ASR Audio Science Review forum YouTube Channel

[asdf1000]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Really ? With a frequency response plot too

 

Yes really ... with a frequency response. Just because you weren't aware of it, doesn't mean it isn't a fact ;-)

 

Feel free to Google Images it and you will see HD800 and HD800S owners sharing their individual plots.

 

 

[acg]

22 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

This is a silly comment and easy to dismiss, I shared many examples before but you don't read or conveniently ignore.

 

C'mon...you mention 10 or so companies out of how many audio companies worldwide?  The great majority of these companies publish none or a selective subset of measurements and when they do it is often bastardised by the marketing department into something either borderline deceptive or just not useful. 

 

Truth is that there are not many about that know how to properly interpret the measurements, so providing them to the public in a warts and all fashion is more likely to backfire than cause increased sales.  That would be the fuel for the "race to the bottom" where meaningless targets are chased because they become more important to marketing than the actual function of the product.  Something akin to what happened when transistors replaced valves, or cd replaced vinyl and tape.  Perfect sound forever and all that marketing lie.

 

Then there is all the research to suggest that once below a reasonably easy to attain distortion target that going further is indiscernible.  I reckon this is about -80dB at most (-60dB is probably ok if the system has good gain structure)...0.01%...easy as pie to achieve in either solid or hollow state electronics...but to the uninitiated -120dB must be better sounding than -80dB so lets start that race to the bottom.  I own some exceptional measuring audio gear (dacs and preamps), I also own an audio analyser that walks the same turf as Amirs infamous APx, but only listen to that which gives me most enjoyment.

 

This line you have been treading about "only reading it for the photos measurements" is fine in your use case, and we all get it. We really do.  But your use case is only your own, it is not necessarily mine nor anybody elses in particular.  I don't particularly care what you or others think of ASR or Amir or measurements or whatever and I don't mind reading other considered opinions whatever they may be but don't expect to convince or convert anyone to your viewpoint, because that is unlikely on an internet forum.  There is no one right answer here just different opinions.  The argument cannot be "won" by anyone so I see no reason to treat it as a formal debate.   

[asdf1000]

3 minutes ago, acg said:

C'mon...you mention 10 or so companies out of how many audio companies worldwide?

 

C'mon you didn't read this part that I wrote:

 

"Remember, specifications come from measurements.

 

Many more companies than listed above publish specifications... so a measurement or variety of, can be used to verify...."

 

You know this.

 

I agree with a lot of the rest you wrote by the way.

 

[asdf1000]

4 minutes ago, acg said:

I also own an audio analyser that walks the same turf as Amirs infamous APx

 

Which make and model ?

 

 

[acg]

RTX6001

[acg]

3 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

 

C'mon you didn't read this part that I wrote:

 

 

"Remember, specifications come from measurements.

 

Many more companies than listed above publish specifications... so a measurement or variety of, can be used to verify...."

 

You know this.

 

I agree with a lot of the rest you wrote by the way.

 

 

I read it just fine.  Specifications are not measurements.  In a lot of cases they are gross simplifications of complex results...a snapshot of a simplification...produced for nothing more than marketing.

[asdf1000]

1 hour ago, acg said:

In a lot of cases they are gross simplifications of complex results...a snapshot of a simplification...produced for nothing more than marketing.

Right. Which is where good 3rd party measurements can help...

 

I'm actually not interested in debating whether someone else (beside me) should be for measurements or not.

 

I'm only going back and forth on this because someone labelled me as an ASR defender.

 

But as I mentioned, I've enjoyed the JA part of Stereophile and DS part of SoundStage for the same reasons I like the measurements part of ASR.

 

I don't get caught up in Amir's words and his fans' words and his product rankings.

 

And unlike some others, I don't dismiss him because he doesn't write enough about his subjective impressions.

[semente]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Riccardo, I am sure you have it right, but the first sentence is in error. The DSP processing computer would be feeding the Audio playing computer. And the latter does about nothing (virtually no CPU usage visible at 32/768 playback).

 

I didn't realise that you were using two computers.

 

So your first computer does the heavy-lifting upconversion and the second computer is a buffer?

[semente]

3 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

Right. Which is where good 3rd party measurements can help...

 

I'm actually not interested in debating whether someone else (beside me) should be for measurements or not.

 

I'm only going back and forth on this because someone labelled me as an ASR defender.

 

But as I mentioned, I've enjoyed the JA part of Stereophile and DS part of SoundStage for the same reasons I like the measurements part of ASR.

 

I don't get caught up in Amir's words and his fans' words and his product rankings.

 

And unlike some others, I don't dismiss him because he doesn't write enough about his subjective impressions.

 

What do you intend to measure and how? SINAD is manifestly insuficient to be of any use...

[asdf1000]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

What do you intend to measure and how? SINAD is manifestly insuficient to be of any use...

 

Lol back in the first few pages of this thread I already wrote about this including my thoughts on people's obsession with SINAD.

 

So of course I agree...

[semente]

8 hours ago, acg said:

PeterSt does not have a DSP processing computer, does not use computer based DSP software nor espouse its use.  This whole conversation is a tangent of magnificent proportions willingly caused by a malignant poster revelling in the echo of their own voice, who neither understands the concepts involved, has any experience in the area nor is seeking anything but disruption.

 

Isn't PeterSt's XXHighend software upconverting to 24/768?

[semente]

Just now, asdf1000 said:

 

Lol back in the first few pages of this thread I already wrote about this including my thoughts on people's obsession with SINAD.

 

I was being sarcastic. I'm not very good at it.

 

A simplistic approach will lead nowhere.

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, semente said:

So your first computer does the heavy-lifting upconversion and the second computer is a buffer?

 

No, the upconversion / filtering is so lean, that nothing will need "heavy lift" that (CPU usage is still virtually zero).

 

3 minutes ago, semente said:

Isn't PeterSt's XXHighend software upconverting to 24/768?

 

So Yes. But now you assume XXHighEnd in order, which is special to begin with and is hardly related to the Audio PC. Well, it is because it takes care of power consumption (as in 50W opposed to 120-140W normal) but this is still not related to playback as such.

 

It is easiest if people think of an NAA and for example Roon being at play in that second PC. You'd need provisions in the Audio PC to digest that and make music of it, but that's always the case.

Point in case is that the Audio PC does nothing. Only passing audio samples to the output (e.g. USB). And since there really is more to do, whatever that is, happens in that other PC. Thus, the Audio PC contains really nothing but a processor and RAM. No HDD or SSD or anything. Yes, an Ethernet connection towards the other PC.

 

Something else: Don't underestimate upsampling in that other PC while transferring that over Ethernet. No LAN interface exists (AFAIK) that can swallow the data as audio at those rates. It can as data of course, but then all is different again.

There's much more involved, like the whole lot playing from RAM** (including the OS being booted from RAM). This bring the best sound but also constraints.

 

If you need to know more, please ask @plissken.

 

**): No need to claim that all music plays from RAM.  <-- I just said it myself.

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, asdf1000 said:

 

Yes really ... with a frequency response. Just because you weren't aware of it, doesn't mean it isn't a fact ;-)

 

Feel free to Google Images it and you will see HD800 and HD800S owners sharing their individual plots.

 

 

I am not interested in seeing OWNER plots which are there from numerous sources with the same headphones. and usually  vary considerably.

 Feel free to post the frequency plot supplied by the manufacturer of your headphones.

[semente]

52 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

No, the upconversion / filtering is so lean, that nothing will need "heavy lift" that (CPU usage is still virtually zero).

 

 

So Yes. But now you assume XXHighEnd in order, which is special to begin with and is hardly related to the Audio PC. Well, it is because it takes care of power consumption (as in 50W opposed to 120-140W normal) but this is still not related to playback as such.

 

It is easiest if people think of an NAA and for example Roon being at play in that second PC. You'd need provisions in the Audio PC to digest that and make music of it, but that's always the case.

Point in case is that the Audio PC does nothing. Only passing audio samples to the output (e.g. USB). And since there really is more to do, whatever that is, happens in that other PC. Thus, the Audio PC contains really nothing but a processor and RAM. No HDD or SSD or anything. Yes, an Ethernet connection towards the other PC.

 

Something else: Don't underestimate upsampling in that other PC while transferring that over Ethernet. No LAN interface exists (AFAIK) that can swallow the data as audio at those rates. It can as data of course, but then all is different again.

There's much more involved, like the whole lot playing from RAM** (including the OS being booted from RAM). This bring the best sound but also constraints.

 

If you need to know more, please ask @plissken.

 

**): No need to claim that all music plays from RAM.  <-- I just said it myself.

 

Let's see if I got it right: you upconvert to 24/768 and filter with light processor load in the processing computer then load the data over Ethernet into the RAM of the playback computer before feeding the stream over USB into your DAC?

 

So main differences to HQPlayer are:

- light computation from processing computer

- playback computer plays from RAM

[asdf1000]

26 minutes ago, sandyk said:

I am not interested in seeing OWNER plots which are there from numerous sources with the same headphones. and usually  vary considerably.

 Feel free to post the frequency plot supplied by the manufacturer of your headphones.

 

You misunderstood. Each owner receives their own plot for their own serial number - from Sennheiser. For their serial number.  

 

People have shared that. Google Images it, to see what it looks like.

 

I am not talking about owners making their own measurements. I am talking about Sennheiser factory measurements.

 

Go buy a buy of HD800S if you don't believe me. Measurement comes on a USB stick...

 

This has been happening for years, it is not breaking news.

 

 

[PeterSt]

13 minutes ago, semente said:

Let's see if I got it right: you upconvert to 24/768 and filter with light processor load in the processing computer then load the data over Ethernet into the RAM of the playback computer before feeding the stream over USB into your DAC?

 

Hahaha, at least I love to talk to someone who is open to everything and eager to know.

But no.

What I tried to say is that the filtering (including upconversion to 32/768 (or 32/705.6)) is so lean that this can be done in the Audio PC indeed. Or, that everything has been done to still allow a "Best SQ". Here, I still have this on-screen for an other thread and a screenshot for it:

 

 

This is during playback (32/705.6 from 16/44.1). Compare with your own system. CPU speed is fixed at 1.14-1.16 GHz (but can be up to 350MHz - as I said earlier, this is settable and changes SQ drastically).

 

The upconversion can be done in that other PC just the same, but we'd lose on (LAN) loading speed. Also, this will destroy the organization it the Audio PC, which will forever work on Garbage Collection. For example, look at the number of running threads (315 in this case).

 

There's infinitely more; Look at the Cores / Logical processors. It tells 10/20, right ? But hey, this processor is a 14/28 ... And No, this was NOT changed in the BIOS. That would sound worse ...

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

You misunderstood. Each owner receives their own plot for their own serial number - from Sennheiser. For their serial number.  

I doubt that other lower priced  headphones in the Sennheiser range do this, any more than other manufacturers except for the rare Flagship model. 

[semente]

13 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Hahaha, at least I love to talk to someone who is open to everything and eager to know.

But no.

What I tried to say is that the filtering (including upconversion to 32/768 (or 32/705.6)) is so lean that this can be done in the Audio PC indeed.

 

Naa, you didn't say that. You're trying to confuse me.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Also, this will destroy the organization it the Audio PC, which will forever work on Garbage Collection.

 

Although not really garbage collection as such, it really is about dying-out processes. Look:

 

 

See, a few minutes later and again less threads (which are programs / processes). I started playback I think 30 minutes ago.

 

Here's my office PC:

 

 

Never ever think that this would produce decent sound.

Btw, all is relative of course, and what you call decent sound vs what I call decent sound, may be quite different. So all I can say is that when I would compare those two systems, this one will sound dreadful compared to the Audio PC, made for it. Now what has been done for that is quite easy to see (largely software induced). Whether it makes a different sound wise, is something you'd need to accept from me, just because I make them to sound better (and if that fails, I would make "nothing" - see the 2K costing little CPU story).

 

 

[semente]

14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

the filtering (including upconversion to 32/768 (or 32/705.6)) is so lean that this can be done in the Audio PC indeed.

 

That is very interesting by the way (the filtering being done in the final step).

So you upconvert and dither with your processing computer and then filter in the playback computer?

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

Naa, you didn't say that. You're trying to confuse me.

 

Riccardo, in my double Dutch :

 

 

2 hours ago, semente said:

So your first computer does the heavy-lifting upconversion and the second computer is a buffer?

 

 

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

No,

 

[semente]

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Here, I still have this on-screen for an other thread and a screenshot for it:

 

 

This is during playback (32/705.6 from 16/44.1). Compare with your own system. CPU speed is fixed at 1.14-1.16 GHz (but can be up to 350MHz - as I said earlier, this is settable and changes SQ drastically).

 

The upconversion can be done in that other PC just the same, but we'd lose on (LAN) loading speed. Also, this will destroy the organization it the Audio PC, which will forever work on Garbage Collection. For example, look at the number of running threads (315 in this case).

 

There's infinitely more; Look at the Cores / Logical processors. It tells 10/20, right ? But hey, this processor is a 14/28 ... And No, this was NOT changed in the BIOS. That would sound worse ...

 

Is this for the processing computer or the playback computer (Audio PC)?

If for the latter I don't know how I can compare the CPU use with that of the little Cubox I use as NAA but it's not doing any processing anyway so I don't think it will look bad in the photo.

 

Very impressive that you can get so little "use" when filtering though.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, semente said:

So you upconvert and dither with your processing computer and then filter in the playback computer?

 

You seem to assume too much and read too few.

There surely *are* things being done in the processing computer, but only those things which help for my own software (XXHighEnd). I am not talking about Roon Server where all would be different. For example, the processing computer (we call that Music Server PC) takes care that the Audio PC does not process any music as streaming, while actually it is streamed (by the Music Server PC). This with the notice that an Internet connection for any Audio PC (as it is written in my book) is already out of the question, let alone streaming from it which *really* messes up all and deteriorates sound.

The Audio PC is not even allowed to be connected to a switch (oops. *that* story again !!).

 

The above is in detail different from what I said, but else all becomes too long(winded).

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, semente said:

Is this for the processing computer or the playback computer (Audio PC)?

 

The latter.