Jump to content
IGNORED

Blue or red pill?


Recommended Posts

Also consider this....if the digital source doesn't make a difference why would a professional reviewer suggest the SOTM sounds better than a sonore using the same dac.  what makes them different.  Also Sonore themselves sell a micro rendu and an ultra rendu....both are just digital streamers, but one sounds better than the other....clearly clocking and noise makes a difference in the digital domain.

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, manisandher said:

@mansr, we have two choices for setups:

 

1. use my regular Phasure USB DAC

- the best sound quality

- will need to interpolate to 705.6/768 in XXHighEnd/HQPlayer

- will not allow us to capture the digital output of the audio PC (unless you have an ADC that accepts a 24/768 USB input), which might restrict analysis of exactly what is going on

- we will have to accept that in copying a file from my NAS to a local folder on the audio PC, the file really is the same (I totally accept that this is the case - it's during replay that 'weird' things seem to happen)

 

listening setup:

5a7ec9878d939_listeningsetup1.thumb.jpg.25879efacb0714d2799ed04c6cf25d0c.jpg

 

recording setup:

5a7ec995eecb2_recordingsetup1.thumb.jpg.3c20a1a8ed7602b5f34390678acec73d.jpg

 

 

2. use an spdif DAC that I have here

- not as good as Phasure but good enough for the job (I've already tried)

- will need to interpolate to 176.4/192 in XXHighEnd/HQPlayer

- will allow us to capture the digital output of the audio PC (using the Tascam DA-3000 I have here, or any other ADC with an spdif input you care to bring)

 

listening setup:

5a7ec995450b6_listeningsetup2.thumb.jpg.cd61e7e3d422cd8799ff5e35881d1ac9.jpg

 

recording setup:

5a7ec9969f859_recordingsetup2.thumb.jpg.16015629a0a398f18ad96a7c3c597560.jpg

 

I want to capture the digital output of at least one supposedly different-sounding pair. Is there any reason for not running the DAC outputs into the ADC and amps at the same time?

 

Quote

In either case, as I suggested earlier,  I'm happy to do a paired comparison between the two files. Mans, you could control the playback software out of sight from me, with 3 choices (I had suggested 4 earlier, but this would be easier for me):

 

1. A,B=same (either NAS or local)

2. A=NAS, B=local

3. A=local, B=NAS

 

I don't mind how many pairs we go through (within reason). If I get >70% correct, I think it's reasonable to assume that I really am hearing a difference. (Of course, if this is the case, I hope Mans hears things the way I do too.) We can then go on to recording outputs and trying to figure out what's going on.

Why not a standard A/B/X protocol?

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Shadders said:

i think you're right. Seeing as there are pills involved, it's not the sort of event i would participate in, especially with the threat of seeing how deep your rabbit hole goes...  :S

 

But he didn't choose the blue pill ;-)

 

(I've been told that's the colour they are - I have no idea myself, of course.)

 

Mani.

Main: SOtM sMS-200 -> Okto dac8PRO -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horns + 2x Rotel RB-1590 amps -> 4 subs

Home Office: SOtM sMS-200 -> MOTU UltraLite-mk5 -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Impulse H2 speakers

Vinyl: Technics SP10 / London (Decca) Reference -> Trafomatic Luna -> RME ADI-2 Pro

Link to comment
1 minute ago, mansr said:

Is there any reason for not running the DAC outputs into the ADC and amps at the same time?

 

Yep, lots of reasons:

- we'd have to use a splitter

- or a preamp, which I'd really rather not do)

- the ICs to the mono amps are quite long and if we're using the spdif DAC (which looks like the one we're going to go for), I wouldn't trust it to have a beefy enough output stage to carry it off.

- the audio PC and DAC sit in my basement, only the monos and speakers in my listening room - would make listening and recording simultaneously pretty much impossible

 

Anyway, I like the idea of listening first and then recording. The latter would only be necessary if I get a >70% hit rate, so there's a chance we wouldn't have to do any recording at all.

 

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Why not a standard A/B/X protocol?

 

Talk me through the procedure.

 

Mani.

Main: SOtM sMS-200 -> Okto dac8PRO -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horns + 2x Rotel RB-1590 amps -> 4 subs

Home Office: SOtM sMS-200 -> MOTU UltraLite-mk5 -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Impulse H2 speakers

Vinyl: Technics SP10 / London (Decca) Reference -> Trafomatic Luna -> RME ADI-2 Pro

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

my guess is that they are both subjective and objective...my guess is that you would see different noise dependent on interface, and subjectively, the sound is notably better...don't even need to try hard.

No, a blind test is binary, you can or you can't. That many people don't seem to understand that is what causes all the arguments.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Yep, lots of reasons:

- we'd have to use a splitter

- or a preamp, which I'd really rather not do)

- the ICs to the mono amps are quite long and if we're using the spdif DAC (which looks like the one we're going to go for), I wouldn't trust it to have a beefy enough output stage to carry it off.

- the audio PC and DAC sit in my basement, only the monos and speakers in my listening room - would make listening and recording simultaneously pretty much impossible

 

Anyway, I like the idea of listening first and then recording. The latter would only be necessary if I get a >70% hit rate, so there's a chance we wouldn't have to do any recording at all.

 

 

Talk me through the procedure.

 

Mani.

 

Track A, track B, guess?

 

I presume that you are using digital volume control. Do you always check before you hit play?

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

Also consider this....if the digital source doesn't make a difference why would a professional reviewer suggest the SOTM sounds better than a sonore using the same dac.  what makes them different.  Also Sonore themselves sell a micro rendu and an ultra rendu....both are just digital streamers, but one sounds better than the other....clearly clocking and noise makes a difference in the digital domain.

 

 

Justifying  their paid existence as an 'expert'.

 

And of course these 'experts' will say the fancier one   is better because it costs more.  If they don't Sonore will tell  all their friends at the 'Industry Club'  and the 'expert' won't get any more free stuff. or stuff on  'loan' as it's also called.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Yep, lots of reasons:

- we'd have to use a splitter

- or a preamp, which I'd really rather not do)

- the ICs to the mono amps are quite long and if we're using the spdif DAC (which looks like the one we're going to go for), I wouldn't trust it to have a beefy enough output stage to carry it off.

How about using the ADC in monitor mode between the DAC and amps? That way we'd be certain that we're hearing exactly what the ADC is picking up.

 

22 minutes ago, manisandher said:

- the audio PC and DAC sit in my basement, only the monos and speakers in my listening room - would make listening and recording simultaneously pretty much impossible

There are ways.

 

35 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Talk me through the procedure.

  1. Play sample A.
  2. Play sample B.
  3. Play A or B randomly, you decide which it is.
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Justifying  their paid existence as an 'expert'.

 

And of course these 'experts' will say the fancier one   is better because it costs more.  If they don't Sonore will tell  all their friends at the 'Industry Club'  and the 'expert' won't get any more free stuff. or stuff on  'loan' as it's also called.

 

I agree to some extent...at least as far as "hype and hoopla" about perceived improvement.

 

To be honest.....i am throwing everything i have said about enet out the window after just about 5 seconds ago....usb is sounding amazing for the first time in my life....

Link to comment
3 hours ago, manisandher said:

I'm not keeping any more bottles for you - I only managed a couple of sips from the last one we 'shared'.

 

Any thoughts on the setup/procedure?

 

Since when do *we* require strange ADC setups or ABX etc. ? I never ran into the necessity and you know it. So let's not forget that you will be listening together with real persons who seem to be adult enough to hear the things you both/all hear. Never has been different. It is only that the other(s) don't know yet. But they will see (under your supervision).

 

What would fail (and always fails if you ask me) is the ADC part of the project. It obfuscates and a down errors are usually made. Also of it would be able to record in 768.

 

All it requires is at least two pairs of ears and a pair of mouths to talk to each other about findings. Do it alone won't work because you (we) hear what we like to hear. So it needs pointing out. After one time, the other can do it too.

Of course you understand that I am only talking to the broad audience, because you and me already know this.

 

And a warning : whatever it is that may happen during playback directly vs via NAS and "the influence", would be under the influence of the ADC and cabling and groundloops and what not just the same.

And as you know, Mani, AB is not even necessary. Just play different tracks is sufficient.

 

Last thing : It would be quite difficult to set up playback through XXHighEnd which actively tries to eliminate NAS etc. influence, up to the wild degree you know about. So might you think that you can eliminate the caching while playing music from the NAS ... you can't. Or the other way around : if you'd copy files from your NAS to local yourself, I would debunk that by claiming you did the same as XXHighEnd did without doing so.

Of course this puts the extra emphasis on the (still !) differences, but they will also be beyond reason for you guys. So you *are* correct on the thesis, but you won't prove it by any means, especially not an ADC. Ears yes, though.

 

I would stick to sipping the Scotch and have a nice time talking through how to really test this, or how to report the findings (with my promise that you will both succeed on that) to the public. Start with your USB cables to get in the good mood. It is all so easy ...

 

Peter

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^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)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I am late to this game...i am confused what the disbelief is about?

Of course a file from a nas would sound different than playing from local pc?

Does someone think they would sound the same even though different interfaces and different circuitry?  That's ridiculous.

 

Mansr has always sounded very logical, knowledgeable, and believable, i think there must be some misunderstanding??

After those two posts I will get to DACS, which is more complicated.

DACS have several inputs and some at better than others (which of course is part of my "It all depends on the DAC" comment).

 

BUT - most  DACS don't have a network port. So you have to use a DAC  that does or put a box like a Sonore in front.

So instead of  just listening  to supposedly identical files on two different  sources you have  altered something else too.

So your ears can't tell you anything about those two 'identical' files..

 

I've got  a  box  that is both a USB DAC   and a network player,  so at least the 'digital to analog' section is the same. And  that should mean that if the files are truly identical they will sound the same. Don't worry about timing differences between the two different things the files reside on, there NO  timing in a file so it can't be 'wrong'.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Since when do *we* require strange ADC setups or ABX etc. ? I never ran into the necessity and you know it. So let's not forget that you will be listening together with real persons who seem to be adult enough to hear the things you both/all hear. Never has been different. It is only that the other(s) don't know yet. But they will see (under your supervision).

 

What would fail (and always fails if you ask me) is the ADC part of the project. It obfuscates and a down errors are usually made. Also of it would be able to record in 768.

 

All it requires is at least two pairs of ears and a pair of mouths to talk to each other about findings. Do it alone won't work because you (we) hear what we like to hear. So it needs pointing out. After one time, the other can do it too.

Of course you understand that I am only talking to the broad audience, because you and me already know this.

 

And a warning : whatever it is that may happen during playback directly vs via NAS and "the influence", would be under the influence of the ADC and cabling and groundloops and what not just the same.

And as you know, Mani, AB is not even necessary. Just play different tracks is sufficient.

 

Last thing : It would be quite difficult to set up playback through XXHighEnd which actively tries to eliminate NAS etc. influence, up to the wild degree you know about. So might you think that you can eliminate the caching while playing music from the NAS ... you can't. Or the other way around : if you'd copy files from your NAS to local yourself, I would debunk that by claiming you did the same as XXHighEnd did without doing so.

Of course this puts the extra emphasis on the (still !) differences, but they will also be beyond reason for you guys. So you *are* correct on the thesis, but you won't prove it by any means, especially not an ADC. Ears yes, though.

 

I would stick to sipping the Scotch and have a nice time talking through how to really test this, or how to report the findings (with my promise that you will both succeed on that) to the public. Start with your USB cables to get in the good mood. It is all so easy ...

 

Peter

There's a brand new fast  and non-stop train   from Amsterdam to London :).

Link to comment

^^^ which thread did this challenge stem from?

 

I want to know more about the details of what they are A/B'ing???

 

Is it just one same file compared from an enet to a usb?

I have done lots of that type of comparison testing....

 

If so, things to take into consideration:

1. Use DSD256 file for comparison testing as it is the most demanding and provides the most detail..

2. need to ensure volume is same for both

3. network should be separate than any other network...e.g. on it's own audio network.

4. pick a file you are intimately familiar with.

 

jmo

 

please share details of test...this has my interest.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

There's a brand new fast  and non-stop train   from Amsterdam to London :).

 

Haha. I've been there (figurative as well as physically).

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^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)

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

oh music services, mqa, blah, blah...none of that stuff interests me, but i would tend to believe that they will sound different....my thinking, main reason being your local network should be cleaner than streamed from internet with less ECC...thus less noise....but i don't really know, and is of no interest to me (lol)....bleh streaming over internet...

 

for serious listening, native dsd or bust....can't do that with any streaming service...i can't even believe people pay for streaming services.

 

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I've got  a  box  that is both a USB DAC   and a network player,  so at least the 'digital to analog' section is the same. And  that should mean that if the files are truly identical they will sound the same. Don't worry about timing differences between the two different things the files reside on, there NO  timing in a file so it can't be 'wrong'.

 

Tell me more?  Are you talking your DCS?  it has both enet and usb? 

Which do you favor, usb or enet for SQ?

Sometimes it's hard to tell because they use different drivers and are at different volumes, and you can't easily switch between the 2.

Anyway, which device are you talking about, which interface do you favor and why?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

1. Use DSD256 file for comparison testing as it is the most demanding and provides the most detail..

19 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

^^^ one thing about ethernet is that for any test, it should be on it's own segment...timing is critical...and any bandwidth use on same segment will interfere with results.

 

 

That's why high frequency DSD playback is not a good test  over a network compared to a file from local disk: there's a significant bandwidth requirement with demands on latency that could cause audible trouble if packets are lost or retried frequently. Obviously, serious errors and significant delays on the way to the DAC will account for differences in sound.

 

I have no problems playing PCM at 24/192KHz over my Wi-Fi, but there are obvious errors playing DSD256 and more so, DSD512. Wi-Fi has over 180Mb/s sustained, with low latency and no reported errors, and I'm using a repeater bridge next to the audio PC.

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Spacehound said:

In the UK it's not illegal. If they send stuff along 'my' broadband wire, (which is not owned by Tidal) I can do whatever I want with it.

 

Gven that it's currently illegal to rip CDs in the UK for whatever reason, what makes you think that ripping online music service streams is any way different?

 

"Legal streaming of music is also under threat. Stream-ripping, by which internet users remove and store content away from its original advertising-revenue generating platform, is becoming a significant problem.

A report commissioned by the IPO and PRS for Music has revealed that 15% of internet users have been involved in stream-ripping. It also reveals that nearly a quarter (24%) of 'stream-rippers' believe that their action were not infringing IP rights."

Source:

GOV.UK Press Release - Illegal streaming threatens copyright progress

 

See also:

BBC News - Stream-ripping is 'fastest growing' music piracy.'

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment

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



×
×
  • Create New...