CPU Load and Sound Quality

[STC]

2 minutes ago, marce said:

Probably because they are more concerned about listening to music than system one up-manship

IME, they find it out that the recording doesn’t sound like their system so most rather stick to the pictures. It is like chefs posting pictures of their kitchen. 

[STC]

13 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

You mean there are people out there who listen to playback of a system through headphones?  What on earth for?

 

To listen to the original sound. Looking for micro details. 
 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

 

 So they can say they heard some Wilson or Magicos loudspeakers and they sounded just like a pair of Sennheisers 😁   
 

 

That’s a myth. No one here would dare to take a bet they could identify a Wilson or Magicos blind folded. 

 

13 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

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. 

?????   

[STC]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 Once again, that is rubbish. Dips and peaks in microphone response and positioning as well as limitations of the recording, especially from YouTube videos with heir compressed and low bit rate recordings make this a pretty well pointless exercise for the normal person, and this particular subject is best discussed in one of the threads that you have already started on that subject..

Please be consistent. There are many recordings which claimed to be the accurate sound of the original event. You can also read many comment it’s claiming such recordings can reproduce the instruments and space where the original event took place. But when it comes to recording a systems playback, microphones dips and peaks suddenly incapable of making the true representation of the playback sound? How is it possible for the microphones to capture the original event accurately but not the playback?

 

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

A recorded capture of the sound of a system using microphones is a very poor replica of the original sound and only useful where the systems already sound very different. Even then......

 

We know that. But why?  All playback is a compromised representation of the original event. When you record them using the traditional method they are further compromised. 
 

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Rubbish

 I have been able to listen to some very high end systems that a small group of friends own, some on loan from the dealer, and with systems even worth around Au$100K there can be very marked sound differences, with all components including expensive speakers .

 The best sounding ones were in most cases readily identified by the group under non sighted conditions.

 

I don't read the Hi Fi magazines these days so I can't comment on what they publish.

 I do have a copy of the review from Stereophile  of my old Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 ,which got great reviews and had much better than average measurements, but all 3 of us who purchased them were highly disappointed in their performance, and all of us made major improvements in the PSU area where it was powered by an A.C. wallwart. We all modified them to be powered by an external Linear PSU with greatly improved results. 

Ask Kal, who actually took part in a proper blind test at Harman. The best you could do is to tell one is better than the other. For an example, if you were to compare Wilson, laptop and Sharp system. You could tell the difference.  But if you were to listen to Utopia, Wilson and the McIntosh, the best is you could only pick one that is better to your ears. 

[STC]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

 I am being consistent. I find that recordings of performances captured in a room  from a pair of speakers, and then posted on YouTube are damn near useless for most purposes !!!

It is the same even If you capture a world class live concert hall performance and post them via YouTube. It will be a compromised version. BUT only a deaf would unable to rank the performance and SQ even with YT quality. 

[STC]

Just now, John Dyson said:

Side-note, mildly off topic, but statement of fact  -- a lot of the commerical recordings on YouTube are infested with missing DolbyA decoding...  Just FYI.  I can clean many of them up A LOT, but of course usually only starting with 160k or 128k opus type source.

 

If someone masters their own material, of course the DolbyA problem won't exist.

 

John

John, I don’t think they still use DolbyA for recording nowadays. I could be wrong. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 Yahoo Serious ?

Systems with subtle but worthwhile differences will never be accurately captured for listening to crappy YouTube Audio.

 Of course, if you are capturing Frank's laptop speakers vs. any decent system that will be a different matter.

 

Do you know why it is even posted in YouTube?  Or is it just a convenient excuse?  How would you propose this comparison be done? 

[STC]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Have you checked out the Frequency response of most pairs of headphones ?  Many die in the arse just around the 9-10kHz area .

Have you checked your ears Frequency Response?  Do you even know why they are steeply attenuated at higher frequencies?

[STC]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the ATH-M70x  do look real hot at 10 kHz

Maybe  there is a reason why he is hearing difference under extraordinary circumstances. 

[STC]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 My system is mainly DIY, and the internals as well as photos of my DIY Preamp etc. have been posted on numerous occasions already. These days I listen mainly on headphones due to other family members working mainly night shifts

Attached is an internal photo of my DIY Class A Preamplifier and 15W /Ch. Class A Amplifier. which like the rest of the system is Direct Coupled. i.e. NO capacitors in the signal path. They also use external toroidal transformers in a separate 2 rack case for best noise performance.

can these picture drive my speakers?

[STC]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 As I previously stated I have a way better than average main system where I am readily able to confirm my initial impressions.

 This thread is getting beyond a joke.

It has developed into the usual  Audiophile bashing thread and personal attacks.

 

 John Dyson trusts what I report,  as does Barry Diament and Martin Colloms, and on several occasions cases I have referred the tracks in question from John to others for their evaluation.

On all recent occasions they have agreed with me. One is a Professional performing Classical musician.

 

 

 

it is becoming a joke when one posts picture of inside preamp to prove that his system superior to others. I have seen thousands of them. What matters is what comes out of system and reaches your ears. 
 

So what would be the alternative to YT?

[STC]

Just now, sandyk said:

 ST

 Haven't you got anything better to do than post smart arse replies like this ?

 

Isn't it about time you either put this thread back on track or put it out of it's misery  ?

You started it and I answered and asking you to provide a way to do this better and more reliable. Do you know or not?

[STC]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 These designs were constructed by quite a few members of a U.K. based forum and the results confirmed. In the case of the Preamp a USA constructor measured it as only -3dB at 1.5MHz. It also has less than .0005% distortion

It has been very favourably confirmed with a Gryphon Preamp valued at around Au$50K and after hearing it compared I was offered $2K to build one for one of the other listeners. I declined, as I do not use DIY to make money.

 

I want nothing further to with what has now become a very nasty thread .

And how is this related to the YouTube examples?  You find it okay to criticize what I do but not okay when I ask you how can I improve?  How is 0.005% related to your criticism of YT?  Are you telling you could hear 0.005 vs 0.1% distortion?  
 

Let me tell you a story. In my early days of high end there were few people who self appointed themselves as the authority for perfect sound. The first time I went to his place to listen, I thought my transistor could play louder and ask him why the level was so low. He provided some snake oil answers like soundstage, micro details and things like that. So from that day, I tried listening at very low level and kept telling myself that this is how high end supposed to be listened to. After a week or so I revert back to my normal level and avoided any interaction with this esteemed audiophile. 
 

Few years later this eminent audiophiles decided to come up with their own reference recordings. They got the best band and started to record under his supervision. He arranged the players in a 90 degrees soundstage mimicking his setup. His performers were with their own stereo microphones. You should how by now how the recording would have sounded. 
 

You just do not what you are doing until you allow others to question and evaluate them. 

[STC]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Ask that question in your other thread that petered out due to lack of interest in the subject

 At least I can hear the difference between Hi Res 24/96 or 24/192 which you obviously can not, and this has already been verified in another thread elsewhere.

This thread has become rather nasty, and I will be taking no further part in it.

 

This is also my thread. You never provided an answer but day in and out just criticize the SQ of YT. Why?  You are claiming you could hear the difference. Do you think you are the only guy making this claim?  I do not have the Mytek with me now but I have done fairly many comparisons during those days. The last I saw the people make these kind of claims is they walking away with tail in between the legs. 
 

 

[STC]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

As an example of what can be conveyed about replay in a YT, a solid effort that came up some time ago,

 

 

 

Don’t be silly. You have no idea how this was recorded or even if this actually the sound of system in the room. If they were to use Videomic or M/S mic then you are essentially listening to the original recording with the speaker and a little of the room frontal ambiance. Stereo reproduction via two speakers could not capture the left and right exactly as how we would hear them because each speakers would be producing the same sound ( with phase and level difference). Essentially they will sound more monophonic. 
 

In the case of Videomic, you are capturing the sound of left and right speakers to each channel and it will sound close to the original recording. 
 

Don’t post others YouTube. Record one yourself and listen to the difference. The best to do proper judgment of sound of system replace is to use vocal. 

[STC]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Note, I posted this because Alex stated that one could not get any idea of a what a rig sounded like from a YT clip ...

 

So, the rule is, all sound clips on YT have been faked - is this correct?

 

 

You have no idea how it was recorded. In this case if you compare the original Feeling of Jazz, you would notice the hi-hat collapsed to the centre. The left side is highly reflective but the room acoustics hardly registered. Of course, the speakers are great sounding but what matters here is not the speakers sound but the overall sound as heard in-situ.  

 

 

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Left, right, stereo, matters not one iota - what is interesting is whether the tonality matches up with what one perceives as decent sound.

 

 

You know I've done that already. And, there is a lengthy vocal segment at the end of the above clip.

You video of one clip recording from the back of the speakers?  It is pretty useless for anything. 

[STC]

39 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

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. 

 

The point is, all sound heard in your room consist of direct and indirect sound. A system playback is made of these two unless you listen to them in anechoic chamber or with headphones. If you were to record a string quartet in a concert hall and another one in your room, The clarity of the instruments would be identical. However, the reverbs and ambiance would be different. 

 

In the case of stereo playback recording, you are recording double instrument so the quartet would be a string octet. That's the reason when you use a standard microphone they all will sound muddy and loses definition.

 

 

Quote

 

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. 

 

So too a microphone recording a live performance but they sound different. See my first para.

 

 

Quote

 

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. 😉

 

Of course it wont sound like live because stereo hearing is subject to crosstalk and not to mention your room reverbs would be hardly anywhere near to the reverbs of live performance.

 

Use headphones for evaluation. Get a binaural microphone and record a live performance. Listen to it and you will know where and what those differences are.

[STC]

 

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

This is a typical reaction to any member who dares to question the authority of people like yourself and Marce, as Blackmorec is now also finding out too., IOW , gang up, ridicule and try to SILENCE everybody who dares to disagree with you.

Unfortunately for you, there are numerous members who post in the Music Server area of the forum that even report hearing differences between different types of RAM as well hearing differences between different OSs and types and speed of the Processor ..

 

 

If so why are you talking about the past.....I have the files and all you have to do is to guess which segment belongs to the highest and lowest. 
 

These files are untouched. They are send to DAC. It should be identical to the original file.
 

On 11/23/2019 at 2:26 PM, STC said:

The original sound was recorded in DAW and the file is very large. It is available on request. 

 

[STC]

[STC]

16 hours ago, STC said:

It is the same even If you capture a world class live concert hall performance and post them via YouTube. It will be a compromised version. BUT only a deaf would unable to rank the performance and SQ even with YT quality. 

When you can’t tell the difference then you are deaf  

 

 

[STC]

10 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

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

Amplifier, Preamp, source and cable should not impart any coloration of their own. A well constructed cable should carry the signal without any alteration. The only cable that make difference are those designed differently to alter the sound. For some this can be useful because they do not how to remedy the problem. 
 

Difference must be obvious and identifiable under different system. Anything other than this, they are a sign of weakness in your system. 

[STC]

16 minutes ago, STC said:

When you can’t tell the difference then you are deaf  

 

 

 This sounds realistic because it got no interaural crosstalk. 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

The operative words here are should not.   In practice, it is an entirely different matter .

And how do you know that they are not?  

[STC]

48 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Why don't you start a Poll on this subject ?

 

So you have no idea about it but relies on polls?

[STC]

5 minutes ago, davide256 said:

by definition a security scan uses significant system resource and lots of hard drive activity. Neither of these is good for music playback in any OS

Why? Any evidence?  

[STC]

26 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I was attempting to humorously suggest that you do this to show you what a silly statement you had made.

 Almost all Amplifier, Preamps, sources and quite often cables, impart some degree of degradation or coloration of their own .

Yes. But do you have the evidence?  Or is there a reason for you to believe a 100W amplifier Amplifier to sound a like the 100W Bryston?  Both are 100W, right?