Massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming?

[afrancois]

14 hours ago, Jud said:

  I've never heard systems with separate subwoofers that do this as well as a two-speaker system.

 

 

If you have the opportunity go listen to a Steinway-Lyngdorf system. 

[afrancois]

On 11/29/2018 at 10:25 AM, PeterSt said:

Let this be today's most crazy post (I plee guilty):

 

My previous post has the ^2 interlink as the subject (though in combination with the Lush^2). What I can make up - not hindered by any real knowledge - is that the higher frequencies - and then those who form a square and not the "single sine" per se, normally may escape from a cable but with proper shielding setup, stay in there. So mind you, we always try to think of cables requiring shielding to prevent environmental RF to enter the cable, but my approach could be the other way around: prevent RF to escape from the cable. But what is RF ... does that perhaps already include the higher frequencies we lack ? not that we knew that, but come over and listen ...

Remember: This is now about an interconnect, that normally only carrying audio frequencies.

 

The idea becomes profound if you'd look again at the M Scaler; two BNC cables need to be positioned very close to each other (because the BNC terminals are so close to each other) and people can prove easily (and coincidentally because of the M Scaler's possibilities) that one cable works at the required bandwidth, the other cable works too at the required bandwidth, but both won't work. My view: the both cables now influence each other.

OK, to be correct on that it requires some more tinkering, but that happened too. It will be too hard to explain, but knowing the topology of the cable used (which coincidentally was our own, so I really could do this) I could see how the one cable could radiate over to the other, while the other would be the receptor of it. And this mutually. But what would the cables radiate ? well, actually the S/PDIF protocol at 50MHz or so. Not really high, and most certainly much lower than USB (at 480MHz). And so I acted as if I knew that this was the problem, changed the cables, (re)sent them to the customer and the problem vanished.

 

Still it would be hard to prove I was correct in my judgment but at this moment it is really not about that. What it is about is that I project this newly learned data on to the analogue cables and see the same happening. Yes, @pkane2001would be right it is conjecture (once again) but does he G-D know what the result is SQ wise ? or is this all not important and am I dreaming in my own universe for 12 years by now. And so many customers with it.

 

And so what I now think or hope or dream is that particular shielding prevents higher frequency in the cable to escape and that part of it what we normally measure as RFI is "audible frequency" without realizing it. Keep the higher frequency (in) and it does its work.

Point is also: without such hopes or dreams, nothing happens. No progress.

 

It is all not easy to judge and somewhere in my own forum I reasoned that a cable can radiate RF but capture this RF itself via an other screen (shield). Really. Am I right on this ? I would never claim that. I dream a lot for sure. From there tomorrow my sound is better again.

Is ? or will it be a dream.

Your reasoning might not be as crazy as you think or I’m the crazy one. I heard a clear improvement after I had shielded my BNC cables with mu-metal. I’ve even gone so far as to put little cylinders of mu-metal around the connectors. Especially these digital cables entering my MC3+USB. I have a REF10. I did the shielding for the high frequency harmonic content of square waves not to influence surrounding cables.

[afrancois]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Was your test methodology adequate to remove various sources of bias?

May I respond in the same manner as you. Is your system good enough to hear the difference?

[afrancois]

51 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

It would have been easy for afrancois to simply say "I did xx with mu metal and while I did no blind testing, there does -seem- to be an improvement."

 

 

Of course, I did not do any blind or ABX test. I’m the only one in the household that can change the cables.  Now with the mu-metal they are very stiff.

In all honesty, I think very few people and not only here at CA do double blind tests. Even at PS Audio Paul explained they don’t do it.

I’ve been optimizing my system for over a year now and while not all changes did at first glance seem to improve my system, I can tell you with absolute certainty that it now sounds a whole lot better than a year ago. This would not have been the case with an attitude “if you can’t prove it, it isn’t true’. The best example is Audiolinux. Nobody can prove it, but everybody hears it. And so did I, while only changing the server to a simple NUC with AL.