Digital Signal Transmission

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 You have a short memory span Frank, as you have personally heard and verified obvious differences generated in the front end by the PSU area .😉

 You are also neglecting that what audible differences Peter is able to cause with his S/W ,remains after conversion from D to A in the DAC.

 

Alex, "all the other circuitry" includes PSes, and processors running S/W - the analogue side is purely that which does the actual, direct manipulation of the waveform; this has lines coming in from power rails, input data streams, clocks, and other control circuitry and then feeding out to the next stage ... impose some unwanted noise on one of those lines, and you could have audible variations.

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Alex, "all the other circuitry" includes PSes, and processors running S/W - the analogue side is purely that which does the actual, direct manipulation of the waveform; this has lines coming in from power rails, input data streams, clocks, and other control circuitry and then feeding out to the next stage ... impose some unwanted noise on one of those lines, and you could have audible variations.

Frank 

What you reported on were audio files that were uploaded from the SAME folder of a USB memory stick that was plugged directly into a front USB port.

 The differences you heard were generated by using different variations of the PSU used to power the USB memory stick at the time of saving the files to the folder ,along with another version where the USB memory stick was plugged into the end of a >3M long generic USB cable at the time of saving the audio  file.

 

Alex

[fas42]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Frank 

What you reported on were audio files that were uploaded from the SAME folder of a USB memory stick that was plugged directly into a front USB port.

 The differences you heard were generated by using different variations of the PSU used to power the USB memory stick at the time of saving the files to the folder ,along with another version where the USB memory stick was plugged into the end of a >3M long generic USB cable at the time of saving the audio  file.

 

Alex

 

Yes, I agree there is something going on there that I don't understand - as yet 😉. But that's of a far lower significance, in my book, as compared to other factors - this thread is about the live transmission of digital data, of a specific source track - first job, get that particular part of the chain to be fully invisible ... okay?

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

first job, get that particular part of the chain to be fully invisible ... okay?

 You can't know whether it is "invisible" or not, until you have the highest possible quality on local playback first using a high quality S/W player such as XXHE, JRiver etc., before exporting it, particularly via USB with all it's well documented problems.

 A good reference would be a high quality CD player such as the PWT which also plays from System Memory, as your PC/Server should also do for highest quality.

A good starting point is to ensure that the internal earthing of the PC in particular is blameless, as Gary has documented elsewhere.

[TomJ]

7 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Your reply is from your closed minded perspective. In  fact, the PSU area of the source, including the PSU area for the SSDs  can also affect Digital Video the same way that it affects Digital Audio, just as the same data on SSD and HDD can sound a little different, even when played directly from System Memory. I am also able to demonstrate this to those who have a decent internal video card and a good quality external monitor, as well as a better than average main system.

 I have previously had my PSU reports in this area verified with a series of 6 separate DBT sessions with results publishd in HiFi Critic Vol. 6 No.1

 It is becoming increasingly clear that you came here only to TROLL, and not learn  from the  listening experiences of members here.

Neither are you interested in any of the proof that Peter , who BTW, is the designer of one of the most highly acclaimed DACs commercially available, as well as the highly respected XXHE S/W for Windows,(http://www.phasure.com/)

went to a lot of time and trouble to provide.

To remember:

This is in the Objective-Fi arera of the forum - not in the Subjective-Fi area. So subjective impressions you can share all over net, but not in this area. I only whant to find objective answers how the digital transmission can make digital data sound different.

If this is trolling, than this area should be renamed in something like "esoteric hifi conspiracy theories".

 

If data arrives correctly at the point of use (DAC) and a sound change still takes place, then I come to a conclusion that the sound change can only take place during or after the D to A conversion - serious and objective.

If you can contribute something in this way instead of constantly postulating your subjective impressions here, then that would be helpful.

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, TomJ said:

I only whant to find objective answers how the digital transmission can make digital data sound different.

 

1. Ground/leakage currents getting through DAC

 

2. RF - conducted and/or radiated

 

Both of these could be related. Some call these 'RF currents'.

 

Of course the better DAC designers already know this and design to minimise the effects.

 

Better DAC designers doesn't mean crazy expensive products either.

 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, TomJ said:

If data arrives correctly at the point of use (DAC) and a sound change still takes place, then I come to a conclusion that the sound change can only take place during or after the D to A conversion - serious and objective.

If you can contribute something in this way instead of constantly postulating your subjective impressions here, then that would be helpful.

Confirmation of Subjective reports using DBT is a legitimate OBJECTIVE tool that is frequently demanded by Objectivists and if correctly implemented by technically qualified people  is considered as proof of the claims.

Peter has already posted actual measurements that verify what he says, yet you continue to ignore the proof that he has posted.

I will refrain from further posting in this Anti Subjective thread as you are clearly not interested in accepting any Objective proof offered, even by well qualified members in the I.T. area such as Peter..

 

[PeterSt]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

23 hours ago, TomJ said:

I mean only during the conversion of D to A, or then in the analogue chain. The conversion is influenced by HF of PSU entering the DAC. But before conversion, there is no sound alive to change😀 - only data (and electrical noise/HF) and with TCP/IP and USB we get the data without manipulation into the DAC.

 Your reply is from your closed minded perspective.

 

Alex, it is difficult for me to see that this is a close minded response from Tom. I do see confirmation of what e.g. I try to make clear. So let's not be too harsh.

 

Additionally, I myself try to apply some knowledge from German people. This is not exactly the same as yours (for attitude etc.) in Australia, and also not the same as mine in Holland (German people could be very serious, most often quite contrary to us Dutch).

 

PS: I don't even see anything wrong with that quote; try to incorporate differences in languages.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Alex, it is difficult for me to see that this is a close minded response from Tom. I do see confirmation of what e.g. I try to make clear. So let's not be too harsh.

 Peter

Unlike you, I take this statement (below) as a complete rejection of your in-depth explanations and posted screen captures.

 He appears to be rejecting what you are saying about using your S/W to create audible differences for the DAC to respond to, and is having a" bet each way" with his carefully crafted choice of words .

 I suspect that Tom has a fine grasp of the English language. 

 

 I will not be posting any further replies in the thread, only respond to any PMs.

Alex 

Quote

If data arrives correctly at the point of use (DAC) and a sound change still takes place, then I come to a conclusion that the sound change can only take place during or after the D to A conversion - serious and objective.

 

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

If data arrives correctly at the point of use (DAC) and a sound change still takes place, then I come to a conclusion that the sound change can only take place during or after the D to A conversion - serious and objective.

 

Yep. And via diverse back doors (like through air). So it is first the PC (current) behavior which is changed by XXHighEnd which can not translate to jitter in the digital domain, and thus what remains is "capture" of the DAC of through-air stuff (that one back door - there are more).

Alex, that this is not your stance per se is something else. So IMHO that statement (Tom's) is just correct. But no wonder, because it is what I have been telling. 

 

[manisandher]

On 2/15/2021 at 11:03 AM, sandyk said:

Neither will they accept the results of correctly performed DBT sessions , or the indicative results of threads such as from Manishander  that deserved to be followed up on with further testing...

 

For those of you who don't know, this is what happened:

 

1. I was absolutely convinced that I could hear real and obvious differences between bit-identical playback

2. I was confident that I could demonstrate this in a blind ABX

3. I invited @mansr to my place (even paid for his train ticket) to help me conduct an ABX in good faith

- Mans was in my office controlling the playback software (using the random generator on his phone to determine A/B)

- I was in my listening room across the corridor

- we captured the digital input to the DAC in real time to ensure that the 2 playback means were indeed bit-identical

4. I scored 9/10 in the ABX (1% probability that I was guessing)

 

Mans wasn't at all happy with the result, as it didn't accord with his belief that all bit-identical playback must sound identical. He suggested all sorts ways in which I might have cheated in the ABX, but even after looking hard for it, found no evidence for this at all. [Of course I hadn't cheated.] One of his suggestions was that I heard the keyboard strokes as he controlled the playback software from my office. Yes really... that I could hear keyboard strokes from another room, with two well-sealed closed doors and a corridor between us... AND decifer the keyboard strokes correctly! Absolute madness.

 

After the ABX, I sat Mans down in the listening room to demonstrate the differences to him. Though they seemed pretty obvious to me, he said that he couldn't hear them. Couldn't, didn't want to or couldn't because he didn't want to? Who knows.

 

All it would have taken was an open mind on his part, and we might have been able to come up with some interesting ideas for figuring out what's really happening.

 

My conclusion? What is sorely missing from the 'strict objectivist crowd', here and on other forums, is a dose of Russell's Critical Undogmatic Receptiveness. They espouse the scientific method and yet are incapable or unwilling to adopt the true attitude of science.

 

Mani.

[TomJ]

45 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

For those of you who don't know, this is what happened:

 

1. I was absolutely convinced that I could hear real and obvious differences between bit-identical playback

2. I was confident that I could demonstrate this in a blind ABX

3. I invited @mansr to my place (even paid for his train ticket) to help me conduct an ABX in good faith

- Mans was in my office controlling the playback software (using the random generator on his phone to determine A/B)

- I was in my listening room across the corridor

- we captured the digital input to the DAC in real time to ensure that the 2 playback means were indeed bit-identical

4. I scored 9/10 in the ABX (1% probability that I was guessing)

 

Mans wasn't at all happy with the result, as it didn't accord with his belief that all bit-identical playback must sound identical. He suggested all sorts ways in which I might have cheated in the ABX, but even after looking hard for it, found no evidence for this at all. [Of course I hadn't cheated.] One of his suggestions was that I heard the keyboard strokes as he controlled the playback software from my office. Yes really... that I could hear keyboard strokes from another room, with two well-sealed closed doors and a corridor between us... AND decifer the keyboard strokes correctly! Absolute madness.

 

After the ABX, I sat Mans down in the listening room to demonstrate the differences to him. Though they seemed pretty obvious to me, he said that he couldn't hear them. Couldn't, didn't want to or couldn't because he didn't want to? Who knows.

 

All it would have taken was an open mind on his part, and we might have been able to come up with some interesting ideas for figuring out what's really happening.

 

My conclusion? What is sorely missing from the 'strict objectivist crowd', here and on other forums, is a dose of Russell's Critical Undogmatic Receptiveness. They espouse the scientific method and yet are incapable or unwilling to adopt the true attitude of science.

 

Mani.

So I agree with you that science is more than just measuring. But this also includes to consider that there can also be autosuggestion cases. In too many forums, people describe their elaborate mods - and yes, of course, they always sound better.

 

I believe in the measurement results of Amir, but I can also hear differences in the digital transmission.

 

For example, I have just replaced my network isolator, which caused a very good sound improvement on my KEF LS50, against another model. The result of the new model is not so good. But what is the reason for this? This is the question we have to ask ourselves in order to objectify the whole thing a bit. 
The old insulator has a strength up to 5 kV, the new one has only one of 4 kV. Perhaps a rule can be derived from this. I would like to see more of such attempts to explain what we have heard.

Here is a blind test regarding network switches.
https://www.alpha-audio.nl/review/zeven-switches-voor-streaming-audio-getest-blind/

If one makes hearing comparisons of network switches, then it would be helpful nevertheless if one tries to understand, where this is because of. I now believe that you can hear differences here (due to noise, RF affecting the conversion), but what is the reason? Is the positive effect of a switch by lower noise canceled out by an isolator?

 

Tom

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, TomJ said:

I now believe that you can hear differences here (due to noise, RF affecting the conversion), but what is the reason?

 

That's the question!

 

I suspect @PeterSt knows more about what's really going on than pretty much anyone else. But even so, he can't produce a DAC that's totally immune to what's happening upstream 😉.

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

But even so, he can't produce a DAC that's totally immune to what's happening upstream 😉.

 

Indeed that is the bizarre thing.

 

And for those who don't know or forgot:

- I first created software to explicitly change the sound (by means of influencing the DAC);

- to next start designing / building D/A converters which would counter attack that software influence.

@manisandher will recall that at a certain update of the DAC, the influence seemed gone. I was sad because the software tweaking time seemed behind me. Nothing left to do. But something else happened ...

 

... The new version of the DAC allowed us to hear "more through" and IIRC it was Mani who was the first to tell us that he could still hear differences. Mani, again IIRC this could have been the day that I started to admit myself that USB cables could be improved upon. Or maybe it that started with the coax interlinks ? yea, it must have been that because everybody started to buy coax cables to help trying finding the best.

And from there it got worse and worse. So your 9 out of 10 must have been your bad day, because we (and so many others) would make that a 10/10. By sheer coincidence I mentioned this this morning in an other thread (I did not know about your post here, Mani).

 

Moral: It all starts with having a pile of "best" tools for music reproduction in your chain. And this could be more than imaginable for an outsider. 100s of people explicitly worked on it. I myself was the main tool (providing the commercial products coming from all the thinking).

Mani is one of those people.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, TomJ said:

For example, I have just replaced my network isolator, which caused a very good sound improvement on my KEF LS50, against another model. The result of the new model is not so good. But what is the reason for this? This is the question we have to ask ourselves in order to objectify the whole thing a bit.

 

Tom, as I told earlier on, such isolators apply processing. I hear that processing. You would hear it too, once I would point it out while being over here. It's a flavor to the sound. And that is never a good thing. Additionally for me this is "extra" killing because I can only put out (sell) products which sound totally neutral. It is only that what I deem neutral today, appears to be "less so" tomorrow. That part of the hobby never ends (luckily).

[manisandher]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

The new version of the DAC allowed us to hear "more through" and IIRC it was Mani who was the first to tell us that he could still hear differences. Mani, again IIRC this could have been the day that I started to admit myself that USB cables could be improved upon.

 

Hey Peter, on the 25th June 2014, I wrote this in an email to you:

 

"I spent quite a while playing around with things today. Especially different lengths of USB cable. And I am so sorry to have to say this, but I can hear a difference between different USB cables… and also between the mobo USB port and the Silverstone card.

 

After literally hours of listening, I could easily predict what the sound would be like as I changed cables and ports."

 

The email was titled "I don't know what to say" because I was exasperated that the DAC's new USB interface still wasn't immune to changes upstream - something we were all really hoping for. And I was worried that you might be upset at my findings, having spent so long working on the USB interface yourself.

 

But we accepted the evidence (albeit only our subjective experiences at that point) over our wishes and hopes.

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, manisandher said:

Hey Peter, on the 25th June 2014, I wrote this in an email to you:

 

Haha, great !

Yeah, that is how it went.

 

But luckily it went as it did, because today we have so much better sound because of it. And let's be honest, with XXHighEnd the improvements have stalled now, for a while already. So now it has to go the hard(ware) way. Works better as well. May even cost less time for development.

 

Peter

[semente]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Moral: It all starts with having a pile of "best" tools for music reproduction in your chain. And this could be more than imaginable for an outsider. 100s of people explicitly worked on it. I myself was the main tool (providing the commercial products coming from all the thinking).

Mani is one of those people.

 

The typical alt-objectivist response would be "there you go, telling us that iur systems are not resolving enough"...

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, semente said:

The typical alt-objectivist response would be "there you go, telling us that iur systems are not resolving enough"...

 

Riccardo, yes, I suppose that could be the message. But if that really would have been my thing to bring across, you can imagine that I would have said this in my first post in this thread, to Tom. But I didn't, did I ?

Btw, in the context of the last posts, that's obviously no message at all. This message is though:

 

- I can easily hear the processing of an isolator (if it processes);

- What is not audible yesterday, tomorrow will be (or may be);

- a. I can't do this alone, b. it is quite rare for the occurrence itself that so many people contributed, which is why it happened.

 

So no cruel messages at all. I am not like that.

 

Btw, I am suddenly thinking ... if you are in London (I recall this is so ?) then you could visit one of the people with such a complete system. I say this because I know how eager you actually are (mainly on speakers I think).

[semente]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Riccardo, yes, I suppose that could be the message. But if that really would have been my thing to bring across, you can imagine that I would have said this in my first post in this thread, to Tom. But I didn't, did I ?

Btw, in the context of the last posts, that's obviously no message at all. This message is though:

 

- I can easily hear the processing of an isolator (if it processes);

- What is not audible yesterday, tomorrow will be (or may be);

- a. I can't do this alone, b. it is quite rare for the occurrence itself that so many people contributed, which is why it happened.

 

So no cruel messages at all. I am not like that.

 

Btw, I am suddenly thinking ... if you are in London (I recall this is so ?) then you could visit one of the people with such a complete system. I say this because I know how eager you actually are (mainly on speakers I think).

 

Hi Peter,

 

It's Oxford actually, not that far.

I would realy enjoy listening to one of your systems.

 

I suppose that both you and @manisandher are right here, that it's not unlikely some of "their" systems are not resolving enough, and it is also not unlikely that some of "them" don't want to listen to differences that are not verifiable by the set of measurements they abide to.

 

Best,

Ricardo

 

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, semente said:

Ricardo

 

Apologies for the extra c. One of my customers has the extra c there so I am always confused.

 

20 minutes ago, semente said:

I suppose that both you and @manisandher are right here, that it's not unlikely some of "their" systems are not resolving enough, and it is also not unlikely that some of "them" don't want to listen to differences that are not verifiable by the set of measurements they abide to.

 

I have a bit of difficulty with understanding all those negatives (as in not unlikely). The "right here" should refer to "this thread" I suppose ? and not the UK ?

So no; interpretation failure !

 

The customer in London (Marlow actually) has an as resolving system and it is only that his speakers are one size smaller which only relates to the bass.

 

Quote

and it is also not unlikely that some of "them" don't want to listen to differences that are not verifiable by the set of measurements they abide to.

 

Could you please rephrase that ?

[semente]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Could you please rephrase that ?

Sorry, I unintentionally made it overly complicated.

 

What I meant to say is that there’s a group of narrow-minded alt-objectivists to whom the possibility of perception of a particular “event” is dictated exclusively by a simplistic set of measurements and current superficial knowledge of audibility thresholds. And Toole’s book (perhaps misunderstood).

[fas42]

Yes, the closer you are, the more "everything matters" ... the solution that I go with is that certain key indicators of SQ are met; if they're in place, you can afford to relax ... a bit 😀.

 

Basically, I want every recording I put on to be fully satisfying, as an experience - if that's happening, then I'm pretty content with my lot, 🙂.

[John Dyson]

On 2/27/2021 at 12:33 PM, semente said:

Sorry, I unintentionally made it overly complicated.

 

What I meant to say is that there’s a group of narrow-minded alt-objectivists to whom the possibility of perception of a particular “event” is dictated exclusively by a simplistic set of measurements and current superficial knowledge of audibility thresholds. And Toole’s book (perhaps misunderstood).

The real problem is that some measurements that the subjective can detect do not have an objective measure (or an easy objective measure) yet.   Example is TIM back in the 1970's.   Some things are really hard to measure.   I deal with such things all of the time.

 

One thing for sure, if at all possible, PLEASE give me a useful objective measure.   The subjective is 'subject' to all kinds of temporal variations.  One thing that I seldom see a subjectivist admit to -- accomodation or adaptation of hearing.   This is little different from smell -- and the adaptation of hearing can make absolute subjective measurements almost impossible to be accurate, and sometimes even relative subjective measurements can be frustrated.

The only 'subjective' measurement that are consisten for me are totally foreign distortions that vary with the signal.   Constant hum can even be adapted away.

 

Objective when possible.  As much objective as possible, but subjective when really needed because objective is impractical.

 

[Miska]

9 hours ago, John Dyson said:

The real problem is that some measurements that the subjective can detect do not have an objective measure (or an easy objective measure) yet.   Example is TIM back in the 1970's.   Some things are really hard to measure.   I deal with such things all of the time.

 

And TIM seems to have been forgotten again. However, I've taken it back to my measurement suite I use for my testing purposes.

 

One reason may be digital systems where it is not possible to directly measure (using the original test signals) with sampling rates below 192k. But now most DACs can do 384k and many 768k. And DACs can also do DSD which allows this type of measurement much better.