Statement to make Frans and Lark bristle.

[Deleted]

CD players and CD transports all sound different. Music stored on a computer sounds different than any of the other technologies for digital audio playback. These observations are shared by nearly every audio reviewer and high-end audio owner in the world,
despite the fact that when examined on a bit-for-bit basis all digital audio output data is the same as the original in memory

www.psaudio.com/ps/products/description/perfectwave-transport?cat=

[XTRProf]

Aug 29, 2011 5:11:14 GMT @sandyk said:

CD players and CD transports all sound different. Music stored on a computer sounds different than any of the other technologies for digital audio playback. These observations are shared by nearly every audio reviewer and high-end audio owner in the world,
despite the fact that when examined on a bit-for-bit basis all digital audio output data is the same as the original in memory

www.psaudio.com/ps/products/description/perfectwave-transport?cat=

It should be! Especially when going through a hirez system. It's very obvious when going thru a hirez system. I hope they can visit more hirez demos that are properly demoed.

[rowuk]

I don't think that F or L will bristle. It is very easy to write off concepts without scientific proof as voodoo. In their cases, it isn't even an attempt to save money.

I wish we could find the reason why stuff sounds different though. It can't be that tough.

[lark]

Aug 29, 2011 5:11:14 GMT @sandyk said:

CD players and CD transports all sound different. Music stored on a computer sounds different than any of the other technologies for digital audio playback. These observations are shared by nearly every audio reviewer and high-end audio owner in the world,
despite the fact that when examined on a bit-for-bit basis all digital audio output data is the same as the original in memory

www.psaudio.com/ps/products/description/perfectwave-transport?cat=

Ok, I'll bite.

That statement shows that the author has no idea what they're talking about - there is no question that different transports, CD players and computer hardware can sound different for playback - during playback, timing comes into play - we're entering the analogue domain and things can get nasty (better? different?). Not to mention that most have analogue output stages - these can all sound 'different' but the digital bits don't.

I have never questioned whether these things can make a difference during playback - this is the place where a difference can be.

So that statement to connect bit-are-bits to playback shows that the author is not quite up to speed on how things work.

But as I've said before, and I'm sure to say again - ripping a CD to a disk file has no timing issues that will make the recording sound different - regardless of how the rip is performed, if the rip is identical (check sums prove this - if you don't believe this, then go brush up on your maths) then it will sound identical.

It accomplishes this task in a manner quite different than other CD transports and players. Using an optical ROM reader , the PWT extracts the data off any CD or DVD in bit-perfect condition without using error correction and places that data into a special version of the PS Audio Digital Lens. Once inside the Digital lens, the musical information is stored in pure form without clocks or any reference to time. The stored musical information is then retrieved by the PWT’s asynchronous fixed timing clock and output to your DAC with perfect timing and extremely low jitter through its digital audio outputs, or jitter-free through the HDMI connector.

This quote from the article uses a bunch of marketing terms to do what all computer audio does (PS audio digital lens?? haha, A buffer? I love marketing speak!) But is just a bunch of babble that will do nothing more than rip the digital audio to a buffer and then play from there - this is akin to doing a "rip" and then playing the rip - the only difference is they are doing it in real-time for you.. This does remove the timing issues that CD players have to deal with to give you the benefits that you get with computer digital audio. But you can do that already by ripping your CDs to your HDD (no need for special power supplies etc).

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2011 5:01:41 GMT lark said:

Aug 29, 2011 5:11:14 GMT @sandyk said:

www.psaudio.com/ps/products/description/perfectwave-transport?cat=

Ok, I'll bite.

That statement shows that the author has no idea what they're talking about - there is no question that different transports, CD players and computer hardware can sound different for playback - during playback, timing comes into play - we're entering the analogue domain and things can get nasty (better? different?). Not to mention that most have analogue output stages - these can all sound 'different' but the digital bits don't.

I have never questioned whether these things can make a difference during playback - this is the place where a difference can be.

So that statement to connect bit-are-bits to playback shows that the author is not quite up to speed on how things work.

But as I've said before, and I'm sure to say again - ripping a CD to a disk file has no timing issues that will make the recording sound different - regardless of how the rip is performed, if the rip is identical (check sums prove this - if you don't believe this, then go brush up on your maths) then it will sound identical.

It accomplishes this task in a manner quite different than other CD transports and players. Using an optical ROM reader , the PWT extracts the data off any CD or DVD in bit-perfect condition without using error correction and places that data into a special version of the PS Audio Digital Lens. Once inside the Digital lens, the musical information is stored in pure form without clocks or any reference to time. The stored musical information is then retrieved by the PWT’s asynchronous fixed timing clock and output to your DAC with perfect timing and extremely low jitter through its digital audio outputs, or jitter-free through the HDMI connector.

This quote from the article uses a bunch of marketing terms to do what all computer audio does (PS audio digital lens?? haha, A buffer? I love marketing speak!) But is just a bunch of babble that will do nothing more than rip the digital audio to a buffer and then play from there - this is akin to doing a "rip" and then playing the rip - the only difference is they are doing it in real-time for you.. This does remove the timing issues that CD players have to deal with to give you the benefits that you get with computer digital audio. But you can do that already by ripping your CDs to your HDD (no need for special power supplies etc).

hi lark,

+1

You audio heretic, you.

It's funny how, if you say that "bit perfect copies of files will sound identical" you get automatically grouped with those that think all CD players sound the same. Never understood the correlation between the two groups.

regards

[xerxes]

The are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't.

[XTRProf]

Oct 5, 2011 7:25:26 GMT xerxes said:

The are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't.

No only 2 types, 1 (those that only care for binary) and 0 (those that don't care but only the final result).

So you choose whether it's a 1 or 0 state for you.

[XTRProf]

Btw, PS Audio has been in the audio biz for a much longer time to have done all kinds of audio project experimentation than any of you binary guys care to study binary. So they are wrong. Hmm, very wrong ..............

Email to Paul and his R&D team to dispute with your binary stuffs and see whether they are knowledgeable enough to answer you back.

[clausdk]

Oct 5, 2011 8:42:15 GMT XTRProf said:

Oct 5, 2011 7:25:26 GMT xerxes said:

The are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't.

No only 2 types, 1 (those that only care for binary) and 0 (those that don't care but only the final result).

So you choose whether it's a 1 or 0 state for you.

No there are 10 kinds of people

[lark]

Oct 5, 2011 8:45:41 GMT XTRProf said:

Btw, PS Audio has been in the audio biz for a much longer time to have done all kinds of audio project experimentation than any of you binary guys care to study binary. So they are wrong. Hmm, very wrong ..............

Email to Paul and his R&D team to dispute with your binary stuffs and see whether they are knowledgeable enough to answer you back.

Did you read my post?

If you did, you'll have noticed that I did not disagree with their statement about transports, cd players, etc sounding different - these are partially analogue devices.

Edit: I'll also point out that marketing material like the linked "advert" is exactly that - marketing material. Almost never produced by engineers, the experimenters, the analysts, the audio enthusiast - nearly always created by the marketing department. Marketing departments are rarely sources of reliable and accurate information, but you've got to give it to them, they can invent some awe inspiring terminology - "PS Audio Digital Lens" is up there with some of the best yet.

[lark]

Oct 5, 2011 6:26:59 GMT @gregerskine said:

hi lark,

+1

You audio heretic, you.

It's funny how, if you say that "bit perfect copies of files will sound identical" you get automatically grouped with those that think all CD players sound the same. Never understood the correlation between the two groups.

regards

Hi gregerskine,

That does seem the case. Perhaps some do not quite understand the difference.

[freddypipsqueek]

If the checksums are the same the files must be. If that wasn't the case a network would crash within seconds. As soon as the file is converted into audio then all hell breaks loose. It seems quite possible to me that the same file on a different track of the same hard drive could sound different.

I have tried to find a "Digital Lens" from the mid 90's but they always go for silly money (£400 plus). By putting the file into memory it allows for a dedicated clock and reliable digital output. In most cases bad transports are made much better. In some however very good transports are made worse. Overall the kit standardises the sound - perhaps important if you have many digital sources (PC, Ipod, CD, SD card reader network etc).

If memory serves me right someone worked out that DAT tapes sounded different because some required more oversampling and thus the damands on the player changed the sound. I could easily be wrong though.

[xerxes]

It seems quite possible to me that the same file on a different track of the same hard drive could sound different.

That's not how it works. When a file is read from a hard drive, it's not like a record player or CD player, reading it in real time as a long stream of 1s and 0s. It's read into a buffer or cache, in fact it may go through several before it gets to the DAC device, where the time/clock information is added and it's converted to an analogue audio signal.

There's no reason an audio files location on the hard drive should make any difference. If you rip lots of tracks to a hard drive and then use a disc defragnenting program to analyse the drive, you may even find that some of the tracks/files are fragmented, so that a single track may be stored in two or more locations on the hard drive.

[freddypipsqueek]

I think thats the point I've made. The reading of the file off the disk is subject to many fluctuations. The file maybe the same but its location, cache, interface and the type of drive will change the read speed and power demands. Thats before the software, PCI bus, USB chip etc. All that though doesn't change the fact that the file is the same data with the same checksum. A fragmented file is a good example of a variation which would, I am sure, affect the final sound. It certainly affect the speed of a magnetic drive and its power use. Another example would be the reluctance of some software to release memory such that swap files maybe used without the listeners knowledge.

The difference reminds me of jitter. Jitter is a bad thing ?. Some poeple prefer the sound with a bit in it.

[Deleted]

The difference reminds me of jitter. Jitter is a bad thing ?. Some poeple prefer the sound with a bit in it.

Alex has done some hard work removing it!!

I'd like to know how my imagination identified the 'improved' files that Alex made 100%. I didn't know which was which. I just sent what I thought back to him.

Once the differences are recognised, the process of hearing the difference is easier. However, if one was just given to me I would have accepted either. Both versions of the songs were excellent rips but one was significantly different and so pretty easy to identify.

I don't understand how this can be given that the technicalities of digital reproduction from the numbers can't be altered. It is a very strange thing but I now like the Beach Boys as a result!!!

Ian

[freddypipsqueek]

Just for clarity - Are you saying different or better.

It all gets to be a bit subjective. I've swapped cables and changed computers and somtimes it just clicks and everything works. I don't know if the sound is better or just that I like it more. I find this most problematic with cables which I'm sure only change the sound to the point that I find one I like with that particular kit.

The exception is power supplies. I've always found a "better" psu makes a the kit sound better.

[Deleted]

I found the 'treated' files better but there are people who preferred the untreated files.

The reason I think this is, is because the 'treated' files sounded as though they had slightly less treble. Cymbals developed a metal 'body' of sound instead of a splashy sound. Some people like the splashy sound, so I can understand that.

Also, they had more 'body' which may get translated as more'bass' but I felt that the quality of the bass was better defined so it gave the impression of more.

However, as I said earlier, just give me one of the files and I wouldn't be able to tell you which one it was. It's only by comparing directly that I could hear it.

Ian

[Deleted]

The reason I think this is, is because the 'treated' files sounded as though they had slightly less treble.

Ian
The latest rips using a LG BR externally powered by the JLH +12V and +5V Linear PSU are said by many to often sound more like high res files. Personally, I think the treble may now be a little too "hot", although so far others seem to like that,BUT there may also be a little reduction in that by the time they have passed through the Filemail servers and been downloaded.I will wait for comments at a listening session next weekend through some pretty upmarket gear ,
including Infinity speakers with Raal 100KHZ tweeters,before seeing if I need to reduce that a smidgin.
It may just be the rising response of my AT W1000 headphones that is responsible.
I have absolutely no idea why at this stage it should even be possible, as it does not agree with present digital audio "Dogma", but changing one of the large parallel low ESR capacitors in the JLH PSU area to a normal type normally tames that.

P.S.
These comments were not made as an invitation for sceptics to jump in and start another diatribe on why it's all "impossible".
Alex

[XTRProf]

Oct 5, 2011 20:12:25 GMT freddypipsqueek said:

The difference reminds me of jitter. Jitter is a bad thing ?. Some poeple prefer the sound with a bit in it.

Yeah, and we are talking TECHNICALLY of jitter of ps nowadays for dac. So how much more jitter reasoning can we go before we cannot hear any more difference? God perfect 0 ps or must we go into negative ps as well? Based on this definition, even Lark, Frans or even Javier will have to admit TECHNICALLY that that will be too small to be of SIGNIFICANCE TECHNICALLY in the digital domain.

Just to highlight again from previous posts on this matter, ps is 10^-12 s, very much faster than the best camera shutter speeds that can capture and freeze F1 cars fully in motion. Even much faster than any Plasma TV response time and Plasma, according to Frans and Javier, is superior and already good enough.

I always find it amusing that jitter is always mentioned as the reason for the differences and nothing is mentioned and related to the MAGNITUDE nowadays by those technical people. Strange? So it's clearly more than jitter that must be investigated. More than what the technical people can throw out to explain the phenomenon. They always claim cannot hear the difference when thru a highly resolving system is plain bare all results. When we asked them to define their system of "hirez" for the comparison, we are not surprise of what they will give out as. Btw, I'm not trying to boast. Everyone is entitled to listen to a highend hirez by the definition of John Atkinson and don't have to pay a single cent for the demo. Only please find those high enough hirez demos. Maybe I in Singapore is more fortunate?

Btw, I'm not against technical. Without technical, we wouldn't be even having what we AV hobbyists are fully enjoying now. Also, how can be a "traitor" when I also graduated from a technical college? It's only thru great demos and long experiences that we realised that we subjectivists cannot trust fully what the technicality can tell us and we are NOT AGAINST technical . See my avatar motto? More Zen than Tech?

[lark]

Oct 9, 2011 21:25:56 GMT XTRProf said:

Oct 5, 2011 20:12:25 GMT freddypipsqueek said:

The difference reminds me of jitter. Jitter is a bad thing ?. Some poeple prefer the sound with a bit in it.

I always find it amusing that jitter is always mentioned as the reason for the differences and nothing is mentioned and related to the MAGNITUDE nowadays by those technical people. Strange? So it's clearly more than jitter that must be investigated. More than what the technical people can throw out to explain the phenomenon. They always claim cannot hear the difference when thru a highly resolving system is plain bare all results. When we asked them to define their system of "hirez" for the comparison, we are not surprise of what they will give out as. Btw, I'm not trying to boast. Everyone is entitled to listen to a highend hirez by the definition of John Atkinson and don't have to pay a single cent for the demo. Only please find those high enough hirez demos. Maybe I in Singapore is more fortunate?

Jitter is often mentioned because there are not a lot of places in the digital domain that can effect sound, so when some makes claims about differences and someone like I say 'no it's digital, it will sound the same', then they will say, 'well what about jitter then' and then I will reply and say 'yes jitter can effect playback, but not rips, copies, downloads, disks, flash drives'. And we do the jitter thing again.

[Deleted]

You need to explain what it is about their bluspec CD and their normal CD that disagrees with my claims. These are two different formats with different data on them.

I am not saying this to carry on the acrimonious debate,as I want no further part in it either, but just to clear up a point.
The Sony BluSpec comparison 2 CD sets had identical binary data on both versions, that came from the same original master.
There is no reason other than being Sony's proprietary format,and obvious commercial reasons including royalty payments, why this production improvement in readability could not be used for all future CD releases as it is fully compatible with all CD and DVD players.

[rowuk]

I think we are back to the same thing.

I am not taking a stab at either side as I enjoy them both.

Lark, YOUR problem is that you do not value your own posts enough and therefore repeat them because you think that you have not been understood or your point of view accepted. Fact is, the RG family will ask questions if something is not clear and there are at least 2 camps of thought.

Because a musical experience CAN be very subjective, I think we need the objectivists to get our hardware to a very high quality level and consistent, then we need the subjectivist approach to get our minds OFF of the hardware. We are listening to MUSIC not bits (well I am as well as all that I enjoy spending time with do anyway).

I really enjoy the rips that Alex has sent me and they do sound different than when I use the original CD for playback. That could just be a sign that my CD playback is crap for whatever reason. If Alex is getting such good results, I can rip like he does and at least be sure that my results are similar without all of the experimentation.

There was a time (not so long ago) that we were taught that protons, electrons and neutrons were the smallest particles. As the technology moved forward, we learned things. With audio, it is probably similar. We only know what we know. What we don't know seems unbelievable. Let's get back to music and enjoyment and at least leave a bit of space for future understanding/development.

[JohnnyBlue]

As my old Prof used to say, 40 years ago when I was doing my Zoology degree:

"We are but children playing on the seashores of Science."