It has become apparent that Frank's objective is not to achieve the best audio quality. It took me a while to figure this out, because Frank seems like he is a real "audiophile", but the description of what he is doing casts much doubt on what his objective really is. It seems to me to be a race to the bottom. Or, if I employ some benefit of the doubt; an attempt to gild a sh*t sandwich.
Not always, but there does seem to be a disliking of DBTs and BT, though I will admit if on your own its hard to set up a test.
One or both systems may be re-sampling to 48k, or any other number of "enhancements" may be employed if attention has not been paid to configuration.
Yet, it is not the rocket science that some people make it out to be, to achieve bit-perfect playback on any mainstream OS.
I don't understand that, but can we go back to the topic? 😀
Digital source that betters LP in most aspects...
Hidden issue imo is in switching and upsampling. BTW, what is the best DAC chip that allow non-oversampling? Current output is a must because internal opamp is not to be trusted. Balance output is best. I will marry the best tube output stage with the best NOS...
Because "audiophiles" fear them.
Many "audiophiles" use uncertainty and ego as their jumping off point to spin their fantastic hypotheses, as in "How do *you* know it's not like *I* said?". "You need experience to understand what *I'm* talking about."
Even if a spec like PSRR could send the idea of computer noise to bed, their love of their own hypotheses keeps them "pushing forward".
They fail to understand that possibility is not probability. I mean it is possible that this universe is sitting on the head of a pin being held by a giant in another universe..... but probably not. Yet hypotheses from various "audiophiles" fall into that category of ridiculousness, and their ego keeps them "pushing forward".
Using blind testing removes uncertainty from being the foundation of their mythology. It also challenges their ego as they are now asked to show that they can actually hear a difference.
Fearsome stuff.... it would destroy their world.
Last edited:
We don't trust the findings of our fellow members and blindly accept that our computers work as we imagine they do. We can't have it both ways.
This may be a good point in the discussion to re-post two measurements I did recently from my external USB sound card in loop-back.
The first is with the sound card plugged directly into the USB port of my laptop.
And the second one is the exact same situation, but with a USB isolator in between.
With the isolator, third harmonic goes up with 9dB. This measurement was confirmed with other programs. I made an extra effort because I just thought it was very weird.
The only explanation I can think of is that the introduction of the isolator leads to a modification of the bit stream, either to or from the laptop, I don't know. It is fair to assume the modification is symmetrical around zero, and furthermore, that this numerical skewing is gentle, because only the third harmonic increases.
This leads me to the unwelcome conclusion that bit streams can be modified by the devices they pass. Therefore I hope that someone can explain to me that it must be something else.
The first is with the sound card plugged directly into the USB port of my laptop.
And the second one is the exact same situation, but with a USB isolator in between.
With the isolator, third harmonic goes up with 9dB. This measurement was confirmed with other programs. I made an extra effort because I just thought it was very weird.
The only explanation I can think of is that the introduction of the isolator leads to a modification of the bit stream, either to or from the laptop, I don't know. It is fair to assume the modification is symmetrical around zero, and furthermore, that this numerical skewing is gentle, because only the third harmonic increases.
This leads me to the unwelcome conclusion that bit streams can be modified by the devices they pass. Therefore I hope that someone can explain to me that it must be something else.
What was the bit depth?
Both pics show distortion levels that are below 16 bits of resolution.
Yep, but you're talking about them separately here notice so I can't see why you conflate the two.
Which looks to contradict your original claim of 'no differences in interference'. Thanks, that's what I was interested to hear.
Its a question you're free to put to Frank - why speculate when you can ask?
Back on the scene after a refreshing night's sleep - thanks, Richard, for holding the fort ... 😉
I've stated many times what my objectives are: I wish to understand what the factors are, in every situation, that allow decent or even premium sound to be realised. And the first step is to explore everything you can think of that may contribute to achieving higher quality. Including playing with media players. Again, I was surprised that the laptop is capable of getting so many things right - I've heard very ambitious, monster systems getting those areas wrong - the latter may get volume, and bass response "right", but they fail on delivering a musically satisfying experience.
The key thing I have learned over the years is that the nominal quality, as reflected in the retail price, has only marginal bearing on the potential of the subjective sound - eliminating the weaknesses, which every system has, is essential... because that's how "convincing" sound is enabled.
cogitech, you personally haven't heard differences, doing the things I talk about. That could be because of all sorts of reasons, and the most likely one is that I'm listening for characteristics in the sound that you're not interested in, or registering. And that would be because we've been on different journeys in the audio world, our histories there have been different ... because of a fortuitous early experience, my direction has been different from most ...
Perhaps what would be termed a 'peak experience' in Abraham Maslow's parlance. Once the view from the mountaintop has been glimpsed the person's life begins to revolve about creating it again and then maintaining it....
This would appear to be in direct contrast to BigE's 'trough experience' reported in the (curiously numbered) post 666.
The difference is not in the bit stream itself, because if f it were, an external hard drive would fail when connected to the isolater.
That post indicated that perception cannot be trusted... the view from the mountaintop can easily be a mirage.
Setting about creating and maintaining it is then a frutiless task.
It still hasn't sunk in for some people, that what I listening for, when I'm listening critically, is for the presence of flaws in the sound - the equivalent in the world of real instruments could be, the scraping of fingers along the fret while playing guitar, the clicking of fingernails on the keyboard of a piano, the breathiness of a player on a wind instrument, and so on. These are all distinctive sounds, are you going to insist that someone take a DBT to make sure that they have heard these aberrations or not? The signature of "problems" like this stand out strongly - and what you're looking for is the absence of them!
It didn't indicate that - what you found was you were able to deceive yourself. I've been there myself but didn't take away from my experience what you've taken away from yours.
So you're claiming that Frank's focus for the past couple of decades is a 'frutiless task' ? Certainly that's a claim but is there any evidence........?
The subjective perception occurred because the qualities that allowed you to hear the sound as being rich and warm, or thin and lightweight, were both present in the sound at the one time. You chose to focus on one set of qualities, and filtered out the other; then reversed your focus when you realised your mistake.
I have zero interest in rich, thin, warm, lightweight - I only worry about the presence of defects, if defects are audible then work has to be done; if not audible, then I can sit back and put my feet up ... 🙂.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.