Quad wrote: > I've always tried to be an enlightened audiophile. I won't do double > blind tests myself because I'm too lazy, but I usually trust those tests > and I think they are a good way to find out if something is audible or > not. > > I'm 36 years old and here is what I claim to be able to hear and what I > don't: > > Not audible to me: > - LMS running on different OS (Windows, OS X, Linux) > - different S/PDIF cables (as long as they meet the specs) > - different ethernet cables > - TT3 pimping (buffers, WLAN, screen,...) > - FLAC vs. WAV > - FLAC vs. 320kbps MP3 > - 24bit/48kHz vs. higher resolutions (same master, properly > downsampled) > > Audible to me: > - RCA cables > - speaker cables > - power cables and power supplies > - differences between DACs > - differences between sampling rate conversion algorithms > > native 192kHz with EDO sounds different than downsampled with SOX to > 96kHz (either on-the-fly or not) > > SACD ripps with different DSD->PCM settings sound different (POW-R3 > vs. TPDF) > - differences in digital source > > Touch sounds different than my average CD player NAD 514 (S/PDIF > into same external DAC NAD M51) > > Touch and NAD 514 sound different than Digital Music Player NAD M50 > (S/PDIF into same external DAC) > > HDMI out of my Laptop into same external DAC sounds different again > (WASAPI event). > > What strikes me the most is the last point, differences in digital > sources. Are there any good reasons for that? I can't see any. All of > them are bit perfect. Unfortunately I can't compare Touch USB vs. Touch > S/PDIF. > > Thank you for a civilized handling of this topic.
Good post Quad. Don't worry, I don't think in general the folks here are mean spirited over a hobby :-) Nice summary list. Good to see you've gone over a number of possibilities and listened for yourself. I'm 41 now and over the years have tried a few of the tests and measurements as well. Something I've run into frequently has been the importance of test methodology. For example, there were times when a group of guys got together to listen to 2 speaker cables and everyone seem to agree that Cable A is better than Cable B, but the moment someone switches it and the test becomes 'single blinded', that effect is gone. Likewise, testing DAC's, the moment we introduce controls like making sure the volume is <0.25dB between the two units, there's no way any of us can tell the difference in an A-B test between decent solid state DAC's. Since you mentioned you haven't tried double blind testing, why not do just a controlled straight forward 'instantaneous' A-B with the Touch vs. NAD 514 into the M51? - NAD 514 --> coaxial --> M51 - Touch --> optical --> M51 - Get a pink noise test tone and use a sound pressure meter (like the Radio Shack one) to make sure the two sources are about the same dB (should be if bit perfect unless M51 has independent volume controls for each input) - Go ahead and use the Touch digital volume control to change the volume until the output SPL is <0.25dB different (this will bias against the Touch of course, 100% volume is bit perfect for the Touch) - Play the same album on both the NAD 514 and Touch at the same time. - Flip back and forth between coaxial & Toslink (NAD 514 vs. Touch) - does the music sound tonally different from the 2 inputs? Realize doing this biases against the Touch both in terms of using the digital volume control and TosLink generally has worse jitter. Potentially lots can be talked about but I think the procedure above should be quite straight forward and would be worth doing to test one of the assertions about bit perfection and audibility if you haven't already tried. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98374 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
