Jump to content
IGNORED

Blue or red pill?


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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.

 

 

Peter cleared up this was about music services vs from nas, so i don't really care any more...

My "only" interest (for the past 6 or so years) has only been inre sq for native DSD.

 

this thread may be of interest to people that use tidal or other streaming services...but it is of no interst to me,  and I will only revisit if anyone responds to my posts.

 

Yes, i agree...for their purposes they should test with whatever the streaming services offer...doesn't make sense otherwise (grin)...but it's still a yawner to me.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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....

I've got about 20 ways of playing the same thing, from PC disc 'direct' to USB, from PC disc to PC memory to USB.

Same but via network.

Same as both but using a external USB disk.

Same as both but using a NAS disc.

From the NAS disc not using the computer at  all to the network player, which is also  the  USB DAC in the above.

To my old low cost  Network player but using its 'passthrough' to the USB DAC/Network player above in coax mode.  (That's like  a Sonore installation though it's a coax output  to the following DAC  rather than USB.).

Etc. Etc.

 

As long as I don't change the DAC/Network player I don't hear the slightest  difference between any of them.

 

I DO hear differences at different times of day. At about 2 or 3 early in the morning  when local electrical activity is presumably low it's better (though the noise when 'playing silence' is inaudible at full volume with my ear against a speaker in both instances). But that   'improvement' will be on the 'analogue' part, hich is only the last half of the DAC/Network player and what follows, which is just a power amp (I don't use a preamp) and speakers.

 

dCS Rossini DAC with lots of inputs including USB as well as being a network player--------->.Naim NAP250DR--------->.Tannoy Kensingtons

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

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.

 

That was the original spirit of the invitation, and I hope it's still the case.

 

17 hours ago, mansr said:

I'll bring some recording equipment.

 

If this is to aid in "how to really test this", then I'm all for it.

 

Edit: If we stick to just files from the NAS vs. audio PC, then there really shouldn't be any need to verify they're the same - Mans can do the copying the files himself to make sure there's nothing underhand going on. However, streaming might also be of interest.

 

When I stream a file from Tidal and then listen to the exact same file on my NAS, they sound different to me. I'd like to demonstrate this to Mans. Let's say Mans agrees that they do indeed sound different. The obvious question then is: how do we know they're exactly identical? I can say, "because I say so", but that's not very convincing. I'd be quite happy to play the files back and capture the digital output of the audio PC and the analogue output of the DAC with the recorder.

 

Once Mans has verified that the two digital captures are identical (which they will be - I've done it many times already) and that the two analogue captures are virtually identical, within a small error (slightly drifting ADC clock, etc.), then Mans should be satisfied that the two files were indeed identical.

 

The thinking can then begin...

 

But if an A/B/X (the procedure for which I now understand) would be helpful, I'm happy to oblige. I could pick a few tracks that I think I'd be able to identify and we could see how I do. But I'd really, really prefer for this not to become to main focus of Mans' visit.

 

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
12 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Do you really think anyone's interested in whether this thread interests you? Are you really that egocentric?

 

no, i don't think I am egocentric.....i just thought it was of great interest to me at first and i was just replying to op, after peter explained to me what it was about....

sorry to interrupt, my apologies...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, beerandmusic 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.

 

Really?  Personally I think flac files streamed over the internet sound great. But even if you don't, a streaming subscription is worth it just to sample what you might want to buy.  Doesn't cost very much - a true bargain IMO.

 

You might not want to hear this, but your post above sounds a lot like another person who posts on here.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

yea, in hind-sight, and re-reading, i was rude....my thinking is that if someone will go through great lengths to do a/b sq testing, that it should include highres DSD.  I was just disappointed, when i found out, when i was first quite excited....anyway, my apologies to all.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about it.  It wasn't very offensive at all.  But you might reconsider your thinking on it - you might find that discovering and having access to so much music on streaming services would be something you like.

Link to comment
Just now, psjug said:

Oh, I wouldn't worry about it.  It wasn't very offensive at all.  But you might reconsider your thinking on it - you might find that discovering and having access to so much music on streaming services would be something you like.

retired fixed income, no plans for any subscriptions.  I have a pretty vast library of what i enjoy....also have free amazon and youtube, so if i find something i like i will buy it...but i shouldn't criticize others that find other methods more to their liking.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Cebolla said:

 

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.'

Because the new  law does not cover streaming. Even if it did there is the 'worthless agreement' issue. That's far older so has 'priority. and they can't repeal it because it covers too many things.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

That was the original spirit of the invitation, and I hope it's still the case.

 

 

If this is to aid in "how to really test this", then I'm all for it.

 

Edit: If we stick to just files from the NAS vs. audio PC, then there really shouldn't be any need to verify they're the same - Mans can do the copying the files himself to make sure there's nothing underhand going on. However, streaming might also be of interest.

 

When I stream a file from Tidal and then listen to the exact same file on my NAS, they sound different to me. I'd like to demonstrate this to Mans. Let's say Mans agrees that they do indeed sound different. The obvious question then is: how do we know they're exactly identical? I can say, "because I say so", but that's not very convincing. I'd be quite happy to play the files back and capture the digital output of the audio PC and the analogue output of the DAC with the recorder.

 

Once Mans has verified that the two digital captures are identical (which they will be - I've done it many times already) and that the two analogue captures are virtually identical, within a small error (slightly drifting ADC clock, etc.), then Mans should be satisfied that the two files were indeed identical.

 

The thinking can then begin...

 

But if an A/B/X (the procedure for which I now understand) would be helpful, I'm happy to oblige. I could pick a few tracks that I think I'd be able to identify and we could see how I do. But I'd really, really prefer for this not to become to main focus of Mans' visit.

 

Mani.

Mani,

 

You are a good man to offer this invitation to Mansr! I am very interested in the outcome and the testing process.

 

I am curious as to how you’ll determine that the audio PC and the NAS source do not do something different to the data before it reaches the DAC? I would assume you’d use the same player software with the same settings in both cases?

 

Otherwise, what’s the guarantee that different filters, different up sampling methods or rates, or even different DSP settings will not be applied? (Apologies if this has already been discussed.)

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

I would assume you’d use the same player software with the same settings in both cases?

 

For sure. My feeling is to use XXHighEnd for the most part (there's so much you can play around with), and HQPlayer for any streaming vs. local file comparison we might make. In all comparisons, the compared files will be bit-for-bit identical. I've discussed how we would verify that this is the case.

 

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
6 hours ago, semente said:

 

I'm an hour's drive away and could take some cheese for the wine.

Always wanted to listen to the Tunas and Peter's DAC. :D

 

I am far away and am not likely to FedEx the listeners Scotch, cheese or wine, but can provide this over the internet:

 

 

Confirmation Bias in a bottle.jpg

Link to comment
7 hours ago, mansr said:

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?

 

There should be nothing different done that may possibly degrade the results , UNTIL there are clear results either way, then go for it ! 

I have tried several times previously to capture the results via a 24/96 recorder and the extra A/D conversion has resulted in both versions sounding virtually identical again, but not quite as good sounding as the original.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
6 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

There should be nothing different done that may possibly degrade the results , UNTIL there are clear results either way, then go for it ! 

I have tried several times previously to capture the results via a 24/96 recorder and the extra A/D conversion has resulted in both versions sounding virtually identical again, but not quite as good sounding as the original.

It's meaningless anyway. The actual D/A or A/D conversion is the hard part and is never 100% accurate. So going from one to the other and back again .....need I say more?

Link to comment
15 hours ago, mansr said:

Do you expect to hear a difference yet get identical captures from the ADC? If so, do you suppose a microphone would register the difference?

 

(What I write below has nothing to do with MQA - I've already stated that I'd be happy for MQA to remain a niche.)

 

Stuart believes that:

- "time is 5-13x more important than frequency"

- "what looks like high frequency on a FFT is actually temporal microstructure in the audio itself"

- "our hearing is in fact incredibly acutely sensitive to microstructure in the mid-range and to typically quiet sounds"

 

Let's assume all this is true for now. A microphone should have no problem picking this 'temporal microstructure' up, but the ADC will screw it up if it's smoothing* this 'microstructure' up in any way. In which case yes, I can imagine a scenario where I hear a difference but get identical captures from the ADC.

 

*I believe all the ADCs I've owned and still own do this to varying degrees.

 

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
16 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

yea, in hind-sight, and re-reading, i was rude....my thinking is that if someone will go through great lengths to do a/b sq testing, that it should include highres DSD.  I was just disappointed, when i found out that it was only for streaming flac files, when i was first quite excited....i think I was too emotional about my disappointment....anyway, my apologies to all.

Apologise? Why? This isn't a classroom.

 

Streaming is this week's new fashion. Soon it will become as boring a subject as MQA, we will just do it, like walking.

Link to comment

I want to make it absolutely clear that this post is pure conjecture on my part. I'm no E.E..

 

1 hour ago, mansr said:

"Temporal microstructure" isn't an engineering term and means nothing, but fine, let's pretend it's a real thing. If you can hear it in the playback, this means it is present in the recording, the recording which was captured by an ADC.

 

Let's continue our 'pretending' and assume the MQA guys are onto something; that this microstructure is indeed present in a recording captured by many/most/all ADCs, but that it needs to be 'deblurred' to make an audible difference.

 

1 hour ago, mansr said:

If you can hear it, it also means the DAC is reproducing it.

 

Yes. But... once 'deblurred', the reconstruction filter and DAC hardware must ensure that no 're-blurring' takes place.

 

I'm out of my depth as to exactly why the Phasure NOS1 will not screw things up whereas some other DACs will. @PeterSt is the obvious person to ask, but I know he's mega busy nowadays. If you feel inclined, you could force your way through this (edit this is the bit I meant to link to): http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2856.msg30303#msg30303. I suspect it'll come across as anathema to you, but will give you an idea of where I'm coming from.

 

As is obvious, I'm not qualified to talk about any of this technically. But when I hear something that sounds right, or not, I want to explore it to figure out what might be going on.

 

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:

I thought we weren't talking about MQA.

 

 

We're not. We're talking about "temporal microstructure".

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

Hi,

Temporal micro-structure is a made up phrase for audio. I examined briefly Bob Stuarts AES document -  which is a scan of Sound Board 2015 article - temporal micro structure in audio is stated to be the same as spatial resolution in vision.

 

So spatial resolution is effectively the number of pixels representing an image. In audio - as long as the ADC can capture all the audio information, which it does for delta sigma ADC's, then it has sufficient resolution in the time domain (can capture all frequencies).

 

Again, this is obfuscation, as an attempt to state temporal blur needs to be corrected.

  1. Temporal blur does not exist in ADC's since mid 1990's when the first Delta Sigma ADC's were being used
  2. You cannot correct temporal blur - dispersion.

If temporal micro-structure is not sufficiently defined with clear examples, then any discussion is pointless.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Again, this is obfuscation, as an attempt to state temporal blur needs to be corrected.

  1. Temporal blur does not exist in ADC's since mid 1990's when the first Delta Sigma ADC's were being used

...

 

It's going to be interesting coming up with another explanation if mansr hears the differences I (and pretty much everyone else who's taken a listen) do, and yet the ADC captures are identical.

 

But this is jumping the gun somewhat.

 

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

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...