Jump to content
IGNORED

CPU Load and Sound Quality


STC

Recommended Posts

12 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.

 Thanks Peter

 It's worth repeating , but most will never know unless they try a superior front end such as your product as one example.

 

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
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.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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.

 

 

  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.

 

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:

 

 

  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, 😉.

Link to comment

Ah, I see that the thread went on-topic for a couple of posts. Apologies I posted an OT as well. All right ...

 

Indeed all is about "radiation" but radiation is is not just like that. It is about through air transmitted "voltage" which is captured elsewhere - an antenna. John Dyson pretty much tells the same but in better English.

 

If you get yourself the proper meters, it is super super easy to see how this radiation is influenced by really ALL you can imagine. Be creative at it ! It really doesn't matter what you do, it influences. For example, also where you are yourself (possibly depending on your shoes and the carpet). How cables lie is the more obvious and how they do or do not connect to PE (Protective Earth) is again more obvious. No wait, was that obvious ?

So yes. But measure it to see it.

 

None of this I really see back in an FFT (24 bit 192KHz) at the DAC output. Possibly in the power rails somewhere, but I never tested/measured against this.

 

Btw, the biggest problem with this radiation measurement is the localization of the receptor, or better, the possible harmless ones. Hard to explain in my English, but I mean: how to measure the magnetic influence of a transformer on e.g. the D/A chips; you can measure the radiation all right, but it is a most tough thing to measure "at" the places where you don't want the influence.

 

At some stage I bought all the shielding materials I could think of (some are dangerous to work with because conductive) and I simply gave upon applying them. Oh, they should help, but you don't even know what to protect from which. Thus, about everything radiates, and about everything can be an antenna as well. Now THAT can or should be prohibited by proper design (I'd day) but it is still not measurable (by means I know of) and otherwise you should measure a 100+ locations.

But that radiation is all over the place and that your audio gear creates it, is clear to me. And btw, it is not the gear as such (say that we forget about transformers, which can be shielded quite well) ... it is about the cables laying around. But for example, and in my own situation (never tested it elsewhere) ... unplug the USB cable at the DAC end and see what happens to the radiation figures at the end of that USB cable. And yes, I now, all logical when we think about it with some knowledge. But if I coincidentally look besides me, I see a phone connecting USB cable in a PC without the phone connected to it. That's how things go these days, and it is all over the place.

 

So I know it is there, I (and customers) can control it by diverse switches in the PC and the DAC (for those having both) and the result of these switches is at least very well measurable (in the DAC output - mainly the noise level or flatness (spectrum) of it). The switches "combine" for an unknown situation (no-one has connected his/her gear in the same way, and otherwise dimmers and such are around). Btw, this is now about coupled-in noise merely, which is probably why it "measures" more easily in the DAC output - it is just more severe (and more distinct). One thing: it always comes along with the radiation levels (so observe the FFT and meterS at the same time).

And just saying: if I try to find the best combination of everything (with radiation measurement) I am for about 2 hours trying combinations and then must give up because it is all to infinity. Luckily I don't use a preamp because it would multiply the number of permutations largely.

 

And no, I never measured radiation for CPU activity. I guess it can be done, but I just never thought about that; It is useless if you see what the "connections" already imply. Personally I don't expect a CPU to really radiate (see Marce's elaboration(s)). But, we supposedly can incur for it by an open ended cable somewhere.

 

Think of galvanic isolation and how that should work out for the worse.

Right ?

@marce ?

I would say that an isolation barrier will create radiation. But somehow I could NOT prove that. So now somewhere my theories lack. I use it in the USB path and in the i2s path. Both are dead quiet (as far as again the "localization" of measurement can be applied - see earlier). Maybe it's a proof of all the voltage (current) being transferred and nothing leaks (and thus goes by air).

 

That's all.

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
12 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I don't understand the quandry -- L * di/dt will create magnetic fields that can be picked up as currents in other conductors.  Equivalent for capancitors, but voltage instead.  When both are existent and are more or less matched by whatever antenna/wire/etc  to the 377 ohm impedance of space, then you get radiation.  Simple EE/Physics stuff..   Radiation can be received over longer distances, and has a different propagation than the simple coupling as I described..

 

John

Answer above...

This is EMC engineering.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, lmitche said:

On the supply side, a power supply that can keep up with the volatility of demand for current is key, and hence the reason some supplies sound better then others.

 

Lastly, it is much more difficult to build a fast, high current DC power supply vs. a lower current supply. Hence low current demand devices like NUCs are well matched with low current, fast supplies like the Paul Hynes SR4. High current fast power supplies are few and far between, are either unobtainable or stupidly expensive.

Its not just the front end supply, its to far away to supply the current directly, its about the power delivery system and the local decoupling capacitors...

Link to comment
11 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Most of the problems are NOT radiation so much as coupling.   Radiation is the free space thing, while coupling is the mutual current flow in wires or the voltage transmission between conductors (it is a bit tricky to describe what is happening without writing some equations -- a capacitor doesn't really transmit voltage, but the voltage changes on both sides tend to equalize -- ithe connection is actually current or electrons..)  Radiation has a different way of decaying vs distance, where the coupling is more intense, it falls off very quickly vs distance.

Crosstalk far and near...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Ah, I see that the thread went on-topic for a couple of posts. Apologies I posted an OT as well. All right ...

 

Indeed all is about "radiation" but radiation is is not just like that. It is about through air transmitted "voltage" which is captured elsewhere - an antenna. John Dyson pretty much tells the same but in better English.

 

If you get yourself the proper meters, it is super super easy to see how this radiation is influenced by really ALL you can imagine. Be creative at it ! It really doesn't matter what you do, it influences. For example, also where you are yourself (possibly depending on your shoes and the carpet). How cables lie is the more obvious and how they do or do not connect to PE (Protective Earth) is again more obvious. No wait, was that obvious ?

So yes. But measure it to see it.

 

None of this I really see back in an FFT (24 bit 192KHz) at the DAC output. Possibly in the power rails somewhere, but I never tested/measured against this.

 

Btw, the biggest problem with this radiation measurement is the localization of the receptor, or better, the possible harmless ones. Hard to explain in my English, but I mean: how to measure the magnetic influence of a transformer on e.g. the D/A chips; you can measure the radiation all right, but it is a most tough thing to measure "at" the places where you don't want the influence.

 

At some stage I bought all the shielding materials I could think of (some are dangerous to work with because conductive) and I simply gave upon applying them. Oh, they should help, but you don't even know what to protect from which. Thus, about everything radiates, and about everything can be an antenna as well. Now THAT can or should be prohibited by proper design (I'd day) but it is still not measurable (by means I know of) and otherwise you should measure a 100+ locations.

But that radiation is all over the place and that your audio gear creates it, is clear to me. And btw, it is not the gear as such (say that we forget about transformers, which can be shielded quite well) ... it is about the cables laying around. But for example, and in my own situation (never tested it elsewhere) ... unplug the USB cable at the DAC end and see what happens to the radiation figures at the end of that USB cable. And yes, I now, all logical when we think about it with some knowledge. But if I coincidentally look besides me, I see a phone connecting USB cable in a PC without the phone connected to it. That's how things go these days, and it is all over the place.

 

So I know it is there, I (and customers) can control it by diverse switches in the PC and the DAC (for those having both) and the result of these switches is at least very well measurable (in the DAC output - mainly the noise level or flatness (spectrum) of it). The switches "combine" for an unknown situation (no-one has connected his/her gear in the same way, and otherwise dimmers and such are around). Btw, this is now about coupled-in noise merely, which is probably why it "measures" more easily in the DAC output - it is just more severe (and more distinct). One thing: it always comes along with the radiation levels (so observe the FFT and meterS at the same time).

And just saying: if I try to find the best combination of everything (with radiation measurement) I am for about 2 hours trying combinations and then must give up because it is all to infinity. Luckily I don't use a preamp because it would multiply the number of permutations largely.

 

And no, I never measured radiation for CPU activity. I guess it can be done, but I just never thought about that; It is useless if you see what the "connections" already imply. Personally I don't expect a CPU to really radiate (see Marce's elaboration(s)). But, we supposedly can incur for it by an open ended cable somewhere.

 

Think of galvanic isolation and how that should work out for the worse.

Right ?

@marce ?

I would say that an isolation barrier will create radiation. But somehow I could NOT prove that. So now somewhere my theories lack. I use it in the USB path and in the i2s path. Both are dead quiet (as far as again the "localization" of measurement can be applied - see earlier). Maybe it's a proof of all the voltage (current) being transferred and nothing leaks (and thus goes by air).

 

That's all.

 

Yes everything radiates to an extent, I agree, its EMC...

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Ah, I see that the thread went on-topic for a couple of posts. Apologies I posted an OT as well. All right ...

 

Indeed all is about "radiation" but radiation is is not just like that. It is about through air transmitted "voltage" which is captured elsewhere - an antenna. John Dyson pretty much tells the same but in better English.

 

If you get yourself the proper meters, it is super super easy to see how this radiation is influenced by really ALL you can imagine. Be creative at it ! It really doesn't matter what you do, it influences. For example, also where you are yourself (possibly depending on your shoes and the carpet). How cables lie is the more obvious and how they do or do not connect to PE (Protective Earth) is again more obvious. No wait, was that obvious ?

So yes. But measure it to see it.

 

None of this I really see back in an FFT (24 bit 192KHz) at the DAC output. Possibly in the power rails somewhere, but I never tested/measured against this.

 

Btw, the biggest problem with this radiation measurement is the localization of the receptor, or better, the possible harmless ones. Hard to explain in my English, but I mean: how to measure the magnetic influence of a transformer on e.g. the D/A chips; you can measure the radiation all right, but it is a most tough thing to measure "at" the places where you don't want the influence.

 

At some stage I bought all the shielding materials I could think of (some are dangerous to work with because conductive) and I simply gave upon applying them. Oh, they should help, but you don't even know what to protect from which. Thus, about everything radiates, and about everything can be an antenna as well. Now THAT can or should be prohibited by proper design (I'd day) but it is still not measurable (by means I know of) and otherwise you should measure a 100+ locations.

But that radiation is all over the place and that your audio gear creates it, is clear to me. And btw, it is not the gear as such (say that we forget about transformers, which can be shielded quite well) ... it is about the cables laying around. But for example, and in my own situation (never tested it elsewhere) ... unplug the USB cable at the DAC end and see what happens to the radiation figures at the end of that USB cable. And yes, I now, all logical when we think about it with some knowledge. But if I coincidentally look besides me, I see a phone connecting USB cable in a PC without the phone connected to it. That's how things go these days, and it is all over the place.

 

So I know it is there, I (and customers) can control it by diverse switches in the PC and the DAC (for those having both) and the result of these switches is at least very well measurable (in the DAC output - mainly the noise level or flatness (spectrum) of it). The switches "combine" for an unknown situation (no-one has connected his/her gear in the same way, and otherwise dimmers and such are around). Btw, this is now about coupled-in noise merely, which is probably why it "measures" more easily in the DAC output - it is just more severe (and more distinct). One thing: it always comes along with the radiation levels (so observe the FFT and meterS at the same time).

And just saying: if I try to find the best combination of everything (with radiation measurement) I am for about 2 hours trying combinations and then must give up because it is all to infinity. Luckily I don't use a preamp because it would multiply the number of permutations largely.

 

And no, I never measured radiation for CPU activity. I guess it can be done, but I just never thought about that; It is useless if you see what the "connections" already imply. Personally I don't expect a CPU to really radiate (see Marce's elaboration(s)). But, we supposedly can incur for it by an open ended cable somewhere.

 

Think of galvanic isolation and how that should work out for the worse.

Right ?

@marce ?

I would say that an isolation barrier will create radiation. But somehow I could NOT prove that. So now somewhere my theories lack. I use it in the USB path and in the i2s path. Both are dead quiet (as far as again the "localization" of measurement can be applied - see earlier). Maybe it's a proof of all the voltage (current) being transferred and nothing leaks (and thus goes by air).

 

That's all.

 

Please never assume my English style/writing is anything like 'good'.  I could never compose a reasonably good sentence untill becoming a real expert in programming -- not just good (say, 35yrs old), and even now I have serious language impediments and cannot remember what a sentence is intended to say from beginning to end.

 

I really wish that I took the various English language courses more seriously when in college and even wish I took it seriously earlier in life.  Now, I am kind of stuck -- difficulty in adapting/learning new things.  (Even problems answering immediate questions -- I am really stuck, simply trying to do good things unitl they help me fix my thinking limitations.)

 

So, if I seem like a one-trick pony -- I am definitely that.

 

 

John

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

Alex, with a degree in Photo Science from the Rochester Institute of Technology, 35 years of experience in Commercial Photo Labs and being a Photoshop user since 1990 starting with V1.0, apparently my knowledge of photo processing in no way compares to whatever information you've managed to accumulate on your own. So yes, I admit it. Uptone Audio has discovered some groundbreaking new technique for increasing Acutance in images (without actually changing the image) that has eluded photographers for almost 200 years and secretly included it in the USB Regen, only to be accidentally discovered by you. Got it.

 

I apologize to the OP for yet another OT. I promise I'm done.

Off topic -- any further should go to PM -- wow.  I am impressed.  I used to do my own developers from scratch.  Had many many old textbook and reference books on photographic chemistry -- starting with my 6x4.5 negatives and optimizing/learning about developers.   Eventually, I found that one can make it really complex, but there aren't all that many degrees of freedom, but still there is a lot can be done by mixing and fine-tuning the development.  i went on that tangent for about 5yrs -- one thing that frustrated me... Some interesting exotic chemicals were trickier to get than normal things like phenidone, vitamin c or even pyrocatachol (hydroquinone with an OH in a different place.)   There were some chlorinated hydrocarbons that the chemical places wouldn't sell to me -- I wonder why?  Always treated the tricky stuff with care, but not being a true chemist, if they would have given me the 'odd stuff' probably would have figured out how to cause myself cancer anyway.

I did have a jolly old time with that stuff.  Nowadays, digital all the way..

 

John

Link to comment

I just digitize my old photos the same way I digitize my old LPs - then I move them to different servers on the internet

 

You would not believe the amount of vibrance, saturation, and dehazing that transfer over the internet gives to my audio files!

 

And the photos get a lot more sibilance and bass impact too!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

I just digitize my old photos the same way I digitize my old LPs - then I move them to different servers on the internet

 

You would not believe the amount of vibrance, saturation, and dehazing that transfer over the internet gives to my audio files!

 

And the photos get a lot more sibilance and bass impact too!

A REAL digital audiophile has each channel (2 for stereo or 5.1 or whatever) on seperate servers!!! :-).

 

John

 

Link to comment
Just now, John Dyson said:

A REAL digital audiophile has each channel (2 for stereo or 5.1 or whatever) on seperate servers!!! :-).

 

John

 

 Shhh , or some may try that. You had better patent the method first.

 

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
6 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

 

Sandy, the problem is if you go around spouting fabulist tall tales such as this, then what can we believe about what you've heard in your hifi? And yes, I have extensive knowledge of this having been a professional photographer the last thirty five years. Ok, back to topic, which I find interesting though I have little knowledge of it, but sorry, had to call you out on this one, it's an expectation bias gone way too far imo.  

 Then 2 more high profile members,  not just several other high profile members must be effing stupid too about differences between Digital files with identical check sums !!!

 Digital Photos are no different in this respect either, due to using the same format for saving them.

Add to that, the results of 6 separate DBT sessions with Martin Colloms, and a report from Barry Diament in the Audio area.

 

I suspect that Paul R is every bit as knowledge in the I.T. area as Chris is , perhaps even more so ?,  and that George Graves who is a highly qualified E.E . is in the Audio and Music Mastering areas too.

On April 27 this year , George confirmed hearing differences between 2 pairs of Audio files having identical check sums, and Paul with the visual side of a couple of AV files having identical check sums. 

 

 Paul reported the attached:

From: Paul R...…..
 Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 11:46 AM
 To: Alex Kethel
 Subject: Re: Smile. 
 I did say I saw the differences - just that I do not agree with your reasons why there are differences. :)

 

RE Internet repaired
 Alex Kethel <alexkethel@********

 Wed, Jun 12, 9:43 AM (1 day ago) to Paul
“ The second one (2XML) is more saturated and brighter, giving a slightly better focus.
  Checking the files, they are not bit for bit identical, but clearly are from the same source.  :)
-Paul “
 I then DL the files from Dropbox and sent Paul reports using 3 different types of checksums to show that he was wrong.

 

This is a report from another member :

acg  (Anthony is from Queensland, and was using a 4K monitor with the videos side by side on the screen)
 Replied: Tuesday at 02:35 PM

Wow Alex.  I looked at the first two links...big quality difference in the video.
 How are they different?  Or, what did you change when recording them? 

 

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
1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 Shhh , or some may try that. You had better patent the method first.

I hereby declare the technique public domain so that snake oil salespeople cannot use a patent of this technique as patent licensed competitive advantage to cheat rich audiophiles who don't understand what is going on.   Or...  Maybe I should patent it and join the snake-oil cheaters and play their game of undeserved enrichment.  Nawww....  I choose the honest approach.  I'll never make money again, will I?

(I actually though tthat my previous comment was in the PM -- I make too many mistakes like that!!)

 

John

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I hereby declare the technique public domain so that snake oil salespeople cannot use a patent of this technique as patent licensed competitive advantage to cheat rich audiophiles who don't understand what is going on.   Or...  Maybe I should patent it and join the snake-oil cheaters and play their game of undeserved enrichment.  Nawww....  I choose the honest approach.  I'll never make money again, will I?

(I actually though tthat my previous comment was in the PM -- I make too many mistakes like that!!)

 

John

 

John, you need to copyleft it.  So no one makes money, but they can all contribute to improvements. 

 

BTW, I use Gimp, so maybe no one should listen in regards to my opinions of Alex's images.  

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

Excuse me but if we are talking photography, shouldn't we list out camera bodies, lenses, SD cards used, any cables when tethered shooting, PC, monitors etc.

 

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...

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, marce said:

, 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...

 

Yes, like photos of yourself on your driver's licence, and Birthday photos when you get older.

 

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

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...