If that's the definition of "rabid" in this context it of course could be, but IME the spread among the so-called objectivists is as large as among the so-called subjectivists.
It could be just also kind of "over-security" , if one is deeply convinced that no difference can exist, a comparison doesn't make sense; it is comparable to the "over-security" in the so-called subjectivist camp like "the difference is huge, no controlled listening test needed" .
As nobody examined it, "group dynamics" might be a plausible hypothesis, but as we know, exactly the same happens in controlled listening tests (yes, "doubleblind") even when no "group dynamics" could have had an impact.
When asked for "same" or "different" (or preference/no preference or no difference) but listening to exactly the same stimulus twice in a row, participants usually do not detect the "sameness".
The usual result is the highest proportion for so-called "not the same" even if compared to the results of really different stimuli.
The exchange between jan.didden and planet10 illustrates why it is so important to check if the premises are true; mutual understanding of the meaning of words in the case of sound evaluation is just not a given.
If its true that the listeners in planet10 interpreted "sounds good" as "I like it" is not ensured, as they could have just meant "sounds good to me because it reminds me more to the real thing".
Also it is not sure if its a lack of interest or just a matter of not being involved before in any attempt to find a cause/effect relation between a hearing sensation (perceptual impression) and a technical reason triggering this impression.
@TNT,
It depends. As we use sound reproduction in this context as an attempt to catch and reproduce a real sound event, it is IMO indeed a mystic thing that something so much diverging from reality can lead to an internal representation similar to that of the real event.
Technology enables us to get the properties of sound events, and if one looks back to the beginning of sound recording and reproduction it is a miracle that this kind of failure (from a physical point of view) was such an exciting experience worth being further developed over the next ~130 years. That is kind of mystic.
Technology is the realization of sound reproduction systems (and measuring the still huge difference to reality), the mystic lies in the listeners who is still the final arbiter.
Crude analogy would be the detection of the Higgs boson; its technology that enables us to detect the particle, but it doesn't make the existence of our universe less "mystic" .
If its true that the listeners in planet10 interpreted "sounds good" as "I like it" is not ensured, as they could have just meant "sounds good to me because it reminds me more to the real thing".
Also it is not sure if its a lack of interest or just a matter of not being involved before in any attempt to find a cause/effect relation between a hearing sensation (perceptual impression) and a technical reason triggering this impression.
@TNT,
It depends. As we use sound reproduction in this context as an attempt to catch and reproduce a real sound event, it is IMO indeed a mystic thing that something so much diverging from reality can lead to an internal representation similar to that of the real event.
Technology enables us to get the properties of sound events, and if one looks back to the beginning of sound recording and reproduction it is a miracle that this kind of failure (from a physical point of view) was such an exciting experience worth being further developed over the next ~130 years. That is kind of mystic.
Technology is the realization of sound reproduction systems (and measuring the still huge difference to reality), the mystic lies in the listeners who is still the final arbiter.
Crude analogy would be the detection of the Higgs boson; its technology that enables us to detect the particle, but it doesn't make the existence of our universe less "mystic" .
My neighbor, who has sharp ears, and a keen sense of audio, could not tell the difference from an instant A/B test between my tube amp, and my solid state receiver.
Both were set within 0.1 DB (calibrated) volume levels, playing the same CD.
He didn't know which one was playing, because I also used a fake "dummy switch".
His "that's your tube amp" and "thats the transistor amp" was unreliable.
What he THOUGHT was obviously in his mind.
Yet, he was determined to say he was right.
It follows along with that "coathanger" speaker wire test.
Both were set within 0.1 DB (calibrated) volume levels, playing the same CD.
He didn't know which one was playing, because I also used a fake "dummy switch".
His "that's your tube amp" and "thats the transistor amp" was unreliable.
What he THOUGHT was obviously in his mind.
Yet, he was determined to say he was right.
It follows along with that "coathanger" speaker wire test.
Apparently yes. My only first hand experience is with changing bios setting for the way the processor and memory work and the differences this makes are not subtle. It is one of the reasons why my dedicated music pc has not been touched or updated for over 8 years. Getting the OS right is of course a much bigger challenge.
More patient and presumably younger experimenters have preferred memory types and brands but i am not sure i want to get there.
Getting back to this thread my half hearted attempts to improve a switch by making changes to the internal regulators and clocks were very audible and entirely unsuccessful. Currently my preference is not using a switch in the room for music at all and just plugging the pc into the wall.
I could never figure out people's affinity for real time A/B switching.
The results in this case, unsurprisingly, point to a poor system resolution, or a poor switch.
What I find really interesting about this is that there is a feeling that anyone who does not believe that an ethernet switch can be making a difference (for the reasons being stated) ie the digital transfer of the data is somehow different from one switch to the other, must be a rabid objectionist.
What I also find extermely interesting is the view point that every person who claims they hear a difference must actually hear a difference that we just don't know how to measure yet.
I accept that there are things in audio that people subjectively prefer, and that some of those are most likely things that we have not worked out a valid way of determining why (and I'm not going to go down the path of Blind / double blind tests with that). I also accept that there are certain things that can fool our brains into thinking we hear a difference when we dont, especially when there is suggestions that we should be able to hear a difference.
What I don't accept is anything that is so far out there in the extreme that there is no logical explanation. Things that are often claimed to have night and day differences.
Talking about how the digital signal can somehow be corrupted by a non-audiophile switch falls into this extreme category.
If you want to talk about how a switch with a badly designed power supply that does not have adequate protections against spewing noise back on to the mains might upset some other audio equipment on the same circuit that has a poor PSSR then I have no problem with that.
If you want to theorize that data that has been transferred over one ethernet switch and buffered at the end somehow sounds different to the exact same data transmitted over another switch and buffered at the end, then the only conclusion I can come to is that you do not understand the underlying mechanism.
This has nothing to do with objectivist vs subjectivist. It has everything to do with basic understanding of digital transfer of data and of human fallibility.
Tony.
What I also find extermely interesting is the view point that every person who claims they hear a difference must actually hear a difference that we just don't know how to measure yet.
I accept that there are things in audio that people subjectively prefer, and that some of those are most likely things that we have not worked out a valid way of determining why (and I'm not going to go down the path of Blind / double blind tests with that). I also accept that there are certain things that can fool our brains into thinking we hear a difference when we dont, especially when there is suggestions that we should be able to hear a difference.
What I don't accept is anything that is so far out there in the extreme that there is no logical explanation. Things that are often claimed to have night and day differences.
Talking about how the digital signal can somehow be corrupted by a non-audiophile switch falls into this extreme category.
If you want to talk about how a switch with a badly designed power supply that does not have adequate protections against spewing noise back on to the mains might upset some other audio equipment on the same circuit that has a poor PSSR then I have no problem with that.
If you want to theorize that data that has been transferred over one ethernet switch and buffered at the end somehow sounds different to the exact same data transmitted over another switch and buffered at the end, then the only conclusion I can come to is that you do not understand the underlying mechanism.
This has nothing to do with objectivist vs subjectivist. It has everything to do with basic understanding of digital transfer of data and of human fallibility.
Tony.
Still waiting for Dave's extraordinary evidence. Lot's of blah blah blah from every direction, someone did call for a technical discussion did they not?
Sorry I am down with the flu , and seems that my posts are not very clear. (even to me)
Allow me , one last shot at explaining , as a DAC designer, what I know , not from theories or intellect but from testing with AP , Spectrum Analyzer and listening to SQ. While we all have a subjective side (and some euphonics will come into play) do understand that I am a professional audio designer , my main job ( I love my job
On one of my designs (DAC) after THD+N test completion (THD+N at -114 THD at -124!) I have the habit of sending units out to a few people for SQ testing . The testers and myself we found a difference of SQ depending on the clock .
As I said before , I am a believer in those unreliable people SQ testing...so I decided to run additional test
My SQ test setup was a rather cheap class d amplifier and ok speakers ..
What I found is that spikes of noise up to around 15uV (I am trying to find the test data to post) more present on one clock then another..
Clearly it was audible and I change the CMOS termination of the buffer from R series to "something else" and squashed all spikes.(PCB was changed to a new reversion and increased the cost) , SQ improved . THD stayed the same (some small variation but that can be because THD+N test can change very slightly depending on the time of the day.)
Now, please note the noise level and the rather poor HIFI system .
OK so that was MCLK right ? I seen a post saying that "only place that matters etc" but thats not how i2s slave bus works
Of course RFI noise on D , bclk and lrck MUST also matter when sampled..
Now , I also did another quick experiment . I feed a normal (dirty) USB source to our DAC vs a much cleaner one. I checked the noise on the i2s bus...and guess what ?
I am able to see every time , increase of noise on the i2s lines around to a max 3uV with the dirty source vs clean one. THD+N of course stayed almost same .
So I am wondering , can people with hi end audio systems hear that i2s lines noise increase on SQ?
My bet..is that they do. They are not crazy , delusional , brain washed . In fact they are the ones that are open minded and will not let a useless THD+N test tell them what is SQ.
Disclaimer , I have no intention of building an audiophile SW.
Allow me , one last shot at explaining , as a DAC designer, what I know , not from theories or intellect but from testing with AP , Spectrum Analyzer and listening to SQ. While we all have a subjective side (and some euphonics will come into play) do understand that I am a professional audio designer , my main job ( I love my job
On one of my designs (DAC) after THD+N test completion (THD+N at -114 THD at -124!) I have the habit of sending units out to a few people for SQ testing . The testers and myself we found a difference of SQ depending on the clock .
As I said before , I am a believer in those unreliable people SQ testing...so I decided to run additional test
My SQ test setup was a rather cheap class d amplifier and ok speakers ..
What I found is that spikes of noise up to around 15uV (I am trying to find the test data to post) more present on one clock then another..
Clearly it was audible and I change the CMOS termination of the buffer from R series to "something else" and squashed all spikes.(PCB was changed to a new reversion and increased the cost) , SQ improved . THD stayed the same (some small variation but that can be because THD+N test can change very slightly depending on the time of the day.)
Now, please note the noise level and the rather poor HIFI system .
OK so that was MCLK right ? I seen a post saying that "only place that matters etc" but thats not how i2s slave bus works
Of course RFI noise on D , bclk and lrck MUST also matter when sampled..
Now , I also did another quick experiment . I feed a normal (dirty) USB source to our DAC vs a much cleaner one. I checked the noise on the i2s bus...and guess what ?
I am able to see every time , increase of noise on the i2s lines around to a max 3uV with the dirty source vs clean one. THD+N of course stayed almost same .
So I am wondering , can people with hi end audio systems hear that i2s lines noise increase on SQ?
My bet..is that they do. They are not crazy , delusional , brain washed . In fact they are the ones that are open minded and will not let a useless THD+N test tell them what is SQ.
Disclaimer , I have no intention of building an audiophile SW.
most pointless explanation for blind test IMO.
People who do not regard such results as credible always blame system resolution.
Always.
Ethernet is a very mature standard (IEEE 802.3). In the voip world realtime audio streaming uses specific protocols to move audio around a IP network using RTP (realtime protocol) and RTSP (realtime streaming protocol) with UDP. If you want one source and many endpoints then add multicast.
However with this implementation if a packet doesn't arrive there's no mechanism to request the missing packet as it simply no longer exists. This will cause a dropout of audio.
Another example if you stream music from a NAS drive, that is basically a one to one data transfer and will most likely use TCP/IP, if a data packet goes missing say over a wifi network because of interference then the destination will send a request to the source to re-send the missing packet. The jitter buffer at the destination will wait for the missing packet to arrive before passing it up through the OSI layers.
Now replace audio packet with any type of data packet, the same mechanisms will apply, an ethernet switch is just a forwarding office for data operating at layer 2.
Can audiophiles explain how the above mechanisms are exempt for audio and how the whole TCP/IP stack and the 802.3 standard that any ethernet switch needs to comply with can change the audio quality at some endpoint ?
It's the same mechanisms that allows me to stream radio stations from all over the world via the internet.
Last edited:
What is interesting about that? Or new? Higher quality audio is almost entirely based on differences we either have no idea how to measure, or have no idea why they should matter. Only they do.
Why do people build different amps? Or preamps? Or dacs? Objectively all of these should be entirely transparent and trivial, right?
Capacitors, anyone? It's all a mystery
I wouldn't hold my breath for an explanation. If they had the knowledge you have, then they wouldn't be arriving at such conclusions in most cases.
Why do people build different amps? Or preamps? Or dacs?
Because we have lots of spare time
The interesting thing is the complete unwillingness to accept that in SOME circumstances there may actually be a psycho acoustic affect happening (and that there really isn't any difference other than in the subjects mind). is this not just the antithesis of someone saying "The measurements don't show any difference therefore there can't be any"?
Note I say some, not all. In some cases I'm sure there really is an audible difference (though in this case I'm not entertaining that, at least for the theories being bandied about), and I'm pretty sure that some people are more susceptible to noticing this than others.
I also hold the probably heretical opinion that the interpretation of measurements is subjective
Tony.
Last edited:
OK so that was MCLK right ? I seen a post saying that "only place that matters etc" but thats not how i2s slave bus works
That's not what I said. Now try and explain how noise on the ethernet clock affects the i2s bus.
I do not know how the transfer of noise happens .
What I do know , is what SA shows , a clear increase of noise on i2s lines depending on the USB input noise.
Now , I never tested a Ethernet to USB device output noise. So with lower Ethernet noise , will I get lower USB noise ? I think its (very) possible
Same noise that I was able (testers and myself) to hear changing the SQ with no THD+N significant variation , independently !
What I do know , is what SA shows , a clear increase of noise on i2s lines depending on the USB input noise.
Now , I never tested a Ethernet to USB device output noise. So with lower Ethernet noise , will I get lower USB noise ? I think its (very) possible
Same noise that I was able (testers and myself) to hear changing the SQ with no THD+N significant variation , independently !
- Status
- Not open for further replies.