Where is Audio Truth ?

[InfernoSTi]

I wouldn't be so big on the idea that we can always prove something simply because we see it from our one perspective.

 

Perspective is dependent on the calibration and sensitivity of the measuring stick. Are we using a magnifying glass when we need a microscope or an electron microscope or an x-ray or a CT scan? Each is an objective tool but each yields different conclusions of that which we are observing. To argue that when I use a microscope that I know all there is to know about something is flat earth society time. Yet we keep holding onto specific tests (simple tests all of which seem more like a microscope or a magnifying glass than an e-ray or a CT scan) to say something audio is or is not so.

 

What really gets to me are the people who spend a ton of money on equipment that produces 0.000001 THD then play that equipment in a terrible room that is untreated and have swings of +/- 20 db across the same spectrum. And they blindly say it sounds better because the equipment measures on a test bench "closer to perfect" yet they have never heard that in their room.

 

What also gets me are the folks who get used to a poor reproduction of sound so long they believe it sounds "right" when it clearly does not. They could use a bit more objective measuring in their lives so they can get closer to something they might actually like more. At least get out and hear live acoustic music outdoors every once in a while and recalibrate those ears to "real" music.

 

So I guess the truth is we need to measure the right things (the room, not just the the equipment) and experience more than just our own systems (expose our ears to diverse systems and to live music more) lest we have too much faith in our "objective/subjective" beliefs. Question both sides and step back from the tree to see the forest every once in a while. Zero sum isn't a belief structure I hold very close. Grow the pie is much more profitable for all sides...

 

Mostly I think we all need to re-read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene and agree that mathematically speaking, the probability of there being one single complete truth is highly unlikely.

 

Best,

John

[chriss71]

What really gets to me are the people who spend a ton of money on equipment that produces 0.000001 THD then play that equipment in a terrible room that is untreated and have swings of +/- 20 db across the same spectrum. And they blindly say it sounds better because the equipment measures on a test bench "closer to perfect" yet they have never heard that in their room.

 

How true....

[sandyk]

@sandyk: Any link to that article? I am very interested in read them...

 

Chris

Sorry, but I am unable to find any links to them. Unfortunately ,I lost my saved copies when I upgraded from W7 to W8

 

However, you will be able to see a report about Cat.6 sounding better than cat.5 at the link

Regards

Alex

 

 

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0512/audio_networking.htm

Alex

[mayhem13]

 

However, you will be able to see a report about Cat.6 sounding better than cat.5 at the link

Regards

Alex

 

 

Audio Networking: A potpourri of computer network audio findings, including updates on the Naim UnitiServe, gigabit switches, CAT 5/6 cable and ripping issues. Review By Martin Colloms

Alex

 

I was resisting posting anything in this thread but the above quote really sums up the thread's topic.

[chriss71]

I was resisting posting anything in this thread but the above quote really sums up the thread's topic.

 

What statement sums it up? (Sorry for my bad english)

[sandyk]

mayhem13

The ONLY reason I provided that link was because of posts 39 and 40 by Chris

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/conversation-charles-hansen-gordon-rankin-and-steve-silberman-16609/index2.html

 

Regards

Alex

[chriss71]

@sandyk: Why you don't ask in this thread?

[sandyk]

Chris

Yes.

Network cables can sound different , just as there are a huge number of reports about USB cables sounding different.

Even more surprising are the reports that a 300 Euro SATA cable from Paul Pang ( now stocked by jPlay Forum) can result in markedly improved SQ. To put this to the test without spending more than a few dollars, I replaced the generic SATA cable for my internal LG BR writer with a SATA 3 (6GBS) cable of half the length, that was more direct. I heard improvements with CD rips using this cable, so I uploaded a couple of comparison .wav files to a friend in Spain, Chris chose the new SATA cable version as sounding better 3 times in a row using "Blind" techniques. Unlike generic SATA cables that are 7 wires spaced side by side, SATA 3 cables use 2 separate screened cables with 2 wires in each cable.

 

Regards

Alex

[mayhem13]

What statement sums it up? (Sorry for my bad english)

 

See above for a better example.......which will keep getting better as this thread progresses.

[Paul R]

A clearer statement in English might be:

 

"The digital information that describes the music in each file, when reconstructed, is identical."

 

This is clearly a falsifiable statement, and can easily be tested to be so. Checksums for instance.

 

However, saying:

 

"The two files contain the same identical data and must *sound* identical"

 

is *not* the same argument. And most definitely, that statement is hotly debated.

 

That is a 2+2=4 kind of statement, you cannot falsify it.

 

What is your native language? Your English is almost certain to be far better than my German or French, but I can try transliterating those statements if you wish.

 

-Paul

 

 

So, when I understand you right, I am not allowed to say the following sentence:

Get a FLAC file, decompress it to a WAV file and then compress it again to a FLAC file and compare the MD5 checksum to the FLAC file which you decompressed, and one is for sure: THEY HAVE THE SAME MD5 CHECKSUM AND THEREFORE THEY ARE THE SAME FILES.

 

This is a statement, where any kind of hard and absolute line in the sand is taken, or not? And I know, this is true... As I know 2+2=4....

[chriss71]

300 Euro SATA cable from Paul Pang ( now stocked by jPlay Forum) can result in markedly improved SQ.

 

If you believe in it, OK! I don't want to challenge it....

[chriss71]

Dear Paul (I hope I have the permission to call you so)

 

I am Austrian, so my native language is German, and my english is bad....

[sandyk]

See above for a better example.......which will keep getting better as this thread progresses.

 

Not from me, it won't though., if I can avoid it. Perhaps I should start a thread about the perils of trying to digitally equalise speaker drivers past their designed limits ? ( grin)

[chriss71]

@Paul.Raulerson: Sorry, but I think you say the same as I do...

The only difference is the semantic, right?

[Paul R]

It's like being a Freshman again. I love it.

 

Mathematics is, in toto, a created thing. It does not exist in nature at all, but is purely a human creation to describe physical phenomena or properties of physical entities. Most useful for predicting things as well.

 

Any product of "Mathematics", such as a proof, an equation, a prediction, or a theorem is therefore also created.

 

Physical properties of the universe are discovered, but the descriptions of those properties are created.

 

Hope that makes a bit of sense.

 

-Paul

 

 

Totally agree that the error exists as long as the proof exists, since the proof is just a body of logical propositions and whether those propositions are correct or erroneous is not a condition of their existence.

On the other hand, the question arises whether a mathematical proof is created or discovered. That is, does it exist in some form, before it occurs to anybody? As a classical example, how about the proof that the square root of 2 is necessarily an irrational number? This is a chain of logic which, while not immediately obvious, is a priori and will sooner or later occur to any society which is advanced enough to come up with the ideas of counting and the division of numbers, even if said society arises in a galaxy far, far away. It's as though it's just sitting there, waiting for someone to notice it.

Come to think of it, the term a priori necessarily implies something which has always existed.

[Paul R]

Pretty much, I think.

 

The potential data in the files are identical, but that does not mean they sound the same.

 

-Paul

 

 

@Paul.Raulerson: Sorry, but I think you say the same as I do...

The only difference is the semantic, right?

[chriss71]

Pretty much, I think.

 

The potential data in the files are identical, but that does not mean they sound the same.

 

-Paul

 

And here, we have a difference.

If everything in the chain is the same, yep it sounds the same, because it is the same zero's and one's that get into the DAC Chip...

 

Why should it sound different, Paul?

[Paul R]

Ihr Englisch ist viel besser als mein Deutsch. Sorry für die Missverständnisse. Ich bin sicher, dass ich viele Fehler gemacht, aber ich hoffe, Sie verstehen, was ich meinte.

 

I am pretty sure I messed that up, but I hope you will understand what I meant. maybe I should try Google!

 

-Paul

 

 

 

Dear Paul (I hope I have the permission to call you so)

 

I am Austrian, so my native language is German, and my english is bad....

[chriss71]

Ich hätte dich aber verstanden...

 

But I have you understand what you mean....

 

Chriss

[Paul R]

That is the best question, and unfortunately, one that is difficult to answer. It is difficult because they *should* sound the same. But sometimes they sound different.

 

Why?

 

My best guess is differences in individual playback chains - from computer to speakers. That is *only* a guess, but it is the best one I have.

 

Other people have suggested, based upon a lot of empirical experimentation, that power supplies are the main culprit. I agree with that more or less, but feel that it is the way an entire system reacts that is more important.

 

-Paul

 

 

And here, we have a difference.

If everything in the chain is the same, yep it sounds the same, because it is the same zero's and one's that get into the DAC Chip...

 

Why should it sound different, Paul?

[chriss71]

Paul: Can we agree on it, that everything in the digital chain sounds the same before it hits the DAC?

In this I believe to 100%.... Maybe because this is my profession LOL

[Paul R]

But- does it? I do not think so, or at least, not always.

 

Two computers can sound very different, even going to the same DAC over the same hardware.

 

Two different players on the same computer with the same hardware can sound different.

 

It is the same data, indeed, even the same files coming from the SAN, but they sound different.

 

How would you explain it?

 

Paul: Can we agree on it, that everything in the digital chain sounds the same before it hits the DAC?

In this I believe to 100%.... Maybe because this is my profession LOL

[chriss71]

Are you reading the neighbour thread: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/conversation-charles-hansen-gordon-rankin-and-steve-silberman-16609/

 

Two computers can sound very different, even going to the same DAC over the same hardware.

I don't think so.... Can you tell me, how you proved this?

 

It is the same data, indeed, even the same files coming from the SAN, but they sound different.

Very interesting, but that I can prove, if it is the same data. We only need IDA Pro...

 

I love to be a detective.... LOL

[Paul R]

Sure- this is easy! Just hook up two computers and play the same files on them, either from local copies or from a SAN or NAS.

 

My favorite trick it to use a Mac Mini dual booting between Windows and MacOS. The audible differences between the computer running Windows playing JRMC and the same computer and hardware running MacOS playing say, iTunes are tremendous and easily identified.

 

I use NAS or SAN storage, so the files are not only identical, they are the same files.

 

Another fun trick is to hook two or three DACs up to one computer, and play them all at the same time using something like JRMC under Windows. You won't believe how different the DACs sound, one from the other.

 

-Paul

 

 

Are you reading the neighbour thread: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/conversation-charles-hansen-gordon-rankin-and-steve-silberman-16609/

 

Two computers can sound very different, even going to the same DAC over the same hardware.

I don't think so.... Can you tell me, how you proved this?

 

It is the same data, indeed, even the same files coming from the SAN, but they sound different.

Very interesting, but that I can prove, if it is the same data. We only need IDA Pro...

 

I love to be a detective.... LOL

[Don Hills]

...

It is the same data, indeed, even the same files coming from the SAN, but they sound different.

 

How would you explain it?

 

I wouldn't try to explain it. I'd prove it.

 

You can buy 24/96 A-to-D converters with excellent pedigrees at a reasonable price.

 

- Connect one to the analogue outputs of the DAC.

- Play file 1, record it using the ADC.

- Play file 2, record it using the ADC.

- Load both results into a wave editor. Time align the samples. (A good editor will allow subsample alignment.)

- Invert one and add the files (null).

- See what's left.