Jump to content
IGNORED

CPU Load and Sound Quality


STC

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

1. Play the new unit for several days without listening. They are then stable from the very first listen, so that rules out hearing adaptation as a reason for the changes.

 

 Incidentally, this even applies to new wide range headphones, with some people feeding them normal listening level music for a couple of days with them underneath a pillow.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

snip.........burn in is only an issue with sufficiently evolved systems, that have the ability to react to and reveal small changes. 

If you mean only humans have the psychology from sufficient evolution then I agree with you.  Of course I don't think that is what you mean at all.  Your hardware system has evolved.  Of course it is your mind that has directed that evolution.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, STC said:


Audio production and reproduction is well understood. What clearly not understood is the process of hearing the reproduction which involves psychoacoustics and that is not understood or refuse to understand because it would make us foolish looking back years of chasing the wrong things to get perfection. It is a religion for audiophiles. 

 

If its so well understood, how come we are still able to make significant improvements every year?   The wheel is well understood....Audio and its reproduction is altogether too complex, involves far too many variables and constantly raises questions. There are still problems to solve, it still doesn’t sound like the live event, we can still improve the sound from recordings we made 40 years ago and reveal new levels of previously unheard information. In digital we find new and better ways to remove noise, optimise processing, convert digital to analog, build better CPUs, memory storage and disc drives, improved materials. 

So in summary, we don’t know where next year’s, the next decade’s or the next centuries’ improvements lie. We don’t know what new materials will be developed, what new measurements will become available, what new physical laws will be discovered,  what new phenomena we’ll come to understand, but what we do know is that our understanding will continue to evolve and sound quality will continue to improve. 

But if we ignore problems or claim they don’t exist, then the driving force of progress stops. The more we recognise problems, the faster we solve them and improve the state of the art. 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

If what you are saying is that some people’s hearing is sensitive to the changes that occur, then I would agree. However I don’t believe the variable is their hearing per-se, rather its their system’s ability to reveal the changes that varies between different people. When I started on this audio road, there was no such thing as specialised, just-for-audio cables or furniture. Speakers were wired up with lamp flex, the audio version being marked for phase and TTs and amps were placed on whatever convenient furniture was at hand. Sound quality was good and there was no such thing as burn-in. But as we discovered more about how to make our systems better.....new configurations, new components, new materials, improved configurations, improved digital resolution, less noise, better vibration control, better mains etc the improved sound quality brought with it a new phenomenon....burn-in. But as is obvious from the above, burn in is only an issue with sufficiently evolved systems, that have the ability to react to and reveal small changes. 

 

I've noted that people who have not the slightest interest in the hifi malarkey game - ie, women, 😉 - have no problem sensing when the sound is in a good space - and lose interest, very quickly, when it goes off. The more of a peak the rig is capable of reaching, the more easily it can plummet down the sides into an unpleasant loss of "specialness" - the ongoing drama for the DIY enthusiast, 🙄.

 

Making a system better I see as a process of identifying the weaknesses, and resolving them, one by one. Burn-in is just one of the axes that weakness can operate on - and I don't want it to be part of the picture. My goal is for a system to be "as good as it gets" in something like 10 minutes from something changing - including switching on from cold ... I'm a long way from achieving such, but see it as a proper endpoint, 🙂.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

If its so well understood, how come we are still able to make significant improvements every year?   The wheel is well understood....Audio and its reproduction is altogether too complex, involves far too many variables and constantly raises questions. There are still problems to solve, it still doesn’t sound like the live event, we can still improve the sound from recordings we made 40 years ago and reveal new levels of previously unheard information. In digital we find new and better ways to remove noise, optimise processing, convert digital to analog, build better CPUs, memory storage and disc drives, improved materials. 

 

I don't see things this way - for me it's a simple lack of understanding that any audio system needs a high level of integrity in every aspect of its structure, to realise the full potential. Simple systems, easier to debug; complexity invites more degrading weaknesses, and one spends far too much effort trying to compensate for the failings of the implementation.

 

2 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

So in summary, we don’t know where next year’s, the next decade’s or the next centuries’ improvements lie. We don’t know what new materials will be developed, what new measurements will become available, what new physical laws will be discovered,  what new phenomena we’ll come to understand, but what we do know is that our understanding will continue to evolve and sound quality will continue to improve. 

But if we ignore problems or claim they don’t exist, then the driving force of progress stops. The more we recognise problems, the faster we solve them and improve the state of the art. 

 

I see the biggest problem is that far too few people realise how impressive playback of very ordinary recordings can be - if you don't know what you're missing, why would you bother trying to get it happening? 😉

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

If its so well understood, how come we are still able to make significant improvements every year? 

 

Like what? Lower THD? Flatter response? Hi Rez?  These are related to audio production and reproduction. How much of it you could hear is something else?  

 

8 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

The wheel is well understood....Audio and its reproduction is altogether too complex, involves far too many variables and constantly raises questions. There are still problems to solve, it still doesn’t sound like the live event,

 

As I said, they refuse to accept the truth. The audiophiles seemed to know better that the person who invented stereo. Live event is matters related to psychoacoustics. Not engineering. 
 

 

8 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

we can still improve the sound from recordings we made 40 years ago and reveal new levels of previously unheard information.

 

This is factual. If it is there 40 years ago then it should have been audible 40 year ago. 
 

8 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

 

In digital we find new and better ways to remove noise, optimise processing, convert digital to analog, build better CPUs, memory storage and disc drives, improved materials.

 

It is like religion.  You believe so. But can you hear them? And can you put yourself to prove you could hear them? Do not make claims but you cannot prove when asked to?  I can claim I could run 100 meters under 10 seconds after listening to Hi Rez but can I prove that? 
 

8 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

So in summary, we don’t know where next year’s, the next decade’s or the next centuries’ improvements lie. We don’t know what new materials will be developed, what new measurements will become available, what new physical laws will be discovered,  what new phenomena we’ll come to understand, but what we do know is that our understanding will continue to evolve and sound quality will continue to improve. 

But if we ignore problems or claim they don’t exist, then the driving force of progress stops. The more we recognise problems, the faster we solve them and improve the state of the art. 


Can you hear them? If not what’s the purpose? You may invent a 300dB speaker but will you be using it in your room?  Maybe just once?  After that no hifi system will ever sound to you. 
 

How can you make claims of improvement when the inventor of stereo himself knows the flaws with it which they are still trying to solve. The latest is another shot by Polk. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, STC said:

If it is there 40 years ago then it should have been audible 40 year ago. 

Not necessarily..

 Audio reproduction has improved in leaps  and bounds in the last 40years, especially in the areas of S/N capabilities partly due to both

 improved low noise voltage regulation and much lower noise and distortion semiconductor devices. DACs have also markedly improved in the last 40 years too for similar reasons..

20 minutes ago, STC said:

It is like religion.  You believe so. But can you hear them? And can you put yourself to prove you could hear them? Do not make claims but you cannot prove when asked to?  

 

 Many Audiophiles are capable of doing this under non sighted conditions using their own equipment in their own listening room

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Not necessarily..

 Audio reproduction has improved in leaps  and bounds in the last 40years, especially in the areas of S/N capabilities partly due to both

 improved low noise voltage regulation and much lower noise and distortion semiconductor devices. DACs have also markedly improved in the last 40 years too for similar reasons..

 

40 years ago they got no DAC. I said if 40 years ago whatever the technology could capture the audio should also able to reproduce them with the 40 years old technology audio reproduction system provided they are within human audible threshold. 
 

 

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Many Audiophiles are capable of doing this under non sighted conditions using their own equipment in their own listening room

 

And it has been explained 24 years ago. See my earlier post. 
 

BTW, I have been to a few audiophiles making such claims and due to my presence I seemed to suck out their ability to do so. 

 

and also, I could detect phase at one time. It took me many years to finally realize why I could detect phase with my then equipment. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, STC said:

40 years ago they got no DAC.

 The first CD was produced 37 years ago. You are nit picking.

 I would be happy to do non sighted comparisons at any time using my own setup, and  using Bit Identical pairs of  Audio files of my own choosing, and pairs of Video files of my own choosing switched behind my back by somebody else, or for that matter my DIY DAC vs. even an Au$8K  Bricasti M1 for example.   No, I don't  claim to be able to hear differences between interconnects of similar lengths, and type under non sighted conditions unless perhaps one was a cheap throw away type that came with a cheap component.;

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I've noted that people who have not the slightest interest in the hifi malarkey game - ie, women, 😉 - have no problem sensing when the sound is in a good space - and lose interest, very quickly, when it goes off. The more of a peak the rig is capable of reaching, the more easily it can plummet down the sides into an unpleasant loss of "specialness" - the ongoing drama for the DIY enthusiast, 🙄.

 

Making a system better I see as a process of identifying the weaknesses, and resolving them, one by one. Burn-in is just one of the axes that weakness can operate on - and I don't want it to be part of the picture. My goal is for a system to be "as good as it gets" in something like 10 minutes from something changing - including switching on from cold ... I'm a long way from achieving such, but see it as a proper endpoint, 🙂.

The wife in the kitchen...

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 The first CD was produced 37 years ago. You are nit picking.

 I would be happy to do non sighted comparisons at any time using my own setup, and  using Bit Identical pairs of  Audio files of my own choosing, and pairs of Video files of my own choosing switched behind my back by somebody else, or for that matter my DIY DAC vs. even an Au$8K  Bricasti M1 for example.   No, I don't  claim to be able to hear differences between interconnects of similar lengths, and type under non sighted conditions unless perhaps one was a cheap throw away type that came with a cheap component.;


That’s the difference between us. Any claims I make, I could demonstrate in any system. I don’t need my special system. I am not David Copperfield where magic can only happen in a special place. Audio is not magic. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Frank, can you tell me exactly what you are changing on the laptop to get the magic. IE, are you moving cables, changing the speakers, sitting it on toilet paper. What exactly are you doing. Modded bios? Please answer with some specific details. 

 

Mak


I have given up asking. I asked him to name the wire, solder, brand or anything that he is doing and I am confident I could repeat them.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, STC said:


That’s the difference between us. Any claims I make, I could demonstrate in any system. I don’t need my special system. I am not David Copperfield where magic can only happen in a special place. Audio is not magic. 

Amen, If the ears are so golden they should be able to discerne anomalies on other systems as well. Not just their own. 

 

Mak

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

If its so well understood, how come we are still able to make significant improvements every year?   The wheel is well understood....Audio and its reproduction is altogether too complex, involves far too many variables and constantly raises questions. There are still problems to solve, it still doesn’t sound like the live event, we can still improve the sound from recordings we made 40 years ago and reveal new levels of previously unheard information. In digital we find new and better ways to remove noise, optimise processing, convert digital to analog, build better CPUs, memory storage and disc drives, improved materials. 

So in summary, we don’t know where next year’s, the next decade’s or the next centuries’ improvements lie. We don’t know what new materials will be developed, what new measurements will become available, what new physical laws will be discovered,  what new phenomena we’ll come to understand, but what we do know is that our understanding will continue to evolve and sound quality will continue to improve. 

But if we ignore problems or claim they don’t exist, then the driving force of progress stops. The more we recognise problems, the faster we solve them and improve the state of the art. 

 

that is engineering, not science

 

are you sure you studied science??

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

failure to control relevant variables (e.g. sighted listening) usually winds up as sub-scientific audiophool gibberish

Please can you point to the results of an example of your listening tests that you have conducted which conform to controlling these relevant variables. Do you have any?

System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs

System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs

System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I've posted a few here and there on this site if you care to search.

Search for what?

System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs

System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs

System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, STC said:


That’s the difference between us. Any claims I make, I could demonstrate in any system. I don’t need my special system. I am not David Copperfield where magic can only happen in a special place. Audio is not magic. 

 

7 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

Amen, If the ears are so golden they should be able to discerne anomalies on other systems as well. Not just their own. 

 

Mak

 What makes you think that many members of this forum are unable to do this ?

 Have you ever regularly participated as part of a group of listeners where they regularly visit each other's homes, and listen to new audio items, sometimes on loan from a dealer, and often in systems worth >$100K ?

 They then listen to the various items using non sighted evaluation with all items still powered up so that this doesn't give a clue as to what is actually in use at the time ?

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 What makes you think that many members of this forum are unable to do this ?

 Have you ever regularly participated as part of a group of listeners where they regularly visit each other's homes, and listen to new audio items, sometimes on loan from a dealer, and often in systems worth >$100K ?

 They then listen to the various items using non sighted evaluation with all items still powered up so that this doesn't give a clue as to what is actually in use at the time ?

 

 

What makes you think that he thinks that???

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...