On the original topic, here are a few to look out for:
totaldac
Empirical Audio
PS Audio (DirectStream)
Chord
Lampizator
Berkeley Audio
Rowland
APL Hi-fi
Bricasti
There are several others too. Great times.
Cary Audio 306 SACD Pro | Cary Audio SLP-05 | Cary Audio SA-200.2 |
Focal Diablo
jh901 wrote:
The hi-end server market continues to work itself out. For me, I want
most of what you suggest except that I want internal storage and a USB
output for use with a USB DAC. The wi-fi would only be used for tablet
functions. Seems that Aurender and Antipodes have nice products,
ralphpnj wrote:
First off - those are two truly excellent recordings by two true jazz
giants.
Indeed.
ralphpnj wrote:
As for audiophile servers perhaps there should be a discussion about
whether or not many of these so called servers are actually even servers
in the
jh901 wrote:
On the original topic, here are a few to look out for:
totaldac
Empirical Audio
PS Audio (DirectStream)
Chord
Lampizator
Berkeley Audio
Rowland
APL Hi-fi
Bricasti
There are several others too. Great times.
Are these players (meaning disc players, original topic) or
jh901,
Did you get my PM asking for an email address to forward to my contacts?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
jh901 wrote:
Indeed.
The hi-end server market continues to work itself out. For me, I want
most of what you suggest except that I want internal storage and a USB
output for use with a USB DAC. The wi-fi would only be used for tablet
functions. Seems that Aurender and Antipodes
Archimago wrote:
JH901. Have you not been running a computer music server all this time!?
Did you used to own a Squeezebox?
Missing out man! It doesn't cost much to buy a simple quiet/silent
computer and storage these days and start the ripping/tagging process!
Invest in a good DAC and
jh901 wrote:
I ditched CD spinning altogether many years ago upon buying my first
Duet. Those were great times! I definitely credit Slimdevices for
rejuvenating my interest in this hobby. I upgraded to a Transporter at
some point and then began to take a serious interest in building a
jh901 wrote:
Michanders are first class! I sent my cables out Monday and Analysis
Plus called today to confirm that they'll be shipping them back so that
I might get them before the holiday. Great service.
Meantime, I've added -Monk's Dream- and -Tijuana Moods- (Mingus) to my
jazz
SBGK wrote:
what is it about phds ?
Here is one, first class honours and his own cable company, what's not
to like.
http://www.custom-hifi-cables.co.uk/about-us
Classic fail - no points of the 3 point challenge were met!
The challenge was:
Prove me wrong - give us a link to a PhD
jh901 wrote:
As of now, I disagree with the few of you who claim that there are no EE
principles which explain audible differences.
I think we all are eagerly waiting for you to explain what EE principles
explain audible differences.
I also disagree, at this time, that I'm a victim of
arnyk wrote:
Other than for a very few pathological speakers, 12 guage zip cord in
reasonable lengths gives ideal, non-improvable performence.
I do not believe that my speakers are among the pathological, so I'm
going to enjoy second guessing myself.
arnyk wrote:
If you can't
Archimago wrote:
Bell wire? What is that 20AWG or thinner? I did say a decent length of
copper did I not as speaker cables?
As for golden ears, you, like some others seem to claim/insist you have
them (based on what you claim to hear on your blog with OS
optimizations)... Is this
Julf wrote:
I think we all are eagerly waiting for you to explain what EE principles
explain audible differences.
Would it matter? If I cite various links, then you know what will
happen. We could hold a conference call with a bunch of Phds who
actually design cables and there would
jh901 wrote:
Would it matter? If I cite various links, then you know what will
happen. We could hold a conference call with a bunch of Phds who
actually design cables and there would nothing said which a few of you
wouldn't declare marketing or otherwise BS.
Some of us have Phds in stuff
SBGK wrote:
In the early days I tried bell wire, 1.5 mm and 2.5 mm 2 core and earth
cable as speaker cable, they all sounded different. Guess I must have
golden ears.
Bell wire has enough series resistance to actually make some speakers
sound different.
The listning evaluations were
Archimago wrote:
Good luck with the zip cords...
Bottom line is that physics predicts that the demands of accurate
transmission of audio from 20Hz-20kHz in -speaker cables- is a rather
low standard that can be fulfilled more than easily by a decent length
of copper!
THE CLAIM OF
jh901 wrote:
I'm certainly not of the view that known science must be violated in
order for it to be true that there are audible differences between
speakers connected to a power amp with 12g OFC zip cord versus specialty
cable.
The way you make this statement it sounds as if you think you
I'm certainly not of the view that known science must be violated in
order for it to be true that there are audible differences between
speakers connected to a power amp with 12g OFC zip cord versus specialty
cable. I don't know how skin effect comes into play, for example. I'm
not one to
SBGK wrote:
just relating my experience, think that's allowed on this forum.
Of course. However it's important to remember that objective testing
will show inadequacy of poor quality wires with high resistance. No
magic there.
While I can appreciate your hearing acuity to tell the difference
jh901 wrote:
Would it matter? If I cite various links, then you know what will
happen. We could hold a conference call with a bunch of Phds who
actually design cables and there would nothing said which a few of you
wouldn't declare marketing or otherwise BS.
The hardcore self-proclaimed
jh901 wrote:
I also disagree, at this time, that I'm a victim of psychological
effect.
But earlier on you admitted that you are human. To deny that you are
susceptible to your perceptions being influenced by outside factors, you
are declaring yourself to be some kind of freak. Victim is
arnyk wrote:
Yes.
One little problem. There is no such thing as ...a bunch of PhDs (in
electrical engineering) that actually design cables.
Getting a PhD in EE or a related area has a prerequisite - learning
enough about EE to understand why audiophile cables are a myth.
Prove me
jh901 wrote:
Would it matter?
Yes.
If I cite various links, then you know what will happen. We could hold
a conference call with a bunch of Phds who actually design cables and
there would nothing said which a few of you wouldn't declare marketing
or otherwise BS.
One little
jh901 wrote:
As of now, I disagree with the few of you who claim that there are no EE
principles which explain audible differences. I also disagree, at this
time, that I'm a victim of psychological effect.
What is the rational basis of your disagreement?
cliveb wrote:
That said, you are in luck. The known laws of nature do indeed allow for
there to be an audible difference between different speaker cables. Bear
in mind, however, that the known science that explains this audible
difference isn't part of physics. It's part of psychology.
jh901 wrote:
I'm certainly not of the view that known science must be violated in
order for it to be true that there are audible differences between
speakers connected to a power amp with 12g OFC zip cord versus specialty
cable.
Other than for a very few pathological speakers, 12 guage
jh901 wrote:
Pseudoscience is dangerous, but declaring science as if you are GOD is
also wrong.
The difference is that science not only provides the evidence, and
allows it to be questioned, but actually provides the tools to do it
(and encourages it).
We go back to Theory of Knowledge 101:
jh901 wrote:
I intend to avoid your pitfalls, so it doesn't make sense that you have
such passion for your faith.
There are no such pitfalls, and there is no such faith.
I'm following Conventional Science (the Science that helped us send men
into space and survive and even thrive).
The
Julf wrote:
Anyway, you claimed , I am simply asking for an explanation based in EE
principles to explain audible differences. You seem to think that the
difference between actual scientific evidence and marketing material is
a question of opinion/viewpoint. What would be *your* criteria
Archimago wrote:
Good luck with the zip cords...
THE CLAIM OF AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE (IE. THAT SOMEHOW SOMETHING IS BEING
CHANGED IN THAT TRANSMISSION FROM 20HZ-20KHZ) BECAUSE OF EXOTIC
MATERIALS/DIELECTRICS, ETC. THAT IS SOMEHOW \BETTER\ OR MORE \TRUE\
TO THE SIGNAL IS AKIN TO DECLARING
Michanders are first class! I sent my cables out Monday and Analysis
Plus called today to confirm that they'll be shipping them back so that
I might get them before the holiday. Great service.
Meantime, I've added -Monk's Dream- and -Tijuana Moods- (Mingus) to my
jazz collection. ORG has
jh901 wrote:
I intend to avoid your pitfalls, so it doesn't make sense that you have
such passion for your faith.
Pseudoscience is dangerous, but declaring science as if you are GOD is
also wrong.
None of you can explain how the laws of physics are being violated.
Good luck with
arnyk wrote:
Exactly. The same will be true for any suite of listening tests that
avoids the traditional pitfalls of casual sighted audiophile evaluations
which are:
I intend to avoid your pitfalls, so it doesn't make sense that you have
such passion for your faith.
arnyk wrote:
jh901 wrote:
What are these laws of physics?
The ones you learn as part of a regular university education in
Engineering, Physics, etc.
These random guessing results do not exist though, right?
The fact that audiophiles often make purchase judgments based on random
guessing is often
jh901 wrote:
What are these laws of physics?
All those annoying little things like electrical current, voltage,
resistance, impedance and capacitance in wire. Ohm's Law, etc.
But I'm not trying to knock you here since it is quite clear that you
are making a very big effort to be very
jh901 wrote:
None of you can explain how the laws of physics are being violated.
That's exactly the point: one CANNOT violate the laws of physics which
is any and all properly set up and properly conducted DBTs involving
audio speaker wire always yield null results, i.e. random guessing,. The
ralphpnj wrote:
1) There are two different speak wires that after careful sighted
evaluations and listening tests appear to sound different, even though
all the laws of physics clearly state that this should not be the case.
What are these laws of physics?
ralphpnj wrote:
2)
jh901 wrote:
What are these laws of physics?
'UC Irvine Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science:
Understanding the Transmission Line Theory'
(http://www.ece.uci.edu/docs/hspice/hspice_2001_2-269.html)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
ralphpnj wrote:
But I'm not trying to knock you here since it is quite clear that you
are making a very big effort to be very accommodating and understanding.
Unfortunately I do know enough about to set up a proper DBT to be
helpful.
Noted. Appreciated.
Any progress made as to the
jh901 wrote:
Anyhow, Analysis Plus is HQ'd within 1.5 hours of GPWoods. Shouldn't it
be easy for you to discredit their engineers along with their claims?
After checking their website, I really can't think of how to discredit
them more than they have already done themselves.
Best Regards,
jh901 wrote:
If there is a zero-probability of audible differences, then ABX results
will be nothing more than random guesswork.
Exactly. The same will be true for any suite of listening tests that
avoids the traditional pitfalls of casual sighted audiophile evaluations
which are:
(1)
Julf wrote:
As many of the heated arguments seem to stem from loose terminology, I
think it is good to strive towards using precise terms. A test like this
only fails if it doesn't provide any information at all - it is so badly
designed or executed that the results are totally inconclusive.
jkeny wrote:
Sorry, loose terminology - what I mean is fail to be able to
differentiate between the two devices/samples - getting a null result or
a result statistically close to random guessing.
As many of the heated arguments seem to stem from loose terminology, I
think it is good to
jh901 wrote:
Sure would be interesting if any number of bickering audiophiles lived
near one another! Well, southwest PA isn't what I'd call audiophile
country, but we do have about the hottest new food scene in the US
(subjectively speaking). Perhaps we'll find a well regarded member who
jh901 wrote:
Sure would be interesting if any number of bickering audiophiles lived
near one another! Well, southwest PA isn't what I'd call audiophile
country, but we do have about the hottest new food scene in the US
(subjectively speaking). Perhaps we'll find a well regarded member who
arnyk wrote:
Between inexperience with doing listening tests that are actually
listening tests and therefore put a premium on listener training, and
doing listening tests that are by design destined to produce
random-guessing type results, it is easy to predict that a bad time will
be
Archimago wrote:
For speaker cables, although 14G is likely more than adequate for short
lengths, I'd see about getting a roll of 12G just in case one day you
want to make long runs. (This is what I did for 30' lengths to reach my
surround speakers.)
Have fun and let us know how it
jh901 wrote:
Thanks! I'll pick up some 12G. Is anyone going to protest that the
conductor in my Analysis Plus is 9G? My speakers are listed below, so
if there are any specs which create some doubts, then I'd rather find
out now.
I have no exact impedance plots but the Diablo should have
Now that I think about it, I still have my Zu Audio Wax cables, which
have a copper conductor. I'm not sure what gauge or if there are any
specs which would create a problem. Anyhow, I've made the switch. I'd
intended to do so anyhow after several months with the Analysis Plus.
I will
jh901 wrote:
Now that I think about it, I still have my Zu Audio Wax cables, which
have a copper conductor. I'm not sure what gauge or if there are any
specs which would create a problem. Anyhow, I've made the switch. I'd
intended to do so anyhow after several months with the Analysis
jh901 wrote:
Noted. Appreciated. Here comes the credit card. My first gear
purchase in about 10 months.
BTW. 2x12G runs is 9G so if you have biwire inputs on the Diablo, you
could do this and twist the 2 wires on the amp side together... You can
have fun braiding the cables together as
Wombat wrote:
I have no exact impedance plots but the Diablo should have no surprise
there. A simple 2-way with single mid-bass and Focal chassis does not
have low dips in impedance.
Noted. Appreciated. Here comes the credit card. My first gear
purchase in about 10 months.
Cary Audio
jh901 wrote:
You aren't helping.
I'm helping the way one helps people who are paddling their canoe over
a waterfall.
Is there any chance that you could be convinced to provide support which
you believe will increase the chance that a good time will be had by
all?
best support I can
Archimago wrote:
Couldn't find info on these Wax cables. What are they like?
18327
+---+
|Filename: Zu Wax cables.jpg|
|Download:
arnyk wrote:
best support I can give you: Do listening tests that involve actual
audible differences, or at least have some non-zero probability of
involving audible differences.
If there is a zero-probability of audible differences, then ABX results
will be nothing more than random
Archimago wrote:
Couldn't find info on these Wax cables. What are they like?
Zu Audio Wax speaker cables
I think they came out 2001, so they've been discontinued for some time.
I can't find a link with specs, but I bet there's something out there.
I know that the conductor is copper and
jkeny wrote:
Again you try very hard to make it appear that the advice I gave jh901
is somehow erroneous without specifically stating what is incorrect in
my statement to him.\
No, it is just that I despair of repeating advice that I just gave in
the recent past that obviously flew right
So, Arny, despite all your convoluted posts apparent disagreement
with the advice I posted to jh901 - you find no grounds to disagree with
it.
jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192
View
artee wrote:
An interesting result. It appears that the tester can reliably identify
a difference, but of what - given that the 24/192 hi-res was upsampled
from the 16/44 lo-res. Full marks to the tester for doing an ABX and
publishing the results, though.
Yes, indeed a very interesting
jkeny wrote:
So, Arny, despite all your convoluted posts apparent disagreement
with the advice I posted to jh901 - you find no grounds to disagree with
it.
?
I disagree with your advice on the grounds that it is irrelevant to
actual audio testing, and contains the many
Again you try very hard to make it appear that the advice I gave jh901
is somehow erroneous without specifically stating what is incorrect in
my statement to him.
-Word of advice, jh901- do a blind test at home first - you need to be
able to isolate a short section of music where you can focus
And if you want advice about trolling go to an expert like Arny
jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407
jkeny wrote:
The speculation comes in the continuation of your post which you omitted
Archimago wrote:
Hey, just adding a comment about an interesting ABX test result rather
than general comment on ABX as you and Arny have been discussing!
The 16/44 vs. software upsampled 24/192 test is -very different- from
the jitter one! When did I imply that my comments on the Babyface
Archimago wrote:
Hey, just adding a comment about an interesting ABX test result rather
than general comment on ABX as you and Arny have been discussing!
The 16/44 vs. software upsampled 24/192 test is -very different- from
the jitter one! When did I imply that my comments on the Babyface
Wombat wrote:
We just lately had a thread at Hydrogen where someone did positive abx
with the Babyface playback at 44.1k against 192k. He was not able to abx
the same file with 192k-44.1k-192k i prepared with sox for 192k
playback. So yes, the Babyface itself should really produce clearly
arnyk wrote:
Is the correct interpretation of the above: When Naim did the
downsampling 192 - 44.1 there was an audible loss in the downsampling
192 - 44.1, but when you did the 192 - 44.1 downsampling with Sox,
there was no audible difference?
Please read the thread again. The files naim
Wombat wrote:
We just lately had a thread at Hydrogen where *someone* did positive abx
with the Babyface playback at 44.1k against 192k. He was not able to abx
the same file with 192k-44.1k-192k i prepared with sox for 192k
playback. So yes, the Babyface itself should really produce clearly
jkeny wrote:
As I said, Archi, I was asked to give examples of real world experience
of positive ABX testing when I posted advice to jh901 nothing else.
I also posted his ABX results for jitter files so unless you have some
evidence that the RME Babyface soundcard is in some way also
Julf, arnyk, and others: I do intend to round up a couple of academics
to administer the ABX. I'll likely take a look at a couple of links on
the topic, but I'm not interested in proving my level of expertise it
(which will be very little!). Of course, I'd think that anyone
following this will
jh901 wrote:
Julf, arnyk, and others: I do intend to round up a couple of academics
to administer the ABX. I'll likely take a look at a couple of links on
the topic, but I'm not interested in proving my level of expertise it
(which will be very little!). Of course, I'd think that anyone
Wombat wrote:
Anyone that has experience and can explain what equivalent cheap cord he
should choose against the 9 gauge oval? A 9 gauge copper but shorter to
have roughly the same resistence or some standard 9 gauge silvered of
the same length?
If no one here tells me what to get, then
jh901 wrote:
Noted. I suppose I'll ABX with between 3-10 passages that I'm familiar
with. We are talking about cables here so it shouldn't be as
challenging as source resolution (16/44 vs Hi-res). I expect dramatic
differences and if I don't experience that sighted, then I'll report
that
jkeny wrote:
Yes, I don't mean this in a sarcastic way but it's obvious that you
haven't done a blind test before - you don't realise what it entails as
I've tried to point out in my advice. You are walking blindly into a
test that will embarrass you some people are very happy to let you do
Julf wrote:
Great - still haven't heard back from my old contacts at CMU, and I
don't want to be to pushy, so I might wait a day or two before prompting
again.
Meanwhile, happy to answer any questions.
Cool. Appreciated and no rush at all. Ideally, I can meet a few good
folks over in
jkeny wrote:
Huh? It's jh901's claims (as this is what he is setting himself up for)
that are being tested here. And, if it's going to be used as some sort
of proof that jh901 can indeed differentiate between his silver cable
some cheap copper one, then he will be asked to produce
Anyone that has experience and can explain what equivalent cheap cord he
should choose against the 9 gauge oval? A 9 gauge copper but shorter to
have roughly the same resistence or some standard 9 gauge silvered of
the same length?
btw. jh you mentioned you changed sibilance with this cable.
jh901 wrote:
If all goes as expected then I can have a friend help with a blind test
before the official.
I just suggest trying to make sure they are properly double-blind. From
some other (non-audio) tests I have done I have come away amazed at how
good humans are at picking up cues from
jh901 wrote:
Ha! Yes. I was referring to throwing a blanket over the speakers such
that the sound is muffled. I was suggesting that it would be easy to be
blinded and hear that different and that I expect nearly that dramatic a
difference between my cables and copper zip cord. Well,
jh901 wrote:
Noted and appreciated. I will dig into your earlier posts.
Well, I'm not looking for academics looking to score for themselves, but
rather some curious guys looking to have a little fun for a couple
hours. There must be Phd students, etc who have an interest and who
ralphpnj wrote:
Okay one question - what do you mean by failing the blind test?
Sorry, loose terminology - I mean getting a null result or doing
statistically close to random guessing.
jkeny's Profile:
jkeny wrote:
The purpose of a blind test is to eliminate as far as possible biases,
influences on our auditory perception - the main one being the cognitive
bias that is cited as being the result of knowing what we are testing.
If you think that you can do a blind test without having first
jkeny wrote:
You are correct - I shouldn't have generalised your comments -
apologies.
The Jitter ABX testing is not done on just one file which has 1000ns p-p
added jitter - it includes a number of such tests on files with
progressively lower simulated jitter levels on some files
ralphpnj wrote:
I'm confused. Isn't the purpose of a double blind test to determine if
there is, in fact, a difference and not, as the above would have it, to
determine if one can find/hear/see/feel/sense an -*existing*- (or least
prejudged) difference.The purpose of a blind test is to
jkeny wrote:
Yes, I don't mean this in a sarcastic way but it's obvious that you
haven't done a blind test before - you don't realise what it entails as
I've tried to point out in my advice. You are walking blindly into a
test that will embarrass you some people are very happy to let you do
jkeny wrote:
As per the Gearslutz thread, it shows that the first step is identifying
isolating a specific aspect or artifact in the music that can be
focused on during blind testing. Without this step there is absolutely
no point in going any further as I advised JH901
Noted. I
jh901 wrote:
I'm in no hurry and I do appreciate the support so far and I look
forward to just a tiny bit more from a few of you. Again, sincere
appreciation.
Great - still haven't heard back from my old contacts at CMU, and I
don't want to be to pushy, so I might wait a day or two before
jkeny wrote:
I think it wise to do as you say but forget about the blanket - close
your eyes or some such blinding technique
Ha! Yes. I was referring to throwing a blanket over the speakers such
that the sound is muffled. I was suggesting that it would be easy to be
blinded and hear that
jkeny wrote:
From here
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-electronic-music-production/850044-foobar-2000-abx-test-redbook-vs-192-24-a.html
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
An interesting result. It appears that the tester can reliably identify
a
artee wrote:
An interesting result. It appears that the tester can reliably identify
a difference, but of what - given that the 24/192 hi-res was upsampled
from the 16/44 lo-res. Full marks to the tester for doing an ABX and
publishing the results, though.
Indeed - and the full thread is
jkeny wrote:
Well this guy, ultmusisnob, stated that he had a decided preference for
high-res material in his normal sighted, long-term listening.
That might well be, but as your quote shows, he states rather clearly
The above results contribute ***nothing*** to the established science
of
This guy also posted ABX results on Head-fi thread
_*jitter__audibility
(\http://www.head-fi.org/t/668878/jitter-correlation-to-audibility/105#post_9824683\;)*_
again giving his detailed description of his listening technique
As per the Gearslutz thread, it shows that the first step is
Julf wrote:
That might well be, but as your quote shows, he states rather clearly
The above results contribute ***nothing*** to the established science
of 192/24 versus 44.1/16 and human hearing, so we should not draw any
such conclusions from it.I didn't say that it contributes anything
jkeny wrote:
The point of linking to that ABX test was to show the pitfalls
techniques required to successfully pass such tests. It's immaterial
whether what he was testing was of value or not.
Indeed, the tests in that specific thread are not very interesting as
such: What they might show,
Julf wrote:
Indeed, the tests in that specific thread are not very interesting as
such: What they might show, and I assume that is why you posted the
link, is that some differences might be extremely small, and require a
lot of training and concentration to pick out. I guess the
jkeny wrote:
Would anyone,other than those taking personal pot-shots, care to suggest
what is wrong with the advice I gave JH901?
A basic rule of debating which seems to have been repeatedly ignored is
that -*it is proper is to attack the issue*-, but *-it is improper to
attack the personal
Would anyone,other than those taking personal pot-shots, care to suggest
what is wrong with the advice I gave JH901?
Does anyone disagree that he should identify isolate an aspect of the
sound that he can reliably differentiate both sighted blind before ABX
testing?
jkeny wrote:
The point of linking to that ABX test was to show the pitfalls
techniques required to successfully pass such tests. It's immaterial
whether what he was testing was of value or not
I was asked to
_-\-_-_-Can_you_share_any_positive_results_of_following_this_advice?\-_
after I
arnyk wrote:
A basic rule of debating which seems to have been repeatedly ignored is
that -*it is proper is to attack the issue*-, but *-it is improper to
attack the personal properties of the person raising the issue-*.
For a clear example of a personal attack Jkeny, let's take a recent
1 - 100 of 587 matches
Mail list logo
