USB audio transmission isn’t bit true

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

A visual analogy: a piece of paper full of numbers is photocopied multiple generations, and the toner is running out. The final 'picture' looks 'orrible - but if someone carefully views the poor result every single number can be accurately determined, and a 100% correct new version of that page can be recreated, with perfect clarity ... that's the 'magic' of digital.

 

 We aren't talking about the printing on a piece of paper where the letters aren't always 100% evenly spaced and it doesn't matter if the letters are a little blurred. Just try copying the contents of a forum page to notepad and you will often see just how imprecise looking this can be after digital copying, with some letters almost touching each other in many cases.

They still can't even prevent some letters that you type coming out in the wrong order.  In many cases it should be blindingly obvious that you couldn't possibly have spelled the word that way.

 

We are talking about audio, which for highest sound quality depends on precise timing and lack of blurring due to noise artifacts.

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

and probably why i preferred using a used $50 sony bluray player as a dlna endpoint streaming native dsd, even more so than a noisy pc connected to a very high priced DAC.

 

 Despite your best efforts, a typical Desktop PC in a metal case is still more than capable of making mincemeat of UHF DTV channels with a nearby DTV indoor antenna, even when it is connected via 4 screening layers of an RG6 cable,  yet according to the usual suspects here it can't even degrade Digital Audio from  inside the P.C. in the slightest.

 

Dream on !!!

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

What on earth (or elsewhere) are you talking about?

 

Digital copying is no more perfect than you are.

In the cases that I mentioned it is more likely due to less than  perfect software, which also applies to A and V, as well as obscene amounts of RF/EMI generated inside your typical computer .

 

 What on earth are you talking about when you  make a defamatory and libellous statement accusing a well respected designer and " the father " of Async USB of being untrustworthy ?

 

You really need to re-examine your own behaviour and scurrilous remarks directed at others.

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

perhaps only on transmission....but that occurs before leaving the pc...why do you think data is ever resent.

 

It isn't with Coax SPDIF which when properly implemented can still outperform USB  which hasn't had a heap more $ spent on it to improve the Signal Integrity of the Data sent to the DAC.

Unfortunately, if you need DSD you often have to rely on this flawed transmission medium which was never designed for A  and V.

[sandyk]

58 minutes ago, barrows said:

 When done well, there is nothing wrong with USB audio, as with any interface, analog or digital, it does need to be done well if the best sound quality is desired.

 

Your typical SMPS Laptop without additional help (and additional expense !) between it's USB port and the DAC is FAR removed from this pre-requisite , despite what many from the Objective crowd will insist !

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, diecaster said:

USB audio data delivery is quite reliable.

 

Yet it can still sound like crap unless a lot more attention to detail and expense is involved to get the best sound from it.

Thousands of C.A. members have already discovered that for themselves.

 There is a whole "Cottage Industry" set up to improve the performance of USB.

 Some of the solutions include USB cables with better isolation between D- and D+ and  VBus and  0volts, internal USB cards with improved power, Iso Rgens, USB Regens, USB to SPDIF converters etc. etc.

 Still, quite a few from the Objective side refuse to accept that this just MAY result in markedly improved sound on old purely theoretical grounds. Neither are they willing to try some of these solutions for themselves , and will insist that these members are gullible fools who deserve to be parted from their hard earned money. 

[sandyk]

30 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

Get well soon, BaM!
Tom

 

Most members are well aware that he has a medically diagnosed problem and processes information a little differently to most of us.

Nevertheless, he often makes some very valid points and causes people to think.

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, esldude said:

USB audio needs no solution as it works fine and isn't broken.

 Really ? Thousands of members will dispute that.

 The only thing coming into question here is whether or not this is due to Data  errors.

It isn't normally !

 Even Diecaster appears to have conceded that USB needs additional work to improve it's performance for Audio, as there is no such thing as a perfect DAC, not even your Benchmark or any USB DAC that you currently own .

I notice that members like yourself are now leaving alone Diecaster's thread which originally appeared to be formulated to attack the numerous reports in Rajiv's VERY long thread, now that several from both the Objective and Subjective sides have reached consensus about the audible effects of RF/EMI and ground loops (even capacitive coupling to earth) on the output of a USB stream to a typical well designed DAC.

 

 I do however agree that the word MASSIVE in that thread title would have better been replaced by a less dramatic sounding word to describe the improvements.  Longer term listening should have revealed very worthwhile or obvious improvements, although initially they may seem to have been dramatic/massive. 

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Billions of members agree to disagree.

 

 Especially those that use Class D amplifiers that are incapable of highlighting the obvious differences  due to the horrendous amount of RF/EMI that they inject back into the A.C. mains sewer  and ALSO radiate from their inductors to obliterate reception of nearby A.M. radios ?

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

got data??

 

 All you need to do is tune your AM Clock Radio into a station then move it close to the typical Class D amplifier's power cord and LISTEN with your cakehole closed. 

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

 

 How long did it take you to recover from the blast that hit you ?

It would appear that you still haven't  recovered because there is no Z in Phaser

 It also seems that you and Kumakuma are still part of the C.A. Borg collective after being assimilated

[sandyk]

40 minutes ago, esldude said:

There are other theories that don't really hold up.  But they are very, very popular among a certain subset of people.  

 

They aren't just theories. Audible differences between selected USB cables are readily demonstrated under non sighted listening conditions by many members using half decent Audio equipment, even though a certain subset of members are unlikely to hear ANY differences if also present. Their Expectation Bias (Selective Deafness ?) will prevent them from hearing the differences that others present have heard and were statistically verified.

 I also base this around personal experience at several listening sessions where only one member of the around 6 present was unable to hear any differences, despite him realising that all of the others present were able to.  (All were DIY Audio members)

 The same happened again at a subsequent listening session at his own house using his own VAF Dc-x speakers.

 

[sandyk]

26 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

Well, there's your problem. Simply fixed - stop listening to your music via your AM radio. 

 

But it should be easy enough to prove your theory.

1. Find a system with Class D amps where the effect is obvious.

2. Record the output of the preamp with the power amps turned off.

3. Repeat with the power amps turned on.

4. Post the resulting files.

 

Oh, wait...

 

 

 

 It's more easily fixed. I will simply ignore replies and demands from cranky old K1W1 s .

 

DAeBdNzXGP-6.bmp

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

For the benefit of those of us from other parts of the world, what is the difference between cranky old K1W1s and cranky old Aussies like yourself?

No difference to cranky old Canadians like yourself !

 

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

New Zealanders seem more reserved and much friendlier

Have you ever watched a Kiwi Rugby team at the start of a match ?  Aborigines are like pussy cats compared with fierce and menacing Kiwis.

Besides which, a sizable proportion of the N.Z . population has moved to Bondi !

[sandyk]

54 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Canadians are like Americans but civilized

 

When will you guys get it that the USA is only a part of America, NOT America ?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

Quote

Canadians just think they are better than Americans.  - Diecaster

They quite possibly are judging by your choice of leader !

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

From that article: The word "American" can also refer to people from the Americas in general.

  " Truth, Justice and the American Way"  ???

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/could-superman-actually-be-canadian-1.1706526

[sandyk]

49 minutes ago, diecaster said:

 

If you say "Americans" just about anywhere in the English speaking world, people will assume you are talking about people from the USA.

 

Only when they call them Yanks.

 Incidentally :

Quote

In 1750s England, Yankee was a general term of contempt.( still is ? )  Doodle refers to a lowly provincial person,
while a Dandy is a meticulously well-dressed man. In the 1700s, macaroni was an English dandy who affected foreign fashions and mannerisms.

So, roughly translated, the song says, "This country bumpkin came along on a pony — not a horse!
 — and thought that merely sticking a feather in his hat would turn him into a suave sophisticate like a European. What a rube!"

 

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnotes/subjects/history/what-is-the-song-yankee-doodle-dandy-really-about

 

So Mansr must be a suave sophisticate compared to you guys  (AND Aussies and Kiwis)?

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

...I hope the trolls make same statement....

 

 The previous poster does make a statement to that effect in his threads.

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, mansr said:

Most DACs use an asynchronous sink coupled with an adaptive source (the host computer).

 

Most recent DACs use an asynchronous sink coupled with an adaptive source (the host computer) ?

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

That is the definition of someone who's not interested in what anyone else says that might in any way conflict with what you already thought when you started. This is deeply anti-social behavior, the web-forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala," or shouting over people.

 

 That can also be said of many threads where the OP reserves the right to ask Admin to remove posts that are critical of, or disagree with the views expressed by the thread starter. A few members rigorously enforce this provision.

This applies to both Objective and Subjective members.

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

it's also irrelevant unless those members are having posts removed and repeatedly insisting that they welcome disagreement.

 

You can have dissenting views removed on request . Period !

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, mansr said:

Name one DAC using synchronous mode.

 My understanding is that the USB inputs of earlier Oppo players such as my Oppo 103 weren't Async. However, I could be incorrect about this, Async was mentioned in the blurb for the 105.

 The discussion at the attached link by Graham Slee may be of interest to some.

 

https://www.hifisystemcomponents.com/forum/isochronous-or-asynchronous_topic1887.html

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

He's got the terminology all wrong (synchronous, asynchronous, and adaptive are all subtypes of isochronous endpoints). I wouldn't trust anything that man has to say.

 

 Who can you trust if you can't even trust well known E.Es  ?.

( He was originally a BBC Engineer before going into business for himself)

[sandyk]

44 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

this thread needs some frame-shift mutations...

 

 This thread, like most threads,  needs less mindless Ralf 11 gobbleydegook.

 They contribute NOTHING of value to the threads.

 

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

I don't care if he's the Pope himself. When he can't get basic terminology right, he loses all credibility.

That wasn't my point.

 Misinformation is spread by many Professionals.

 It then comes down to who can you trust, or is it because you need to source this information from Professionals who work specifically in these areas, and aren't Electronic " Jack of All Trades"  ?