Phil Leigh;396314 Wrote: > What's interesting is how much you have to boost the difference to hear > anything... > > Darren, > You are right that a measured difference may still be inaudible. It > depends how loud it is compared to the noise floor and other masking > phenomena. The software lets you test this really easily. > > So far, MP3 (via LAME) is pretty obviously different. As for expensive > spdif coax... > > Also, downsampling hirez seems pretty worthwhile & effective... :) > > I'm getting a correlation depth of -80dB on most tests. That's pretty > low in the mix! > > By the way, stock PSU's sound pretty good... and I can reccomend > turning off the SB3 display if using its analogue outs, but for digital > out it makes no difference...
Exactly. As the last line of the web page say, In other words, if the gear isn't good enough, you'll be able to hear it, it won't make a difference go silent. Which basically means, dont turn up the gain, listen to the resultant at the same level one listened to the originals. So if you have to crank the gain up, one couldnt hear the difference anyway. It is my opinion that looking at the resulting graph is more of an indication then listening to the remaining audio. The whole problem with this is the subtraction part of the theory. Yes, taking two fairly close signals and subtracting one from the other does tend to show the difference between the two signals, BUT if they are really really close it doesn't leave much to listen to which is the problem with this method. It is faulty logic from the standpoint that it performs best and shows the most contrast when signals diverge the most. Which means that in the case where most people can hear the difference anyway, the program does its best work providing a big example. And it also means that when there are very insignificant differences (which by the way is what were looking for and talking about here) the program (audio wise) does the least or performs at its worst as far as its ability to boldly show major differences! One needs the graph at this point, as there is hardly any audio to listen to. More over if there is hardly anything to listen to between the two signals, it is very doubtful that the ears or brain would pick it up anyway. When considering two high quality closely matched cables, would it still show a difference between two cables that could even be heard, I strongly doubt it (but show differences on the graph, yes). It would also at the same time not show which one was better, but only that they were different. This program does a better job of showing how equipment can be lacking or downgrading a signal then which is better or which will sound better excluding of course equipment or cables that can easily be heard as inferior. As an example an interconnect that drastically rolls off the highs starting at 8KHz is going to show badly against a cable that is open to 30KHz because a lot of audio is not going to get subtracted so there will be a larger signal to listen to, but this would have been noticeable to anybody listening to the two cables against each other anyway. So the smaller the graph difference, the more unlikely a listener would be able to hear any difference during normal playback between the different cables or equipment. And the jitter example is approaching the absurd, we are now talking about nano and microseconds that can't be heard anyway unless the DAC is so bad that the manufacture should have never build the product anyway because the jitter spec is so bad that a non-audiophile can hear it and know something is wrong. Again the listener would never be able to hear the difference in normal use so one would be falling back to the graph again which would only prove which unit had less jitter if the scale were expandable so as to take micro-seconds into account. Basically this program is so that one audiophile blowhard can prove to another audiophile blowhard that yes his/her cable or component is better then the others because this graph proves it and if they turn the gain up to maximum the difference can even be heard. It might also be used to justify over paying for a cable or component by making one feel better about spending the money. In the end, there comes a point when one can no longer hear the difference so what does it matter if it shows up better on a graph or costs $5000 more? Cant hear the difference during normal listening (90% of ones listening time) and can barely hear the difference during critical listening (maybe 2%) so why does it matter? I say it doesnt, but thats my opinion. My equipment is not the best or most expensive, but it sounds wonderful to me. Each component, interconnect, and cable was chosen for how it sounded in the system; not by how much it cost or how it sounded at the dealers showroom. The improvements or upgrades over the years were chosen because there choice made an improvement over the previous sound of the system that was audible while not being a ridiculous expenditure for no noticeable audio improvement. -- iPhone *iPhone* 'Last.FM' (http://www.last.fm/user/mephone) Media Room: Transporter, VTL TL-6.5 Signature Pre-Amp, Ayre MX-R Mono's, Vandersteen Quatro, VeraStarr 6.4SE 6-channel Amp, VCC-5 Reference Center, four VSM-1 Signatures, Runco RS 900 CineWide AutoScope 2.35:1 Living Room: Duet, ADCOM GTP-870HD, Cinepro 3K6SE III Gold, Vandersteen Model 3A Signature, Two 2Wq subs, VCC-2, Two VSM-1 Kitchen: Squeezebox BOOM Bedroom: SB3, GFR-700HD, Thiel 2.3, Second Boom Home Office: SB3, NAD C370, two VSM-1 Home Gym: SB3, Parasound Vamp v.3, Thiel PowerPoint 1.2 Mobile: SB3, Audioengine A5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ iPhone's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13622 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60041
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
