There usually isn't in this kind of cases. I wish people would undeerstand expectation bias.
I only have what appears to be the firs version of FIFO_Pi. It does not keep both clocks running. OTOH, Topping D90 does, and all the Allo ES9038Q2M dacs do (don't know much about their other dacs). After sufficient listening tests performed one at a time with multiple listeners, already warmed up reference clocks for quick A/B comparisons, secret balloting by listeners, etc., etc., I am convinced the effect is not imaginary. Those who don't have any interest in anything but peer reviewed published literature, and only then if approved by the objectivist gurus here in the forum and ASR, can believe what they want for now.
Nice ad hominem, but sure, those who are not interested in learning and understanding, and only seek reinforcement of their own beliefs can believe what they want for now.
Good point. People seem to like to have a simple "good/bad" measure. Even when it makes no sense...
Interesting, someone posted the following a year ago. https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the...enge-bother-designing-dac-42.html#post6129398Measurements and experience
Markw4, I don't question you can hear a difference.
I have the FifoPi Q2 Ultimate... In the absence of information to the contrary, I assume it's like Mark's version in that both clocks aren't kept continuously on(?) Anyone know? Ian?
As far as the subjective vs objective argument, I am trying not to join either camp as I feel like most belief systems (BS for short) that would close me to helpful information from the other side.
It does seem to me a "map is not the territory" issue in the sense that the test tones used for measurement are not music but models of music.... or "maps" of music. And, just like a map of New York City cannot contain all the information (down to which rat carried the pizza over the steps) that the real-life New York City does, what is measured cannot carry all the information that the music it symbolizes does.
So, we've got to measure but we are far from being done with the science (precision of measurements) and art (assignment of value or relevance to a particular measurement) of measurements.
In that sense, thinking that a device like a DAC can have its performance with music 100% modeled by it's performance with the simplified models of music we use to measure it is like "eating the menu".
I've experienced myself how DACs that measure worse in some ways can sound better.
That's how I think about the matter now and maybe new information will help me change my thinking.
All of that to say, I am more than willing to check out how a clock can sound better when left continuously on and hear it for myself, or not.
Markw4, I don't question you can hear a difference.
I have the FifoPi Q2 Ultimate... In the absence of information to the contrary, I assume it's like Mark's version in that both clocks aren't kept continuously on(?) Anyone know? Ian?
As far as the subjective vs objective argument, I am trying not to join either camp as I feel like most belief systems (BS for short) that would close me to helpful information from the other side.
It does seem to me a "map is not the territory" issue in the sense that the test tones used for measurement are not music but models of music.... or "maps" of music. And, just like a map of New York City cannot contain all the information (down to which rat carried the pizza over the steps) that the real-life New York City does, what is measured cannot carry all the information that the music it symbolizes does.
So, we've got to measure but we are far from being done with the science (precision of measurements) and art (assignment of value or relevance to a particular measurement) of measurements.
In that sense, thinking that a device like a DAC can have its performance with music 100% modeled by it's performance with the simplified models of music we use to measure it is like "eating the menu".
I've experienced myself how DACs that measure worse in some ways can sound better.
That's how I think about the matter now and maybe new information will help me change my thinking.
All of that to say, I am more than willing to check out how a clock can sound better when left continuously on and hear it for myself, or not.
I just heard Claude Shannon and Harry Nyquist turn around in their graves.
I thought the ones that relied on belief, faith and unverified subjective perceptions were the hedgehogs.
indeed. I referred to their work, but in other words, but it seems the whole chain is misunderstood here.
Hmmm...
Nyquist Theorem RE digital sampling requires that digital filters operate "perfectly" with infinitely steep stop bands, no phase distortion, and no ringing. In reality, no such filters actually are possible to create, so the theorem cannot actually be applied in a real world sense. Digital filters for 44.1 KHz sample rates can only be a compromise in terms of trading off their artifacts: ringing, phase anomalies, and frequency extension-they are never "perfect" and without artifacts. The same Theorem also would require "perfect" clocking to achieve a "perfect" reconstruction of the analog waveform, and again, "perfect" clocking does not exist in the real world.
Now, whether the levels of these artifacts are audible or not is another question: the fact is that the artifacts of the filtering and clocking "imperfections" exist, are known, and can be measured-what is audible in one system, may not be in another, and may not be to one listener vs. another.
Nyquist Theorem RE digital sampling requires that digital filters operate "perfectly" with infinitely steep stop bands, no phase distortion, and no ringing. In reality, no such filters actually are possible to create, so the theorem cannot actually be applied in a real world sense. Digital filters for 44.1 KHz sample rates can only be a compromise in terms of trading off their artifacts: ringing, phase anomalies, and frequency extension-they are never "perfect" and without artifacts. The same Theorem also would require "perfect" clocking to achieve a "perfect" reconstruction of the analog waveform, and again, "perfect" clocking does not exist in the real world.
Now, whether the levels of these artifacts are audible or not is another question: the fact is that the artifacts of the filtering and clocking "imperfections" exist, are known, and can be measured-what is audible in one system, may not be in another, and may not be to one listener vs. another.
Not to mention, my thinking wasn't addressing whether or not slicing music into 44.1kHz pieces of information is indistinguishable from higher resolution but rather how, specifically, do the signals that are used to measure DACs (for example) encompass all the nuances of music?
They are models of music and models aren't reality.
Measurements are great but we certainly aren't done with enhancing the sophistication of how we measure.
They are models of music and models aren't reality.
Measurements are great but we certainly aren't done with enhancing the sophistication of how we measure.