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

[barrows]

@pkane2001, I suspect the reason that it may appear to some that you have an agenda, is that some, who may have spent many years developing their listening skills, may feel insulted when you come along and suggest that they are hearing things which are not there.  It is the height of arrogance to make such suggestions, especially when you do not have the details of these person's listing experiences and skill levels.

Listen testing is a learned skill, developed over many, many hours of practice.  And casually dismissing a person's skill which may have been developed over many years is disrespectful.  It is fine to speak of your own experiences in this regard, but blindly dismissing other's experience is not OK in my book.

[Ralf11]

I have to disagree.  They are, as you said, suggestions.  And what he said is often true, esp. in systems costing < $20k

[MetalNuts]

11 minutes ago, barrows said:

Listen testing is a learned skill, developed over many, many hours of practice.  And casually dismissing a person's skill which may have been developed over many years is disrespectful.  It is fine to speak of your own experiences in this regard, but blindly dismissing other's experience is not OK in my book.

 

Agree.  Experience is accumulated and skill is obtained through learning and practice.  A man should have self confidence but not over confidence as to regard himself as omnipotent and accuse other wrong and untrue for experience/skill he himself does not have.  One experience it differently does not make the other's experience a falsity.  It is way too much to accuse people on their own subjective experience.

[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.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

@pkane2001, I suspect the reason that it may appear to some that you have an agenda, is that some, who may have spent many years developing their listening skills, may feel insulted when you come along and suggest that they are hearing things which are not there.  It is the height of arrogance to make such suggestions, especially when you do not have the details of these person's listing experiences and skill levels.

Listen testing is a learned skill, developed over many, many hours of practice.  And casually dismissing a person's skill which may have been developed over many years is disrespectful.  It is fine to speak of your own experiences in this regard, but blindly dismissing other's experience is not OK in my book.

 

 In my case, as a young Technician at Chatswood Telephone Exchange in Sydney, I was first exposed to high quality Vinyl playback from the National Broadcaster (ABC) via >15K equalised program lines going North through the Exchange to Newcastle. The Senior techs had replaced the normal monitoring amplifier and speakers with much higher quality items.

(AM Radio from the ABC was 15K bandwidth back in those days)

Much later we had a couple of commercial FM stereo feeds through us before they started using automated .MegaPoop3  carts and tried to sound the loudest on the FM band.

 

Alex

 

 P.S.

 After realising how much better the source material was, before normal AM radio reception, this led to an interest in higher quality TRF (Tuned Radio Frequency) receivers, followed later by a DIY Homodyne  Tuner that used a PLL to lock onto the stations' Carriers.

[marce]

7 hours 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?

Nope, not true.

[sandyk]

56 minutes ago, marce said:

Nope, not true.

 

It is presently true because we don't yet know all of the aspects of human hearing that need to be measured, and their complete relevance to what the brain processes, especially as the ears are normally not identical in sensitivity, frequency and phase response etc., or dynamic range.

Yes, we are much further advanced these days, and know the basics, but we aren't completely there yet.

[beerandmusic]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

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.

 

Coming back to topic about the "BEST possible digital source"

 

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 have stated that the purpose of the "quality" clocks and "quality" power supplies was to limit noise...that said, hypothetically speaking, all we should need prior to the d->a circuit is the bits with as little noise as possible.

 

This would ensure the BEST possible audio potential prior to the conversion, and a "WELL DESIGNED NOISE ISOLATION CIRCUIT" should be able to accomplish near perfect bits that can be presented to a buffer.

 

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 clock in and transport the bits adding additional noise.

 

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.....

 

I just want to know what would be the absolute BEST way to get the bits to the d->a circuitry, and I find it very difficult to believe we can't get there, or perhaps we already are there, and some people just don't realize that....

 

will talk about airborne noise and analog output later....concentrating on perfect digital presentation to the d->a circuitry and transport noise.

 

The mere fact that the SOTM and the Sonore will present a "different" sound, with all other things the same, TELLS ME, that we aren't there yet.  If we were able to present a perfect buffer to the same D->A circuitry and everything past the D->A circuitry were the same, the sonics should be identical. 

 

 

 

edit to add>>>

I am not sure if it makes more sense to have the initial files internal or external to the dac.  I could see pros and cons to both.  If the files are internal, you would need a processor internal to process the bits.  If the files reside outside the dac then you would need to add additional power supplies and processors and additional transport, clocking, and receiving circuitry which would add additional noise.  I just find it difficult to believe that we cannot properly manage this noise whether it be external or internal.  I "would" think that an sd card reader doesn't require much processing power or generate a lot of noise...and i also see an enet over fiber as an excellent possible method (allowing highres DSD over optical)

[mansr]

10 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

What about ringing in someones ears....is that just in someone's brain, or does it actually exist.

Ear ringing, or tinnitus, is by definition the conscious perception of a (persistent) sound without a corresponding stimulus of the ear. The cause can be in the inner ear itself, in the auditory nerve, or in the brain. I wouldn't say such a sound actually exists any more than a hallucination does.

[marce]

10 hours ago, MetalNuts said:

 

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.

Why not provide evidence to prove a theory then...

[marce]

3 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

It is presently true because we don't yet know all of the aspects of human hearing that need to be measured, and their complete relevance to what the brain processes, especially as the ears are normally not identical in sensitivity, frequency and phase response etc., or dynamic range.

Yes, we are much further advanced these days, and know the basics, but we aren't completely there yet.

Know we don't; but we do know how perceptions can be fooled, so you have to back up what you hear with further experimentation, testing etc... That's the only way to reach a conclusion that could be true.

[marce]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Coming back to topic about the "BEST possible digital source"

 

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 have stated that the purpose of the "quality" clocks and "quality" power supplies was to limit noise...that said, hypothetically speaking, all we should need prior to the d->a circuit is the bits with as little noise as possible.

 

This would ensure the BEST possible audio potential prior to the conversion, and a "WELL DESIGNED NOISE ISOLATION CIRCUIT" should be able to accomplish near perfect bits that can be presented to a buffer.

 

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 clock in and transport the bits adding additional noise.

 

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.....

 

I just want to know what would be the absolute BEST way to get the bits to the d->a circuitry, and I find it very difficult to believe we can't get there, or perhaps we already are there, and some people just don't realize that....

 

will talk about airborne noise and analog output later....concentrating on perfect digital presentation to the d->a circuitry and transport noise.

 

The mere fact that the SOTM and the Sonore will present a "different" sound, with all other things the same, TELLS ME, that we aren't there yet.  If we were able to present a perfect buffer to the same D->A circuitry and everything past the D->A circuitry were the same, the sonics should be identical. 

 

 

 

edit to add>>>

I am not sure if it makes more sense to have the initial files internal or external to the dac.  I could see pros and cons to both.  If the files are internal, you would need a processor internal to process the bits.  If the files reside outside the dac then you would need to add additional power supplies and processors and additional transport, clocking, and receiving circuitry which would add additional noise.  I just find it difficult to believe that we cannot properly manage this noise whether it be external or internal.  I "would" think that an sd card reader doesn't require much processing power or generate a lot of noise...and i also see an enet over fiber as an excellent possible method (allowing highres DSD over optical)

It depends how much you fear this noise...

EMC and signal integrity cover all this...

The digital signals, especically Ethernet a pretty noise free if you discount the multiple sine wave harmonics above the base frequency.....

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, marce said:

It depends how much you fear this noise...

EMC and signal integrity cover all this...

The digital signals, especically Ethernet a pretty noise free if you discount the multiple sine wave harmonics above the base frequency.....

 

The mere fact that the SOTM and the Sonore will present a "different" sound, with all other things the same, TELLS ME, that we aren't there yet.  If we were able to present a perfect buffer to the same D->A circuitry and everything past the D->A circuitry were the same, the sonics should be identical. 

 

I find it very difficult to understand why, in this day and age, that we are not able to present a perfect buffer to the D->A circuitry.

 

If they can't do it via enet, maybe it's time to look at sd card or enet over fiber....or some other method internal to the dac if it is the transmission that is the issue.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

 

 

delete

[pkane2001]

7 hours ago, barrows said:

 some, who may have spent many years developing their listening skills, may feel insulted when you come along and suggest that they are hearing things which are not there.

 

No need to get insulted. We all have opinions and I state mine. I know for a fact that the brain can make up things in sensory perception that are not there. If you take that for a fact, it's then a very logical, even if an inconvenient, conclusion that you might want to do a bit more to differentiate between illusion and fact. You don't have to be a scientist or an engineer to think this way, you just need to be curious.

 

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

No need to get insulted. We all have opinions and I state mine. I know for a fact that the brain can make up things in sensory perception that are not there. If you take that for a fact, it's then a very logical, even if an inconvenient, conclusion that you might want to do a bit more to differentiate between illusion and fact. You don't have to be a scientist or an engineer to think this way, you just need to be curious.

 

 

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.

[pkane2001]

16 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Let's assume that i believe both sides...that some people may believe they hear difference but don't actually, plus i believe that some people hear things others don't.   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.  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.

 

Beer, I think that's true.  I've chosen to do blind testing of equipment after years of believing in my 'golden ears'. It was a revelation. It does take a bit of an effort, but the stressful part comes mostly (IMHO) from the cognitive dissonance of not being able to hear the 'obvious' differences that one hears so clearly while seeing which component is playing. That causes stress and is a very disorienting feeling, at first.The same applies to hallucinations: try to convince a person who has experienced a hallucination that it wasn't real. I have, and the person goes through prolonged stages of disbelief, agitation, stress, and eventual acceptance (hopefully!) 

 

While it takes me a while to set up and run a blind test, it's worth it in my experience, and I enjoy it almost as much as any other part of my audiophile addiction

 

[marce]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Beer, I think that's true.  I've chosen to do blind testing of equipment after years of believing in my 'golden ears'. It was a revelation. It does take a bit of an effort, but the stressful part comes mostly (IMHO) from the cognitive dissonance of not being able to hear the 'obvious' differences that one hears so clearly while seeing which component is playing. That causes stress and is a very disorienting feeling, at first.The same applies to hallucinations: try to convince a person who has experienced a hallucination that it wasn't real. I have, and the person goes through prolonged stages of disbelief, agitation, stress, and eventual acceptance (hopefully!) 

 

While it takes me a while to set up and run a blind test, it's worth it in my experience, and I enjoy it almost as much as any other part of my audiophile addiction

 

Same hear...

 

[beerandmusic]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Beer, I think that's true.  I've chosen to do blind testing of equipment after years of believing in my 'golden ears'. It was a revelation. It does take a bit of an effort, but the stressful part comes mostly (IMHO) from the cognitive dissonance of not being able to hear the 'obvious' differences that one hears so clearly while seeing which component is playing. That causes stress and is a very disorienting feeling, at first.The same applies to hallucinations: try to convince a person who has experienced a hallucination that it wasn't real. I have, and the person goes through prolonged stages of disbelief, agitation, stress, and eventual acceptance (hopefully!) 

 

While it takes me a while to set up and run a blind test, it's worth it in my experience, and I enjoy it almost as much as any other part of my audiophile addiction

 

I have done a lot of comparative listening, and sometimes i forget which one i am listening to, and usually i can hear subtle differences, but my hardest part has always been which do i prefer, and do i prefer it in all instances...vocals seems especially true, where i will usually like vocals on one more, but detail or some other difference on the other....kind of drives me "batty"...especially true when i can hear big differences in speakers, and still not able to easily decide which I like better...and then when i sell one i think i like least, i second guess my decision.  I really don't want to do purposeful DBT....it is already too stressful for me (grin)

[Speedskater]

17 hours 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?

To the contrary, the human ear is far less capable than measuring equipment.

 

This is just another audiophile myth spread by those who have a vested interest in not placing much value on hi-fi equipment being measured.

But we have to exclude recordings & microphones also  loudspeakers in rooms from this discussion.

[barrows]

11 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

This is just another audiophile myth spread by those who have a vested interest in not placing much value on hi-fi equipment being measured.

Who exactly would that be?  I am really not aware of anyone who has a vested interest in not paying attention to measurements?  Every manaufacturer I am aware of owns precision measurement equipment (like expensive APs) and measures their gear very carefully.

[Albrecht]

On 1/15/2018 at 11:59 PM, beerandmusic said:

 

agree to disagree with everything you said...we obviously see things differently....you obviously didn't understand anything i wrote by your response to what i wrote.....not worth debating....

I understood precisely what you wrote, and you are wrong. If you didn't mean what you wrote, - you have the opportunity to explain it better. If it's not worth it to you write further, - that's fine. But don't speculate, (erroneously), that I didn't understand what you wrote: you wrote what you wrote, - not something else.

Your assumption that all markets are the same, - is just not the case. Costs going up in the world of high-end audio is one of the reasons why manufacturers are going out of business.

[adamdea]

13 hours ago, barrows said:

@pkane2001, I suspect the reason that it may appear to some that you have an agenda, is that some, who may have spent many years developing their listening skills, may feel insulted when you come along and suggest that they are hearing things which are not there.  

There is such a thing as acquired skill in listening for particular attributes (eg noise, phase errors, distortion). The philips golden ear challenge illutrates this.

However, one can only practice a skill if there is feedback as to whether one got the correct answer, there is a genuine control, and one's skill can be developed against known and defined levels of spuria.

All fine so far....

The problem is that most of what passes for acquired listening skills around audiophile parts is just repeated conjecture with increased confidence.  It is not checked against real variables in controlled tests. Hence the prevalence of nonsense about what is and is not audible based on a feedback loop of affirmation of bogus belief. One only has to compare what many people think they know about perceptual coding with what they really can hear. There is no mystery here,  just as there is no mystery about how repeated sighted tests of cables et. can simply reinforce people's views about what they think they are hearing (or more strictly as to whether what they are hearing is based only on sound pressure waves and not other sensory or cognitive inputs). It is also notable that in many blind tests those who think they have great listening skills turn out not to have them any more than ordinary human beings. 

 

In short repetition is not the same as practice, and a hobby is not the same as a skill.

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, marce said:

While it takes me a while to set up and run a blind test, it's worth it in my experience, and I enjoy it almost as much as any other part of my audiophile addiction

 

 That's fine when it's just you and a couple of friends, but other people will never accept those results as definitive .

Neither will they accept results of numerous repeats unless they were done by their own peers, in the case of E.E.s  ,

and even then some are likely to find problems with the methodology if the results don't go the way they believe that they should have  !

[Ralf11]

other people??