Bits is bits?

[sandyk]

48 minutes ago, marce said:

But it is a start in multi speaker experience... Try to look forward instead of backwards.

 

 Lotsa luck with this pursuit ever meeting the Wife Acceptance Factor unless it's in separate dedicated room,

[Arpiben]

18 minutes ago, marce said:

The whole point of isolation on board is because you never know what someone is going to plug in. So best to have both.  USB implementations on all kit varies, as do motherboards...

Reading on I;ll give the Mojo a miss...

 

It is a filtered isolated island, not full Galvanic isolation, but a technique used quite often for inputs where you need some protection and often used in conjunction with other inputs so you have a moat. The same technique is used for forming a power island on a board, here the 0V's is contiguous, but the power to a device is often on its own power island connected by a Pi filter...

Its not true galvanic isolation but does help keep noise controlled.

 

For Mojo, unless you want to use RF copper foil (shielding tape) at almost every inputs and outputs better wait or use Toslink (and remove battery) like myself and others. 😉

[asdf1000]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

Mojo was already such a massive disappointment... I tried to find some use for it, but got sick and tired of eventually getting blasted by white noise every now and then, even when using something like iPhone as USB source and only playing simple 44.1k stream from Tidal.

 

 

I've had that blast whenever I tried to feed Mojo PCM768kHz (with HQPlayer). That white noise blast is never fun with headphones!

 

I enjoy HQPlayer with other DACs - I stopped using HQP with Mojo.

 

With Mojo I use TOSlink input and it's great, up to PCM 192kHz no issues.

[Miska]

35 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

 I have a Mojo and use it’s Toslink input.... zero incoming RF issues. And jitter is a non-issue...

 

And bypasses the flaky USB... But useless for me because it limits available rates and sources...

 

[asdf1000]

24 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

And bypasses the flaky USB... But useless for me because it limits available rates and sources...

 

 

Yep.

 

I was never able to reproduce the Mojo white noise blast with my Hugo2 - even fed PCM705/768kHz.

 

So more reason for me to guess Mojo2 should be better in that regard.

 

 

[marce]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 Lotsa luck with this pursuit ever meeting the Wife Acceptance Factor unless it's in separate dedicated room,

Got me one of these sat under my 65" 4K TV😉 Great for TV and films, must try some multi channel music at some point. Stereo music is acceptable...

https://www.sevenoakssoundandvision.co.uk/p-16009-yamaha-ysp-5600-digital-sound-projector.aspx?gclid=CjwKCAjwxaXtBRBbEiwAPqPxcAf5SBhgfadMugS_SaR7UJuhDqBITtE3ia2ILdOrvQLzwzksD1MJtBoC8lgQAvD_BwE

Will build the speakers in probably in the music room, cos I'm not going to have a TV, but a screen for the occasional movie.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, marce said:

Got me one of these sat under my 65" 4K TV😉 Great for TV and films, must try some multi channel music at some point. Stereo music is acceptable...

https://www.sevenoakssoundandvision.co.uk/p-16009-yamaha-ysp-5600-digital-sound-projector.aspx?gclid=CjwKCAjwxaXtBRBbEiwAPqPxcAf5SBhgfadMugS_SaR7UJuhDqBITtE3ia2ILdOrvQLzwzksD1MJtBoC8lgQAvD_BwE

Will build the speakers in probably in the music room, cos I'm not going to have a TV, but a screen for the occasional movie.

 

 I used to have a pretty good DIY Logic controlled SQ Vinyl  setup years ago, until a  lightning strike  at the Swimming Pool across the road vaporised the underground phone line and destroyed the logic I.C's that I couldn't get replacements for.  It used DIY Vifa speakers for the rear channels

.Incidentally there are DTS multi channel Blu Ray Demo discs around with up to 25 or so DTS multi channel music videos on each. They can still be found using Usenet , with some in the series available for purchase legally .

https://www.dropbox.com/s/usym3h4p2i975up/Cover DTS 14.jpg?dl=0  (the last in that series)

 P.S.

It's a large image, so give it several seconds to jump into focus.

[Blackmorec]

18 hours ago, marce said:

Again, can't you even consider that perceptions are easily fooled and its not the knowledge or understanding that is incomplete, but the perception.

 

Nice insult, typical true believer dig, I state its simple ergo I am simple, get off you high horse for a few seconds, look at how easily perception can be fooled, expectation bias etc. and maybe learn a little electronics... 30+ years since digital audio appeared, look at where we are today with electronics compared to then and there are still Luddites going on about how complex it all is and we don't know what we are doing, measuring etc. Because you can't be wrong, your perception is ineffable.

My system sucks as well and my hearing and I can't be a true audiophile because even though I know cable differences can be measured 130dB below the signal I can't here that far into the mix, oh woe.

As stated reality does not sell cables or exotic fuses for that matter or Synergistic Research thimbles....

Hi Marce,

I wouldn’t say or even infer that you are simple...that’s (a) not my style and (b) I don’t know you from a bar of soap. What I said is based on simple logic. If you say for example that building a suspension bridge is simple, when its fact it involves highly complex math and engineering know how, then from a purely logical standpoint it must be your knowledge and understanding of suspension bridges that is lacking, or overly simple.

 

We have of course made progress in digital audio over the past 30 years, mainly in the area of discovering what can impact the sound negatively and finding way to ameliorate those issues.  You think we’re all done and finished in terms of discoveries and development? If that’s the belief then effectively progress stops.   But ask yourself how well our current systems are able to reproduce the sound of a live drum, trumpet or saxaphone?  If you think that’s the best we’ll ever do, I’m really glad there are others who believe otherwise, as we’re still a long way short, despite the past 30 years. Stated a different way, building a digital system is simple, if all you want are poor facsimiles of the real sound.  So again logically, getting the real thing must involve an extra degree of complexity, including some things we haven’t yet discovered.  

 

Of course I can be wrong about something and when I find out I am I change my mind, so convince me. In my case its taken me 40+ years of trying to build the perfect hi-fi to realise that everything matters AND that even the best systems have shortcomings. If we knew why and what, don’t you think we’d simply build better systems....That’s just the nature of who we are. So the very fact that recordings of musical instruments still don’t sound absolutely real should tell you that there are still shortcomings that remain to be discovered and solved.  Look at the progress we’ve made over 30 years. Do you think that will stop? Do you think we’ll reach a point where we know it all and further progress will be impossible?  I’m actually not aware of any discipline where this has happened so far in human history. As far as I know we are still making discoveries in practically every area of human endeavour. Why should electronics be any different?

Finally, there are 2 ways to handle an anomaly that doesn’t fit what we know. Denial or investigation. I (and my high horse) belong to the latter group.  I agree entirely that its completely illogical for a fuse to make a major difference in a hi-fi. For a start there are probably a dozen or more fuses in most systems. So let’s just deny that such a thing is possible. Poppycock!  But is it? What if the damned things do make a difference?  We’ve just thrown away a perfectly good opportunity to (a). Discover what’s going on that we didn’t know about previously and (b). To improve our system 

For me at least, a lot of the reactions to new discoveries are simply knee jerk ‘“can’t be”.  If that’s not expectation bias, then I don’t know what is. 😉

 

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

What I said is based on simple logic. If you say for example that building a suspension bridge is simple, when its fact it involves highly complex math and engineering know how, then from a purely logical standpoint it must be your knowledge and understanding of suspension bridges that is lacking, or overly simple.

The physics of bridges has been well-known for centuries. There is nothing mysterious about it.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

What I said is based on simple logic. If you say for example that building a suspension bridge is simple, when its fact it involves highly complex math and engineering know how, then from a purely logical standpoint it must be your knowledge and understanding of suspension bridges that is lacking, or overly simple.

 

From a purely logical standpoint, when something appears very complicated, perhaps the problem is lack of knowledge and understanding.

 

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (Arthur C. Clark)

 

[Blackmorec]

58 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

From a purely logical standpoint, when something appears very complicated, perhaps the problem is lack of knowledge and understanding.

 

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (Arthur C. Clark)

 

Ahem.....Whereas on the other side of the same coin, and still from a purely logical standpoint, when something IS very complicated, it may appear to be quite simple to those lacking knowledge and understanding. 

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”  Magic: The art of appearing to perform supernatural feats 

Yeah, that makes sense. There are many on this website who’ve actually written that the changes wrought by power cables must be magic 😉

 

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Ahem.....Whereas on the other side of the same coin, and still from a purely logical standpoint, when something IS very complicated, it may appear to be quite simple to those lacking knowledge and understanding.

The reality is somewhat different. Some posters on this very thread are lacking knowledge and understanding; they are the ones saying everything is very, very complicated. Others, the engineers, do possess knowledge and understanding; they say it's actually not that hard.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Ahem.....Whereas on the other side of the same coin, and still from a purely logical standpoint, when something IS very complicated, it may appear to be quite simple to those lacking knowledge and understanding. 

 

 

Ahem... before making such pronouncements, one must have at least the same level of knowledge and understanding as the person being judged. For example, I wouldn't presume to judge the complexity of bridge design by a qualified engineer, since I know that my knowledge in civil engineering area is lacking. 

[Blackmorec]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

The physics of bridges has been well-known for centuries. There is nothing mysterious about it.

So how’s that working out? At the last count over 60 bridges had collapsed in the last 10 years. 

 

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

The reality is somewhat different. Some posters on this very thread are lacking knowledge and understanding; they are the ones saying everything is very, very complicated. Others, the engineers, do possess knowledge and understanding; they say it's actually not that hard.

You’re missing the point....not that hard = not that good.....average in other words. Getting something to sound really great typically IS really hard....lots of care, attention, knowledge, innovation, problem solving, trial and error, new materials, new designs.  Look back over the years in audio and only a few engineers really stand head and shoulders above the rest....the true innovators.  How many products have come and gone over the years without leaving a trace?

Its easy to build an amplifier.....there are hobbyists all over the World doing it. Designing and building truly great amplifiers? Not so many 

It’s actually not that different to music. Ask any competent guitarist how difficult his instrument is to play....chances are he’ll reply; “not that hard”. Then ask him how hard it is to play like Clapton, Bonamassa, Burrel, Golub. Do you think you'd get the same answer?

[Speedskater]

12 hours ago, Rexp said:

1. Have you discovered the right thing to measure to guarantee great SQ? 

Have I ?  well no.

But Audio Precision (test equipment) definitely have test equipment that will measure the right things.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

You’re missing the point....not that hard = not that good.....average in other words.

Do you know anything at all about any branch of engineering?

[Andyman]

10 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Ahem... before making such pronouncements, one must have at least the same level of knowledge and understanding as the person being judged. For example, I wouldn't presume to judge the complexity of bridge design by a qualified engineer, since I know that my knowledge in civil engineering area is lacking. 

 

In my first year at uni (a long time ago) I shared halls of residence and was very friendly with a few civil engineers. I helped them with their maths as they really didn't have a clue.

 

As far as I am aware, none of them were members of Einsturzende Neubauten.

[Blackmorec]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Do you know anything at all about any branch of engineering?

No not really....my background is 100% science although the principles are much the same. Many things look quite simple on first inspection and its only when digging into the details that the real complexities and gotchas emerge. 

[Andyman]

4 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

No not really....my background is 100% science although the principles are much the same. Many things look quite simple on first inspection and its only when digging into the details that the real complexities and gotchas emerge. 

 

...unless you're looking at a Mandelbrot set.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

No not really....my background is 100% science

If that's true, it isn't showing.

[daverich4]

50 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

So how’s that working out? At the last count over 60 bridges had collapsed in the last 10 years. ?

Because they didn’t know how to build them?

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

Because they didn’t know how to build them?

More often because they were not maintained properly.

[tmtomh]

58 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

So how’s that working out? At the last count over 60 bridges had collapsed in the last 10 years. 

 

You’re missing the point....not that hard = not that good.....average in other words. Getting something to sound really great typically IS really hard....lots of care, attention, knowledge, innovation, problem solving, trial and error, new materials, new designs.  Look back over the years in audio and only a few engineers really stand head and shoulders above the rest....the true innovators.  How many products have come and gone over the years without leaving a trace?

Its easy to build an amplifier.....there are hobbyists all over the World doing it. Designing and building truly great amplifiers? Not so many 

It’s actually not that different to music. Ask any competent guitarist how difficult his instrument is to play....chances are he’ll reply; “not that hard”. Then ask him how hard it is to play like Clapton, Bonamassa, Burrel, Golub. Do you think you'd get the same answer?

 

Both of your arguments are flawed. As noted above, when bridges collapse - particularly a large number of them in a relatively short period of time - it does not mean they were built improperly, it means they were not maintained sufficiently. And even if they were built improperly, that would not mean that engineers don't know how to build bridges - instead, it would mean that some bridges wee not built according to the proper engineering principles, which by definition would mean that we do know how to build bridges.

 

As for your second point, "not that hard = not that good/average" is a false equation. For example, sampling a given audio frequency twice will properly encode that frequency. It's not hard to do it - you just have to sample it twice - and sampling it twice will not produce "average" sound compared to sampling it 10 times. The type of signal being sampled doesn't matter - it's very much not like playing a simple guitar part or a complicated one. When you reference "all the unknown complexities" and "SQ aspects we don't measure," you are talking about the limits of your own knowledge, not the limits f the knowledge of the professionals who know how to design this stuff.

 

Just because you (or I, for that matter) might not understand the finest-level technical details of how this stuff works, does not mean that no one understands it or that scientific/engineering knowledge has not already advanced to a point where this stuff is clearly understood.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

No not really....my background is 100% science although the principles are much the same. Many things look quite simple on first inspection and its only when digging into the details that the real complexities and gotchas emerge. 

 

The conclusion is clear: one should make no judgements about the complexity or simplicity of a subject while lacking knowledge and understanding.

[daverich4]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

More often because they were not maintained properly.

So not a good analogy?