How much does it cost to be an audiophile?

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

Existing measurements still haven't explained @manisandher 's ABX results.

 

Perhaps we need new measurements, even if they challenge our current understanding of the laws of physics.

 

While I like to keep an open mind, I'm not so quick to dismiss established results and previously published and reviewed findings.

 

Mani's ABX test was a good example where there was a bit of confusion on the goal of the test, the test set up, and test procedures. Nevertheless it produced some interesting results, which only a few of us actually spent some time trying to analyze.

 

While I didn't find a smoking gun, so to speak, I did find differences in the audible range between analog captures where there was a software configuration difference and no such difference where there wasn't. Maybe that explains the ABX results. Most likely it's not new science being discovered here, but perhaps some new knowledge about Peter's XXHighEnd software and the SFS setting.

 

See my posts here for some more details:

 

[semente]

36 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

While I like to keep an open mind, I'm not so quick to dismiss established results and previously published and reviewed findings.

 

Mani's ABX test was a good example where there was a bit of confusion on the goal of the test, the test set up, and test procedures. Nevertheless it produced some interesting results, which only a few of us actually spent some time trying to analyze.

 

While I didn't find a smoking gun, so to speak, I did find differences in the audible range between analog captures where there was a software configuration difference and no such difference where there wasn't. Maybe that explains the ABX results. Most likely it's not new science being discovered here, but perhaps some new knowledge about Peter's XXHighEnd software and the SFS setting.

 

See my posts here for some more details:

 

 

?

 

Sorry Paul, I had forgotten to mention your topic and software, which if I'm not mystaken was at least adapted if not designed to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the files.

 

An effect identified through listening assessment which led to the creation of a new measurement; isn't that what happened with Transient Intermodulation Distortion?

 

R

[mansr]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

Mani's ABX test was a good example where there was a bit of confusion on the goal of the test, the test set up, and test procedures. Nevertheless it produced some interesting results, which only a few of us actually spent some time trying to analyze.

 

While I didn't find a smoking gun, so to speak, I did find differences in the audible range between analog captures where there was a software configuration difference and no such difference where there wasn't. Maybe that explains the ABX results. Most likely it's not new science being discovered here, but perhaps some new knowledge about Peter's XXHighEnd software and the SFS setting.

There is also this possibility:

[Jud]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

There is also this possibility:

 

Yes, I got five out of five on a cable directionality test @esldude put up on the site some time ago, but I agreed with him at the time (and still do) that it was a lucky guess.

 

Because of the limitations of echoic (audio) memory, because much that we feel quite strongly on a subconscious level never makes it to conscious realization and verbalization (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_gambling_task - in a gambling game, many rounds before consciously realizing they had a bad deck, players were already uncomfortable enough to literally break out in a cold sweat), and for a number of other reasons, ABX testing really has no shot at a valid positive response for most of the subtleties we're driving at without a great deal of training and/or experience.

 

So for example, how many of you have extensive experience or training with the differences in sound caused by varying levels of jitter?  I certainly don't.  How would you ever expect to recognize something like that if you don't know what to listen for?  And if you want to compare two sources/files, our hearing limitations I referred to earlier mean the difference has to be profound enough that you'd clearly, consciously recognize it within about 4 seconds.  Good luck.

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, I got five out of five on a cable directionality test @esldude put up on the site some time ago, but I agreed with him at the time (and still do) that it was a lucky guess.

 

Because of the limitations of echoic (audio) memory, because much that we feel quite strongly on a subconscious level never makes it to conscious realization and verbalization (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_gambling_task - in a gambling game, many rounds before consciously realizing they had a bad deck, players were already uncomfortable enough to literally break out in a cold sweat), and for a number of other reasons, ABX testing really has no shot at a valid positive response for most of the subtleties we're driving at without a great deal of training and/or experience.

 

So for example, how many of you have extensive experience or training with the differences in sound caused by varying levels of jitter?  I certainly don't.  How would you ever expect to recognize something like that if you don't know what to listen for?  And if you want to compare two sources/files, our hearing limitations I referred to earlier mean the difference has to be profound enough that you'd clearly, consciously recognize it within about 4 seconds.  Good luck.

 

Good point on training, Jud. I suspect there's a lot of room for better tools and materials for those who are curious. Know of any that can simulate various distortions, jitter, etc? 

 

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Good point on training, Jud. I suspect there's a lot of room for better tools and materials for those who are curious. Know of any that can simulate various distortions, jitter, etc?

Matlab.

[pkane2001]

Just now, mansr said:

Matlab.

 

True. A bit less than user-friendly, though

 

[semente]

The Philips Golden Ear online test was quite interesting. Pity that they have taken it down.

[firedog]

14 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Often when I think of the exactitude required in engineering, I'm reminded that it was not that many years ago when everything (including the Tacoma Narrows bridge design) was calculated using a slide rule. When I was in college, the slide rule was still a major part of the curriculum. Unlike scientific calculators, and computer programs, slide rules give the engineer, at best, an approximate answer, and I have often noticed with awe, how some engineers can look at a slide rule and extrapolate very little actual information into 5 or 6 figures! It's a lot like measuring something with a yard-stick graduated in 16ths of an inch and from looking between the graduations, coming up with a measurement out to a 10 thousandth of an inch! That inexactitude might be why common engineering practice is to over-design almost everything. Look at the hundreds of thousands of miles of interstate highway built in the 50's and 60's. All done with a slide rule and material stress specifications gleaned from a materials handbook chart. Very few overpasses in this vast network have ever failed (the ones that did fail, failed due to seismic activity, not engineering errors). Look at the Boeing B52. Designed with slide rule accuracy and still in service 60 years (this year) after the last one rolled off the assembly line. Now that's engineering for the ages!   

The reason you can do good engineering with a slide rule (including going to the moon - see pictures of the Apollo program people with slide rules in the shirt pocket) is the concept of "significant digits". Simply put, all those additional decimal places are often irrelevant to the answer needed. What's important is knowing when they are relevant and when they aren't. 

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 Are you saying that you have a fairly low IQ and that you are not a little weird ?

Sure, why not!

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, davide256 said:

hmm, better than Rega RB-300? I've modded my RB300 heavily but that internal coil spring for antiskate is a resonance magnet.

I've never owned a Rega RB-300 although I certainly know what one is. The Jelco is just an excellent arm, well made with superb bearings.

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

I do however support claims about audible differences between Power cables, which really surprised me , as a result of a listening session at the house of a friend of Audiophile Neuroscience (David) under non sighted listening conditions. All those present heard the same differences, which were in favour of the very expensive power cables.

 As I have previously reported, I have heard differences between Coax SPDIF cables of a similar length, but different amount of shielding in their construction. 

 I have also heard differences after changing the plug and socket at the DAC end to genuine 75 ohm BNC connectors. It's not always practical to replace the plugs and sockets at the source device though.

 

 I don't want to open the power cable can of worms.

[gmgraves]

14 hours ago, sandyk said:

George

 Of equal importance to improving the USB area is the choice of software player, even when using Coax SPDIF from an internal soundcard to a high performance DAC. Unlike you, I am using Windows 10/64, and only a few days ago I was forced into the realisation that the simplistic cPlay that I have been using, and found to sound markedly better than Foobar 2000 etc. was clearly outperformed by JRiver despite both using ASIO. Initially, I found that JRiver sounded slightly compressed in comparison, until Audiophile Neuroscience asked if I had ticked the Advanced option of enabling play from System Memory.

I was already doing that with cPlay, but enabling Memory Play in JRiver lifted it up to a level where it then clearly outperformed cPlay.

 I expect that the same would apply when using some of the well respected paid player software for Macs too, in comparison with say iTunes.

I use JRiver Media Player 24. But I stream using Logitech Media Server. It "serves" my ripped music and High-Res music directly out of my "Music" folder. Although these files show up in both iTunes and JRiver, neither application is used to play them through my stereo system. I use the Logitech Squeezebox Touch for that. It also works directly from the internet to select and play most Internet radio "stations" too. The exception, like I said is when I need to access a web-site directly to play something like the BBC FLAC feeds. 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, semente said:

 

Existing measurements still haven't explained @manisandher 's ABX results.

 

Perhaps we need new measurements, even if they challenge our current understanding of the laws of physics.

 

My wife is doing research in Neuroscience even though she's mainly a clinician.

A lot of our friends here in Oxford are either neurologists, neuroscientists or biochemists.

It is my understanding that the envelope is being pushed further because of new measurements, if I may call them that, new methods of diagnostic and the ability to work with ever smaller particles and use more powerful computation.

 

As accuracy in audio reproduction increases, the lowering of noise floor and reduced distortion could be and probably are exposing causes of noise and distortion that were previously unimportant or unknown.

 

I often talk about my reference system. Listening to it for the first time was a mind blowing experience and has convinced me that everything does matter even if the degree of influence varies massively depending on the element involved. Unlike most commercial electronics the amplifier has been a work-in-progress, suffering constant development for almost two decades. The level dedication, research and experimentation invested in the system would have made it commercially inviable.

 

Like @sandyk I feel that we cannot rely on the established standards for audibility.

@Jud 'often mentions his experience at the AP talk which I think is a good example of this.

 

 

Well, I generally agree with all of that. But what gives me confidence that the traditional wisdom about interconnects is correct is the simple fact that although interconnects, defined as a short pieces of coaxial cable (generally less than 2 meters) connecting a relatively low impedance source to a relatively high impedance destination while conducting a low frequency (20 - 50 KHz) signal are said to seemingly not be able to perform that function without altering the signal it's supposed to be conducting. Yet this phenomenon has never been observed with any other type of signal, irrespective of signal content, cable length or ultimately, frequency range. Physics tells us that there are three characteristics of coaxial cable: DC resistance, capacitive reactance, and inductive reactance. The DC resistance is straight-forward; so many Ohms/meter. The other two are affected by both length and frequency and these are known and their results can be easily calculated. The negative aspects of both capacitive and inductive reactance is that they exacerbate the signal carrying limitations of coaxial cable as both variables increase. But that's not what those who assert that cables change the sound are reporting. Also direct A/B comparison of two wildly disparate cables shows that these differences that people are reporting disappear in such a comparison - especially when the assembled listeners are unaware of what they are listening to at any given moment. 

The bottom line here is that while it's not impossible that this phenomenon is real, it is highly unlikely. 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, 4est said:

I find it interesting that on one hand you suggest that audio signals are readily 100% transferred unaltered while expressing the necessity to over engineer bridges and airplanes because of unknowns and in exact quantification.

While you might find it interesting, that's not what I said at all. I didn't even infer that. But now that you bring it up, yes, civil engineering projects are always over-engineered because the possibility of the loss of human life is too great to err on the side of "well, this OUGHT to be good enough". But audio, the last time I checked, is not life threatening, and engineers don't use slide rules any more. 

Now, on a totally different subject that has nothing to do with the above, I do assert that audio signals should be 100% transferrable over short runs of cable (most domestic audio setups use cables that are mostly less than 2-meters in length). I'm sure of that because there is no reason for a conductor not to conduct a line-level low frequency signal like audio losslessly over short distances. 

[gmgraves]

58 minutes ago, firedog said:

The reason you can do good engineering with a slide rule (including going to the moon - see pictures of the Apollo program people with slide rules in the shirt pocket) is the concept of "significant digits". Simply put, all those additional decimal places are often irrelevant to the answer needed. What's important is knowing when they are relevant and when they aren't. 

Absolutely true. One of the things that modern lay people seem most fascinated by is the realization that the on-board computer in the Apollo spacecraft and the lunar lander have less computing power than a modern hand-held scientific calculator.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Good point on training, Jud. I suspect there's a lot of room for better tools and materials for those who are curious. Know of any that can simulate various distortions, jitter, etc? 

 

 

I believe @yamamoto2002 developed software that can add simulated jitter to files.

[Jud]

37 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Physics tells us that there are three characteristics of coaxial cable: DC resistance, capacitive reactance, and inductive reactance.

 

Reductive physics, yes.  But as anyone who's ever experienced a ground loop knows, there are other characteristics of that bit of cable's behavior as part of a system that can on occasion be plainly audible.  Can a different type of cable in the same orientation change something like a ground loop?  They were RCA rather than coax, but yes, I've had the experience of significantly diminishing a ground hum just by switching out RCA cables to my turntable.

 

Now rather than diminishing an audible ground hum to a less plainly audible ground hum, could different cables change something like, for example, a ground loop current from subconsciously irritating to undetectable?  Conceivably.

[semente]

31 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Reductive physics, yes.  But as anyone who's ever experienced a ground loop knows, there are other characteristics of that bit of cable's behavior as part of a system that can on occasion be plainly audible.  Can a different type of cable in the same orientation change something like a ground loop?  They were RCA rather than coax, but yes, I've had the experience of significantly diminishing a ground hum just by switching out RCA cables to my turntable.

 

Now rather than diminishing an audible ground hum to a less plainly audible ground hum, could different cables change something like, for example, a ground loop current from subconsciously irritating to undetectable?  Conceivably.

 

Some years ago, after hearing a slight difference when reversing the polarity of the mains cable (easy job with Schuko plugs) I started using a VdH gizmo to set polarity.

 

https://www.vandenhul.com/product/the-polarity-checker/

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

I believe @yamamoto2002 developed software that can add simulated jitter to files.

 

That's an awesome set of utilities @yamamoto2002 has produced! I'm surprised these are not used more widely, this is the first time I'm hearing about them. There's a whole lot more in that WWAudioFilter that can be used for testing audibility. Looks great, can't wait to play with it. Thanks, Jud!

[mansr]

38 minutes ago, semente said:

Some years ago, after hearing a slight difference when reversing the polarity of the mains cable (easy job with Schuko plugs)

There's nothing mysterious about that. There's always some amount of capacitive coupling between the chassis and the mains input. When components are connected together, small ground currents will form. These can be amplified into audible hum, especially by high-gain phono preamps. This is one reason for using balanced interconnects with the shield connected to one end only.

 

38 minutes ago, semente said:

I started using a VdH gizmo to set polarity.

 

https://www.vandenhul.com/product/the-polarity-checker/

Overpriced.

[davide256]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Well, I generally agree with all of that. But what gives me confidence that the traditional wisdom about interconnects is correct is the simple fact that although interconnects, defined as a short pieces of coaxial cable (generally less than 2 meters) connecting a relatively low impedance source to a relatively high impedance destination while conducting a low frequency (20 - 50 KHz) signal are said to seemingly not be able to perform that function without altering the signal it's supposed to be conducting. Yet this phenomenon has never been observed with any other type of signal, irrespective of signal content, cable length or ultimately, frequency range. Physics tells us that there are three characteristics of coaxial cable: DC resistance, capacitive reactance, and inductive reactance. The DC resistance is straight-forward; so many Ohms/meter. The other two are affected by both length and frequency and these are known and their results can be easily calculated. The negative aspects of both capacitive and inductive reactance is that they exacerbate the signal carrying limitations of coaxial cable as both variables increase. But that's not what those who assert that cables change the sound are reporting. Also direct A/B comparison of two wildly disparate cables shows that these differences that people are reporting disappear in such a comparison - especially when the assembled listeners are unaware of what they are listening to at any given moment. 

The bottom line here is that while it's not impossible that this phenomenon is real, it is highly unlikely. 

 

That a very 1800's or DC power view of electrical conduction, kind of ignores quantum dynamics. When dealing with AC current, skin effect applies for conductors and junction effects for the joining of two different metals ( cable and terminating cable plug)

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

There's nothing mysterious about that. There's always some amount of capacitive coupling between the chassis and the mains input. When components are connected together, small ground currents will form. These can be amplified into audible hum, especially by high-gain phono preamps. This is one reason for using balanced interconnects with the shield connected to one end only.

 

Overpriced.

 

This is exactly why fights like "Cables don't matter! Yes they do!" don't help, and why simple explanations like the one you just gave can allow anyone who pays attention to get better sound without spending a hell of a lot.

[mansr]

20 minutes ago, davide256 said:

That a very 1800's or DC power view of electrical conduction, kind of ignores quantum dynamics. When dealing with AC current, skin effect applies for conductors and junction effects for the joining of two different metals ( cable and terminating cable plug)

Maxwell and Heaviside did their work, including research on the skin effect, in the 1800s.

[Richard Dale]

36 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

This is exactly why fights like "Cables don't matter! Yes they do!" don't help, and why simple explanations like the one you just gave can allow anyone who pays attention to get better sound without spending a hell of a lot.

I agree with that. One thing I like about the Head Fi forum is that they keep the threads focused on practical discussions about equipment reviews and good combinations to try, and the moderators intervene pretty quickly when an off-topic 'cables don't matter' or similar discussion starts.

 

If the thread is in the middle of a 'cables don't matter' argument, it makes it very difficult to recommend specific cables. On this particular thread entitled 'How much does it cost to be an audiophile' you would expect that the main contents of the thread would be recommendations for entry level systems, including cable recommendations, as even if you believe they all sound the same, you still need cables to actually make the system work.