SQ or SNAKEOIL

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Spacehound said:

Galvanic isolation I  think is a 'maybe'. Most DACs don't use USB power and so its wire is not connected inside the DAC. So there is only the 'ground' left. And that will be connected  to other things  whether you have galvanic isolation or not.

It's real easy and only takes a minute or two  to test if galvanic isolation has any effect or not   but I can't be bothered.

It's easy enough to construct a setup where differences with various types of isolation are readily measured. Actually hearing a difference is another story.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I agree with that and didn't intend to imply any different. Maybe you didn't either.

You said you hadn't bothered setting up a test. I have. That's all.

[mansr]

6 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

so far 12 to 1 believe that SQ above 44.1 is possible.

According to the tally at the top of the page, it's 12 to 5. You rather confusingly listed both CD and redbook. Those are one and the same.

[mansr]

6 hours ago, diecaster said:

Do you mean it is possible to attain better sound quality at higher sampling rates than 44.1 kHz? There really isn't any valid argument to suggest otherwise.

The argument is that we are unable to hear anything above (at most) 20 kHz. Sampling at 44.1 kHz thus allows a filter transition bandwidth of 4.1 kHz without creating any audible aliasing.

 

Counterarguments are that these filter requirements are impossible to realise and that we might possibly, somehow be able to perceive higher frequencies. With oversampling ADCs and digital filters, the former is longer an issue, and there is precious little evidence in support of the latter.

 

Of course, storage is cheap, so if you're even the slightest bit worried that CD resolution is insufficient, by all means go for high-res.

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

You can lead a horse to water......

You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

To me, the issue is that you're comparing a "sighting" of the Madonna with belief of what you're hearing.  I don't think you'll be successful in distancing yourself from that going forward.

 

[mansr]

3 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

You know what I find most funny about the above posts? Most of the people who develop and sell these ‘magic’ boxes are practically to a man engineers or scientists. Almost all are well educated and well qualified for the job they do and all those I’ve met believed fully in the products they’d developed. They would be horrified if they thought people believed they were selling snake oil to the gullible.

I for one am convinced that the likes of Shunyata and Synergistic "Research" know full well what they're doing, i.e. making shit up and selling it to the gullible. Uptone and their ilk might actually believe what they're saying/selling.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

What are you actually trying to say ?

That they are not obviously being intentionally fraudulent.

[mansr]

51 minutes ago, Bufo Bill said:

My own thoughts on this idea some audio technicians have "I can't detect this with my equipment, therefore it doesn't exist" are to use the example of Dark Matter. Physics tells us it exists and that it's really rather common, but we can't detect it with current technology. I don't suppose that principle applies to most of what we're discussing here, I just think that both sides in this argument should accept that one should never say never, as it were. 

Regards from Bill.

 

[mansr]

31 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Lowell imagined he saw a system of   'canals'  because he's spent a lot of money on his big telescope (or got others to pay for it). And life on Mars was not thought impossible, or even notably unlikely,  in his time. So he quickly painted them on so when his imagination faded they would still be on the picture. Good 'viewing'  in astronomy  can be very rare. (Though that's not his original, just the nicest version I found.)

 

He was apparently  totally sincere, he wasn't trying to fool himself or anyone else. You see what you want to see quite often, especially if it has cost you money and effort. It works on ears too.

 

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Power supply cables to sensitive equipment (DACs) could certainly be affected by the filtering effect of a power cable, tho the amount may not be huge.

My Tascam UH-7000 ADC leaks some power supply noise into the recorded signal. Replacing its built-in power supply with an external SMPS improved things. A clip-on ferrite on the power wire brought the interference below the noise floor. Of course, some low-level ultrasonic noise was never audible to begin with.

 

Quote

For component interconnects, the likelihood is much lower, tho I expect you could pay an EE to fck up the input circuit design so badly that SQ would change with different interconnects...

I've been meaning to round up some interconnects and do a write-up of the measurable, but mostly (I have some dreadful ones) inaudible, differences. The results, especially the Audioquest cable, may surprise some.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I would be more curious as to what you have to say about the LUSH cable?

I don't have one, and I doubt I ever will.

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

"It was aimed mainly at mansr"

Go aim it at him then

Doesn't work. I must be the James Bond of audio or something.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I never read the thread on the lush cable, but i know it got a lot of publicity for awhile.

I understand that some cables may have different impedance and other characteristics that may change the sound, but not sure of the actual SQ.

It's a digital cable. Either it works or it doesn't. If it somehow changes the sound, it doesn't work.

 

6 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I polled that I think it is possible to have expensive cables that could make a difference, because i "believe" i have heard a differnce using silver cables, but it may have just been louder...but maybe lower resistance could improve details?  but i am not sure what else could make the SQ istself any more transparent?  could a lower resistance improve details or only volume?

Silver has about 5% higher conductivity than copper. The difference is negligible. If you care, just use a slightly thicker copper wire. Much cheaper than silver.

[mansr]

Just now, beerandmusic said:

and no other characteristics of the different materials matter? 

None whatsoever.

 

Just now, beerandmusic said:

would the higher conductivity equate to any difference in SQ or just volume?

For speaker cables, you'd get a very slightly higher volume. For interconnects, the difference is barely measurable due to the high input impedance of the amp.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

If so he is full of shit, and that’s an insult to @JohnSwensonand @Superdadand all their customers, including all audiophile people that actually are able to hear differences by doing minor upgrades to their setup.

I said I don't believe them to be knowingly defrauding their customers. How is that an insult?

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Why would he want to?

"If you think the earth is  flat go and look, I don't care either way so I'm  going to the pub.".. 

All those who believe the earth is flat, meet me at the edge.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, semente said:

To measure it?

 

He did say he was going to measure some cables...

Yes, analogue interconnects. I could of course measure the bit error rates of a few USB cables, but as they'd all be zero, what would be the point?

[mansr]

2 hours ago, Superdad said:

Or you could do as some of the magazines do and run and eye-pattern test on them.  You would see dramatic variation in signal integrity.  Jitter, amplitude, rise times, etc.

Uninteresting.

 

2 hours ago, Superdad said:

As for Mansr’s ongoing insinuations that UpTone Audio unknowingly defrauds its customers:

You're selling a product admitting you can't show it has the claimed effect. As I said earlier, I believe you really do believe it works. Thus, if it doesn't actually work, which until proven otherwise is a possibility, you're not intentionally defrauding anyone. Selling something based on a hunch alone might be considered reckless (and buying it foolish), but fraud it is not.

[mansr]

36 minutes ago, Archimago said:

It's like buying a car that is advertised to run "really, really fast" but after the purchase, you realize it only ran "really fast" and you now "should" add something 1/10th the price to achieve that "really, really fast" expectation.

Racing stripes!

 

37 minutes ago, Archimago said:

I still think John Swenson's posts are "empty, impressionistic chatter" that do not contain any "real answers" though.

That's a splendid characterisation of his "insights."

 

38 minutes ago, Archimago said:

At the very least, since we obviously can measure and show that different DACs perform differently, show us a single instance where the DAC output changed to the point where it seemed to be a "different DAC". That should not require remarkably expensive measurement gear!

All those excuses are just the technobabble equivalent of "your system isn't resolving enough."

[mansr]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

I am heartily sick, tired  and fed up with uncalled for remarks like these from people like yourself, Mansr and others about fellow professionals

On behalf of all the engineers you've insulted over the years, what do you think we are?

[mansr]

9 hours ago, Archimago said:

Note that I've criticized iFi as well. In fact they complained so much about a blog post I made back in 2016 on "USB Audio Gremlins Exposed..." that I pulled the article even after I edited it and removed copyrighted content (IMO, it was still "fair use"). Total FUD in that article.

That was indeed a ridiculous article. On the other hand, they did once let me borrow some stuff to try it out. I wasn't impressed, however.

[mansr]

20 minutes ago, psjug said:

This sounds like a lot of work and I can't help wondering if there is an easier way to get more resolution.  For example, couldn't you run the same series some number of times and then average to improve the SNR (same sort of idea as multichannel summing ADC)?  Forgive me if I am naive here; this is out of my league.  Maybe someone can explain to me why this wouldn't work.

There's a more fundamental problem here. They are assuming a priori that there is a difference. When none can be measured, they then come to the erroneous conclusion that the measurement gear is insufficient.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, PeterG said:

Anybody who depends upon the patent system for their livelihood should be shaken up by its vagaries.  Small companies in particular are gambling millions of dollars that can never be earned back, dozens or hundreds of jobs and careers, and a huge amount of sweat and stress equity.

I have a simple solution. Abolish the patent system entirely. It clearly isn't working as intended.

[mansr]

21 minutes ago, fas42 said:

A competent system makes music that you've "always hated!!" give you a jab in the chest, and make you realise what turns on the people who listen to it for pleasure.

Sometimes it turns they are simpletons who can't handle anything with more than two chords.