Massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming?

[diecaster]

10 minutes ago, greenleo said:

Hi Guys,  I'm leaving.  The OP just attacks the other thread for something that the OP cannot understand and state again and again "that's not right", "that's not possible". 

Please learn how Faraday's law was discovered.

 

I came here to see if any positive ideas may come out and the replies are usually "don't do this, it won't work", "don't do that, it shouldn't work",...etc.  Even if I believe in all these, I still cannot proceed to a better SQ.  Positives actionable items cannot come out and will not come out.

 

Good bye and have a good time.

 

 

Bye. ??

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, greenleo said:

Peter, what do you mean or they mean that they (BNC cables) don't (work)?

 

This was a bit with a shortcut, I'm afraid. It is two-folded (of what I read, I am not claiming a single things here myself):

 

1. Sound is too harsh from the stock cables so people seek for better BNC cables (this would be the "50% I referred to);

2. Better BNC cables quite often don't work and stutter instead (or flashing screen on the M Scaler and nothing works).

 

Ad 1.

... which people try to counter attack with 1 up to 1 million  ferrites and which almost always helps them (again, of what I read).

 

Ad 2.

This at first included our own.

 

22 minutes ago, greenleo said:

If your claim is that Rob says, better BNC cables will not give better SQ, then the claim is plain wrong.

 

Again, I claim nothing - I only read. And FYI : I could read or interpret wrongly. Haha.

But no, I don't think so. What I see Rob often write is that when other than the stock cables sound less harsh, there will be RFI in order. The stupid thing is that his devices themselves create it (again, this is what I read). This, a kind of obviously, never becomes the real subject (and I certainly don't want to make it that).

So regarding the quote of your text, this is not really about better SQ (maybe I said that ?) but about less RFI impact, to be noticed by a warmer etc. sound (his words, not mine).

 

The main (combined) message is about the fact that other BNC cables often give problems, while Rib advises (obviously) to use the stock cables which hardly gives problems. Except for a too harsh sound. And I understand your remark about audiophiles always seeking for the better, but aren't the remarks about a too harsh sound not a bit overwhelming over there ? that's my perception about it. But with the cables (yes, the cables) already influencing each other it can go anywhere.

 

To be hopefully clear: that a device radiates RF is not something I would be bothered about. But it must be understood and apparently it can be attacked with suitable BNC cables. That is, if the too harsh sound otherwise would be a measure for it. And this is what would be my conclusion after reading in there.

[PeterSt]

21 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

That's 4 of us. Enough to start a boy band ?

 

I have the synthesizer.

[lmitche]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Yep. Hope we can pin down what it might be (allowing personally for all possibilities, including that perceived differences are not real, or even that they are added distortion I prefer), so that if it is something real it can be duplicated or improved.

Hi Jud,

 

Remember that jssg360 cable I sent you? This is every bit as real but the increase in SQ is much greater. Having worked with the NUCs for 4 months on over a dozen installations, and observing peoples reaction to the SQ, it is clearly repeatable.

 

While it would be nice, I have very low expectations that we will ever find the mechanism at work here. Happily, in the meantime, we can enjoy the beautiful music.

 

Thanks to Romaz and Piero for their role in creating and sharing this solution.

 

Larry

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

I seriously think this is one of the worst posts I have seen on CA. It bugs me massively. It saddens.

 

I seriously doubt it. Maybe it reads like that if you read it in isolation. Perhaps you should read it in the context of the response to Ricky who said exactly this "Bickering about thing you have no knowledge about is useless." I seek knowledge, and I will never agree to this: "trust your ears is only thing we can do."

 

 

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

8 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

I seriously think this is one of the worst posts I have seen on CA. It bugs me massively. It saddens.

 

I seriously doubt it. Maybe it reads like that if you read it in isolation. Perhaps you should read it in the context of the response to Ricky who said exactly this "Bickering about thing you have no knowledge about is useless." I seek knowledge, and I will not "try things for your self if you like, trust your ears is only thing we can do."

 

All is relative. I can get extra sad because of who says it (and this was you).

Maybe you forgot, but it was about me. RickyV responded to your post about your elaboration desire about my holes and such.

Make that a**holes and we will have fun again.

 

So basta. 

 

[pkane2001]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Still it would be hard to prove I was correct in my judgment but at this moment it is really not about that. What it is about is that I project this newly learned data on to the analogue cables and see the same happening. Yes, @pkane2001would be right it is conjecture (once again) but does he G-D know what the result is SQ wise ? or is this all not important and am I dreaming in my own universe for 12 years by now. And so many customers with it.

 

Yes, I G-D do know what the SQ result will be if there's no measurable noise in the analog output. Measure the noise produced by this cable in the analog output above, say -120dB, and I'll agree with you. Coming up with a theory about the causes and then using your ears to confirm it is a failed experiment from the start. Expectation bias will make sure of that.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Measure the noise produced by this cable in the analog output above, say -120dB

 

Just an arbitrary number ?

[pkane2001]

28 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Just an arbitrary number ?

 

Something that's well below audibility and just within the ability of measurement equipment to detect.

 

[esldude]

34 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Something that's well below audibility and just within the ability of measurement equipment to detect.

 

Some people think nothing is below audibility.

Conjecture, listen, hear, and repeat all the way to fantasy land.

[Johnseye]

43 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Something that's well below audibility and just within the ability of measurement equipment to detect.

 

 

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Some people think nothing is below audibility.

Conjecture, listen, hear, and repeat all the way to fantasy land.

 

Do you think you can feel frequencies outside the human audible range?

[Jud]

20 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

 

Do you think you can feel frequencies outside the human audible range?

 

We know this is possible, and some devices to aid the deaf rely in part on bone conduction.

 

However, for purposes of consumer audio, I personally feel it's a rabbit hole I don't wish to go down.   

 

 

[pkane2001]

13 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

Do you think you can feel frequencies outside the human audible range?

 

Infrasound, yes. Ultrasound, no.

[barrows]

13 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Infrasound, yes. Ultrasound, no.

And, let’s also consider that loudspeakers are not at all reliable in reproducing frequencies much above the audible bandwidth.  I very much doubt that frequencies above 30 kHz have anything to do with what we hear/perceive from our audio systems.

there was some interesting discussion here about noise inside DACs.  I am working with a DSC-2 variation which has no additional processing internally, just the discrete conversion stage (which does switch at high speeds, of course) followed by transformers (which are quite effective RF filters) followed by volume control and a very transparent gain stage.  My testing so far Indicates that this approach, has the potential to yield both the most detailed sound, while also allowing for the most natural sound (that is non-digital if you will, or perhaps organic).  I find with DACs, the trick is getting all the details, while at the same time having a natural sound.  It does appear,so far, that this approach of reducing the processing inside the DAC itself, is promising in this regard.  Apparently the forthcoming model from PS Audio is addressing the same concerns.

[mansr]

21 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Infrasound, yes. Ultrasound, no.

If you stick a finger in an ultrasonic cleaner, you'll feel a tingle.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Just an arbitrary number ?

 

Something that's well below audibility and just within the ability of measurement equipment to detect.

 

Right. So we're running in circles now.

No difference between Foobar and any other player of your choice is audible to you ? (no upsampling)

Please say "Indeed" so we can escape the loop.

[Johnseye]

33 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

We know this is possible, and some devices to aid the deaf rely in part on bone conduction.

 

However, for purposes of consumer audio, I personally feel it's a rabbit hole I don't wish to go down.   

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Infrasound, yes. Ultrasound, no.

 

Do you consider infrasound part of your music listening experience, and do you consider it part of your movie watching experience?  Two separate questions.

 

Jud, I think you've concluded that vibrations don't matter to you personally.

[pkane2001]

20 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Right. So we're running in circles now.

No difference between Foobar and any other player of your choice is audible to you ? (no upsampling)

Please say "Indeed" so we can escape the loop.

 

I'm not sure how we've gone from discussing audibility of BNC digital cables to audibility of different player software. 

 

[Jud]

28 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

Jud, I think you've concluded that vibrations don't matter to you personally.

 

Only good ones.   

[tapatrick]

52 minutes ago, barrows said:

..My testing so far Indicates that this approach, has the potential to yield both the most detailed sound, while also allowing for the most natural sound (that is non-digital if you will, or perhaps organic).  I find with DACs, the trick is getting all the details, while at the same time having a natural sound.  It does appear,so far, that this approach of reducing the processing inside the DAC itself, is promising in this regard.  Apparently the forthcoming model from PS Audio is addressing the same concerns.

Thanks @barrows for this contribution which has something of value. What I find enjoyable about the NUC AL in ram combination is not the extra detail that is added but the ease and natural quality to the sound. The discussions about more noise and more detail are not new but getting a more natural sound is what I am interested in. 

[Johnseye]

I personally find that vibrations or feeling the music adds to the listening experience when listening to live performances, playing music myself and from recordings.  It's more like a black hole than a rabbit hole when analyzing it, but entirely relevant.  If you ever think back to when you were at a concert and could feel the bass and drums then you know what I'm talking about.

[PeterSt]

 

33 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

I'm not sure how we've gone from discussing audibility of BNC digital cables to audibility of different player software. 

 

Paul, I think I still can track.

 

5 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Yes, I G-D do know what the SQ result will be if there's no measurable noise in the analog output.

 

And that responded to my post about analogue BNC cables.

But I think we should stopt this because it goes nowhere. You just don't want it to go anywhere. What is beyond me though, is how you (yes, you) were working on that analysis software (me expecting you to do something I had done and praise you for it). So what did you do in there, draw a line at -120dB ? or did you just have fun developing that software ? and why not - it is your good right.

But it prevents me from understanding (you) and all I see is unexpected responses. I can't work with them. So forget it.

It is not important either. Up to the next thread of this.

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

I personally find that vibrations or feeling the music adds to the listening experience when listening to live performances, playing music myself and from recordings.  It's more like a black hole than a rabbit hole when analyzing it, but entirely relevant.  If you ever think back to when you were at a concert and could feel the bass and drums then you know what I'm talking about.

 

There's a Keith Richards live album that does that in particular, and an Eagles live album as well.

 

But I have trouble imagining that a DAC or player/filtering software would just eliminate that part of the frequency range.  I think our descriptions of what we hear are locked into the past when turntables and cartridges might have appreciable differences in frequency response, but I doubt that's where distinctions among DACs primarily lie. (Though for example NOS DACs may sound as if the top end is emphasized a little due to IMD.)

[pkane2001]

42 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Paul, I think I still can track.

 

 

And that responded to my post about analogue BNC cables.

But I think we should stopt this because it goes nowhere. You just don't want it to go anywhere. What is beyond me though, is how you (yes, you) were working on that analysis software (me expecting you to do something I had done and praise you for it). So what did you do in there, draw a line at -120dB ? or did you just have fun developing that software ? and why not - it is your good right.

But it prevents me from understanding (you) and all I see is unexpected responses. I can't work with them. So forget it.

It is not important either. Up to the next thread of this.

 

I'm afraid I'm lost, even though you can still track  I'm really not sure what you are talking about, Peter. I gave the number as an example. That's what 'say -120dB,' expression means. I didn't draw any lines, but it wasn't an arbitrary number. I picked it for a reason, and I explained why.

 

What I don't get is which part you are disagreeing with, and why. Is it the actual number? Or that I don't believe everything is audible? Or that noise can be audible but not measurable? Or?

 

Of course I had fun developing DeltaWave. It continues to be a great learning experience and a lot of fun for me. 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Johnseye said:

 

 

Do you think you can feel frequencies outside the human audible range?

People can 'hear' gigahertz radar signals if strong enough.  But this is not hearing in the normal sense.  Bone conducted ultrasonics can show up as perceived lower frequencies, but listening via the air such things are of no real consequence. 100 khz or so sound high enough in level enters the eye sockets and vibrates some auditory nerves.  Again in normal situations of hearing they are of no consequence.  Infra sound can be felt, and if high enough in level it can vibrate us enough our vision is effected.  Would you say we see infrasound?