CPU Load and Sound Quality

[Blackmorec]

11 hours 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!)

Gosh you’re so nice; or gaslighting..... I’m not quite sure which, given the forum we’re on. 

😴  look into my eyes...you’re feeling sleepy, very sleepy.  When you awake your new power supply is going to sound like you’ve just added a D’Agostino Relentless 🎶$£$🎶🎶$££$🎶

[Blackmorec]

3 hours ago, marce said:

You always presume... And your presumptions are wrong.

I deduced, which is more or less the same thing. My deduction of never having tried cables erred on the generous side, because I presumed that your system would be good enough to reveal the differences had you actually done so. Obviously that was the presumption that was wrong 😁

[Blackmorec]

2 minutes ago, marce said:

No you presumed...

I have tried cables in the past... I have done mods in the past, I have built many speakers, when I could be bothered I have built amps, power supplies etc. Most of the electronics was a long time ago, still do speakers and will probably build some new ones next year,though I do fancy trying some electrostatic, heard some a few years back and enjoyed the presentation.

Of course my system is crap, they all have been over the years, I don't know why I bothered, I have wasted so much money and time, because non of my systems were revealing enough for me to hear the night and day differences cables make...

Just a note on this perception/hearing thing that I thought was infallible, I bought a nice new curly red lead for my Bass (Fender Lead not audiophile, I don't think they do guitar leads... ), plugged my Aerodyne in and started playing and was convinced the sound had changed because of the lead... So I went and got my other leads, changed the lead and the sound was just the same, the excitement of a new lead etc. fooled my perception, boy was I upset. This should not happen perception being fooled...

To presume...to assume to be true, without proof, to take for granted, to suppose

 

I didn’t do that. I deduced using logic and logic came up with 2 possible answers: either you’d never tried replacing cables with superior cables OR your system simply couldn’t reveal the difference between the cables you did try. 

 

So instead of assuming an inferior system, I assumed instead that you’d never tried. Unfortunately I assumed incorrectly. OK I admit it. 

The thing about swapping cables and actually hearing a difference is that one cable has to be superior to the other. It has to do something that allows more of the signal’s detail to pass through it. If it loses as much detail, smears the same small voltage changes, picks up the same EMI  or whatever, you’re not going to hear a difference. If you bring along a cable to my place and we put it   Into my system, 1 of 3 things are going to happen. You are going to hear more OR you’re going to hear less OR you’re going to hear about the same. There’s no guarantee that you’re going to hear an improvement UNLESS the new cable is substantially better than the one its replacing. 

 

Look marce, I get no pleasure in arguing with you (I do however enjoy a good debate), but I’ve been doing this for over 45 years and I’ve had literally hundreds of different cables through my various systems. Some I borrowed, some I bought, some were used, some were new, some sounded better, some sounded worse, very few indeed sounded the same. The new ones needed time to settle, the better and more revealing my system got the more this characteristic was revealed, the borrowed ones, which had been extensively used required no burn in and immediately sounded better or worse and the important thing, their performance remained stable and didn’t change. 

 

With new cables I can usually hear the sound changing, so you could say that its my hearing acclimatising , but with well used cables the change is immediate and stable, so hearing acclimatisation with used cables goes out of the window.

 

Its a pity we can’t invite one another round to listen to our respective systems, then I could demonstrate some of the differences and let you hear what I’m hearing. 

 

I started to write a piece about my system, starting with the room, but unfortunately I looked something up and didn’t open a new window, so poof. But what I did realise in writing that piece was how much trouble I’ve gone to to get my system sounding like it does today. 

 

 

[Blackmorec]

Without escalating anything i would like to dedicate a few lines to talk about science and audiophiles.

I have been directly involved with science and scientists my entire working life and studied science prior to that. I am also a dyed in the wool audiophile with a deep passion for music and over 45 years experience in chasing the dream of owning a hi-fi system that provides convincingly realistic music quality without any artefacts to contradict the illusion of listening to real musicians playing real instruments. 

As i have improved my systems over the years i have learned a lot about what it takes in terms of careful set-up of room, power, vibration control and more recently networks and EMI to achieve the results I’m after.  I have one really simple criteria for judging sound quality.....its either more convincing and fun to listen to or less. I’m not a physicist or an electrical engineer, so I’m really not concerned with measurements as they mean very little to me. I’m interested solely in the level of enjoyment my hi-fi system delivers.  As my system has gradually improved I’ve noticed that it has become increasingly sensitive to changes,  some of which i find difficult to explain. Take running-in as an example. These days, whenever i place anything new in the signal path it usually goes through a period of sounding worse before it sounds better.  Many audiophiles have noticed the same phenomenon. I can’t explain scientifically why it happens, and many people who claim to be scientists or engineers deny that the phenomenon exists and claim that it has to do with psychological effects.  As a scientist i try to look at things logically. If indeed the phenomenon is psychological then it should happen with any change i make to the system that requires me to adapt to the system’s new sound. So is that the case?  No, far from it. For anything that doesn’t involve the signal, the change is immediate and stable. For used gear that’s new to my system but not new to carrying a signal, the change is similarly immediate. Then there’s the direction of the change. Everything new that i install sounds initially worse then better. If its my hearing acclimatising, then its always acclimatising to worse sound. That means that every upgrade I’ve ever made sounds worse than the existing system! So how come my system gets consistently better over time? So logically acclimatisation actually makes no sense. 

Which brings me back to this thread. Having experienced run-in or burn-in to signal carrying devices many tens of times with no exception, the fact that every upgrade sounds worse before its better, and the fact that older and non-signal carrying pieces don't exhibit the same change leads me to the logical conclusion that burn-in exists as a phenomenon that science doesn’t fully understand. In addition, probably hundreds of thousands of other audiophiles have experienced the same phenomenon. So, when i report on Forums the sound I experienced with a new component i usually mention how the sound changed and how long it took to stabilize and ultimately sound good. And i can guarantee that not only will those findings be questioned, but there will be attempts to humiliate, belittle and question the integrity of the reporter. 

The only way to defend one’s observations involves entering an argument with these self appointed experts quickly turns acrimonious when their arguments are shown to be baseless. 

I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing with my opinions, what i do object to are the scathing remarks and ridicule levelled at people with whom these experts disagree. Audio is the only area where we actually listen to electricity, and compare it to a standard of live music, so we should be prepared for anomalies in our understanding. If every time audiophiles report those anomalies they are subject to a barrage of abuse, its no wonder that the forum is reduced to childish arguing. The problem is quite clearly one of intolerance to anything that steps remotely outside of certain well established parameters that points to something we may not fully understand but quite frankly if we are so constrained in our reporting, whats the point of a Forum? 

[Blackmorec]

16 minutes ago, marce said:

No its about truth.

If it was about truth, then we’d be open- minded and committed to seeking it. Instead we try to force-fit illogical theories in order to avoid admitting there are still some things we don’t completely understand.  

 

 

[Blackmorec]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes to increasingly sensitive to changes ... but I don't have the running-in syndrome - my very strong suspicion is that you're dealing with static behaviours to at least some degree ... I tend to automatically take those sort of things into account, plus I rarely use something "brand new".

 

There are a whole variety of parasitic behaviours, related to materials used, and construction, which one way or another generate electrical noise - juuuust enough to cause audible variations for those sensitive to such things. These all have to be got under control if one wants stable SQ - to me, any rig is always a work in progress, because there are so many aspects that can be impactful.

 

Are the factors all logical? Yep ... the bastard is human hearing, which can be sensitised to some quality in what it hears, so easily - but there is a point which I call competent playback, which does enough to keep me happy - one can do better, but how much agony do you want to go through ... ? 😛

What I hear are new signal carrying components changing over time until they reach stability. Avoiding these changes is easy

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.

2. Install well-used components. Their sound is also immediately stable, again indicating that hearing is not involved. 

 

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. 

[Blackmorec]

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. 

[Blackmorec]

3 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

Hi Racerxnet, 

This isn’t about golden ears....educated ears maybe be certainly not golden. What it is about is taking great care in setting up all elements of a system properly, starting with the room and its acoustics, the power supply to the room, the speaker positioning within the room, vibration control of all system elements,  any network supply and EMI and last but not least, excellent synergistic components and all its interconnecting cables. 

When all that is correct, you’ll have an absolutely stunning system that is a joy to listen to and most recordings will sound very good to exceptional, although there’re always a few baduns. 

And when you then listen to other systems that have not been optimised, what you’ll often hear in comparison is a slightly homogenised sound, lacking in detail, with tonal anomalies, lack of spacial focus and definition, that has poor timing, sounds rather boring and is generally not a lot of fun to listen to, as though you are listening to a rather poorly executed recording. You’ll also likely hear both loudspeakers as easily identified sources that is a sure giveaway that something is lacking with the set-up

 

 

 

[Blackmorec]

13 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

that is engineering, not science

 

are you sure you studied science??

By definition its both. Science explores the physical and natural world and makes new discoveries and expands our knowledge. Engineering uses those discoveries and applies the knowledge to design, build and maintain structures, products or processes that solve problems or fulfils a need or purpose. Hand in glove. 

 

[Blackmorec]

 

32 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

a "closed minded participant" is anyone who doesn't agree with crazy ideas that violate known laws of physics

I’d be really interested to hear which laws of physics are violated by the following:

• Interconnecting cables whose sound differs from one another
• USB cables whose sound differs from one another
• Vibration control of electronics and transport
• Removal of LF and HF noise
• Sound that changes during the first 100 hours of operation of newly manufactured components.

So here you go Ralf. Here’s your opportunity to switch gears and get scientific and factual....have at it  

 

[Blackmorec]

Hmmm, ducking and diving aplenty, but so far no physics. Cumon guys, you can do better than this. Surely? Which known laws of physics are violated and how? 

I’ll tell you what’s been said ad nauseum is that audiophile ideas violate the known laws of physics. I’ve given you five classical audiophile ideas.....all I’m asking you to do is match them up with the laws they violate and explain why or how. 

 

[Blackmorec]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

• The gravitational force
• The electromagnetic force
• The strong nuclear force
• The weak nuclear force

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. 

[Blackmorec]

9 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

 

 

Not going to buy it today. A half way decent set-up should be enough to discern any glaring or subtle differences from the computer itself. Someone suggested that they can hear differences in cable swaps, and should be able to do the same with changing computers as the output source. Just swap out the PC itself. Many are stand alone such as mine. Same rules would apply as above. That would be a good start.

 

MAK

With respect, if you are listening to a poorly matched, sub-optimum system with set-up flaws, you will not hear differences, which will be lost in the smearing, blurring and loss of resolution. Cables only make a difference when the system is reasonably transparent. The better and more highly resolving a system becomes, the greater the differences that can be heard. Its why some people can hear the differences and others can’t. Nothing much to do with hearing, mostly to do with matching and set-up

[Blackmorec]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

use your own initiative a do a search on here - as per above your claims have been debunked ad nauseum

 

if you have trouble using a search engine just post back and someone will lead you by the hand

So, no good answer huh? 

Ralf, don’t you realise that this type of puerile reply says far more about you and your lack of ability to debate, argue and use scientific facts to support your arguments than it says about the person you’re attempting to insult?  Adults using childish style insults never really works that well, generally speaking. It just demonstrates a level of immaturity, highlights the lack of substance and adds no value to the discussion. 

[Blackmorec]

48 minutes ago, STC said:

Name the cables that can make the difference. Did they publish the specs?

On a really well set up, transparent and highly resolving system just about every cable will make a difference. The question is; is the difference for the better or the worse?   Typically cable companies will manufacture and sell a range of cables. Take Nordost for example....their cable pricing correlates very closely with sound quality, so if you look at the specs of their cheapest and most expensive cables, the difference in specs is strongly reflected in the sound quality. I assume that’s what you’re looking for....correlation between specifications and sound quality? 

If so, compare Leifstyle 14.2 and ODIN 2 specifications and you’ll see the changes required to go from good to exceptional SQ. 

[Blackmorec]

27 minutes ago, STC said:

By me saying that no well designed cables made a difference to my system, I imply my system is not transparent enough according to your argument. 
 

I am still waiting for someone around here who could show a more transparent system for me to hear the difference. 

Actually, if I’m not mistaken this is what you said:

 

2 hours ago, STC said:

I have Belden and XLO reference. my Sound Lab speakers are powered by the standard thin cables that came with them. The only modification I made to them were to cut off the US plugs and replaced with UK plugs. 
 

Now I can do the demo. Can you tell the difference if I were to capture the sound in 24/96 format?

So, a couple of things spring immediately to mind. If you can’t hear the difference between Belden and XLO Reference cable it means one of 2 things

1. The 2 cables sound very similar to one another. That would be unlikely but certainly not impossible. I don’t know XLO cables or 

2. Your system isn’t revealing the differences 

 

Let me relate a little experience I had. 

 

Back many years ago I ran a Linn Naim system which I wanted to make active. I was running 250 amps and wanted to switch to 135 monoblocks. I was living in Germany at the time and Naim gear was way more expensive than the same stuff in the UK, so I simply waited until my next UK trip and bought the amps there. On getting them back to Germany I simply needed to cut off the plugs and replace them with some Schuko mains plugs. Easy-peasy. I installed everything, waited a few days for it to settle in then sat down for a serious listen. 😧  Why did it sound quite a bit worse than my 250s? Can’t be fully run-in....but a week later I’m still looking for reasons for poor performance and because I’d imported the units I couldn’t call a dealer. The units were functioning correctly, there was no extraneous noise, the channels and frequencies were properly balanced....it just didn't sound very good....bass wasn’t really deep and solid, treble was slightly hard and mechanical....not at all nice. 

The only thing that came up in logical trouble shooting was the power cable changes.   

Given that was only thing I could identify I purchased some original Naim Schuko power cords and hey-presto....sunshine and light.  

So, bit off topic, but when it comes to hi-fi this may be all it takes to turn a top class system into something altogether more average. Its also when I started to realise that power cables can make a difference. 

[Blackmorec]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

There...you said it. My system is not transparent enough? If Theta, Classe, Supratek weren’t transparent enough than this hobby is meant for Bill Gates and the Saudi tycoons only. 

 

Just two things. Isn’t 250 I bigger than 135 ( even in Germany). 
 

Maybe this is not relevant but I have seen many people make the mistake when the replace the US to UK plugs. The live wire should go to the neutral. Take a volt meter and measure the voltage from the chassis to ground to check whether you have properly wired them. 

No, not at all.  Your kit is more than adequate. What I was illustrating is that all it takes is a very minor set-up error to upset a system’s ability to portray fine detail and its fine detail that we’re talking about when it comes to cable differences. When audiophiles say things like ‘it made a huge difference to the soundstage” what they are observing maybe a huge difference in perception but what caused that difference doesn’t need to be huge in terms of the actual physics ....it can be really quite minor. Bear in mind that what you actually hear is created by the brain, so sometimes very small inaccuracies between the 2 speakers can have a major impact on what you hear. The brain is detecting phase and level differences between the 2 ears created by the head’s circumference.....so small differences indeed. 

 

The Naim 250 is a stereo amplifier with ca. 70W per channel and a single power supply. The 135 is a monoblock amplifier with 70W and a power supply per channel. 

[Blackmorec]

1 hour ago, STC said:

Thanks. So that will be a non issue.  Sometimes when they use adapter it gets reversed. And the US plugs standard is always confusing because sometimes the earth is at the bottom and at times on top. I have always checked the wiring inside before deciding which should be the live wire. 

A standard Schuko plug can fit in either direction so easy to have some amps connected opposite to others. Naim plugs are 90 degree Schukos so phase always matches as long as powercord exits downward.  Minor set-up errors with big impact 

[Blackmorec]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

He said a lot of things, though that one may be the least believable.

Would you like me to explain in transactional analysis terms how these childish insults are supposed to operate and what’s behind them or would you rather discuss hi-fi? I’m sure most Forum members would prefer hi-fi, since that’s what they’re here for. 

[Blackmorec]

Do you know what I find most amusing about this thread? The fact that certain forum members constantly accuse subjectivists of confirmation bias, while being themselves completely delusional when it comes to hi-fi.  Friends and I have fooled around with hi-fi for over 45 years and if there’s 1 lesson we’ve learned it’s that set-up is by far the most important single aspect of getting the best sound out of any kit.  You can buy the best amp, the best speakers and the best servers but if you neglect to optimise its set up all you’ve done is waste an awful lot of money. 

The performance level from some of the recently introduced digital systems is frankly quite stunning. 16/44.1 files can produce hitherto unimaginable levels of clarity, fidelity, detail, 3 dimensional imagery and listener involvement.  But you won’t get even close to that is you don’t pay really close attention to setting-up the whole system.  What you’ll get is the same old left, right and if you’re lucky, a bit of centre image.  Room filling 3 dimensional soundscapes with not a single trace of loudspeaker location, that aurally convert the listening room into recording venues, populated by musicians that involve you in the music like a live event? Forget about it. Not even close.  To get to that level takes some real work and some real care. 

I looked at a photograph of the system belonging to one of the more vociferous critics of audiophiles.  He has some rather nice kit. Very good, highly capable speakers and a nice pre-amp and amp, so it could sound rather good if it was properly set up. Instead it looks more like its been got ready for a garage sale, so not only will it not sound its best, but its very likely that Frank’s by his own admission very modest system will blow it into the weeds from a sound quality perspective.

 

I think a lot of people believe that to get great sound, you need to spend lots of money, but while that helps its certainly no panacea and really good system can sound really naff. On the other hand, take a rather moderately priced, well matched system, take great care in proper room set up, speaker positioning, vibration control, network supply and all the interconnecting cables and you can create a system whose sound quality rivals set-ups costing many times its purchase price.  One of the most rewarding aspects of hi-fi is that performance isn’t directly correlated with how much money is spent, but it is directly correlated with how much care and attention goes into its installation. 

When I look at the system I mentioned above, what I see is not only a system that is poorly installed; its also completely out of balance....like a Porsche or BMW that’s been set up on skinny  cross-ply tyres in the belief that its only the engine that matters and any tyres will do.  Of course those cars will still do what they’re supposed to do and get you from A to B, accelerate, stop and turn. Its just the way they do those things that suck. 

Now you can be sure I’m going to get some abuse for this post...its how I know certain people are taking me seriously; although I do ask myself why so much personal animosity about what is in the end only a hobby? Insecurity I guess....that and a frustrating lack of adequate counter arguments. 

So I’d like you to ask yourself....does what I’m saying sound preposterous? Am I the only one who holds these opinions or does the entire hi-fi industry pretty much reflect what I’m saying? I think you’ll conclude that there’re far more audiophiles who’ve discovered the same truths I have compared to the few deluded individuals who’d like you to join them in believing that proper, thorough set-up doesn’t matter.