"Vinyl on CD"?

[manisandher]

If your data was getting to the hard drive unaltered, then why would it sound different?

 

Noise-induced jitter (edit: on replay)? I don't know.

 

Of course you may have started up the recorded file and switched between it and real-time playback through ADC/DAC the same as live feed vs ADC/DAC. If you did and it sounded different off the hard drive not sure where it would be coming from in that case.

 

Yep, this is what I was doing. Even with my Pass X1 preamp (which I consider to be good, but nowhere near transparent) the difference was audible.

 

In any event, I think there's more to computer audio recording (and playback!) than meets the eye, and maybe one day we'll totally understand what's going on. But we're not there today... IMHO.

 

Mani.

[esldude]

That's my whole point. The distortion caused by Redbook is far from low enough.

About matching an oscilloscope up to perceptual effects, in theory that might be possible. Whether I will also live to see it happen in practice or not is still a whole other question, though...

 

Got any evidence or can you outline just which areas of redbook distortion are too high? Or just where they are higher than is the case in LP playback? And no your anecdotal descriptions that you just hear it so clearly aren't convincing to me as reliable measures of distortion.

[manisandher]

Got any evidence or can you outline just which areas of redbook distortion are too high?

 

Get hold of HQPlayer and play around with various digital filter settings. You'll immediately hear that FIR sounds different to IIR, which sounds different to minimum phase. Personally I consider pre and post-ringing to be distortion, which is clearly audible with something like HQPlayer. The perfect filter doesn't exist. Therefore, digital is by definition imperfect. One of the reasons people like Miska (whom I trust) promotes DSD is because of the (lack of) filters. Oh and before anyone jumps in, all ADC/DAC chips with SDMs (i.e. 99.99% of them) actually have DSD stages built into them. There's a lot of filtering/converting going on in modern chips that just exacerbate the situation... IMHO. But don't take my word for it. Get hold of a Mytek DAC and HQPlayer and start experimenting.

 

Mani.

[spdif-usb]

Got any evidence or can you outline just which areas of redbook distortion are too high?

The benefits of high-sample-rate digital audio are not conferred by extended bandwidth, but because the sampling rate determines the time-domain performance. That's because standard-resolution digital audio requires steep anti-aliasing filters in A/D conversion and steep reconstruction filters in D/A conversion. Such steep filters smear transient energy over time.

 

See Anti-Alias Filters and System Transient Response at High Sample Rates and Controlled Pre-Response Anti-Alias Filters for use at 96kHz and 192kHz by Dr. Peter Craven, along with Coding for High-Resolution Audio Systems by J. Robert Stuart, all available at Audio Engineering Society (AES).

 

Also see the AES papers on this phenomenon by Mike Storey of dCS in the mid-1990s.

 

The quantisation errors caused by Redbook are audible as well. The difference between no dither and MBIT+ can fairly easily be heard, and people can hear the difference between TPDF and MBIT+ without using abnormally loud amplification. It just takes a decent DAC, amp and speakers for just about anyone who has normal hearing to be able to clearly notice the differences in sound quality between Redbook and high resolution digital, so the Redbook-is-always-going-to-be-one-hundred-percent-perfect marketing hype was nothing more than yet another pseudoscientific soap bubble.

[esldude]

so the Redbook-is-always-going-to-be-one-hundred-percent-perfect marketing hype was nothing more than yet another pseudoscientific soap bubble.

 

There was no pseudoscientific soap bubble. It was marketing hype.

 

And you fail to explain the areas where redbook is worse than LP. Quantization errors are for real, but are you sure that is what you are hearing? Quantization errors are low in level, lower than the noise floor or distortion levels in LP playback, and shouldn't be a big issue unless someone truncates a digital signal or performs other processing without dither. Quantization error is what dither reduces.

 

Same old, same old....

[spdif-usb]

There was no pseudoscientific soap bubble. It was marketing hype.

The fact it was blatantly being advertised as capable of storing all information required to reproduce audio with perfect accuracy was what has turned it into a pseudoscientific soap bubble, i.e. another false myth was portrayed as fact.

And you fail to explain the areas where redbook is worse than LP.

For one, noise comes in many different shapes. The noise floor of Redbook is purely white noise, which, although it can be altered by noise shaping techniques, is actually THE most damaging to natural wideband sounds in terms of human perception. Admittedly however, it is only part of the story. These errors occur in the presence of several other types of errors. The value of, or should I say perceived reduction in fidelity caused by, one type of error in an audio signal versus another type is extremely complex as it has a strong tendency to vary in many different ways when several types of errors are stacked on top of eachother. Without a proper understanding of how we hear, the measured magnitudes of these errors tend to be very dangerously misleading because there is tons of objective evidence to support this.

Quantization errors are for real, but are you sure that is what you are hearing? Quantization errors are low in level, lower than the noise floor or distortion levels in LP playback, and shouldn't be a big issue unless someone truncates a digital signal or performs other processing without dither. Quantization error is what dither reduces.

Quite obviously, I cannot hear the effects of quantization errors if the amount of dither that's been applied is sufficient to fully mask them. What I can hear, though, is the byproduct caused by dither in the presence of ringing artifacts.

[esldude]

And what form of noise is less damaging than white noise pray tell?

 

Brown or pink or maybe signal related? And LP has a more or less pink characteristic at a higher level, yet isn't nearly so damaging when listened to according to you. LP surface noise becomes close to white noise above a 100 hz or so once the RIAA EQ is performed. The most damaging kind of noise we now know. Maybe you just need noise shaping with the noise injected at a level higher than the lowest bit to make CD palatable to you.

[sandyk]

Originally Posted by esldude

 

If your data was getting to the hard drive unaltered, then why would it sound different?

Dennis

I agree with Mani. This is exactly what I have been banging on about here for the last 4 years, and behind those comparison .wav file uploads that I sent to Martin Colloms and others. I would be willing to bet that if Mani had powered the HDD used for storage and playback by a very low noise, very low impedance PSU,(preferably Linear) that the results would have been far closer to what he heard in the loop. A SOtM SATA filter may also have helped improve results in that case.

Dennis obviously does not believe the reports by Chris and others about SSDs sounding different to HDD despite identical binary content. Most of those audible differences are likely to come down to power supply implementation and the effects they have on the rest of the system.

Alex

[spdif-usb]

And what form of noise is less damaging than white noise pray tell?

 

Brown or pink or maybe signal related? And LP has a more or less pink characteristic at a higher level, yet isn't nearly so damaging when listened to according to you. LP surface noise becomes close to white noise above a 100 hz or so once the RIAA EQ is performed. The most damaging kind of noise we now know. Maybe you just need noise shaping with the noise injected at a level higher than the lowest bit to make CD palatable to you.

You are forgetting the fact that noise-like sounds, even if they are completely inaudible when listened to in the absence of other sounds, can cause tone-like sounds to be perceived less loud. A similar attenuation can be perceived if the tone-like sound is so much louder than the noise-like sound that the noise-like sound is masked by the tone-like sound. After the RIAA EQ is performed, a frequency analysis plot of the noise floor of vinyl still doesn't look linear.

The audible characteristics of the noise caused by vinyl can best be described as typically analog, mechanical-organical, and seemingly rather natural. The brain adapts to these characteristics surprisingly well, because they are very similar to the background noise that exists everywhere in the natural habitat of our human species and, according to many science experts, natural selection and evolution have been shaping the brain for aeons. Therefore, it is no big surprise that these characteristics are so familiar to the brain that it almost effortlessly adapts to them, thereby very easily shaping our perception.

The brain detects and identifies sounds against a noise background. It externalizes sounds into sound objects, and it maps these sound objects. That which psychologists call the conscious present is what's a fundamental part of both how we listen and how we hear. It shapes our perception and the brain adapts to it all the time.

The artificial characteristics of errors in the digital domain are responsible for the fact the brain is super sensitive to them, because these artificial characteristics obviously are pretty much always the complete opposite of the far more natural characteristics of each and every other part of the entire signal.

The human hearing system is extremely tolerant of some types of distortions. Ringing artifacts caused by steep filters do not resemble those types.

[esldude]

spdif-usb,

 

I don't know if any of your statements in this post are true at all. The first one, inaudible noise making audible tones sound less loud, wow, you must have some alternate universe you study acoustics in. You can add inaudible tones until they become audible. Inaudible tones making audible tones less loud...only if they were mirror images in reversed phase. That isn't the nature of noise so that is happening. There really is no point continuing further. It gets more ridiculous as it goes. Rarely is a post with seemingly meaningful sentences so bereft of any real information. You really should be embarrassed and I feel pity for you as I know you aren't at all.

 

Having seen you grapple with and fail completely to understand the facts about MP3's, I won't belabor the point further. You are either incapable or unwilling to get anything out of it. Live free and live happy in whatever universe you think you occupy.

[spdif-usb]

This to me just shows you are afraid to admit that you haven't got much of a clue about psychoacoustics at all. You seem to think the non-linearity of human hearing can be explained by nothing more than a number of placebo effects all of which can always be eliminated through blinded listening tests, plus some sort of fixed EQ that can always accurately be measured.

spdif-usb,

 

I don't know if any of your statements in this post are true at all. The first one, inaudible noise making audible tones sound less loud, wow, you must have some alternate universe you study acoustics in. You can add inaudible tones until they become audible. Inaudible tones making audible tones less loud...only if they were mirror images in reversed phase. That isn't the nature of noise so that is happening. There really is no point continuing further. It gets more ridiculous as it goes. Rarely is a post with seemingly meaningful sentences so bereft of any real information. You really should be embarrassed and I feel pity for you as I know you aren't at all.

 

Having seen you grapple with and fail completely to understand the facts about MP3's, I won't belabor the point further. You are either incapable or unwilling to get anything out of it. Live free and live happy in whatever universe you think you occupy.

[Julf]

Alex,

 

This is exactly what I have been banging on about here for the last 4 years, and behind those comparison .wav file uploads that I sent to Martin Colloms and others. I would be willing to bet that if Mani had powered the HDD used for storage and playback by a very low noise, very low impedance PSU,(preferably Linear) that the results would have been far closer to what he heard in the loop. A SOtM SATA filter may also have helped improve results in that case.

Dennis obviously does not believe the reports by Chris and others about SSDs sounding different to HDD despite identical binary content. Most of those audible differences are likely to come down to power supply implementation and the effects they have on the rest of the system.

 

Ah, here we go again... So just to clarify, what you are saying is that the HDD causes power supply noise that affects the retrieval of the music data from the hard disk - or are you saying that the noise affects the DAC?

[sandyk]

Julf

Let's ask you a couple of questions for a change . Why do people like and use the SOtM SATA filters ? Surely it doesn't reduce the externally audible noise from the PC ? So if it doesn't do that, why on earth do people use and report favourably about them ?

Are you suggesting that things like the SOtM SATA filters are " snake oil" too?

For that matter, why would people wish to use the SOtM Fan Filters?

FTR, I do believe they are worthwhile products, and reports of improved SQ due to their use are real and not imagined.

Alex

 

The SOtM In-Line SATA Power Noise Filter is a must have computer audiophile product. This device has a unique design incorporating individual 12V, 5V, and 3,3V RF noise filters along with ripple noise filters. The sata data transmission is not altered. We recommend these for use on spinning drives and on sold state drives.

 

The SOtM In-Line Fan Power Noise Filter is a must have computer audiophile product. This device has a unique design incorporating a 12V RF noise filter along with ripple noise filter.

 

[manisandher]

So just to clarify, what you are saying is that the HDD causes power supply noise that affects the retrieval of the music data from the hard disk - or are you saying that the noise affects the DAC?

 

My guess would be the latter.

 

There's a very cool feature in the latest version of XXHighEnd called 'playback drive'. Essentially this will copy the music data from wherever it sits to an 'empty and formatted' HDD/SSD/stick before commencing the playback routine. So it's easy to have a number of different drives sitting in the PC (I have 4 different types) that can be chosen as the playback drive with the press of a button. And you know what? They all sound different!

 

Oh and it's not just me who hears the difference between playback drives. Most other XXHighEnd users who've tried this feature do too. Although I have to say that there's not much consensus yet on which type of drive sounds best. But maybe this will come - it's early days.

 

Totally off-topic, but can I just say that in my opinion, people like PeterSt and Miska really are pushing the boundaries of computer audio. I think anyone genuinely interested in computer audio should download both XXHighEnd and HQPlayer and have a play. You may be amazed at what you learn!

 

(I'll just restate, as I have many times before, that I have no affiliation whatsoever with either Signalyst or Phasure.)

 

Mani.

[Jud]

Totally off-topic, but can I just say that in my opinion, people like PeterSt and Miska really are pushing the boundaries of computer audio. I think anyone genuinely interested in computer audio should download both XXHighEnd and HQPlayer and have a play. You may be amazed at what you learn!

 

(I'll just restate, as I have many times before, that I have no affiliation whatsoever with either Signalyst or Phasure.)

 

Mani.

 

And I suppose if this goes any further we should really start a thread about it, but just wanted to add: One of the most significant things about these players is that they bring into the realm of the user up/over-sampling, filtering, and dither choices that were formerly made exclusively by DAC designers. When those choices are made for the user by DAC designers, it is easy to formulate ideas about digital sound reproduction that take no account at all of these absolutely critical steps in the conversion of digits to music. When making the choices for yourself with these players, it is surpassingly evident just how central a role they play. No one who understands what's going on with these players and hears the results for themselves will be caught again saying things like "All reasonably good DACs should sound alike," or "All bit perfect playback should sound alike."

[Audio_ELF]

Dennis

I agree with Mani. This is exactly what I have been banging on about here for the last 4 years, and behind those comparison .wav file uploads that I sent to Martin Colloms and others. I would be willing to bet that if Mani had powered the HDD used for storage and playback by a very low noise, very low impedance PSU,(preferably Linear) that the results would have been far closer to what he heard in the loop. A SOtM SATA filter may also have helped improve results in that case.

Dennis obviously does not believe the reports by Chris and others about SSDs sounding different to HDD despite identical binary content. Most of those audible differences are likely to come down to power supply implementation and the effects they have on the rest of the system.

Alex

Alex, I believe you are misrepresenting Chris' (and maybe other's) comments about SSDs.

 

Your major claim is that the same bit-identical files sound different depending where they were originally recorded - if the CD-ROM (or DVD-ROM/Blu-ray) used a linear PSU, sound deadening material, ripped using EAC vs dbPowerAmp, etc. - and how they have been transmitted over the internet. Please, I don't want to get into discussing if this is the case or not - for this comment I'm happy to accept that you have evidence they can be.

 

What I do want to say is that (unless Chris has tried different and not reported it on the forum) Chris' comments are about SSD within a computer affecting the reproduction at playback - this, IMO, is a very different claim. As I recall Chris declined to try your files due to the method you used for distribution.

 

Eloise

[Julf]

My guess would be the latter.

 

I agree - it makes much more sense to assume the DAC process (where we again drop back to the analog world) gets affected, rather than assume that there is some strange effect, totally unknown to modern science, that somehow distorts bits (but only audio bits, not spreadsheet or program bits).

[sandyk]

Eloise

I have also stated numerous times that the PSU affects the playback result, whether from a HDD, or USB memory stick.

Many others have commented that SSDs and HDDs sound different. IIRC, Peter St. even claiming that SSD sounds worse than HDD.

I have also mentioned previously that some earlier model SSDs used Supercaps internally, which were reported to cause increased electrical noise problems. Some earlier SSDs were even reported to generate internal noise in line with activity, due to ringing of internal inductors.

As far as I can recall Chris declined to listen to my files after downloading them, simply because he believed what I was suggesting was not possible. I fail to see what any of this has to do with the present discussion.

Alex

[Julf]

Alex,

 

Let's ask you a couple of questions for a change.

 

Sure - but it would still help if you answered my question.

 

Why do people like and use the SOtM SATA filters ? Surely it doesn't reduce the externally audible noise from the PC ? So if it doesn't do that, why on earth do people use and report favourably about them?

 

No idea - that is precisely what I try to understand. And the first step is to clearly define when and under what conditions they feel the effect is beneficial. Facts are our friends...

 

Are you suggesting that things like the SOtM SATA filters are " snake oil" too?

 

I am suggesting it might be a possibility. I am not saying it is the only possibility.

 

For that matter, why would people wish to use the SOtM Fan Filters?

 

You tell me!

 

FTR, I do believe they are worthwhile products, and reports of improved SQ due to their use are real and not imagined.

 

That is of course a totally valid subjective opinion.

[Julf]

I fail to see what any of this has to do with the present discussion.

 

I think both Eloise and I assumed (clearly wrongly) that your statement:

 

Dennis obviously does not believe the reports by Chris and others about SSDs sounding different to HDD despite identical binary content.

referred to your earlier claims to hear a difference between two bitwise identical files when reproduced through identical chains,

[Audio_ELF]

I fail to see what any of this has to do with the present discussion.

I completely agree which is why I wondered why YOU brought the subject up and misrepresented Chris into the bargain as suggesting he supported your point of view (as I read your comment).

 

Eloise

[Paul R]

Wow... Thats just so wrong I honestly don't have a clue where *you* are coming from, nor the hostility. You should rethink that.

 

Paul

 

 

 

spdif-usb,

 

I don't know if any of your statements in this post are true at all. The first one, inaudible noise making audible tones sound less loud, wow, you must have some alternate universe you study acoustics in. You can add inaudible tones until they become audible. Inaudible tones making audible tones less loud...only if they were mirror images in reversed phase. That isn't the nature of noise so that is happening. There really is no point continuing further. It gets more ridiculous as it goes. Rarely is a post with seemingly meaningful sentences so bereft of any real information. You really should be embarrassed and I feel pity for you as I know you aren't at all.

 

Having seen you grapple with and fail completely to understand the facts about MP3's, I won't belabor the point further. You are either incapable or unwilling to get anything out of it. Live free and live happy in whatever universe you think you occupy.

[sandyk]

Sure - but it would still help if you answered my question.

I am heartily sick of going over the same ground with you like in the movie "Groundhog Day,"

so I will not be going there with you again. A nice bit of fancy footwork sidestepping my questions though.

A bit of "2 bob each way" without really committing yourself.

[Julf]

A nice bit of fancy footwork sidestepping my questions though.

A bit of "2 bob each way" without really committing yourself.

 

I answered your questions. I am sorry that the answers weren't what you wanted.

[sandyk]

I completely agree which is why I wondered why YOU brought the subject up and misrepresented Chris into the bargain as suggesting he supported your point of view (as I read your comment).

 

Eloise

You are reading into this what YOU want to see. Did Chris make the comment about HDD "muddying" the waters in comparison with HDD , or not ? If you bother to search the Forum you will find numerous comments about the sound of SSDs vs. HDDs , with quite a few not noticing any difference, but most preferring the sound of SSD.

As with Julf , I will not be further responding to your posts in this area. It is siimply a waste of time as both of you are more interested in trying to score points than finding out the truth.

THAT Julf, s a FACT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD, you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist."-Cookie Marenco. cookiemarenco.com "