Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[Teresa]

16 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

Doesn't sound like we disagree at much at all....i even had Kappas for a period and thought they were great.

If I had $3K, i would get a used $2K amp, $800 speakers and $200 DAC.   I am surprised that you would spend as much on a dac as speakers though...and it wasn't until I bought a better amp that i really appreciated bang for the buck.  I am curious what DAC you have that you think is worth spending $1K on when you aren't willing to spend more on speakers or amp.  I personally haven't found a DAC that is worth a premium over an IFI as compared to speakers or amp. 

 

$1K per component was not what I would spend but the maximum I would be willing to spend, I try very hard to spend a lot less.

 

My current DAC is the Teac UD-501 which I purchased for decoding DSD music files, it was considerably less than $1K as I got a good deal. Being poor, I hope it lasts until I die. It decodes my computer music files and the digital output of my HDTV. I know there are less expensive DSD DAC's now.

[esldude]

13 hours ago, jabbr said:

I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for Gordon but we could discuss which measurements would be appropriate -- another topic -- but there really aren't any that are published by the manufacturers of the cables -- he said he didn't think they have the equipment

 

I have suggested that one measure would be the analogue output line width of a pure digital tone fed into the DAC.

I commented on this earlier, and somehow just remembered what you were referring to was more, FWHM, full width at half maximum which is a measure in optics.  Typically half maximum power.  In terms of audio it would be probably more reasonable to use half voltage.  So full width (in hertz) at half voltage. 

 

Now with pedestrian devices that number is already about 1 hz wide. And Full Width at 1/1000th voltage is about 1.5 hz wide. 

 

So in terms of spectral width what parameters would you think more telling?  And why do you think this is an audibly significant measure?

[Don Hills]

5 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

...

So I, along with my fellow manufacturers, will just go back to selling our snake oil products with a money-back guarantee while basking in the delusional praise of thousands of unsuspecting, tin-eared, gullible plebeians (most of whom really are educated professionals who've been pursuing audio for decades--but of course that doesn't count).

 

--Alex C.

 

That's commendably honest of you. 

 

One small point: Unless those "educated professionals" happen to be educated and working in the audio field, they indeed don't count. For example, a highly trained physician is no less likely to be susceptible to "audio snake oil" claims than a truck driver.

[Teresa]

13 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

... For me, an objective piece of evidence is also a blind test. I take with a grain of salt all the sighted reports on these forums. When someone says that XYZ 'lifted a veil' or 'reduced noise' or produced 'quieter background'. I tend to discount it. I don't know what that person actually heard or didn't, what veil was lifted, or what noise was reduced. I discount it even more if I don't understand how XYZ is supposed to accomplish what is claimed or if it seems to violate known laws of Physics. 

 

8 hours ago, Jud said:

...I may be even more of a skeptic than you - I also take with a grain of salt many reports of blind audio tests.

 

On the other hand, I think many specs (if conservative and reliable) and measurements are a great help, as is just a better understanding of the way various components work.

 

Like pkane2001 I don't trust sighted reports, since I know everyone hears differently, has different rooms and different priorities.

 

Like Jud I don't trust blind audio tests, especially A/B ones as their protocols have a long history of masking important sonic differences. See my report I wrote in 2011 back before I had dementia. Why ABX Testing Usually Produces Null Results with Human Subjects

 

Also I don’t trust my eyes, I don’t trust ABX/DBT protocols, I don’t trust name brands, I don’t trust price, I don’t trust measurements, I don’t trust reviewers, I don’t trust salespeople. I try for myself with a money-back satisfaction guarantee or I pass. This is what works for me, I cannot speak for anyone else.

 

I might use a positive review or recommendation to consider a product to audition at an audio store or show, but I have to hear my favorite music on it before I even consider bringing it home for a trial. 

 

I also want components and speakers to be competently built and meet their stated specifications, but specifications alone don't tell me how something will sound, to answer that question I must listen with music I love.

 

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Now with pedestrian devices that number is already about 1 hz wide. And Full Width at 1/1000th voltage is about 1.5 hz wide. 

 

So in terms of spectral width what parameters would you think more telling?  And why do you think this is an audibly significant measure?

I don't know the limits of audibility--

Typically we use dB in audio so these units more familiar to discuss than voltage ratios. Close in phase error is highest so best to look at. Suppose a so-called femtosecond clock  is using a 1khz offset down -150 dB -- do you think that would likely be audible? Not many volts there  Would -70 dB be more likely audible? That's going to be very close in.

I'm  just pointing out what the electrical correlates are at the DAC output, i.e. If there is a claim that a "bad cable" that worsens "jitter" then this test will demonstrate that.  What is actually audible would need to be tested.

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, Superdad said:

And the pitchforks really come out for the entire class of USB products (of which my firm is now but one of many with) which improve signal integrity and clocking.  There is tremendous denialism with regards to many aspects of the digital audio chain, from the music server end, through to power supplies, data transmission, clocking, isolation, and signal integrity, and internal techniques in DACs.

Going back to how this started, with the discussion of differences in USB cables etc  that result in poor USB SI at the DAC, it does seem entirely reasonable that improving SI help -- I don't hear much argument about that (some but that's ok)

 

Again, an eye pattern is fine to demonstrate & Ethernet cable manf like Belden provide.

 

I haven't seen a good explanation of why cables ought matter when using a Regen etc. That's where I would personally delve into more detailed measurements at the DAC but I think you are right that such measurements wouldn't drive sales.

 

(That's why I don't directly  do sales to consumer market -- and when I'm buying I don't just look at measurements)

 

On the other hand discussion of SI etc naturally brings up the measurement issues.

[esldude]

22 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I don't know the limits of audibility--

Typically we use dB in audio so these units more familiar to discuss than voltage ratios. Close in phase error is highest so best to look at. Suppose a so-called femtosecond clock  is using a 1khz offset down -150 dB -- do you think that would likely be audible? Not many volts there  Would -70 dB be more likely audible? That's going to be very close in.

I'm  just pointing out what the electrical correlates are at the DAC output, i.e. If there is a claim that a "bad cable" that worsens "jitter" then this test will demonstrate that.  What is actually audible would need to be tested.

Well the available evidence of masking, frequency sensitivity, and direct jitter all would lead to the idea such very close in jitter is not audible. So I was interested in why you think it important. A cable could be a little better or worse meaning nothing. So is it just anecdotal description you are looking at? USB cable makers are uninterested in measuring those things.  All they need is suspicion and claims of better because jitter.  The digital boogey man that keeps on giving.

[esldude]

Well I cross posted while you answered some of my questions. What I would like to see is testing like Benchmark shows, immunity to high levels of jitter. So if we throw huge amounts of jitter at asynch DACs does it get into the output. I believe mansr had done this before.  I have too working with long cables without seeing anything.

[AJ Soundfield]

4 hours ago, Superdad said:

So I, along with my fellow manufacturers, will just go back to selling our snake oil products with a money-back guarantee while basking in the delusional praise of thousands of unsuspecting, tin-eared, gullible plebeians (most of whom really are educated professionals who've been pursuing audio for decades--but of course that doesn't count).

 

--Alex C.

Do you manufacturers sell product in the million(s) quantities like highly effective Power Bracelets or are we talking a few thousand educated professional buyers here?

[christopher3393]

2 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Do you manufacturers sell product in the million(s) quantities like highly effective Power Bracelets or are we talking a few thousand educated professional buyers here?

 

Throwing shade again?

[AJ Soundfield]

6 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Throwing shade again?

Trying the determine if there is an actual number for appeal to popularity

[christopher3393]

12 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Throwing shade again?

 

6 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Trying the determine if there is an actual number for appeal to authority

 

Sorry, A.J. My response was meant to be rhetorical, not logical, and to inquire into your intent behind the reference to power bracelets as a comparison to usb related devices.

[adamdea]

4 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

See my report I wrote in 2011 back before I had dementia. Why ABX Testing Usually Produces Null Results with Human Subjects

 

 

I'm afraid that in the intervening years someone must have broken in and removed all of the facts, links to evidence and logical connections from the article. I imagine that in its day it must have been quite something.

[jabbr]

42 minutes ago, esldude said:

So I was interested in why you think it important

After educating myself, and speaking with people who I respect and then doing even more reading, I've come to this hypothesis-- that close-in phase error is an important but overlooked factor in digital audio circuits-- ymmv

[jabbr]

53 minutes ago, esldude said:

Well the available evidence of masking, frequency sensitivity, and direct jitter all would lead to the idea such very close in jitter is not audible.

perhaps you are overlooking something  

[AJ Soundfield]

7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

After educating myself, and speaking with people who I respect and then doing even more reading, I've come to this hypothesis-- that close-in phase error is an important but overlooked factor in digital audio circuits-- ymmv

I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things. I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have a good instinct for this stuff

[adamdea]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things. I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have a good instinct for this stuff

Mr President

[Jud]

I see we are starting to get back into well worn grooves again.  Oh well....

 

My little contribution:

 

Back when I was a youth, a mere stripling, and dinosaurs roamed the earth, I had a receiver with an FM reception strength meter connected to our outdoor TV antenna with a long run of "antenna wire."  I noticed that moving this wire around (near the receiver where it was accessible) made a difference in FM signal strength.  Thus my introduction to RF reception and cables! 

 

A while ago I had a test piece in my system's USB chain that had the anomalous effect of causing the favored path for noise from my laptop's SMPS to run through the preamp and become quite audible.  So I learned that even an innocuous item of equipment being changed could cause noise to take a different path.  And once I had this test piece in the circuit, I could use it as a "noise sniffer," to very audibly tell what conditions reduced the noise.  Some surprising things happened, such as an Ethernet isolation transformer audibly reducing the noise.  I thought the built-in Ethernet isolation in the certified Blue Jeans Cat 6a cable should be quite sufficient.

 

My guess is that any audible effects (if they exist) having anything to do with USB input would be the result of noise, either noise from sources external to the DAC, or self-noise in the DAC circuitry.  As a speculative example I'd mention the Corning "optical" USB cable, which included very thin copper power and ground wires in a 10 meter long cable.  Yep, it's just a bit of plain copper wire.  But as installed in people's systems, could that relatively higher resistance path cause noise currents to run elsewhere than to/through the DAC?

 

At this point no one's demonstrated an answer to that; and even for people like Gordon Rankin who have the measurement equipment, I don't know what role if any installation in "real world" system conditions with all their RFI, EMI and noise currents, plays in his testing.

 

Yup, shielding and balanced operation, isolation transformers, etc., should certainly help with many aspects of noise.  How many of you folks have measured noise in your systems with and without these components, then conducted thorough, reliable blind tests to make sure any measured differences were audible?

[AJ Soundfield]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

I see we are starting to get back into well worn grooves again.  Oh well....

You know Einsteins rumored definition of insanity, yes?

[jabbr]

15 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things. I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have a good instinct for this stuff

Everyone is free to use their own method of deciding what they are interested in. Mine is as posted, in the context of a whole bunch of other threads and posts e.g. The "1/f" thread I started, so don't want to repeat here. Dennis honestly asked and I answered.

[Jud]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

You know Einsteins rumored definition of insanity, yes?

 

Exactly.  Stop the Insanity! 

[pkane2001]

48 minutes ago, Jud said:

As a speculative example I'd mention the Corning "optical" USB cable, which included very thin copper power and ground wires in a 10 meter long cable.  Yep, it's just a bit of plain copper wire.  But as installed in people's systems, could that relatively higher resistance path cause noise currents to run elsewhere than to/through the DAC?

 

I'm currently using an ethernet USB extender that allows me to place my PC in another room. As a side benefit, it also provides some level of galvanic isolation, regeneration (hub) and a separate source of power to the outgoing USB. In a blind test (and even in a sighted test) I can't find a difference between the ethernet extension and a straight, short USB cable. My chain includes an SU-1 DDC, so perhaps that eliminates some of the differences that would otherwise be audible.

 

48 minutes ago, Jud said:

How many of you folks have measured noise in your systems with and without these components, then conducted thorough, reliable blind tests to make sure any measured differences were audible?

I'd be willing to try the Corning cable, as well. I'd probably want to see if the two copper wires could be interrupted and fed with a separate power supply. And yes, I will conduct blind tests to confirm if I can really hear the difference. I also do try to measure all new components for noise and jitter at the output of the DAC, but admittedly, my measurement equipment is not the best: a Behringer 24/96 ADC feeding an older Macbook with a Toslink input.

[esldude]

56 minutes ago, jabbr said:

After educating myself, and speaking with people who I respect and then doing even more reading, I've come to this hypothesis-- that close-in phase error is an important but overlooked factor in digital audio circuits-- ymmv

So what have you read that was convincing?

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

your intent behind the reference to power bracelets as a comparison to usb related devices.

My sincere hope is that no one calls millions and millions of educated folks who experience positive effects of those bracelets, gullible plebeians. It would really reek of hypocrisy to dismiss the perceptions of others, just because one thought something is scientifically absurd and without objective basis, like controlled testing of efficacy.

[jabbr]

51 minutes ago, esldude said:

So what have you read that was convincing?

Not just one article but from from https://www.by-rutgers.nl/PDFiles/Audio Jitter.pdf

 

Quote

With AD- as well as with DA-conversion a

clock oscillator 'of good quality' should be

used. But what is good quality in this case?

Well, the clock jitter should be < 0.5 ps. But

this is not all. Recently phase noise close

to the carrier (‘close in noise’) below about

100 Hz turned out to be the most miserable!

It blurs the stereo image: the voices

and instruments become wider and the

sound stage becomes less deep. The

phase noise of the clock should not exceed

-130 dBc@10Hz!

 

http://www-tcad.stanford.edu/tcad/pubs/device/SPIE04_navid.pdf is a more general discussion and there are many many many others

 

Don't want to get too off topic, but this does go to the question regarding how we come to opinions and what "evidence" we each use to make our own decisions. The above quote demonstrates an individual with considerable experience who describes his own sensory perceptions.

 

The "1/f" thread was intended as a place to discuss 1/f noise (including close in phase noise) specifically.