CPU Load and Sound Quality

[fas42]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Nothing you can in this area is going to move the dial much because you're limited by your shitty speakers and internal DAC.

 

Get yourself some powered speakers and an external DAC.

 

 

 

Which is not the point. I want to see how capable the laptop is of getting the sound right, in the areas that it can, if I give it every chance - I don't intend to seriously listen to it, merely explore how well the audio circuitry can perform.

 

This is an example of how I approach each system - what's it doing right, what's it doing wrong? What happens when I alter parameters, in any sense ... the point is to learn ...

[fas42]

What a lot of people are doing is confusing QA with science ... if an implementation isn't good enough, or not enough care is taken in making sure that all the parts fit together properly, then the end result will crash and burn. This is something that NASA got a red face over - a mission to Mars self destructed because two engineering groups didn't make sure they were talking in the same measurement units - you know, simple stuff ... 😉.

[fas42]

Getting an audio rig in the sweet zone can be compared to getting a particular F1 team to be regular winners ... all the cars, from all the teams, have 'unbelievable' spec's compared to any normal vehicle - but one team always get their drivers on the podium; while another has its engines constantly blowing up, or "the wheels fall off", one way or the other - what's the "magic ingredient" that separates these two scenarios ... ? 🙂

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

 

Frank, you are not going to be on the F-1 podium with a laptop. 

 

MAK

 

Everything has its own level - I once fooled around with slot cars - remember those? 😉 There would always be one or two people who had cars which put on a good show, in that world ... fiddling with a laptop is just like doing the little things that got your tiny wheeled 'toy' to do better than the next one ...

[fas42]

50 minutes ago, rando said:

 

If you prove a reliable fixer we'll set up concessions (gambling) and CC can wash it for us.  Conditioning to expect no evidence of fixing impairs ability of further steps to be taken.  

 

Doesn't compute ... sorry ... 🤨

[fas42]

35 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

...  The fact that TIM existed for as long as it did, or that DolbyA leaks have distorted most of our digital pop recordings since CDs came out,

 

John

 

 

This is where I have a big problem with what John says ... he claims that we are suffering from "distortion", because of Dolby A - I certainly know what unpleasant digital anomalies sound like, which why I work to rid them from a system. And I certainly how spectacular pop recordings sound when you give them a pristine playback setup to work through ... to keep bandying the word distortion around, when the main offender is the rig that's reproducing them, is quite an insult to all the people who have spent significant chunks of their careers creating the versions for release.

[fas42]

33 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Isn't your constant harping about how bad audio equipment sounds out-of-the-box equally insulting to the people who have spent their careers designing and manufacturing them?

 

People have to work under the constraints of what the market wants, and expects - the lack of attention to detail is an industry wide behaviour; the designers just produce what the manufacturer wants - just read what John Curl says at times about the difficulties of producing a design that is acceptable to the manufacturer; that he's personally happy with. There was an article by an Australian designer, who did an amplifier that stood out like a jewel amongst all the expensive gear I listened to decades ago; he worked as amplifier designer for the Mark Levinson company in the 80's, and gave up in disgust because they just weren't interested in advancing the true performance of their products ... sometimes, The System just too monolithic, 🙂.

 

Boutique companies who give a damn are then condemned because they price their wares at commensurate levels ... but they still only have so much control over how their product is finally used - so may still sound far less than their optimum - I have always said that the core of products is good, but the detailing is where it falls down. The very best gear, carefully assembled, shows what's possible - but the trickledown is far, far too slow.

[fas42]

50 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

DolbyA is a compression system unintended to reach the consumer.  IT DOES DISTORT, and the distortion should be undone before presenting to the consumer.   If you like distortion free bass, for example -- then DolbyA encoded material wont do it for you.  It should be decoded for proper bass.

 

As has been said many times now, Dolby may be used, deliberately, as an effect - it's considered a standard "trick" in the industry. So should we accept at face value that mastering decision, and hear the recording "as was intended by the producer and artists" - or remaster to suit ourselves? Twiddling the treble on a simple radio is remastering at an obvious level, and is perfectly acceptable to most - personally, I'm not against anyone doing such remastering, on the consumer side; rather, it's the emphasising of the term "distortion" that disturbs me.

 

50 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

The best approach is to start with wide dynamic range, and then for the local system to modify the recording for compatability.  A small system or automobile would benefit from compression...  A good system does NOT benefit from compression except maybe low level play.

 

John

 

 

Agree entirely.

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Let's use you as an example. Are you designing for a manufacturer? You are going to say NO. So in 35 years how many products you managed to make. You are going to say " I am almost there".  Now ask yourself again. Can there a man out there who is equally as smart as you are and who works just for himself and for his satisfaction producing some exceptional equipment just for love? 

 

The problem about where I come from is that there is "no product". It's a method, as George is happy to point out - how do you sell a method? At the moment i get satisfaction seeing the audio mate down the road getting some very, very impressive sound out of relatively ordinary gear - the 'product' is that he understands what's going on, and will likely pass it on, etc.

 

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

There are some good designers who are here not for profit alone. You can see some of them even in this thread. BTW, your SHARP and the laptops were made for  to enrich themselves.

 

And congratulation. Managed to bait another reply.

 

Ahh, I forgot that the point of audio forums was to not react to someone's comment, which one personally felt worked against achieving greater satisfaction when listening to recordings ... got it! 😉

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

DolbyA is used seldom as an effect, except for vocal enhancement -- it is not a very good effect to just put on a recording.   It had an advantage over other early compressors in that there was a carefully controlled attack/release.  Frankly, one reason why the sibilance on Karen Carpenter was so messed up was using a DolbyA for effect.

 

Using a device for effect is VERY DIFFERENT than just using on a recording as a whole.

 

Have you ever heard PURE DolbyA material? -- not so good.  The distributors are EXPLICITLY CHEATING by skipping the decoding step and doing a rather ugly EQ to compensate.

 

Just using a distortion device all of the time is BAD, for specific sound effect, then it can be good.

Just blasting all distributed material through a distortion creating device like a DolbyA shouldn't be done -- in fact, it is NOT done...  It is a left-over from something that was incomplete.

 

John

 

 

So if some of the mix has had DolbyA  applied, and other sound elements haven't - and the two 'types' are layered on top of each other - how do you deal with this? Do you do some degree of unmixing; or just apply some level of compromise decoding?

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

The distributors are EXPLICITLY CHEATING by skipping the decoding step and doing a rather ugly EQ to compensate.

 

 

Have you got anyone strongly active in the industry to admit that they use this 'shortcut'?

[fas42]

56 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

When the DolbyA is used like an effects box -- that isn't what I deal with.  I deal with the problem of ENTIRE recordings being passed through the DolbyA -- when the entire recording is done, it is usually (by far) not used for effect, but is for 1) NR purposes, 2) compatbility with systems that assume NR.

 

 

Ok, I'm confused now ... one of the key decodings you do is of Carpenters' material, but you said above that DolbyA was used as an effect on her vocals. So are you saying that a double dose of DolbyA was used here, and you are only undoing the faulty decoding of the complete mix?

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Well quite honestly, given the number of times I’ve read the assertion that audiophiles’ ideas violate the known laws of physics I would have thought we could do better than a Google search and the 4 forces of nature.  This is your chance to put a nail in the coffin of several subjective audiophile observations, otherwise the only ‘physical law’ I’m currently noticing related to this discussion is buoyancy caused by hot air, and so far it’s being confirmed rather than violated. 

 

Don't be silly, Blackmorec - you don't want a sensible answer, because that would spoil the fun of hurling over-ripe tomatoes over the barriers ... 🙂.

[fas42]

34 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

At least they don't smell as bad as what you're slinging...

 

And may you enjoy the pleasure of having others express similar sentiments towards yourself, for the rest of your days ... 🙂.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Yes!! Insulting great audio manufacturer's and the engineer's of realistic naturally made recordings is just a few of the insults of @fas42 that I find unacceptable.

 

Teresa, it's all okay ... 😀. Different countries have different ways of expressing themselves - we don't bow down to anyone; and if we disagree with what someone has done, we will tell it as we find it.

 

My interest is making music reproduction better, so if someone has be 'insulted' on the way, so be it. I don't perceive it as an insult; I would see myself as being hypocritical if I didn't call it as I see it ... okay? 😉

 

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

if CPU load affects SQ, you have done something wrong; same for the 'dynamics' of the PS

 

What has been "done wrong" is to assume that the design of all the areas of an audio chain is good enough - by the industry as a whole. If a system only performs at a relatively low standard, compared to what's possible, all of this fiddly stuff doesn't matter. If one aims for a higher SQ, then it becomes a bit of a nightmare - because effectively one has to dive in and re-engineer so many things; or build workarounds on the outside, as many do using added 'gizmos'. Blackmorec points out that there is light at the end of the tunnel if one perseveres, John is being thoughtful about some of the mechanisms that can be relevant; it's all part of a single story: normal audio engineering is just not good enough to deliver the best SQ.

 

To throw in the requisite car analogy, if one only uses a high performance vehicle to go shopping in, any old rubbishy rubber is good enough to use on one's wheels; but if you desire to find the limits of what you car can do, then the tyres you fit will be critical to achieving the best that can be reached.

[fas42]

22 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

That. But sadly for all the nay-sayers in this thread, it is even far more related to all the seemingly small stuff. Like the source.

 

I have said it before - these days the PC is more important than the DAC. Now who is going to believe that for real eh ?

And don't give me "then the DAC has a few issues" lines.

 

Actually, I will give you the "then the DAC has a few issues" line, 😜. My philosophy is that the analogue side should be 100% robust against any 'misbehaviour', especially from any circuitry that delivers the source in digital form - my goal would be that the digital can be "unbelievably dirty", but still good enough to retain 100% data integrity at all times; with zero perceptible impact on the SQ.

 

Why? Because otherwise you live in a nightmare world, where it's impossible to stabilise the quality of the heard sound - just do some minor adjustment of the digital environment, and all the SQ you have steadily built up could go down the gurgler - a major no-no, in my book.

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 

  Unfortunately, that IS the real world, and part of the reason that very few DACs etc. don't sound EXACTLY the same, any more than many Preamplifiers and amplifiers with similar measurements don't sound exactly the same.

 

At the moment, yes. But it doesn't have to be like that - the airline industry worked out a long time ago, that planes falling out of the sky every other day, for silly reasons, was a not a good look - if one wanted to rely on a good queue of customers to keep your company afloat. Which is why they steadily built up a whole methodology to maintain the highest standards, human foibles notwithstanding.

 

So, it can be done if the motivation is there ... but, flaky SQ tends not to kill people - most the time, 😉.

[fas42]

12 hours ago, marce said:

 

 

Personally rather than using the magic dark bits to enhance my images, I try and use the best lenses and techniques, but as with music, its the image that's important, not how sharp it is, some images look better less sharp...

Sorry for the interlude, Back to the dark bits...

 

Luckily, it doesn't work that way with music - recordings, that is. The best sharpness you can devise or engineer is your friend - but the sharpness has to be the genuine thing; in photography nomenclature, typical so-called "high resolution" audio rigs are stinking with 'lens' aberrations - and they indeed make a mess of what one 'sees' ...

 

 

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Same goes for cars, there are many cars that have physically same engine, but only different ECU parameters to give different amounts of engine power. There is a hefty price difference between each power version, although the actual car is mechanically identical, only a configuration parameter to the onboard computer makes the difference.

 

 

Or mainframe computers, 😃. When I started my working life with with a significant company of the time, it was a "never tell the customer!" that the main product was engineered to operate at high speed, but then slugged to provide the lower cost option - if that customer was willing to cough up some big ones, a team was sent in "to upgrade" - which involved moving a single jumper wire, 😜. Plenty of time to then wander down to the pub, etc ...

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

It works the same for audio or photography, you can reduce resolution and sell the result cheaper. But it is somewhat different thing for content in a way that content has been already largely released from chains of physical media. You are not paying premium for silver or gold CD discs anymore, you just buy the content (analogous to software), without any hardware involved. DVD vs Bluray as physical media is also going away and instead you just pay for different software features (video resolution).

 

 

The content is always "high resolution", innately - adding the phrases SACD, or 24/384 does close to zero to actually improving anything, as far as stored content is concerned. The useful, and heard resolution is reduced, often dramatically, in the bowels of the playback chain - unfortunately, paying lots of moolah often gains you very little, overall - it's swings and roundabouts time.