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

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

And in spite of what many think  expectation biases are not conscious

 

Absolutely. I have found that there is a lot of reticence from some audiophiles to participate in blind tests as they are convinced they are "objective". My suspicion, however, is that some are simply worried about the outcome. They see it as a stressful situation where they may end up "losing" (what?).

 

[Iving]

52 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Absolutely. I have found that there is a lot of reticence from some audiophiles to participate in blind tests as they are convinced they are "objective". My suspicion, however, is that some are simply worried about the outcome. They see it as a stressful situation where they may end up "losing" (what?).

 

I'd happily sit blind tests. For the hell of it. For fun. And to see what I could learn.

 

We'd need an impartial experimenter who wouldn't misinterpret the results. Especially if she or he held that any performance failure on my part, in laboratory conditions, could be taken as proof inerrant of no factual difference between conditions (cf. knowledge, familiarity, training, practice). Or proof inerrant that I might not succeed also in "field" conditions (domestic, my system, my music, my control over my mental and emotional state). Or proof inerrant that I couldn't hear the kinds of SQ deltas I thought I could, tweaking this and that, just because I failed to pass a test at p<0.05 when experimental control (= good) had reduced the non-criterion factors under test to one or two at most. We'd need to take into account the extent to which the equipment and its assembly and its power source were unfamiliar to me - that's one heck of a set of nuisance variables right there. We'd need listening and evaluation test conditions that as closely as possible (i.e. subject to isolation of independent variables) mapped to what I do when I think I can hear a difference.

 

That is - an experimenter who understood the logic behind probability and weight of evidence.

 

We'd need to concur about the design of the test so that we could concur equally about the interpretation of its results.

 

We'd need to make sure that undue influence (especially of the social kind) had been ruled out. Let alone, of course, any financial incentive either way.

 

My travel and subsistence costs excepted ... assuming a non-domestic design satisfying the curiosity and pre-requisites of all parties.

[audiobomber]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

Nothing about the term blind testing demands short term listening.

 

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.

 

I know that blind testing does not demand short-term listening tests, but I've never heard of a long-term blind test. Harman didn't have the employees come in for a week or two, and listen to more than four songs. How does a group listen in the sweet spot, where soundstage is revealed? The subjects were Harman employees but were they audiophiles? What about the pressure of choosing a non-Harman product in the presence of management? Kind of daunting, I bet.

 

I'm sure a DBT expert could pick out another dozen or two flaws in this testing method. This type of test, which is commonly held out as a standard is hopeless for audio. Sure, they found some evidence of expectation bias, but not everyone is subject to expectation bias, and not all the time. I have several personal examples of times where I've preferred the sound of less prestigious gear. To repeat, I only trust long-term listening in my system.

 

My speaker example was on point. Full-range drivers are invariably technically inferior due to beaming and polar response. Amir would crap on them, and his followers would pile on. Of this I have no doubt.

[kumakuma]

12 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I know that blind testing does not demand short-term listening tests, but I've never heard of a long-term blind test. Harman didn't have the employees come in for a week or two, and listen to more than four songs. How does a group listen in the sweet spot, where soundstage is revealed? The subjects were Harman employees but were they audiophiles? What about the pressure of choosing a non-Harman product in the presence of management? Kind of daunting, I bet.

 

I'm sure a DBT expert could pick out another dozen or two flaws in this testing method. This type of test, which is commonly held out as a standard is hopeless for audio. Sure, they found some evidence of expectation bias, but not everyone is subject to expectation bias, and not all the time. I have several personal examples of times where I've preferred the sound of less prestigious gear. To repeat, I only trust long-term listening in my system.

 

The tests at Harman were designed by the same Dr. Floyd Toole that is quoted in your signature.

 

Have you actually read his book or did you simply use this quote because it happened to support your biases?  

[audiobomber]

I respect Dr. Toole. For several years, I owned one of first speakers he helped design at the NRC. That doesn't mean I have to like everything he said. I like the quote because I believe it to be true. We may disagree on what constitutes an audible flaw. 

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I respect Dr. Toole. For several years, I owned one of first speakers he helped design at the NRC. That doesn't mean I have to like everything he said. I like the quote because I believe it to be true. We may disagree on what constitutes an audible flaw. 

 

You should read his book. It may change your mind about a few things...

[fas42]

3 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Absolutely. I have found that there is a lot of reticence from some audiophiles to participate in blind tests as they are convinced they are "objective". My suspicion, however, is that some are simply worried about the outcome. They see it as a stressful situation where they may end up "losing" (what?).

 

 

The confounders are a big problem in any of these sorts of things in audio - you're supposed to be assessing the value of some variable; but another non-varying characteristic is screaming at you - and "masks" what which you are meant to be influenced by.

 

An obvious one for me: with and without 'perfect' FR correction using a DEQX unit - the other, obvious flaws of the playback rig were shouting at me; and completely dominated the experience. As some say 😁, pick the low hanging fruit first; then worry about the stuff at the top of the tree later ...

[MaxBuck]

19 hours ago, audiobomber said:

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?

I dunno. My Modi sounds great. Hard to imagine the Yggdrasil sounding better (if by "better" one means "more accurate"). But YMMV.

 

Saying measurements such as those conducted by Amir at ASR are a "joke" isn't a good look IMO. But again, YMMV.

[BassFace]

10 hours ago, Iving said:

 

I'd happily sit blind tests. For the hell of it. For fun. And to see what I could learn.

 

We'd need an impartial experimenter who wouldn't misinterpret the results. Especially if she or he held that any performance failure on my part, in laboratory conditions, could be taken as proof inerrant of no factual difference between conditions (cf. knowledge, familiarity, training, practice). Or proof inerrant that I might not succeed also in "field" conditions (domestic, my system, my music, my control over my mental and emotional state). Or proof inerrant that I couldn't hear the kinds of SQ deltas I thought I could, tweaking this and that, just because I failed to pass a test at p<0.05 when experimental control (= good) had reduced the non-criterion factors under test to one or two at most. We'd need to take into account the extent to which the equipment and its assembly and its power source were unfamiliar to me - that's one heck of a set of nuisance variables right there. We'd need listening and evaluation test conditions that as closely as possible (i.e. subject to isolation of independent variables) mapped to what I do when I think I can hear a difference.

 

That is - an experimenter who understood the logic behind probability and weight of evidence.

 

We'd need to concur about the design of the test so that we could concur equally about the interpretation of its results.

 

We'd need to make sure that undue influence (especially of the social kind) had been ruled out. Let alone, of course, any financial incentive either way.

 

My travel and subsistence costs excepted ... assuming a non-domestic design satisfying the curiosity and pre-requisites of all parties.

I would happily sit and do one also.  Infact Ive always wanted to try with a large selection and the ability to do instant blind A/B switching.  

[BassFace]

14 hours ago, 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.  

With all due respect you tried an old and small model from their range and still it all boils down to personal preference. Maybe you could try a pair of PMC BB5 XBD Active or something in that range before you make a rash decision. 100's, literally hundreds of some of the biggest selling albums have been produced mastered etc on them.  I think youll struggle to find a brand that has so many accolades from hugely respected artists/  studios from around the world.  Try a pair of them then you might be getting close to how it should should . Once again it seems people like to judge only the  things they listened too

 

[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.

[BassFace]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

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

Ive no idea what that means. I may not own a set myself (due to personal budget constraints)  but can certainly say Ive heard them.

[audiobomber]

7 hours ago, BassFace said:

With all due respect you tried an old and small model from their range and still it all boils down to personal preference. Maybe you could try a pair of PMC BB5 XBD Active or something in that range before you make a rash decision. 100's, literally hundreds of some of the biggest selling albums have been produced mastered etc on them.  I think youll struggle to find a brand that has so many accolades from hugely respected artists/  studios from around the world.  Try a pair of them then you might be getting close to how it should should . Once again it seems people like to judge only the  things they listened too

 

The DB1 Gold is a current PMC offering.

https://pmc-speakers.com/products/consumer/gold-series/db1-gold

 

Furthermore, I made no comment on any other PMC model, nor PMC in general, so I don't see what you are protesting. Have you compared a DB1 Gold to any other speakers? 

 

I am aware that PMC is well respected by audiophiles and the pro market. I believe the DB1 Gold would be fine in some systems, but IMO it is seriously overpriced.

 

BTW, pros have different needs than audiophiles. They need to master for everyone, not just themselves. The Yamaha NS-10 was used in mastering for decades. That doesn't mean I should like them or use them at home.

[BassFace]

10 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

The DB1 Gold is a current PMC offering.

https://pmc-speakers.com/products/consumer/gold-series/db1-gold

 

Furthermore, I made no comment on any other PMC model, nor PMC in general, so I don't see what you are protesting. Have you compared a DB1 Gold to any other speakers? 

 

I am aware that PMC is well respected by audiophiles and the pro market. I believe the DB1 Gold would  be a fine choice in some systems, but IMO it is seriously overpriced.

My mistake however the DB1 has been going since 2002 so easily done. Some one else mentioned it and I thought you were joining in but obviously not.  The price is irrelevant in all honest and is one of the cheapest that they produce. 

[BassFace]

18 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

The DB1 Gold is a current PMC offering.

https://pmc-speakers.com/products/consumer/gold-series/db1-gold

 

Furthermore, I made no comment on any other PMC model, nor PMC in general, so I don't see what you are protesting. Have you compared a DB1 Gold to any other speakers? 

 

I am aware that PMC is well respected by audiophiles and the pro market. I believe the DB1 Gold would be fine in some systems, but IMO it is seriously overpriced.

 

BTW, pros have different needs than audiophiles. They need to master for everyone, not just themselves. The Yamaha NS-10 was used in mastering for decades. That doesn't mean I should like them or use them at home.

The Yamaha is awful. Truely awful hence the cheap price and miss use over the years.   My point stands in regards proper decent models like the BB5/BB6.   Get yourself a set of them, a half decent room and your half way there 2 hearing what you are supposed to. What they wanted the track to sound like. Then you can get your other speakers that you Love and find out they actually sound nothing like the really should although you still like them.  I fully understand peoples different tastes opinions but its a good reference in a world of few.  And BTW i dont need any info on Pro v Audiophile thanks other than no wonder Pros turn off in our droves on sites like these.  That previous video of Harry Enfield sums it up in a nut shell. 👍

[fas42]

The pro market is certainly different ... some years ago I did an exercise of spending the day going to every pro shop in Sydney, and listening to every model that people would call near field units - irrespective of cost. They were almost universally awful, and tended to fall apart as soon as some volume was called for - umm, any engineering done on these, boys ... ? 😉

 

The best performer on the day were almost the cheapest, a Behringer model - it actually had a good measure of clarity and detail in the sound; something most of the others could only dream of 🙂 .. so I bought them ...

[BassFace]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

The pro market is certainly different ... some years ago I did an exercise of spending the day going to every pro shop in Sydney, and listening to every model that people would call near field units - irrespective of cost. They were almost universally awful, and tended to fall apart as soon as some volume was called for - umm, any engineering done on these, boys ... ? 😉

 

The best performer on the day were almost the cheapest, a Behringer model - it actually had a good measure of clarity and detail in the sound; something most of the others could only dream of 🙂 .. so I bought them ...

With all due respect your talking about budget speakers.(Again).  I can take a guess that what you think or consider pro is bottom of the range.  I very much doubt you were able to go round every (Pretend Pro Shop) in Sydney and listen to all models irrespective of cost.   The fact you mention the Behringer would also suggest youve never actually listened to good pro monitors only the usual commercially readily available speakers in the usual City music stores.  My point stands, your still listening to poor bottom of the budget speakers. Like ive repeatedly said. Try listening to some decent models.   For you to ague the point then quote " The best performer on the day were almost the cheapest, a Behringer model - it actually had a good measure of clarity and detail in the sound; something most of the others could only dream of 🙂 .. so I bought them ..."  Is laughable,  sorry if your offended but its true.   You have no idea is my guess for the 2nd time.

 

[BassFace]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

The pro market is certainly different ... some years ago I did an exercise of spending the day going to every pro shop in Sydney, and listening to every model that people would call near field units - irrespective of cost. They were almost universally awful, and tended to fall apart as soon as some volume was called for - umm, any engineering done on these, boys ... ? 😉

 

The best performer on the day were almost the cheapest, a Behringer model - it actually had a good measure of clarity and detail in the sound; something most of the others could only dream of 🙂 .. so I bought them ...

Have you ever listened to some Ex Machina? Genelic 1238's?  Nuemann KH420?  PMC BB6S XBD-A?   Strauus Elektroakustik?  Adam S5V? ATC SCM models?  All used regularly and highly respected.   Slightly better than the Behringers and Classic Bedroom KRK Rokits that I think and suspect your confusing for Pro one might say.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

On 7/20/2021 at 6:39 PM, audiobomber said:

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

 

While I agree with the conclusion, it is very possible that a 200$ DAC may sound just as good as a 2000$ DAC, or to be more precise, that neither will offer "high fidelity" (for different reasons). They may offer their own slightly different distorted version of a recording. 

 

People like AMR and Archimago have jumped in to this to offer "distressed" and "confused" audiophiles a way to discriminate between products based on a set of measurements.  We have talked about the limitations of their approach and challenged their premises. 

 

We could also blame "professional" reviewers who have proven incapable of offering useful advice and "clarity" in this big mess that is digital audio today. 

[Iving]

16 hours ago, BassFace said:

no wonder Pros turn off in our droves on sites like these.  That previous video of Harry Enfield sums it up in a nut shell. 👍

 

An interesting reflection. Actually, the target of the "Only me!" jibe is a "Pro" - in business as a manufacturer if I'm not mistaken. I have Pro Audio gear (RedNet/DAC) and like to visit gearslutz and the like occasionally. Truly, you get just as many "Only me!"s on those Forums, and the threads are just as prone to disagreement and flaming. Audiophile Style is a very civilised place as hobby Forums go. My impression is that the difference is mainly one of implicit agenda. Whereas we hobbyists account to our own hedonistic prerogatives, the piper calling the tune on Pro Forums - on, but especially between the lines - is employment/making a living etc. Hence a mighty cultural divide. You don't often see professionals mixing socially with their customers! Sure - you hear about the medic and the patient striking up a royal friendship - but it's not the norm.

[BassFace]

7 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

That's an interesting reflection. Actually the target of the "Only me!" jibe is a "pro" - in business as a manufacturer if I'm not mistaken. I have Pro Audio gear (RedNet/DAC) and like to visit gearslutz and the like occasionally. Truly, you get just as many "Only me!"s on those Forums, and they are just as prone to diasagreement and flaming. Audiophile Style actually is a very civilised place as hobby Forums go. My impression is that the difference is mainly one of agenda. Whereas we hobbyists account to our own hedonistic ways, the piper calling the tune on Pro Forums - on, but especially between the lines - is employment/self-employment/making a living etc. Hence a mighty cultural divide.

Surely its occurred to you people do both.   Pro's can be Audiophiles also.   Isnt a Pro and Audiophile after all? Both strive for the best sound dont they.....................   Its been clear for years the snobbery between both Factions

[fas42]

1 hour ago, BassFace said:

Have you ever listened to some Ex Machina? Genelic 1238's?  Nuemann KH420?  PMC BB6S XBD-A?   Strauus Elektroakustik?  Adam S5V? ATC SCM models?  All used regularly and highly respected.   Slightly better than the Behringers and Classic Bedroom KRK Rokits that I think and suspect your confusing for Pro one might say.

 

I'm sure that there are models, especially now,  that would do better, much better, than what I heard on that day - interestingly, a pretty expensive Mackie - not sure the model now - blew one channel while we were auditioning - not very reassuring, 🙂. I was curious whether the actives of the day would show up conventional hifi stuff, as many suggest - but it appears that one has to venture into the pricey gear to obtain credible results.

[Iving]

4 minutes ago, BassFace said:

Factions

 

lol - yeah s'pose so

[BassFace]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm sure that there are models, especially now,  that would do better, much better, than what I heard on that day - interestingly, a pretty expensive Mackie - not sure the model now - blew one channel while we were auditioning - not very reassuring, 🙂. I was curious whether the actives of the day would show up conventional hifi stuff, as many suggest - but it appears that one has to venture into the pricey gear to obtain credible results.

Mackies are not considered decent just to inform you. Cheap Party/PA's at best  same with their bargain basement (i use the term loosely) montiors.   My point still stands, they are not good equipment.  Cheap Budget at best. So how on earth you can draw any kind of reference or opinion from that baffles me.  Like I said, from what youve said all youve ever tried is cheap commercially available bedroom stuff.   

[opus101]

18 minutes ago, Iving said:

 I have Pro Audio gear (RedNet/DAC) and like to visit gearslutz and the like occasionally.

 

I guess you've not been there very recently as its had a name 'cleanse' to make it more thoroughly PC. Its new, fully-approved name is 'gearspace'.