Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Here's another engineer (B.Putzeys) talking about the challenges of digital audio:

 

https://www.stereonet.com/forums/topic/317371-bruno-putzeys-darko-interview/

 

Here's a well respected DAC designer (among other things) who actually uses measurements to some extent (as most serious engineers do) - he's talked about how he uses them, but I cannot find that link. In his view, measurements were never meant to be used as a complete framework for evaluating equipment performance. 

 

I actually have not listened to the whole interview but trust the short summary provided in the link is accurate. 

 

Yes, but also make sure to balance Putzey's comments with what he says elsewhere and how he approaches issues:

https://www.soundstagexperience.com/index.php/wesworld-menu/feature-articles-reviews-menu/720-bruno-putzeys-navigates-toward-the-state-of-the-art

 

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/amp-myths-negative-feedback

 

Back in 2011 he also had a white paper talking about the "baroque prose" of high fidelity writings:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/28060563/ncore-technology-white-paper-hypex

 

Things are complicated. But let's keep it rational.

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Gee, thanks for the reminder.

 

You're welcome. The way some people talk, you'd think that (noiseless) USB cables are the source of eargasm.

 

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, firedog said:

Obviously, in the end we only have our subjective experiences to judge with (unless we buy audio equipment and never listen to it....).

But the problem in audiophilia isn't that there is subjectivity.

 

The problem, as I see it, is (a) the writing and discussion that turns each individual sighted subjective experience into a general rule for all - it's not; (b) the unwillingness or inability of many audiophiles to admit that expectation bias influences what they hear. In other words, you don't have "golden ears" and you CAN/DO fool yourself. You will make better judgements if you admit that possibility to yourself; (c) the attribution of cause and effect in audio without ANY scientific - or even logical - basis. Such as conclusions about "noise" and "jitter" without any knowledge of if there actually IS a change in noise and jitter in your system or at the output of your system.

 

Paying thousands of dollars for something "low noise" in such a circumstance doesn't make a lot of sense, unless your position is that you want the best and don't care about the price, even if the expensive "best" isn't any better than something that costs much less, just to remove all doubt that you haven't maxed out your system. 

 

Obviously most of us can't do blind testing on everything we listen to. But if you NEVER do any kind of non sighted testing, and never get an idea of what does or doesn't make a difference (at least to your ears), you are highly likely to spend money on some new item that doesn't actually improve your SQ. 

 

I don't think the measurements at Archi's site or ASR are the "end all" in audio. But they do tell us something. They can direct us to consider that maybe something we think makes an important difference MIGHT not be audible to us in practice. Probably a good idea in that case to setup a non-sighted listening test to see if we can or can't hear such a difference.

 

I'd also use those measurements to direct me towards low cost items that measure really well. Maybe that $125 Topping DAC doesn't sound as good as say, a $2000 Mytek DAC. But if it measures extremely well, it's probably a really good value. I'd buy that for an application that doesn't have to be the absolute best and be happy with it. Assuming the excellent measurements don't mean ANYTHING doesn't make much sense.

 

And maybe that famous $15000 DAC or amp measured to have a relatively high distortion output is something to stay away from. It may "sound good", but maybe you are paying lots of money for euphonic distortion, and not accurate reproduction. I'd rather find a $15000 item that "sounds good" and also measures well. A lot less likely I'm fooling myself or paying for euphonic inaccuracy if I do that. 

 

Thanks @firedog, I'll buy that :-).

 

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
On 7/20/2021 at 1:35 AM, hopkins said:

I understand (from previous comments here) that Salvatore is a controversial figure, but I do find his articles interesting. Here is another one on "sound floor":

 

http://www.high-endaudio.com/rec.html#Noise

 

The concluding paragraphs are interesting, as he discusses his efforts to convert "hard-core audio sceptics". 

 

... when these objectivists finally admitted hearing the extra information (provided usually by tube electronics), they always went on to say that it was "much too subtle" to be concerned about, and usually further stated that they "couldn't understand how anyone could make such a 'big deal' about almost nothing". These events were rare and tiny "victories" for me, though still quite satisfying. This was because I always had the same last words ready for the objectivist: "It's the love and pursuit of these same audio 'subtleties' that defines an audiophile."

 

Perhaps some of us are more or less sensitive to particular aspects of sound reproduction, whatever the reason may be? (I'm not saying "audiophiles" have special hearing abilities). What is important to one person may be irrelevant to another.

 

Are these "subtleties" essential? When I'm listening to music on my phone with my 20$ Porta Pro headphones I cannot hear them, but I still enjoy what I'm listening to! But sometimes I tell myself: I can't wait to listen to this track on my speakers 🙂

 

We also have to acknowledge that our hearing is still an ongoing topic in scientific research. What makes it so sensitive (probably more so than audition tests may reveal)? Here's one interesting read:

https://news.mit.edu/2007/hearing-1010

 

On 7/20/2021 at 9:39 AM, audiobomber said:

Objectivist websites and bloggers say that digital noise and jitter don't exist, or don't matter. Audiophile manufacturers say they do matter, and design accordingly. I have not found any correlation between what Objectivists say, and my personal experience. I have found that what certain designers (e.g. John Westlake, Ed Meitner, George Klissarov, etc.) say, is valid in my listening experience. 

Blind testing is an artificial construct, and short-term testing leads to error. Reality is listening in my room, to my system, with my music, for an extended period of time. If the equipment has a failing, I will notice eventually, and once I do, it will nag me until I fix it with a tweak oIr replace it.

 


The problem is, what Archi and Amir say I can't hear, I say I can hear. I have faith in my extended listening method ahead of any third party, manufacturer, blogger, reviewer or audiophile.

 

 

There are plenty of people on ASR who believe a $200 Topping is as good as a $2000 Mytek because of Amir's bullshit. I replaced the D50S with a Modi 3 that lists for half the price and got better sound. None of the measurements answer either of these two situations, so what good are they to me? The answer is... not much. Yet I do read them, just as I read the manufacturer's website and every review I can find, pro and amateur when researching gear.

 

 

My goal is to enjoy music. Anything that adds to my enjoyment is good. I've heard plenty of gear that would be reviled by objectivists, yet sounded awesome. Here's a recent example where I chose musicality over accuracy: 


A friend loaned me a pair of PMC DB1 Gold mini-monitors ($2500 in Canada). I tried them in three of my systems. They were not good enough to last more than a few minutes in my main or desktop systems due to a closed-in top end and obvious dynamic compression.

 

I thought they might replace the $500 Raw-1F speakers in my small system. Both are small standmounts, 8-ohms, the RAW-1F slightly more sensitive. The main difference, other than 5X price, is that the PCM is a two-way, whereas the Raw uses a single full-range driver. Everyone knows that a single driver entails technical compromise, fans believe there are advantages. At first I didn't notice much to sway me one way or the other; the PMC was more detailed, the Raw was livelier. My wife preferred the Raw immediately. After a week, I was desperate to change back. I was missing the life and dynamics of the Raw. The PMC made music less engaging, less interesting which to me is the cardinal sin in audio.  

 

Fascinating discussions...

 

Whether it's Salvatore's claims about the "sound floor", or claims of whether "digital noise" or "jitter" exists, it's hard to discuss these things when:

 

1. There are typically no specifics given to discuss or investigate a lot of times. We have to always be careful about gross generalizations. What subtle "sound floor", or what "almost nothing" difference is Salvatore talking about? What device with what "jitter" are we concerned about? What "digital noise" are we talking about that could be audible?

 

I can speak for myself if I hear a difference, and I can try my best to express why I think it does/doesn't matter (like say the jitter demo, or why I believe "Bits Are Bits"), but I leave it to each person to explore and agree or disagree. Who knows @audiobomber, maybe you're right and can hear something I can't hear. No problem with you having "faith" in your own ears - as a hobby, I don't expect you to have anything else but what you experience as pleasurable or not.

 

Alas, I don't really have much faith in the testimony of audio writers these days given the years of questionable claims. Years of magazine-reading that have led me nowhere in terms of actual knowledge or understanding. If anything, magazines made me neurotic about whether my wires were good enough or whether little differences we "jitter" or not for example! (A little like fashion magazines causing young folks to struggle with body image?) Heck, if I had faith in audio writers, maybe I would never bother to investigate mQa, right? Would we all be better for it to just accept these claims at face value? I don't think so!

 

Instead of testimony, I challenge folks to do a little more work and demonstrate the differences heard. At least be very specific about what the belief is so things can be investigated. We are dealing with engineered products, not "creations of God", so let's take steps to examine and investigate. There's nothing miraculous here, just electronics and physics.

 

To me, purely subjective folks who claim this or that ("better dynamics!", "better frequency extension!", "huge soundstage!"), but either will not or cannot take the next step and try to show the effect really do not propel the hobby forward in any meaningful way. All these years of "high end cables" for example - has any of this resulted in any progress? If there is no forward trajectory, then how is there actual knowledge gained that we can build on as opposed to a never-ending cycle of consumerism?

 

2. How do we know that it's even those putative factors that have any relation to why we enjoy something? How do we know differences have anything to do with jitter for example unless we test it?

 

Over the years with some of the online blind tests, I have seen individuals give responses that they're sure of because they could "clearly" hear it.

 

This was brought home to me with the first MP3 vs. lossless blind test back in 2013 when a guy was insistent that he "knew" which tracks were MP3 because he "knew" the difference was because of lossless distortion! Well, he was wrong when I unblinded the results and he was never heard from again. This is why I check, and double check. When I find an anomaly (like this past week showing that DSD playback on the Topping D90SE was not as good as AKM DACs), I make sure I try to listen for myself. Sometimes I might have a subtle impression that something's not right, other times, if a signal is down at -110dB or something like that, I can be pretty sure it's not a problem in my system.

 

This is part of the fun. To be able to run measurements gives me another avenue to explore what is or is not important. When I find an anomaly that "golden ears" should have noticed (for example, did anyone notice the 24/48 bug in JPLAY?), this provided another avenue to appreciate the limits of human hearing.

 

3. Objective and subjective analysis are both essential. One tells me what "is", the other tells me what is "good" (for me) as an audiophile. I would rather share more of the objective stuff because that applies to all of us. I'm of course happy to share my personal subjective impressions as well (this week let's talk about some music and the Topping D90SE for example), but I know what I feel, or perceive, is not as important nor applicable to everyone so I place subjective sharing lower in priority.

 

I know that technical perfection is not always better BTW. Sometimes a bit more harmonics, a slightly higher noise floor, a bit of roll-off sounds great. I appreciate that vinyl has its charms, tube amps can bloom, and vintage speakers allow for a type of nostalgia modern "accurate" speakers cannot do.

 

Inherent in this I believe is a sense of humility in being human and the frailties of being this biological creature; on this Earth to learn about the nuances but bold enough to call out BS as well.

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment

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...