Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

Audio Science experts? Are you sure about that? 

Roksan Kandy K3 Integrated Amp, Roksan Kandy K3 Power Amp.  Denon AVC-X6500H 11.2 AVR

PMC Twenty 24,  SVS PB2000 x2 Subwoofers,  Monitor Audio RS8, RX-FX, RS-centre.  Wharfedale diamond 10 x 4 atmos.

Chord Qutest DAC

Technics 1210 mk3d  x 2

Audirvana 3.5 + Studio Ryzen 5 - 4500 Windows 10.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2021 at 4:46 AM, Rexp said:

 

Only Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee hahaha

Roksan Kandy K3 Integrated Amp, Roksan Kandy K3 Power Amp.  Denon AVC-X6500H 11.2 AVR

PMC Twenty 24,  SVS PB2000 x2 Subwoofers,  Monitor Audio RS8, RX-FX, RS-centre.  Wharfedale diamond 10 x 4 atmos.

Chord Qutest DAC

Technics 1210 mk3d  x 2

Audirvana 3.5 + Studio Ryzen 5 - 4500 Windows 10.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

All right, I've got Google here ... what do I feed it, to find " Infact he proves how people are actually wrong when they think a DAc sounds brighter, clearer etc when it actually doesnt"?

Im not your personal secretary but Im sure if you were to look properly instead of a smarty pant reply you'll find it in no time 👍

Roksan Kandy K3 Integrated Amp, Roksan Kandy K3 Power Amp.  Denon AVC-X6500H 11.2 AVR

PMC Twenty 24,  SVS PB2000 x2 Subwoofers,  Monitor Audio RS8, RX-FX, RS-centre.  Wharfedale diamond 10 x 4 atmos.

Chord Qutest DAC

Technics 1210 mk3d  x 2

Audirvana 3.5 + Studio Ryzen 5 - 4500 Windows 10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

my blog

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Thank you for being helpful ...

Thank you for your poor sarcasm. 

Roksan Kandy K3 Integrated Amp, Roksan Kandy K3 Power Amp.  Denon AVC-X6500H 11.2 AVR

PMC Twenty 24,  SVS PB2000 x2 Subwoofers,  Monitor Audio RS8, RX-FX, RS-centre.  Wharfedale diamond 10 x 4 atmos.

Chord Qutest DAC

Technics 1210 mk3d  x 2

Audirvana 3.5 + Studio Ryzen 5 - 4500 Windows 10.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hopkins said:

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

 

Anyone who has little trouble distinguishing a situation of conventional quality audio playback from the "real thing" will appreciate what a competent system brings to the table - the fact that the latter is still far too rare is a sad indicator of the state of the industry; largely caused by the lack of decent research into the sensitivity of the ear/brain to disturbing anomalies. And has led to the appalling SQ of most sound reinforcement setups - people are so used to the terribleness of the general standard that they actually expect that this is "how it should sound!" ... help !!!

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That’s a rich statement in many ways 🙂

Hahahaha Very true 😆, although I suppose it depends what side your bread is buttered.  I suspect Google  is more of an associate to most and an un wanted friend to many others. 😆

Roksan Kandy K3 Integrated Amp, Roksan Kandy K3 Power Amp.  Denon AVC-X6500H 11.2 AVR

PMC Twenty 24,  SVS PB2000 x2 Subwoofers,  Monitor Audio RS8, RX-FX, RS-centre.  Wharfedale diamond 10 x 4 atmos.

Chord Qutest DAC

Technics 1210 mk3d  x 2

Audirvana 3.5 + Studio Ryzen 5 - 4500 Windows 10.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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.  He also touches on Galvanic Isolation in relation to cutting USB noise.

 

If I like the sound better, then it's better. End of story.

I can be fooled for a little while, but extended listening will tell the truth.

“The best sounding audio product is the one that exhibits the least audible flaws.”

 Dr. Floyd Toole

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

If I like the sound better, then it's better. End of story.

I can be fooled for a little while, but extended listening will tell the truth.

Cool, does that mean you wont be commenting anymore then?  Nice one

Roksan Kandy K3 Integrated Amp, Roksan Kandy K3 Power Amp.  Denon AVC-X6500H 11.2 AVR

PMC Twenty 24,  SVS PB2000 x2 Subwoofers,  Monitor Audio RS8, RX-FX, RS-centre.  Wharfedale diamond 10 x 4 atmos.

Chord Qutest DAC

Technics 1210 mk3d  x 2

Audirvana 3.5 + Studio Ryzen 5 - 4500 Windows 10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take a step back guys. We all have much more in common than we think and are here because we enjoy this wonderful hobby. There's no need to "win" an argument or "score" points in a forum thread. What we all said two pages ago has long been forgotten for everyone because our lives are so busy and filled with other things. It's the good stuff and the helpful posts that people remember and bookmark here on AS. 

 

Let's get on with the business of having fun and enjoying this hobby even more than we already do. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BassFace said:

 

Got to question this.  Room is probably the biggest factor and you seem to be dismissing this, leading me to think you dont really know what you are on about...

 

 

Not with headphones 😉. Frank, well he like to challenge things....

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

First of all he is an independent design consultant, and not employee of Chord. Have been for very long time :D.

 

Second of all he have never said that the sound can't be bright. The truth is he often says that if the DAC and source sound bright it's because of RFI (which btw is his SQ enemy number 1). Rob even state that if a digital sounds more detailed and brighter it's because of noise and we should seek a smooth and darker sound. 

I didnt say he was an employee, i simply stated the info for the purpose of someone searching it online, even then they expected me to do it for them.  Secondly thats the same thing I was trying to explain but thought its much better to point in the right direction for someone else.  Im sure your aware of the near 300 page if not more topic on another site where he regularly answers all question put too him. He explains to folk that what they perceive as bright or airy when changing power supply's is actually signal degradtion not better sound. Im merely repeating what he has said himself.

Roksan Kandy K3 Integrated Amp, Roksan Kandy K3 Power Amp.  Denon AVC-X6500H 11.2 AVR

PMC Twenty 24,  SVS PB2000 x2 Subwoofers,  Monitor Audio RS8, RX-FX, RS-centre.  Wharfedale diamond 10 x 4 atmos.

Chord Qutest DAC

Technics 1210 mk3d  x 2

Audirvana 3.5 + Studio Ryzen 5 - 4500 Windows 10.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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" audiophile blog.

Free The Music - No MQA!  :nomqa:

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

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.

Nothing about the term blind testing demands short term listening.

 

47 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I have faith in my extended listening method ahead of any third party, manufacturer, blogger, reviewer or audiophile.

Great, but then you are just one of the group of audiophiles that denies (against all scientific knowledge of human perception) that expectation bias matters. Sighted listening=expectation bias. And in spite of what many think  expectation biases are not conscious. You have zero ability to know what your actual biases are. 

 

And btw, all speakers have technical compromises. 

 

Your speaker anecdote: means you picked the speakers you preferred, like we all do. It has zero to do with what I wrote. People have different tastes in speakers, and what sounds good  or "like the real thing" or "musical" to one doesn't to another. And that isn't connected to measurements and accuracy per se, it's because we have different ideas in our heads about how it's "supposed to" sound. Personal taste. 

 

The speaker price difference isn't relevant in either direction. And we don't know about the measurements of the two speakers, anyway. Your implied assumption that the more expensive speaker measures better yet sounds worse, is just an assumption.

 

In unsighted speaker listening tests, (see Harman) people generally prefer the same speakers when comparing, and not necessarily the more expensive ones. Those same listeners tended to pick different speakers when the listening was sighted and when sighted were heavily prejudiced towards larger, more expensive, more famous, etc. Whatever "is accepted" as better. 

https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/ is one link I found just now, that reflects some of their research. And the listeners in the link mentioned were experienced listeners.

 

That's exactly why "I trust my ears" (re: sighted listening) is deceptive.

 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...