Jump to content
IGNORED

Does SSD sound better than Hard Disk?


Recommended Posts

I am not trying to convince anyone here about any difference between USB cable. My point is that when somebody is crying "well this is not a blind test so it is not valid" and so on, how often does those people actually deploy blind test properly. People tend to think as soon as it is somehow blinded, result will be magically more accurate.

 

Also, it is not true that subjects do not know what they are testing. How else would any patient be willing to sign any consent for any medical trial? The subjects all know that they are in blood pressure medication trial, diabetes trial or whatever the study is.

You are not trying to hide that point away. However, you don't tell them if they get placebo or the real medication.

 

In USB cable test, unfortunately there is no control or placebo. Only 2 cables, so it can be done blinded to death but initial premise of blind test and no bias is false if the subject already believe that there is no difference.

However, if the subject actually believes that there must be a difference between cheap and expensive cable, the result will be more interesting as the person would likely perceive some different but would they actually pick the more expensive cable or not?

 

But regardless, sample size of one or two or ten will not make much statistically difference for something like this. So however you want to test equipments, I don't really feel strongly that blind test is all that it cracked up to be for audio. Personally, I find the best way to test something is to put it in my system and listen it for a week or two then remove it. First impression during the first few minutes or hour may be accurate but surprising after extended audition, first impression is also often wrong. I don't know how many times I put something new in the system and I thought it was the greatest improvement then a week later, putting the old stuff back in and I found that the old stuff is actually better so out the new stuff go! So, long audition and getting familiar with the sound then going back to the old stuff seems to work best for me.

 

Good points.

 

There's definitely bias in everyone's approach: for example, due to my background in computer technology, I am very skeptical of changes reported when there really should be no impact (i.e., source of the data, "quality" of a digital cable, etc.). In over 25 years, I have never encountered an anomalous incident when working with computers, they are perfectly predictable when fed the correct data and when hardware / software are operating properly - a Photoshop file does not suddenly look "better", a Word document does not spontaneously translate from English > French, and an Excel spreadsheet does not calculate more accurately when loaded from an SSD vs. from a regular spinning disk ;)

 

OTOH, people with a strong background in analog sound (e.g., old school audiophiles) will strongly believe that everything matters - that every link in the chain definitely will have an impact on the final output, and that belief was perfectly and demonstrably correct in the analog world. To some extent, it is also correct in our brave new world of digital audio . . . at least for the analog links in the chain.

 

So with my bias I'll always assume that any change that is heard is either the result of a digital > analog interface, poor software / hardware design, or vivid imagination. Those who are biased in the other direction will believe that *any* change they make in their system, even those that should have no impact like moving from spinning disks > SSD, etc., will make a definite ("not subtle") difference. And both will remain largely unconvinced by the others' proofs ;)

John Walker - IT Executive

Headphone - SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable Ethernet > mRendu Roon endpoint > Topping D90 > Topping A90d > Dan Clark Expanse / HiFiMan H6SE v2 / HiFiman Arya Stealth

Home Theater / Music -SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable HDMI > Denon X3700h > Anthem Amp for front channels > Revel F208-based 5.2.4 Atmos speaker system

Link to comment
Good points.

 

There's definitely bias in everyone's approach: for example, due to my background in computer technology, I am very skeptical of changes reported when there really should be no impact (i.e., source of the data, "quality" of a digital cable, etc.). In over 25 years, I have never encountered an anomalous incident when working with computers, they are perfectly predictable when fed the correct data and when hardware / software are operating properly - a Photoshop file does not suddenly look "better", a Word document does not spontaneously translate from English > French, and an Excel spreadsheet does not calculate more accurately when loaded from an SSD vs. from a regular spinning disk ;)

 

OTOH, people with a strong background in analog sound (e.g., old school audiophiles) will strongly believe that everything matters - that every link in the chain definitely will have an impact on the final output, and that belief was perfectly and demonstrably correct in the analog world. To some extent, it is also correct in our brave new world of digital audio . . . at least for the analog links in the chain.

 

So with my bias I'll always assume that any change that is heard is either the result of a digital > analog interface, poor software / hardware design, or vivid imagination. Those who are biased in the other direction will believe that *any* change they make in their system, even those that should have no impact like moving from spinning disks > SSD, etc., will make a definite ("not subtle") difference. And both will remain largely unconvinced by the others' proofs ;)

 

You are absolutely right. Different people with different background, experience will expect different things and their priority will be different. Each person is also sensitive to different things so there is really no one size fit all solution for everybody.

 

I cannot always explain what I hear either. Sometimes I even feel ridiculous that I think I can hear the difference in what should not matter at all. However, at the end of the day, as long as music remains enjoyable to listen too and I don't have to be aware too much about the hardware and endless debate about this or that, that's all that matter!

Link to comment

Given the motivation actually proper blind tests are NOT rocket science. I don't mean an individual can do it themselves but (as an example): take a well reviewed USB cable and one out a HP printer box. Now get a group of people together (the more there is the better). Play sample using cable A; swap to cable B. Is there a difference?

 

Repeat 50 times. Some times cable use cable A and cable A; sometimes B then A; etc. Collate the results and present to AES.

 

Simples...

 

Until someone does such a test I will remain skeptical of reported differences. Please note I say skeptical not that I deny they may exist.

 

On the other hand, for an individual be happy to listen and make your own mind up.

 

Eloise.

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
It's OK to share your objective viewpoint on such topics here and better yet, to present a reasonable physical reason as to why such differences aren't audible BUT it's also required that you accept the listening claims of your subjective brethren, no matter how wild or far fetched you might feel those claims be. Otherwise, often offense is 'taken' that you suggest they are not hearing what they proclaim to hear. If you can wrap your head around the hypothesis that human hearing is a mystical realm not fully understood by modern science, you'll be fine!

 

I absolutely accept that people are being honest in what they ear and are reporting in good faith. I just don't always accept that what is being heard is due to a difference in the audio chain prior to the ears rather than that part of the chain between the helix and conscious awareness. I myself will often report subjective results, but am aware it could be all in my head! I object to people claiming Golden Ears status and thinking they are somehow above being influenced by psychoacoustic effects and smacking down those impertinent enough to question....

Roon / JRiver with Audiolense XO -> Chord Hugo TT2 -> Cyrus Mono x200 Signatures -> Audiovector Si3 Avantgarde Arretes

Link to comment
I am not trying to convince anyone here about any difference between USB cable. My point is that when somebody is crying "well this is not a blind test so it is not valid" and so on, how often does those people actually deploy blind test properly. People tend to think as soon as it is somehow blinded, result will be magically more accurate.

 

Also, it is not true that subjects do not know what they are testing. How else would any patient be willing to sign any consent for any medical trial? The subjects all know that they are in blood pressure medication trial, diabetes trial or whatever the study is.

You are not trying to hide that point away. However, you don't tell them if they get placebo or the real medication.

 

In USB cable test, unfortunately there is no control or placebo. Only 2 cables, so it can be done blinded to death but initial premise of blind test and no bias is false if the subject already believe that there is no difference.

However, if the subject actually believes that there must be a difference between cheap and expensive cable, the result will be more interesting as the person would likely perceive some different but would they actually pick the more expensive cable or not?

 

But regardless, sample size of one or two or ten will not make much statistically difference for something like this. So however you want to test equipments, I don't really feel strongly that blind test is all that it cracked up to be for audio. Personally, I find the best way to test something is to put it in my system and listen it for a week or two then remove it. First impression during the first few minutes or hour may be accurate but surprising after extended audition, first impression is also often wrong. I don't know how many times I put something new in the system and I thought it was the greatest improvement then a week later, putting the old stuff back in and I found that the old stuff is actually better so out the new stuff go! So, long audition and getting familiar with the sound then going back to the old stuff seems to work best for me.

 

Pick your subjects - choose a group who are convinced fancy cables make a difference!t Get a statistician to work out the sample size needed, number of trials required etc. and then see if a difference can be reliably detected. There are well established protocols for this. I wonder why the cable manufacturers don't publish any such data..???

 

As for the subjects not being aware of what us being tested in medical (and psychological) trials. This is not always the case, especially in psych trials. The consent may be to participate in a tial of human behaviour. Then the subjects are told that they are being tested on their performance in a game (for example) but what is really being tested and observed us something else about their behaviour eg how they cooperate.

Roon / JRiver with Audiolense XO -> Chord Hugo TT2 -> Cyrus Mono x200 Signatures -> Audiovector Si3 Avantgarde Arretes

Link to comment
I am not trying to convince anyone here about any difference between USB cable. My point is that when somebody is crying "well this is not a blind test so it is not valid" and so on, how often does those people actually deploy blind test properly. People tend to think as soon as it is somehow blinded, result will be magically more accurate.

 

Also, it is not true that subjects do not know what they are testing. How else would any patient be willing to sign any consent for any medical trial? The subjects all know that they are in blood pressure medication trial, diabetes trial or whatever the study is.

You are not trying to hide that point away. However, you don't tell them if they get placebo or the real medication.

 

In USB cable test, unfortunately there is no control or placebo. Only 2 cables, so it can be done blinded to death but initial premise of blind test and no bias is false if the subject already believe that there is no difference.

However, if the subject actually believes that there must be a difference between cheap and expensive cable, the result will be more interesting as the person would likely perceive some different but would they actually pick the more expensive cable or not?

 

But regardless, sample size of one or two or ten will not make much statistically difference for something like this. So however you want to test equipments, I don't really feel strongly that blind test is all that it cracked up to be for audio. Personally, I find the best way to test something is to put it in my system and listen it for a week or two then remove it. First impression during the first few minutes or hour may be accurate but surprising after extended audition, first impression is also often wrong. I don't know how many times I put something new in the system and I thought it was the greatest improvement then a week later, putting the old stuff back in and I found that the old stuff is actually better so out the new stuff go! So, long audition and getting familiar with the sound then going back to the old stuff seems to work best for me.

 

Not to argue your point, but the most reverent audiophiles also dismiss the results of proper ABX testing stating the need for long term testing in that short sample testing is unreliable. Clearly there's little point in the labor of conducting such tests with many accepting the reasons for invalidation and honestly, most audiophiles don't care to know whether the difference is actual or perceived....they're quite happy in the moment...which you gotta respect whatever the reasoning. Won't stop me from challenging wild ass claims though....there's value IMO to the hobby as a whole by challenging these claims without going into detail and earning myself a time out! Lol

Link to comment
Given the motivation actually proper blind tests are NOT rocket science. I don't mean an individual can do it themselves but (as an example): take a well reviewed USB cable and one out a HP printer box. Now get a group of people together (the more there is the better). Play sample using cable A; swap to cable B. Is there a difference?

Eloise

HFC did something similar recently, but not with 50 people.

IIRC, the funny thing is that they actually preferred the old printer cable ! (grin)

They tried to find out more about the manufacturer of the old cable, but were unable to do so.

Perhaps they didn't skimp so much on quality in the earlier days ?

Alex

 

 

USB Cables tested HFC Vol.6 No.4.

Generic printer cable

QED Graphite

Chord Silverplus 1m, 5,

Furutech GT2

Audioquest

Cardas

Kimber: USB and Silver

Wireworld Platinum

Supra

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Given the motivation actually proper blind tests are NOT rocket science. I don't mean an individual can do it themselves but (as an example): take a well reviewed USB cable and one out a HP printer box. Now get a group of people together (the more there is the better). Play sample using cable A; swap to cable B. Is there a difference?

 

Repeat 50 times. Some times cable use cable A and cable A; sometimes B then A; etc. Collate the results and present to AES.

 

Simples...

 

Until someone does such a test I will remain skeptical of reported differences. Please note I say skeptical not that I deny they may exist.

 

On the other hand, for an individual be happy to listen and make your own mind up.

 

Eloise.

 

It sounds simple but it is not really that easy though. You can repeat the test 50 times to increase sample size but realistically, after listening to the same piece of music 10 times, what is the attention span for the listener is going to be like? At 30 times, 50 times? Do you think a person is really paying attention at that time? Are you going to conduct a test 5 times a day for 10 days in a roll? 5 times a day once a week for 10 weeks?

 

Also there is a learning curve so on faith, let assume that there is an audible different between the two (I am not saying more expensive is better), after a few tests, a person is able to identify which is cable A and B. One may say that A is better than B. After that, there is a good chance that the person may start listening for which is cable A and pick that rather trying to reexamine and reevaluate each listening pair with no preconception. May be after 20 trials and initial impression wear off and listener may end up prefer another cable after a long run and pick B for the last 20 tests. How would you analyze such data? May be after first 5 trials, the person could not pick up any significant change so for the next 45 trials, he will just automatically choose no difference due to boredom, frustration or whatever, rather than really trying to listen.

 

Any medical trial, the weakest kind of study is always the one where result obtained is by giving test subject a list of questions to answer to evaluate the effect subjectively. The one that result is generally more credible are the one where result is obtained objectively and there is no doubt about a positive or negative result, number of heart attack occurs, number of death, number of kidney failures etc. Even with large double blind controlled study with objective result, testing exactly the same thing, when study design is slightly different, population is a bit different, you will get some positive and some negative result. Then someone will come along and collect data from 10 ro 20 such trials and do metaanalysis of all of these datas and suddenly a new result emerge.

 

Pharmaceutical company sponsors trials and publish them certainly and doctors look at those data certainly but always a bit cautious. If the resu

Link to comment

Let me add just a little bit, there is one cable brand that in the past, when I auditioned it, immediately, I felt in love with it, incredible detail, well extended top, clear, pristine, very upfront, exciting sound. Within the first 5 minutes, I really think this is it. But foolishly, the dealer actually came to my place to home demo this cable and let me listen to it for quite a long time. After an hour or so, I found it to be fatiging and putting my old cables back into the system was a relief. A few weeks later, the same dealer came back to my place and let me have a 2nd chance at it. The same thing happened. However, if he set up a blind AB test for me between new cable and my old one and let me listen for may be 5-10 minutes at a time A-B-B-A style. My conclusion may very well be quite different.

 

Not too long ago I also had a chance to listen to one of those systems that cost more than average luxury car. The first 45 minutes, I was really underwhelmed (system was already warmed up before I arrived). It was unexciting, nothing really stood out and grab my attention. But after awhile, I could not find any real false or weakness in the system. I could actually hear the music as it supposes to be and there is no hardware that really called my attention to it. I went in expected to be blown over by the system right from the beginning but it really took me a long time to really appreciate what I hear and it was really addictive. In a quick blind test, this system may fail miserably. Of course some people may not appreciate this sort of things and that's not what they are looking for in their stereo system. But this would be another instance I think where usual bind test setting would not yield the same conclusion that I would reach otherwise.

Link to comment
It sounds simple but it is not really that easy though. You can repeat the test 50 times to increase sample size but realistically, after listening to the same piece of music 10 times, what is the attention span for the listener is going to be like? At 30 times, 50 times? Do you think a person is really paying attention at that time? Are you going to conduct a test 5 times a day for 10 days in a roll? 5 times a day once a week for 10 weeks?

 

Also there is a learning curve so on faith, let assume that there is an audible different between the two (I am not saying more expensive is better), after a few tests, a person is able to identify which is cable A and B. One may say that A is better than B. After that, there is a good chance that the person may start listening for which is cable A and pick that rather trying to reexamine and reevaluate each listening pair with no preconception. May be after 20 trials and initial impression wear off and listener may end up prefer another cable after a long run and pick B for the last 20 tests. How would you analyze such data? May be after first 5 trials, the person could not pick up any significant change so for the next 45 trials, he will just automatically choose no difference due to boredom, frustration or whatever, rather than really trying to listen.

 

Any medical trial, the weakest kind of study is always the one where result obtained is by giving test subject a list of questions to answer to evaluate the effect subjectively. The one that result is generally more credible are the one where result is obtained objectively and there is no doubt about a positive or negative result, number of heart attack occurs, number of death, number of kidney failures etc. Even with large double blind controlled study with objective result, testing exactly the same thing, when study design is slightly different, population is a bit different, you will get some positive and some negative result. Then someone will come along and collect data from 10 ro 20 such trials and do metaanalysis of all of these datas and suddenly a new result emerge.

 

Pharmaceutical company sponsors trials and publish them certainly and doctors look at those data certainly but always a bit cautious. If the resu

 

opps sorry, I am not sure where the rest of the paragraph went but I just noticed that the end was cut off!

 

cont previous post) If the result is done by an independent third party like NIH, the data would be considered more reliable. If any cable company conducts such test, someone will say that of course the result is favourable because cable company finance the study.

 

Personally in this hobby, it is good to have skeptics and we should not believe everything that a manufacturer say. As much as a person should not believe what a manufacturer say or what one person hear in his/her system and take that as a fact, I also don't take a claim that 'this is voodoo', 'this cannot possibly be so' ,' 0 and 1 is 0 and 1' and conclude that it is not so.

If a person has a theory and explaination that it should not make a different and actually go out and give a listen, blind or unblind is not as relevant to me, and say that he/she cannot hear the different. That is fine and I respect that. Afterall, I am looking for people who like to share their experience rather than their bias/prejudice/preconception (even if it is right).

I don't proclaim to be the know it all, my hearing is best but like anybody else, we are wading through lots of information/misinformation and we all try to digest it properly and that's not easy.

Link to comment

And the same factors you mentioned that invalidate ABX results also affect the accuracy of subjective listening experiences. Which would you like to assert or dismiss?.........can't have butter on both sides of this piece of toast! If you truly believe your assertions, then by logic you're forced to dismiss personal experience that you've called for as also, undfortunately unreliable.

 

There's plenty of information available, some fact, some fringe....but i can offer this. If one owns a system capable of 20hz-20khz in room response within 3db of flat with suitable low harmonic distortion at 100db transient peaks and a noise floor below the threshhold of audibility, the system is going to faithfully reproduce whatever it's fed......in lies the core of hifi IMO. This is attainable for less than the cost of some interconnects or speaker cables and stand alone DACs but i'll often see system bylines posted here with these cables and a 50wpc amplifier and inefficient bookshelf speakers whose -6db point is 45hz......

Link to comment

SSD's should be quieter than magnetic HD's since they don't spin, and because they generate less heat (good for the life of electronics), and again helping to keep everything quiet because it is less likely that the cooling fan will need to be used as much.

 

Secondly, SSD's without a motor, spinning ferromagnetic platters, servos, and read/write heads may very well generate less ground noise vs. SSD's although I suppose that SSD's could generate their own digital noise as well (something a ferrite core could possibly solve?).

 

With regards to sound performance, I went SSD on the MacMini for the above reasons but also because there are a lot of competing system resources using the HD. Having faster IO and throughput can never hurt, especially when it is likely I am going to be pulling data off of a Drobo 5N while possibly doing rips, tagging metadata, and downloading and uploading data. Not practical for me to use for bulk storage, so that is why I'll host all of that on a mirrored enterprise hard drive based NAS. And when SSD's get price competitive at the TB level than I would go SSD there as well.

 

Best,

 

Junker

A Digital Audio Converter connected to my Home Computer taking me into the Future

Link to comment
[if one owns a system capable of 20hz-20khz in room response within 3db of flat with suitable low harmonic distortion at 100db transient peaks and a noise floor below the threshhold of audibility, the system is going to faithfully reproduce whatever it's fed....../QUOTE]

 

There aren't that many readily affordable speakers WITH W.A.F. that meet that criteria without being augumented by subwoofers.It would appear that you are also including the amplifier in that equation, in which case you appear to be from the school that believes that all amplifiers meeting certain minimum specifications MUST sound the same. That's a load of old codswallop !!!

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
And the same factors you mentioned that invalidate ABX results also affect the accuracy of subjective listening experiences. Which would you like to assert or dismiss?.........can't have butter on both sides of this piece of toast! If you truly believe your assertions, then by logic you're forced to dismiss personal experience that you've called for as also, undfortunately unreliable.

 

First of all, listening test blind or unblind is going to be subjective.Blind test does not make listening objective since you don't actually measure anything. It supposes to remove certain bias but evaluation is still subjective no matter how systemic you might try to design a test.

 

Subjective listening will be affected by various factors, blind or unblind. My main point is that blind test only deals with certain aspect of the test but it is not infalliable and certainly I don't think that listening test is actually an ideal topic to set up a blind test for various reasons that I already mentioned.

 

[if one owns a system capable of 20hz-20khz in room response within 3db of flat with suitable low harmonic distortion at 100db transient peaks and a noise floor below the threshhold of audibility, the system is going to faithfully reproduce whatever it's fed......

 

It is certainly very possible to find system at $2000, $5000, $50,0000 and $100,000 that will meet your specific criteria.

Do they all sound the same then? If you can't hear the difference, good for you, no need to waste any extra money and you can spend money on other more worthwhile pursuit.

Link to comment
[it is certainly very possible to find system at $2000, $5000, $50,0000 and $100,000 that will meet your specific criteria./QUOTE]

I think a lot of people would love to know where you can get speakers that genuinely go to as low as 20HZ at no more than

-3dB and amplication that also meets Mayhem13's criteria. Many would consider 3dB down at 20kHZ a little excessive too.

Of course, if you really believe that anything higher resolution than 16/44.1 is a waste of time, you may not agree that this amount of rolloff matters.What's the point of having superb 24/192 material from the likes of Barry Diament ,where genuine spectral content often exceeds 45kHz , if you are content with a speaker response that just accomodates that outdated 20HZ to 20kHZ scenario ?

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
First of all, listening test blind or unblind is going to be subjective.Blind test does not make listening objective since you don't actually measure anything. It supposes to remove certain bias but evaluation is still subjective no matter how systemic you might try to design a test.

 

Subjective listening will be affected by various factors, blind or unblind. My main point is that blind test only deals with certain aspect of the test but it is not infalliable and certainly I don't think that listening test is actually an ideal topic to set up a blind test for various reasons that I already mentioned.

 

 

 

It is certainly very possible to find system at $2000, $5000, $50,0000 and $100,000 that will meet your specific criteria.

Do they all sound the same then? If you can't hear the difference, good for you, no need to waste any extra money and you can spend money on other more worthwhile pursuit.

 

Of course you are measuring something! A blinded test aims to remove expectation bias based on what the subject thinks should be better / different etc. Measurement in this situation is measuring the accuracy of the subject's ability to distinguish one stimuli (in this case auditory) from another. This comment reflects a fundamental misrepresenation of blinded testing. Obviously the subject is reporting their "subjective" belief - e.g. cable is A versus B. The objective component to the test is whether the subject is consistently correct or not! Is it A or B? If you can't tell the difference blinded, but have to know what brand etc. the cable / SSD etc is then the difference in perception is not from the external device, but from the internal device between the ears....

 

I think I will withdraw from this thread now before I get more carried away....

Incidentally, I have been impressed with the cordial nature of the discussion. Even when there are disagreements, the discussion is civil - sometimes emotive, but civil nonetheless. Great to see!

Roon / JRiver with Audiolense XO -> Chord Hugo TT2 -> Cyrus Mono x200 Signatures -> Audiovector Si3 Avantgarde Arretes

Link to comment
[if one owns a system capable of 20hz-20khz in room response within 3db of flat with suitable low harmonic distortion at 100db transient peaks and a noise floor below the threshhold of audibility, the system is going to faithfully reproduce whatever it's fed....../QUOTE]

 

There aren't that many readily affordable speakers WITH W.A.F. that meet that criteria without being augumented by subwoofers.It would appear that you are also including the amplifier in that equation, in which case you appear to be from the school that believes that all amplifiers meeting certain minimum specifications MUST sound the same. That's a load of old codswallop !!!

 

'CODSWALLOP'!........comon' Sandy, it's th holidays....to use such language! Lol. I hope you get a lump of coal in your disc drawer!

 

But seriously, no, some amplifiers do sound different from others and real world 200wpc in a well built amplifier isn't cheap BUT it's money we'll spent to get clean transients and dynamic peaks.

Link to comment

I think a lot of people would love to know where you can get speakers that genuinely go to as low as 20HZ at no more than

-3dB and amplication that also meets Mayhem13's criteria. Many would consider 3dB down at 20kHZ a little excessive too.

Of course, if you really believe that anything higher resolution than 16/44.1 is a waste of time, you may not agree that this amount of rolloff matters.What's the point of having superb 24/192 material from the likes of Barry Diament ,where genuine spectral content often exceeds 45kHz , if you are content with a speaker response that just accomodates that outdated 20HZ to 20kHZ scenario ?

 

Well, in $2000 range, I suppose these 2 subs + whatever sattelites/ PA speakers + amp should fit the bill at least the +/- 3dB from 20Hz-20kHz

18" PA Sub Woofer Bass Speaker Cabinet - 500 Watts RMS - | 18 Inch Sub Cab | 18" sub woofer | 18 sub

 

https://www.chasehometheater.com/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=135&vmcchk=1&Itemid=135&redirected=1&Itemid=135

 

Other criteria, I don't know, lots of receivers nowaday gives excellent specs, low noise floor, low THD etc etc, presumably should meet the criteria that was proposed.

 

Don't ask me how they sound, never heard them and I have not been in a market for stereo at this price range for a while

Link to comment
'CODSWALLOP'!........comon' Sandy, it's th holidays....to use such language! Lol. I hope you get a lump of coal in your disc drawer!

I would have used the full version of BS, but I was concerned that Chris might have sent me to the cooler over the holiday period ! (grin)

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Of course you are measuring something! A blinded test aims to remove expectation bias based on what the subject thinks should be better / different etc. Measurement in this situation is measuring the accuracy of the subject's ability to distinguish one stimuli (in this case auditory) from another. This comment reflects a fundamental misrepresenation of blinded testing. Obviously the subject is reporting their "subjective" belief - e.g. cable is A versus B. The objective component to the test is whether the subject is consistently correct or not! Is it A or B? If you can't tell the difference blinded, but have to know what brand etc. the cable / SSD etc is then the difference in perception is not from the external device, but from the internal device between the ears....

 

I think I will withdraw from this thread now before I get more carried away....

Incidentally, I have been impressed with the cordial nature of the discussion. Even when there are disagreements, the discussion is civil - sometimes emotive, but civil nonetheless. Great to see!

 

Took me awhile to really think how to phrase this properly. BTW, I also enjoy a discussion where people can also be cordial even if there is a lot of disagreement.

 

Let me sum up what I see here and see if I can sum up all the long winded argument that I put up before. Blind test removes certain bias. Yes, no disagreement there. The main question is "is there a different between A and B" Is A better than B". Now, both blind and non blind listening can answer that question. In an ideal world, removing bias by blind test certainly is helpful. However, my big question is can you really assess audio equipments/accessory accurately under blind test condition.

Generally, blind test is done under limited time period, you listen to A then B then whatever for 5,10,15 minutes at a time then switch. I already proposed two scenarios previously where under strict time limit, where my conclusion would be totally different than when I have extended audition. Can you keep blind test going for 1 hours, 6 hours, 3 days, y days in real world situation? As I say, sometimes, you need to let the novelty of somethnig sounding different wear off first before you can really assess a new piece of equipment in a system. My standard practice is to replace and item in my system then listen to it for a week or so. Then remove it, put back in the old stuffs then see. If I really feel like I miss the new stuff and really want to put it back in, I know I want it. If I don't miss the new stuff or actually think that my old stuff is better, I am done and save myself some money. It may not always be possible to do home audition for a week but as long as possible, 1 day, 3 days whatever is still preferable to quick ABX. Afterall, who would be willing to spend $5000, $10,000 equipments or whatever based on 10-20-30 minutes ABX trial rather than trying to listen to it for as long as you want until you can make decision.

If you can somehow arrange something to do ABX for a whole week. Most likely by the first few hours or days, you should be able to distinguish which is your old stuff and which is your new stuff and the blind part is over anyhow.

 

I think I will stop here as well!

Link to comment

Why is it that threads like this always seem to deteriorate into discussions on DBTs, and that all reports of improved/ changed performance must be due to the amount of money spent and a healthy imagination ?

I would suggest that the sceptics go back to P.2 of the thread and carefully read what Chris, and especially Mr. USB ( Gordon Rankin) have to say on the subject. There are far too many "armchair experts" ready to chime in with theoretical reasons why it is all impossible, without even trying these things for themselves in a good system.

I understand that some Recording Studios have switched over to SSD as well, and report improved results.

As usual, it will come down to the actual system they are used in, the way they are implemented, and PERSONAL preferences.

Hell, some people even prefer the sound of added Jitter, as it may appear to enhance an otherwise lacklustre system,

just as low level noise can sometimes appear to enhance low level detail, until you turn the volume up higher .

Alex

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Why is it that threads like this always seem to deteriorate into discussions on DBTs, and that all reports of improved/ changed performance must be due to the amount of money spent and a healthy imagination ?

 

Alex

 

The same reasons why the existence of God, poltergeists, and UFOs are still debated.....lack of evidence.

Link to comment

"It would appear that you are also including the amplifier in that equation,"

in which case you appear to be from the school that believes that all amplifiers

meeting certain minimum specifications MUST sound the same.-SandyK"

 

" But seriously, no, some amplifiers do sound different from others -mayhem13"

 

Try backing up that statement with Objective measurements that verify what differences you are hearing!

Remember that we are talking here of amplifiers that by all standards, have pretty decent specifications.

Feel free to pray to God for guidance ! (grin)

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Well I gave a generalized answer, as when the question is so broad demands. It's an issue of adequate power or lack thereof I address. Eveyone's heard amplifier induced distortion where the load presented is too great for the amp to drive. Sure, impedance swings of speakers contribute as well, but if there's reserve current available for dynamic peaks, it's a non issue. Tube turners either don't get it, or they like the subtle touch of harmonic distortion. I know I do, when it's produced by my modded 1972 Marshall head and induces a feedback loop with my guitar's pickups! Lol.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...