Optical v. USB Revisited

[cfmsp]

 

 

There's no villains here, Tog.

 

We're all just sharing our own opinions about the opinions of others.

 

perhaps you missed the smilies - used to denote humor!

 

 

clay

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I found it quite humorous Clay :~)

 

[Tog]

I don't know what happened to me..I completely missed the wit humour and general "bon homme" in Bob's post..my mistake! :?

 

yours, admonished,tog

 

[BobH]

I must also have missed the wit, humour and general "bon homme" in a valid point of view being likened to believing in magic.

 

My mistake,

 

[shenzi]

I like magic and as something which passes perilously close to being an artist, can appreciate it in art, music and performance generally. I also hear it occassionally in audio but it's usually more to do with a performance than a piece of gear.

 

I'm not too bothered by Ashley's use of the term nor do I think he pushes AVI too much. Chris is in an unusual position too - he can't alienate the sort of manufacturers who are likely to keep this forum alive through advertising. Not just AVI but all those high end companies who will survive by offering something different in the DAC or audio market. Different will be advertised as better (or essential - to sort a problem we didn't know we had).

 

[Ashley James]

I must also have missed the wit, humour and general "bon homme" in a valid point of view being likened to believing in magic.

 

Bob

 

I've now PM'd Chris with proof that I was not expressing an opinion but quoting simple provable fact.

 

If you don't believe in the facts, what do you believe in?

 

How about coincidence and one that might amuse? Martin also has a 2 Watt SET and open baffle loudspeaker. It's in a 1926 RCA Radiola I think it's called.

 

Ash

 

[BobH]

Not quite sure what facts you are referring to, Ash. I did not take issue with anything you said other than the 'believing in magic' thing. I thought the exchange between Chris and yourself was, actually, taking shape into something useful.

 

Whether or not I should have taken you to task over a comment not directly aimed at me is debatable. Perhaps not. But I'm afraid I have to stand by my assertion that holding a view contrary to your own does not make me, or anyone else for that matter, deserving of derision.

 

I'm afraid I can think of no other way of stating my point, other than to repeat it. I do not equate being an audiophile with hating Apple, or being gullible, or refusing to believe in facts or any other of the many and varied terms you have used. I find such comments irksome.

 

Just for the record, I find it particularly easy to ignore those with nothing interesting to say. That definitely does not describe you! I personally find much of what you say particularly interesting, because it is so often the polar opposite to what I believe. My only issue is the manner in which you choose, sometimes, to express yourself.

 

You will never convince me that there is such a thing as a 'quality mp3'. I will never convince you that two usb leads can sound different. Fine - we agree to disagree. But that would not make me a 'believer in magic' or you a 'cloth-eared bozo'. We may well think it - my point is we should not say it!

 

I'm done.

 

[Tog]

That is the problem with a form of communication that relies solely on words and cannot deliver all the non-verbal signals that we take for granted in everyday life. It can be very difficult to tell what is really meant and saying lol, or :-> doesn't really compensate. My wife says "It's not like it's a matter of life and death anyway, just a bunch of blokes arguing about some stuff that may or may not exist. So get a grip and go out and buy some shoes!" With that piece of female wisdom ringing in my ears I'm going to sleep now.

 

yours, counting sheep and jitter,tog

 

[tfarney]

anybody here like The Beatles?

 

[Mike19]

What are The Beatles?

 

Some new NOS tube DAC?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"anybody here like The Beatles?"

 

I used to drive one :~)

 

[glt]

...in any industry, and thus it is important to have people like Ash push their views.

 

Sound (as in good) engineering/scientific methods are required in almost all industries. Imagine you go to see your doctor and he would prescribe his own formula that has not passed FDA approval. Or you buy an oscilloscope and the seller tells you that if you upgrade the power cord, then the resolution of your meter will increase 2X. Even in cosmology unproven theories that have been developed by the brightest minds on earth will die an instant death once an empirical result contradicts their validity.

 

I think CA should be biased towards "fact-based" audio, otherwise it would not add much value beyond the "other" forum.

 

[shenzi]

>"Imagine you go to see your doctor and he would prescribe his own formula that has not passed FDA approval"

 

Let's just stay away from homeopathy ... next thing you know we'll be deep freezing our cables to make them sound better.

 

[tfarney]

"I think CA should be biased towards "fact-based" audio, otherwise it would not add much value beyond the "other" forum."

 

-- I don't know which "other forum" you're referring to; it could be any number of them, but I agree. This place started out as an oasis of reason in the online audiophile world, but it seems that audiophile nervosa has followed us here. But hey, it's Chris' board; he will steer it where he may. I wouldn't think, however, that long-term success would be down the path of dying breed that just barely tolerates digital audio at all.

 

Tim

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi glt - Thanks for the comments. I wish things were as black & white as you suggested. Life would really be a lot easier! Please take the following comments in the spirit in which they are intended. I'm offering a counterpoint that many readers support.

 

1. It is important to have sound engineering principles... ...in any industry, and thus it is important to have people like Ash push their views."

 

I think the people who are having difficulty with Ashley's views understand full well that he is selling a product that does not conform to traditional high end audio. This makes it difficult for his views to be taken at face value because he constantly rails against traditional high end audio. Right or wrong this is a fact and I receive countless emails from people stating this. In fact we have lost some forum readers because of this fact.

 

Also, presupposing that Ashley is pushing sound engineering principles is a move many of us are not willing to take. Especially when there is extremely credible evidence based on sound engineering principles that suggests Ashley is in fact wrong. Are you willing to accept that modern recordings have little to no dynamic range compression and that 128k MP3s sound the same as 16/44.1 material? This is what Ashley put forth until he was confronted by a comment suggesting he look at the facts, especially the Loudness Wars that have been taking place for years. The comment about 128k MP3s sounding the same as 16/44.1 possibly says more about him than it does the lossy format. We can all make up our minds on this one and I will never agree that 128k is anything but garbage.

 

2. "Imagine you go to see your doctor and he would prescribe his own formula that has not passed FDA approval."

 

Eastern cultures have been doing this for centuries longer than the FDA has even been around. I'm not saying there is a right or wrong, but this is a fact that should be mentioned as a counter to your statement.

 

3. "I think CA should be biased towards "fact-based" audio, otherwise it would not add much value beyond the "other" forum."

 

I think facts are absolutely critical! But we have two issues here. First, there are always counter theories and arguments for every argument put forth. Questioning facts is not really the issue, rather it's the use of certain facts to support a point and the omission of other facts that counter a point. I think we all love the facts, but we all should really listen to several people present the facts and they often lead to differing conclusions. Second, subjectivity is a major part of everything in life. To me the Focal loudspeakers I review are absolutely beautiful. To some readers they are hideous. I think the Beryllium tweeter is magnificent while others think it's to bright. Maybe my use of tubed electronics had something to do with my opinion and the use of solid state electronics had something to do with other's opinions. Brightness is subjective and not discussing an opinion about brightness when clearly people have opinions about it seems weird. Almost like we need to hide opinions and read from measurements spec sheets.

 

To me the most valuable discussions consider objective and subjective factors. People listen to everything and discount what they don't agree with. If the facts state that a certain amplifier measures better than anything in the world, that doesn't mean all subjective opinions about the sound quality should be brushed under the rug.

 

[AV-OCD]

I’m all for exposing the “truth” about audio reproduction, and I think that it is valuable to have people like Ashley stepping in and offering rational, logical, and scientific explanations of what the outcome is likely to be. But I don’t think that an audiophile is automatically a “believer of magic” if they find that one product sounds better than another even though the specs and measurements show that both devices produce distortions below the threshold of audibility.

 

I am by nature more of an objectivist than a subjectivist (and I’m also quite skeptical), so I can certainly relate to Ashley’s POV, but I also find it hard to believe that there is no more mystery left in digital audio reproduction—that there is nothing left to discover.

 

To me, saying that the best you can do is follow the DAC chip maker’s instructions is like saying that if you want the best performance out of a car just build it to the specifications of the manufacturer for the stock model. Yet there are all sorts of aftermarket parts that will clearly improve that car’s performance. The AMG modified version of a Mercedes is certainly going to outperform the stock model. You may not need the higher performance if you are just driving around town, but the added performance is there.

 

Yes, a blind test, and objective measurements would likely show more clearly whether or not the high-end piece outperforms the modestly priced piece, but how many consumers are able to audition equipment this way? All of the science in the world is not going to help if it can’t be applied at the consumer level. How many here own an ABX switcher and all of the test equipment needed to measure the performance of the gear we are interested in? I’d think probably less than 1%. So we’re back to square one and we have to listen to said equipment, in full view, knowing it’s price tag, and hope that we can remain objective enough to not be fooled into thinking the more expensive wine tastes better.

 

 

[tfarney]

". We can all make up our minds on this one and I will never agree that 128k is anything but garbage."

 

Personally, I think either this, or "128kbps sounds just like 16/44.1" is exaggeration born of hearing what you expect to hear. But if I had to choose between the two, I'd say indistinguishable from 16/44.1, which I don't recall Ashley saying by the way, is closer to the truth.

 

Garbage is a big word, Chris. You should be able to smell the difference between garbage and cookies baking as you pass by in a fast-moving car, and I'd be willing to bet the price of your beautiful Focals (and yes, they are lovely) that I could mix a bit of 128kbps in with 16/44.1 and you wouldn't be able to ID the offenders in casual listening. That would be garbage. Instant identification by the non-audiophile in a casual situation would be garbage. Trained ears? Careful A/B of the same track on the same equipment in the same room? That's how you evaluate subtleties, not hi-fi vs garbage.

 

Frankly, this kind of hyperbole is why so many audiophiles have so little credibility with civilians. If you told them what to listen for, asked them to listen carefully, then said "Hear that? That's important to me," they might think we were a bit obsessive. As it is, you describe things most people don't hear (because they're listening to music not for anomalies) in the most hyperbolic terms, and they just think we're nuts. And they lose interest in good audio. It's a mighty small audience you're cultivating, my friend.

 

Tim

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

Tim,

 

Loved the image conjured by 'baking cookies' - a nice turn of phrase - although I'm not so sure that your argument isn't mostly a 'straw man' built upon your own definition of 'garbage' as opposed to what Chris' may have meant by his comment on dislike for 128k 'music'. IOW, I doubt he meant it as strongly as your interpretation - which would make your argument - what's the word - umm, hyperbolic as well.

 

Indeed, there is much hyperbole from interested parties here when the fans get flamed, but most don't view their own submissions as hyperbole (I doubt that you did when you posted the above just as much as I doubt that Chris did), which is par for the course as hyperbole goes.

 

For a more informed, less passionate, and dare I say it, less hyperbolic viewpoint on the issues of impact of digital equipment on sound quality, I would humbly suggest to any that are interested in such to (also) read forums frequented predominantly by audio recording professionals.

 

For playback, I use the DAC built-in to a high quality microphone preamp made by a professional audio company and subscribe to their user forum.

Very worthwhile, in my opinion, for a different viewpoint, exclusive of audiophilia nervosa.

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mpmct]

"although I'm not so sure that your argument isn't mostly a 'straw man' built upon your own definition of 'garbage' as opposed to what Chris' may have meant by his comment on dislike for 128k 'music'."

 

Chris wrote: "I will never agree that 128k is anything but garbage"

 

Straw man? Who used the term 'garbage', first?

 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"For a more informed, less passionate, and dare I say it, less hyperbolic viewpoint on the issues of impact of digital equipment on sound quality, I would humbly suggest to any that are interested in such to (also) read forums frequented predominantly by audio recording professionals."

 

Hi Clay - Good point. This is why I talk to mastering engineers with impeccable credentials (think Patricia Barber, Reference Recordings and engineers nominated for Grammys this year for best engineered album). I wouldn't feel confident in my opinions without a vast array of industry opinions.

 

[glt]

Well, AACs since I buy from iTunes. Also I don't know what to look for. If I try hard, I could probably distinguish 128K AAC vs 44.1. With 256K, I can't really tell. Most often when I think there is some "harshness" in the (AAC) sound, playing 44.1 will shows that it is there. So I will have to say that the codecs have indeed become pretty good. I would agree with Tim that MP#s are not garbage at all...

 

I do agree components sound different, especially speakers. But mostly we are talking "improving" the component and that would require some factual engineering theorizing and experimenting. I also agree that not everything has been discovered in audio, but for the most part I believe "it has to make engineering sense" because this is not cosmology where the theory is so far ahead of empirical proofs.

 

I do agree with Ashley about following manufacturers data sheets (read one and you'll find out what is he talking about). You could add some improvements but very limited. For example, you could choose your favorite opamp for the output buffer, but the topology remains the same. You could add cleaner voltage regulators, but the fact that you need 3.3 V remains fixed. But in the end, cleaner regulators may not make any differences because your differential ouput has a 100 db common mode rejection.

 

An automobile will be like an entire stereo system. Changing the tires would be like upgrading your speakers, changing the fuel lines would be like changing the optical cable. Adding leather seats would be like adding leather seats ;-). But trying to improve the DAC will be like dismantling the engine and changing some parts or changing the fuel injection system without understanding how the engine was designed in the first place.

 

One more thing: I like good engineering even without the benefit of better sound. For example I like low noise local regulators. (As opposed to low noise primary regulators that almost all audio tweakers do). For example, Wavelength Audio does good engineering at a price point, and AVI does good engineering at another price point.

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

"Who used the term 'garbage', first?"

 

Chris used the term first.

 

Tim then defined it, rather extravagantly in my view, for purposes of making his argument.

IOW, Chris used a figure of speech to describe his dislike for 128K music.

 

Thus, the possible 'straw man' comment.

 

your mileage may vary, apparently it does, no big deal.

 

clay

 

[mpmct]

Fine, but that has nothing to do with a straw-man argument.

 

Accusing someone of a straw-man argument is a rather strong

thing to do, so it should be done with some reasonable amount

of accuracy based on the definition of the term, not an idiosyncratic

use of the term.

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

"One more thing: I like good engineering even without the benefit of better sound. For example I like low noise local regulators. (As opposed to low noise primary regulators that almost all audio tweakers do). For example, Wavelength Audio does good engineering at a price point, and AVI does good engineering at another price point."

 

Hear, Hear! or is it Here! Here!

 

I agree with this sentiment completely.

 

I am often willing to pay a bit extra due to multiple aspects of a company other than pure product performance. There are probably too many to list, but among them would be service, corporate philosophy (think, innovators versus 'copy-cat'), product design philosophy, user interaction / usability, product quality control, etc.

 

For this reason I would rarely buy something like a Behringer DAC, for instance, even if it is the cheapest available firewire DAC.

 

clay

 

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

As the person on the forum most interested in matters such as this, I will immediately defer to your apparently more precise definition/understand of 'straw man'.

although I'll repeat that i said 'mostly', which is a synonym for partly.

 

If you think 'straw man' is a 'rather strong thing to do', then I can withdraw the comment completely, as I certainly did not intent my comments to be 'strong'.

I/e/, no offense was intended.

 

My point was that Chris used a figure of speech based on the word garbage. It was my opinion that Tim interpreted the use of that word in a more exaggerated fashion than was intended by Chris, and then made a big deal out of it.

 

that's all.

 

clay