Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 19:06:09 GMT
Dale,
The test you subscribe can only show something about data integrity and HD related speed artifacts. It's not what is expected to be the problem or maybe just part of this (vibrations and jitter in read data).
In order to understand what is believed to be happening you will have to reason from the viewpoint that the data alone (described PCM waveform or bitstream waveform) is not SOLELY responsible for the perceived audible differences but also the bit timing (jitter).
I can go along with that theory (it's not theory but proven even to the most ignorant EE) for the DAC part (depending on jitter immunity and power supply quality). Alex and others, however, are pretty convinced the same timing problems do also occur in the CD/DVD drive when ripping, during data transport internally and externally through cables and by different interfaces and protocols, by programs, power supplies and in harddisks. Some sort of (irreparable) damage is occurring in that area. This can never be proven with the current digital explanations and is what fascinates. So no need to look for data integrity e.t.c. as all mentioned components seem to be of influence.
The problem with this thesis is there are no technical grounds/reasons/mechanisms for this or anything else but a 'high' or 'low' = '1' or '0' to be stored (irreparable means it is stored) in the bits/bitstream/pattern/bytes. Jitter/timimg in this part of the digital chain can only lead to misinterpretation of bits (which is obviously not the case) or in case of handshaking a retry, also dropouts may occur if speed problems due to retries are too many. Because of the way digital storage is setup it has no room for, other than 1 and 0, to be stored EVENTHOUGH the actual STORAGE of data is purely MECHANICAL and ANALOG of nature. Timing is not of any importance and cannot be stored as far as the technigue used is concerned. We (the technical designers/EE's) hide cowardly and conveniently behind the fact that the perceived differences do not originate from that 'storage' but are more likely to come from the perception/bias area.
Alex begs to differ and feels something is/might be overlooked in the digital chain and timing is 'somehow' stored in the actual bit but NOT in 1 or 0 form but maybe bit shape, envelope, volume or the leading or falling edges risetime, slopes or where-ever no one has looked before (quantities) or realised may still be of influence yet. A nice theory that will hold indefenitely as it cannot be proven, just like the existence of God(s) cannot be proven by scientific means but requires a leap of faith or compelling evidence to those that hear or see.
It would be very revolutionary if the thesis can be proven (to the ignorant crowd) and will shock the entire digital/technical community and we would be able to use that to store more info in bits but 1 or 0 and could modulate timing (by a deliberate introduction of controlled jitter (known as PWM) to store more info than just the 1 and 0 but almost on a subliminal level. Unfortunately as it appears to be the case at this point in time this info would subsequently fade away depending on the media used to store and transmit that extra encoded info.
I secretly hope someone will be able to prove the thesis or another thesis that defines SQ in another way.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 11, 2012 20:19:16 GMT
No matter the integrity of the rip, if the result file is byte-identical to another file, then the files are in fact identical. You can get there through classic logical reduction - it's no more arguable than flat earth, and any logician, mathematician, or AES member should confirm that. But where the file is stored and how played and a hundred other things do matter. Whether you unzip the file or merely download it makes a difference, not because the result file contents are different, but because of all those unknowns.
So, rather than waste time looking in the contents that are identical (if they are), I suggest looking at those other factors.
But to really save time, it's best for people to understand the pure-number specification of an ordinary PC file's contents. One of the first things you note is that all files are stored in perfect 8-bit bytes on single byte systems (Mac/PC) - no leftover bits ever occur on these machines. Another thing to note is that unless corruption occurs *after* you save a file, the byte values always remain the same. They never change - there is no randomness in file storage in a stable system. So my example of manually writing bytes is merely to illustrate that when the identical file's bytes are written, there is no randomness. "ABCDE" always equals "ABCDE" in our world, and never anything else.
Once a person is confident of the reliability of PC file systems, then they can move forward to the investigation. And the first order of business there is to eliminate every possible variable, by saving the downloads to the most reliable and least diddled-with storage, which means the harddisk and not flash memory. And then shut off all background processes, including network and Internet. Once every possible variable is accounted for, then it might be safe to proceed. If you've downloaded and unzipped the files, then turned off the networks, now create a new folder and copy the files from where you downloaded them to, to the new folder, but first rename them to x1.wav, x2.wav etc.
Whoever is investigating may object to recopying the files on the basis that the copy will damage them. Actually the copy has the potential to undamage them. That's the key part of this - you have to have the knowledge of what it means to have identical file contents, and the means to binary-compare them with a tool you have 100 percent confidence in. I not only wrote the tools but I provide the source code free, and every line in the code is documented, as well as accompanied by a text Readme that explains in detail how to run it. For example, to run my 'Diff1' utility is as simple as entering this on the command line: DIFF1 x1.wav x2.wav
Once you have confidence that the contents are not the factor (if they're identical) then you can look for the real problems. The only thing I'm not able to do from this end is hold someone's hand when they don't understand files and computer file systems.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 11, 2012 20:34:17 GMT
BTW, on Cypherpunks in 1996, I wrote a fake white paper on "Sub-bit processing for secure encryption".
There is no such thing. Ones and zeros are all we have, and the truth tables have not changed since the dark ages (or before that).
0 and 0 == 0 1 and 0 == 0 0 and 1 == 0 1 and 1 == 1 0 or 0 == 0 0 or 1 == 1 1 or 0 == 1 1 or 1 == 1 0 xor 0 == 0 0 xor 1 == 1 1 xor 0 == 1 1 xor 1 == 0
I attended some programmer conferences in the 1980's and actually observed presenters arguing for binary operator compares on non-binary data - i.e. in a real-world program you can say: if (5 !=0) and (8 != 0) .... and always get a True, but if you say: if 5 and 8 you will get a false.
This is why programmers and QA people have to know certain things exactly, not approximately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 20:50:37 GMT
I can't believe I am advocating Alex's ideas (probably) not entirely correct but feel confident I will be corrected.
As said the data integrity is not the problem. Content is the same and remains unchanged ! Undisputed also by Alex and others. It's not a mathematical problem (software) but mechanical/electrical. Contents before and after compression (ZIP, FLAC) are the same after compression. Located here and there on a disc or memory... doesn't matter to the content. Alex is very confident his bits/bytes (even from his earlier and less good sounding rips) are actually completely the same which he has verified. Lark (who finally gave up) also a programmer had the same views as you have and probably most other programmers have the same opinions. But as said it's not a mathematical problem...
Playing from a different location of the harddisk or decoding FLAC for instance has a different set of instructions/clockcycles and thus loads the POWER supply differently because other (more or different in character) ripples occur on the power supply lines. Ripple on the power supply COULD result in timing differences in data transport (ever so minute in nano seconds or pico seconds even) or amplitude differences and thus resulting in electrical decision levels in the receiving end (the point where a voltage is considered a 0 or 1) You see... still no data is mentioned in this situation as it is BITPERFECT and irrelevant to this issue. When these tiny variations in TIMING (called jitter) reach a DAC that RETRIEVES it's clock from dataframes or bitrate AND that clock is directly used in a DAC (which is the case in a LOT of older DAC designs but NOT the case anymore in newer designs) this jitter causes minute changes (also in ps to perhaps ns) and THIS is what causes the retreived analog waveform to be slightly 'off' target compared to what has been described as the waveform should be. Thus the actual waveform is NOT EXACTLY the same as the described one and has extremely minute differences that the educated listener can pick up on (is the theory) Problem is this would in practice only translate in an increased (not audio related) noise floor from a theoretical -150dB or so to -130dB in some cases and is about equal to what's possible with 'normal' electronic components.
The theory is that (some) humans can hear those minute levels of -130dB differences or even ps of shifts in timing even in music with signals reaching 0dB. In extreme cases those peaks and not to the audiorelated noises can reach -100dB. Noise floors of good recordings however are around -70dB for very good studio recordings. 100ps speed corresponds to 10GHz frequencies b.t.w. that's 10,000,000kHz Alas that theory is also unproven in the scientific community but widely accepted in the audiopile world where the sonic effects do seem to respond to changes made in components, wires or other technical changes and therefore need to be of electrical origin.
It will always remain a complete mystery where the perceived differences will come from I am afraid as acceptance of views form both sides is out of the question.
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Jun 11, 2012 21:41:39 GMT
Agree - PC File systems are 100% reliable. They are not however timing dependent; networks use packets to avoid timing problems. As soon as the data is converted into a timing dependence stream (say down a USB or coax cable) then jitter becomes a factor. The degree of jitter is down to the variances in the PC and this is where the investigation is needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 22:36:48 GMT
Frans Acceptance is as simple as a demonstration by people with a better than average audio system, with .wav files created using normal PC ripping with an average off the shelf computer, especially if an external USB powered writer is used, and a rip done using a PC designed mainly for audio as several members already have done, or modified in the vibration and PSU areas .There are now several people that I know of personally that are more than capable of demoing these differences. It is far better for sceptics to hear these things for themselves than to read about DBTs or other listening results from other people. There will always be scepticism of those results, no matter who performs them.The T.A.S. investigations were in the main correct too, going by my experience with years involved in this area, although their conclusions were only fiddling around the edges. It is also far too easy for people to dismiss reports by experienced Recording Engineers such as Barry Diament who even refuses to supply lossless formats. YES, they are all tied in together to a certain extent as far as the causes go, as it is also possible to create better sounding .flac files, and better sounding decoded flac files using the same techniques.There are really literally 100s of thousands of shitty/inferior sounding .flac conversion of CDs floating around the Internet due to the same reasons. Regards Alex
P.S. Why are there so many reports of SSD sounding different to HDD when containing exactly the same binary content ?
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 11, 2012 22:40:07 GMT
I got the idea more than once that Alex believed that identical-content files were not really identical. That is, just by zipping and unzipping with different zip compression they could be made to sound different. I don't know if this latest discussion is converging on a shared view among all of us, but there's one thing to see what Alex thinks. If the zip-and-unzip with different levels of compression still unzips to a measurably identical file, and if that file is copied to the same location as the other files where the flash memory and network interrupts and other factors can be eliminated - will it sound the same? I say it has to if copied to that location and the other files are copied to that same location with the same copy utility (i.e. Windows Explorer or DOS command). But I'm not so sure we are there yet. Certainly when it comes to *anything* besides the files' contents, whether network or cable or drive etc., any of those can impact the sound.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 11, 2012 22:42:31 GMT
Note that SSD's are flash memory, and are subject to the flash controller designs that monkey with the content. Hopefully when I play from SSD (which I do), the USB DAC can compensate!!
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Jun 11, 2012 23:03:15 GMT
SSDs have lower, more consistent, power requirements ?.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 23:23:43 GMT
SSDs have lower, more consistent, power requirements ?. Freddy Some people, including the designer of XXHE Windows playback software, and the Phasure NOS DAC that can even handle to 768,claim that SSD sounds worse than HDD. Some earlier SSDs had Super Capacitors, and the internal converter was suspected as causing a degradation. I would hope that feeding both types by a higher quality, low impedance and low noise PSU would remove the differences. Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 23:35:47 GMT
The main thing I have said in that area, is that I have found that sending .wav files via Filemail Servers as Uncompressed Zips results in less low level degradation (S/N) when saved at the recipient's end after going through the the Filemail servers, and 100s of optical repeaters along the way etc.. I reported that award winning female Recording EngineerCookie Marenco, who BTW prefers DSD, has said that Uncompressed Zips when decoded, sound better than compressed Zips when decoded, and supplies her files as Uncompressed Zips.
Getting back to this one again. Why should both versions of the BluSpec comparison CDs sound markedly different when played by a CD/DVD player or CD/DVD ROM when error correction is working correctly ? Barry Diament from Soundkeeper Recordings also reported the same in C.A. about a different BluSpec comparison set. IIRC , it was the Jazz comparison set. Initially , he thought they may have been from different masters.
Frans You are still living in the past. ;D That is what is achievable using analogue tape. Modern digital recordings are WAY better than that, unless they use stuff like valve gear as favoured by the Chesky brothers with some of their recordings.
Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2012 5:23:34 GMT
The problem is the skeptics tried (in some cases) Mostly if they try it's done blind and rely on statistics.
They are there for the same reason as reported differences in cables, components, media e.t.c. that are 'controversial' as this cannot be proven by other technigues than subjective (and sighted) findings. IMO it's the same as saying. Why are there so many reports about UFO's, contrails, alien obductions, religuous experiences, conspiracies e.t.c. They are simply there because people observe with their senses and their brain processes this. Since we are human we all do that slightly different BUT with certain common factors.
On more than one occasion I have witnessed people claiming they heard a difference (even I have fooled myself on a few occasions by accident) totally (100%) convinced there is a clear difference where literally NOTHING changed (on purpose or by accident) yet the difference was clear like daylight to the subjects. I am sorry but I cannot ignore that fact and everytime I research something to the bone I therefore try to do it blind if possible (double blind is not needed in these cases). This doesn't involve switching a few or more times but can be done in all ease simply by listening for an evening to something while asking someone else to change something or not (and not telling) and noting the same impressions. The results are usually reassuring to me or evident. Not all things can be done blind (headphones are one of those) but a lot of things can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2012 5:32:43 GMT
Frans I was referring here to demos by the people with suitable equipment who report hearing these things, not sceptics setting up their own tests using different equipment, which may, or may not, have adequate resolution. By "resolution," I am referring here to many different paramaters including, distortion, frequency response, channel separation and S/N, as well as better than average speakers properly set up.. Also, the source material should be of a very high quality in order to hear any degradation. Regards Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2012 6:31:29 GMT
Somehow, seeing reports by people and listing what they used for test gear, which showed the effects you talk about, can hardly be called to have any resolution or qualities. (yes, I sometimes read those threads in other places too)
As said... IF there is an explanation for it we will have to rely on those that perceive to lend their ears and gears. Those that do not perceive hapily throw it on the 'perception' pile thereby dismissing findings all together. In essence this means there will be no in depth investigations that will resolve these questions. There will only be reports that confirm, but no scientific evidence.
It really doesn't matter at all in the end and if kept this way it will contribute to mystique in the hobby. There wouldn't be much fun anymore when it couldn't be proven in a court of law and also IF it were proven the EE's would not be happy campers and jump on the next bandwagon coming along.
Jitter exists.... no doubt. It influences the final reproduced waveform... no doubt. It's always present ... no doubt Even in the best gear ever produced... no doubt Is there a border of audibility... no doubt. Does this border differ from person to person.... no doubt. Does 'expectation' bias exist and influence perception... no doubt Does jitter also have influence where it could not by design ... doubt to some no doubt to others. Does this mean some people can detect extremely small differences ... doubt to some no doubt to others. This last part is where the shoe doesn't quite fit all the time.
All that needs to be proven is that this jitter way before the DAC also influences SQ and above all why. Subjective reports, alas, no matter by how noted and educated some people are, will not be convincing if not backed up with a certain degree of explanation to a vast majority of people.
As said before... I REALLY do hope there will be tangible proof someday and the mistrust in both camps will cease because of reached concensus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2012 6:45:37 GMT
Frans What I am suggesting here is that the gear used, as well as the chosen examples, should be of a sufficiently high standard that not only can the claimant hear the differences, but the vast majority of the listeners should be able to do so too. I feel that at recent listening sessions at David2vk's house, as well at my place ,that we have been able to do that quite well. I think that Greg would agree too, that the most recent listening session was by far the best quality sound we had yet heard at any listening session so far. I know that Allan , David and Geoff (all Sydney RG members) would agree. As usual , distance is the enemy here. Alex
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Jun 13, 2012 1:08:29 GMT
I have been away from this forum for a while & I see the same programme is still running - that's comforting to know Here's a valuable 1992 paper by Julian Dunn www.audiophilleo.com/docs/Dunn-AP-tn23.pdf which gives a great explanation of all the various forms of jitter & you will see from it that the idea of a square wave (representing a digital bit) is not realised in anything like a perfect manner in the real world. The sawtooth representation of the square wave is perfectly fine for digital which is built upon a signal crossing tolerance of 10 - 90%. When we have to deal with more accurate crossing (the zero crossing) - in the D/A step, this tolerance level no longer applies. We flip from a highly tolerant digital protocol into a very intolerant analogue protocol. In other words where this digital signal waveform crosses the x axis now becomes highly critical. Any differences in this zero-crossing point from the recording zero-crossing point is wrong & gives us a wrong analogue waveform. Let's be very clear about this - it's an incorrect analogue waveform i.e it doesn't match what's recorded. Now, the question becomes how much this waveform can be in error before it is audible. That debate will rage on for a long time to come, I suspect but I am pretty sure that the final answer will be in picoseconds (pS) & not nanoseconds (nS) & probably down around 10 pS. None of this explains how digital files which are transmitted can somehow retain something other than the pure digital information. It also doesn't explain how CDs made from the master tape can sound different from the master tape & different from one another even though they are bit-identical. It doesn't explain how asynchronous USB can sound different when different cables are used. It doesn't explain how different bit-identical software playback programs sound different. Other than the fact that the tolerance of the digital protocol disappears when it reaches the D/A step so we have to switch our mindset into thinking about the signal now as a analogue one.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Jun 13, 2012 1:21:06 GMT
So Dale, when you are comparing two files with your Diff1 program, you are comparing each bit within this 10-90% tolerance i.e within the definition of digital.
This "identicality" has to be understood - it is only identical within the definition of digital - it is not identical at the signal waveform level that I just described. So based on different acceptance criteria these two files would almost definitely NOT be considered identical.
So it is quiet possible that these two "identical" files could well play back differently because when it comes to the D/A step we are not dealing with the exact same waveforms!
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Jun 13, 2012 1:34:31 GMT
First point - if you look at it another way I think you can answer this - can noise ride on the digital waveform & not cause a problem when we stay in the digital domain - absolutely. When we try to do D/A can this noise bite us in the bum - absolutely. I would suggest that people try some cheap/free experiments - use an RF attenuator on a SPDIF cable & see if they hear a difference! Has this passive device changed the bits - no. Is the SPDIF digital signal being buffered at the SPDIF receiver - yes! So how is this effecting the sound? - Try using a USB adaptor instead of a USB cable on an audio device & see if they hear the difference. Has this changed the bits - no. Is the digital signal being buffered at the USB receiver - yes! So how is this effecting the sound? - Try the demo version of Jplay & see if they hear a difference. Is the output bit-identical to other bit-perfect software players - yes! Is the signal being buffered after it outputs from the USB port - yes! So how is this effecting the sound? All of these experiments will require a resolving system to reveal the differences & remember, please do them blind
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 7:30:06 GMT
I know I shouldn't reply but in the interest of on open and above all friendly debate there are some points I would like some more info on or like to offer the other side of the medal, not because I HAVE to disagree but because I feel that's the way real life situations are (not theoretical, I am a hands-on guy and have little with theoretical calculations) you will see from it that the idea of a square wave (representing a digital bit) is not realised in anything like a perfect manner in the real world. I am quite aware of the analog way a digital bit is stored and handled/transmitted. The beauty of the digital system (storage, processing) is that right up to the DA stage it is insensitive to it by nature. In other words it doesn't matter what happens along the digital chain as long as the bit itself isn't misinterpreted (in other words changes its significance) RIGHT upto the point of DA conversion. digital which is built upon a signal crossing tolerance of 10 - 90%. Can you elaborate on that percentage of analog levels ? rise time/fall time ? bit width (in serial) and is it important in parallel processing as well and what are the 10 and 90% figures based on ? In the D/A step, this tolerance level no longer applies. We flip from a highly tolerant digital protocol into a very intolerant analogue protocol. If the digital system is highly intolerant upto the DAC (which I am in 100% agreement with b.t.w.) where are the reports coming from that state from ripping to processing also changes the sound. I suspect but I am pretty sure that the final answer will be in picoseconds (pS) & not nanoseconds (nS) & probably down around 10 pS. There is no-one on this planet that disagrees with the fact that a lot of DAC's are sensitive to clock jitter of the applied clock signal (not meaning internal generated clock) by design. the 10ps theory, however, falls under the : doubt to some, no doubt to others category. None of this explains how digital files which are transmitted can somehow retain something other than the pure digital information. It also doesn't explain how CDs made from the master tape can sound different from the master tape & different from one another even though they are bit-identical. It doesn't explain how asynchronous USB can sound different when different cables are used. It doesn't explain how different bit-identical software playback programs sound different. No, indeed it doesn't, and it's my opinion there will never be an explanation for this either as these found differences are not in the electrical domain (again, just my opinion). There is an explanation in the field of perception but this is not deemed acceptable to some. Other than the fact that the tolerance of the digital protocol disappears when it reaches the D/A step so we have to switch our mindset into thinking about the signal now as a analogue one. a bit generalising but there are grains of truth in it in certain aspects. First point - if you look at it another way I think you can answer this - can noise ride on the digital waveform & not cause a problem when we stay in the digital domain - absolutely. When we try to do D/A can this noise bite us in the bum - absolutely. I agree when this statement is about the digital signal that enters the physical DAC modules (thus the clock retreival/processing/DACchip as a whole) but it is arguably not true for anything before the last read/write action before the (to be sent to the physical DAC) final electrical clock-buffered output signal. Every 'noise' before this (in the digital path, not power supply) is by nature irrelevant. If it is not can you elaborate how the, analog based, digital signal has any influence timing wise (jitter) in the final written digital signal or how waveform (amplitude, phase, slopes) affect the 'value' and timing of the final bit that is sent to the physical DAC can have any influence Try using a USB adaptor instead of a USB cable on an audio device & see if they hear the difference. Has this changed the bits - no. Is the digital signal being buffered at the USB receiver - yes! You have to define 'buffer' because when you say buffered and mean an electrical buffer (output circuit that supplies the electrical signal with enough room to meet requirements) differs from what computer guys/software guys mean with buffer. The first definition does NOT eliminate jitter but may or may not improve the electrical signal which may result in lower jitter at THAT specific part of the data flow. Depending if that data flow is directly used to retreive the clock the DAC chip uses (directly or through jitter reducing circuits/PLL's) to clock out the analog voltages. The last mentioned buffer type is a memory (regardless of type) where a bit is stored (temporarely) which can eliminate present input jitter if well implemented and the clock that clocks out the data is constant. In the real world the clock is often the same (system clock) which means the output 'timing' will only be as good as the clock the system has but all other jitter (many types exist) that may have been present are removed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 7:58:13 GMT
Not only are they coming from John, myself and many others, they also came from the .flac vs. wav report in TAS 220. There are too many people worldwide now saying these things to dismiss them out of hand as in the realm of psycho acoustics. Just because you can't presently explain them, does NOT mean that this is not happening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 8:37:11 GMT
I know where the reports are coming from and that the opinion is it should not be dismissed because it is heard/reported by more than one person/authority.
The same can be said about contrails, UFO's, alien obductions, chupacabra's, Yeti's, religion e.t.c. where numorous (independent ?) phenomena have been reported that have striking similarities throughout ages even.
I also know some people REPORT this and all of them are in the 'subjectively found differences are real' camp.
Just because it cannot be explained (currently) does not mean it IS actually happening, just as well as it is NOT happening. As it is now they are only subjectively found reports and nothing more, however frustrating or annoying that may be to both sides of the fence.
To the subjectivists side these are all independent confirmations of similar findings and more isn't needed. (IMO the improvement findings are very similar as those of Miracle wraps, cables, certain electronic components) as demonstrated in my 'challenge' a while back.
To the other side of the fence it's just another anecdotal report, in 'colorful' and subjective writing, that can be 'easily' explained sonically/perceptionally but not electrically.
It's a very fine line between electrical, mechanical, acoustical and perceptional realms. Where does one draw the line and or does one believe which part is responsible for what effect in which form and extent.
It's just what it is (from an objective viewpoint)... technically unexplained reports of (individual) auditive findings.
I would like to see a theory or some compelling electrical reasons why certain things would/could be of influence in certain parts of the 'chain'.
I was hoping John could 'close' the gap with some motivations in each step of the digital process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 9:00:55 GMT
I wouldn't put the guys from jPlay, or Peter St. from THe Netherlands, who is the designer of XXHE playback software for Windows, as well as the designer of the highly acclaimed Phasure NOS DAC that is capable of 32/768 in that camp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 9:23:28 GMT
Why not ? They are human are they ? They use their ears and have heard many subjective effects that remain unexplained electrically and more often than not terms like: I believe this, or expect that, it's our opinion e.t.c. are used.
That NOS DAC is USB ... by the way. Impressively spec'd to say the least... overkill ? Perhaps.. but it never hurt anyone except their wallets.
It was my understanding USB audio cannot be good sounding by definition. It seems they are able to remove all the USB related artifacts and still have <0.5ps jitter regardless how high the jitter was before it reached the DAC. Ah well it has good sales arguements this way.
I would love to have a chat and do some experiments with Peter myself (not that far way so very possible) but reading his many posts out there is not in the least interested in my way of testing (blind) nor has the time for it, it seems.
|
|
mrarroyo
Been here a while!
Our man in Miami!
Posts: 1,003
|
Post by mrarroyo on Jun 13, 2012 10:34:06 GMT
You guys need to go out and check out some babes in bikinis and relax!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 10:40:53 GMT
Too bad... I have to go out and check the roof instead. There might be some babes passing by but alas no bikinis today (too chilly at this moment) On a warm day lots of pleasure yachts and sailboats pass in front of our house and these generally contain babes in bikinis. Not of the same (subjective) 'quality' or poses as those in your posts/avatar.
|
|