Everything sounds the same

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

Why would you spend $20 and a clock radio when it sounds just the same as a $5 clock radio as per the subject of this thread?

 

Perhaps it has a 3" speaker instead of a 1" speaker !

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, MetalNuts said:

Did I misunderstand the title  and the context of the initial post of this thread?  Where are the words to let you think he wanted others' suggestion about cables in contradiction to the title?

 

It beats me why he even started such a thread. Perhaps he simply got sick of talking to himself ?

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, marce said:

And thus all the electronic advancements since digital audio was first introduced have passed Fas42 by...

 

  In that case, he isn't the only one, as there have been quite a few verified findings in other areas of the Forum that people like yourself refuse to accept because they haven't been submitted to, and verified by your Technical Committees.

[sandyk]

8 hours ago, marce said:

you have to investigate and produce a theory

 

WHEN WILL YOU AND MANSR GET IT THAT THIS IS THE JOB OF QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO PERFORM !!!.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

1 hour ago, marce said:

Instead of dissing measurements and science look into it or provide a possible mechanism yourself for why something causes a change.

 

Ach so.

Danke. -  Peter

 

I have little doubt that if Peter had the time and inclination that he could do exactly that with the reports by myself, Manishander and others.

[sandyk]

Explain this !

 

 LM4562 family of I.Cs. Inside information from an ex NS Engineer. (Audioman54 -Mark)

 

Quote

The metal can devices (in split supply DC circuits) exhibit a more open and spacious sound quality with a little more detail (sorry for the non-technical audiophile terms).
 In our single blind tests everyone choose the metal can devices over the identical internal die dip packages every time!
(Not a ton of tests though. Usually 5 to 10 subjects.) We used two identical D/A preamps I designed loaded with the two different packages (HA vs MA)
 and then measured them on the AP2/192 and saw no differences with the standard tests. More investigation is warranted and hopefully Bob Pease will attack this question at some point.
 I would really like to know for sure (measurements!) why the metal can devices sound a bit better…even in the power supplies!

 

Excerpts from the thread :

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132471&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I have no inside knowledge, but I believe the thread is a tongue-in-cheek 

 

Which cheek ?

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

We certainly cannot account for every individual's perception of a given measured sonic input, but we can verify that the sonic input measures precisely the same.   

 That's fine for an analogue input, but not so easy to measure when the input and outputs are digital, before the digital output is converted to analogue by a D to A conversion. (Signal Integrity)

The digital output may also have other crap riding along with the binary data that could influence the quality of the conversion to analogue. USB Audio is particularly susceptible to this problem.

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

I would very much like that.  However, I believe he'd not return even if allowed. 

 

 It could be interesting to see Julf and Mansr slugging it out to  become the Ayatollah of the hard line Objective mob. in C.A. (NOT !)  

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, esldude said:

It isn't a bunch of killjoys

 

That's your personal opinion ONLY. I see very little advice on how to improve Computer Audio from the majority of the qualified Objective members, yourself included (with your vast background in this area),, who mainly post in the General Forum area. The vast majority of their posts appear to be put downs of other members, even other highly qualified members and equipment manufacturers , who they believe are incorrect with their reports, whether it be Power Supplies, Clocking, USB cables, high res/DSD vs. 16/44.1 , the audible differences between S/W players, audible differences between similar types of capacitors etc. etc.

I find this disappointing, as many are in a position to offer valuable advice to others if they chose to.

 

 

 

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Esldude is one of the most helpful members on this and other forums. He’s knowledgeable and reasoned and only posts on things he knows and understands, unlike some others here... Alex! Please stop the attacks.

 

Please show where Dennis has posted any advice recently on actually improving Computer Audio.

 I also stated that Dennis was quite knowledgeable in this area, but just like you , it is invariably used to try and prove others wrong instead of how to improve computer audio.

[sandyk]

26 minutes ago, marce said:

Many do because the information does not fit with your beliefs it is ignored or you call the poster a troll or worse.

 

 We don 't need to call some members Trolls, as they label themselves as Trolls and appear to regard it as a badge of honour.

 You are guilty of exactly the  same as you have demonstrated on quite a few occasions by fobbing me off when I have tried to provide you with proof of my reports.

 The offer to provide proof still stands. If you have a suitable media player that can play BR discs with .mp4 high res videos on it, (or can borrow one) that can connect via HDMI to a HDTV, I will make another BR comparison disc and send it to you.

[sandyk]

24 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Alex, we all use real computers now. We stopped going to Best Buy and arrange for movies there, let alone CDs. Well, that is what I imagine.

All we can do these days is download the files.

 

So there it stops. 

 Peter

 I am well aware of this, but we have an impasse because quite a few members insist that as long as the 1s and 0s come out of their cheap SMPS laptops etc.in the right sequence , that both the audio and video will be optimum, because the checksums say so.

This means that XXHE , HQPlayer, Foobar 2000,  Power DVD etc,. will all sound the same according to them, just as Video MUST look the same with the various S/W players.

 I deliberately put the comparison files on BR discs, meant to be played on a decent media player via HDMI into a HDTV to take the huge variables between the quality of laptops, various OS PCs and Servers completely out of the equation.

 The only need for a PC in this case is to rip the BR disc to SSD/HDD in order to verify that the checksums of each pair of comparison files are indeed identical.

 

The big bonus with these discs when used as described, is that you can not only hear audible differences between tracks, but you can AT THE SAME TIME see obvious differences in picture contrast and detail.

 It's very hard to ignore what both your eyes and ears are telling you at the same time !

Although I don't doubt that Mansr would be able to.

 

Alex

[sandyk]

Re my previous post in this nonsense thread..

 

P.S.

 For those who haven't seen them, I have attached links to only a  couple of many screen  grabs of my TV screen with paused images taken with a cheap Canon camera without access to a tripod.

 I don't claim these to be definitive proof.

Please view them using the links directly from ImageShack

 

The actual tracks on the BR discs are far more revealing  with both Audio and Video and provide the irrefutable proof..

 

https://imageshack.com/a/img922/5227/nf2ksk.png

https://imageshack.com/a/img924/3245/0n8crB.png

 

https://imageshack.com/a/img922/7507/c1tHK1.png

https://imageshack.com/a/img922/3435/tXcQU5.png

 

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, rickca said:

I love this thread!  Since it started, there has been a notable decline in the number of off-topic posts in the threads I care about since many of them appear here instead.

 Rick

 Power Supplies matter, improved clocking matters, the quality of the USB cables matter , JSSG improves even PSU leads, Uptone products aren't Snake Oil, high res LPCM and DSD is an improvement over 16/44.1 etc. etc. 

 

The threads that you care about, and their participants  are achieving worthwhile improvements with computer audio.

 

Alex

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

I’m basing it on reports from the Lush^2 thread. Changes in FR is what seems to be reported the most.

 

 Less masking of low level HF detail and low level harmonics by wideband system/external noise may be a part of the answer ?

 The best USB cable appears to be NO USB cable, just a simple USB adaptor without the screen connected through in order to reduce possible earth loops, as many USB devices have 0 volts and shield internally connected.(even USB memory)

This is more important if the PC/Server is earthed.

 If the USB device will also work without the need for the noisy +5V SMPS being passed through the cable then that will also result in a further improvement. Some commercial USB adaptors even have tiny bit switches to isolate +5V and shield connections.

 However, it's usually not possible to use an adaptor instead of a USB cable which should be no longer than 1M or so if possible.

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

16 minutes ago, marce said:

Its the 21st centuary if you can tune your Hi-Fi be altering the EMC pick up then it's a sad day...

 

Every system I've come across is sensitive to its electrical environment - this is a failure of the engineering crowd, and currently means that all sorts of band aids need to be applied, to rectify.

 

It's sad that so many (especially in the USA) feel the need to use boutique mains cables with improved screening ,Hospital Grade A.C. sockets ,as well as special Mains Isolation transformers with 5/8 of SFA capacitance between Primary and Secondary sides to even get the best out of amplifiers , DACs etc.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, marce said:

How many don't though?

Perhaps you should ask that question in another area of the forum, perhaps even start a Poll ?

 

Our 230VAC 50HZ systems appear to be far less susceptible to such problems, although I note that even a few Au. members use Isolation Transformers.

[sandyk]

32 minutes ago, marce said:

Thats why all these average speed camera's can pick out your number plate at 70 MPH or it can spot a bad spot on a crisp and throw it out, or recognise a face and zoom in...

 

 Or even point a camera at streams of traffic from a high vantage point 100s of metres away, and tell if you are using a mobile phone or not wearing a seat belt ,and photograph the evidence, as well as relaying your number plate info to patrol cars in the general area.

 In NSW Au. they even recently caught a truckie using 2 mobiles at the same time while driving  and had a photo as evidence !

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

All your files have problems with noise though that we don't have ?

 ???

 Are you referring to the photos taken from my TV screen ?

 You do not have any direct copies of my A or V files to make such a claim, and any that may have been downloaded by you WILL have added noise due to  TX and  RX degradation via the Internet as well as added noise from your own PC, which in any event, you claim to be able to correct anyway with your Optical methodology.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

you're on fire today!

 

No , he is full of it today !

 

 It's a wee bit incredulous that he claims that he can use a bog standard PC with apparently no optimisation needed, not even S/W such as JRiver, XXHE, HQ Player etc. , the need for A.S.I.O. or playing files from System Memory , and no audible degradation is suffered when  downloading, ripping to internal storage  etc., yet many other members using Mac Minis etc. need to use items such as a JS2 Linear PSU, improved clocking with their motherboards, separate Linear PSUs for their Motherboards power , ISO Regens etc.to markedly improve their SQ whether from CD rips or DLs.

 

 I would remind him of the so often quoted statement by his fellow E.E.s that " Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Proof"

 At least I put my claims to DBT testing, and appraisal by a highly respected Recording and Mastering Engineer.

 

Has anybody seen independent verification of Jabbr's claims ?

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Which claims are those? I can independently verify that you claim that your digital files are permanently contaminated with noise due to the copy or download process, or possibly even lack of an LPS employed during such process. Many others can verify that you claim this, as well.

 

I have NOT claimed that files are permanently contaminated with noise, although there is always the possibility of embedded Jitter at an earlier stage. ( a worn CD stamper for example.)

  I have found that when I use a low noise battery derived PSU to power an Uptone USB Regen to power a USB memory stick that the Signal Integrity can often be markedly improved , to CLOSE to that of the original recording.

 This is what was done with the photos from my TV screen  that I posted earlier in this thread. The less contrast and less sharp looking photo  was obtained by saving the same .mp4 file to the same folder of a USB memory stick that was plugged into a > 3M long generic USB cable instead of using the USB Regen.

 Jon is claiming that he can use a standard computer and markedly improve the Signal Integrity after it leaves the PC via his S.O.A. Fibre Optic network.

He MAY be correct, but he has not had this claim verified by others.

Many members go to a great deal of trouble to improve the Signal Integrity BEFORE it leaves the PC.

 

 Yet again, you have it wrong, because I use the internal SMPS in my PC, NOT a Linear PSU.

However I do further regulate the +12V to a much cleaner +5V (<4uV noise) for my OS and Music SSDs, as well as further cleaning up the internal +12V and +5V supply rails to my LG GGW H20L writer.

[sandyk]

Peter

 I am having trouble following you here, so I will take this to a PM to get away from the usual know-it-alls sniping.

Alex

 

 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, marce said:

, you seem to find this basic fact of digital transfer hard to understand...

 

 I am able to prove what I say, but you simply aren't interested in anything that doesn't agree with your own narrow view of things, even when the proof is offered to you to see for yourself..

 In the photos that I have shown, that aren't definitive proof in themselves, you should be able to clearly see that one version is lacking a little in contrast and detail. The BR discs themselves are the proof.

Of course, you didn't even bother looking at those I linked to in this thread, because just like mansr ("Troll" ) you refuse to accept the possibility that you may be incorrect in certain areas, just as Mansr did with Mani.

 Your gear is probably so lacklustre that you can't see any difference between these 2  TV screen photos either !

 With a decent monitor, one version is markedly more glossy looking.

 Look at the images directly from Image Shack

https://imageshack.com/a/img923/937/KG8zVO.png

https://imageshack.com/a/img924/2209/DpWTK4.png

 

 

 Another couple:

https://imageshack.com/a/img923/6046/VqrpVC.png

https://imageshack.com/a/img922/7790/fijBKk.png

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, PeterSt said:

sandyk, if I have it all wrong, you should have stayed up. 

Hi Peter

 It's just after 5AM here , and I have to leave for Sydney at 6AM. I will be in Sydney all day.
These were from a series of pairs of TV screen  photos that Dennis has seen, that illustrate ,. but don't by themselves prove the differences between the comparison Music Videos on BR discs with identical check sums that I sent him, even with a cheat sheet pointing out the most obvious differences. That's what the actual BR discs are for ! 
They were taken from my Samsung 40" HD TV using a cheap Canon A480 camera without access to a  tripod, and needed a little straightening (2degrees anti clockwise.) and cropping  in Photoshop.

 
 Both versions of the Music Videos were saved to the same folder on a USB memory stick.
 I took these as a last resort to try and show Dennis what his Laptop and projector were not capable of resolving, with the very obvious audible differences either from the BR discs with .mp4 videos on them, or as a last resort the USB memory stick I also sent him. (His BR player wouldn't play .mp4 videos)

Audiophile Neuroscience and 2 of his friends have also verified my reports via David's new 4K TV.

 I deliberately put the comparison videos on BR discs to be played from a decent media player such as an Oppo 103 or later model via HDMI into a HDTV to get away from crappy laptops and mediocre PCs.

Basically, the duller and less contrast versions were created by plugging a USB memory stick into a >3M long USB cable plugged into a USB 3.0 front port.

 The more detailed and higher contrast versions were created using a USB Regen powered via a JLH PSU add-on where one of the parallel 4700uF electros in the capacitance multiplier section was replaced by a Low ESR Panasonic FC 4700uF which accentuated HF detail with both A and V.

The last series of 6 pairs of comparison video images were mainly obtained by pausing the Oppo 103 on the several seconds long artist photo at the start of the SNL clips, were taken in strict order to show that I hadn't just tried to manipulate the results.

 In each case the duller looking version has the lower img.xxx number.

Both versions were from the same source file on my OS SSD.

 

The only thing that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING an A or V file to CLOSE to that of the original. How an Audio file will sound , or a Video look, is governed mainly by the PSU area and how electrically quiet the computer is.