My Lying Ears

Yea it would be. I not one for marketing terms.

 

But... on entry level high-end audio systems on up differences in cables can be night and day and sometimes not.

From lampcord to Kimber 4tc is night and day on even an entry level high end audio system.

 

I've done this many times for many friends who took a dip into high-end audio. The differences are not subtle.

You don't need to "match the volume levels and have read all the self-serving research that says it doesn't... blah blah".

If you guys need a double blind test to tell from night from day then let the endless discussion rage on this site as it does.

 

But it does show that you guys haven't bothered to listen to a high end audio system and are having discussions in a vacuum.

 

Just remember, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

A saying from a REAL scientist that is as great as his equations….

Well, I would personally call that Bull Corn. Most especially the nasty crack about not hearing differences because our systems are not "high end" enough.

There are just as many instances where normal speaker cable has been sneakily substituted for high end cable and the listeners could not tell the difference. Even some where the listeners picked the zip cord as being superior to the multi-thousand dollar cable. Those are *also* facts, and ignoring them is bad science.

Now understand, I have speaker cables that are relatively expensive, though not in the $1000/meter or above category. They make a difference - and I love 'em - but there are reasons they do, measurable reasons. Like Capacitance and design.

I will grant it may be possible some $30K/meter Fruity cables might be better than $60/meter speaker cable, but not $29,940 better. Not even in the highest high end system in existence. (Though to own that system, $30K is definitely chump change to you...)

All of which is mildly interesting to discuss. But being rude with judging other people by what you think they have listened to is definitely not the way to start that discussion.

I would ask who where the subjects that did the listening and selection of whats "better"?

We could prove 3 point shots are impossible except for random chance by bringing in random people off the street.

 

There are many of tests done with/by folks who have background in listening to high-end audio where subjective discrimination between sampling rates, cables, amps, etc, was done accurately and I agree matching volume levels is par for the course if you are experienced with this evaluation.

I was one of the people picking the louder file. Perhaps my Spectral and Vandersteen equipment is the equivalent of "bringing in random people off the street"?

Anyway, I have an experiment to propose if you feel like trying it, assuming your playback software/system will do shuffle play. Send me a RedBook file of your choosing. I have software that can convert resolution to as high as your DAC will accept, and can also alter volume in .1dB steps. I'll send you back your file in 3 or 4 resolutions with the volume changed by 1dB or less on 1 or more of the versions. You listen on your system in random order so you don't know as you listen which version is which, and tell me your order of preference.

If you think you'd be interested, PM me.

So you have measurments of who's DAC that shows the reclocking method was ineffective and the jitter still exists at some audible level, whatever that is?

That's about right. Reclocking/isolation has degrees of success. Different DACs will perform differently, and more sophisticated, and expensive solutions may perform better. Getting good jitter results takes effort.

Well, I would personally call that Bull Corn. Most especially the nasty crack about not hearing differences because our systems are not "high end" enough.

 

There are just as many instances where normal speaker cable has been sneakily substituted for high end cable and the listeners could not tell the difference. Even some where the listeners picked the zip cord as being superior to the multi-thousand dollar cable. Those are *also* facts, and ignoring them is bad science.

 

Now understand, I have speaker cables that are relatively expensive, though not in the $1000/meter or above category. They make a difference - and I love 'em - but there are reasons they do, measurable reasons. Like Capacitance and design.

 

I will grant it may be possible some $30K/meter Fruity cables might be better than $60/meter speaker cable, but not $29,940 better. Not even in the highest high end system in existence. (Though to own that system, $30K is definitely chump change to you...)

 

All of which is mildly interesting to discuss. But being rude with judging other people by what you think they have listened to is definitely not the way to start that discussion.

Come on Paul, is that the first time you've heard that. LOL

It's the mating call of the lunatic fringe, if you can't hear the differences they claim, either your system sucks or your ears do..

I was one of the people picking the louder file. Perhaps my Spectral and Vandersteen equipment is the equivalent of "bringing in random people off the street"?

 

Anyway, I have an experiment to propose if you feel like trying it, assuming your playback software/system will do shuffle play. Send me a RedBook file of your choosing. I have software that can convert resolution to as high as your DAC will accept, and can also alter volume in .1dB steps. I'll send you back your file in 3 or 4 resolutions with the volume changed by 1dB or less on 1 or more of the versions. You listen on your system in random order so you don't know as you listen which version is which, and tell me your order of preference.

 

If you think you'd be interested, PM me.

If one is listening to an unfamiliar system and music material source for the first time in an unfamiliar pressure enviroment (you heard that for 15 seconds now choose which is better) than all bets are off when trying to do evaluations. You noted you hear cable differences in an earlier post so I don't question your ability to discern. In an unfamiliar setting and system and music source I could not do an objective evaluation on what I hear without spending time listening to familiar material from familiar sources and I would excuse myself from such a "quick" test.

I have no problems with the test you propose aside from the following:

1) Upconverting a digital file to higher resolution is pointless and brings the electronics and alogrithms that are implemented into play.

2) My digital playback equipment (CD player) is meager compared to my analgoue side (turntable). I really don't waste my time with digital except for new music that I can't get on vinyl (and curse when the vinyl turns out to be digitized as much of the new vinyl is).

I was one of the people picking the louder file. Perhaps my Spectral and Vandersteen equipment is the equivalent of "bringing in random people off the street"?

 

Anyway, I have an experiment to propose if you feel like trying it, assuming your playback software/system will do shuffle play. Send me a RedBook file of your choosing. I have software that can convert resolution to as high as your DAC will accept, and can also alter volume in .1dB steps. I'll send you back your file in 3 or 4 resolutions with the volume changed by 1dB or less on 1 or more of the versions. You listen on your system in random order so you don't know as you listen which version is which, and tell me your order of preference.

 

If you think you'd be interested, PM me.

If one is listening to an unfamiliar system and music material source for the first time in an unfamiliar pressure enviroment (you heard that for 15 seconds now choose which is better) than all bets are off when trying to do evaluations. You noted you hear cable differences in an earlier post so I don't question your ability to discern. In an unfamiliar setting and system and music source I could not do an objective evaluation on what I hear without spending time listening to familiar material from familiar sources and I would excuse myself from such a "quick" test.

I have no problems with the test you propose aside from the following:

1) Upconverting a digital file to higher resolution is pointless and brings the electronics and alogrithms that are implemented into play.

2) My digital playback equipment (CD player) is meager compared to my analgoue side (turntable). I really don't waste my time with digital except for new music that I can't get on vinyl (and curse when the vinyl turns out to be digitized as much of the new vinyl is).

Well, I would personally call that Bull Corn. Most especially the nasty crack about not hearing differences because our systems are not "high end" enough.

 

There are just as many instances where normal speaker cable has been sneakily substituted for high end cable and the listeners could not tell the difference. Even some where the listeners picked the zip cord as being superior to the multi-thousand dollar cable. Those are *also* facts, and ignoring them is bad science.

 

Now understand, I have speaker cables that are relatively expensive, though not in the $1000/meter or above category. They make a difference - and I love 'em - but there are reasons they do, measurable reasons. Like Capacitance and design.

 

I will grant it may be possible some $30K/meter Fruity cables might be better than $60/meter speaker cable, but not $29,940 better. Not even in the highest high end system in existence. (Though to own that system, $30K is definitely chump change to you...)

 

All of which is mildly interesting to discuss. But being rude with judging other people by what you think they have listened to is definitely not the way to start that discussion.

I will call bull corn on your "bull corn".

So if I transposition your reply “argument” to the car world it would pretty much summarize as follows:

A chevy cruze owner says the tires on a car dont make any difference to the performance of the car and when a porsche owner says they do and says "you've never driven a porsche" and the chevy cruze owner is insulted.

So, if you believe that all audio gear sounds the same if the specs are the same that is your belief.

But it ain’t the reality.

So I stand behind my response 100% and will repeat with emphasis:

But it does show that you guys haven't bothered to listen to a high end audio system and are having discussions in a vacuum.

Also, you seem to have the need to assign a dollar value to is a change worth it.

That is purely up to the buyer and the deepness of their pockets.

And, that a lot of high-end gear is hideously priced, I won’t argue.

And, for the usual "people picked the zip cord" argument, as usual, the question is who was doing the evaluation and the picking.

I can prove 3 point shots are impossible by picking random people off the streets.

I think its very simple minded to continually throw out something you "read" that fits your predisposed notions as fact. Talk about "bad science".

Do you have your own experience here where you challenged yourself and setup the correct environment and quality equipment to do the test? Real scientists fret over the equipment to make sure they have the best sensors, etc (which in this case would be audio reproduction equipment). This is science. Plenty of bad scientists out there (i.e., here on this board).

2) My digital playback equipment (CD player) is meager compared to my analgoue side (turntable). I really don't waste my time with digital except for new music that I can't get on vinyl (and curse when the vinyl turns out to be digitized as much of the new vinyl is).

A Rice Krispies fan. LOL Now I know your stated opinions on audio are all mis-guided, your still living with 1950s audio.

The true science behind speaker cable

[video=youtube;lG-3KyURXqk]

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/speaker-cable-gauge

Thanks for the interesting videos Sal. Especially the last one :~)

If one is listening to an unfamiliar system and music material source for the first time in an unfamiliar pressure environment (you heard that for 15 seconds now choose which is better) than all bets are off when trying to do evaluations. You noted you hear cable differences in an earlier post so I don't question your ability to discern. In an unfamiliar setting and system and music source I could not do an objective evaluation on what I hear without spending time listening to familiar material from familiar sources and I would excuse myself from such a "quick" test.

I know we had at least several days; I think it was weeks, actually. We had plenty of time to familiarize ourselves.

I have no problems with the test you propose aside from the following:

1) Upconverting a digital file to higher resolution is pointless and brings the electronics and alogrithms that are implemented into play.

Sounds like you don't understand what happens inside your CD player and virtually every DAC. If you do and I misunderstood you, my apologies.

Inside CD players and the vast majority of DACs, a CD/Redbook bitstream is first upsampled by the DAC chip 8x, to 352.8KHz. This is done in 3 rounds of doubling, 44.1 -> 88.2, 88.2 -> 176.4, and 176.4 -> 352.8. From there it's sent to the chip's sigma-delta modulator, where the sample rate is upconverted further, typically to 2.8 or 5.6MHz.

So upconverting a digital file is what happens pretty much unavoidably. You can, however, choose where it takes place. If you upconvert in software to a higher PCM rate your DAC will accept, say 192KHz, you avoid 2 rounds of upconversion in the DAC chip. Your DAC would take a 192KHz signal and double it once, to 384KHz, before sending it to the sigma-delta modulator. If you have a DAC that accepts DSD rates - let's say it accepts 5.6MHz - then there's a good chance, if you upconvert the signal using software, that you can avoid in-DAC conversion altogether.

So you've been listening to upconverted digital files ever since you had a CD player. Perhaps you've never heard a file that was recorded in higher resolution or upconverted by higher quality software before it reached your player.

The reason for upconversion is that conversion of the digital signal to analog music is easier to do well at the higher rates.

2) My digital playback equipment (CD player) is meager compared to my analgoue side (turntable). I really don't waste my time with digital except for new music that I can't get on vinyl (and curse when the vinyl turns out to be digitized as much of the new vinyl is).

But somehow you know what people with high quality digital rigs can and can't hear? (I've had a reasonably high quality analog setup for more than 30 years, and still play LPs.)

I know we had at least several days; I think it was weeks, actually. We had plenty of time to familiarize ourselves.

 

 

 

Sounds like you don't understand what happens inside your CD player and virtually every DAC. If you do and I misunderstood you, my apologies.

 

Inside CD players and the vast majority of DACs, a CD/Redbook bitstream is first upsampled by the DAC chip 8x, to 352.8KHz. This is done in 3 rounds of doubling, 44.1 -> 88.2, 88.2 -> 176.4, and 176.4 -> 352.8. From there it's sent to the chip's sigma-delta modulator, where the sample rate is upconverted further, typically to 2.8 or 5.6MHz.

 

So upconverting a digital file is what happens pretty much unavoidably. You can, however, choose where it takes place. If you upconvert in software to a higher PCM rate your DAC will accept, say 192KHz, you avoid 2 rounds of upconversion in the DAC chip. Your DAC would take a 192KHz signal and double it once, to 384KHz, before sending it to the sigma-delta modulator. If you have a DAC that accepts DSD rates - let's say it accepts 5.6MHz - then there's a good chance, if you upconvert the signal using software, that you can avoid in-DAC conversion altogether.

 

So you've been listening to upconverted digital files ever since you had a CD player. Perhaps you've never heard a file that was recorded in higher resolution or upconverted by higher quality software before it reached your player.

 

The reason for upconversion is that conversion of the digital signal to analog music is easier to do well at the higher rates.

 

 

 

But somehow you know what people with high quality digital rigs can and can't hear? (I've had a reasonably high quality analog setup for more than 30 years, and still play LPs.)

I'm familiar with the digitization process. More than enough to also know its not as simplistic as “just '1's and '0's” that is repeated as a theme in many posts. It takes a lot of electronics to do the '1's and ''0's all of which affects the overall sound since all electronics distort the signal and the current flowing through the system (high-end is about minimizing those distortions by using better quality materials, methods of isolation, and signal paths).

My intended point was that upconverting doesn't add information. So a 128K mp3 is not going to sound great because you upconverted it 382K. This said, upconversion can get rid of some distortions inherent in electronics where they are more efficient (less noisy) with higher sampling rates while there is no new music information (it reconstructed). So I agree that upconversion can help electronics limitations.

I do listen to digital gear (DACs) somewhat frequently, I have borrowed for eval, and have purchased and then sold several when I tire of their reproduction limits. I haven't found a reason to permanently invest in digital (other than decent CD player and good headphones for my iphone) because if I am listening non-mobile I want the best reproduction possible, which is analogue vinyl (and fret to move to CD if I can't get the vinyl).

Digital (DACs) continues to improve. I have no problems moving to digital after it matures further. At the high end of DACs its somewhat close now. The new merridian explorer2 with MQA is a pretty big jump at the entry level but I have not yet heard a high end DAC yet that has MQA.

Music is a hobby so, yes, I want a system that faithfully reproduces music as I would hear it live (I also go out of my way to attend small concerts with minimal or no amplification). Strong push by high end digital into the mainstream with the likes audioquest dragonfly and the pono and a host of other pretty good sub $500 dacs so finally better sound might actually happen as more folks buy into it.

A Rice Krispies fan. LOL Now I know your stated opinions on audio are all mis-guided, your still living with 1950s audio.

The one dimensionality of your "thought" and conclusion here is truly mesmerizing (for about a 1/10 of a second).

The one dimensionality of your "thought" and conclusion here is truly mesmerizing (for about a 1/10 of a second).

I'm so pleased you learned something. Some people are harder to get thru to.

I'm familiar with the digitization process. More than enough to also know its not as simplistic as “just '1's and '0's” that is repeated as a theme in many posts. It takes a lot of electronics to do the '1's and ''0's all of which affects the overall sound since all electronics distort the signal and the current flowing through the system (high-end is about minimizing those distortions by using better quality materials, methods of isolation, and signal paths).

 

My intended point was that upconverting doesn't add information. So a 128K mp3 is not going to sound great because you upconverted it 382K. This said, upconversion can get rid of some distortions inherent in electronics where they are more efficient (less noisy) with higher sampling rates while there is no new music information (it reconstructed). So I agree that upconversion can help electronics limitations.

You're repeating something incorrect that you've been told - that upconverting doesn't "add information." This is something some "just 1s and 0s" folks like to say when they maintain a high resolution file cannot sound different than a RedBook file.

Under the scientific definition of "information," upconverting certainly does add information (the interpolated data points). That is, after all, what makes the file bigger.

This upconversion itself does not create better sound. What it does do, as I mentioned in my previous note, is to make it easier and cheaper to do the filtering that ultimately converts the digital bitstream to analog music. The reason it becomes easier and cheaper with a higher sample rate bitstream is this: The filtering that is part of the conversion isn't perfect. Filters must strike a balance between time domain distortion ("ringing"), frequency domain distortion ("aliasing"), and phase distortion (non-linear phase and "group delay"). Filtering a bitstream with a high sample rate allows the filter to have adequate cut, minimizing aliasing, while using a relatively gentle slope, minimizing ringing.

But here's the thing: the upconversion *itself* requires filters. These filters can be something programmed into a chip in a DAC or CD that costs a few dollars; or they can be algorithms running on a PC with access to greater computing resources, and therefore more sophisticated.

What you hear when you listen to a DAC is the parts quality, the analog design quality, and the filtering quality. If you use a DAC that will accept, for example, DSD128 (5.6MHz) rates and do the filtering in software instead of inside the DAC, you free yourself from dependence on the quality of the filtering built into the inexpensive little DAC chip. It's something like grafting on the filtering section of a multi-thousand dollar DAC to the parts and analog design of your DAC. There are DACs that allow this at multiple inexpensive price points. Next time you check out digital, you might want to try feeding a DAC from a computer running a software player that does sample rate conversion, or try out offline sample rate conversion software, and see whether you hear a difference.

If you do this, be sure to equalize volume for the different versions. As I mentioned at the outset, even slightly higher volume unavoidably affects our perceptions of one version of a piece of music versus another.

...if you can't hear the differences they claim, either your system sucks or your ears do..

Personally I have no problem with people being able to hear something I can't. My very affordable audio/video system surely is not as revealing as high end equipment I can't afford.

My stance to not to be jealous of other people's hearing or their audio equipment, but to enjoy music on my system which was chosen based on how much I liked the sound, how good it looks and if I could afford it.

Be happy with what you have. Envy is ugly IMHO.

You're repeating something incorrect that you've been told - that upconverting doesn't "add information." This is something some "just 1s and 0s" folks like to say when they maintain a high resolution file cannot sound different than a RedBook file.

 

Under the scientific definition of "information," upconverting certainly does add information (the interpolated data points). That is, after all, what makes the file bigger.

 

.

Yea, I wasn't clear, when I said it doesn't add data I mean "real" data.

It is indeed interpolated data as you correctly point out that is added.

In my purist sense, I will say that there is no added "real" data.

It is guessed at added data which to me, regards increasing the fidelity to the original analogue signal, has no added value.

You get nothing except for, as you point out by calling it “filtering” (via electronics), as I said limitations of the electronics.

Yea, I wasn't clear, when I said it doesn't add data I mean "real" data.

It is indeed interpolated data as you correctly point out that is added.

 

In my purist sense, I will say that there is no added "real" data.

It is guessed at added data which to me, regards increasing the fidelity to the original analogue signal, has no added value.

 

You get nothing except for, as you point out by calling it “filtering” (via electronics), as I said limitations of the electronics.

Oy. "Guessed at"? Such "common sense" intuitive notions aside, fidelity to the original analog signal is not a/the problem with digital audio. The Nyquist/Shannon/Whittaker proof demonstrates to a mathematical certainty that the original analog signal can be reconstructed exactly.

The problem is that the reconstruction requires filtering, and *mathematically* (not electronically) there are the limitations on filters I spoke of before regarding aliasing, ringing, and group delay. So it is not the accuracy of tracing the analog signal that is the problem. It is that the filtering necessary to remove everything that isn't the signal unavoidably adds back some amount of these specific distortions. The good news is that the best filtering available currently adds back very little in the way of distortions.

Yea, I wasn't clear, when I said it doesn't add data I mean "real" data.

It is indeed interpolated data as you correctly point out that is added.

 

In my purist sense, I will say that there is no added "real" data.

It is guessed at added data which to me, regards increasing the fidelity to the original analogue signal, has no added value.

 

You get nothing except for, as you point out by calling it “filtering” (via electronics), as I said limitations of the electronics.

You do know that more than one kind of interpolation filter actually does add real data? The only kind that doesn't is basically sample and hold.

-Paul

You do know that more than one kind of interpolation filter actually does add real data? The only kind that doesn't is basically sample and hold.

 

-Paul

Sample and hold adds distortion, not information. A perfect interpolation filter adds nothing above the Nyquist frequency of the original and alters nothing below it. Such filters are not practically realisable, so any real-world filter will introduce some amount of distortion, and the aim is to minimise this, especially in the audible band.

Sample and hold adds distortion, not information.

A perfect interpolation filter adds nothing above the Nyquist frequency of the original and alters nothing below it.

Not so. If you look at the data stream, there is a whopping lot of information available within the Nyquist/Shannon frequency limit.

Such filters are not practically realisable, so any real-world filter will introduce some amount of distortion, and the aim is to minimise this, especially in the audible band.

Well, interpolating filters that actually intepolate samples are used every day. For all practical putposes, they can be perfectly adequate, even outstanding.

Personally I have no problem with people being able to hear something I can't. My very affordable audio/video system surely is not as revealing as high end equipment I can't afford.

 

My stance to not to be jealous of other people's hearing or their audio equipment, but to enjoy music on my system which was chosen based on how much I liked the sound, how good it looks and if I could afford it.

 

Be happy with what you have. Envy is ugly IMHO.

Teresa, Everything you say is fine, but how that relates in any way to what I said I have no idea?

Teresa, Everything you say is fine, but how that relates in any way to what I said I have no idea?

When you said “...if you can't hear the differences they claim, either your system sucks or your ears do.” you were responding to Paul who was responding to xyzzy1. What I was saying in a very polite way was: "If one person doesn’t try to tell another person what they are allowed and not allowed to hear, then that person won’t be able to say their system or ears suck." So, basically common courtesy.

That is why I said: “Personally I have no problem with people being able to hear something I can't. My very affordable audio/video system surely is not as revealing as high end equipment I can't afford.” Because I don’t attack other peoples listening experiences, no one says I can’t hear something because my system or ears suck. I just accept that I don’t have the world’s best ears and or the best equipment, thus many people will hear things I can’t. Do you understand now how it relates to what you said?

Like I said, pure Bull Corn on your part.

You are drawing unwarranted assumptions from inadequate and incorrect data. In short, you don't have a clue what you are talking about, and are being internet rude about it as well.

Let me put this succinctly - you do not have a clue what other people hear, what their experience is, and most definitely, have no basis to be making rude accusations like that in an attempt to stir up controversy. (shrug)

There is an enormous gap between what you think you know and what you really do know.

I will call bull corn on your "bull corn".

 

So if I transposition your reply “argument” to the car world it would pretty much summarize as follows:

 

A chevy cruze owner says the tires on a car dont make any difference to the performance of the car and when a porsche owner says they do and says "you've never driven a porsche" and the chevy cruze owner is insulted.

 

So, if you believe that all audio gear sounds the same if the specs are the same that is your belief.

 

But it ain’t the reality.

So I stand behind my response 100% and will repeat with emphasis:

 

But it does show that you guys haven't bothered to listen to a high end audio system and are having discussions in a vacuum.

 

Also, you seem to have the need to assign a dollar value to is a change worth it.

That is purely up to the buyer and the deepness of their pockets.

 

And, that a lot of high-end gear is hideously priced, I won’t argue.

 

And, for the usual "people picked the zip cord" argument, as usual, the question is who was doing the evaluation and the picking.

I can prove 3 point shots are impossible by picking random people off the streets.

 

I think its very simple minded to continually throw out something you "read" that fits your predisposed notions as fact. Talk about "bad science".

 

Do you have your own experience here where you challenged yourself and setup the correct environment and quality equipment to do the test? Real scientists fret over the equipment to make sure they have the best sensors, etc (which in this case would be audio reproduction equipment). This is science. Plenty of bad scientists out there (i.e., here on this board).

Sample and hold adds distortion, not information. A perfect interpolation filter adds nothing above the Nyquist frequency of the original and alters nothing below it. Such filters are not practically realisable, so any real-world filter will introduce some amount of distortion, and the aim is to minimise this, especially in the audible band.

I basically agree with this but think that people are arguing at cross purposes. It all comes down to what we mean by "information" as opposed to "data points" or "bits". In the way of defining "information" in the way I define information, no filter *ever* adds information to a system regardless of whether it interpolates new data points or causes distortion, or improves the sound etc.

The "problem" with this view is in the definition of "system". So if I start with a file F that I obtain, then I define F as the source of information and any transformation (filter) as T(F).

Now if I use T(F) to create a new file G and then distribute that (eg "remaster") then for G there is essentially a new set of information, and in that case the remastering can be said to change the information... so this is essentially a matter of perspective.