SY said:
My point exactly. Thoriated, the original question was whether you had done a simple experiment to determine whether you could hear a level-matched 16/44.1 AD/DA loop inserted in the signal chain. You answered by telling us that you had bought some records where you were sure you could hear the difference, along with the "signature" of some op-amps. That did not answer the question that was asked.
Ummm.... That sounds like a contradiction. How can this mysterious distortion be "more disturbing and fatiguing" and also be "less obvious"? That's like saying it is "more noticeable" but "harder to hear".
I'm not trying to beat up on you, fas42, but:
Are you saying that the same signal, encoded digitally, will be altered over time as it is played back? Do you mean that at some point the decoded signal will differ from the encoded signal in ways that it did not differ previously?
My experience is generally the opposite. Many times I have heard a CD of a record I had previously on heard on vinyl, and been amazed to hear detail that was present on the master tapes but that had been buried (and inaudible) in vinyl playback noise.
Are you saying that the same signal, encoded digitally, will be altered over time as it is played back? Do you mean that at some point the decoded signal will differ from the encoded signal in ways that it did not differ previously?
My experience is generally the opposite. Many times I have heard a CD of a record I had previously on heard on vinyl, and been amazed to hear detail that was present on the master tapes but that had been buried (and inaudible) in vinyl playback noise.
Not really. People have been complaining about "digititus" since day 1 of the medium, and have often run at frantic speeds, back to good ol', cosy analogue; "I just don't like digital!" they say. You very rarely hear someone comment, "The level of digital distortion over the last hour has made me mighty glad that we going to switch over to listening to LPs for the rest of the evening!".
Like a lot of things in life, sometimes it's only when something is fully removed, that shouldn't be there, that makes one aware that its presence had been causing a problem all the way through ...
Like a lot of things in life, sometimes it's only when something is fully removed, that shouldn't be there, that makes one aware that its presence had been causing a problem all the way through ...
No prob's ...
Yes. No magic about that, consider a system running in a clean environment for 5 minutes; then someone plugs in an arc welder and starts using that a couple of feet away from the system. There is a possibility that some electrical measurements will differ between the before, and after times,
; this is called in the trade, "interference", .Now, consider a less extreme version of that; say, for example, someone standing on nylon carpet rubbing his feet, and rapidly touching the gear, again and again, sending successive pulses of high frequency energy into the mix.
My experience is that behaviours of this type are occurring, which disturb the correct functioning of the equipment. Put it this way, if I take measures to alleviate this sort of thing the sound improves; so being easily swayed,
, I tend to believe that there is benefit in what I do ...Remember I was talking CDs which are copies of ancient shellac 78's, etc ...
but it has nothing at all to do with the digital file or the digital playback, its where you try and link these that does my head in. its also unpredictable and preventative measures for electrical effects of the sort you describe; come under the heading of plain old proper system design for best PSRR and RFI decoupling/immunity
you have a knack for framing and describing pretty plain vanilla issues in the most convoluted, handwaving fashion i've ever encountered
you have a knack for framing and describing pretty plain vanilla issues in the most convoluted, handwaving fashion i've ever encountered
Last edited:
funny story.
I upgraded my amp relatively recently. the differences were huge. but very soon I was left without a signal source for ~one month. month during which I started craving for music and fantasized about the time I'll spend listening to it. I kinda started fabricating a mental "image" of what it would be like, based on the memories of the sound. my signal source came back (unchanged) and at first power up...
hm.
I mean, ok, it was nice and all that. but I started feeling that the sound changed dramatically for the worse and resemble what I heard with the old amp.
somehow I'm glad I don't have an ABX box and the old amp because I might not like what it might make me discover
maybe not but it made me wonder.
I upgraded my amp relatively recently. the differences were huge. but very soon I was left without a signal source for ~one month. month during which I started craving for music and fantasized about the time I'll spend listening to it. I kinda started fabricating a mental "image" of what it would be like, based on the memories of the sound. my signal source came back (unchanged) and at first power up...
hm.
I mean, ok, it was nice and all that. but I started feeling that the sound changed dramatically for the worse and resemble what I heard with the old amp.
somehow I'm glad I don't have an ABX box and the old amp because I might not like what it might make me discover
maybe not but it made me wonder.
In the area of music server playback other issues do come on board, because you're altering the mechanism that sources the music: it's exactly analogous to swapping the cartridge on a TT, or adjusting the supports under the unit. No, it doesn't alter the digital data, but it could ultimately alter the electrical environment that the DAC operates in; just because the linkage doesn't scream at you as being obvious doesn't mean it doesn't exist ...
Yes, everything does come down to shielding from interference, it is as simple as that ... but if someone doesn't accept that certain sorts of interference can exist sufficiently to degrade the sound, then it ain't gonna be fixed!
If the issues are so plain vanilla why are large chunks of the audio community still frothing at the mouth about how to get digital replay to work "right"? If the music just "worked", then everybody would be too busy enjoying the stuff, to continue arguing and bitching about how to fix things ...
Edit: Sorry to come across as convoluted, but I have the misfortunate to really believe the "Everything matters" mantra ... because in my experience that's exactly how it is. And if that is truly the "reality" then it makes things very, very complicated, very fast - it's the nature of the beast ...
Last edited:
nah, there's only so many times one can play those girl-with-a-guitar songs on heavy rotation, it gets boring quickly and eventually one needs to get back to bitching about it.
Are the blurry pics an attempt to stop us guessing what your magic pucks are made of?admc007 said:
That could be one data point, given sufficient information about exactly what you did. A 4% change in apparent computer speed could be down in the noise, though. In my previous life as an IT expert I did some software benchmarks and it can be quite hard to get meaningful speed data. Easy to get some numbers; hard to get any significant figures.
If your invention works then it presumably does it via some electrical interaction with the circuit. Most people invent things either through understanding and solving a problem by thinking (which requires knowledge you appear to admit not to have) or by playing around with stuff (yet you appear not to have the necessary equipment for electronic play).
Three options occur to me:
1. this is pure snake oil, although you may sincerely believe in it
2. this is just a spoof; you don't really expect us to believe it
3. you, like Einstein and other geniuses, have the ability to invent a whole new theory and then solve problems in it just by pure thought
Which is it?
Curious....
Dan.
Maybe...would it be a good idea to create a thread about my invention or would it be met with howls of derision from the Anti Snake Oil brigade?!
Ok, so how did you determine 4% speed increase from those bits of 'licorice' ?.
Dan.
My hi fi has about 600 LPs and over 40,000 digital tracks - and I would not be happy without them. However, I can't claim they make my system sound any better.
Thanxok, some interesting stuff.
it seems to me that the whole study (the complete PDF is available, search the comments) is based on the assumption that it is widely accepted that the human hearing system derives data from filter banks and nothing more.
to my knowledge, it's already known that it isn't true.
it looks like some sort of hand-waving from a scientific journal.
yes, this would clearly place limitations on what can be achieved with frame-based codecs like MP3, but how does it apply to sampling and reconstruction?
what would the implications be? sampling frequency? is a A/D-D/A loop destroying the relevant data?
the data files are not available but is it safe to assume that they've been... (better sit down as you're in for shock) digitally generated and then listened to through a D/A converter?
some hand-waving here: http://www.audiostream.com/content/fourier-uncertainty-principle-not-so-uncertain
Thanks for bringing this article to the attention of a much broader audioence. "Physical Review" and "Physical Review of Letters" are right at the top when it comes to prestige in the field of peer-reviewed journals in physics.
This stuff makes the "scholarly" article by Meyers and Moran published in the Journal of the Audioi Engineering Society (v.55, n.09) look like the wretched joke that it is. Finally we have some "proof" that the hard-headed nay-sayers will have a very difficult time refuting. (It was only a matter of time.)
I am commenting on something posted by a known manufacturer which is a member of this forum, hope it won't be considered an attack.
it starts with the argument of authority: "these guys can't be wrong".
but the fact that they are right does not directly demonstrate that the Meyers and Moran test can't be correct. the comment tries to imply that it does.
more hand-waving:
So the mathematical basis of the sound of virtually every DAC, as well as the basis for instrumented testing and measurement of DAC performance, is less capable than human hearing in important aspects of signal processing.
the mathematical basis of all DACs is less capable than human hearing? not saying it isn't, but how do you derive that from the article?
Last edited:
Yeah, I built a headphone DAC a number of years back and bought a good set of Grados to go with it - combined they make a very clean/accurate playback system with excellent treble reproduction. If there's anything wrong with the source content - clipping, distortion, heavy compression, excessive hiss, etc. then it'll stand out in a big way.
And now I can't stand half the CDs I listen to. Damn the loudness war.
Talking about noise,
Its interesting that the Earth is not clean..
Sorry more snake oil.....but what about PC's...its not relevant...High integrity earthing..sigh...
But there is class X and Y..I told you its all snake oil...
What about the pylon cables arn't they ariels??<<Snake oil...for goodness sake...
Regards
M. Gregg
Its interesting that the Earth is not clean..
Sorry more snake oil...
..but what about PC's...its not relevant...High integrity earthing..sigh...But there is class X and Y..I told you its all snake oil...
What about the pylon cables arn't they ariels??<<Snake oil...for goodness sake...
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.