Sendler: That's not the issue- perhaps these changes are audible, I have no idea, nor does anyone else. But the usual suspects are trying to drag the thread OT and I suggest that we not feed the trolls. There's a jitter reduction or there's not. There's a difference in the analog output or there's not. Let's measure and find out.
John was kind/brave enough to send me one of his units, so we can go beyond useless bickering and deal with facts. I'm back home tomorrow, and have all day Saturday set aside for analog measurements and a bit of listening. That will delay the Bybee writeup, but I suspect there will be more to talk about here than with those bits of snake oil, so I'm prioritizing appropriately.
John was kind/brave enough to send me one of his units, so we can go beyond useless bickering and deal with facts. I'm back home tomorrow, and have all day Saturday set aside for analog measurements and a bit of listening. That will delay the Bybee writeup, but I suspect there will be more to talk about here than with those bits of snake oil, so I'm prioritizing appropriately.
Sy,
I hope your kit is good enough to measure jitter.
I use an AP2 for that, it is pretty good, but measuring below 100ps is not easy.
And of course the DAC makes a big difference (SPDIF input circuit as well receiver and power-supplies) so you should perhaps try more than one.
Also, make sure you do not introduce any ground loops (as you will include a computer in the set-up) the "grass" growing in the FFT's from groundloops can very much obscure what you are trying to see with even just a minor groundloop.
If you need help interpreting J-Test results etc, I am getting quite good at that lately. A single sideband at -110dB is about 200ps peak-peak Peak peak jitter is cumulative. Audibility should be considered using weighting, similar to weighting for HD, though not according to the same exact principle of course.
If you do bother with blind listening tests (see my comments before) please make sure to use a large enough group of peoples to make the result meaningful.
Ciao T
I hope your kit is good enough to measure jitter.
I use an AP2 for that, it is pretty good, but measuring below 100ps is not easy.
And of course the DAC makes a big difference (SPDIF input circuit as well receiver and power-supplies) so you should perhaps try more than one.
Also, make sure you do not introduce any ground loops (as you will include a computer in the set-up) the "grass" growing in the FFT's from groundloops can very much obscure what you are trying to see with even just a minor groundloop.
If you need help interpreting J-Test results etc, I am getting quite good at that lately. A single sideband at -110dB is about 200ps peak-peak Peak peak jitter is cumulative. Audibility should be considered using weighting, similar to weighting for HD, though not according to the same exact principle of course.
If you do bother with blind listening tests (see my comments before) please make sure to use a large enough group of peoples to make the result meaningful.
Ciao T
It is indeed too bad that personal arguments spring up in these circumstances, but the way to avoid such occurrences is for people to be a lot more circumspect in the way in which they report their experiences and the significance they attribute to them. It would help, as well, if they did not defend their assertions with such absolute conviction. An element of self-doubt would go a long way towards conveying that they are accessible to reason and the possibility of an admission of error.
Let me make my own assertions and corresponding admissions.
I think it highly unlikely that SY will discover any measurable or audible difference as a result of jkeny's modifications.
I think it highly unlikely that there will be any measurable difference.
I think it highly unlikely that should there prove to be any measurable difference that it will be audible.
I think it highly unlikely that should there prove to be any audible difference that it will be beneficial. This, however, is much more difficult to demonstrate, and I really only mention it for completeness.
In any of these conjectures I could be wrong.
For myself, there is not the slightest possibility of my refusing to acknowledge phenomena which are verified by repeatable test, be it instrumented or experiential.
What really bothers me is that anyone should be advancing claims without any independent verification, be it only instrumented measurement undertaken by themselves. Build this or buy that are not recommendations anyone should be making before independent verification (except perhaps in comparatively trivial cases). The proper course would have been for jkeny to have asked SY (or someone) to independently verify the validity of his claims before putting them on the market. This does NOT mean asking a few friends if they 'think it sounds better now'.
This is not a ball on a vacuum cleaner where the effect is immediately obvious to anyone, and anyone claiming sufficient expertise in audio electronics to originate modifications should know that.
When the originators of unproven modifications or other parties start to abuse me for taking this point of view, I will respond in kind.
jkeny has belatedly submitted his modifications for external examination, and for this, at least, I am grateful.
ThorstenL, your attitude toward SY is mean-spirited and uncalled-for.
'I hope your kit is good enough to measure jitter.'
It's perfectly obvious to the rest of us that what you hope and believe and the meaning which you intend to convey is the exact opposite.
Try and conjure up some crumb of true generosity.
w
Let me make my own assertions and corresponding admissions.
I think it highly unlikely that SY will discover any measurable or audible difference as a result of jkeny's modifications.
I think it highly unlikely that there will be any measurable difference.
I think it highly unlikely that should there prove to be any measurable difference that it will be audible.
I think it highly unlikely that should there prove to be any audible difference that it will be beneficial. This, however, is much more difficult to demonstrate, and I really only mention it for completeness.
In any of these conjectures I could be wrong.
For myself, there is not the slightest possibility of my refusing to acknowledge phenomena which are verified by repeatable test, be it instrumented or experiential.
What really bothers me is that anyone should be advancing claims without any independent verification, be it only instrumented measurement undertaken by themselves. Build this or buy that are not recommendations anyone should be making before independent verification (except perhaps in comparatively trivial cases). The proper course would have been for jkeny to have asked SY (or someone) to independently verify the validity of his claims before putting them on the market. This does NOT mean asking a few friends if they 'think it sounds better now'.
This is not a ball on a vacuum cleaner where the effect is immediately obvious to anyone, and anyone claiming sufficient expertise in audio electronics to originate modifications should know that.
When the originators of unproven modifications or other parties start to abuse me for taking this point of view, I will respond in kind.
jkeny has belatedly submitted his modifications for external examination, and for this, at least, I am grateful.
ThorstenL, your attitude toward SY is mean-spirited and uncalled-for.
'I hope your kit is good enough to measure jitter.'
It's perfectly obvious to the rest of us that what you hope and believe and the meaning which you intend to convey is the exact opposite.
Try and conjure up some crumb of true generosity.
w
Last edited:
Sorry,Sy but this is a bit arrogant - you are not the arbiter of whether the changes are audible by others with different systems - you have already stated this yourself.
I have shown plots of a difference in the digital signal output form two independent sources (not me - I have my own) - whether this translates into a reduction in jitter is to be measured. I have explained why I believe it is. So far these are the only measurements in this thread. I have stated that over 70 people have reported to me that the sound of the modified Hiface is noticeably & unmistakeably better than the stock Hiface. They have also reported here & elsewhere that the attenuators make a difference to the sound. As Sendler has said, why does it cause such a reaction?
Sy, It does sound from the above that you are intending to measure the jitter output so I can understand Thorsten's post & would have voiced the same concerns. As I understand it, you are doing analogue measurements - I asked you in the past about the playback equipment (cables, DAC, amplifier, etc) & it's ability to resolve fine analogue details but maybe we will park this question until you have done your tests. However, you can see the similar considerations being applicable to the analogue measurements as Thorsten has stated for jitter measurements. Actually, I would consider Thorsten's posts here to be helpful & informative (much more so than some other contributions).
Let's say that the measurements you intend to perform are not absolute "facts" - they are limited by your equipment, your experience, etc. So in the same spirit that Waki has stated - let's not make "assertions with such absolute conviction". I could say more about this statement & give examples of his absolutes in this thread but I'll just let it go!
I'm not trying to be contentious - this thread has been subjected to enough of this - just even handed!
Last edited:
That is exactly correct.
Digital cables are RG59. DACs are M-Audio 192 and DCX2496, both of which measure impeccably in the analog domain. Preamp is Heretical, amp is RLD on top, Sunfire 500W mono amps on bottom. Speakers are NHT M3.3 modified as described on my website for biamping, EQ, and crossover simplification. I'm not sure of the relevance of this....
mmm. was going to post a longer reply, but I don't see much point. Maybe a mod could just gather up all the posts from the other "noisy" thread and just dump them in here. Save a lot of keystrokes on a lot of peoples behalf.
Awaiting your measurements with interest SY.
Oh yeah. The jkeny hiface is not like death or taxes. You are completely free to buy or not.
Fran
Awaiting your measurements with interest SY.
Oh yeah. The jkeny hiface is not like death or taxes. You are completely free to buy or not.
Fran
Although Fran didn't state it in his post, you do realise that he has reviewed both the MK1 & MK2 modified Hifaces & compared them to the stock Hiface. His review is here MK1 & MK2. He has also listened to the attenuators with a group of 6 people who unanimously agreed in the improvement in sound. These are not "assertions with such absolute convictions" just reports of what happened!
Sy, the relevance is to ascertain the test set-up as would be expected of any series of measurements! Are you playing the Hiface through the M-Audio 192 for listening or for measuring or both? Similar Q for Behringer?
Sy, the relevance is to ascertain the test set-up as would be expected of any series of measurements! Are you playing the Hiface through the M-Audio 192 for listening or for measuring or both? Similar Q for Behringer?
Last edited:
DACs are M-Audio 192 and DCX2496, both of which measure impeccably in the analog domain. Preamp is Heretical, amp is RLD on top, Sunfire 500W mono amps on bottom. Speakers are NHT M3.3 modified as described on my website for biamping, EQ, and crossover simplification. I'm not sure of the relevance of this....
Certainly its germane what DACs you're proposing to use for any listening tests. While I don't question the measured performance of the DCX I would caution against using it for listening - by all accounts its not particularly transparent. The M-Audio is a PCI card so that can't be relevant to listening to an SPDIF signal.
I'm sorry jkeny, but it seems you truly misunderstand what I'm getting at. Referencing 'a group of 6 people who unanimously agreed in the improvement in sound.' is precisely the kind of uncritical acceptance of impressions formed in uncontrolled circumstances to which I am objecting.
You evidently don't understand how easily such 'evidence' is polluted. I would NEVER offer a statement such as that in support of any case that I was trying to make, because I know that it immediately destroys my credibility with any critical and informed readers, who are the people whose opinions are the ones I most value. It's not just worthless, it's worse than worthless, it just makes you look like a fool, or worse still, a charlatan.
Do yourself a favour.
What do you think the story of Jack and the Beanstalk is about?
It's not about how it's a good idea to exchange the cow for a bunch of beans because there's a good chance they'll grow a giant beanstalk with a giant who you'll be able to kill and steal his gold.
No, it's about 'don't take the things that people tell you at face value', even, I might add, if they seem completely convinced of it themselves.
Have you seen the video referenced in this thread:- http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/176491-think-seeing-what-youre-listening-doesnt-influence-how-sounds.html If you haven't seen the McGurk Effect I challenge you to take a look and come back here with your attitude unchanged.
w
Last edited:
Are you serious? You think that this has any relevance to an inanimate object that you are listening to? Go back & listen to what the effect is about & then come back here & state it's relevance to this thread!
Now answer my question!
Sorry, Waki, what interests of yours are at stake? Please let us know.
Have you revisited the link? What is it's relevance to this thread? I'm all ears
Edit: I see you just posted - do you understand the point of the video? I will let other viewers have a look & get the point of the video themselves!
Have you revisited the link? What is it's relevance to this thread? I'm all ears
Edit: I see you just posted - do you understand the point of the video? I will let other viewers have a look & get the point of the video themselves!
Last edited:
If that video were shown to any number of people without informing them of the trick that was being played on them they would, without exception, report that on some occasions the speaker said 'baa' and on others 'faa'. Unless they were blind of course. Which is why I don't trust listening tests unless there is good evidence that they have been performed 'blind'. QED
w
w
- Status
- Not open for further replies.