Jump to content

G7

  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Freshman Member
  1. If you're about to order an Evo, you might want to check when it was produced: I've been told (by a highly reliable source) that, though it isn't published, the Evo produced in 2011 will include some upgrades - a new clock and some improved electronic parts.
  2. 4est, this discussion is about how to make music even more enjoyable than it is. I see no room for expressions like "rude", or "mud", or for nasty innuendos. In case you want a to-the-point reply, rephrase your post, dropping out the nasty words, innuendoes and attitude.
  3. > barrows : "I believe the following statement well illustrates the fallacy which is inherent in your approach" In order for someone to understand my approach as a whole, I should have been here much longer and posted much more. As this topic is a side issue of USB cables, I didn't elaborate much. I skipped a lot. The topic of blind vs open comparison could easily fill a whole book. > Quote of G7: "This problem can be solved, to some degree, by having more people do the same comparison." < > Quote of barrows: "This is also the same fallacy that is behind many of the reasons for insisting on "blind" testing. The (inherent) assumption that random, untrained listeners should be enlisted to confirm the performance of various components through "blind" testing is entirely in error.... Discerning the differences between components should only be done by one of two parties: trained listeners who have, over time, learned what, and how to listen, in order to discern differences amongst components; and consumers, who are making the choice of what component they are going to purchase for the enjoyment of music. No one else has any business in determining what component sounds better than another. Just as I would not rely on a random person on the street to choose a bottle of wine based on "blinded" testing, I would not rely on the same person to choose which audio components sounds better." < My point was that, in *principal*, group testing gives better results then individual testing. I skipped the attributes of that group, as I did regarding many other things, as too much elaboration. I agree, of course, that not everyone would be fit for evaluating sound components. One thing is one's personal evaluation of components for one's own system. Another thing is 'general knowledge'. Audiophiles agree, for instance, that the top Krell amplifier sounds better than the top Rotel amplifier. Disagreements begin when the differences are smaller, or because of various personal tastes (not to mention subjective bias). In each of these two cases, there's room for blind comparison, as the much less subjective way to go. If 5 posters here claim that 'A' sounds better than 'B', I'd regard it more seriously if the claim is based on blind comparisons. I'd never adopt this conclusion without hearing the component myself. It may, however, drive me into trying it. That's true for an amplifier, for instance. It is not valid for USB cables, connected to 4 different DACs. As DACs are different from each other, the conclusions arrived at by 5 people and 4 different DACs, are meaningless for my, or your, DAC. Therefore, when I say that blind comparison is better than open one, I mean that it is a better way for an individual, for choosing components. When I say that a group would a deliver better conclusion than a single tester, I mean that, for example, if the group members are capable listeners, and the group hears more detail in component 'A', than the conclusion is 'stronger' than if it came from only one person. If the personal taste of one person is quite different from the others' tastes, then the group conclusion would be meaningless for this person. We're stuck with either open or blind comparisons, both of which are imperfect. Out of these two, the blind comparison frees us of much more misleading factors, such as prejudice or preconceptions. Many people think that if they don't feel biased, they are unbiased, and this is simply not true. Every one of us is prone to be biased, without necessarily being aware of it. Those factors may - and do - divert our conclusion from what component is better for our own system, room and taste. BTW, when I compare components, in addition to evaluating the sound as a whole ("openness", etc'), I pick specific sections which are revealing, such as specific musical instruments or vocals. I may repeat specific few seconds of a track, going back & forth between 'A' and 'B'. This way, it is easy to detect the specific pros and cons of each of the components. Well, this is my way... I hope my view is clearer now.
  4. The conclusion reached via a blind comparison is valid only for the specific person who did it, if he/she finds a conclusive difference between two components. If no difference was heard, it's not impossible that another person would repeatedly find a difference, in the same conditions. This problem can be solved, to some degree, by having more people do the same comparison. If the number of people is large enough, and one of the components gets a clear statistical advantage, the blind comparison is much more objective. (It still doesn't necessarily mean that the majority's conclusion fits your personal taste in sound.)
  5. > by CG on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 19:26 "....I wouldn't trust a blind test any farther than I could throw a set of Wilson WAMMs. Why? Because everybody is almost a unique case, and each person varies from day to day and maybe even hour to hour. What might appeal to you may not sound at all plausible to me in terms of realistic sound reproduction. So, using people's widely variable auditory systems to determine which is best sounding doesn't make much sense to me." < CG, with all due respect, and regardless whether you'd care to reply: > "Because everybody is almost a unique case" True. But, remember that it is the very same 'unique case', who is comparing components BOTH openly AND blindly, so this can't be an argument against blind comparison > "each person varies from day to day and maybe even hour to hour." True. But, the day to day or hour to hour variations happen in an open AS WELL AS a blind comparison. Therefore, this, too, can't be used against blind comparison > "What might appeal to you may not sound at all plausible to me in terms of realistic sound reproduction." True. Would a component sound different when you know that it’s the component that's now connected, than it would sound when you don't know which component is connected? The answer should be 'No'. If your answer is 'Yes', then you're introducing subjective issues into your evaluation of the component. > " using people's widely variable auditory systems to determine which is best sounding doesn't make much sense to me." As it's the SAME person, with the same auditory capabilities, doing the comparison with the same audio system and in the same room, his/hers "auditory system" is not a valid argument against (or for) either open or blind comparison. The same is true for a whole list of more factors. If you like making decisions this way, it's your personal way, which should be respected. However, those arguments against blind comparisons aren't valid. > "This is a subject that can be researched pretty well, since there's a bunch of literature based on somewhat recent research that is available outside professional research journals." Please point to just one VALID & correctly done research, which actually proves that a blind comparison of sound components is inferior to an open one, as a way to make a conclusion. You won't find one. I'm certainly not claiming that blind comparison is a magical solution that solves everything. It, too, has limitations. For instance: People tend to prefer sound (or taste, or smell) which they're used to. (Especially when the sound difference is not large), we may prefer a component which has something in common with our old component, although the sound of another component may be closer to the original musical instrument. Also, people are very different from one another in how objective they can be in such decisions or evaluations. And then, there's the issue of personal taste. I prefer the sound to be as close as possible to the original recording file, because that's as close as I can get to the original performance. Others may prefer it 'sweeter' or 'more rounded' or whatever. for this reason, no human evaluation can be trusted to be 100% objective. Still, a blind comparison would get us closer to the sound that I *or* you prefer, by allowing us to evaluate the net sound, with much less subjective factors.
  6. Hey, I'm not "someone"... I'm 'G7'... :-) I use the HiFace M2TECH. There's no reason to think that the Evo would pose a problem while the M2Tech doesn't, but who knows... they're quite different. I expect to get an Evo to try soon. I'll then give a better USB cable another chance, and see if it's an improvement or not.
  7. > by Miska : "AFAIK, Naim DAC uses rate estimator plus fixed frequency clocks to run data from a FIFO buffer. Thus should be well behaved when it comes to clocking disturbances if the clock circuitry itself is well isolated and doesn't end up switching frequencies frequently. It should be quite similar to good asynchronously-clocked interfaces." I studied the Naim DAC innards, but that's not why I chose it. I chose it because of – a) Its sound. b) Its sound. (Not a mistake ;-) c) It handles 24/192 and beyond. d) The sound of the rest of the Naim system, with my speakers, in my room. e) Naim's emphasis on separate power supply units, for the relevant components. I heard clear differences between their 3 levels of power supplies, and "had nothing to complain about" the top one. f) The way the different components are intertwined as a system. g) Future modularity of the components. h) And, in spite of being black rather than silver... I did not even think of a USB cable when I ordered it. If it took "gold-plated carbon-fiber grounding, with octagonal titanium beads" to sound OK, so be it... Luckily, all it asks for is a plain cable. Got a phone call today, the rest of the system will arrive next week, Wednesday. Do I drool? Eh... yes.
  8. > by tarquineous : "How would you know if a DAC is "cable sensitive" ? If you were to know, would you buy the DAC based on that, rather than sound quality and features ? I hope you're not saying that when someone hears differences in cables, they should sell their DAC and look for another one. ??" Well, tarquineous, stretching my words into an absurd neither disproves them nor makes a point. > "How would you know if a DAC is "cable sensitive" How about – "If it sounds differently with different cables, it is cable-sensitive" ? :-) Luckily, I don't have to look for a DAC now... A long search and quite a few "auditions" led me to choose the NAIM DAC ("and" a NAIM system...). As I said before, a blind comparison showed no difference between a simple stock cable and a very expensive one. When I get an Evo to compare with the Hiface which is now connected, I'll also compare cables again. I'd like to point out again: On my system, no one could detect a difference between a disc-on-key with high quality master recording (straight from a recording studio), connected DIRECTLY to the NAIM DAC (which means no USB cable at all), and the same recording, ripped to a PC, sent via Wi-Fi to a Mac Mini, and connected by Highface and a simple stock USB cable to the NAIM DAC. It was easy to compare, as sticking in the disc-on-key automatically overrides other inputs. DACs are different from each other in the extent to which they solve potential problems. The analog part of the DAC, being influenced by the USB cable, is one of them. I'd expect a very good DAC, which is immune to USB cable influence, to be better designed and made in all respects, so it would also include better solutions to a variety of other potential issues which may degrade SQ. No, I wouldn't choose a DAC by its sensitivity to cables... :-) and no, I wouldn't recommend that you replace your DAC :-) What I WAS saying, is that if a DAC sounds differently with different USB cables, the difference comes from the analog part of the DAC, and not from the cables. Would you say that a DAC cannot receive bit-perfect data through 'regular' cables? Once the DAC gets the data – and its clock is stable – it's only its sensitivity to all sorts of non-data stuff in the wires, which can degrade SQ. Therefore, I'd ask which the best DAC is and not which the best USB cable is.
  9. > barrows: "....It would also seem that how a given cable interacts with the USB receiver would be worth measuring..... how does a given USB receiver respond to noise/artifacts riding on the incoming USB cable." In any case, the issue is not the USB cable, but the DAC's ability to cope with different cables, from the most expensive down to a basic stock cable. I wouldn't regard a DAC that is cable-sensitive as high-end DAC.
  10. > Encore "My explanation of the lack of positive results in the very limited number of blind tests which have been reported is that the SQ differences with for example different cables are so small that we can't hear them immediately." This is also the reason why many people don't like a blind comparison… it prevents getting the result which was wished for… > "Personally, even with equipment like amplifiers, I often don't hear any immediate difference. It's only after a day or two that I'm able to pick up the differences." Without a blind comparison, how can you know your imagination or expectation do not bias your conclusion? > "Even though the improvement may seem rather big by then, I don't seem to be able to hear them immediately. I know from conversations with other 'philes that I'm not the only one." Indeed. Psychological bias is universal. > "I'm absolutely convinced that blind A/X tests (not AB/X) may reveal statistically significant results if they mirror the conditions under which audiophiles actually experience the differences, i.e. in their own homes with their own wellknown systems, in a relaxed atmosphere, given enough time to make a decision." If there's a difference, you'd hear it at a shop as well (as long as you have the suitable conditions). > "Of course, to obtain a sufficiently large number of trials for such a test would be very expensive, but this is not a scientific argument--just look at CERN." You can bring your own CDs to a shop. You use a few, which represent various types of music, instruments, etc'. An hour or two would be plenty of time to detect differences.
  11. > CommonTater "....USB cables have no audio on them.... pure digital, a stream of 1s and 0s.... ....so long as that stream of 1s and 0s is intact, nothing else actually matters." Two issues: 1. Jitter, which may degrade SQ, if the components do not fit each other. 2. The effect of what streams in the digital cable on analog circuits.
  12. Hello Chris, We perceive changes in the input, rather than the input by itself. e.g.: If we put our right hand in warm water and the left hand in cold water, and then put both hands in the same Luke-warm water, we'd feel cold in the right hand and warm in the left hand. We don't feel the temperature, we feel the difference in temperature. If a steady pressure is applied somewhere on our body, the feeling fades and becomes numb after a while – because there's no change in the perception. We stop hearing a constant sound after a while. If it changes, we would re-hear it instantly. As we're "build" to hear changes of sound, neither short-term nor long-term memory would prevent us from comparing sounds. I, therefore, find it difficult to accept that "the brain has a cache that takes time to clear and reset before it's possible to recognize small differences in sound". It stands in contradiction to the perception of changes. Another interesting factor which directly relates to sound comparison, is that perception may be disrupted by other perceptions. If a physician mildly pinches a child, the child wouldn't feel the needle of a syringe. Anything can divert our concentration or perception from the nuances or subtleties of sound; uncomfortable seating, stress, annoying thoughts, hunger, feeling too warm or too cold, etc', etc'. Off topic - Senses can be improved/sharpened by the brain. The hearing of a blind person is one example.
  13. by barrows: > "....working for a high end audio company, part of my job was doing listening evaluations of prototype components.... ....I never used "blind" testing, and I do not feel that "blind" testing is a good way to listen to audio systems. ....I am not going to get into it here-if you want to know why "blind" testing is problematic, go read the thread." If you ever tried it, you might have found out that sometimes your blind comparison results in the opposite conclusion to your listening evaluation. What would have you believed then? – your listening evaluation, or the blind comparison ? There's no way to objectively compare 'A' to 'B' unless one doesn't know which one is playing. If we hear two components, and conclude that component 'A' is a bit better, but then, in a blind test, we can't distinguish it from component 'B', which of our conclusions is the correct one? > "Suffice it to say, "blind" testing alters the outcome.... " Of course it does, and that's because it eliminates subjective factors. No one is immune to expectations, preconceptions and self-deception, including you and me. Superb hearing, experience & knowledge are no protection from a biased conclusion, which is driven – for example – by the expectation that a product which costs double the price of another product (or even seems to us to be looking better), would also deliver better sound. Even the name of the product can influence the conclusion. A person who doesn't know this, or doesn't recognize this as a fact, should study the issue in depth. A high end audio company, which avoids blind testing of prototypes, is reluctant to look the truth in the face. This is true for anyone of us as well. There's no need for blind comparison between hi-end speakers and computer speakers. When the difference between two components is small, then the only way to get a valid comparison is doing it blindly. What stands behind the rejection of blind testing, is our tendency to be protective of what we believe in. We fear that our conviction would be proved to be a faulty preconception. > "as a skilled listener does not gain anything but added stress by being blinded, and the differences between these cables are not so subtle as to be psychological in nature." We're are not talking about being blindfolded… It's just not knowing which component is working, so why "Added stress"? May it be refusal to step out of the comfort zone of deeply embedded beliefs ?! This is EXACTLY where psychological factors step in, and where ONLY blind comparison of the 2 cables can determine the true difference, if any. > "If you hear no differences between USB cables, great, but do not expect to convince other's that the differences they hear are not valid and meaningful." I didn't offer a theory, and I do not expect to convince anyone with anything. I exchange views. As long as it's not my money you gamble with, I really don't mind how you choose your equipment :-) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ by tarquineous: > "Who says "true blind testing" is the only valid way to perform listening tests? I personally do not need to do blind testing, and find it a diversion from concentrating on differences, negatives, and preferences." How can the fact that you don't know which component is currently in use, divert you from listening and assessing the sound? At a live concert, do you first check the sound equipment, before you can evaluate the sound quality? If knowing which component is now playing is needed in order to concentrate on the sound, than this is the very proof that knowing which component is playing influences the conclusion, and that you force psychological bias into the judgment. > "Blind testing has its values however, and can be fun, but I usually find the group, or extra person, a hinderance, as much as a help, and proceed to verify for myself, the details of what was heard during the blind test session. Furthermore, it has often been the case where one person tends to dominate the opinions. This, I find quite annoying. Then there can be compromise and so forth, if there is disagreement." This is not a downside of blind comparison. This is a question of how or with whom to do it. All it takes is one more person, who will switch connections, so you can't see which one is connected. Make 2 copies of a 4 column table: [Playing A] [Playing B] [A better] [b better] Ask this person to do it randomly, sometimes reconnecting the same component twice in a raw, and to mark the one that is connected. On your copy of the table, mark your preference on the 'A better' or 'B better'. That's all there is to it. If you involve more listeners, just give them tables to mark. Oh – and ask them to behave nicely, or you'll play your recording of screeches ... :-)
  14. Socrates7, > "There is a point at which a theory becomes something other than speculation, usually at or near the point at which the experimental concerns get addressed. I think your theory, G7, can be quite straightforwardly tested, no?" What I said was my view, based on my and others' experience. It was not a 'theory', and doesn't pretend to be, as the criteria of a theory are missing. Yes, it can be tested. It has been tested, by me and by others, on my system. > "Get some "well shielded" cables with different geometries, metallurgy & dialectrics, and see if there are any sonic differences to the sound of a variety of whole systems." Did you make a true blind comparison, in which you could repeatedly identify one good cable as delivering better sound than another? Without such a comparison, there's no solid ground beneath the claim. > "The test would seem to then turn on the definition of "well shielded", but since the "spec" for USB does in fact require shielding IIRC, then we can assume that for the purposes of our tests, as long as they are "compliant with spec", they should be suitable subjects. " We both know that shielding may differ in quality. We also know that some systems/components are much more sensitive to the quality of the USB cable shielding than others. It could be said that the best USB cable is – "the cable that doesn't cause any problem in ANY system". However, as there're systems in which sound would not be degraded by much cheaper USB cables, the "best cable" wouldn't be better than the cheaper one, so it is not "the best" any more. This is not playing with semantics, this is plain logic. > "So, if we take three randomly selected samples, say a Belkin Gold, a Wireworld Ultraviolet & Synergistic Tricon.... ....Interestingly, we have evidence that there is, in fact, a change in sound quality." "if" – but IS this evidence based on truly blind testing ?? In my system, there was no difference which could be detected by 4 people, including a sound expert who operates a highly esteemed recording studio. > "Which means that we have behavior which seemingly cannot be accounted for by the theory, but ought to be fully explained by it. Which generally implies a flaw with the theory." Again, I offered no theory. There was no hypothesis to begin with. - - - - - - - - - - barrows, > G7... "While your speculative theory sounds great, unfortunately, in practice, many have found that what you are saying is not what occurs. It was neither a theory nor speculative, as you can see in this post. How did those many find it? Did each and every one of them find it through blind comparisons? I suspect not. > "I do agree with that no cable actually improves sound quality, versus no cable at all, (and this applies equally to analog signal cables) as cables are lossy, and the only thing they can do is degrade the signal." There's a very basic difference between an "analog cable" and a "digital cable". An analog signal is indeed "lossy". A digital signal (used within the cable specifications) is not. In an analog cable, the very signal it transmits is degraded. The digital cable may degrade sound by its effect on ANALOG components; it doesn't degrade the very (digital) signal that passes through it, at least not to the degree that the signal can't be received bit-perfect. > "I also agree that many of these audible differences may be caused by how much non-signal crap is getting into the component through the cable.... " The only difference that a USB cable can make is via the effect of what you call "non-signal crap" on analog components. > "....Those who have listened have found differences with all of the best USB computer interfaces, so dismissing this effect is not an option in practice." What should I believe? – my own ears, and expert ears who heard BLIND comparison with me, so I KNOW the comparison was truly blind, or general statements like – "many of these audible differences" – which doesn't point to as much as an attempt to objectively test the issue ? > "Just as with power cables, one will want to choose the cable that provides the best performance with their (imperfect) component." The signal in a speaker cable can be affected, while a digital signal is (in practice) not. > "I would suggest that you try a simple listening test. Using a generic USB cable vs a Wireworld Starlight-I suggest the Starlight because in my listening experience it clearly betters a generic USB cable, and the differences are pretty straightforward with close listening (and the Starlight is not crazy expensive). Make sure to use the same length for both cables, and also be sure to listen to some well recorded (high res is even better) music, with plenty of acoustic instruments, especially horns, violins, cymbals, and piano." As I've already reported here, I've done just that. 4 people with "keen ears" couldn't point to one cable as better. We have given a wide rage of sounds a chance to reveal something. As for the joke about no cable at all, I tried that too... A rip of a very good master was played through the computer-cable-DAC, and then from a disc-on-key (which was loaded directly from the master at the recording studio), connected directly into the NAIM DAC. Cable or no cable, no one could identify the source, not even the person who made the original recording. The system was out of sight, there was a sheet in front of the system, behind which one of us replaced cables or sources, while the others couldn't see what he was doing. I may be just lucky, and my system is simply not sensitive to the type/quality of the USB cable. The specific arrangement of the cables may, too, play a part in this. > "Additionally, while I love the idea that digital audio transfer over USB is "perfect", in practice that does not seem to be the case, and there are plenty of possible reasons this could be the case (see CGs posts earlier in this thread). At this point there are many things in computer audio we just do not understand, like the clear sonic difference between iTunes and Amarra-both are bit perfect, so why the difference? To me, the differences people are hearing between USB cables fall into this same category." How many of these findings are based on true blind comparisons? Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that people form these opinions by switching between softwares, aware of which one is used. For me, opinions formed in this way, are un-convincing. I wouldn't trust my own senses with such open comparisons, certainly not others'. [ I hear 'killing me softly' on the background... :-) ]
  15. Tipper, > "So, if the people who set the standard for USB cables know their stuff, then any cable that adheres to that standard is providing optimal performance for USB data transfer (?)" As some systems would deliver their best only if the USB cable is well shielded & grounded, and in other cases this is not needed, I'm not sure that there can be just one standard. I'm still waiting for my NAIM components, out of which I currently have only the DAC. It is connected to a Mac Mini with the simplest, unshielded, USB cable. Comparing it to a "very good & relatively expensive" cable, we couldn't detect any difference in SQ, so the plain & cheep cable stayed. It would have to prove itself again, when the rest of the components will arrive. I presume that it will survive the next comparison as well. If components, other than NAIM, would have been purchased, the result could have been the other way around. > "It may follow then that any cable that sounds significantly different to a cable that adheres to this standard is in fact a degradation in sound quality (?) If this is accepted, then any USB cable that isn’t certified as being of that standard can be ruled out of the debate (?)" I think that it is not a question of one single standard. If a system "behaves itself" with a plain USB cable, then this "lower standard" is all that's needed. If it doesn't, a well shielded cable would solve the issue, and I'd personally go for the best shielding. The wires that transmit the digital signal are, IMO, quite meaningless.
×
×
  • Create New...