Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
beerandmusic

IS EVERYTHING DEBATABLE, REALLY?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I thought there was a goal, like "based on the fact that music is stored on the hard drive in analog format" then this dac has this advantage...i really didn't know what i was walking into..i was just trying to figure out why the discussion....clearly this wasn't my intention when i started this thread (wink).

 

Yeh you stumbled into an attack on Alex, lets forget those unpleasant people.

 

Re no such thing as digital there have been lots of articles and discussions and I thought it was actually accepted about analog transmission. I think it started here, more or less, https://www.audiostream.com/content/draft?page=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

My guess is that anyone that says there is no such thing as digital, must have read it on a forum and took it as gospel....that or they misinterpreted something.....clearly, they don't know what they are talking about....

 

 

If they merely said that, without any subsequent qualification then I would agree with you. But its a strawman, each person who has said it has added explanation for why they said it. Given justifications for what they're saying.

 

Its a complete red-herring to the argument to point to your vast experience in computers, though of course I am interested in human stories in tech. I shall not point to mine except to mention in passing it goes back to the 70s. Your experience is just as likely to leave you with a blinkered mindset as an enlightened one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Been there, done that ... did you ever mount a calibration disk, and then with great trepidation manually guide the heads to the right position - and hope to God that the hydraulics didn't take off, because you allowed the assembly to move too fast? O.o

oh yes....that or spill hydraulic fluid in the drive.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

If they merely said that, without any subsequent qualification then I would agree with you. But its a strawman, each person who has said it has added explanation for why they said it. Given justifications for what they're saying.

 

Its a complete red-herring to the argument to point to your vast experience in computers, though of course I am interested in human stories in tech. I shall not point to mine except to mention in passing it goes back to the 70s. Your experience is just as likely to leave you with a blinkered mindset as an enlightened one.

 

....and the earth is flat...i have heard on religion forums how people conclude similarly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, opus101 said:

Defensive much?B|

 

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Like i said, they probably read it on a forum and took as gospel....jokes on them.

 

I actually met with a reviewer of audiostream this evening....wasn't impressed....friendly, knowledgable, but less than impressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, beerandmusic said:

 

Like i said, they probably read it on a forum and took as gospel....jokes on them.

 

I actually met with a reviewer of audiostream this evening....wasn't impressed....friendly, knowledgable, but less than impressed.

 

No, have a look at the links. As I understand they interviewed engineers. Also obviously John is a well respected engineer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

No, have a look at the links. As I understand they interviewed engineers. Also obviously John is a well respected engineer.

Maybe i will tomorrow, but I already know what i know...i am sure it was misinterpreted.

They may say stuff like there is no such thing as digital music, but what are they actually saying....

 

It's not digital music...it is music stored as a binary file.

It takes analog to have music.

 

That is the purpose of digital to analog conversion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

Maybe i will tomorrow, but I already know what i know...i am sure it was misinterpreted.

They may say stuff no such thing as digital music, but what are they actually saying....

 

It's not digital music...it is music stored as a binary file.

It takes analog to have music.

 

I'd be interested to see what you make of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

It's not digital music...it is music stored as a binary file.

It takes analog to have music.

 

 

Let's take the example of an MLC flash memory card being used to store music. There's no way that the data's stored in binary form there is there? That's because the 'M' in MLC means 'multiple' (as opposed to two which would entail binary).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We've had a chat feature off and on over the years.

 

My English. I wanted to say : ... that he has created a chat forum with this and that it is not the best thing. So it is it right now already and all over.


Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i am starting to read the link about no such thing as digital, and i am probably half way through it, and haven't read anything that contradicts wiki's definition of dac

 

A DAC converts an abstract finite-precision number (usually a fixed-point binary number) into a physical quantity (e.g., a voltage or a pressure). In particular, DACs are often used to convert finite-precision time series data to a continually varying physical signal.

 

===

but i want to write down something i just read so i don't forget (i am add) which is only thing i find interesting so far.....

 

if you purchased both the transport and the DAC from the same company, they could eliminate the jitter introduced by the interface completely.
---note to myself---another reason i want player and dac in one box.

======

This is noteworthy, because that may have something to do with what that indian engineer was telling me about replacing the clock to make a $500 dac into a $5K dac with a $30 clock.  Maybe that is the "magic juice" behind the SOTM ultra and high end dacs like the ayre qx5-20...or something similar.

 

---====----==

 

At this point, i do believe it is more about the clocking ...i am just surprised it took so long for dac engineering to finally realize this....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so i read the whole page...nothing suggested there is no such thing as digital or contradicted wiki's definition of dac (thank god for that)....

The closest suggestion is statements like...

 

1) This whole discussion is about how digital is in practice really analog.
2)So designing a high performance digital circuit means that you are essentially designing high performance analog circuits
 
Neither of those statements suggests music is not stored digitally, they are only audio engineer's way of their attempt to tell the audience that they treat the digial signal (because of the high speed) as an analog signal.
 
The music is stored digitally, and it is necessary to keep the integrity of the "binary data" even at such high speeds that it is difficult, and they must treat it as analog....Notice words like "in practice and essentially"...they are merely stating how they treat the digital signa......
 
This also reinforces my belief about the importance of the "CLOCK".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2017 at 3:53 PM, beerandmusic said:

Besides speakers and amp, I am almost at the point of believing that between the least expensive and most expensive gear there is less than a 10% improvement on SQ performance.

 

Some will debate that the Yggi is better than anything they have heard at any cost.

Some will debate the Gungnir sounds just as good, and some actually prefer it.

Some will debate that native DSD will sound better than any PCM on any DAC.

Some will debate that vinyl is still king.

Some will debate upsampling to 10x DSD will make everything sound better.

Some will debate playing in native resolution sounds best.

Some will debate DAC upsampling sounds best.

Some will debate software upsampling sounds best.

Some will debate network audio will sound better than USB.

Some will debate that there is no issues with USB with a quality dac.

Some will debate if you use USB you have to use a "usb toy"

 

This guy, who i actually trust as unbiased, suggests many believe there hasn't been any major improvements with audio until the SOTM ultra.

Perhaps this is the only real advancement (more than say 10% SQ improvement AT ANY PRICE?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCoFIdPLcUk

 

 

One thing that is for certain, is as much debate as there is, it REALLY is only subjective to one's opinion, as nothing seems to be proven or even passing of double blind tests.....

 

Even when someone does believe one setup may sound better, they have to listen VERY hard, and they will even admit they like some genre's better in one setup and different music with the other setup...ore even on the same track...I like cymbals better with this dac, but voice better with this dac....

 

Maybe we should just buy the latest Marantz AVR's that has gapless DSD ethernet streaming and not worry about the 10%, and a really good set of speakers....

That or maybe we should just wait until SOTM makes an all in one device that you can just plug into your amp....

 

....after all, it really is just subjective....

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my observation 3 things factor in

 

1) "color blindness" - some people just can't hear as well the things that others hear. I can tell minute differences in correctness of timbre and transient attack. Yet imaging has always eluded me as  a thing... show me a system that images well and I truly don't hear that as anything different from a lesser system.

2) ear training - how much time have you actually spent listening to live acoustical music in your life? If your background includes  being an amateur or better performer in a band or orchestra with serious dedication, that's a big leg up from all those hours of practicing for concerts to get the sound right and listening to other instruments struggle to do the same

3) experience with auditioning gear-  ever driven a stick shift? No one does it well to start... you have to do some motor skill training to get the skills to an automatic level when "driving". And if you want to "go pro", its a long path without mentors... you  need to cultivate knowledgeable dealers and attend shows if you want to develop your ability to know whether the gear you are auditioning has "Ferrari" legs or is just a flashy "Detroit muscle car"

 

Net... the differences exist, your aural uniqueness and degree of training determines what you are able to discern.


Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, davide256 said:

In my observation 3 things factor in

 

1) "color blindness" - some people just can't hear as well the things that others hear. I can tell minute differences in correctness of timbre and transient attack. Yet imaging has always eluded me as  a thing... show me a system that images well and I truly don't hear that as anything different from a lesser system.

2) ear training - how much time have you actually spent listening to live acoustical music in your life? If your background includes  being an amateur or better performer in a band or orchestra with serious dedication, that's a big leg up from all those hours of practicing for concerts to get the sound right and listening to other instruments struggle to do the same

3) experience with auditioning gear-  ever driven a stick shift? No one does it well to start... you have to do some motor skill training to get the skills to an automatic level when "driving". And if you want to "go pro", its a long path without mentors... you  need to cultivate knowledgeable dealers and attend shows if you want to develop your ability to know whether the gear you are auditioning has "Ferrari" legs or is just a flashy "Detroit muscle car"

 

Net... the differences exist, your aural uniqueness and degree of training determines what you are able to discern.

I don't argue any of this.  I never stated i can't hear differences either.  I suggest a 10% difference at max between least expensive and most expensive (assuming "modern day technology" including proper clocks, noise reduction).

I use native dsd as my source and use only a dozen different tracks and listen to them over and over....you can ask my wife as she is fed up with me (grin).  I also don't argue that my ears are old.  But i do hear differneces, and usually I prefer native dsd over ethernet regardless of dac....and that is what I started with 4 years ago.  Besides "detail" I am more obsessed with trying to hear what music takes me there live..  I am not going to argue whether i would be a good tester or reviewer or not....of course everything is just subjective.

 

I would conclude that I can be happy in the near term of a $2K player dac in one box...which you will probably be again be able to get 95% of that $2K box for $500 within 3 years from now....so i am willing to divvy up for a small percentage of improvement....what meets my pocketbook.  If i was the wealthiest person where money didn't matter, i might opt for an sotm ultra paired with qx5-20....but i can't afford that, so my goal is to find the best i can within my budget, that I am confident in my "frugal spending".

 

Until then....a well recorded sacd still sounds superb on my ud7007 which i will use as my reference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I have no interest in playing your word games, Monk Man.

 

That's a word game. You play them regularly. In fact, I was responding to yours.

 

Think of the tools in a tool-box: there is a hammer, pliers, a saw, a screw-driver, a rule, a glue-pot, glue, nails and screws.—The functions of words are as diverse as the functions of these objects. (And in both cases there are similarities.) Of course, what confuses us is the uniform appearance of words when we hear them spoken or meet them in script.


Those who have crossed / With direct eyes, to death's other kingdom / Remember us - if at all - not as lost / Violent souls, but only / As the hollow men / The stuffed men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yeh you stumbled into an attack on Alex, lets forget those unpleasant people.

 

 

I am not attacking Alex.

 

I am attacking his belief that he can create two identical files, hear differences between these files, send these files over the Internet, and have someone hear the same differences between these two files.

 

This is not personal. I have a great deal of respect for Alex and believe that he is extremely knowledgeable about most things related to our hobby. 


“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone listening to music.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

 

That's a word game. You play them regularly. In fact, I was responding to yours.

 

Think of the tools in a tool-box: there is a hammer, pliers, a saw, a screw-driver, a rule, a glue-pot, glue, nails and screws.—The functions of words are as diverse as the functions of these objects. (And in both cases there are similarities.) Of course, what confuses us is the uniform appearance of words when we hear them spoken or meet them in script.

 

I'm sorry but reading your posts make my head hurt... and not in a good way.


“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone listening to music.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

I am not attacking Alex.

 

I am disputing his belief that he can create two identical files, hear differences between these files, send these files over the Internet, and have someone hear the same differences between these two files.

 

This is not personal. I have a great deal of respect for Alex and believe that he is extremely knowledgeable about most things related to our hobby. 

 


“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone listening to music.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I don't argue any of this.  I never stated i can't hear differences either.  I suggest a 10% difference at max between least expensive and most expensive (assuming "modern day technology" including proper clocks, noise reduction).

I use native dsd as my source and use only a dozen different tracks and listen to them over and over....you can ask my wife as she is fed up with me (grin).  I also don't argue that my ears are old.  But i do hear differneces, and usually I prefer native dsd over ethernet regardless of dac....and that is what I started with 4 years ago.  Besides "detail" I am more obsessed with trying to hear what music takes me there live..  I am not going to argue whether i would be a good tester or reviewer or not....of course everything is just subjective.

 

I would conclude that I can be happy in the near term of a $2K player dac in one box...which you will probably be again be able to get 95% of that $2K box for $500 within 3 years from now....so i am willing to divvy up for a small percentage of improvement....what meets my pocketbook.  If i was the wealthiest person where money didn't matter, i might opt for an sotm ultra paired with qx5-20....but i can't afford that, so my goal is to find the best i can within my budget, that I am confident in my "frugal spending".

 

Until then....a well recorded sacd still sounds superb on my ud7007 which i will use as my reference.

 

There's something to be said for being happy with what you have... with greater awareness you often can't afford what you can differentiate ;<)


Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, davide256 said:

There's something to be said for being happy with what you have... with greater awareness you often can't afford what you can differentiate ;<)

no argument there either....but then the hunt would be over.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Any system of reasonable quality, that has sufficient headroom with regard to the amplifier combined the particular speakers - you can't combine a SET with ribbons, say, and expect the SPLs to happen - has the potential. As said earlier, the very lowest bass notes would be more difficult to perfectly mimic - but for 99.99% of recorded piano works there wouldn't be a problem.

 

At the moment, it is almost impossible to buy a combo that is good enough in raw form to get such a result - how to transition to it being more common I'm not sure. I suspect it will be a learning process; people will need to understand what areas to focus on, to get the job done. For myself, I have a background such that I've been happy to hack cheap gear to get what I'm after - expensive, bling components being fiddled with would make all concerned nervous, including myself!

 

Not quite sure what you mean by "equating near perfect and horrible" ... if a system can produce the necessary SPLs, but it sounds very sharp and unpleasant to the ears doing this then the signs are good; something that is terribly, terribly polite while playing everything is going to be far harder to "fix".

 

I took some of these older piano recordings and digitized some of them.  Also some live concert material where there won't be "in the room" credibiilty since there will be venue sonics.  These are on a web site:  http://www.susanlauck.com/ Enjoy these free downloads.  On the studio recordings you may notice that the piano image is excessively large.  This will happen if the physical spacing of hyour speakers is wider than the spacing of the speakers that I used, where the setup had prevously been determined as a compromise with many high quality recordings that I used for playback setup at the time.

 

I presently have a small room in which I have two Focal twin 6 monitors and a single sub woofer.  These are all powered, driven directly from a Mytek Stereo 192-DSD DAC which also serves as a preamp for auditioning analog tapes.  As set up, and playing one of these recordings, a non-audiophile friend spontaneously observed that she had never heard a piano realistically reproduced.  This system will also reproduce Mahler Symphonies at row five live concert levels with adequate headroom, and the monitors come with a safety warning of ear damage, with peak sound level capability rated at 118 dB at my 1 m listening position.

 

When I got these powered speakers they sounded like shit.  It took many hours of adjustment to location, listening position and crossover settings to realize that this wasn't going to work with out adding the sub woofer.  And then when I got this I discovered it was absolutely impossible to get this balanced with the subs until I got a calibrated microphone and measurement software.  Once I did this, I was able to turn more knobs (mostly on the sub) and get good sound, but there was still boominess in some room modes.  I eventually used software parametric equalizer to get flat response in at the listening position from 30 hz up to 1000 kHz.  The regular tweeter adjustment provided a suitable high frequency roll off, and I had previously set this on a mixture of about three dozen recordings of acoustic music of various genres.  Basically, a fairly standard curve that is flat at 1 KHz and down about  -2 dB at 10 Khz did the trick, making the most brilliant recordings listenable (the Mercury Living Presence transfers) while none of these recordings sounding excessively dull.

 

All told, I put several weeks of my time into making this system sound excellent, but no more money once I bought the sub.   The alternative would have been to spend endless time trading equipment and never settling on something that provided realistic playback.   Setup is the most important part of any system, providing that you start with decent gear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...