Everything sounds the same

[fas42]

11 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

How can you know whether or not I like what you worry about, when I don't have any way of knowing what you actually worry about - and when I have no way of knowing what I should be worrying about in my own system?

 

First of all, thank you for your long and thoughtful response.

 

I have repeated, over and over again, what I worry about, and what I don't worry about, in my posts. I can't help it if people just don't read what I say - as George says, I say the same things over and over again; but I don't give any hints as to what I do  - a pretty good party trick to provide answers constantly, without providing answers ...

 

Quote

For example, should I remove my component interconnects and remove (or bypass) the RCA jacks on my components, and instead directly solder connector wires between my components? That's something you say you've done - but if I'm not hearing noise or "rattles and squeaks," as you say, from my interconnects, then maybe I shouldn't worry about messing with them, yes?

 

If I were you, yes. Why I do this is that the contact integrity is not sufficient, and contact noise - look it up - causes audible problems. How I started down this road is that I noticed that reseating the connectors caused a subtle audible change - and continued to investigate the behaviour.

 

Quote

Or how about better physical isolation of my components? Should I change my equipment rack? Or should I instead just put isolation feet of some kind under my components? Should I worry about isolating my source components, or my amplifier, or both? If I am not hearing harshness or vibrations/resonances in my system, then on what basis should I be concerned about physical isolation? If I were hearing resonances, how would you recommend that I distinguish between resonances caused by physical vibration of components on the one hand, versus a room resonance that could be addressed with room treatments, versus a resonance that could be addressed by speaker placement changes?

 

Physical stability may be a factor. Nominally, the better engineered the units are, the less it should matter - but IME it alway does impact. What one is looking for is better low level resolution, "more detail", in the playback - the worse the situation, the more electrical noise is created internally by parts vibrating or moving slightly, and the clarity of the recorded detail is lost.

 

Quote

What about the power supplies in my components, particularly digital source components that might have a switching power supply somewhere in the chain? If I am not hearing harshness or graininess in my music, do I have to be concerned about putting in an aftermarket LPS?

 

Personally, I would go with the supply as is - but add shielding and filtering to reduce any interference factors. Aftermarket answers could just add another, new set of problems - and you still haven't got a full solution.

 

Perhaps I've been luck,y but I have never needed to go to these lengths.

 

Quote

 

And am I being too narrow in my focus on all of the above? In other words, could graininess - if I were hearing it my system - be addressed by soldering interconnects rather than by upgrading a power supply? Could vibration be related to power supply rather than isolation issues?

 

How I've always addressed this is by doing simple experiments - the less one does something which is hard to reverse the better; what one is trying to find out is where the system is sensitive to things it shouldn't be.  So, is the sound altering to the quality of the connections? I listen to system as is; and then do a full round of refreshing every easily accessible connection, and listen again - did the SQ alter significantly? Power supplies I partially test by increasing and decreasing the level of mains noise that the plugs 'see' - is there a difference? I also let the system run "hot" - higher volume; and then switch everything off, let the power supplies drain their charge storage, switch on again - and run the same sort of volumes immediately - do I hear something significant?

 

If vibation is having an impact you could try to reduce the vibration reaching the component, or go inside and inspect areas which might be sensitive - and stabilise specific parts, or the boards, etc, they're mounted on - I do both. For example, I might use a hot glue gun to lock down something I'm suspicious of.

 

Quote

Is your answer to all of this, "Yes, all of the above"? In other words, if your answer is that we should experiment and tweak and change things around until we hear an improvement in our systems, then I would of course agree with you, and I would imagine pretty much everyone else here would agree with you too - but in that case, you're not really saying anything that has any particular informational value

 

Quote

 

So perhaps rather than attributing feelings to others, putting words in their mouths, and claiming that they're mocking you, you could instead provide the information you claim to have, or clarify exactly what it is that you do and are recommending, that's different from what everyone else here already does.

 

The informational value is, that if one does enough of this, then one gets the qualitive changes I talk about. How does one know that you've done "enough"? If you don't get the change in quality I describe, then you haven't ...

 

When I was a young kid, I Ilved on a property in the outback - yes, the real thing. And a memory I have is of beating the cream, from the cows on the property, to make butter - beat and beat and beat and beat - and nothing ... I still had cream, I wasn't getting anywhere. Mum said, keep on going - and I did - until, Magic! Out popped the first bits of butter, and then there was a rush of glorious butteriness emerging ... success!

 

Well, that's exactly how it works with audio - I've made butter over and over again. But what I see everywhere is people thrashing away, beating their cream with terrible technique, giving up far too early - and all they have is bits of cream, hither and thither - no butter in sight.

 

So, I'm just saying that you have to do what it takes to get the butter - there are all sorts of shortcuts to make it easier, but ultimately, butter is always possible to get.

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

And sadly, John tells me the LVDS chips used in most of the DACs and DDCs that offer I2S over LVDS/HDMI are really poor and add substantial jitter.  There are better ones for a couple dollars more, but no-one seems to be using those.

Of course such would still not address the shortcoming of the master clocking being at the source end.  As noted, virtually nobody does that right either.

 

Yes, this is a headache. Standard solutions quite often lack the key integrity that is necessary, which means kuldges have to called on, to get the job done, properly - hence the "awful tweaks" that abound ...

[fas42]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That's the basic problem with all of Frank's posts, NONE of them have any informational value! They go on endlessly about his "method", but except from saying that he replaces RCA jacks and plugs by soldering his interconnects directly and that he removes extraneous parts from his components, and dresses his cables, he has said nothing of any use to anybody and has taken more than 3000 posts to say that nothing! 

 

Part of the method is to actually listen to what your system is telling you, via playing "demanding" recordings. Your resolutely refuse to consider this - horse ... water ... drink.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Sorry, I'd like an answer to the question.  If you aren't an EE, then best approach for questioning some of your conclusions is different in my view.  

 

I'm not trying to determine the worth of your posting via your CV, simply wondering if you have the background for certain questions or not. 

 

I take it from a subsequent post by you, that you primarily work in software or hardware related to computers.

 

BSc, BEng, electrical, from Sydney Uni; did Honours in the latter - industry was overrun with experienced people when I came out; ended up going sideways into S/W - and stayed there. Particularly enjoyed metaprogramming tools and concepts; still keep an eye on what's happening there.

[Fluffytime]

Ah, Frank's vague non-answers never get old, am I right?

[PeterSt]

13 hours ago, tmtomh said:

or clarify exactly what it is that you do and are recommending, that's different from what everyone else here already does.

 

I am not Frank, but I can see what he is doing different from everyone else; he doesn't buy new gear to improve sound. At least that is the general gist.

I won't (because can't) judge about anyone's result in approaching it like this, but I think I can tell that buying new gear (like a new DAC each year) is usually leading to more inconsistency, while always working on the same gear (and then by Frank's "methods") gives a better result because more consistent (or more coherent, if you want).

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

I still had cream, I wasn't getting anywhere. Mum said, keep on going - and I did - until, Magic! Out popped the first bits of butter, and then there was a rush of glorious butteriness emerging ... success!

 

What I'd like to make of this is : It takes a lot of hurdles to get you anywhere any first time. In aftermath you can't even tell what you all did wrong at first that it wouldn't work out.

I would not be able to tell what I all did to get where I am today. The method would be as empty. But I wouldn't tell about nothing continuously (I'd hope).

[tmtomh]

I actually - finally - found some value in Frank's answer to my most recent comment. Not saying this to be self-centered - I just happen to find his response to me fairly clear.

 

After reading his response, I guess I'd say I find most of it benign and unobjectionable - nothing earth-shattering, but nothing that irritates me either. ?

 

One area where I do agree with Frank, at least to a degree, is about interconnects. I'm not ready to solder mine, because I don't believe contact noise/problems are an issue in properly looked-after RCA connections using decent interconnects. But I am a strong believer in using RCA interconnects with gold-plated or otherwise highly conductive, oxidization-resistant connectors, and with connectors that connect rather tightly to the RCA jacks of one's equipment. And I've also found that the odd RCA interconnect will start giving me trouble after several years, which has prompted me to buy a new set every 5-10 years or so. (I buy stuff like BlueJeans cable - so trivially expensive to replace, if one amortizes the cost over the years of service the cables provide.)

 

And I agree that vibration and resonance are good things to be aware of and try to minimize - although again, I don't feel there's a need to take particularly heroic measures to deal with those issues, except for speakers and turntables.

 

But I guess my bottom line is that if one doesn't hear gremlins in one's system - if the noise floor is good and the transformers aren't buzzing, and he sound isn't hashy or grainy, and the transients aren't smeared, etc - then I don't see the point of getting into all of what Frank does, unless one enjoys it or finds it fulfilling to engage in that process.

 

To each their own.

[tmtomh]

10 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I am not Frank, but I can see what he is doing different from everyone else; he doesn't buy new gear to improve sound. At least that is the general gist.

I won't (because can't) judge about anyone's result in approaching it like this, but I think I can tell that buying new gear (like a new DAC each year) is usually leading to more inconsistency, while always working on the same gear (and then by Frank's "methods") gives a better result because more consistent (or more coherent, if you want).

 

Interesting - I hadn't considered this aspect. While I don't think there's a single best way to do things - I would be suspicious of anyone who advocated either always or never buying new gear to solve issues - I certainly am skeptical of "upgrade-itis." I can appreciate sticking with solid gear and keeping it running its best over time, with incremental improvements or refurbishment - like recapping a 25+ year old amp, for example. And I do think it can become a slippery slope spending 100s or 1000s of dollars on multiple new DACs and/or USB cables and/or power supplies - it can become very difficult to remember what it all sounded like before, and all too easy to get lost in the minute sonic differences you hear (or think you hear) among them, losing any stable sense of a reference sound as a baseline for comparison. I've experienced that sometimes when comparing different masterings of an album: I'll listen to each of several masterings, developing a sense of which one I think sounds best, only to return to the first one I listened to... and find that it sounds somewhat different than what I remembered it as sounding like just an hour or so beforehand.

 

At the same time, I have upgraded my system in a few areas over the past few years, albeit almost entirely incrementally: I replaced my B&W CDM1-SE speakers with the similar but two-generations-later 705s. And I recently replaced my Oppo BDP-105 with a 205. In both cases, I perceived the overall sonic character to be similar, but the sound quality within that overall character to be a marked improvement, in cleanliness of sound, tightness of bass, soundstage imaging, smoothness and refinement of midrange and treble, and so on. In both cases the difference was immediate and hit me before I'd even settled in to take note of differences in an organized way.

 

I don't think this is precisely what Frank is on about, but I do think there is a thread of resonance (no pun intended!) there.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

 

 

But I guess my bottom line is that if one doesn't hear gremlins in one's system - if the noise floor is good and the transformers aren't buzzing, and he sound isn't hashy or grainy, and the transients aren't smeared, etc - then I don't see the point of getting into all of what Frank does, unless one enjoys it or finds it fulfilling to engage in that process.

 

To each their own.

 

Because when you get over the last hurdle, a major qualitative change in the presentation occurs - Peter and others have seen it; for me it was extra dramatic, because the setup was hovering on the edge of that last hurdle. It's the difference between listening to an audio system, and being caught up in the sense of a musical event taking place - in the first case, you, the listener, are 'bigger' than what you're listening to; in the second, you are a minor observer of what's happening, all around you - that's the subjective sense of it.

[marce]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I said conductors, not cables  - there is a difference ... .

 

And, you keep confusing digital with analogue - perhaps you should check out some textbooks, .

 

A cable is a conductor... please explain, a signal will travel down a PCB trace or a cable, both are conductors.

NO you said the analogue aspects of the digital signal. I have asked you to explain what you mean instead of snarky little replies with no content.

[lmitche]

2 hours ago, marce said:

A cable is a conductor... please explain, a signal will travel down a PCB trace or a cable, both are conductors.

NO you said the analogue aspects of the digital signal. I have asked you to explain what you mean instead of snarky little replies with no content.

The simple point here is that digital signals are carried over an analog infrastructure and that whatever makes an analog infrastructure great for reproduction from analog sources also makes it great for reproduction from digital sources.

[lucretius]

12 minutes ago, lmitche said:

The simple point here is that digital signals are carried over an analog infrastructure and that whatever makes an analog infrastructure great for reproduction from analog sources also makes it great for reproduction from digital sources.

 

Excuse my ignorance.  I know there are "digital" boards and "analog" boards but what is an "analog infrastructure"?

[Solstice380]

On 9/19/2018 at 3:35 PM, christopher3393 said:

 

Sorry about that. Maybe its a reflection of a far wider and deeper forum inanity --no, even wider: audiophile inanity. Some of it is meant as satire, reflecting upon this greater inanity. The problem is the diversity and strong division over what that inanity is.

 

No, this forum is just another slice of the human existence.  Just look at politics for a great analogy.

[pkane2001]

24 minutes ago, lmitche said:

The simple point here is that digital signals are carried over an analog infrastructure and that whatever makes an analog infrastructure great for reproduction from analog sources also makes it great for reproduction from digital sources.

 

Except for maybe some quantum states of elementary particles, there is nothing digital in this universe that isn't carried or represented by some analog signal. That's how it's been designed, that's how it works, there's nothing new here.

 

And it's mostly wrong-headed that what makes analog devices sound great will also help digital. These are completely different types of signals, used for different purpose, processed differently, running at different frequencies with a completely different result when subjected to the same set of distortions.

[lmitche]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

Excuse my ignorance.  I know there are "digital" boards and "analog" boards but what is an "analog infrastructure"?

The physical layer.

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, lmitche said:

The simple point here is that digital signals are carried over an analog infrastructure and that whatever makes an analog infrastructure great for reproduction from analog sources also makes it great for reproduction from digital sources.

 

Not really.

 

Analog is primarily designed for linearity, and frequently low frequency. Analog audio designers often don’t claim to have knowledge of digital.

 

Digital is highly nonlinear and designed so. High speed design techniques are critical. The analog issues that are important in the multi megahertz to gigahertz range are different than those of the 20 - 20 kHz range. 

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, tmtomh said:

One area where I do agree with Frank, at least to a degree, is about interconnects. I'm not ready to solder mine, because I don't believe contact noise/problems are an issue in properly looked-after RCA connections using decent interconnects. But I am a strong believer in using RCA interconnects with gold-plated or otherwise highly conductive, oxidization-resistant connectors, and with connectors that connect rather tightly to the RCA jacks of one's equipment. And I've also found that the odd RCA interconnect will start giving me trouble after several years, which has prompted me to buy a new set every 5-10 years or so. (I buy stuff like BlueJeans cable - so trivially expensive to replace, if one amortizes the cost over the years of service the cables provide.)

 

Gold isn't the best conductor, If you want that, you go with silver. but gold doesn't corrode, part of it's value throughout history is it's incorruptibility. This also, BTW, is what makes it desirable and extremely useful in electronics. A thin layer of gold deposited on connector parts. is enough to insure that the connectors do not corrode. Silver, for all of it's great conductivity turns black with silver oxide if left in the air. Silver oxide, deposited on mating connector parts forms DIODES; i.e. rectifiers. Not exactly what you want in a connector used to pass an AC signal like audio. 

I bet you'll find that if you take the time, every year or so to give your current cable connectors and their mating sockets, a good clean with DeToxIT (or equivalent), you can save yourself some money over buying new cables. Of course, cables do go bad occasionally, and those have to be replaced.

[esldude]

36 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Gold isn't the best conductor, If you want that, you go with silver. but gold doesn't corrode, part of it's value throughout history is it's incorruptibility. This also, BTW, is what makes it desirable and extremely useful in electronics. A thin layer of gold deposited on connector parts. is enough to insure that the connectors do not corrode. Silver, for all of it's great conductivity turns black with silver oxide if left in the air. Silver oxide, deposited on mating connector parts forms DIODES; i.e. rectifiers. Not exactly what you want in a connector used to pass an AC signal like audio. 

I bet you'll find that if you take the time, every year or so to give your current cable connectors and their mating sockets, a good clean with DeToxIT (or equivalent), you can save yourself some money over buying new cables. Of course, cables do go bad occasionally, and those have to be replaced.

Actually I think silver oxide is not a bad conductor.  Most silver tarnishing includes a fair amount of silver sulfide which is a semi-conductor at best.  Silver chloride is also usually part of the silver tarnish.  

[mansr]

48 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

DeToxIT

Really?

"Here is everyday help for all of us because we live in a toxic world.  Contains the programmed frequencies to neutralize the residue from low level toxins plus the residue from many in the mid range."

 

Or did you mean DeoxIT?

[Ralf11]

How about this:

 

The simple point here is that digital signals eventually terminate in an analog infrastructure and that whatever makes an analog infrastructure great for reproduction from analog sources also makes it great for reproduction from digital sources.

 

- I bolded the changed portion.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

How about this:

 

The simple point here is that digital signals eventually terminate in an analog infrastructure and that whatever makes an analog infrastructure great for reproduction from analog sources also makes it great for reproduction from digital sources.

 

- I bolded the changed portion.

 

You could say that another way: the analog output stage/amplifier makes for great reproduction of both analog/digital sources

 

That's my experience. I can easily hear the difference between amplifiers, analog output stages and speakers. I can hear differences between different DACs, but the analog parts of my NAS for example -- can't hear. Perhaps I am deaf to NAS effects. Since my NAS is in my basement, I can't even hear its fans. I can see the blinking lights that show drive activity just fine!

[Ralf11]

might be interesting to compare a good DAC with a 'good' the analog output stage, to a modified one that has an xlnt analog output stage

 

all thru xlnt amp and speakers...

[fas42]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Gold isn't the best conductor, If you want that, you go with silver. but gold doesn't corrode, part of it's value throughout history is it's incorruptibility. This also, BTW, is what makes it desirable and extremely useful in electronics. A thin layer of gold deposited on connector parts. is enough to insure that the connectors do not corrode.

 

It's a common belief that gold solves the problem - unfortunately, it doesn't. In the days when I was investigating this area I attempted to use the supposed capability of gold alone to improve the integrity of connections - it always failed. I find silver works, but only in the form of the silver greases and paints made for creating conductivity.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, marce said:

A cable is a conductor... please explain, a signal will travel down a PCB trace or a cable, both are conductors.

NO you said the analogue aspects of the digital signal. I have asked you to explain what you mean instead of snarky little replies with no content.

 

In nearly every area a cable consists of multiple conductors, each performing a particular function - that's the context I was considering.

 

The digital signal is analogue - you can look at it on an analogue scope, and it has all the properties of any analogue waveform. But in terms of its significance in the circuitry in which it's found, yes, its value is its digital behaviour.

[fas42]

11 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

And it's mostly wrong-headed that what makes analog devices sound great will also help digital. These are completely different types of signals, used for different purpose, processed differently, running at different frequencies with a completely different result when subjected to the same set of distortions.

 

How I see it is that the analogue side of the USB chain is often less than well implemented in terms of how the DAC is fed with data - meaning, the slightest variations, anywhere, impacts how well the DAC does its job. And this includes noise and interference from the digital side of the USB link - change the digital link ever so slightly, and the analogue areas are affected. Circuitry couldn't care less whether we label some part digital, and another part analoge; it's all a big electronic stew, which has to be designed and built well enough to do the job correctly.