XXHighEnd

[DavidJPettifor]

Is it correct that XXHighEnd costs 65 GBP/92 USD, for the full version?

 

--

djp

 

[Roseval]

Data and data is two

There is the signal, a 16 or 24 bit word

There is the interval, the sample rate

A DAC has to translate this to a analogue signal.

For some reasons there is hardly any discussion about the accuracy of a DAC to map the value of the word to a equivalent analogue signal.

There is a hell of a lot discussion about the accuracy of the time step (jitter)

If the output is bit perfect, only differences in jitter can account for differences in sound.

Of course there is the third dimension, our perception better known as the placebo effect.

 

 

[BEEMB]

Tim,

 

Bob is spot on.

 

Even though or processors are capable of playing back music with ease there can also be interruptions from other software and services running on your PC. The less that are running the better.

 

It took me some time to believe that this could possibly be the case, but I'm pretty sure that my ears are not deceiving me though there are many out that will argue that I am speaking utter drvel. (I am good at speaking at drivel I admit but ... )

 

I e-mailed one of Microsoft's Vista audio engineers regarding the matter of the bit perfect audio path, audio processing in Vista and WASAPI. I'm yet to receive a response but as soon as I do, I'll post it here with his permission.

 

I'm eagerly awaiting the results of Chris' lab tests which proved audio to be affected by the PSU too.

 

Matt.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Tim - I was just thinking about your long standing comments about bit perfect sounding the same no matter what happens before the DAC. As you know I totally respect your opinions and enjoy reading them even when we reach different conclusions. Here is what I was just thinking up in my head as I read these posts.

 

What if we used a bit perfect source and added so much jitter, electrical noise, and everything else we could so the source was as close as possible to losing bit perfection. Plus we used a DAC that had no rejection of any of these influences.

 

 

Are you willing to bet the sound using 1 and 2 below will be exactly the same?

 

1. The music is played back just as described above with all the "crap" in the signal.

 

2. The music is played back with all sources of jitter, noise etc... removed and the signal is as pure as possible.

 

 

I know this theoretical experiment is not without its flaws, but if bit perfect is bit perfect and all bit perfect sources sound identical then 1 and 2 above should have no sonic difference. I'm honestly interested in your opinion on this one and please correct this hastily created scenario if needed. Thanks Tim!

 

 

 

 

 

[BEEMB]

 

Roseval,

 

Here me out for a minute .. if I play some music and open multiple applications my music playback is interrupted, it may stop briefly whilst the computer loads up the apps. The more applications I open, the more it'll struggle.

 

So, in reverse, the more services and background tasks I can close down the better, surely ? I may not be able to hear them affecting the audio in the form of an audible gap, but they may be doing something.

 

Just a thought. Shoot me down if you wish.

 

Matt.

 

[BEEMB]

 

Tim "I'll be good, I promise" LOL !

 

[BEEMB]

 

Roseval,

 

Sorry, just re-read your post.. Pls disregard mine above.

 

 

[BobH]

Adding on to what Chris just said, if we confine 'bit perfect' to mean 16/44 or 24/96, or whatever, then I think the definition, certainly as far as this discussion is concerned, is too narrow.

 

If I use Windows volume control to alter the volume of a 24/96 file, for instance, it will still be 24/96 when it hits the dac, but the numbers relating to the volume will have changed. It will no longer be the same file, bit for bit by value as the one that left the hard drive.

 

Does that add up? All the bits are still there but their values will be different.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Bob - Changing the volume changes the bits and bit perfection is lost. It's still the same file being sent to the DAC but it's altered.

 

[audiozorro]

I was definitely referring to Tim’s question. How do you explain that with the same digital file, same computer, same DAC, same preamp/amp, same speakers, but different bit-perfect audio playback software, the music may sound different?

 

Your logic may lead you to say that all bit-perfect audio playback software will sound the same when used in the same system setup. But if your ears tell you differently, do you accept or dismiss what you hear?

 

From what I have read, PeterSt has invested a lot of time in improving the fidelity of the XXHighEnd software. Is the first version that achieved bit-perfect playback equal in fidelity to the last version? I’ll let PeterSt answer that.

 

If the free bit-perfect iTunes on the Mac is sonically equal to the bit-perfect Amarra software on the Mac, then why pay a nominal $1K for Amarra, assuming that is the software only price? I’ll let Chris answer that.

 

I know that bit-perfect data = bit perfect data and that bit-perfect data does not = bit-perfect data+timing, but I don’t know what else is involved.

 

 

[tfarney]

"I know this theoretical experiment is not without its flaws, but if bit perfect is bit perfect and all bit perfect sources sound identical then 1 and 2 above should have no sonic difference. I'm honestly interested in your opinion on this one and please correct this hastily created scenario if needed. Thanks Tim!"

 

-- What I'm trying to ascertain is how digital software can sound different. What you're talking about is hardware-generated noise, and noise that is very easily removed, at that -- an optical cable is incapable of passing the electronic noise from the computer to the DAC, and a decent DAC will reduce jitter to well below audible levels. And even if it did not (I understand there are people who don't believe this either), we still have no explanation for how two different digital processing programs (music software) running on identical hardware and outputting identical data, can somehow have a different result.

 

THAT is the question for which I cannot seem to get an answer. I'm no engineer, but the logical side of my brain works pretty well, and I don't see how this one works.

 

Tim

 

[mpmct]

For you Mac die-hards ...

 

Scroll to last post on this page, and download:

 

ABXer.app.zip (106.4 KB )

 

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/358301-24-vs-16-bit-not-audible-8.html

 

Pick one of your highest quality recordings, that

you can also buy for $.99 on iTunes in AAC format.

Buy the AAC version.

 

Run the test, with 20 samples, pitting your

uncompressed or Apple Lossless version with

the AAC version, using the ABXer.

 

Familiarize yourself with the laws of binomial probability if you like:

 

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_bino.htm

 

Then fess up. Post your results.

 

This is only tangentially related -- in that the pure good

of theory does not necessarily mean a darn thing

when it comes to audibility. If you can't hear it, how

exactly does any of it matter, as theory? :-)

 

 

 

[BEEMB]

 

Tim,

 

I thought I just tried to explain it didn't I ?

 

Play a media file, open up loads of apps and you're audio will be interrupted. You may get an audible gap in your playback.

 

I'm questioning whether this can happen on a smaller scale with other background tasks.

 

I believe that is was Peter has tried to explain .. other services can interrupt the data being processed through the CPU.

 

If you can make a difference by opening a load of apps, then surely can make a small difference by closing a number of background tasks.

 

And iTunes is fairly bloated, XXHighEnd is very minimalist.

 

I'm not saying my argument is right. I'm just putting this out there.

 

As I say, I hope the Microsoft engineer replies. Then once and for all we may have an answer !!

 

[audiozorro]

I can hear a clear difference between the 16/44.1, 24/96 and 24/192 tracks from Kent Poon’s Audiophile Jazz Prologue III releases. I have also compared some of the Reference Recordings HRx discs with the HDCD versions of the same and I definitely hear the superior fidelity of the HRx versions.

 

Now are you really asking me to believe that a lossy AAC version of the same would sound identical to 16/44.1, 24/96 and 24/192 versions? Perhaps your system is limiting your audio fidelity. However, no doubt that AAC is better than MP3.

 

[Roseval]

an optical cable is incapable of passing the electronic noise from the computer to the DAC

Optical (Toslink) guarantees a perfect galvanic isolation between 2 devices.

At the same time Toslink rise time is very slow compared with coax. So yes, is isolates the DAC electrically and yes, it induces a lot of input jitter.

Where is the logic?

 

 

[Roseval]

If you can make a difference by opening a load of apps, then surely can make a small difference by closing a number of background tasks.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t.

Mpmct has a nasty answer, ABX it, then you know for sure what it does on your system.

ABX is a local truth of course but that is your system and your perception too.

 

 

[mpmct]

"Now are you really asking me to believe that a lossy AAC version of the same would sound identical to 16/44.1, 24/96 and 24/192 versions? Perhaps your system is limiting your audio fidelity. However, no doubt that AAC is better than MP3."

 

ABX takes it out of the realm of 'belief'. There are far too many 'beliefs',

and far too few 'proofs'.

 

Yes, system possibly not resolving enough, you decide ...

 

System 1: Mac > either Bel Canto DAC3, or Cambridge Audio DacMagic >

Rotel RC - 06 preamp ( one of the handful sold in the US ) >

ATI 6012 > Linkwitz Orion active analogue x-over > Linkwitz Orion speakers.

( also tested with AKG 701 headphones from the Rotel pre. )

 

System 2: Mac > AVI ADM 9.1s

 

Nothing to lose by ABX'ing yourself, before you presume.

It's a tiny download, and the little app is trivial to use.

 

 

 

 

 

[tfarney]

"Tim,

 

I thought I just tried to explain it didn't I ?"

 

Minor interruptions in audio from bloated software or too many apps running? I'm running lossless files from a hard drive through an Airport Extreme, wirelessly to an old 1.33 GHz iBook G4 with just 1.25 GB. I typically have Safari, Firefox, Mail, Word and iTunes running. I've never experienced an audible gap unless I was streaming internet radio.

 

If you're having those kinds of problems I think you'd better have a good look at your computer. And if very subtle versions of those kinds of problems are somehow happening, even if they're not big enough to create gaps, how could the data still be bit-perfect?

 

Really, I don't think that's it.

 

Tim

 

 

 

[BEEMB]

 

Tim,

 

That's not what I meant. What I'm trying to say is that IF you were to open up a large number of applications on your machine, you might hear your audio suffer ... on opening the fifth application for example, you may hear your audio skip or something. I'm just trying to demonstrate that other services and applications can impact on other applcations.

 

Peter will no doubt have something to say on the subject. He believes that other software can interrupt your playback and I believe this can be proven.

 

I'll chase up the Microsoft guy tomorrow.

 

M.

 

 

 

[DavidJPettifor]

"Tim,

 

I thought I just tried to explain it didn't I ?"

 

Minor interruptions in audio from bloated software or too many apps running? I'm running lossless files from a hard drive through an Airport Extreme, wirelessly to an old 1.33 GHz iBook G4 with just 1.25 GB. I typically have Safari, Firefox, Mail, Word and iTunes running. I've never experienced an audible gap unless I was streaming internet radio.

 

If you're having those kinds of problems I think you'd better have a good look at your computer. And if very subtle versions of those kinds of problems are somehow happening, even if they're not big enough to create gaps, how could the data still be bit-perfect?

 

Really, I don't think that's it.

 

It isn't Tim, it really isn't! I need a valium...

 

UPDATE

 

It is an issue for my Q1 however!

 

--

djp

 

[mpmct]

Simultaneous processes, daily:

 

Adobe InDesign

Adobe Illustrator

Adobe Photoshop

Adobe Bridge

Adobe Flash

 

Safari

Firefox

 

Mail

 

Tex-Edit

Text-Edit

 

Transmit ( FTP )

 

Stickies

 

Screen sharing ( Mac to Mac )

 

iCal

 

Preview

 

iChat

 

.........

 

And only 2 GBs ram on my iMac.

 

No audio drop-outs, ever. Not one, in 2.5 years.

 

What am I doing wrong? ;-)

 

 

 

 

[tfarney]

"What I'm trying to say is that IF you were to open up a large number of applications on your machine, you might hear your audio suffer ... on opening the fifth application for example, you may hear your audio skip or something."

 

-- Yeah, I get that. What I don't get is how you can have drop-outs and a bit perfect data stream. Wouldn't the two be contradictory? Besides, wouldn't skips be an obvious error? I assume that's not what folks are talking about when they refer to one music management program sounding better than another.

 

Tim

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"...I hope the Microsoft engineer replies. Then once and for all we may have an answer !!"

 

Oh boy, we're in trouble if were are waiting for Microsoft to give us the once and for all answer :~)

 

[mpmct]

They are no doubt busy, trying to catch up to Safari 4 Beta ...

 

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49301219,00.htm

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Very cool, I missed this one. I'm downloading Safari 4 right now.