Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nw_avphile
Well that would be one of the most important things in CDP´s.
This is a perfect example of that sinewave THD+N does not tell the whole story, since playing music a lot of crap is created by the jitter. Some seems to believe that simple THD+N number tell a lot about how audiogear sounds, of course this is not true.
BTW, installing a low jitter clock in my SCD-XB940 made a very big improvement and I´m really glad I decided to be openmeinded and try this.
I can assure all of you this;
If all the tests you "nay sayers" are refering to, would be done on a source with low jitter and on speakers with very high resolution (Excel, Accuton) and also in a room with decent control over standing waves and 1st reflections, I´m sure the outcome would be VERY different in most cases.
/Peter
mikek said:
jitter
Well that would be one of the most important things in CDP´s.
This is a perfect example of that sinewave THD+N does not tell the whole story, since playing music a lot of crap is created by the jitter. Some seems to believe that simple THD+N number tell a lot about how audiogear sounds, of course this is not true.
BTW, installing a low jitter clock in my SCD-XB940 made a very big improvement and I´m really glad I decided to be openmeinded and try this.
I can assure all of you this;
If all the tests you "nay sayers" are refering to, would be done on a source with low jitter and on speakers with very high resolution (Excel, Accuton) and also in a room with decent control over standing waves and 1st reflections, I´m sure the outcome would be VERY different in most cases.
/Peter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nw_avphile
I picked the amplification becasue it is very well made, known to be reliable, of very low distortion, doesn't care about load and volume level, looks good to me, and has pretty good resale value.
I also use my small Yamaha A320 regularly and have no illusion whatsoever that Krell is superior in any other way but on impossible loads (e.g. Divas or Scintillas) and very high SPLs on hungry speakers (ATC 100). On benign loads like my i66 and at sane levels noone will tell the difference.
No matter what you, and any other subjectivists will say.
Pan said:
Nice system Bratislav!
I´m sure you can hear difference between lots of low THD gear if you would take the time. Otherwise, how did you chose your electronics???
Bass aborbers and diffusors makes for a good room where carpets only dampens the highest frequencies which leads to a tilted room and power response, still I´m sure you have excellent sound.
Happy listening!
/Peter
I picked the amplification becasue it is very well made, known to be reliable, of very low distortion, doesn't care about load and volume level, looks good to me, and has pretty good resale value.
I also use my small Yamaha A320 regularly and have no illusion whatsoever that Krell is superior in any other way but on impossible loads (e.g. Divas or Scintillas) and very high SPLs on hungry speakers (ATC 100). On benign loads like my i66 and at sane levels noone will tell the difference.
No matter what you, and any other subjectivists will say.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nw_avphile
You seem sure of everything Pan--especially your listening skills, magic ears and awesome system. I'm glad you have so much confidence in yourself and that you're having fun.
Well you just answered your own earlier question to me. Jitter is just one example of a type of distortion that's present in CD players but not in amplifiers.Pan said:
You seem sure of everything Pan--especially your listening skills, magic ears and awesome system. I'm glad you have so much confidence in yourself and that you're having fun.
Final comments part three...
What this thread was originally all about was to encourage those with an open mind (and hopefully some common sense) to try some blind listening for themselves. If you can still hear the difference blind between two amplifiers (or modifications to one amplifier) in your system, great. If you can't, you might want to investigate why not. That's pretty simple.
The intent was to hopefully save some folks some real money and time by letting them focus on the things that DO make a real difference in their system. High-end audio is full of myths, snake oil and traps. Even most of the GoldenEars here have agreed with that much. Blind listening is one tool to help sort through it all and decide what matters to you in your system. Null difference testing can also be extremely valuable.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of psychological bias in conventional listening. It's been proven time and time again to severely distort your view of what you're really hearing. No amount of "listening skill" can remove it completely.
To someone who's participated in a number of blind amplifier tests, people like Pan come across as blissfully unaware. I used to believe much of what he still does. But I now realize how to figure out what really makes a difference and what doesn't. I'm just trying to share some of that knowledge.
I've posted a lot of links to other well referenced information. It's really hard to discredit many of the references so the Alpha GoldenEar Pack here keep trying to discredit me instead. Their aggressive and often impolite attacks only discourage others from participating in this thread and have not been very productive. They've yet to produce a single documented reference supporting their view. Here are some of the links for those who missed them:
http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20020901.htm
http://www.dself.demon.co.uk/subjectv.htm
http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioan...mepage/id5.html
I find it very telling the GoldenEar's choose to either attack me, change the subject, or split hairs on one small detail instead of addressing the real issues at hand. The fact is there's a mountain of objective evidence that supports what I've been trying to say here and there's very little of it on their side.
Is blind testing perfect? Nope. Is it a really valuable addition to the audiophile's set of tools? Yup. Can we measure everything we can hear? I honestly don't know. I do know that null difference testing is really hard to fault as it's sensitive to ANY errors or distortions measured under real operating conditions.
Interestingly, the response to this thread has demonstrated to me that the world clearly needs more education on this subject. I'm thinking of many ways to help accomplish just that. I think a series of well advertised "blind challenges" that offer a reward would be one effective method. Perhaps someday such challenges will become common enough we can ask the Pan's, fdegrove's and Mrfeedback's of the world to "participate or shut up." If their listening skills are really as sharp as they suggest, they can prove it and win the prize. If they're not, they can perhaps have a new perspective on things.
As others have pointed out, this thread has gotten so long that it's repeating itself. I'll be happy to try and answer legitimate questions that haven't already been answered, or participate again if things go a new direction, but for now I'm going leave the thread to others.
Happy listening all... and try it blind!
What this thread was originally all about was to encourage those with an open mind (and hopefully some common sense) to try some blind listening for themselves. If you can still hear the difference blind between two amplifiers (or modifications to one amplifier) in your system, great. If you can't, you might want to investigate why not. That's pretty simple.
The intent was to hopefully save some folks some real money and time by letting them focus on the things that DO make a real difference in their system. High-end audio is full of myths, snake oil and traps. Even most of the GoldenEars here have agreed with that much. Blind listening is one tool to help sort through it all and decide what matters to you in your system. Null difference testing can also be extremely valuable.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of psychological bias in conventional listening. It's been proven time and time again to severely distort your view of what you're really hearing. No amount of "listening skill" can remove it completely.
To someone who's participated in a number of blind amplifier tests, people like Pan come across as blissfully unaware. I used to believe much of what he still does. But I now realize how to figure out what really makes a difference and what doesn't. I'm just trying to share some of that knowledge.
I've posted a lot of links to other well referenced information. It's really hard to discredit many of the references so the Alpha GoldenEar Pack here keep trying to discredit me instead. Their aggressive and often impolite attacks only discourage others from participating in this thread and have not been very productive. They've yet to produce a single documented reference supporting their view. Here are some of the links for those who missed them:
http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20020901.htm
http://www.dself.demon.co.uk/subjectv.htm
http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioan...mepage/id5.html
I find it very telling the GoldenEar's choose to either attack me, change the subject, or split hairs on one small detail instead of addressing the real issues at hand. The fact is there's a mountain of objective evidence that supports what I've been trying to say here and there's very little of it on their side.
Is blind testing perfect? Nope. Is it a really valuable addition to the audiophile's set of tools? Yup. Can we measure everything we can hear? I honestly don't know. I do know that null difference testing is really hard to fault as it's sensitive to ANY errors or distortions measured under real operating conditions.
Interestingly, the response to this thread has demonstrated to me that the world clearly needs more education on this subject. I'm thinking of many ways to help accomplish just that. I think a series of well advertised "blind challenges" that offer a reward would be one effective method. Perhaps someday such challenges will become common enough we can ask the Pan's, fdegrove's and Mrfeedback's of the world to "participate or shut up." If their listening skills are really as sharp as they suggest, they can prove it and win the prize. If they're not, they can perhaps have a new perspective on things.
As others have pointed out, this thread has gotten so long that it's repeating itself. I'll be happy to try and answer legitimate questions that haven't already been answered, or participate again if things go a new direction, but for now I'm going leave the thread to others.
Happy listening all... and try it blind!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nw_avphile
I have develooped very good "listening skills" during the thousands of hour I have spent listening to music, yes that is correct. This is both a curse and a blessing since I am extremly sensible to small errors/details but at the same time I have the best time of my life (with clothes on that is) sometimes when listening to beatiful music over a good set up.
Magic ears I do not have, but according to a doctor two years ago when I did a hearing test I have about 10dB better hearing than the average Swede. Maybe that explains partly why it is so easy for me to pick out audible differences between cables, sources and amps.
My system is awesome and the ten or so people (hifi-friends and other hifi nerds) that have listened to my set up ("critically")have never heard anything as good and highly resolved no matter which hifi show or dealer they have visited in Sweden. I agree with them.
I wish you happy listening too (whoever you are) and I look forward to getting back to you in a new thread where I report my amp and cable BLT´s.
/Peter
nw_avphile said:
I have develooped very good "listening skills" during the thousands of hour I have spent listening to music, yes that is correct. This is both a curse and a blessing since I am extremly sensible to small errors/details but at the same time I have the best time of my life (with clothes on that is
) sometimes when listening to beatiful music over a good set up.Magic ears I do not have, but according to a doctor two years ago when I did a hearing test I have about 10dB better hearing than the average Swede. Maybe that explains partly why it is so easy for me to pick out audible differences between cables, sources and amps.
My system is awesome and the ten or so people (hifi-friends and other hifi nerds) that have listened to my set up ("critically")have never heard anything as good and highly resolved no matter which hifi show or dealer they have visited in Sweden. I agree with them.
I wish you happy listening too (whoever you are) and I look forward to getting back to you in a new thread where I report my amp and cable BLT´s.
/Peter
Jitter and slew rate
Wouldn't CDP jitter and amp slew rate be comparable in terms of how they both affect the output waveform? Is this why Bryston publishes there slew rate values and why they are considered by many pros to be a good standard amp?
It occurs to me that slew rate not only has a slope but a linearity component. So then, slew rate describes not only the speed at which the amp can track an input signal, but the accuracy at which it can follow and then magnify signal.
Can slew rate be measured without something so expensive as an oscilloscope?
ensen
Wouldn't CDP jitter and amp slew rate be comparable in terms of how they both affect the output waveform? Is this why Bryston publishes there slew rate values and why they are considered by many pros to be a good standard amp?
It occurs to me that slew rate not only has a slope but a linearity component. So then, slew rate describes not only the speed at which the amp can track an input signal, but the accuracy at which it can follow and then magnify signal.
Can slew rate be measured without something so expensive as an oscilloscope?
ensenRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nw_avphile
That is correct, and nowhere did I say or write that.
Jeeeez!
Since jitter is time and/or amplitude variations in the digital signal, in would be pretty hard to find that in a non digital circuit.
Seems you are just in it for a good fight/argument, please read all text in my post before waisting time making a comment.
/Peter
mikek said:
That is correct, and nowhere did I say or write that.
Jeeeez!
Since jitter is time and/or amplitude variations in the digital signal, in would be pretty hard to find that in a non digital circuit.
Seems you are just in it for a good fight/argument, please read all text in my post before waisting time making a comment.
/Peter
- Status
- Not open for further replies.