Everything sounds the same

[elcorso]

5 hours 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.

 

I have to go back to my point that listening to music is an art?

 

 

 

So far I realize that not in all cases is a problem of deafness.

 

Well, it seems that for some not ...!

 

Goodbye again,

 

Roch

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, marce said:

People still use 5% resistors, 1% is pretty standard these days, and better in critical positions, and if you use SMD you can get 4 resistors in a package where they are temp matched and kept at the same temp as each other for critical feedback, I will dig out a data sheet when back at mu work comp.

Well, I have to admit that I haven't looked under an audio component's skirt for quite a while. If they use 1% resistors generally in this equipment, why would solid-state amps and preamps (and DACs) still need to warm-up for an hour or so before one does critical listening? 

[Ralf11]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I'm creating the highest EMI environment possible to test out a new USB isolation technique...

 

 

will it be Tempest certified?

[fas42]

38 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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.

 

The point is that people can be highly sensitive to patterns - and I threw in AI as an example of where it turned into a major exercise, coming to terms with dealing with the real world by having very refined levels of that sort of ability.

 

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, .

[jabbr]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

will it be Tempest certified?

 

Better, will use quantum entanglement communications: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-achieved-direct-counterfactual-quantum-communication-for-the-first-time

 

The only problem is that it works perfectly when you aren't listening ... ?‍♂️

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Well, I have to admit that I haven't looked under an audio component's skirt for quite a while. If they use 1% resistors generally in this equipment, why would solid-state amps and preamps (and DACs) still need to warm-up for an hour or so before one does critical listening? 

 

The complexity of all the parasitic behaviours that are temperature dependent, and vary per all sorts of other factors are part of everything that make listening to a less than optimised rig a bumpy journey. OK sound is always achievable; peak quality is a high wire act ...

[Ralf11]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Better, will use quantum entanglement communications: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-achieved-direct-counterfactual-quantum-communication-for-the-first-time

 

The only problem is that it works perfectly when you aren't listening ... ?‍♂️

 

does the correlation information detract from the quantum mechanism at all?

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

I have to go back to my point that listening to music is an art?

 

Roch

 

The good news is that it's not ... a rig can snap into the "good zone", and all your cares fall away ... . No monitoring, obsessing, analysing, fussing about, making excuses - music is King, you are at one with the experience ...

 

At least, that's how it works for me, .

[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 ?

[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...

 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Nope, all my internet downloads go fiber into my NAS. No degradation. Perhaps the Australian photons are all jittery? They probably spin backwards ?

Should be okay as long as you don't use aethernet.  

[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.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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?

 

Yes. Because they are not organised to register some output artifact which will be detectable if the right input signal is fed to the system. We're trying to measure what is present when people perceive that the sound is 'wrong'; which I consider is rather important.

 

If the connections have high integrity, no resoldering required. We're looking for the weakest links, and if they happen to be buried somewhere where it's a real pain to check them, then I guess it's just tough luck; one can be happy with compromised quality if it's too annoying to sort out ... .

[Ralf11]

define "Signal Integrity"

 

is the bit stream infected with something?

 

jitter?

 

are bits flipped?

 

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

define "Signal Integrity"

 

My personal interpretation : the degree to which a digital signal complies to the necessary headroom in order to error-free transfer zeroes for zereos and ones for ones.

IOW the eye opening.

 

Sorry for my English (this is not easy at all).

 

 

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

the degree to which a digital signal complies to the necessary headroom in order to error-free transfer zeroes for zereos and ones for ones.

 

... which isn't related to

 

57 minutes ago, sandyk said:

can often be markedly improved , to CLOSE to that of the original recording.

 

because error correction is at play there. And if it is not, something is amiss. But for example, might we be able to directly stream from the USB stick as if the USB stick would be a computer USB port (and really at/in that domain and that domain only), then no error correction is in play and signal integrity does play a role and pays its toll.

 

Mind you, *if* this can be in order, it will be the upside down reasoning of what Alex implies (or likes to happen) because only when directly played in said fashion, the signal degrades. When it is copied first to a more distant location (like HDD) the signal will be subject to error correction when played from there.

 

Mind my "location of the domain" which in my view already can not exist because a USB stick can not output from a USB port (only serve as input towards the internals of the PC, when it is about playing back files). So it could only physically happen when for example a TV is streaming from the USB stick while the USB stick is in the USB port of the TV. It now must directly stream from it (like it was from a USB cable (a HDD far away at the other end)) without error correction. Now it will depend on the "integrity" of the USB stick.

Similarly anything could happen when the CD or BRD contains jittery "information" and no sufficient jitter recovery is present in the device reading it. Here too, a too direct reading may 1:1 transfer the jitter on to the source (like TV screen or audio equipment). It is for a reason of course that someone like me ever back started to work with computers and "a means" to avoid the CD reading and its captured jitter (eh, those were the days !?).

 

Possibly my very ad-hoc reasoning is off somewhere. And if unclear, apologies.

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

My personal interpretation : the degree to which a digital signal complies to the necessary headroom in order to error-free transfer zeroes for zereos and ones for ones.

IOW the eye opening.

 

Sorry for my English (this is not easy at all).

 

 

Not just your personal interpretation! Matching the eye pattern is specified in the networking standards (at least as if 10Gbe circa 2001) which also mandate maximum end to end jitter in the pS range. 

 

The SI needs in modern networks are crazy: https://dl.cdn-anritsu.com/en-en/test-measurement/files/Technical-Notes/White-Paper/AnritsuExtremeDataRatesWhitepaper.pdf

 

The bit error rate needs to be less that 1:10^12 to be compliant and even then there is error correction.

 

in any case noise from the magnetic platter just doesn’t make it across the network — not my pronouncements, not my proclamations — this has been measured time and time again — there is an entire internet of reading that “verifies” this. 

 

In any case forget SQ, my networking and storage system is comprised of high quality commercial & professional parts that is designed to work and works very well.

My own storage, network & servers were built by me, and I’ve been very open about how to do this.

 

I also optimize my audio area with heavy iron transformers, linear power and very well recognized components. 

 

The system in my own house is very expensive yet I provide tips and techniques for budget constrained audiophiles to get great sound at an affordable price — any budget!

 

 

[jabbr]

9 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

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.

 

No real mechanism for the shield on a USB cable to directly tune the FR.

 

What the shield can do, however, is affect the radiated EMI from the USB port.

[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

 

 

[manisandher]

9 hours ago, mansr said:

Mani also seems to imply that because I was invited to his house, I somehow owe it him to accept his conclusions without question.

 

Ridiculous. Nowhere have I implied that you owe me anything.

 

What I am asking you to do is to draw a logical conclusion from the sequence of events:

 

1. I was certain that I could hear differences between bit-identical playback of the same file

2. I was confident that I could demonstrate that I could hear these differences

3. I scored 9/10 in a blind ABX test

 

Do anyone really think that I would have invited Mans to my house, paid for his train ticket, collected him from the station, etc., if I wasn't 100% certain of what I was hearing?

 

Mani.

[firedog]

Real question: in a digital setup, why would anyone want to use a cable to color their sound instead of DSP? With  DSP you can see exactly what changes you are making and understand the relationship between the changes and what you hear.

With the cable you never understand exactly what is happening and why, and whether the result is a one off applicable only to a very specific setup. 

[Le Concombre Masqué]

31 minutes ago, firedog said:

Real question: in a digital setup, why would anyone want to use a cable to color their sound instead of DSP? With  DSP you can see exactly what changes you are making and understand the relationship between the changes and what you hear.

With the cable you never understand exactly what is happening and why, and whether the result is a one off applicable only to a very specific setup. 

+ designing convolution filters with REW and RePhase is donations welcome free and it does not increase the cost of using HQP