Wombat wrote:
No matter how correct you are, there are prayers to undermine all
obvious conclusions of experiments done the way Archimago does.
Here JS feeds the community with what they want to hear. Maybe now that
the Regen business started it becomes even more important.
Wombat wrote:
Now that even a party pooper like Archimago can measure down to -120dB i
see first people claiming audibility of distorting events must be in the
-160dB range :)
The word logarithm comes to my mind do they realise that dB is a
logarithmic scale , suppose the noise from your own
Wombat wrote:
I know but reading at the usual places reveils more and more stupid
reasoning. I really have to stop reading around to much, it is not
healthy.
Lately i played with some 24bit Petty remaster and a missing note of a
song. While restoring i realized the noisefloor of this part
Wombat wrote:
Now that all your tests show the obvious non-issue of different OSs i
find it funny how people at your blog chime in thinking linux or W7 may
be better nonetheless. Isn't it frustrating?
They have nerver heard of Russells tempot argument :)
Are we not making things to complicated in these cases archimago shows
with two methods that the output of the dac is the same hence no need
for DBT or other complex measures. The same output is the same the tiny
dissimiliarities that dont make the curves overlap exactly is the random
noise . Two
A very interesting part is that piece of software you tested , people
testify to have all kinds of better sound experience with it. But none
ever heard the only verifiably thing it's does regarding audio , bodge
24/48 ;) just like you pointed out in your blog ( not as explicit as I
just did )
Julf wrote:
Just like people will be wondering if they might not see Bigfoot again
this year.
Thanks for the measurements and writeup - it must be frustrating to have
to keep making the measurements over and over just to conclude that the
laws of physics actually still work...
+1 a LOT
Archimago wrote:
Just thought this spectral frequency plot looked interesting for the
PonoPlayer!
Lots of high-frequency gets through of course but not the usual Nyquist
ringing. Linear with no phase shift in the higher frequencies. An
interesting low frequency afterimage in the plot.
Arny yes it has apodizing its developed by ayre thtas their thing for
the moment.
Also notice archimogos measurment that shows a treble rolloff within the
audible range . So ofcourse it may sound different to some users :)
different=better for some audiophiles . Some recordings may benefit ,but
arnyk wrote:
one question is whether or not the pono's rather obvious treble roll-off
is audible:
18530
The Pono (white line) is about 0.5 dB down @10 KHz and about 5 dB down
at @20 KHz. Severe enough to perhaps even be audible.
What is unknown from these measurements is the
Parachronistic :) thats it , i know a some folks that ridee motorcycles
. In the 50 and 60 and possible early 70 these where designed as actual
vehicles nowadays it's all about brand recognition and image and look
and feel for many of them . Not a practical thing to commute with .
Julf wrote:
For us, yes, but probably not for the crusaders who see it as the
ultimate (and only) proof that ABX doesn't work, and will keep quoting
it.
Eerily similar to any pseudo-science like homoeopathy , there are
actually some flawed studies in favor of it and they get quoted all the
Archimago wrote:
]interesting article about the importance of how the question is framed.
According to that article, the number of truly committed literal
young-earth creationists as in the earth being 10,000 years is about
10%.
Organic foods of course is an unfortunate misnomer. :(
My
Archimago wrote:
We just want enough of a presence that newcomers to hi-fi audio can be
at home with folks who don't embarrass their rational sensibilities and
allow their interest to grow.
+1000
I think thats it , the hobby has gotten so weird that it scares away
people . Think about
Archimago wrote:
I welcome anyone who feels the need to ABX filter settings to go for it
:-).
he he SoX itlself has some to go trough :))
Wombat wrote:
If you asked me Mnyb, for similar reasons. SoX b 91-93 covers the
complete redbook spec from 20-20.000. Its aliasing is only
Wombat wrote:
Again i can repeat often enough that all tests that try to promote low
ringing show very, very low statistical value and even then only with
very, very strong ringing filters. A setting with a gentle filter
setting like these mentioned above is very, very likely all you need to
Julf wrote:
We all know that people buy Ferraris for the reliability, great fuel
economy and ample luggage space. :)
It is worth the fight, but I am afraid objectivist audiophile will be
the dominant viewpoint about the same time as we get rid of homeopathy,
conspiracy theories,
Julf wrote:
Sssh! Don't tell them! :)
*cough* can it be so that some plugins and effects in a DAW use Filters
what algorithm are used here ?
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
Julf wrote:
Do we want to go there? I can already see it - ah, but floating point
is never totally precise, so there is always room for improvement :)
Like that's not happening thousands of times for every track in a modern
DAW :D
Wombat wrote:
Surely old designs were already good enough with this but marketing has
to create problems to solve.
You see that even me suddenly wurries about things that most likely not
matter :)
We can phantasy around even more. Lets assume we use a filter that
filters softly at 20kHz
It's really really inefficient to hand build complex machinery of any
kind .
Anecdote time: a local artist where I live tried to prove this piont he
bought a really cheap power drill at the nearest tool shop .
And pulled it to pieces and painstakingly hand built a replica casting
all the parts
arnyk wrote:
The above is not true, and its even less true if you consider the
benefits of modern technology.
(1) The analog preamp section of common AVRs are rarely used because
AVRs interact largely with front end devices whose outputs are digital
audio. Judging AVRs by their analog
What did you actually test was it a preference with listeners for a
certain filter ?
Is it addressed what filters gives inaudible differences when
downsampling from a hires original ?
As we before have reached the conclusion that hires can't be heard over
CD-res of what use is filter with a
To refine my own post , choose speakers first . As this most of the
sound . Then pick an amp that can drive them
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2
Hello fhillipe my 0.02 $ you find a reasonable speaker . Then figure if
can be driven by a tube power amp if not go solid state .
Imho in high sensitivity speakers you can find pretty flawed designs
with bad frequncy response and weird directivity . It can be some
inversy synergy here to be able
But the original topic of the tread was not about garden variety
audiophiles ?
But the idea of a person always argue for misconceptions and popular
audiophile beliefs not only because ( or not at all ) personal beliefs ,
but to the prepare the ground .
Example if you sell expensive cables ,
Seems like some want to define audiophile stuff as everything that does
not work in audio .( like alternative medicine is all stuff that does
not really work in medicin ) .
What I would love is to see the debate go over to stuff that really
matters instead of wasting time at dead ends . And that
I loved a brands such as QUAD before they where taken by Chinese
investors Peter Walker must be twitching in his grave , the fools
resurrected the QUAD 2 amp ?
They could go on producing the same model of amp for a decade or so and
then really just evolve the design when theres been some tech
arnyk wrote:
At this point I think his *-tells-* seem to have painted a fairly
detailed picture of who he is.
He obviously knows very little about audio technology and is incapable
of forming and expressing lucid word pictures about it.
He feels threatened by people who are more
arnyk wrote:
My SB join date is public knowledge.
I bet that you know that this guy's name is Legion. (Biblical reference
for the post modern crowd)
You can just about rank audio forums by the percentage of people who are
as out-of-touch and anti-science as he appears to be with
Julf wrote:
How do you define AUDIOPHILE stuff?
You are on a descent down to their level :)
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel
jkeny wrote:
What I suggest is that Archi friends don't close their mind to trying*
different USB cables* maybe different USB ports.
Very unlikely thats not how things work . If broken yes , There are old
post where Archimago measures and listen several USB cables . They dont
seem to
jh901 wrote:
Your transparency mantra is hilarious. I'm not sure how you convinced
yourself, but I can see where it is convenient for you. Note that when
I hit play that the reproduced sound is extraordinary. None of the
gear is broken or otherwise deliberately designed with flaws. What
Julf wrote:
'were not wired to think scientifically'
(http://eatingacademy.com/personal/wired-think-scientifically-can-done)
We are not genetically equipped to think logically or scientifically;
such thinking is a very recent tool of our species that must be learned
and, with great
I've heard a lot of youtube lectures on this topic . But i have not yet
bougth the book
http://www.michaelshermer.com/the-believing-brain/
Yes I frequent sceptic websites to and are an active sceptic locally .
Quote from it:
We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal,
Julf wrote:
I was at the founding meeting of the Finnish association of sceptics
back in the day, but found them a bit too fanatical. I am a supporter of
CSI (the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), and do subscribe to the
Sceptical Inquirer.
Michael Shermer is a great writer and
Gandhi wrote:
We actually agree. Perhaps I was unclear. I'll try again.
Science is a method that has to be learned. But in general people can
actually think and plan things like trials and that must be one of our
few advantages on this harsh earth. (That and language. And being able
to
Archimago wrote:
Yup. That's my belief as well...
It's basically a 1-port hub with better electronics, less noise, and
better/cleaner power supply. So long as the USB port provides data
errorlessly and adequately to the Regen, it should be fine.
If the Regen works well to clean the
guidof wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of that, as my description (above) in effect states.
Earlier, I had tried using the DSPeaker's digital input (via Toslink)
and using the device as a preamp (via its own digital attenuator). Not
bad, but not in the same league at all as the current setup. And,
And after googling a bit , I realise you have tube preamp . And you will
miss its sonic contribution going digital in .
So the DSPeaker actually preserves the signature of previous components
.
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS
So some DAC's makes every input sound the same seems like problem solved
to me ?
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
darrenyeats wrote:
Some dodgy technical claims in recent posts.
1. DACs with 16 bit performance don't keep that performance when
employing digital volume control (to be clear I'm not arguing against
digital volume control, in fact I'm a fan, nevertheless the observation
stands).
2. In
darrenyeats wrote:
I'd be surprised if the SBT, or any modern, digital volume control was
not dithered.
I was indeed referring to loss of analogue-domain resolution with
digital volume control (since digital resolution is generally retained).
It's a 24 bit volume control dithering may be
Mnyb wrote:
1. In practice I think it's ok the best practical DAC's are 20-21 bits
anyway so chucking the first 4 bits does nothing . And hearing better
than 16 bits is very hard so but already the volume starts to get low .
And then when you starts nagging at the 16 bits the volume
Mnyb wrote:
It's a 24 bit volume control dithering may be academic in those cases
may actually not be needed in practice .
I don't think for example a SB3 or transporter has the horsepower to run
a dither algorithm ,so yes I think I actually read years ago that it is
undithered
Gandhi wrote:
I found a sensible answer to that question. Can't believe I didn't think
of that myself.
Dirac Live uses several measurement positions (9 typically) in the
listening room. This way, it is possible to find consistent acoustic
problems. Only these should be corrected.
jh901 wrote:
[I]
Ouch.
It's the Cary audio and shynyata stuff in you signature I suppose ?
I can try to put it in a non insulting manner . Dear sir i Think you
are way down in the rabbit hole imho . meaning you have a considerable
emotional and monetary investment in yes woo woo equipment
jh901 wrote:
I'd still like to know if DACs were perfected prior to the Transporter.
This notion that there is a singular perfected sound (transparent) is
interesting. I do appreciate the logic that either universally accepted
transparency has either been achieved or else there is design
Hmm are you aware that the a DSP product connected in the analog signal
path must do AD then DA conversion again ?
Does it not have a digital inputs ? And built in volume control ? So one
can ditch DAC and preamp .
The legacy sources as LP cassette and tuner etc can use the analog in .
Julf wrote:
Genelec has done some interesting work on 3-way active concentric
speakers to reduce intermodulation distortion.
Cool I'm becoming more and more inclined to try genelec when my Meridian
gear gives up the ghost (but i still have a lot of years to go on them )
.
But on the topic I
I'm halfway trough the video now , took a little music pause :)
But are not those Revels developed with Floyd's experience and knowledge
in their DNA they are part of Harman .
I think he's not alone in thinking in these power responses over the
room or what you may call it ( similar arguments
Archimago wrote:
From your statements, this is what I understand:
- So you've settled on fluctuating noise that is perhaps improved.
- You have no idea how this is measured.
- You have no evidence yourself that this is really what is happening or
a problem. Or something the Regen can
jh901 wrote:
If you can't hear an obvious, clear and convincing difference in a
supposed upgrade, then no scientific testing is going change that. My
CD player, for example, sounds so different in my system than a
Transporter that it's as if there are completely different speakers. If
I
garym wrote:
Man you're dense. I'm not talking about my home tests. I'm talking about
a large body of peer reviewed research that was conducted by
professional scientists.
edit: and to those viewers following along with their popcorn, thinking
'how did garym get drawn into this classic
jkeny wrote:
I think you are posting this in the wrong thread?
Oh I'm sorry , good morning everyone :)
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2
No i think this forum shall remain . It's one the few where squeezeboxes
and audio can be discussed together .
And it's a breathing hole from most of the anti intellectual
pseudoscience that have debilitated our hobby ?
There is a lot of audio stuff worthy of discussion .
And it's actually
Happy to se the gauntlet passed to some other than Meridian , which I
own . Meridian have done this since the 90's but they are by now a
luxury brand and quite expensive . I do like the sound of my meridian
equipment but I'm convinced it can be done cheaper and better by now .
I think genelec
It has been far worse remember the toolbox treads or the ones where the
sonic merits of server OS was discussed .
But lately the surfacing of people driving decades long personal
conflicts in the treads and barely keeping track of the subject ( it
does not seem important at all ) it has
In this tread I have tried to help by pointing out possible explanation
for rgro's acount ? ( channel imbalance is an ecpeptionally unlikely
outcome so every other far fetched explanation is more likely and the
most obvious ones somewhat ignored ) where did I bash some one ?
philippe_44 wrote:
You're right - and even w/o that wait a couple of 100M years and earth
atmosphere will have vanished and a few other billions and our red giant
will expand beyond our orbit :) why bother
But you can always have hope , when I read about have crazy people are I
secretly wish
doctor_big wrote:
Nearly half the population of the US talks to an invisible man on a
daily basis. And you think this machina dynamica stuff is loopy?
Jason
And they think it's freedom to carry a personal death machine (aka
gun) around 24/7...
rgro wrote:
It does, indeed, work both ways. There is polarized thinking on both
sides of these and many other issues of the day. However, it is my
belief that if you (speaking generally, not you specifically) either
are, or are calling oneself an educator, when questions come up, it's
Mnyb wrote:
On polarised thinking yes some things I say can come out that way ,but
it's for a reason . I do come from a consensus culture ( I'm Swedish )
but sometimes you can't compromise further .
If you think the earth is flat and I think it's round , the political
way of doing
philippe_44 wrote:
WTF ... really, for my mental health, I'll pretend it is an April's fool
day joke
[edit]: I should not have started to read this ... :) my trust in
mankind was already low enough
The problem will eventually fix itself . Our great leaders are commonly
ignoring the low
cliveb wrote:
Loonies like this keep the world an entertaining place, as long as we
don't take them seriously.
Or give them money or political power in some big powerful nation , wait
a minut.
Main hifi: Touch +
bonze wrote:
Quantum Dots !!
The they contain the quantum material !? Just like people are afraid of
chemicals or atoms .
( hint everything is chemicals atoms and quarks etc aka quantum material
)
Besides quantum dots ? It is not a bit against the principle of the
uncertainty principle ...
Even if your not engineer or scientist you can train your ability for
critical thinking .
This is then course A an easy example on page one... :)
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
philippe_44 wrote:
Then and if some believe it, this is a mix of sad, terrifying, laughable
and infuriating.
The terrifying part comes to me at other situations like the crocery or
healt store where you see shelfs filled of homeopathic meds and all
kinds of nutritional supplements .
philippe_44 wrote:
Come-on, it has to be a joke
'May the force be with you'
Oh no search for machinadynamica on the net ( geof kait runs
machinadynamica ) you find all kinds off silly gadgets like the clever
little clock and this gem the intelligent box
Julf wrote:
'www.stereophile.com: Morphic Housekeeping 101 - Bar Code
Labels/content/morphic-housekeeping-101'
(http://www.stereophile.com/content/morphic-housekeeping-101)
I think that guy is truly unhinged ? he has some kind of issues , he
misinterprets all kinds of quantum physics and
rgro wrote:
What a nutjob. I wonder, however, if he's speaking more about the bar
code stickers that contain the RFID chips. That would, at least,
introduce an element of technology involved as opposed to stray bits of
printer ink just randomly interfering with our brains. I don't know
The best thing with this measurment is that it's really done in situ
you can clearly see that virtually nothing about the sound changes in
the listening position .
Some crackpot would still come with the argument that the measurment
signal is not music (fourier anyone ) .
Then just use a whole
rgro wrote:
After moving the dac and server out into a better lit part of the
shelf, back in the dark recesses of the back panel of the server I noted
that and hadn't see that there were two USB outs, one right above the
other. It appears that one of them is flaky. The other one sounds
Yeas repeating the experiment is a good starting point .
Suggest that even if you have a dot marking the volume , simply do not
touch anything but the cables when swapping the cables .
Preferably ABX it with the help of a friend *including doing the spl
measurment unknowing which cable that's
Ohh forgot some things.
Try with a second listeners .
Extra ,while at the subject of swapping l7R analog cables do this ABX
style too so that the channel of the channel imbalance is also random.
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS
It's very hard to imagine a difference that could make a channel
imbalance in the USB interface since to put it simple the data does not
travel as discrete channels .
There must be an unknown factor here , did the channel imbalance really
go away . and was it measured at the exact same volume
cliveb wrote:
Wow, I had no idea that relating my little experience would stir up such
a sh*tstorm of vitriol.
I agree that the test I performed could never be described as
scientifically valid. But can we apply a little common sense here,
please?
1. During a sighted comparison, I
Another factor is the intellctual corruption .
If you believe in Foo in one area the leap to beleive in even more Foo
is easier to take .
Next alien abductions .
Wait audiophile alien abductions , where instead of the typical body
orifice prope you must endure abx test with high global
Foo measurement ?! Of course you must asses product performance even if
they happen to perform beyond human capability of hearing ? And
measurmant functions as sanity checks, if for some reason design errors
would creep into the project .
Sadly voodoo thinking has permeated in the brains of many
That USB device what has it to do with these two DAC chips ?
What do you mean by dismissed as inaudible btw .
Most measurements of current equipment is measuring inaudible levels of
everything no one dismisses these measurements ?
If they are correct they simply presents some facts about the
Gandhi wrote:
I recently heard an interesting theory on a scientific radio show. The
core of intelligence was said to be pattern recognition. The more
intelligent, the more you'd be able to find patterns. Even where there
are none.
I think it's a plausible explanation for conspiracy
Gandhi wrote:
That's incredibly sad! Hideous! I don't know what to say.
Yes if thats is one of the endstates of this harmless obsession to
move around mpingo discs 1/16 of an inch and then you die .
This can be a very time consuming a debilitating obsessions for many , I
was like
I can not agree more ,Im actually supporting sceptical movements I
think this is in the more important than money for the lates natural
disaster or war or whatnot . Most of humanities problems do arise from
ignorance or medieval world-views in general .
The antivaxer nutcases do threat our herd
it is also 99% implementation , you can get the best chips ever and
still build a rubbish DAC :) The actual Performance of the Transporter
exceeds those basic spec of the chipset .
Archimago measured like -115dB for the TP
And forums can play both positive and negative parts , people are both
social and competitive how do you become the best audiophile :) ?
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200
Yes they moved on to la la land :) , but why even try the site just
screams scam at you .
Thanks for reminding me of AIX mr waldrep has made some nice recordings
in the past I own a lot of his dvda's ,but productivity is not that high
I'll check if something new been added to itrax ...
Julf wrote:
Indeed. But that's kind of the point - even when you try to approach
with an open mind, you will be accused of being a flat earther as soon
as your results don't agree with the claims.
That's so open minded indeed .
And the tiring accusation of bits are bits arguments ? No
cliveb wrote:
Arny has already explained why an external master clock is not
appropriate to your scenario, and that the clock in the TP is almost
certainly good enough.
If you genuinely want to try and improve the clocking in your setup, the
only rational way to do it is to use a DAC that
trolls and political shills am on with the article . But this is just a
large nest of the sort suspect everyone from the Chinese to political
organisations are at it ,but at industrial scale I suspect that Russia
China US and the religious nutters of varying kind does it ( non
mentioned non
What I mean is that there are potential for further general sound
quality improvement with a better gain structure ?
When I had analog amps I used ones with variable gain settings on the
inputs or attenuators .
And as usual thanks for the interesting measurement and blog.
Is the HT PC much
Archimago wrote:
A few more measurements on my system showing the benefits of that
Corning optical cable with my noise-sensitive single ended analogue
pre-amp input.
Also thought I'd run a few hubs to see whether the 8kHz noise changes
much...
Still would love to get a hold of this USB
Ok now I've re-read interesting so the noise actually only appear with
the combination of HT computer - Teac DAC - Emotiva preamp in HT bypass
. So this noise is not even there with the same DAC in normal use ? Or
connected in some other way .
I've was not sure that I understood this right .
rgro wrote:
That is precisely my setup. I have a Vortexbox micro appliance (small,
Linux-based pc/server) which has only analog and USB outputs. So, I am
feeding the Benchmark dac with an el cheapo (I know you'll approve,
Ralph) USB cable. This is, indeed, why my interest was piqued.
Oh i forgot the base reason for further piontlessness .
Sadly most recordings aviable does not even challange the CD systems
resolution , certainly not cherished audiophile gems from the 70's or
the new loudness war cr*p .
Posibly you can find some special recordnings ( 0.01% of the market ) .
Julf wrote:
So far I haven't found a single one (and I have looked at quite a few).
leaving an opening for the rare exceptions , one can always be wrong .
If i had your experience in recording I could possibly be more sure .
Julf wrote:
If the reports are anecdotal and subjective, they will
Before this continues is there measurment around that shows the noise
and THD at the output on a DAC ( any DAC with USB input ) .
I can very well believe that JS found some noise inside the circuit
somewhere , he has the technical knowhow to do so .
But how much does it affects the output ?
ralphpnj wrote:
Actually Archimago is more like a hero, since he proves that there is
such a thing as an evidence based audiophile.
What I wonder is if Archimago's blog continues to get the attention it
so richly deserves will Archimago resist the efforts to co-opt him and
turn his blog
Many here are reformed Placebophiles I personally heaved a whole snake
nest of audioquest cables in the recycling bin... it felt good . I
choosed not to try to recoup some of the $$$ by selling second hand that
would be to promote this bizarre world view and if do, you have to use a
burner phone
arnyk wrote:
I see a measurable problem, but the audible part is not nearly as clear.
Am I missing something?
Good rule of thumb is that anything that is 100 dB down is intensely
difficult or impossible to hear in any reasonable application. Oh maybe
you can come up with some insane
A thing that surprises me is that this is a product that actually do
something real ( audible or not ) and suggested by SBGK who usually
write about stuff that is totally bonkers .
..but you could try the toslink or spdiff input on your DAC too , what
works best with any given DAC seems to be
301 - 400 of 1831 matches
Mail list logo
