Thanks for that, BYRTT. Downloaded the app, and it appears I don't have a problem there, was sitting at max. res. of 1 msec. But, that exercise indirectly showed another SQ influence - I've been very slack with optimising the quality of the PC playback, so long as it's been good enough to do the job I've let it be - but taking it more seriously now, bit by bit. So, it's not dedicated, it's sitting on the house network - and it makes a major difference if my laptop connects to it and sees its hard drive on the network; disconnecting the network drive lifts the treble quality substantially. Ie, the background processes and system services constantly communicating are impacting ...
Yes XP max resolution 1mS, newer than XP windows versions can reach 0,5mS, either by audio program call or the app "Timer Resolution v2.0" cheap buyers version.
Example of program calls:
I start Win7, start "Timer Resolution v2.0" just for monitoring where it says 15,6mS. Then i start Foobar playmode, start monitor Again with "Timer Resolution v2.0" and now says 10mS. Doing the same with MP or Flashplayer in browser says 1mS. Therefor i bought "Timer Resolution v2.0" and start it when desktop is ready, and choose max 0,5mS. Now whatever audio program gets benefit of full resolution.
Bit insane but true. MS could had making easy one point settings for users to optimize for different system roles, but no expensive programs must be bought with manuals suggesting multi many of system tweaks to be followed for best results.
Maybe your treble quality could be ground loop ?
Okay, then it must be system background too busy because of software/hardware routes not optimal. Guess you now "DPC Latency Checker" or/and "LatencyMon" to troubleshoot system for such optimation.
Own experience from same system is a sadly no, but at least very close.After all the setup hassles to ensure "bit perfect" from players, will all players sound the same?)
Having done quite some programmings with low level languages, I doubt developers of such "generic" software will take the trouble to ensure "bit-perfect".
Okay then both software and hardware plays in. You could try Exchange HDD, do fresh Win setup and see what the system can perfrom on a dedicated tweaked setup. Then exchange HDD everytime you wish go AUDIO or everyday use.
For the loop reason i run Toslink for transport to DAC and USB-NIC or USB-WIFI for optimal isolation of PC, and plugs out USB-NIC/WIFI for less ressource consume when going highend recording or listening. But i am sure it is possible with hard wiring too if done right, i just don't have the knowledge or cash.
My ABX
Mooly gave me 2 files of XX and YY, which were equivalence of ALPS and ANDES, and I said to Mooly that if I ABX them through my transparent speakers I believe I can get perfect result (when we talk about statistics, perfect means zero mistake), because they are so obviously different. XX/ALPS is sooo much better in hi-fi terms (except in fatigue I found that XX/ALPS is slightly fatiguing, but nobody here I believe can "feel" the fatigue component).
When I tried the ABX, I found out that my speakers are sooo transparent (actually I'm proud of my speakers. A result of breaking that barrier between those speaker builders who have no idea and those who can see it all ).
Differentiating through Foobar ABX (with $2 headphone that I had to "hijack" from somebody) is many many times more difficult. But surprisingly, I still can guarantee that I can do zero mistake here. But it takes a lot of effort, so I stop at 10/10 (0.1% probability of guessing). But if you want to pay me for doing 100/100 I will do it
Now, please tell me what you have learned, and how you would like to build your conclusion from this.
Mooly gave me 2 files of XX and YY, which were equivalence of ALPS and ANDES, and I said to Mooly that if I ABX them through my transparent speakers I believe I can get perfect result (when we talk about statistics, perfect means zero mistake), because they are so obviously different. XX/ALPS is sooo much better in hi-fi terms (except in fatigue I found that XX/ALPS is slightly fatiguing, but nobody here I believe can "feel" the fatigue component).
When I tried the ABX, I found out that my speakers are sooo transparent (actually I'm proud of my speakers. A result of breaking that barrier between those speaker builders who have no idea and those who can see it all
). Differentiating through Foobar ABX (with $2 headphone that I had to "hijack" from somebody) is many many times more difficult. But surprisingly, I still can guarantee that I can do zero mistake here. But it takes a lot of effort, so I stop at 10/10 (0.1% probability of guessing). But if you want to pay me for doing 100/100 I will do it
Now, please tell me what you have learned, and how you would like to build your conclusion from this.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks Jay. Your listening impressions and ABX results are useful information (and that is an impressive result)
You mention the fatigue aspect a lot in all of the tests and as you know ALPS was the direct path with just resistive divider attenuation. The real point of interest to me with this test was to "prove" or otherwise that the 5532 was/is as good as its reputation suggests. It perhaps seems not. There is a question mark over running even "unity gain stable" opamps as buffers, in that they can be right up against the limits of their stability margins. So I'm trying to "prove" or at least make sense of what is fact and fiction in all this.
This is why listening tests are important.
The xx and yy files (I thought at first that was what your ABX result showed) were just sent to a small handful of listeners... and I know your impressions of those from your pm's
(and that is an impressive result)You mention the fatigue aspect a lot in all of the tests and as you know ALPS was the direct path with just resistive divider attenuation. The real point of interest to me with this test was to "prove" or otherwise that the 5532 was/is as good as its reputation suggests. It perhaps seems not. There is a question mark over running even "unity gain stable" opamps as buffers, in that they can be right up against the limits of their stability margins. So I'm trying to "prove" or at least make sense of what is fact and fiction in all this.
This is why listening tests are important.
The xx and yy files (I thought at first that was what your ABX result showed
) were just sent to a small handful of listeners... and I know your impressions of those from your pm's How can you come to such conclusion?? There are too many people who cannot accept opamp in their systems. So comparing direct wire with whatever opamp circuits (including Pavel's) is not fair in my opinion.
And so is about class-A versus class-B. Many people can hear class-B crossover distortion. And I guess opamps are class-B circuits. So, using resistor to bring 4558 (or 5532) into class-A (as Wavebournes once suggested) can be tested.
This is what interest me. I told you several times that I thought XX was an impressive circuit. I didn't think it was direct because of the slight fatigue (I told you it was very slight fatigue), where I assume that direct should have less fatigue than any circuit especially opamp.
So, in that test, the opamp is surprisingly not fatiguing. Why?? I guess it masks the signal, removing both the musicality and the fatigue.
And that the recording is slightly fatiguing (assuming it doesn't come from my TDA2030A amplifier or speakers. The lower the bass response of the speaker, the more fatiguing it is). I told you too that I have never liked high resolution recordings. Your music I believe is one of them. But the Cascade, same song, also direct, was very enjoyable since the first string note!
So why Cascade is so good but XX is not? I tried to increase the volume of XX but I knew it was not because of volume. This is I believe the common impedance matching issue between stages of amplifiers.
I have also mentioned about difficulty or issue about choosing between terrible options (in my email and in the other thread). In this case I have mentioned that what counts is the analysis, not the choice. Actually I didn't want to choose but you would reveal what the files were only after I did. This issue is important, that's why I wrote it in BOLD in that other thread.
Oh yeah, I choose ALPS/ANDES (instead of XX/YY) to ABX because everybody else have tried this and only PMA can get 5/6, which is not good at all if you understand statistics. I have suggested 8/8. If I "can" do 100/100 with this file, why 8/8 is so hard for everybody else?
Yes. Imagine also the different sounds of capacitor brands! For me it is obvious but for some others it is just imagination.
In Beyond The Ariel thread, Joshua is asking why the power cord can sound different. Many posters think this is just imagination
Actually I want somebody to do simple thing: create two sound files of a signal going through different material such as solid copper, aluminum, stranded copper (litz), etc. Even a small portion is audible. I have never wanted to mention this but it seems through ABX this can be proven.
For me, that's a weak way of drawing a conclusion. A conclusion should be made by logical flow.
For example, when you relate equipment to impression, you should be able to explain the logic, and only in relation to the assumptions being made, where the assumptions are made public.
About equipment, I have top quality sources/DAC, amplifiers and speakers. From all of those, speakers are the heart of everyone sound systems. I have seen your speaker (with your main system). There is no way that speaker can reach the transparency of mine, from the quality of the drivers alone (I don't want to mention from the quality of the designer
).
An attempt at removing variables from the chain
This is something a little bit different and is an attempt to take variables out of the chain. I'm accutely aware that feeding the A/D convertor via a resistive divider as the direct path and via the circuitry under test is not the same thing.
I have prepared two files for the forum. The signal path is SA-CD into a buffer of my choosing. The output of this buffer then feeds the circuit under test. The output of the circuit under test then feeds into another buffer of my choosing and into the A/D convertor.
So what we have is a chain of constant and known input characteristics and also constant and known output characteristics. The device or circuit under test slots into that chain preserving the known input/output specifications. This means that the SA-CD player and the A/D convertor see the same circuit in all test conditions.
Hope that makes sense.
ABX on this one would be much welcomed.
Ain't No Sunshine aaa
Ain't No Sunshine bbb
This is something a little bit different and is an attempt to take variables out of the chain. I'm accutely aware that feeding the A/D convertor via a resistive divider as the direct path and via the circuitry under test is not the same thing.
I have prepared two files for the forum. The signal path is SA-CD into a buffer of my choosing. The output of this buffer then feeds the circuit under test. The output of the circuit under test then feeds into another buffer of my choosing and into the A/D convertor.
So what we have is a chain of constant and known input characteristics and also constant and known output characteristics. The device or circuit under test slots into that chain preserving the known input/output specifications. This means that the SA-CD player and the A/D convertor see the same circuit in all test conditions.
Hope that makes sense.
ABX on this one would be much welcomed.
Ain't No Sunshine aaa
Ain't No Sunshine bbb
Jay your speaker performance claims are quite high, is there a link and would you bring them to market in some way.
I'm an amateur in both speaker building and amplifier building. The only tool I'm competitively more advanced is my ears. I started with building other people designs then trying to rival them. Many top designers are designing speaker using commercial drivers for DIY community. What you need is to build them then build your own, then you'll know where you stand.
I have had idea about selling speakers. Custom order a thousand of woofers is not cheap and I'm not interested with cheap drivers (a friend asked me to join). And I don't want to give away my IP with using commercial drivers.
There is idea to sell lower class speakers as many good quality cheap speakers here produced by Sinar Baja which requires different crossover for each driver (coz no control on ts parameters). Some of my friends have done it and as I can see it, it is a very tough business.
BTW, you are in speaker business, and most speaker men have good ears. You must know how critical good ears are in creating good sounding systems.
You very special not bringing such claimed good speakers to joy for others either by payment or some sharing, not forgetting what better production/reproduction music files they could leave behind.
I am not in any audio business just audio diy/hobbyist/home musician and creation, my living is tech repair at a food factory. Think i have good ears, but not in your league.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.