Jump to content

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

IME, all audio devices don't have good filtration at the power supply - that is, it's trivially easy to introduce some electrical noise making device or process into the environment, and hear the impact on the SQ ... just read the reports of companies struggling to get good sound in a show situation, and how they had to deal with the "lousy hotel power!"


Well, not all, as the JDS Labs Atom in the review showed no difference with filtered and unfiltered power, and Amir’s power line is pretty dirty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

"Incompetence" is your word not mine - any inference "or information about the person" in this regard is yours also. 

 

That said, whether incompetence, ignorance, agenda driven bias or some other reason makes a measurement untrustworthy, it is still untrustworthy

 

 


I’m starting to detect a tiny hint of bias in your comments about Amir ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:


Well, not all, as the JDS Labs Atom in the review showed no difference with filtered and unfiltered power, and Amir’s power line is pretty dirty.

 

Let me guess - no common-mode measurements were made in that review?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally power line filters have elements to filter common-mode noise (a CM choke for example) as well as normal mode noise (LC filtering perhaps). Wouldn't comprehensive measurements wish to characterize both?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, opus101 said:

Normally power line filters have elements to filter common-mode noise (a CM choke for example) as well as normal mode noise (LC filtering perhaps). Wouldn't comprehensive measurements wish to characterize both?


Maybe. But if the power line carries a lot of common mode noise as you say, Amir’s test would show the combination of what the filter did to both, normal and common mode noise. To me that’s what matters in the end: does the filter eliminate noise, and if it does, does this have an effect on the output of my audio system.
 

As an engineer, I might like to know more about the filters and the types of noise they reject, but as a consumer, I wouldn’t know what part of my power line noise is common mode and what is normal; I’d just want to know that all noise is not going to make it to my overly sensitive, audiophile components :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have pointed out out in previous post line filtration ideally common and differential mode dual line filters would be desirable to keep the upper frequency rubbish out of the sensitive areas of the equipment.

Plus its a requirement for CE

Reality is somewhat stranger than fiction with audio, beware those bearing audio gifts, all that glitters is usually poor sounding equipment contained within over engineered and nice looking cases with an equally impressive price tag to match.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Clockmeister said:

As I have pointed out out in previous post line filtration ideally common and differential mode dual line filters would be desirable to keep the upper frequency rubbish out of the sensitive areas of the equipment.

Plus its a requirement for CE

 

Don't know enough about CE certification, but my impression is that it has to do with noise produced/emitted by a component rather than noise filtration of already dirty power. Is this not correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Don't know enough about CE certification, but my impression is that it has to do with noise produced/emitted by a component rather than noise filtration of already dirty power. Is this not correct?

 Paul

 

In essence it is bring many products on to a level playing field for conducted, radiated immunity RF, common mode noise, line harmonics that could cause interference to other nearby products whether audio or not by distribution through said product. These are CE directives you have your own standard in the US called CL.

 

However concerning audio I have many files and hours of data relating to insertion loss filter modelling and trails specifically for very sensitive equipment from instrumentation to audio. The better the filter design at the incoming ac point, the less crap floating around inside the box that can be affected by said mains (ac) bourne noise.

 

 

Reality is somewhat stranger than fiction with audio, beware those bearing audio gifts, all that glitters is usually poor sounding equipment contained within over engineered and nice looking cases with an equally impressive price tag to match.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:


Maybe. But if the power line carries a lot of common mode noise as you say, Amir’s test would show the combination of what the filter did to both, normal and common mode noise. To me that’s what matters in the end: does the filter eliminate noise, and if it does, does this have an effect on the output of my audio system.

 

I'd also presume readers would want to know what the filter did to both. But separate, distinct measurement setups are required for each which is why I guessed Amir hadn't made the CM measurements. I've not read the review - am I wrong in my guess?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jud said:

Sensory memories are quite short - perhaps 4 seconds in the case of audio...

 

Hey Jud, when I conducted the ABX test with Mans, each sample lasted for about 15 seconds. There was then a 5-10 second delay before the next sample started. The whole 10x ABX took around 15 minutes to undertake.

 

15 hours ago, Jud said:

It's not at all surprising we'd need a strong, very recognizable quality to impress us as different in that short amount of time.

 

In the ABX, I was primarily picking up an ever-so-slight edginess in the piano in one and not in the other sample (both bit-identical to each other).

 

15 hours ago, Jud said:

Which of these are we doing when we enjoy listening to music?

 

By the end of the ABX, I was totally exhausted (having conducted a couple of non-ABX tests beforehand too). The experience was absolutely nothing like listening to music for pleasure. I suspect this is the main reason why ABX tests often 'fail'.

 

I'm reading, and very much enjoying, 'The Master and His Emissary' by Iain McGilchrist at the moment. Maybe an ABX test is more of a left-brain activity, whereas listening to music for enjoyment is more of a right-brain activity? Not easy to reconcile the two.

 

Mani.

Phasure Mach III audio PC -> HQPlayer/XXHighEnd @24/705.6 -> Phasure NOS1 DAC -> First Watt F5-cloned mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horn speakers

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

I'd also presume readers would want to know what the filter did to both. But separate, distinct measurement setups are required for each which is why I guessed Amir hadn't made the CM measurements. I've not read the review - am I wrong in my guess?

 

He did not do common-mode noise testing, at least none was mentioned in the review.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2020 at 8:31 PM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I don't trust Amir's measurements. They would need to be reproduced.

 

His measurements are reproduced with regularity. Also Schiit sending him a Modius for testing speaks for itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

His measurements are reproduced with regularity. Also Schiit sending him a Modius for testing speaks for itself.

 

This unfortunately tells me a great deal about that company, any quality audio equipment producing company worth its salt would have a AP555x or similar in the design section for basic audio THD/SINAD/BW and FFT base line markers. Why do you need to send it to non recognised third party with a public agenda for affirmation?

 Which are way beyond all forms of electrical and mechanical testing that any of the online or printed media periodicals can obtain

 

You would have consistency, accuracy and total repeatability, I have had the privilege 😂 of seeing PM's lab up close, its a slight step up form Amir's front room. How about a feature "who regulates the unofficial audio measurement mouth pieces". That would be worth a read.

 

You see people will follow which champion they feel comfortable with and 'suits' they current purpose or agenda relating to which particular equipment badge they are currently sporting or audio banner they are following.

Audio sound quality is far more than just an AP555x /R&S UPV etc these are tools which will help you in your quest to produce desirable saleable equipment bu they are not the holy grail of sound quality con-try to popular belief.

 

Here's a suggestion audio precision could donate (long term loan) a fully spec'd 555x to AS for its own testing put purposes with the pre requisite that its installed in a suitable location nd testing environment. 

 

 

Reality is somewhat stranger than fiction with audio, beware those bearing audio gifts, all that glitters is usually poor sounding equipment contained within over engineered and nice looking cases with an equally impressive price tag to match.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

Hey Jud, when I conducted the ABX test with Mans, each sample lasted for about 15 seconds. There was then a 5-10 second delay before the next sample started. The whole 10x ABX took around 15 minutes to undertake.

 

 

In the ABX, I was primarily picking up an ever-so-slight edginess in the piano in one and not in the other sample (both bit-identical to each other).

 

 

By the end of the ABX, I was totally exhausted (having conducted a couple of non-ABX tests beforehand too). The experience was absolutely nothing like listening to music for pleasure. I suspect this is the main reason why ABX tests often 'fail'.

 

I'm reading, and very much enjoying, 'The Master and His Emissary' by Iain McGilchrist at the moment. Maybe an ABX test is more of a left-brain activity, whereas listening to music for enjoyment is more of a right-brain activity? Not easy to reconcile the two.

 

Mani.

 

What sounds different or to recognize spacial patterns (in a familiar system) is the easy part and can be tested by discrimination tests like you did. What “sounds right” is also relatively easy if we are to choose between a play back system and real musicians in the flesh playing live.

 

To determine which of two product, in a whole audio system, which sounds most correct is much harder because the audio system and recordings can never sound exactly like real musicians on stage. We are therefor in reality to determine, not which product that sound like real musicians on stage, but which that sounds closest to how it should sound, or more exact which gear that fool us best.

 

Few things are more difficult to establish as if one gear in an audio system actually “sounds right” or not. To determine if one specific part of a chain sounds right is next to impossible, because how do we know that the rest of the audio chain “sounds right” and the diversion from “sounds right” is to be blamed on the gear we are examining and not any other gears?

 

The main problem (as I see it) is that we have no real reference system in which we can compare gear. What we have is many thousands of audio system in as many homes that in practice are used as reference systems. Many systems also seems to be in a constant state of change.

 

Measurements remove many of the problems associated to lack of universal reference system, different in preference, the quality of the recordings etc. The only problem is that the correlation between measurements and what audiophiles contemplate “sounds right” is weak for high end gear.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Clockmeister said:

Why do you need to send it to non recognised third party with a public agenda for affirmation?

 

Your logic seems a bit broken. Are you saying miscellaneous can't measure and can't put out a regimen that you could use to reproduce or debunk said measurements. 

 

Could you see yourself suggesting shortcomings in the the current testing and suggest others or do you just want to throw tomatoes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Yet another explanation, is of course, that with distortions below a threshold of audibility, the devices all sound the same.

 

This possibly implicates some of the things I was talking about earlier regarding training effects and pattern recognition. I doubt someone new to XXHE would have heard the "tell" @manisandher did. But if you can hear an effect with training, that means it's not inaudible, you're just not consciously noticing it. And even if you don't consciously notice it, it's possible that effect/distortion might be bothering you greatly.

 

(In the Iowa Gambling Task experiment I keep mentioning, subjects were given "good" and "bad" decks of cards. Subjects with "bad" decks showed elevated galvanic skin response - that is, they literally broke out in a sweat - on average several rounds of play before they consciously realized they had a bad deck and asked for a new one. So might we be made uncomfortable enough subconsciously by audio distortion we don't consciously notice to break out in a sweat? Interesting to think about. And if it were true, what would it mean for levels of audibility that have been established by tests that require conscious verbal responses?)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> wi-fi to router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...