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

[barrows]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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.

Yes, I agree.  also, sometimes, one hears a slight scrim of electronic hash riding on the signal.  Often this is responsible for what people sometimes call "digital sound" vs. "analog sound".  Easily heard when it accompanies good vocal recordings.

 

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Simple explanation: people often hear things that are not really there, and therefore cannot be measured.

 

However, the cues are often there, and the brain fills in the blanks.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

However, the cues are often there, and the brain fills in the blanks.

 

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

 

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, barrows said:

Yes, I agree.  also, sometimes, one hears a slight scrim of electronic hash riding on the signal.  Often this is responsible for what people sometimes call "digital sound" vs. "analog sound".  Easily heard when it accompanies good vocal recordings.

 

 A quote from Barry Diament in an  email  reply to me regarding a comparison CD-R that I sent him.

Quote

....... as though some random treble energy surrounded the details in the recordings......

 

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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

 

 

 I don't doubt that it does sometimes , however that's where repeated listening and perhaps even DBTs/unsighted  listening comes in.

[mansr]

53 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I would hope that even an aethiest (which is fine, i didn't mean to go there), would believe the human ear is more capable than a measuring device that man made?

Why would I ever believe such a ridiculous thing?

[beerandmusic]

17 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Simple explanation: people often hear things that are not really there, and therefore cannot be measured.

I do believe that happens many times, but I also believe that people can hear things that can't be measured.

[barrows]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

I do believe that happens many times, but I also believe that some people can hear things that can't be measured.

I would disagree a little.  It is likely that everything can be measured, somehow, we just have not quite figured it out yet.  Certainly measurement instruments are sensitive enough to measure anything we can hear, we just do not know how to really do it yet.  One thing seem very likely to me, measurement needs to be done with complex signals (music) rather than static sine waves, as electronics respond differently to complex signals, and it is likely that time relationships of complex signals are what we need to measure.  Just a single square wave at a single frequency is not enough to really see what may be going on in our electronics.

[Ralf11]

how about we take a really thin membrane, sprinkle millions of sensor on it, and wrap it around and around in a spiral?

 

we could make some of it thicker, wider and then use FFT to analyze what we get with highly parallel processors all over the place

 

 

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, barrows said:

I would disagree a little.  It is likely that everything can be measured, somehow, we just have not quite figured it out yet.  Certainly measurement instruments are sensitive enough to measure anything we can hear, we just do not know how to really do it yet.  One thing seem very likely to me, measurement needs to be done with complex signals (music) rather than static sine waves, as electronics respond differently to complex signals, and it is likely that time relationships of complex signals are what we need to measure.  Just a single square wave at a single frequency is not enough to really see what may be going on in our electronics.

 

Well i have to agree with that based on my belief, that nothing is beyond what can be bestowed on man...

 

What about ringing in someones ears....is that just in someone's brain, or does it actually exist...i guess we could tap off someone's brain some how....

 

Regardless of any of this philosophy stuff, what do you feel about my qustion:

 

1 hour ago, barrows said:

We have found that the close in phase noise of the Ethernet/USB XOs are quite important for sound quality.  We still have not discovered why for sure, but are working on figuring it out.  This really surprised us as well, until we tried it, then we were forced to accept it.

 

wouldn't it be dependent on how well noise is isolated?

I mean couldn't you achieve better sq, even with cheaper clocks and cheaper ps, if you were better able to isolate the noise?

 

We kind of touched on this in the qutest thread...that everything comes down to noise....(e.g. we keep trying to improve power, clocking, os activity, etc to reduce noise).....

 

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?!

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

I am an atheist.

[barrows]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I mean couldn't you achieve better sq, even with cheaper clocks and cheaper ps, if you were better able to isolate the noise?

No, the point is that you need all of the above for best possible performance.  Reduce noise as much as possible, and use really good clock(s) and power everything with really good low noise supplies, and, and, and, and...  this is how we improve sound quality on playback.

[pkane2001]

22 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 I don't doubt that it does sometimes , however that's where repeated listening and perhaps even DBTs/unsighted  listening comes in.

 

Funny how DBTs show, more often than not, that the 'not-so-subtle' differences heard sighted were just made up by the brain.

 

[beerandmusic]

21 minutes ago, barrows said:

No, the point is that you need all of the above for best possible performance.  Reduce noise as much as possible, and use really good clock(s) and power everything with really good low noise supplies, and, and, and, and...  this is how we improve sound quality on playback.

 

I am introducing a hypothetical suggestion that if you had a noise isolation circuit that would remove all noise, prior to the d->a circuit.....You stated before that that the purpose of the good clocks and power supplies was to limit noise...that said, hypothetically speaking, all we would need would be souper douper noise isolation circuit....I understand that is the concept of the rendu, but if a noise elimination circuit could be perfected in the dac to remove all noise and just need the bits transported to a buffer, then we would really have something.

 

We need to isolate the noise internal to the DAC, because every new device on the chain just adds more noise or more things to deal with.  Ultimately we want bits and no noise....The more i think about it, optimally, the bits would reside in the DAC, so no external device would be needed to transport the bits. 

 

I know the talk about ssd's generate lots of noise.  What about sd cards? 

Also i like miska's idea of ethernet over fiber to the dac, that way you get dsd resolution and little noise....that would probably be best....but none of this would really matter if we had a way to "kill the noise"....will talk about airborne noise later....concentrating on transport noise.

[MetalNuts]

21 minutes ago, barrows said:

I would disagree a little.  It is likely that everything can be measured, somehow, we just have not quite figured it out yet.  Certainly measurement instruments are sensitive enough to measure anything we can hear, we just do not know how to really do it yet.

 

I like this attitude or approach towards things that we cannot understand yet while some deny it because the existing science cannot prove or deal with it.

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Funny how DBTs show, more often than not, that the 'not-so-subtle' differences heard sighted were just made up by the brain.

 

 

 Yes, they tend to do that, even when there are REAL differences !

[pkane2001]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

 Yes, they tend to do that, even when there are REAL differences !

 

And you prove that there is a REAL difference how?

 

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

And you prove that there is a REAL difference how?

 

 

The problem is that they are more often than not, set up to prove someone wrong, not prove them correct .  

 They need to be performed at the original location using the same equipment and software as they were originally heard with, under relaxed conditions, and with the person making the claim deciding on the volume settings, the interval between changes, and the length each selection is played for.

 

 I will not be drawn further into this murky and highly contentious area, as you clearly have your own agenda here about Audiophiles in general.

BYE !

[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 ...

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

The problem is that they are more often than not, set up to prove someone wrong, not prove them correct .  

Interestingly, that's exactly not what I do.

 

When I find an audible difference between components, I tend to want to confirm it with a blind test. In my own listening room, with my own equipment and music, and without an assistant (if I can set it up this way). I spend as much time as I need to listen sighted, so that I can learn the perceived differences. I pick tracks that seem to exaggerate the differences. I then listen blind. Using fast switching between A and B, or prolonged listening, depending on what differences I think I hear. I use the same tracks for both, sighted and blind testing. If I fail the blind test about three to five attempts, I try again sighted to make sure I'm not missing something obvious. I do this a few more times, until I'm satisfied that I can't hear the difference while blind. If I do hear the difference (and sometimes I do), and it's statistically significant enough, I keep the new component. No pressure, I'm relaxed, and often surprised at how similar components can sound when you can't see them.

 

Don't know what you think my agenda is, other than I try to objectively determine differences between components. I don't think that's such a bad thing, is it?

[wgscott]

27 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

The problem is that they are more often than not, set up to prove someone wrong, not prove them correct .  

 

There is actually a completely innocent reason for this.  Technically speaking, you can never prove something correct with experimental testing, because that would require an infinitely large number of experimental tests.  You can only refute an assertion, which in principle, could require as few as one experiment.

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

There is actually a completely innocent reason for this.  Technically speaking, you can never prove something correct with experimental testing, because that would require an infinitely large number of experimental tests.  You can only refute an assertion, which in principle, could require as few as one experiment.

 

 

[sandyk]

42 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Interestingly, that's exactly not what I do.

 

 Actually, I do pretty  much what you do, however there are several members here that are hell bent on proving almost every Subjective report as false.

[sandyk]

34 minutes ago, wgscott said:

There is actually a completely innocent reason for this.

 

 Pull the other leg, it whistles !

 Seriously though , there are several members here, just as in other forums, that require someone making a claim to perform an infinite number of repeat tests  that the claimant is simply not willing to perform, unless perhaps there is a wad of cash  riding on the results, and I don't mean the pittance that one member here keeps offering.

Anybody who has ever performed a lengthy series of DBTs as I did years ago would understand why.

I ended up with elevated BP and rotten headaches due to the stress of numerous repeats, involving over 20 different recordings, each in 3 separate folders where the names of the pairs of tracks were changed by a computer program.

I ended up adding an additional reference file from my own PC to help with the identification, but neither of the tracks generated by the auto program, which involved shuffling the tracks from a supplied USB memory stick between a couple of HDDs during the renaming progress sounded quite the same as the new Reference .wav file.