Do I need clean USB power when using DAC with its own power supply?

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

What I'm interested in (and I suspect many "objective" types) is actually not whether any one person's listening experience is felt to be "good" or "bad". Subjective experience is simply the emergent property of that individual.

 

I don't see much how anyone, self-acclaimed objectivist, can be interested in what any two or 200 person's listening experiences are because you set your mind in advance to what can and what can not be. It is supported by well-documented etc. stuff, so why would you care.

I say: you don't care at all (this is not personal-addressed btw, but you could help working this out). So ...

 

So IMHO all you do is going against otherwise (for decades and beyond) very well recognized audiophile terms and experiences and indeed spoil the fun of those who are sure they hear the phenomenon in order. So indeed, why would you care ?

You don't. But, you try to improve the world ?

 

And so it now appears that we're not even allowed to talk about PRaT any more, BUT if one dares to challenge its existence it out of all turns into attack envelope sustain, decay and release. Sure.

This (again IMHO) all turns into one big mess and nothing is left from this hobby.

 

A kazillion attributes belong to amps, dacs, speakers and cables and even fuses. They all live in our subjective minds but may be real just the same. But if no-one is allowed to talk about such phenomena or else he gets burned, then there's nothing left to do out here but watching the few who seem to rule this world where all sounds the same.

Btw, there would also not be left anything to develop - just saying.

 

If someone has an opinion on how PRaT could be improved (like accurately following the transients - as a suggestion from someone), then other opinions are obviously the most welcome. Everybody may learn from it - me surely too. It could even be an interesting subject because it would be a most difficult one. The response(s) should not be in the magnitude of "show me measurements about that or else you have been smoking too much".

 

Something else would be that those who claim that PRaT only emerges during the recording - or even the playing by the artist, clearly don't even know what PRaT is or means. The fact that you never heard (of) it, means that you should stay out of the discussion and not that you like to see measurements of it, of which everybody knows that they won't exist in the first place.

 

So all you explicitly create is fight. Maybe that is the fun of 2021 (and really introduced by March Audio), but I don't think it is fun at all.

 

Sorry for the rant, but it greatly disturbs me, and I think I am not alone.

[PeterSt]

For a bit of balance:

 

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

When I have a "standard" DAC (these days typically my RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition) and a "comparison" DAC side-by-side, then maybe I can make some consistent comments - but even then it's within the context of the whole system, room, ambient noise level, listener experience / hearing acuity, etc.

 

100% agreed. But I think this is how it becomes important that more observations (preferably 100s) would lead to the same conclusion.

 

What would be wrong-ish is that you just declared the RME ADI-2 Pro FS as a reference.

Why ?

I own one. It is no reference for me. Oh, for measurement figures perhaps. And hey, did I see talk about the Topping D50 ? measures great but I too say it sucks the life out of all. And I think I have read many more of these observations.

 

It is not so easy. Talk about it as adults (with you as an example, if I may say so) would be great.

 

 

[PeterSt]

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

21 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I don't see much how anyone, self-acclaimed objectivist, can be interested in what any two or 200 person's listening experiences are because you set your mind in advance to what can and what can not be. It is supported by well-documented etc. stuff, so why would you care.

I say: you don't care at all (this is not personal-addressed btw, but you could help working this out). So ...

 

 

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

What "well documented" stuff are you talking about?

 

I referred to the ever repeated phrase of "you guys". You can count them in this thread. So that comes across as hand waving.

I myself never refer(red) to such things as I live from research (which is literal).

 

9 hours ago, Archimago said:

?? When did I say I never "heard of it". Who is the "everybody" you speak of ??

 

Please keep in mind:

 

21 hours ago, PeterSt said:

this is not personal-addressed btw, but you could help working this out

 

IOW, none of the things, except what I quoted from you, was addressed to you. It was addressed to all what happens in this thread and a lot of the forum which is easy to see (e.g., did you talk about the PRaT thing ? if not, then it wasn't addressed to you).

 

9 hours ago, Archimago said:

Again, who's stopping you from talking about this?

 

For example, you (though in a mild form). Look:

 

9 hours ago, Archimago said:

Feel free to engage and demonstrate that some of these things (like fuses) make a difference in the audio chain...

 

How ? (not that I would be engaged into anything around fuses - just saying).

Personally I always respect your enormous effort in your testing and elaborating which is brought in a neutral/transparent fashion. But I also think this shouldn't be held against "us" as if it were definite science. Mind you please, this is implied and not even by you explicitly. It just is.

 

I hope this is the last post between you and me which may smell like personal clash. I was and am not heading for that at all and if it seemed so then I apologize for clumsyness (in language);

I think we have seen in the past that there is one misnomer only: the statement that what is deemed inaudible (but certainly measured by you for difference), thus can not be the cause of perceived difference. 

That is really all and really the only disagreement we could have. Look, I work the other way around:

 

1. I perceive audible differences which I hold against audience which in 100% of cases come forward without any hints from me (I described those happenings by the dozens on my forum). Thus, this requires physical presence (this just is so, sadly - but you are all invited).

2.  Although the audible differences were meant to be (as a researcher and developer at the same time), in 100% of cases I seek an explanation in physics for it (not that I am educated in that field). This is mostly done by public reasoning (forum again) which allows for rejection and merely seeks aid. Without explanation, the phenomenon of concern still would not exist, despite #1.

3. In very early stage I needed to prove things to myself and to the outer world (encouraged by this very forum (C/A at the time)). I mean, if one makes bit perfect software that audibly makes wild differences just by some dials, one needs to do more than #1 and #2. So I developed measurement software myself and could easily prove that the differences were there (by your own very diff means) - over and over repeatable up to the 2nd LSB (1st being ADC noise).

 

And so the only difference between you and me is that I use the diff means to prove that the audible difference exists, while you use it to prove that it can not be. You see the difference all right, but "it can not be" (because of too low level).

Now what.

[PeterSt]

8 minutes ago, BassFace said:

Once again it seems people like to judge only the  things they listened too

 

Which is far better than judging things they did not listen to.

[PeterSt]

10 hours ago, BassFace said:

Which would confirm for the 3rd time now that you really dont know what your talking about no matter how you try to dress it up.

 

We are at 3333 so there's no need to keep on repeating this.

 

On 7/22/2021 at 4:25 PM, BassFace said:

I know I'm new on here but surely ignoring folk wont make any friends....

 

You can ignore me in advance.