Blue or red pill?

[mansr]

With 10 samples there are 1024 possible answers. Of these, 11 have at most one wrong answer. The chance of getting 9/10 right by dumb luck is thus around 1%. Not very likely, but also not inconceivable. The number of correct answers in a row doesn't matter since they are independent.

[manisandher]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

The number of correct answers in a row doesn't matter since they are independent.

 

Mans, think about this. Do you really think the probability of getting the same two sequences below by flipping a coin is the same?

 

H T H T H T H T H T

T T T T T H H H H H

 

???

 

Edit: thinking about it, I suppose it is!

 

Mani.

 

[mansr]

36 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Mans, think about this. Do you really think the probability of getting the same two sequences below by flipping a coin is the same?

 

H T H T H T H T H T

T T T T T H H H H H

 

???

 

Edit: thinking about it, I suppose it is!

The probability of any two same-length sequences is the same.

[pkane2001]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

All what remains now is : but trust me, with async USB still the very same happens.

Not worth much, right ?

 

Back to the drawing table.

 

That was what I was hoping was going to be tested, as the USB async reclocking should at least eliminate any timing errors from the source. If it doesn't and the capture is still bit-perfect, then the logical conclusion is something else is causing it. The next step would then be to try to determine what that something else is (noise, ground loops, power line droop, EMI, telepathy, magic, Lush cable, etc.)

 

[PeterSt]

Voodoo ?

[pkane2001]

Just now, PeterSt said:

Voodoo ?

 

That's also a good option. Is voodoo performed at the factory, or does each customer have to do it themselves?

 

[manisandher]

29 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

If it doesn't and the capture is still bit-perfect...

Had we used a USB DAC, any idea how we could have captured the USB digital outputs in real time during the A/B/X to verify that they were bit-identical?

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

22 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

If it doesn't and the capture is still bit-perfect, then the logical conclusion is something else is causing it.

 

Well, I still have no real issues with this or questions about it (I create the whole thing, right ?).

But to other's satisfaction, please be invited to in the end write the same as I have done a couple of times. This includes that there is nothing to measure (lacking "the" equipment). But I say it again : all is a bit moot now the test itself wasn't legit. The effect was still the same though, but now the effect is a "logical" one (for those who understand the SPDIF protocol).

 

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Is voodoo performed at the factory, or does each customer have to do it themselves?

 

It is simply put to you. Didn't you know ?

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, manisandher said:

any idea how we could have captured the USB digital outputs in real time during the A/B/X

 

Mani, now I am puzzled; You put up a large sequence of "USB Interface" tests (this is my mild interpretation of it). Of course this requires an intermediate device, but that wouldn't have taken out the "effect" (in analogue).

Or maybe I did not understand what you did back then (a year ago or so - with the uRendu and such).

 

PC -> USB -> General interface means -> USB -> DAC -> Analogue out (speakers)

... (General Interface means) + -> Digital out (ADC).

No ?

[PeterSt]

I edited my "interface means". Please look again if you already looked.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

the test itself wasn't legit

How so?

[pkane2001]

Just now, manisandher said:

Had we used a USB DAC, any idea how we could have captured the USB digital outputs in real time during the A/B/X to verify that they  were bit-identical?

 

Mani.

 

One way would be to use a DAC or a DDC that has USB input and outputs SPDIF, Toslink, AES/EBU, etc. 

 

Another is a hardware or software USB monitor/analyzer. Hardware can be expensive. Software (some is free) can be used on the same PC that generates USB traffic to capture and analyze it or record it. 

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

But I say it again : all is a bit moot now the test itself wasn't legit.

 

I think the test was legit, it just didn't test sufficiently for what was the original premise: audible differences between playback from NAS and from local storage.

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

PC -> USB -> General interface means -> USB -> DAC -> Analogue out (speakers)

... (General Interface means) + -> Digital out (ADC).

 

Your "general interface means" was a USB-to-spdif converter in my case.

 

So not:

PC -> USB -> General interface means -> USB -> DAC -> Analogue out (speakers)

 

But:

PC -> USB -> General interface means -> spdif -> DAC -> Analogue out (speakers)

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I think the test was legit, it just didn't test sufficiently for what was the original premise: audible differences between playback from NAS and from local storage.

 

So, are you disappointed that we used an spdif DAC instead of a USB DAC, or because we used a bit-identical software setting instead of different file locations? Or both perhaps?

 

You seem to know how to do things. Why not set up an A/B/X yourself, just the way you want it?

 

Edit. That was never the original premise - it was one of many options, and just happened to be the first I threw out for consideration.

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

21 minutes ago, mansr said:

How so?

 

Wait ...

 

11 minutes ago, manisandher said:

But:

PC -> USB -> General interface means -> spdif -> DAC -> Analogue out (speakers)

 

With this sequence (I couldn't guess that one or missed it), then I'd say it is OK.

As long as there is

a. no direct influence from jitter impeding PC activity (hardware or software via hardware);

b. something which reclocks (and in this case this is the "General interface") I'd say.

 

So, good after all ? I hope so !

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

So, are you disappointed that we used an spdif DAC instead of a USB DAC, or because we used a bit-identical software setting instead of different file locations? Or both perhaps?

 

You seem to know how to do things. Why not set up an A/B/X yourself, just the way you want it?

 

Mani.

 

Mani, don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down the test or faulting you or Mans for how it was performed. As I said before, I like what was done and congratulate both of you on going through with it. 

 

The conclusion of the test points to possible differences caused by SFS settings or XXHighEnd/NOS1a DAC interactions, rather than a general audibility of NAS vs local storage playback. Your result is still valuable, although maybe not as generally applicable. Your testing methodology is also a good model of how to conduct similar tests. So, please don't get upset over the discussion of the results -- it is the nature of scientific inquiry to ask questions and to propose alternate explanations.

 

[PeterSt]

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

the original premise: audible differences between playback from NAS and from local storage.

 

(I see that by now you already responded to Mani about this - accepted and appreciated; I'll leave be my test below anyway)

 

What would be the extra value of that ?

Please try to understand the mechanisms at work which is still the "other kind of" current draw which happens in the PC (this will be so for that NAS kind of test and for the SFS test the same, IMO). It is only that the NAS kind of test should not happen via XXHighEnd because it takes counter measures for exactly that (as discussed earlier in this thread).

 

Paul, you referred to the Lush (I know, for fun). But that one is far more difficult to explain (but still possible with a LOT of hoopla) and 100x more easy to hear. And as bit perfect.

But exchanging USB cables might not be as easy for ABX testing.

[rando]

25 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I think the test was legit, it just didn't test sufficiently for what was the original premise: audible differences between playback from NAS and from local storage.

 

Yes, it lost the driving force.  It appears there was still interest by both to experience the test.  

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Your result is still valuable, although maybe not as generally applicable.

 

But wait now. This is the difference between "general" playback software and those who pay attention to the "flow" for better SQ. XXHighEnd is not alone in that (but was the first and maybe for that reason the most extended with it). So you buy a fine turntable with some nice features and $ which is with software no difference.

So it is really nothing strange (these days). Or maybe I take too much for granted ?

[manisandher]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

So, please don't get upset over the discussion of the results -- it is the nature of scientific inquiry to ask questions and to propose alternate explanations.

 

All good Paul.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

So, good after all ? I hope so !

 

I don't think so :-(

 

For the tests I did a while ago, I used:

PC -> USB -> USB-to-spdif -> spdif -> DAC -> Analogue out (speakers)

 

That's not how we did things this time though. Here, we used:

PC -> PCI card -> spdif -> DAC -> Analogue out (speakers)

 

Why? Because my USB-to-spdif converter seems to skip samples (slight 'ticks' can be heard)... irrespective of any PC settings. I felt this would throw the digital capture analysis off, and perhaps give licence to naysayers.

 

Mani.

[pkane2001]

45 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

But wait now. This is the difference between "general" playback software and those who pay attention to the "flow" for better SQ. XXHighEnd is not alone in that (but was the first and maybe for that reason the most extended with it). So you buy a fine turntable with some nice features and $ which is with software no difference.

So it is really nothing strange (these days). Or maybe I take too much for granted ?

 

Using HQPlayer I can play from a file stored on RAM drive, local hard disk, or NAS. To me, this is a better test to determine audible differences between NAS and local storage playback, since HQPlayer does not do anything special or have any additional settings beyond ASIO buffer size that might matter in this case. 

 

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I think the test was legit, it just didn't test sufficiently for what was the original premise: audible differences between playback from NAS and from local storage.

 

 Mani was able to do considerably more and had other methods available that  he could have used , including some comparison .wav files that I sent him, but they simply ran out of time, otherwise the 9 out of 10 sequence could have been increased as well. 18 out of 20 for example would certainly have convinced more members ?

It takes a lot of time to set up and do these things, as has been shown here at the various listening sessions I have been invited to attend and participate in. You also need to take at least one refreshment break to refresh your concentration.

[esldude]

Seems like a high quality Pro recording interface would have been ideal if Mani thought the quality high enough.  PC to USB to analog out to speaker.  Concurrently ADAT or SPDIF or Toslink out to the Tascam to record digitally the bits into another PC.