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

[danadam]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

Just because some people in this world subjectively believe in something or other doesn't mean I'm here to literally stop individuals from such beliefs.

I have an impression that may be not enough, as:

 

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

... asking questions and stating that I don't see these things as concerns and voice my opinion that "fuses" and such things are likely Snake Oil.

sounds like challenging people just trying to have fun. I've heard it is frowned upon here 😉

[firedog]

1 hour 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. 

Be careful attributing ideas to Bruno if you haven't read or listened to much of what he's said. 

For instance, he has said that he can know how well an amp performs from measurements, but he takes multiple different ones. (maybe 25 AFAIR) and says that the problem  isn't the lack of the ability of measurements to accurately predict amp performance, but the fact that most places (like ASR) don't perform enough - and not all the right ones - that accurately predict amp performance. 

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

Yeah, I get it. The people who build this stuff don't know anything. We can't trust manufacturers or reviewers or other audiophiles, or our own ears. Just the measurements. 😆

 

I don't trust measurements either.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

36 minutes ago, firedog said:

Be careful attributing ideas to Bruno if you haven't read or listened to much of what he's said. 

For instance, he has said that he can know how well an amp performs from measurements, but he takes multiple different ones. (maybe 25 AFAIR) and says that the problem  isn't the lack of the ability of measurements to accurately predict amp performance, but the fact that most places (like ASR) don't perform enough - and not all the right ones - that accurately predict amp performance. 

 

I've read this as well. I think every one could agree that things should be measurable, otherwise we can go back to Archimago's site and watch the video of Rick Gervais arguing for science 😂 (how that relates to audio remains a mystery to me). 

 

That is the point I am trying to make: objectivists have a right to be annoyed at audiophiles, or some aspects of the hobby. But this type of amateurish "objectivism" that is now rampant is posturing as "scientific" when in fact it simply is not because the "science" about all this is not there (or is incomplete). I guess they are probably angry at something larger than the topic at hand. 

 

There are a handful of audio engineers out there trying to make sense of all this, they don't necessarily have all the solutions, many aspects are not well understood. Digital (high fidelity) audio is a "niche" field. There's not that much money to be made, there are not thousands of specialists working on this in the world (and unfortunately collaboration is limited between those that do), there are no government grants being dished out. It's not biotechnology or green energy.  

 

This debate between objectivists and subjectivists is a waste of time. Objective and subjective evaluations are complementary. They are two sets of tools at our disposal. People should be curious about both aspects. 

 

 

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

That is the point I am trying to make: objectivists have a right to be annoyed at audiophiles

 

 

I believe that one can be both...

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, audiobomber said:

Yeah, I get it. The people who build this stuff don't know anything. We can't trust manufacturers or reviewers or other audiophiles, or our own ears. Just the measurements. 😆

 

Well, just keep it real. They also spout a lot of nonsense too after all, that is what marketing is.

[fas42]

One only has to go to a hifi show to see and hear how immature the industry still is - room after room of laughable, or downright awful sound, making a complete mess of the recording. If the 'objective' POV was so capable, so on top of everything, then it would dominate the situation - easily able to provide stunning reproduction, which would make it obvious that all other approaches were deficient - and hence they would disappear.

 

The disappointment that the industry is still so hopelessly slow at evolving to a point where a system can just be put together, and work - meaning that it replays recordings to a competent standard with no fiddling necessary - is what keeps me involved in forums like this ... yes, there are some bright spots, now - but, Jeeez, it's gonna take forever to get there ...

[audiobomber]

3 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I don't trust measurements either.

So then, how do you decide on what gear to purchase?

 

I note you don't show your system in your profile. I always assume people who don't mention what they own are embarrassed to list it. Am I wrong?

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

So then, how do you decide on what gear to purchase?

 

I note you don't show your system in your profile. I always assume people who don't mention what they own are embarrassed to list it. Am I wrong?

 

I haven't felt the need to purchase any audio equipment in years.

 

What I've got, gives me pleasure.

 

I also don't feel the need to get into an audiophile dick measuring match by listing the equipment I own.

 

Again, what I've got gives me pleasure and that's all that matters.

[opus101]

6 hours ago, Archimago said:

I don't think I've set my mind "in advance". The point is that subjective beliefs and experiences are too unreliable to draw many conclusions from.

 

Ignoring 'subjective beliefs' for the moment, subjective experiences are the only things we have as humans to draw any conclusions from. Or am I missing something here? Why de-privilege audio subjective experiences from all the rest?

[ARQuint]

26 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Ignoring 'subjective beliefs' for the moment, subjective experiences are the only things we have as humans to draw any conclusions from. Or am I missing something here? Why de-privilege audio subjective experiences from all the rest?

 

Could be the most profound observation I've ever read on an audio forum.

Hooray.

[The Computer Audiophile]

There’s a time and place for both. Some things can only be found with measurements and some things can only be found with using a product. For example, a chip that holds static electricity in the winter when the air is dry, and discharges that electricity under certain circumstances causing pops/ticks/etc… in the summer the component works perfectly. No AP measurement routine is going to find that. 

[kumakuma]

31 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

subjective experiences are the only things we have as humans to draw any conclusions from.

 

Care to explain?

[opus101]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Care to explain?

 

If you're willing to say what you're missing?

[kumakuma]

Just now, opus101 said:

 

If you're willing to say what you're missing?

 

I think it's obvious that humans draw conclusions from both subjective experiences and objective information.

[opus101]

How do you get to understand objective information if not through subjective experience?

[kumakuma]

Just now, opus101 said:

How do you get to understand objective information if not through subjective experience?

 

Let me think on this a bit.

 

If I don't get back you in the next 48 to 72 hours, please assume that I've either forgotten and/or lost interest in the subject.

[MaxBuck]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There’s a time and place for both. Some things can only be found with measurements and some things can only be found with using a product. For example, a chip that holds static electricity in the winter when the air is dry, and discharges that electricity under certain circumstances causing pops/ticks/etc… in the summer the component works perfectly. No AP measurement routine is going to find that. 

Completely agree. 

 

With that said, equipment that measures poorly on the kinds of tests run at ASR is unlikely to reproduce audio faithfully. 

 

Measurements aren't sufficient IMO, but they're necessary. 

[fas42]

It is the subjective that counts - just now was running some tracks of a 70's band playing 50's music, the Aussie Daddy Cool group - this was able to project the intensity and bite of a live rock and roll band happening, only feet away from one - but how does one measure this highly subjective "vibe", currently?

[audiobomber]

1 hour ago, MaxBuck said:

Completely agree. 

 

With that said, equipment that measures poorly on the kinds of tests run at ASR is unlikely to reproduce audio faithfully. 

 

Measurements aren't sufficient IMO, but they're necessary. 

ASR measurements are a joke. The Schiit Modi 3 scored very well, much higher than the Yggdrasil, which scored poorly. Which do you think sounds better?

[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.

[Archimago]

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.

 

[BassFace]

On 7/18/2021 at 5:41 AM, audiobomber said:

I don't have a Jitterbug, but I have the somewhat similar iPurifier2, and it is beneficial with some DAC's. A common setup I've used is the iPurifier to clean the USB signal and the iPower with dual head USB cable to provide a cleaner 5V supply. This has made a significant improvement with several inexpensive DAC's. However the iPurifier2 degraded the sound when used downstream of an sMS-200.

 

The linear power supplies I own all beat the basic iFi iPower SMPS. I have never heard any effect from proximity to the laptop, and I cannot hear any difference in the sound of a DAC whether the laptop is running on battery power, or the SMPS. I also did not notice any difference when I used an iPower on a Raspberry instead of the freebie wall wart. 
 

Digital noise and jitter do not cause hiss or hum, nor do they show up in SNR or frequency response graphs. They show up as high frequency blur and constricted soundstage, and affect PRaT. I bought and returned a Topping D50S, which has damn near perfect measurements. It was the worst DAC I've ever used, worse than cheap dongle DAC's, because it sucked the life out of the music. 

 

I have never claimed that LPS is superior to SMPS. It depends on the implementation. My listening tests with the new iPower X show it to be equal to a similarly priced Zero-Zone LPS, and to the Welborne Labs PS-REG I use on my sMS-200. I've heard a couple of manufacturers say that SMPS is better than LPS for some digital gear. I found this myself when I tried an LPS on my TP-Link switch. It actually degraded the sound of my system. The iPower X was an improvement over the stock wall wart, and the LPS. 

 

People should listen for themselves and decide what works for them. I like to see measurements of audio gear, but unfortunately static measurements of digital gear do not correlate with sound quality.  

I can highly recommend reading and watching Rob Watt's from Chord Electronics talk about this in his DAC design. He goes into how a change in sound to you doesnt mean its better.  Infact he proves how people are actually wrong when they think a DAc sounds brighter, clearer etc when it actually doesnt.  He also touches on Galvanic Isolation in relation to cutting USB noise.

 

[fas42]

28 minutes ago, BassFace said:

I can highly recommend reading and watching Rob Watt's from Chord Electronics talk about this in his DAC design. He goes into how a change in sound to you doesnt mean its better.  Infact he proves how people are actually wrong when they think a DAc sounds brighter, clearer etc when it actually doesnt. 

 

 

Link?

[BassFace]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Link?

Google is your Friend 👍