USB audio cracked... finally!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Acoustic noise of the MRI scanner may interfere with cognitive tasks, change brain activation patterns and otherwise confound studies that measure brain activation in response to sound stimuli….
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2449823/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2270941/
 
Functional imaging as a basis for objective measurement of hearing differences in audio has been discussed before in these threads. In my view if the study outcome is the musical *experience* then we have no direct quantifiable measures. Instead we have indirect measures, surrogate markers of the perceived experience. functional MRI, evoked potentials, PET, EEG, CT/SPECT perhaps, hold promise but remain indirect measures and difficult to establish causal correlations.
 
Perception is not the same as a simple audio signal being processed, bits sent and bits received. It's not just an auditory nerve impulse landing and registering on the appropriate part of the brain. Perception is a dynamic interaction between many areas of the brain, subject to all sorts of influences including learning and *expectation*.
 
Cognitive bias and expectation will actually change what we perceive. You may think of it as illusory but I think of it as simply the way the brain works. If you have an overly reductionist model of how the brain works then yes, you would expect one auditory stimulus begets one auditory response, a reproducible sensation we all perceive the same way.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I'm not so sure ASA is the mechanism used to distinguish realism in audio playback. 'good hifi sound' , now a pejorative term, is pretty good at presenting multiple discrete sounds spread in the sound stage. Perhaps it is *too* easy for us to de-scramble making it unrealistic and a cue that it is not real.

 

Intuitively I think it has more to do with more fundamental qualities of the sound like tone, dynamics and scale.

 

All I know is when the sound quality is what I consider good my dog and cat also pay attention to the sound. They know when its fake like on the TV and ignore it. Perhaps it just means I have the same taste in music as my dog :-(

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Yes, it's now perjorative, because it is often used to describe a SQ that is "over-cooked", where the elements are too unnatural in their presentation

 

I agree. The term "Hi-Fi" has become bastardized into something that was not originally intended. 'High Fidelity' should mean faithful to the source (whether artificial or natural, live or studio produced).

 

As you say, some audiophiles as a matter of taste, like to extract arguably exaggerated detail, etched spatial outlines and super defined separation of sounds.

 

Even if your taste runs to a more "organic" or natural rendering (some might say more "musical") then there is almost always that certain something of residual "electronic" sound that gives the game away.

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

ASA says our ear/brain reacts to the clues and cues in the sound, and if they meet an acceptable level of fidelity then our minds accept the illusion; if it falls short at all, then the presentation is rejected as being 'fake'.

 

The tympanic membrane vibrates due to pressure variations that represent the sum of sounds in our environment. This sound mixture is de-scrambled by the brain into meaningful individual sounds recognized as words, music, a bird or other "auditory object" or "stream". At its heart ASA is about this so called segregation or alternatively grouping of these auditory "objects". Sounds sources all mixed together but heard/perceived separately.

 

It is no mean trick since the signals are mixed together. Unlike vision, auditory "objects" are not layered in a way that the foreground object blocks the background object. Sounds are blended. The brain has the job of computing out potentially multiple discreet unknown waveforms from just two known input waveforms, one from each ear.

 

The brain uses various "cues" to sort the incoming simultaneously arriving signals. These cues would include things like pitch, harmonics and temporal relationships such as sounds sharing these cues starting and stopping at the same time.

 

The brain expects these things to occur for natural sounds occurring in the real world.

However I am not sure that this is the same as saying ASA is the mechanism that distinguishes fake from real sound, hifi from live sound. However I would agree the process uses the same cues.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

" that certain something of residual "electronic" sound" - that is a classic MMN, ASA terminology for something that "gives the game away".

 

mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent MMNm is an automatic brain response elicited by a detected change in any repetitive aspect of auditory stimulation. It does not require attention and so has been used for example in kids and babies and is viewed as an objective measure of auditory discrimination.

 

IMO, from an audiophile perspective its maybe attractiveness lies more in *theoretically* *possibly* helping discerning differences in listening to changes made in the playback chain (rather than discerning hiFi sound from live sound).

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, elcorso said:

I perceive the Lush USB cable gives me, natural SQ, away from the ultra detailed "Hi Fi sound".

 

I kinda like "lush" sound but I guess is "lush" necessarily the same as "natural" or "real".

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

My English is poor... but is like to say what yo see, smell and hear from mother nature is "lush".  You in Australia and I in the Rainforest.  Anyway it is natural and not fake like in Disneyland.

 

Roch

Hi Roch,

totally relate to your definition of lush.

If one were to describe the perfect usb cable or HiFi system i can't express it better than Barry Diament. Paraphrasing, the part or the system totally gets out of the road of the music. It has no sonic signature.

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

19 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Phasure NOS1 owners (version from 2011) know that the sound of it can not be described. Search the internet and you'll find none (I myself have the same "problem"). Still 6 years further we have improvement over improvement. And each one is far from small.

 

So it is more complicated...

Hi Peter,

Whether it can be described or not may reflect limitations of the person doing the description. It is fabulous that the DAC that you make has got better and better. To me that means, using Barry's definition, it is getting closer and closer to not having a sonic signature.

I suspect there is no such beast as a piece of audio kit that has no sonic signature. IMO a good clue that one is getting close is if you hear sonic differences in different recordings, some sound lush, some sound harsh, some sound congested, some sound dry and analytical, etc. In other words faithful to the source - high fidelity.

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

I have examples of electronic music (mixed with normal instruments) which completely did not work with the NOS1a version (robots playing) which turned into beautiful compositions with the G3 upgrade.

 

And again it is more complex.

But read again the whole of the post I quoted from, because each word of it is as important.

I am not sure which post you quoted from but I would respectfully wonder about any piece of gear that turns things into "beautiful compositions". I am however probably misinterpreting you.

 

With better audio gear I believe it is possible to 'rediscover' some old music. I believe this is due to the better gear "getting out of the road" and not exacerbating the shortcomings of the original recording. OTOH if it was crap to begin with it will remain crap on a good HiFi system.

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

38 minutes ago, fas42 said:

In my case, audio replay triggers a sense of 'wrongness' when listening to inferior quality, which never happens when it's live acoustic; so, upgrading the quality to the point that this subconscious trigger is never fired is the goal I chase.

 

I agree, and my goal is in recreating that illusive quality of having more "there there" or perhaps even harder to achieve, you are more there ie musicians in your room vs you are in their room there...ahh so there!

 

20 minutes ago, barrows said:

I disagree that this sense of "wrongness" never occurs when listening to live un amplified music.  A guitar with poorly adjusted action for example, and much fret buzzing, or music played in an overly reverberant space will totally turn me off, and feel wrong.

I think he was saying that he never gets the sense that live music sounds fake as in "wrong" rather than he likes or dislikes it?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

36 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

Anything that changes the sound signature colors it. Unless, of course, you are going to say that your cables removes the coloring that other aspects of the system add....

 

I think it is clear that Peter is saying he strives not to add a sonic signature.

 

That being the case, I fail to see the logic that the cables might remove the coloring added by other aspects of the system

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

David, ... Quotes ? Not sure what you're referring to.

 

Otherwise, again in this thread I gave the example of Middle of the Road, now sounding as from today.

I have a collection of a couple of 100 hits from 60s and 70s and they all sound from today. Start with American Woman (The Guess Who).

So don't believe it and rather take it from me.

Hi Peter

Don't worry, just me not always understanding what you have written, sorry.

I am always keen to hear classic old recordings that sound great. Some of Elvis sessions, The carpenters, Ella Fitzgerald too and others. I will check out The Guess Who. I love the Stones and have upteen different recordings/masterings all of which sound equally atrocious. Do you have a list somewhere of "of a couple of 100 hits from 60s and 70s and they all sound from today."?

Sorry for taking this thread off topic

Dvaid

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Speed Racer said:

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

That being the case, I fail to see the logic that the cables might remove the coloring added by other aspects of the system

 

You and me both!

Just to clarify Speed, it was your logic I was questioning, not Peter's

 

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The tone of this will slice layers of skin off your eardrums if not replayed as well as it possibly can be - but get it right, and 'magic' happens ...

 

I am fortunate enough to have a very good system but out of hundreds of Stones tracks, I only have a handful on my playlists. I agree they create musical magic but as you say most of their recordings will strip the lining off your ear drums. I just can't get no satisfaction .

 

Now if Peter was saying, and he is NOT imo, that his usb cable makes all Stones' recordings "lush" I would doubt its neutrality.Listenable maybe, magic music definitely, magic reproduction definitely not.

Regards

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

18 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

David,

 

The "logic" you are assigning to me was logic I was assigning to Peter when he said his goal with his cables was not to add color. The only way his cables could not be adding color if the sonic signature was changed was if they "removed" color. When he thought he was called on that by you, he said that his cables do add color.

 

So now we are at a strange place. His has said that goal is to be sonically neutral yet he says his cables aren't. Then we have this quote: "If *anything* colors I reject instantly". Yet he says his cables "create" color. Which is it? I don't know.....

 

Hi Speed,

Can you quote where Peter says his cables create color (referencing the url "share this post")?

Edit: I note he said " try to see that other cables (including our own) create the coloring". IMO this is not the same as saying he strives to create color or that his cable is colored.

 

English is not Peter's first language and I for one have misunderstood him in the past. I believe now he is clearly saying he strives not to add a sonic signature. At least that's the way I read it.

 

Yes, I called out what I thought was a fault in logic, a non sequitur, simply put that if something does not add coloration it does not follow that it removes coloration. Did Peter actually say this?

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

How I would explain it is that aspects of an audio system are not functioning as well as they theoretically could, or should - this then "colours" the sound. That weakness in the functioning can be resolved by altering by changing some part of the system, say a cable - it "fixes" the weakness.

 

So, a better working system has "less colour in it", courtesy of the parts of it "working better together". If you wish to call the latter situation a type of colouring, that's your call ...

 

In truth I have in the past practiced that approach to a "synergistic" system.I am not so sure I would advocate it as ideal.One flaw correcting another flaw, what could go wrong...?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I would agree that it is difficult to know what is truly more neutral without actually having the real thing as your reference point.

 

I have no problems with people choosing components based on making a subjective improvement to the whole. As I said I have done this.

 

I believe system *compatibility* is important and that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I would fall short of "synergistic" as *for me* it smacks of audio dealers saying, hey, your system is too lean well try this fatter sounding cable. Its not a fair criticism of the term based on my biased experience.

 

I have no problem at all with a component bringing out more true colors of the source.

 

None of this however negates (for me) that if you seek neutrality, all components should approach the *ideal* of neutrality. Any "upgraded" parts should be closer to neutral, closer to getting out of the way of the music. A neutral chain of components producing a more neutral outcome.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Get Yer Ya Ya' out is one of my famous test albums (can improve infinitely, up to envisioning a HAPPY Charly Watts) and Let it Bleed is possibly the best sounding (original Redbook).

Thank you Peter, I will revisit them.

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

@PeterSt  Yes.  I am still not sure which of these two I prefer, and it will probably be music dependent as well.  My system is fairly neutral, to just a bit on the warm side perhaps, with soft dome Revelator tweeter and Hexacone Mid woofers, so this is also a factor.  

And long term listening could easily favor the Lush...  Still evaluating.

 

Hi Barrows,

I agree that the choice is likely music dependent as well as system dependent, and not the least taste dependent, the whole "YMMV" thing.

 

Put another way, given the system and tastes one tends to gravitate to certain types and genres of music.

 

I consider this is the practical reality we must deal with if you accept that virtually all components,like soft dome tweeters,cables etc have *different* sonic signatures. It still isnt *ideal* and in some small way ,like you, I try to achieve neutrality.

 

People like Barry Diament are at an advantage as they can calibrate their system knowing full well what the original sounded like (for those that don't know Barry he is a world class audio engineer ).

 

I have recently (2 days ago) just implemented the combination of his air bearings and roller bearings for vibration control. Despite my natural skepticism I was shocked by the positive difference it made. As Barry says it doesn't change the sound but rather prevents the harmful effects of other things impacting on the sound, or taking away from the sound, it takes you a step further to transparency and getting the system *out of the way of the music*. In this instance, yes, I believe you could call this removing a coloration. Perhaps this has something to do with how the Lush weaves its magic, I don't know but now I'm intrigued to try it.

 

Oh btw on soft dome tweeters, I have listened extensively to my friends Revel Ultimas and other soft dome tweeters. For my*taste" they are beautifully smooth and refined but I judged maybe just a little soft on top. In the end I went with Vivid G2's which I like very much.

 

Cheers

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I have an audio friend down the road who is a keen Yes man

Is that perhaps a reflection of his marital relationship

sorry!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I have recently (2 days ago) just implemented the combination of his air bearings and roller bearings for vibration control. Despite my natural skepticism I was shocked by the positive difference it made.

 

I would be very much interested in hearing more about this, such as which components, what you chose for materials, etc. (in another thread, out of courtesy to the participants in this one).

 

Hi Jud,

Nice to 'speak' to you.

I will try and start a new thread later today my time (Australia).

 

Thanks for the Love in Vain recommendation. Perhaps there is another spin off thread here for classic old recordings that as peter said, "sound like today". Well, hopefully sounding even better than most of today's recordings.

Cheers

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 8/27/2017 at 0:00 AM, lmitche said:

It is the indecent, rude, and socially retarded behavior of the trolls that pisses me off.

 

I do agree.....but stop swearing

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Well David, here I am with the list (see attached).

 

Notice that this is not an explicit list for the best sounding old hits and that the list is merely about the hits themselves. However, they almost all sound like "from today" while they're really from 50+ years back. An example my eye just fell on (looking for the Guess Who being in there for real) - Sympathy (Steve Rowland & Family Dog). If you envision again how this sounded back at the time, it was just some stupid sound. But now ? now it is a forceful interesting synth sound (I hope the synthesizer existed already back at the time ).

 

Regards,

Peter

 

PS: Just open with NotePad :

 

!CurrentlyPlaying.PLXX

 

Thanks Peter, that is very kind of you. I, and no doubt others, will have  a close look.

Cheers

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, marce said:

Noise is the same as the signal, the cable cannot tell the difference. 

 

Does the cable need to tell the difference between signal and noise to reject noise? Does starquad cable know?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

IOW, "poor sounding" playback occurs because the reproduction system is not of a high enough standard; and not because of listening to "bad recordings".

 

Garbage in, Garbage out. If your system is truly high standard you will hear garbage, if it is there. I have happily experienced some old recordings that when freed from superimposed noise, grain and harshness sound good. This is different however from "bad recordings".

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

The problem is that it is quite hard to tell whether a recording is a bad recording. I have too many examples of that seemingly being so, until years later I improved something and suddenly the bad recording became a good recording. Won't count for everything and all of course, but say that in the general scene we both will know (but exclude me from classical) chances are more than 90% that the bad recording is your (our) poor system.

 

I can accept that a bad recording can sound less bad depending on what you have tweaked. The risk is you color the sound to suit the recording type or otherwise gravitate to recordings that suit your colored system.If the goal is transparency, true transparency then bad recordings should be heard for what they are, not with sonic sunglasses.

 

OTOH I am exploring various ways of tinkering with bad recordings with some creative EQ or other track specific methods. NOT in making changes to my whole system.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Peter let me get this straight, are you actually saying that your gear makes *bad* recordings sound good, like a good recording?

 

Are you saying that the more transparent the system, without sonic signature, the more it actually improves a bad recording (as opposed to not detracting any further), Garbage in, Gold out?

 

If so, I don't buy it ! ...and wouldn't buy it, lol