Everything sounds the same

[pkane2001]

17 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I disqualify for a commercial enterprise. Btw, I also don't see others questioning our products. I must have missed that all.

You really will have a hard time in quoting such situations. So don't let your imagination go beyond reality, please. Thank you.

 

XXHighEnd settings question was at the core of the red/blue pill thread. Lush efficacy has been questioned by many in a long thread. Lush^2 thread is hilarious, by the way. I love all the participants playing with all the thousands of possible setting combinations and finding that one particular setting helps with male voices, another with soundstage, another with string instruments, another with female voices, another with bass, etc., etc. If this doesn't deserve some questioning, I don't know what does.

 

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

I've had my Lush^2 for a few weeks now, but haven't posted about its sound. Why? Because I'm finding it really difficult to describe the sound.

 

BUT... let there be no doubt whatsoever that changing the shielding configuration of the Lush^2 definitely changes the sound.

 

@pkane2001, @mansr, @esldude, you're all bright guys. It's such a shame that instead of putting your respective intellects to use in trying to understand the possible mechanisms at play, you're all hell bent in telling those of us who hear differences that we must be imaging them.

 

I invited @mansr up to my place (paid for his train ticket, collected him from the station, fed him, etc) because I was sure I could demonstrate what I was hearing to him. I scored 9/10 in the blind ABX test. I sat him down in front of the system afterwards and pointed out exactly what I was hearing. He claimed he couldn't hear the differences I was hearing.

 

It seems to me that you guys have a massive bias against any evidence that contradicts your worldview... be that subjective listening impressions, or a p=0.01 in an ABX.

 

Mani.

 

Mani, I think you misunderstand. My questioning of Lush^2 is not that all of it is caused by imagination -- that's likely true about a large part of the posted reports, how could it not? But, I'm willing to consider that some changes are really caused by Lush^2. My real question is why would a properly shielded, well designed generic USB cable suffer from any of the effects that cause these audible differences with Lush^2?

 

And why would anyone want to use a 'configurable' USB cable as a tone control, if all that's required from a USB cable is to carry the digital signal, unmolested from device A to device B? Dennis points to some possible mechanisms that might be at play, and how unpredictable this tone control can be, depending on software, hardware, and even how you route your cables. 

 

As to your point about massive bias, perhaps you forget that I spent a significant time writing software to find the differences in recorded sound with the two XXHighEnd settings. This was done precisely because your test did demonstrate something that seemed unusual and prompted me to try to dig deeper to gain a better understanding. Whatever my biases might be, I took your results seriously.

 

My point earlier in the thread to Peter was that questioning something does not equate to an attack. It is a normal part of learning, investigation into unknown, and of a general human interaction. Some of us are more curious than others.

 

 

 

[pkane2001]

21 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Nothing wrong with personal preference, or the "illusion of being there"

 

As NP says, this is for enjoyment, not kidney dialysis.

 

Absolutely! That's why I've had these Pass amps for the last 20 years, even though I had a number of other amps pass through my system in the meantime.

 

22 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Uggg... don't want to get too much into it here, but the idea is that even harmonics are much more pleasing than odd, and in some cases NP puts pots into the amps to allow SQ to be tuned ... in any case I don't strive for lowest overall distortion and don't feel that single measurement says it all, there are lots of other measurements that can be factored in as well. My choice.

 

Oh, that I believe. I do plan to add some harmonics generator to my listening evaluation software. Symmetric vs asymmetric transfer functions. I've been looking for some papers and reports documenting specific transfer function approximations, for example, for an SET amp, a class B solid state, etc. Doing this just for fun, of course.

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Irrespective of configuration, the Lush^2 does NOT change the bits reaching the DAC. And yet the sound changes. Paul, aren't you curious about what might be causing this?

 

Yes, I'm curious. I can certainly see how various shielding and grounding schemes can have a different effect on induced EMI and noise carried by the USB cable. A properly shielded generic USB cable, possibly with an external (or disconnected) 5v power supply/ground should have none of the issues that these various configurations of Lush^2 are trying to address.

 

While I can understand the excitement of someone playing with switches on a USB cable causing changes in the reproduced sound, I don't see that this is needed or even desirable. USB cable is the wrong place to tune the system frequency response.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Why must it always be frequency response?   

 

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

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Round and round the merry-go-round we go ... the "finest measurement instruments were never designed to recognize patterns", but humans are excellent at detecting them - which is why AI been the great Battle. If the pattern is an unpleasant one we don't like it, and we can't pretend it isn't there just because the "finest measurement instruments" aren't registering it.

 

What is your point, Frank? Why is AI and pattern recognition all of a sudden a thing for audio? I thought we were talking about the finest measurement instruments not being able to detect the differences. If there are no detectable difference there is no pattern. Regardless of how good the AI is.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

We have also been around the maypole of detecting differences over and over again - the instruments are not organised to measure what matters; the highest quality multimeter is useless for a getting meaningful reading if the wrong range has been set ... it took a long time for LIGO to 'work'; meaning, gravitational waves didn't exist before that, because no-one could detect them, .

 

I have no clue what you are saying, Frank. Instruments are not organized? Why not? What is it that you're trying to measure, what is meaningless and why is this important? 

 

Gravitational waves were a prediction of an otherwise very well substantiated and validated theory of general relativity. And yes, they were not known to exist until their detection with instruments. Where's your proven theory that substantiates hearing the differences in power cords or audible differences caused by resoldering otherwise well-made connections?

[pkane2001]

52 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Has anybody seen independent verification of Jabbr's claims ?

 

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.

 

[pkane2001]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

I've found that people can be oblivious to meaningful variations, because they concentrate so hard on matters that they feel are important.

 

And I've found that people often put too much trust into what they hear, resulting in them hearing what they believe rather than what's really there. 

 

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

All those who find it "hilarious" have just driven over the dead body in the road, with complete blindness to what was in front of them. 

 

More car analogies, Frank? Getting a bit morbid...

 

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

I wrote a very ling essay of which I decided to keep it put not post. So let me stick to :

 

Nothing is coloring. I even said so explicitly, of course assuming that everybody knows what "coloring" as such is.

The Lush^1 is just a cable.

The JSSG 360 tweak is just "a" tweak and it makes the Lush^1 sound better.

The Lush^2 is a 10,000+ cables, with configurations which sound better than the original Lush^1 and also better than the JSSG 360 variant which in the end is only one of those 10,000+ variants.

 

Of course, those who are pertinent about a USB cable not being able to influence SQ anyway, will also not be able to understand. So they didn't even start reading this. OK.

But those who are interested and have the experience that the USB cable indeed influences SQ (or the sound in general) may wonder which situation actually is the one with least distortion. Is it the $1 cable ? is the the Supra ? the Curious ? the XYZ^2^2 ? The Clairixa then ? (it should be because it was made for that).

 

What all of these cables have in common for "variance" is their focus on a frequency range. And these can even be "several". For now think reflections. And yes, I know, it is a digital cable (application).

 

Generally I have been talking about emphasis to the mid, to the low-highs (which I somehow don't call high-mid), the highs and also the bass. Yeah, that seems all together. But the stupidity of the thing is that when the emphasis goes to the bass alone, you may have better bass (not coloring) but less mid and highs because that is how it works out. So the skill is to find a configuration where (e.g.) a voice is not singing on its own because the bass lines are there for a reason just the same.

 

Of course we can't tune for a voice etc. And of course that could better be done with DSP. One thing : DSP destroys (it would be the clear contrary of what I hunt for, starting with non-ringing filters) and this is not destructive at all. Unless, of course, we select a configuration of the shielding where all the highs are muffled.

Anyway, similar to Operating System tweaks, this is nothing like bass and treble knobs and also nothing like the best PEQs and room correction and what not.

So it is just many cables, and one may color more than the other if that is really how you like to interpret it. Ditch the one which colors too much. Keep the one with the best mid, if that is what you're after.

Or wait until someone finds "that cable" which has all good.

 

Having said this all, why would anyone want to use a cable to color their sound instead of DSP? -> because a. I don't like DSP and b. because DSP would be dialing in the blind (unless with room correction which I also don't like) and merely :

c. because we're after the best reproduction. This is not about adding color - it is about removing it.

 

Ad c., example :

If a combo with bass and voice play together, someone (like a sound engineer) should have set them up so that the one does not overvoice the other. And for example, when the bass with say 50Hz shows 2nd harmonic distortion, it will show 100Hz and interferes with the voice which also plays there. This, while in reality both did not interfere. The trick for this example is thus the undistorted bass and not letting the voice come forward. That would work too, but it will not imply the proper balance.

 

Peter

 

 

 

Peter, I guess I know the answer, but did you or are you planning to measure Lush^2 at some of the ‘best’ reported configurations? At this point, I would even take a USB eye pattern plot.

 

[pkane2001]

50 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Paul, maybe (the latter),

 

 

maybe not (the latter).

 

This is what, a wave propagation plot? Why is this significant?

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, marce said:

I do photography so I use a calibrated 2k monitor. I need accuracy in the colour rendition for my pictures... Oh did I mention I also do a lot of ECAD and MCAD work...

 

Alex told me that my 5K 27” Spyder-calibrated iMac was not sufficient to view or understand his fuzzy “proof”. I guess iMac power supply was not up to his high standards? That was before he became upset and insulting.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I always used CDs, and lately just used the circuitry of the computer alone, including its DAC, for playback. I have never used a DAC as a standalone component, ever - one reason why it's "easier" for me ... .

 

Also why I didn't bother the good folk on CA in earlier times ... "Computer audio" ?? Something to try one day down the track ...

 

That’s like... a car mechanic giving advice  on troubleshooting a fuel injection system who has never seen anything other than a carburetor

[pkane2001]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

In the ones I've looked at, what struck me is how the clock is integrated into the design. I want just one clock operational, which is immediately adjacent to the actual D to A area, with no extra electronic part or connection between the two - and that is not what I saw.

 

Funny how USB isochronous protocol is one of the very few that actually accomplishes this. Not, SPDIF, not AES3, not any of the optical variants do the same. 

[pkane2001]

37 minutes ago, Jud said:

I suppose one might refer to the expectation that these particular test results would contradict established laws of physics as "expectation bias."

 

Possibly. But that's why more objective testing has to be done. Scientific pursuit is an adversarial system. Any new theory must be subjected to scrutiny and attempts to falsify it. Mani's 9/10 result was very interesting, but not conclusive. More testing needs to be done, and under better controlled conditions precisely because there is no existing, proven explanation for what he's heard.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

the rate at which frames are sent is still done by the computer end.

 

The point of flow control is to adjust the rate of data sent by the PC to the local clock at the DAC. Why would you need this if the PC side controls DAC timing?

 

[pkane2001]

3 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

The host end in the PC doesn't control the DAC timing, it controls the timing of the rate at which frames are sent. The DAC end can control how fully populated the frames are with audio samples.

 

The samples are sent in micro packets every 125 micro-seconds. That's the clock rate that drives PC output. That is not (and cannot be) the rate that drives the DAC, otherwise you'll have a very broken analog output that sounds like an 8KHz signal. The packets are received on the DAC side, stored in a buffer, and then doled out to the D2A converter by a local clock, independent of that on the PC.

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

Yes, that sounds correct to me.

 

With respect to your original comment, I think the protocol you really want is I2S where the slave's clock can actually control the timing of the transactions with the master, rather than just the flow control like isochronous USB. But then there is no agreed cabling standard for I2S.

 

With I2S the clock at the source can drive the DAC directly. While that works well for short distance runs (like a few short traces on the PCB) it may not be appropriate for a 1m cable. If a USB cable has such major issues with noise and interference as is being claimed, despite the data being reclocked, you can only imagine how bad the noise will be if it's induced directly into the clock signal.

 

That said, I've been using I2S short run connections (0.3m) on HDMI LVDS connectors with no audible issues with my DACs. 

 

[pkane2001]

14 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

My point was that although the source or master can provide the clock for the I2S transactions, it is also possible for the slave end, ie the DAC, to provide the clock.

 

That's true, I2S protocol supports using one side or the other as the clock master.

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Are we talking about inter-chip I2S (as designed) or one of the I2S over LVDS implementations? Which DACs which have an I2S input provide a clock output? I’m curious.

 

Here's a good summary from @vortecjr of Sonore:

 

Quote

... technically most DACs with i2s inputs via a RJ-45 connector accept an external master clock. Some DACs that have a LVDS i2s input via HDMI connector also accept external master clock, but most of these ignore the master clock. 

 

The linked document is very detailed, although I can't vouch for its accuracy. It does list where the master clock originates for most I2S devices:

 

[pkane2001]

 

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

@pkane2001 right, the DACs accept an external clock! I’m asking about DACs which have a good clock right next to the DA converter and which send this clock out to act as the master for the I2S bits coming in ... not so common

 

Right. I recall reading about one such implementation, but can't recall the DAC... or even if it was I2S or some custom connection.

[pkane2001]

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The silliness of thinking people exhibit amazes me at times - Obectivists accept that one can hear FR variations, and distortion - but the distortion, noise factors have be the Right Type to be acceptable - the Wrong Type automatically means the other is delusional ... talk about being in a mental straitjacket ...

 

I don't accept random theories as gospel until they can be demonstrated properly and objectively. Including audibility of FR variations and other distortions. I've actually measured my own ability to tell the differences at audible frequencies, so I don't have to accept anyone else's claims. But all of that, I'm sure, is wasted time to a magic practitioner like you.

 

That's where there is a real difference between us: I don't believe in magic.

 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

The only time the sound of my system changes significantly is when I turn it off. 

 

Frank already solved this distortion: just bypass the on/off switch.

[pkane2001]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What matters is that you can hear the character of the sound alter when you do something. Anything. If one always grabs onto the excuses of expectation bias, and human frailty, to explain something you didn't expect - then you're lost ...

 

If one goes about it methodically then one starts to see the patterns and linkages - in my case, quite obvious weaknesses and flaws are degrading the capability of the whole - and the obvious response is to resolve those aspects. The result, every time, is better overall SQ - one is making progress. If you call that "believing in magic" then I'm not quite sure what to say, .

 

Here you go again! All you are repeatedly saying is that to improve sound quality one must improve sound quality. Very helpful...not!