ASR Audio Science Review forum YouTube Channel

[pkane2001]

34 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

That was one of Mans's better speculations. Because we were capturing the digital input to the DAC in real time throughout the ABX, we could analyse the delays between successive X samples. The analysis showed that they were random, i.e. X=A and X=B could not be distinguished.

 

In any event, I didn't need any 'clues'. Just listening, the difference between A and B was obvious... and yet they remained bit-identical throughout.

 

(I got #9 wrong... but it was ~15 minutes into the test at that point. My excuse 😉.)

 

Mani.

 

Let's see if we can do an internet blind test on Lush^2 against a printer USB cable, both of which I have in my possession along with a few DACs. Except for Lush, nothing is made by Peter, including the software ;)

 

@PeterSt, let me know if you want any specific setting for the Lush, otherwise I'll use the default that it was shipped with. 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

OK, don't look then !!

 

         

 

Only answer

 

left

or

right

 

which is the generic cable ?

Just guessing... left?

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Well, if *that* is going to work out, I'll be damned.

The configuration most people will be used to (including myself) is

A:B-W-Y-R, B:B-W-R

which should be the config yours was shipped with too.

 

But Paul, I'd say your effort on this will be useless. It would be true, however, that I am pretty sure that if I'd capture the sound from my speakers, it will even be audible sent via WhatsApp on a phone. Ever back there also floated a video around from "IkBenStil" (Dutch people will know it) where you could the most easily hear the difference between (I think it was) JRiver and XXHighEnd. The difference was so large, that I myself thought it was fake(d). Back in those days this was not about reconstruction filtering, as XXHE only upsampled back then.

 

Anyway, chance is near zero that this will work out. If we - or I can hear that via the means you plan (??) then you should hear it too. And you already told you can't. Still, in your system I will be able to hear it too, so there's a very tiny chance ...

The least what should happen is picking the right music.

 

Hedging already 🤪? Why would it only be audible over your speakers and only in your system if this has to only do with the USB cable? Are you saying your system is the most resolving on the planet? ;)

 

Let's try it anyway and let others judge for themselves. What music would you prefer to test with? 

[pkane2001]

20 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Of course I claim the latter - you know me. 

 

This has nothing to do with systems, but with the way you will bring the listening test. I mean, most of you (this btw includes Mani somehow) think that you can preserve this sh*t at A/D'ing. You can't. I claimed the very same at the start of the blue pill / red pill thing and while of course nobody understood and nobody took precautions, what remained afterwards was a mental problem block for Mans, because none of it could be proven in the recorded digital data, afterwards. No wonder, because it won't be there.

 

Still, (my story about "IkBenStil") it might be possible if you record it via microphone. I am not sure whether this came across.

So what will be your (planned) means to do it ?

 

The music will be tracks I could provide. Btw full tracks and not snippets. I could distribute the by you recorded files if you're afraid of that not being allowed. I don't care about this myself.

 

ADCs are already used for ALL recorded digital content we are listening to -- all of it (well, ok, maybe not computer-generated content). If ADCs are not transparent enough compared to a microphone and a speaker, then we are already missing a lot from the original sound, since all digital content has gone through at least one ADC before it even gets to your system. We can do another test to confirm how transparent the ADC is or is not by doing multiple pass recording through it and comparing them.

 

My test will be fairly simple: play music using a PC (iMac) over USB cables, A or B, directly into the DAC. Feed the analog output from the DAC into a quality pro ADC (Apogee Element24, which I've tested and measured before and know it measures well) and record this to a digital file. Rename and randomize the samples and upload them for a listening test. I can even publish measurements for these afterwards, if there's interest.

 

If you want to send me the original digital files to use for the test, I'm all for it. If it's copyrighted content, I'll take a minute or so snippet and include some fair-use disclosure notification with the samples. 

 

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

Paul, please, don't bother. No need to prove the accuracy (or not) of your ADC. No need to teach me either.

Plus no need to shift the goal posts I set. 🤗

I am doing this too long by now.

 

It's not about you, Peter. You're welcome to participate or not, totally your choice.

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

And it is your choice of organizing this. But again I refer to the pills thread - there too people thought it would work. But it did not at all. And because of that Mans kept on inventing stories about how Mani could have hoisted the test.

 

If you put up such a test then you'd be doing the very same as Amir. You may like his methods, but I blatantly disagree. Amir laughs his ass out over the back of Alex Crespi, and all contestants will laugh their asses out over the customers who'd also may score a 10/10 in their homes. They (Lush users) will of course join too (I won't) and they all will score 5/5. And Paul is laughing and laughing and laughing because finally he is right.

After changing the goal posts.

 

It doesn't work like that.

 

Must I send you a pair of microphones, or what's the problem with that ?

haha

 

So you want me to use a mic to record the speaker output and you believe this will be more accurate? In what universe does adding speakers + room, amps, and microphones (not to mention multiple additional cables and power supplies) to the recording chain produce a more accurate recording than the direct analog?

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

I tried to explain that a couple of posts back.

 

And I didn't mention "accurateness" in there.

 

But that's what I'm after, Peter: recording as faithfully as possible the changes that Lush^2 produces at the analog output of a DAC.

 

Accuracy is critical here, otherwise, what is it that I'm recording? Your entire system, including speakers, amps, microphones, and ADC? I don't have your system, and I'd say neither do 99.999% of all audiophiles (I rounded the number down a little for brevity). 

[pkane2001]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I said it this (my) morning. This is not related to my system at all. All what my system may contribute is my 10/10 score. Your system might show some of it, but I will never claim anything from another one's system, already because it takes time to learn it. And via this means ? I'd sincerely hope that it will be audible. But again, I'd give it a chance. But it should be worth while the effort. As in: try one of the tracks (to provide) first and when me, myself and I don't hear a difference, then let's drop it. But if I do hear a difference (no matter which is which), then that is enough to let people do the test. Agreed ?

Edit: And then I will join too, of course.

 

I will certainly run the tests by you and let you provide your feedback, first, Peter. We can make whatever adjustments you think necessary (without putting your whole system into the recording chain) to make it easier for you to detect before letting others hear it.

 

But I don't think it's in the interest of everyone else to not publish the results. I'd prefer to let others decide for themselves, both, whether they hear the difference or not, and what is or isn't wrong with the test methodology.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Of course the results should be published. Maybe I implied something wrongly.

 

All right. When the time is right, you better open a new thread for it.

This evening (which is a few hours away) I will start selecting a few tracks and get them to you so you will know what you are dealing with. I will try to not focus on one style only, although this is not easy, as not all music styles show what a system can do ultimately (be that yours or be that mine). So even if the style ain't right, I will try to make it interesting.

 

New topic started to discuss the parameters of the test:

 

 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I know that anecdotal bit. I'm looking for objective information.

 

Schiit said XYZ, measurements show ABC.

Real engineers know the value of measurements. Schiit doesn’t have to say schiit about it, this is engineering 101.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Do real armchair engineers know this too, or do only those in the club know this?

 

I'm asking for a very simple thing. 

 

What did Schiit say, what was proven to be wrong?

 

Ask them, why are you asking here? Training and knowledge is required to understand and use measurements properly. 

[pkane2001]

37 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm asking here because @asdf1000 said he wrote it in this thread over and over and I can't find anything of the sort. His whole mantra is wanting measurements because he wants to make sure products do what the manufacturer says. I believe this is like asking for a voter fraud commission and there isn't much to look at. Thus, I want to see how big of an issue this is.

 

Just asking for objective facts. Is that too much to ask? 

 

I'm a bit confused. What objective facts? What Schiit said was wrong after they purchased an APx555? Sorry, I'm not privy to such facts.

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

@asdf1000 claimed that 3rd party measurements proved Schiit wrong in what they claimed for the Modi. 

 

I'd love to see this and figure out if there is something to this, if it's a one-off, or if it's like non-existent voter fraud. 

 

As far as I know, Modi 1 measurements were atrocious, with large levels of noise and jitter. Modi 3 appears to be a very reasonable, well-performing DAC that was made after Schiit acquired an APx555. Don't know what was right or proven wrong, but this is what the measurements show.

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, Miska said:

 

IOW, read the entire paragraph. It is good if you disregard the built-in digital filters.

 

 

Because as usual, they use the measurement gear to fix many faults of the DACs.

 

 

I have, many times. Regarding many other DACs too. But if one wants to stick to certain selected limited views of things...

 

 

Jussi, I assume you're still talking about measurements up to 100MHz here and the ADC antialias filter removing these components, correct? Do you have a frequency plot for RME ADI-2 FS for this range at 44.1KHz showing the defects you're describing?

[pkane2001]

42 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

That doesn't matter, because it can become very audible in various different ways.

 

 

That doesn't matter either.

 

 

There are also images at lower frequencies, but how much depends on your filter selection.

 

When the images disappear altogether, at any frequency, and below -144 dBFS, you know you have proper D/A conversion up to 24-bit resolution.

 

For proper D/A conversion of RedBook, you must have all images at any frequency below -96 dBFS.

 

 

Yeah, Hypex and other class-D amplifiers have aliasing, just like A/D converters. But usually they don't have proper anti-alias filters at the input, at most usually 1st or 2nd order low-pass. And if that low-pass has fc of 20 kHz, it has plenty of phase-shift at highest audible frequencies. If the low pass has fc of 100 kHz or more, it doesn't have such phase-shift, but then it doesn't have almost any attenuation at 352.8 kHz.

 

On the other hand, regular analog amplifiers can have relatively high IMD at frequencies like 352.8 kHz. To know about such, you need to measure IMD of the amplifier with for example 351 + 352 kHz test tone. Not the usual 19+20 kHz.

 

 

Now we are still talking just about digital filter tests. But we have not even touched modulator tests yet.

 

 

Such high-frequency IMD effects should be easy to detect in the audible range by capturing the output of the amplifier up to 20KHz, rather than at the output of a DAC, wouldn't you agree?

[pkane2001]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

But, a site hiding behind the term “Science” can fool many people. 

It’s nice then that measurements are not subjective and can be repeated by others, especially those suspicious of the results. Someone’s faked measurements  are easy to disprove. Someone’s opinion, not so much.

[pkane2001]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Agree for the most part. But, humans tend to believe the first thing they hear / see / read. This is fact. Once a screwed up measurement is published, damage is done. 

Don’t know if that’s true in general. But those who look for one source of information and never look beyond deserve what they get.

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m not placing blame. Just using real world info on how many humans work. I will look for my sources. 
 

At some point people need to take responsibility. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is bad. We don’t blame those who get trampled and tell them they shouldn’t have believed a single source of information. 

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a problem because there are no choices for the crowd but to head for one or two exits. There are literally thousands of sites and fora that do audio reviews. I think it’s safe to say someone who gets trampled by a single source of audio reviews does so by choice. Like those who get their news from that one network.

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

My point was that the responsibility does’t just lay with the consumer, but also the publisher of the information. 

 

While I agree this is a potential concern, I don't see this a major problem with Amir's measurements. He contacts the manufacturer when his results are significantly different from specification. If the manufacturer comes back with corrections or different measurement parameters that Amir can duplicate, he remeasures and updates his review. This is as it should be.

 

[pkane2001]

36 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

My view is very different. All reviews and measurements, objective and subjective, should be sent to the manufacturer before publication. I always tell the mfgs that my opinions can’t be changed but I must get the facts correct and encourage them to find errors or disagreements with what I wrote. This way everyone wins, except those interested in gotcha journalism. 

 

I guess we'll just have to disagree. Amir measures equipment for his readers, not manufacturers. These are usually used units sent in by their owners to be measured. He clearly states if the item is new, acquired by him, sent in by a reader, or by the manufacturer. And since he corrects any errors in his reviews if these are pointed out, I don't see the big deal. Very few of his reviews require corrections after the fact (other than for numerous spelling mistakes).

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Publishing mistakes that mislead readers is a bad thing for everyone and can be avoided 100% of the time. I guess the objective crowd isn’t interested in real accuracy but rather proving some sort of point, accuracy be damned. 

 

You seem to want to make sweeping  generalizations about objectivsts based on... what? What Amir does? He doesn't speak for everyone. @asdf1000? Me? I don't usually even speak for myself, much less for the whole "objective crowd".

 

Instead, let me ask you this: how many people do you think have been mislead by the reviews, opinions and recommendations posted right here, on AS? Any? 

 

[pkane2001]

10 hours ago, Rexp said:

You mean like assuming existing measurements are all that you need for audio evaluation. 

 

Sure. If you buy into this particular set of measurements, then that's all you need. If not, these are still useful, but may be incomplete. For example,  @Miska prefers to see measurements out to the 5-10 MHz range. That's fine, but most in the audio industry don't do that. If that's what you need, look elsewhere. I prefer measurements made using my own tools providing different metrics. Can't find that on ASR :) but that's the benefit of the World WIDE Web -- you can always look in two or three or 100 other places.

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Ah, you mean the manufacturer of the AP he uses.

IOW, don't make me laugh.

 

Hmm? No, not what I meant, but laughing is good for your health, so laugh, Peter, laugh!

[pkane2001]

39 minutes ago, lucretius said:

To be certain, the following comment applies only to the audio industry:

Of course, manufacturers send gear to be reviewed.  But not to be measured.  They send the gear to sites/magazines where they are certain they will get positive reviews.  These are usually the same sites/magazines where the manufacturers take out ads.

 

A quick keyword search on ASR shows about two dozen or so manufacturers that sent in their devices to be measured by Amir. Not all of them received glowing reviews.

[pkane2001]

12 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Can you tell me how my opinion, withholding information until I can verify it, and accurately publishing facts checked with the creators of the products could mislead people? Honestly, help me understand how and I’ll be able to answer. 

 

Validating opinion with objective facts before posting would be a good start in trying not to mislead.