Jump to content
IGNORED

Everything sounds the same


mansr

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

The HiFiBerry DAC+ Pro has its own clocks and they are used for the DAC and the I2S bus: 

https://www.hifiberry.com/shop/boards/hifiberry-dac-pro/

 

Oh, I don't know the schematic. Do you have access? Many DAC chips provide for clock input. Again, don't know the implementation of this board. Where is it documented that these DAC clocks are used to clock the I2S output from the RPi? In any case this is board level I2S which is as designed ... and doesn't replace USB.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

While we can be certain *we don't know of* an existing, proven explanation, we can't be certain *there is no* existing, proven explanation.

 

I'm not sure that any explanation has been proven (or needs to be). A possible mechanism could be that changes in PC processing cause changes in radiated EMI (radiated through the PC -> DAC interface), and that this affects the SQ. Not proven but a plausible mechanism.

 

What you'd need to do is consider plausible explanations and then rule in or out.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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. 

 

Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. I would be almost certain that some have been implemented as well as they could and should be - but some months ago, since I didn't have a clear, practical sense of how they were doing it, decided to do a bit of net exploring. And got a bit of a shock when I saw the arrangements - clocks were quite separated from the key circuitry, because "flexibility is everything!" ... ummm, no, SQ is - in my book ...

 

I could have just lucked on a poorer collection of implemtations, but wasn't in the mood to do deeper research - I would be grateful if someone could point to an actual model of a component which is "just right", :).

Link to comment
9 hours ago, jabbr said:

When people like @PeterSt claim to “double” the SQ every year, you need to realize that doubling is in the @PeterSt logarithmic scale I.e 99% -> 99.9 -> 99.99 etc, wheras the first NOS CD player was say a 50.

 

My approach is, that one halves the number of critical 'bugs' that prevent SQ being of adequate level - getting closer and closer to "fully sorted" - the latter means the rig imparts no significant character to the playback; the Wow! factor is then in full ascendency.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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.

 

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 ... :P

Link to comment
9 hours ago, marce said:

I don't understand, please explain, what do you mean the digital waveform or the analogue after the DAC... And if the digital waveform please explain what you mean by the analogue aspects of the waveform...

 

That the digital waveform has characteristics that are meaningful in the analogue sense, say, the rise time of the transitions - and all the conductors in the link may have various types of non-random noise present; that this ultimately impacts the following analogue areas of the playback chain. Yes, this shouldn't happen, and yes, it means the implementation of the analogue is not as robust as it should be; what I do is to keep making things more "robust" until the sound stops changing when I do more - I've reached the point where it's sufficiently 'debugged'.

Link to comment
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 ... :P

 

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.

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Blake said:

 

Wait a minute, I thought you were all focused on after-purchase tweaking of the insides of your equipment and other mysterious optimizations, yet all this time you have been you have never used a DAC as a stand alone component and instead are relying on the DAC in your computer?  

 

What I'm focused on is understanding what matters for getting SQ to an acceptable standard, given the inherent limitations of the parts in the components. In the past this was always CD playback, and more recently I investigated a desktop, and a couple of laptops. The desktop did quite nicely, considering the cheap parts used; the first, very expensive, but not current Dell laptop was a disaster - its sound system was in such bad shape there was no point in wasting effort there; the current HP was actually sold as a unit for better multimedia, and it shows: tweaking in the way say PeterSt worries about allows quite respectable SQ, although volume levels are miniscule.

 

There is nothing magic about standalone. If anything, this makes the job of getting good SQ that much harder, because interfaces between components are always weak points in the integrity of the whole.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, esldude said:

Unexpected ability by some to connect with parallel universes with different physical properties.  Without his knowledge, it allowed Mani to know how things turned out in an infinity of other universes, and therefore without conscious effort to make the correct choices even though it is impossible in this universe.  Not surprising that mansr couldn't hear the difference as he isn't able to connect with parallel versions of himself in alternate universes.  In fact this fits with the theory there actually is no luck.  Instances of luck are isolated to individuals who have evolved this ability to connect many other versions of themselves. 

 

Bearing in mind, of course, that it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

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.

 

 

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, :).

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Bearing in mind, of course, that it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.

 

Dating yourself, counsellor.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

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

 

IOW, when you switch it on from dead cold, and immediately put on some ambitious recording at high volume it sounds as "perfect" as it does at any other time ... ^_^.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

IOW, when you switch it on from dead cold, and immediately put on some ambitious recording at high volume it sounds as "perfect" as it does at any other time ... ^_^.

 

Not sure what an ambitious recording is...

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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

 

What you don't like is the way I do it - I fail, by not saying "Buy a superb, really expensive speaker!" ... :)

 

And you're not prepared to evaluate where your rig may be less than perfect, by carefully listening to it ... "I'm comfortable with my share of rattles and squeaks, yessiree!!".

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What you don't like is the way I do it - I fail, by not saying "Buy a superb, really expensive speaker!" ... :)

 

And you're not prepared to evaluate where your rig may be less than perfect, by carefully listening to it ... "I'm comfortable with my share of rattles and squeaks, yessiree!!".

 

It’s not that I don’t like it, Frank. I just don’t believe it has a chance of ever working.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It’s not that I don’t like it, Frank. I just don’t believe it has a chance of ever working.

 

What you're also missing is that my way is merely one amongst many - Peter is working to the exact same goal, but because of different experiences and history his focus and approach is quite divergent from mine. But we would both appreciate the end sound that is possible, and also know that it's a tricky journey getting there ...

 

You see, I didn't know it had a chance of ever working ... the first time. But it did, and everything since has constantly confirmed the behaviour, and allowed me to steadily build up a database of understanding about "what to worry about" - once you know something works, that knowledge tends to hang around, a bit :).

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Glad to see that someone other than me has caught on to Frank's circular reasoning, endlessly repeated nonsense, and self contradiction. This is one merry-go-round that I'm glad I stepped off of!

 

You have to admire his stamina though... 3000+ posts essentially saying the same thing but in different words. 

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

You see, I didn't know it had a chance of ever working ... the first time. But it did, and everything since has constantly confirmed the behaviour, and allowed me to steadily build up a database of understanding about "what to worry about" - once you know something works, that knowledge tends to hang around, a bit :).

 

You are a Harry Potter of audio, Frank. Your magic is strong. But I’m with George, it’s time to stop the nonsense. It’s been fun.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, fas42 said:

You see, I didn't know it had a chance of ever working ... the first time. But it did, and everything since has constantly confirmed the behaviour, and allowed me to steadily build up a database of understanding about "what to worry about" - once you know something works, that knowledge tends to hang around, a bit :).

 

I think many folks here would value seeing your database. Please share a link to where we can view it so we can learn what aspects of our systems to worry about and, I presume, what aspects not to be so concerned about. I presume the database includes notations of which aspect of a system are most important based on which brands or models or typology of components one has, so that will be useful too. 

 

Looking forward to it. Thanks!

Link to comment

Yes, in jest .... you don't like what I worry about, which I've mentioned so many times, here and elsewhere - and you're disturbed that I hold things that you consider sacrosanct to be of a far lower order of importance. "It does not compute!" is the rejoinder ...

 

In the end, the same things, to some degree, are considered to be meaningful by myself, and everyone else... it's all about the weighting.

Link to comment

And the winner is ... @Richard Dale.

All of you other respondents are just guessing without bearing practice.

Btw, this also carried a subject to which Richard responded. Nobody even saw the subject and Richard himself seems to have forgotten about it too.

 

Explicitly vague me.

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...