hi John. I'd suggest that you follow through on the externally arranged listening tests. Its a no-loss situation for you (especially if its done for free or next to as a part of a student's studies).
If a difference is detected and further testing identifies that users find the audio better using HiFace and/or attenuators, that's a major coup and a pathway to success (and not a little bragging rights).
At worst, the result would be equivocal - maybe, maybe not, not statistically significant. This places you in a situation no worse than at present and wit ha lot of experience and learning under your belt.
The test CANNOT prove "no difference" so you are indemnified against that risk!
The technical side is to some extent irrelevant as long as the listening tests come through for you.
Your call.
If a difference is detected and further testing identifies that users find the audio better using HiFace and/or attenuators, that's a major coup and a pathway to success (and not a little bragging rights).
At worst, the result would be equivocal - maybe, maybe not, not statistically significant. This places you in a situation no worse than at present and wit ha lot of experience and learning under your belt.
The test CANNOT prove "no difference" so you are indemnified against that risk!
The technical side is to some extent irrelevant as long as the listening tests come through for you.
Your call.
This might sound arrogant but I know the attenuators work - what I'm giving up is participation in this charade - a pretence that there is a search for the truth of the matter. I know it's maybe hard for some to accept anecdotal claims but all that is needed is that they buy one & try it for themselves, in a fair & open minded way i.e use some decent playback system - try to avoid ASRC DACsi.e don't try to hijack the test for a certain outcome.
It's not a battle to be won, it's a chance for personal integrity & being true to oneself. This might sound a bit flowery but I believe that's what's really missing in this thread & why I'm gone. Some of you may wonder why it has taken me so long? Finally, let me say I have learned a lot - but not about the attenuators or Hiface!
I wish you all the best with your tests.
It's not a battle to be won, it's a chance for personal integrity & being true to oneself. This might sound a bit flowery but I believe that's what's really missing in this thread & why I'm gone. Some of you may wonder why it has taken me so long? Finally, let me say I have learned a lot - but not about the attenuators or Hiface!
I wish you all the best with your tests.
Last edited:
So because the test results don't fit your desires then they are wrong or the testers have no integrity? That seems insulting. There is NO possibility that you could be wrong? You don't even want to put it to a controlled listening test? Anecdotes are all that is needed? Wow. 
See my Mythbusters post one page back.
See my Mythbusters post one page back.
Hard to leaveSo because the test results don't fit your desires then they are wrong or the testers have no integrity? That seems insulting. There is NO possibility that you could be wrong? You don't even want to put it to a controlled listening test? Anecdotes are all that is needed? Wow.
See my Mythbusters post one page back.
But this is exactly the type of hopeless, tit for tat, energy sapping, that I'm walking away from but not before I clear up again that what I'm saying is, it's a vain exercise to try to do these controlled listening tests as there is a lack of integrity here & whatever test are put forth (especially by me) they won't be accepted. I'm not interested in wasting my time on this anymore but these tests can be performed without me so I don't see my leaving as any sort of impediment to those who are interested in investigating it further.Pano, as I said to AardV, I suggest the best you can do is try one yourself & see if there is any worth in staying in this thread - I would respect you more if you did this. You were the very one who said in my other thread when you closed it, that I wouldn't produce the Hiface for testing (as I wasn't interested in results) & it was SY who volunteered to do the testing. It was not Sy doing me a favour as was stated.
My motivation for offering the devices for testing was partly to answer your accusation & also because I trusted that some attempt at a genuine test would be performed. I have since learned that not to be the case. So please continue with your tests or not - don't use me as an excuse for not doing so if you are genuinely interested in these devices. Of course if you were genuinely interested you would have tried them yourself!
I'm really not interested in trying to convince you when the answer, if you really want to find it, is simple - buy one, try it.
Last edited:
Wrong and wrong, I'm afraid.
You also seem miffed that I closed the previous thread. Mods rarely (if ever) close threads for technical reasons, but for reasons of conflict or a thread having run its course. That's how the forum works. Please see THE RULES.
You seem to believe it was not. Is that because it didn't show the results you wanted? What if it had? Would the same test have been "genuine" then? Just because you don't like the results, don't call the attempt ingenuous. I repeatedly asked for an example of a better test, no one provided one - only talk about one. Why? We might all learn something from a better example.
I offered, you declined. What more can I do?
You also seem miffed that I closed the previous thread. Mods rarely (if ever) close threads for technical reasons, but for reasons of conflict or a thread having run its course. That's how the forum works. Please see THE RULES.
Surely you mean disingenuous? And no if the test is wrong, it's wrong, doesn't matter what the results are. You ignore all posts that point to how wrong this test is & again it's this refusal to deal with issues with equanimity that is the reason why I'm leaving - instead you guys are more interested in point scoring
You don't need me - buy an RF attenuator yourself & try it - I don't know what you're talking about?
I'm not miffed, just explaining my motivation for offering these devices for "testing"
Hard to leave
Not true John - both waki and I have given informed and positive suggestions for a protocol or a way of getting a protocol that would ensure a fair and balanced listening assessment. To imply that your suggestions for listening tests were derided because they came from you is not true - they were derided because that lacked even the slightest degree of scientific integrity.
Here's the problem in that one John - you are asking people to subscribe to a test methodology they don't believe in. There is no way I would "trust my ears" wholely and solely. I know enough about both my personal hearing (not great) and the human propensity for self-delusion. I know what I like, but I have no way of knowing if its the same from day to day, or even recording to recording.
I've got a better answer - send me one. If it works, I'll pay you! JK...
I'm not talking about my listening tests being derided - I wish you guys all the best with continuing this - I just don't care to go to these lengths to prove something that takes $12 & a couple of minutes to decide yourself. This is the lackof integrity I'm talking about
Look if you can't trust your ears & you can definitely tell that there is a sonic improvement what is a test going to do for you? Is it going to tell you that you were wrong & that you will now hear it. This is complete nonsense & comes from somebody who can't make up their own mind. I mean it's the whole point of this hobby, to listen & enjoy, jeez. As was pointed out many times this sonic difference is not subtle so it's not a question of "am I fooling myself"
You are joking, aren't you - send you a $12 device from Ireland? You buy a 15dB one from minicircuits & if you don't find it works, I'll organise to have it bought from you, how about that? here's the minicircuits webpage for distributors http://www.minicircuits.com/pages/irep.html#australiaI've got a better answer - send me one. If it works, I'll pay you! JK...
here's your local Oz distributor http://www.clarke.com.au/. They cost AU$15 each
Last edited:
sorry - entire post was more in reference to the HiFace debate than attenuators.
I can tell myself and you that I hear a difference - that isn't in doubt. The doubt (and its entirely reasonable) is whether i DO hear a difference, or just think I do.
Now, if I am noodling around for my own benefit, that doesn't really matter, especially if the cost is very low. But even so, where does that leave me?
It leaves me with the mistaken belief that I can rely entirely on my hearing to assess relatively what are actually fine differences of sound. The sad fact is that the evidence is to the contrary.
I can't. Neither can you, or Dave or anyone else. Regardless of how honestly and fervently we believe we can.
Unlike some, I actually endorse listening tests rather than technical measurement. It is, after all, where the rubber hits the road. But the test has to be reliable and repeatable and all those boring things. Anything else is just an opinion.
And yeah, I was joking about sending one for free, but I hope you got my drift. It seems you have confidence in the device and the certainty of hearing a difference, so why would my offer not be as reasonable as asking me to buy one to suck it and see?
Cheers to you in any case - its by putting devices like yours into the market that we can all listen, test, assess, debate, challenge, argue and listen again to figure out if it is an improvement or not. Without it, we'd possibly still be scratching steel needles over wax...
I can tell myself and you that I hear a difference - that isn't in doubt. The doubt (and its entirely reasonable) is whether i DO hear a difference, or just think I do.
Now, if I am noodling around for my own benefit, that doesn't really matter, especially if the cost is very low. But even so, where does that leave me?
It leaves me with the mistaken belief that I can rely entirely on my hearing to assess relatively what are actually fine differences of sound. The sad fact is that the evidence is to the contrary.
I can't. Neither can you, or Dave or anyone else. Regardless of how honestly and fervently we believe we can.
Unlike some, I actually endorse listening tests rather than technical measurement. It is, after all, where the rubber hits the road. But the test has to be reliable and repeatable and all those boring things. Anything else is just an opinion.
And yeah, I was joking about sending one for free, but I hope you got my drift. It seems you have confidence in the device and the certainty of hearing a difference, so why would my offer not be as reasonable as asking me to buy one to suck it and see?
Cheers to you in any case - its by putting devices like yours into the market that we can all listen, test, assess, debate, challenge, argue and listen again to figure out if it is an improvement or not. Without it, we'd possibly still be scratching steel needles over wax...
This seems a bit convoluted. What would the second group test?
How about this: play one config (without atten). Call it A. Next make a 'change': either add the atten or not, call that B. Ask the listeners to score whether A=B or not. Repeat that 25 times. See how often they get it right, and you will have an idea whether there is an audible difference. Just make sure it is all double blind. Sounds doable?
jan didden
I've been using a 75R 10db Suhner Attenuator for a few years now since Jocko first hinted about them, for me they bring a subtle increase in sound quality when used with most of my dacs and digital sources. I found it cheap on Ebay so decided to give it a go, it didn't exactly break the bank to give it a try and was easy to remove if I didn't like the results. They still crop up on Ebay sometimes , mine was old stock, I paid something like 4 UKP's for it
A bit late in the day but:
The rise time for the HiFace is very fast, this will be a big cause of it ringing due to increased reflections, is 1nsec required for SPDIF, I dont think so, this is probably why the cheaper unit performs better in some aspects as its rise time is more benign allowing it to transmit the signal with less reflections. A big problem with signal integrity is fast rise times, only use them where they are required as you add problems to your designs etc.
The rise time for the HiFace is very fast, this will be a big cause of it ringing due to increased reflections, is 1nsec required for SPDIF, I dont think so, this is probably why the cheaper unit performs better in some aspects as its rise time is more benign allowing it to transmit the signal with less reflections. A big problem with signal integrity is fast rise times, only use them where they are required as you add problems to your designs etc.
Why do a listening test with groups? That makes things much more complicated. Surely if one person can reliably hear a difference, that establishes audibility. Why not have John volunteer, since he claims that the results are "obvious"? And, not coincidentally, he's selling (and could provide) an interface box that has the high voltage output necessary for the full attenuation treatment.
Hi Guys,
Good Morning, (or whatever
)Can I suggest we all take a deep breath and a few paces backwards from this thread for 24 hours or so and let the dust (and BP) settle.
What we are considering here, IMHO, is whether a $12 item inserted into an audio set up can make a sonic improvement, nothing more and nothing less. We are not trying to push back the frontiers of science and measure something previously agreed to be unmeasurable. Like much in audio it is a matter of personal opinion, which is how it ought to be, otherwise everyone would have exactly the same set up. Imagine how boring that would be.
It seems to me that, with (maybe) one notable exception, anyone who has actually listened to their set up with and without inserting the said item believes that it makes a sonic improvement - I certainly belong to that group. The nay-sayers appear to me to be those who believe that the theory behind this is nonsense and therefore unworthy of serious consideration, let alone trying it for themselves.
So what? - is it of any real consequence in the grand scale of things? - I think not. Anyone able and willing to take advantage(?) of the change will reap the benefits, or not, according to their perception. Anyone dismissing it as nonsensical will miss an opportunity to assess a cheap potential improvement - their loss but not earth shatterig is it?
Let's leave it lie, close the thread and move on to something more productive.
I'm out.
Dave.
Agreed.
Personal opinion? Of course not. Is gravity a 'personal opinion'? There either is an audible difference or there is not. I fail to see how that can be a 'personal opinion'.
jan didden
Hi Sy,
Actually, now you are putting words where I never typed them.
What I did point out was that according to the standard formulas for the FFT noisefloor (which I expect you any other EE in this thread who is worth his or her degree to be familiar with or to know to look up before posting) in a 16 Bit signal without SNR limitations is -137dBfs for 64K FFT Bins.
I pointed out that your plots where rather dramatically short of this and that this difference cannot be accounted for by the DAC's or analog stages in the Behringer and M-Audio equipment (who have noisefloors that are substantially beyond 16 Bit requirements, though fall short of 20 Bit ones, which incidentally the EMU 1616M does not, other than for Jitter, which is why I am recommending it for such measurements).
As your FFT Noisefloor was close to -120...125dBfs (more the first) the resolution of your FFT is equivalent to one for perfect 13...14Bit system and inadequate for testing even 16 Bit Digital Audio, never mind 24Bit, as offered by the HiFace and the DCX.
What I implied in this criticism was that given the performance of the various pieces of gear involved could be only put down to severe problems in test setup, induced for whatever reasons, deliberatly or by mistake.
In fact, the explanation why you attained these severely flawed measurements and knowing the flaws (a degreed EE can be expected to know this, even a technician who worked his way up through the ranks actually can, in fact, a huble repair technican probably can) posted them anyway and continued to defend them after having gently the flaws pointed out to you is actually up to you.
In absence of such from you I guess the readers of this thread are left to make their own minds up on the subject matter. I know what my best guess is.
Ciao T
Actually, now you are putting words where I never typed them.
What I did point out was that according to the standard formulas for the FFT noisefloor (which I expect you any other EE in this thread who is worth his or her degree to be familiar with or to know to look up before posting) in a 16 Bit signal without SNR limitations is -137dBfs for 64K FFT Bins.
I pointed out that your plots where rather dramatically short of this and that this difference cannot be accounted for by the DAC's or analog stages in the Behringer and M-Audio equipment (who have noisefloors that are substantially beyond 16 Bit requirements, though fall short of 20 Bit ones, which incidentally the EMU 1616M does not, other than for Jitter, which is why I am recommending it for such measurements).
As your FFT Noisefloor was close to -120...125dBfs (more the first) the resolution of your FFT is equivalent to one for perfect 13...14Bit system and inadequate for testing even 16 Bit Digital Audio, never mind 24Bit, as offered by the HiFace and the DCX.
What I implied in this criticism was that given the performance of the various pieces of gear involved could be only put down to severe problems in test setup, induced for whatever reasons, deliberatly or by mistake.
In fact, the explanation why you attained these severely flawed measurements and knowing the flaws (a degreed EE can be expected to know this, even a technician who worked his way up through the ranks actually can, in fact, a huble repair technican probably can) posted them anyway and continued to defend them after having gently the flaws pointed out to you is actually up to you.
In absence of such from you I guess the readers of this thread are left to make their own minds up on the subject matter. I know what my best guess is.
Ciao T
When I see the the posts here, I know that all reason & common sense have departed (were probably never here in the first place):
- send a $12 device to NZ from Ireland to try
- how do I know what I'm hearing is real
- build a box that shows the effect
- this is not personal opinion - it's a fundamental force of nature
I'm leaving the asylum in case this is contagious.
Unsubscribed!
- send a $12 device to NZ from Ireland to try
- how do I know what I'm hearing is real
- build a box that shows the effect
- this is not personal opinion - it's a fundamental force of nature
I'm leaving the asylum in case this is contagious.
Unsubscribed!
Last edited:
Demonstrating the existence of any sonic difference is prerequisite to investigations of cause. And depending on setup, there can be all sorts of potential causes, especially because the suggested mod is really only applicable to the Hiface (which "coincidentally" is sold in a reboxed form by John)- attenuating a 0.5V spdif signal by 16dB is merely going to cause most receivers to lose lock. I wouldn't call that sonically beneficial unless the source music is rap or techno.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.