  Audibility had nothing to do with my most recent reply.  If it's not audible, it's not music.  Same is true for acoustical instruments.
  
 When VNandor and I are talking about "synthesizers" we mean within the scope of the technology as a whole.  You're obviously smart enough to realize this, so I can only guess that you got picky about some vs all synths because it keeps your argument about dynamic range alive.  So, now I"m forced to send yet another reply to explain the obvious - that some synths have more limited DR than others.  But my argument wasn't even about that.  It was simply that synthesizers can have just as wide a dynamic range as acoustical instruments.  And synthesizers can feature ultrasonics just as well as acoustical instruments.  Some, not all.  Jeez!
  
 The level of dynamic range compression in electronic music ultimately is due to creative choice.  If EDM producers wanted to, they could make tracks with very wide dynamic range, tomorrow.  (Some tracks already feature very soft and very loud sounds).  The technology (of synthesizers) allows them to do so.  If EDM producers wanted to include ultrasonics in their music for whatever reason, they can do so, tomorrow, not years from now.  Therefore, EDM as genre is no more inherently limited in terms of dynamic range or ultrasonics than any other genre.  Electronic music can have as much dynamic range and ultrasonics as acoustical music.  The reason it doesn't is due to creative choice and factors other than technological limitations.


----------



## LazyListener

pinnahertz said:


> You ARE wrong, and I've already corrected you.
> It is, and that's irrefutable. Take several examples of EDM and run them through the TT Dynamic Range Meter, and a spectrum analyzer capable of looking at ultrasonics.  Note the results. EDM is very DR limited, and has no ultrasonic content.  Now, do the same with another genre, like Classical, since it's been mentioned.  Note the results, and compare them.  You'll find way more dynamics.
> No, he did not. He showed that one software synth could be forced into generating a waveform with ultrasonic content.  His experiment had nothing to do with EDM or music of any kind.


 

 I'm not wrong.  He discussed dynamic range as well and showed how he can manipulate the dynamic range to be something like 70 dbs delta.  Go back and read his posts if you must.
  
 EDM is not INHERENTLY more limited than other genres in terms of the dynamic range or ultrasonics that can be produced.  See my previous post for more on this.
  
 I've already said that EDM in general has a more compressed dynamic range than say, Classical music.  But that's the nature of the beast stemming from creative choice, not from some technological limitations of electronic music.  Electronic (synthesized) music is capable of the same dynamic range and ultrasonics as acoustical, recorded music.  Instruments used in Classical music can also be played at a more limited dynamic range, or the DR can be compressed after recording.  It all stems from creative choice and the desired musical expression.


----------



## castleofargh

quick question, is there something to test buffer problems? like maybe sending a test tone for an hour and record that in a loop with an app that would take note of changes above a given magnitude?
 I messing around with virtual cables, vst host and plenty of VSTs, and of course for the most part I wish to use those stuff for watching movies too so I try to keep delays fairly low. but sometimes I get a full chain that apparently has no problem, but after a while some buffer somewhere decides he had enough for just and instant. I tend to end up noticing after a while, but I'd like it if there was some free tool for that where we can test 3 hours of audio and find how low in delays I can really go without trouble.


----------



## VNandor

> Correct me if I'm wrong.  I'm assuming you did this, because like me, you interpreted Gregorio's comments that EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res because the genre has limited dynamic range and no ultrasonic content.  There's an implication in that statement that electronic music in inherently more limited than other genres in dynamic range and ultrasonics.  I believe you showed that is not the case.


 
 I did this because he didn't seem to be aware of that some snyths are capable of creating content that could only be captured in 192kHz/24bit. But I agree on that in practice, this is meaningless and not only because how synths are used (creative choice) but due to the practical limitations of the synth. I really hope my stance is clear now.


----------



## pinnahertz

lazylistener said:


> 1. I'm not wrong.  He discussed dynamic range as well and showed how he can manipulate the dynamic range to be something like 70 dbs delta.  Go back and read his posts if you must.
> 
> 1. EDM is not INHERENTLY more limited than other genres in terms of the dynamic range or ultrasonics that can be produced.  See my previous post for more on this.
> 
> 3. I've already said that EDM in general has a more compressed dynamic range than say, Classical music.  But that's the nature of the beast stemming from creative choice, not from some technological limitations of electronic music.  Electronic (synthesized) music is capable of the same dynamic range and ultrasonics as acoustical, recorded music.  Instruments used in Classical music can also be played at a more limited dynamic range, or the DR can be compressed after recording.  It all stems from creative choice and the desired musical expression.


 
 1. He discussed it theoretically and described a synth patch with 70dB of dynamic range *which would be unplayable.*  He did not demonstrate it.  
  
 2. Yes EDM is inherently more limited.  IT's part of the genre.  Show an example of even one EDM track with classical music type dynamics.
  
 3. When everyone creating the same genre makes the same creative choice it defines the genre.  You could compress classical music into a 8dB DR window, and everyone would hate it.  You could create EDM with wider dynamics than any piece of music on record, and everyone would hate it.
  
 You can misapply technology all day long to make a theoretical point, it doesn't change the validity of Gregorio's core statements.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> I did this because he didn't seem to be aware of that some snyths are capable of creating content that could only be captured in 192kHz/24bit. But I agree on that in practice, this is meaningless and not only because how synths are used (creative choice) but due to the practical limitations of the synth. I really hope my stance is clear now.


 
 Thank you!
  
 @*LazyListener, note he did not say he did this to prove anything regarding EDM and any benefit it may have in high res recording.*


----------



## VNandor

pinnahertz said:


> 1. He discussed it theoretically and described a synth patch with 70dB of dynamic range *which would be unplayable.*  He did not demonstrate it.


 
 I can easily play the patch if I apply a sensible amount oversampling and I think I've already said that. Sure, my demonstration is theoretical but not that much. Still not practical enough to reach any real-world conclusion.


----------



## pinnahertz

vnandor said:


> I can easily play the patch if I apply a sensible amount oversampling and I think I've already said that. Sure, my demonstration is theoretical but not that much. _*Still not practical enough to reach any real-world conclusion.*_


 
 Thank you again.
  
 And, though I really think the equine is deceased, the proof is of one synth, not many or all.  I would assume there may be others that could be similarly forced to do the same, but not many, and not by accident in real music composition.


----------



## Lex2

Most soft synths these days (early 2017) are tweaked to do oversampling internally (sometimes designed as a user-selectable choice from say 2X to 8X). These include most that are popular in EDM, including the U-He synths (Diva, Hive, etc), Sylenth1, Massive, Spire, and Serum. Practically speaking, higher sample rates will stress the machine's IO and CPU so there is no practical or auditory benefit to mixing down at anything higher than 24/96, though there is no stopping a person from setting up a DAW at higher rates for the intermediate work of mixing the track on a more powerful desktop. VNandor's results are fairly typical of what you can get these days with soft synths (not that EDM requires high rates).


----------



## VNandor

lazylistener said:


> We didn't really get into how "possible" it is to produce EDM at high sample rates, given today's hardware.  I've read some posts over at gearslutz.com (posted a link in one of my earlier posts) that show some producers are doing just that.  Not sure if it's 192, but at least 96 kHz.


 
 The link discusses a different topic for the most part. Just because some people work at 96k (setting their DAW's sample rate to 96k) it doesn't automatically mean that there will be any frequencies over 22kHz. Typically there won't be any, unless they directly forced their synths to do so, in which case, they would most likely run into the same kind of problems as I did. Maybe they could record some acoustic instruments at 96kHz and then use that in their music but this is again an entirely different case.
  
  
  
 "soft synths and dsp/fx plugins often sound much better at higher sample rates - even if the benefit is just less audible aliasing
 over sampling plugins help too - try guitar rig with/without the 'high' quality mode on... the difference is huge and pronounced
 a final format of 16/44.1 doesn't negate the benefits"
  
 This could be a noteworthy post, as this explains how I made my synth to make ultrasonics. First, I chose a signal which had enough frequencies above 22kHz. Normally, these frequencies would alias back below 22kHz which could alter the sound in a very noticeable way. The higher the original frequency were, the lower the aliased frequency would be. So, after applying enough oversampling, none of the strong/loud harmonics were aliased. This alone wouldn't be enough to produce ultrasonic content, because if the DAW's sampling rate was at 44.1kHz, all the high frequencies would be filtered out. So after the oversampling I also had to change that to 192kHz so the frequencies wouldn't get filtered up to ~96kHz.
 As you can see, the high frequencies is just a byproduct of oversampling (which is typically being used for anti aliasing not for making high frequencies). Even the post's maker says "the final format of 16/44.1 doesn't negate the benefits."


----------



## Dillan

Hey guys,

In theory would WAV be better than FLAC as FLAC has to be uncompressed first? Not saying the difference has to be audible in reality.. just asking about the computer science behind the two. As I said "in theory". I also realize the processing power needed to decompress a FLAC file is incredibly non stringent.

Just always wondered that.


----------



## spruce music

dillan said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> In theory would WAV be better than FLAC as FLAC has to be uncompressed first? Not saying the difference has to be audible in reality.. just asking about the computer science behind the two. As I said "in theory". I also realize the processing power needed to decompress a FLAC file is incredibly non stringent.
> 
> Just always wondered that.


 

 Complete non-issue.  Generally computers decode FLAC to Wav in RAM and then play it.  This is some audiophoolery you have been infected with here.


----------



## Dillan

spruce music said:


> Complete non-issue.  Generally computers decode FLAC to Wav in RAM and then play it.  This is some audiophoolery you have been infected with here.




Is it the CPU or the storage device (ram/hard drive) that handles the decompression?


----------



## spruce music

dillan said:


> Is it the CPU or the storage device (ram/hard drive) that handles the decompression?



Copy
CPU of course. Most software does the decompression, and stores the result in memory which with most gear takes only a few seconds to complete. So it sits there already in wav format waiting to be played. Which means the activity of the CPU is thus effectively made of no consequence by the time the files actually play. It works the same as if you decide to decode all your flac files to wav and store on the HD. Decompression has occurred prior to playback.


----------



## Dillan

spruce music said:


> Copy
> CPU of course. Most software does the decompression, and stores the result in memory which with most gear takes only a few seconds to complete. So it sits there already in wav format waiting to be played. Which means the activity of the CPU is thus effectively made of no consequence by the time the files actually play. It works the same as if you decide to decode all your flac files to wav and store on the HD. Decompression has occurred prior to playback.




I see


----------



## gregorio

lazylistener said:


> [1] He did that theoretical experiment to show that synths are not any more limited in dynamic range than acoustic instruments.  Therefore, EDM as a genre is inherently no more limited in dynamic range than other genres.
> [1a] Any limitation of dynamic range in EDM stems from creative choice by the producers in order to generate the intended musical experience.
> 
> [2] Never said he addressed all synths.  Never knew any of our discussions had to apply to all synths.
> ...


 
  
 1. Pinnahertz already addressed the logical fallacy of this statement.
 1a. No it does not! Many "synth" patches have extremely limited dynamic ranges. Then there is also the creative choice of the producer to reduce dynamic range but as Pinnahertz also tried to explain to you, the creative choices of producers are limited by the genre.
  
 2. Of course it does ... because if it doesn't then your argument is nonsense! Other music genres employ an acoustic drum kit and/or other acoustic instruments which virtually ALWAYS produce frequencies (significant amounts in the case of a drum kit) which can only be captured with hires sample rates. EDM typically does not employ acoustic drum kits (or any other acoustic instruments) and even if there are some EDM tracks with ultrasonic content, "some" *is far less* than the "virtually always" of just about all other music genres!! EDM therefore benefits from "hires" sample rates "far less" than other genres. Just to be clear, I'm talking about "benefit" in terms of accuracy rather than in terms of audibility.
  
 3. Gearslutz is a forum used by highly experienced pros, complete noobs and everyone in between. Modern (computer based) electronic music requires nothing more than a laptop and the download and installation of a bunch of free/cheap software. There are countless thousands of people out there who after installing that software spend a few hours/days/weeks playing around with it and then announce to the world that they're music producers or audio engineers. If you're going to reference material from forums, you need to make sure you're not referencing ignorant nonsense from noobs! Just to be clear, there maybe some audible advantages to locally oversampling some soft synths (and other processors) but typically no benefit to working at or distributing "hires".
  
 4. Huh? Are you really saying that you don't see how deliberately low-res content would have the least to gain from hires?
  
 6. This is patently incorrect! While the creators themselves are only creating electronically, they are virtually always using recorded/captured sound waves in the form of "samples" (in samplers or forming the basis of many/most soft-synths' patches). Furthermore, these samples are typically already highly processed (inc. compressed), which is why many synths/synth patches have restricted dynamic ranges!
  
 G


----------



## Lex2

Gregorio, not all EDM are produced using sample-based synths like Nexus (ROM-based) or incorporate high res drum patches dumped out from Sylenth1 or Serum. Neither do all EDM use wavetable synths based on user samples. A lot are produced 100% "electronically" as mentioned by LazyListener. And this includes drum patches based in some form on pure sine waves. I think all they are saying is that if someone wants to produce a synth sound only a dog can hear through very high res speakers then that is entirely possible to do so. And yes, EDM is inherently dynamically limited, as a genre. I would say this is true for mainstream EDM such as house, trance, complextro, etc. But having said that there is a lot of electronic ambient music that does not have the "squash them to hell" approach, created using pure synth patches without inherent dynamic compression, and would probably have as much range as Beethoven's 9th.


----------



## gregorio

lex2 said:


> [1] Gregorio, not all EDM are produced using sample-based synths like Nexus (ROM-based) or incorporate high res drum patches dumped out from Sylenth1 or Serum. Neither do all EDM use wavetable synths based on user samples. A lot are produced 100% "electronically" as mentioned by LazyListener. And this includes drum patches based in some form on pure sine waves.





> [2] But having said that there is a lot of electronic ambient music that does not have the "squash them to hell" approach


 
  
 1. Virtually all of the mainstream EDM I've heard is based on (highly processed) samples, one way or another. I'm sure there probably are examples of EDM tracks which are entirely/purely synthesised, maybe there are even "a lot" of them but they are still the minority/vast minority, which brings us back to point #2 in my previous post!
  
 2. In general, all the electronic genres are more compressed than other genres, although EDM is usually the most compressed of them all. I was not referring to other electronic genres though, just EDM.
  
 G


----------



## pinnahertz

lex2 said:


> Gregorio, not all EDM are produced using sample-based synths like Nexus (ROM-based) or incorporate high res drum patches dumped out from Sylenth1 or Serum. Neither do all EDM use wavetable synths based on user samples. A lot are produced 100% "electronically" as mentioned by LazyListener.* And this includes drum patches based in some form on pure sine waves.* I think all they are saying is that if someone wants to produce a synth sound only a dog can hear through very high res speakers then that is entirely possible to do so. And yes, EDM is inherently dynamically limited, as a genre. I would say this is true for mainstream EDM such as house, trance, complextro, etc. But having said that* there is a lot of electronic ambient music that does not have the "squash them to hell" approach, created using pure synth patches without inherent dynamic compression, and would probably have as much range as Beethoven's 9th.*


 
 I would like to hear an example of:
  
 1. Drum patches based on pure sine waves
 2. Electronic ambient music with wide dynamic range.  Equal to Beethoven's 9th if possible.
  
 I spend a solid hour this past weekend listening to EDM as a sanity check to see if what we've been saying about it was true.  I heard very little DR, with one exceptional and very weird track.  I heard no significant high frequency content in the top audible octave at all.  If you wanted to demo speakers with really remarkable HF response EDM would be the wrong choice.  
  
 But I'm open to auditioning specific examples of both EDM that makes use of the top octave fully, and wide DR electronic music.  Current examples only, please.  Stockhausen did some pretty wide DR electronic music in the 1950s.  No fair citing that.


----------



## VNandor

This is strange. In my experience, edm tends to be annoyingly bright. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive to high frequencies, I don't know.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9kA9GYOzHc Example of edm I'd call too treble heavy. If you get a 320kbit version it will make things even worse.
  
  
 I'm not sure what you mean by "based on pure sine waves" however I have some examples of synthesized drums if that's what you are looking for.
 A single example of an entirely synthesized snare.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A7oFpmXuls
  
 A whole synthesized sample pack (or "preset pack") that includes percussions as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K1SmDD0XTo
  
 I'm not really into ambient stuff and edm is brickwalled because it's oriented towards clubs, festivals, etc. Maybe someone else can help here.


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> I would like to hear an example of:
> 
> 1. Drum patches based on pure sine waves
> 2. Electronic ambient music with wide dynamic range.  Equal to Beethoven's 9th if possible.
> ...


 

 I don't think you'd find any contemporary EDM composers splicing tape or music like Stockhausen making the scene at dance clubs.


----------



## Arpiben

pinnahertz said:


> I would like to hear an example of:
> 
> 1. Drum patches based on pure sine waves
> 2. Electronic ambient music with wide dynamic range.  Equal to Beethoven's 9th if possible.
> ...




Not so contemporary with almost same DR as Stockhausen you may try Jean Michel Jarre 80's production ( Oygen/Magnetic Fields/China's concert).
I am afraid it is old fashioned EDM


----------



## pinnahertz

stand said:


> I don't think you'd find any contemporary EDM composers splicing tape or music like Stockhausen making the scene at dance clubs.


 
 I dunno...retro is in!


----------



## pinnahertz

arpiben said:


> Not so contemporary with almost same DR as Stockhausen you may try Jean Michel Jarre 80's production ( Oygen/Magnetic Fields/China's concert).
> I am afraid it is old fashioned EDM


 
 Yeah, I own that stuff, original vinyl and digits. The dynamics are certainly there.  Oxegene was 1977, Equinoxe was 1978, so yeah, for an example I was hoping for something less than 20 years old.


----------



## limpidglitch

When you guys talk about music being more or less 'dynamic', what are you really talking about?
 Is there a clear definition? Can it be quantified?


----------



## pinnahertz

limpidglitch said:


> When you guys talk about music being more or less 'dynamic', what are you really talking about?
> Is there a clear definition? Can it be quantified?


 
 I refer to Dynamic Range.  I like the definition that pops first in Google:
 
dy·nam·ic range
 _noun_
 

     the range of acceptable or possible volumes of sound occurring in the course of a piece of music or a performance.

   the ratio of the largest to the smallest intensity of sound that can be reliably transmitted or reproduced by a particular sound system, measured in decibels.


 



 

  
  
 It can be quantified a number of ways, but one easy one is the *TT Dynamic Range Meter.*
  
 So if a track is "more dynamic" or has "greater dynamics", it would have greater dynamic range.  Dynamic range is very commonly reduced with dynamics processing, generally like compression and limiting, but usually more complex than that.  When dynamic range is reduced, the average loudness can be pushed up.  The competitive application of this kind of processing is what the "loudness war" is all about.  Modern EDM generally has very little dynamic range, especially when compared with other genres like classical.


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> I dunno...retro is in!


 
 I can't wait to hear retro-hip-hop. I might have to get a retro headphone cable to listen to it.


----------



## pinnahertz

stand said:


> pinnahertz said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno...retro is in!
> ...



Yeah, well, retro is a nice word for "old". You know, when Hip-hop become a hip replacement. Etc.


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> Yeah, well, retro is a nice word for "old". You know, when Hip-hop become a hip replacement. Etc.


 

 About now, Hippies are ready for hip replacements and audiophile hearing aids to replace their Koss Pro4A headphones.


----------



## gregorio

vnandor said:


> In my experience, edm tends to be annoyingly bright.


 
  
 Agreed but "bright" and ultrasonic are not the same thing. "Bright" can inhabit quite a wide range of freqs, anything from about 2kHz up to 10kHz or so but typically around 4kHz to 7kHz. As the loudness wars intensified, EQ use often became more extreme in mastering in EDM, with particular emphasis on the low and the mid/high mid freqs.
  


arpiben said:


> Not so contemporary with almost same DR as Stockhausen you may try Jean Michel Jarre 80's production ( Oygen/Magnetic Fields/China's concert).
> I am afraid it is old fashioned EDM


 
  
 The history of EDM is quite colourful, it's roots can be traced back to Stockhausen in the '50's,  then in the early '70's came Kraftwerk who were arguably the single biggest influence. Neither Stockhausen (obviously), Kraftwerk or Jean Michel Jarre's work was strictly EDM though, just EDM's ancestors. Although admittedly EDM is not a very precisely defined term.
  


limpidglitch said:


> When you guys talk about music being more or less 'dynamic', what are you really talking about?
> Is there a clear definition? Can it be quantified?


 
  
 Good question! Dynamics/dynamic range are not precisely defined terms. This is partly due to the fact that it's used as a musical term (by musicians) and as an audio engineering term.
  
 In music, it's typically used to mean the range of loudness and/or the speed of change. A "very dynamic" composition would be one which relatively often changes between piano and forte (or pianissimo and fortissimo) and those changes are relatively abrupt, making the contrast between quiet and loud particularly obvious. In music, "dynamic/s" is more about the amount of this perceived contrast rather than absolute difference. For example, the opening of Beethoven's 5th Symph was shockingly "dynamic" in it's day, due to it's instant change from near silent to forte.
  
 Even if we just take the audio engineering (rather than the musical) use of the term, dynamic range is still not precisely defined or more accurately, it is quite precisely defined but there's more than one such definition. Pinnahertz's quoted definition is perfectly accurate and acceptable but arguably, a more commonly used definition would be the range from peak value to the noise floor.
  
 To simplify; the difference between the audio engineering definition/s and the musical definition is that the engineering definition/s are an actual (amplitude) numerical value whereas the musical definition is perception based. This is an important difference because particularly over the last 30 years, popular music genres have evolved to take advantage of it, EDM arguably more than any other. In other words, EDM (and other popular genres) can often appear reasonably dynamic but is in reality much less so than it appears. This is because song construction (the musical structure, arrangement/orchestration and processing) has evolved to take advantage of those factors which affect our perception of loudness.
  
 G


----------



## limpidglitch

gregorio said:


> Even if we just take the audio engineering (rather than the musical) use of the term, dynamic range is still not precisely defined or more accurately, it is quite precisely defined but there's more than one such definition. Pinnahertz's quoted definition is perfectly accurate and acceptable but arguably, a more commonly used definition would be the range from peak value to the noise floor.
> 
> To simplify; the difference between the audio engineering definition/s and the musical definition is that the engineering definition/s are an actual (amplitude) numerical value whereas the musical definition is perception based. This is an important difference because particularly over the last 30 years, popular music genres have evolved to take advantage of it, EDM arguably more than any other. In other words, EDM (and other popular genres) can often appear reasonably dynamic but is in reality much less so than it appears. This is because song construction (the musical structure, arrangement/orchestration and processing) has evolved to take advantage of those factors which affect our perception of loudness.
> 
> G


 
  
 Yes, Pinnahertz' definition sounds reasonable when applied to something like the transmission of signals over radio, or recording of light intensities on a CCD, but how does it relate to recorded music? 
 To define a range you'd need to define the extremes, so how do you determine what's the highest and lowest levels?

 I've also tried to figure out what the TT meter actually measures, but documentation seems hard to find. I believe RRod has mentioned that it's more or less a variation on crest factor, but crest factor doesn't describe a range, as far as I can understand, but the ratio between the peak sample value and the total RMS of the track.


----------



## pinnahertz

limpidglitch said:


> Yes, Pinnahertz' definition sounds reasonable when applied to something like the transmission of signals over radio, or recording of light intensities on a CCD, but how does it relate to recorded music?
> To define a range you'd need to define the extremes, so how do you determine what's the highest and lowest levels?
> 
> I've also tried to figure out what the TT meter actually measures, but documentation seems hard to find. I believe RRod has mentioned that it's more or less a variation on crest factor, but crest factor doesn't describe a range, as far as I can understand, but the ratio between the peak sample value and the total RMS of the track.


 
 The TT DR meter is an attempt to reduce a complex metering process down to a single digit for publication.  It's derived from taking the difference between RMS and Peak, but time weighting so it makes more sense.  As far as I can tell the peak figure is derived from a true peak detector with defined ballistic.  This would be logical as time is also required to perceive loudness.  
  
 However, the meter relates to short-term DR, not the total DR of a piece of music.  For example, a recording of the last movement of Beethoven's 9th returns a DR 13, but the total dynamic range per the first definition I posted is in the 40dB area.  However, a widely dynamic piece like Beethoven's 9th will always return a higher number than a EDM piece, so it does serve to illustrate the principle, even if its massive integration is a bit misleading when considering total DR.  The TT meter also relates well with loudness meters, even though the numbers are different.  The point was to present an idea of the degree of loudness processing in a piece, though it's not a loudness meter as such, nor will it display total DR.  
  
 I only suggested the TT meter because it's quick and easy.  I use the tools in Audition mostly, because it presents lots of different types of analysis and can span part of a file or the whole thing. I also us an Leq analyzer.


----------



## limpidglitch

What do you mean with "time weighting"? Do you know of anywhere I can read about the algorithm in detail?
  
 I've also used Audition a lot.
 Their 'Dynamic Range' is the difference between the maximum and minimum RMS values, which introduces another complication: what window length should you use? If you set it short enough it wouldn't be difficult to make Skrillex and Beethoven appear similarly dynamic.


----------



## gregorio

limpidglitch said:


> [1] Yes, Pinnahertz' definition sounds reasonable when applied to something like the transmission of signals over radio, or recording of light intensities on a CCD, but how does it relate to recorded music?
> [2] To define a range you'd need to define the extremes, so how do you determine what's the highest and lowest levels?
> 
> [3] I've also tried to figure out what the TT meter actually measures, but documentation seems hard to find. I believe RRod has mentioned that it's more or less a variation on crest factor, but crest factor doesn't describe a range, as far as I can understand, but the ratio between the peak sample value and the total RMS of the track.


 
  
 1. Well it would relate more to sound systems or components than to recorded music, as you would ideally want a sound system's dynamic range to be greater than the dynamic range of the recordings. IE. So that it can in effect reproduce the recording's noise floor.
  
 2. The highest level is easy because we can just assume it's 0dBFS, as pretty much all commercial music recordings peak within a few tenths of a dB of 0dBFS. The lower figure is not so easy in practice because although in theory it's the recording's noise floor, in practice the noise floor typically isn't completely constant and depending on how random the noise floor, it's spectrum and the spectrum of the signal, it is possible to hear notes several dB below the noise floor. In extreme examples (such as noise-shaped dither for example) it can be possible to hear 30dB below the noise floor.
  
 3. AFAIK, the actual measurement/algo is not published. It is roughly, as RRod describes a measurement of crest factor and I also believe Pinnahertz is correct in stating it effectively has a time "window", possibly similar to the old PPMs. Whatever it is actually doing, it's really nothing to do with actual dynamic range though.
  
 G


----------



## pinnahertz

limpidglitch said:


> What do you mean with "time weighting"? Do you know of anywhere I can read about the algorithm in detail?
> 
> I've also used Audition a lot.
> Their 'Dynamic Range' is the difference between the maximum and minimum RMS values, which introduces another complication: what window length should you use? If you set it short enough it wouldn't be difficult to make Skrillex and Beethoven appear similarly dynamic.


 
 True peak is instantaneous.  Any peak of any duration is detected at its maximum value.  What I mean by "time-weighting" is a peak detector that will eventually respond to true peak, but only after a period of time.  What that does is weight the reading toward longer duration peaks, and read very short peaks at a lower that true value, corresponding to how we perceive the build up of sound.  
  
 For the analysis window in Audition, you have to be a bit intelle\igent about what you select.  Longer is better, generally, but any time you pick a portion of a track you're biasing the reading somewhat. I always start by analyzing the entire track, then go in for detail if required.  Analyzing the total track will give you the maximum and minimums for peak, RMS, and average, and show you all possibly clipped samples over 0dBFS, total track loudness (including ITU-R BS.1770-2).  Doing less than the whole track creates both specificity (analyzing just one specific portion) and ambiguity (the numbers say nothing about what section it is you've analyzed).


----------



## RRod

I find the DR rating to be mostly useful for comparing different versions of the same track. The dynamic structure of two pieces can easily vary enough that the rating is no longer measuring a "difference in dynamism" but a "difference in suitability for the algorithm". Some material just doesn't work well with it: take Jon Leifs' music as an example. He has several big works that are essentially really long crescendos. This means that when you only consider, say, some quantile range of RMS values, you are cutting off the loudest and the softest parts! Bad way to get a true measure of dynamism. The more I've worked with this stuff the more I think what G suggests is what works: a "peak-ish" to noise-floor measurement. I say "peak-ish" because once you get to really short durations, the integration abilities of our hearing come into play.


----------



## CarlosUnchained

I really like this thread. Free audio engineering lessons.


----------



## limpidglitch

No Skrillex at hand, so it's Kiasmos vs. some classy Ludvig van.
 I'd say Ludvig sounds more dynamic, but at the same time you could argue Kiasmos has more actual dynamic range.
  

 The tracks were 65 by Kiasmos and 9th Symphony, 4th movt. by LvB/Fricsay/Berliner Phil.
 The tracks were summed to mono and trimmed 10 seconds on either end before processing.
  
  


Spoiler: SoX/Gnuplot code



#compare dynamic range* of two files
 #requires SoX and Gnuplot
 #*(here defined as difference between minimum and maximum dB RMS)
  
 #sum to mono, trim first and last 10 seconds and normalize the audio files
 sox DR_Kiasmos-65.wav audio1.wav channels 1 trim 10 -10 norm -0.001
 sox DR_LvB.Fricsay-s9.4.wav audio2.wav channels 1 trim 10 -10 norm -0.001
  
 #initiate data file with comment and headers
 printf "#max-min RMS range\nSec Kiasmos LvB\n" > DR.txt
  
 #repeat calculations with increasing window lengths
 for i in {1..100}
 do
     width=$(echo "scale=3; $i / 100" | bc -l | sed 's/^\./0./g')
     echo "$width"
  
     rmsmax1=$(sox audio1.wav -n stats -w $width 2>&1 |\
       grep "RMS Pk dB" |\
       sed 's/[^0-9.-]*//g')
     rmsmin1=$(sox audio1.wav -n stats -w $width 2>&1 |\
       grep "RMS Tr dB" |\
       sed 's/[^0-9.-]*//g')
     rmsdif1=$(echo "($rmsmax1)-($rmsmin1)" | bc -l | sed 's/^\./0./g')
  
     rmsmax2=$(sox audio2.wav -n stats -w $width 2>&1 |\
       grep "RMS Pk dB" |\
       sed 's/[^0-9.-]*//g')
     rmsmin2=$(sox audio2.wav -n stats -w $width 2>&1 |\
       grep "RMS Tr dB" |\
       sed "s/[^0-9.-]*//g")
     rmsdif2=$(echo "($rmsmax2)-($rmsmin2)" | bc -l | sed "s/^\./0./g")
  
     echo "$width $rmsdif1 $rmsdif2" >> DR.txt
 done
  
 cat DR.txt
  
 gnuplot
  
 set term png size 2000,1000 font ",20"
 set output "DR.png"
  
 set xlabel "Window length (s)"
 set ylabel "Range (dB RMS)"
  
 set key height 1
 plot for[col=2:3] "DR.txt" using 1:col lw 3 title columnheader(col) with lines
  
 exit
  
 open DR.png


----------



## pinnahertz

limpidglitch said:


> No Skrillex at hand, so it's Kiasmos vs. some classy Ludvig van.
> I'd say Ludvig sounds more dynamic, but at the same time you could argue Kiasmos has more actual dynamic range.
> 
> 
> ...



The graph shows the analysis window at 1 sec.? That's not right....


----------



## limpidglitch

No, the window length ranges from 0.01 to 1 second, analysis is done on the whole file (minus the 10 seconds at either end).


----------



## pinnahertz

limpidglitch said:


> No, the window length ranges from 0.01 to 1 second, analysis is done on the whole file (minus the 10 seconds at either end).


 
 Ok, got it. 
  
 What the graph is then showing is how important getting the window length right can be.  Very short windows won't reflect loudness well, and don't represent DR properly.  
  
 For comparison, here is the result of some other tools, Audition, TT DR meter, and AudioLeak (Leq).


----------



## limpidglitch

That demonstrates pretty well that the TT-meter's DR metric has little to do with dynamic range, but does a pretty good job at quantifying the _dynamism_ of a piece of music, which in my mind is far more useful.
 Actually, the more I think about it, using dynamic range as a metric to describe music, as opposed to a technology, just gets sillier and sillier.


----------



## pinnahertz

limpidglitch said:


> That demonstrates pretty well that the TT-meter's DR metric has little to do with dynamic range, but does a pretty good job at quantifying the _dynamism_ of a piece of music, which in my mind is far more useful.
> Actually, the more I think about it, using dynamic range as a metric to describe music, as opposed to a technology, just gets sillier and sillier.


 
 Actually the TT meter tracks DR pretty well, though the number it produces is unique to itself.  I think because of the unique number the meter has not succeeded in being widely adopted, outside of their own database.  
  
 I don't agree with your last statement, though.  I think DR can describe an aspect of music and show that aspects relationship to technical choices made in production.


----------



## limpidglitch

You can have a track consisting entirely of -6dBFS white noise except for one second of silence somewhere in the middle, and you'd have a track with ~90dB dynamic range. The TT-meter wouldn't track that, and I consider that a good thing.

 I'm sure dynamic range has a valid place in the technical tool-kit, but as a measure of how dynamic a piece of music sounds, it's not very accurate. For one it's too sensitive to outliers.


----------



## pinnahertz

limpidglitch said:


> You can have a track consisting entirely of -6dBFS white noise except for one second of silence somewhere in the middle, and you'd have a track with ~90dB dynamic range. The TT-meter wouldn't track that, and I consider that a good thing.
> 
> I'm sure dynamic range has a valid place in the technical tool-kit, but as a measure of how dynamic a piece of music sounds, it's not very accurate. For one it's too sensitive to outliers.


 
 I guess there should be a separation between absolute DR and percieved.  I always work with percieved because it's really all that matters.


----------



## Argyris

I would argue that dynamic range should only be a concern if it's been artificially tweaked to be smaller than it should be, i.e. brickwalling. If the dynamic range is purposely limited, as per the so-called loudness wars, this should be apparent regardless of what's on the recording. One might argue that instruments and genres with a smaller inherent dynamic range will be less affected by overly zealous compression than those with a larger range, but this to me is academic. If I like full symphonic music, I'm not going to start listening exclusively to electronic just to avoid some of the compression artifacts.
  
 In fact, I'm not going to stop or start listening to _any_ genre of music solely for technical considerations*, and I honestly don't see the point in singling out any aspect of one (dynamic range, extent into the ultrasonic range, etc.) and pitting it against other genres.
  
 In a roundabout way, I guess I'm saying I'm a little perplexed as to why this discussion has gone on for so many pages and what it's trying to prove. Even if you could somehow convince me that Bradley Justin Interchangeable Teen Idol III, specifically, becomes a _whole new experience_ in high-rez, or that for some reason his music has a dynamic range that would dwarf the Rockies, that would involve me listening to BJITI III, which is not something that is going to happen anytime soon. BJITI III fans can feel superior and/or vindicated if that's what they want, and at the root of it I'm sensing that this right here might be what this discussion is really about.
  
*If I did that, I might be an audiophile


----------



## pinnahertz

argyris said:


> I would argue that dynamic range should only be a concern if it's been artificially tweaked to be smaller than it should be, i.e. brickwalling. If the dynamic range is purposely limited, as per the so-called loudness wars, this should be apparent regardless of what's on the recording. One might argue that instruments and genres with a smaller inherent dynamic range will be less affected by overly zealous compression than those with a larger range, but this to me is academic. If I like full symphonic music, I'm not going to start listening exclusively to electronic just to avoid some of the compression artifacts.
> 
> In fact, I'm not going to stop or start listening to _any_ genre of music solely for technical considerations*, and I honestly don't see the point in singling out any aspect of one (dynamic range, extent into the ultrasonic range, etc.) and pitting it against other genres.
> 
> ...


 
 You run into problems when trying to separate something done as part of artistic expression and something done to be competitive in loudness.  It's not always easy to tell why processing has been done, even when taken to the extreme.
  
 The only reason this discussion has gone this far is that someone who should and does know stated that EDM has less dynamic range than some other genres, and wouldn't benefit from hi-res.  Then the fun started, and we went down the whole synth capabilities road, and a side road at that.  In the end, gregorio was right, and in some aspects, others were right too.  
  
 And we don't have any hi-res EDM anyway.


----------



## LazyListener

vnandor said:


> I did this because he didn't seem to be aware of that some snyths are capable of creating content that could only be captured in 192kHz/24bit. But I agree on that in practice, this is meaningless and not only because how synths are used (creative choice) but due to the practical limitations of the synth. I really hope my stance is clear now.


 
 Your example was only one synth and you mentioned a crazy wide DR of 70 db, so it was an extreme example.  I'm sure many synths can be manipulated to a more common, reasonable and listenable dynamic range.
  


pinnahertz said:


> 1. He discussed it theoretically and described a synth patch with 70dB of dynamic range *which would be unplayable.*  He did not demonstrate it.
> 
> 2. Yes EDM is inherently more limited.  IT's part of the genre.  Show an example of even one EDM track with classical music type dynamics.
> 
> ...


 
 1.  He demonstrated how the dynamic range of a synth can be manipulated.  If you define synth as a single, synthesized, electronic sound, there is nothing stopping EDM producers from including that sound in their mixes at various db levels, from very soft to very loud, and anywhere in between.  Is there?
  
 2.  Again, the dynamic range of EDM is NOT *inherently *any more limited than any other recorded music genre.  Maybe we have different meanings of inherently.  http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inherently.  "Permanent and inseparable...quality or attribute."  It's not permanent or inseparable.  It can be adjusted and manipulated like any other genre.  It's limited between theoretical and audible limits, just like any other recorded genre.  As I've mentioned in previous posts, EDM producers are free to create EDM tracks with relatively narrow dynamic range or relatively wide dynamic range.  Dynamic range alone does not define a genre.  http://productionadvice.co.uk/edm-dynamics/
  
      As far as asking for an example of an EDM track with Classical music type dynamics,  I don't know if one exists or not.  Probably does.  But even if it doesn't, it doesn't mean it can't exist.  That's the whole point.  It can exist because electronic music made using synthesizers can have just as wide a dynamic range as any other *recorded *music genre, including Classical.
  
 3.  Agree with the first part - defines the genre, although dynamic range alone doesn't define any genre.  You're using extreme examples, and also assuming what people like or hate.  That's just your opinion.  Fact is, dynamic range is relatively more compressed in EDM generally speaking than with Classical, but so is just about every other genre.  This is more or less common knowledge and no one is arguing this.  The more important general point I've been making is that electronic music doesn't have to be any more limited in terms of dynamic range than other genres.  EDM's dynamic range isn't compressed because synthesizers are being used instead of acoustical instruments.  It's being compressed to purposely sound loud and impactful.
  
 Which core statements of Gregorio's are you referring to?  He initially said that EDM is the genre that would benefit the least from Hi-Res, partly due to limited dynamic range.  Then after some discussion, we all agreed that EDM would not benefit any more or less from Hi-Res than any other genre.  Then, I provided a link to some posts over at gearslutz.com, that seemed to suggest that if anything, EDM *may *benefit at least somewhat from Hi-Res (high sample rates) during processing, oversampling, anti-aliasing, and things like that, yielding a noticeably cleaner, clearer sounding final mix.


----------



## LazyListener

vnandor said:


> The link discusses a different topic for the most part. Just because some people work at 96k (setting their DAW's sample rate to 96k) it doesn't automatically mean that there will be any frequencies over 22kHz. Typically there won't be any, unless they directly forced their synths to do so, in which case, they would most likely run into the same kind of problems as I did. Maybe they could record some acoustic instruments at 96kHz and then use that in their music but this is again an entirely different case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Honestly, I don't know the technical ins and outs like you and others here do.  I think I've made that clear with my posts so far.  But what I gathered from that gearslutz link was that high sample rates (Hi-Res) used during processing could actually have an audible benefit in the final product/mix.  Not saying ultrasonics, but benefits in the audible range.  Am I close?
  


gregorio said:


> 1. Pinnahertz already addressed the logical fallacy of this statement.
> 1a. No it does not! Many "synth" patches have extremely limited dynamic ranges. Then there is also the creative choice of the producer to reduce dynamic range but as Pinnahertz also tried to explain to you, the creative choices of producers are limited by the genre.
> 
> 2. Of course it does ... because if it doesn't then your argument is nonsense! Other music genres employ an acoustic drum kit and/or other acoustic instruments which virtually ALWAYS produce frequencies (significant amounts in the case of a drum kit) which can only be captured with hires sample rates. EDM typically does not employ acoustic drum kits (or any other acoustic instruments) and even if there are some EDM tracks with ultrasonic content, "some" *is far less* than the "virtually always" of just about all other music genres!! EDM therefore benefits from "hires" sample rates "far less" than other genres. Just to be clear, I'm talking about "benefit" in terms of accuracy rather than in terms of audibility.
> ...


 
 1.  Yes, already addressed by him and my response to him.
 1a.  I think we're getting crossed between the meaning of "synth" that has caused a lot of the confusion.  If by synth, we mean a short, singular, electronically created sound, then I agree - some synths, maybe most, have a relatively narrow dynamic range.  I was using "synths" as shorthand for synthesizers, which to me, are any electronic device or software used to create electronic/synthesized sounds.  With that said, synthesizer technology as a whole is not any more limited in dynamic range or even ultrasonics, than recorded acoustical instruments.
  
      I disagree that the creative choices of producers are limited by the genre.  At least not when it comes to subject at hand - dynamic range.  Stylistically, yes.  You can't create a song so different that it no longer sounds like the genre.  But we're talking only dynamic range.  You vary dynamic range widely without jumping out of the genre.  The producers, artists and their artistic and creative choices define the genre.
  
 2.  What does "benefit in terms of accuracy" mean?  What is the point of the "accuracy" if there's no perceivable benefit to the listener?
  
 3.  Are you saying the link to the gearslutz forum I posted was a bunch of "ignorant nonsense from noobs?"  You say pros hang out there, too.  So they didn't chime in?  So you're saying EDM may benefit from Hi-Res, just not working at or distributing it in Hi-Res.  Thanks for clarifying that.
  
 4.  No.  I'm saying I don't see how that specific example (some use of lo-fi processors which still capture what they're supposed to capture in terms of frequencies) explains how EDM as a genre benefits the least from Hi-Res.
  
 6.  I didn't realize most of today's software synths were created using samples.  Are you sure about this?  I was under the impression that samples were mostly a thing of the past, and that today's synthesizer tech was largely fully digital and electronic.  Not so?


----------



## pinnahertz

lazylistener said:


> Your example was only one synth and you mentioned a crazy wide DR of 70 db, so it was an extreme example.  I'm sure many synths can be manipulated to a more common, reasonable and listenable dynamic range.
> 
> 1.  He demonstrated how the dynamic range of a synth can be manipulated.


 
 No, he did not. He did not demonstrate anything regarding dynamic range of a synth, he only made a statement.


lazylistener said:


> If you define synth as a single, synthesized, electronic sound, there is nothing stopping EDM producers from including that sound in their mixes at various db levels, from very soft to very loud, and anywhere in between.  Is there?


 
 Oh, I don't know...perhaps the fact that it would have no artistic merit? The sound was a 5kHz square wave. Only one harmonic, the third, fell into the audible spectrum. I wouldn't have to be a square wave for a producer to achieve the same sound.


lazylistener said:


> 2.  Again, the dynamic range of EDM is NOT *inherently *any more limited than any other recorded music genre.  Maybe we have different meanings of inherently.  http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inherently.  "Permanent and inseparable...quality or attribute."  It's not permanent or inseparable.  It can be adjusted and manipulated like any other genre.


 
 You are being pedantic. There is no technical reason the dynamic range of any genre is limited, but there are major artistic reasons why it is, and those reasons and the use of dynamic range limiting processing in EDM contribute to its sonic definition. Therefore, the entire genre becomes more limited in dynamic range.


lazylistener said:


> It's limited between theoretical and audible limits, just like any other recorded genre.


 
 There is no genre of music that even comes close to the theoretical dynamic range capabilities of recording. Not one.


lazylistener said:


> As I've mentioned in previous posts, EDM producers are free to create EDM tracks with relatively narrow dynamic range or relatively wide dynamic range.  Dynamic range alone does not define a genre.  http://productionadvice.co.uk/edm-dynamics/


 
 Ah yes, my friend Ian Shepherd. You may not know him, but he is one of the prime anti-loudness-war guys. His site used to link directly to the TT DR meter, now he sells his own. He's all about increasing dynamic range. And he's right, it's just that he ignores a few aspects about why producers do what they do, and the result is a lot of really good windmill tilting. Great guy, I respect him a lot.
 Look, unfortunately, like it or not, within a genre dynamics are dictated by competition. Once it's been limited, crushed, squashed, and smashed my nearly everyone, that sound becomes part of the definition. It's not a technical thing, it's an emotional competition. Yes, it's illogical, but it is reality.


lazylistener said:


> As far as asking for an example of an EDM track with Classical music type dynamics,  I don't know if one exists or not.  Probably does.  But even if it doesn't, it doesn't mean it can't exist.  That's the whole point.  It can exist because electronic music made using synthesizers can have just as wide a dynamic range as any other *recorded *music genre, including Classical.


 
 A track like that doesn't exist (I'll eat those words if someone references one), and can't exist for the reasons above. They aren't technical reasons or constraints, they are much stronger than that.


lazylistener said:


> 3.  Agree with the first part - defines the genre, although dynamic range alone doesn't define any genre.


 
 And around we go...I'm getting dizzy in the circular logic.


lazylistener said:


> You're using extreme examples, and also assuming what people like or hate.  That's just your opinion.


 
 Well, my opinion comes from working for many years in classical music broadcasting. You know what the biggest technical challenge was? Trying to apply dynamic range processing so people could hear all of the music in a relatively noisy listening environment without getting irate phone calls about how we were killing the emotion in the music with our lousy processing. Yeah, for me that statement was fact.


lazylistener said:


> Fact is, dynamic range is relatively more compressed in EDM generally speaking than with Classical,


 
_"I'm so dizzy!
 I'm so dizzy, my head is spinnin'
 Like a whirlpool, it never ends...._
_And it's you (who's)making it spin_
_Your makin' me dizzy!"_


lazylistener said:


> but so is just about every other genre. This is more or less common knowledge and no one is arguing this.


 
 Classical, jazz, folk, early electronic music, even classic rock (the Greatful Dead had classical music dynamics in early concerts).


lazylistener said:


> The more important general point I've been making is that electronic music doesn't have to be any more limited in terms of dynamic range than other genres.


 
 Producers think differently, clearly.


lazylistener said:


> EDM's dynamic range isn't compressed because synthesizers are being used instead of acoustical instruments.


 
 Partly it is. Synth patches, many of them, are extremely limited in dynamic control. It make playing them much easier if they are electric-organ-like in dynamics.  That means a key press starts and stops a sound with no dynamic control at all.  This is another "yes they could, but no they don't" arguement, so let's just not do it, ok?


lazylistener said:


> It's being compressed to purposely sound loud and impactful.


 
 Loud, yes. Impact comes from dynamics and high crest factor, so no to that one.


lazylistener said:


> Which core statements of Gregorio's are you referring to?  He initially said that EDM is the genre that would benefit the least from Hi-Res, partly due to limited dynamic range.


 
 Yes, that one.


lazylistener said:


> Then after some discussion, we all agreed that EDM would not benefit any more or less from Hi-Res than any other genre.


 
 If you've followed gregorio, you would know where that is really coming from. And I agree.


lazylistener said:


> Then, I provided a link to some posts over at gearslutz.com, that seemed to suggest that if anything, EDM *may *benefit at least somewhat from Hi-Res (high sample rates) during processing, oversampling, anti-aliasing, and things like that, yielding a noticeably cleaner, clearer sounding final mix.


 
 Yeah, Gearslutz...a fully authoritative reference site comprised of rank amateurs, weekend warriors, artists, and a handful of professionals. I have no doubt you think your reference linked to the latter. It did not. Their observations are laden with expectation bias and complete lack of scientific testing.


----------



## LazyListener

pinnahertz said:


> Ok, got it.
> 
> What the graph is then showing is how important getting the window length right can be.  Very short windows won't reflect loudness well, and don't represent DR properly.
> 
> For comparison, here is the result of some other tools, Audition, TT DR meter, and AudioLeak (Leq).


 
 So, wait.  Am I reading this right?  Beethoven's 9th has about a 40 db dynamic range?
  


pinnahertz said:


> You run into problems when trying to separate something done as part of artistic expression and something done to be competitive in loudness.  It's not always easy to tell why processing has been done, even when taken to the extreme.
> 
> The only reason this discussion has gone this far is that someone who should and does know stated that EDM has less dynamic range than some other genres, and wouldn't benefit from hi-res.  Then the fun started, and we went down the whole synth capabilities road, and a side road at that.  In the end, gregorio was right, and in some aspects, others were right too.
> 
> And we don't have any hi-res EDM anyway.


 
 Well, that someone didn't say that EDM wouldn't benefit from Hi-Res.  He said that EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res vs other genres, partly due to limited dynamic range and other factors.  That's what prompted all my questions.  Couldn't understand how EDM would benefit "the least" of other genres.  I never argued that EDM has more compressed dynamic range than most genres.  At least I never intended to.  That's pretty much a given and something I knew even before the discussions began.  EDM is not alone.  Most popular music genres today, created electronically and/or recorded, have relatively high dynamic range compression.  My argument was simply that EDM and any music created using "synthesizers" (general term) is no more restricted in its dynamic range *capability *than recorded music created using acoustic/mechanical instruments.
  
 Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.  It was not my intention.  There was a lot of misunderstanding because we didn't focus on slowing down and defining terms being used, like "synths" and "inherently."  I'm glad we all agree now that EDM does not benefit any more or less from Hi-Res than any other genre (at least audibly), and that EDM is not inherently (permanently) restricted in its dynamic range capability than any other genres. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Oh, and to correct your statement:  "In the end, LazyListener was right, and in some aspects, others were right too."


----------



## pinnahertz

lazylistener said:


> pinnahertz said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, got it.
> ...



We are arguing in circles!

EDM is more inherently limited in dynamic range than other genres. Not for technical reasons! I'm sorry if you can't seem to understand this!

Please do not "correct" my statement. That is not what I said, not what I meant.

There are many, many things that you posted that are completely wrong. I see absolutely no cause for the ""!


----------



## LazyListener

pinnahertz said:


> No, he did not. He did not demonstrate anything regarding dynamic range of a synth, he only made a statement.
> Oh, I don't know...perhaps the fact that it would have no artistic merit? The sound was a 5kHz square wave. Only one harmonic, the third, fell into the audible spectrum. I wouldn't have to be a square wave for a producer to achieve the same sound.
> You are being pedantic. There is no technical reason the dynamic range of any genre is limited, but there are major artistic reasons why it is, and those reasons and the use of dynamic range limiting processing in EDM contribute to its sonic definition. Therefore, the entire genre becomes more limited in dynamic range.
> There is no genre of music that even comes close to the theoretical dynamic range capabilities of recording. Not one.
> ...


 
 No offense, but I'm done.  All I see is cherry picking details and creating new, useless arguments where there weren't any.  Arguing for argument's sake.  Not seeing or being able to accept the larger argument conclusion, in favor of cherry picking statements out of context for argument's sake.  Points you argued against, you're arguing for now because it suits the situation.  Yes, I mentioned EDM DR stems from artistic choice, not from technical limitations.  Glad you're finally on board with that and found some way to use it in a rebuttal to something I said.
  
 Calling me pedantic because I offered a definition of inherently?  Really?  It was necessary as you guys obviously applied a different meaning and that changed the entire discussion.  And you're not being pedantic cherry-picking meaningless details for argument's sake, while the whole time refusing to accept someone's general conclusion?
  
 And where's your proof that the gearslutz link I posted to was full of misinformation?  Rather than say "they're full of crap" in your fancy manner, why don't you provide your own links or analysis to support your position - that Hi-Res processing offers zero audible differences in the world of EDM production?  Where's the link to your double blind study that supports your position?  All you've offered is opinion, so far.
  
 But don't worry about all that.  I have some free time, but not enough to go on and on forever with you guys about this.  And I can see by your replies, that it would indeed go on forever, if I didn't call it quits.  So I'm done.
  
 Thank you for all the useful info.  I gotta run.  Don't worry.  I'll check in from time to time.


----------



## castleofargh

each side has elaborated a lot, even potential confusion on terms has been voiced. some stuff said were clearly false and that too has been pointed out and IMO clearly explained several times now.
 at this point here is what I'm reading: someone said "humans have 2 arms".  and another dude has seen a picture of that kid born with 3 arms and goes, "that claim is false, humans can have more than 2 arms".
 relative vs absolute.


----------



## gregorio

lazylistener said:


> 1a.  If by synth, we mean a short, singular, electronically created sound, then I agree - some synths, maybe most, have a relatively narrow dynamic range.  ...  With that said, synthesizer technology as a whole is not any more limited in dynamic range or even ultrasonics, than recorded acoustical instruments.
> 
> [1b] I disagree that the creative choices of producers are limited by the genre.  At least not when it comes to subject at hand - dynamic range.
> 
> ...


 
  
 1a. I was not talking about synthesizer technology as a whole, I was talking about the types synths typically used in EDM!!
 1b. Listen to what you're saying and the fundamentally simple logic which proves you wrong. I take it that you know that EDM is an abbreviation of Electronic Dance Music? Unlike say classical music where the audience sits quietly to listen, the audience for EDM doesn't (or at least isn't supposed to), they are supposed to dance. In practise they move around the club or festival venue, drinking, talking and dancing, they're not deliberately trying to be quiet and the result is a very high noise floor. Now, if a producer created a piece of EDM with a large dynamic range the audience would not be able to hear the quiet parts and if they can't hear it then they can't dance to it and if they can't dance to it then it's NOT Electronic *Dance* *Music* (EDM)! The dynamic range of EDM therefore must be small, not because of creative choice but because otherwise it won't be EDM, it would be some other electronic music genre!
  
 2. Some instruments produce significant amounts of energy above 20kHz, if we want to accurately capture those instruments then obviously we need to capture that energy above 20kHz.
 2a. That's a good question and one that almost the entirety of audiophile industry would answer that there is some perceivable benefit. If the audiophile industry did not stand to benefit so much from making such claims then they wouldn't make them and we wouldn't need to choose our words so carefully or be so concerned about imperceivable accuracy!
  
 3. Yes. 3a. Yes. 3b. I can't be sure but there were a couple of posts from people who appeared to know more than the noobs.
 3c. Yes, EDM and other popular music genres often use hard driven modelled compressors. A characteristic of such compressors is high freq content causing IMD (Inter Modulation Distortion) in the audible band. So there is some benefit of running such compressors at higher than 44.1kHz sample rates. Once the compressor has created it's IMD artefacts in the audible band then obviously that can be captured with a 44.1kHz sample rate, there's no need to maintain a high sample rate. Compressors and synths which benefit in this way from an extended freq spectrum therefore simply need to up-sample, process and down-sample again internally. Neither the mix session, nor the other processors, nor the distribution format itself benefit from a "hires" sample rate.
  
 4. By definition, Lo-fi processors do not accurately capture the amplitudes of the frequencies, if they did, they wouldn't be Lo-Fi, they would be Hi-Fi! So, how do you think Lo-Fi could benefit equally from "hires" as Hi-Fi?
  
 6. Yes, many of today's synths are based on samples. Samplers are still commonly used in EDM, though not as much as previously. With a sampler, you've got to make (or source) samples and then spend time (days/weeks) manually processing each one. The reason they aren't as common today is because many of today's "synths" are effectively a sampler + synthesizer + effects rack, with a whole bunch of presets where all that manual processing has already been done, you can simply use the preset as soon as it's selected or tweak some of the parameters/processing. Some creators/producers still like to get their hands dirty and build some of their sounds themselves (from raw samples).
  
 What I really don't get about your responses is that on the one hand you state "_Honestly, I don't know the technical ins and outs like you and others here do_.", and then within a sentence or two you're vociferously arguing and telling us we're wrong. I don't see how you can logically reconcile these two facts? If you don't understand, then ask but arguing that we're wrong from a position of ignorance just doesn't make any sense or at least, doesn't make any sense in a Science sub-forum.
  
 G


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> each side has elaborated a lot, even potential confusion on terms has been voiced. some stuff said were clearly false and that too has been pointed out and IMO clearly explained several times now.
> at this point here is what I'm reading: someone said "humans have 2 arms".  and another dude has seen a picture of that kid born with 3 arms and goes, "that claim is false, humans can have more than 2 arms".
> relative vs absolute.
> 
> ...


 
 But I have three ears, all of them golden.
 Someone is enjoying kicking around an intangible, the perception of DR based upon musical content and human beings. I suspect that this can go on for years and not arrive at a meaningful conclusion/consensus.


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> each side has elaborated a lot, even potential confusion on terms has been voiced. some stuff said were clearly false and that too has been pointed out and IMO clearly explained several times now.
> at this point here is what I'm reading: someone said "humans have 2 arms".  and another dude has seen a picture of that kid born with 3 arms and goes, "that claim is false, humans can have more than 2 arms".
> relative vs absolute.


 
  
 Absolutely, relatively speaking.


----------



## bigshot

Hi gang! How are you all doing?


----------



## Don Hills

We've been better. What have you been up to?


----------



## bigshot

Been having a great time working on my 5.1 speaker system and building a massive media server to feed music tv and movies to my whole house. I found out that I was nicely asked to return, so I have. My mailbox is packed! I still get messages from posts I made years ago. There was a bunch of us who created a Facebook group, but it is quiet lately.How has sound science been? I still see the same threads at the top of the group. Bring me up to speed!


----------



## Argyris

bigshot said:


> How has sound science been?



Still as disliked, resented, ridiculed and misunderstood as ever, I'm afraid, and still prone to occasionally getting bogged down in minutiae.


----------



## castleofargh

hey bigshot welcome back. 
we've mostly been going in full circle on a monthly basis, you'll find yourself back in the loop in less time than it takes for an audiophile to say "I know what I heard".


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> Hi gang! How are you all doing?


SOS. Good to see you back. So you've returned for more of the usual entertaining mythology. Remember how you can never have enough bits? Now that R2R DACs are in vogue, suddenly 16 bits never sounded so good.


----------



## sonitus mirus (Apr 29, 2017)

bigshot said:


> Hi gang! How are you all doing?



Woo hoo!  Hope you are back for good.


----------



## headdict

bigshot said:


> Hi gang! How are you all doing?



It is now official that you don't employ magic pixie dust. We knew it all the time!


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> Hi gang! How are you all doing?





headdict said:


> It is now official that you don't employ magic pixie dust. We knew it all the time!



Wrong, how do you think he made it back to middle earth?


----------



## bigshot

I got a new piece of audio equipment since I was here last. It's so analogue, it's acoustic! A 1924 Brunswick Cortez. It's the Rolls Royce of non-electric phonographs. It has a huge Spruce horn. The sound is incredible. Here's a demonstration.


----------



## StanD

@bigshot how's the ultrasonic response? True audiophiles want to know.


----------



## headdict

StanD said:


> @bigshot how's the ultrasonic response? True audiophiles want to know.



Or, more importantly, what are the options to upgrade that thing? How are you going about amping it properly or matching it with the most synergetic power supply? Can you at least replace the gear wheels with some made of never-heard-of material?


----------



## bigshot

The most synergistic power supply is me turning the crank!


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> The most synergistic power supply is me turning the crank!


Can you roll tubes on yourself to tweak the sound?


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> The most synergistic power supply is me turning the crank!


Well, under the right conditions (_audiophile provocations)_ you have been known to become cranky,


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> Hi gang! How are you all doing?


Really good to see you back Bigshot. I'm still trying to get used to the new site.


----------



## bigshot

Glad to be back. I don't think the others in the diaspora I was ejected in will be returning though. The HeadFi Misery Lounge is pretty quiet on Facebook lately.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> Glad to be back. I don't think the others in the diaspora I was ejected in will be returning though. The HeadFi Misery Lounge is pretty quiet on Facebook lately.


HeadFi Misery Lounge? Was that similar to wandering the desert for 40 years?


----------



## bigshot

Exactly! But I have died and risen again now


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> Exactly! But I have died and risen again now


Don't forget for a moment and think that you've arrived at the promised land, that's TOTL for audiophiles only. Off limits for us.


----------



## sonitus mirus (May 30, 2017)

This site is ridiculous.  I come here for the entertainment, and not to read about equipment reviews.

I read a recent review about a modern DAC from a budding electrical engineer.  Not a single technical explanation about why this device sounds better than any other competently designed DAC on the market.  Just a bunch of asinine claims of superiority that seem to align with only one measurement...price.  Why even use a switchbox?

https://www.head-fi.org/f/showcase/jds-labs-el-dac.22147/reviews


> It feels unfair that my only reasonable piece of equipment to compare the EL DAC to is the Modi 2 Uber. However, all things considered, the EL DAC easily puts the Modi 2 Uber in its place. The EL DAC beats the Modi with a wider soundstage, cleaner sound, and distinct instrument separation. I almost wanted to pin the EL DAC as more clinical than the Modi, but I found at that wasn’t necessarily the case. It simply can reach farther and cleaner than the Modi 2 Uber can. It can produce sound where vocals are more expressional and emotionally evoking.



Edit:  The opposite end of the spectrum:  http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/05/measurements-smsl-idea-usb-dac.html

Edit 2: If anyone cares, one difference that I did notice that might cause one DAC to sound better than the other is the output level.  One is 2Vrms and the other mentioned in the review is 1.5Vrms.  Guess which one sounded better?


----------



## castleofargh

"have they lost their heads or are they just all blind mice? we've all heard the stories one too many tiiiiihiiiiiiiimes". 
welcome to the tragic kingdom. ^_^

and to quote Dinah Washington, biggest advocate of proper volume matching in her time: "what a difference a dB makes, and the difference is U"  (if you're in a country where the nomenclature for voltage isn't U, sorry).


----------



## Argyris

castleofargh said:


> "have they lost their heads or are they just all blind mice? we've all heard the stories one too many tiiiiihiiiiiiiimes".
> welcome to the tragic kingdom. ^_^
> 
> and to quote Dinah Washington, biggest advocate of proper volume matching in her time: "what a difference a dB makes, and the difference is U"  (if you're in a country where the nomenclature for voltage isn't U, sorry).



I think you want the corny joke thread.


----------



## U-3C

XD


----------



## StanD

sonitus mirus said:


> This site is ridiculous.  I come here for the entertainment, and not to read about equipment reviews.
> 
> I read a recent review about a modern DAC from a budding electrical engineer.  Not a single technical explanation about why this device sounds better than any other competently designed DAC on the market.  Just a bunch of asinine claims of superiority that seem to align with only one measurement...price.  Why even use a switchbox?
> 
> ...


C'mon it supports 32 bit/ 384 kHz audio, like we really need that, NOT. He's studying EE, I suspect he isn't going to make it.


----------



## Argyris

Sometime in the future, I may be reincarnated as a bat. When that happens, I'll be happy somebody thought to create audio equipment with me in mind, and I'll use it to prank my fellow bats by recording their surreptitious echolocation conversations and playing them back at inopportune moments.


----------



## gregorio (May 31, 2017)

Argyris said:


> Sometime in the future, I may be reincarnated as a bat. When that happens, I'll be happy somebody thought to create audio equipment with me in mind.



Ahh, but they wouldn't have created it with you in mind. Ask yourself how much disposable income bats have?  

G


----------



## StanD

gregorio said:


> Ahh, but they wouldn't have created it with you in mind. Ask yourself how much disposable income bats have?
> 
> G


Depends if one trades in bat guano which definitely requires disposal.


----------



## Argyris

gregorio said:


> Ahh, but they wouldn't have created it with you in mind. Ask yourself how much disposable income bats have?
> 
> G



Don't underestimate the bats of the future! Our economy will be a prosperous and productive one, and that's why I'm pretty sure I'll be a billionaire when the time comes. However, I anticipate that we might eventually have a serious crime problem, which is why I plan on establishing an extralegal persona to serve up some vigilante justice on the weekends. It'll be in the form of a human, and I will call him...

...Steve.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Bruce Wayne is a billionaire, and rumor has it he is bat-like.


----------



## StanD

sonitus mirus said:


> Bruce Wayne is a billionaire, and rumor has it he is bat-like.


He made his fortune trading bat guano in the commodities market. Hmm, you think bat guano could be used as a dielectric for capacitors in boutique DACs and Amps?


----------



## gregorio

StanD said:


> Hmm, you think bat guano could be used as a dielectric for capacitors in boutique DACs and Amps?



Of course, *never* underestimate the power of pseudo-science to sell absolutely anything to audiophiles! On that basis, why go through the messy effort of collecting bat guano, why not just sell containers of air? A bit of good clean air in your headphone cups is obviously going to transmit the sound waves more accurately than air that's half smog and PM10/2.5 particles. Honestly, it's a night and day difference for every urban headphone user. 1 ltr AGA (Audiophile Grade Air) = $49. Special offer, 5 ltrs AGA = $299.

G


----------



## castleofargh

StanD said:


> He made his fortune trading bat guano in the commodities market. Hmm, you think bat guano could be used as a dielectric for capacitors in boutique DACs and Amps?


am I reading right? Ace Ventura is Batman?


----------



## StanD

gregorio said:


> Of course, *never* underestimate the power of pseudo-science to sell absolutely anything to audiophiles! On that basis, why go through the messy effort of collecting bat guano, why not just sell containers of air? A bit of good clean air in your headphone cups is obviously going to transmit the sound waves more accurately than air that's half smog and PM10/2.5 particles. Honestly, it's a night and day difference for every urban headphone user. 1 ltr AGA (Audiophile Grade Air) = $49. Special offer, 5 ltrs AGA = $299.
> 
> G


I bet one could convince the crowd that a vacuum would work wonders and create an "airy" sound.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> am I reading right? Ace Ventura is Batman?


More like an entrepreneur finding a niche market to sell more crap.


----------



## U-3C (Jun 4, 2017)

gregorio said:


> Of course, *never* underestimate the power of pseudo-science to sell absolutely anything to audiophiles! On that basis, why go through the messy effort of collecting bat guano, why not just sell containers of air? A bit of good clean air in your headphone cups is obviously going to transmit the sound waves more accurately than air that's half smog and PM10/2.5 particles. Honestly, it's a night and day difference for every urban headphone user. 1 ltr AGA (Audiophile Grade Air) = $49. Special offer, 5 ltrs AGA = $299.
> 
> G


Could be a great marketing thing! You may be onto something here. 

There's already rocks and boxes of dirt floating around. Why not some air? Why not some audiophile grade water to accompany that so one gets the true experience? There's a whole industry based on wine, so why not water? 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...as-a-joke-but-theres-actually-a-lot-of-demand

Air is sold, so why not audiophile grade air? Especially for places where there's concern for pollution, or in places where they do not have the freshest air from Mount Fuji right at the peak moment right before it erupted god knows when.


----------



## U-3C (Jun 4, 2017)

Speaking of which, I've always been upset with the DACport Slim I purchased. It didn't get too much attention from reviewers and feedback was fairly positive despite it's many issues, and Goodman attitude kinda gave the impression that he brushed people's negative feedback aside, or straight up mock their taste to please the audiophile elitism mentality. Nice to finally see a fairly comprehensive breakdown on, well, pretty much everything about the little device:

https://summivox.wordpress.com/2016...rance-dacport-slim-usb-dac-and-headphone-amp/

This has been out for a while, but I only saw it now because I completely forgot about my DACport until I saw it in my drawer yesterday, as it stopped working on Windows 10 (conflicts with the OS and the proprietary drivers that CEntrance was using, something they didn't have an update for in a very very long time). In the past, the drivers never were digitally signed anyways for some reason so people needed to disable that security feature to get it to work. You'd think that it would be solved in a month or two but still nothing after over a year. 

Many new customers seem pretty upset right now as CEntrance isn't even replying into the community forums.

The Creator's Update for Windows 10 supports UAC2 natively and people who have updated claims that yes, it works with the dac without CEntrance's own drivers.

Won't be using it though as it's noisier than my new laptop's audio out.


----------



## StanD (Jun 4, 2017)

U-3C said:


> Speaking of which, I've always been upset with the DACport Slim I purchased. It didn't get too much attention from reviewers and feedback was fairly positive despite it's many issues, and Goodman attitude kinda gave the impression that he brushed people's negative feedback aside, or straight up mock their taste to please the audiophile elitism mentality. Nice to finally see a fairly comprehensive breakdown on, well, pretty much everything about the little device:
> 
> https://summivox.wordpress.com/2016...rance-dacport-slim-usb-dac-and-headphone-amp/
> 
> ...


So hype rules supreme. After a point we can't tell the difference between A and B, but that won't stop the marketing department. As far as the noise goes, use it with a tube amp so you can't tell.


----------



## U-3C (Jun 4, 2017)

StanD said:


> So hype rules supreme. After a point we can't tell the difference between A and B, but that won't stop the marketing department. As far as the noise goes, use it with a tube amp so you can't tell.



Looool that's actually what I did for a short time. I plugged the dac into a noisy tube amp i got off eBay just to take some pictures and to show off. XD

The combo was always glowing on the side, at the corner of my eye, but too far for me to ever accidentally plug my headphones inside them. 

As for the noise, for a short period, I took a cheap inline volume control to cut it out, despite CEntrance screaming, "Heresy! Heresy! It affects the audio fidelity so much use our 100 dollar mod plus shipping instead even though that's the price of the device itself and we should have gotten it right in the first place!"

Now I just use my onboard as my new laptop drives my Q701 pretty well (after a nightmarish week of fiddling with the audio drivers and terrible default audio suite).


----------



## gregorio

U-3C said:


> There's already rocks and boxes of dirt floating around. Why not some air?



Actually, you could combine them. How about a box of clean air surrounded by rocks and dirt? Yes ladies and gentlemen the next advance in SQ is here, an audiophile grade coffin!

G


----------



## StanD

gregorio said:


> Actually, you could combine them. How about a box of clean air surrounded by rocks and dirt? Yes ladies and gentlemen the next advance in SQ is here, an audiophile grade coffin!
> 
> G


Where's the wood?


----------



## StanD

Here's an interested _story_.
https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/d...-which-one-to-get.595113/page-6#post-13544202


----------



## bigshot

I don't follow his logic on why blind testing isn't the best way to determine sound quality, but I do agree with him about distortion. He's using the term in the broadest sense of the word... anything that isn't part of the original signal is technically distortion. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing, because it includes room acoustics and signal processing, which can definitely improve perceived sound quality. DSPs are a much more controllable way of doing that than by rolling dice and finding out what tubes are going to produce through trial and error. The reason that there hasn't been a digital tube simulation is because no one can agree on what kind and how much distortion is desirable except in general terms. Tube fans tend to collect a whole bunch of amps that all sound different (yes some differences are audible) and they switch between them as their whims lead them. I see nothing wrong with that. We're playing music in our homes for our own enjoyment. We shouldn't feel like we are a bad person if we choose to add some euphonic distortion (in the most general sense of the term). But I think everyone agrees that non-euphonic artifacting is something you want to avoid. And I think everyone agrees that in a studio environment, where you're engineering sound which will be played back on a million different kinds of stereos, it makes sense to not introduce random factors like deliberate distortion.

When it comes to listening to music myself, I would much rather just have a solid dependable non-tube amp and create euphonic distortion using my listening room's acoustics and DSPs. Tubes for me would be more work than they're worth.


----------



## Argyris

He had me until the end, where he started the needless objectivist bashing. The argument he was making--that anything that alters the signal output is technically distortion--is valid and needs to be repeated more often. The word carries a negative connotation, but it's really just a term that denotes a difference, not necessarily a negative quality. If you _like_ the effect, then more power to you. Listen to the system that you like. I feel like the assertions that tubes are somehow more accurate or truer to the sound than solid state, and indeed the similar arguments made for vinyl versus digital, are an overreaction to the negative connotation associated with distortion, and perhaps a reaction to those objectivists who ascribe a right-wrong mentality to the matter. I don't have a problem with people who like tubes or vinyl; I don't think they're somehow wrong or that their choice, just because it's not as technically accurate as solid state and digital, is uninformed or inferior. On the flip side, I'm not willing to accept any assertions of the opposite--what you like isn't objectively better just because you like it. Objectively speaking, solid state and digital are better when it comes to relevant measurements. When it comes to personal enjoyment, that's up to the individual listener.


----------



## castleofargh

the matter is IMO very clear and distortions are distortions. the rest are excuses. 
 objective fidelity is not personal taste! his weird diatribe really has to do with steady confusion about the meaning and role of an objective approach. 

if I like more bass I add more bass, I just don't need to go on forums telling people that more bass is neutral because my ego is as big as my insecurity. so no debate.
if I relax better to the smooth sound of a warm 3% distortion tube amp, why wouldn't I use that when I like to? I don't eat tofu all day long, same goes for my music. I mostly consume what I enjoy and don't really care what other people think. so what is the issue really? that there is no scientific approach to claim that higher distortions in the amp is superior fidelity? of course there isn't, because it's false. 

as for the false assumptions and false statements like that little marvel: 





> The question is if tubes actually do sound BETTER, then why can't this effect be identified and replicated digitally? Part of the problem is that no one even seems to know what the difference is and why it sounds better.


 no it's not. "tubes sound better" is a subjective opinion, people senses aren't objective tools. why can't the "better" sound of tubes be identified? lol, reminds me of ICP and the legendary "****ing magnets how do they work?" if no one around him seems to know what the differences are between 2 amps, maybe he needs to talk more to those objectivists he hates so much.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 15, 2017)

I'm betting that you don't have a multichannel speaker system, because with 5.1 alterations of stereo can definitely improve the sound quality objectively. With headphones it may be not be as much the case, because there is no space around the sound. But with 5.1 manipulating that sound field is a very big deal and can greatly improve music over presenting it straightforwardly.


----------



## bigshot

I thought you all might like to see the nice Facebook header image Steve Eddy made for the HeadFi Sound Science Misery Lounge. I should update it with my resurrection date.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 15, 2017)

Interesting story that happened to me today. When I set up my theater system when I moved into my house money was tight, and the home theater equipment and installer cost a fortune because all of the wiring had to be concealed surface mount, even AC power overhead to drive the projector and screen. I cheaped out on the center speaker and rears, buying a cheap center speaker and recycling some Klipsch bookcase speakers I already had. Almost immediately, I realized that the center channel was much more important than I realized, so I saved up and got a really good center speaker that exactly fit the space I had for it.

A few years have passed, and the rears are still doing their job, but if I push the volume up beyond normal listening level the rears have a tendency to spit occasionally on loud peaks. I've dealt with this by splitting the difference- lowering the rears -2dB and keeping the overall volume level below the point where it overdrives the rears. A compromise that didn't affect my listening too much.

The multichannel thread spurred me to check my levels and I rediscovered the -2dB correction I had made years ago. I shot a bunch of photos of my system on my phone and googled home theater installers to find out how much replacing the rears would cost. Up popped the stereo store that I had gone to as a kid where I grew up. This was an old time shop back in the day. None of the high pressure Pacific Stereo crap. Just good solid equipment (usually Marantz and McIntosh) and salesmen that allowed you to take your time to make the right decision. A good place. The owner had moved to a small strip mall location near where I live now, so I dropped in to talk to them. No one was at the counter, so I stepped in the back and said hello. A young guy came out and I told him what I was looking for and showed him my pictures. He took one look at the speaker setup and called his dad out. The guy who ran the store when I was a kid. No nonsense and knows his stuff. He looked at my phone and listened as I described all the speakers. amps and players I was using. Then I showed him the pictures of the rears and told him I was thinking of replacing them. He put on his glasses and looked at them closely and said, "You want KEF R100s to replace those." He handed me a brochure and explained that the KEF speakers were very balanced and could produce enough volume to keep up with my mains. He showed me a cutaway view of how they were nested into a single speaker. "Like the old Leslie, I said." "Yeah exactly." He pointed at the brochure and told me that these would work perfect in my system. I asked how much. He said $1200 for a pair, and he checked his printout. "But this month they're on sale for $700." I asked how much for installation. "You've already got all the wiring and mount. $150." Sold.

I despise high end audio stores and buy most of my stuff online. But as long as this guy is in business I'll be a loyal customer. Good home audio places still exist. I'll let you know how it turns out when the speakers come in and he comes over to install them.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh could you please unban Steve Eddy too? He is a good guy and was very useful around Sound Science. I vouch for him. (PMing this to you too) Thanks!


----------



## bigshot

Thanks! He says he can get in now.


----------



## castleofargh

maybe you all got a pass with the new forum? or maybe a nice real modo who reads sound science decided to act after noticing your post? but as said in PMs it wasn't me, I'm not worthy of wielding actual powers.

as for the 5.1, I don't think it has much to do with distortions or rejection of objective fidelity. it's a different playback system usually used to play different masters(but I agree that it has a huge spacial potential compared to stereo speakers). it's not like saying vinyls is better than CD, or that there are good distortions, where they are only good subjectively at best for those who have such taste.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> castleofargh could you please unban Steve Eddy too? He is a good guy and was very useful around Sound Science. I vouch for him. (PMing this to you too) Thanks!


Glad Mr. Eddy can get back in.  His input was always very helpful and technical.  One of the few cable designers that didn't rely on baloney to pitch their wares.


----------



## bigshot

The nice thing about "distortion" in multichannel is that it's precisely controllable by the listener by tweaking the settings of DSPs. With other formats, euphonic distortion is a crap shoot created randomly by error in pressings or tracking of stylii. I think that objective purity of sound is a great starting place. But if we haven't had that since the introduction of hifi, we certainly have enjoyed it since the introduction of CDs. There's no reason to bother improving the purity of something that is already audibly transparent. Now is the time to move on to manipulating the space around the sound. That's the area that I'm most excited about. But headphone users will probably never be able to fully appreciate that aspect of sound reproduction.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 17, 2017)

bigshot said:


> [1] The reason that there hasn't been a digital tube simulation is because no one can agree on what kind and how much distortion is desirable except in general terms.
> [2] But I think everyone agrees that non-euphonic artifacting is something you want to avoid. And I think everyone agrees that in a studio environment, where you're engineering sound which will be played back on a million different kinds of stereos, it makes sense to not introduce random factors like deliberate distortion.



1. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but this seems to be a completely false statement as there's been numerous DSP tube simulations, starting about 20 or so years ago. Admittedly the early plugins were a bit rough but over the last 10 years or so they've improved to the point where even many of the most die hard engineers gave up their beloved vintage outboard gear and switched to plugins. BTW, it's not just tube emulations, all the other analogue artefacts have been modelled as well; tape saturation, etc. And, we're not talking about extremely rare/esoteric use here, tube and other analogue artefact plugins are routinely used in a number of music genres.

2. No, sorry, I absolutely cannot agree with that! Non-euphonic distortion is a fairly commonly applied effect and has been for decades. It's a particular feature in the performances of Jimi Hendrix, as an obvious early example. In fact, we can go back way earlier still; the classical music term "cuivre" is an instruction to brass players to force the sound, to exceed the usual, acceptable limits and force air through the instrument in such a way as to cause the tonal break-up of the sound. In musical parlance this would be referred to as "over-blowing" but in audio engineering terms what's happening is that the instrument is being pushed into distortion and is producing a far higher balance of odd ("non-euphonic") harmonics. Brass players train to avoid this (as it sounds nasty/harsh) but "cuivre" is an instruction written in the score specifically to achieve this relatively severe "non-euphonic" distortion. Although rare, the cuivre instruction was used on occasion well over a century ago by composers such as Debussy, Ravel, Dukas, Stravinsky and others. I often see in the audiophile community a concept of distortion which has been so over-simplified into a black and white issue that it no longer bares any resemblance to reality!

G


----------



## StanD

gregorio said:


> 1. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but this seems to be a completely false statement as there's been numerous DSP tube simulations, starting about 20 or so years ago. Admittedly the early plugins were a bit rough but over the last 10 years or so they've improved to the point where even many of the most die hard engineers gave up their beloved vintage outboard gear and switched to plugins. BTW, it's not just tube emulations, all the other analogue artefacts have been modelled as well; tape saturation, etc. And, we're not talking about extremely rare/esoteric use here, tube and other analogue artefact plugins are routinely used in a number of music genres.
> 
> 2. No, sorry, I absolutely cannot agree with that! Non-euphonic distortion is a fairly commonly applied effect and has been for decades. It's a particular feature in the performances of Jimi Hendrix, as an obvious early example. In fact, we can go back way earlier still; the classical music term "cuivre" is an instruction to brass players to force the sound, to exceed the usual, acceptable limits and force air through the instrument in such a way as to cause the tonal break-up of the sound. In musical parlance this would be referred to as "over-blowing" but in audio engineering terms what's happening is that the instrument is being pushed into distortion and is producing a far higher balance of odd ("non-euphonic") harmonics. Brass players train to avoid this (as it sounds nasty/harsh) but "cuivre" is an instruction written in the score specifically to achieve this relatively severe "non-euphonic" distortion. Although rare, the cuivre instruction was used on occasion well over a century ago by composers such as Debussy, Ravel, Dukas, Stravinsky and others. I often see in the audiophile community a concept of distortion which has been so over-simplified into a black and white issue that it no longer bares any resemblance to reality!
> 
> G


People that enjoy Jimi Hendrix would say that his use of *distortion* and effects were euphonic, "pleasing to the ear."


----------



## Joe Bloggs

https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/h...one-spatialization-effect-demo-thread.852971/  A message from this thread's sponsors


----------



## gregorio

StanD said:


> People that enjoy Jimi Hendrix would say that his use of *distortion* and effects were euphonic, "pleasing to the ear."



Then they would essentially be incorrect: They would be confusing an overall opinion/perception of the end result with the actual tonal characteristics. While non-euphonic distortion is unpleasant ("not pleasing to the ear"), it can be used to create an overall perception which is enjoyable. This basic principle is well known and used throughout art/entertainment, for example, horror films are essentially predicated entirely on this principle. By definition, horror films are horrific and yet in the context of entertainment they can be perceived as enjoyable. It would be incorrect to say that because a horror film is enjoyable it is therefore not a horror film. In other words, it would be more accurate to say that Jimi Hendrix's use of non-euphonic distortion can be perceived as euphonic, rather than saying/implying that he didn't use non-euphonic distortion because his performances were enjoyable.

This is essentially a different issue, it's not an issue of whether or not Hendrix (as an example) ever used non-euphonic distortion but a question of how he used it. This is part of a broader issue which goes back many more centuries than the 150 or so year use of non-euphonic distortion. Namely, the issue of consonance and dissonance, of which non-euphonic distortion is a form of dissonance. Bach was using dissonance 400 years ago and he was by no means the first and in fact we can look at the whole history of classical music evolution from the renaissance through to the mid-C20th purely in terms of a progressive exploration of dissonance. This brings me back to my previous post, non-euphonic distortion (and any other type of dissonance) is inherently unpleasant but NOT inherently good or bad, it can be either or even both at the same time, depending entirely on context and it certainly isn't the simple black and white issue many audiophiles make it out to be. Turning the argument on it's head, if we consider non-euphonic distortion as bad and therefore eliminate it, we're going to loose a significant chunk of popular music genres/sub-genres and if we do that with dissonance in general, we loose pretty much all western classical music and probably the majority of popular music!

G


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Whoa bigshot is alive!  How O.O


----------



## Strangelove424

sonitus mirus said:


> Glad Mr. Eddy can get back in.  His input was always very helpful and technical.  One of the few cable designers that didn't rely on baloney to pitch their wares.



Agreed. He always seemed informative and respectful to me. Some of these bans really left a bad taste in my mouth, and I avoided Head Fi for a while. Maybe that doesn’t matter so much for the powers that be, but little by little things add up to a lot.




gregorio said:


> 1. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but this seems to be a completely false statement as there's been numerous DSP tube simulations, starting about 20 or so years ago. Admittedly the early plugins were a bit rough but over the last 10 years or so they've improved to the point where even many of the most die hard engineers gave up their beloved vintage outboard gear and switched to plugins. BTW, it's not just tube emulations, all the other analogue artefacts have been modelled as well; tape saturation, etc. And, we're not talking about extremely rare/esoteric use here, tube and other analogue artefact plugins are routinely used in a number of music genres.
> 
> 2. No, sorry, I absolutely cannot agree with that! Non-euphonic distortion is a fairly commonly applied effect and has been for decades. It's a particular feature in the performances of Jimi Hendrix, as an obvious early example. In fact, we can go back way earlier still; the classical music term "cuivre" is an instruction to brass players to force the sound, to exceed the usual, acceptable limits and force air through the instrument in such a way as to cause the tonal break-up of the sound. In musical parlance this would be referred to as "over-blowing" but in audio engineering terms what's happening is that the instrument is being pushed into distortion and is producing a far higher balance of odd ("non-euphonic") harmonics. Brass players train to avoid this (as it sounds nasty/harsh) but "cuivre" is an instruction written in the score specifically to achieve this relatively severe "non-euphonic" distortion. Although rare, the cuivre instruction was used on occasion well over a century ago by composers such as Debussy, Ravel, Dukas, Stravinsky and others. I often see in the audiophile community a concept of distortion which has been so over-simplified into a black and white issue that it no longer bares any resemblance to reality!
> 
> G



Jimi Hendrix was a genius, but I don’t want my system to sound anything like him. I can’t think of a more purposeful use of distortion than his US anthem, which was one of the most emotional and truth-telling moments in American music… but a horrible model to build a hifi system around.  It’s vital to separate decisions made for artistic reasons in performance to convey meaning or emotion from those made pragmatically during playback to sound pleasing.  

Can you recommend any tube simulations that can be used effectively in Foobar or similar? I am aware of tube simulation for live music but not for consumer level playback. I’d like something that functions like a filter with an on/off switch and multiple parameters on sliders to get exactly the sound I want, but right within Foobar. I haven’t been able to find it yet. Software plugins have not been as ubiquitous as I thought they would have been upon searching.


----------



## StanD

StanD said:


> People that enjoy Jimi Hendrix would say that his use of *distortion* and effects were euphonic, "pleasing to the ear."





gregorio said:


> Then they would essentially be incorrect: They would be confusing an overall opinion/perception of the end result with the actual tonal characteristics. While non-euphonic distortion is unpleasant ("not pleasing to the ear"), it can be used to create an overall perception which is enjoyable. This basic principle is well known and used throughout art/entertainment, for example, horror films are essentially predicated entirely on this principle. By definition, horror films are horrific and yet in the context of entertainment they can be perceived as enjoyable. It would be incorrect to say that because a horror film is enjoyable it is therefore not a horror film. In other words, it would be more accurate to say that Jimi Hendrix's use of non-euphonic distortion can be perceived as euphonic, rather than saying/implying that he didn't use non-euphonic distortion because his performances were enjoyable.
> 
> This is essentially a different issue, it's not an issue of whether or not Hendrix (as an example) ever used non-euphonic distortion but a question of how he used it. This is part of a broader issue which goes back many more centuries than the 150 or so year use of non-euphonic distortion. Namely, the issue of consonance and dissonance, of which non-euphonic distortion is a form of dissonance. Bach was using dissonance 400 years ago and he was by no means the first and in fact we can look at the whole history of classical music evolution from the renaissance through to the mid-C20th purely in terms of a progressive exploration of dissonance. This brings me back to my previous post, non-euphonic distortion (and any other type of dissonance) is inherently unpleasant but NOT inherently good or bad, it can be either or even both at the same time, depending entirely on context and it certainly isn't the simple black and white issue many audiophiles make it out to be. Turning the argument on it's head, if we consider non-euphonic distortion as bad and therefore eliminate it, we're going to loose a significant chunk of popular music genres/sub-genres and if we do that with dissonance in general, we loose pretty much all western classical music and probably the majority of popular music!
> G


Pleasing to the ear is IMO for the most part subjective. Hendrix employed a wide variety of distortion and sound effects. Most often very different from the buzzy sharp edged hard clipped sounds that have scoped (depressed) mids that might be employed by some metal types but more of the smoother overdriven tube amp sounds. Tube distortion, not to be confused with the tube myths of audiophiles. There are many other rock and jazz fusion guitarists that followed similar tonal paradigms. A double bend that a blues, jazz or rock guitarist executes may be somewhat dissonant but is not necessarily unpleasant unless intentional or the musician is lacking.


----------



## bigshot

Or a RT DSP for the Mac. I'd be interested in playing with something like that too. I have lots of filters in my sound app, but they aren't real time


----------



## U-3C (Jun 18, 2017)

Headphone variation at it's finest? Or maybe just a lack of a universal measuring standard? 

https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/t...e-from-ifa-2016.818846/page-691#post-13547603

Either way, interesting that headphones may sound completely different, yet people still swear by their own ears on what they hear, claim it is how the model of headphones actually sound and write it in reviews as facts to guide others with their purchases.


----------



## gregorio

Strangelove424 said:


> [1] Jimi Hendrix was a genius, but I don’t want my system to sound anything like him.
> [2] It’s vital to separate decisions made for artistic reasons in performance to convey meaning or emotion from those made pragmatically during playback to sound pleasing.
> [3] Can you recommend any tube simulations that can be used effectively in Foobar or similar?



1. That's your choice of course but personally, I want my system to sound exactly like him because if it can't then it also isn't going to sound anything like any of the other musicians who employ the same/similar types of distortion and that rules out entire music genres/sub genres! 
2. In addition to sounding like Jimi Hendrix, I also want my system to sound like the LSO, a folk band, a jazz band, a gemelan orch and many more besides, so what I'm after is a transparent system, a system which will reproduce as faithfully as possible the exact sound on the recording and that's why I avoid tubes in the reproduction chain!
3. With the exception of some modelled tube guitar amps, I don't use tube simulations and I also don't use VST plugins, so sorry, I can't recommend anything.


StanD said:


> [1] Pleasing to the ear is IMO for the most part subjective.
> [2] Hendrix employed a wide variety of distortion and sound effects.



1. Well, this is where it gets interesting! It's also where another pair of invented, black and white audiophile terms are shown to be nonsense: objective and subjective. They are not black and white opposites, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, my job is essentially almost entirely about being both at the same time. Especially when it comes to music, almost everything we think is real, is actually a perception. There are no notes, there are no chords, there is no dissonance or consonance, there is in fact no music, there is also no stereo image and loudness does not exist, along with various other perceptions commonly attributed to physical properties of sound. The logical black hole many audiophiles get themselves into is because they have little/no understanding of perception or even of it's existence and therefore what they hear is unquestionably real. Virtually everyone can hear musical notes, stereo, loudness and everyone can tell the difference between say a Beethoven sonata and a building site, therefore it's patently all real and the few dissenters to these obvious facts of life must be nutters. The fundamental education they're lacking is that it can be both an obvious, unquestionable fact of life and not real at the same time. We all function in broadly the same way, we are all human beings and we therefore share various perceptions which are common to all the "normal" members of our species. That does not mean those shared perceptions are real but it does mean that in many walks of life we can ignore the fact they're not real and treat them as if they were. We can therefore make objective determinations about something which only exists as a perception! We can therefore have a broad objective definition of what dissonance is, of what non-euphonic distortion is but the limitation of objective determinations of perception is always context! What we can't generally have is an objective determination of whether the use of dissonance or non-euphonic distortion is good or bad in a particular context, typically we can only make a subjective determination. So, it's not a subjective determination of whether Hendrix used dissonance and non-euphonic distortion. He did and that's an objective determination but whether you enjoyed it/found it pleasing, that would be a subjective determination.

2. Agreed and among them was both non-euphonic distortion and dissonance and that was my point, Hendrix obviously invalidates bigshot's statement that "everyone agrees" applying deliberate distortion in a studio environment makes no sense and non-euphonic distortion should be avoided. Of course, Hendrix is just one of countless examples and distortion is routinely applied during studio mixing.

G


----------



## sonitus mirus

Hmmm...what if my receiver had Concert Hall, Auditorium, Large Room, Jazz Club, and a Hendrix setting?  Give everything a bit of a wild feedback sound.  Moody Blues on acid.  Well, even more acid.


----------



## castleofargh

sonitus mirus said:


> Hmmm...what if my receiver had Concert Hall, Auditorium, Large Room, Jazz Club, and a Hendrix setting?  Give everything a bit of a wild feedback sound.  Moody Blues on acid.  Well, even more acid.


is the Hendrix setting the one that sets the receiver on fire?


----------



## bigshot

U-3C said:


> Headphone variation at it's finest? Or maybe just a lack of a universal measuring standard? Either way, interesting that headphones may sound completely different, yet people still swear by their own ears on what they hear, claim it is how the model of headphones actually sound and write it in reviews as facts to guide others with their purchases.




I looked at that post, but I don't understand the point. He talks about a treble peak, but there is no treble peak. There's a slope downwards from 200Hz to 10kHz that suddenly comes back to zero again at 10kHz. That is up at the last octave of audible sound, and probably the least important octave for sound quality. The gradual slope is the problem, not the peak, and 10kHz is definitely not treble. It's above the treble region. I think people look at wiggles on papers and judge without having a clue what those wiggles mean.

I want a Hendrix button on my AVR now. Where can I get one? I want to play Verdi operas through it.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> is the Hendrix setting the one that sets the receiver on fire?





bigshot said:


> I want a Hendrix button on my AVR now. Where can I get one? I want to play Verdi operas through it.



I wanna see the receiver BUUUUUURRNNNNNN!!!!!


----------



## sonitus mirus

U-3C said:


> I wanna see the receiver BUUUUUURRNNNNNN!!!!!



How else would it add warmth?


----------



## U-3C

sonitus mirus said:


> How else would it add warmth?



Strap it to your headphone. 

Then watch it burn.


----------



## StanD (Jun 18, 2017)

gregorio said:


> 1. Well, this is where it gets interesting! It's also where another pair of invented, black and white audiophile terms are shown to be nonsense: objective and subjective. They are not black and white opposites, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, my job is essentially almost entirely about being both at the same time. Especially when it comes to music, almost everything we think is real, is actually a perception. There are no notes, there are no chords, there is no dissonance or consonance, there is in fact no music, there is also no stereo image and loudness does not exist, along with various other perceptions commonly attributed to physical properties of sound. The logical black hole many audiophiles get themselves into is because they have little/no understanding of perception or even of it's existence and therefore what they hear is unquestionably real. Virtually everyone can hear musical notes, stereo, loudness and everyone can tell the difference between say a Beethoven sonata and a building site, therefore it's patently all real and the few dissenters to these obvious facts of life must be nutters. The fundamental education they're lacking is that it can be both an obvious, unquestionable fact of life and not real at the same time. We all function in broadly the same way, we are all human beings and we therefore share various perceptions which are common to all the "normal" members of our species. That does not mean those shared perceptions are real but it does mean that in many walks of life we can ignore the fact they're not real and treat them as if they were. We can therefore make objective determinations about something which only exists as a perception! We can therefore have a broad objective definition of what dissonance is, of what non-euphonic distortion is but the limitation of objective determinations of perception is always context! What we can't generally have is an objective determination of whether the use of dissonance or non-euphonic distortion is good or bad in a particular context, typically we can only make a subjective determination. So, it's not a subjective determination of whether Hendrix used dissonance and non-euphonic distortion. He did and that's an objective determination but whether you enjoyed it/found it pleasing, that would be a subjective determination.
> 
> 2. Agreed and among them was both non-euphonic distortion and dissonance and that was my point, Hendrix obviously invalidates bigshot's statement that "everyone agrees" applying deliberate distortion in a studio environment makes no sense and non-euphonic distortion should be avoided. Of course, Hendrix is just one of countless examples and distortion is routinely applied during studio mixing.
> 
> G


1. Until we can probe one's mind and know how it works, enjoyment is subjective. I wouldn't say that they (Objective/Subjective) are black and white opposites and I'm not about to set my guitar on fire, although some of our thread friends seem to have a match in hand.
Why do audiophiles invent what I would think are silly names for what they can't understand?


----------



## castleofargh

we have objective ways to make you enjoy music! resistance is futile, you will enjoy! 

I must once again act as a moderator and ask you all to stop using artists' names as if you listened to them. we wouldn't want people outside of sound science to think that we actually listen to music. that would be too confusing. 
thank you.


----------



## gregorio

StanD said:


> 1. Until we can probe one's mind and know how it works, enjoyment is subjective.
> [2] Why do audiophiles invent what I would think are silly names for what they can't understand?



1. Yep, that's what I'm saying. The only thing I'm adding to that statement is that we can objectively determine dissonance (or non-euphonic distortion) but not whether it's ultimately enjoyable in any context, that would require a subjective determination.

2. Isn't that question it's own answer? Because they don't know or understand what "it" is, they have to invent a silly name in order to discuss it. The better solution IMHO, would be to gain some understanding and as far as I can tell, that's the difference between objectivists and subjectivists: Subjectivists have a lot more silly names to cope with the fact they have a lot less understanding and it's actually nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity, or am I missing something?

G


----------



## StanD

gregorio said:


> 1. Yep, that's what I'm saying. The only thing I'm adding to that statement is that we can objectively determine dissonance (or non-euphonic distortion) but not whether it's ultimately enjoyable in any context, that would require a subjective determination.
> 
> 2. Isn't that question it's own answer? Because they don't know or understand what "it" is, they have to invent a silly name in order to discuss it. The better solution IMHO, would be to gain some understanding and as far as I can tell, that's the difference between objectivists and subjectivists: Subjectivists have a lot more silly names to cope with the fact they have a lot less understanding and it's actually nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity, or am I missing something?
> 
> G


I'd say that there is a difference between a subjectivist expressing their legitimate preferences and an audiophile making up stories about things no one can hear or that might not be possible.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 19, 2017)

Every human being is subjective... except for Mr Spock. I never liked Mr Spock, and I sure didn't want to behave like he did.

I see audiophiles who claim to be objective arguing about things that human ears can't perceive all the time. I think it's like a trivia contest. But trivia doesn't make your home stereo sound better... fundamental principles applied properly do. Everyone knows the fundamentals, but they choose to worry about the gnat hair differences because they're more impressive sounding in internet forums,


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> Every human being is subjective... except for Mr Spock. I never liked Mr Spock, and I sure didn't want to behave like he did.


Spock wasn't/isn't human.


bigshot said:


> I see audiophiles who claim to be objective arguing about things that human ears can't perceive all the time. I think it's like a trivia contest. But trivia doesn't make your home stereo sound better... fundamental principles applied properly do. Everyone knows the fundamentals, but they choose to worry about the gnat hair differences because they're more impressive sounding in internet forums,


People use Objective and Subjective incorrectly sometimes.  Objective means quantifiable and measureable, without the influence of human factors like emotions, unrelated sensory input (like how a piece of audio gear looks), etc.  Objective is measurable.  Subjective depends on human impression and observation using sensory input. An opinion is the result. 

ABX testing is therefore subjective testing as it depends on human observation, opinion and decision.  What the DBT/ABX methodology attempts to do is control bias by limiting the thing being evaluated to a narrow set of stimuli, usually two, to determine a detectable difference. 

The challenge has always been to correlate objective measurements with subjective observations.  The difficulty until recently is that measurements are usually simplified into single figures of merit which then do represent the actual measurement well.  THD is a single figure, but the correct data is really a 3D graph of amplitude vs frequency vs stimulus level, and to that should be applied an audibility mask that includes psychoacoustic perception of distortion in the presence of stimuli.  That has yet to be done.


----------



## sonitus mirus

pinnahertz said:


> Spock wasn't/isn't human.



He was half human, though I don't know which half.


----------



## bigshot

pinnahertz said:


> ABX testing is therefore subjective testing as it depends on human observation, opinion and decision.  What the DBT/ABX methodology attempts to do is control bias by limiting the thing being evaluated to a narrow set of stimuli, usually two, to determine a detectable difference.



Wouldn't testing used to determine JDD perception thresholds be objective? Whether you can hear something or not seems to be not based on opinion. You either hear it or you don't. The problem is that a lot of things that can be measured can't be heard. They may be interesting in theory. But when it comes to listening to music on your home stereo, if you can't hear it, it doesn't mean jack diddly.



sonitus mirus said:


> He was half human, though I don't know which half.



It was the lower half, but they couldn't show that on TV.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> Wouldn't testing used to determine JDD perception thresholds be objective? Whether you can hear something or not seems to be not based on opinion. You either hear it or you don't. The problem is that a lot of things that can be measured can't be heard. They may be interesting in theory. But when it comes to listening to music on your home stereo, if you can't hear it, it doesn't mean jack diddly.


 But you can't measure the fact that it can or can't be heard, you must ask some  if they could hear it, and that makes its  subjective.


----------



## bigshot

Then I totally see how being completely objective can lead a person to abstract and irrelevant lines of thinking that are just as absurd as the sorts of mistakes totally subjective people make. I guess like many things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


----------



## castleofargh

about Spock, call it intuition, but I get this feeling that his ears might not be the most human part on his body. ^_^

as for that damn human element in hearing tests, I say statistics my brothers! statistics will save our souls and up our confidence levels.


----------



## gregorio

pinnahertz said:


> People use Objective and Subjective incorrectly sometimes.  Objective means quantifiable and measureable, without the influence of human factors like emotions, unrelated sensory input (like how a piece of audio gear looks), etc.  Objective is measurable.  Subjective depends on human impression and observation using sensory input. An opinion is the result.



Personally, although you are strictly correct and I agree with you, I also think we can be a little more flexible. There are grey areas, for example: Loudness, does the fact that we can measure loudness make it objective, isn't the LKFS/LUFS scale objective? Was loudness strictly subjective for the entirety of human existence until about 10 years ago when it suddenly became objective? Maybe strictly speaking loudness metering is an objective measurement of a subjective perception? What about notes/pitch? Most people assume notes are real and we've been able to measure the pitch of notes for decades, even to the point of having tuning machines which are more accurate than the human ear and are routinely employed by many musicians. On the other hand, notes don't really exist; we can remove the fundamental of a note and still recognise it but a tuning machine no longer can. Does that mean that the pitch of a note is objective but the exact same note with the fundamental removed is subjective? What about drums? Most/Many drums have to be tuned by ear as tuning machines cannot reliably identify the fundamental. Is the pitch of a note objective if played on a piano but the same note played on a drum is subjective? What about stereo? We can precisely measure the position of an individual sound in the stereo sound field using a "pan" control, which is effectively just a measurement of relative gain between the left/right output channels, so that's definitely objective but that sound, incorporated and processed within a typical mix, can no longer have it's position measured. Even though it's position in the stereo image has not changed, is it's position now subjective rather than objective?

On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, if we consider ubiquitous perceptions to be objective or potentially objective, we're going to run into serious logical problems. How do we measure or describe as objective the "Faa" in the McGurk Effect for example? Any thoughts?

G


----------



## headdict

castleofargh said:


> about Spock, call it intuition, but I get this feeling that his ears might not be the most human part on his body. ^_^


His very special ear geometry and unavailability of parametric equalizers is why he invented tube rolling:


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> Personally, although you are strictly correct and I agree with you, I also think we can be a little more flexible. There are grey areas, for example: Loudness, does the fact that we can measure loudness make it objective, isn't the LKFS/LUFS scale objective? Was loudness strictly subjective for the entirety of human existence until about 10 years ago when it suddenly became objective? Maybe strictly speaking loudness metering is an objective measurement of a subjective perception? What about notes/pitch? Most people assume notes are real and we've been able to measure the pitch of notes for decades, even to the point of having tuning machines which are more accurate than the human ear and are routinely employed by many musicians. On the other hand, notes don't really exist; we can remove the fundamental of a note and still recognise it but a tuning machine no longer can. Does that mean that the pitch of a note is objective but the exact same note with the fundamental removed is subjective? What about drums? Most/Many drums have to be tuned by ear as tuning machines cannot reliably identify the fundamental. Is the pitch of a note objective if played on a piano but the same note played on a drum is subjective? What about stereo? We can precisely measure the position of an individual sound in the stereo sound field using a "pan" control, which is effectively just a measurement of relative gain between the left/right output channels, so that's definitely objective but that sound, incorporated and processed within a typical mix, can no longer have it's position measured. Even though it's position in the stereo image has not changed, is it's position now subjective rather than objective?
> 
> On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, if we consider ubiquitous perceptions to be objective or potentially objective, we're going to run into serious logical problems. How do we measure or describe as objective the "Faa" in the McGurk Effect for example? Any thoughts?
> 
> G


the method is objective but applied on subjects. it's just a matter of keeping the test and the testies as separate entities. our issue in audio is that some decide they will be the subject, the test, and the measurement rig all at once. but even worst, they don't see what could possibly be wrong with it. that's why I spent so many years thinking that subjectivist was a fancy synonym of ignorant. then I learned how many people thought that objectivist was a synonym for "skinjob"(Blade Runner, or Battlestar Galactica, the reference you fancy most). a droid that measures test signals and observes graphs but lacks the physical ability to "just listen" to music and feel emotions properly. that certainly got me very confused as I wasn't aware of a cylon invasion. worst, like the Asian chick crew member in Battlestar Galactica, I wasn't aware that I was one of them. talk about a traumatic experience. but now after a reboot and the latest update, I feel much better about all this objectivst/subjectivist thing.


----------



## pinnahertz

gregorio said:


> Personally, although you are strictly correct and I agree with you, I also think we can be a little more flexible. There are grey areas, for example: Loudness, does the fact that we can measure loudness make it objective, isn't the LKFS/LUFS scale objective? Was loudness strictly subjective for the entirety of human existence until about 10 years ago when it suddenly became objective?


The problem was standardization of the objective method.  That took research into how humans perceive loudness.  That research dates back many decades by scientists like Eberhard Zwicker whose work began in the 1950s, and who also eventually proposed an accurate loudness meter which unfortunately was too complex to be practical in its time (it involved critical band squaring and root-summing, very hard to do in the pre-DSP days).   


gregorio said:


> Maybe strictly speaking loudness metering is an objective measurement of a subjective perception?


Once a method of measurement is developed that tracks human perception and becomes standardized it can be used as an objective tool because the resulting data no longer depends on human judgement.  It turns out that the way humans sense loudness, light brightness, and physical pressure all relate quite closely to the same type of scaling: power scaled logarithmically.  So all of those things can become objective.  "Objective" doesn't imply perfectly accurate, and does not necessarily represent a perfect sensory model.  All it means is the model is standardized, generally accepted, and applied without dependance on specific individual opinion, emotion, personal feeling, aesthetics, etc.  

Zwicker's meter, it turns out, was very similar to BS 1770-3, though the weighting filters weren't an exact match. His problem was, it couldn't be standardized when he developed it because it wasn't practical to implement.   So objective loudness measurement had to wait something like 3 decades.


gregorio said:


> What about notes/pitch? Most people assume notes are real and we've been able to measure the pitch of notes for decades, even to the point of having tuning machines which are more accurate than the human ear and are routinely employed by many musicians. On the other hand, notes don't really exist; we can remove the fundamental of a note and still recognise it but a tuning machine no longer can. Does that mean that the pitch of a note is objective but the exact same note with the fundamental removed is subjective? What about drums? Most/Many drums have to be tuned by ear as tuning machines cannot reliably identify the fundamental. Is the pitch of a note objective if played on a piano but the same note played on a drum is subjective?


I don't understand enough about human pitch perception to really comment on this, but again, once a measurement method has been developed that parallels how something is perceived, it can be standardized, and can then become objective.  


gregorio said:


> What about stereo? We can precisely measure the position of an individual sound in the stereo sound field using a "pan" control, which is effectively just a measurement of relative gain between the left/right output channels, so that's definitely objective but that sound, incorporated and processed within a typical mix, can no longer have it's position measured. Even though it's position in the stereo image has not changed, is it's position now subjective rather than objective?


Data exists in literature that graphs position vs intensity differential, and position vs timing differential, when the reproducing system in taken into account (headphones vs a specific speaker layout).  It's not practical to scale a pan pot, however, since the reproducing method cannot be known.  No standardization can effectively exist that includes all reproducing methods, so no objective measurement is practical for a pan control.  And as you know, even though it's possible today, real virtual panning including HRTF control doesn't exist in the form of a common pan pot. 


gregorio said:


> On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, if we consider ubiquitous perceptions to be objective or potentially objective, we're going to run into serious logical problems. How do we measure or describe as objective the "Faa" in the McGurk Effect for example? Any thoughts?
> 
> G


On the other hand, you have different fingers.

I think if any of those were studied to the extent that a strong statistical trend were apparent across a significant population segment, models could be developed, standardized, and objective measurements could the be accomplished. Again, the model doesn't have to be 100% accurate with respect to perception, but it does have to be good enough to represent a large area of the populace bell curve to be accepted.  Since research requires money, and money becomes available when the potential results have value, I wouldn't expect a McGurk Quantification Project, to become reality any time soon.  Sometimes the awareness of a perceptual principle is enough to satiate beyond funding.  I don't think we're going to see a McGurk-O-Meter plugin right away.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 20, 2017)

Man! This is better than taking a sleeping pill!

Conversations can be like a beer. You just want a drink, but once it gets shaken up, all you get is foam.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> Man! This is better than taking a sleeping pill!
> 
> Conversations can be like a beer. You just want a drink, but once it gets shaken up, all you get is foam.


Sorry if the conversation went over your "head".


----------



## Argyris (Jun 20, 2017)

I'm still stuck on the concept of a Jimi Hendrix setting. I'm not sure if it's the worst or the most glorious suggestion for a feature I've ever read.

And, since Spock came up, I have to say he's my favorite of the main three from TOS. You just have to love a guy who calmly briefs his crew that some of them will not be selected to get off the deserted planet with the rest, and that he'll get back to them all on which ones won't be making the cut. Or a guy who can smash a paper mache telecommunications screen prop with his bare fist as though it were made of paper mache. Or a guy who can resolutely cope with unspeakable pain when a face hugger precursor latches itself to his body, stating simply that the mission requires that he persevere. Or a guy who, later in the same episode, serenely informs his captain that a tricky operation went well, apart from the fact that he is now completely blind.

Wait, were we talking about headphones or something?


----------



## bigshot

Argyris said:


> And, since Spock came up, I have to say he's my favorite of the main three from TOS.



THREE?! Is Scotty like the "and the rest" on Gilligan's Island now?

My favorite Star Trek character is Mugato.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> THREE?! Is Scotty like the "and the rest" on Gilligan's Island now?
> 
> My favorite Star Trek character is Mugato.


I liked Mary Ann, Ginger was too scrawny. Are these determinations subjective?


----------



## bigshot

It's objective if you're basing your level of interest on measurements.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> It's objective if you're basing your level of interest on measurements.


IMO Mary Ann had better measurements.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> It's objective if you're basing your level of interest on measurements.


Nope, only the measurements are objective.  Your interest is based on your subjective evaluation of objective measurements.  Example: what THD measurement would you consider below audibility?  3%?
1%
.3%
.1%
0.1% (does the zero make the number seem smaller?)
.03%
.01%

Different people will have different acceptable minimums.  Others will want more than one figure.  The numbers are just measurements, what hey mean to you is subjective.


----------



## pinnahertz

StanD said:


> IMO Mary Ann had better measurements.


Mary Ann's measurements are objective, what you think of them...or think of when you hear them...is subjective.

But to provide incontrovertible proof of concept, I think we should run some experiments.


----------



## StanD

pinnahertz said:


> Mary Ann's measurements are objective, what you think of them...or think of when you hear them...is subjective.
> 
> But to provide incontrovertible proof of concept, I think we should run some experiments.


You're a little late for that, she's 78. Then again that may be a subjective judgement, for you.


----------



## pinnahertz

StanD said:


> You're a little late for that, she's 78. Then again that may be a subjective judgement, for you.


Never too late for proof of concept, maybe not with her...


----------



## Strangelove424

StanD said:


> IMO Mary Ann had better measurements.



Hate to bring reviews into a measurements discussion, but apparently Bob Denver agreed with you.


----------



## StanD

Strangelove424 said:


> Hate to bring reviews into a measurements discussion, but apparently Bob Denver agreed with you.


OK, but where's the test data?


----------



## bigshot

How did that burn in thread land here? Did they think we would be interested in it?


----------



## Brooko

I put it there.  Subjective claims being made, when objective measurements tell us that the likelihood of it being audible are next to nil.  We're not talking speakers - we're talking IEMs, and dynamic drivers to boot.  Sound Science is the obvious place to put it.  Do you have an objection?


----------



## castleofargh

yesterday I demonstrated once again how good I am at being an idiot. I was trying to get lost in the woods with an audiobook in my ears like I like to do to relax(it's my "fishing" moment), and between chapters there was this cool Bela Fleck version of Dance macabre. BTW I guessed who it was right away thanks mostly to my total ignorance, as the only guy I know by name with a banjo is him. banjo isn't really big in France ^_^. 

I really enjoyed it and behaved like a fool between each chapters, walking at the pace of the music and playing "air whatever" with my hands. silly but so fun.
so of course I come home and look for it on youtube to get the full piece before I decide to buy it if it's available, and while still cool, it felt slow and dull in comparison. so here I am wondering if there is another version, plugging my IEMs in case that's why it doesn't feel the same. I was looking for anything, even checked that my EQ was OFF. I find nothing and conclude that somehow it must have something to do with walking and how good I felt up there in the mountain. 



turns out I was listening to the audiobook at 1.5X the speed ^_^.


----------



## bigshot

Brooko said:


> I put it there.  Subjective claims being made, when objective measurements tell us that the likelihood of it being audible are next to nil.  We're not talking speakers - we're talking IEMs, and dynamic drivers to boot.  Sound Science is the obvious place to put it.  Do you have an objection?



No, I just wonder if anyone here will jump in on it. It's specific to a particular brand of IEMs. We've had lots of general burn in threads already. Maybe someone in here is familiar with that particular model and can comment.


----------



## StanD

My favorite burn in fables are about DACs. I have to fasten my seatbelt before reading them.


----------



## bigshot

I think it derives from cars. When you buy a new car, it comes with a different grade of oil that doesn't lubricate as much. It wears off any flange in the first thousand miles. Then you replace the oil with regular grade oil and you're set to go. Running pink noise through headphones reminds me of that. Personally, if headphones don't sound good on the first play, I don't wait to find out if they get better. I return them and buy something else. I want headphones that suit me. I don't want my ears to adapt to the headphones. There really isn't much to discuss about burn in.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> I think it derives from cars. When you buy a new car, it comes with a different grade of oil that doesn't lubricate as much. It wears off any flange in the first thousand miles. Then you replace the oil with regular grade oil and you're set to go. Running pink noise through headphones reminds me of that. Personally, if headphones don't sound good on the first play, I don't wait to find out if they get better. I return them and buy something else. I want headphones that suit me. I don't want my ears to adapt to the headphones. There really isn't much to discuss about burn in.


I completely agree, and yet the story continues to rage on. And don't forget the need for balanced headphone cables, silly reasons range from cancelling interference/hum to increased power (even though things are loud enough on SE to burn one's ears off the sides of their heads). People are always chasing the next fable in the hopes of an ear opening improvement.


----------



## castleofargh

StanD said:


> I completely agree, and yet the story continues to rage on. And don't forget the need for balanced headphone cables, silly reasons range from cancelling interference/hum to increased power (even though things are loud enough on SE to burn one's ears off the sides of their heads). People are always chasing the next fable in the hopes of an ear opening improvement.


for the anecdote the portable combo I got that was catching the most noises from all over (cellphones, security doors in stores....) was an amp with balanced output. I could tell you if somebody 2 rooms away was receiving a message on his phone. first ever NSA approved amp.


----------



## bigshot

My dad was a ham radio nut. He had an antenna that ran right over the roof of the house. We would hear him talking on his radio through the stereo in the living room even with the stereo turned off. I'm sure if I had gold fillings, I could have heard him through that. He instructed the whole family to tell neighbors that our TV reception was always crystal clear if anyone asked.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> for the anecdote the portable combo I got that was catching the most noises from all over (cellphones, security doors in stores....) was an amp with balanced output. I could tell you if somebody 2 rooms away was receiving a message on his phone. first ever NSA approved amp.


Of course we know the signal was most likely riding in on the input signal or invading the amp's circuitry. I suppose someone will say that their headphone transducers have rectifiers for demodulating AM. My headphones have gold fillings in their teeth.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> My dad was a ham radio nut. He had an antenna that ran right over the roof of the house. We would hear him talking on his radio through the stereo in the living room even with the stereo turned off. I'm sure if I had gold fillings, I could have heard him through that. He instructed the whole family to tell neighbors that our TV reception was always crystal clear if anyone asked.


When I was 12, my friend and myself built spark gap transmitters so we could experiment with radio transmission. Neither did the FCC approve nor did anyone in the neighborhood appreciate our experimentation.


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> I think it derives from cars. When you buy a new car, it comes with a different grade of oil that doesn't lubricate as much. It wears off any flange in the first thousand miles. Then you replace the oil with regular grade oil and you're set to go. Running pink noise through headphones reminds me of that. Personally, if headphones don't sound good on the first play, I don't wait to find out if they get better. I return them and buy something else. I want headphones that suit me. I don't want my ears to adapt to the headphones. There really isn't much to discuss about burn in.



Exactly. That should be the beginning and the end of a burn in argument. It's just an excuse to get people to go past their return window on a headphone they don't like. Open the box. Put them on. Make a decision. Don't waste away your return policy arguing with people on forums, trying to convince yourself your cans are going to get better.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 24, 2017)

I've been thinking about speakers lately because I bought a new set of rears and they're arriving Monday. I have a pair of custom made 6 way studio monitors that my brother had built for his McIntosh system and I love those things like my own mom. I never thought to find out what was in them. I just referred to them as having big fat old school sound. So I pulled the grills and tried to figure out what they are. It turns out that they're all JBL from the early to mid 1970s. The woofer is a classic- the D300 15 inch with the cloth surrounds. Amazing range and smoothness of response, capable of going extremely loud without breaking a sweat. The tweeters are JBL 75 Bullet tweeters. State of the art at the time and they look like something out of Buck Rogers. Quite directional but great sound all the way up over the range of human hearing. I'm guessing that the midrange speakers and rear firing tweeter are JBL as well, but I can't specifically identify them. They're definitely old school. I've never heard towers full of 6 inch drivers sound anything like these. No one seems to make box speakers like this any more. When I was in high school everyone had beautiful walnut boxes full of great big wonderful sounding speakers. I hope these last another forty years so I don't have to try to replace them.


----------



## Strangelove424

I wish I could do word working, primarily to make custom speakers. It would be awesome to choose my own design, wood, woofers, lining, I could go on and on fantasizing about the details I would obsess over. They don't make really great cabinets anymore with big robust sound unless you pay big money. My speakers are made of some artificial material, and covered in veneer. It feels cheap, but on the plus side, the artificial materials are improving quickly so they can manage to do curved cabinets for low prices. 

Please post your impressions of the KEFs. I've been wanting a small stereo-only bookshelf system from B&W or KEF for a while, just not sure if it's worth the splurge. It's so hard to justify two bookshelves that cost 2x my surround speakers + subwoofer, but there's a primal lust I have for British speakers, possibly instilled from marketing and rock culture. I see yellow woofers and then I get excited for no reason, as images of Abbey Road fill my head. British speakers are mythological, and maybe even if the performance isn't quite up to the price, it might be worth it just to scratch the itch.


----------



## bigshot

The ones I got were on sale for $200 off each. $800 a pair. That isn't too bad. The sale ends in a few days. It's on the KEF site.

I'm wondering how I can really judge these speakers on their own. Once they are installed, they're mounted on the wall and all I can play through them is rear stuff.


----------



## Strangelove424 (Jun 24, 2017)

That's a lot less than I expected. Checking it out right now, the Q300 is tempting, Q900 even more so.

Hmm, maybe you can put the receiver in multi-channel mode (which on my receiver doubles up stereo to the rear), unplug the front speakers, then turn to face the rear. Sort of wonky, but it should work.

Edit: Come to think of it, you can tell your receiver to ignore or turn a speaker off in the menus somewhere. That would be less of a pain than unplugging, and it wouldn't waste power.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 24, 2017)

The ones I got are the R100s. They get fantastic reviews. They probably need a subwoofer to be really serious, but they produce plenty of base to function as a really good bookshelf system.

I'm already running 5.1 with two sets of mains on A & B speakers. I could just disable all the other speakers, but it would still just be feeding rear channel information to the rears. It doesn't really matter though. If they can keep up with the punch of my mains, they will be doing very good.


----------



## StanD

As a quick break from speakers....I just thought of a great product to be marketed to audiophiles. A Multibit DAC that uses tubes for switches in the R2R ladder. OK, so tubes make lousy switches for such an application but I'm sure that can be explained away using a number of new audiophile terms along with some others like euphonic and so on.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 24, 2017)

Do the tubes light up a pretty color and feel warm to the touch? That's a definite plus. Does anyone make faux tubes that are basically just very dim light bulbs? It would be good to have something like that to set on top of a solid state amp to make you feel better about it.

Edit: Hahah! I found one. This is a $150 solid state amp with some tubes that do nothing but light up! I assume the "power supply" really *is* a brick that just has a reflective surface to nicely accent the tubes.

It gets great reviews from audiophiles on Amazon! https://www.amazon.com/Nobsound-MS-10D-MKII-Amplifier-Bluetooth/dp/B00MN5NDYA







It has USB input so it must have a DAC in it.


----------



## StanD (Jun 24, 2017)

That's not a DAC. Keep looking. C'mon multibit DACs and Tubes are the rage, what a marketing opportunity.
I'm sure we can incorporate LEDs for fancy lighting effects, or at the very least include a Lava Lamp.


----------



## Strangelove424

Ok, didn't realize the R100 price was for the pair. That's not bad either. Interesting that they place the tweeter mid-woofer and direct it. I bet the imaging is great.

The audiophile look of 2017 is 1949, and the 1985 audiophile look was 2017. Go figure. 

Maybe if I go back to the 80's I'll be cool again.


----------



## castleofargh

tubes as resistors in the R2R ladder. 
and for the analog section of the DAC I want something with one tube of different size per octave because of course it makes sense, and each octave separated by a crossover design. 
then I guess we can't stop half way so we have to provide this balanced.


----------



## U-3C

Dulalala said:


>





StanD said:


> As a quick break from speakers....I just thought of a great product to be marketed to audiophiles. A Multibit DAC that uses tubes for switches in the R2R ladder. OK, so tubes make lousy switches for such an application but I'm sure that can be explained away using a number of new audiophile terms along with some others like euphonic and so on.



Don't give them (Schiit) ideas!!!



bigshot said:


> Do the tubes light up a pretty color and feel warm to the touch? That's a definite plus. Does anyone make faux tubes that are basically just very dim light bulbs? It would be good to have something like that to set on top of a solid state amp to make you feel better about it.
> 
> Edit: Hahah! I found one. This is a $150 solid state amp with some tubes that do nothing but light up! I assume the "power supply" really *is* a brick that just has a reflective surface to nicely accent the tubes.
> 
> ...



Ah yes, the infamous Nobsound.

They actually have some decent cheap products. Rest are pretty terrible. I have a small "tube" amp that is under their name but is sold u by many brands. It looks nice. Many people like the sound. I just use it as a hand warmer for fun during the winter. Don't buy it if you want a cheap tube amp thou...

-----------------

Speaking of which...

Remember those quantum stickers things people we sticking into their DAPs?

http://gizmodo.com/nasa-calls-bull-on-goops-120-bio-frequency-healing-1796309360

If only establishment with well respected authority and a genuine heart to set things right exists in this industry of audiophilia...


----------



## pinnahertz

castleofargh said:


> tubes as resistors in the R2R ladder.


...making it a Tube2Tube ladder.


----------



## castleofargh




----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> tubes as resistors in the R2R ladder.
> and for the analog section of the DAC I want something with one tube of different size per octave because of course it makes sense, and each octave separated by a crossover design.
> then I guess we can't stop half way so we have to provide this balanced.





pinnahertz said:


> ...making it a Tube2Tube ladder.


My dear fellows, that is an abuse of transconductance. Aha, we have a new audiophile term.


----------



## Strangelove424

Random observation... I love the feel of headphones after a haircut. The seal feels better, and any kind of relief from the feeling of wearing ear muffs in summer is welcome.


----------



## Argyris (Jun 25, 2017)

I've experienced similar after getting my hair cut. I let it get so out of control the last time, I actually had to contract the sizing adjusters on my HD 600 one click per side after my latest cut. Since I don't recall extending them at any point when my hair was growing, I can only imagine the headband and/or pads got worn in by the increased pressure from the extra hair. Whatever the case, afterward the fit is more secure and just feels better without all the hair in the way.


----------



## Strangelove424

I'm actually wearing HD600's right now! Due to the snug clamping, they feel the most different after a cut. Always wondered if my hair could wear down the pads, but figured that skull pressure could probably do the same. I had to go a click tighter too, but only on one side. One of my ears is lower than the other, so it tends to mess with my headband settings, among other things.  

I found my giant Grado extension cable recently, so I'm all the way in the backyard, controlling the computer's song list through my phone. Life is good.


----------



## StanD

Time to stop eating lunch and dinner to save money for this haircut.
https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/s...bable-start-up.701900/page-1420#post-13563979


----------



## upstateguy (Jun 27, 2017)

Strangelove424 said:


> I'm actually wearing HD600's right now! Due to the snug clamping, they feel the most different after a cut. Always wondered if my hair could wear down the pads, but figured that skull pressure could probably do the same. I had to go a click tighter too, but only on one side. *One of my ears is lower than the other,* so it tends to mess with my headband settings, among other things.
> 
> I found my giant Grado extension cable recently, so I'm all the way in the backyard, controlling the computer's song list through my phone. Life is good.



Just reading through the posts today, but maybe (a little) TMI ?


----------



## Strangelove424

Ha, maybe, but with all the custom IEM pictures around HeadFi, are you really grossed out about the idea of an a-symmetrical ear? God forbid you had to cross my path in the real world, and gaze but for a moment at my ghastly form, lumbering toward you with my slightly uneven sideburn.


----------



## bigshot

photos or it didn't happen


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> photos or it didn't happen


Along with certified measurements and the results of a hearing test.


----------



## upstateguy

Strangelove424 said:


> Ha, maybe, but with all the custom IEM pictures around HeadFi, are you really grossed out about the idea of an a-symmetrical ear? God forbid you had to cross my path in the real world, and gaze but for a moment at my ghastly form, lumbering toward you with my *slightly uneven sideburn*.



Oh no, anything but uneven sideburns* *


----------



## bigshot

Uneven sideburns are like EQ. They cause a face shift.


----------



## upstateguy

bigshot said:


> Uneven sideburns are like EQ. They cause a face shift.



  <--- LOL, could they make this any smaller


----------



## Strangelove424

We're not allowed much of that stuff in sound science. It makes us rowdy.


----------



## upstateguy

Strangelove424 said:


> We're not allowed much of that stuff in sound science. It makes us* rowdy*.


----------



## Strangelove424

Hey guys, I posted a suggestion to Spotify's idea box, and I was hoping you would all check it out, and possibly vote for the idea if you feel it is a good one. I don't want to lobby for votes, but this would add a feature to Spotify we could all appreciate - the ability to listen to original versions of albums, not just the remasters. Please take the time to at least read the post. Spotify won't even consider an idea until it reaches 50 votes, but I am not asking anyone to vote for the idea unless they truly believe in it. Thanks.

https://community.spotify.com/t5/Id...n-to-Original-Releases-Not-Just/idi-p/1728243


----------



## bigshot

How does spotify get its tracks? Don't they just take what the labels send them? I don't think they could go back to the labels and say, "Hey, give us all 1,000,000 albums in your outdated masterings too."


----------



## Strangelove424

I think they're definitely at the whim of the labels, but I remember I used to get access to original album releases on MOG. I miss MOG, it was perfect. 320kpbs nicely encoded w/ a huge library including back catalog. They're gone, replaced by Beats streaming, which is itself defunct now too. However, it gives me hope that it might be possible again with enough market interest. I know it's a long shot, but what a great long shot it would be! We wouldn't have to comb through CDs on Ebay or Amazon to find an original version, and what a great win this would be against brickwalled remasters. 

BTW, on a side note related to a different thread, someone already suggested in-app EQ 2 years ago, it already had 4,000 sigs but they were "still waiting to hear back from the engineers".


----------



## bigshot

The only thing older than that are probably the complaints saying the EQ in iTunes sucks!


----------



## Strangelove424

I just received the 2002 remaster of The Rolling Stones' Hot Rocks today and cannot believe how incredibly good it sounds. It was remastered by Bob Ludwig, and it's pure ear candy. I have heard so many loud masters of the Stones, which eventually caused me to avoid their music altogether, and finally here is an album that showcases the Stones in all their glory! I am now trying to find out which other Stone remasters Bob Ludwig has done.


----------



## Don Hills

Don't hold your hopes too high. Bob is very good at doing what the customer wants. I have a saying about the loudness wars:
"You know something's wrong when a heavy metal album ends up less compressed than a semi-acoustic soul/blues album. (Iron Maiden, "The Final Frontier" versus Tom Jones, "Praise And Blame". Both mastered in 2010 by Bob Ludwig.)"


----------



## Strangelove424

I just gave both a listen on Spotify, The Iron Maiden album sounds a lot better than the Tom Jones. Praise & Blame sounds horrible actually. I guess he's hit and miss. 

I'm willing to roll the dice on the rest of his 2002 Stones remasters. If they were done with the same taste as Hot Rocks, and there's reason to believe they should since they were all done for ABKCO simultaneously, it should be ok.


----------



## Argyris

Some of the absolute worst remastering jobs I've ever heard were the 2007-2008 Genesis ones. They hit all the sins: merciless brickwalling, boomy, one-note bass; gratuitous EQ, and a tasteless remix of every single album that buries keyboards wherever possible, sticks vocals way too far forward and naked, and obliterates carefully-hewn sonic textures--sometimes even replacing classic effects with obviously modern versions--thereby completely changing the feel of the music. I could also swear that there's a touch of Auto-Tune applied to the vocals. Every album in this remastered series sounds the same, and every one of them sounds like the engineer took _We Can't Dance_ and said, "Yep, that's how they should all sound, even the ones with Gabriel out front. Then we'll brickwall it."

Surprises of surprises, the engineer was Nick Davis, who produced _We Can't Dance_. I've never had the privilege of hearing the original CD transfers of the Genesis catalogue, which I've read are often considered superior to any future pressings. I do have an almost complete set* of the Definitive Edition remasters done in the early 90s, and while I think these range from very good to decent, they definitely have their issues (for instance, lots of piercing sibilance on _A Trick of the Tail_) and I would have liked a proper reworked set.

*I'm missing _Trespass_, the DE version of which evidently only came out in the UK and was lousy, anyway--oddly enough, I saw it for sale here in the US on two separate occasions, including of all places a Best Buy, and stupidly passed on it both times


----------



## bigshot (Jul 12, 2017)

Strangelove424 said:


> I just received the 2002 remaster of The Rolling Stones' Hot Rocks today and cannot believe how incredibly good it sounds.



There's one big problem with that album/mastering... That album on LP included *singles* mixes. When it was redone for SACD, they included album versions. Also, some of the Stones albums were *remixed* for SACD, not just remastered. They replaced the wire reverbs and slap back with fancy digital equivalents that take a lot of the zing out of the sound. Worse yet, they dialed back the "telephone futz" sound of Jagger's vocals completely changing the timbre of his voice.I don't know how they managed to do it, but a lot of the sharp dynamics in the drums got smoothed over too. The SACDs sound smoother and cleaner, but they don't sound like the Stones. I grew up with these albums, and the monkeying around sticks out like a sore thumb to me. I was living with the first release CDs, but I recently got the mono box set. That's what I've been wanting- the REAL Stones sound but with clean transfers and mastering.

Remixing is entirely different than remastering. People generally refer to them like they're similar, but they aren't. It's like the difference between polishing an antique dining room table and stripping the finish off and starting from scratch. Personally, I think remixing is only called for when the original mix is completely incompetent, or when you want to create a new format version, like a 5.1 mix.


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> There's one big problem with that album/mastering... That album on LP included *singles* mixes. When it was redone for SACD, they included album versions. Also, some of the Stones albums were *remixed* for SACD, not just remastered. They replaced the wire reverbs and slap back with fancy digital equivalents that take a lot of the zing out of the sound. Worse yet, they dialed back the "telephone futz" sound of Jagger's vocals completely changing the timbre of his voice.I don't know how they managed to do it, but a lot of the sharp dynamics in the drums got smoothed over too. The SACDs sound smoother and cleaner, but they don't sound like the Stones. I grew up with these albums, and the monkeying around sticks out like a sore thumb to me. I was living with the first release CDs, but I recently got the mono box set. That's what I've been wanting- the REAL Stones sound but with clean transfers and mastering.



That is true, there's some bite missing. Especially with Jagger's vocals that previously had the telephone futz you mentioned. That slight bit of high energy static around the peaks of his vocals are gone, as well as a lot of the edge off the instruments. Generally, I find it pleasing to listen to. I think the original songs could sound harsh occasionally, which compression made much worse, but on the other hand I think you're right in observing that the alterations fundamentally change the nature of some songs. They sound less flamboyant, less angry. Because these masters seem to bring out a more musical element to the album, I have to admit I'm still very much enjoying them, and would rather have an interpretation like this around than not. However, I will look into the mono box set you mentioned for a more loyal master. I don't seem to have too many issues finding classical or jazz well mastered,  but classic rock is getting more and more difficult, and I realized I don't have enough original CD releases. There's gaps in my rock collection, and I'm trying to fill them up, but would rather go back 20 or so years to do it.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 12, 2017)

A good track to compare between the SACDs and the original CDs is Street Fighting Man. That is one of the most aggressive songs ever recorded, but the remix succeeds in making it sound nice and polite. It's not discussed much, but when records are remixed, the people supervising often have entirely different tastes than the original people. Another good example is Steven Wilson's multichannel remix of XTC's Drums and Wires. He takes an album that was one of the quintessential spare, angular, direct examples of early 80s New Wave and turns it into something that sounds like a prog rock album. XTC turned into a band that emulated the Beatles Magical Mystery Tour aesthetic later on in their career, but when Drums and Wires was made, they were more like Talking Heads or The Pretenders than they were psychedelia.

I find that in general the first CD release is the best for most rock music. There are exceptions like Elton John and David Bowie, but in general that holds true.


----------



## U-3C

Funny. I've owned the Q701 for some time now, and for the vast majority of this period, I've never really liked them. Always preferred my AD700X way more. I've given the AD700X to my parents for about a year and I visit them once in a while. The previous month, I've stayed for an entire month.

In the past, I usually prefer the AD700X when I visit them, but this time, I really miss the sound signature of the Q701. Now, I returned to my current home with both and I really have to say that I prefer the Q701. I've adjusted to new headphones and hated old ones with time (that's spent with or without them), but the adjustment period is usually quite quick. This kinda made me go against the whole "preferred sound signature" idea. Aside from the complicated subjectivity and vague words used to recommend sound signatures, how would you know what sound sig you really like in the end? Even with EQ...how do you know that it's not better off if you leave it alone and adjust to the sound (*cough* let them burn in your brain *cough*), so you might actually enjoy the headphones you bought in the end without thinking that you are making compromises? Funny how all the people have claimed I either hate the headphones because they weren't burnt in (my pair is second handed so that's not the problem), or claimed that the sound isn't for me. Maybe the past me just didn't fit the headphones...yet.  

Now I don't even know how to answer questions about headphones anymore. In the past I would say "go to a store and try them. If you like them, that's your answer." 

Maybe I should just say, "Go buy the cheapest pair you find comfortable and well built and listen to it for 5 years." 

I might as well convert to Lo-Fi-ism.


----------



## bigshot

U-3C said:


> Aside from the complicated subjectivity and vague words used to recommend sound signatures, how would you know what sound sig you really like in the end? Even with EQ...how do you know that it's not better off if you leave it alone and adjust to the sound (*cough* let them burn in your brain *cough*), so you might actually enjoy the headphones you bought in the end without thinking that you are making compromises?



That's easy... you listen to a lot of recordings critically and find the sweet spot where most everything you listen to sounds great. You use your analytical thinking and your ears. You patiently parallel park until you can't think of a single tweak that would make things better. It's good to start out from a calibrated point. Then you can add your own preferences. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## headwhacker

U-3C said:


> Funny. I've owned the Q701 for some time now, and for the vast majority of this period, I've never really liked them. Always preferred my AD700X way more. I've given the AD700X to my parents for about a year and I visit them once in a while. The previous month, I've stayed for an entire month.
> 
> In the past, I usually prefer the AD700X when I visit them, but this time, I really miss the sound signature of the Q701. Now, I returned to my current home with both and I really have to say that I prefer the Q701. I've adjusted to new headphones and hated old ones with time (that's spent with or without them), but the adjustment period is usually quite quick. This kinda made me go against the whole "preferred sound signature" idea. Aside from the complicated subjectivity and vague words used to recommend sound signatures, how would you know what sound sig you really like in the end? Even with EQ...how do you know that it's not better off if you leave it alone and adjust to the sound (*cough* let them burn in your brain *cough*), so you might actually enjoy the headphones you bought in the end without thinking that you are making compromises? Funny how all the people have claimed I either hate the headphones because they weren't burnt in (my pair is second handed so that's not the problem), or claimed that the sound isn't for me. Maybe the past me just didn't fit the headphones...yet.
> 
> ...



This is what I observed personally. As soon as I switch to another headphone I get a feeling that I like it compared to the last headphone I was. Then after a while, I switch back, I kind of miss the signature of the previous headphone. Over time I also observed, that my taste in overall sound signature preference shifted a bit.


----------



## U-3C

bigshot said:


> That's easy... you listen to a lot of recordings critically and find the sweet spot where most everything you listen to sounds great. You use your analytical thinking and your ears. You patiently parallel park until you can't think of a single tweak that would make things better. It's good to start out from a calibrated point. Then you can add your own preferences. Nothing wrong with that.



Yeah, that makes sense and it's what I kinda do. Just surprised that after years of listening (including lots of critical listening) , my idea of the "sweet spot" changed somehow during the last month.


----------



## Argyris

I'm glad I got the HD 600 when I did, almost six years after I started buying nice headphones. In the beginning, when after two other ultimately disappointing headphone purchases I finally got my DT880, I breathed a mental sigh of relief and said, "Yes, this is the one." I had some issues with sibilance, but for the most part it sounded great. Everything else I'd tried had sounded too wonky or rolled off in the top octave for me. Over time, though, I started becoming less enamored with the analytical signature in general, and I started wondering if the people who raved about a touch of warmth and comparatively relaxed treble might be onto something. When I got the HD 600, within a day it fit like a glove, and I can't imagine enjoying any other signature. The rest of my collection has been shelved for over a year now. If I'd gotten the HD 600 right at the beginning, when I was looking for a detailed, analytical signature, I might have dismissed the Sennheiser as yet another overhyped headphone (I'd already fallen for the hype of the M50). The DT880 was the right headphone for me back then, whereas over time I came to be irritated by the sibilance and dryness typical of analytical headphones, for which the HD 600 ended up being the perfect antidote.


----------



## bigshot

My sweet spot for response doesn't change at all. When I EQ I'm listening for specific things in specific bands. I'm not just trying to find "what sounds good". It takes me a week of concentrated listening to arrive at it, parallel parking a dB or two at a time focusing on one band at a time. But once I hit it, just about every recording sounds good, so I don't monkey with it unless something changes in my system. I've had a lot of practice EQing 78s, which have no standard response curve. So I got good at focusing on a little bit of the sound at a time and working my way systematically through the whole range.


----------



## bigshot

I was thinking the other day about a discussion I had about how recording an acoustic phonograph in 24 bit was useful. Pinnahertz pointed out that 78s have a narrow dynamic range, but I have observed that on acoustic phonographs they can have tremendous dynamic range, primarily because of volume peaks that are so loud they can make your ears ring. I've noticed that the same record on an acoustic phonograph can have much more dynamic range than when it is transcribed electrically. I've never been sure why this is the case, but I think I might have figured it out.

Acoustic phonographs use steel needles that look like little nails and very heavy tracking weights. The steel needles are soft and conform to the shape of the grooves after a few rotations of the record, wedging in tightly. Electrical transcription uses a diamond stylus with either elliptical or conical shape and very light tracking force that skims lightly through the grooves. My guess is that steel needles ride the tops of the grooves where the modulations are bigger. The steel needle has a bigger surface area to contact the groove walls and the heavy tracking weight transfers the energy better. Add to this the fact that the grooves in a 78 are ten times larger than an LP and the speed is more than twice as fast, and you can see that the format allows for huge volume variation. Electrical transcription rides lower in the groove where the modulations are smaller and more well controlled. The lighter tracking force doesn't transfer as much of the energy to the stylus. I've had the best luck getting good sound out of clean 78s by using a 3.5 mil conical needle. With classical music, it preserves the dynamics pretty well. But most transfer engineers tend to use 2.5 mil elliptical to drop in under the wear pattern created by the steel needles and find untouched groove modulations below. This may be why many CDs of 78 rpm era material sound so wimpy.


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> A good track to compare between the SACDs and the original CDs is Street Fighting Man. That is one of the most aggressive songs ever recorded, but the remix succeeds in making it sound nice and polite. It's not discussed much, but when records are remixed, the people supervising often have entirely different tastes than the original people.



Been swamped with house repairs, but later today I plan to look through the libraries of the music services I have access to, try to find an original release, and compare to the 2002 DSD I have. I do remember being dissapointed when hearing Play With Fire, finding the vocals way too suppressed over the instruments. It was a completely different emphasis which didn't help. The Stones had many facets and could border on punk rock, or be soft as the Eagles. They truly had a range of style, and changed through time as their lives developed, like good musicians do. So a sweeping wide brush approach either to mastering, mixing, or judgment of the either isn't really fair without a track by track listen. Looking forward to taking a break and doing some of that later.



Argyris said:


> I'm glad I got the HD 600 when I did, almost six years after I started buying nice headphones. In the beginning, when after two other ultimately disappointing headphone purchases I finally got my DT880, I breathed a mental sigh of relief and said, "Yes, this is the one." I had some issues with sibilance, but for the most part it sounded great. Everything else I'd tried had sounded too wonky or rolled off in the top octave for me. Over time, though, I started becoming less enamored with the analytical signature in general, and I started wondering if the people who raved about a touch of warmth and comparatively relaxed treble might be onto something. When I got the HD 600, within a day it fit like a glove, and I can't imagine enjoying any other signature. The rest of my collection has been shelved for over a year now. If I'd gotten the HD 600 right at the beginning, when I was looking for a detailed, analytical signature, I might have dismissed the Sennheiser as yet another overhyped headphone (I'd already fallen for the hype of the M50). The DT880 was the right headphone for me back then, whereas over time I came to be irritated by the sibilance and dryness typical of analytical headphones, for which the HD 600 ended up being the perfect antidote.



Similar situation here, I first bought the HD600 and DT880, originally went with the DT880, and then three years later purchased the HD600 again. I still think the DT880 is technically a better headphone, especially for classical listening and sound editing, but the HD600 spends more time on my head since it's a better all-arounder.  I think they both need EQ to sound their best (-2/3db @ 2-4khz for me personally), but I've come to see the two as hedging close to both sides of the neutrality fence, one slightly analytical, the other emotional. Between the two, I feel like I am getting a very close to neutral interpretation, with some range left for variety. I am extremely happy with them, and have not been swoon by any other headphones since.


----------



## Don Hills

bigshot said:


> ...  Pinnahertz pointed out that 78s have a narrow dynamic range, but I have observed that on acoustic phonographs they can have tremendous dynamic range, primarily because of volume peaks resonances in the system (diaphragm and horn) that are so loud they can make your ears ring. ...



Fixed it for you...


----------



## bigshot (Jul 13, 2017)

Do you really think it's horn resonances? Can a resonance make the difference between 40dB and well over 80? Because a 78 can be very quiet with Z shellac and very loud with Caruso records. That's what I originally thought, but every phonograph has its own size and shape of horn and they all get very loud in the same places. I have a suitcase victrola with a very small paper macho horn and it gets deafening. I know that volume with records depends on pitch and depth of the grooves. 78 grooves are ten times wider than LPs, their pitch is about 8 ten times looser, and the depth is much deeper too. I think the grooves have something to do with it as well. Maybe they goosed the dynamics when they were cutting the record,


----------



## StanD

Argyris said:


> I'm glad I got the HD 600 when I did, almost six years after I started buying nice headphones. In the beginning, when after two other ultimately disappointing headphone purchases I finally got my DT880, I breathed a mental sigh of relief and said, "Yes, this is the one." I had some issues with sibilance, but for the most part it sounded great. Everything else I'd tried had sounded too wonky or rolled off in the top octave for me. Over time, though, I started becoming less enamored with the analytical signature in general, and I started wondering if the people who raved about a touch of warmth and comparatively relaxed treble might be onto something. When I got the HD 600, within a day it fit like a glove, and I can't imagine enjoying any other signature. The rest of my collection has been shelved for over a year now. If I'd gotten the HD 600 right at the beginning, when I was looking for a detailed, analytical signature, I might have dismissed the Sennheiser as yet another overhyped headphone (I'd already fallen for the hype of the M50). The DT880 was the right headphone for me back then, whereas over time I came to be irritated by the sibilance and dryness typical of analytical headphones, for which the HD 600 ended up being the perfect antidote.


I also have HD600's and like them plenty. I also have HE-500's and like them even more. They're similar to the HD600's only with a wonderful extended sub bass (IMO the HD600's one weak point) and what I might call a smackin' transient response. the HE-560's are also very nice. Neither of these are dark, like Audeze cans can get. Take a listen to a good pair of planar magnetics (Orthodynamic) cans. The downside is weight due to the magnets, but the sound is awesome.


----------



## Don Hills

bigshot said:


> Do you really think it's horn resonances? ...
> ... Maybe they goosed the dynamics when they were cutting the record,



It's a bit hard to look for resonances if you don't have a test disc... and I don't know of any 78 versions. 
How would they goose the dynamics with the electronics available at the time?

(My father used to have a large collection of C&W 78s. He mostly listened on a "modern" radiogram, but he also had a portable acoustic gramophone and a larger acoustic with, apparently unusually, an electric motor drive.)


----------



## bigshot

I'm talking about acoustic recordings- pre electric. The sound was recorded through a horn and diaphragm and cut into a wax master. They could adjust volume mechanically by increasing the downward pressure of the cutting stylus. This would make the grooves bigger and the modulation broader. I have some 78s where passages are so loud you can see wiggles back and forth in the grooves with the naked eye. You could also adjust the volume on playback by using a heavier gauge of steel needle. Thick stiff needles conducted the vibrations to the diaphragm more directly and made for louder sound. They even made needles that were flat and wide. If you turned the wide side facing forward, it would play loud. If you put the narrow side forward it would be a medium tone. They also had soft tone which were much thinner, more like a brad than a nail.

He might have had a later Victor Credenza. Those had an exponential horn and sounded very good.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> I'm talking about acoustic recordings- pre electric. The sound was recorded through a horn and diaphragm and cut into a wax master. They could adjust volume mechanically by increasing the downward pressure of the cutting stylus. This would make the grooves bigger and the modulation broader. I have some 78s where passages are so loud you can see wiggles back and forth in the grooves with the naked eye. You could also adjust the volume on playback by using a heavier gauge of steel needle. Thick stiff needles conducted the vibrations to the diaphragm more directly and made for louder sound. They even made needles that were flat and wide. If you turned the wide side facing forward, it would play loud. If you put the narrow side forward it would be a medium tone. They also had soft tone which were much thinner, more like a brad than a nail.
> 
> He might have had a later Victor Credenza. Those had an exponential horn and sounded very good.


Now for the audiophile questions? Did they record and playback ultrasonic content? Did they use sorbothane feet? No headphones?


----------



## pinnahertz

Horns, both recording and playback, including the coupled diaphragms, are full of resonances.  They are hard to measure by playing a record of music, but an infinitely averaging 1/12 octave RTA would be a good start.  Resonances will build strong peaks, though you may have to sample and integrate a few records to pull them out from those created by music.   They should be fairly pronounced.  

Horns work as a means of matching acoustic impedance, but their shape, rate of flare, and length create a variety of resonances.  The flare of the end of the horn affects how lower frequencies "see" the end of the horn, and change where the resonances occur.  Most pictures I've seen of recording horns show a non-flared conical horn which will have many pronounced standing waves because the sudden transition from the end of the horn to open space is a poor impedance match, which produces internal reflections back to the other end.  The reflections transverse round trip several times from the mouth to the diaphragm and back, or in the reverse direction for recording.  Either way, the dimensions and shape of the horn is what produces resonances.  They are unavoidable in these simple horns.

Stylus (needle) force and contact area has little to do with volume until the resulting force causes a stylus to behave as if it were more rigid transferring more mechanical energy to the diaphragm.  Volume is mostly about grove modulation and the ability of a stylus to convert it into mechanical energy transferred to the diaphragm.    

Resonances in the recording horn and diaphragm create high groove modulation in their peak frequency.  If a playback diaphragm and horn have similar resonant frequencies those will produce very high volume at those frequencies.  

Don't confuse volume (gain) with dynamic range, though.  Even with resonances present and tuned to each other, a shellac disc has a very high noise floor, an a groove has a physical maximum modulation limit.  Just because a particular phonograph sounds loud doesn't mean it has high dynamic range.  Both are easily measured,... provided someone decides it's worth the trouble and uses measurement devices.  I know, I know...not worth the trouble.  

If all music can be captured and reproduced adequately with 16 bit recording and playback, what would make you think recording the playback of an acoustically recorded 78 would require 24 bits?


----------



## pinnahertz

StanD said:


> Now for the audiophile questions? Did they record and playback ultrasonic content? Did they use sorbothane feet? No headphones?


No, No, and no.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 16, 2017)

pinnahertz said:


> If all music can be captured and reproduced adequately with 16 bit recording and playback, what would make you think recording the playback of an acoustically recorded 78 would require 24 bits?



Because the volume variability between discs is huge. And even within a single record there can be huge leaps in volume. It's more difficult to set levels when miking an acoustic machine than doing electrical transcription. I've tried to record my phonographs before, but I always seem to bump into a part that blasts and blows out into digital distortion. The dynamic range seems broader than for most LPs, but that may be because they didn't have limiters or any way to adjust levels back then. The sound that went into the horn was what was encoded in the grooves. When singers are very close to the horn, it sounds almost exactly like the range of a real human voice. When that voice is Caruso, the range is massive.

I don't know if you've ever had the chance to hear a record that was recorded and played back acoustically, It sounds amazing, but it isn't at all following the rules for modern hifi... the response curve has big wolf tones, the dynamics are not natural, the sound is all in the midrange, the horn is projecting the sound in front of the machine in a very directional manner, and the room expands the sound and adds a natural feel to it. The overall impression is so striking and present, it can make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. For some reason, it is VERY difficult to recreate this sound with electrical transcription.

I think the various sound labs at the manufacturers in the early part of the 20th century were experimenting with psycho-acoustic principles that we don't deal with any more. We are able to present sound more accurately. But they were able to optimize very inaccurate sound in a way that still maintained the spark of life and presence in it. I've been playing around with my phonographs testing them and trying to recreate their sound. It's very difficult to figure out. I wonder if anyone has done controlled tests on just what effect the needle, mica diaphragm and horn have on the sound. It would also be interesting to compare different brands and models, because each manufacturer had its own house sound and recorded their records to sound best on their own machines and vice versa.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> 1. Because the volume variability between discs is huge. And even within a single record there can be huge leaps in volume.
> 
> 2. It's more difficult to set levels when miking an acoustic machine than doing electrical transcription. I've tried to record my phonographs before, but I always seem to bump into a part that blasts and blows out into digital distortion.
> 
> ...


1. If you're going to claim that 24 bit audio is necessary to record acoustic 78s played on an acoustic phonograph, we have to deal with numbers, not subjective terms like "huge" and "huge leaps".  40dB of chance, for example, may be described as "huge" by most people. Some think 20dB qualifies as "huge".  We can't have this discussion with 20dB+  dissagreements in term definitions.

2. So one pass to establish maximum peak then adjust for that doesn't work for you?  Start low, observe the highest peak-hold value, then adjust up if necessary?

3. The DR of a 78 might seem broader but it isn't. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

The 78 dr reference is from a cited AES paper. 40dB, with wear, 30dB.  If we add a resonant peak of 20dB (is that huge?), we still max at 70dB.   That's 12 bits.

4. The sound that went into the horn, got distorted by innumerable horn resonances, again by the nonlinear behavior of a ridged diaphragm, again by the shape of the cutting stylus, and again by the spring-back of the wax.  Then most of that all over again during playback. It is amazing the result is at all pleasing, and recognizable.

5.  I have, many times. I was impressed by the playback volume, very much so. I was also impressed by how completely unique to that system the sound is. Nothing sounds like that, not remotely, not the original event either.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 17, 2017)

I'm specifically talking about acoustic 78s played back acoustically. That is entirely different than electrically recorded 78s played back with an electric pickup. You can't generalize about acoustic phonographs and acoustic recordings. Every manufacturer used a different standard. Recording them isn't at all straightforward. Once you deal with overcoming room tone by close miking the horn, you're dealing with a tremendous volume level. It can reach peaks of well over 90dB with a loud tone needle. If I put my head where the mic sits relative to the horn, my ears distort on the peaks and they ring afterwards. It's beyond the threshold of pain. The surface noise mostly exists beyond the response of the sound box, so it is much lower than with electrical transcription. If you plan to do noise reduction in post, having that quiet bed of surface noise well defined would help a lot with pattern matching noise reduction.

Playing a record on an acoustic phonograph involves cranking up the machine and changing the needle with every record side played. A record runs 2 1/2 minutes. It just isn't practical to set levels by pre-auditioning every record. You set one level with a ballpark volume setting that doesn't distort with the loudest peak and you play them all in a row without stopping the recording. It's like a live performance. But a Magic Note Columbia record may be recorded at a drastically different volume level than a Victor Red Seal. There was no calibration for pre-electrical recordings. You have to set for the loudest and capture the rest wherever they fall.

I've done a lot of electrical transcriptions of acoustic records and it is a ton of work and processing to get them even close to the way they sound through an acoustic phonograph. It takes suppression of the noise floor, dynamic expansion, and selective emphasis of specific bands with EQ. I spent a week working on a single record once, listening to it on my suitcase Victrola and then trying to match it on my transcription. I sorta got something that sounded similar. Different machines sound different yet the same... it isn't just horn resonances. My Cortez has a 27 inch spruce horn and my suitcase Victrola has a little tiny paper mache horn. Yet they both present acoustic recordings with the same general sound. I don't fully understand everything that's going on.

When you buy a CD of a Caruso record, they don't even try to make it sound like it does on a Victrola. They take the approach that they are going to present it as close to what the music originally sounded like as possible by removing everything that wasn't a part of the original sound in the studio. That subtractive process results in wimpy, flat, compressed sounding recordings, because they're operating solely with the shadow of the sound, not the full sound of the recording itself. The acoustic phonograph is a musical instrument and the sound it adds to the music is part of the effect. The resonant qualities of the phonograph aren't distortion any more than a violin's resonances are distortion. Totally different way of thinking of sound reproduction than we have today. But anyone who has heard a really good acoustic phonograph knows it's a totally valid one.


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> The acoustic phonograph is a musical instrument and the sound it adds to the music is part of the effect. The resonant qualities of the phonograph aren't distortion any more than a violin's resonances are distortion. Totally different way of thinking of sound reproduction than we have today. But anyone who has heard a really good acoustic phonograph knows it's a totally valid one.



Interesting point, and one I've previously wondered about. Many instruments rely on resonance, and resonance has been increasingly engineered out of audio reproduction. What we're left with is a by the books method where the original performance is captured as accurately as possible by a mic, stored as accurately as possible in data, and played back later as accurately as possible through a transducer which neither adds or takes away form the energy captured in the data. The result, deductively, is that the outcome of that sound reproduction chain will sound just like the original performance did. Considering the outcome of this modern approach, it's quite practical, newer gear is more technically precise, and able to reproduce sound with less distortion. The downside is that the natural resonance characteristics of certain instruments, including their ability to oscillate, which I believe required a non-liner response from the speaker to truly sound life like, cannot be recreated without resonance (and by definition distortion). Examples are trumpets, clarinet, and violin. Their sound relies naturally on resonance. Perhaps this is the reason certain recordings sound more realistic to you on the phonograph, because rather than achieve a perfect recording, or a perfect transducer, the designers simply aimed to recreate the sensation of an instrument, or to build an instrument out of a transducer. And that requires introducing a little resonance. You'd never see THD specs on an acoustic instrument. It's a different realm of audio, and different approach. Perhaps they saw the phonograph more like that. Our attitude towards speakers nowadays is totally different. Speakers are not instruments, they are scientific reproducers of sound waves. They either achieve an ideal, or fall in various ways from that ideal. Interpretation or enmphasis is not a part of the engineering process anymore.

I play violin and have always been fascinated by the way sound vibrates through a the instrument so effortlessly, atleast a good example of one, and how much of a command you need to have over the resonance - being able to provoke it instantly, or make it bleed away softly - in order to make it sound sweet or forceful. Being too gentle with the bow, and shying from that resonance, will lead to a loss in tone, or the dreadful squeak. I've found that headphones with tame or polite treble don't do violins justice. Same with trumpet and clarinets. And the most lifelike reproduction of a trumpet I ever heard was through a loaded horn tweeter with lots of (probably resonating with) treble energy. I have never been a huge fan of excited treble delivery, but I came to appreciate it, including the loaded horn design, for its ability to recreate certain instruments and singers in a lifelike way. I wouldn't want that kind of a reproduction for all genres, so it depends on the content. I've always preferred a neutral system first and foremost, but I do think the struggle for neutral response has robbed some of the life from music. Speaker systems nowadays are capable of playing most situations with more accuracy, but the lifelike sensation of having certain instruments in the room is being sacrificed. I still regret not setting up a tiny 2 channel music system with those little Hsu horned bookshelves.


----------



## james444

You guys should try the Final Audio 1601 or 1602 IEMs. These are designed to emulate the highly mid-centric and resonant horn speaker sound. Very strange things... but with the right music, admittedly pretty fascinating.


----------



## bigshot

How about this set up? Maybe it would sound good.


----------



## gregorio

Strangelove424 said:


> The downside is that the natural resonance characteristics of certain instruments, including their ability to oscillate, which I believe required a non-liner response from the speaker to truly sound life like, cannot be recreated without resonance (and by definition distortion). Examples are trumpets, clarinet, and violin. Their sound relies naturally on resonance.



1. How does recording with modern mics, digital audio and modern speakers stop an instrument from oscillating/resonating?
2. A system (or speaker) with a resonance which might be similar to one instrument or sound would necessarily not be similar to the resonance of other instruments/sounds. The resonance of each instrument (including the human voice) is different, are you suggesting a system/speaker with a resonance the same as a violin, another system with the resonance of a trumpet and so on ad infinitum?
3. If an instrument resonates (and I can't think of any acoustic instruments which don't) and if we can accurately record and reproduce that instrument, which must obviously include it's resonance, why would you want to add another resonance in addition? How would say a violin with double it's resonance "truly sound life like"?



Strangelove424 said:


> I've found that headphones with tame or polite treble don't do violins justice. Same with trumpet and clarinets.



Then surely the solution is more accurate headphones, not less accurate/linear ones with a particular resonance similar to a violin?

G


----------



## bigshot (Jul 19, 2017)

gregorio said:


> If an instrument resonates (and I can't think of any acoustic instruments which don't) and if we can accurately record and reproduce that instrument, which must obviously include it's resonance, why would you want to add another resonance in addition? How would say a violin with double it's resonance "truly sound life like"?



I've noticed that the horn channels the sound like a beam of light. It's very directional. Totally different than the dispersion pattern of speakers. If you sit a little bit off axis to the direction the horn is facing, there's an eerie effect that projects an aural image of the singer four or five feet into the room in front of the phonograph. The sound doesn't seem to be coming from the horn. It's as if the ghost of the singer is standing the same distance from the horn as when he was standing in front of it in the recording studio. This gives a particular sort of sound that modern recordings don't.

Another thing that acoustic recording does differently than modern techniques is using the room for its natural characteristics. With speakers, you try to avoid reflections. With an acoustic phonograph, they tell you to put it in the corner of the room to get more reflections. The reason is that acoustic records have no reverb or room tone at all. The recording horn didn't pick up any sound further than ten feet away, so the sound is totally dry. If you play that in a live room, the ambience of the room wraps around the recorded sound and makes it as if the singer is in the room with you.

You could probably create a horn loaded speaker to simulate all of this, or just play an iPod into the tone arm of an acoustic phonograph. It's not that modern techniques are unable to do this, they just don't do it.


----------



## Strangelove424

gregorio said:


> 1. How does recording with modern mics, digital audio and modern speakers stop an instrument from oscillating/resonating?
> 
> 2. A system (or speaker) with a resonance which might be similar to one instrument or sound would necessarily not be similar to the resonance of other instruments/sounds. The resonance of each instrument (including the human voice) is different, are you suggesting a system/speaker with a resonance the same as a violin, another system with the resonance of a trumpet and so on ad infinitum?
> 
> ...



1. It doesn't. I was observing the modern reproduction chain, and how it lacks a sound behavior native to instruments. 

2. No, obviously too costly. I've invested in a neutral system "first and foremost", but a loaded horn bookshelf for certain music would be nice to have for the right money. 

3. You'll always capture the frequency of resonance with an accurate system, but dynamics, imaging, and attack of trumpet can be aided with the resonance of a loaded horn. I tend to lean toward treble emphasized headphones when listeing to violin, and think one that emphasize mids sounds great with cello. Variation from perfect accuracy can help some instruments sound more life like. The problem is picking a system for each instrument, so for value reasons neutrality is an ideal baseline. 

4. Ideally, but "more accurate headphone" is kind of a loaded term. For instance, I think DT880s are neutral, but some people disagree, and think it has treble emphasis. Lots of people say the HD600 is neutral. I think it distorts the mid range, albeit pleasingly. Both headphones are pretty close to what most people would regard as 'accurate' though, both of them recommended often as monitoring headphones, but even in their case there's some major range in the interpretation. I own both, and find they excel at different things.   

Accuracy and neutrality are important, but I think the point being made here is coming from a different perspective, and you're applying a traditional one about sound reproduction in order to try to understand it. To illustrate this, I know they sell pianos with robotic mechanisms that can play pre-programmed songs. So imagine that we managed to record not only the sound of Glen Gould's Variations in sound waves, but the exact inputs he made to the piano, down to thousandths of a second or mm resolution. We then took an example of Glen Gould's grand piano and hooked up a robotic mechanism that could recreate the timing and movement of the performance we recorded. We also played back his performance through the most accurate set of speakers we could find for the same cost of a his grand piano. Which would be the more "accurate" rendition? It's two completely different approaches, but in my opinion, there's no way the speakers could ever reproduce what the piano could. Yes, there would be deviation form the actual performance, and we would be missing the environmental acoustics, or Glenn Gould's humming, but we would gain a true representation of the resonance characteristics of that instrument. With millions of dollars in robotics and quality instrument purchases, you could have an amazing virtual orchestra that no speaker could ever beat. Perhaps an extreme way to illustrate the idea, but along the same vein nonetheless.


----------



## gregorio

Strangelove424 said:


> 1. It doesn't. I was observing the modern reproduction chain, and how it lacks a sound behavior native to instruments.
> 2. No, obviously too costly. I've invested in a neutral system "first and foremost", but a loaded horn bookshelf for certain music would be nice to have for the right money.
> 3. You'll always capture the frequency of resonance with an accurate system, but dynamics, imaging, and attack of trumpet can be aided with the resonance of a loaded horn.



I still don't understand your logic. If you accurately capture the frequency of resonance of an instrument, how does adding more of that resonance "aid" the sound or make it more "life like". If it was captured inaccurately, with too little resonance and it wasn't compensated for during mixing, then adding more of that resonance in playback would make sense, providing of course it was the same resonance as the missing resonance and of course, it would be pure chance that the resonance of a horn speaker matches the missing resonance. The last thing I would want is a sound system which matches the sound behaviour of any one instrument, what happens if I want to listen to a different instrument or a group of different instruments? Unless I only ever listen to one unaccompanied instrument, which is always recorded inaccurately with the exact same resonance reduction, I want as linear a system as possible.



Strangelove424 said:


> I tend to lean toward treble emphasized headphones when listeing to violin, and think one that emphasize mids sounds great with cello.



Don't forget the double basses, you'll need headphones with an emphasised bass for those. So what you ideally want is headphones with an emphasised treble (for violins), emphasised mids (for cello) and emphasised bass (for the basses). Explain to me how these ideal headphones would differ from linear/accurate headphones? 

One of the problems, is how you define life-like or natural. A few inches away, say in the case of actually playing the violin, you will hear far more treble, details and dynamics than you will from say 20+ feet away in a concert hall. That's almost certainly why you prefer added treble, dynamics, etc., because it more closely matches the sound you are used to. BUT, what is more life-like or natural, what the musician hears a few inches away or what the audience hears many feet away? Music is typically mixed (though not typically recorded) from an idealised audience perspective, NOT from just a few inches away. If we recorded each instrument in the orchestra from just a few inches away and mixed it as if you were an audience member sitting just a few inches away from each of those instruments, it wouldn't sound much like any orchestra you've ever heard!



Strangelove424 said:


> Accuracy and neutrality are important, but I think the point being made here is coming from a different perspective ...



I don't get your analogy or what it has to do with the point at hand. If I were to record Glenn Gould and accurately capture all of the resonance etc., how does adding more resonance than existed at the time (by reproducing with a horn speaker) make it better or more life-like? It will make it less accurate and less life-life, the only way it could be described as "better" is if your personal preference is for inaccuracy in the form of too much resonance in a particular frequency range.

G


----------



## Whazzzup

I know what I like, and I like what I know.


----------



## Don Hills

Whazzzup said:


> I know what I like, and I like what I know.



Me, I'm just a lawnmower - you can tell me by the way I walk.


----------



## Whazzzup

Don Hills said:


> Me, I'm just a lawnmower - you can tell me by the way I walk.


When the sun beats down I lie on my bench 
I can always hear them talk.


----------



## castleofargh

^_^


----------



## Argyris

Lots of Genesis fans here. I approve.


----------



## bigshot

Come off the ledge if your father were alive he'd be very, very, very upset. Your shirt's all dirty, there's a man here from the B.B.C.

Oh wait... that song sucked.


----------



## Argyris

I kinda like it. Not my favorite by a long shot, but I like how the ending completely changes the mood.


----------



## bigshot

Did Genesis ever do one of those fake Victorian style songs all the prog groups used to pad out their albums with? You know the ones with the guy singing through a megaphone ala When I'm 64.


----------



## StanD

I see you bums are having a good time as usual. I've been busy listening to my new HE-400i and am liking it very much, It's been a pleasant distraction whilst head-fi gets its website sorted out. I am partial to planars. I just looked at the HD600 thread, wow, they are really getting out of subjective control. Some of them think you must use an amp with a high impedance output with a high impedance headphone. Dynamic cans like to be driven by amp that has a much lower output impedance for better damping, especially Sennheisers that have wild impedance curves which benefit from a lower impedance amp for additional FR reasons. If it can drive them, you're good to go, unless you've been bitten by the audiophile bug. The discussion about matching amps to headphones is unnerving. At least some of them aren't into cable mania.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 22, 2017)

The whole concept of component matching puzzles me. Why would anyone want a pair of headphones that doesn't work with everything you want to plug it into? There's plenty of great sounding stuff out there that does sound great and works well with others. I imagine if you could save money by buying something incompatible and matching it with stuff it works with, it might be worth the hassle. But people don't seem to be making the mix n' match choices to save money. I almost wonder if they think by spending a lot of money and accommodating a lot of inconvenience that they somehow feel better about themselves. People work very hard on things that don't matter I guess.

I agree planars are great. I'm very happy with my Oppo PM-1s, and they don't need to be amped at all. I don't use them much though because my speaker rig is so much better sounding than headphones.


----------



## Argyris (Jul 22, 2017)

I think it's a natural extension of the idea that there's a noticeable difference in backend gear in general, and it's likely influenced by numerous factors, preconceived notions, and price, of course. Put lemon lime soda in a yellow can and people think it tastes more lemony; put the same soda in a green can and they'll think it tastes more limey. Put it in a can halfway down the middle in color but add fifty cents to the price and print the words "Natural Flavors" in big letters, and people will sing the praises of how balanced it is and how superior the flavor is.

Of course, once we've accepted that there's a difference where there is none, we start building off of that. Looking to make sparkling limeade? Go for the green can soda. Want something to go with your slice of lemon cake? Go for the yellow can. Want to impress your friends? Contemplate where you must have gone wrong in life that you're attempting to impress your friends with _soda_, then pick up the expensive option. Got a ton of Green Can on sale? Buy lots of avocados and green beans, and stay away from yellow bell peppers and mustard.

And that know it all geek friend of yours who read the label and discovered they're all made by the same company and bottled in the same plant, so they're probably all the same thing? What a nutter! He keeps going on about having somebody bring out unlabeled cups of each one and seeing if you can tell the difference. Ain't nobody got time for that! You've gotta head on down to the local Sears because it's having a store closing sale and you need a new refrigerator to house all the different flavors of lemon lime and club soda you've been buying lately...


----------



## Whazzzup

Well that takes drinking with your ears to a new level, I know one can eat with their eyes.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> The whole concept of component matching puzzles me. Why would anyone want a pair of headphones that doesn't work with everything you want to plug it into? There's plenty of great sounding stuff out there that does sound great and works well with others. I imagine if you could save money by buying something incompatible and matching it with stuff it works with, it might be worth the hassle. But people don't seem to be making the mix n' match choices to save money. I almost wonder if they think by spending a lot of money and accommodating a lot of inconvenience that they somehow feel better about themselves. People work very hard on things that don't matter I guess.
> 
> I agree planars are great. I'm very happy with my Oppo PM-1s, and they don't need to be amped at all. I don't use them much though because my speaker rig is so much better sounding than headphones.


I used to have HE-560's and HE-500's, ditched the 560' and kept the 500's and got the 400i's. I'll always say, if the cans aren't to your liking, no amp is going to change that picture. And some folks think a DAC is going to do some magic, what fiction. From what I can see, some folks do all of this so they have something to flap about on the forums and feel important, especially when using esoteric audiophile terms to describe their science fiction experience. I don't mind it except that they steer neophytes down the wallet eating rabbit hole because.......


----------



## StanD

Argyris said:


> I think it's a natural extension of the idea that there's a noticeable difference in backend gear in general, and it's likely influenced by numerous factors, preconceived notions, and price, of course. Put lemon lime soda in a yellow can and people think it tastes more lemony; put the same soda in a green can and they'll think it tastes more limey. Put it in a can halfway down the middle in color but add fifty cents to the price and print the words "Natural Flavors" in big letters, and people will sing the praises of how balanced it is and how superior the flavor is.
> 
> Of course, once we've accepted that there's a difference where there is none, we start building off of that. Looking to make sparkling limeade? Go for the green can soda. Want something to go with your slice of lemon cake? Go for the yellow can. Want to impress your friends? Contemplate where you must have gone wrong in life that you're attempting to impress your friends with _soda_, then pick up the expensive option. Got a ton of Green Can on sale? Buy lots of avocados and green beans, and stay away from yellow bell peppers and mustard.
> 
> And that know it all geek friend of yours who read the label and discovered they're all made by the same company and bottled in the same plant, so they're probably all the same thing? What a nutter! He keeps going on about having somebody bring out unlabeled cups of each one and seeing if you can tell the difference. Ain't nobody got time for that! You've gotta head on down to the local Sears because it's having a store closing sale and you need a new refrigerator to house all the different flavors of lemon lime and club soda you've been buying lately...


I bought some Klipsch IEM's once and they were definitely lemons, strident enough to be sour.


----------



## StanD

Whazzzup said:


> Well that takes drinking with your ears to a new level, I know one can eat with their eyes.


I chalk it up to overactive imaginations and the need for attention.


----------



## Whazzzup

StanD said:


> I used to have HE-560's and HE-500's, ditched the 560' and kept the 500's and got the 400i's. I'll always say, if the cans aren't to your liking, no amp is going to change that picture. And some folks think a DAC is going to do some magic, what fiction. From what I can see, some folks do all of this so they have something to flap about on the forums and feel important, especially when using esoteric audiophile terms to describe their science fiction experience. I don't mind it except that they steer neophytes down the wallet eating rabbit hole because.......



any time you want to hop into my hole and dig, fine by me. My arms are sore and I'm sure I'm close to the other side.


----------



## StanD

Whazzzup said:


> any time you want to hop into my hole and dig, fine by me. My arms are sore and I'm sure I'm close to the other side.


That put you in China? You can pick up a pair of Hifimans at the factory for a steal.


----------



## bigshot

I just glanced at my stats and I realized that I've busted the 15,000 posts mark, the vast majority of them here in the Sound Science forum. It's been nearly 14 years too. Time flies when you're having fun. I'm buying a round for the house!


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> I just glanced at my stats and I realized that I've busted the 15,000 posts mark, the vast majority of them here in the Sound Science forum. It's been nearly 14 years too. Time flies when you're having fun. I'm buying a round for the house!


Whatever you're getting us, make sure it's euphonic.


----------



## bigshot

All Ears Beer!
https://untappd.com/b/turtle-swamp-brewing-all-ears/2132570/photos


----------



## bigshot

Up for grabs! Who will be the ultimate victor?!


----------



## StanD

The one with the headphones


----------



## Argyris (Aug 4, 2017)

bigshot said:


> Up for grabs! Who will be the ultimate victor?!



I vote for this guy (it went on like this for at least a week):

https://head-fi.org/threads/rising-...as-blind-testing.815376/page-87#post-13507932


----------



## StanD

Argyris said:


> I vote for this guy (it went on like this for at least a week):
> 
> https://head-fi.org/threads/rising-...as-blind-testing.815376/page-87#post-13507932


Ugh..............


----------



## StanD

More power........
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/hif...cussion-thread.711824/page-1195#post-13641045


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Up for grabs! Who will be the ultimate victor?!



you made me think about Mayweather vs McGregor and now I'm mad in front of my screens over something that didn't even happen yet. the last farce match against Pacquiao showing that someone could run away for his life the all match and be called champion at the end was, I hoped, the last nail for the boxing coffin. and now this with a guy who isn't even a boxer(he could kill me with his ear, but still). boxing what are you doing, boxing stahp!!!
box is dead, welcome to showbiz. I expect choreography and the chairs flying like in WWE in the next year. modern boxing is born.


ps: don't be too surprise if that little joke ends up moderated at some point. you know, personal attacks and stuff.


----------



## bigshot

No insults. We need to choose our king!


----------



## U-3C (Aug 12, 2017)

Found a troll message waiting in my inbox when I randomly logged into a site I haven't visited in a very long time.

Seems like someone was very upset I visited SS on Head-Fi and was able to identify me on that site. When's the last time I posted there? A few months ago? A year?

0.0


----------



## castleofargh

to appropriate, Norm Macdonald's quote: even in today's enlightened society there remains a stigma to being a psycho sexual sadist poster in the sound science section.


----------



## StanD

I'm developing cluster headaches reading through some of the threads. The usual silliness never stops.

My new xxx cable has tamed my headphones.
That SS Amp is too bright.
That set of $300 tubes have fixed the sound of my headphones._ I never ran across a pair of headphones with tube sockets, have any of you_?
Magic DACs
Magic Interconnects
.... and the beat goes on and on........
Thankfully, lately,  I haven't run across much chatter about jitter or about power supplies with endless banks of capacitors. If you've seen any, please do not tell me about it.


----------



## U-3C (Aug 18, 2017)

Okie, I won't tell you. I'll tell everyone else~

Read a review/comment about how you need to burn in a certain amp to warm up the capacitors because it really makes a difference and blah blah blah it's the best value giant killer that beats amps 5 times it's price, etc.


Looks at front page of said amp's website and how the company boasts it uses a superior design with no caps for clean sound...

*Face palms*

And this amp isn't even that "clean" to begin with, noisy AF. May the hiss god grant it damnation!


----------



## StanD

U-3C said:


> Okie, I won't tell you. I'll tell everyone else~
> 
> Read a review/comment about how you need to burn in a certain amp to warm up the capacitors because it really makes a difference and blah blah blah it's the best value giant killer that beats amps 5 times it's price, etc.
> 
> ...


Excluding the power supply (filtering) and bypass capacitors. Having a DC coupled signal path, end to end, is not necessarily a bad thing. Another plus is you don't have to warm up those capacitors (sheesh).


----------



## Argyris

I don't seem to see as much talk of transducer burn in these days. That could be because I've shifted my interest to the HD 600 thread, which is a headphone that generally doesn't have any nasty aspects (e.g. bloated bass, harsh treble, wonky midrange) that new owners would be desperate to see ironed out. I've noticed that trebly headphones are the ones that always seem to attract the burn in recommendations measuring in the hundreds of hours--they also tend to be the ones people want to play amp-o-rama with. Anything to convince oneself that the headphone you don't like can become the headphone you do; all you need to do is throw more money at the problem.


----------



## StanD (Aug 19, 2017)

Argyris said:


> I don't seem to see as much talk of transducer burn in these days. That could be because I've shifted my interest to the HD 600 thread, which is a headphone that generally doesn't have any nasty aspects (e.g. bloated bass, harsh treble, wonky midrange) that new owners would be desperate to see ironed out. I've noticed that trebly headphones are the ones that always seem to attract the burn in recommendations measuring in the hundreds of hours--they also tend to be the ones people want to play amp-o-rama with. Anything to convince oneself that the headphone you don't like can become the headphone you do; all you need to do is throw more money at the problem.


Some members talk about their sensitivity to a 4-5 KHz peak. Then again their views on Amps, Tubes and DACs probably wouldn't float well in this thread or forum. I've long given up on explaining the science behind what I would call their misconceptions.


----------



## Brooko

People do have different sensitivities and preferences though.  That is what makes us both human and unique. And we know that tubes can add even order distortion which can sound pleasing and soften peaks for some individuals. Whats the harm, and where does that go against science?  Some possibly wouldn't recognise they are adding distortion (or may even be loathe to accept they are), but where is the harm?  Ultimately it comes down to what its pleasing to the individual.  I've had a couple of tube amps, and love the tonality they bring.  I know its added distortion - and I don't care


----------



## castleofargh

personal sensitivity is really a massive subject in itself and can involve so much science and psychology. but as long as people relate only to a preference, it's a matter of impression and taste, not objective reality about the gear. so I see nothing wrong. even less so when in an impression thread. ^_^
on the other hand, when a poster clearly assumes impressions and objective reality can only be one and the same, my eyes start bleeding and I speak in some old forgotten language.   but it comes down to the allegory of the cave. a guy has seen the world through his eyes and ears from his point of view all his life, and ignorance make him think his interpretation of the world is the real physical world we all live in. the issue isn't technical and the claims about headphone or amplifier are merely symptoms of a much bigger misconception about the world. its subjectivism, as in "I'm a living example, but I don't understand it". 

to me sharing impressions and mistaking impression for reality, those are 2 very different situations that sadly often get mixed together simply by the turn of a sentence(I do the same so I can't really be angry at others for that). being myself really bitchy about 4 and 10khz I wouldn't shut up about it if I was to share my impressions about gears on a regular basis. the massive difference is that I never assumed the entire world had to be as sensitive as I am, to the point of declaring that a headphone has too much of something as soon as I feel it does. I'll do that once I am supreme leader and planetary general, but even then it will only be a show of power, not my personal delusion about the material world.


----------



## bigshot

Whenever I look to improve my sound system, first of all I take stock of what I have. I list the weak points in my system and prioritize them. Then I go down the list and try to research why I might be having those problems and how I might correct them. Most people don't do that. They decide they want better sound, so they just go out and buy a more expensive DAC or amp. Random improvements make for random results.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> Whenever I look to improve my sound system, first of all I take stock of what I have. I list the weak points in my system and prioritize them. Then I go down the list and try to research why I might be having those problems and how I might correct them. Most people don't do that. They decide they want better sound, so they just go out and buy a more expensive DAC or amp. Random improvements make for random results.


...or no results at all.


----------



## U-3C

pinnahertz said:


> ...or no results at all.



Oh there's always a result. Their savings account just lost some weight.


----------



## bigshot

... which can encourage placebo.


----------



## artnoi

I wish Thais knew about this thread.
No one here believes me about how cable's differences should be inaudible to human ears. And by no one I meant so literally. They mod their earbuds with MMCX connectors so that they can change the buds' sound to suit their moods. They elaborately discredit big names' cables and praise their DIYs. Some of them even have more than one amp in a chain, the worst I have seen had a DAC fed to 'tube' portable amp and a SS amp. Some are even willing to modify an amp or DAC to make it sound better, and thus this is why they buy (very) cheap Chinese products so that they can swap components eg opamps and capacitor without regret should they break it in the process. And when I invite them to a DBT and ABX no one agreed to come, claiming I'm a young pervert who still has a lot to learn.

The country's flagship store still vividly describe how DACs and cables sound. And they made a video about how silver sounds much different to copper. https://www.munkonggadget.com/catalog/list/

Oh and they mostly enjoy earbuds with tons of distortion and roll offs. None of the 'hot' headphones/earphones in Thailand sound neutral or uncolored. The Etymotic ER4 series is unknown to the audiophile community here. And no one reads measurement (be it about FR, Impedance, etc) or understands about objectivity.

I just want to be a nice citizen.. so that they could save more money to buy more music to enjoy, rather than expensive fancy equipments that introduce placebo effects.


----------



## bigshot

For some people audio isn't about listening.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov (Sep 4, 2017)

artnoi said:


> And when I invite them to a DBT and ABX no one agreed to come



If you want base for serious claims, double blind and ABX tests should be performed in laboratory. It is very complicated trials: http://samplerateconverter.com/educational/hifi-blind-test


----------



## artnoi

Yuri Korzunov said:


> If you want base for serious claims, double blind and ABX tests should be performed in laboratory. It is very complicated trials: http://samplerateconverter.com/educational/hifi-blind-test


I think a simple test should be enough to debunk or disprove their irrational beliefs. But I'll control what I can, matched volume, sighting, and so on. Anyway any of you here is willing to instruct me on how to properly conduct an ABX test in casual settings?


----------



## pinnahertz

artnoi said:


> I think a simple test should be enough to debunk or disprove their irrational beliefs. But I'll control what I can, matched volume, sighting, and so on. Anyway any of you here is willing to instruct me on how to properly conduct an ABX test in casual settings?


The basic methodology for an ABX test doesn't change, but the method of performing the comparison changes depending on what you are comparing.  So, what are you comparing?


----------



## Yuri Korzunov (Sep 4, 2017)

artnoi said:


> I think a simple test should be enough to debunk or disprove their irrational beliefs.



In general, there are no "ideal/final" tests. But any simple test will "debunked" like subject, that "debunked" by the test.

To perform serious ("debunking-stable") test need next steps:

1. Deep learn theory of tested subject for avoiding of mistake. For your case it include cables, amplifiers, speakers.

2. Develop methodic with accounting of conditions.

3. Perform several trials.

4. Correct methodic.

5. Perform test and record protocol.

Remember about big numbers of trials, that are obligatory for ear tests.

For first step you can check Archimago's blog, there was cable comparison, if I don't mistaken.


----------



## bigshot

artnoi said:


> when I invite them to a DBT and ABX no one agreed to come, claiming I'm a young pervert who still has a lot to learn..



You would get the same response if you applied any kind of a control to the comparison. They're covering their rears. Most of the time a full double blind test isn't necessary. It's only really needed in cases that are too close to tell for sure. Differences that are big enough to notice just need controls to make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Most of the time the snake oil peddlers are claiming night and day differences. That should be readily apparent, but when you sit down and do a simple comparison the differences disappear. At that point, let the person claiming there is a difference prove it. People make way too much fuss over comparison tests. They aren't a big deal and they aren't difficult. They're just useful.


----------



## artnoi

Thanks for detailed replies!
Headphone and interconnect cables are to be tested, on Saturday.
Interestingly now I have 3 participants.
I'm not trying to make conclusion, but I just want them to finally realize what their minds are capable of, so that there'll be more advocates of objectivism in Thai audio community.

I am planning to cover their vision and have headphone cables covered.

They will never know which cables are being tested except that they are just A and B.

I'll categorize cables into 3 classes: stock, upgrade, and high-end to introduce and ensure confirmation bias.

They'll use their own equipments, choose their own files, but I'm gonna be the one choosing and swapping the cables.

I'll let them hear and 'memorize how the cables sound' as long as they want before testing, so that there'll be no excuses. 

The test contains 3 sessions. Each session has its own selections of cables based on the categories I mentioned, the participants will be informed about which categories are being used. 1 out of 3 session will be a lie, that is, the categories used aren't consistent with what they're informed.

Each session has N rounds, in order to pass a test the listener will have to pass 6 rounds. The two cables in the session will be equally used as X (N/2 per cable).

A session only ends when 
(1) the listener fails for the first (0.4)N times and he wants to quit
(2) or when all N rounds are done.

These tests are conducted like a tournament, if one fails the first session he cannot proceed to the next.

At the end of the tests for all participants, they will be informed about how the test was conducted.

Please comment and suggest.. And I havent found a perfect number of rounds (N) yet. Been thinking about N=10


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

artnoi said:


> I'll let them hear and 'memorize how the cables sound' as long as they want before testing, so that there'll be no excuses.



Audio memory is short, as rule. I'd recommend real-time switch between samples.

1. For real-time switch comparison you check sound difference between samples.

2. Other wise you check [sound difference] & [audio memory].

You need maximally simplify checks. So case #1 more preferable, as I think. And there is need to check different listening periods.


----------



## pinnahertz

artnoi said:


> Thanks for detailed replies!
> Headphone and interconnect cables are to be tested, on Saturday.
> Interestingly now I have 3 participants.
> I'm not trying to make conclusion, but I just want them to finally realize what their minds are capable of, so that there'll be more advocates of objectivism in Thai audio community.
> ...


I'm confused about your objectives.  Are you trying to ascertain that the cables do or do not sound different, or prove that your test subjects can't tell cables apart?  Those are actually very different objectives.  You should always clearly and simply define the objective, preferably a single one.

You won't get good resolution on the comparisons because the transition takes far too long.  As has already been mentioned, auditory memory is very, very short.  For best comparison results the transition time should be no more than a few milliseconds.  As you can see, that would required construction of some rather specialized equipment.

With you handling the switching and the cable choice with full knowledge of what they are, there is a serious lack of control, and it certainly won't be a true blind test.  You will be introducing a massive amount of bias...your own...consciously or not.   A true ABX/DBT eliminates the knowledge of the X choice from everyone involved until the data is collected and compiled. 

You no doubt fully anticipate the test subjects will "fail" the test, and that in itself is a bias.  A true ABX/DBT has no pass/fail, it just generates subjective data.  Every trial produces a good data point, so there is no "fail" as such.

The test may be fun, but will technically be inconclusive because of the lack of controls, presence of biases, and massively long switch time.  My guess is you'll receive objections and challenges to  your test.


----------



## artnoi

pinnahertz said:


> I'm confused about your objectives.  Are you trying to ascertain that the cables do or do not sound different, or prove that your test subjects can't tell cables apart?  Those are actually very different objectives.  You should always clearly and simply define the objective, preferably a single one.
> 
> You won't get good resolution on the comparisons because the transition takes far too long.  As has already been mentioned, auditory memory is very, very short.  For best comparison results the transition time should be no more than a few milliseconds.  As you can see, that would required construction of some rather specialized equipment.
> 
> ...


Ok, I'll think about tweaking my test then. Thanks for advice! My objective is to conclude whether the subjects hear the differences that they claim to hear or not.


----------



## Argyris

artnoi said:


> Ok, I'll think about tweaking my test then. Thanks for advice! My objective is to conclude whether the subjects hear the differences that they claim to hear or not.



I'll save you the trouble: no, they don't.

The difficult task is convincing them that they don't, if they desperately want to believe otherwise. It doesn't matter how thorough your test or what methodology you employ, they'll find fault with it and claim that this invalidates the result.

The key here is not to attack the claim that there's _any_ difference, no matter how small; it's, as bigshot said earlier, to attack the inconsistency inherent in claiming that A) something makes a trivially identifiable difference, then turning around and using the excuse that B) the difference is too subtle to be revealed by testing. If A is true, than B cannot be--an effect that is obvious cannot mysteriously vanish whenever it's tested for.

At least unless the audiophile cables and equipment are sentient and are messing with us for some reason, in which case I have even more reason not to buy any of it.


----------



## Strangelove424

After farting around with EQ for a long time, a little here, and a little there, I found a setting for both my headphones (Beyer DT880 and Sennheiser HD600) that makes them sound almost exactly the same, minus low end extension deficiencies in the HD600 that I can't really make up for with boost. It's very hard to tell them apart, I started to get confused about which I was wearing. The only major difference became the ergonomic design, you can tell the Sennhesiers because of the height and clamp. Makes me wonder if I really need more than one headphone if they are both technically competent enough to adapt to EQing. 

What really made the sudden focus apparent was Natalie Cole's Unforgettable duet with father Nat. What a talented family. My EQ settings finally did both of them justice, capturing the femininity of Natalie's articulations while still capturing Nat's burly heft.


----------



## bigshot

BURLY HEFT! That would make a great name for an actor.


----------



## Strangelove424

I'm afraid to ask what kind of actor you're thinking of.


----------



## bigshot




----------



## Strangelove424

ok, ok... good 'ole American stage actor...

_whew_


----------



## Argyris

Strangelove424 said:


> After farting around with EQ for a long time, a little here, and a little there, I found a setting for both my headphones (Beyer DT880 and Sennheiser HD600) that makes them sound almost exactly the same, minus low end extension deficiencies in the HD600 that I can't really make up for with boost. It's very hard to tell them apart, I started to get confused about which I was wearing. The only major difference became the ergonomic design, you can tell the Sennhesiers because of the height and clamp. Makes me wonder if I really need more than one headphone if they are both technically competent enough to adapt to EQing.
> 
> What really made the sudden focus apparent was Natalie Cole's Unforgettable duet with father Nat. What a talented family. My EQ settings finally did both of them justice, capturing the femininity of Natalie's articulations while still capturing Nat's burly heft.



When my DT880 was my main driver, I had excellent results EQ'ing it. I did various things and kept tweaking it over time, but the one constant I always came back to was two notches, one at ~6 kHz and one at ~8.5 kHz. At this point it doesn't quite sound like the HD 600 (the DT880 lacks the upper midrange lift and has too much upper treble), but the main trouble spots are ironed out, and on its own it sounds excellent. Since the DT880 has a well-controlled response without ringing or audible distortion, it's an excellent candidate for EQ. As far as technical ability, I honestly don't see a whole lot to separate the DT880 and HD 600. They're just tuned differently.


----------



## Strangelove424

Yes, one of the realizations I had while EQing treble on the DT880 was that I needed two dips! For me, it was at ~2-3khz and ~8-10khz. On the HD600's I need a dip at ~2-3khz too, so it might just be my sensitivity in that particular range. Recently, I came to the conclusion that the DT880 needed a slight 1-2db boost in the lower mids too. Once I did that, suddenly everything jelled and the upper mids blended into treble a lot better. I very much agree that the DT880 is an excellent candidate for EQing. I like to think of them as EQ chameleons. Compared with the HD600, the DT880 is more responsive to EQing, with more low end extension, but they are both phenomenally competent headphones. The Sennheiser perhaps needs less EQ to begin with, and has a more natural tuning straight from the factory.


----------



## bigshot

Argyris said:


> I did various things and kept tweaking it over time, but the one constant I always came back to was two notches, one at ~6 kHz and one at ~8.5 kHz



In my speaker system, I have a -4 dB notch with a very narrow Q at right about 8kHz. I kept hearing a distortion that sounded kind of like MP3 compression in the treble. It was like a pebble in my shoe- only in one tiny frequency spot. I tried to see where it was coming from thinking it might be a blown voice coil. But it came from all the speakers. So shrugged my shoulders and I notched it out. A year later, I found a review and bench test on my AVR that said that it had very low distortion, with the exception of a tiny little spike right at 8kHz. The reviewer guessed that it had something to do with the design of the amp and that it was probably inaudible because it was so narrow. I never would have guessed that something like that came from my amp and not my speakers.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> In my speaker system, I have a -4 dB notch with a very narrow Q at right about 8kHz. I kept hearing a distortion that sounded kind of like MP3 compression in the treble. It was like a pebble in my shoe- only in one tiny frequency spot. I tried to see where it was coming from thinking it might be a blown voice coil. But it came from all the speakers. So shrugged my shoulders and I notched it out. A year later, I found a review and bench test on my AVR that said that it had very low distortion, with the exception of a tiny little spike right at 8kHz. The reviewer guessed that it had something to do with the design of the amp and that it was probably inaudible because it was so narrow. I never would have guessed that something like that came from my amp and not my speakers.


That can't be right.  There is no distortion mechanism that would generate a fixed 'spike' independent of the signal.  Distortion products are always related to the input signal in some way, and since that's changing, so would the distortion products.  That 'spike' had to be some sort of noise, like from a switching regulator or something, or it wouldn't just be at 8k.  Not to say your notch didn't solve a problem, though.  It just likely wasn't distortion.


----------



## bigshot

Well, the guy running the test said it was a narrow band of distortion right at 8kHz. I just know that it irritated me. It was small enough that just dipping it out with a narrow EQ notch got rid of it.


----------



## castleofargh

not audio but once again demonstrating my testing skills. because it's important for people here to know how clever and professional I am, so that I can be the pillar everybody needs: 
I couldn't make sense of fluctuations in temperature that I didn't feel going that way in the room. because I trust most things before my senses, I didn't pay too much attention at first, but with the heat waves last month I had to accept that my feelings and temperature readings were in obvious conflict at times. sometimes 30° would feel fine, other times I would start melting gently. I checked humidity because I know it can clearly affect perceive temperature, but over a few weeks it became clear that it wasn't the only cause to me sometimes feeling fresher than what I would expect from reading the thermometer. 
there's a button that triggers a color code for a few seconds about weather prediction(rain and crap), I press it maybe twice a day(when going out). this same button also changes the backlight intensity in cycle(off/on/dimmed). turns out, light can come with heat! who knew except everybody? that extra heat apparently reaches the internal sensor if I leave the backlight ON.




with the backlight ON I'm reading about 2 to 4°c more than with nothing at all right now. 
by then I felt pretty dumb, but it was nothing compared to how I felt when I remembered I had a little laser gun to measure the surface temperature and 2 other thermometers in the house all along. I never thought about using them to control the readings.


anybody in need of professional testing, you can contact me at wwcastleofargh


----------



## Arpiben

bigshot said:


> Well, the guy running the test said it was a narrow band of distortion right at 8kHz. I just know that it irritated me. It was small enough that just dipping it out with a narrow EQ notch got rid of it.



If your AVR input signal is USB 2.0 you may have 8 kHz spurious spikes (as well as odd harmonics) not properly rejected.
USB 2.0 (audio isochronous transfer) ->1-3 packet bursts every 0.125us (8kHz). 
Many other possibilities also.


----------



## artnoi

Result report: a test subject correctly guessed half of times in the ABX test on Saturday.


----------



## castleofargh

artnoi said:


> Result report: a test subject correctly guessed half of times in the ABX test on Saturday.


----------



## artnoi

the test left him speechless. the cables used were a copper and a fancy silver.


castleofargh said:


>


----------



## bigshot (Sep 10, 2017)

Arpiben said:


> If your AVR input signal is USB 2.0 you may have 8 kHz spurious spikes (as well as odd harmonics) not properly rejected.



Can't be that because I was hearing it will all sources, even my blu-ray player. And it was in all channels, so it couldn't be a rattle in a tweeter. It makes sense that it would be something with the amp.



artnoi said:


> the test left him speechless. the cables used were a copper and a fancy silver.



There's a famous test where audiophiles couldn't detect the difference between two cables, and after the test was over, it was revealed that they were comparing a high end cable to a wire coat hanger.


----------



## JaeYoon (Sep 10, 2017)

I'm very curious what the more expensive DAPs can do soundwise compared to DAPs below that tiny bit up at the summit.

I'm enjoying my current dap and IEM and I definitely dig it's sound and amount of details I can get.
I read up that all modern dacs as long as built and designed to output accurate audio stream are all good and the amp is decent and enough to power your headphones.

The audio file whether it's FLAC/WAV/APE/Etc is only as good as the CD/Source outputted and mastered and post production from studio.
I always read up in reviews of comparisons that the daps like W1MZ and TOTL and flagships daps contain more detail than any of the DAPs in lower price ranges.

But I'm wondering why that's the case? I assumed once as long as you have a nice headphone/earphone you dig the sound, and a DAP that fits the sound sig you enjoy. It should be good enough, and all modern dacs as long as they have low jitter, etc. Whether rest of high specs are audible can be up for question.
is it just that the higher daps have amps that allow one you hear those extra little details at a lower volume?

I just thought all daps have a specific sound signature but not sure about rest.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 10, 2017)

All I know is the iPod because that is what I have always used (I have nine various models of them and have used three different iPhones.) I've done controlled comparisons of all of them and they are all audibly transparent to any other piece of equipment I compare them to. I've compared them running a 16/44.1 PCM file to a high end Philips DVD/SACD player, an Oppo BDP-103 and an Oppo HA-1. With the same source file line level matched, everything sounded exactly the same.

I don't believe some players have more detail than others. I think most players are perfect, but there are a few that might be less than perfect. I would think that issues of convenience and usability are probably more important than sound quality in DAPs.


----------



## JaeYoon

bigshot said:


> All I know is the iPod because that is what I have always used (I have nine various models of them and have used three different iPhones.) I've done controlled comparisons of all of them and they are all audibly transparent to any other piece of equipment I compare them to. I've compared them running a 16/44.1 PCM file to a high end Philips DVD/SACD player, an Oppo BDP-103 and an Oppo HA-1. With the same source file line level matched, everything sounded exactly the same.
> 
> I don't believe some players have more detail than others. I think most players are perfect, but there are a few that might be less than perfect. I would think that issues of convenience and usability are probably more important than sound quality in DAPs.


I really miss those days when I had my classic iPod with scroll wheel. It was an old gen model back in Middle School/High School. I remember using it for a few years until it stopped working.

I really want to go back to doing that time and sticking with a DAP for a few years until it stops working and then buy a new one. I fallen into this loop of dap jumping and really want to stop thinking of what's out there and just enjoying.


----------



## Strangelove424

I miss my old iPod scroll wheel too. Unfortunately they stopped making them. I thought smartphones would replace them, but the problem with phones is you usually need an SD card, and I no matter how nice my phone is, I always end up hating it. It gets associated with calls, e-mails, traffic, news, and things that are generally the opposite of sitting down and relaxing, so when I look at my phone, it's slightly with disgust, and I don't have the state of mind required to curate the music on it. 

I want to get back to dedicated DAP too. Fiio has been making some interesting looking ones. Judging purely on ergonomics/aesthetics. But I'm not sure it's really important enough to have my own stored music anymore, with streaming. At least outside of the house.


----------



## headwhacker

JaeYoon said:


> I really miss those days when I had my classic iPod with scroll wheel. It was an old gen model back in Middle School/High School. I remember using it for a few years until it stopped working.
> 
> I really want to go back to doing that time and sticking with a DAP for a few years until it stops working and then buy a new one. I fallen into this loop of dap jumping and really want to stop thinking of what's out there and just enjoying.



If you do a DIY, buy a cheap used ipod. Get an i-flash adapter, some SD/microSD cards, a cheap extended battery from eBay and some replacement front/back panel. You will have a new shiny solid state iPod that can outlast any DAPs available today. I managed to build a 1TB iPod with battery life that last a couple of weeks before needing a charge. The icing on the cake is rockbox running on top of it. No other DAP can beat it feature-wise (ones that matter).


----------



## JaeYoon

headwhacker said:


> If you do a DIY, buy a cheap used ipod. Get an i-flash adapter, some SD/microSD cards, a cheap extended battery from eBay and some replacement front/back panel. You will have a new shiny solid state iPod that can outlast any DAPs available today. I managed to build a 1TB iPod with battery life that last a couple of weeks before needing a charge. The icing on the cake is rockbox running on top of it. No other DAP can beat it feature-wise (ones that matter).


That is amazing!!! Whoa


----------



## pinnahertz

headwhacker said:


> If you do a DIY, buy a cheap used ipod. Get an i-flash adapter, some SD/microSD cards, a cheap extended battery from eBay and some replacement front/back panel. You will have a new shiny solid state iPod that can outlast any DAPs available today. I managed to build a 1TB iPod with battery life that last a couple of weeks before needing a charge. The icing on the cake is rockbox running on top of it. No other DAP can beat it feature-wise (ones that matter).


Link to a DIY instruction set?  I failed at getting an iPod to work with a CF card, then abandon the project and bought me a Touch.  Kind of hate it a little.


----------



## headwhacker (Sep 10, 2017)

Look here:

https://www.iflash.xyz/

and

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/off...sic-5g-5-5g-6g-6-5g-7g-ssd-mod-thread.566780/

a 2TB iPod already exist. But I am planning to build a 1.6TB slim iPod next.


----------



## Niouke

stumbled across this meme in the science enthusiasts facebook group


----------



## Argyris

Niouke said:


> stumbled across this meme in the science enthusiasts facebook group
> 
> <pic>



Well, in a recent post I mentioned audiophile gewgaws gaining sentience. It seems the day is upon us.


----------



## JaeYoon

Niouke said:


> stumbled across this meme in the science enthusiasts facebook group


Hahahaha premium audio placebo!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/joe...aker-virtualizer-setup-for-headphones.860029/
A message from this thread's sponsors


----------



## Niouke

is any of you guys on the facebook group? a certain "Kennett Ismael Ylitalo" is spreading sound science with brute force


----------



## Niouke

I'm arguing with HiFi experten about sound coloring cables, has anyone got studies I can link to them?


----------



## bigshot

How about this one.... https://gizmodo.com/363154/audiophile-deathmatch-monster-cables-vs-a-coat-hanger


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> How about this one.... https://gizmodo.com/363154/audiophile-deathmatch-monster-cables-vs-a-coat-hanger


Yet there could be conditions where the coat hanger may have an audible effect.  Widely spaced conductors present higher inductive reactance.  So if the coat hanger wires were spaced widely, and the speaker load was such that the load and coat hanger inductance formed a filter, you may get a bit of audible change.  

The seminal paper on this is "Amplifier-Loudspeaker Interfacing" by R. A. Greiner, JAES Vol. 26 No. 5, May 1980.  He did full network analysis on various cable types cable from #18 rip cord through 12ga speaker cable to welding cable.  Short story, speaker cables aren't transmission lines, normal cables have no impact unless they are too long.  RG9 coax performed the best, but was of no advantage.  The paper is a good read, well worth owning to clear up the cable mess.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 15, 2017)

You've totally missed the point. If these people couldn't discern a coat hanger from a high end cable in a listening test, what's the point of worrying about cables? It's not suggesting that everyone run out and wire their systems with coat hangers. It doesn't take a technical manual to know that just about any cable you go out and buy is going to do the job as well as any other.

I really don't know why people argue about cables. If a cable sounds different, there is probably something wrong with it, regardless of how much money it cost. There really is nothing to argue about, but people insist on overcomplicating what is a simple and obvious truth. Either they work and they're transparent or they don't work properly and they degrade the sound. I've never run across a cable that colors the sound. If I did, I'd return it as defective.

Also I've never run across a person who argues that cables matter who really wants to know the truth. If they did, they would have just done a simple blind comparison and found out for themselves. They're just arguing with no purpose in mind and no intention of learning from the discussion. I have better things to do than waste my time with that.


----------



## castleofargh

Niouke said:


> I'm arguing with HiFi experten about sound coloring cables, has anyone got studies I can link to them?



red cables have more bass!  what that's not the question?
it's the same thing as with weird IEMs impedances and amps. if the cable is so wrong that it impacts the damping ratio or whatever in a relatively significant way, then stuff could happen for real. it's another case of those things perfectly achievable if we keep putting the wrong gears together. now is it normal? nope. is it a sign that my cable is super duper great? could just as well be the other way around. 
and same as with amps of different impedances, many people will go "this cable is warmer than that other one", but change the stuff on both ends and we could go from absolutely no audible difference between the cables, to even getting the opposite result. so even people who do get weird circumstances will most of the time shoot themselves in the foot with the wrong conclusions about the cable as an independent entity having a sound.
and of course we have the usual legion of people who didn't test anything in a way that allows them to claim anything, so there is no reason to argue about their claims. even they don't really know if it's real or not. 

oh and one amusing possibility to add. the situation where the cable was part of the design and it has specific specs far from the usual ... IDK, maybe 0.2ohm wire. I wouldn't say it's common, but it certainly did happen. 

as for studies, how about almost any book about electricity? I'm only half joking, there isn't much to say about a cable without looking at it as an electrical component in a circuit. and usually there isn't much to say after we've done that ^_^ it's a cable, not a fusion reactor.


----------



## Strangelove424

I found a website some time ago that hosted sample files of different cables recorded into an ADC. A source file for the tracks was also hosted, so I created null tracks from these samples, comparing the cables to source and to each other. Here are the results:

Source vs Mogami: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=68581392178684946276

Mogami vs. Gotham: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=91164311178382011326

Mogami vs Vovox: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=97978514898506057307

Source vs. Sommer: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=07868240129804662975

Sommer vs Vovox: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=88729851428829259824

Source vs Vovox: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=24001143786121741938

Vovox vs Gotham: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=15916999533341519718


----------



## bigshot (Sep 15, 2017)

Years ago in this forum and others I went around and around in circles arguing with folks about compressed audio. They swore up and down that lossy sounded "night and day" different than lossless. I could argue on specs and tests, but they kept coming back to their anecdotal impressions. So I gave up arguing with them. Now when someone starts on that, I just offer them a simple comparison test. I offer them a FLAC file with ten samples in it. One is uncompressed 16/44.1 the rest are various bitrates of Frauenhofer MP3, LAME MP3 and AAC. I tell them to listen and rank the ten from best to worst. That usually ends the conversation, because if they really want to know, they take the test. If they don't want to know they say they're too busy to do the test and drop the subject. Saves me an awful lot of time arguing against deliberate ignorance.

Strange, you should randomize those samples and hide what they are and make people tell you which sounds best. It will shut them up fast.


----------



## Strangelove424

Good idea! It's too late for me to change it now since the files themselves and the file descriptions I wrote at tinyupload give away the answers, but next time we get a cable fanatic in here, I'll remove all the names and post this a second time as an ABX.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> You've totally missed the point. If these people couldn't discern a coat hanger from a high end cable in a listening test, what's the point of worrying about cables? It's not suggesting that everyone run out and wire their systems with coat hangers. It doesn't take a technical manual to know that just about any cable you go out and buy is going to do the job as well as any other.


No, I have not missed any point, more likely you have.  The test is fine, valid, and shows in general there are no differences. However, there was a coat-hanger fad in the high end for a while, where they actually liked and sought after them.  Because of what the are, they often placed them a foot or more apart introducing inductance, which could, often did have an effect.  It's one rare case where the "cable" does matter, and is audible.  It's simple electronics, not audiophelia.  And it's the extremes that will bite you, not the usual common stuff like 20' of any old 16ga wire.  My favorite speaker cable is electric lawnmower extension cord, big, long, cheap, etc....


bigshot said:


> I really don't know why people argue about cables. If a cable sounds different, there is probably something wrong with it, regardless of how much money it cost. There really is nothing to argue about, but people insist on overcomplicating what is a simple and obvious truth. Either they work and they're transparent or they don't work properly and they degrade the sound. I've never run across a cable that colors the sound. If I did, I'd return it as defective.
> 
> Also I've never run across a person who argues that cables matter who really wants to know the truth. If they did, they would have just done a simple blind comparison and found out for themselves. They're just arguing with no purpose in mind and no intention of learning from the discussion. I have better things to do than waste my time with that.



Agreed, so long as the cable is "normal" and of "normal length".  But people will argue the "sound" of cables because of expectation bias and their complete inability to perform an ABX test on speaker cables (that's not easy to do).   Thats why the exotics look so strange.  I made some exotic cable out of some 12/2 stranded wire I picked up at Home Depot.  Used exotic looking connectors, shrink tubing, blah blah.  People thought they cost a grand, and sounded like that!  No, the cost $25, and sounded just like any other 12/2 wire.  Just think of what RG9 with some huge porcelain fittings would look/sound like!


----------



## Niouke




----------



## artnoi

I've had very hard time telling apart to sources of equal nominal output impedance and similar looking specs eg THD.
So my question is, do good solid state amps of equal output impedance should theoretically sound the same on same headphones?
If noise is not be taken into account (ie extra warmth) of course.

Well I've done some searching but couldn't find an existing thread on sound science about this.


----------



## pinnahertz

artnoi said:


> I've had very hard time telling apart to sources of equal nominal output impedance and similar looking specs eg THD.
> So my question is, do good solid state amps of equal output impedance should theoretically sound the same on same headphones?


Yes.


artnoi said:


> If noise is not be taken into account (ie extra warmth) of course.
> 
> Well I've done some searching but couldn't find an existing thread on sound science about this.


Noise doesn't necessarily equate to an impression of warmth.  Possibly "air", whatever that is.  Good SS amps should have noise below the source, shouldn't be a factor.


----------



## artnoi

pinnahertz said:


> Yes.
> 
> Noise doesn't necessarily equate to an impression of warmth.  Possibly "air", whatever that is.  Good SS amps should have noise below the source, shouldn't be a factor.



Well I have some issues with my amp now.
I have got a new desktop DAC/amp from Yulong Audio. The manufacturer provided many measurements regarding THD (without specified loads except for power output) but doesn’t state the Z out nor would they reply my emails, so I bought the DAC/amp blindfolded. After getting it I found out it has serious bass boom and treble roll-off on my 250Ohm DT880 that’s not present in any zero-ohm source. I then tried to contact every email I could find on the internet and finally one from YA replied me and said Z out is 10< ohm.
Should this be the reason for the distortion I’m experiencing?
I think Yulong is really not fair to provide critical information of their products. And now that even my 250Ohm Beyer suffers a lot from its Z out, I’m very excited to try it with lower impedance headphones (I’m getting k7XX tmr, note that K7xx has overall smoother impedance and phase measurement).

And also I want to properly measure the Z out, anyone here has done it before? Attached is photo of my amp’s headphone output circuitry


----------



## artnoi

Now I regret not having believed NwAvGuy’s word that ‘if a brand doesn’t provide a measurement, it gonna measures bad’ or something like this. Should have bought an O2.


----------



## pinnahertz

artnoi said:


> Well I have some issues with my amp now.
> I have got a new desktop DAC/amp from Yulong Audio. The manufacturer provided many measurements regarding THD (without specified loads except for power output) but doesn’t state the Z out nor would they reply my emails, so I bought the DAC/amp blindfolded. After getting it I found out it has serious bass boom and treble roll-off on my 250Ohm DT880 that’s not present in any zero-ohm source. I then tried to contact every email I could find on the internet and finally one from YA replied me and said Z out is 10< ohm.
> Should this be the reason for the distortion I’m experiencing?


Hard to tell from way over here....but not likely.  Output Z along isn't usually a distortion cause, more like a symptom.


71 dB said:


> artnoi said:
> 
> 
> > I think Yulong is really not fair to provide critical information of their products. And now that even my 250Ohm Beyer suffers a lot from its Z out, I’m very excited to try it with lower impedance headphones (I’m getting k7XX tmr, note that K7xx has overall smoother impedance and phase measurement).
> ...


----------



## pinnahertz

artnoi said:


> Now I regret not having believed NwAvGuy’s word that ‘if a brand doesn’t provide a measurement, it gonna measures bad’ or something like this. Should have bought an O2.


I have two, and a couple of stories.  Got to run now, but let me know what the source device is when you get a chance.


----------



## artnoi

pinnahertz said:


> I have two, and a couple of stories.  Got to run now, but let me know what the source device is when you get a chance.


Source? I don't think my source plays a role here since It's a DAC/Amp so I just feed digital signal from computer or DAP into it via USB, Opt, etc.
Now I have to go too, it's 4.27AM here. Thanks for your insight anyway.


----------



## artnoi

another thing I forgot to mention was that the amp does make noise when turned on. I meant it really makes noise, not through headphones. maybe it’s normal? I’m not serious though.


----------



## pinnahertz

artnoi said:


> Source? I don't think my source plays a role here since It's a DAC/Amp so I just feed digital signal from computer or DAP into it via USB, Opt, etc.
> Now I have to go too, it's 4.27AM here. Thanks for your insight anyway.


The reason I asked what the source was is because I tested my O2 for an audible difference as compared (ABX) to my DAP, and there was no difference.  That's because my DAP already could easily drive my headphones. 

The effect of a headphone amp, and therefore its necessity, is determined by the application.  If your source already drives your headphones well an amp won't change anything.


----------



## artnoi

pinnahertz said:


> The reason I asked what the source was is because I tested my O2 for an audible difference as compared (ABX) to my DAP, and there was no difference.  That's because my DAP already could easily drive my headphones.
> 
> The effect of a headphone amp, and therefore its necessity, is determined by the application.  If your source already drives your headphones well an amp won't change anything.



Yah ok I got your point.
My players drive them well, but just not loud enough on quiet tracks.
And actually I hear no differences between my player (0.2) and Fiio A5 (0.3 ohm)


----------



## Strangelove424

I've decided to quit streaming music for a little while. I know this probably goes without saying, and hopelessly redundant, but I really like the music I own. I chose it. It is my music. Spotify thinks it understands my taste, but it really doesn't. I keep hearing the same things suggested to me over and over on these music services. Ironically enough, there's more variation in my own collection. Maybe I'm just soured on streaming for a bit. It'll probably change next month when there's an album I need access to.


----------



## 93EXCivic

I use Spotify Premium to discover new music. I like to look at artists I like and there is a section of similar artists which takes me to new artists I haven't heard before. Or I just search for random playlists based on my mood. I like to then go out and buy music from the artists I find.


----------



## castleofargh

Strangelove424 said:


> I've decided to quit streaming music for a little while. I know this probably goes without saying, and hopelessly redundant, but I really like the music I own. I chose it. It is my music. Spotify thinks it understands my taste, but it really doesn't. I keep hearing the same things suggested to me over and over on these music services. Ironically enough, there's more variation in my own collection. Maybe I'm just soured on streaming for a bit. It'll probably change next month when there's an album I need access to.


I've always identified this a being old. that moment when novelty alone doesn't make anything and everything a worthwhile experience anymore, like how babies are amazed by anything new. and we instead would rather spend a good time with something we know and enjoy.
I was old at a fairly young age when it comes to music. almost never listened to the radio and totally stopped when it became filled with ads. I loved stuff like Pandora for a few years as a way to find stuff similar to what I already liked(which in itself was already a sign). and now if I was told I'd have to only listen to my ripped library until I die, I'd be very fine with that. 
I have a few buddies who try 10, maybe 20 new albums every week. they're fully into the idea that there are so many gems waiting to be experienced that it would be a waste to spend too much time on stuff we already know. the fun thing is, I totally understand. I was young too once.

I'm still young when it comes to books and manga. but even there, I've started to enjoy revisiting something I read a few years back. time is relative to hobbies but it still does pass(yeah that's what Einstein meant all along, the more you know). ^_^


----------



## bigshot (Sep 22, 2017)

Strangelove424 said:


> I've decided to quit streaming music for a little while. I know this probably goes without saying, and hopelessly redundant, but I really like the music I own.



I have the opposite problem. My library is at the point where I already have all the "regular suspects". I want to hear new things that can start me off down a new branch. I had XM radio for a while and even though it had a gazillion channels all curated by knowledgable folks, I found that it was basically a "greatest hits" selection off of my own library. I didn't discover anything new. At my level of collecting, no algorithm is going to know which dusty corner I should be rooting about it. I have to do that myself. It costs a little more because I have to buy physical media put out by small independent labels and rip it myself, but at least I'm not hearing Patsy Cline's "I Fall To Pieces" and Chuck Berry's "Johnny B Good" for the millionth time. It's amazing how much great stuff there is that nobody knows about. But after you've exhausted the greatest hits, you have to dig for it.


----------



## Strangelove424 (Sep 22, 2017)

castleofargh said:


> I've always identified this a being old. that moment when novelty alone doesn't make anything and everything a worthwhile experience anymore, like how babies are amazed by anything new. and we instead would rather spend a good time with something we know and enjoy.
> I was old at a fairly young age when it comes to music. almost never listened to the radio and totally stopped when it became filled with ads. I loved stuff like Pandora for a few years as a way to find stuff similar to what I already liked(which in itself was already a sign). and now if I was told I'd have to only listen to my ripped library until I die, I'd be very fine with that.
> I have a few buddies who try 10, maybe 20 new albums every week. they're fully into the idea that there are so many gems waiting to be experienced that it would be a waste to spend too much time on stuff we already know. the fun thing is, I totally understand. I was young too once.
> 
> I'm still young when it comes to books and manga. but even there, I've started to enjoy revisiting something I read a few years back. time is relative to hobbies but it still does pass(yeah that's what Einstein meant all along, the more you know). ^_^



Yes, I can understand this feeling and perhaps that has contributed to my weariness of streaming. I have no interest at all in music that has been recently released. If there is one good thing that came from streaming in the last 6 months it would be my opening up to electronica, and specifically getting deep into DaftPunk. That was a genuinely new high of discovery, which I admittedly showed up late to the boat for because of years of resistance toward electronic (and still having only found one band or "duo"). But eventually I went out and bought the albums and now it is my music, not Spotify's. There is a process by which music discovered becomes your own, and it requires the effort to purchase, rip, organize, etc. The problem is that even Daft Punk is how many years old? Decades. I have zero interest in anything recently released, and I find before I take interest in something, it usually needs to be around for a while in order for me to acclimate to it. The billboards I have no interest in. The week's releases I have no interest in.

This issue is tied up with the quality of music made today. I really think it stinks. Not just the mastering, but the entire artistic premise. I've been having a lot of trouble trying to find new acts I like. Even the ones I find talent in, are utterly disappointing in many other ways. Everything modern, from modern pop to modern classical, seems to get on my nerves a little. It can be so contrived. And is filled with despair. There are exceptions, and I do have new artists saved to my Spotify account, but I don't seem to be all that passionate about them, nor do I see the kind of excitement in the music industry that seemed to exist in the 60s, 70s, or even 80s. Perhaps that is partially down to me becoming jaded, but I like to think of myself as an open minded person. My newfound passion for DaftPunk is atleast a reminder to myself that a spark can still ignite, it's just harder to find that spark now.


----------



## bigshot

I've found lots of great modern music. But the problem is that the digital world has made the production of music so easily accessible, the good stuff is mixed in with an ocean of mediocrity. A selection algorithm isn't going to be able to pick the wheat out from the chaff. That takes human curation. I find that on certain radio and podcasts done by people who know their stuff.


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> I have the opposite problem. My library is at the point where I already have all the "regular suspects". I want to hear new things that can start me off down a new branch. I had XM radio for a while and even though it had a gazillion channels all curated by knowledgable folks, I found that it was basically a "greatest hits" selection off of my own library. I didn't discover anything new. At my level of collecting, no algorithm is going to know which dusty corner I should be rooting about it. I have to do that myself. It costs a little more because I have to buy physical media put out by small independent labels and rip it myself, but at least I'm not hearing Patsy Cline's "I Fall To Pieces" and Chuck Berry's "Johnny B Good" for the millionth time. It's amazing how much great stuff there is that nobody knows about. But after you've exhausted the greatest hits, you have to dig for it.



That's why I was on streaming to start out. Really wanted to open up my horizons and listen to everything I hadn't exposed myself to already. The problem is exactly as you say the Spotify suggestion system is "a greatest hits of my own library". I kept hearing Johnny B Goode too! And Chuck Berry has a giant catalog! It's almost as though Spotify forgets it has access to every song ever made, and keeps suggesting the same 10 over and over. 

I'm a lazy person, so I'm still holding out hope for them algorithms. But in the meantime, you're right, it's better to take matters into your own hands. One thing I began doing was Googling "top" lists. Top 100 jazz albums ever made... Top 10 composers of a certain era... Top 10 conductors... you can go on and on this way, and there are articles out there to suffice, typically by music mags like RollingStone. Once I find something I am unaware of, or haven't explored, I dig into it, and try to scope out contemporaries to get a context of the time and sound. It takes work at this point though, very enjoyable work, but it has to be a very active exploration. I just don't get many new artists magically landing in my lap anymore.


----------



## bigshot

I do myself what the algorithms do... Look for relationships. If I really like Chet Baker, I take note of who he played with and other performers in the same genre. Then I start off down the branches and see what I can find. If it's a dead end, I locate another branch and try that. That way I always have more new things to explore. I like great new music a lot better than great music I've heard a lot.

To find new music, you have to find a curator and pick their brain. I have a lot of musician friends and whenever I see them I ask them about current musicians they might have worked with that they like. I also keep my ears open on the internet to people on Facebook who know more about it than I do. I jot down the names they mention and google up samples. I've found some amazing things that way. Music is alive and well.


----------



## Brooko

If you haven't already, you might want to try this : https://www.music-map.com/

Enter an artist, and it gives you a map of similar artists and how close they are to the style.  The cool thing about it is that you can browse to new artists simply by clicking the links, and then get others close to them.  I've used it a lot to find new artists with similar musical styles.


----------



## castleofargh

Strangelove424 said:


> Yes, I can understand this feeling and perhaps that has contributed to my weariness of streaming. I have no interest at all in music that has been recently released. If there is one good thing that came from streaming in the last 6 months it would be my opening up to electronica, and specifically getting deep into DaftPunk. That was a genuinely new high of discovery, which I admittedly showed up late to the boat for because of years of resistance toward electronic (and still having only found one band or "duo"). But eventually I went out and bought the albums and now it is my music, not Spotify's. There is a process by which music discovered becomes your own, and it requires the effort to purchase, rip, organize, etc. The problem is that even Daft Punk is how many years old? Decades. I have zero interest in anything recently released, and I find before I take interest in something, it usually needs to be around for a while in order for me to acclimate to it. The billboards I have no interest in. The week's releases I have no interest in.
> 
> This issue is tied up with the quality of music made today. I really think it stinks. Not just the mastering, but the entire artistic premise. I've been having a lot of trouble trying to find new acts I like. Even the ones I find talent in, are utterly disappointing in many other ways. Everything modern, from modern pop to modern classical, seems to get on my nerves a little. It can be so contrived. And is filled with despair. There are exceptions, and I do have new artists saved to my Spotify account, but I don't seem to be all that passionate about them, nor do I see the kind of excitement in the music industry that seemed to exist in the 60s, 70s, or even 80s. Perhaps that is partially down to me becoming jaded, but I like to think of myself as an open minded person. My newfound passion for DaftPunk is atleast a reminder to myself that a spark can still ignite, it's just harder to find that spark now.


there is a study suggesting that most people's favorite music stay centered on what they were listening to as teens, and what their parents were listening to as teens. can't say how well it works in general, but I at least can relate. 
as for new music being crap, that's clearly the generation gap talking.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 22, 2017)

Brooko said:


> If you haven't already, you might want to try this : https://www.music-map.com/



It didn't know who Benny Moré or Sol Hoopi were, and it told me that Cootie Williams was similar to Mammal Hands, Girls in Airports and Gogo Penguin. It suggested that Captain Beefheart and Stan Getz were similar to Bob Wills and his Texas Playboys.



castleofargh said:


> there is a study suggesting that most people's favorite music stay centered on what they were listening to as teens



I know a few people like that. To be honest, I pity them.


----------



## Brooko

Guess there are maybe fewer people of that generation that contribute.  Pity.  I've found it quite handy for a lot of the genres I enjoy.


----------



## CarlosUnchained

There’s great music coming out every year. The same reason we don’t need to spend thousands in music gear to produce a solid album is why there’s so much offer nowadays. Also music labels are less and less important when you can just share it in bandcamp.


----------



## JaeYoon

Some amazing marketing. Now how much of that is true.


----------



## castleofargh

JaeYoon said:


> Some amazing marketing. Now how much of that is true.


I'm guessing in a few years, sony will invent the op amp. 
sony is playing itself. it's as simple as that. for years they have focused on making small devices with from reasonable to long battery life. which is the very reason I love them I bought mostly sony all these years. to that end they adopted that sort of proprietary class D amp section that's super weak and really not that great, but also doesn't need much power. not much power means they could use a smaller battery, make a smaller DAP, bravo we've done it. 
and then the marketing department decided to push forward everything that was not a sony DAP. highres res all the way except that most DAPs labelled highres are able to play highres files, but the resolution output is really nothing special. stuff like Fiio can often measure better and they show real graphs not BS nonsense without units like sony does when explaining the highres stuff. 
everybody whined for years about the output impedance that was too high(I'm guessing it had to be for the amp design), so they started talking about reducing impedance... in the battery's cable .
everybody whined about the weak power output, now they kind of did something and brought up balanced output. which will tend to make the impedance thing worst... but at least with up to double the voltage we can now hope to reach more than around 0.5V like we were stuck with before on most DAPs. oh but of course the DAP now needs a bigger battery and bigger form factor. it's a revolution, sony is doing more like everybody else. wow!
on that aspect big caps are obviously something that could come only with bigger case. last time it was about sticking a crazy number of small ones in chain, now they it's some other BS that might interest the engineer who made the design, and that's about it. else how about talking about each and every resistor and how they picked 42ohm instead of 43ohm and it's really better now. those stuff are silly. you know how to design something or you don't, if you have to point out each time you do something ok, I'm going to wonder how much you must fail everywhere else. 
so at some point it's easy to understand sony's marketing, if they sucked at something, they'll market how good they are at it anyway, and the next time they fix the issue, they market that as a LVL2 pokemon. when everybody else was already there years ago.  
IMO everything happening now is simply the result of crap marketing and one significant change. they stopped being so damn stubborn. sony stopping to try and impose their will onto the world "apple style" is what let them make a come back in the DAP market. for example now we have µSD cards on DAPs, that's not a small thing for sony and it's been huge for consumers. and I believe they're using some cirrus logic DA chip on the modern stuff for DSD and all the fancy stuff. so that's another rupture with the past.

but the new DAPs are all bigger as the audiophile boat is taking speed and the craving for more power (mostly for no reason in the portable world) is slowly being noticed by sony. that's why I joked about them inventing the op amp, because that and the stupid proprietary usb are kind of the last remains of an old ideology. and I'm starting to wonder what I'll get the day I kill my A15 and A867, as they keep making fatties. I was that one consumer fine with average fidelity and amazing convenience(remnant of the sansa clip era), so the audiophile way probably won't work for me, but it certainly seems to work for Sony and I'm glad for them. now if they could stop making marketing mountains out of every random thing everybody knows how to do, that would be great.   

as for lead free solder, I'm guessing it's the same stupidity as the classy battery wire. you can read it for the stupid it is, or for another kind of stupid where if true, they're merely admitting to doing it wrong up until now. but as a European, I must confess I thought lead free solder was the industry standard for the last decade, so the revolutionary feeling isn't really there for me ^_^.


----------



## JaeYoon (Sep 23, 2017)

castleofargh said:


> I'm guessing in a few years, sony will invent the op amp.
> sony is playing itself. it's as simple as that. for years they have focused on making small devices with from reasonable to long battery life. which is the very reason I love them I bought mostly sony all these years. to that end they adopted that sort of proprietary class D amp section that's super weak and really not that great, but also doesn't need much power. not much power means they could use a smaller battery, make a smaller DAP, bravo we've done it.
> and then the marketing department decided to push forward everything that was not a sony DAP. highres res all the way except that most DAPs labelled highres are able to play highres files, but the resolution output is really nothing special. stuff like Fiio can often measure better and they show real graphs not BS nonsense without units like sony does when explaining the highres stuff.
> everybody whined for years about the output impedance that was too high(I'm guessing it had to be for the amp design), so they started talking about reducing impedance... in the battery's cable .
> ...


Really good info about sony!

I also once had a sansa clip+
Yes I've been reading that proprietary usb is a pain if you leave it at home.

Micro usb or even lightning connectors are common at public charging stations. My library has one.

The audiophile will certainly not be for you. There will always be someone like "yeah but this dap sounds way better. Your clip is veiled and thin sounding and not enough resolution and soundstage is not as deep and wide. It's congested and too cramped.

Meanwhile this 800+ dap sounds way more airy and realistic and way better instrument separation. Etc etc.) " Could go on forever


----------



## Argyris

People should just punch a hole through a stack of hundred dollar bills and plug their headphones in direct. I'll bet it sounds amazing.


----------



## bigshot

Brooko said:


> Guess there are maybe fewer people of that generation that contribute.



It doesn't appear to be a generational thing. It's a genre thing. One thing I've noticed with people who just listen to rock music is that they have more names for subtle differences in rock music than eskimos have for types of snow. But ask them about country music and they lump it all into one category- "stuff I don't like". It's like the end of the Gilligan's Island theme song... "and the rest". It's a lot easier to recommend similar things when the whole genre is similar. A diversity of styles makes that more problematic.

I haven't had much luck "crowd sourcing" music. Popular isn't often the same as good. It works for Michael Jackson and Prince, but not for Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga. I have the best luck by surrounding myself with knowledgeable people and picking their brains.


----------



## Mr Rick

bigshot said:


> It doesn't appear to be a generational thing. It's a genre thing. One thing I've noticed with people who just listen to rock music is that they have more names for subtle differences in rock music than eskimos have for types of snow. But ask them about country music and they lump it all into one category- "stuff I don't like". It's like the end of the Gilligan's Island theme song... "and the rest". It's a lot easier to recommend similar things when the whole genre is similar. A diversity of styles makes that more problematic.
> 
> I haven't had much luck "crowd sourcing" music. Popular isn't often the same as good. It works for Michael Jackson and Prince, but not for Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga. I have the best luck by surrounding myself with knowledgeable people and picking their brains.




Despite the bad-mouthing of Stereophile in other threads, I find the monthly "Record Reviews" to be of use in exploring new ( to me) music.

Stereophile also published a  "Ten Years of Records To Die For", that has broadened my musical horizons, though it is not strictly "new music" , much of it is new to me.

I use streaming services to help me find music that I would like to add to my personal collection, be it download, CD, or vinyl.


----------



## Argyris

Sometime around the beginning of the 2000s, I turned a corner and started becoming intensely picky. Before that, I liked whatever was popular on the radio, with the exception of hip hop, which my parents didn't listen to so neither did I. I consequently never developed a taste for it, or indeed many genres I wasn't exposed to growing up, though I'm making baby steps with electronic and I managed to branch out into prog rock for a few years about a decade ago.

Recently I went on a nostalgic buying spree where I downloaded a bunch of mainstream 90s and very early 2000s pop music. My buying criterion for each purchase was that I actually had to like the song; I wasn't buying stuff just to create a mood or simulate a period radio playlist. Combining what I bought with what I already had in my collection, I made playlists based on which year and what order within the year each song was released as a single, and I noticed an interesting data distribution: each year starting with 1995 had between 30 and 40 entries, until 2000, which took a precipitous drop down to 15. After that, I could barely scrape together one or two for each subsequent year (if that), so I just recast the playlist as a 2000 and beyond one. It has around 25 items total, and I don't think anything on it is newer than mid-2000s.

I don't know what exactly changed or why. It could have simply been the end of childhood that made the difference for me, since this was right around when I began adolescence. I never went through the stereotypical rebellious teenage stage where I felt compelled to adopt the music of "my generation" because it wasn't my dad's. Whatever the cause or causes, I just gradually stopped listening to the radio and continued exploring classical (I started when I was ten) and slowly collecting music from earlier decades, occasionally collecting a large number of albums by a favorite artist (e.g. Genesis, Yes, Kansas, Elton John). Turning on the radio today, I feel like it's completely foreign. Nobody I knew as a kid is really making music anymore, and the style is so different that, as a nearly-30 year old who basically missed well over an entire decade of popular music, I have trouble engaging with it or putting it into any sort of evolutionary context.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> It doesn't appear to be a generational thing. It's a genre thing. One thing I've noticed with people who just listen to rock music is that they have more names for subtle differences in rock music than eskimos have for types of snow. But ask them about country music and they lump it all into one category- "stuff I don't like". It's like the end of the Gilligan's Island theme song... "and the rest". It's a lot easier to recommend similar things when the whole genre is similar. A diversity of styles makes that more problematic.
> 
> I haven't had much luck "crowd sourcing" music. Popular isn't often the same as good. It works for Michael Jackson and Prince, but not for Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga. I have the best luck by surrounding myself with knowledgeable people and picking their brains.


 I can identify veggies better than music genres, and I really suck bad when it comes to the names of veggies. I've got a buddy who can identify tens of genres just with electro kind of musics. well at least he pretends very well as I don't have clue what he's talking about. ^_^


----------



## Strangelove424

castleofargh said:


> there is a study suggesting that most people's favorite music stay centered on what they were listening to as teens, and what their parents were listening to as teens. can't say how well it works in general, but I at least can relate.
> as for new music being crap, that's clearly the generation gap talking.



And the modern equivalent of Bach? The Beatles? Classics are classics for a reason. New music can become that too, but I'm in no mood to sift through every new thing released, "Generation gap" doesn't explain things completely. It's a lot more complex than that, and a white glossing over or a black glossing over won't cover all the matte shades of gray. Some genres have risen and fallen, or come near to death, while others have flourished. But that's a more nuanced discussion.


----------



## Strangelove424

Brooko said:


> If you haven't already, you might want to try this : https://www.music-map.com/
> 
> Enter an artist, and it gives you a map of similar artists and how close they are to the style.  The cool thing about it is that you can browse to new artists simply by clicking the links, and then get others close to them.  I've used it a lot to find new artists with similar musical styles.



Thanks! This is pretty cool. I like the way it visually organizes things according to their relationship in sound or history. Very intuitive and it's neat to see the artists sort themselves into finer categories. It's a bit light in classical, I found very scattered and strange results for Daniel Barenboim, but otherwise it worked well.


----------



## bigshot

Strangelove424 said:


> And the modern equivalent of Bach? The Beatles?



It's apples and oranges, but I think Michael Jackson and Prince are the equivalents. And believe it or not, I think Snoop Dawg's Doggie Style is as important as Sgt Pepper.


----------



## Strangelove424 (Sep 24, 2017)

Michael Jackson, Prince, even Snoop Dawg are decades old. 2/3 are dead. And the other 1/3 is so high he doesn't know what decade he's in anymore, though I'll admit Snoop could thrown down some rhymes in his prime. By modern I mean 2017. (or atleast the whereabouts)


----------



## bigshot (Sep 24, 2017)

I've been focusing on multichannel lately which limits the gene pool severely and tends towards stuffy art rock. I think they've been around for a while, but I picked up a multichannel album by Kodo the other day that was really good. I think it was called Mondo Head. It's probably a decade old though. I really like Nicole Atkins too. She is still recording and touring. If you're strictly looking for this year, just google best albums of 2017 and you'll come up with lists with youtube videos. I love browsing stuff like that. Never know what you'll find. Happy fishing!


----------



## Brooko

Nicole Atkins is brilliant - very talented.


----------



## Niouke

We human always try to reproduce the excitment of the first time, wether it is music, sex or food...I'm still listening to the 2 smashing pumpkin albums that guided my teens and made sure I posses every album I was listening back then  I'm afraid the 90's hip hop is a dead genre, everyone that tries to emulate it nowadays is off mark IMO, wether it is east or west coast. Nostalgia speaking?

Spotify sure is annoying and it often proposes the same songs but there are ways to improve its selections. One of the tricks is that it can propose songs based on what is contained in the individual playlists so if you have multiple playlists, you will have multiple propositions.


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> I've been focusing on multichannel lately which limits the gene pool severely and tends towards stuffy art rock. I think they've been around for a while, but I picked up a multichannel album by Kodo the other day that was really good. I think it was called Mondo Head. It's probably a decade old though. I really like Nicole Atkins too. She is still recording and touring. If you're strictly looking for this year, just google best albums of 2017 and you'll come up with lists with youtube videos. I love browsing stuff like that. Never know what you'll find. Happy fishing!



Ha, I picked up a 5.1 artsy prog rock album called Grace for Drowning on a YouTube recommendation by Steve Guttenberg. Won’t do that again. Gutenberg doesn’t even like 5.1 anyway. I don’t know what I was thinking. My God, I tried listening to Steve Guttenberg.  I’m not a fan of industry awards, but am going through the 2005+ grammys list of surround sound winners right now. The ones I know of on that list are really good, so feel confident about the rest. I am very fond of Nicole Atkins. She is really talented and unique. Ironically enough, I discovered her on “modern timeless” or some such named Spotify playlist but unlike other old school but soulless mimics Atkins stands out. Maybe I'm being exposed to more music with streaming, so much so that I am taking it for granted.


----------



## castleofargh

people what are you doing? what about our evil plan to convince the world that we only ever listen to test tones and don't have subjective opinions? 




Niouke said:


> We human always try to reproduce the excitment of the first time, wether it is music, sex or food...I'm still listening to the 2 smashing pumpkin albums that guided my teens and made sure I posses every album I was listening back then  I'm afraid the 90's hip hop is a dead genre, everyone that tries to emulate it nowadays is off mark IMO, wether it is east or west coast. Nostalgia speaking?...


 I believe you blame yourself for what you can't ignore. you blame yourself, for wanting more.


----------



## Hawaiibadboy

Don't know where to post this.

This is just an amazing CD.
WOW!

These height ,depth, circling test with instruments is just cool as hell


----------



## castleofargh

I have a chesky record that was in the fiio X3. the "Dr. Chesky’s Sensational, Fantastic, and Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show" ^_^ it was mostly what one would expect from those albums, very clean, pretty much untouched acoustic binaural recordings. and a few tests/demo of moving around the head. in my case it didn't work very well, what should be an horizontal circle ended up getting closer, moving up, etc. only the general panning was really stable in my head.  I don't blame the job done, it's simply that the gear probably just didn't have the right signature, and that me and the dummy head are just not that alike aside from having about the same hair quantity.
but I have made a few friends try and some felt blown away some didn't like it at all. the wonders of HRTF. 





Shiit offering a 4 bands analog EQ for 149$. really nothing outstanding, but isn't it absolute breaking news as far as amateur audio fashion goes? how many will throw up a little when realizing how they're between a rock and a hard place, being Shiit fans forever, and purist EQ haters at the same time? in the coming months I expect a strong trend of "EQ is good when it's a good one", and "EQ is fine, it's digital EQ that ruins audio!". 
but if it's enough to make a few people open up to the idea that EQ isn't only about ruining the "true sound" or other nonsense like that, then I'd be inclined to see this as a positive event.


----------



## Argyris

castleofargh said:


> I expect a strong trend of "EQ is good when it's a good one", and "EQ is fine, it's digital EQ that ruins audio!".
> but if it's enough to make a few people open up to the idea that EQ isn't only about ruining the "true sound" or other nonsense like that, then I'd be inclined to see this as a positive event.



That's exactly the justification I expect to see as well.

I doubt any additional openness will be had, however. It's one of those "don't dwell on how the sausage is made" things that nearly all recorded music uses EQ and effects processing. And these days most of it is handled in the digital realm because of convenience, cost and massively expanded options over relying solely on available hardware. If audiophiles had to confront this fact, they'd have to chuck out nearly their entire music collection from at least the mid-80s onward to avoid it. Some, sadly, might actually choose to do this, as I've seen the occasional person attest to only listening to so-called audiophile records or labels. The rest, averse though they may be to EQ, seem to regard surrendering a massive chunk of their collection as a bridge too far. So instead, the cognitive dissonance associated with EQ being simultaneously audiophile anathema and a ubiquitous and integral part of post-processing seems to be largely swept under the rug, or else justified as being part of the source material, warts and all, leaving the individual to concentrate on ridding their own wallets of money systems of alleged additional sonic impurities.

Or it could just be the Apple effect: <insert beloved company> is doing it, so now it's a good idea.


----------



## bigshot

I saw that shiit EQ on Facebook today. I can't imagine anyone needing that thing when there are so many good EQ apps out there. Four band tone controls? That wouldn't even get me out the gate on EQing.


----------



## JaeYoon

Argyris said:


> That's exactly the justification I expect to see as well.
> 
> I doubt any additional openness will be had, however. It's one of those "don't dwell on how the sausage is made" things that nearly all recorded music uses EQ and effects processing. And these days most of it is handled in the digital realm because of convenience, cost and massively expanded options over relying solely on available hardware. If audiophiles had to confront this fact, they'd have to chuck out nearly their entire music collection from at least the mid-80s onward to avoid it. Some, sadly, might actually choose to do this, as I've seen the occasional person attest to only listening to so-called audiophile records or labels. The rest, averse though they may be to EQ, seem to regard surrendering a massive chunk of their collection as a bridge too far. So instead, the cognitive dissonance associated with EQ being simultaneously audiophile anathema and a ubiquitous and integral part of post-processing seems to be largely swept under the rug, or else justified as being part of the source material, warts and all, leaving the individual to concentrate on ridding their own wallets of money systems of alleged additional sonic impurities.
> 
> Or it could just be the Apple effect: <insert beloved company> is doing it, so now it's a good idea.


Ugh just the thought of audiophile approved labels on music. Throw away your collection that isn't audiophile approved eq.

Wouldn't surprised if this spread.
Too crazy for me. I want to enjoy music from now on. Not worry about EQ and processed effects from studio.

I love my albums from pre 2000s. Not throwing any of them away no matter what audiophiles believe.

*time to throw away audiophile card and burn it in a campfire.


----------



## bigshot

This isn't anything new. I remember when I was a kid, there were "hifi demonstration records". They would have reams of liner notes in gatefold sleeves detailing what microphones were used, how the record was cut and mastered, fancy diagrams of response charts, etc... and not a single mention of the names of any of the musicians performing the music! It was true in the LP era too. There were labels that put out LPs that had been recorded digitally- mostly classical music performed by no name regional orchestras. Others put out direct to disk LPs of easy listening music and old timey swing. None of it was about music. It was all serving the equipment fetish of hard core audiophiles. I got caught up in this stuff for awhile, but it eventually bored me. I see the same thing in multichannel. The same boring late 70s rock albums that were released on half speed mastered LPs are still being flogged on SACDs and the same musically indiscriminate audiophiles are buying it in the high end format du jour.

I listen to music, not my stereo equipment.


----------



## JaeYoon

bigshot said:


> This isn't anything new. I remember when I was a kid, there were "hifi demonstration records". They would have reams of liner notes in gatefold sleeves detailing what microphones were used, how the record was cut and mastered, fancy diagrams of response charts, etc... and not a single mention of the names of any of the musicians performing the music! It was true in the LP era too. There were labels that put out LPs that had been recorded digitally- mostly classical music performed by no name regional orchestras. Others put out direct to disk LPs of easy listening music and old timey swing. None of it was about music. It was all serving the equipment fetish of hard core audiophiles. I got caught up in this stuff for awhile, but it eventually bored me. I see the same thing in multichannel. The same boring late 70s rock albums that were released on half speed mastered LPs are still being flogged on SACDs and the same musically indiscriminate audiophiles are buying it in the high end format du jour.
> 
> I listen to music, not my stereo equipment.


I definitely liked that you shared this memory. It just angers me that audio equipment got more recognition than singers who perform the music.

Unfortunately this pops into my mind I like buying classical plays and tracks off HDtracks. Like Puccini Tosca, etc. However I always choose cd quality over 24 bit if possible. Unfortunately a lot of times only 24 bit is availible. I buy it anyways in hopes I'm supporting someone.

But it also shows I'm giving money into this consumer 24 bit non sense. But my main goal is just to get access to the music.


----------



## headwhacker

castleofargh said:


> Shiit offering a 4 bands analog EQ for 149$. really nothing outstanding, but isn't it absolute breaking news as far as amateur audio fashion goes? how many will throw up a little when realizing how they're between a rock and a hard place, being Shiit fans forever, and purist EQ haters at the same time? in the coming months I expect a strong trend of "EQ is good when it's a good one", and "EQ is fine, it's digital EQ that ruins audio!".
> but if it's enough to make a few people open up to the idea that EQ isn't only about ruining the "true sound" or other nonsense like that, then I'd be inclined to see this as a positive event.



But it's inevitable, the industry is going the EQ/DSP route. Just look at the Audeze iSine thread. When they were initially released, it was a very polarizing product. Two camps formed at the extreme opposites. Those who liked it very much and those who hates it very much. Then, the consensus that it sound excellent using the cipher cable which has built-in DSP/EQ to correct the response curve. People started playing with EQ on non-IOS device and voila, Audeze made very good sounding product overall.


----------



## Argyris (Sep 26, 2017)

DSP is inevitable, and I welcome its eventual arrival. Contrary to what the people blowing multiple thousands on each new flagship might say to justify their purchase, there are no massive gains to be had with passive drivers anymore. The same basic issues--spikes in the lower treble, lack of absolute bass extension in open dynamic designs, raggedness in treble response and a wide peak around 1 kHz in planar and electrostatic designs, the incorrect placement of the presence hump at ~2.5 kHz instead of 3.5 kHz in IEMs, the strong 5 kHz spike also in IEMs, and on and on--these same issues keep coming up over and over and over again in every new product.

At this point, we have to accept that, without active correction, passive designs will always have at least some of these issues. Why spend exorbitant amounts of money and effort playing whack-a-mole trying to engineer a solution to one of these things, maybe not even completely alleviating the issue or else introducing another issue while solving the first, when you can take a driver with workable frequency response and good time domain characteristics (i.e. no ringing) and actively correct the FR. What's more, you can even measure the system (i.e. the headphone while it's on the individual listener's ear) and, in real time, generate precise corrections to hit any target curve. Want a different sound, or a closer approximation of neutral as further research refines the target curve? Just recalibrate for a different curve.

The beauty of all this is that, since the mainstream industry is already moving toward wireless headphones, you're already building an amp and some IC into the cups, anyway, so how much extra effort would it be to fit in a DSP solution on the PCB and cobble together an app to program it? The effort, of course, would be in designing the calibration system, choosing a curve, etc. But my point is it would fit in the cups alongside the stuff you're already putting in them to power the headphone.


----------



## bigshot

I don't even think that a lot of what they call time error or ringing is audible. Just fix the response and you're almost all the way there. The rest can be fixed with good recordings.


----------



## briskly (Sep 27, 2017)

Argyris said:


> The same basic issues--spikes in the lower treble, lack of absolute bass extension in open dynamic designs, raggedness in treble response and a wide peak around 1 kHz in planar and electrostatic designs, the incorrect placement of the presence hump at ~2.5 kHz instead of 3.5 kHz in IEMs, the strong 5 kHz spike also in IEMs, and on and on--these same issues keep coming up over and over and over again in every new product.



Limited bass extension is the simple result of intentional leakage integrated into the headphone.
Treble response issues in headphones are so very much like bass response in rooms. The dimensions are on the order of the wavelength. Subject to multipath interaction with pinna, blah blah
I thjnk you follow innerfidelity too closely. Mean adult canal resonance at around 2.7kHz. His use of ID tends to overemphasize 1 kHz region in compensated result.
IEMs must assume transfer function of outer ear, specifically the pinna and open canal, and recreate it. New closed canal resonance is a function of depth from eardum.
Time and frequency domain issues are one and the same.


----------



## headwhacker

briskly said:


> Limited bass extension is the simple result of intentional leakage integrated into the headphone.
> Treble response issues in headphones are so very much like bass response in rooms. The dimensions are on the order of the wavelength. Subject to multipath interaction with pinna, blah blah
> I thjnk you follow innerfidelity too closely. Mean adult canal resonance at centered around 2.7kHz. His use of ID tends to overemphasize 1 kHz region in compensated result.
> IEMs must assume transfer function of outer ear, specifically the pinna and open canal, and recreate it. New closed canal resonance is a function of depth from eardum.
> Time and frequency domain issues are one and the same.



What exactly do you mean by leakage in the headphone leading to limited bass extension? The iSines are open back and doesn't require a tight seal from the tip, but the bass is well extended.


----------



## Niouke

I have XBA-3 IEM's with the atrocious 5Khz bump, but I thought it was specific to the driver choice and tuning from sony?


----------



## Argyris (Sep 28, 2017)

briskly said:


> Limited bass extension is the simple result of intentional leakage integrated into the headphone.
> Treble response issues in headphones are so very much like bass response in rooms. The dimensions are on the order of the wavelength. Subject to multipath interaction with pinna, blah blah
> I thjnk you follow innerfidelity too closely. Mean adult canal resonance at around 2.7kHz. His use of ID tends to overemphasize 1 kHz region in compensated result.
> IEMs must assume transfer function of outer ear, specifically the pinna and open canal, and recreate it. New closed canal resonance is a function of depth from eardum.
> Time and frequency domain issues are one and the same.



1. In an open headphone? Wouldn't the open back make any intentional leakage moot? I know that the trend lately is for closed designs to have intentional leakage built in so as to decrease reliance on a tight seal, but I was of the understanding that dynamic drivers have poor bass extension in open enclosures because they have trouble producing output below their resonant frequency.

2. Above about 10 kHz, this is certainly true for every headphone, and it's also outside the guaranteed area for measurements so it's probably safe to ignore what happens here unless the average output is markedly deviant from the norm. Below that, though, there are headphones that measure reasonably smoothly and ones that don't. Maybe the average trend line is the most important thing, but there's certainly better and worse performance here.

3. The source of measurements doesn't matter, as long as the measurements are internally consistent. Tyll's raw measurements universally show the peak at ~3.5 kHz in headphones, and at ~2.5 kHz in IEMs. For that matter, all the raw measurements I've seen elsewhere also have the peak at around 3.5 kHz in headphones, so if it's actually supposed to be 2.7 kHz, then all these measuring rigs have the same error. And even if they do, this is irrelevant because the IEM measurements are still offset by about 1 kHz from the headphone ones, and it's this offset--not the actual numbers--that's important. Significantly, Tyll's dummy head stuck in a room with speakers measured the peak around 3.5 kHz, implying that where it places this peak for headphones corresponds to what a listener actually hears with speakers or with live music. The IEMs are the odd one out here.

3.5. The 1 kHz bump in electrostats and planars is in comparison to other headphones, which generally don't have this feature. The compensation shouldn't matter, as the difference exists regardless of the compensation used. One may of course argue that this level of energy around 1 kHz is actually correct, and that headphones that don't have it are less accurate in this area. Tyll's new compensation curve incorporates this very assumption, in fact. However, that of course is debatable and it nonetheless doesn't obviate the existence of the 1 kHz lift as a distinct feature shared by electrostats and planars and rarely seen elsewhere.

4. Indeed, this is the difficulty in getting an IEM to sound correct. Unfortunately, because of the physics involved with shortening and stopping up the ear canal, they struggle. Additionally, an individual listener might prefer a deeper or shallower insertion depth or different tips from the ones the IEM was designed and tuned for, and the depth and fit might vary significantly each time the IEM is used. These factors will create variations in performance from user to user and from session to session. It's a difficult set of problems to overcome, and it's kind of amazing that any IEM manages to sound good.

5. I'll defer to the consensus of the thread here, since this is a topic I could stand to learn more about. I'll submit some points for discussion, though. In my understanding, treble spikes generally produce ringing, but at least in the case of the DT880, this doesn't seem to be the case. It has significant spikes at ~6 kHz and ~8.5 kHz, but I've seen CSD charts (elsewhere, in places unmentionable) that show it having a smooth, even decay across its entire frequency range. Additionally, its square wave measurements have only a small section of clear ringing at the beginning, which resolves to a flat line relatively quickly. Its measurements here mimic those of the HD 6x0 family, which does not have any significant treble spikes. Is there perhaps something going on here that has nothing to do with the treble, that's similar between the two headphones and which produces such similar square waves? Why don't the DT880's spikes ring the way they do on many other headphones? And, probably the most important question, how much of this can we actually hear?


----------



## Argyris (Sep 28, 2017)

Niouke said:


> I have XBA-3 IEM's with the atrocious 5Khz bump, but I thought it was specific to the driver choice and tuning from sony?



If you look at the raw measurements for a lot of IEMs (virtually all that I've seen, in fact), they all have the ~5 kHz spike in some capacity. I believe it's an ear canal resonance, since it's right around double the frequency of the presence bump lower down, implying a relationship. Whatever causes this spike, some manufacturers try to compensate for it by tuning the entire area around it down, multiple driver models seemingly taking advantage of a crossover zone to do this. Others just leave it there, apparently figuring it's best left alone. Still others, like Etymotic, seem to have found a way to tune it downward in frequency and integrate it into the presence bump, perhaps in the latter case because of their use of deep insertion triple flange tips. In my experience, generic triple flange tips on my (now unfortunately lost) EX1/Titan 1 had the same effect--the telltale hyped sibilance and edginess from the spike at 5 kHz disappeared, and the tonality definitely reflected more energy in the 3.5 kHz to 4.5 kHz range. I'd love to see comparative measurements with different tip types to confirm what's happening here.


----------



## headdict

headwhacker said:


> What exactly do you mean by leakage in the headphone leading to limited bass extension? The iSines are open back and doesn't require a tight seal from the tip, but the bass is well extended.


A tight seal is absolutely needed despite the open design. A significant amount of sub bass is lost when I use some of the smaller tips. Only the largest size gives me a good seal. Try for yourself...


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Argyris said:


> The beauty of all this is that, since the mainstream industry is already moving toward wireless headphones, you're already building an amp and some IC into the cups, anyway, so how much extra effort would it be to fit in a DSP solution on the PCB and cobble together an app to program it? The effort, of course, would be in designing the calibration system, choosing a curve, etc. But my point is it would fit in the cups alongside the stuff you're already putting in them to power the headphone.



As someone working in the mainstream industry, I can confirm this.  Many if not most decent BT chipsets already include DSP with EQ and some other common effects.  Nothing too interesting like convolution or even cross-feed yet, but EQ is already here and fancier stuff will follow once EQ and surround effects and suchlike become common built-in features.

Of course this means you're stuck with BT audio which is not as high-bandwidth as I'd like, but it's a path towards a lot more flexibility and ability to compensate for driver issues.


----------



## headwhacker

headdict said:


> A tight seal is absolutely needed despite the open design. A significant amount of sub bass is lost when I use some of the smaller tips. Only the largest size gives me a good seal. Try for yourself.
> ..



You are talking about the seal between the tip and the inner ear. But your general statement from what I understood suggest that limited bass extension is the result of intentional leakage, which open back headphone design I assume falls under this description.


----------



## Niouke (Sep 29, 2017)

something I've read on facebook, the topic was to improve the sound in your car (waste of time if you ask me):

"I listen to super chromium or metal cassette because with cassette I can sample the output of my high end DAC that sits at home AND I can easily swap cassettes while in my car to change what tune that I want to listen to. I use a Pioneer FH-P5000MP head unit in the car and a JVC TD-V66 at home to master the cassettes.'


and it goes on:

"When you want to copy something you don't want to make things worse. So by playing back a digital file in my cheap head unit inside of my car with a cheap nasty 1-bit DAC instead of the TDA1541 that I have at home in the DAC which sits at home I am worsening things, by going from a TDA1541 to a 1-bit DAC, so by copying the output of my TDA1541 at home to a cassette I can listen to the output of my TDA1541 in my car, which is, too big to be put into a car."


----------



## Niouke

I do have a question about one statement tho:
"This is a recording of Billy Joel live in Yankee Stadium recorded off of a satellite feed in 1990, the source was completely analog the entire way from the USA as this was a live recording and satellite TVRO hadn't moved to digital encoding yet in 1990. Quite a journey for an analog signal, yet it made it intact!?"

Was there really a time when end consumer satellite links were all analog?


----------



## pinnahertz

Niouke said:


> I do have a question about one statement tho:
> "This is a recording of Billy Joel live in Yankee Stadium recorded off of a satellite feed in 1990, the source was completely analog the entire way from the USA as this was a live recording and satellite TVRO hadn't moved to digital encoding yet in 1990. Quite a journey for an analog signal, yet it made it intact!?"
> 
> Was there really a time when end consumer satellite links were all analog?


Absolutely.  Satellite transmission followed the same development curve as pretty much everything, starting with analog, then as digital conversion and coding developed, digital became practical. Home TVRO systems (TV Receive Only) used huge dishes in the back yard, 4' to 10' in diameter, and with motorized positioning because you couldn't get every channel you wanted from one satellite.  Positioning information was stored in the receiver.  Polarization was also switchable.  Initially there was no encryption even to premium channels, so it wasn't hard to bootleg HBO for example.  Eventually they were all encrypted, then you could buy a bootleg de-encrypted receiver, Spy vs Spy, and so on until the move to digital, then the whole mess reset and started over. 

Even a lot of audio-only services were analog subcarriers on TV channels, which didn't work very well.  So some audio only services like those used by  NPR used a system called SCPC, Single Channel Per Carrier, the operation of which should be kind of obvious, carriers used FM on a transponder with no video, and were barely above the noise floor even with huge dishes and the best NLA of the time.  The resulting audio noise floor was unacceptable, so NPR developed a companding noise reduction system akin to dbx except the ratio was 3:1. It sort of worked most of the time.


----------



## Arpiben

Niouke said:


> I do have a question about one statement tho:
> "This is a recording of Billy Joel live in Yankee Stadium recorded off of a satellite feed in 1990, the source was completely analog the entire way from the USA as this was a live recording and satellite TVRO hadn't moved to digital encoding yet in 1990. Quite a journey for an analog signal, yet it made it intact!?"
> 
> Was there really a time when end consumer satellite links were all analog?



Yes there was a time were satellite carriers were dealing with more analog signals than nowadays.
Using digital signals allow

use of complex digital modulations (8 PSK,32 APSK)
forward error correction techniques
use of digital video compression techniques
frequency reuse techniques
smaller dishes
etc
With the same allocated bandwidth you carry n*10 times mores channels vs analog transmission.
This is called bandwidth efficiency.
Same happen with earth transmission networks (Microwave Transmission) were digital modulation are reaching 4096QAM at max.

Dealing with latency in satellite transmission (journey) it is around 600ms when dealing with satellites with geostationery orbit (36000Km); 240 ms for the waves to travel up&down add the remaining ms for digital treatment.


----------



## headdict

headwhacker said:


> You are talking about the seal between the tip and the inner ear. But your general statement from what I understood suggest that limited bass extension is the result of intentional leakage, which open back headphone design I assume falls under this description.


I'm not the one who made that general statement, so I don't know exactly what was meant by that. I simply responded to your statement that "iSines are open back and doesn't require a tight seal from the tip".


----------



## briskly

headwhacker said:


> What exactly do you mean by leakage in the headphone leading to limited bass extension? The iSines are open back and doesn't require a tight seal from the tip, but the bass is well extended.


Leakage in the chamber facing the eardrum. Free airflow out of the chamber at lower frequencies limits the bass response unless the driver is compliant enough that its excursion would increase in a leaky chamber to sustain low frequency pressure. If the stiffness of the driver is far greater than the cavity, the excursion does not significantly change and a large loss of bass can be observed.



Argyris said:


> 1. In an open headphone? Wouldn't the open back make any intentional leakage moot? I know that the trend lately is for closed designs to have intentional leakage built in so as to decrease reliance on a tight seal, but I was of the understanding that dynamic drivers have poor bass extension in open enclosures because they have trouble producing output below their resonant frequency.
> 
> 2. Above about 10 kHz, this is certainly true for every headphone, and it's also outside the guaranteed area for measurements so it's probably safe to ignore what happens here unless the average output is markedly deviant from the norm. Below that, though, there are headphones that measure reasonably smoothly and ones that don't. Maybe the average trend line is the most important thing, but there's certainly better and worse performance here.
> 
> ...


Opening the back alone does not. The ear cavity leak is the very reason for difficulties in pressurizing below the fundamental. This is deliberate in typical open backed headphone design. This may illustrate the point more clearly.



The ear imposes its directional transfer function on the input sound. This is generally preserved in headphones, save some loading of the ear by closing it off with a headphone. If the canals are shorter than the average, the ear resonance is shifted upward when tested by a far off loudspeaker and when subjected to a headphone. The IEM must reconstruct the subject's open ear resonances that are not present.

Time and frequency compose a conjugate variable pair, and their response functions are related one-to-one to the other by Fourier and inverse Fourier transform. While we tend to ignore the phase component in practice and only consider the magnitude, headphones operate in mostly minimum phase.
A key property of conjugate variables is described by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. A resonance that is sharply focused around around a particular frequency cannot be localized sharply in time, and vice versa.


----------



## Niouke

reading this sub forum was a big mistake, now I can't stop arguing with people recommending tubes, hirez, and expensive cables


----------



## bigshot

Haha! We waste an awful lot of time on that around here!


----------



## Argyris (Oct 5, 2017)

Niouke said:


> reading this sub forum was a big mistake, now I can't stop arguing with people recommending tubes, hirez, and expensive cables



I've long since learned that arguing with people about that stuff is pointless, at least in the context that one subjectivist is evangelizing the stuff to another likely will-be subjectivist who is taking the recommendation seriously enough to consider buying something. Some people don't really need a lot of convincing because they already want to believe what others are telling them, for whatever reason. There's no point trying to shift these sort; they're going to do whatever they want. I used to have a "saving people" instinct (I was "the friend" quite often growing up), but years of watching it blow up in my face or else accomplish nothing have made me quite jaded. My attitude these days is that if people don't want to put in the effort to research a subject thoroughly and want to rush to throwing money or personal investment at something they barely understand, well, that's their prerogative.

The single exception I make is when a person is being bullschiitted into believing they need to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on backend equipment in addition to <headphone X>, or else just "not bother" buying anything at all. At that point, I usually step in and offer my experience, which is that I didn't need to spend a dime extra on top of the cost of the headphone to get great sound. In this instance, the person probably _doesn't want_ to spend the ridiculous money, and the vote of confidence that they'll get a great experience without doing so is often enough to get them to at least try the headphone instead of walking away entirely, maybe even writing off the hobby as too expensive or impenetrably choked with snake oil.


----------



## castleofargh

my stand on this is normally simple, lying to ourselves is our problem, but lying to others is always wrong and ignorance is not an excuse. in real life with real people in front of me, it makes for a pretty fair balance between "mind your own business" and "let's warn that guy to fact check what he's being told". but on a forum where every opinion is stated as a damn claim, almost everybody is lying to some extend. even if it is only by taking things out of context, the end result is almost relentless misinformation. and we're also doing it in here TBH, the only difference is that we like to have a little evidence in our claim sandwich. so chances are that we're full of crap less often than those making up stuff on the top of their head. 
and it's not that people love to lie(well some do), it's just that making empty claims all day long has become the norm on social media. so when you do care about facts, you slowly but surely go mad and banned, or you learn to look the other way. like I do in the majority of this forum. I don't have the energy, or enough safety from my quasimodo status, to survive reacting sincerely to every obvious lie or foolish claim I read. it's just not viable. 
instead I tell myself that the purpose is to be a little less wrong at the end of the day, so even a little counts (I take the victories I can afford).


----------



## bigshot (Oct 5, 2017)

My purpose is to help folks avoid mistakes I've made over the years and give them information that will actually have practical application for them. I'm more than happy to share info, but if they resist and shut down listening to what I'm saying, or resort to disingenuous argumentativeness, I'm not going to beat my head against the wall. Of course if people do act like the hind end of a mule, I'm obliged to treat them like one. It's their choice. But I always try to have a little fun with it.


----------



## JaeYoon

I seriously need to block myself from reading threads on this website sometimes.

I'm seeing someone on another thread with perfectly fine gear. But they are on the saddle. Because someone said "oh yeah, I just borrowed *insert your gear* here from my friend! but mine sounds better! You gotta use balanced and a good cable though!"

"Oh really, I'm going to sell it now!!!"

Yet both pieces of gear are what I would consider good enough. I realize how stupid this hobby can become. Perfectly fine gear will be discarded and thrown away, because he said, she said is much better than yours!
Soon they will throw that gear that get into the selling bin too cause someone else said, "well this sounds way better than that!"

I need to stop visit other threads outside of this place or something. I'm beginning to lose my brain cells at an alarming rate....


----------



## Argyris

You can spend your whole life chasing after people who determinedly choose to walk off cliffs, or you can just resign yourself to laughing at the _splat_ sound they make as they hit the bottom, at least if, like me, you're jaded and have both a dark sense of humor and an occasional penchant for schadenfraude.

For some time now, I've used Head-Fi mostly as an informational resource, rather than getting too attached to what was happening in most of the non-general discussion threads. And whenever I do see something patently ridiculous, I just shake my head and repeat something my father always says: _against inspired lunacy, what can you do?_


----------



## bigshot

A big problem in the audiophile community is trying to come up with solutions before they've defined what the problem is. For instance, some people spend a lot of money on reducing the amount of jitter. But do they know what jitter sounds like, and can they hear that in their system? I wonder if anyone knows what jitter sounds like. I sure don't. The snake oil salesmen want people to think of solutions to non-existent problems. They encourage it by publishing reams of articles detailing solutions to problems that don't exist. Audiophiles double down on better and better specs, even when it goes far beyond the threshold of audibility.

Whenever someone asks "do I need this?" I always ask "What do you hear in your system that needs improvement?" If I get a clear answer to that question, 99 times out of a 100 the answer relates to frequency response and EQ is the solution. But some audiophiles don't want to hear that.


----------



## JaeYoon (Oct 8, 2017)

Argyris said:


> You can spend your whole life chasing after people who determinedly choose to walk off cliffs, or you can just resign yourself to laughing at the _splat_ sound they make as they hit the bottom, at least if, like me, you're jaded and have both a dark sense of humor and an occasional penchant for schadenfraude.
> 
> For some time now, I've used Head-Fi mostly as an informational resource, rather than getting too attached to what was happening in most of the non-general discussion threads. And whenever I do see something patently ridiculous, I just shake my head and repeat something my father always says: _against inspired lunacy, what can you do?_


I should do the same! I'll avoid getting involved in those discussions too! But I will screenshot and collect hilarious posts for times when I'm feeling sad and use those as cheer up moments!



bigshot said:


> A big problem in the audiophile community is trying to come up with solutions before they've defined what the problem is. For instance, some people spend a lot of money on reducing the amount of jitter. But do they know what jitter sounds like, and can they hear that in their system? I wonder if anyone knows what jitter sounds like. I sure don't. The snake oil salesmen want people to think of solutions to non-existent problems. They encourage it by publishing reams of articles detailing solutions to problems that don't exist. Audiophiles double down on better and better specs, even when it goes far beyond the threshold of audibility.
> 
> Whenever someone asks "do I need this?" I always ask "What do you hear in your system that needs improvement?" If I get a clear answer to that question, 99 times out of a 100 the answer relates to frequency response and EQ is the solution. But some audiophiles don't want to hear that.


This is why I love you all.

Reading in another thread for audio equipment. Someone made in a post a little back just like this(no doubt this happens often).
"Man this is so much better than Version 1. New flagship has SNR of *insert Number here* let's say 124, while old one only has 116! This one is so much better! I'm selling my old FS product. OMG guys, because of 8 extra points! I can hear some serious instrument seperation, it just sounds more lively and cohesive, and brings you with the band! it's like right next to me guys!!!!"

If you mention those solutions bigshot, you already know the answer. they don't want to hear it. They will tell you they can hear the difference, just you need better headphones in order to hear it!

Don't forget, you need Dual Dacs too! and Balanced output and an audiophile balanced cable!
Also need some audiophile bumpers so you can keep your desktop setup from touching the ground too!!! You wouldn't want any nasty crosstalk or EMI even though this isn't a gigantic studio and every audio component is like right next to each other.

not like at those studios who can benefit from balanced cables, and usually their audio systems are separated at a long distance from each other. 

Nonsense! us audiophiles can hear that Balanced increases soundstage and makes things sound so much better! more details and resolution!.


----------



## bigshot

The logic to audiophoolery is... If you can't hear a night or day difference A) Your equipment isn't good enough, spend more or B) You are deaf, enjoy lousy sound. They never even consider C) Maybe there isn't a difference at all.


----------



## bigshot

When the site design changed and all the bans were lifted, I poked my head in here and found that the sound science forum had become pretty moribund. It didn't take long to stir it back to life. Traffic means ad impressions, which translates to dollars for HeadFi. All of us are creating content to help support that revenue. The system is working again. Hooray!


----------



## Bytor123

bigshot said:


> When the site design changed and all the bans were lifted, I poked my head in here and found that the sound science forum had become pretty moribund. It didn't take long to stir it back to life. Traffic means ad impressions, which translates to dollars for HeadFi. All of us are creating content to help support that revenue. The system is working again. Hooray!


Glad to see you back, always enjoyed reading your posts.


----------



## headwhacker

bigshot said:


> When the site design changed and all the bans were lifted, I poked my head in here and found that the sound science forum had become pretty moribund. It didn't take long to stir it back to life. Traffic means ad impressions, which translates to dollars for HeadFi. All of us are creating content to help support that revenue. The system is working again. Hooray!


Then Head-fi should pay you for continuing to create content on this space.


----------



## bigshot

I think they've been benefitting from my content for a long time. There are certain keywords that kick up my posts in google searches near the top. That's fine. I participate and make my contributions to the community. If it all works and everyone is happy, that's a good thing.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 11, 2017)

bigshot said:


> The logic to audiophoolery is... If you can't hear a night or day difference A) Your equipment isn't good enough, spend more or B) You are deaf, enjoy lousy sound. They never even consider C) Maybe there isn't a difference at all.



My boss likes to talk about the "bike shed effect" which if you haven't heard of it, is based on a (maybe apocryphal) anecdote -

A planning committee  is designing a nuclear power plant.  There are hundreds of pages of specifications, safety regulations, detailed reactor designs, and so on.  They are reviewing the whole planning document and most pages go by without comment.  Finally they get to a page in the document specifying the design of a bike shed in the parking lot of the power plant - quite possibly the least important part of the plan.  Suddenly, everyone has a strong opinion - there are multiple pages of revisions, lots of active discussion on everything, especially what color to paint the shed. 

The lesson is that people don't focus on what's actually important, they focus and try to improve things they can easily see and understand, even if it doesn't make a difference.  Improving a reactor design is hard, takes a lot of work, and the details are hard to understand.  The color of a bike shed is very easy to grasp, on the other hand...

I think a lot of audiophool stuff comes from this phenomenon.  Things like jitter are easy to understand in a "lower is better" sense, and so are discussed actively.  Jitter is definitely one of the bike sheds of the audio world...


----------



## JaeYoon

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> My boss likes to talk about the "bike shed effect" which if you haven't heard of it, is based on a (maybe apocryphal) anecdote -
> 
> A planning committee  is designing a nuclear power plant.  There are hundreds of pages of specifications, safety regulations, detailed reactor designs, and so on.  They are reviewing the whole planning document and most pages go by without comment.  Finally they get to a page in the document specifying the design of a bike shed in the parking lot of the power plant - quite possibly the least important part of the plan.  Suddenly, everyone has a strong opinion - there are multiple pages of revisions, lots of active discussion on everything, especially what color to paint the shed.
> 
> ...


Really interesting idea. I like it a lot.

I have same thing in group projects. Everyone likes to change aesthetics of the design even when it serves no purpose. Just to make it look unique.

Whatever is visible to them it's easier to understand. Even when it has no effect or even minimal.

The more underlying and important parts are taken care of by engineers.

I might steal this bike shed effect idea.


----------



## castleofargh

it's a pretty famous idea in organized work. and it's easy enough to understand mainly because it happens so often IRL. that's where you see good leaders in action, or not ^_^.


----------



## JaeYoon

I have to applaud all of the hard working people who are posting how digital data works in the "Why do USB Cables Make a difference" thread.

Just reading that thread taught me one thing. If I ever have children. I will teach them never to become audiophiles. I have screenshotted all of the posts that I can muster myself in there without committing suicide, or taking a gun and pointing it to my head.

people claiming themselves to be professors and absolutely spouting marketing and scamming other people of their money for "audiophile USB cables".

I pledge myself never to become an audiophile and will teach everyone around me in IRL to never become people like this. Telling people to buy expensive cables that provide no benefit to people is like selling snake oil to others.

"I didn't mean to harm them!!! I just believed snake oil cured cancer!!! So I recommended it to them!" *throws mic out the window*


----------



## Argyris

JaeYoon said:


> If I ever have children. I will teach them never to become audiophiles.



There's no better way to make sure your kids do exactly the opposite of what you want than by trying to teach them specific things they shouldn't do. A better course would be to teach them critical thinking, an appreciation of the limitations of human senses and human psychology, and a solid sense of value. Then trust them work things out for themselves; if they can't (or won't), there's not much more you can do for them. Pure subjectivism in audio is just another form of superstition, and they way you fight superstition is by giving people the tools they need to test it and prove to themselves that it's not real and therefore shouldn't influence or control them.

Being involved with audio can be a rewarding hobby, and there's no reason to ward anybody off it just because of the lunacy that happens at the fringes. Every hobby has its share of lunacy, of excess and extremes; learning to stay away from these areas and knowing what's real and what isn't is the secret to enjoyment and sanity.


----------



## pinnahertz

I used to think audio was the worst of all for snake-oil-magic beliefs, but this past weekend I spoke with a professional driver (as in testing and racing cars). He told me a story of a Formula 1 car fitted with a sponsors badge on the front scoop.  Unfortunately the thing had a bit of aluminum in it to make it extra shiny and reflective.  It was determined that the aluminum substrate added some fraction of an ounce to the weight of the badge, so it was removed and replaced with a decal.  Now, they could save many, many ounces of weight just by making sure their driver went to the bathroom before getting in the car, but no...that wasn't even mentioned.  And nobody bothered with analyzing the aerodynamic impact of the slightly raised badge vs the flush decal at 200mph! No, that fraction of an ounce of weight was THE important thing they focussed on.  

I found the story encouraging in that lunacy isn't limited to audio.  I suspect it's everywhere.  I'm not sure why, but fantasy and fiction seem always more interesting than truth and fact.


----------



## castleofargh

the skid block is my favorite stuff in formula one.


----------



## pibroch (Oct 12, 2017)

pinnahertz said:


> I used to think audio was the worst of all for snake-oil-magic beliefs, but this past weekend I spoke with a professional driver (as in testing and racing cars). He told me a story of a Formula 1 car fitted with a sponsors badge on the front scoop.  Unfortunately the thing had a bit of aluminum in it to make it extra shiny and reflective.  It was determined that the aluminum substrate added some fraction of an ounce to the weight of the badge, so it was removed and replaced with a decal.  Now, they could save many, many ounces of weight just by making sure their driver went to the bathroom before getting in the car, but no...that wasn't even mentioned.  And nobody bothered with analyzing the aerodynamic impact of the slightly raised badge vs the flush decal at 200mph! No, that fraction of an ounce of weight was THE important thing they focussed on.
> 
> I found the story encouraging in that lunacy isn't limited to audio.  I suspect it's everywhere.  I'm not sure why, but fantasy and fiction seem always more interesting than truth and fact.


Reminds me of the Peter Ustinov album "The Grand Prix of Gibraltar" : the drivers in the German team had to blow their noses just before they got into their cars.


----------



## JaeYoon

Argyris said:


> There's no better way to make sure your kids do exactly the opposite of what you want than by trying to teach them specific things they shouldn't do. A better course would be to teach them critical thinking, an appreciation of the limitations of human senses and human psychology, and a solid sense of value. Then trust them work things out for themselves; if they can't (or won't), there's not much more you can do for them. Pure subjectivism in audio is just another form of superstition, and they way you fight superstition is by giving people the tools they need to test it and prove to themselves that it's not real and therefore shouldn't influence or control them.
> 
> Being involved with audio can be a rewarding hobby, and there's no reason to ward anybody off it just because of the lunacy that happens at the fringes. Every hobby has its share of lunacy, of excess and extremes; learning to stay away from these areas and knowing what's real and what isn't is the secret to enjoyment and sanity.


Hey thanks! Critica thinking is a lot more important. But hopefully I never have to have those little brats!! 


pinnahertz said:


> I used to think audio was the worst of all for snake-oil-magic beliefs, but this past weekend I spoke with a professional driver (as in testing and racing cars). He told me a story of a Formula 1 car fitted with a sponsors badge on the front scoop.  Unfortunately the thing had a bit of aluminum in it to make it extra shiny and reflective.  It was determined that the aluminum substrate added some fraction of an ounce to the weight of the badge, so it was removed and replaced with a decal.  Now, they could save many, many ounces of weight just by making sure their driver went to the bathroom before getting in the car, but no...that wasn't even mentioned.  And nobody bothered with analyzing the aerodynamic impact of the slightly raised badge vs the flush decal at 200mph! No, that fraction of an ounce of weight was THE important thing they focussed on.
> 
> I found the story encouraging in that lunacy isn't limited to audio.  I suspect it's everywhere.  I'm not sure why, but fantasy and fiction seem always more interesting than truth and fact.


Just like the bike shed theory. They only change things that are most visible to them. Instead of inspecting of reducing weight of other possible things. It was the most aesthetic one.

Also I was at a speaker store yesterday. Now I don't think all audio enthusiasts are crazy. But were a couple of guys checking out the seriously expensive speakers (to me). 

I happened to hear these horrid voices I turned around the guys were like.
"Oh yeah baby, look at those nice lips"
"Those thick baby making cones"

"Nice round smooth edges"
The way they were using their hands to feel the edges of speakers going back and fourth.

They were literally checking out the speakers. They were licking their lips too!
It was so nasty but hilarious at same time.

The store employee assisting them had this face expression of "well..this is out of the ordinary"


----------



## bfreedma

pinnahertz said:


> I used to think audio was the worst of all for snake-oil-magic beliefs, but this past weekend I spoke with a professional driver (as in testing and racing cars). He told me a story of a Formula 1 car fitted with a sponsors badge on the front scoop.  Unfortunately the thing had a bit of aluminum in it to make it extra shiny and reflective.  It was determined that the aluminum substrate added some fraction of an ounce to the weight of the badge, so it was removed and replaced with a decal.  Now, they could save many, many ounces of weight just by making sure their driver went to the bathroom before getting in the car, but no...that wasn't even mentioned.  And nobody bothered with analyzing the aerodynamic impact of the slightly raised badge vs the flush decal at 200mph! No, that fraction of an ounce of weight was THE important thing they focussed on.
> 
> I found the story encouraging in that lunacy isn't limited to audio.  I suspect it's everywhere.  I'm not sure why, but fantasy and fiction seem always more interesting than truth and fact.




No argument that the car industry has its issues, but your F1 examples aren't accurate.  Yes, every F1 driver does use the bathroom before every qualifying session and race to reduce weight - they also train incredibly hard to cut weight.  The lighter the driver, the more ballast can be placed in advantageous locations in the car without exceeding FIA's mandated minimum post race car weight.  And despite what you might think, even fractions of ounces are important where a few hundredths of a second can be the difference between the poll and row 2.  For example, F1 teams use titanium bolts and screws to save a fraction of an ounce here and there.  McLaren and Ferrari recently estimated that every 1/10th of a second saved during in season design alterations costs approximately 10 million USD.

As per assessing the aerodynamic impact of the badge, that was most assuredly done.  Other than a few back of the pack teams, each F1 team has it's own wind tunnel which literally runs 24x7x365 with the exception of the FIA mandated "summer break".  In fact, the only reason the original sponsor ad was on a raised badge was that it provided a small aero advantage (small change in the direction of airflow over the car's sidepods adding a few pounds of downforce) and didn't fall afoul of the restriction on "movable aerodynamic devices".  The big teams in F1 literally have over 1000 people (mostly engineers) dedicated to the program - their entire job is essentially to find tiny improvements within the sporting regulations so no surprise that the weight of the badge substrate was identified as an opportunity to cut weight and be removed.

F1 is all about pushing the rules.  Take a look at Ferrari's results this year after FIA mandated that they could no longer supplement the standard fuel by injecting engine oil into the mix sent to the cylinders.  It wouldn't seem like a few pints of oil would make a difference, but it did get Ferrari around the max fuel consumption rate that was only measuring "gas" flow rates.

You may find all of this extreme, but pushing the envelope to the max is what F1 is all about.


----------



## pinnahertz

bfreedma said:


> No argument that the car industry has its issues, but your F1 examples aren't accurate.  Yes, every F1 driver does use the bathroom before every qualifying session and race to reduce weight - they also train incredibly hard to cut weight.  The lighter the driver, the more ballast can be placed in advantageous locations in the car without exceeding FIA's mandated minimum post race car weight.  And despite what you might think, even fractions of ounces are important where a few hundredths of a second can be the difference between the poll and row 2.  For example, F1 teams use titanium bolts and screws to save a fraction of an ounce here and there.  McLaren and Ferrari recently estimated that every 1/10th of a second saved during in season design alterations costs approximately 10 million USD.


So do the drivers use an enema before each race?  Shave their heads?  Cut their finger and toenails?  Not drink water?  


bfreedma said:


> You may find all of this extreme, but pushing the envelope to the max is what F1 is all about.


It's one reason I'm not into F1.  I've got an OCD hobby on my hands already, don't need another.


----------



## bfreedma

pinnahertz said:


> So do the drivers use an enema before each race?  Shave their heads?  Cut their finger and toenails?  Not drink water?
> 
> It's one reason I'm not into F1.  I've got an OCD hobby on my hands already, don't need another.



LOL - Serious answer to a not serious (I think) question:

I don't think enemas are allowed by FIA, otherwise they might be happening.  While the drivers don't shave their heads, good luck finding a driver with long hair these days (they really are that serious about weight).  Drivers do have access to drink during the race, but the amount is precalculated based on the expected weight loss during the race arrived at by pre-season testing on drivers in various temperature and humidity levels.

I know this sounds absurd, but with the money involved in F1 (both cost to participate and value of wins/points), literally nothing is left to chance.  Since the drivers and cars are weighed immediately after the race (before the podium ceremony, let alone media access), it's a serious component of the sport.  If you ever watch a race, take a look at what the cars are doing in the warm down lap before returning to the pits to be weighed.  They go off line to pick up as much clag (tire shreds ripped off by cornering loads during the race) to gain another 5-10 lbs - just to ensure the post race weight calculated at the factory has a little buffer.

All of this is driven by how tightly the technical regulations are written.  There's a reason that cars independently developed by 10 manufacturers have very little variance in design.  If you're into materials and aerodynamic technology at the leading edge (military/space is bleeding edge), F1 can be a very interesting sport to follow.

I get it though - it's not for everyone.

How ridiculous can it get?  Most drivers have sponsorship deals with watch manufacturers and used to wear them during the race so the in-car shots would pick them up.  The teams were unhappy about the extra weight and now the drivers have images of their sponsored watches silk screened onto the wrist of their race suit.


----------



## Don Hills

Argyris said:


> ... A better course would be to teach them critical thinking, an appreciation of the limitations of human senses and human psychology, and a solid sense of value. ...



... thereby ensuring that they end up with the opposite set of values.


----------



## JaeYoon

@bigshot
I remember you mentioning about the fear of jitter.
I just witnessed someone on another thread get conned out of their money sadly.

They were being spooked by another member that they should drop $1,100 DAP that they will use as a transport for their portable dac/amp.

The reason was that a cheap transport and it will introduce jitter and EMI and EF signals. That investing in a 1000 dollar product would insure the persons dac/amp setup would bypass internals of th. player would be jitterless.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Oct 13, 2017)

So let's say that I don't have a place to do a proper listening room with acoustic treatment, what is the next best solution from a objective point of view? Are speakers still better then the headphones if you can't acoustically treat a room? Would something like K1000s be a decent replacement for speakers in this case? Or should I do a near field system?


----------



## bigshot

I'm limited in the amount of treatment I can do in my listening room. The walls and ceiling are all 1950s knotty pine, and I'm not about to cover that up with acoustic panels. I experimented with speaker placement and laid the furniture out to make it as easy on the sound as possible, and then EQed the rest of the way. It works fine. Room acoustics aren't an absolute thing. You need to trade off and make compromises so the room still works as a living space. In that sense it's different than designing a recordings studio.

I have really good headphones, but even my bookshelf system is more enjoyable to me than my cans.


----------



## 93EXCivic

Ok thanks. My living room is kind of part of an L open room with a big opening to the kitchen kind of behind and is super awkward for acoustics I would think with the furniture we have. It isn't very deep either. Any changes would have to have the wife's approval. 

I am currently also in the process of rebuilding my garage with an upstairs office/workshop (3d printers, soldering, etc). I was thinking of doing a near field setup in there. I am assuming that a near field would be better then headphones.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> I have really good headphones, but even my bookshelf system is more enjoyable to me than my cans.



My listening room is open to the dining room and kitchen, with windows on the other side and the subwoofer right near the fireplace, and I still prefer my floorstanders to anything headphones do.


----------



## 93EXCivic

Thanks guys. I guess I will go with my original plan of building some Fostex driver based towers with a sub and a vintage receiver and Hifiberry setup.


----------



## castleofargh

on principle, headphones with custom signature, and some DSP for the stereo(or if you're lucky with binaural albums), could do better than even great speakers in a good room in a few fidelity measurements. but getting there isn't easy, while it's hard not to love the feeling of low end frequencies shaking our body with speakers. so unless you try to go the road of customizing headphone signal a lot and maybe adding a subwoofer for tactile sub, speakers also have my vote. 
you can probably get something enjoyable even if not ideal, after moving the speakers around a little and maybe get a mic and measurement software to see how you can save the day and or the room.


----------



## sonitus mirus

RRod said:


> My listening room is open to the dining room and kitchen, with windows on the other side and the subwoofer right near the fireplace, and I still prefer my floorstanders to anything headphones do.


I haven't used my headphones at home in a long time, and I listen to hours of music nearly every day.  At work I still use headphones on occasion, but mostly so people won't bother me.


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> on principle, headphones with custom signature, and some DSP for the stereo(or if you're lucky with binaural albums), could do better than even great speakers in a good room in a few fidelity measurements. but getting there isn't easy, while it's hard not to love the feeling of low end frequencies shaking our body with speakers. so unless you try to go the road of customizing headphone signal a lot and maybe adding a subwoofer for tactile sub, speakers also have my vote.
> you can probably get something enjoyable even if not ideal, after moving the speakers around a little and maybe get a mic and measurement software to see how you can save the day and or the room.



Just my opinion, but for music listening, I don't think a subwoofer is a requirement.  In my research, it was the subwoofer that is typically the most inferior transducer in most people's setup, and a good subwoofer is very expensive.  A subwoofer is the easiest way to mess up the sound quality for music.  Now for movies and video games, even a cheap subwoofer is usually good and more pleasing than not having one at all.


----------



## castleofargh

sonitus mirus said:


> Just my opinion, but for music listening, I don't think a subwoofer is a requirement.  In my research, it was the subwoofer that is typically the most inferior transducer in most people's setup, and a good subwoofer is very expensive.  A subwoofer is the easiest way to mess up the sound quality for music.  Now for movies and video games, even a cheap subwoofer is usually good and more pleasing than not having one at all.


I was suggesting a woofer with the headphone to bring back the missing tactile feelings. it's an aspect of real ambient acoustic experience so I'm tempted to say that even a bad woofer is more fidelity than no tactile response. but I'm fine with putting this as my personal taste. also it's not about hearing ^_^.
and I can't talk about those shaking devices we put on a chair because I have yet to try one. maybe that's a cool substitute?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 13, 2017)

Good subwoofers are definitely expensive. If you talk to a home theater technician and explain what you're trying to do, he can steer you in the right direction. That is what I did and although it cost me a grand, it was well worth it. I never complain about spending money on speakers. That's the area where the bang for the buck threshold is higher. In a large room or with bookshelf speakers, a subwoofer is a necessity. If you have full range speakers and a smaller room, it isn't so much. The trick is finessing the response and crossover. It takes a bit of work, but adding a center and rear channel does too and it is well worth the trouble.

The advantage of a subwoofer isn't just the kinesthetic thump. A good subwoofer properly calibrated and integrated into the room will nearly always improve the bass response and clarity over just two full range speakers. Full range speakers aren't designed to do bass perfectly. They employ compromises to be an all in one solution to the problem.


----------



## Strangelove424

You can pick up a really good subwoofer below $500 pretty easily. They might not be super powerful 15" woofers that can deal with a huge room, but they will play clean and flat down to 17Hz-20Hz, with plenty of SPL for people with normal sized rooms. I had to spend a bit more than I thought I would for a good subwoofer, but nothing too outrageous.


----------



## pinnahertz

Strangelove424 said:


> You can pick up a really good subwoofer below $500 pretty easily. They might not be super powerful 15" woofers that can deal with a huge room, but they will play clean and flat down to 17Hz-20Hz, with plenty of SPL for people with normal sized rooms. I had to spend a bit more than I thought I would for a good subwoofer, but nothing too outrageous.


I guess it depends on how you define your own "good".  I haven't found a below-$500 subwoofer that I considered "good" yet, as they don't deliver adequate SPL at 20Hz, but that's not part of every definition of "good". 

It's my stupid expensive tastes.  I got it bad.  Speakers, subs, cameras and lenses, test equipment....darn it!  I do keep it under control by applying the Pareto principle wherever possible, and that saves a cubic car-load of cash.  And, since I don't buy audiophool cables, wires, ointments, bricks, or pyramids, or enemas, that extra cash goes to real improvements...like speakers and subs!


----------



## Zapp_Fan

93EXCivic said:


> So let's say that I don't have a place to do a proper listening room with acoustic treatment, what is the next best solution from a objective point of view? Are speakers still better then the headphones if you can't acoustically treat a room? Would something like K1000s be a decent replacement for speakers in this case? Or should I do a near field system?



Kind of depends, despite best efforts it's hard to replicate the sound of headphones on loudspeakers and vice-versa.  Even on this forum, I've seen strong opinions that speakers are a more "true to original" (i.e. the recording as heard in the studio) way to listen, and tend to agree that there is something to that argument.  So, if you value fidelity to 'what they heard in the studio' then you should place some priority on speakers. 

How flexible is your speaker placement?  Speaker placement is very important, it goes hand-in-hand with acoustic treatment.  This is a really nice guide to speaker placement I came across recently.  it's aimed at recording studios, but the same principles apply. 

http://arqen.com/acoustics-101/speaker-placement-boundary-interference/

If you can see clear to covering 20-30% of your walls with acoustic treatment, you will have a room that's better than 99% of listeners.  Even 15% might be worth a go.  And, acoustic panels do not need to be ugly.  In fact a few years ago I noticed one acoustic treatment store online selling custom printed fabric-covered panels for CHEAPER than you could buy a plain custom digital-printed canvas. Effectively you got a bunch of wall art and the acoustic treatment is thrown in for free.  Go figure...  Not sure if they are still doing it, but you can get that kind of thing for sure.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 14, 2017)

castleofargh said:


> I was suggesting a woofer with the headphone to bring back the missing tactile feelings. it's an aspect of real ambient acoustic experience so I'm tempted to say that even a bad woofer is more fidelity than no tactile response. but I'm fine with putting this as my personal taste. also it's not about hearing ^_^.
> and I can't talk about those shaking devices we put on a chair because I have yet to try one. maybe that's a cool substitute?



So today I demoed some really blingy gaming headphones that included two transducers per ear - one for sound and one for what you might call "rumble" or "LFE".  The fidelity overall was exactly what you'd expect from shiny plastic headphones that light up, but I thought the tactile sensation from the extra driver was actually interesting... the low frequency content in the game actually vibrated the cans rather noticeably - it wasn't like being in the presence of (say) actual thunder, but it was as much as you could expect from a headphone in that regard.  They were USB powered so I guess it wasn't a problem to draw enough current to generate vibrations in addition to actual audio, but it's actually not unlike your sub + cans solution in a way.  I wonder if there's room for "rumble" effects in hi-fi?


----------



## JaeYoon

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> So today I demoed some really blingy gaming headphones that included two transducers per ear - one for sound and one for what you might call "rumble" or "LFE".  The fidelity overall was exactly what you'd expect from shiny plastic headphones that light up, but I thought the tactile sensation from the extra driver was actually interesting... the low frequency content in the game actually vibrated the cans rather noticeably - it wasn't like being in the presence of (say) actual thunder, but it was as much as you could expect from a headphone in that regard.  They were USB powered so I guess it wasn't a problem to draw enough current to generate vibrations in addition to actual audio, but it's actually not unlike your sub + cans solution in a way.  I wonder if there's room for "rumble" effects in hi-fi?


https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-hardest-hitting-headphones-are-the-extreme-bass-club.716711/
If you want big rumble!

I think you might be better off with that gaming headphone for less.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

JaeYoon said:


> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-hardest-hitting-headphones-are-the-extreme-bass-club.716711/
> If you want big rumble!
> 
> I think you might be better off with that gaming headphone for less.



Ironically the bass performance on these gaming headphones was nothing special.  It basically had a special transducer just to add sub or near-subsonic vibrations you can kinda feel in your head.  But, it helped to add the "you are there" sense of tactile vibrations from low bass.  Something that is commonly said to be one of the inherent 'missing pieces' of headphone listening, which got me thinking as to whether it might have more potential than just being a gimmick for teenagers... curious what people might think about such things.


----------



## JaeYoon

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> Ironically the bass performance on these gaming headphones was nothing special.  It basically had a special transducer just to add sub or near-subsonic vibrations you can kinda feel in your head.  But, it helped to add the "you are there" sense of tactile vibrations from low bass.  Something that is commonly said to be one of the inherent 'missing pieces' of headphone listening, which got me thinking as to whether it might have more potential than just being a gimmick for teenagers... curious what people might think about such things.


I see what you mean now! Doh.

Actually would be neat for IEMS too. Instead of adding 18 to 20 drivers.

Why not add a special transducer very similar to that. I definitely would not cast away that headphone just yet!


----------



## Zapp_Fan

JaeYoon said:


> I see what you mean now! Doh.
> 
> Actually would be neat for IEMS too. Instead of adding 18 to 20 drivers.
> 
> Why not add a special transducer very similar to that. I definitely would not cast away that headphone just yet!



My only thoughts so far on why this feature is relatively rare: 

1) An average phone, DAP, etc. doesn't have enough wattage to run what amounts to a vibration motor in addition to an audio driver.  This pair ran on USB power, so has more juice available than most passive cans. 

2) It sounds kind of stupid at first, so most respectable companies probably wouldn't bother looking into "vibrators" for their headphones...


----------



## JaeYoon

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> My only thoughts so far on why this feature is relatively rare:
> 
> 1) An average phone, DAP, etc. doesn't have enough wattage to run what amounts to a vibration motor in addition to an audio driver.  This pair ran on USB power, so has more juice available than most passive cans.
> 
> 2) It sounds kind of stupid at first, so most respectable companies probably wouldn't bother looking into "vibrators" for their headphones...


I also most took the word "vibrator" literally


----------



## bigshot

Remember the Bone Fone? http://www.retrothing.com/2006/01/the_bone_fone_r.html


----------



## castleofargh

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> So today I demoed some really blingy gaming headphones that included two transducers per ear - one for sound and one for what you might call "rumble" or "LFE".  The fidelity overall was exactly what you'd expect from shiny plastic headphones that light up, but I thought the tactile sensation from the extra driver was actually interesting... the low frequency content in the game actually vibrated the cans rather noticeably - it wasn't like being in the presence of (say) actual thunder, but it was as much as you could expect from a headphone in that regard.  They were USB powered so I guess it wasn't a problem to draw enough current to generate vibrations in addition to actual audio, but it's actually not unlike your sub + cans solution in a way.  I wonder if there's room for "rumble" effects in hi-fi?


Floyd Toole suggested that not only a "shake" could increase our impression of realistic low end, but that the vibration didn't even have to be at the frequency of the low end content in the music.  I'm paraphrasing because I couldn't find the video where he mentioned it, but it was the general idea. it would suggest that this is a case of something being better than nothing,we're missing that tactile feeling and the brain expects something. but it doesn't mean that anything is just as good as the real stuff of course. 
I'm not using a woofer with headphones because it defeats the reason why I use headphones in the first place, which is tightly linked to not being murdered by neighbors at night. ^_^  so if some vibrating stuff(I'd rather not have it shaking the headphone itself) can subjectively improve the experience of low end, it might be worth it. again I have to say I never tried so maybe it's annoying as hell after 5mn like a vibrating console remote, I just don't know.


----------



## JaeYoon

I got curious and began looking at Sony's W1MZ.
Does anyone find this highly contradictory?



  

Is this for real? "The copper lends the player it's unique natural acoustic sound".
But it's a digital audio player............
let that sink in.


----------



## castleofargh

the feng shui of audio casing. they messed up plating it in gold IMO, they should have left it as copper and sell the famous revolutionary virtues of oxidization as an antibacterial hand cleaner.  and then the special "proprietary" sony case cleaner for when it all turns to a disgusting green. some people might develop a rash at some point, but never mind small details. 

I guess it's not really a lie, it's copper that's used to make the circuit, and the case might be involved with the ground in some way? ?????? ^_^  I'm trying hard here.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> Floyd Toole suggested that not only a "shake" could increase our impression of realistic low end, but that the vibration didn't even have to be at the frequency of the low end content in the music.  I'm paraphrasing because I couldn't find the video where he mentioned it, but it was the general idea. it would suggest that this is a case of something being better than nothing,we're missing that tactile feeling and the brain expects something. but it doesn't mean that anything is just as good as the real stuff of course.



I don't recall what Floyd Toole said on the subject but I can relay what occurs in professional practice. The LFE channel in film sound often contains material which is artificially generated and not related to the signal/recording. We commonly add sine waves from a simple signal generator and there are commercial sound libraries comprising only of LFE rumbles. Even in music (some popular genres) it's not uncommon to add a bit of unrelated material to the kick drum. We do this because the ear/brain is relatively insensitive to very low freqs, not just in terms of volume but in terms of everything; positioning, frequency and tonal characteristics.

I've not tried the vibrator headphones mentioned but I'm more than a little sceptical. The high levels required to perceive very low frequencies, is perceived throughout the body, not just the ears or even entire head. Such HPs might provide some improvement however.

G


----------



## Niouke

funny how our brain works, I swear my body is receiving vibrations from the bass I'm hearing...with my IEMs


----------



## Argyris

This discussion reminds me of this:

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/unique-bass-sensation-skullcandy-crusher

Tyll seemed reasonably convinced by the whole idea.


----------



## 93EXCivic

castleofargh said:


> the feng shui of audio casing. they messed up plating it in gold IMO, they should have left it as copper and sell the famous revolutionary virtues of oxidization as an antibacterial hand cleaner.  and then the special "proprietary" sony case cleaner for when it all turns to a disgusting green. some people might develop a rash at some point, but never mind small details.
> 
> I guess it's not really a lie, it's copper that's used to make the circuit, and the case might be involved with the ground in some way? ?????? ^_^  I'm trying hard here.



I want to make a copper or brass case for my Zishan Z2 just cause I have access to a CNC machine and I like the way the metals patina. 

I am guessing it is grounded to the case. Pretty sure I have seen that on a few DAPs with copper cases.


----------



## bigshot

DBT is like a cross to a vampire. Look at them run!


----------



## JaeYoon

bigshot said:


> DBT is like a cross to a vampire. Look at them run!


ahahahahaha!


This is the best thing I've seen all today.
Look look! This is taken from a sony W1MZ review here on headfi. Here is a tiny snippet.




Bigshot DBT (controlled) Cross!


----------



## Niouke

today I learned that people sell $7500 "active, shielded" power cords. Nice business model!


----------



## JaeYoon

Niouke said:


> today I learned that people sell $7500 "active, shielded" power cords. Nice business model!


It's like EMI and noise is like an audiophile's worst nightmare. And jitter too! It must be eradicated at any price!


----------



## Argyris

Niouke said:


> today I learned that people sell $7500 "active, shielded" power cords. Nice business model!



$7500? That's the cheapskate option. I've seen at least five figures on those kinds of things.

You know you've entered the twilight zone when the stuff on Machina Dynamica isn't appreciably different from the _real products_ that you can _actually buy_ from people who evidently learned to keep a straight face when selling it to you by tossing their scruples into the nearest raging fire.

I would genuinely like to know how many of the people who sell uber expensive, esoteric audio equipment and accessories are true believers, and how many of them know it's a racket or at the very least have some doubts, either about the products themselves or just whether it's wrong to take advantage of people who believe things based on nothing but their own, easily manipulable subjective assessment.


----------



## JaeYoon (Oct 18, 2017)

Argyris said:


> $7500? That's the cheapskate option. I've seen at least five figures on those kinds of things.
> 
> You know you've entered the twilight zone when the stuff on Machina Dynamica isn't appreciably different from the _real products_ that you can _actually buy_ from people who evidently learned to keep a straight face when selling it to you by tossing their scruples into the nearest raging fire.
> 
> I would genuinely like to know how many of the people who sell uber expensive, esoteric audio equipment and accessories are true believers, and how many of them know it's a racket or at the very least have some doubts, either about the products themselves or just whether it's wrong to take advantage of people who believe things based on nothing but their own, easily manipulable subjective assessment.


I'm very confident cable sellers who sell expensive ones in thousands have to practice in their freetime keeping a straight face.

Knowing how cheap a wire is. Just invest a bit in making it look nice on exterior.
Low cost and high profit margin. If an audiophile thinks that cable looks cool with an exotic material it's already in their mind that it's "high quality".

The salesman just needs to have audiophile confirm it by telling them what they want to hear. Keeping a straight face at same time (can be difficult to do).

want to add some emojis
Cable salesman on outside:
Cable salesman on inside:


----------



## 93EXCivic

Apparently audiophile fuses are a thing as well...


----------



## Ruben123

Hey guys, been off for a while. Hows everyone doing? Do speaker cables still affect the sound?


----------



## pinnahertz

Ruben123 said:


> Hey guys, been off for a while. Hows everyone doing? Do speaker cables still affect the sound?


Yes!  Absolutely!   Without speaker cables, your speaker don't make any sound at all.  I think that's somewhere close to 100%.


----------



## headdict

pinnahertz said:


> Yes!  Absolutely!   Without speaker cables, your speaker don't make any sound at all.  I think that's somewhere close to 100%.


That's oversimplified. The difference approximates 0% as the cable's resistance increases.


----------



## ev13wt

They only make a sound when you drop them on the floor!




JaeYoon said:


> I'm very confident cable sellers who sell expensive ones in thousands have to practice in their freetime keeping a straight face.
> 
> Knowing how cheap a wire is. Just invest a bit in making it look nice on exterior.
> Low cost and high profit margin. If an audiophile thinks that cable looks cool with an exotic material it's already in their mind that it's "high quality".
> ...



Then again, the United States pharma industry (well, all pharma) does the same thing as well. Doctors keep a straight face.

For some history about this, read here: https://www.alternet.org/books/how-...-massive-inequality-made-america-bully-nation

Disregard the title.


----------



## pinnahertz

headdict said:


> That's oversimplified. The difference approximates 0% as the cable's resistance increases.


Are you  trying to say that increasing cable resistance makes 0% change? Or are you being even more facetious than I was?


----------



## headdict

pinnahertz said:


> Are you  trying to say that increasing cable resistance makes 0% change? Or are you being even more facetious than I was?


I meant to say that a cable with high enough resistance won't make much (audible) difference compared to no cable at all.


----------



## pinnahertz

ev13wt said:


> They only make a sound when you drop them on the floor!


 I dropped a 200' spool of 12ga on my toe one. That sure changed the sound in the room. And outside of the room.


----------



## pinnahertz

headdict said:


> I meant to say that a cable with high enough resistance won't make much (audible) difference compared to no cable at all.


I'm not sure that cable would sell very well. Even to audiophiles.


----------



## gregorio

pinnahertz said:


> I'm not sure that cable would sell very well. Even to audiophiles.



Don't count on it, I can already see the headline: "The blackest blacks of any cable, GUARANTEED!" 

g


----------



## castleofargh

the future is in wireless cables. fat cables that will serve as strong shield to protect the hifi wifi signal to the purest quality we deserve. it will be transmitted inside a conductor protected by that shielding revolution. it's year 3000 tech I'm talking about. at some point we might even be able to reliably transmit directly an analog signal into this... let's call it "analog cable". crazy stuff.


----------



## JaeYoon

castleofargh said:


> the future is in wireless cables. fat cables that will serve as strong shield to protect the hifi wifi signal to the purest quality we deserve. it will be transmitted inside a conductor protected by that shielding revolution. it's year 3000 tech I'm talking about. at some point we might even be able to reliably transmit directly an analog signal into this... let's call it "analog cable". crazy stuff.


If this planet is still running by then.

Eh we will be long gone by then. I shudder at next gen of audiophiles.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 25, 2017)

I just edited this comment because I realized I was reading it wrong.

It appears that whenever a thread gets salty with objective arguments out there in the crazy town part of Head Fi, they preserve the sanctity of the masses by banishing it here... kind of like being thrown to the wolves. But we aren't bad people. I'm sure there are people in these threads causing trouble by making rational points, and they might be a valuable asset to Sound Science. So if no one objects, I'm going to appoint myself the official Sound Science Welcome Wagon. I'll come up with a nice gift basket to give people in threads that get whisked away into our audio munchkinland. Maybe we can make this forum even bigger and better.


----------



## bigshot

THE GRUNION ARE RUNNING!


----------



## headdict

pinnahertz said:


> I'm not sure that cable would sell very well. Even to audiophiles.


It all depends on marketing. Some audiophiles will be happy to drive their supersensitive IEMs with 500W speaker amps, if they are given a cable that enables them to do so. It's also intuitive that a high resistance cable has to come at a high price. High resistance = high price = high fidelity. I'm sure someone better than me could work out a good marketing slogan from that.


----------



## bigshot

"MORE IS BETTER!" (TM)


----------



## pinnahertz

headdict said:


> It all depends on marketing. Some audiophiles will be happy to drive their supersensitive IEMs with 500W speaker amps, if they are given a cable that enables them to do so. It's also intuitive that a high resistance cable has to come at a high price. High resistance = high price = high fidelity. I'm sure someone better than me could work out a good marketing slogan from that.


It's my impression that this is already a done deal.  There are high resistance cables in the audiophile market now.  Might even be at the point of diminishing returns.  Remember the coat-hanger wire fiasco?  Not especially high resistance, but widely spaced conductors introduces XL.  

WHAT AM I SAYING? There's a market for anything.  Go for it, High Fi, High R oxygen free NiChrome wire, 28ga, should be a few ohms per foot.  HFHRIFS, you say? $50/ft?  Pre-oxidized silver plating on integrated welded on connectors?  What?  

Wire manufacturers will make anything you ask for if you order enough and pay up.  I'm sure we could get this done.


----------



## JaeYoon

headdict said:


> It all depends on marketing. Some audiophiles will be happy to drive their supersensitive IEMs with 500W speaker amps, if they are given a cable that enables them to do so. It's also intuitive that a high resistance cable has to come at a high price. High resistance = high price = high fidelity. I'm sure someone better than me could work out a good marketing slogan from that.


High resistance...let's you hear the difference! Feel original, go high resistance!


----------



## pinnahertz

Might as well market that contact oxidizer spray I've been thinking of.


----------



## bigshot

Such a busy day!


----------



## Argyris

The amount of sound improvement you'll experience from these audiophile wonders is directly proportional to how much you're willing to spend.


----------



## 93EXCivic

I was reading on another forum about some of the Chord products and a lot of people on that forum were saying that the Chord products were super sensitive to USB interference which perfectly matches with what people were saying in the USB cable thread that #1 USB cables improved their Chord DACs and #2 that Chord DACs USB implementation is not very good.


----------



## bigshot

Are they getting dropouts where the music cuts out entirely and has to reconnect, like an HDMI handshake problem?


----------



## castleofargh

93EXCivic said:


> I was reading on another forum about some of the Chord products and a lot of people on that forum were saying that the Chord products were super sensitive to USB interference which perfectly matches with what people were saying in the USB cable thread that #1 USB cables improved their Chord DACs and #2 that Chord DACs USB implementation is not very good.


it's a matter of circumstances and magnitudes. not everybody has a garbage power supply, a garbage motherboard where everything bleeds into everything and nothing is at the level it's supposed to be. not everybody lives between 5 cellphone towers, a radio station, or some military base with big round stuff on top of the buildings. and of course not all DACs are designed equally. so you'll find some circumstances where pretty much anything becomes relevant, just like you'll find circumstances where a different USB cable won't change anything in the first 110dB of the signal.
that's why anecdotal evidence should never be used to draw general conclusions. but try to say that to us audiophiles who get to know almost everything in single servings. of course we end up drawing conclusions, doesn't matter if we don't have the means to do so.
then you add all the guys who couldn't test anything properly to save their lives, but will still come and claim night&day stuff, and you have very legit reasons to take any item of universal salvation with a grain of salt. 


also I have this lingering idea in my head that aiming at the best fidelity under the best conditions, and aiming at getting the most stable device under all circumstances are 2 different objectives. something I imagine to draw a more or less blurry line between audiophile and professional gears. I have no idea if it relates to anything real in practice or if it's just some preconception I have. but I have it.


----------



## bigshot

If the problem is the computer, that wouldn't be the fault of the DAC would it? I see this a lot in this forum. Like when people say a DAP or phone sounds lousy because they're plugging headphones into it that it wasn't designed to be used with.


----------



## 93EXCivic

bigshot said:


> If the problem is the computer, that wouldn't be the fault of the DAC would it? I see this a lot in this forum. Like when people say a DAP or phone sounds lousy because they're plugging headphones into it that it wasn't designed to be used with.



Yes and no I would think. If the problem isn't showing up in other DACs then it would seem the USB implementation in the DAC is not up to snuff either.


----------



## bigshot

I suppose other USB DACs might be a better choice if you computer is out of spec. But to me, that's like buying orthopedic shoes when your problem is that you have a pebble in your shoe. I'd focus on fixing the computer.


----------



## 93EXCivic

bigshot said:


> I suppose other USB DACs might be a better choice if you computer is out of spec. But to me, that's like buying orthopedic shoes when your problem is that you have a pebble in your shoe. I'd focus on fixing the computer.



True although I would imagine that if it was a laptop that would be more difficult. 

Either way it seems kind of ridiculous that at the prices Chord charges they have those kind of problems.


----------



## JaeYoon

Doesn't anyone dislike it when a snobby audiophile is like
"What a waste of an audio player, if you are using lossy encoding just your phone or a crappy ipod instead.

Yet no one who makes that snobby remark has any proof they have surpassing evolutionary ears beyond the normal human being to consistently show that they can hear the difference between a lossless and a lossy encoding in a noisy urban environment.

Yes that would be fantastic if someone has a ABX test log of them listening to lossless vs lossy in a urban environment and pass the test consistently.


----------



## bigshot

The crappy iPhone or iPod might very well have better specs than what they're using.


----------



## Argyris

It's been a while since that sort of stuff bothered me. I've written off the entire segment of the hobby that says stuff like that—there's no convincing them otherwise, and it's not like the rest of the world doesn't already think they're off the path, so any newcomers who wander in and end up believing that guff probably already wanted to believe it. They _definitely_ had advance warning that this hobby is filled with unsubstantiated bunk.


----------



## reginalb

Not worth a thread, but I spotted a couple new Blue Note releases of music that I didn't own yet, since I stream most of my music (John Coltrane Blue Train and Miles Davis Take Off: The Complete Blue Note Albums) they advertised the DTS-HD, Dolby TrueHD, and PCM Stereo, so I ordered them. Multi-channel is all I buy separately at this point - Play Music All Access (which also comes with YouTube Red) provides all the music I could need. But if it's music I really like, and it's in multi-channel, I do pick that up from time to time. 

They're in stereo. They used the DTS-HD and TrueHD containers for 2 channels. I guess that's a common thing with Pure Audio blu-rays, but I didn't realize that. So annoying. Just venting, I should have done more due diligence and not assumed those would be multi-channel, but I didn't, and that's my fault.


----------



## bigshot

There's a lot of that. I got tricked with a Japanese SACD that had a 5.1 track, but it had gone out of print and when it came back into print, it was 2 channel only. The cover looked identical. I bought it and got a similar nasty surprise.


----------



## reginalb

bigshot said:


> There's a lot of that. I got tricked with a Japanese SACD that had a 5.1 track, but it had gone out of print and when it came back into print, it was 2 channel only. The cover looked identical. I bought it and got a similar nasty surprise.



Frustrating stuff. But we're in the minority if we're looking for multi-channel. I think that's the most frustrating part of the hobby for me, that there are areas where we could really have real improvement - instead we get ever higher bit-rates, re-releases of the same 2 channel masters of the same old albums, but now they're in DXD! 

Anyway, it's still good music.


----------



## bigshot

I have a theory about the impedance experts... I think outside of sound science, half baked paraphrases of concepts with buzz words fly. People say, "Wow! I don't understand that, so that guy must know his stuff!" They judge knowledge against their own ignorance. Then the armchair expert stumbles into a place where people actually know what the words mean and they're shocked to find out they aren't an expert at all. That sends them running back into the safety of their box. They think they are the outside world and we are the box, but it's the other way around... or perhaps they're right and the world runs on ignorance and half baked paraphrasing of ideas.


----------



## Argyris

bigshot said:


> ...or perhaps they're right and the world runs on ignorance and half baked paraphrasing of ideas.



This sounds depressingly accurate.


----------



## bigshot

It's interesting though. You can get them to run for the door faster by just asking them for a simple specific answer than by burying them in technical details. They're used to piles of meaningless technical details. They just vomit them back to you filtered through a funhouse mirror.


----------



## castleofargh

explain something technical to someone who knows nothing of that domain, and listen to him tell what he thinks he understood. that's often enough to go from legit stuff to science fiction. and the worst part is that nobody is trying to fool anybody.


----------



## reginalb

Argyris said:


> This sounds depressingly accurate.



I'd say it's better or worse in different domains. And I've never seen it as bad as it is in audiophilia.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 31, 2017)

reginalb said:


> I'd say it's better or worse in different domains. And I've never seen it as bad as it is in audiophilia.



As far as hobbies that are regularly discussed online go, I think audiophilia is one of the worst.  A close analogy: I used to be quite active in audio production forums, and there is a significant amount of superstition and mumbo-jumbo (audiophiliac ideas creep in, like a digital summing algorithm being "warmer" than another ... didn't know a plus sign had tonality, but OK) but it's nowhere near as bad.  I think it's because people trying to create music usually have much bigger problems than e.g. the phase accuracy of their EQ - like their mics being crap, or their room being crap, or their song not being very good, etc.  Also, in music production there are occasional cold showers of reality, where some 15-year-old kid comes along and blows all the gearheads out of the water with some free software and hand-me-down Sony cans for mixing.  Talent/skill can't be ignored, so people tend to stop talking about gear and get back to work.

At the pro level I've heard a few people get deep into audiophile superstition, but at the amateur level, an extreme focus on gear is secondary to trying to figure out how to use the gear.


----------



## danadam

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> At the pro level I've heard a few people get deep into audiophile superstition


This reminds me, The Lowdown on Downloads (wav vs flac strikes again):


> I was also not enamored of the .flac format in which the vendors delivered their downloads.  While called a “lossless” way to reduce file size, making for convenient, faster download times, the results were not so lossless according to everyone participating in the comparison tests we ran in my studio.  (Based on what I see on the Internet and in many printed audio journals, it seems many listeners are not bothered by flac.  In our tests however, the results were unanimous—everyone heard a difference between the source .aif masters and the .flac files created from them.)


and later:


> So what about zipped music?  We’ve used zipped music files before, such as those on the Format Comparison page of the Soundkeeper Recordings website.  And when unzipped, no one who participated in our tests could differentiate between the source file and the copy that had been zipped.


----------



## Niouke

I can see the comparison "test" already, Everyone is blunted and the hosts plays a flac - "It's crap right? can't you hear the soudstage?" - "Yeah I'm down bro!"


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Niouke said:


> I can see the comparison "test" already, Everyone is blunted and the hosts plays a flac - "It's crap right? can't you hear the soudstage?" - "Yeah I'm down bro!"



That's probably what happened.  The most generous explanation is they resampled from (say) 96khz to 44.1 with the worst possible converter and generated a lot of artifacts by accident while transcoding to FLAC.


----------



## castleofargh

this is absolutely ludicrous. when we leave such nonsense unchecked, we're hurting the world by our inaction. I mean who films vertically in 2017?


----------



## RRod

This is why Poe's Law exists I guess.


----------



## reginalb

I thought that was satirical, and the guy making the video might have been, but looking over the channel I'm not so cure that the person posting it is being satirical. 

Man, there's probably a big market for all of this. Start a Youtube channel with reasonable production value all about the flat earth, advertise for it on InfoWars, have an audio division that sells ultra high end MP3 players (something you could really do on the cheap if you knew what you were doing - buy some cheap hardware, and don't even bother with something fancy like Android, just write a custom skin for Rockbox and you'd be good to go). You could probably make some good money. But it would be blood money.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Nov 3, 2017)

For the flat earth crowd, that's not the way to go.  They don't care about sound quality or anything.  You need to impute that "the elites" or "the illuminati" are embedding mind control frequencies in all digital music, and you need a special music player to remove the frequencies.  These mind control frequencies are inevitably intended to make people homosexual, pedophiles, liberal, etc.  It would be something like "binaural beats affect your mind, MP3 DIGITAL AUDIO is implanted with BINAURAL BRAINWAVE FREQUENCY DIFFERENTIALS of 88.3 HZ which causes PATHOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR and MIND CONTROL. Apple, Google, et al are involved in a conspiracy with GLOBALIST NWO conspirators to use your favorite music to CONTROL YOUR MIND WITH BINAURAL DETUNING. We have created this MP3 player with NATURAL ANALOG FILTERS to RE-ALIGN the NATURAL, PURE music and FREE YOUR MIND FROM ILLUMINATI DOMINION with the original, re-tuned, frequency aligned music."

You would go along with this binaural thing, naturally citing a (completely made up) study by a (fictional) scientist who was eventually assassinated for his work on mind control frequencies.  This would be part and parcel of the marketing used among this crowd. 

This would also be blood money.


----------



## castleofargh

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> For the flat earth crowd, that's not the way to go.  They don't care about sound quality or anything.  You need to impute that "the elites" or "the illuminati" are embedding mind control frequencies in all digital music, and you need a special music player to remove the frequencies.  These mind control frequencies are inevitably intended to make people homosexual, pedophiles, liberal, etc.  It would be something like "binaural beats affect your mind, MP3 DIGITAL AUDIO is implanted with BINAURAL BRAINWAVE FREQUENCY DIFFERENTIALS of 88.3 HZ which causes PATHOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR and MIND CONTROL. Apple, Google, et al are involved in a conspiracy with GLOBALIST NWO conspirators to use your favorite music to CONTROL YOUR MIND WITH BINAURAL DETUNING. We have created this MP3 player with NATURAL ANALOG FILTERS to RE-ALIGN the NATURAL, PURE music and FREE YOUR MIND FROM ILLUMINATI DOMINION with the original, re-tuned, frequency aligned music."
> 
> You would go along with this binaural thing, naturally citing a (completely made up) study by a (fictional) scientist who was eventually assassinated for his work on mind control frequencies.  This would be part and parcel of the marketing used among this crowd.
> 
> This would also be blood money.


 Jordan klepper is that you?


----------



## reginalb

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> For the flat earth crowd, that's not the way to go.  They don't care about sound quality or anything.  You need to impute that "the elites" or "the illuminati" are embedding mind control frequencies in all digital music, and you need a special music player to remove the frequencies.  These mind control frequencies are inevitably intended to make people homosexual, pedophiles, liberal, etc.  It would be something like "binaural beats affect your mind, MP3 DIGITAL AUDIO is implanted with BINAURAL BRAINWAVE FREQUENCY DIFFERENTIALS of 88.3 HZ which causes PATHOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR and MIND CONTROL. Apple, Google, et al are involved in a conspiracy with GLOBALIST NWO conspirators to use your favorite music to CONTROL YOUR MIND WITH BINAURAL DETUNING. We have created this MP3 player with NATURAL ANALOG FILTERS to RE-ALIGN the NATURAL, PURE music and FREE YOUR MIND FROM ILLUMINATI DOMINION with the original, re-tuned, frequency aligned music."
> 
> You would go along with this binaural thing, naturally citing a (completely made up) study by a (fictional) scientist who was eventually assassinated for his work on mind control frequencies.  This would be part and parcel of the marketing used among this crowd.
> 
> This would also be blood money.



I was actually referring to separate ventures as separate business units in a parent company implying philosophical (but not practical) unity between the camps of flat-earthers and audiophiles. 

But your idea is WAY better.


----------



## JaeYoon

So I got a product for review by another company.

Now everytime, I recommend things for firmware update that will make things easier for other customers. They use sound quality as a smokescreen, Oh that's easy to implement, but we are afraid making any changes such as this would reduce sound quality in the firmware.

"making the machine to accept unlimited folder count is easy but it may affect the overall coding and sound"

is this for real!?
I recommended AAC support on the device and I got this.
" i guess no.... since adopting new codec always hinder the sound quality, as these codecs always cause huge loads on cpu/ caching or whatever that will introduce more disturbance to the system (unless the system has good calculation power)"


----------



## bigshot

I would think that if they don't support AAC now, it's probably because their DAC chip doesn't support it. They would have to replace the DAC itself to fix that. Why anyone would use a DAC chip that doesn't support as many formats as possible is beyond me though.


----------



## castleofargh

if they're on the fence about memory or GPU, then allocating more for extra stuff might perhaps end up being an issue with say highres formats. 
a good example of perceiving less as better was illustrated IMO with ipods. no bug, smooth everything, even to this day it's seen by many as a DAP done right. on the other hand everything was made to work one way and only one, so it was easier to avoid issues. at the same time, the DAPs trying to play 10 different formats with compatibility with everything, they often had more or less serious issues, some crap audio with OGG, some freeze because of certain tags or cover formats... the ipod didn't have those issues in part because it wasn't even trying to support those stuff in the first place. doing more does open the door for more potential issues. 

but in the end, if the consumer wants stuff, not providing them is a mistake when you don't have wizard level marketing "it's a feature!".


----------



## JaeYoon

Hey everyone. I asked the company if they have any measurements on their audio player.

They said via email yes but they do not want to release the specs.

Is this due to competition protection or some practical purpose?

Or


----------



## orderingrabbits

Can somebody explain to me any audible detriments of using EQ to neutralize low distortion headphones? I've read many sources which suggest phase error or any other errors created by EQ are inaudible. Does anyone have an argument otherwise from an objectivist point of view? T h a n k s

I've uh, run out of headphones to buy because of EQ.


----------



## castleofargh

orderingrabbits said:


> Can somebody explain to me any audible detriments of using EQ to neutralize low distortion headphones? I've read many sources which suggest phase error or any other errors created by EQ are inaudible. Does anyone have an argument otherwise from an objectivist point of view? T h a n k s
> 
> I've uh, run out of headphones to buy because of EQ.


to be clear, an EQ's main purpose is to alter the signature, not to remove distortions. because changing the signature can have a great deal of consequences, distortions can actually go up, or down, or not change much depending on the headphone. you have to measure to know what's really happening, even more so when your EQ is significant. magnitudes do matter.

then about critics of the evil EQ destroyer of all good sound, that so many show on the web. almost all the time if you ask questions you'll realize that it's ignorance turning into prejudice and phobia. some anecdote of misusing EQ, some super specific scenario where the signal ended up clipped. or the amp was already at its output limit, so compensating for the EQ boost ended up with lots of disto. or simply they used the crappiest EQ ever made, moved stuff randomly for 5mn like a crazy person, then decided they knew all there was to know about EQ. so yeah you can guess from my tone, that I don't believe you should listen to those guys. 
distortions aren't brought up by EQ(or at levels so low it's laughable compared to the playback system's resolution), distortions can come from forcing the amp or the headphone to do something it cannot do. again a better understanding and ideally a few measurements can greatly reduce the occurrence of such extreme situations. 
those who cry about phase shift and pre ringing, well again, there are nowadays digital EQs which can simulate a lot of different filters and by doing so, manage ringing the way we want to, or avoid phase shift. 
same thing for those saying it changes the imaging. changing a signature will change the "headstage" because the signature is part of the cues our brain uses, so it's a dumb argument. if the signature is bogus, then you need to correct it to get the cues you should perceive(well stereo and headphones is a can of worm, so let's call it one wrong vs another wrong). as for the more obvious changes in position from certain types of filters, the answer is simple, use another type of filter. problem solved. again, a little learning can go a long way.

so EQ does what it does, it's a tool so some people do better using it than others, and practice does count. ultimately as any tool, it is not magical and cannot do everything. sometimes a headphone is already on edge when it comes to distortions, and pushing a frequency louder ends up bringing the mess at a clearly audible level.
an EQ isn't a tool to compensate a massive rool off. if the headphone rolls off that much it can be because of physical limitations that a little electrical boost can't compensate it sometimes makes things worst. so circumstances dictate what we want and can do like for anything. 
but taking advice about EQ from those who don't know anything and have close to no experience isn't a good idea. that's like giving make up to a lumberjack, and when he comes out looking as if Pennywise was changing career in favor of cheap prostitution, he's say, "make up is horrible and the result is always bad". 
if headphones were all custom tuned for my ears, I'd probably join the group of people telling not to use EQ, but until that day comes(and it won't), I find it strange to stick to an annoying signature on purpose from fear that maybe something else less audible will happen. I can't understand it and I use EQ all the time.


----------



## reginalb

castleofargh said:


> if they're on the fence about memory or GPU, then allocating more for extra stuff might perhaps end up being an issue with say highres formats.
> a good example of perceiving less as better was illustrated IMO with ipods. no bug, smooth everything, even to this day it's seen by many as a DAP done right. on the other hand everything was made to work one way and only one, so it was easier to avoid issues. at the same time, the DAPs trying to play 10 different formats with compatibility with everything, they often had more or less serious issues, some crap audio with OGG, some freeze because of certain tags or cover formats... the ipod didn't have those issues in part because it wasn't even trying to support those stuff in the first place. doing more does open the door for more potential issues.
> 
> but in the end, if the consumer wants stuff, not providing them is a mistake when you don't have wizard level marketing "it's a feature!".



Well, firstly, the iPod did as well as it did partially because of marketing, partially because it was first, but not because of lack of format support. Most formats are supported in iTunes and automagically transcoded when you sync your device. Especially at a time when most consumers were using iTunes to get their music any way. Now most people use their phones, and I'd bet 90% of the consumer market doesn't know or care what formats are supported. That said, it certainly does hurt, most everyone has the issues you're referring to figured out with even the lesser-known formats. Though I'll admit, I don't have ogg in my library any more for the exact reasons you're calling out.  



orderingrabbits said:


> Can somebody explain to me any audible detriments of using EQ to neutralize low distortion headphones? I've read many sources which suggest phase error or any other errors created by EQ are inaudible. Does anyone have an argument otherwise from an objectivist point of view? T h a n k s
> 
> I've uh, run out of headphones to buy because of EQ.



You aren't going to hear many arguments in this section against EQ.


----------



## castleofargh

not sure using one software that converts everything to the motherland approved format is my idea of format and feature support. but I mentioned ipod because it's IMO emblematic of more with less as a rare winning solution. sony was doing the same but poorly with the sonicstage garbage and ATRAC. you'd feed it anything and it would convert "on the fly"(as in 20mn^_^) to put something in the DAP that would actually play.


----------



## reginalb

castleofargh said:


> not sure using one software that converts everything to the motherland approved format is my idea of format and feature support. but I mentioned ipod because it's IMO emblematic of more with less as a rare winning solution. sony was doing the same but poorly with the sonicstage garbage and ATRAC. you'd feed it anything and it would convert "on the fly"(as in 20mn^_^) to put something in the DAP that would actually play.



Well, it's not my idea of format and feature support either, but we're not the normal market. I've owned a couple of iPods (I had the 3rd generation, and the first generation iPod touch), and I've owned 3 shuffles (2 of them for waterproofing so I could wear them on my goggles swimming laps and 1 because I won it in a contest), in this rambling stream of consciousness I've realized that my original point, that I haven't owned many of them unlike most consumers - is incorrect. I've probably owned a few more than most consumers. But you get my point, we're not normal consumers of media players, and I've clearly owned too many of them. But most people want their library to load to the device, and don't care how that happens. And I remember owning an iPod and a Microsoft Zune HD at one point, and even though the Zune supported many more formats than the iPod, it was still a bigger pain to get music on to because the Zune software didn't transcode seamlessly like iTunes does.


----------



## castleofargh

I have no idea what you're talking about, now if you'll excuse me I need to go and hide 6 of my 7 DAPs to pretend like I'm a normal audio consumer.


----------



## reginalb (Nov 6, 2017)

castleofargh said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about, now if you'll excuse me I need to go and hide 6 of my 7 DAPs to pretend like I'm a normal audio consumer.



I've hidden several from myself. I haven't seen my first gen iPod Shuffle in ages - probably got thrown away when I moved at some point?

I was just thinking about everything I've either broken and tossed or just sold away.

Don't know where they are:
iPod shuffle first generation
iPod shuffle 4th generation
Zune HD
iPod Touch first gen
iPod 3rd gen
Philips GoGear something or another that looked like a Clip

Sold:
HifiMan 601
HiFiMan 602
iBasso DX50
Sansa Clip+
Sansa Fuze+
Astell&Kern AK300

At my desk:
iPod Shuffle 4th gen
HiFiMan 801
Sony ZX1

And my whole music collection is on my cell phone (I only own about 70GB - owing to streaming). But since becoming a regular over here at Sound Science, I feel like I went in to rehab. I mean, I still buy them, but for different reasons now, which is alright...I guess? I'm no longer buying a HiFiMan 601 thinking I'm getting way better sound quality. Now I know that I'm just being silly. And there are people over in the other sections of the forum that would put that list to shame (probably one or two here would as well). The guy that posted about us having a problem was on to something.


----------



## bigshot

I have 8 iPods, but since I got a micro SD card reader for my iPhone, I only use one of them (in the car). I love my iPods though and they are all loaded with different types of music. I pull them out for parties and plug them all in on random shuffle, so I can "switch channels" on genres of music easily on the fly.


----------



## orderingrabbits

castleofargh said:


> to be clear, an EQ's main purpose is to alter the signature, not to remove distortions. because changing the signature can have a great deal of consequences, distortions can actually go up, or down, or not change much depending on the headphone. you have to measure to know what's really happening, even more so when your EQ is significant. magnitudes do matter.



Of course. I'm asking in relation specifically to low distortion headphones, where THD+noise stays below 1% across the board at much higher than listening volumes - that is, where there is enough headroom to use EQ without THD becoming a problem. 



castleofargh said:


> then about critics of the evil EQ destroyer of all good sound, that so many show on the web. almost all the time if you ask questions you'll realize that it's ignorance turning into prejudice and phobia. some anecdote of misusing EQ, some super specific scenario where the signal ended up clipped. or the amp was already at its output limit, so compensating for the EQ boost ended up with lots of disto. or simply they used the crappiest EQ ever made, moved stuff randomly for 5mn like a crazy person, then decided they knew all there was to know about EQ. so yeah you can guess from my tone, that I don't believe you should listen to those guys. distortions aren't brought up by EQ(or at levels so low it's laughable compared to the playback system's resolution), distortions can come from forcing the amp or the headphone to do something it cannot do. again a better understanding and ideally a few measurements can greatly reduce the occurrence of such extreme situations.
> those who cry about phase shift and pre ringing, well again, there are nowadays digital EQs which can simulate a lot of different filters and by doing so, manage ringing the way we want to, or avoid phase shift.
> same thing for those saying it changes the imaging. changing a signature will change the "headstage" because the signature is part of the cues our brain uses, so it's a dumb argument. if the signature is bogus, then you need to correct it to get the cues you should perceive(well stereo and headphones is a can of worm, so let's call it one wrong vs another wrong). as for the more obvious changes in position from certain types of filters, the answer is simple, use another type of filter. problem solved. again, a little learning can go a long way.



Right, this does happen very often. People use the crappy little iTunes 5 bar EQ and declare all EQ is awfule, despite never using a real parametric equalizer. With properly used digital EQ, clipping is a complete non-issue at any part of the signal chain excluding the transducers themselves. 
I'm curious about which filters do what, in terms of pre-ringing and post-ringing and audibility. 



castleofargh said:


> so EQ does what it does, it's a tool so some people do better using it than others, and practice does count. ultimately as any tool, it is not magical and cannot do everything. sometimes a headphone is already on edge when it comes to distortions, and pushing a frequency louder ends up bringing the mess at a clearly audible level.
> an EQ isn't a tool to compensate a massive rool off. if the headphone rolls off that much it can be because of physical limitations that a little electrical boost can't compensate it sometimes makes things worst. so circumstances dictate what we want and can do like for anything.



Some roll-off, even some really bad cases, can definitely be compensated for by EQ although ultimately it does depend heavily on your listening volume. 



castleofargh said:


> but taking advice about EQ from those who don't know anything and have close to no experience isn't a good idea. that's like giving make up to a lumberjack, and when he comes out looking as if Pennywise was changing career in favor of cheap prostitution, he's say, "make up is horrible and the result is always bad".



Hence why I came here to ask 



castleofargh said:


> if headphones were all custom tuned for my ears, I'd probably join the group of people telling not to use EQ, but until that day comes(and it won't), I find it strange to stick to an annoying signature on purpose from fear that maybe something else less audible will happen. I can't understand it and I use EQ all the time.



Yep, same. I find all headphones benefit heavily from EQ. 



reginalb said:


> You aren't going to hear many arguments in this section against EQ.



I didn't expect to. Subjectively, the benefits of EQ do outweigh any potential downsides (not that I've noticed any - which is why I came here to ask).


----------



## headwhacker

The ipod classic still beats most of the modern DAPs in overall experience. With basic DIY skills, you can get a bigger battery and slap a larger storage. 2TB is possible. You can go for weeks without needing a charge while the ipod is playing music at least 8 hours a day.


----------



## Argyris

My OG iPod Video served as my main portable player for over seven years of nearly daily use. The last several of those it used Rockbox, which vastly increased its capabilities, at the expense of interface simplicity and aesthetics and probably battery life. Back in 2014 or thereabouts (after it had been retired in favor of a Clip Zip) I restored its original firmware, and thus it remains today.

In fact, it still holds at least a few hours worth of charge and remains the only portable device I own which can power my HD 600 to solid volume. Alas, while it's a miracle that it can hold any charge whatsoever after so many years of heavy use, nonetheless it doesn't last nearly long enough anymore to become my primary music source again. Not to mention, by modern standards it's a thick and heavy brick, its screen is badly damaged (lots of random pixels are stuck on--interestingly enough, these are only visible when the backlight comes on) and it's inconvenient having a separate music player plus my phone in my pocket all the time.

I keep saying I'll get a new battery and screen for it and convert it over to CompactFlash, but I feel like I just wouldn't use it enough to justify the expense. It'd probably be a fun project, though.


----------



## castleofargh

orderingrabbits said:


> Of course. I'm asking in relation specifically to low distortion headphones, where THD+noise stays below 1% across the board at much higher than listening volumes - that is, where there is enough headroom to use EQ without THD becoming a problem.


 I'm sort of your guy for this as I usually set up my preferred EQ by ear without too much regard for what should or shouldn't be done. then run REW with my EQ in the loop ON and OFF to confirm that I'm in the proper area and that a little less or a little more amplitude wouldn't have too massive an impact on some distortions, or create some loud ringing(although unless it's in the low end I usually notice that by ear). by ringing here I'm talking about the transducer ringing too much too long. not really about the phase ringing caused by the type of EQ, which is usually peanut compared to a driver having damping issues. but the only conclusion I can really stand by is that it really massively depends on the gear used and what I'm trying to achieve.
I can make screen shots of some of the IEMs I've measured(what I'm interested in changing the most), but obviously those measures I kept are for my final EQs so they won't show barbaric destruction of anything. I guess I could try a few extreme EQs and measure that, but I'm soooo lazy ^_^.



orderingrabbits said:


> Right, this does happen very often. People use the crappy little iTunes 5 bar EQ and declare all EQ is awfule, despite never using a real parametric equalizer. With properly used digital EQ, clipping is a complete non-issue at any part of the signal chain excluding the transducers themselves.
> I'm curious about which filters do what, in terms of pre-ringing and post-ringing and audibility.


if you have an EQ with options for linear vs minimum phase, you can test for yourself what, if anything, turns out noticeably different. while you have an entire group of audiophiles pissing themselves about how bad pre ringing can be at the low pass frequency(ultrasounds) of some formats or DACs, it is actually pretty easy to test things for ourselves and see that even in the mid range most of the time the impact is really nothing to be afraid of.

while clearly reaching outside the usage you and I can have EQing a stereo signal, I remember this video as making a lot of good points. and most of all, the guy making those videos isn't taking any audiophile side pretending that one option is amazing while the other is pure evil.


oh in case it isn't clear, here is a pulse showing absolutely worst impact possible from both filters





top is minimum phase, and bottom linear.  you get this result by removing a *huge* chunk of the signal content that had an infinite range of frequencies, and cutting all the higher part off. it is a good way to imagine what is going on with phase, but a stupid way to imagine what's happening to usual audio signal as audio signal has already very very low energy/information in the ultrasounds so filtering it out never creates that mess. and in our use of EQ, we don't brick wall filter, so the effect is actually close to being irrelevant for moderate EQ uses. 

a case could be made that headphones behave mostly as minimum phase so that's what makes more sense most of the time for EQ. but even while I'm writing this, I'm annoyed by the oversimplification and what it could do in the wrong hands ^_^. a direct counter example to this IMO would be that minimum phase tends to move the "image" forward or backward as we apply the EQ, while linear phase can be perceived as more stable. of course those stuff also matter a lot less depending on the frequency where the EQ is applied. 
ideally we could think of taking the headphone's phase when it's not flat, and use EQ to flatten it. we can play a lot but in the end I find that I'm EQing to my subjective preference and all the objective aspect tends to take a step back as long as I enjoy what I'm hearing.

worth mentioning too:  I'm clearly a noob trying a lot of stuff by himself for himself, if you want real professionals telling you about EQ, I'm not the guy.



orderingrabbits said:


> Some roll-off, even some really bad cases, can definitely be compensated for by EQ although ultimately it does depend heavily on your listening volume.


 indeed. the distortions we get at a given frequency are ultimately a matter of the headphone/amp, and the volume output of the signal. but if something goes down 20dB in the low end, and already has some fairly massive distortions, chances are that boosting by 20dB is not going to improve the distortion situation(for a lot of potential reasons).
to be clear, I often end up with improved measurements after EQ, but this happens mostly when done precisely and moderately. I can't advise people to try and fully compensate huge roll offs with massive EQ boosts. in general that's not a recipe for fidelity. personally I would always advise to get a headphone with too much low end or too much trebles, and EQ that down. often the results can become really good.


----------



## orderingrabbits

castleofargh said:


> I'm sort of your guy for this as I usually set up my preferred EQ by ear without too much regard for what should or shouldn't be done. then run REW with my EQ in the loop ON and OFF to confirm that I'm in the proper area and that a little less or a little more amplitude wouldn't have too massive an impact on some distortions, or create some loud ringing(although unless it's in the low end I usually notice that by ear). by ringing here I'm talking about the transducer ringing too much too long. not really about the phase ringing caused by the type of EQ, which is usually peanut compared to a driver having damping issues. but the only conclusion I can really stand by is that it really massively depends on the gear used and what I'm trying to achieve.



I do this a lot too, although that might change once I decide whether or not to purchase the minidsp dummy head. 



castleofargh said:


> I can make screen shots of some of the IEMs I've measured(what I'm interested in changing the most), but obviously those measures I kept are for my final EQs so they won't show barbaric destruction of anything. I guess I could try a few extreme EQs and measure that, but I'm soooo lazy ^_^.



What's the most extreme EQ you have? Just an approximate dB change would be fine.



castleofargh said:


> if you have an EQ with options for linear vs minimum phase, you can test for yourself what, if anything, turns out noticeably different. while you have an entire group of audiophiles pissing themselves about how bad pre ringing can be at the low pass frequency(ultrasounds) of some formats or DACs, it is actually pretty easy to test things for ourselves and see that even in the mid range most of the time the impact is really nothing to be afraid of.



I use pulseeffects and equalizer APO and I have no idea whether either of them is minimum or linear phase. Any suggestions for system-wide EQ which lets you switch?



castleofargh said:


> indeed. the distortions we get at a given frequency are ultimately a matter of the headphone/amp, and the volume output of the signal. but if something goes down 20dB in the low end, and already has some fairly massive distortions, chances are that boosting by 20dB is not going to improve the distortion situation(for a lot of potential reasons).
> to be clear, I often end up with improved measurements after EQ, but this happens mostly when done precisely and moderately. I can't advise people to try and fully compensate huge roll offs with massive EQ boosts. in general that's not a recipe for fidelity. personally I would always advise to get a headphone with too much low end or too much trebles, and EQ that down. often the results can become really good.


I have done not a 20dB boost, but a 15dB boost with the HE-400i. As it was a low distortion headphone throughout, and my listening volume never exceeds 80dB or so, the result was pretty decent. I didn't like that headphone though, the bass was super anemic even compared to HD600s and the treble was just all over the place. Thanks for the video, I've seen an article which covers the same thing but not nearly in as much detail.


----------



## castleofargh

are you @Joe Bloggs secret little brother from another dimension?

my most extreme EQ must be some of the Xfeed convolution stuff I try. when adding up correcting a headphone, and applying some fake HRTF changes, sometimes the amplitudes can become a little crazy. else purely EQ, I don't think I have anything above 10dB and most of the time I'm more realistically below 6db. now one thing to account for is that I'm in my own bubble. I get IEMs already based on the FR while thinking about how I will EQ them and how hard it might be. so of course the ones I get are often easy to EQ to my taste and I don't apply much EQ. it's like how my DACs sound the same to me, I buy them based on specs suggesting they will. and if they don't I send them back. so of course I'm self confirming that all my DACs sound the same to me ^_^. 

I don't know about EQ APO directly with an EQ interface, I haven't used it much and it was a while ago. but I've read an update showing plenty of cool convolution stuff. so I imagine there are ways. worst case scenario, you could make your own EQ with some VST EQ that does whatever you want it to do, turn that into an impulse somehow(you might need someone who knows what he's talking about for that), and then use that in EQ APO's convolver. again I'm really a noob when it comes to those stuff, but I don't imagine a convolver cares about the type of impulse we feed it. someone who knows stuff can confirm or troll me or offer a less messed up solution?
personally I got used to virtual cables and routing whatever I like anywhere I like. it can be more annoying and I would advise people to go for EQ APO if it does all they want.  but as I keep switching between configurations and types of VSTs, it's just easier for me to always know where I am with a given VST host and loaded settings. I use DMG Equilibrium for EQ, expensive and really overkill for what I do. but one day I got frustrated when some free EQ crashed on me while I was done with about 20 bands done by ear with test tones. I got mad and went to buy a professional EQ. I got this one instead of proQ because Bob Katz had been talking about it a little and I remembered that. all BS reasons but here I am with my fabulous EQ. I'M NOT SHORT TEMPERED!!!!!!!! ^_^

again as you clearly seem to understand how the final output level is relevant, I don't see the need to dissuade you from doing what works for you. I'm more talking about rule of thumb for those who don't think too much beyond moving a slider, and getting a new sound. as long as you can estimate your needs, like power of the amp having to compensate for the digital gain attenuation, or even better if you can confirm in practice that it's fine, then by all means, you do you!


----------



## Zapp_Fan

I have been using APO EQ to dial in a filter setting for an IEM I'm testing. 

In case anyone finds it handy, someone made a nice visual GUI for it, ProAPO - not sure if it's well known as there don't seem to be comments on it.  The only one I could find that put a nice GUI and lets you do it parametric style. 

I'm 80% sure it's not a virus. 

https://sourceforge.net/p/equalizerapo/discussion/general/thread/8657a3f9/

Making an impulse with VSTs and then running it with a convolver should work fine in theory.  Probably you would want to use a sweep (better go for 0-22khz in this case) and then run it through Voxengo's Deconvolver (because this is the only free one I know off the top of my head)  to be sure to get a good quality result. The alternative is to feed it a Dirac impulse and just record the output... but some DAWs need coaxing to actually properly handle a single sample impulse, they will automatically declick, things like that. 

However, unless you're mightily concerned about the phase distortion in APO and you're also sure that the convolver has less, I would not do it that way.  Much more effort and harder on your CPU, too.  And then you have to repeat the process for any tweaks to the EQ later on. 

For acoustic space simulation (call it fancy crossfeed alternatively) an impulse is a great solution but I think it's a bit impractical for EQ.


----------



## bigshot

On my Oppo PM-1s, my preferred EQ is less than 3dB in a fairly narrow band. They are very close to ideal. My speakers have a little more correction. I think my biggest correction is about 4.5 or 5 dB. But it's in the top octave, so it isn't all that important. I've been thinking about lessening it. I have a really big correction in the sub bass, but that is a kludge to make the crossover to the subwoofer better. I do a low end roll off with EQ at the bottom because I find that the crossover on the sub has a roll off too. It dovetails the hand off better.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> On my Oppo PM-1s, my preferred EQ is less than 3dB in a fairly narrow band. They are very close to ideal. My speakers have a little more correction. I think my biggest correction is about 4.5 or 5 dB. But it's in the top octave, so it isn't all that important. I've been thinking about lessening it. I have a really big correction in the sub bass, but that is a kludge to make the crossover to the subwoofer better. I do a low end roll off with EQ at the bottom because I find that the crossover on the sub has a roll off too. It dovetails the hand off better.



I find my PM-3, which are pretty similar in response, way too heavy from 500-3000Hz.


----------



## bigshot

I found two 3dB bumps at 3kHz and 6kHz. The main difference between the PM-1 and the other Oppo cans is the consistency of quality control. I heard that the PM-1s are required to have a response curve with no more than +/-1dB.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

orderingrabbits said:


> I use pulseeffects and equalizer APO and I have no idea whether either of them is minimum or linear phase. Any suggestions for system-wide EQ which lets you switch?



EQ APO's built in EQs are FIR based but minimum phase and "zero delay".  You can also load 32-bit or 64-bit VST plugins depending on your system (usually 64-bit required), two linear phase EQs I know of are ReaPlugs ReaFIR and Voxengo CurveEQ (the latter being switchable to minimum phase as well)


----------



## orderingrabbits (Nov 9, 2017)

castleofargh said:


> I don't think I have anything above 10dB and most of the time I'm more realistically below 6db.



I have up to 6dB boosts (with pre-amp obviously) but up to 10dB cuts - sometimes my ears pick up really high Q peak in test signals that I notch down quite heavily - it doesn't impact the percieved FR too much, but I am somewhat curious about what a high Q high dB (typically 10-15Q, 5-10dB reduction) notch in the treble would do to phase response and how audible that would be (I'm guessing it's a small difference if any).



Joe Bloggs said:


> EQ APO's built in EQs are FIR based but minimum phase and "zero delay".  You can also load 32-bit or 64-bit VST plugins depending on your system (usually 64-bit required), two linear phase EQs I know of are ReaPlugs ReaFIR and Voxengo CurveEQ (the latter being switchable to minimum phase as well)



Thanks, I'll give some of those a try when I have the chance.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2017)

I think it's interesting how internet forums put a magnifying glass to people's true nature, even if they're hiding behind an anonymous screen name. I read through posts and it's very easy to spot the people who are really interested in the subject and enjoy talking about it, and even easier to spot the people who are just using the topic as an excuse for self-aggrandizement. I spend a lot of time on forums myself, but I'm not basing my self-worth on a fake image I present there. I'm just me, and my life is off in the real world. This is just something I do for fun. But every forum I stumble across seems to have its own resident armchair expert who takes up residence and tries to buffalo everyone else into paying attention to him. They must have had a French revolution in Hydrogen and AVS and sent Ubu Roi out on a rail covered in tar and feathers. Now we are fortunate to inherit their one eyed King-in-Exile.


----------



## Argyris

I sometimes wonder what that magnifying glass says about my nature. Probably that I'm prematurely curmudgeonly and tend to rag on the tiniest little flaws and inconsistencies (at least over on Android Police). Thinking over it, it _does_ seem to me that I complain more than I praise. But then, I'm a rabid perfectionist, and I tend to hold the rest of the world to the same standard as I do anything I do or make myself, so at least I'm consistent. Mostly, it's just fun and mildly therapeutic to blow off steam—it's not like any of the things I comment on turn into long-standing vendettas.

I think when it comes to forum-going, the important thing is to never take the subject matter, the other posters, or yourself too seriously. At the end of the day we're a bunch of enthusiasts yakking about whatever the subject of the forum is. Nothing said on these sites will go on to significantly impact the world, no uncorrected mistake or innocuous misinformation* will unseat the balance of the universe. It's just not worth investing too much of yourself into. With a few exceptions over the years, I've managed to stick to this. Now excuse me while I go over to AP and rant about Google changing the color of another UI element in Android.

*There's a difference between somebody getting a technical detail wrong and, say, telling somebody who clearly doesn't like an expensive headphone they just bought that buying additional equipment will solve their problem. The former is innocuous; the latter is costly misinformation that can turn people off the audio hobby entirely, or worse, convince them that they now like something that, in their heart of hearts, they know they still dislike but don't want to admit it because of how much they've now invested in it.


----------



## JaeYoon

Argyris said:


> I sometimes wonder what that magnifying glass says about my nature. Probably that I'm prematurely curmudgeonly and tend to rag on the tiniest little flaws and inconsistencies (at least over on Android Police). Thinking over it, it _does_ seem to me that I complain more than I praise. But then, I'm a rabid perfectionist, and I tend to hold the rest of the world to the same standard as I do anything I do or make myself, so at least I'm consistent. Mostly, it's just fun and mildly therapeutic to blow off steam—it's not like any of the things I comment on turn into long-standing vendettas.
> 
> I think when it comes to forum-going, the important thing is to never take the subject matter, the other posters, or yourself too seriously. At the end of the day we're a bunch of enthusiasts yakking about whatever the subject of the forum is. Nothing said on these sites will go on to significantly impact the world, no uncorrected mistake or innocuous misinformation* will unseat the balance of the universe. It's just not worth investing too much of yourself into. With a few exceptions over the years, I've managed to stick to this. Now excuse me while I go over to AP and rant about Google changing the color of another UI element in Android.
> 
> *There's a difference between somebody getting a technical detail wrong and, say, telling somebody who clearly doesn't like an expensive headphone they just bought that buying additional equipment will solve their problem. The former is innocuous; the latter is costly misinformation that can turn people off the audio hobby entirely, or worse, convince them that they now like something that, in their heart of hearts, they know they still dislike but don't want to admit it because of how much they've now invested in it.


Dammit google!! Another color change in android >:c


----------



## sonitus mirus

Went on a bit of a spending spree to update the sound system in my office, a 14ftx11ft (4.2m x 3.3m) room on the 2nd floor (top) with a left to right upward sloping ceiling that is 8ft (2.4m) at the left side (by the window) rising to 11ft (3.35m) at the right side with the basic outline shown in the attached image.




 

I am replacing my KRK Rokit 8 G3 powered speakers using balanced inputs from my Teac UD-301 DAC with either an optical or USB source.  (Laptop or Desktop PC)

My new speakers are passive, so I have to get an amp.  The best thing about that is I only have a single power cable now instead of separate cables for each speaker.  

Speakers: Klipsch RP-280F (walnut)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B075JMC15D

Amp: Marantz MM7025 (black)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003R7KMSS

The speakers will sit on these pads, to give them a slight lift to get the tweeters in the sweet spot.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00COVEJ1E

The amp is far too large to comfortably sit on my desk, so I will put it on the floor at my feet sitting on this little stand.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FU3ZLZG

I will continue to use my Teac UD-301 with balance outputs to the amp.  

I grabbed a pair of 12AWG speaker cables.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01CYGMDL6

Probably all a bit of an overkill for such a small room with a less than ideal acoustic setting,  but I am excited and had to share the news with a group of people that wouldn't think I am too crazy.


----------



## bigshot

Nice speakers! It should sound good. Do you have a comfy chair out in front of the desk?


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> Nice speakers! It should sound good. Do you have a comfy chair out in front of the desk?



Very comfy chair, I don't stand, I just didn't add all of the furniture. 

I have a chest along the wall between the door and right speaker.  My desk is already a foot away from the back wall.  I will be moving the desk back an additional 1.5 to 2 feet depending on how much I can get away with and not block access around it.  The speakers will be about 6-7 feet apart and slightly toed inward.  There will probably be too much bass for such a small room, but I prefer a tad more bass over accuracy, so I should be ok.


----------



## castleofargh

I love banana plugs. if I had a say in how gears are made, or some skills with my hands, I'd have banana everything. and then go crazy on those plugs where you can enlarge the male plug with a screw(don't know if they have a specific name?). ok I'm trippin' about the most irrelevant stuff in the list, sorry. 


@soni do you plan to measure/calibrate those big boys? if so, using what?


----------



## sonitus mirus (Nov 9, 2017)

castleofargh said:


> I love banana plugs. if I had a say in how gears are made, or some skills with my hands, I'd have banana everything. and then go crazy on those plugs where you can enlarge the male plug with a screw(don't know if they have a specific name?). ok I'm trippin' about the most irrelevant stuff in the list, sorry.
> 
> 
> @soni do you plan to measure/calibrate those big boys? if so, using what?



Ha!  The most important part of any music system is the banana plugs.

I do have a big 31-band stereo equalizer that takes balanced inputs and I have used Dirac in the past to measure various rooms.  I could insert the EQ between the DAC and amp, but you know, I'm not convinced it ever made a huge difference to me. I'll never be able to correct the most egregious issues, and I'm listening to a ton of different types of music.  It will never be perfect.

I'm sure that my curiosity will force me to measure the room and EQ for a flat response at some point.  Initially, I do not have any plans to correct the room.  I did use some 3M spray adhesive and attached some sound absorbing material in strategic places in an attempt to get a flatter response.  There was very little measurable difference, and in some cases it was measurably worse, so I gave up.  I even glued nine 1 foot square pieces together to make a 3x3 foot panel and tried comparing before and after, and there was not a huge difference no matter what position I placed my absorption material.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

sonitus mirus said:


> .  I even glued nine 1 foot square pieces together to make a 3x3 foot panel and tried comparing before and after, and there was not a huge difference no matter what position I placed my absorption material.



Depending on furniture, you would need to use a lot more foam than that to get a noticeable difference.  Rough rule of thumb is 20-30% of wall/ceiling surface area, so your starting point would need to be more like 90sqft than 9.  Don't give up on acoustic treatment.  EQ can't compensate for nulls in the room.


----------



## sonitus mirus

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> Depending on furniture, you would need to use a lot more foam than that to get a noticeable difference.  Rough rule of thumb is 20-30% of wall/ceiling surface area, so your starting point would need to be more like 90sqft than 9.  Don't give up on acoustic treatment.  EQ can't compensate for nulls in the room.



I have 96 12" square panels.  It may seem like a lot, but it doesn't cover as much as some might think.  I used the 3x3 square to see if I could find an ideal spot.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2017)

When I hired a home theater installer to put my system in, he pulled out a huge bag full of banana plugs and adapters, and I looked at them with a skeptical expression. He said, "Trust me, these will make things MUCH easier." He was right! I'm a banana convert too.

My theory on tweaking the room is that it's better to start by moving furniture around and see what sounds best from a room layout perspective first. Then worry about the EQ and treatment. If you can get the furniture in the room in a way where it helps and doesn't hurt the sound, you're halfway there.

Unfortunately, my screening room has late 40s knotty pine panelling over the walls and ceiling. I'm not about to cover that up with acoustic panels. So I arranged the furniture to be completely open in the middle and put heavy upholstered furniture or big bookcases full of books at the primary reflection points. It works fine.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I considered rearranging the entire furniture layout.  The best thing about my setup is that I only have to worry about a tiny area for the best sound.  I'm not trying to fill a large room with wonderful sound, I basically sit in one spot.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2017)

If you put the desk in front of the window and the stereo and TV against the opposite wall, you could listen well at the desk and put the comfy chair towards the center of the room. (not exact center for acoustics) It would probably be nice to have the light from the window behind you at the desk, and you could turn and look out if you were tired of working. The slanted room going that direction would probably help with reflections. Going the way you have it there one speaker would get more reflection from above than the other. That's just theory though. You'd have to try it in practice. If the window presents a reflection problem behind you, you could pull drapes.


----------



## castleofargh

did we find our rallying banner? instead of science or objectivism, what really units us is that "we love bananas!".


----------



## bigshot

DBX AND BANNANA PLUGS!


----------



## JaeYoon

hey does anyone here still buy CDS.

I buy them, but then I just rip it via EAC to FLAC. keep it in my collection forever and keep the cds safely in a container in my garage.

I figure if I do this, online music stores are better. I guess it's nice for cds to have artwork and paper stuff, but I end up never looking at them sadly.


----------



## bigshot

I buy tons of CDs. The price on them has dropped, especially in classical box sets where you can get 50 CDs for $75. I too rip everything to my media server at AAC 256 VBR and then stash the original CDs in boxes in the garage. Right now I'm ripping 5 albums by Dave Grusin and a box set of Earth Wind and Fire. The Frank Zappa Halloween 77 box et too. I do the same with DVDs, which I buy by the bundle. Lately, I've become interested in exploring British TV. I'll buy season box sets from Amazon UK and rip them onto my media server. Lots of classic programs that we never got over here in the States.

I really don't care about packaging. It's all about content for me.


----------



## SilverEars (Nov 12, 2017)

Now a days you get various streaming services available to make things much more convenient than ripping and storing it.  You can stream music anywhere from the cloud.  Like Tidal for example is a popular streaming service people subscribe to.  You got all the music available in the cloud(stream from anywhere with internet access), and no need to go out buy, rip, and store.  A caveat would be that the streaming service catalog would be limited, and may not have specific cds one is looking for.

Buying physical media would be more of draw for doing it for collection sake.


----------



## Mr Rick

If I find something I particularly like on Spotify, I go to Amazon and buy the CD.

Years ago I did the same thing with radio and LPs.


----------



## sonitus mirus

JaeYoon said:


> hey does anyone here still buy CDS.
> 
> I buy them, but then I just rip it via EAC to FLAC. keep it in my collection forever and keep the cds safely in a container in my garage.
> 
> I figure if I do this, online music stores are better. I guess it's nice for cds to have artwork and paper stuff, but I end up never looking at them sadly.



I chose to use Google Music as my streaming music service.  I would use iTunes, but iTunes doesn't work on everything I might use, where Google Music does, including on practically every iOS device. 

With Google Music, I do purchase CDs that are not available to stream, because of licensing or other reasons, and rip them as vbr -0 mp3 files to be uploaded.  I, too, store the discs away in a box.  Once I've uploaded a CD to Google Music, it is thoroughly integrated with the service.  All of the album information, artist bios, and artwork are included.  Every artist, album, and song that I import are available to use in playlists, they appear randomly when I shuffle my entire library, and songs from these CDs often appear on any radio station if it is related to the artist, song, or genre.

I uploaded 2 CDs from Tool about six years ago and I still hear them all the time with Google Music even after going through at least 3 laptops/desktop PCs and 4 phones.  I still have all of the CDs that were uploaded, but I haven't needed them.


----------



## Argyris

While I do download a lot of music these days, I buy CDs as well. I'm aided in the fact that I seldom buy current music, so I can get a lot of stuff used and for cheap. I like to shop the bargain bins and thrift stores and often find stuff for a buck a disc, which means even if I only like a single song on the album, it's still cheaper in most cases than downloading digitally. There's a place near me called 2nd & Charles that sells virtually all used stuff which has become one of my favorite sources (get it? _2nd &_ sounds like _secondhand_). Of course when scrounging the bargain sections you're often limited to 90s pop, a bunch of obscure stuff and the occasional classical album, but recently this was exactly what I was looking for so I ended up saving a mint and finding some new stuff I otherwise would never have come across.

I rip into FLAC for archival purposes (which is what the format was originally intended for), fill in the metadata I care about, dump the CD in storage somewhere, then convert the archived version to VBR AAC for my library. The idea is that if for whatever reason I want to switch lossy formats, or if the format I'm currently using gets significantly more efficient, I can just reencode from my archive rather than rip all the CDs again.

This reminds me: I've picked up a few albums along the way that I haven't even gotten around to listening to yet. Something for a rainy day.


----------



## JaeYoon

Argyris said:


> While I do download a lot of music these days, I buy CDs as well. I'm aided in the fact that I seldom buy current music, so I can get a lot of stuff used and for cheap. I like to shop the bargain bins and thrift stores and often find stuff for a buck a disc, which means even if I only like a single song on the album, it's still cheaper in most cases than downloading digitally. There's a place near me called 2nd & Charles that sells virtually all used stuff which has become one of my favorite sources (get it? _2nd &_ sounds like _secondhand_). Of course when scrounging the bargain sections you're often limited to 90s pop, a bunch of obscure stuff and the occasional classical album, but recently this was exactly what I was looking for so I ended up saving a mint and finding some new stuff I otherwise would never have come across.
> 
> I rip into FLAC for archival purposes (which is what the format was originally intended for), fill in the metadata I care about, dump the CD in storage somewhere, then convert the archived version to VBR AAC for my library. The idea is that if for whatever reason I want to switch lossy formats, or if the format I'm currently using gets significantly more efficient, I can just reencode from my archive rather than rip all the CDs again.
> 
> This reminds me: I've picked up a few albums along the way that I haven't even gotten around to listening to yet. Something for a rainy day.


yeah FLAC for me is a divine blessing for archiving. I recently converted my library into VBR AAC 256. If you want to change lossy formats, the original audio file is always archived there in FLAC.


----------



## bigshot

My interests are beyond streaming now. I wish there was cheap streaming was available when I was first starting out, but now my interests are more specialized.


----------



## pinnahertz

Streaming obviously depends on a decent internet connection.  In my mobile life, believe it or not, that doesn't always exist.  At some point I need a local copy, and to keep me thoroughly spoiled I'd like to have my entire library with me.  So far I haven't pulled that off, even for audio,  because I don't have one portable device with enough capacity, so it remains a combination of portable storage, streaming/cloud and a media server (I use PLEX). Still buying CDs where possible, especially used ones.  Best deal on earth, IMO, pennies on the dollar, and uncompressed, permanent copies.


----------



## Niouke

pinnahertz said:


> Streaming obviously depends on a decent internet connection.  In my mobile life, believe it or not, that doesn't always exist.  At some point I need a local copy, and to keep me thoroughly spoiled I'd like to have my entire library with me.  So far I haven't pulled that off, even for audio,  because I don't have one portable device with enough capacity, so it remains a combination of portable storage, streaming/cloud and a media server (I use PLEX). Still buying CDs where possible, especially used ones.  Best deal on earth, IMO, pennies on the dollar, and uncompressed, permanent copies.



Nowadays they make nice DAP's like the Fiio X5-3, with dual SD slots and 32Gb internal. That's enough to have 20K+ mp3's and 800 spotify tracks synchronized. I wish I knew earlier that a lot of the sound quality features on it are snake oil, I would have gone for something more simple with better battery, if such thing exists.

@sonitus mirus tell us how the RP-280's sound to you, I have the RP-250's and I found that while the bass is very present, some frequencies are over represented and require some EQ. I did remove some trebles also but overall I didn't need to go beyond +-3db correction, Overall I'm very happy with them, it's my first pair of decent speakers (If you exclude the vintage JMlab DB18's I stole from my parents).

Now I'm looking into improving my room while conserving madame's approval. Not easy when you don't know much.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Nov 13, 2017)

I buy CDs still (probably one or two new ones a month plus sometimes used ones from thrift stores). I rip them to 16/44.1 FLACs. I also stream on Spotify Premium (but mostly to find new music).

I also like to buy CDs as I feel more money probably goes to the artist then they get from streaming services.


----------



## bigshot

pinnahertz said:


> At some point I need a local copy, and to keep me thoroughly spoiled I'd like to have my entire library with me.  So far I haven't pulled that off, even for audio,  because I don't have one portable device with enough capacity, so it remains a combination of portable storage, streaming/cloud and a media server (I use PLEX).



I solved the storage problem with an iKlip micro SD card reader for my phone... http://amzn.to/2zHQc5c That with a couple of 256 gig micro SD cards can hold a huge chunk of music.


----------



## Strangelove424

I play ripped CDs at home and Spotify on the road. I gave up Spotify Premium though. Since I mainly use it in the car I can't tell the quality difference. If they used better masters, or allowed me to choose which master of an album I want to listen to, I'd use it at home and pay premium again. As it stands, I'm more likely to find the kind of mastering I want by buying a used CD. Those bins filled with cheap CDs have become an oasis. You can find all sorts of great music in those bins.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Niouke said:


> @sonitus mirus tell us how the RP-280's sound to you, I have the RP-250's and I found that while the bass is very present, some frequencies are over represented and require some EQ. I did remove some trebles also but overall I didn't need to go beyond +-3db correction, Overall I'm very happy with them, it's my first pair of decent speakers (If you exclude the vintage JMlab DB18's I stole from my parents).
> 
> Now I'm looking into improving my room while conserving madame's approval. Not easy when you don't know much.



Just finished unpacking everything and setting it all up.  For now I've kept the same general arrangement, except that I have moved my desk 3.5 feet from the back wall.  The speakers are a little over a foot from the back wall and a tad over 6 feet apart, slightly toed in.  I sit in the middle, about 5.5 feet from each speaker.  I can easily roll my chair back a foot to get a more proper distance.  It is about the same presentation that I was experiencing with my old speaker setup.  I was meticulous about the distances and positioning.

Considering that I was using speakers with a single 8" woofer with a 1" tweeter, the new speakers with dual 8" woofers are not as bass-heavy.  Trebles from the horns are louder, making struck cymbals more prominent.  The vocals are also a bit louder in relation to the overall sound that I was hearing before.  Those enormous and heavy pads I have the speakers sitting on really seem to work.  They were for subwoofers, but they are good for the floor speakers.  As I am typing this, Timestretch (West Coast Lo Fi Remix) from Bassnectar just began playing in my shuffled library.  There is plenty of bass.  I am actually surprised that the bass is not more boomy and overwhelming for this small, 150 sqft room. I will have to take some measurements and see how it comes out, even though I probably won't be able to make any changes right away. 

To me, these are better performing speakers and generally have a better upper range, with treble and mids being more pronounced than my KRK powered speakers.  I normally listen at very low volume levels.  My KRK speakers would automatically shut off every 30 minutes if I didn't raise the volume now and then, as it considered the signal to be too low.  The sound level is about the same when I have the volume at the normal position I tend to listen to for extended periods of time.  However, the Klipsch speakers gain in volume, considerably.  I could play a song with the volume knob at 40-50% with the KRK speakers, but these seem much louder.  I'm sure it is mostly because of the more pronounce trebles and mids, since these frequencies tend to seem louder, equal-loudness contours and all.

Really happy with these speakers.


----------



## bigshot

Klipsch speakers are horn loaded, so they tend to be a little louder and more midrange heavy. That's actually fine by me. I have Klipsch center speaker, and it's perfect for my purposes.


----------



## sonitus mirus (Nov 13, 2017)

bigshot said:


> Klipsch speakers are horn loaded, so they tend to be a little louder and more midrange heavy. That's actually fine by me. I have Klipsch center speaker, and it's perfect for my purposes.


Yes, that is what I had read about them.  I'm enjoying them.  The delivery guy said that it was the 6th pair he had on his truck that day.  Must be a good deal somewhere.  I got mine through Amazon.  I know Klipsch had a promotion going on where they were giving away a 12" sub with the purchase of 2 RP-280F speakers.  It was only for the black color when I last checked.  I don't need a subwoofer in the office where I use these new speakers.  Plenty of air moving in the low frequency range.

Edit: I forget about the new amp as the speakers look gorgeous and are more prominent.  The amp cost nearly are much as the speakers combined.  When I pause my music, I can crank up the volume quite a bit and still not hear a hum or any noise at all.


----------



## Niouke

bigshot said:


> Klipsch speakers are horn loaded, so they tend to be a little louder and more midrange heavy. That's actually fine by me. I have Klipsch center speaker, and it's perfect for my purposes.



I have been told that the horn system is specific to certain models like the AK5, the RP-280 and other floor standing tower just have a "tracktrix horn". Still, their sound is characteristic of the Klipsch lineup. What I have found out about the tracktrix horn is that it helps a lot with the off axis performance, making the speakers less dependent on position than other designs.

I am myself considering adding a sub to fill the 20Hz-35Hz range that the floor standers don't reach, but good subs that go that low are more expensive than both speakers combined !!! Klipsch subs don't have a good reputation.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> Still buying CDs where possible, especially used ones.  Best deal on earth, IMO, pennies on the dollar, and uncompressed, permanent copies.



Finally something we agree about!


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I buy tons of CDs. The price on them has dropped, especially in classical box sets where you can get 50 CDs for $75.



That's nothing. Mozart 170 CD box on Brilliant Classics: Bought it for 100 euros delivered!


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> That's nothing. Mozart 170 CD box on Brilliant Classics: Bought it for 100 euros delivered!


Well, THAT was the dillema back in my CD retail days; ordering for the shop either the full price CDs by top class musicians - or "tons" of CDs by less well known musicians and orchestras for the same amount of money. I can remember particularly well the case of a relatively quite rarely performed and consequently even rarely recorded Schubert lieder; either full price CD from Universal Classics( DGG, DECCA, Philips ? ) - or the whole Schubert lieder cycle (IIRC some 10-15 CDs) on Brilliant for about the price of two "Universals". Well, after selling the Brilliant set to any but the most discerning customer, who insists on certain performer disregarding the cost,  NO ONE is going to buy single "Universals" at full price.

That appears to be good for the customer - but, there is a catch. Brilliant and similar labes drew from the vast catalogues of various labels from the past - no need to cover the new recording expenses, in certain cases not even performing rights. And after 75 years have passed after composer's death, there are no royalties to be paid for composers either - voila, the recipe how it is possible to offer 170 CDs for 100 Euros delivered. Further cost cutting is in the artwork and accompanying texts, sometimes reduced to the bare minimum.

If this was modus operandi for all labels, we would never hear any new music - or even any new musicians, even if they are playing medieval music. There simply is no room for any gain under this scheme for anything involving new music or young(er) musicians. In the long run, such a scheme only would kill any further music - resulting,  eventually,  in a loss to music lovers at large.


----------



## bigshot

Brilliant Classics consists largely of modern recordings, not legacy titles. They have deals with regional orchestras- a lot of them in the Scandinavian countries. I've got tons of their box sets. There are amazing deals at Amazon's download store too. The "Big Box/Vox Box" "Supreme Classical Library" and "99 Most Essential" series all have tons of amazing performances for a dollar or two. Great sound too. Some of the tracks in the "Supreme" series derive from full price BIS CDs.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Brilliant Classics consists largely of modern recordings, not legacy titles. They have deals with regional orchestras- a lot of them in the Scandinavian countries. I've got tons of their box sets. There are amazing deals at Amazon's download store too. The "Big Box/Vox Box" "Supreme Classical Library" and "99 Most Essential" series all have tons of amazing performances for a dollar or two. Great sound too. Some of the tracks in the "Supreme" series derive from full price BIS CDs.


Great that they have expanded also in this direction supporting present music and musicians - but my comment was true up to about 2004, when I exited from CD retail.


----------



## cel4145 (Nov 14, 2017)

sonitus mirus said:


> I'm sure it is mostly because of the more pronounce trebles and mids, since these frequencies tend to seem louder, equal-loudness contours and all.



Brent Butterworth's quasi-anechoic measurements indicate them to have slight rise in treble over the mids:
https://hometheaterreview.com/klipsch-rp-280fa-tower-speaker-reviewed/?page=2

Differences in treble from your KRKs could also be due to differences in tweeter dispersement and slight differences in placement, resulting in changes in room interaction.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 14, 2017)

Brilliant Classics is a much bigger label now than it was back then. They've largely supplanted Naxos and they pretty much own the baroque music market.

Dispersement patterns can have a huge difference in the way speakers sound and how their frequency response is perceived. I have horn loaded speakers up front in my system and wide dispersing KEF in the back. The horn loaded ones are more directional, which focuses the energy in the range where ears are most sensitive, while the KEF sound considerably softer in that range. I would bet that if you put a mike right up to the speakers, they wouldn't be that different, but in the room they sound quite different.


----------



## SilverEars (Nov 14, 2017)

bigshot said:


> Brilliant Classics consists largely of modern recordings, not legacy titles. They have deals with regional orchestras- a lot of them in the Scandinavian countries. I've got tons of their box sets. There are amazing deals at Amazon's download store too. The "Big Box/Vox Box" "Supreme Classical Library" and "99 Most Essential" series all have tons of amazing performances for a dollar or two. Great sound too. Some of the tracks in the "Supreme" series derive from full price BIS CDs.


One of my all time favorite classical recording is "The Nordic Sound." And my favorite jazz recording is "Jazz at the Pawnshop."  Both excellent sound quality, one of the best, and Scandinavian.

Love listening to jazz at the pawnshop with good speakers.  Just pure bliss and never get tired of it.  Just wow!

Jazz at the Pawnshop used a special type of microphone.


----------



## 71 dB

Naxos, Brilliant Classics or any other "budget label" didn't kill "further" music. If anything, their business models have done classical music a service. The old giants rely on their archives of old dusty recordings which they re-release all the time milking the old cows and only occationally recording something new. Newer labels don't have such archives, so they need to licence stuff from other labels (to release giant dirt cheap boxes) or make their own recordings.

Why do you need to pay royalties to someone who has been dead for 75 years? What did the inheritors do to "earn" those royalties? Isn't it much more sensible and fair that old compositions become the common property benefitting all humanity? Normal hard working people don't see any royalties of their work, just a tiny montly salary.


bigshot said:


> Dispersement patterns can have a huge difference in the way speakers sound and how their frequency response is perceived. I have horn loaded speakers up front in my system and wide dispersing KEF in the back. The horn loaded ones are more directional, which focuses the energy in the range where ears are most sensitive, while the KEF sound considerably softer in that range. I would bet that if you put a mike right up to the speakers, they wouldn't be that different, but in the room they sound quite different.



Controlled directivity is important. The directivity of a speakers should increase smoothly with frequency without sudden rapid changes. The classic problem with directive tweeters is that the directivity of the bass/midrange driver is much larger, so the overall radiated sound energy jumps over the crossover frequency when the frequency responce at radiation axis is flat. The result is that it's impossible to get good power response and frequency response at the same time. No matter what you do, something is wrong. When you have smoothly increasing frequency response and smoothly decreasing power response, the speaker will sound balanced in optimal situations (reverberation time and speaker/listener placement corresponds the directivity of the speaker).


----------



## SilverEars

SilverEars said:


> One of my all time favorite classical recording is "The Nordic Sound." And my favorite jazz recording is "Jazz at the Pawnshop."  Both excellent sound quality, one of the best, and Scandinavian.
> 
> Love listening to jazz at the pawnshop with good speakers.  Just pure bliss and never get tired of it.  Just wow!
> 
> Jazz at the Pawnshop used a special type of microphone.


This gives me eargasms!



They used microphone hand built by Didrik de Geer.


----------



## SilverEars

My favorite Jazz artist, Dave.  Pure bliss!!


----------



## Niouke

Jazz at the pawnshop is binaural IIRC, it's awesome to listen at on IEMs!


----------



## 71 dB

Niouke said:


> Jazz at the pawnshop is binaural IIRC, it's awesome to listen at on IEMs!



They used ORTF setup as main mic pair + some additional mics here and there. It's near-binaural. ITD information is "binaural", but ILD is not (cardioid mics are too directive for that, subcardioids in ORTF setup would create very binaural sound) and I need to use crossfeed to correct that. On speakers this recording sounds quite phenomenal and with headphones (crossfed) also very good, lively and vivid in spatial sense imo.


----------



## SilverEars

To me near binaural seems very good sounding.  iems or speakers.  I like how it was recorded very much.


----------



## SilverEars

Niouke said:


> Jazz at the pawnshop is binaural IIRC, it's awesome to listen at on IEMs!





SilverEars said:


> They used microphone hand built by Didrik de Geer.


Interesting that the Didrik de Geer mic used for the recording comes in pairs, and recording was near binaural.


----------



## bigshot

The best sounding jazz I've ever heard is multichannel. Lee Ritenour Overtime blu-ray and Dave Grusin West Side Story in DTS. Ritenour's Six String Theory on DVD is fantastic too, but it has rock and blues tracks as well as jazz.


----------



## bigshot

For fans of multichannel classical music... I just got an email with a 20% off discount code to JPC in Germany so I took a look at their site. Right now there's a huge batch of Royal Philharmonic hybrid SACDs with multichannel sound on sale for 3.99 Euro apiece. Lots of interesting stuff in there. I ended up getting 32 of them for about $150US shipped. I have no idea how good the performances are, but I've been happy with recordings from the Royal Philharmonic in the past. These appear to be recordings from the late 90s... Mackerras, Wordsworth, O'Hara, Gibson, Leppard, Menuhin, Judd... I think I recognize some of these from Harmonia Mundi and Naxos. The selection of titles is pretty broad... Beethoven, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, Haydn, Grieg, even some early music with sackbuts! I guess they had multitrack masters to mix for 5.1. (or perhaps 5.0?) In any case, at this price it was worth the risk.

https://www.jpc.de/s/1238733_89680?searchtype=cid


----------



## Strangelove424

Sound science is poppin'! I can't find what thread I had what conversation in anymore. Dangit.


----------



## bigshot

Just reply to random stupidity then!


----------



## JaeYoon

I honestly didn't think Armchair Audiophile warriors existed.....very easy to talk about record industry, but has no idea or ever worked in one.


----------



## bigshot

What do you all think... Is it a bot or not?


----------



## reginalb

I don't know, I don't usually heavily participate in the conversation, but sometimes the attempt at analogy drives the conversation into my wheelhouse. I find the discussion here interesting, but I'm not a member of the trade. I learn a lot, but rarely get to be the educator, or to really partake in the heavy debate. Then someone tries to talk about editing RAW image files and BOOM it's like the coach pulling me off the bench.


----------



## Niouke

here's your daily bull:

http://www.furutech.com/2017/10/11/15603/


----------



## bfreedma

Niouke said:


> here's your daily bull****:
> 
> http://www.furutech.com/2017/10/11/15603/



It's from the future - the product page already shows it winning two awards from 2018!

Well, at least it could legitimately function as a cable strain relief.  And for just over $400, they're practically giving them away.....


----------



## castleofargh

I want some, my ferrite beads don't look cool like that. but first I'll have to purchase cables with big ass plugs apparently. I'm guessing that's how you really know you're part of the elite, when the smaller setting for the cable clamp is garden hose size.


----------



## bigshot

Niouke said:


> here's your daily bull****:
> http://www.furutech.com/2017/10/11/15603/



That thing looks like it would be painful.


----------



## Niouke

bigshot said:


> That thing looks like it would be painful.



I can also be used as a leg suspender for home hospitalisation.


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> That thing looks like it would be painful.



For those who take "getting screwed" literally.


----------



## pibroch

castleofargh said:


> I want some, my ferrite beads don't look cool like that. but first I'll have to purchase cables with big ass plugs apparently. I'm guessing that's how you really know you're part of the elite, when the smaller setting for the cable clamp is garden hose size.


I always carry my own cable with a big ass plug. Looks like the clamp’s ability to keep large cables off the floor may come in handy when I visit the bathroom.


----------



## castleofargh

I laughed. I shouldn't admit it, but I have no self esteem.


----------



## sonitus mirus

How did I get here?  I was searching beads and big ass plugs.


----------



## JaeYoon

sonitus mirus said:


> How did I get here?  I was searching beads and big ass plugs.


Oh my god. I almost read that as anal beads.

R.I.P my account.


----------



## Niouke

here's another one  http://www.porterhouseaudio.com/Porter-ports.htm


----------



## JaeYoon

Niouke said:


> here's another one  http://www.porterhouseaudio.com/Porter-ports.htm


hahahahaha. "other outlets harms the quality of our sound"

Whoa so their "cryo treated" power outlets affect sound quality!  
The things people sell to make money off of Audiophiles.


----------



## bigshot

If you plug your Mr Coffee into their outlet it becomes an espresso machine!


----------



## Strangelove424

Gold plated mounts? Gangsta


----------



## pibroch (Nov 23, 2017)

Forgive me if this is too old - but they’ve updated their product!

http://audiophile.rocks


----------



## headwhacker

pibroch said:


> Forgive me if this is too old - but they’ve updated their product!
> 
> http://audiophile.rocks


Why not, they have a 90-day money back guarantee.


----------



## Niouke

If you have facebook join the "Audiophiles on a budget" group, it's a riot  Yesterday someone spotted $150/piece audiophile fuses haha


----------



## bigshot




----------



## bigshot

I discovered a new frequency range in my system that needs adjusting and it's an odd one. Last night after Thanksgiving dinner we all sat down in the theater and watched an episode of Murder in Mind, a BBC TV series from the late 80s. Every once in a while, I would hear a short high pitched squeal followed by several more of them. Like beep....   beep..beep..beep. It's so high it's on the edge of my hearing, so I'm figuring it is around 17kHz. I'm guessing this is some alert for the TV engineers to get ready to cut to a commercial, but it was hard to tell because there were no commercial breaks on the DVD. I've never paid attention much to my EQ above 14-15kHz because it didn't seem to matter much. I just left it flat. But I'm going to have to go back in and do a super high frequency roll off at the top. The funny part is afterwards I asked if anyone else heard it and no one did.  Very odd. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it audible on broadcast?


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> I discovered a new frequency range in my system that needs adjusting and it's an odd one. Last night after Thanksgiving dinner we all sat down in the theater and watched an episode of Murder in Mind, a BBC TV series from the late 80s. Every once in a while, I would hear a short high pitched squeal followed by several more of them. Like beep....   beep..beep..beep. It's so high it's on the edge of my hearing, so I'm figuring it is around 17kHz. I'm guessing this is some alert for the TV engineers to get ready to cut to a commercial, but it was hard to tell because there were no commercial breaks on the DVD. I've never paid attention much to my EQ above 14-15kHz because it didn't seem to matter much. I just left it flat. But I'm going to have to go back in and do a super high frequency roll off at the top. The funny part is afterwards I asked if anyone else heard it and no one did.  Very odd. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it audible on broadcast?



So you have the DVD? I think you need to avail yourself of some fair-use to isolate the sound.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 25, 2017)

I definately have an imbalance there. Tonight I watched a sixties movie with a scene of a tv broadcast and they had the squeal as a sound effect indicating a TV was on. It was way too loud. That's my project for tomorrow


----------



## Strangelove424

I'm curious about this one. With these old TV productions, I have a sneaking suspicion the editors were either never presented an accurate enough picture of the high frequency content, or were too old to hear it. It seems like if you had an imbalance you would have heard it by now with modern content. My bets are that the system is fine.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> I discovered a new frequency range in my system that needs adjusting and it's an odd one. Last night after Thanksgiving dinner we all sat down in the theater and watched an episode of Murder in Mind, a BBC TV series from the late 80s. Every once in a while, I would hear a short high pitched squeal followed by several more of them. Like beep....   beep..beep..beep. It's so high it's on the edge of my hearing, so I'm figuring it is around 17kHz. I'm guessing this is some alert for the TV engineers to get ready to cut to a commercial, but it was hard to tell because there were no commercial breaks on the DVD. I've never paid attention much to my EQ above 14-15kHz because it didn't seem to matter much. I just left it flat. But I'm going to have to go back in and do a super high frequency roll off at the top. The funny part is afterwards I asked if anyone else heard it and no one did.  Very odd. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it audible on broadcast?


I'm fascinated by the challenges and results of the audio work done on old TV and movies.  Which episode was this?  I'll take a look if I can get it somehow.  You could rip the audio track...look at DVD Audio Extractor... then bring it into other software for a look-see.


----------



## bigshot

I've actually heard this in a few British TV series. The British had a cue system similar to the reel change marks in old movies. In the early days, there was a little square with white stripes in the upper corner that would show up just before commercial breaks. It would move faster and faster as the cue point for the break got nearer, then it would disappear, which was the cue to cut to commercial. I think later they developed this high frequency cuing system. There would be an alert tone, then a 1, 2, 3 countdown of tones to the break. These cue systems may just be on BBC and ITV shows up to the early 90s. I found a citation of the cue dots, but no mention of high frequency tones... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cue_mark

Perhaps they had a high frequency roll off when they broadcast, so the master could have cue tones they knew wouldn't broadcast. Maybe the tones would be picked up and translated into some sort of blinking light to alert the engineers. I don't know for sure about that though- just a guess.

The series I was hearing it in was BBC's Murder in Mind. I'm sure I've heard it in others. Very irritating. I watch a lot of British TV and that kind of stuff drives me up the wall. At least I know my superaudible frequencies are being pumped into the room at a decent level. I'll fix that now. I'm going to put a notch filter in to eliminate it.


----------



## JaeYoon

Aune Audio provides measurements for their M1S dap. Though not much else given in their pamplet.
http://pic3.hifidiy.net/www/2016/12/07/M1s_2E.jpg


----------



## bigshot (Nov 27, 2017)

Congratulations to KeithEmo! He did very well in my lossy test. He was able to sort out the 192s pretty well. When it got into the middle, it got a little looser but he found the top three pretty clearly too. I would say his line of transparency is a notch higher than me, and two notches higher than the average person. He would be safe with LAME 320 and AAC 320.


----------



## JaeYoon

bigshot said:


> Congratulations to KeithEmo! He did as very well in my lossy test. He was able to sort out the 192s pretty well. When it got into the middle, it got a little looser but he found the top three pretty clearly too. I would say his line of transparency is a notch higher than me, and two notches higher than the average person. He would be safe with LAME 320 and AAC 320.


That's good!!!


----------



## Niouke

600€ RJ45 cable https://www.futureshop.co.uk/audioquest-diamond-rj-e-ethernet-cable


----------



## Niouke

Enough with the jokes, last time someone cited a good record here, it was a revelation to me (Offenbach: Gaîté parisienne, Living stereo). Do you guys have other exceptional records to advise to me? Any genre of music.


----------



## bigshot

Dave Grusin: West Side Story
http://amzn.to/2AiuE1p
The multichannel version (Blue Grusin on the cover) sounds spectacular, and I'm sure the stereo version (Green Grusin on the cover) sounds excellent too. Great West Coast Jazz.

Kodo: Mondo Head
http://amzn.to/2AiFd4n
Also available in a (very expensive out of print) multichannel version. World music done modern. Great percussion and vocals. They have other albums too. Haven't heard them, but I'm sure they're interesting.

Frank Zappa: Halloween 77
http://amzn.to/2i2xlK3
Jaw dropping live concert in great newly remixed sound. One of the highest high points in Zappa's career.


----------



## Argyris

I'd have to go with my standby recommendation, The Four Great Toccatas and Fugues performed by E. Power Biggs. The thing that makes this recording special isn't necessarily the performances (Biggs, at the time in old age and poor health, arguably played some of these pieces better on earlier recordings), but the arrangement of the recording itself. It's played in the Cathedral of Freiburg in Germany, which has four separate organs, all of which can be played from a central console. You can mix and match which organs you play, or have them all going at once. The recording was engineered to make the most of this unique setup, with two instruments in front and two behind where the microphones were placed. It's not a binaural recording (apparently it was originally a quadrophonic recording that has in subsequent releases been mixed down but is also now available in multichannel, if you so desire), but it comes about as close as I've ever heard from a traditional stereo setup. The manuals are an earlier non-tracker control setup, which comes with the usual latency, and Biggs chose to compensate for this by playing a bit more slowly and deliberately than usual for the repertoire.


----------



## old tech

Niouke said:


> Enough with the jokes, last time someone cited a good record here, it was a revelation to me (Offenbach: Gaîté parisienne, Living stereo). Do you guys have other exceptional records to advise to me? Any genre of music.


The 1978 Japan Pro-Use Dark Side of the Moon LP pressing sounds great (very similar to the 1983 - 84 Sony mastered black triangle CDs) and is exceptionally quiet and noise free.  The only issue is that NM pressings sell for over $300 on the used market.


----------



## Niouke

Thank you for the inputs I'll check it ou!, I don't even own a turntable


----------



## Niouke (Dec 1, 2017)

Amazon is so frustrating, apparently I can't buy mp3 from them as my bank account isn't local to amazon.com, while I'm bloody prime on amazon.fr. Of course amazon.fr doesn't sell mp3's, and the albums are not available for stream on their damn android app, despite their claims. End of the story I can listen only to Dave Grusin: West Side Story as it is available on spotify. It sounds good even tho the general rhythm is not my cup of tea, it's very jazzy!


----------



## reginalb

Niouke said:


> Amazon is so frustrating, apparently I can't buy mp3 from them as my bank account isn't local to amazon.com, while I'm bloody prime on amazon.fr. Of course amazon.fr doesn't sell mp3's, and the albums are not available for stream on their damn android app, despite their claims. End of the story I can listen only to Dave Grusin: West Side Story as it is available on spotify. It sounds good even tho the general rhythm is not my cup of tea, it's very jazzy!



I suspect that's down to their licensing deals. They'd gladly take your money if they could.


----------



## Niouke

bigshot said:


> Dave Grusin: West Side Story
> http://amzn.to/2AiuE1p
> The multichannel version (Blue Grusin on the cover) sounds spectacular, and I'm sure the stereo version (Green Grusin on the cover) sounds excellent too. Great West Coast Jazz.
> 
> ...



Dave Grusin, I found the album on spotify, sound great, but such arrhythmic (google grammar check) music is difficult to me! I've added it anyway and will see what happens on the long run
Kodo - couldn't find the specific album on spotify, and amazon won't sell the mp3 to me :-
Franck Zappa - found it on spotify, the album regroups 3 concerts! I really dislike live records but as stated this one seems good! I don't know Franck Zappa much (I know right?) so a good listen can't hurt!



Argyris said:


> I'd have to go with my standby recommendation, The Four Great Toccatas and Fugues performed by E. Power Biggs.


 I couldn't find or buy digitally  I did found another album that sounds great on IEM's, I wonder how it will sound on my speakers tonight!


----------



## bigshot

Arhythmic is jazz! The origin of jazz is ragtime, and the reason they called it ragtime was because to them it sounded like the rhythms were being torn up. If you listen to more jazz, you'll understand the language of it better and you'll find out how well organized the rhythms actually are. You'll find some of the same in the Zappa concert. He worked in very complex time signatures.


----------



## Niouke

ok I need to learn more about jazz styles, cause I enjoy a Miles Davis Kind of blue from time to time, and one of my favorites albums is Stan getz's Jazz Samba, and both these records are much more linear.

I like the Zappa concert's energy, but the public is definitely getting in the way of good sound, althougt it's interresting to hear how the engineer improves his recording over time, the 2nd concert is miles ahead of the first.


----------



## bigshot

There were six of those Zappa concerts over a week, and every one is quite different. The best performance is the Halloween one though.

Try Dave Brubeck's Time Out. Every song on that album is in a different time signature.


----------



## Niouke

now that's much more my taste, I did not notice the mastering yet but that's saved in the DAP for future analyzing!


----------



## Strangelove424

I was shopping at Monoprice recently for Black Friday, and happened across banana plugs at their site. I've been a banana plug holdout but it cost no more than $10 to do my whole surround system, so gave in. I am looking forward to not futzing with frayed wires anymore, and less mess behind the receiver. I have some work to do, but even after doing the first speaker I can see why people like them so much, it definitely makes things tidy.  I also picked up a very rugged 50ft XLR cable for $16. Some of the best connectors I've ever seen, all gold plated. Monoprice is unbeatable.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Strangelove424 said:


> I was shopping at Monoprice recently for Black Friday, and happened across banana plugs at their site. I've been a banana plug holdout but it cost no more than $10 to do my whole surround system, so gave in. I am looking forward to not futzing with frayed wires anymore, and less mess behind the receiver. I have some work to do, but even after doing the first speaker I can see why people like them so much, it definitely makes things tidy.  I also picked up a very rugged 50ft XLR cable for $16. Some of the best connectors I've ever seen, all gold plated. Monoprice is unbeatable.



Alright, another one of us has gone completely bananas.


----------



## Strangelove424

Hah, I sure did, and had the work to accompany it! All speaker terminals and receiver terminals have 'gone bananas'. I was glad to do it, and get some bonding time with my system. It needed a little love. I cleaned up the posts a bit, cut wires to new clean ends, and finally got to use the built-in banana receptors on my speaker and receiver terminals. The back of the receiver itself is a site to behold, the banana plugs making things very neat and creating a nice, ordered, waterfall of cables. 

Had I not typed them as overpriced audiophile jewelry, and realized there were functional benefits, and that they could be added for $10, I probably would have done this earlier.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Strangelove424 said:


> Hah, I sure did, and had the work to accompany it! All speaker terminals and receiver terminals have 'gone bananas'. I was glad to do it, and get some bonding time with my system. It needed a little love. I cleaned up the posts a bit, cut wires to new clean ends, and finally got to use the built-in banana receptors on my speaker and receiver terminals. The back of the receiver itself is a site to behold, the banana plugs making things very neat and creating a nice, ordered, waterfall of cables.
> 
> Had I not typed them as overpriced audiophile jewelry, and realized there were functional benefits, and that they could be added for $10, I probably would have done this earlier.


I just buy the cables with banana plugs already attached.  I have a small shelf space available to coil up the extra length under my receiver, but I do try and get an appropriate length so there isn't too much slack.  I always use the same length speaker wire going to the left and right channels (front and rear), and my receiver is not centered between the speakers, so I will always have a bit of slack for at least one side.

In my office I use 12ft speaker cables and the room is only 14ftx11ft.  I wanted options for speaker placement, and I wasn't sure where I was going to put the amplifier in the room, so a 12ft length generally covered nearly all potential options.


----------



## castleofargh

Strangelove424 said:


> Hah, I sure did, and had the work to accompany it! All speaker terminals and receiver terminals have 'gone bananas'. I was glad to do it, and get some bonding time with my system. It needed a little love. I cleaned up the posts a bit, cut wires to new clean ends, and finally got to use the built-in banana receptors on my speaker and receiver terminals. The back of the receiver itself is a site to behold, the banana plugs making things very neat and creating a nice, ordered, waterfall of cables.
> 
> Had I not typed them as overpriced audiophile jewelry, and realized there were functional benefits, and that they could be added for $10, I probably would have done this earlier.


but, but, you haven't told us about how the soundstage is better and the bass tighter.


----------



## Strangelove424

castleofargh said:


> but, but, you haven't told us about how the soundstage is better and the bass tighter.



Nah, thankfully they haven't caused any hallucinations! Maybe if I licked some of the gold plating off...


----------



## Strangelove424

sonitus mirus said:


> I just buy the cables with banana plugs already attached.  I have a small shelf space available to coil up the extra length under my receiver, but I do try and get an appropriate length so there isn't too much slack.  I always use the same length speaker wire going to the left and right channels (front and rear), and my receiver is not centered between the speakers, so I will always have a bit of slack for at least one side.
> 
> In my office I use 12ft speaker cables and the room is only 14ftx11ft.  I wanted options for speaker placement, and I wasn't sure where I was going to put the amplifier in the room, so a 12ft length generally covered nearly all potential options.



I cut cables equal lengths too. It's more of a peace of mind thing though. The fractional resistance or delay caused by the extra wire is imperceptible, and if it was theoretically long enough to be, the receiver will figure it out through it's calibration process and change timing or level by the ms or .5db or 1db that it mattered. Cutting a wire 10 feet shorter than another would probably have less of an effect on sound than moving the speaker 1mm back. Nevertheless, I do the same, just to satisfy my OCD for symmetry. 

I have a ridiculous amount of cable going to my surround speakers, coiled up in corners, but I'd rather have extra wire than be short. I can't remember the length, but it's probably close to 30ft for the surrounds. My fronts are a relatively short 10ft I think. 

On my receiver the positive terminals are above the negative terminals. To create a more orderly flow without kinks, I had to cut the negative wire about 10mm shorter than positive, but it cam out looking awesome. No kinks, everything flows straight down. With the bananas, it's much better than before where frayed wires could have caused shorts, and heavy cables hung suspended from their wire strands only, without any support at the insulation point. And bunched up all together in an indecipherable mess.


----------



## bigshot

I had my system put in by an AV installer and the wiring had to go down one side and then across the room at the other end. One run is twice as long as the other, but they still sound the same.


----------



## sonitus mirus

In the past, to satisfy my curiosity, I've used Wolfram and this calculator site to alleviate any concerns about speaker cables.  You have to approach some unlikely extremes to start making a noticeable difference.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Calculations03.htm


----------



## pinnahertz

Strangelove424 said:


> I cut cables equal lengths too. .... Nevertheless, I do the same, just to satisfy my OCD for symmetry.
> 
> I have a ridiculous amount of cable going to my surround speakers, coiled up in corners, but I'd rather have extra wire than be short.


"The first step to solving your problem is admitting you have one."


----------



## Arpiben

Strangelove424 said:


> I cut cables equal lengths too. It's more of a peace of mind thing though. The fractional resistance or delay caused by the extra wire is imperceptible, and if it was theoretically long enough to be, the receiver will figure it out through it's calibration process and change timing or level by the ms or .5db or 1db that it mattered. Cutting a wire 10 feet shorter than another would probably have less of an effect on sound .....



No use to worry.
Latency in cables is between 4ns - 5ns per meter.


----------



## Strangelove424

sonitus mirus said:


> In the past, to satisfy my curiosity, I've used Wolfram and this calculator site to alleviate any concerns about speaker cables.  You have to approach some unlikely extremes to start making a noticeable difference.
> 
> http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Calculations03.htm



Those wire and sensitivity calculators are very helpful for putting to bed any worries.



pinnahertz said:


> "The first step to solving your problem is admitting you have one."



Hah, perhaps the hang up on symmetry, but it's served me in other ways.   

I don't see extra wire as a problem though... you never know when room layout can change, and your surrounds will be moved. You can localize L/R near the receiver, but surrounds can suddenly demand more distance. Mine aren't ceiling mounted because they're too heavy. If I ever bothered to get a very solid mount and put them up higher, I'd need atleast 5 feet.


----------



## bigshot

To make a difference, you’d probably need a run as long as a city block.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 7, 2017)

An update on something I posted about before... Here's a super bargain price on 5.1 SACDs by the Royal Philharmonic- 4 Euro a disc.

https://www.jpc.de/s/1238733_89680?searchtype=cid

When I originally ordered these, it was a "pig in a poke". I hadn't heard any of them but I took a chance on a stack of them to check them out. The recordings are from the mid 1990s when the Royal Philharmonic was preparing for a world tour to celebrate its 50th anniversary. The conductors include Mackerras, Wordsworth, Judd, Gibson and Shelley, among others.

They arrived the other day and I played a few of them and they are fantastic. I played a couple of discs all the way through and spot checked the rest. The performances are spirited and are very tight. The string sections bow in unison with remarkable precision. The Rossini overtures were a lot of fun. I sampled some of the Zarathustra, Dvorak Slavonic Dances, Scheherezade, early music collection and the organ sampler and they were all excellent as well.

The sound is spectacular without being showy. The dynamic range is very broad. It sounds wonderful loud and the rear channels provide just enough ambience to fill the room with the sound of the hall. The liner notes say that they recorded these with as many as 45 microphones- yow! But the sound is well clear and warm with lots of perspective. The percussion is recessed and the sound of the violins is a little mellower than other recordings. The hall ambience is very realistic. It's not that close miked kind of sound you often find on "audiophile" recordings... more like the old school approach where the soundstage is big and well defined and you feel like you're in 8th row center in a concert hall. I have several Pentatone multichannel SACDs, and I like the sound of these RPO ones better.

I went back today and ordered all the rest (except for the nursery rhymes disc). At 3.99 Euro apiece, it's a drop dead bargain. For two channel, they might not be first choice, but those with 5.1 systems should scoop these up.

If someone wants recommendations, I recommend...

Berlioz Overtures Gibson
Strauss Also Sprach Zarathustra Mackerras
Any of the Beethoven, particularly Hertig and Shelley
Dvorak Slovanic Dances Bostock
Franck Symphony Leppard
Mendelssohn Symphonies 3 & 4 Sanderling
Opera Preludes 1 Simonov
Tchaikovsky Symphony 6 Menhuin
Organ in Splendor and Majesty Parson

The concept behind this series was to record a basic library of classical music in 5.1 sound. Just about every piece on the list is worthwhile.


----------



## bigshot

Holy cow! I listened to Menuhin’s Tchaikovsky 6 tonight. Amazing! It’s faster than I’m used to but the dynamics are massive and the phrasing is great.


----------



## SilverEars

I love this album!

Question, on the cover it says Stereo 360 at the top.  Was this recorded in any special way?  Perhaps semi-binaural?  The instruments are separated really well, and sounds dynamic and realistic.  Excellent quality!


----------



## bigshot

That was just Columbia's brand for recordings that had room ambience. They had a line of phonographs that were branded like that too. It's pretty much just a name.


----------



## SilverEars (Dec 15, 2017)

NM.


----------



## bigshot

This showed up on the front page of the New York Times this weekend. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html


----------



## JaeYoon

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/ifi-audio-ac-ipurifier-let-no-noise-go-unsilenced.867852/
Hey all! Anyone here want to purify their Electrical power outlet!
"If you think of mains power as the ‘gasoline’ fuelling your audio system, the AC iPurifier is the product that ensures that it’s getting a clean, super premium blend to deliver the best possible audio fidelity.

The AC iPurifier is the latest in iFi audio’s stable of ‘power products’ designed to clean-up noisy mains supplies to audio systems. But this is no ordinary mains purifier. Technologically advanced, it’s Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) circuitry can eliminate far more noise across the frequency range than other passive devices. At -40dB, the difference is as distinct as night and day."


----------



## sonitus mirus

JaeYoon said:


> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/ifi-audio-ac-ipurifier-let-no-noise-go-unsilenced.867852/
> Hey all! Anyone here want to purify their Electrical power outlet!
> "If you think of mains power as the ‘gasoline’ fuelling your audio system, the AC iPurifier is the product that ensures that it’s getting a clean, super premium blend to deliver the best possible audio fidelity.
> 
> The AC iPurifier is the latest in iFi audio’s stable of ‘power products’ designed to clean-up noisy mains supplies to audio systems. But this is no ordinary mains purifier. Technologically advanced, it’s Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) circuitry can eliminate far more noise across the frequency range than other passive devices. At -40dB, the difference is as distinct as night and day."



Maybe a difference like night and day at Barrow, Alaska in December.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

I mean a -40dB difference in noise is certainly noticeable, the problem is, it's mostly RF noise in your electrical system and not in your audio signal.  So, you probably won't be able to appreciate it without a high voltage oscilloscope. 

It's worth noting that nobody in that thread has even suggested what effect it might have on your audio beyond "better", and links to test results on audio output are nowhere to be found.


----------



## bigshot

These two chuckleheads wouldn't be happy if I didn't joke around with them a bit. They only came in here to show off and then go back to their den of ignorance and tell stories of their conquests.


----------



## JaeYoon

bigshot said:


> These two chuckleheads wouldn't be happy if I didn't joke around with them a bit. They only came in here to show off and then go back to their den of ignorance and tell stories of their conquests.


 chuckleheads?


----------



## castleofargh

this topic is clearly where we come vent some of our frustration, and discuss any silly thing with sarcasm, so I don't moderate it strictly, or at all usually. but let's try to stay Headfi compliant anyway please. 



alex_aiwa_USA said:


> I mean a -40dB difference in noise is certainly noticeable, the problem is, it's mostly RF noise in your electrical system and not in your audio signal.  So, you probably won't be able to appreciate it without a high voltage oscilloscope.
> 
> It's worth noting that nobody in that thread has even suggested what effect it might have on your audio beyond "better", and links to test results on audio output are nowhere to be found.


yup, -40dB at the output of my gears, I would buy 20 right away and give them as the very best Xmas present an audiophile could ever hope to get.  but just some very small noise filtering at whatever frequency, at the power output before the transformers and whatever stuff my devices already have, well that doesn't even start to make me curious.


----------



## james444

Niouke said:


> Enough with the jokes, last time someone cited a good record here, it was a revelation to me (Offenbach: Gaîté parisienne, Living stereo). Do you guys have other exceptional records to advise to me? Any genre of music.



Off the top of my head...

Recent albums:

Indra Rios-Moore - Heartland (Jazz / Blues)

Daniel Herskedal - Slow Eastbound Train (Jazz)

Avishai Cohen Trio - From Darkness (Jazz)

King Crimson - Radical Action To Unseat The Hold Of Monkey Mind (Progressive Rock / Fusion; live recording, but hardly any audience noise)

Melanie De Biasio - Blackened Cities EP (Jazz / Wave / Breakbeat)

Wolfgang Haffner - Kind of Spain (Jazz / Latin)

John Scofield - Country for Old Men (Country / Blues / Jazz)

Laura Marling - Semper Femina (Folk / Pop)
And two older ones:

Mary Black - Babes In The Wood (Folk)

The Blessing - Prince Of The Deep Water (Rock)


----------



## Niouke

thank you for the tracks, I found everything except the last album


----------



## james444

Niouke said:


> thank you for the tracks, I found everything except the last album



You're welcome! As for the last album, there are a few tracks in half-decent quality on YouTube:





And if you like the music, you can buy a digital download from the lead singer's website:
https://www.musicglue.com/williamto...ing-prince-of-the-deep-water-digital-download

(Btw, this was recorded and produced by Neil Dorfsman, same sound engineer who did Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms)


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Dec 21, 2017)

So I have a general sound science question:  I've been working on an EQ curve all day and it occurred to me that almost every headphone, especially those under say $200, has a frequency response above 6-7khz that is wildly uneven.  Full-on nulls are not uncommon.  Even a $400 pair I'm messing with has some pretty jagged response up there.

However, listening to music, the high frequencies don't seem all that unnatural, even if there are -12dB dips all over the place from 6-16khz.  This got me thinking, how is that I'm not terribly bothered by this?  A FR that is so far from flat ought to sound bad to me, but it's not nearly as bad as you'd expect.

Then I realized, real-life audio is just like this.  In free air, there are often extreme nulls all over the place at high frequencies, especially indoors. (put on a 12khz tone and move your head around if you aren't familiar with this phenomenon.)

My question is whether our ears essentially regard extreme peaks and nulls at >5khz to be a normal state of affairs - and is there any research that goes into this that you guys know about?


----------



## bigshot

The core frequencies are the ones that count. The stuff in the ozone only matters if it's a really big spike that hurts to listen to for long periods.


----------



## castleofargh

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> So I have a general sound science question:  I've been working on an EQ curve all day and it occurred to me that almost every headphone, especially those under say $200, has a frequency response above 6-7khz that is wildly uneven.  Full-on nulls are not uncommon.  Even a $400 pair I'm messing with has some pretty jagged response up there.
> 
> However, listening to music, the high frequencies don't seem all that unnatural, even if there are -12dB dips all over the place from 6-16khz.  This got me thinking, how is that I'm not terribly bothered by this?  A FR that is so far from flat ought to sound bad to me, but it's not nearly as bad as you'd expect.
> 
> ...


first missing signal on a very short frequency range is likely to go unnoticed, not that it will sound the same but it will certainly not sound as if there was nothing. you can count on masking for that. strong isolated spikes can be another matter, but even those tend not to be heard that way, some psycho acoustic models tend to show something close to what happens when you apply some smoothing to the curve. 

the second important matter is that any small change in placement or in the gear measuring the signal can have many dB of variations in the trebles. so what you see is probably not what you get. I've say to rely on your ears instead of a graph for the upper frequencies. but I'd go even further and suggest to go easy on the treble EQ and to verify your impressions over time. to make sure that the one time you EQed for flat, didn't turn into a +10dB boost the rest of the time because a small placement change has shifted a resonance. 

and the last aspect is simply that our hearing is mostly focused on the mid range. I can tell there is a 0.5dB increase at 2khz with a local EQ(in direct comparison with a switch!), but I need about the same concentration to notice 3dB in an area at both ends of my hearing.

plus IMO the treble content in music can almost entirely go away and we still get most of the experience. I have some IEMs rolling off like crazy around 10khz, and it really doesn't keep me awake at night. that's how they sound and that's it.


----------



## james444 (Dec 22, 2017)

bigshot said:


> The core frequencies are the ones that count. The stuff in the ozone only matters if it's a really big spike that hurts to listen to for long periods.



+1

If you look at it from a musical pov, our hearing spans about 9 octaves (rounded: 30Hz, 60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz, 480Hz, 1kHz, 2kHz, 4kHz, 8kHz, 16kHz). The 6-16kHz range represents just the highest 1.5 octaves and irregularities in that range tend to cause only subtle changes in timbre.

Two examples: to me, a spike around 6-8kHz usually manifests itself as accentuated sibilance, and a spike around 10kHz as a lack of note-weight (or thinness) with cymbals. But to be sure about that without cheating (= using a tone generator), I personally need test tracks I'm familiar with and know how they sound on a neutral system.


----------



## JaeYoon

Hey can anyone recommend anymore pipe organ music? I know this sounds kind of an odd request.


----------



## bigshot

The Telarc series with Michael Murray is good. Each disc is a program performed on a specific famous organ. Los Angeles and Methuen are very good.


----------



## JaeYoon

bigshot said:


> The Telarc series with Michael Murray is good. Each disc is a program performed on a specific famous organ. Los Angeles and Methuen are very good.


Thanks! Time to add to collection!


----------



## Argyris

I've thoroughly enjoyed this collection of Peter Hurford's performances:

https://www.amazon.com/Bach-Great-O...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1513980271&sr=8-1

I especially like his accounts of the Fantasy and ["Great"] Fugue in G minor (BWV 542) and Prelude and Fugue in E-flat (BWV 552). Somewhere around there's a truly massive compendium of all his performances on Decca, but I remember it being more expensive than I wanted to pay at the time, and this subset features a lot of what I would have bought the other collection for, anyway.


----------



## bigshot

Hurford is great, and he's better than Murray, but the sound is much tamer than the Telarc. There are a few organ discs in the multichannel SACDs from JPC I posted about earlier. They're $4. Can't beat the price. But they don't have the sub bass that Murray's have.


----------



## bigshot

Merry Christmas to all! (I wish this was my phonograph, but it isn't. I stole the pic off the web.)


----------



## RRod

JaeYoon said:


> Hey can anyone recommend anymore pipe organ music? I know this sounds kind of an odd request.



Delos recorded a lot of good stuff, esp. with the Fisk organ at McDermott hall in Dallas. Also check out Olivier Latry's Notre-Dame recital.


----------



## amirm

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> So I have a general sound science question: I've been working on an EQ curve all day and it occurred to me that almost every headphone, especially those under say $200, has a frequency response above 6-7khz that is wildly uneven. Full-on nulls are not uncommon. Even a $400 pair I'm messing with has some pretty jagged response up there.
> 
> However, listening to music, the high frequencies don't seem all that unnatural, even if there are -12dB dips all over the place from 6-16khz. This got me thinking, how is that I'm not terribly bothered by this? A FR that is so far from flat ought to sound bad to me, but it's not nearly as bad as you'd expect.


The resolution of ear (in frequency domain) gets worse and worse as frequencies go up.  See: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/perceptual-effects-of-room-reflections.13/

For that reason, you need to "perceptually filter" the measured response for it to equate what we hear.  Once there, you go from this:






To this:






What bothers the eye is not the same as what bothers the ear.  

As Dr. Toole is fond of saying, "a lot of our problems in acoustics started when we started to measure!"


----------



## castleofargh

it's worth saying that headphones are wayyyyyyyyy cleaner than that. flat, probably not, but also not playing seismograph like a mic in a room.  ^_^


----------



## 71 dB

What is this thread about, objectively speaking?


----------



## 71 dB

JaeYoon said:


> Hey can anyone recommend anymore pipe organ music? I know this sounds kind of an odd request.



I have enjoyed Friedhelm Flamme's North German Baroque SACDs on CPO. However, my passion of North German middle baroque is not shared by many as most people totally ignore German baroque between Schütz and J.S. Bach and even Buxtehude is an obscure composer for many. So, these discs containing music from more obscure composers are not for everybody, but the recorded sound quality is imo very good plus exploring obscure works is interesting. It's also kind of shocking to realize that many of these talented and fine composers produced hours and hours of quality music back in the day, but in some cases 5 minutes worth of it is all that has survived to us.


----------



## castleofargh

71 dB said:


> What is this thread about, objectively speaking?


it's the all inclusive of topics. where self proclaimed objectivists talk about the great mysteries of stuff. it's so open minded we didn't even bother bringing a real board and a room.


----------



## 71 dB

castleofargh said:


> it's the all inclusive of topics. where self proclaimed objectivists talk about the great mysteries of stuff. it's so open minded we didn't even bother bringing a real board and a room.



Well, it certainly looks like that based on the content.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> It's also kind of shocking to realize that many of these talented and fine composers produced hours and hours of quality music back in the day, but in some cases 5 minutes worth of it is all that has survived to us.



It's even more shocking than that. Today, JS Bach is of course one of just a handful of the most widely known composers in history and yet within about 40 years of his death he was almost completely unknown, outside the small group of scholars/studying composers. Mendelssohn is widely credited as (re)popularising JS Bach with the general public. So, it's maybe not so shocking that numerous other talented composers and works vanished for good. Of course today we have recording technology but of all the hundreds of great popular pieces of music in the last 40 years or so, I wonder how many of them will still be known in a couple of centuries or so?

G


----------



## pila405 (Dec 26, 2017)

@gregorio  - also, many composers which have shown a great promise have died very young.
It's not surprising that J.S.Bach lost popularity after his time. Even later in his life he was considered old-fashioned when his sons moved on to composing in the style of the classical era. Besides, it was customary to perform the music of the time, by present composers, most of the time with them attending the concerts\premiers or even conducting.
Though not really related to the topic of the thread, if anyone is interested, there is a magnificent reconstruction of Bach's Contrapunctus XIV by Zoltán Göncz:


https://www.jstor.org/stable/24619318?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> It's even more shocking than that. Today, JS Bach is of course one of just a handful of the most widely known composers in history and yet within about 40 years of his death he was almost completely unknown, outside the small group of scholars/studying composers. Mendelssohn is widely credited as (re)popularising JS Bach with the general public. So, it's maybe not so shocking that numerous other talented composers and works vanished for good. Of course today we have recording technology but of all the hundreds of great popular pieces of music in the last 40 years or so, I wonder how many of them will still be known in a couple of centuries or so?
> 
> G


Had Mendelssohn not "re-discovered" J.S. Bach, somebody else would have eventually. Brahms? Reger? Taneyev? Somebody would have.

In the year 2222 they probably wouldn't care less about the popular music of today. Maybe Elvis, Michael Jackson and Madonna are all they know, hah hah...


----------



## Argyris

It's difficult to say what would have happened. The issue with Bach wasn't just that people had forgotten about his music. The Baroque era style in general was wholly out of fashion by the time Mendelssohn began advocating for a revival. He didn't just discover something that was lost; he actively championed it and (thankfully successfully) made the argument that it still had value. If he had merely been fond of Bach for his own sake, the whole thing might have just ended with Mendelssohn himself.

Supposedly, the Organ Pastorale was Mendelssohn's favorite piece of music. Not a bad choice, and certainly among my favorites by Bach.


----------



## RRod

https://notanothermusichistorycliche.blogspot.com/2016/06/how-forgotten-was-bach.html

Not holding this link up as research, but one should be skeptical of everything in classical music. Also worth asking is that even if Bach did have a 'revival', were the resulting performances in any way, shape, or form 'Bach-isch'?


----------



## pila405

@RRod , you have historically informed performances, which are based on scriptures and on the mechanics of the available instruments at the time. So it's not randomly chosen, but if you talk about performances from the 50's by the likes of Karajan, then that's different and I am not entirely sure what they based their interpretation on.


----------



## RRod

pila405 said:


> @RRod , you have historically informed performances, which are based on scriptures and on the mechanics of the available instruments at the time. So it's not randomly chosen, but if you talk about performances from the 50's by the likes of Karajan, then that's different and I am not entirely sure what they based their interpretation on.



This I know. My two questions are better put as:
1) Did Mendelssohn actually bring about a full-on revival of JSBach?
2) If there was a revival, did it actually do any good?

For 2), I mean in a sense: Would the modern HIP revival of, literally, every human who ever dropped ink on stave paper have happened *without* Mendelssohn's Passion concert? Somehow I think 'yes', but it is of course impossible to prove.


----------



## bigshot

Stokowski based the sound of orchestral Bach on the sound of the organ. He thought that the organ was the proper voice of Bach. The nice thing is that Bach is so versatile. What other composer's music can handle the range of interpretation from astringent HIP to Glenn Gould to Karajan and still be meaningful?


----------



## pila405

A lot of Bach's music was modified (forgot the word for it....transcribed?) by Bach to fit the available instruments at the specific place and time and his last work wasn't written for any specific instrumentation, but as pure music, independent from the instruments on which it is performed. 
It really is unique, but I find many advantages also for a careful orchestration, such as Ravel's or Stravinsky's etc', where you achieve very specific and beautiful colours.


----------



## bigshot

That is my objection to HIP. I think the performer's interpretation of the work is just as important as the composer's intent. It's interesting to hear music played on instruments contemporary with the time it was created, but to me, it's only interesting that way as a curate's egg. I want the conductor and performers to add something of themselves to the music, not just meticulously reproduce something from hundreds of years ago. Art is a living thing... at least until it's bottled up in formaldehyde and set on a shelf. I don't want to live long enough to see that happen.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> That is my objection to HIP. I think the performer's interpretation of the work is just as important as the composer's intent. It's interesting to hear music played on instruments contemporary with the time it was created, but to me, it's only interesting that way as a curate's egg. I want the conductor and performers to add something of themselves to the music, not just meticulously reproduce something from hundreds of years ago. Art is a living thing... at least until it's bottled up in formaldehyde and set on a shelf. I don't want to live long enough to see that happen.



I have been hearing more groups take the good from HIP (tempi, ornamentation, articulation, improvisation) and leave the bad (weird sounding bassoons and 4 person choirs), so hopefully we're getting into a integrative part of the movement. We're veered a bit though from the 'did Mendelssohn actually do anything with his concert' question.


----------



## pila405 (Dec 27, 2017)

@bigshot - I don't agree with your view. There is a lot of interpretation in HIP, even though they restrict themselves in terms of instrumentation. They gave the baroque music a whole new life (anything pre-romantic, actually). For a long time this music was performed in a rigid and cold manner. Lifeless even, or waaay too grandiose and romantic with no notion of what was meant to be expressed and communicated to the audience. Besides, I don't see the players and the composer as equals, they can do whatever they wish with it, but the core idea is the composer's and usually composing is significantly more demanding than performing. I myself don't compose, but know quite a few very talented composers and players. A performer almost never invest in the composition as much as the composer, and it's understandable.


----------



## Argyris (Dec 27, 2017)

I don't object to HIP in principle, but rather to the attitude of snobbery that some of its proponents have adopted. I routinely see statements like "all earlier performances and performance styles are obsolete" or "it would be unthinkable to produce a non-HIP new recording of <insert work>". Of course this isn't everybody, and there are plenty of people who appreciate a wide range of performances, but it happens enough to grate on me.

HIP serves a purpose as it gives us a glimpse into how music may have sounded when it was written, but the key word here is _may_. Since there's no way to know for certain, and indeed, performance practices from the Baroque era in particular are known to have been highly variable (and rarely explicitly notated), there's still a subjective element to any HIP performance. And that makes it no better than any other interpretation.

I'm glad HIP exists, even if I personally strongly dislike the sound and many of the stylistic choices, because I don't feel like additional interpretations of music somehow take away from the ones already employed or which one may prefer. It's not and should never be considered a zero sum game.


----------



## pila405 (Dec 27, 2017)

@Argyris  - I think the snobbery is a reaction for the early mockery with which it was received at first. I don't like it either and I actually think that in many ways it makes little to no sense to play on actually old instruments. New instruments that were built in the same way in order to produce the same timbre - yes, but investing a lot of money in a few hundred years old trumpet \ flute \ violin makes very little to no sense at all.

That's not precise, because unlike how it was done before, they actually take the time to research stuff and see what was the Zeitgeist and limitations of available instruments. I think it is very reasonable to assume it gives an interpretation which is much closer to what the composer had in mind, but it's not always the best one. It's a matter of taste. But this variability in performance is what makes it into actual music and much more exciting and interesting.

It really shouldn't make you like previously known performances less, but I know it made me view many pieces differently and I couldn't go back to what I knew before.

Anyway this has become into a very interesting discussion, so I'll just link here to a 'controversial' interpretation of Mozart's Prague symphony:


----------



## bigshot (Dec 27, 2017)

I look at it like I look at any other art form. It's interesting to see Shakespeare performed exactly the way it would have been in Shakespeare's time- boys playing the female parts and all that. And it's interesting to see operas performed in traditional dress with painted flats for backgrounds and stage mechanics from the gaslight era. But to me, performance style isn't the essence of the art, the ideas and emotions are. If I want to see Romeo & Juliet or Tristan und Isolde, I'd rather have the interpretation be free to find the core of the drama in a way that modern audiences like me can relate to- even if that means making it as a movie or using video projection to create a feeling of motion and space, or setting the story in a different place and time.

There's good HIP to be sure, and it's worthwhile to record HIP since other styles of performance have been so well documented in recordings. But as idiomatic as it is, I can't help feeling a sense of separateness when I listen to it. It almost seems like accounting, with every bar of music neatly stacked up in piles. It's very interesting to think about. There's a nice feeling or orderliness to it, but I prefer Heifetz or Gould or Stokowski where the music spills out all over and I instantly feel the bond with humanity. That stuff grabs me by the collar and makes me feel. To me, passion is the most important aspect of music making. You can't have too much of that. I want to feel what the composer felt, I don't care if it doesn't sound like what he heard. I also think that the greatest performers are equals to the greatest composers. Sinatra and Fitzgerald were just as much a part of the music as Kern and Gershwin.

The composer writes music on paper to document it. But it's just dead chicken scratches on paper until the performer brings the music to life.

You'll never find me criticizing a performance for being too fast or too slow. Speed is dependent on phrasing and the point of view. I love both slow and fast performances of the same work. It's like the old film business adage. "Q: How long is too long for a movie?" "A: How long is it good?"


----------



## pila405

I completely agree with the first paragraph. 

It's funny, because to me it always felt the other way around. It's always the HIP which managed to fill the piece with life and passion. Play a gigue or badinerie you can actually dance to! Take for example the recording I linked to, such music used to be performed with a much narrower dynamic range, with much smaller differences in tempi and much more constrict articulation. Here is another example, now with comparison:




Many times those in HIP are much more engaged in the music they play:


----------



## sonitus mirus

HIP is just a modern interpretation that probably has very little to do with authenticity with the actual sound and performance from the past.  The instruments made today are superior, the musicians are better trained and more talented, and there are simply so many more people on the planet today that have the means to be able to pick up an instrument and train several hours a day.  (greater than 7 times as many from 1800)

I just can't believe HIP is actually any closer to the originally performed pieces than a John Williams-led theatrical performance.  It is just a different, yet modern style.

That is just how I see it.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 27, 2017)

In the past, the idea was "Let's see what Toscanini does with Beethoven." "Let's see what Stokowski does with Beethoven." Both of them had fans and detractors. But by God, they were different and unique and honest to their own point of view. With HIP, there is an underlying belief that the way it was played in the composer's time is the PROPER way to play it. I don't want proper performances. I want ones that grab me and communicate to me on an emotional level.

Here is an example of HIP Bach



And Heifetz



And Milstein



Heifetz brings tremendous sadness to it. Milstein brings a touch of anger contrasted with nostalgic delicacy. The emotions flow from their bows. The HIP one doesn't emote because the instruments of Bach's time were incapable of it and the performer feels obligated to play the notes on the page according to the manner of a totally different time and place. It's like dressing up in your grandfather's suit and pretending to be him. It can sound very good and even beautiful. But it just doesn't grab me.

OK. Now the same thing for the piano transcribed by Busoni and played by Rubinstein in a sombre way.



Now here is Stokowski throwing historicism to the winds and creating his own intensely passionate vision of the music on a grand scale.



Same piece. Five completely different sounds and five completely different attitudes. The differences are what interest me. Bach is just the starting point. The personality of the performer is what makes it real. Truly great music leaves opportunities for performers to inject their own soul into it. That isn't being excessive or non-idiomatic. That is being an artist.

Which one of these is the way Bach intended it? Well, the piece was written following Bach's wife's death. He imprinted his sadness on the abstract notes. Each of these performers finds that sadness in a different way. Each one . Well... all but one, because she was focused on the presentation, not the core. As far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier when it comes to honest heartfelt emotions. That is what I go to art to experience.

I just realized that this is a post praising subjectivity in the objective thread. Sorry!


----------



## gregorio (Dec 28, 2017)

RRod said:


> [1] Not holding this link up as research, but one should be skeptical of everything in classical music. [2] Also worth asking is that even if Bach did have a 'revival', were the resulting performances in any way, shape, or form 'Bach-isch'?



1. Yes, to an extent but then I didn't perpetuate the myth that Bach was completely unknown, just unknown by the general populace. It's certain for example that Mozart knew of Bach because he studied composition for a while in London with one of Bach's sons (JPE if I remember correctly).

2. As you've seen from subsequent posts, that opens a bit of a can of worms! We've got a number of issues with HIPs. While we've a fairly good idea of instrument manufacture of the time, we've got a fairly poor idea of musician abilities or performance style and the further back in time we go, the more vague our knowledge. This is not helped by the fact that the notation used in the baroque period was very vague compared to the romantic and later periods. Many, in some cases most, of the notes were not actually written in the score, just a few notes and a lot of figures and symbols informing or implying what the other notes should be. Modern Bach scores you can buy are therefore already "interpretations". It's generally accepted that musicians of the time had a great deal more flexibility in exactly what they played and how they played than is the case today and indeed, there's evidence to suggest that composers' own performances of their compositions could vary wildly from the score and even from one performance to the next. A score was more of a general guideline than the relatively precise blueprint it's become in the last century or so.

I'm not saying HIPs are a complete waste of time, certainly some pieces appear to make more sense performed on historical instruments and they might be giving us a good idea of what it would have sounded like but we don't really know. My guess is that HIPs are usually still very substantially different. We even have this problem with relatively modern music and it just gets worse the further back in time we go. For example, it's probably impossible today to perform the Rite of Spring (Sacre Du Prentemps) as it was originally performed, even to the point that some of the musical intention has been lost and this is a piece composed in 1913, in the modern era and 200 years after Bach!

G


----------



## RRod (Dec 28, 2017)

We need a name for the concept "how long does it take on a Classical thread for Stokowski and Toscanini to come up". That they sounded very different from one another isn't any proof that HIP performances all sound the same, when in fact they don't. Taking Bach as an example: Kuijken's S&P's couldn't sound more different than Holloway's. Same with the last two HIP efforts at EKNM I heard, both of which were much more exciting and less stodgy than what I grew up with (of course, I have yet to hear a recording that has the balls to take the Romanze at an actual Andante alla breve).

I agree with point about difficulties in intepreting/compiling scores, but that doesn't mean that Bach would ever have taken a Stokowskian view of his own works. Or that Beethoven would have ever approved of Furtwängler's tempi. Or that Mozart would enjoy his own works bereft of improvisation.

HIP let us hear alternatives that I think infused something fresh into classical music. I can kinda agree that purely echt performances are starting to sound un-fresh, but we're also seeing bands at the level of the Berlin Phil. slimming down and even improvising for Mozart. Mission accomplished, I say.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 28, 2017)

Toscanini and Stokowski are probably the greatest conductors who ever lived. It's not surprising they come up. And it really doesn't matter what Bach and Beethoven would have thought of their interpretations of their works. The B's are long since dead. If it wasn't for the great interpreters making the works relevant and meaningful for modern audiences, their works would be dead too.

"Sounding different" isn't really what I was talking about in my comparison. I was talking about finding different emotional angles on a work- different means of expression. A truly great conductor finds an expressive angle on the work that is unique and personal. No single approach is "correct", instead it's like looking at a jewel through different facets. That might mean changing the way something has been traditionally performed. It might work or not work. You may like it or not like it. None of that matters. The attempt to create something personal out of markings on a sheet of paper is what counts.

The best way to get to the emotional core of a work is to focus on the emotional core, not to get distracted by the technique of performance or historical details. HIP performances often sound very different from each other, but the differences are usually on the surface of the performance- timbre, tempo, dynamics. Those three things can be used for expressive purposes, but to a performer like Heifetz, technique is a given. He didn't construct his performance around technique, he constructed the technique around the emotion.Technical perfection and "appropriateness" of style aren't what performers should focus on. Technique should serve the meaning, not act as a substitute for it.

Maybe as time goes by, HIP won't be thought of in terms of performance style any more and conductors can move on to focusing on the contents instead of the wrapping. That happens occasionally in HIP recordings, but not enough in my opinion. Personally, I don't care about instruments, especially with Bach. It can be performed on Kazoos or Jamaican Steel Drums and I will like it if it expresses the essence of the music.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> Toscanini and Stokowski are probably the greatest conductors who ever lived. It's not surprising they come up.



Some composer:


> _Interesting, because over the past few years I’ve consulted Toscanini recordings of repertoire I’ve been doing only to find his interpretations frequently bewildering and puzzling. His performance of Strauss’s Töd und Verklärung, for instance, is wildly, willfully off the mark compared to what Strauss’s meticulous score asks for._
> 
> _One gets the feeling that Toscanini, famous for never using a score, eventually stopped consulting one, ending up with interpretations that could be bizarrely disconnected. The legend, of course, was that Toscanini restored “the composer’s intent” to the interpretive art. But his recordings don’t always bear that out.Stokowski, however, was something else. There is no one in the world of classical music today who can even approach him for his shocking blend of chutzpah, self-promotion, or interpretive delinquency._



Let's just agree on de gustibus non est disputandum.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> In the past, the idea was "Let's see what Toscanini does with Beethoven." "Let's see what Stokowski does with Beethoven." Both of them had fans and detractors. But by God, they were different and unique and honest to their own point of view. With HIP, there is an underlying belief that the way it was played in the composer's time is the PROPER way to play it. I don't want proper performances. I want ones that grab me and communicate to me on an emotional level.



I don't know if HIP has an essential normative POV that says "Historical is the most-right way", but I do think that at minimum, you have to believe that the "most original sound/style possible" is interesting and worthwhile in some way.  I like the idea of HIP but don't think it's more valid than any other performance.  On that point I am maybe out of wack with people on this board - I tend to believe there is a single "most correct" way to listen to a recording (go to the original mixing studio and listen there, lol), but there's no single best way to perform a piece of music... 

NB: I am not looking to argue about what playback method is best, just noting what my view on it is.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

amirm said:


> The resolution of ear (in frequency domain) gets worse and worse as frequencies go up.  See: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/perceptual-effects-of-room-reflections.13/
> 
> For that reason, you need to "perceptually filter" the measured response for it to equate what we hear.  Once there, you go from this:
> 
> ...



This makes sense and is pretty interesting.  Not to go all evolutionary-psychology but I'd guess if we were really sensitive to comb filtering in nature, it would be more distracting than useful.  It's just interesting that FR features that are very obvious when listening to a sine sweep are rather hard to pick out when listening to program material. Luckily most music doesn't have a lot of sine sweeps.


----------



## bigshot

I agree that HIP is worthwhile. It's like visiting a grand old building that is now a museum in its own original context. That is fascinating. But it isn't the same as a grand old building still serving a vital use for modern people. I think art is best when it's alive. Not when it's tidied up and put on the proper shelf and dusted off every once in a while.


----------



## bigshot

When I was a teenager back in the 40s, Leopold Stokowski shared for some years the podium of the New York Philharmonic. His co-director was the late Dimitri Mitropoulis and together they contributed to that memorable Sunday afternoon series on CBS radio, which was one of the few redeeming features of American broadcasting in the years after World War II. Running opposite the Stokowski/Metropoulis programs on CBS was NBC’s entry in the symphonic sweepstakes, a series featuring the orchestra which bore the network’s name, which was created for and conducted by Arturo Toscanini.

The attitude of the young people of my generation toward these weekend music specials was rather interesting. It was generally bandied about by my conservatory friends that you were either a Stokowski fan or a Toscanini devotee. There was apparently no middle ground, except perhaps that which was occasionally occupied by Bruno Walter. According to the academic banter of that time, Toscanini embodied most progressive musical virtues. His performances were direct, straightforward and emotionally objective. Whichever notes, dynamic marks or tempo indications appeared before him in the score were, to the best of his and the NBC Orchestra’s ability, what you heard. For Toscanini, the composer’s notational suggestions were gospel.

Not so with Stokowski. He was and is, for want of a better word, an ecstatic. Stokowski is involved with the notes, the tempo marks, the dynamic indications in the score to the same extent that a filmmaker is involved with the original book or source which supplies the impetus- the idea of his film. So, Stokowski’s performances either stand or fall depending on the degree he can infuse them with a sense of his own commitment to the project. And happily for those who became addicted to his way of making music, there’s rarely been a more committed, more imaginative, more resourceful artist than Leopold Stokowski.

There was however another reason for the disrepute into which Mr. Stokowski’s interperative techniques had fallen in those years, besides that penchant for a neo-literalist performing style which the young people of my generation espoused. He was not only a popularizer- a man who thought nothing of transforming the keyboard works of Bach into massive orchestral statements. But more than that, he was a film personality. In the mid-1930s, he’d relinquished his post as the conductor of the Philadelphia Orchestra, in which he single-handedly transformed the standards of orchestral playing in North America, in order to join Deanna Durbin and Donald Duck on the silver screen in Hollywood.

“I go to a higher calling.” he was reported to have said to the press conference which was called to announce his departure, and if one can filter out the inevitable quotient of defensiveness which one may assume to infiltrate a remark of that kind, it was a remarkably revealing comment.

Technology for Stokowski was a higher calling. He was indeed the first great musician to realize that the future of music would inexorably wound up with technological progress, and that communications media were in fact the best friend that music ever had. Many of his recordings… and all of which I know from personal experience where he maintains a firm hand in relation to the processes of production… were years ahead sonically.

But the real benefit of his interest in technology, I think, was that it enabled Stokowski to resist the inhibitions induced by those pre-technological attitudes toward music-making which created the stratified roles of performer, listener and composer; and which held that those roles would ever remain separate and distinct. For Stokowski, I think, those distinctions are themselves are the single greatest danger that the artist must face. And I suspect that the enormous appeal of his music-making over the last sixty years or so is precisely his realization of that fact, and his willingness to act upon the assumptions that follow from it.

Stokowski is 88 now, at least he was when I interviewed him for this program. Nothing in his manner, his outlook or the vitality of his music-making suggests the incipient nonagenarian, but it’s perhaps useful to recall that Stokowski was born while Wagner was still alive, and when Brahms died, Stokowski himself was already a teenager.

In theory, his outlook and his art should represent the aesthetic attitudes of a bygone era, or eras. But in fact, because of his extraordinary warmth and humility, his remarkable receptivity to new ideas, and above all because in his lifetime we’ve already seen nothing but triumph. But the essential humanity of those technological ideas which have informed all of his work as a musician, Leopold Stokowski is very much a man of the future.

-Glenn Gould


----------



## amirm

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> This makes sense and is pretty interesting. Not to go all evolutionary-psychology but I'd guess if we were really sensitive to comb filtering in nature, it would be more distracting than useful.


Indeed we would go nuts since every surface in our surroundings causes it (delayed sound combined with the direct).  This is also why many reflections are turned out just the same and not heard as "echos."  What seems to be a copy of the original (direct sound) is mostly discarded (if it is close enough to timbre of the original).


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> Toscanini and Stokowski are probably the greatest conductors who ever lived. It's not surprising they come up. And it really doesn't matter what Bach and Beethoven would have thought of their interpretations of their works. The B's are long since dead. If it wasn't for the great interpreters making the works relevant and meaningful for modern audiences, their works would be dead too.
> 
> "Sounding different" isn't really what I was talking about in my comparison. I was talking about finding different emotional angles on a work- different means of expression. A truly great conductor finds an expressive angle on the work that is unique and personal. No single approach is "correct", instead it's like looking at a jewel through different facets. That might mean changing the way something has been traditionally performed. It might work or not work. You may like it or not like it. None of that matters. The attempt to create something personal out of markings on a sheet of paper is what counts.
> 
> ...



Party foul: adding in wall of text after initial post 

The B's went a long way to making their works relevant by making their works bada$$. Even through a midi-synth Bach sounds good, so while of course interpretive art is best with an interpreter, we can't overemphasize the role of the performer too much over the role of the composer (pila405 said as much above and I agree with him).

I think we need to separate the instrumentation of HIP versus its other benefits. I'm perfectly fine hearing Mozart on a pianoforte rather than a fortepiano. But, having now been exposed to the work of the Robert Levins of the world, I am NOT OK with performers today continuing to eschew the improvisational aspects of the music, regardless of the instrument. It really adds some juice to the mix, and at this point ignoring it is just laziness. This is what HIP has given us, not oboes that sound more shawm-y.

Technical approach has a large effect on the emotional impact. Just a tad more or tad less vibrato from the strings can make all the difference. So too can a perfectly executed bit of improvised ornamentation. Such decisions are entirely possible on modern instruments; performers just have to be willing to consider them. So one should in fact be thankul for HIP's effect on emotional impact. Would Heifetz have been able to express *less* with a wider variety of technical and improvizational devices? If there was a swing too far to the 'right' with HIP initially, I think the centrization is happening now and it's a good thing.


----------



## RRod

alex_aiwa_USA said:


> I don't know if HIP has an essential normative POV that says "Historical is the most-right way", but I do think that at minimum, you have to believe that the "most original sound/style possible" is interesting and worthwhile in some way.  I like the idea of HIP but don't think it's more valid than any other performance.  On that point I am maybe out of wack with people on this board - I tend to believe there is a single "most correct" way to listen to a recording (go to the original mixing studio and listen there, lol), but there's no single best way to perform a piece of music...
> 
> NB: I am not looking to argue about what playback method is best, just noting what my view on it is.



I think we see the tensions between two related but fundamentally different questions:
1) Had Bach lived to be 300, what would he think of modern standard performances of his older works?
2) If we transported modern standard performers back 300 years, what would Bach think of them?



bigshot said:


> -Glenn Gould



Gould's Mozart is reason for him to have been shot; Gould's Bach is reason for the bullet to have been rubber.


----------



## bigshot

RRod said:


> 1) Had Bach lived to be 300, what would he think of modern standard performances of his older works?
> 2) If we transported modern standard performers back 300 years, what would Bach think of them?



I actually don't care to be completely honest. Dead composers don't make music. Living musicians do. (set up line for the obvious joke there)

I work with artists for a living. The way artists create is a process, not a destination. When art stops evolving, it gets shipped off to a museum and becomes a dead object... much like a frog in a jar of formaldehyde. Living art is a part of society. It evolves with the people it serves and reflects modern sensibilities. I might have a historical interest in seeing the Mona Lisa. I'd say, "Hey, look at that! The world's most famous painting. I bet it's worth a lot of money!" But artistically, I would probably be more excited to see an insanely creative 25 year old drawing on a placemat in a coffee shop. Spontaneity is a laser beam from the soul. It's hard for any 300 year old object to be spontaneous. Music has an advantage over painting and sculpture because it requires a living person to bring it to life. Notes are just marks on paper until someone performs them. It's the same with acting. I don't go to see Olivier in Hamlet to see Shakespeare. I know how it ends already! I go to see the great actor and find out what he is bringing to the table. Likewise, I don't go to a classical concert to hear Beethoven. I go to hear what the conductor or soloist brings to it.

Early on when I was just getting interested in classical music, I aspired to have the one perfect recording of each work. I read my Penguin Guide and dutifully bought only five stars and rosettes. Then one day I picked up some used CDs on the cheap that were rated as "just average", and I found that there were ideas in those "average" recordings that illuminated some aspects of the works that the rosettes missed completely. I also got a couple of recordings that were rated as bombs, and even though they might not be the best example of that particular work, the experiment was fascinating and taught me something. Failures in art are as important as successes. Marcel Duchamp is known for his R Mutt, and I have absolutely no connection to that piece because it's like shooting fish in a barrel. No creative risk to it, just the risk of being punched in the nose. But the idea behind his failed experiment Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors is fascinating to me. Experiments that don't work are as important as experiments that do, because it isn't an experiment unless there is a possibility of failure.

Today, the performances I value are the ones that are unique creatively. Show me something I haven't seen. Play something I haven't heard. To hell with "historical accuracy" or "tradition". The whole idea of an established "performance practice" makes me bristle. As Pablo Picasso said, "The chief enemy of art is good taste."



I'll have to pull out my Gould Mozart and listen to them again.


----------



## RRod

Keeping this as short as I can:

1) Living *composers* are also making music; should their expectations for the peformances of their works not have the utmost consideration?
2) When LvB 7 is on the programme, I expect to hear LvB 7, not a symphony with an Adagio 2nd movement. HIP helped to change customs that I for one feel were explicitly counter to the expressive intentions of the composer/piece.
3) Recordings of dead conductors are hardly spontaneous at this point, but we still like them.
4) Your Picasso quote is curious, because I have often heard HIP detractors claim that they found the performances in bad taste. They want prim and proper Bach, not anything with rough edges.
5) My reference to 'standard performers' wasn't to HIP, but to the generic big-band orchestral sound HIP sought to question.
6) Gould's Mozart certainly is unique and creative, I'll grant that.

I'll reassert that I think if the net effect of HIP has been to broaden the interpretive gamut of orchestras at large, then I can't see how that movement has been counter to creativity.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 29, 2017)

Living composers can express a preference. They're living and if they don't like a performance, they can punch the conductor in the nose! But once they're dead, all bets are off. The living get to define how the dead are remembered. No fighting it. I'm afraid that's true of all of us once we shed this mortal coil.

Expressing a personal preference or non-preference is different than claiming that a particular way is the proper way to present a work. Go ahead and say you like or don't like a performance and feel free to explain why it works better expressively or doesn't work at all. Just don't say one is more "accurate" or "proper". If there truly was one proper interpretation, you can record it once and never have to record it again. The only reason for multiple recorded versions of a work is to present a wide range of different approaches. If it's really true that recordings of dead composers' works aren't spontaneous any more, then we don't need any more recordings of them. Time to put it on the shelf next to all the other dead culture. It can gather dust between the exhibits on square dancing and macrame.

As long as HIP represents itself as just being another approach equal to all the other ones, and we can judge it on its own merits, not some sort of historical yardstick, it's fine. My objection is to claiming that Mozart is only really Mozart when it's played in the HIP manner, and it isn't Mozart when Karajan plays it, That kind of thing cuts the legs off of half of the creativity in a performance and leads to homogeneous music. The only reason that HIP isn't entirely homogeneous is due to the fact that historians can't get their act together and agree on what music used to sound like. Personally, I don't care much how music used to sound. I only care about how it's going to sound. Future tense, not past tense.

I'll defend the right to make a mistake to the end. I've found that creative mistakes are much better to learn from than creative successes. Every great painting starts from a blank canvas and a totally fresh idea. It often comes on the tails of a big flop too.


----------



## Raketen (Dec 30, 2017)

JaeYoon said:


> Hey can anyone recommend anymore pipe organ music? I know this sounds kind of an odd request.



hope not repeats, only know the Latry on DG & Latry + Philly NAXOS of these.


----------



## Caribou679 (Dec 31, 2017)

*AllMusic Review by Patsy Morita  [-]*
The grande dame of French organists, Marie-Claire Alain recorded the complete organ music of Bachnot once, not twice, but three times. This collection is the third recording, made in the late '80s and early '90s, and recorded digitally by Erato. For this version, Alain had access to restored, historic organs, including some that Bach himself would have played. This affected the way she approached the music, trying to choose the right organ to match the work and where it fell chronologically in Bach's career, and choosing the matching technique as well. In an interview with the magazine The Organ, Alain said "This third cycle is also much more musicological in approach, since we know much more now about performance practice in Bach's day and of other composers of his time: different position of the hands on the keyboard, different fingering, accentuation.... Our entire approach has to be rethought in terms of what we have since discovered." This more is a mature version of the master composer's works than her earlier ones, made by an artist well-respected for her dedication to early music performance practice as well as her musicality.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Nothing wrong with a dame working an organ.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 31, 2017)

The best sounding organ I've ever heard is the one at Cathedral of Our Lady in Los Angeles. Organ technology has come a long way since Bach's time. LA is lucky to have one of the best tricked out organs in the world.

Years ago, I remember seeing a documentary on PBS about a super organ in New Jersey. They were restoring it from the bottom up. It had pipes that were incredibly large. I wonder if they finished restoring it?


----------



## james444

If anyone's interested in music recommendations, here's my list of 2017 faves: 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/your-favorite-albums-released-in-2017.867412/#post-13945539


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> Living composers can express a preference. They're living and if they don't like a performance, they can punch the conductor in the nose! But once they're dead, all bets are off. The living get to define how the dead are remembered. No fighting it. I'm afraid that's true of all of us once we shed this mortal coil.
> 
> Expressing a personal preference or non-preference is different than claiming that a particular way is the proper way to present a work. Go ahead and say you like or don't like a performance and feel free to explain why it works better expressively or doesn't work at all. Just don't say one is more "accurate" or "proper". If there truly was one proper interpretation, you can record it once and never have to record it again. The only reason for multiple recorded versions of a work is to present a wide range of different approaches. If it's really true that recordings of dead composers' works aren't spontaneous any more, then we don't need any more recordings of them. Time to put it on the shelf next to all the other dead culture. It can gather dust between the exhibits on square dancing and macrame.
> 
> ...



I'll end my part of this by saying I disagree with the 'dead have no say' mantra, as there is such a thing as a will. Some things get put in the will because the person definitely wants them to happen. Other things get left out of the will because the person knows things will happen due to custom/law. I think for a while there was way too much deliberate ignoring of the former, and not enough interest in the latter. I think HIP shored that up a bit and I'm happy for it. The quote from the organist above I think sums it up well.

As far as more organ music, if you haven't heard Ligeti's Volumina, give it a shot. If you want a nice recording of the Poulenc concerto, the sound of Latry's disc with Philly/Eschenbach is really good.


----------



## bigshot

You should check out this documentary on Netflix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_the_Steal_(2009_film)


----------



## Brahmsian

It's been an interesting read, but also a pointless one in my opinion. I've liked some historically informed performances and haven't liked others. Same holds true of performances in general. Why take a doctrinaire or hard line attitude one way or the other?


----------



## Argyris

I've never had the experience of hearing an organ live. It's on my bucket list, along with having the opportunity to actually play one. I'm a pianist by training, so I'd be limited to using the keyboards and maybe tapping the pedals occasionally, but it would still be awesome.


----------



## Brahmsian

Argyris said:


> I've never had the experience of hearing an organ live. It's on my bucket list



You should. The last one I remember hearing was in a performance of Zarathustra, and it was thrilling when it kicked in.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> You should check out this documentary on Netflix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_the_Steal_(2009_film)



That’s a good documentary but also a completely one sided view that ignores the primary reason that the collection was moved.  I live very close to the original museum location (5 minute walk) and as you might imagine, this was a pretty big story over a long period of time.

Short version - the original Barnes museum is in a residential neighborhood that didn’t have the capability to support large crowds as it became better known.  No parking, facilities, etc.  To comply with the zoning regulations, access to the museum became extremely limited, with only a few dozen passes a day available.  Unfortunately, Barnes’ will had a conflict that wasn’t solvable in the current location - the will required the collection to be both fully publicly accessible and to remain at the existing site.  Both were not possible, so the Foundation relocated the collection into the museum area in Philadelphia to keep it open to a much larger audience.

I understand both sides of the debate but the will simply couldn’t be honored in full.  Either the museum had to move in violation of the will or public access largely curtailed, also in violation of the will.


----------



## bigshot

Brahmsian said:


> It's been an interesting read, but also a pointless one in my opinion. I've liked some historically informed performances and haven't liked others. Same holds true of performances in general. Why take a doctrinaire or hard line attitude one way or the other?



I don't care what sort of instruments are used. I just want the performer to have an unique approach to the music designed to illuminate the core, and the maximum involvement of the performer in the music. No formulas. No rules. Mistakes are OK. Creativity is what counts, not appropriateness.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 31, 2017)

bfreedma said:


> I understand both sides of the debate but the will simply couldn’t be honored in full.  Either the museum had to move in violation of the will or public access largely curtailed, also in violation of the will.



Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the purpose of the collection was to be for the use of creative artists, not for the general public. They didn't just change the location. They changed the whole purpose of the collection. Was the residential neighborhood there when the facility was built originally, or did it spring up around it later? Here in Los Angeles, we have the Huntington Library, which is in the exact same sort of situation. It has been integrated into the neighborhood well. The same for Descanso Gardens in La Crescenta.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Brahmsian said:


> It's been an interesting read, but also a pointless one in my opinion. I've liked some historically informed performances and haven't liked others. Same holds true of performances in general. Why take a doctrinaire or hard line attitude one way or the other?


I enjoy something about almost any well-played music, HIP or any other style.  I don't believe that most HIPs are truly authentic sounding as intended, it is simply another modern interpretation of classical music and might need its own sub-genre, that is all.


----------



## bigshot

I think HIP works better with Baroque music, particularly pieces that don't have any competition from back catalog recordings.


----------



## RRod

Brahmsian said:


> You should. The last one I remember hearing was in a performance of Zarathustra, and it was thrilling when it kicked in.



I'm hoping to catch Bluebeard's Castle at some point for some 5th door action.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the purpose of the collection was to be for the use of creative artists, not for the general public. They didn't just change the location. They changed the whole purpose of the collection. Was the residential neighborhood there when the facility was built originally, or did it spring up around it later? Here in Los Angeles, we have the Huntington Library, which is in the exact same sort of situation. It has been integrated into the neighborhood well. The same for Descanso Gardens in La Crescenta.




The residential neighborhood was there prior to the museum - the back of the Barnes opened onto St. Joseph's University owned land, with the residential neighborhood across from the front of the building.  Access and parking was only through the existing residential streets and not SJU.  The facility became open to the general public in the early 60s (the move was in 2011) after starting as a space for creative artists, with a cap of 500 visitors per week which was eventually reduced to 200 due to traffic/parking issues.  There is also an arboretum which remained in Merion after the artwork moved.  The biggest issue was not so much the location of the museum as it was the reorganization of the collection.  Part of the Barnes will demanded that none of the artwork be rearranged.

At one point, there was an agreement with SJU to use some of the land behind the building for parking, but the University decided to use the space for athletic fields.  Unfortunately, there weren't a lot of options as the area is heavily developed and that was the only parcel of land available to SJU.

Frankly, IMO, both sides had plenty of opportunity to compromise but became entrenched in all or nothing positions.


----------



## bigshot

They should have turned the arboretum into a parking lot and kept the artwork for the artists. I can totally understand how the context of the artwork was vital to the integrity of the collection.


----------



## Raketen (Jan 1, 2018)

HIP of the future are going to have a ball with LaMonte Young


----------



## castleofargh

james444 said:


> If anyone's interested in music recommendations, here's my list of 2017 faves:
> 
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/your-favorite-albums-released-in-2017.867412/#post-13945539


2017???? your post was a slap on my face. I'm not sure I have one album released in 2017. I've bought stuff, but old stuff. OMG I'm old!!!!!!!! 
ok after looking, I've found a good deal of 2016 albums. maybe only 2017 eluded me. it was one of those leap year thing where a year lasts a day, right? maybe I'm just always one year late(that would actually explain a lot in my life ^_^), or maybe I've turned old in the head specifically in 2017? oh well, Stevie Wonder is still a charming young man, so it can't be that bad.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> They should have turned the arboretum into a parking lot and kept the artwork for the artists. I can totally understand how the context of the artwork was vital to the integrity of the collection.



Yes, most of us locals thought the same, but the board that controlled the Barnes refused to consider it.  Both sides were very entrenched and had numerous lawyers in tow, so a number of reasonable solutions weren’t considered as neither side was willing to compromise.


----------



## bigshot

That documentary made it pretty clear that the board was determined to dismantle the place. Having served on non-profit boards myself, I know that the stewards of the charity aren't always exercising their fiduciary responsibilities.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> That documentary made it pretty clear that the board was determined to dismantle the place. Having served on non-profit boards myself, I know that the stewards of the charity aren't always exercising their fiduciary responsibilities.



IMO, the root cause wasn’t the board’s desire to dismantle the place, it was the mismanagement of the endowment by the board for decades.  The Barnes facility wasn’t  properly maintained and when it became unavoidable, the funds weren’t there.   Add that to the neighborhood issues and it was pretty clear the Barnes had to relocate.  Barnes visitors were making a bad habit out of parking in the driveways of the surrounding houses.  The only people happy about it were the tow truck operators who were pulling multiple cars per day.

If they had simply rebuilt a replica of the Barnes in town and installed the collection in the new “old” locations, this wouldn’t have turned into a debacle. Or at least would have only been a fiasco...


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> 2017???? your post was a slap on my face. I'm not sure I have one album released in 2017. I've bought stuff, but old stuff. OMG I'm old!!!!!!!!
> ok after looking, I've found a good deal of 2016 albums. maybe only 2017 eluded me. it was one of those leap year thing where a year lasts a day, right? maybe I'm just always one year late(that would actually explain a lot in my life ^_^), or maybe I've turned old in the head specifically in 2017? oh well, Stevie Wonder is still a charming young man, so it can't be that bad.



Geez, sorry about that! But hey... you're a forum mod, you could have just nuked that post 

On a more serious note, I simply like to explore new stuff. Plus, I've amassed so many albums over time, that it really wouldn't make much sense for me to buy even more old stuff, lol. But then again, there's that more than a decade younger friend of mine, who just happens to go bananas over my old vinyl stuff. So yeah, not sure if this has anything to do with age, tbh...


----------



## bigshot

If you think you've got old stuff covered, you don't know enough about old stuff! Every time I think I've heard everything, something else pops up. I like both old and new. I just focus on good.


----------



## Argyris

It's always a thrill of discovery when I find something in my own collection that I never listened to before, or else tried but didn't initially care for, and end up absolutely loving it. I've bought a lot of albums just for one or two songs/performances, and sometimes it's ten years or more that the undiscovered gems slumber before being unearthed. So in a way, that's how I know for sure that I don't know enough about old stuff—if my own collection occasionally yields surprises, how much more is out there that I don't even know about?


----------



## james444

I've long ago abandoned hope of getting anything remotely *covered* when it comes to music, be it the older stuff or the plethora of new releases each year. Also, I forgot to mention that about half of my listening is dedicated to classical, of which I've bought not a single new release this year... simply because I'm still stuck with a huge backlog of older stuff.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> If you think you've got old stuff covered, you don't know enough about old stuff! Every time I think I've heard everything, something else pops up. I like both old and new. I just focus on good.



The question is how many lifetimes would it take to get all stuff covered. So, I cover it worth one lifetime and that has to be enough.


----------



## bigshot

My goal is to have more music and movies on hand than I can ever watch. That way I never run out of new discoveries. I have already achieved that goal, but I won't admit it to myself because "too much is never enough".


----------



## bigshot

Man! If you guys could see the comments and links I'm getting in PMs! Sound Science has a few regular posters, but there are lots of lurkers. Great stuff!


----------



## pila405

Share some links if it's interesting 
Scientific articles?


----------



## bigshot

The gossip is the most interesting stuff!


----------



## Niouke

I've listened to some Mannheim Steamroller tracks, I agree that having my head inside the percussions is not very pleasing at times. Besides that I find the melodies to be naive and childish, but it is still a fun listen for a while...


----------



## bigshot

The forum feels like championship wrestling lately. People seem to think that they can earn respect by posting on the internet. Amazing.


----------



## Strangelove424

I got an urge to listen to U2's "Sweetest Thing" today (yes, people still listen to U2)... when I put the song it started out with an awesome low pass/high pass filter to make it sound like played over distant radio. I thought to myself "I don't remember this part, but it sounds great!" and was expecting it to fade into the full fidelity sweetness of the song. I was really digging this intro till I realized my headphones weren't plugged into my laptop, and that was just the sound of my laptop speakers. Doh! It sounded so good though, I'm thinking of mixing my own version of the intro later today.


----------



## cel4145

This thread has been very quiet for a long time. Maybe it needs waking up? 

Was looking through another thread and saw this post  from earlier this month and something jumped out at me (bold emphasis is mine):



Allanmarcus said:


> A DAC is not a DAC. There are definitely subtle differences between DACs. *It all depends on how trained and sensitive your ears are....*



So is there like an online class for this training? Or is more like going to sports camp? And is there a medical certification/test for that sensitivity?

Now those remarks are a bit flippant, but is there is actually any agreed upon standards for what is being described there? Or is just something people throw out to justify their beliefs, without any real shared basis for what it means?


----------



## bigshot

I've found stuff like that to be people who are a little too proud of their ears. If you suggest they try a simple blind test, their super ears become Clark Kent ears again.

I have more respect for people who struggle to understand the meaning of music than I do people who struggle to hear unbearable things.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Mar 22, 2018)

cel4145 said:


> This thread has been very quiet for a long time. Maybe it needs waking up?
> 
> Was looking through another thread and saw this post  from earlier this month and something jumped out at me (bold emphasis is mine):
> 
> ...



There is certainly something to be said for training one's ears, for example, learning to recognize different frequency ranges by ear or what subtle harmonic distortion sounds like, or what a better/worse attack sounds like, can be learned.  One way to do this is listen to the same songs over and over on different equipment with known, measurable differences, and listen carefully to specific sounds within the recording.  Another way is to spend a great deal of time listening to the same things while messing with an equalizer and other DSP tools.

However, if the person saying their ears are well-trained, but aren't specific about WHAT they are "trained" for, I agree that skepticism is warranted.  In a sense, you can't train your ears to hear more "musicality" or "fluency" or any of those other flowery things, because those phenomena are (if they're real at all - often just pleasant names for placebo effect) aggregates of other things.

If someone has truly well-trained ears, they'll be able to pass ABX tests a bit more often than your average punter, not because their ears work better, but because they have a mental checklist of things to listen for and know what those things sound like in a generalized way.  But that's about as far as it goes.  Someone with legitimately well-trained ears is not going to try and convince you that they can hear some unknown-to-science "musicality" of a DAC because their training lets them know that A) such things don't exist and B) you can't actually hear them even if they do.


----------



## danadam

cel4145 said:


> Allanmarcus said:
> 
> 
> > A DAC is not a DAC. There are definitely subtle differences between DACs. *It all depends on how trained and sensitive your ears are.*
> ...


Isn't that obvious? This is something science is not able to measure yet


----------



## Allanmarcus

> > A DAC is not a DAC. There are definitely subtle differences between DACs. *It all depends on how trained and sensitive your ears are.*
> 
> 
> ... And is there a medical certification/test for that sensitivity?




Absolutely, there is. First, at a broad level, and medically certified, are frequency response tests that audiologists can give. These test can be quite thorough in determining one's ability to hear and distinguish various frequencies. Once ability to hear or distinguish frequencies can certainly affect one's option on a DAC, or any other piece of audio reproduction equipment.

As for training, there are many ear training regimes, classes, and tests one can utilize to train one's ability to distinguish many aspects of music, and musical reproduction. There is a good summary of types of recognition one can train for at Wikipedia. Are there medical certifications for ear training? I'm not sure. There are validated tests that one can take to determine one's ability to distinguish pitch, interval, key, and others. Many well respected universities have music programs that include tests to identify various aspects of music theory. 

I think it's pretty well accepted, even among objectivists like me, that individuals hear differently, and that ear training (listening training) is valid. I think it's also well accepted that not every DAC sounds the same. There are measurable differences in FR, distortion, and clock accuracy, and probably other things that I don't understand that can have an affect on sound reproduction, especially to someone with sensitive enough and trained ears.


----------



## castleofargh

cel4145 said:


> This thread has been very quiet for a long time. Maybe it needs waking up?
> 
> Was looking through another thread and saw this post  from earlier this month and something jumped out at me (bold emphasis is mine):
> 
> ...


so long as the argument is used when talking about sighted test, and dudes who don't even know DACs can output different voltages, just laugh it off.
 if we're talking about an actual listening test(as in, sound only), then it's absolutely true that training can improve detection *within what's already physically audible to the listener*. training for the test itself, training with louder samples of the stuff we'll have to notice. training to focus on specific aspects of sound. or on the contrary, learn not to focus on something specific to avoid some kind of "tunnel vision" effect where the brain is so focused on one thing that it might ignore the rest on purpose to help stay focused on that other stuff.
then if you clearly know what's different between 2 DACs, you can always set your listening test around hearing that specifically. for example pushing the sound like crazy to notice a faster roll off at 18khz despite how you maybe can't hear any 18khz at all at normal listening level.

but let's be clear, I would be amazed that something beyond just barely noticeable would elude me in a rapid switching exercise just because I wasn't trained to hear it. the way our brain picks up on variations is the very foundation of hearing. of course we're already amazing at that. saying what the difference is might be a different matter.



Allanmarcus said:


> Absolutely, there is. First, at a broad level, and medically certified, are frequency response tests that audiologists can give. These test can be quite thorough in determining one's ability to hear and distinguish various frequencies. Once ability to hear or distinguish frequencies can certainly affect one's option on a DAC, or any other piece of audio reproduction equipment.
> 
> As for training, there are many ear training regimes, classes, and tests one can utilize to train one's ability to distinguish many aspects of music, and musical reproduction. There is a good summary of types of recognition one can train for at Wikipedia. Are there medical certifications for ear training? I'm not sure. There are validated tests that one can take to determine one's ability to distinguish pitch, interval, key, and others. Many well respected universities have music programs that include tests to identify various aspects of music theory.
> 
> I think it's pretty well accepted, even among objectivists like me, that individuals hear differently, and that ear training (listening training) is valid. I think it's also well accepted that not every DAC sounds the same. There are measurable differences in FR, distortion, and clock accuracy, and probably other things that I don't understand that can have an affect on sound reproduction, especially to someone with sensitive enough and trained ears.


you need to keep in mind the difference between identifying something, and noticing a variation. the former is clearly a matter of training, the later not as much. noticing the differences between DACs doesn't require to properly name those differences or even know how to describe them. we only have to perceive the change.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Mar 22, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> so long as the argument is used when talking about sighted test, and dudes who don't even know DACs can output different voltages, just laugh it off.
> if we're talking about an actual listening test(as in, sound only), then it's absolutely true that training can improve detection *within what's already physically audible to the listener*. training for the test itself, training with louder samples of the stuff we'll have to notice. training to focus on specific aspects of sound. or on the contrary, learn not to focus on something specific to avoid some kind of "tunnel vision" effect where the brain is so focused on one thing that it might ignore the rest on purpose to help stay focused on that other stuff.
> then if you clearly know what's different between 2 DACs, you can always set your listening test around hearing that specifically. for example pushing the sound like crazy to notice a faster roll off at 18khz despite how you maybe can't hear any 18khz at all at normal listening level.
> 
> ...


Listeners have different preferences(and thereby differing strengths and weaknesses)i love a nice full range low distortion sound,but i will take a realistic soundstage/imaging in exchange for less performance in some other areas.So i may notice imaging more than freq anomalies/distortion ect.


----------



## Allanmarcus

cel4145 said:


> This thread has been very quiet for a long time. Maybe it needs waking up?
> 
> Was looking through another thread and saw this post  from earlier this month and something jumped out at me (bold emphasis is mine):
> 
> ...



Ahh! For some reason I didn't see the original response.

Are there actual classes for ear training? Absolutely. Just google "ear training course", possibly ass "sound engineer" to the search.  Phillips used to have a course and free test on their web site that many in the audiophile community took, but alas, it's gone. Most courses are for musicians, but some focus on sound engineering, and others on piano or instrument tuning. Some are on-line, some on CD. Some free, some paid.

A trained ear should be able identify variation, as well as identify pitch, interval, and other stuff. My ears are not trained. It's one of them things to do on my bucket list. I imagine not everyone has the same ability to be trained, just as with everything else.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Allanmarcus said:


> Ahh! For some reason I didn't see the original response.
> 
> Are there actual classes for ear training? Absolutely. Just google "ear training course", possibly ass "sound engineer" to the search.  Phillips used to have a course and free test on their web site that many in the audiophile community took, but alas, it's gone. Most courses are for musicians, but some focus on sound engineering, and others on piano or instrument tuning. Some are on-line, some on CD. Some free, some paid.
> 
> A trained ear should be able identify variation, as well as identify pitch, interval, and other stuff. My ears are not trained. It's one of them things to do on my bucket list. I imagine not everyone has the same ability to be trained, just as with everything else.


Sounds like a great way to go from enjoying music to dissecting it....gotta draw the line bud.


----------



## Allanmarcus

Glmoneydawg said:


> Sounds like a great way to go from enjoying music to dissecting it....gotta draw the line bud.


Yep. One of the reasons I haven't done any of the courses. Many say that once you can hear stuff, can can't not hear it.

As my lawyer wife says, you can't unring the bell.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Allanmarcus said:


> Yep. One of the reasons I haven't done any of the courses. Many say that once you can hear stuff, can can't not hear it.
> 
> As my lawyer wife says, you can't unring the bell.


I love my stereo equipment...its taken years to to put it in 2nd place to the music.


----------



## U-3C

Well, having an ear to notice things you never gave thought to before can definitely lead to a new appreciation to things, no?


----------



## cel4145

Allanmarcus said:


> Ahh! For some reason I didn't see the original response.
> 
> Are there actual classes for ear training? Absolutely. Just google "ear training course", possibly ass "sound engineer" to the search.  Phillips used to have a course and free test on their web site that many in the audiophile community took, but alas, it's gone. Most courses are for musicians, but some focus on sound engineering, and others on piano or instrument tuning. Some are on-line, some on CD. Some free, some paid.
> 
> A trained ear should be able identify variation, as well as identify pitch, interval, and other stuff. *My ears are not trained.* It's one of them things to do on my bucket list. I imagine not everyone has the same ability to be trained, just as with everything else.



So I am confused then. What would make you think that a trained ear can hear the difference between expensive DACs if (a) your ears are not trained and (b) there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the differences people hear between DACs is due to expectation bias and listening test issues, not hearable difference?


----------



## cel4145

Glmoneydawg said:


> Sounds like a great way to go from enjoying music to dissecting it....gotta draw the line bud.




And if a $100 DAC sounds the same to me as a $600, why would I want to get trained so I can hear the difference? Ignorance is bliss...err rather...better money never spent


----------



## Allanmarcus

cel4145 said:


> So I am confused then. What would make you think that a trained ear can hear the difference between expensive DACs if (a) your ears are not trained and (b) there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the differences people hear between DACs is due to expectation bias and listening test issues, not hearable difference?


I cannot hear the difference between most DACs, but I could in at least one case. I compared three DACs, one Sony and two Schiit. The comparison was blind (son was switching). I (and he) could consistently identify the Sony UDA-1, but we could not tell the difference (other then a slight volume difference) between the Bimby and the Gumby. Both of our bias was to assume the Gumby was better.

As for training, there are many ear training regimes, classes, and tests one can utilize to train one's ability to distinguish many aspects of music, and musical reproduction. There is a good summary of types of recognition one can train for at Wikipedia. Are there medical certifications for ear training? I'm not sure. *There are validated tests that one can take to determine one's ability to distinguish pitch, interval, key, and others. Many well respected universities have music programs that include tests to identify various aspects of music theory.*

I think it's pretty well accepted, even among objectivists like me, that individuals hear differently, and that ear training (listening training) is valid. I think it's also well accepted that not every DAC sounds the same uses the same technology. There are measurable differences in FR, distortion, and clock accuracy, and probably other things that I don't understand that can have an affect on sound reproduction, especially to someone with sensitive enough and trained ears.

So, to sum up, a trained ear might be able to distinguish, and prefer, and describe, the subtle variations in DAC technology implementations (e.g., different DACs). Objectively, not all DAC implementations are the same. Measurements often prove this.

Also note that I never said "a trained ear can hear the difference between expensive DACs". I said, well, what I just said above. "There are measurable differences in FR, distortion, and clock accuracy, and probably other things that I don't understand that can have an affect on sound reproduction, especially to someone with sensitive enough and trained ears."


----------



## bigshot (Mar 23, 2018)

It's easy to determine differences between DACs if they aren't level matched.

I don't think you can train your ear to hear things you couldn't hear without training. I think practice just makes you better at describing the differences. When I'm listening to an imbalanced system, I can call out the ballpark response location and level difference. I can also pinpoint distortion within frequency ranges. I'm not good enough to describe different kinds of distortion or venture a guess as to what the rating of the distortion is, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone could do that.

Most of the people I see claiming to have "golden ears" that are trained to jump through hoops describe sound in the most vague and poetic ways. They say they can detect "veils" and talk about hearing flies buzzing across the room and footsteps in tall grass a block away. These sorts of people fall into the category of self validating delusion as far as I'm concerned. If you can't equate sound with some sort of precise description, it really doesn't matter what you hear. You aren't going to be able to point it out to anyone else. But that doesn't matter because their only purpose in flaunting their trained ears is to impress other people.

I'm not that easily impressed. Knowledge and the ability to put observations to practical use impress me, not the ability to hear raindrops falling on a velvet pillow. In fact, I feel sorry for people who are able to hear very high frequencies. I've known a couple and the high pitched squeal of TV sets and fluorescent light ballasts made them crazy. I could hear that stuff when I was about 8. I remember going to Sears and getting dizzy headaches from the combination of banks and banks of fluorescent lights. The nauseatingly pervasive odor of popcorn didn't help any. I *hated* Sears.


----------



## Allanmarcus

bigshot said:


> It's easy to determine differences between DACs if they aren't level matched.
> 
> I don't think you can train your ear to hear things you couldn't hear without training. I think practice just makes you better at describing the differences. When I'm listening to an imbalanced system, I can call out the ballpark response location and level difference. I can also pinpoint distortion within frequency ranges. I'm not good enough to describe different kinds of distortion or venture a guess as to what the rating of the distortion is, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone could do that.
> 
> ...



I'm 54 and just replaced a few ballasts. I could easily hear the hum. I cannot hear above 16.5khz, based on audiologist testing.

No one can train their ears to hear things they cannot hear. No one suggested that. Ear training, especially for musicians, is all about pitch (FR), interval (timing), chords, and timbre. Sound engineers earns about distortion, compression, and delay times. All measurable. 

This ain't rocket science, folks. Fact: some people have better and/or more sensitive hearing than others. There are measurable differences in sound that people can be trained to distinguish, identify, and describe. 

Yes, many "audiophiles" describe sound like floating in a breeze over a field of colorful flowers which sipping sweetened Ice Tea. I ain't one of them. That's not what I'm talking about. People's ears can be trained to recognize all the stuff discussed above. Some will do it better than others as a result in inherently better/more sensitive hearing, some will do it better as a result of better training and experience.

Am I saying expectation bias doesn't exists. Of course not.
Am I saying DBT isn't needed? Of course not.
Am I saying everything DAC sound different? Of course not.

Am I saying there are differences, sometimes audible in some DACs? Yes. 
Am I saying that people with trained ears, trained in hearing and identifying variations in pitch, tempo, interval, distortion, and compression may be able to better identify and describe differences in some DACs? Yes.

This seams pretty strait forward for the science board. This is science, not voodoo, audio-phoolery.


----------



## Raketen (Mar 24, 2018)

That Phillips Golden course was very cool, unfortunate that they took it offline... though gladly the would-be tonmeisters adding "CERTIFIED PALLADIUM EARS" to their signature have abated 

 Personally find that stuff extremely mentally draining after even a few minutes, like an itch that can't be scratched. Imagine that to become a good mastering engineer it really must take years of daily work before it becomes non-exhausting, second nature type of skill.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 24, 2018)

Allanmarcus said:


> Am I saying there are differences, sometimes audible in some DACs? Yes.



Which ones? The only ones I’ve ever seen are obsolete pre oversampling DACs from the 1980s.

Hearing a difference just requires ears. Describing the difference requires understanding and experience. If two DACs sound different, you wouldn’t need training to hear the difference. Only to describe it.


----------



## Allanmarcus

bigshot said:


> Which ones? The only ones I’ve ever seen are obsolete pre oversampling DACs from the 1980s.
> 
> Hearing a difference just requires ears. Describing the difference requires understanding and experience. If two DACs sound different, you wouldn’t need training to hear the difference. Only to describe it.


Man, you are tedious.

While technically correct, you are also wrong. You don't _need_ trained ears to hear differences. I *never *said that. Also, many people may not have the sensitivity in hearing to even hear the subtle, measurable differences in DAC.

What I said was:
"So, to sum up, a trained ear might be able to distinguish, and prefer, and describe, the subtle variations in DAC technology implementations (e.g., different DACs). Objectively, not all DAC implementations are the same. Measurements often prove this."

I will expand this a little since, by your comments, I'm not making my point as well as I should (or you are just trolling, I cannot tell). A person with sensitive _and_ trained ears may very well be able to distinguish, and prefer, and describe, the subtle variations in DAC technology implementations that are so subtle, that without trained _and_ sensitive hearing, a person may not be able to distinguish and describe those variations.

For example, there are clear measurable differences between a Bimby and a Gumby. I cannot hear the differences (other than the volume). I built a switch box and A/B tested (blind and sighted). Others claim to be able to, even in a blind test. The voltage is not the same coming out of the DACs, so the testers were able to determine that one was slightly louder, yet they described the sound from the slightly quieter DAC consistent with the variation in measurements.

I'm a believer is science, but not dogma. This is at the sound science forum, not the sound dogma forum. Expectation bias is real, and it obvious in this industry. That doesn't mean there aren't people that can hear the subtle differences in measurable variations. DAC implementations, unless identical, often have subtle, measurable, variations that some people can hear, describe and prefer. Those with sensitive hearing are more likely to hear these variations. Those with sensitive hearing and trained ears are more likely to be able to hear and describe those variations. The is all I am saying. If you are agreeing with me, then ok. If not, I am not understanding what you are saying.


----------



## cel4145

Allanmarcus said:


> I cannot hear the difference between most DACs, but I could in at least one case. I compared three DACs, one Sony and two Schiit. The comparison was blind (son was switching). I (and he) could consistently identify the Sony UDA-1, but we could not tell the difference (other then a slight volume difference) between the Bimby and the Gumby. Both of our bias was to assume the Gumby was better.
> 
> As for training, there are many ear training regimes, classes, and tests one can utilize to train one's ability to distinguish many aspects of music, and musical reproduction. There is a good summary of types of recognition one can train for at Wikipedia. Are there medical certifications for ear training? I'm not sure. *There are validated tests that one can take to determine one's ability to distinguish pitch, interval, key, and others. Many well respected universities have music programs that include tests to identify various aspects of music theory.*
> 
> ...




Sorry. You didn't say between "expensive DACs." But you did claim,



Allanmarcus said:


> A DAC is not a DAC. There are definitely subtle differences between DACs. It all depends on how trained and sensitive your ears are.



I'm not convinced at all that there are subtle _audible_ differences between many DACs regularly recommended and talked about on Head-Fi, regardless of what kind of training and ear sensitivity one has. And the training and sensitivity argument seems used a lot to support subjectivism views that there are.


----------



## Allanmarcus

cel4145 said:


> I'm not convinced at all that there are subtle _audible_ differences between many DACs regularly recommended and talked about on Head-Fi, regardless of what kind of training and ear sensitivity one has. And the training and sensitivity argument seems used a lot to support subjectivism views that there are.



Agreed. There are probably many DACs for which there is no audible difference. There are also many DACs for which there are measurable differences, and those differences may be discernible to some, and not to others. I also agree that expectation bias can play a huge role. 

Unfortunately, _some_ of sound reproduction is still an art, and not a science. Until we can be sure we are able to measure everything, and that we even understand what we should measure, some of music reproduction is subjective and _should_ be subject to DBT for validation. I think we are on the same page.


----------



## castleofargh

Allanmarcus said:


> For example, there are clear measurable differences between a Bimby and a Gumby. I cannot hear the differences (other than the volume). I built a switch box and A/B tested (blind and sighted). Others claim to be able to, even in a blind test. The voltage is not the same coming out of the DACs, so the testers were able to determine that one was slightly louder, yet they described the sound from the slightly quieter DAC consistent with the variation in measurements.


I can do with the rest of your post, it's hard to know if you're talking minute improvements around the usual threshold of hearing(maybe perception would be better than hearing for this), and then we're on a consensus basis. or if that argument would end up justifying Chord level stuff with allegedly audible changes down at -300dB. so maybe you could reassure the boys with some concept of magnitude, but otherwise I'm fine with what you said. 
but this specific quote smells a lot like confirmation bias to me. why would you care about the guy's impressions if you estimate the test wasn't properly controlled for loudness? (although, they both seem quoted at 2V in the specs, was one used balanced or are the specs only approximations?)
the other issue is that if I know the DACs, have seen the measurements, and read reviews... how I will describe the "right" impressions without seeing which DAC it is, ends up having a 50/50 chance of success. it has nothing to do with passing the blind test.


----------



## Allanmarcus

castleofargh said:


> I can do with the rest of your post, it's hard to know if you're talking minute improvements around the usual threshold of hearing(maybe perception would be better than hearing for this), and then we're on a consensus basis. or if that argument would end up justifying Chord level stuff with allegedly audible changes down at -300dB. so maybe you could reassure the boys with some concept of magnitude, but otherwise I'm fine with what you said.
> but this specific quote smells a lot like confirmation bias to me. why would you care about the guy's impressions if you estimate the test wasn't properly controlled for loudness? (although, they both seem quoted at 2V in the specs, was one used balanced or are the specs only approximations?)
> the other issue is that if I know the DACs, have seen the measurements, and read reviews... how I will describe the "right" impressions without seeing which DAC it is, ends up having a 50/50 chance of success. it has nothing to do with passing the blind test.



Anything that is not-measurable but can be verified with a DBT is a valid difference, at least in my book. 

Volume leveling for DAC A/B testing, which the average person's equipment, is quite difficult. We gotta test with what we have. As for the test that atomicbob and his friends did a while back, I was just pointing out, well, you read what I was pointing out. Since the listeners didn't know which DAC was which, they only detected a small volume variation, I don't think that invalidates their other impression; especially since their impression are the opposite of the expected results (louder is better).

As of the bimby and gumby output levels. I thought I recalled reading the gumby's actual output was a little less than max spec. 

Funny you mention Chord. I've did a lot of A/B testing with the Mojo and H2, and I passed on both. The Mojo because I was worried about the long term effects on the battery if I used the DAC as a desktop DAC. The H2 because it sounded the same, or slightly less enjoyable than the Bimby to me.


----------



## cel4145

Allanmarcus said:


> Agreed. There are probably many DACs for which there is no audible difference. There are also many DACs for which there are measurable differences, and those differences may be discernible to some, and not to others. I also agree that expectation bias can play a huge role.
> 
> Unfortunately, _some_ of sound reproduction is still an art, and not a science. Until we can be sure we are able to measure everything, and that we even understand what we should measure, some of music reproduction is subjective and _should_ be subject to DBT for validation. I think we are on the same page.



I'm pretty sure that the problem is not that the science of measuring DACs is unable to accurately measure difference, but that the problem lies with the human condition that refuses to accept the measurements. But for that, certainly DBT is helpful.


----------



## castleofargh

Allanmarcus said:


> Anything that is not-measurable but can be verified with a DBT is a valid difference, at least in my book.
> 
> Volume leveling for DAC A/B testing, which the average person's equipment, is quite difficult. We gotta test with what we have. As for the test that atomicbob and his friends did a while back, I was just pointing out, well, you read what I was pointing out. Since the listeners didn't know which DAC was which, they only detected a small volume variation, I don't think that invalidates their other impression; especially since their impression are the opposite of the expected results (louder is better).
> 
> ...


the difficulty involved in setting up a proper blind test is sadly very real. but to me it's just another reason to be extra skeptical when drawing conclusions based on partially controlled setups.
you feel that a difference in loudness doesn't invalidate impressions, I think it does. or more precisely I think it massively lowers the confidence we can have in the experiment. which has the same result. obviously nobody is wrong all the time, and rejecting a conclusion doesn't mean it's a false one. but if something like a difference in loudness is introduced, how could I know how much of a role that variable played in the impressions? or maybe just in guessing which DAC was playing? and once the doubt is there, how can I call something conclusive?
 the level of confidence we put in our results should be directly proportional to the level of control in the experiment. 




Allanmarcus said:


> Anything that is not-measurable but can be verified with a DBT is a valid difference, at least in my book.


sure. it's not like we measure everything all the time. and clearly a listening test is a perfectly valid way to confirm audible difference. that's not what I was pointing out.
a blind test trying to detect a difference will show if a difference is detected. and that's about it. defining those differences is not the purpose of that test, nor can the impressions be taken at face value just because they occurred during a blind test. interpretations of sound are still interpretations and will involve all the annoying stuff in the brain. does this make sense? I generally suck at explaining things so maybe I just failed in the previous post. and maybe this one too? ^_^


----------



## Glmoneydawg

castleofargh said:


> the difficulty involved in setting up a proper blind test is sadly very real. but to me it's just another reason to be extra skeptical when drawing conclusions based on partially controlled setups.
> you feel that a difference in loudness doesn't invalidate impressions, I think it does. or more precisely I think it massively lowers the confidence we can have in the experiment. which has the same result. obviously nobody is wrong all the time, and rejecting a conclusion doesn't mean it's a false one. but if something like a difference in loudness is introduced, how could I know how much of a role that variable played in the impressions? or maybe just in guessing which DAC was playing? and once the doubt is there, how can I call something conclusive?
> the level of confidence we put in our results should be directly proportional to the level of control in the experiment.
> 
> ...


I(perhaps foolishly)stiil put a lot of stock in listening tests,but yeah  100% agree volume has got to identical.You are listening for minutiae in most cases.The slightest volume discrepancy will over shadow what we are listening for in the first place


----------



## castleofargh

if there is one thing I'm sure we all agree upon, it is that listening tests are important. even people forced into the objectivist box are rarely only focused on measured fidelity. 
now what is a proper listening test? answering that is when we see the world burn.
and obviously massive differences don't require much effort to be observed or confirmed, it's when we approach the limits of audibility that precision and controls become real important.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Mar 24, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> if there is one thing I'm sure we all agree upon, it is that listening tests are important. even people forced into the objectivist box are rarely only focused on measured fidelity.
> now what is a proper listening test? answering that is when we see the world burn.
> and obviously massive differences don't require much effort to be observed or confirmed, it's when we approach the limits of audibility that precision and controls become real important.


Whenever there are improvements in our little hobby i am sure they get there with measurements,tests ect...but when they hit the market i vote with my ears...and of course my wallet lol.I feel like there may be a little subjectivist in there my friend....anyone with a monty python reference in their name lol.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 25, 2018)

Allanmarcus said:


> You don't _need_ trained ears to hear differences.
> 
> A person with sensitive _and_ trained ears may very well be able to distinguish... the subtle variations in DAC technology implementations that are so subtle, that without trained _and_ sensitive hearing, a person may not be able to distinguish and describe those variations.



These two comments seem to contradict each other.

In a blind A/B comparison, trained ears shouldn't make any difference at all. If it's audible, anyone with normal hearing and an interest in doing the test should be able to discern a difference by simply comparing one against the other. If the difference is so small that it isn't audible to a person with normal hearing, it either doesn't matter or it's probably some sort of expectation bias.

I think that people who claim to have "trained and sensitive hearing" are making that claim to bolster their ego. It doesn't mean that they have any superior abilities to hear or listen. In fact, it's been my experience that "golden ears" audiophiles generally perform worse in controlled listening tests than other people because they have something to prove. They double and triple think the tests and try to force themselves to come up with the right answer and end up barking up the wrong tree.

People who learn about how sound works generally can puzzle out solutions to problems better, but that just makes sense. People with perfect pitch and experience in musical theory have an advantage in performing music. But listening to recorded music is a passive thing. It isn't a skill. Skills involve actually doing something. Perceiving just means that your hearing is normal.



cel4145 said:


> I'm not convinced at all that there are subtle _audible_ differences between many DACs regularly recommended and talked about on Head-Fi, regardless of what kind of training and ear sensitivity one has. And the training and sensitivity argument seems used a lot to support subjectivism views that there are.



Exactly. If there are two DACs that sound different, please point them out so we can look at them and try to understand whether they actually do sound different- and if they do, why they sound different.



Allanmarcus said:


> Anything that is not-measurable but can be verified with a DBT is a valid difference, at least in my book.



I would like an example of this too. I don't know of any audible difference that isn't measurable. I would be very interested in hearing about this if it actually exists.

I'm not trolling. I'm serious. But if my comments make you uncomfortable, you aren't required to respond.


----------



## Allanmarcus

bigshot said:


> These two comments seem to contradict each other.
> 
> In a blind A/B comparison, trained ears shouldn't make any difference at all. If it's audible, anyone with normal hearing and an interest in doing the test should be able to discern a difference by simply comparing one against the other. If the difference is so small that it isn't audible to a person with normal hearing, it either doesn't matter or it's probably some sort of expectation bias.



You ignored the emphasis I put in the work "need" in my original response. I will be more clear

You don't _need_ trained ears to hear differences.

But in a situation where a person with untrained and/or not very sensitive hearing may not be able to distinguish a variation, a person with sensitive _and_ trained ears may very well be able to distinguish... the subtle variations in DAC technology implementations that are so subtle, that without trained _and_ sensitive hearing, a person may not be able to distinguish and describe those variations.

As an example of person with trained ears vs not: Take a classical piece, say Mahler's 5th, recorded by two different orchestras in the same hall (hell, even its different halls). For the average person listening, the average person might very well not be able to tell the difference between the recordings. A person with trained ears, as described earlier, may very well be able to distinguish between the orchestras. The person with trained years may be able to identify specific differences between the timbre, pitch, pacing, interval of individual instruments, as well as the direction (how the orchestra was conducted). To the untrained person, the music may sound exactly the same.

Now take the same recording played over two different DACs with different technologies. A person with sensitive and trained hearing may very well be able to distinguish and describe differences, while a person with less sensitive and/or non trained ears may not. Practically speaking, the person that cannot distinguish a difference should buy the lesser expensive of the DACs. The person that can distinguish a difference should get the DAC she prefers, which might be more expensive. 



bigshot said:


> I would like an example of this too


Science is about theories as well as empirical evidence. Just study Einstein as empirical evidence of a theoretical physicist. Where I work, (the Los Alamos National Lab) we do lots and lots of empirical science, but we literally have a "Theoretical Division" that works on hypotheses and other stuff waaaay behind my understanding to push the envelope of what we think we know. 

I don't have the tools to measure my DACs, but in a blind test, I was able to distinguish between my Sony and my Schiit. My son was as well, as was my wife (who could not give damn). I would have preferred to have the Sony be my preference for many reasons. It was cheaper (I got a great deal), and it's also my desktop speaker amp. Having the Bimby sound better to me (and my son) was non expected (the Bimby's list price is cheaper than the Sony) and less convenient to me. Not being able to distinguish between the Gumby and the Bimby was also unexpected, but welcome.

And once again, I'm not in the subjectivist camp. If something is not measurable *but stands up to a blind test*, then something is going on there. I don't need an empirical example of this for it to be true, but I have provided at least one.

The Higgs boson particle, from what I understand, didn't exists until it was proved it did. For 50 years it was a theory until was a fact. Sure, lots of theories are proved wrong, but when evidence points to something, and theory points to the something, there is likely something. 

My point: If a blind test of two DACs with different implementations point to a difference in sound, even if that cannot be measured, then it's probable we just haven't figured out what to measure, or we don't have the right tools to measure. Expectation bias is very real, but assuming it explains all perceived differences is as dogmatic as blind trusting the reviews of audiophile pundits. 

In my example of the Bimby vs Gumby, all the measurements point to the Gumby being a better DAC. I could not hear that in my system. Others very well may be able to hear a difference, especially in different systems that may emphasize the particular areas of difference or if they have more sensitive hearing, or if they have trained their hearing to identify variations that I have not trained to hear. Also, many say DAC differences are easier to hear in speaker set ups. I was using headphones. 

Fun quotes:
"It always seems impossible until it's done" - Nelson Mandela
"Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen. " - Robert Heinlein
"Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke
"All of physics is either impossible or trivial. It is impossible until you understand it, and then it becomes trivial." - Sir Ernest Rutherford
"But by far the greatest obstacle to the progress of science and to the undertaking of new tasks and provinces therein is found in this—that men despair and think things impossible. " - Sir Francis Bacon
"The wise man is one who, knows, what he does not know." -Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

"Because it's not true today doesn't mean it will not be true tomorrow" - Allan Marcus


----------



## bigshot (Mar 25, 2018)

This is interesting!

What was the difference you detected between the Sony and the Schitt? What specifically were you hearing? Frequency response differences? Distortion? What frequency ranges? Have you done any controlled test with these two compared to other DACs or players? If so, do all of them but one sound the same? If so, my first guess would be that one of them is defective. Is the odd DAC still under warranty? If it was mine, I wouldn't tolerate a DAC that was out of spec. I would return it for a refund. But if it's out of warranty and that isn't an option, the next thing to do would be to compare it to other DACs of the same brand and model and see if it is defective by design.

If DACs are supposed to be audibly transparent, then any DAC that sounds different is definitely out of spec. It's useful to document DACs like this so people don't get stuck with an inferior DAC.


----------



## bfreedma

Perhaps I missed it, but what type of controls were in place during the blind test.  How were the units level matched and how close was that matching?

It was already mentioned that there was a small volume variation - my guess is that explains the "differences".


----------



## bigshot (Mar 25, 2018)

Oops! You are absolutely correct! I forgot that.

If he still has the DACs, it would be a great idea to conduct a more careful blind comparison. I'm sure folks here would be happy to help him set one up. Then his trained ears can be put to work describing the differences if they still exist.


----------



## Allanmarcus

bigshot said:


> If DACs are supposed to be audibly transparent, then any DAC that sounds different is definitely out of spec. It's useful to document DACs like this so people don't get stuck with an inferior DAC.



Whoever said DACs "are supposed to be audibly transparent"? Did you poll every DAC vendor to determine this? Man, what an unscientific statement, and very likely untrue. DACs are "voiced" by their maker to offer the sound the maker wants them to have. The goal, most of the time, is for the DAC manufacturer to say their DAC sounds the best using all the foolish audiophile terminology they can fit int he space allotted to them. I doubt any DAC makers have live singers and musicians in their regular testing process to validate the sound from their equipment sounds like live. It's possible they do this occasionally as a marketing stunt, but I'll bet most DAC makers rely on measurements and listening to determine if the DAC is producing the results they desire.

As for my testing, no one said one was inferior to another. I said I preferred one over the other. Sony is known to voice their stuff on the warmer side (ever list to they Z1 or their DAP - very warm), and the UDA-1 was a little warmer than the Schiit. Also, it sounded a little closed in compared to the Schiit, but that is very subjective. On a purely objective observation, the FR didn't sound the same, and I preferred the Bimby.



bfreedma said:


> Perhaps I missed it, but what type of controls were in place during the blind test. How were the units level matched and how close was that matching?
> 
> It was already mentioned that there was a small volume variation - my guess is that explains the "differences".



Ug. I get to type this again. The small volume variation was in favor of the DAC that the folks _didn't_ think was better. The general consensus is that the louder the better. Unfortunately, my google foo is failing me. I read about the testing here on HF. I think it was at atomicbobs house. I'm sorry I cannot find more info. If I do I will post.

As for my testing...

The Sony and the Schiit (spec wise) have the same output. Listening matching for levels using test tones, to the best of our ability said they were matched. Both were fed by identical USB cables (AudioQuest Diamond Platinum Obsidian! - JK, just regular USB cables, probably from mono price) and identical BJ RCA cables I got for a good price used. I set the Mac to output to both simultaneously, then I used a home made RCA switch box between the DACs and the amp. My son would turn away from the computer and I would flick the switch (with no music playing) to randomize the start. That became position 1. The other DAC was position 2. I would start the music, and he would listen. When he wanted a switch, he would raise 1 or two fingers.

We also did a version of this test were he would listen to one, then I would pause the music, flick the switch a few time, and he would listen and say if it was the same DAC.

While it possible the outputs of the DAC were not perfect, it was clear that the sony was warmer; the FR wasn't the same. Not worse or better; just different.

Perfect testing? no. It was a close as we could get.

I'm not sure what beating this all to death is accomplishing. Are we trying disprove that there is any variation in DACs, other then output level? That has been proved over and over again by measurements (you know, science). Are we trying to say that any variation in DACs is inaudible? There would be like saying prove god does't exists. You can make that statement with authority as there is no viable scientific way to prove it, although it's easily disproved with blind testing.

I'm not even gonna proofread anymore. I'm just posting.


----------



## orderingrabbits

Allanmarcus said:


> Whoever said DACs "are supposed to be audibly transparent"? Did you poll every DAC vendor to determine this? Man, what an unscientific statement, and very likely untrue.


A DAC is a digital to analog converter. An ideal DAC converts digital to analog perfectly. Coloration is deviation from the pursuit of this ideal form. Yes, they are supposed to be audibly transparent, as that is a much lower standard of "perfect to our ears" rather than "perfect to our highly sensitive measurement tools".


----------



## Allanmarcus

orderingrabbits said:


> An ideal DAC converts digital to analog perfectly. Coloration is deviation from the pursuit of this ideal form.



Sorry, this is defined where? Also, everyone in the world agrees to this definition?

Please define "perfectly". 

To me "perfectly" might mean no variation from the original content. It also might mean sounds as close to analog as possible. I apologize if "perfectly" was defined in other postings and I missed it.

From what I understand of AD and DA conversions, something is always lost in the translation due to how the signal is spliced into little bits (pun intended) and then reconstructed. From what I understand, the higher the bit rate and the higher the sample rate, the less interpolation needs to happen. Also, there are various ways to reconstruct the signal. There are filters, oversampling, interpolating, pulse density conversion techniques, feedback loops, noise shaping, and other aspects to DACs that are implemented differently, thus the resultant sound may not be the same on each implementation. 

Personally, I don't care if the signal is reproduced as closely to the same signal that was used to created the file. If the file was created in an all digital path, then how can you even determine if the resultant analog signal is the "same" as the input that went into the digital representation of the sounds? Unless you also had an analog recording of the original content to compare to, there is no way to validate the results.

All I care about is, "do I like it?" Yes, that is subjective. But that is not the point of my original assertion that some DACs sound different, and that those with trained hearing and/or sensitive hearing can distinguish. The minor variation in measurable output, when reproduced in certain combinations of preamps, amps, and speakers, _may_ be distinguished and preferred, and possible describe (using a very subjective set of terms). My other assertion is that if, in a blind test a difference is heard, and the test was statistically significant, there is a high probability there is a difference, even if not measurable using measuring equipment available to the testers.

And yes, volume matching quite probably accounts for most identified variation, but to the trained and sensitive ears, other variation (as discussed above) may also be present. A trained and sensitive ear is more likely to identify variations that sensitive measuring equipment would also identify.

How about we switch the topic. I'll start: Isn't MQA great? Way better than anything we have now!


----------



## sonitus mirus

Allanmarcus said:


> Sorry, this is defined where? Also, everyone in the world agrees to this definition?
> 
> Please define "perfectly".
> 
> ...



If some DACs sound different, the differences are measurable.   If the differences in measurements are magnitudes beyond what our hearing can detect, it is audibly transparent.  Your ideas fall in line with the industry marketing blurbs we see all too frequently.    Not surprisingly, you also brought up MQA and suggested it was great.  Hope that was sarcasm.


----------



## RRod

Allanmarcus said:


> Sorry, this is defined where? Also, everyone in the world agrees to this definition?
> 
> Please define "perfectly".



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker–Shannon_interpolation_formula


----------



## orderingrabbits

Allanmarcus said:


> Sorry, this is defined where? Also, everyone in the world agrees to this definition?
> 
> Please define "perfectly".
> 
> To me "perfectly" might mean no variation from the original content. It also might mean sounds as close to analog as possible. I apologize if "perfectly" was defined in other postings and I missed it.


At a basic level, "perfect" decoding would be something like input digital number (sample) of 0.2 -> output 0.2 volts, followed by a new sample and a new voltage that happens in an infinitesimal amount of time. Of course, this is not possible in the real world. 



Allanmarcus said:


> From what I understand of AD and DA conversions, something is always lost in the translation due to how the signal is spliced into little bits (pun intended) and then reconstructed. From what I understand, the higher the bit rate and the higher the sample rate, the less interpolation needs to happen. Also, there are various ways to reconstruct the signal. There are filters, oversampling, interpolating, pulse density conversion techniques, feedback loops, noise shaping, and other aspects to DACs that are implemented differently, thus the resultant sound may not be the same on each implementation.


Yes. The answer is "may". You are essentially debating where the floor of audibly transparent is. 



Allanmarcus said:


> Personally, I don't care if the signal is reproduced as closely to the same signal that was used to created the file. If the file was created in an all digital path, then how can you even determine if the resultant analog signal is the "same" as the input that went into the digital representation of the sounds? Unless you also had an analog recording of the original content to compare to, there is no way to validate the results.


That's literally saying you don't care about fidelity. The circle of confusion is not an argument for an electronic device which has very well defined ideal parameters. Removing audibility and audio concerns, the job of a DAC is to convert digital representations of analog signals into an accurate analog counterpart. It doesn't really matter the stuff upstream of the file is. 



Allanmarcus said:


> All I care about is, "do I like it?" Yes, that is subjective. But that is not the point of my original assertion that some DACs sound different, and that those with trained hearing and/or sensitive hearing can distinguish. The minor variation in measurable output, when reproduced in certain combinations of preamps, amps, and speakers, _may_ be distinguished and preferred, and possible describe (using a very subjective set of terms). My other assertion is that if, in a blind test a difference is heard, and the test was statistically significant, there is a high probability there is a difference, even if not measurable using measuring equipment available to the testers.


I'm only taking issue with your statement of there is no "perfect" for DACs and DACs shouldn't be audibly transparent. That's like saying there isn't a perfect resistor, or perfect capacitor so we shouldn't try to make these parts within a certain spec. Of course not, but we have mathematical representations to which we can strive. DACs should certainly be audibly transparent. I'd say the same about amps. Transducers actually interface with the human body directly so there's no way to make a transducer that is neutral for everyone. Of course, this is under the premise that you care about fidelity. Sometimes, I DON'T care about fidelity. That's why I own a tube amp, because it's cool. The psychological cool factor > inaudible or negligibly audible higher distortion than SS amps. 



Allanmarcus said:


> How about we switch the topic. I'll start: Isn't MQA great? Way better than anything we have now!


LMAO nice


----------



## Allanmarcus

sonitus mirus said:


> Not surprisingly, you also brought up MQA and suggested it was great. Hope that was sarcasm.



Nope! I think MQA is the best thing ever! It will revolutionize music! I've switched everything I own over to it!



Yes, it was sarcasm. If MQA were to sound better to me, I would care. I don't have an MQA enabled DAC, but I did try some software MQA and I could not tell the difference. But I can't hear the difference between 44/16 and 96/24. Lucky me.



sonitus mirus said:


> If some DACs sound different, the differences are measurable.


You sure we have figured out how to measure everything? You have all the equipment necessary to measure everything? You take no stock in blind testing? You one of those people that believes every scientific discovery worth making has already been made? I've met physicists at LANL that believe that. They were humbled by the Higgs boson discovery. I'm in the camp that we don't know everything, and we never will.

And in no way do I believe the marking bulls*t most audio vender spew. Very few of them will submit to blind testing. If they did, their house of cards would collapse. I've sat in Nordost and Audio Quest demos and watched them lead the audience, and the ooos and aaaahs from the audience just made me laugh. They would switch something, tell the audience what they were doing, and say "isn't that better". Their whole market is based on expectation bias. I despise that. 

If you look at my equipment list you don't see any fancy cables, power conditioners, LPS, or expensive vibration control equipment. I make my own headphone cables with reasonably priced mogami or canare quad cable and AliExpress connectors, and nuerik plugs from Markertek. I played a little with silver wire, mostly because I got some decent wire for a very good cost. If I think I can hear a difference, I know I need to prove it to myself before I can attribute it to the cables. I do subscribe to the school of thought that suggests that plugging all the cables in the audio rack into the same power strip can reduce ground hum, because they all share the same ground, but that's it for power. I have some HVAC vibration control that I got for a whooping $0.25 each at supply house, and they do reduce very audible vibration sounds when I walk around near the table my Crack is on, and they add extra ventilation spacing too other equipment, which I have no proof is necessary, but for a couple of bucks, I figured could hurt. 

I do believe is "trust your ears", but only in the context of blind testing. I've never seen that on a brochure.


----------



## sonitus mirus (Mar 25, 2018)

Allanmarcus said:


> Nope! I think MQA is the best thing ever! It will revolutionize music! I've switched everything I own over to it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If some DACs sound different, it is measurable.  No need to bring in quantum mechanics or theories about dark energy.  The principles behind digital audio are not some huge mystery yet to be discovered.  You are enjoying digital music precisely because the theories have been put to use in practical applications. 

Show us any ABX test where anyone identified a difference between DACs where no measurements commonly used to engineer the device show a difference large enough to be considered audible.  I have never seen anything conclusive or repeatable.  Seems outrageous to me.


----------



## Allanmarcus

@sonitus minus 
Thanks for the post. Seriously.

I would like to understand how various aspects of how people describe sound are related to measurements. I understand frequency response and how it relates to "warmer" and "brighter". What measurements relate to 

Sound stage? 
Instrument separation?

I'm not trying to put out a trap here. I've always wondered about this, and the folks here seem to be very knowledgeable.

By the way, my original assertion was simply that DACs are not all the same and that a person with trained and/or sensitive hears might be able to distinguish a difference. The conversation then went sideways into measurements. If it's well accepted that everything audible variation can be measured, that I will accept that. It doesn't change my original assertion that not all DACs are the same, and that a person with trained and/or sensitive hearing may be able to distinguish. This doesn't say that others can't hear the difference. just that some may be to hear the difference, and it might be more likely for a trained ear and/or a sensitive ear to better hear measurable differences.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 25, 2018)

Allanmarcus said:


> Whoever said DACs "are supposed to be audibly transparent"?



It is the function of a DAC to convert digital audio to analogue audio. That's its only job. A good DAC accurately does that to beyond the range of human hearing. The amplifier has tone controls that are intended to color the sound. Everything else in the chain leading up to that should be neutral.

If a DAC sounds different, it is either 1) defective or 2) deliberately made to sound different (which I describe as defective by design). A DAC should be audibly transparent. If it isn't, I would recommend returning it for a refund.



Allanmarcus said:


> You sure we have figured out how to measure everything?



Measuring sound has been done for nearly 100 years. (Google Bell Labs if you are interested in this subject.) We may not be able to measure everything, but we certainly can measure more accurately and completely than ears can hear.



Allanmarcus said:


> I would like to understand how various aspects of how people describe sound are related to measurements. I understand frequency response and how it relates to "warmer" and "brighter". What measurements relate to Sound stage? Instrument separation?



Soundstage is covered under channel separation. Instrument separation falls under distortion levels (and frequency response when it comes to masking). However, in practice, both of those things are more a matter of the quality of the mix than they are the quality of the playback equipment. Room acoustics can drastically affect both of those things too.

The primary aspects of recorded sound quality in DACs are frequency response, distortion, dynamic range, and timing errors. None of these should be affecting the sound within audible levels, even on the cheapest CD player or portable DAC.


----------



## old tech

Allanmarcus said:


> Sorry, this is defined where? Also, everyone in the world agrees to this definition?
> 
> To me "perfectly" might mean no variation from the original content. It also might mean sounds as close to analog as possible. I apologize if "perfectly" was defined in other postings and I missed it.


Perhaps you should define what you mean by 'sounding close to analog as possible".

I presume you mean as close to the original analog input signal, rather than what is possible with an analog recording or playback equipment?

If you mean the former, any decent DAC will reproduce the original analog signal closer than is possible with any analog equipment - ie magnetic analog tape or a vinyl record.  If you mean the latter, well where is your evidence for that?


----------



## Allanmarcus

old tech said:


> Perhaps you should define what you mean by 'sounding close to analog as possible".
> 
> I presume you mean as close to the original analog input signal, rather than what is possible with an analog recording or playback equipment?
> 
> If you mean the former, any decent DAC will reproduce the original analog signal closer than is possible with any analog equipment - ie magnetic analog tape or a vinyl record.  If you mean the latter, well where is your evidence for that?


Sorry. I meant as close to the actual analog sound (e.g., the voice and instruments).


----------



## bigshot

Allanmarcus said:


> Sorry. I meant as close to the actual analog sound (e.g., the voice and instruments).



That is mostly a function of the miking and mixing done in the studio, not playback.


----------



## Allanmarcus

bigshot said:


> Soundstage is covered under channel separation



thanks for the explanation. Is this the same as crosstalk? For example, the Schiit Mj2 specs says "Crosstalk: >-75dB, 20 Hz-20KHz". The Vali spec says "Crosstalk: -68dB, 20Hz-20KHz". Does that translate directly into "perceived sound stage"?

Thanks.


----------



## bigshot

Allanmarcus said:


> thanks for the explanation. Is this the same as crosstalk? For example, the Schiit Mj2 specs says "Crosstalk: >-75dB, 20 Hz-20KHz". The Vali spec says "Crosstalk: -68dB, 20Hz-20KHz". Does that translate directly into "perceived sound stage"?



Yes, crosstalk is channel separation. Soundstage isn't the same thing as channel separation, but it can be affected by it. Soundstage is the interaction of the mix, speaker dispersion and room acoustics. That can be adversely affected by crosstalk. It can also be adversely affected by incorrect speaker placement in a room, bad room acoustics, and a lousy mix. Both of those specs you cite represent inaudible levels of crosstalk. When it comes to that spec, they should sound identical.

Take a look at the three links in my sig file. There's a lot of great information in there and it can help you understand what the terminology and numbers in specs mean.


----------



## castleofargh

before we fall into the usual extremism for no reason:


1/ an audio signal is amplitude over time and nothing more. that's how it is defined as an analog electrical signal, and how it is defined as an acoustic signal at a given position in space. and I'm unaware of anything conflicting with those models. so chances are we're onto something here. it's also how we record sounds, so if there is more to audio, well sucks to be us.
we double that for stereo and that's the end of it. why would there be anything mysterious within a signal content? people mistake the hard time we have diagnosing the cause of a subjective feeling, with having a hard time knowing what the signal is. or maybe they imagine that because a FR graph doesn't tell them the time of the day, then measurements lack too much information. but the first issue is about the chaos that is a human mind, while the second is simply a matter of using the right measurement to look at the right variable. none are caused by lack of information about the signal itself. 

with my cheap gears I can measure stuff at 96khz and down to -90dB with fairly good confidence, and slightly better so long as I spend some time adjusting the gain correctly and the source is close to the nominal output for the job. that alone is enough to check a good deal of things, and I'm only talking cheap ADC for poor musicians, not Audio Precision kind of gear. 
of course if we start saying that people can notice the change in transient from above 30khz content, or that stuff at -150dB audibly impact the soundstage, then my argument doesn't hold. but as I'm not aware of any test demonstrating those stuff as audible, for the moment I stick to my point.


2/ when someone suggests some DACs can be audibly different under test, he doesn't claim that all DACs sound night and day different, so let's hold our horses. @Allanmarcus didn't even try to suggest such a thing.
on the other hand, when someone suggest that all DACs sound the same, he's just wrong. no need to fight that at all. extremism shouldn't be allowed in here or anywhere else.
 I can think of many reasons why a perfectly fine DAC could end up sounding different with the right kind of test and the right circumstances. I'd count most of those as irrelevant for typical audio use, or maybe even faulty use of the gears, but there is not a single doubt in my mind that they exist and can be replicated.


----------



## Allanmarcus

bigshot said:


> Yes, crosstalk is channel separation. Soundstage isn't the same thing as channel separation, but it can be affected by it. Soundstage is the interaction of the mix, speaker dispersion and room acoustics. That can be adversely affected by crosstalk. It can also be adversely affected by incorrect speaker placement in a room, bad room acoustics, and a lousy mix. Both of those specs you cite represent inaudible levels of crosstalk. When it comes to that spec, they should sound identical.
> 
> Take a look at the three links in my sig file. There's a lot of great information in there and it can help you understand what the terminology and numbers in specs mean.


Thanks. I will read the site. I'm not much into you tube.

BTW, from one of the sites you link to:


> Young, healthy ears hear better than old or damaged ears. Some people are exceptionally well trained to hear nuances in sound and music most people don't even know exist. There was a time in the 1990s when I could identify every major mp3 encoder by sound (back when they were all pretty bad), and could demonstrate this reliably in double-blind testing [2].
> 
> When healthy ears combine with highly trained discrimination abilities, I would call that person a golden ear. Even so, below-average hearing can also be trained to notice details that escape untrained listeners. Golden ears are more about training than hearing beyond the physical ability of average mortals.



THAT is exactly what I was talking about in reference to hearing variations in DAC implementations. That's all.

As for cross talk and stereo separation and perceived sound stage (including instrument position identification), there must be something in the signal alone that can affect this. When using headphones with different amps, the stage can vary. Sometimes it's as simple of forward vs laid back, which I attribute to coloration of the FR. Sometimes, however, it a perception that the sounds are coming from further apart, higher or lower, and deeper on the stage. This cannot be room acoustics or speaker placement since I'm talking about headphones. Often this is perception is amplified (pun intended) with tube amps, and often with specific tubes. I assume there is a distortion component and possible a time delay aspect as well. If this happens only at certain frequencies, or only when certain combinations of sound occur, that might be quite difficult to measure.


----------



## castleofargh

directly associating the subjective idea of "soundstage" with crosstalk is a bad idea IMO. first, crosstalk needs to be real bad to be noticed (vinyls could be in the -20dB crosstalk and even then we could get a pretty vast "image" of the stage, not at all like mono). 
it's very possible to get bad crosstalk, and it is usually much worse than what the specs let you think in amps. just plug a low impedance headphone into the amp and crosstalk will inevitably become much worse. then with the headphone cable we can expect some too. but you can fool around mixing the signal in audacity or whatever to create the desired crosstalk at the level you want to test, you'll notice that the impact is unnoticeable, then fairly subtle, and really changing the panning obviously only when the signal is close to mono. 
it's one of those intuitive correlation we all make, which just isn't all that intuitive in practice. 
in any case it's fair to say that DACs aren't a relevant cause of crosstalk. so IMO that's following a wrong track. just like it's the wrong approach to keep looking for an explanation to a feeling. that's not how we demonstrate audible difference between 2 DACs.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> when someone suggest that all DACs sound the same, he's just wrong. no need to fight that at all. extremism shouldn't be allowed in here or anywhere else.



I don't know of any DAC since oversampling was introduced that sounds different than any other DAC. Do you? If you do PLEASE tell me the DAC that sounds different. Please show me its specs showing it is audibly different. I REALLY want to see this DAC that everyone talks about in theory, but no one can name. Show it to me and I'll gladly announce it as the one exception to the rule every time I talk about DACs. You said "I'm not aware of any test demonstrating those stuff as audible, for the moment I stick to my point." I agree with that 100%.


----------



## bigshot

Allanmarcus said:


> THAT is exactly what I was talking about in reference to hearing variations in DAC implementations. That's all.



Do you know the highest frequency a human has ever been able to hear? It's 23kHz. The kid that could hear it as a test tone perceived it only as sound pressure, not as a musical note. It added absolutely nothing to the appreciation of music, because that frequency isn't audible in music even if you can hear it. A CD rolls off between 20kHz and 22kHz. The difference between 20kHz and 23kHz is less than one note on a musical scale. Less than the difference between do a deer and ray a drop of golden sun. That is what they're talking about when they same some people's ears can hear better than others. He is saying that trained ears and more sensitive hearing can hear bad sound better. He isn't saying that they can hear good sound better.


----------



## U-3C

Holy carpfish this thread became so active all of a sudden!


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> I don't know of any DAC since oversampling was introduced that sounds different than any other DAC. Do you? If you do PLEASE tell me the DAC that sounds different. Please show me its specs showing it is audibly different. I REALLY want to see this DAC that everyone talks about in theory, but no one can name. Show it to me and I'll gladly announce it as the one exception to the rule every time I talk about DACs. You said "I'm not aware of any test demonstrating those stuff as audible, for the moment I stick to my point." I agree with that 100%.



Only thing that could make a difference is an analog stage that introduces distortion either from bad design or from intentional “tuning” like adding 3rd harmonic distortion to mimic a “tube” sound which is generally considered pleasant.


----------



## Allanmarcus

castleofargh said:


> in any case it's fair to say that DACs aren't a relevant cause of crosstalk



You are confusing two different threads in this conversation. One thread was a bout DACs. One thread was about measurements, primarily in amps used for headphones. I was asking what measurement(s) might be associated with sound stage perception.



bigshot said:


> I don't know of any DAC since oversampling was introduced that sounds different than any other DAC. Do you? If you do PLEASE tell me the DAC that sounds different. Please show me its specs showing it is audibly different. I REALLY want to see this DAC that everyone talks about in theory, but no one can name. Show it to me and I'll gladly announce it as the one exception to the rule every time I talk about DACs. You said "I'm not aware of any test demonstrating those stuff as audible, for the moment I stick to my point." I agree with that 100%.



The Sony UDA-1 (when used as a DAC) and the Schiit Bibmy do not sound the same. Haven't I said that before? @colonelkernel8 is very possibly correct that the sound difference may be attributed to different implementations. Which, BTW, is what I've been saying all along. Every vendor implements DACs differently (well, not the copycat vendors, but you know what I mean). The DAC chip itself is just one component of the DAC device. The entire implementation must be considered, measured, and tested. As for specs, the manufactures don't publish every spec. You know that. specs are common just averages and can very widely.



bigshot said:


> Do you know the highest frequency a human has ever been able to hear? It's 23kHz. The kid that could hear it as a test tone perceived it only as sound pressure, not as a musical note. It added absolutely nothing to the appreciation of music, because that frequency isn't audible in music even if you can hear it. A CD rolls off between 20kHz and 22kHz. The difference between 20kHz and 23kHz is less than one note on a musical scale. Less than the difference between do a deer and ray a drop of golden sun. That is what they're talking about when they same some people's ears can hear better than others. He is saying that trained ears and more sensitive hearing can hear bad sound better. He isn't saying that they can hear good sound better.



the ability to distinguish bad is just as valuable. A smart person could even listen to something good, realize there was nothing bad, then declare the sound good - that is effectively the ability to hear good or bad. The author of that quotation is still valid, and I was just agreeing with it. 

My hearing has been tested to about 16.5. A person that can hear to, say 18 in itself is relevant as we are going to hear the same audio reproduced differently. He has more data to work with when he attempts to hear variations. What if there is a variation around 17? I would not hear it. He might. I would say the audio sounds the same; he would say it doesn't. My mother's hearing is down to about 12 (she's 85).  This is a large variation is hearing. 

Also, some people have heighten sense of touch. Some smell. Some taste. Some hearing. Some vocal. If you are saying that we all are identical in our abilities, and only vary as we age or slightly as a result of genetics, then I think you are mistaken. We are probably getting into neurology here, which a WAY out of my expertise, but I would wager different people process incoming sensory data different, both as a function of experience and genetics, that can result in different perceptions, which can be that one person can identify something and another cannot.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 26, 2018)

I think you're trying very hard to validate your pre-conceived conclusion. If you didn't level match, your results may be completely bogus. You can insist that there was a difference, but the rest of us are going to chalk it up to not level matching. The louder sound ALWAYS sounds better, even if it is identical.

Do you have any examples of measurements that show different "implementations" that stray into the range of audibility?



colonelkernel8 said:


> Only thing that could make a difference is an analog stage that introduces distortion either from bad design or from intentional “tuning” like adding 3rd harmonic distortion to mimic a “tube” sound which is generally considered pleasant.



Do you know of any specific DACs that actually do that? I've never run into one. But I suspect that would be in the territory of audiophoolery which is a neighborhood I don't frequent.

I think all of this is falls under the category of "things that might exist" not things that actually do.



Allanmarcus said:


> A smart person could even listen to something good, realize there was nothing bad, then declare the sound good



So now people who can hear things that other people can't are *smarter*? Can you detect the ego bias in that statement at all?


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> Do you know of any specific DACs that actually do that? I've never run into one. But I suspect that would be in the territory of audiophoolery which is a neighborhood I don't frequent.


Oh it’s definitey audiophoolery


----------



## bigshot

I ignore audiophoolery. I let other folks cross that T and dot that I! It's easier to just refer to those as defective.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> I don't know of any DAC since oversampling was introduced that sounds different than any other DAC. Do you? If you do PLEASE tell me the DAC that sounds different. Please show me its specs showing it is audibly different. I REALLY want to see this DAC that everyone talks about in theory, but no one can name. Show it to me and I'll gladly announce it as the one exception to the rule every time I talk about DACs. You said "I'm not aware of any test demonstrating those stuff as audible, for the moment I stick to my point." I agree with that 100%.


arghhhhhhh, I was about to suggest Lampizator DACs, but then you go and say you don't want audiophoolery. now I don't know what to say. 
the audioGD DACs, I'm fairly confident some of those aren't transparent, even if I never did anything resembling a proper listening test. but those are probably NOS stuff or at least had a NOS setting and often some filter options. it's not like I go check for all that when I randomly listen to gears in a store or at a show. plus non transparent DAC is the sort of stuff I consistently run away from, so like you I'm not a good source of intel. 

but it's not just about the DAC. it's also about the testing conditions, and maybe the subject on occasions when the difference would by luck happen to be right around the threshold of audibility for one of the dudes. mainly it's about the usual case of you looking for your typical usage vs a guy like amirm looking for all the possible situations. both will result in different sets of audible thresholds and while what will be transparent for him will probably always also be for you, the opposite isn't a given and would require actual testing to reach a conclusion.
  we have to consider uses outside of our owns. including less than ideal ones. making blanket statements brings that upon ourselves. no clear conditions to go with a statement, means we consider it to be true no matter what. and that's why I say it's wrong. 

if a DAC has several inputs and some are so bad they sound different, that would be evidence that all DACs aren't transparent. same idea with the DACs offering various filter and oversampling settings. if any of those end up not sounding like the rest, we're done. 
then let's say I get oversample clipping on one DAC, all preoccupied that I am about bit perfect. then I use a Benchmark DAC and it doesn't clip? 
let's say I use one of those portable amps made for super weak sources, and I clip it with a 3V DAC? 
let's say I play a silent track and boost the volume until I get the background noise at audible level, couldn't I use that to tell the DACs apart? 


when I think about DACs, I think that I have properly matched it with the amp, that it's properly powered, but not using magic USB boxes or weird unicorn cable that can hardly fit in the definition of a USB cable. I will volume match the ouptut to the other DAC I want to test(with digital volume, shoot me but that's what I do). I will not do a sighted test. I will use my comfy listening loudness which if the room is real quiet(no fan), would end up around 60dB SPL. TBH I have no idea if that's good practice or not, I just feel like I notice more things like this than when the sound is loud. also that's closer to my usual listening level than stuff peaked at 90dB or above. I usually don't go looking for background hiss because I don't even expect a DAC to cause the background noise I may notice on my system. oh and of course I mean to test random music content, not test signals, not music under manufactured conditions. that is my idea of looking for audible differences. 
and like that, indeed I don't think a DAC is worth worrying about. 
 don't even expect others on the forum to stand by those conditions. so I guess we really need to have conditions stuck with our statements for them to mean something.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 26, 2018)

Are there any measurements on the web on those? I could see from the measurements if it was in the range of audibility or not. I don't see any need to qualify my statements for stuff that's deliberately defective. They are what they are. I am interested in stuff that is designed in a way that makes them out of spec without intending to be. Do you know of DACs that have bad inputs? I've never heard that either. But I only use HDMI. I've never made any effort to match any of my players or DACs with my amps, and I've never found anything that doesn't perform to spec. I'm open to that possibility, but I'd just like a specific and verifiable example of it.

As for normal listening conditions, I'm willing to let that go to extremes. I listen to music at 80dB sometimes. But I don't ever need anything to go as high as 120dB. That is insane.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 26, 2018)

According to our pal Amirm, the
*Audio-gd NFB-27.38 DAC and Headphone Amplifier*
gets awfully close to audibility on THD+N, but in practice, it would have to be a pretty specialized circumstance for it to become audible. https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...d-nfb-27-38-dac-and-headphone-amplifier.2486/ He says in the core frequencies, he couldn't detect any difference. Only in the high frequencies and even then it was subtle. So with speakers, it would probably not be an issue and it might be below the threshold of audibility. It might also be deliberate IMD designed to simulate the euphonic distortion of tube amps. If that's the case, it isn't the limitation of the DAC itself, it's designed to sound inferior. I'll check into it deeper when I get a chance. Amirm's specs don't come close to matching the published specs, but that isn't surprising I suppose if they are going for intentional coloration.


----------



## Allanmarcus

bigshot said:


> I think you're trying very hard to validate your pre-conceived conclusion. If you didn't level match, your results may be completely bogus. You can insist that there was a difference, but the rest of us are going to chalk it up to not level matching. The louder sound ALWAYS sounds better, even if it is identical.



Really! You don't see the inherent irony in that statement? Ug. In case you don't, "pre-conceived conclusion" and "ALWAYS" in the same paragraph. 



bigshot said:


> So now people who can hear things that other people can't are *smarter*? Can you detect the ego bias in that statement at all?



That is completely and 100% not what I said. I think I'm done. The level of stupidity and arrogance and meaningless misinterpretation is way too high on this thread.


----------



## cel4145

Allanmarcus said:


> The Higgs boson particle, from what I understand, didn't exists until it was proved it did. For 50 years it was a theory until was a fact. Sure, lots of theories are proved wrong, but when evidence points to something, and theory points to the something, there is likely something.
> 
> My point: If a blind test of two DACs with different implementations point to a difference in sound, even if that cannot be measured, then it's probable we just haven't figured out what to measure, or we don't have the right tools to measure. Expectation bias is very real, but assuming it explains all perceived differences is as dogmatic as blind trusting the reviews of audiophile pundits.



Well, let's not compare science with pseudo scientific claims from the audiophile community. The idea that DAC differences aren't measurable isn't coming from the scientific community. Just because some people "theorize" that anal probe alien abductions are real, doesn't mean we should put any stock in it. 

Then I don't understand the sweeping generalization about expectation bias. For instance, you should know that volume differences can affect perceived differences in listening tests. It's not all about expectation bias.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 26, 2018)

If you give a person a listening test between two identical sounds and play one of them a dB or two louder than the other,  the person doing the test will pick the louder one as sounding better, even though there's no difference. This is a well known thing. That's why controlled blind comparison tests have to be line level matched.

Likewise auditory memory in people is very short... for subtle differences, it can be as short as just a few seconds. That's why controlled listening tests need to be direct A/B switched, so the person can directly compare two sounds right next to each other with no time gap between samples.

If you want to do a controlled listening test, you need to be in control of the controls. It really isn't that hard. All it takes is a pair of preamps or amps so you can adjust the line level and a switcher so you can switch between inputs.

Human ears are human ears. Young ears can usually hear everything a human can possibly hear perfectly. Older ears might have a little bit of rolloff at the top end of the spectrum. Some people have damaged hearing. The condition of one's ears has a lot more to do with how well one can hear than training and smarts do. You can't train your ears into hearing things that are beyond their ability to hear. It's not like a Superman super power. I think a lot of audiophiles look at training their ears the way a Yogi tries to fly. He squats down and tries to hop an inch off the ground. The next time he tries to hop two inches... and so on. He figures if he just continues to do that, eventually he will be able to fly.

Yogis can't fly. Hearing is what it is. You can't will yourself to overcome physics. All you can do is learn enough to know how to analyze what you hear. The best way to do that is to read up about how physics works and to surround yourself with people who know more than you do. Then all you have to do is ask the right questions.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> If you give a person a listening test between two identical sounds and play one of them a dB or two louder than the other,  the person doing the test will pick the louder one as sounding better, even though there's no difference. This is a well known thing. That's why controlled blind comparison tests have to be line level matched.
> 
> Likewise auditory memory in people is very short... for subtle differences, it can be as short as just a few seconds. That's why controlled listening tests need to be direct A/B switched, so the person can directly compare two sounds right next to each other with no time gap between samples.
> 
> ...



I think it was your use of "always" that was being picked on with regards to loudness differences.  With 2 nearly similar audio samples, the louder one is often perceived to be better sounding.  Though, no matter how loud the volume is cranked up, you would never get me to believe that Leonard Nimoy's version of "Both Sides Now" sounds better than one sung by Joni Mitchel, herself.


----------



## bigshot

If Joni tried to sing Bilbo Baggins, she would mess it up too, so it's ying and yang! (Shatner's Rocket Man might be better than Elton John's though.)

Here is my theory... If something is 99.99% true, I don't see any point in acknowledging the .01% every time I speak the truth. That just gives the tiny exception more attention than it deserves. Audiophiles will inevitably grab onto that tiny exception to justify the lie they dearly want to believe. Then you have to spend ten posts trying to explain to them how the .01% doesn't apply. You end up spending more time discussing the exception than you do the truth. The waters get all muddy and no one comes away with any sense of the truth. It's easier to just call a spade a spade.

Those with an anal retentive bent can feel free to add footnotes to what I say. I don't see a need to do that myself.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Mar 26, 2018)

Allanmarcus said:


> You ignored the emphasis I put in the work "need" in my original response. I will be more clear
> 
> And once again, I'm not in the subjectivist camp. If something is not measurable *but stands up to a blind test*, then something is going on there. I don't need an empirical example of this for it to be true, but I have provided at least one.
> 
> The Higgs boson particle, from what I understand, didn't exists until it was proved it did. For 50 years it was a theory until was a fact. Sure, lots of theories are proved wrong, but when evidence points to something, and theory points to the something, there is likely something.



This is a pretty bad analogy.  The Higgs Boson was theorized but not proved until instruments were built that could actually measure its existence.

In the case of audio, we have instruments that are more sensitive than the best pair of human ears in existence.   I won't say that every acoustic phenomenon in and around the head is fully understood.  However, every difference between digital / electrical audio signals that CAN exist is measurable far beyond the sensitivity of human ears.  If a difference is not measurable (not with amateur gear, but strictly not measurable in any context) at the signal level, it's because there isn't one. WYSIWYG.

Blind tests can be passed by chance.  But, if you have someone passing a blind test at p < 0.1 and not measuring a difference, I will simply say the measurements are not being done properly, or the wrong thing is being measured.  Measurements can be hard - (anyone remember the scientists that couldn't disprove they had neutrinos going tachyon?) but in the case of audio you can't come up with something that is audible but not measurable in principle.


----------



## RRod

You've either tested these things out by titrating in potential deviations until they are easily audible, or you haven't. Enough with this 'I heard somewhere that someone dun heard something' stuff. Take a signal and add in some THD or crosstalk or change the stopband attentuation or something. Still waiting on response to the fact that a theoretically perfect reconstruction does exist...


----------



## colonelkernel8

Zapp_Fan said:


> This is a pretty bad analogy.  The Higgs Boson was theorized but not proved until instruments were built that could actually measure its existence.
> 
> In the case of audio, we have instruments that are more sensitive than the best pair of human ears in existence.   I won't say that every acoustic phenomenon in and around the head is fully understood.  However, every difference between digital / electrical audio signals that CAN exist is measurable far beyond the sensitivity of human ears.  If a difference is not measurable (not with amateur gear, but strictly not measurable in any context) at the signal level, it's because there isn't one. WYSIWYG.
> 
> Blind tests can be passed by chance.  But, if you have someone passing a blind test at p < 0.1 and not measuring a difference, I will simply say the measurements are not being done properly, or the wrong thing is being measured.  Measurements can be hard - (anyone remember the scientists that couldn't disprove they had neutrinos going tachyon?) but in the case of audio you can't come up with something that is audible but not measurable in principle.


I don’t know if you post here a lot (I’ve been AWOL for a few years) but as a completely off-topic compliment: it’s extremely pleasing to me to see a Head-Fi MotT posting in sound science. That takes guts.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Mar 26, 2018)

colonelkernel8 said:


> I don’t know if you post here a lot (I’ve been AWOL for a few years) but as a completely off-topic compliment: it’s extremely pleasing to me to see a Head-Fi MotT posting in sound science. That takes guts.



Haha, thanks.  I work at the relaunched Aiwa which until recently was not even in the headphone game.  We are now, but as a non-sponsor I am not permitted to plug our products.

On a personal level my views are much further on the science side than anything else. I'm no engineer and I'm well aware of that fact, so I try not to wade too far out of my depth.  My success on that point is moderate, lol.

On the professional level, one of my major tasks is to seek out objectively better sound quality (testing samples and prototypes, designing specs) - since we go for a mass market I can't afford to let my tastes override genuine improvements or lack thereof.  So if I were to become a subjectivist I'd also become bad at my job. Posting here keeps me sharp. 

Also, I try not to trash talk any particular piece of gear or opinion of gear - which is also not allowed for  MotT anyway.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Mar 26, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> This is a pretty bad analogy.  The Higgs Boson was theorized but not proved until instruments were built that could actually measure its existence.
> 
> In the case of audio, we have instruments that are more sensitive than the best pair of human ears in existence.   I won't say that every acoustic phenomenon in and around the head is fully understood.  However, every difference between digital / electrical audio signals that CAN exist is measurable far beyond the sensitivity of human ears.  If a difference is not measurable (not with amateur gear, but strictly not measurable in any context) at the signal level, it's because there isn't one. WYSIWYG.
> 
> Blind tests can be passed by chance.  But, if you have someone passing a blind test at p < 0.1 and not measuring a difference, I will simply say the measurements are not being done properly, or the wrong thing is being measured.  Measurements can be hard - (anyone remember the scientists that couldn't disprove they had neutrinos going tachyon?) but in the case of audio you can't come up with something that is audible but not measurable in principle.


The Higgs Boson still looks like an excuse for the expense of the particle collider....not buying it.C'mon now.Lots of promise from this thing and no meat.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Glmoneydawg said:


> The Higgs Boson still looks like an excuse for the expense of the particle collider....not buying it.C'mon now.Lots of promise from this thing and no meat.


You know they found the Higgs Boson right? Or are you just joking?


----------



## castleofargh

colonelkernel8 said:


> You know they found the Higgs Boson right? Or are you just joking?


they said they found it, but you don't see other places replicating the experiment. to me it's a clear sign that it's a lie and that the scientific community helps covering the lie. as always.
I mean how hard can it be to make a few other giant cyclotrons and test for ourselves? plus there are things we can hear but can't measure in music, so don't tell me we can detect a Boson. it just doesn't make sense.

meanwhile the real hero achieved several hundred meters in the air with his "flat earth research" rocket. real science!


----------



## bigshot

I heard that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax!


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Mar 27, 2018)

colonelkernel8 said:


> You know they found the Higgs Boson right? Or are you just joking?


to be honest i stopped following this a few years ago...so no not joking...just out of the loop


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Mar 28, 2018)

colonelkernel8 said:


> You know they found the Higgs Boson right? Or are you just joking?


ok did some reading and i obviously stand corrected.....cant wait for these guys to start building stereo equipement....Quark Audio has a nice ring to it


----------



## skwoodwiva

Zapp_Fan said:


> There is certainly something to be said for training one's ears, for example, learning to recognize different frequency ranges by ear or what subtle harmonic distortion sounds like, or what a better/worse attack sounds like, can be learned.  One way to do this is listen to the same songs over and over on different equipment with known, measurable differences, and listen carefully to specific sounds within the recording.  Another way is to spend a great deal of time listening to the same things while messing with an equalizer and other DSP tools.
> 
> However, if the person saying their ears are well-trained, but aren't specific about WHAT they are "trained" for, I agree that skepticism is warranted.  In a sense, you can't train your ears to hear more "musicality" or "fluency" or any of those other flowery things, because those phenomena are (if they're real at all - often just pleasant names for placebo effect) aggregates of other things.
> 
> If someone has truly well-trained ears, they'll be able to pass ABX tests a bit more often than your average punter, not because their ears work better, but because they have a mental checklist of things to listen for and know what those things sound like in a generalized way.  But that's about as far as it goes.  Someone with legitimately well-trained ears is not going to try and convince you that they can hear some unknown-to-science "musicality" of a DAC because their training lets them know that A) such things don't exist and B) you can't actually hear them even if they do.


There is no training for hearing acuity.
You are born with it.
There is no training for hearing acuity, not much unlike other physical attributes. Eyesight, voice tone (voice print if I may) I could list hundreds.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

skwoodwiva said:


> There is no training for hearing acuity.
> You are born with it.
> There is no training for hearing acuity, not much unlike other physical attributes. Eyesight, voice tone (voice print if I may) I could list hundreds.



Well, hearing and perceiving (noticing) are two different things.  I suppose everyone "hears" the same things in that the hardware of their cochlea etc. are picking up the same vibrations and producing similar neurological signals.  But the 'software' of the brain can be trained to identify things much better than someone off the street might.  I don't think this is controversial.  An experienced mastering engineer probably has way worse hearing acuity than a typical 12-year-old, because the 12-year-old hasn't been listening to loud music 8 hours a day for 30 years.  But the studio engineer can tell which version of a recording has a -1.5dB dip at 200hz because they've had a great deal of training and practice noticing those things.  So the engineer "hears" it and the 12-year-old doesn't "hear" it.  That's basically all I'm contending here.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Zapp_Fan said:


> So I have a general sound science question:  I've been working on an EQ curve all day and it occurred to me that almost every headphone, especially those under say $200, has a frequency response above 6-7khz that is wildly uneven.  Full-on nulls are not uncommon.  Even a $400 pair I'm messing with has some pretty jagged response up there.
> 
> However, listening to music, the high frequencies don't seem all that unnatural, even if there are -12dB dips all over the place from 6-16khz.  This got me thinking, how is that I'm not terribly bothered by this?  A FR that is so far from flat ought to sound bad to me, but it's not nearly as bad as you'd expect.
> 
> ...



The cancellation nulls in the high frequencies in an authentic listening environment serve as spatial cues that enhance the listening experience.  However these move and respond to head movements and are also structurally different from the nulls from headphone cups or IEMs... the actual perceived nulls from headphones tend to be fewer and further apart, even more so for IEMs.  These actually cue us in to the fact that we are listening to something stuck on our heads.  If we can null out the nulls from these and replace them with the nulls that are structurally similar to those in an authentic listening environment, the feeling of authenticity of the listening experience goes up.

Sorry, no science papers to back me up here, just my recent years of experimenting with this stuff that hasn't been put down in writing anywhere or peer reviewed by anybody


----------



## sonitus mirus

skwoodwiva said:


> There is no training for hearing acuity.
> You are born with it.
> There is no training for hearing acuity, not much unlike other physical attributes. Eyesight, voice tone (voice print if I may) I could list hundreds.



Some people, using 2 functioning eyes,  have trouble seeing 3D stereoscopic images.  Others can see the 3D images easily.  Some people get better at seeing these after looking at a few and figuring out the "trick".  Might something similar be applicable to our hearing?  It took a frustratingly long time to pass the Philips Golden Ear challenge mp3 bitrate part of the test the first time I took it; though, once I discovered what to focus on, what had been nearly impossible to identify became almost trivial to do using nearly any headphones or speakers I had available to use for testing.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

sonitus mirus said:


> Some people, using 2 functioning eyes,  have trouble seeing 3D stereoscopic images.  Others can see the 3D images easily.  Some people get better at seeing these after looking at a few and figuring out the "trick".  Might something similar be applicable to our hearing?  It took a frustratingly long time to pass the Philips Golden Ear challenge mp3 bitrate part of the test the first time I took it; though, once I discovered what to focus on, what had been nearly impossible to identify became almost trivial to do using nearly any headphones or speakers I had available to use for testing.



Bingo - same ears, but a better-trained brain, and suddenly you're hearing "better" than before.


----------



## bigshot

I think that the advantages that are possible by training ears are vastly overrated. It's more a matter of concentration levels than it is hearing. If you are tired and not particularly interested in doing the test, you're going to perform poorly whether you're trained or not. If you're alert and focused you might discern something you didn't pay attention to before. But this isn't what audiophiles are talking about when they talk about ear training. They strap their ego onto it and try to make it seem like they can hear better than the average person. They claim they can hear the difference between cables or the difference between CD and SACD. In other words, they use "ear training" as self validation.

I think that education and experience is a great thing. But it won't make you hear any better than any other human. It might make you better at analyzing what you hear or focusing, but that is about it.


----------



## castleofargh

it also vastly depends on the test itself. for a visual analogy that I will surely come to regret, looking for something in a picture can take time and training to recognize what we're looking for will over time greatly speed up the detection. when I was playing FPS games, it took training for my brain to get that 2pixels of a specific color was "a bad guy with a gun". for months they would move in the distance without me noticing anything. of course it didn't make my eyes view more, it's a matter of brain work on the data I had all along. 
now back to looking for something in a picture, if the test is 2 picture perfectly aligned and identical except for a small difference, switching rapidly on the same screen, then anybody will notice the place where a change occurs. no training of any sort is required. 
sound makes things more difficult because we need a sample of sound of a given duration to at the very least get some frequency content. so even rapid switching leaves us at the beginning of a short sample or with the following signal if we let a song go and only switch the synchronized tracks. in that respect we can't totally have something as easy as 2 pictures on a screen switching. but short sound cues and rapid switch do bring us real close and lower the need for training compared to other listening methods. that much I assume is a consensus.


----------



## skwoodwiva (Mar 30, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> Some people, using 2 functioning eyes,  have trouble seeing 3D stereoscopic images.  Others can see the 3D images easily.  Some people get better at seeing these after looking at a few and figuring out the "trick".  Might something similar be applicable to our hearing?  It took a frustratingly long time to pass the Philips Golden Ear challenge mp3 bitrate part of the test the first time I took it; though, once I discovered what to focus on, what had been nearly impossible to identify became almost trivial to do using nearly any headphones or speakers I had available to use for testing.


Ok but that is learning to use what you got. Sheer fortitude. Were talking alility to discern. I took the dump NPR test, now I got Perry, the Bach & the other woman, at the top. Reviewing after I realized these 3 were also the best recorded or conveyed. Now had they been equal ~2 would have been chance.
No matter my fortitude.
Edit it is more like .25 of 6 is 1.5 answers by chance.
Am I doing this right?


----------



## bigshot

I am going to use my sheer force of will to wish this away with sheer fortitude. Oops! Technology can do that with the ignore function and I don't have to do anything at all. Hooray for technology. Hooray for a thread where we all get along and don't troll each other.


----------



## NorCal

Is there a FAQ thread in Sound Science? If not, is this, the "pub" thread, or some other thread, the best place to ask for the opinions of the various SS members, on hardware?  
Thanks in advance.


----------



## bigshot

This is the casual hangout. Feel free to create a new thread for your question


----------



## Zapp_Fan

skwoodwiva said:


> Ok but that is learning to use what you got. Sheer fortitude. Were talking alility to discern. I took the dump NPR test, now I got Perry, the Bach & the other woman, at the top. Reviewing after I realized these 3 were also the best recorded or conveyed. Now had they been equal ~2 would have been chance.
> No matter my fortitude.
> Edit it is more like .25 of 6 is 1.5 answers by chance.
> Am I doing this right?



This is a little above my pay grade but I think it's more than just force of will. Once you learn to recognize something your brain can start reinforcing those neural pathways, or something.  The same way muscle memory is a thing - you can't just show up and be good at things just because you really want to.  Same way you can't necessarily be good at spotting MP3 artifacts or slight harmonic distortion, fresh off the street & without any practice.  That's mostly my opinion and I don't have sources, but I don't think someone with no knowledge or experience can match extensive listening experience just by willing it to happen.


----------



## bigshot

Maybe it's just the term that I don't like. Ears can't be trained, but listeners can learn to have discernment. The problem is, some people claim that their trained ears give them the ability to hear things they clearly can't. Trained ears don't allow you to hear the unbearable. Super audible frequencies and noise floors down in the basement are still just as inaudible as with untrained ears. Experience just helps you to analyze what you hear. You recognize which parts of the sound are which. That can be useful for judging the balances in a mix and for pinpointing problems, but it doesn't mean that their hearing is enhanced. Wrapping ego around something like that is misplaced.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> Maybe it's just the term that I don't like. Ears can't be trained, but listeners can learn to have discernment. The problem is, some people claim that their trained ears give them the ability to hear things they clearly can't. Trained ears don't allow you to hear the unbearable. Super audible frequencies and noise floors down in the basement are still just as inaudible as with untrained ears. Experience just helps you to analyze what you hear. You recognize which parts of the sound are which. That can be useful for judging the balances in a mix and for pinpointing problems, but it doesn't mean that their hearing is enhanced. Wrapping ego around something like that is misplaced.



100% agree that ego wrapped up in some notion of genetically superior ears is bad and wrong.  Brains can be trained to notice things that amateurs struggle to discern, but you can't take your ears to the ear gym and make them stronger.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Maybe it's just the term that I don't like. Ears can't be trained, but listeners can learn to have discernment. The problem is, some people claim that their trained ears give them the ability to hear things they clearly can't. Trained ears don't allow you to hear the unbearable. Super audible frequencies and noise floors down in the basement are still just as inaudible as with untrained ears. Experience just helps you to analyze what you hear. You recognize which parts of the sound are which. That can be useful for judging the balances in a mix and for pinpointing problems, but it doesn't mean that their hearing is enhanced. Wrapping ego around something like that is misplaced.


Agreed...also personal preference for certain parts of the music can be a part of this.


----------



## castleofargh

it's not hard to get that we can't do anything about hearing without the brain and that the brain is a tiny bit complicated.
 it's easy to focus on watching TV and miss what the wife said. the issue wasn't that the sound of the wife was too low. we were trying to focus on something else. learning where to put our focus for a specific audio cue can obviously improve our results when looking for it. even if I hear a guitar, if I'm focused hard on the drummer, it becomes easy to miss something small that the guitar did. 
let's say you get to hear massive clipping, then smaller clipping of the same track, then smaller and smaller until you lose it. it's easy to stay focus on the type of change clipping will do to the track and to understand how the psychoacoustic impact changes when the magnitude of the clip is smaller. would it be a surprise if people who just went through such an exercise ended up noticing clipping better than a random guy asked to tell if he hears anything? again I do believe that rapid switching reduces the need for such things, but while seeking a difference our brain is wandering around. personally I start just unfocused and if I notice nothing, then I'll focus on the low end, then on the mids, then the trebles, if there is still nothing I will tend to focus on the "image", wondering if when I switch some instrument has moved a little, and so on. I have that little routine in my head, but while I'm jumping from point of focus to point of focus, the guy who looks for low rate mp3 artifact and has trained on that just before with obvious to less obvious examples, I really wouldn't be surprised if he scored better than I will. no matter how good his hearing is. 
training will also go a long way if someone tell you "pay attention to 2khz", and you know with more or less accuracy what 2khz sounds like.  

of course training can help notice something we wouldn't might just barely miss before. I don't know much actions for humans that wouldn't benefit from a little training. and again, even if all the training does is make me less stressed under trial, that's still a valid improvement. often people when they try ABX or a blind test for the first time, they feel like cops are at the door and there is a corpse in the hallway. the poor guys, it's the first time they listen without having the reassuring visual confirmation that they know the answer before starting the test. of course it's a shock. it's like they're actually trying to hear for the first time. usually those people are tired nervously after just 5mn. because they never listened so hard in their lifetime. training definitely improves all that. facing insecurity, not feeling like we're going to crap our pants because it's "A TEST" and we didn't like those at school either. 

training doesn't hurt. the only issue with training is that hearing stuff we were missing before, maybe it will please our ego for a time, but mostly now we need gears and settings that won't make that audio artifact audible for us. yesterday we were just fine enjoying our music, and today we're whining about a small background hiss, or some altered response somewhere. I'm not sure this leads toward a happier audiophile. 
but if I want to notice something, then I will test myself and try to learn how to notice it. different aim, different choice.


----------



## skwoodwiva (Mar 31, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> Agreed...also personal preference for certain parts of the music can be a part of this.


I see it much mooore youR way now.
My Birthday too
Lets all be friendly
Like my avitar?


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> ....training doesn't hurt. the only issue with training is that hearing stuff we were missing before, maybe it will please our ego for a time, but mostly now we need gears and settings that won't make that audio artifact audible for us. yesterday we were just fine enjoying our music, and today we're whining about a small background hiss, or some altered response somewhere. *I'm not sure this leads toward a happier audiophile.*
> but if I want to notice something, then I will test myself and try to learn how to notice it. different aim, different choice.



+1

I think there are some people who have trained themselves to be more sensitive to sibilance, to always notice it. Definitely doesn't make them happy.


----------



## bigshot

I didn't have to train myself to be irritated by sibilance!


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Mar 31, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I didn't have to train myself to be irritated by sibilance!


Me neither. ....but i try not to dwell on it(anymore)  if the music is worth it


----------



## U-3C

Well, when you always intentionally listen for it while thinking it is negative, you'll notice it more. Just like how people who claim that they need to smoothen their DACs and cables with burn in will slowly amplify the difference between them and point them out with confidence. Until they stop listening for it. Like when they realise you didn't actually hook the switch to anything. It was the same cables connected to the same dac positioned in the same direction relative to the Earth's magnetic field.


----------



## bigshot

It always bothers me. Big imbalances bother me too. Maybe this is what ear training is- intolerance of out of calibration sound.


----------



## Argyris

I've learned to just not concentrate on minutiae. It's rarely enjoyable, and more often than not it just unearths an irritating flaw or odd element of the mix that I'd never noticed before but now have difficulty ignoring.

I recall being mildly distressed once when I unwittingly discovered an until-then unnoticed harmony passage in my favorite piece of music, the In Paradisum from Faure's Requiem. It's a simple line right at the beginning played by the organ. It obviously adds something to the overall composition, but it was never intended to be zeroed in on. I even went so far as to consult the score and some additional recordings to make sure it was really supposed to be there, and sure enough, it is.

I've come to terms with that line and it doesn't bother me anymore, but the experience taught me that some things are meant to stay in the background. I've also learned to tune out the various traffic noise, humming amplifiers and creaking chairs I foolishly delighted over finding when I first got into headphones, and when I'm forced to listen to a low-bitrate MP3, I don't look for artifacts. I know I could find them without much effort, and that's exactly the problem. When it comes to the low level stuff, as purely a music listener and not a mastering engineer, I've learned that ignorance is bliss.


----------



## castleofargh (Apr 8, 2018)

background hiss is my nemesis. anytime I move from something with audible hiss to something without, I feel like I've made a bigger jump into HIFI than anybody can do with 32bit music and anti time smearing whatever.
I care for frequency response a lot too, but I'm way more tolerant. it's one of those things being very significant, but not necessarily worst for me when different. sometime different is just different. oh and give me something with sound from 60hz to 9khz and I'll have about as much fun as with a really wide frequency response. I'd rather have a better extended FR, but it doesn't mess me up like background hiss will.
THD doesn't seem to matter to me unless crazy high(well above 1%). again, different, but not always worst IMO. some driver ringing in the upper midrange drove me crazy a few times, even more so that I usually didn't know why I was going crazy. I would just feel wrong, fatigue faster, ultimately my answer has always been to get rid of such a headphone/IEM, pinpointing the cause of my dislike isn't necessary when I can just get rid of the annoying gear.
and that's about it for my hifi world. the rest is about not getting headphone stereo on on binaural albums. but I'm not knowledgeable enough to get all I need like I want, so I keep waiting for the Realiser A16 to take me into the 21th century(or 22th if it keeps being delayed so much).


----------



## 71 dB

castleofargh said:


> background hiss is my nemesis. anytime I move from something with audible hiss to something without, I feel like I've made a bigger jump into HIFI than anybody can do with 32bit music and anti time smearing whatever.


Since old recordings tend to have background hiss while modern recordings do not, I prefer modern recordings (that's 1980's or after). I'd say about 95 % of my CD collection is hiss free.

However, as you all know, my nemesis is excessive stereo separation with headphones and only about 2 % of my CD collection is free of that. Fortunately crossfeed saves the day. 

Talking about the importance of 24 bit consumer audio and avoidance of reconstruction filter time smearing is silly.


----------



## sonitus mirus

71 dB said:


> Since old recordings tend to have background hiss while modern recordings do not, I prefer modern recordings (that's 1980's or after). I'd say about 95 % of my CD collection is hiss free.
> 
> However, as you all know, my nemesis is excessive stereo separation with headphones and only about 2 % of my CD collection is free of that. Fortunately crossfeed saves the day.
> 
> Talking about the importance of 24 bit consumer audio and avoidance of reconstruction filter time smearing is silly.



I use an older HeadRoom Micro Amp with 3 gain settings and a crossfeed toggle for the majority of my headphone use.  All of my headphones are closed, because I only use headphones for isolation and to listen privately to minimize any disturbance of people around me.   

I'm nearly always listening to music with stereo speakers.  I'm at the point where I don't do any serious listening without speakers. Actually, none of my listening is serious, just fun.  Though, I have never given too much thought as to why I greatly enjoy speakers to headphones, it just might be the stereo separation that bothers me, too.


----------



## U-3C

Can't stand the hiss on my dac. Very high noise floor and it gets very annoying at night. Thankfully headphone jacks on my desktop and laptop are all dead silent.

Current laptop has coil whine though, which also annoys the hell out of me.

In the end, I just never use my dac/amp due to the inconvenience and noise floor.


----------



## gregorio (Apr 5, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> the only issue with training is that hearing stuff we were missing before ...  I'm not sure this leads toward a happier audiophile.



I can't really speak for audiophiles but I can speak about training from two perspectives:

Firstly, as a formally trained classical musician. When I started, the mistakes I was making were obvious and I worked hard for a long time to eliminate them. Was I happy when I had? No, not at all because the act of eliminating those mistakes reviled another whole batch of mistakes of which I was previously unaware. And after curing those, there was another whole new batch, ad infinitum. Bizarrely, by that stage I was being complimented, respected, winning prizes and positions but why, I still had whole batches of serious mistakes to eliminate? Years later I worked extensively with a world class soloist, 10 min standing ovations were the norm, as were rave reviews and accolades up the wazzoo. Behind closed doors, between the curtain calls and bows and smiles for the audience, she'd often be furious, swearing hear head off at the same time the audience were still shouting theirs off, clapping their hands raw and stamping their feet for more. I was a highly trained classical musician and for several years I knew her playing better than anyone else in the world but usually even I didn't know what she was so furious about. I came to realise that she was so many rounds of mistake elimination down the road, that even a particularly serious mistake to her was completely inaudible to anyone else!

Secondly, I almost had to start again and train myself from scratch when I became a sound engineer. Eventually appreciating the minutiae of sound engineering and music production tools. On the one hand, listening to an old loved track was often disappointing to the point of embarrassment. How could I have loved something which was so badly engineered, mixed and produced that it now made me cringe? In this sense, my training had certainly not made me happier about my prior music consumption. On the other hand though, I gained an appreciation for some tracks and even whole genres I'd previously dismissed on purely musical grounds, because of high quality engineering and production. This made me a happier consumer, so my training had made me both sadder and happier. But then there were the small number of recordings which ticked all of the boxes on all sides of the equation; music composition, structure, arrangement and performance, plus engineering, production and mastering. Masterpieces in every sense, and to have the training to fully understand and appreciate this makes any sadness caused by training to be completely worth it to me. Although to be honest I don't really remember and can't imagine what it would be like to be an untrained listener, so it's maybe not a conclusion applicable to others.

G


----------



## bigshot

Hiss doesn't bother me at all if it's consistent. But most sound engineers who master older material for CD fade hiss out to digital silence and then ramp it up at the beginning of the next song. That always irritates me. When I had my own CD label releasing 78 era classical, I would make a point of running the hiss through the track breaks between movements. It was a lot easier on the ears that way.

The only really small thing that drives me up the wall is distortion around 2kHz. Sometimes low data rate MP3s can have a bit of distortion in the most sensitive part of the hearing range. It follows the music and drives me crazy. I have a notch filter I switch in when I run across that.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> Hiss doesn't bother me at all if it's consistent. But most sound engineers who master older material for CD fade hiss out to digital silence and then ramp it up at the beginning of the next song. That always irritates me. When I had my own CD label releasing 78 era classical, I would make a point of running the hiss through the track breaks between movements. It was a lot easier on the ears that way.
> 
> The only really small thing that drives me up the wall is distortion around 2kHz. Sometimes low data rate MP3s can have a bit of distortion in the most sensitive part of the hearing range. It follows the music and drives me crazy. I have a notch filter I switch in when I run across that.



Yes! This drives me nuts on this copy of Mozart's Requiem I bought as a FLAC online...the analog tape hiss stops and abruptly starts at each track. Intensely annoying.


----------



## bigshot

I had to learn to deal with hiss when I was transferring 78s. Each side was 3 to 4 minutes long and each one had a different amount of hiss and a different volume level. Sometimes I would match the volume level and then the hiss wouldn't join cleanly to the next side. I had to develop a bunch of tricks to transition hiss and to tame it all back to a best case scenario. I was able to totally remove hiss without affecting the music, but that made the music sound muffled. The hiss was serving a purpose. It tricked your ears into thinking they heard high frequency sound in the music that didn't exist in the recording. Hiss is necessary in 78 transfers. At least until the first FFRR recordings started in the late 40s.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> I had to learn to deal with hiss when I was transferring 78s.



It's even more fun being a Dialogue Editor/Mixer on feature films. You've typically got say 100 scenes in a film, each of which is broken down into say 3 or more shots. Then you've usually got 2-6 actors and say 5 takes per shot. Each take and each actor on every shot has different hiss (room tone) and for all the dialogue recordings used in the final cut of each scene the hiss (room tone) has to match perfectly. There's usually at least one point in every film when you have to remind yourself that you love your job!

G


----------



## bigshot

I was a boom man back in my youth. I was the one causing your problems! But I got to blame it on the DP being in a hurry and shooting dialogue scenes as wide shots.


----------



## bigshot

Getting ready to hit ignore on one or two more. I usually wait until they get rude and disrespectful, but my patience isn't unlimited.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Getting ready to hit ignore on one or two more. I usually wait until they get rude and disrespectful, but my patience isn't unlimited.


Surely one of the great joys of this forum is talking to people with different opinions?


----------



## bigshot

Different opinions are the reason I'm here. I want to learn from people who know things I don't. But willful ignorance is just a waste of time and it distracts from more productive discussions.


----------



## skwoodwiva

I agree a diverse bunch we all are!
I am here to be a better person, believe it or not! My communication skills are much improved now after 200+ posts and it is fun here. Learning everyday.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Different opinions are the reason I'm here. I want to learn from people who know things I don't. But willful ignorance is just a waste of time and it distracts from more productive discussions.


Gotcha....theres a guy in another thread promoting a pig levitator


----------



## bigshot

He makes me laugh!


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Apr 5, 2018)

bigshot said:


> He makes me laugh!


He has a graph. ...unless you can dispute this scientifically you may be a potential customer like me.


----------



## U-3C

Glmoneydawg said:


> Gotcha....theres a guy in another thread promoting a pig levitator




This I gotta see...


----------



## skwoodwiva

bigshot said:


> He makes me laugh!


Who is He?


----------



## skwoodwiva

Will somebody kick BS for me, please.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 6, 2018)

Looks like Windows X and his sock puppet got their wish. We can discuss fictional animals and fictional digital glare here now.


----------



## bigshot

It's interesting how many people refuse to acknowledge bias.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> It's interesting how many people refuse to acknowledge bias.


you mean afraid to aknowledge bias?.....its tough to admit you have been doing something wrong for a long time....even when you know the truth.


----------



## Argyris

Glmoneydawg said:


> you mean afraid to aknowledge bias?.....its tough to admit you have been doing something wrong for a long time....even when you know the truth.



Especially if it involves spending money or having made public statements in support of something. It's tough to admit that you wasted your money and were taken in, and that all those glowing reviews you read and/or wrote, and the "night and day" comparisons you claimed, are now invalid. It's much easier to say the person with the charts and graphs is wrong, that they've missed something, or that they have an overarching agenda of some kind that involves separating you from your enjoyment or not understanding what enjoyment even is.

Not to mention, coming to such a realization involves being separated from all those you know who _haven't_ or _won't_ do the same. They'll continue to believe, and they might even turn on you if you stick around. But really, you _can't_ stick around. What would you talk about? Everybody else still wants to discuss how their new $1,000 cable and $10,000 DAC make such a huge difference. You can't do that because you don't believe in it anymore. In a nutshell, the hobby itself, as a lot of people here see it, disappears. Then you're just left buying different headphones and listening to music, which at first seems so sparse, so boring.

And then you wander into Sound Science...


----------



## U-3C (Apr 11, 2018)

Argyris said:


> [...]And then you wander into Sound Science...



...and then you are okay with not sticking around...

...and then they turn on you if you still stick around...

...and then you are banned from the cable threads...


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Looks like Windows X and his sock puppet got their wish. We can discuss fictional animals and fictional digital glare here now.



to say sorry for the last 2 I killed on sight, I propose to have a topic dedicated to legendary animals. whalebats, flying pigs, and all our others friends. they deserve a dedicated place where they can enjoy music free from public oppression and Trump Jr's rifle. if it works, I'll contact UNESCO and ask if nurse Joy can come use her expertise on Pokemons to help with our local residents.

I have nothing on digital glare, though.


----------



## Argyris

Cables are a lot like Nurse Joy: there may be a lot of them all throughout whatever region you're in, but no matter what Brock says, they're all exactly the same.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Argyris said:


> Cables are a lot like Nurse Joy: there may be a lot of them all throughout whatever region you're in, but no matter what Brock says, they're all exactly the same.


Well that wasn't long-winded at all!


----------



## 71 dB

Glmoneydawg said:


> you mean afraid to aknowledge bias?.....its tough to admit you have been doing something wrong for a long time....even when you know the truth.


I have realized having been wrong so many times it doesn't even surprise me anyone. I'm like "Oh, seems like I have been wrong about this too!" The fact is we don't often start with the correct opinion. We start with some random stupid opinions and then hopefully later we are wiser and know/understand more and can improve/correct those initial stupid opinions. I understood this when I was about 25 years old I think, so for a quarter of a century I hold many monumetally stupid opinions such as_ "Classical music is too old to be compatible with modern ears."_ or _"Everything gets better and better with time." _


----------



## bigshot (Apr 11, 2018)

This one is impossible for me to hear without lyrics!


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> This one is impossible for me to hear without lyrics!



For some reason, those illusions don't seem to work for me. The illusion that it is (or is supposed to be) music works for me but not the illusion of the lyrics being present. I'm not sure why, maybe it's my familiarity with the piano sound, some aspect of my musical or sound engineering training or maybe it's something I'm lacking, like a love of lyrics, I've always generally tended to concentrate far more on the music and sound than on the lyrics.

G


----------



## castleofargh

the first one I get "brabruplatapratatlablane staying alive staying alive". 
for the second one, how many cats are running on the piano exactly? ^_^ I can count at least 3


----------



## bigshot (Apr 12, 2018)

gregorio said:


> For some reason, those illusions don't seem to work for me. The illusion that it is (or is supposed to be) music works for me but not the illusion of the lyrics being present.



It depends on the song. The more familiar you are with it, the more likely you'll hear the vocals through it. You also have to listen for a couple of minutes before it snaps in.



castleofargh said:


> the first one I get "brabruplatapratatlablane staying alive staying alive"



That's kinda how it sounds in the real song too!


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> the first one I get "brabruplatapratatlablane staying alive staying alive".


I believe those were the actual lyrics credited on the original album sleeve.


----------



## bigshot

I'm curious why people come and participate here in Sound Science just to argue with the whole point of the forum. I think they believe that the rest of HeadFi is the whole wide world and we are the crazy animals kept in the cage of our own forum... the exact opposite is the truth. They seem to come in twos to rattle our cages- either with a sock puppet or a buddy to high five with when they "score points". But none of them do a really good job of rattling us. In fact, it usually ends up with them doing hyper emotional curtain calls telling us over and over again that they're "outta here" as they get more and more impatient with their own ineffectualness. It seems like a waste of time. If there was an interesting discussion going on that was being sidetracked, I'd probably be frustrated. But it's kind of quiet right now, so I'm just amused.

Some people sure don't know how to use the internet well!


----------



## castleofargh

internet is great but also a giant trap. we can spend our life looking only for confirmation. I kind of do just that when I spend too much time in here and never go read the cable section. I'm avoiding testimonies of change and avoid learning about the warmer sound of gold cables. just so that I don't have to admit that it is all true. allegedly.

but I agree that when someone comes in a section called Sound Science to tell everybody how measurements and controlled tests are unreliable or unnecessary, it gets awkward real fast.


----------



## bfreedma

castleofargh said:


> internet is great but also a giant trap. we can spend our life looking only for confirmation. I kind of do just that when I spend too much time in here and never go read the cable section. I'm avoiding testimonies of change and avoid learning about the warmer sound of gold cables. just so that I don't have to admit that it is all true. allegedly.
> 
> but I agree that when someone comes in a section called Sound Science to tell everybody how measurements and controlled tests are unreliable or unnecessary, it gets awkward real fast.




I think a large part of the frustration is having to repeat the same discussions as posters new to Sound Science drop in to inform the regulars that what we know about the various commonly addressed topics is wrong because "they heard a difference".

Would it make sense to put together a thread with a sticky containing some of the really solid explanations of the general position here on things like cables, amps, DACS, etc?  A fair compromise might be requesting that those who want to state their subjective views as objective evidence read the thread before engaging in further discussion.  Granted, it won't stop the trolls, but it might give most of the members who drop by irregularly some context around the accepted science and prevent a lot of repetitive explanations.

Might help some of our posters of longer responses from carpal tunnel as well - they can link to previous posts....


----------



## bigshot

A FAQ would be great... if these people were really interested in knowing. I think an agreed upon one line dismissal that we all use would be more effective. ...that or shunning like the Amish.


----------



## bfreedma (Apr 12, 2018)

bigshot said:


> A FAQ would be great... if these people were really interested in knowing. I think an agreed upon one line dismissal that we all use would be more effective. ...that or shunning like the Amish.



I’d think sticking to some hard numbers would help, for example, they typical inexpensive shiny disc player has between x-y nanoseconds of jitter and the range of human detection is x-y ms.  Not to dissuade someone with a legitimate idea or discussion to challenge it, but to have them recognize that they would need to support their position with something more than “my ears are the truth”.  Another example might be a chart showing the relative impact of different wire materials on resistance and a column showing that impact over typical cable lengths.

I’m already onboard with Amish shunning - those with an agenda will ignore the faq, play word parsing games and/or keep moving the goalposts.  No personal interest in engaging in that type of conversation as it’s nothing more than “The Arguement Clinic” sketch from the old Monty Python show.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> A FAQ would be great... if these people were really interested in knowing. I think an agreed upon one line dismissal that we all use would be more effective. ...that or shunning like the Amish.


Considering how quickly the mob descended upon my dissent in the equipment forums when I called to question someone’s subjective experiences, I’d say, “NO QUARTER”.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bfreedma said:


> No personal interest in engaging in that type of conversation as it’s nothing more than “The Arguement Clinic” sketch from the old Monty Python show.


No it isn't.  

I agree there should be a general reference to common measurements that are considered to be inaudible or insignificant in comparison to the overall situation.  We can at least have a starting place.  What specification is suspect?  

This reference page is a bit old, but still applicable.  I like the format. 

http://www.rane.com/note145.html


----------



## bigshot

I did a thread on this a million years ago. It was called The Most Important Spec Sheet: The Human Ear. I'll bump it up and if anyone wants to add to the thread to update and expand it, I'll be happy to do that. I'm sure some of the citation links are dead by now though. We may need to find new ones for some things.


----------



## bfreedma

sonitus mirus said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> I agree there should be a general reference to common measurements that are considered to be inaudible or insignificant in comparison to the overall situation.  We can at least have a starting place.  What specification is suspect?
> 
> ...




Exactly - links like that are very helpful in explaining the basics and helping posters do a better job of using appropriate terminology.

I’ll start putting together what I think are some of the better posts and links with one caveat.  I consider myself a reasonably knowledgable layman but want the experts here to comment on any information, links or quotes so that I can correct any and all mistakes or errors.  And hope that they will contribute, even if mostly by cutting/pasting existing posts where they’ve covered the topics previously.  I’m not the right person to be the final arbiter of what should go in the faq for the majority of subjects that we would be covering and think the group contributions would add tremendous value.

Source Science could use a good set of basics.  Most people don’t start their audio experienced based on what’s considered common operational knowledge, so a baseline of terminology and reasonably simple constructs would be a good place for those guenuinely interested and perhaps make them a little more comfortable participating.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I did a thread on this a million years ago. It was called The Most Important Spec Sheet: The Human Ear. I'll bump it up and if anyone wants to add to the thread to update and expand it, I'll be happy to do that. I'm sure some of the citation links are dead by now though. We may need to find new ones for some things.




Sounds like a plan.  If I find any dead links, will try to find replacements so you can update.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I'm curious why people come and participate here in Sound Science just to argue with the whole point of the forum. I think they believe that the rest of HeadFi is the whole wide world and we are the crazy animals kept in the cage of our own forum... the exact opposite is the truth. They seem to come in twos to rattle our cages- either with a sock puppet or a buddy to high five with when they "score points". But none of them do a really good job of rattling us. In fact, it usually ends up with them doing hyper emotional curtain calls telling us over and over again that they're "outta here" as they get more and more impatient with their own ineffectualness. It seems like a waste of time. If there was an interesting discussion going on that was being sidetracked, I'd probably be frustrated. But it's kind of quiet right now, so I'm just amused.
> 
> Some people sure don't know how to use the internet well!


Has anyone considered a wall...i hear they're in right now.


----------



## bigshot

You can be our guard dawg!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> You can be our guard dawg!


Some logic to that....i am a certified convert in the digital arena of SC....GRRRR


----------



## castleofargh

bfreedma said:


> I think a large part of the frustration is having to repeat the same discussions as posters new to Sound Science drop in to inform the regulars that what we know about the various commonly addressed topics is wrong because "they heard a difference".
> 
> Would it make sense to put together a thread with a sticky containing some of the really solid explanations of the general position here on things like cables, amps, DACS, etc?  A fair compromise might be requesting that those who want to state their subjective views as objective evidence read the thread before engaging in further discussion.  Granted, it won't stop the trolls, but it might give most of the members who drop by irregularly some context around the accepted science and prevent a lot of repetitive explanations.
> 
> Might help some of our posters of longer responses from carpal tunnel as well - they can link to previous posts....


I have been thinking about this for a while, and have whined like a bad puppy to other modos just this week. but while I clearly feel that this section just doesn't work the way it is, I don't really have a clear solution either. I tried writing to start a few stuff, on magnitudes, on what this sub section is about, but I write the way I do. a lots of words to say very little very poorly. nobody in his right mind would wish to read 10 pages of my disorganized thoughts. if the post we ask people to read is worst than a license agreement mixed with science talk, nobody is going to read it. 

also I'm not totally sure that I have the authority to redefine this section or the rules in it. so there is that. 
but of course you guys are more than welcome to make posts if only for yourself to refer to instead of saying the same stuff 3 times a week. and if you think it's worth it, I have the unicorn power of making a topic "sticky". so that much can be done without issue.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Apr 14, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> I have been thinking about this for a while, and have whined like a bad puppy to other modos just this week. but while I clearly feel that this section just doesn't work the way it is, I don't really have a clear solution either. I tried writing to start a few stuff, on magnitudes, on what this sub section is about, but I write the way I do. a lots of words to say very little very poorly. nobody in his right mind would wish to read 10 pages of my disorganized thoughts. if the post we ask people to read is worst than a license agreement mixed with science talk, nobody is going to read it.
> 
> also I'm not totally sure that I have the authority to redefine this section or the rules in it. so there is that.
> but of course you guys are more than welcome to make posts if only for yourself to refer to instead of saying the same stuff 3 times a week. and if you think it's worth it, I have the unicorn power of making a topic "sticky". so that much can be done without issue.


As a recent outsider i have to say that yes there are some strongly opinionated people in here,but it is their forum and perhaps a place where standards are set by the SC guys(its their forum)and a place where the subjectivists continually come to take a poke at the objectovists(mostly unsuccessfully)i dont see SC guys stickin their noses in the other forums....double standard here?....i feel like some of the SC guys could seriously mess up some of the other forums....pretty simple concept in here...got an opinion??prove it!!


----------



## bigshot (Apr 12, 2018)

You'll just give them an excuse to delete this whole section if you aren't careful. The internet has to be allowed to find its own level. This section has functioned for as long as I've been here. People blow in and cause trouble. Then they get bored and leave. You just have to be patient.

If you ask me, the big problem here is the attitude towards sound science in the rest of the site. The quarantine atmosphere and the ban on pointing to science and facts in the rest of the site gives jerks permission to come crap all over our threads. The only ones who complain to the mods are the people who come in here to troll us. They are doing it deliberately because they know they're safe. I think the best approach is to treat this group as its own entity and let those of us who care about it enjoy it without intervention. We do fine on our own. None of us are crying.

It's a shame, because there really isn't anywhere like this anywhere else.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 12, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> i dont see SC guys stickin their noses in the other forums.



We are like dogs reacting to a rolled up newspaper when it comes to that. I don't even participate in the music forum or speakers on HeadFi. I have learned through punishment that I am to stay in here. So I discuss music and speakers here. The only double standard is that if we go into the other forums in HeadFi and talk about science, we get the ban hammer. If someone comes in here and craps all over us with solipsist anti-intellectualism, they are free to complain to the mods about *us*. That isn't fair. Castle should be free to moderate here the same way the other mods moderate out there.

The way I see it there are only a few options... 1) Get along and follow the rules of the group or at least find your own place in it, 2) Swim upstream and put up with the logical broadsides you are going to receive, or 3) Leave with your tail between your legs. The people who hang around in here stop at 1. Most everyone who tried 2 ends up at 3. Nothing wrong with that.

Darwin's theory is science, right?


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> We are like dogs reacting to a rolled up newspaper when it comes to that. I don't even participate in the music forum or speakers on HeadFi. I have learned through punishment that I am to stay in here. So I discuss music and speakers here. The only double standard is that if we go into the other forums in HeadFi and talk about science, we get the ban hammer. If someone comes in here and craps all over us with solipsist anti-intellectualism, they are free to complain to the mods about *us*. That isn't fair. Castle should be free to moderate here the same way the other mods moderate out there.


Hear hear.


----------



## bigshot

If the fella who has been PMing me lately wants to speak about his recent experience, I'd invite you to. It's relevant to what we're talking about.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> If the fella who has been PMing me lately wants to speak about his recent experience, I'd invite you to. It's relevant to what we're talking about.



I’m not sure they’ll approve this post since they are manually doing so while I’m in this probationary period.

The essence of the situation: I was accused of pulling a thread off topic. I called to question the subjective experience of a reviewer claiming to hear differences between two identical DAPs, one enclosed in stainless steel and the other in copper. Of course he claimed the copper one was “warmer” and so on. I pointed out the insanity of that argument since this is the same silly claim made by people who believe in the effects of different cable materials. I was measured in my criticism, albeit harsh in my initial post since he also claimed to hear differences in *firmware* despite the manufacturer stating the firmware did not affect the playback at all. This same reviewer receives, as far as I can tell, all of their equipment for free, and in at least several situations wasn’t asked to return the equipment (we all know this is a huge problem here). I also critiqued that. I was eventually reported for being “rude” for not accepting an individual’s subjective experiences despite very clearly laying out the case for why these audible differences could not exist in the device at hand (I’d argue this was on-topic). As a result, many of my posts were deleted (the ones the mod claimed were off-topic) and I was placed in a probationary state that requires my posts get approved by a mod. They didn’t say how long this would last.

The utter hypocrisy here is that Jude himself claimed that nwavguy was banned because he linked to his blog in his signature. This reviewer has the done the EXACT SAME THING and his blog is chock full of ads and other revenue generating content. Furthermore, when individuals come into sound science and try to claim that their subjective experiences are indeed facts, we don’t moan about how disrespectful they are and report them, we try to reason with them and supply evidence to the contrary. Only after they start filling the thread with garbage do we either choose to ignore them or ask them to leave. Admittedly, I and other less scrupulous posters, when fed up with continued nonsense, can get a little disrespectful, but only after we’ve been directly disrespected ourselves. What we don’t do is call for a mod to preserve our closed discourse and send the naysayer away.


----------



## bfreedma

castleofargh said:


> I have been thinking about this for a while, and have whined like a bad puppy to other modos just this week. but while I clearly feel that this section just doesn't work the way it is, I don't really have a clear solution either. I tried writing to start a few stuff, on magnitudes, on what this sub section is about, but I write the way I do. a lots of words to say very little very poorly. nobody in his right mind would wish to read 10 pages of my disorganized thoughts. if the post we ask people to read is worst than a license agreement mixed with science talk, nobody is going to read it.
> 
> also I'm not totally sure that I have the authority to redefine this section or the rules in it. so there is that.
> but of course you guys are more than welcome to make posts if only for yourself to refer to instead of saying the same stuff 3 times a week. and if you think it's worth it, I have the unicorn power of making a topic "sticky". so that much can be done without issue.




Just to clarify, I’m don’t want this document to redefine Sound Science in any way.  

Everyone should still post as as - I think that a faq would just help new posters think about the concept of human audibility and relate that a bit more to the various numerical claims being made.  And hope for somewhat less repetition of the common questions and questioning or at least change the spin to asking about the math rather than refuting it.


----------



## bigshot

It would be good to clear out a lot of those links at the top and replace them with more appropriate ones, but I know castle said that was beyond his powers. Pins would be fine. I think Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths would be a good pin to start with. And I like that Rane glossary a lot too.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> It would be good to clear out a lot of those links at the top and replace them with more appropriate ones, but I know castle said that was beyond his powers. Pins would be fine. I think Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths would be a good pin to start with. And I like that Rane glossary a lot too.


testing audiophile claims and myth, done. TBH I could have done that a long time ago as it's a no brainer.
I have relied on the Rane glossary for almost as long as I've come to audio forums. the PDF is stored on my computers from fear that the link would go down someday. to understand measurements, it's obviously a good start to understand what they measure ^_^. 

 when I knew nothing about nothing I always came back to those:
http://www.apexhifi.com/specs.html estimating power use on a headphone, still have the excel file too, although now I can do ohm's law on my own like a big boy, but laziness still makes it a compelling file ^_^.

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm  pick up an EQ, play around, look at the graph, learn stuff. learn how to describe stuff. 

and this, although it's an ad, it can help jump start a conversation about "obvious" things:


----------



## Argyris

bfreedma said:


> ...“The Arguement Clinic” sketch from the old Monty Python show.



A rather accurate description of how these "arguments" (using that term loosely) with subjectivists tend to go in here. And a fine Python skit, especially since it's something from the show that isn't that overrated skit about the bloody parrot.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> It depends on the song. The more familiar you are with it, the more likely you'll hear the vocals through it. You also have to listen for a couple of minutes before it snaps in.



I am pretty/very familiar with some of those songs and I did listen for more than a couple of minutes.



Argyris said:


> And a fine Python skit, especially since it's something from the show that isn't that overrated skit about the bloody parrot.



I don't want to be pedantic but as this is the science forum: It wasn't a "bloody" parrot, neither was it just resting, stunned or pinning for the fjords, it was a dead parrot! (citation: "Monty Python's *Dead* Parrot Discovered" - ScienceBlogs, 2008) 

I second the idea of a sticky/FAQ btw.

G


----------



## bigshot

I know there are some Monty Python fans here... just wanted to share something I picked up for my autograph collection the other day...


----------



## bigshot

This is my hometown and I was in 8th grade when this went down. I want a time machine to go back to this!


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Apr 16, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I know there are some Monty Python fans here... just wanted to share something I picked up for my autograph collection the other day...


Not sure music was their strong point.....Terry Gilliams clip art animation though was way ahead of its time and absolutely fn hilarious.Considering what you do for a living  i will of course defer to your opinion.


----------



## skwoodwiva

bigshot said:


> This is my hometown and I was in 8th grade when this went down. I want a time machine to go back to this!



Aja is my favorite near as or better than Graceland.
I have a new favorite watch for my you tube hits here in music


----------



## bigshot

Glmoneydawg said:


> Not sure music was their strong point.....Terry Gilliams clip art animation though was way ahead of its time and absolutely fn hilarious.Considering what you do for a living  i will of course defer to your opinion.



Lumberjack Song is pretty quintessential Python. Gilliam is a genius though. He worked for Harvey Kurtzman, so that makes sense. The other one I think is incredible is Graham Chapman. He was a master of logic and structure. Argument Clinic is largely his work.


----------



## sonitus mirus

One of my favorites with a bit of science to make it applicable here.


----------



## castleofargh

sonitus mirus said:


> One of my favorites with a bit of science to make it applicable here.



Bill Nye didn't change a bit.


----------



## RRod

Just in case anyone else was thinking about getting the new release of the Fellowship of the Ring complete recordings, I've got a summary of what I've seen so far here. Hope they release the other two films; will be nice to see those $500 tags for TTT suddenly plummet ^_^


----------



## JaeYoon

So I upgraded to the Samsung S9. I really like the sound from the S9. The default qualcomm codec chip is a black sheep among head-fi users who prefer the external dac options and that an expensive DAC is required to enjoy music.

But I like the default audio from this phone, even with wifi and 4G LTE there are no crackles or noise going on during audio playback.

Powers all my earphones with ease. Maybe someone will make some load measurements but it sounds excellent. I don't detect any unwanted noise and provides accurate playback for me.
Maybe my ears are just going bad and I'm easy to please


----------



## U-3C

So, always been a big believer of finding a solidly designed motherboard and using onboard audio when getting a new computer, rather than allocating a decent amount for a dedicated audio solution when all one needs is a clean headphone jack to listen to music. This is especially the case after I've purchased much respected "giant killers" that cost the same price as the entire mobo and still has more distortion and audible noise, while being less convenient, elegant, and has less features. 

If I move the front audio cable in my case by about 1 cm, I will pick up lots of noise, but I've anchored the cable in just the right position to be more silent than some ultra low noise dac/amps who claim to be a perfect pairing for the SE-864. 

Recently read this:

https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2018/05/measurements-msi-x370-sli-plus-am4.html

Kinda sad actually. A mid range motherboard can offer more than what so many audiophiles heavily swear by.


----------



## castleofargh

U-3C said:


> So, always been a big believer of finding a solidly designed motherboard and using onboard audio when getting a new computer, rather than allocating a decent amount for a dedicated audio solution when all one needs is a clean headphone jack to listen to music. This is especially the case after I've purchased much respected "giant killers" that cost the same price as the entire mobo and still has more distortion and audible noise, while being less convenient, elegant, and has less features.
> 
> If I move the front audio cable in my case by about 1 cm, I will pick up lots of noise, but I've anchored the cable in just the right position to be more silent than some ultra low noise dac/amps who claim to be a perfect pairing for the SE-864.
> 
> ...


while I'm one who never understood why something inside a box couldn't be as good as something outside of it with a long cable, and have argued that point with way too many audiophiles, you have to keep in mind that what he measured is a line out measured as such(unloaded). meaning it shows the DAC specs which we knew for a while now, can be very fine with a 5$ chipset. 

the amp section of some mobos are often not so great under a reasonably low load. some are garbage. some are fine but have like 30 or up to 100ohm at the output, making them less than ideal if you like the original signature of the 846. a few do happen to be fine and nowadays can even have rather low noise and low impedance output, but it's still not the standard based on my own experience. also for the EMI/RFI paranoids, opamps are a place where such noises can really creep in and be amplified a lot, so IMO they deserve some sort of casing or shielding to try and mitigate that potential issue. if in the open on the mobo, I could see why an amp output wouldn't necessarily measure great.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> while I'm one who never understood why something inside a box couldn't be as good as something outside of it with a long cable, and have argued that point with way too many audiophiles, you have to keep in mind that what he measured is a line out measured as such(unloaded). meaning it shows the DAC specs which we knew for a while now, can be very fine with a 5$ chipset.
> 
> the amp section of some mobos are often not so great under a reasonably low load. some are garbage. some are fine but have like 30 or up to 100ohm at the output, making them less than ideal if you like the original signature of the 846. a few do happen to be fine and nowadays can even have rather low noise and low impedance output, but it's still not the standard based on my own experience. also for the EMI/RFI paranoids, opamps are a place where such noises can really creep in and be amplified a lot, so IMO they deserve some sort of casing or shielding to try and mitigate that potential issue. if in the open on the mobo, I could see why an amp output wouldn't necessarily measure great.




Oh yes, definitely.

And even though more marketing is spent on the audio side of motherboards, especially higher end motherboards, it's pretty hard to find details on how any of them perform.

In fact, many onboard audio has a shiny metal casing with etched marketing terms to show off that it's shielded, but how well that performs in real life is mostly unknown.

Still, will refer to these things whenever someone is planning to dedicate a few hundred dollars to buying an audio setup when they build a pc, even if they never heard how the setup may sound like. Don't want anyone wasting money in the case they can't hear a difference with what they use. In my case, I can't so I do regret spending money on this stuff.

Thanks for the info!


----------



## FrostyP

Headphone, DAC and Amp measurements have become more of a thing but I haven't been able ro find much DAP measurements yet, anywhere I should be looking? Also are there any manufacturers that provide messurements if you ask?


----------



## bigshot

Ken Rockwell has done a lot of measurements of Apple DAPs


----------



## artnoi

bigshot said:


> Ken Rockwell has done a lot of measurements of Apple DAPs


And most of them are so good that we should not worry about.


----------



## bigshot

I don't think there's any reason to worry about DAPs, DACs or amps in general. If they have sufficient power to push your transducers and they have the features you need, they should be fine.


----------



## castleofargh (May 28, 2018)

https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/catalog-reports.php?sp_1=9&tp=1

Headphoniaks had a bunch of the DAPs they sell, reviewed and measured pretty extensively into various loads. most reviews were only available in Spanish, and they don't seem to publish the same extensive stuff anymore(or maybe they just have successfully lost me with their navigation changes over the years?).


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 1, 2018)

Ha! I was here when Sound Science got its shaky, wobbly start! It was first perceived as a place where folks like us should go so we wouldn’t mess up all of HeadFi, and if I remember right it was first a pipe dream, and then they kept talking about getting rid of it. After many years of not being on HeadFi I am very pleased to see the quality of discourse here. I used to visit Hydrogen Audio a lot too but as the compression codecs improved they settled most of the evolving topics of interest and it got dull. So here you are an intentionally semi-quarantined hiding place of good information. However, taking the high road as to conduct is not only more persausive to others, it defines you much more than what you know about science and audio. Defeating an audio subjectivist on the merits is generally like shooting fish in a barrel. The trick is to do it calmly and to a high standard of conduct. You will draw fire because you are threatening the source of income of some and the cherished beliefs of others. I am not sympathetic of the merchants but I am sympathetic of those with cherished beliefs who are subject to a rude awakening. You are in the odd position of actually being able to do a lot of good here and show them by example a different way of approaching audio and even life.




bigshot said:


> You'll just give them an excuse to delete this whole section if you aren't careful. The internet has to be allowed to find its own level. This section has functioned for as long as I've been here. People blow in and cause trouble. Then they get bored and leave. You just have to be patient.
> 
> If you ask me, the big problem here is the attitude towards sound science in the rest of the site. The quarantine atmosphere and the ban on pointing to science and facts in the rest of the site gives jerks permission to come crap all over our threads. The only ones who complain to the mods are the people who come in here to troll us. They are doing it deliberately because they know they're safe. I think the best approach is to treat this group as its own entity and let those of us who care about it enjoy it without intervention. We do fine on our own. None of us are crying.
> 
> It's a shame, because there really isn't anywhere like this anywhere else.


----------



## bigshot

We are the inside and they are the outside of Head Fi.


----------



## castleofargh

IMO arguments end up being mostly about overconfidence and pride. only after my interlocutor and I make the effort to put those 2 aside, can we start exchanging more honest viewpoints, find out our respective level of information on a subject, and see who has the better demonstration/evidence/diagnostic... 
in that process we still have to deal with the gaps in knowledge. and it's a real challenge to write down an explanation at the level the other can understand, while still keeping it rigorous enough for facts not to break under all the simplifications and approximations. 
if it's too technical for the person, most of the time he'll just shut down as some garbage defense mechanism. if it's overly simplistic, you always get that one guy who gets offended that you didn't already know how much of an expert he is. 
and of course we also have to account for the guys who just came to claim random BS, and never for a second considered second guessing themselves or register anything contradicting what they said. to anybody wondering how painful cognitive dissonance can be and how good people are at putting their head in the sand to avoid facing it, an audio forum has really good demonstrations of that. 

so even when we happen to have solid evidence and a complete rational, leading to straightforward conclusions(which really isn't systematic), it's still an adventure to try and carry the idea across.
 we also have to deal with people who want to play the game of logic like big boys, but never bothered learning the rules. not even stuff as obvious as not making a claim without having a single evidence to support it. or to avoid cherry picking causality. that part is the most annoying to me. because it's pretty much the RTFM of reasoning. and it's crazy that any modern society can still fail so hard with education that some people end up unable to think beyond heuristics and "my daddy said" for anything in their lives. I mean, some dude in ancient times already had some pretty clear ideas about critical thinking, so it's not exactly a new or complicated thing.


----------



## krismusic

A present for you all. 
https://crinacle.com/2019/04/01/on-the-record-cables/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app


----------



## Joe Bloggs

krismusic said:


> A present for you all.
> https://crinacle.com/2019/04/01/on-the-record-cables/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app


Gee, thanks... *facepalm*


----------



## Joe Bloggs

That was way too real for an april 1st prank. I can't laugh at all


----------



## U-3C (Apr 2, 2019)

...;-;

If it wasn't for then end, I would have totally bought it as real...


----------



## castleofargh

Joe Bloggs said:


> That was way too real for an april 1st prank. I can't laugh at all


I loved the bit on gauge and how science isn't clear on it. lot of golden nuggets but this one was my favorite.


----------



## castleofargh

so today I played a 3 second long mono MP3 track in foobar(some old piece of a sound with absolutely nothing special about it, it's something I used to have as a sound alert on IRC ages ago(well IRC ago), and it pretty much broke audio on my computer. 
after some half backed diagnostic, I noticed that ASIO was still fine, but DS and wasapi were dead. foobar would give me some unknwon error number, youtube had no sound etc. reboot did nothing to help, windozzzz 10 diagnostic saw nothing, unplugging/replugging the USB DACs didn't help. it felt like this time I really had messed up(well I have a complete hard drive image just about a month old so I didn't start crying just yet). 
in the end I got Direct Sound and WASAPI back by disabling my devices and enabling them back. somehow they came back ON with the wrong/not my usual settings??? the order of my devices is different so now my virtual cable for headphone DSPs is set to the wrong output. my shortcuts to switch DACs are wrong, same for Room Eq Wizard and other audio apps. a really effective waste of my time.
I looked up everything and I believe I'm back to traditional configuration, but I had no idea a track could initiate such a mess. even less so when it's 3second long. if magic is science we don't understand yet, then I just witnessed magic ^_^.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

castleofargh said:


> so today I played a 3 second long mono MP3 track in foobar(some old piece of a sound with absolutely nothing special about it, it's something I used to have as a sound alert on IRC ages ago(well IRC ago), and it pretty much broke audio on my computer.
> after some half backed diagnostic, I noticed that ASIO was still fine, but DS and wasapi were dead. foobar would give me some unknwon error number, youtube had no sound etc. reboot did nothing to help, windozzzz 10 diagnostic saw nothing, unplugging/replugging the USB DACs didn't help. it felt like this time I really had messed up(well I have a complete hard drive image just about a month old so I didn't start crying just yet).
> in the end I got Direct Sound and WASAPI back by disabling my devices and enabling them back. somehow they came back ON with the wrong/not my usual settings??? the order of my devices is different so now my virtual cable for headphone DSPs is set to the wrong output. my shortcuts to switch DACs are wrong, same for Room Eq Wizard and other audio apps. a really effective waste of my time.
> I looked up everything and I believe I'm back to traditional configuration, but I had no idea a track could initiate such a mess. even less so when it's 3second long. if magic is science we don't understand yet, then I just witnessed magic ^_^.


I would recommend getting a turntable and some records just to be on the safe side


----------



## castleofargh

I was thinking exorcism or voodoo as the more rational solutions, but I might one day even resort to some obscure arcane such as vinyl. nothing is off the turntable at this point.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

castleofargh said:


> I was thinking exorcism or voodoo as the more rational solutions, but I might one day even resort to some obscure arcane such as vinyl. nothing is off the turntable at this point.


The line for crazy is different for everyone


----------



## Raketen (Apr 20, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> so today I played a 3 second long mono MP3 track in foobar(some old piece of a sound with absolutely nothing special about it, it's something I used to have as a sound alert on IRC ages ago(well IRC ago), and it pretty much broke audio on my computer.
> after some half backed diagnostic, I noticed that ASIO was still fine, but DS and wasapi were dead. foobar would give me some unknwon error number, youtube had no sound etc. reboot did nothing to help, windozzzz 10 diagnostic saw nothing, unplugging/replugging the USB DACs didn't help. it felt like this time I really had messed up(well I have a complete hard drive image just about a month old so I didn't start crying just yet).
> in the end I got Direct Sound and WASAPI back by disabling my devices and enabling them back. somehow they came back ON with the wrong/not my usual settings??? the order of my devices is different so now my virtual cable for headphone DSPs is set to the wrong output. my shortcuts to switch DACs are wrong, same for Room Eq Wizard and other audio apps. a really effective waste of my time.
> I looked up everything and I believe I'm back to traditional configuration, but I had no idea a track could initiate such a mess. even less so when it's 3second long. if magic is science we don't understand yet, then I just witnessed magic ^_^.



Upload it to Napster as Despacito.mp3


----------



## castleofargh

Raketen said:


> Upload it to Napster as Despacito.mp3


----------



## analogsurviver

Well, the described "miracle" is PRECISELY  the kind of thing I  got used to hate with digital audio that is not self- contained and has got to be run with a computer  - WITH A PASSION.

But, it CAN get worse - not only not working at all, but with JUST slightly modified settings; if you are not monitoring your audio on a good pair of headphones, you might just as well discover, that you have been recording a live event with imbalance, etc, etc - AFTER the done deed.. Of course, by then it is too late ...Even if all you have been doing with you computer has been powering off at home and powering up on the recording location - in the EXACT same application, no other work being done on it - absolutely nothing else at all.

Various digital gizmos ( khmomputers, sound cards, DACs, etc ) , under certain combinations of hardware and software, are bound to do this... by default.  The best graphic illustration on this theme I have seen about a week ago: a perfectly calm man meditating on his knees ( marked in the photo as "perfectly fine running PC" ) just to be hit in the head full gas by a soccer ball from an adjacent soccer player ( marked in the photo as "Microsoft Windows Update" ).

The "loveliest" so far has been jRiver (19, IIRC ) ; it proved to be the most "predatory" software so far. You can pray to your PCM god to not have to work with DSD; the said soft would usurp anything DSD by disconnecting DSD capable DAC from each and every other soft also doing DSD - requiring you to manually configure it for the required app EACH time after the "usurpation"..

I have yet to see a turntable capable of unscrewing its perfectly mounted and aligned cartridge - just because you wanted to play a 45 RPM 12" record ....


----------



## StandsOnFeet

https://genius.com/Douglas-hofstadter-contracrostipunctus-annotated


----------



## Joe Bloggs

analogsurviver said:


> Well, the described "miracle" is PRECISELY  the kind of thing I  got used to hate with digital audio that is not self- contained and has got to be run with a computer  - WITH A PASSION.
> 
> But, it CAN get worse - not only not working at all, but with JUST slightly modified settings; if you are not monitoring your audio on a good pair of headphones, you might just as well discover, that you have been recording a live event with imbalance, etc, etc - AFTER the done deed.. Of course, by then it is too late ...Even if all you have been doing with you computer has been powering off at home and powering up on the recording location - in the EXACT same application, no other work being done on it - absolutely nothing else at all.
> 
> ...



Should I count my blessings that my digital playback chain has always been about this complicated and hasn't crashed into a smoking heap in a decade?


----------



## analogsurviver

Sample rate merely 48 kHz... - the absolute minimum required in order for the RBCD to work as it should under the real world conditions.


----------



## bigshot

Hogwash.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

castleofargh said:


> so today I played a 3 second long mono MP3 track in foobar(some old piece of a sound with absolutely nothing special about it, it's something I used to have as a sound alert on IRC ages ago(well IRC ago), and it pretty much broke audio on my computer.
> after some half backed diagnostic, I noticed that ASIO was still fine, but DS and wasapi were dead. foobar would give me some unknwon error number, youtube had no sound etc. reboot did nothing to help, windozzzz 10 diagnostic saw nothing, unplugging/replugging the USB DACs didn't help. it felt like this time I really had messed up(well I have a complete hard drive image just about a month old so I didn't start crying just yet).
> in the end I got Direct Sound and WASAPI back by disabling my devices and enabling them back. somehow they came back ON with the wrong/not my usual settings??? the order of my devices is different so now my virtual cable for headphone DSPs is set to the wrong output. my shortcuts to switch DACs are wrong, same for Room Eq Wizard and other audio apps. a really effective waste of my time.
> I looked up everything and I believe I'm back to traditional configuration, but I had no idea a track could initiate such a mess. even less so when it's 3second long. if magic is science we don't understand yet, then I just witnessed magic ^_^.



Sounds like maybe Foobar tried to force windows to switch to a low/unusual samplerate (say 8khz or something) and into mono in a way that W10 didn't like. If there was any other audio device that was also trying to maintain an incompatible sample rate, or stereo output, I could imagine that causing a crash.


----------



## castleofargh

Zapp_Fan said:


> Sounds like maybe Foobar tried to force windows to switch to a low/unusual samplerate (say 8khz or something) and into mono in a way that W10 didn't like. If there was any other audio device that was also trying to maintain an incompatible sample rate, or stereo output, I could imagine that causing a crash.


the mono and plain strange sample rate is something I'm kind of used to "thanks" to podcasts and various free audiobooks recorded by a guy on the toilet with the mic in his earbud. then those nice guys(it's not ironic, they put in time to do that) seem keen on trying to fit 20hours of reading into a 5mo file, in case the sound quality wasn't bad enough. but in my case it never got beyond foobar not playing it, or some horrible artifacts in the audio. 
because of the amount of annoyance it caused me, I don't plan to try and reproduce the effect for diagnostic. I'm curious but not that curious. it was mono 44.1 128k LAME3.97 (so yeah it was made a while back). I see online that there existed a version called lame_3.97_stable, maybe that's a clue? ^_^  anyway I converted that piece of crap to stereo AAC and that works just fine. the demon didn't pass on to the copy so the world is safe(for now).


----------



## Raketen (Apr 22, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> the mono and plain strange sample rate is something I'm kind of used to "thanks" to podcasts and various free audiobooks recorded by a guy on the toilet with the mic in his earbud...








I was skeptical about audiobooks for children, but after that remark the illustrations seem gratuitous.


----------



## U-3C (Apr 28, 2019)

Joe Bloggs said:


> Should I count my blessings that my digital playback chain has always been about this complicated and hasn't crashed into a smoking heap in a decade?



I envy that. @-@

All I am capable of is throw those crossfeed files of yours into EqualizerAPO and hope a Windows update won't mess up everything. ;-;



Raketen said:


> Upload it to Napster as Despacito.mp3



"Hey Google, play some disappointing music."

"Alright, Despacito by Luis Fonsi. Here it is on Spotify.  "


----------



## Zapp_Fan

@joebloggs ... philosophically I disagree with having any kind of dynamics processing on your playback setup.  But I admire your tenacity in building such a monstrosity anyway. 

Is this for a surround system?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Zapp_Fan said:


> @joebloggs ... philosophically I disagree with having any kind of dynamics processing on your playback setup.  But I admire your tenacity in building such a monstrosity anyway.
> 
> Is this for a surround system?


Yep, and if your music comes in stereo it'd cudgel them into surround in my own way


----------



## Steve999

Joe Bloggs said:


> Should I count my blessings that my digital playback chain has always been about this complicated and hasn't crashed into a smoking heap in a decade?


That's nothing. I have two subwoofers.


----------



## bigshot

I have two pup woofers!


----------



## U-3C

I have a single speaker on each of my 4 cellphones and a Google Home Mini that I'm planning to give to my parents after adding a 3.5mm jack to it. 

Get on my level. :3


----------



## castleofargh

Found this little beauty on Amazon.fr, as a general guide "explaining" what hi-res audio is.

And here is the google translate version of the best part of what goes with the pictures. I just learned so much reading this, that I decided to share it with you. 
Enjoy! 




> How can Hi-Res sound deliver such quality?
> 
> Hi-Res sound offers better sound quality thanks to a higher sampling rate and much higher resolution. Sampling rate and resolution being the 2 components most impacting on sound quality.
> The sampling rate is the number of samples of an audio signal per second. The higher this rate, the more the details and subtle nuances are emphasized. We are getting closer to a 3D experience, as if the scene were right in front of us. As for the resolution, it corresponds to the number of data or information contained in each sample. The more data you have in a sample, the more dynamic the sound range. The music can therefore be played more or less loudly. Better resolution also allows you to hear more details when the volume is minimum or maximum. The volume no longer needs to be full to hear the full potential of the music you listen to unlike most digital files. With these 2 components combined, a high sampling rate and good resolution, the sound produced is more realistic and richer, the bass is deeper and the treble is clearer.
> ...


----------



## U-3C

Sounds legit. Where do I sign up to experience the higher res with my own eyes?


----------



## Koei

castleofargh said:


> Found this little beauty on Amazon.fr, as a general guide "explaining" what hi-res audio is.
> 
> And here is the google translate version of the best part of what goes with the pictures. I just learned so much reading this, that I decided to share it with you.
> Enjoy!


There are 2 types of audiophiles in the world: those who understand math and those who don't.


----------



## cel4145

Koei said:


> There are 2 types of audiophiles in the world: those who understand math and those who don't.



There are two types of audiophiles in the world. Those who might eventually join this society, and those who never would: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Koei said:


> There are 2 types of audiophiles in the world: those who understand math and those who don't.


You blew it ...
You should have said:

There are 10 types of audiophiles in the world: those who understand binary math and those who don't.


----------



## Steve999 (Jan 13, 2020)

The thing we need to mention here, as a logical and smooth extension and dramatically appropriate segue when viewed in the context of the immediately preceding posts, is that we are getting stronger chess engines, coming out now, some free, some not (including one called "Fat Fritz"), but that in order order to use them to their higher potential you need one of the new RTX video cards because the newfangled chess engines need to use the RTX real time ray tracing calculation abilities. They go around using "neural networks," which is kind of scary. Impressively, however, the 64-bit 4 CPU version of Stockfish is still holding its own. Here is some "objectivist" evidence:


----------



## bfreedma

Steve999 said:


> The thing we need to mention here, as a logical and smooth extension and dramatically appropriate segue when viewed in the context of the immediately preceding posts, is that we are getting stronger chess engines, coming out now, some free, some not (including one called "Fat Fritz"), but that in order order to use them to their higher potential you need one of the new RTX video cards because the newfangled chess engines need to use the RTX real time ray tracing calculation abilities. They go around using "neural networks," which is kind of scary. Impressively, however, the 64-bit 4 CPU version of Stockfish is still holding its own. Here is some "objectivist" evidence:




Fortunately, the level of software needed to best my chess playing does not require an expensive GPU.  Maybe a Commodore 64....


----------



## Steve999

bfreedma said:


> Fortunately, the level of software needed to best my chess playing does not require an expensive GPU.  Maybe a Commodore 64....



I am quite limited in my chess playing ability and achievement as well. I just received an annual automated list from chess.com of things I can do to not be so stupid.

A great number of chess engines will destroy even the best human chess players in the world. I don’t think any human has broken 2900 ELO, and last I read only 13 humans in history had exceeded 2800 and 101 human had exceeded 2700 ELO.

By contrast there are plenty of even “weak” chess engines exceeding 3000 and the best ones are pushing 3400, 3500, 3600. AI computer / algorithm Alpha zero beat the best known computer chess engine after one day teaching itself how to play. But the conventional chess engine (Stockfish at the time) author said the game was rigged to favor alpha zero. Then alpha zero said it was getting off of the chess thing shortly thereafter. That’s right, alpha zero was chicken.

And yet, the game of chess is not yet “solved” (at the other extreme perhaps see tic tac toe, or to take a more interesting example, the Rubic’s cube or checkers, which are all solved).


----------



## Raketen

Steve999 said:


> I am quite limited in my chess playing ability and achievement as well. I just received an annual automated list from chess.com of things I can do to not be so stupid.
> 
> A great number of chess engines will destroy even the best human chess players in the world. I don’t think any human has broken 2900 ELO, and last I read only 13 humans in history had exceeded 2800 and 101 human had exceeded 2700 ELO.
> 
> ...




I can't even win against Chessmaster at 1000 elo 
Enjoyed the movie Computer Chess, though strange and not all that much about chess.


----------



## U-3C




----------



## castleofargh

I keep reading posts that remind me of this video. It won't take much effort for you guys to see a parallel between what she discusses and the typical communication problems we encounter on the forum.


----------



## bigshot

The question is, do they actually believe it, or are they just arguing to validate an unsupportable position? ...whether because of ego, or just to stir the pot.


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> The question is, do they actually believe it, or are they just arguing to validate an unsupportable position? ...whether because of ego, or just to stir the pot.


They truly believe it. At least most of them. Marketing is a pretty strong force that influences our own beliefs.


----------



## bigshot

I sorta think ego and not being able to admit you’re wrong is even more powerful than advertising. The giveaway is when they refuse to put it to a test. They know they would fail, and they just don’t want to admit it.


----------



## sonitus mirus

If Big Pharma pushed the idea that the Earth was flat, the Earth would be flat, depending on how much investment was put forth.


----------



## sonitus mirus

A couple new things I did to my listening room have me a bit excited.  I got some additional foam in places to help block reflections for mid/high frequencies.  Had some already, but not nearly enough.  I only have a single seating position to deal with, so I don't need to go too crazy.  What is really cool is that when I clap my hands loudly, I don't hear any echo at all.  It is dead.  The difference before and after is quite significant.  I'm going to have to remeasure the room again and set my EQ accordingly.

Something I noticed a few months ago, and another small change that made a significant difference was to open up the corners and middle of the back of the room...by leaving the doors open.  That's it.  By opening the doors to the room, that bass null that was impossible to correct was reduced to a third of what it was before.

The room is still fundamentally terrible and too small, but today it is much better than it was before.  Bass is really tough to correct without the right room to begin with, but the highs and most mids can be tamed quite a bit with foam and EQ.


----------



## bigshot

Very cool. Now you have a good excuse to listen to a whole lot of music!


----------



## castleofargh

People doing something because those around them do it, and people feeling something because those around them claim to feel it. I really don t know why but I somehow thought about our hobby for no particular reason.


----------



## Raketen (Aug 6, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> People doing something because those around them do it, and people feeling something because those around them claim to feel it. I really don t know why but I somehow thought about our hobby for no particular reason.




I found this podcast in similar vein interesting: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2019/0...-and-even-defend-norms-they-secretly-despise/


----------



## castleofargh

Raketen said:


> I found this podcast in similar vein interesting: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2019/0...-and-even-defend-norms-they-secretly-despise/


Very interesting phenomenon. Kind of self evident if I think about it, it’s just a matter of putting a few clear behaviors together, except I never did think about it. I always assumed that it was simple misrepresentation with few very vocal people making the silent majority feel like it’s the majority talking(mistaking presence and numbers), but I never considered the ramifications and how very logically it would lead many people to directly go against their own beliefs for the sake of trying to fit in. Scary.

 I like that podcast but often give up because it doesn’t readily offer to speed up the audio. I’m fine with an hour and a half of talking, but only if takes less than an hour


----------



## Raketen

"You shouldn't let poets lie to you." ~Björk


----------



## bigshot

She's really cute.

When I worked with her, we asked her about her tattoo. She told us that she got it in prison! Apparently in Iceland, there are no tattoo parlors. The only place you can get one is in prison. She found a prisoner who was convicted of some horrible crime and was in for a very long time, who would give her a tattoo if she paid money into his prison account and then came to see him on visiting day. So that's what she did.

She is a tiny little lady, but she is as brave as a lion. She also told us about a time when a reporter kept getting in her and her child's face. She saw the reporter in an airport and lost it and tore her apart. We put a scene like that in the video we made for her. She said that the video made her "feel like Christmas"


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> When I worked with her, we asked her about her tattoo. She told us that she got it in prison! Apparently in Iceland, there are no tattoo parlors. The only place you can get one is in prison. She found a prisoner who was convicted of some horrible crime and was in for a very long time, who would give her a tattoo if she paid money into his prison account and then came to see him on visiting day. So that's what she did.



Looks like she might be as creative with her stories as with her music:

https://gudmundsdottirbjork.blogspot.com/2015/01/bjork-little-star-tattoo.html?m=1

https://bjorkzine.blogspot.com/2006/08/proliferation-of-bjrks-tattoo-part-one.html?m=1


----------



## bigshot

She must have a story about it for every different person who asks! I like the story she told me best.


----------



## Raketen (Oct 19, 2022)

"Never let poets lie to you... (but sometimes it's ok)" ~Björk (poet)


----------

