Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 11:14:44 GMT
See from RE: It's not relevant, posted on July 24, 2013 at 13:32:09 by John Swenson, as well as comments by Charles Hansen and Gordon Rankin, both of whom are highly respected designers. Note also the reference to the part played by power supplies, which is an area we have been addressing here for some time in R.G. with digital audio., in various numerous threads including +5V JLH USB power supplies and a JLH power supply for internal Optical Writers etc. Alex www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=125989
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 13:30:42 GMT
That was a bloody good read Alex.
It made sense, I could understand it and, at last, the explanations are measurable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm eagerly waiting for these measurements to be posted and the BiB crowd reaction to them.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Jul 28, 2013 18:23:10 GMT
Yea, very good posts on that AA thread. I wrote to John Swenson asking him to release his ground noise measurements measured between different software players as I'm working on the other tack - timing differences between software playback but too soon to go public with it yet. But I predict that the BiB crowd will say "yes differences can be measured for anything but are they audible - only DBTs will be acceptable". Forgetting, of course that there initial claim was NO measurable difference could be shown between bit perfect software players!!!! We will see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 23:54:04 GMT
Hi guys,
I just read John Swenson's posts and can't fault anything he said. Can someone tell me what John has pointed out that you guys didn't already know?
regards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 0:36:11 GMT
Hi guys, I just read John Swenson's posts and can't fault anything he said. Can someone tell me what John has pointed out that you guys didn't already know? regards Hi Greg Knowing is one thing, but SEEING visual evidence using specialised test equipment is another thing. I would be most interested to see screen shots of what John Swenson has reported. J .K. may be able to obtain additional info ? What he is finding seems to confirm the benefits of improved PSU isolation between the various sections of a P.C. and may also help explain why so many people are paying big money for specialised Linear PSUs for their media servers etc. It may also help to explain why screened SATA 3 cable internally helped to make an audible improvement ? Regards Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 2:07:06 GMT
Hi Alex,
I don't think John is talking about PCs (Personal Computers), so his data can't simply apply to every PC motherboard out there.
John is talking about noise on the ground plane? Yes? Possibly generated by the processor.
He mentions that the binary digital signal is not a perfect square wave, there is noise. Would anybody expect anything different? His digital analyser was able to read the data (hi and lows) accurately and represent the signal/data as a perfect square wave. This is a similar process to a DAC chip, it extracts the data from the signal while ignoring the noise. When he looked at the signal on his oscilloscope he saw the square wave plus noise. Great, that is what is expected. Sounds like he didn't expect the level of noise though. The important fact is noise is generated from the processor (and/or possibly other devices) during playback, it is not noise stored in the audio file because that is impossible as the audio file is stored as binary digital (binary means 2 states).
If we accept (I do) that this noise (on the ground plane and on the signal) can effect the analogue section of the DAC chip and the analogue output stages then what we hear is not exactly what was defined in the audio file. So the sound will be different depending on hardware used AND as this noise (by definition) is not consistent, each time you play the SAME track it WILL sound different because the noise will be different. Now I can't hear to this level but I can conceive that some can.
To test this on my system, I ran a disk scan (using anti-virus software) which loads the processor and increases disk activity. Turning the scan off and on I couldn't notice a difference.
Can I suggest when people are trying to test these kind of things that they try to exacerbate the problem. i.e. Rather that reducing processor load from 5% to 3% and expecting a minor improvement, why not increase processor load from 5% to 65% and expect a massive deterioration in sound quality.
regards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 2:36:57 GMT
Hi Greg Here we go again ! I didn't say anything here about differences with stored files. I only mentioned playback here. In the other area we disagree STILL yet I can demonstrate to others, (perhaps even to you ??) including Barry Diament and Martin Colloms and several of your friends, that there can be something different about .wav files with identical check sums. Let's take the damn computer out of the scenario for now, and YOU tell me how 2 .wav files with identical check sums burned to a CD-R can possibly sound repeatably different when played by a CD/DVD player, and can be correctly identified UNLESS there is something a little different about them as saved ? We aren't talking here about 2 different CDs, we are talking about successive tracks on the same CD=R !!! Perhaps the CD/DVD player has E.S. P ? You already know that I sent 2 comparison CDs to Barry in the USA, and Barry and his wife were able to hear differences between them, despite being ripped to HDD. Obviously the checksums aren't telling the whole story. Also remember, that 4 years ago I was a lone voice until Jeff C supported me in R.G. with this, now there are HEAPS of reports by others in various forums about these differences. Worldwide Mass Hallucination perhaps ? Check out XXHE forum for example. Regards Alex www.hificritic.com/Forum/yaf_postst1373p5_Problem-when-hocus-pocus-works.aspx?= Most recent.See replies 86 to 91
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 2:50:47 GMT
Obviously the checksums aren't telling the whole story. Absolutely not.
I burnt some of Alex's rips (all with identical checksums) to a CD and clearly heard differences between them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 2:58:23 GMT
Hi Alex,
Read the title of your thread!!
Regards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 3:14:53 GMT
Hi Alex, Read the title of your thread!! Regards Hi Greg So what ? You aren't allowed to say much more in the title of a thread. I tried, and had to condense it. Besides which., a title like that is like waving a red flag to a bull . It seems to have worked too. Does it make the post by John Swenson and the replies by 2 leading players in the field any less relevant ? You now also have a reply by Jeff in this thread, who actually went to the trouble of burning several uploaded comparison .wav files to a CD-R and popped them in his CD player, while using the best test equipment of all .His EARS. Did Jeff imagine those differences too, just like those 2 other high profile people ? Regards Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 3:37:43 GMT
Hi Alex,
Yes. John's posts does not support your thread title IMHO.
Regards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 4:02:34 GMT
Hi Alex, Yes. John's posts does not support your thread title IMHO. Regards Hi Greg They sure as hell aren't hurting my cause either ! These findings will undoubtedly filter down later into the other area. The first major hurdle here was to get people to understand that system noise levels, despite binary data remaining the same, does cause analogue playback differences, and also helps to explain a little why not all Bit Perfect software players sound the same. In my book , that's a major step forward . The other will take more time, but there is already a great deal of progress considering that only 4 years ago, I was a a lonely voice reporting these "impossible" things. I would still love to see you explain how 2 tracks on the same CD can sound quite different from each other, despite having identical check sums after being re-ripped ! That's very different to say a BluSpec comparison set, where 2 separate discs are used. Oh, you still can't explain how they can possibly sound different either, when played in a CD player where error correction is correctly working, yet both versions have identical check sums when ripped. Regards Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 18:54:28 GMT
But I predict that the BiB crowd will say "yes differences can be measured for anything but are they audible - only DBTs will be acceptable". Forgetting, of course that there initial claim was NO measurable difference could be shown between bit perfect software players!!!! We will see. Sounds ominously prophetic! Plus, of course that DBTs are also not acceptable as our ears/brains don't print out graphs to prove what was claimed to be heard
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Jul 30, 2013 1:10:42 GMT
After years of BiB people saying "why aren't measurements for this noise difference shown", implying that no difference therefore actually exists - it's all our delusion - we now get the other alternative response to the measurements being produced that show some differences - "we knew that already, didn't you?" I not sure if Greg's post is not a perfect example of this? "Can someone tell me what John has pointed out that you guys didn't already know?" Read more: rockgrotto.proboards.com/thread/9231/music-files-identical-sound-different#ixzz2aUEXJwUV
|
|