FORGETTING the Digital to Analog conversion part, what is BEST Digital source?

[fas42]

As marce points out, it's a trivial exercise maintaining the integrity of the the recording as digital data, especially these days - and even if it's a bit wrong, , it won't do "terrible damage" to the SQ ... the real question that should be asked is, which digital source, at the current moment, is most likely to cause the least grief with the analogue side of the system because of noise and interference issues?

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

my understanding is that the noise affects SQ in fairly subtle ways, before you would hear it as noise per se

 

Exactly. You don't hear hiss, or glitching noises - it's an overall degrading of the quality, causing the sparkle and perceived life of the recording to be well below par; consider a pane of glass from a window that steadily builds up a solid film of muck, which you never notice settling. Of course, you can still see through it, you feel you have full visibility - until, one day, someone thoroughly cleans it ...

 

This is the "rejuvenation" that can be made to happen - all of a sudden, those "terrible" recordings sound "fabulous!" ; because the grime that the playback system has been smearing everything with is no longer there.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

"ultimate performance" is a relative term to which i find there is no true meaning in regards to audio gear.

I have heard $500K systems, and would not call them "ultimate".

 

 

There is such a thing as "ultimate performance" in audio reproduction, but it has very little to do with the money paid for the raw components - the 'money' has to be spent in optimising the rig, in effort and outside assistance, possibly, to make the 'whole' deliver.

 

This is where the subjective experience is indistinguishable, in terms of the "buttons pushed", from a live, acoustic performance - this is a major stepping stone up from conventional hifi reproduction, no matter how "expensive" it sounds.

[fas42]

45 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

ok, if there is no electrical connection (galv. isolation is used, such as opto-isolators) then what "coupling mechanisms" could exist, barring EMR ??

 

The simple mechanisms always at work in electrical circuits, irrespective of anything else, is that if there are two pieces of conducting material, say copper, in proximity, and one piece rapidly varies in voltage then the other will tend to have a voltage noise on it that matches the first - capacitive coupling. And if there are runs of conductive wire that run parallel and near to each other, and a current varies rapidly in one - alternating current, say - then a matching noise current could appear on the second - inductive coupling.

 

Note that distance is always an easy cure, and should be the first defense.

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

uh... thx - I had to calculate all that as a Soph. physics major - really a good way to make people shy away from vector fields...

 

but I said barring EMR ...

 

Well, the slight problem is that you specifically said, EMR ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Speedskater said:

Talk about over simplification!

Some of the things that we need to know:

a] Frequency

b] Receiver impedance at that frequency

c] Capacitance

d] Inductance

and receiver circuit layout

 

 

The question was, "what "coupling mechanisms" could exist" - all the rest that you mention are the parameters fed into equations to tell one how strong the coupling is; there is always coupling, physics tells you it must happen. Once accepted, then determine what the levels are, how susceptible the circuit is to the interference levels, and whether it's possibly audible - follow the chain ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

IMO, Format Conversions can not improve on the original, however they may result in an improvement on playback with some DACs. Even a conversion from .wav to .flac and back again will result in some minor audible degradation.

 

I question that one, Alex. FLAC is lossless, the bits in the the two WAVs will be identical if the processing was done correctly - if there is an apparent difference, then there is some side effect because the containing file differs in a fashion that the playback mechanism is sensitive to.

[fas42]

25 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

And the quick answer for reasonable circuits is:

There will be trivial coupling.

 

Unfortunately, how does one measure "reasonable", and "trivial"? The hairy areas in audio, where people start to debate aggressively, is all around deciding what the numbers are, that correspond to inaudible for most people. My experiences are that the numbers given are not relevant, or not fine grained enough, they don't correlate with what people hear. So, I work to the point where further changes are inaudible - that's the only metric that counts, for myself.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Speedskater said:

How does one measure "trivial" ?

I'm not sure way you would want to make trivial measurements as these may not be repeatable or reproducible.  But in any case, modern test equipment allows extremely small microscopic measurements to be made.

 

Everything that's audible is ultimately measurable, but how much is it worth to somebody to work out a method that can establish a proper link? ... These days, close to nothing ...

 

Easy to hear at the first level: does the reproduction sound like an audio system, or the "real thing"? Next level, can any recording be put on and still 'work'? Another level, is the sound still convincing at everything from a whisper, to the maximum SPLs the parts can handle? Very straighforward to assess via hearing - but how to measure ... ?

[fas42]

43 minutes ago, mansr said:

Then it must also be readily measurable.

 

This is what the ongoing drama is about, obviously; that it's difficult to measure something that correlates well with what many people hear. Yes, noise from a variety of sources is the culprit - subjectively, this is heard, by me at least, in that the sparkle and 'life' in the sound is eroded, a 'dead' quality is superimposed on the sound as a constant attribute of the presentation.

 

This to me implies that treble harmonics are being damaged - so, it most likely will be all about low level, higher frequency detail, riding along with the obvious overall waveform, but impossible to discern visually, being distorted.

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

if we could just have a really killer noise isolation circuitry (RKNIC), and not worry so much about the noise, a lot of stuff would be less important, and we could really optimize SQ?!

 

Yes, I would love something like that - seriously ... my efforts to optimise playback revolve on doing as much as is reasonable for the particular moment, but it is never enough to completely "cure" such. So, I use temporary isolation measures, which get in the way of the house operating normally - just to prove the point of how good the replay can be.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

How do you know that the brain doesn't just make stuff up in the absence of any audible cues?

 

 

Because it's lazy - it's much happier being spoon fed - it makes up stuff all the time when the sound isn't good enough - which is why recordings can sound completely different from one rig to the next; the blanks being filled differ, and the filler then follows suit ...

[fas42]

If one has been fortunate enough to achieve the step jump in quality which allows the full 3D presentation, holographic imaging, immersive sound - whatever you want to call it; I just term it, competent playback - then worrying about differences fades into a very minor role. Ask a man to compare being punched in the arm, against being punched in the leg - and he might say, well, I prefer not be punched, at all ... which is my POV.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Let's assume that i believe both sides...that some people may believe they hear differences but don't actually, plus I believe that some people hear things others don't.   But what i find most interesting about this topic, is that the "very experienced and skilled testers" report extreme stress in their efforts.  I also believe that some people would be more stressed and some less stressed, but the fact that it takes such dedication, suggests to me, that we are "very close" to a "plateau of sorts", and even if someone could identify differences, some may not be able to say which they prefer, and those that can say which they prefer, will be in debate with others who will prefer differently.   Added to that, one may suggest they prefer "vocals" on A but instruments on B, or they prefer one genre on A but a different genre on B....All of this confirms my overall belief that you may be able to pay big bucks for slight differences, but it would most likely be subjective in DBT results.

 

If you have to "squeeze your brain" to hear differences than you're listening for the wrong audible markers - it's trivially easy to test whether a system is essentially in a "good space": put on a complex , "testing" recording, turn the volume right up, and turn to the person next to you and start having an earnest conversation about something unrelated to the music. If you have to go and turn the volume down, then  you've got your answer ...

 

Everything on top of that capability is better icing, and is of less importance ... most setups fail this test, badly, and variations to how they fail are not very interesting ...

[fas42]

Those who have evolved their hearing so it's listening to sounds, rather than music, have got the right approach in one sense - it allows one to clearly hear distortions, which is the only point to doing such - provided one learns what the 'sound' of them are! Rating distortion A, against distortion B, is a dead end game - I wouldn't waste my time.

[fas42]

14 hours ago, marce said:

I'd rather listen to music rather than sounds, that the whole point of having any system in my book...

 

One listens to sounds rather than music when diagnosing what's wrong with a system - when the wrongs are righted, then one can just listen to the music in total comfort, there are no nasty or irritating interludes; it always just flows ...

[fas42]

8 hours ago, adamdea said:

Happy New Year, Mr O: always a pleasure. I seem to remember that there is a technical distinction in perceptual science between illusion and hallucination- is it down to whether it is a result of a properly working system or not?.
 

 

A "properly working system" throws up an immensely impressive illusion, one which includes all the intensity and "vibe" of the "real thing" - anything less in capability couldn't even be called a hallucination ... perhaps a good analogy would be a very young member of your family trying to show you magic tricks, that he's learning from a book - you hide your smiles behind your hand, as he fumbles through the moves  ...

[fas42]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

In other words, it lacked the Ayre house distortion. If an amp stands out, it's doing something wrong, IMO.

 

What one is chasing is for the recording "to stand out" - the machinery making it happen must be totally 'invisible' - compare it to the ideal cinematic projection system.

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

I agree with that. But then, how does an amp "stand out"? The goal should be for all amps to sound exactly alike: transparent.

 

Yes, it should ... the reality is that they don't - simply raising the volume level on many instantly reveals they lack the ability to maintain composure when delivering higher current to the speakers - decades ago, I depaired of coming across any that were capable; these days it is possible to find at least a few ...

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, Ryan Berry said:

That's not to say that I'm naïve enough to believe that there's not some level of putting a company's "signature sound" in the product, though that's often a result of the overall design the inventors chose.  And of course, other companies may embrace having a "flavor" to the sound: I know my vehicle's audio system is no where near what I would consider clear and transparent...but man is it fun to listen to when I'm on the road.  I'd never let a system like that in my house to relax for the evening, though. 

 

A system being "fun to listen to" is part of the deal - car audio sometimes gets enough things right for that reaction to kick in - the deficiencies are benign enough not to interfere with that subjective aspect.

 

The big step upward is for the rig to be "clear and transparent" and "fun to listen to" - getting both in the room at the one time is the big trick - but achieving this makes all the efforts to get there worthwhile ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

Remember sandyk's advice, you have to check the voltage regulators as well, and the PCB layout, and the decoupling caps, and, and, and... the devil is in (all) the details.

 

 

That's the "answer to everything" - scale the concept to include the whole system, and real progress can be made. I don't have a CD player, an amp, and some speakers - it's a single circuit that happens to be an audio playback mechanism; and I troubleshoot until it performs adequately. This perspective is what gave me my original burst of competent sound, and what I have used ever since - take care of anything that may be relevant, and the rewards always emerge.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, barrows said:

In fact, i am much more interested in perfecting other aspects of my system as there is much more in terms of performance to be gained elsewhere.  For example, I am currently engaged in working on different vibration isolation/control devices and the results of this are making for much bigger improvements in SQ than anything I could do with my digital interface (which is so close to "perfection" as to be a non-issue).  Next step, trying speaker de-coupling vs. coupling.

 

Yes, the way to approach system optimisation. Hint: make the cabinet of the speakers be the equivalent of a bank safe, in terms of their stability in the listening environment - whatever you can do to increase their effective mass will be a plus, IME.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

What kind of pervert would build a cabinet around his speakers???

 

Did you ruin Quads or Maggies??

 

Around? Think in these terms - that the structure that supports the driving mechanism of the speakers, however they are constructed, remains as motionless as possible.

 

A big part of my first good sound was that the chipboard boxes used for the B&W bookshelf speakers were very strongly coupled to the concrete sub-floor - gave me very tight, subjectively intense bass quality - never have the slightest desire for a subwoofer ...

[fas42]

5 hours ago, barrows said:

I am surprised...  Typically I would expect you to respond to realistic, musical sounding bass.  I never really hear "tight" bass in live music.  And what about the bottom octave?  I really like what adding a well implemented sub does for the foundation of both orchestral and other types of larger scale music.  My sub is crossed in at only 40 Hz, so it disappears into the sound field easily and does not bring attention to itself.  But it does increase soundstage depth, and gives body and weight to music which has information in the sub35 Hz region.

 

Depends upon what we have in mind when we say "tight" bass - I use that term because it seems to correspond to what others use when they describe a quality that I can relate to. Most systems don't get bass right - it's bloated and over cooked; and doesn't correspond in the slightest to what one hears live.

 

I find bass almost irrelevant to large scale music - I had a system running at one stage with a separate subwoofer, it was part of the raw system, which covered a large part of the bass range. And because of my tweaking at times this subwoofer cut out, it was totally non-operational - and I had many occasions where I listened to whole albums, and was completely oblivious to this fact ... finally, I would put on some solo piano, and think, gee, the left hand is sounding a bit thin - and realise the situation ... .

 

Test recordings I use for "tight bass" are Boney M; and ZZ Top in their heavy duty synth albums - the bass has 'visceral' impact in these, which often goes completely missing.

 

 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Quads and Maggies don't use cabinets, so don't have their problems.  It was a joke - tho, I do see some cabinets made of Al these days

 

But these speakers would still benefit from locking the supporting frame into position - a non-trivial exercise, but I would certainly do it.