CPU Load and Sound Quality

[Blackmorec]

9 hours ago, mansr said:

Nor any less.

No? Surely it depends almost entirely on WHAT they’re listening to? 

There are one or two folk have included pictures of their system, which comprise some fairly decent components; and some of the worst set-up I’ve every seen. Set-up so bad you can see why they can’t hear fairly major differences that would otherwise be obvious were their system decently organised. 

[Blackmorec]

45 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Personally, I see this as an easy put down used against anyone you don’t agree with: their system isn’t transparent enough.
 

But how would you judge someone’s system if you’ve never heard it? By price? By number of Stereophile-approved components? By number of tweaks, such as REGEN devices and Entreq boxes and specialty power cables? Why would it be up to you to decide how good or bad something sounds and not up to the person who actually put the system together?

How would I judge someone’s system if I’ve never heard it? Now there’s a good question which I’ll happily answer.

 

By recognising the type of speakers and the way they are positioned far too close together, too close to the wall and with no toe-in

By seeing components on a table with lots of lose, unsecured panels that will vibrate, or on a cabinet that’s essentially just a huge resonant wooden box

By seeing components stacked on top of one another with no thought to radiated EMI or vibration control

By seeing how power and interconnect cables are tangled with each other and coiled up behind components

By noting the use of cheap power strips with poor contacts and variable earth impedances. 

By seeing speakers positioned right next to and level with large cabinets that will cause huge amounts of diffraction.

By seeing systems installed in highly asymmetrical rooms with walls or windows to one side and complete open space on the other, completely destroying any chance of a sound stage and imaging. 

I could continue but I’m sure you get the picture (s’cuse the pun)

 

When I look at a system that’s been installed without due care and attention I know several things about how it sounds. I also know that its not producing true high fidelity sound that’s true to the recording, its not revealing fine detail and its entirely unable to resolve the differences brought by things like better cables. So when people with such systems tell me that cables et al make no difference, I believe them, because I know exactly why that’s the case. 

 

The real problem comes when that system sets the quality benchmark for its owner. It uses good quality components that review well, so their conclusion is it must sound excellent and must be capable of reproducing differences between cables, in the event such a thing actually exists. 

[Blackmorec]

15 minutes ago, STC said:

What is more interesting is that none of the high end audiophile manufacturers ever posted audio of their system’s playback. Some of them make speakers for studios and have at theIr disposal the best microphones which can reproduce the sound exactly as how they would capture a life performance.

 

Don’t you find it strange that some magazine are publishing the measurements but coy when it can produce accurate recordings of the playback? All high end system will sound more or less the same in the same room. 
 

One reviewer attempted to that and it was unbelievable good sound so much so I knew it wasn’t the sound that what was shown in the video. Someone spotted it and doubted about its authenticity .  The admission came after that that the audio was recorded separately even that I doubt of it’s accuracy. 
 

I have downloaded the video and looking for similar setup to record the same track playing in the system. 

What are you actually listening to when you re-play a recording? 

 

Exactly!  Your system, in your room.

 

If you have a pair of say Rodgers LS3/5as with a Naim amp and you listen to the recording of a pair of Wilson Chronosonics driven by D’Agostino Relentless Amps, which system do you think the recording is going to sound like?  Its the same reason it doesn’t sound like the Berlin Philharmonic when you play a von Karajan recording 

[Blackmorec]

28 minutes ago, STC said:

Just because I need glasses to see things clearer doesn’t mean I couldn’t tell the difference between two pictures. 
 

I thought it is common knowledge that sound evaluation is to heard via headphones to eliminate room signature. You mean there are people out there listen to playback of a system through loudspeakers???  And I was getting frustrated with people listening to binaural recording with loudspeakers and then hearing them complaining they were too bright. 
 

 

You mean there are people out there who listen to playback of a system through headphones?  What on earth for?  So they can say they heard some Wilson or Magicos loudspeakers and they sounded just like a pair of Sennheisers 😁   If you want to use the glasses analogy, you aren’t looking at 2 pictures, you are looking at 1 picture through 2 pairs of glasses....1 pair to make the picture and the other to look at it. 

[Blackmorec]

14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That's reasonable, but mostly superficial. It doesn't take into account actual component matching process, or even things like proper positioning of speakers based on measurements rather than on rule of thumb. Or what happens with a headphone system. So, yes, you can probably eliminate some very obvious poorly put together systems, but anyone who's spent any time  on system design and optimization will be missed by the above list. 

 

Oh, and I consider any system that's revealing of differences in cables to be poorly designed and engineered 

 

Nothing superficial about a reflected back wave crashing right back into the loudspeaker ribbon or panel milliseconds after propagation. Nor about the diffraction and weird reflections caused by a cabinet corner adjacent to a loudspeaker. Similarly loudspeakers that are very close together will not create any significant inter-aural phase difference, required to create imaging.  Regarding system matching,  only well matched components are going to sound decent, so good system matching doesn’t compensate for bad set-up...its simply a basic requirement for good sound.  Bad system matching on the other hand is not a requirement for bad sound. 

A system set up using measurements is going to be optimally positioned, so its relatively easy to see when systems haven’t been properly measured because they’ll be too close to walls and improperly angled and spaced. 

Regarding cables, if I could be bothered I could list at least half a dozen cable attributes that are known to affect sound quality, so if you can’t hear those, there’s obviously quite a lot more you’re not hearing. 

[Blackmorec]

1 hour ago, marce said:

Analogue or digital cables?

Analogue - resistance, capacitance, inductance...

Digital - characteristic impedance

Shielding could be an issue if not done correctly...

Have I missed anything

Conductor materials

Conductor purity e.g 7N copper has a lot fewer elemental atoms like O2

Conductor structure Ohno continuous cast copper removes crystal boundaries

Connector quality...e.g contact pressure

Connector contamination.....gold for example does not oxidise 

Dielectric materials 

Conductor topology....2 core, quad core

Ferrite 

Gauge

Screen earthing

 

 

[Blackmorec]

Just to point out that when you listen to a recording of a recording you are listening to the contribution of 3 rooms when you listen through speakers and 2 rooms when you listen through headphones. That’s an awful lot of of early and late reflections added to whatever it is you’re trying to hear. 

 

In addition, when you listen to a live performance, what you hear is being processed through psychoacoustics....not the case for the 2 lots of microphones that are used for the original recording and the recording of a recording.  

 

When I was in the market for new speakers I found several recordings from dealers and trade shows of the speakers I was interested in, but what I heard from those recordings sounded nothing at all like the speakers sound live.  Utterly and completely different. Why? Because you’re not actually hearing those speakers when you play the recording, you’re just watching a video picture of them playing, while listening to your own speakers and room. 😉

[Blackmorec]

20 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

 

 

a audiofool and his/her money are soon parted

 

MAK

Very true indeed. And I have the feeling their passion for great sound is also taken advantage of when it comes to pricing. On the other hand they spend their lives listening to absolutely wonderful music, reproduced on state of the art hi-fi. 

 

But its absolutely fine if you don’t believe that cables make a significant difference and you should just save the money, as long as you also accept the price YOU’ll pay....a lifetime of mediocre sound quality and uninspiring music. 

 

I’m certainly not saying you need to spends thousands or even hundreds on cables, but the idea that any old thing will do is simply signing up for sonic mediocrity and boredom, usually talked about in audio circles as poor quality recordings. 

 

I worked with an R&D engineer who believed that cables were just BS designed to separate audiophiles from their money. He invited me over to listen to his system and prove his point, so I selected some of my favorite CDs that represented my collection’s SoTA in rhythm, listener involvement, immersion, sound stage and image focus, beauty and emotion, ambience and hall acoustics.  I have never heard such average and boring sounding CDs in my life. No matter which track was playing I couldn’t wait for it to finish so we could move on. “Maybe the next track will be better” That’s when I truly learned how important proper set-up really is.  

 

Way back when, I used to have a system made my a manufacturer who eschewed anything exotic in the way of cables. They designed their systems to sound good when linked with their own, very unremarkable interconnects and speaker cables.  Did it sound good? Absolutely. Great? Naaaaa not really. But definitely very good. 

 

Today this same company has evolved and you can buy some really top sounding gear, linked by some eye wateringly expensive cable. A ruse to part Audiophiles from their money?  A little bit no doubt; but there’s absolutely NO denying that those cables make a huge difference and there’s no way those systems would achieve what they do without them. No way.  That’s just the harsh reality. Great hi-fi costs a lot of money or some really clever and creative DIY. 

[Blackmorec]

 

 

You mean like wine is just some grape juice and a bit of fungus and sushi rice with some cold, dead fish?

[Blackmorec]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

Do you have any idea how much science is involved in modern winemaking?

How much science can there be in squashing some grapes then putting the residue in barrels and waiting for it to rot? 

[Blackmorec]

4 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

 

If someone is TUNING their system with cables, my take is that they are on the wrong path. IF a competently designed cable is tested and used accordingly as it was intended, and a boutique cable changes the sound measurably, then the boutique cable is flawed or the system was not competently engineered. IF someone does not like the sound reproduction they hear then I suggest these few simple things to try first.

 

Measure the room response with REW. Its free!

Add acoustic treatments where needed.

 

If they still do not like the sound after treatment, BUY NEW SPEAKERS that match Your taste. The room/speaker interaction has the largest impact on sound. If the room still has an unmanageable response, then most people will have to live with it or remodel.

 

All the rest have a diminishing effect on reproduction if using quality components to start with. 

 

Great engineering does not include boutique cables as part of the design process. And, I'm not saying that tweaks do not have a place in audio. I just do not hear benefits to swapping cables on the Mid/hi panels of my system after trying 3 different cables. The bass columns have a proprietary cable for the servo feedback and I have the last iteration of those from Genesis. That was redesigned because of oscillation due to cable length, capacitance, etc.. 

 

MAK

 

Hmmmmm interesting argument

Lets say i take your well designed cable, put it into my system and it sounds fine, perfect, good as I’ve ever heard. Then i take another cable and when i play the same music i hear far more detail from the violins, i can suddenly hear that guitar notes are being played on nylon strings, the background drum has more depth and timbre, and i hear the vocalist breathing through her nose.  “Can’t be”,  I think. “Its just a passive cable”. So I put back the original cable and yes, all the extra detail is gone. Swap back again and the detail returns. 

 

So here’s the thing. The second cable isn’t creating the detail.....the first cable is losing it. Smearing it, smoothing it.  So i look at the second cable in more detail and what do i find?  It seems that’s far more care went into its manufacture....its metallurgy is superior, its drawing process more involved and complex, its dialectic a different material...far more complex to make. The copper conductors have fewer contaminants, its drawing technology avoids crystal boundaries, its dielectric is foamed PTFE, more closely resembling an ideal air dielectric. The result?  Both cables can pass an electric current but one interacts with and influences that signal a lot more than the other and in the process of interacting, small details are lost. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Blackmorec]

15 minutes ago, STC said:

I’m absolutely certain he can 🙂   Problem is, we’re not talking about changing the tone of anything. 

[Blackmorec]

2 hours ago, marce said:

This is all audiophile myths, especially the crystal boundaries.

Dielectric has NO effect at audio frequencies, Audio Myth...

You keep repeating the same myths...

Or provide some real evidence on this... Not hearsay.

Here’s the reason why they’re audiophile myths.

 

When an audiophile replaces a perfectly designed cable with one built from UP-OCC 7N copper and finds the new conductors sound much better, providing a lot more detail and information, the audiophile keeps it and buys more. Then they tell their friends and they buy some. 

Magazines testers pick up the buzz, make some enquiries, get some units to try and obtain a similar result that they like the sound they get from the new cables....a lot.  So they publish their findings and more audiophiles buy in,  like it, buy more and in turn tell their friends. The business thrives 

None of those audiophiles could give a monkey’s about testing the cable, they have neither the required technology nor probably the interest. They are only interested in what it sounds like. If its a lot better than what they have and affordable, they’ll buy it. 

Then along come the engineers and claim its all snake oil and you know what? Audiophiles couldn’t give a rat’s ass. They’ve heard it all before. Dozens of times. On a multitude of topics.  So no, if it sounds better, it is better and they’ll buy more of it and it thrives. 

And that children is how the cable industry came into being and how audiophile myths are born. 😉

The bottom line is; when something sounds better, its not creating anything. Its simply doing less damage to the audio signal.....losing less, smoothing less, filtering less, reflecting less, picking up less noise, whatever.  Audiophiles aren’t imagining this. Its real which is why the whole thing gets so much traction. The fact that it contradicts what engineers have learned and read counts for very little when people actually experience it for themselves. 

As for providing evidence, last i checked this is an audiophile website, so if someone claims that what audiophiles actually experience is in fact illusion in my book its up to them to provide the evidence. 😊

[Blackmorec]

8 minutes ago, marce said:

No that's Hans Christian Anderson's "The emperors new clothes"

As I have said before, the cable myths and magic distracts from the real issues in audio reproduction...

And finally without engineers what would you play your music on, the whole music recording and playback chain depends on engineering... What about the quality of the cables used during the recording process, pro audio is not as concerned with magic cables, just well engineered ones that do the job.

The audiophile cable industry is a cash cow, a lucrative one, go figure.

Your last paragraph is rather disputable, expectation bias for one and the fact that physics dose not support the magic cable viewpoint for another.

Come on marce, that’s a terrible argument.  Some studios, the better ones, actually do care about their cables. Imagine how good our recordings would be if all studios knew enough to care about the quality of the cables they use. 

I’ve been in studios where microphone cables are wired up and the spare cable coiled up on the floor.  If you’ve never tried it just take a headphone cable, coil it a few times and see what happens to your sound. Recording studios and pro-audio should care.  Its negligent not to and they’re selling us substandard product when the cables they use are not up to scratch. 

 

As for engineers, what we need are engineers who really understand the ins and outs of properly setting up audio systems. For the most part they are already the ones building our systems, certainly the ones I’ve met over the years. 

 

As for cables being a cash cow, I agree completely. But that doesn’t mean the cow doesn’t produce milk......the fact that cables do make a substantial difference is exactly why they’ve become the cash cow they have. Audiophiles hear what they do and are willing to pay large amounts of money for that level of improvement, which makes cables very profitable. Too much so I would say

 

Finally those old, worn out cliches are simply ways of supporting a denial habit devoid of real arguments and do you no favours whatsoever. 

[Blackmorec]

52 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

If this were true, you would think that there would be a cable that does so little damage that everyone agrees that is the best sounding cable out there and you all could get off your audiophile treadmill.

Its a competitive market out there so you’re not going to get just one, you’ll get many...unfortunately with very high prices.  Consequently you'll get the next level of cables, the nearly best, not quite so eye watering but still a fairly major financial commitment. Which leads to the next level of value cables, great performance for more affordable money. Next you’ll get the affordable cables, really good performance for a reasonably economical price.  Finally you’ll get the bog standard, basic cables, well designed, adequate if unremarkable performance and broad appeal to people who just want to get a signal from A to B in the most cost efficient way possible. 

[Blackmorec]

1 hour ago, Racerxnet said:

Expectation bias when making a purchase plays a huge role in what one expects. The linkage to this is that "it always sounds better". Then everyone can feel better about the expensive cash outlay when the wife asks where the money went, or the gas bill didn't get paid on time. DOES IT EVER SOUND WORSE? Without the engineer, I'm afraid all the cable guru's wouldn't have a stereo system to play with.

 

MAK 

“It always sounds better” Really? I recently tried a number of things that didn’t, at least not in my system. Some highly acclaimed footers that weren’t a good match for my power supply and table combination, a platform that didn’t work well with my rack and a usb reclocker that robbed the system of some of its magic come immediately to mind. Ive also had products who’s level of improvement didn’t justify the asking price, a rather expensive usb cable for example. 

 

[Blackmorec]

 

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Are you a dealer or in the industry?

 

I ask because I've read numerous reports from other audiophiles stating that there is limited correlation between price and quality, especially when it comes to cables. 

No, but thanks for the compliment. 😊

 

 

[Blackmorec]

Quite honestly, that is the biggest load of misinformed BS I’ve ever listened to. If you think that video has any merit then its absolutely no wonder we disagree. The only conclusion I reach from this is that if you don’t want to be able to hear the difference between MP3 and uncompressed WAV files, make sure you listen to it on a mid-fi system with plenty of noise. 

 

On my system, I can play 320kbps MP3 files and they sound really good. Orchestral instruments have accurate tone, the instruments are placed correctly in space, it has pace, rhythm and timing aplenty, and the music communicates really well. I can actually listen to and enjoy 128kbps files which I do on a very regular basis. For a reason. I listen to maybe half an hour to an hour of Radio Swiss Classic.....they play absolutely wonderful music with only music and orchestra introductions.  It sounds gorgeous and the performances vary between exceptional and virtuoso. 

Then I switch to remotely or locally streamed 16/44.1kHz wav files.  Holee Molee. The experience is quite shocking. Suddenly there is a room full of 3 dimensional music with incredible power, drive and focus. Instruments sound like they are real, there’s huge amounts of information about the musicians and the instruments they are playing, the room disappears and is replaced by the recorded acoustic, which may be a large concert hall or a completely artificially created studio masterpiece. The soundstage has unbelievable depth, extending from adjacent of my listening chair to somewhere far off in the distance, depending of course on what’s on the recording. 

So while 320kbps MP3 sound absolutely fine, they have nowhere near the performance of the WAV files. Not even close.  You know the difference between watching something on regular 32” SDTV vs a 65” 4K OLED UHDTV? Well the difference between 128kbps MP3 and 16/44.1 WAV is greater....more dramatic.  With 320kbps you are listening to some music in your room. With 16/44.1  WAV you are now at the venue with the musicians and the venue acoustics as plain as day. 

You don’t need to concentrate....the music is mesmerising; pulling you into its completely enveloping atmosphere and not letting go for a second. 

Frankly, if you can’t hear a very clear difference between 320kbps MP3 and 16/44.1WAV then its absolutely no wonder you can’t detect the difference between cables and such and completely explains why I hear things you can’t. 

[Blackmorec]

1 hour ago, marce said:

Sorry, but you've got this the wrong way round, my arguments are based on physic's, reality... Not hearsay.

Ah ha. And here’s me thinking that physics was about equations, formulae and graphs when all the time a few well worn cliches was all I needed. That damned physics master. 

 

But jokes aside;  I’m not talking hearsay...because personally I’ve heard it first hand.  Its only hearsay for you, who hasn’t, presumably ever. 

I want you to try something. I would like you to listen to a piece of music, a Michel Petrucciani Trio album would be great. The guy was truly a genius, so I’m sure you’ll enjoy his music.  Now while you’re listening I want you to imagine hearing the following:

• Increased reverberation from the hall...a faint echo in the RH channel that’s obviously hall ambience, only heard on forte sections where the energy is sufficient to activate the hall’s reflections. 
• For Michel, I want you to imagine better defined timing and phrasing and more tension in his playing
• Then I’d like you to add some further detail and definition to Richard Tee’s brush strokes
• And finally I’d like your to add a little more timbre and body to Miroslav Vitous’s gentle bass plucks....not too much, just a little. 

And I want you to do all this without thinking about it. That’s right, I want you to imagine those things subconsciously, but at the same time your not consciously imagining them, i want you to be consciously hearing them so you perk up and say, “wow, that sounds better”

I’d also like you to do the same thing next time you listen to this album, or even better every time you listen to it. 

So that’s Michel Petrucciani done....let’s move on to the next album. Any favorites you’d like to imagine improving?  

[Blackmorec]

13 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Seriously, this happens all the time. I've been a victim of this many times. Listening to music using some fancy new component, finding amazing differences and improvement only to later find that I forgot to switch the input, and was listening to the old component I've had for years. So, what does this prove?

I’m far too polite to say 🤐

 

But what I would say, is that in my case, almost every time I install a new component it usually sounds considerably worse and i spend the next 24 to 240 hours in a state of post-purchase-paranoia, hoping I haven’t screwed up. 

[Blackmorec]

29 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That speaks to your psyche: you're more concerned that the new component you've just installed is not worth the money you paid for it. First psychoanalysis is free. I'll bill you for the next session

 

Damned right! I honestly don’t need your kind services to tell me that. What I REALLY don’t want is to buy something that makes my system sound worse and then have to sell it at a loss. This is why I try to get a dealer loaner first, but sometimes that’s not possible. 

 

I just did that with a TT, arm and cartridge and close to 200 original EMI and Decca classical records. I believed my own very old experience that vinyl is superior and found out in short order that it no longer is. Cost me a lot, that mistake.  Mini classical record collection anyone? 

[Blackmorec]

34 minutes ago, marce said:

So now I have to learn to listen to music....

No I’m certain you know how to listen to music. What I’m saying is that when I add a much better cable for example, I hear additional elements from the music, logically elements that were previously masked. You claim that I’m imagining those additional details. All I did was ask you to try imagining those same details.  What you see is that imagining a whole lot of additional detail that is intimately related to the performance of the music is not easy. Its not even difficult....in fact its really more or less impossible. 

Not only that, but when you remove the new cable, you have to stop imagining the changes and remember what the music sounded like before and do that perfectly, every time. 

Extremely complex and in all likelihood way beyond your or my musical skills. But there is a radically simpler and more logical explanation....that the changes are simply due to the new cable. 

 

Regarding hearsay. I’ve heard these changes so for me its not hearsay. You obviously haven’t otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation so for you it is hearsay.

 

But let’s say i invited you to my place, listened to Michel using an existing cable then replaced the cable with something better and we both heard the difference it made. We then reversed the cable swap and the differences disappeared. Could you still be sceptical about what cables do if you’ve actually heard the differences for yourself and proven the changes in both directions?  As a minimum you’re going to have to admit that something is afoot.....so the only problem we’re having here is that you’ve never swapped in some cables that make a substantial difference into a system capable of actually revealing the differences. Had you done so you’d probably be standing on my side of the fence

[Blackmorec]

1 hour ago, marce said:

Your ears adjust to any change in sound, break in is another exaggerated (but convenient) effect.

Actually break in is a pain in the ass, because it really does generate doubt in a new purchase. But there’s a very simple way to avoid it.  Simply install the new component and leave it playing music for a few days without listening. When you come back the transition is complete and you hear the new component’s final sound. So no ears adjusting, just the sound before and after.

 

But do you know the most important question for me?  Why can’t you hear this stuff?  In my system, the better its got, the more clearly I can hear things like burn-in and new components, so I guess the reverse is also true. The less revealing my system gets, the less it reveals changes. Logical really when you think about it. 

[Blackmorec]

57 minutes ago, mansr said:

You say you hear it. We hear you say it. That makes it hearsay.

Hearsay is repeating what someone else says. What I’m giving you is a first hand report, illustrating what happens when one takes as much care as possible with setting up and removing noise from a quality hi-fi system. Why you find that so threatening I’ve no idea.  No strike that. I believe I do know why. 

[Blackmorec]

23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

No, not ears. Your post-purchase-paranoia subsides after a few days but you keep insisting it's the new component breaking in. Admit it to yourself, you'll be a much happier person! (this one is a freebee also, I'm just too nice!)

You know what would be useful.....for an engineer to actually sit down with a few components and figure out what break-in actually is. For example why do large Mundorf capacitors take so long to reach stability? Do we actually know the answer to that?