USB audio cracked... finally!

[semente]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

My eye just now fell on this. And um ... yes, your ??? is justified of course. Of course I wrote that in a most clumsy fashion.

 

What I meant was that I indeed also do not allow that, when cold onto each other (no space in between). But of course cable have to cross somewhere and parallel most certainly is not allowed at all. So I meant so say that when cables need to cross (which happens) they need to cross at a fair distance.

I am confident that people usually don't care because "cross is so much better than parallel" but crossing is only better than parallel and still not good.

 

Magnetic fields (which is what we are talking about) don't reach very far. So it is not all that difficult to not let cross cables at say less than 2 inches.

 

Lastly, it is quite easy to see how a magnetic field can be disturbed by its surrounding. Thus, we might hope that the field is in a 90 degree angle of the (power) cable, but when the cable runs close along the metal case(s) of your gear, it "bends". And now the field starts to be in parrallel of your 90 degree crossed cable.

 

OK, I just don't want to make stupid mistakes but I did. Apologies.

 

Are you speaking about the NOS1a connection layout?

 

 

I really admire your work and insight but this was a bit of a cock-up.

[semente]

On 5 August 2017 at 11:52 PM, fas42 said:

 

If a vocalist is singing directly at you, live, no PA - and then slowly turns around as she keeps singing, the same song - the frequency spectrum of her voice will change dramatically, as received by your ears, as she does this. Does the "timbre" of her voice change such that her voice now sounds artificial, or wrong?

 

Good replay will generate the same subjective experience.

 

I don't agree with this.

 

The mic will pick up changes in the singer's voice as she turns away in a similar fashion to our ears.

If you want to listen to what the mic picked up (and if the mic was flat, to the "real" timbre) then you need a playback with flat response.

 

Imagine you have a recording of a piano where the notes are moving down the keyborad all with the same intensity; can you guess what happens if you use speakers that are not flat (or a mic that is shelving up the top octaves)?

Similarly what do you think will happen to the sound of a cello, a trombone or a bass male singer if there's a depression in the upperbass region?

[semente]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You ignored a key point in my post, to wit, "no PA"! - the singer is 100% au naturel ... yes, Virginia, it is possible for someone to sing without using a microphone, even though in this day and age it seems almost inconceivable for such to happen ...

 

I knew you meant live and unamplified.

 

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

A huge part of the reason I chase this "special quality" of sound is because it passes the burden of getting the sound 'right' over to the ear/brain - the speakers, etc, no longer need to be "perfect". This is because our human mind is interpreting, and equalising the sound to "fix" the moment by moment variations in actual sound intensities - the mind knows what the sound "should be", and completely unconsciously compensates on the fly. This behaviour is actively being studied in the field of Auditory Scene Analysis, ASA.

 

Does your mind know what the colour balance in this image should be and can it "fix" it?

 

 

Wouldn't it look better or more realistic if it had been shot/processed with a flat response?

[semente]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

This is an interesting example, because it demonstrates some of the principles. The image is static, and it's low resolution - the mind has very limited "data" to work with, and will just go with the blue-green look of that "grab". If one was there, in the situation with the girl on the bike live, there would be immensely more information to tap into - it may be that there was a very intense coloured spotlight in operation - it's easy these days to blanket large areas with very powerful colour ... and if such a measurable colour balance shift was constantly happening, yes, the mind would adjust to quite a degree, after some period of time.

 

What you are saying is that one would get used to the tremendous colour shifts and lack of contrasts and fuzzyness of one's system.

I would add that such can only happen if you don't listen to other (better) systems and/or live music.

 

So, no you would not adjust.

 

But I agree that if people only listen to reproduced sound then they will adjust more easily (and may even prefer) such shortcomings and distortions, which is why you hear so many woos and ahhs from systems that don't really sound like live unamplified music.

AS I've said previously, it's all about expectations...

[semente]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Maybe an unexpected answer : no. This is because I can't see whether it is snow I see or just too much light. So my mind stalls on this.

This is exactly how I am not able to witness amplified live music any more (this was discussed in another thread). But this is also how I can't listen to any 0.00001% THD ESS because all what should be square is too much sine and violins are closer to flutes. So mind you, this works as long as you did not hear the real violins through your system; it stops ones and for all after you heard the violins. After that you can't go back.

 

The even better example :

Most systems that I know are these days able to show the cymbal quite alright and sufficiently loud, but can not show the attack well (the cymbal of course has first to be hot before it can make its sound). This is something we can 100% live with, no matter in a live situation we will naturally hear how different it is in reality. We don't even think about it. The brain thinks "so be it". However, the minute your system can show the attack, there is no way you will ever be able to listen to speakers (also not your friend's) without that attack.

 

The fun of this hobby is and remains that you thus don't know about all of these things, unless you are spoiled.

I think this is a crucial part of the bugs story, because when suddenly no attacks are there on the cymbal, there has to be a bug somewhere ...

 

You are joking, right?

The colours are madly shifted, there's extreme contrast but no contrast, clipped whites, clipped blacks, fuzzyness.Unless your display is very innacurate and all images look dreadful anyway, so much so that you can't distinguish differences between recorded image quality...

 

About a decade ago I listened to a system that changed my perception of what is possible in domestic reproduction, a system that when playing good recordings was able to portray both orchestral music and choir and jazz with an unsettling realism; and yes, it made listening to "normal" systems a bit difficult.

 

Besides I also agree that one does adjust to the limitations of our system to a point but what you appear to be saying is that a jagged frequency response doesn't matter (or that I would adjust to it) because I am not getting transient response right anyway.

What about limited low-level resolution, would this matter?

[semente]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

You obviously can't tell much then - for many of these people, it's their first ever purchase of any Phasure gear. In any event, it's clear you're not up for trying the Lush, for whatever reason. No problem.

 

Interestingly, the Yggy owner seems very happy with the improvement the Lush has brought to the Yggy:

 

"What is really remarkable about the sound of the Lush is that it is both smoother sounding and, at the same time, everything, instruments and voices, are more solid sounding. Everything has more "presence", thus everything sounds more natural."

 

Mani.

 

Perhaps I am overly sceptic but I find no relevant information in that or any of the other reports.

Not, mind you, because those tests were not blind or DB-ABX or level-matched but because I have no idea whatsoever of how those listeners evaluate sound, what are their expectations and their taste, if they're affected by bias, how much listening experience they have.

 

And unfortunately I don't trust (most) professional reviews either because many suffer from the aforementioned shortcomings plus the added bonus of a need to push-sell the product...

[semente]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

Nah, that is not what I intended to say. This is :

 

When things are too much wrong in order to cope with, all becomes a "reject". And so it just seriously happened to me with that photo that I was only looking at whether it was snow or not, I was even trying to find out whether the girl was wearing gloves or that just her sleeves were up and ...

And then I even forget what it is about.

 

I am not teasing - only honest telling what happened to me in this case.

 

Now it makes sense.

So would you rather have a less extreme example?

[semente]

56 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Why not. But I wonder whether I am representative when we seem to disagree in the first place.

 

To stay on topic (but to kind of respond to you in context) : people know (or were there) that I can seriously try things because I am eager to let it work. For example, someone can have worked a day on preparing a new USB (trial) cable. Then I put it in, and in 10 seconds it is already out. It is a total waste of time to listen to something of which I can "see" it is not right. I am not into subjectiveness of being able to listen to the good parts of it. The bad parts disturb too much, even if it is the most slightest. Something is wrong and I want to go elsewhere.

 

You seem to talk about "the brain is able to correct". Oh is that so. Well, it is tiring as h*ll and one should not even attempt or get used to.

I know, hanging upside down watching television, will get used to too. But somehow I think it is tiring (I never really tried ).

 

I think we do agree.

 

I never said that "the brain is able to correct" (that was fas42), but we do get used to it somewhat.

I am not talking in the context of our own systems but I can enjoy listening in the car or at a friends with a micro stereo.

For our own system we have different expectations and are far more demanding (i.e. I had a pair of 802S3s that sounded wrong from day one and I never managed to endure it; they were replaced by much better PSB T2s whose shortcomings, though obvious, were quite bearable).

 

I think you will have to read my exchange with fas42 to see where I am coming from.

[semente]

On 30/01/2018 at 12:09 AM, elcorso said:

 

Of course! I used the term "musicality" on purpose. I have tried many USB cables that can be preferred by some audiophiles because it emphasizes "detail", being more "detailed" than what music can be. This produces me, in a very short time, auditive fatigue. And instead of enjoying music, it tortures me.

 

Of course (again), being all the other musical components chosen for their musicality and not to impress (for a short time) a visitor!

 

Roch

 

Detail is realism and that in my view is the same as musicality.

That being so there is no such thing as too much detail where the system is concerned.

 

"Emphasised" detail is either distortion caused by artifacts or colouration, or is the result of near mic'ing.

In the first case one can deal with the problem by identifying which element in the system is causing it and optimising or replacing it, but unfortunately there's nothing we can do about the latter.

I don't think that choosing equipment which masks detail is the right way to go about it.