View Full Version : The way we listen to music.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
25-06-2011, 12:35
We have seen on this forum and mostly on others the clash between an objectivist view as opposed to a subjectivist view. Personally I think this only happens with hifi and not when listening to music live as we have *the equipment* imposing itself on the experience / occasion. If we are at live music we get off on the experience / occasion, and that "get off" is emotional and physical stimulus, the intellect has little to do with it.
So it is my opinion that subjectivists get off on the experience of the music reproduction, where as objectivists have to find a way to intellectualise the experience and this is then directed to the equipment used and how it is performing instead of just enjoying (or not) and *knowing* how the equipment is performing.
As soon as the intellect is involved, and subjectivists have to use intellect to interface that musical experience with discussion of it, then fixed positions, ego based cul de sac sitting, and even the desire to join the latest FOTM kick in, and so do many other facets of human nature, and so does the potential for disagreement and conflict.
Jac Hawk
25-06-2011, 13:30
Fcuk me Richard that makes my brain hurt, all i can say is if i don't like the difference in sound a new piece of kit makes to my system, i either don't buy it or sell it simples ;) I want the sound to be as natural and lifelike as possible that's my aim when I'm tweaking my systems, plus i find the work involved in tweaking enjoyable, both the research (that's why I'm here so often) and when i get my iron out too :eyebrows:
worthingpagan
25-06-2011, 13:31
We have seen on this forum and mostly on others the clash between an objectivist view as opposed to a subjectivist view. Personally I think this only happens with hifi and not when listening to music live as we have *the equipment* imposing itself on the experience / occasion. If we are at live music we get off on the experience / occasion, and that "get off" is emotional and physical stimulus, the intellect has little to do with it.
So it is my opinion that subjectivists get off on the experience of the music reproduction, where as objectivists have to find a way to intellectualise the experience and this is then directed to the equipment used and how it is performing instead of just enjoying (or not) and *knowing* how the equipment is performing.
As soon as the intellect is involved, and subjectivists have to use intellect to interface that musical experience with discussion of it, then fixed positions, ego based cul de sac sitting, and even the desire to join the latest FOTM kick in, and so do many other facets of human nature, and so does the potential for disagreement and conflict.
I can't argue with your asessment, and strongly agree with this: "where as objectivists have to find a way to intellectualise the experience and this is then directed to the equipment used and how it is performing instead of just enjoying (or not) and *knowing* how the equipment is performing." :exactly:
So it is my opinion that subjectivists get off on the experience of the music reproduction, where as objectivists have to find a way to intellectualise the experience and this is then directed to the equipment used and how it is performing instead of just enjoying (or not) and *knowing* how the equipment is performing.
.
I think you are onto something with that, Richard. it's not black and white, there is some crossover between the two. I am sure that even the most hardened objectivist dances around their listening room with air guitar turned up to 11 at least sometimes:lol:
I have found that people who are deeply immersed in 'scientific' disciplines, maybe soley from their academic background or becasue it is what they do for a living, are more likely to be closed-minded to subjective opinion than thicko's like me with a degree in Philosophy. More tellingly they have an inflated regard for science and it's achievments, a 'we pretty much know everything about everything nowadays; we are now just clearing up a few loose ends' attitude. It is hard to have an entertaining or enlightening discussion with such people.
The wise man knows that he knows nothing.
It is taught, in the more ancient and esoteric philosophies, that the human mind has different centres that govern the various aspects of our behaviour. Sometimes one centre will do the task another centre is designed for, resulting in an abberation of behaviour or a failure to understand or connect correctly. It is interesting, in light of the section of your post I have quoted above, that two of these centres are named the 'emotional centre' and the 'intellectual centre'.
Just food for thought. (I think:))
Regards
Thinking, posting, talking in terms of the two tribes of object/subjectivist leads to constrains that cause limits, friction artificial not open mindedness.
Enjoy you music regardless of your kit.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
25-06-2011, 13:57
It is taught, in the more ancient and esoteric philosophies, that the human mind has different centres that govern the various aspects of our behaviour. Sometimes one centre will do the task another centre is designed for, resulting in an abberation of behaviour or a failure to understand or connect correctly. It is interesting, in light of the section of your post I have quoted above, that two of these centres are named the 'emotional centre' and the 'intellectual centre'.
Just food for thought. (I think:))
Regards
Exactly.
In the sub continent Yogic tradition these centre are called chakras and there are seven of them. In the closely related Chinese Qigong tradition there are three centres known as dan-tien and four gates, but the physical positions are identical. They don't physically exist and cannot be seen on xray so some say they are metaphysical or even metaphoric.
The three main centres in the Chinese system referred to are - the intellect at behind what some call the third eye spot between the eyes, the emotional centre at centre of the chest next to the heart and the physical at your centre of gravity just below the navel and inside the body. These are the areas you feel the stimulation initially that causes your response.
And you are very right about aberrations which could I suppose be nature or nurture, but IMO are nurture related. For example if the energy paths take music stimulation to the intellect first, then that would expalin a lot about this problem, as naturally it goes to the physical centre (stimulus to dance) and the emotional centre.
Maybe some feel I am over intellectualising the concept, but no one else has come up with another rational explanation so far, and it has caused much discussion. The other reason of course could be that we are all just plain cantankerous. But *I know* it is the former as I feel it, as I have been trained to do.
And you are very right about aberrations which could I suppose be nature or nurture, but IMO are nurture related. For example if the energy paths take music stimulation to the intellect first, then that would expalin a lot about this problem, as naturally it goes to the physical centre (stimulus to dance) and the emotional centre.
.
Yep, that is what I was driving at.
IMHO modern psychology is a pseudo-science which starts from wholly wrong principles and then goes on to attempt to define and quantify human behaviour with group studies, blind tests and so on. Although it may be effective in determining what is the best colour box to sell breakfast cereal in it tells us nothing of any true importance about our own nature.
Neil McCauley
25-06-2011, 14:34
Wise words indeed Richard. Not only do I agree with you but feel it necessary to admit that I'm subject to some of these influences. You'd think I'd know better after 35 years in this industry. But I don't.
I always read your postings. I don't always feel a resonance with them but the food-for-thought aspect is for me highly seductive. So keep posting!
Sincerely
Howard
One of the worst afflictions to affect the audiophile is 'listening for' things when you should be 'listening to' things. but I don't think that's a subjectivist/objectivist thing, rather an analytical/emotional thing.
Indeed, an objectivist might be less prone to this affliction; he will check the specs, connect the boxes, switch on, listen and enjoy, while the analytical subjectivist is always asking himself 'is that guitarist using a plectrum or not?' and 'just how many backing singers are there?'. The analytical subjectivist will be wondering whether different cables would improve the sound, while the objectivist, believing that cables are much of a muchness, will hook it all up with Maplins finest, saving a lot of cash and a lot of faffing about in the process. The analytical subjectivist will ponder star earthing, dedicated mains spur and other such electrickery, whilst the objectivist will say to himself 'any manking about with domestic wiring is going to have minimal impact, given the way stuff is treated in the recording studio' and save himself much angst, redecoration and possible electrocution.
So 'objectivism' is a red herring, IMO. What we're really discussing are different types of listeners: the uptight vs the relaxed. And most if not all audiophiles come into the first category, because otherwise they (we) would find something 'good enough' and spend our money on music.
Jac Hawk
25-06-2011, 15:59
One of the worst afflictions to affect the audiophile is 'listening for' things when you should be 'listening to' things. but I don't think that's a subjectivist/objectivist thing, rather an analytical/emotional thing.
Indeed, an objectivist might be less prone to this affliction; he will check the specs, connect the boxes, switch on, listen and enjoy, while the analytical subjectivist is always asking himself 'is that guitarist using a plectrum or not?' and 'just how many backing singers are there?'. The analytical subjectivist will be wondering whether different cables would improve the sound, while the objectivist, believing that cables are much of a muchness, will hook it all up with Maplins finest, saving a lot of cash and a lot of faffing about in the process. The analytical subjectivist will ponder star earthing, dedicated mains spur and other such electrickery, whilst the objectivist will say to himself 'any manking about with domestic wiring is going to have minimal impact, given the way stuff is treated in the recording studio' and save himself much angst, redecoration and possible electrocution.
So 'objectivism' is a red herring, IMO. What we're really discussing are different types of listeners: the uptight vs the relaxed. And most if not all audiophiles come into the first category, because otherwise they (we) would find something 'good enough' and spend our money on music.
Spot on Joe, i would like to think i fall somewhere in the middle, but probably don't :scratch:
I wouldn't describe myself as an 'uptight listener' - especially not after a few beers! If it's all sounding good then I m not analytical. If it's not sounding right then yes I am analytical because I am trying to work out what is wrong.
Some of us are as passionate about the standard of replay of music as well as the music itself and are demanding about how their systems need to sound.
An ideal sound or a sound we have heard at a demo or at a friend's house etc. That is what we work towards (with little or no budget in my case:lol:).
I've been at the point of 'that sounds bloody good I'm just going to buy music from now on ' until my CDP died and another round of replacements had to begin. What else are you going to do? Buy a Bose?
(Actually I now have a new laser for said CDP and located a bloke who will fit it for me so I will hopefully soon be in a position to re-create that sound again... )
We have seen on this forum and mostly on others the clash between an objectivist view as opposed to a subjectivist view. Personally I think this only happens with hifi and not when listening to music live as we have *the equipment* imposing itself on the experience / occasion. If we are at live music we get off on the experience / occasion, and that "get off" is emotional and physical stimulus, the intellect has little to do with it.
So it is my opinion that subjectivists get off on the experience of the music reproduction, where as objectivists have to find a way to intellectualise the experience and this is then directed to the equipment used and how it is performing instead of just enjoying (or not) and *knowing* how the equipment is performing.
As soon as the intellect is involved, and subjectivists have to use intellect to interface that musical experience with discussion of it, then fixed positions, ego based cul de sac sitting, and even the desire to join the latest FOTM kick in, and so do many other facets of human nature, and so does the potential for disagreement and conflict.
For me there are too many absolutes in your thinking and a clear bias towards the positives of subjectivism and the negatives of objectivism in that post.
I promise you it is possible to love listening to well produced and reproduced music whilst at the same time getting enjoyment from looking up specs and exploring the workings of hifi equipment.
worthingpagan
25-06-2011, 17:17
I promise you it is possible to love listening to well produced and reproduced music whilst at the same time getting enjoyment from looking up specs and exploring the workings of hifi equipment.
I believe you :cool:
For me there are too many absolutes in your thinking and a clear bias towards the positives of subjectivism and the negatives of objectivism in that post.
I promise you it is possible to love listening to well produced and reproduced music whilst at the same time getting enjoyment from looking up specs and exploring the workings of hifi equipment.
A view I share Ian. I also dislike being judged according to someone elses simplistic opinions/standards.
For me there are too many absolutes in your thinking and a clear bias towards the positives of subjectivism and the negatives of objectivism in that post.
I promise you it is possible to love listening to well produced and reproduced music whilst at the same time getting enjoyment from looking up specs and exploring the workings of hifi equipment.
I'd agree with that.
The problem is that you are in control of the gear because it is yours. Therefore it's up to you to work out what can be improved and to find a way to do it..
Now, if you're obsessed with improving your hifi all the time then you never get to relax and enjoy the music - you're always being analytical and I think that actually it is that aspect of things that bothers people rather than objectivist/subjectivist.
I think you can probably split objectivist/subjectivist camps down these lines into those who are able to relax and move their attention to their senses more easily (and therefore reach a more holistic, emotional part of their brain in thought) and those who are ever more concious, cerebral in their listening, quite self-aware and less relaxed (and therefore more analytical in their involvement with the music and so relate those aspects with the things conciously in front of them, the objects).
I guess the idea is to be able to be self aware in a different sense so you recognise which state you're in and learn to choose and flip in to each at will..
Personally I don't and never have believed that the subjectivist objectivist dichotomy exists naturally. I think it's been a construct of the industry/hobby (perhaps a natural construct, natural to human nature) precisely for the sake of tribalism and then given reams of converage to prevoke debate to fill otherwise sparse letter bags for all the magazines in the 80s..
Surely we all exhibit both?
To give an example perhaps, Richard mentioned in another thread about how he didn't understand the enthusiasm for class-D amps. He started the paragraph saying how he was aware and familiar with the circuit design from the 70s and I got the impression that he didn't think the design was anything good for audio. He then said he'd listened to some class-D amps of today and they didn't do it for him..
I would say that is an example (perhaps a bad one because it seems to span decades!) of someone, just like everyone else, of using both objectivity and subjectivity to make hifi choices. The rest of the debate is entirely self-image/self-identity based IMHO.
As an aside, to throw this in:
Isn't the purest subjectivist someone who has no idea about high-end hifi in the first place? Funny then that most people are happy with small Denon U-31s! Put them though in front of ANY high-end hifi and they are impressed.
So, if we want to be pure subjectivists then go to a dealer, throw some money at it and just listen to the amazing music! i.e. drop the hobby.. I have to sadly say, that that idea appeals more and more as I realise how much time I spend NOT listening to music. Unfortunately, a dealer doesn't exist that is tuned to my price points AND tastes for old high-end gear - I have to find it myself to fit under my price point.
(That's just given me a business idea...)
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
25-06-2011, 20:10
A subjectivist wants to improve his hi-fi for the sake of the music, an objectivist want to improve his hi-fi largely for the sake of his ego. For instant to quote better specs at someone. In the old days it was "my amp is 100w yours is only 50w so mine is better". This still goes on amongst the kids not into hi-fi. Look how many crap cheap speaker sold in the multiples have 100w written on the back, it is the magic number. So most objectivist haven't got a clue what they are reading or quoting as most of it is bullshit. NO speaker can be 100w or any w as it doesn't generate a voltage or current, so the number is meaningless like most specs.
So most objectivist actually lose interest in music (but alway claim they don't) because their only interest is in intellectualising their experience. This eventually with most of them means they end up with Quad amps and BBC style loudspeakers. Well good luck to them, someone has to buy them, but for some reason they just want to inflict their obvious unhappiness on us.
Reid Malenfant
25-06-2011, 20:22
Look how many crap cheap speaker sold in the multiples have 100w written on the back, it is the magic number. So most objectivist haven't got a clue what they are reading or quoting as most of it is bullshit. NO speaker can be 100w or any w as it doesn't generate a voltage or current, so the number is meaningless like most specs.
While i do agree with you Richard, that power rating on the back of the speakers is the recommended maximum amplifier power that the speaker is fed. Now i know you know this as well as i do, & in fact it's even more useless to someone who knows what they are doing! As an example Yamaha NS1000Ms are rated at 50W RMS, which is frankly a load of cobblers as i have fed a nice clean signal of over 300W RMS to a pair of the bass drivers on more than a couple of occasions.
Unfortunately manufacturers have to treat people like idiots so they don't blow the drivers in the warranty period. As long as speakers are fed clean power they'll quite likely take more than the standard rating. It's when amplifiers clip that things tend to go wrong imo.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
25-06-2011, 20:26
While i do agree with you Richard, that power rating on the back of the speakers is the recommended maximum amplifier power that the speaker is fed. Now i know you know this as well as i do, & in fact it's even more useless to someone who knows what they are doing! As an example Yamaha NS1000Ms are rated at 50W RMS, which is frankly a load of cobblers as i have fed a nice clean signal of over 300W RMS to a pair of the bass drivers on more than a couple of occasions.
Unfortunately manufacturers have to treat people like idiots so they don't blow the drivers in the warranty period. As long as speakers are fed clean power they'll quite likely take more than the standard rating. It's when amplifiers clip that things tend to go wrong imo.
Quite right, it is an underpowered clipping amplifiers that damages speakers, most often the tweeter as it doesn't like a square wave.
Those most often classified as 'objectivists' these days don't have Quad amplifiers or BBC loudspeakers; they have computer-based systems and active speakers. They don't see the need for fancy cables or supports, and they think that those who do are simply deluded. It's another closed-mind approach, to go with the Linn/Naim flat earth source-first mindset, or any other attitude that sees a 'one true path' that everyone must or should follow.
I personally don't see what's wrong with saying 'this is what I like, but your mileage may vary' and not worrying what other people spend their money on.
Good point, Joe, but I don't think anyone does.
I guess that on forums people need a good debate, and something to get their teeth into, so if we all just done as you suggest, although eminently sensible, forum life would be a pretty boring! ;)
Marco.
Good point, Joe, but I don't think anyone does.
I guess that on forums people need a good debate, and something to get their teeth into, so if we all just done as you suggest, although eminently sensible, forum life would be a pretty boring! ;)
Marco.
Oh sure, and I don't always follow my own advice. But it does seem daft the way some people get all het up because someone else doesn't hear what they do, or dislikes equipment they hold dear. We don't all like the same food, the same films, or the same music, so why should we all like the same cables or amps?
Yup, totally with you on that :)
Marco.
griffo104
25-06-2011, 21:55
i got into hifi for the music, to get closer to it. However, i've made the mistake for trying to think too much about it thinking hifi rather than enjoying the music.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
25-06-2011, 22:05
Those most often classified as 'objectivists' these days don't have Quad amplifiers or BBC loudspeakers; they have computer-based systems and active speakers.
Yes you are quite right, I am referring to the old preference.
But it does seem daft the way some people get all het up because someone else doesn't hear what they do, or dislikes equipment they hold dear. We don't all like the same food, the same films, or the same music, so why should we all like the same cables or amps?
Nail on the head for me Joe :thumbsup:
We have seen on this forum and mostly on others the clash between an objectivist view as opposed to a subjectivist view. Personally I think this only happens with hifi and not when listening to music live as we have *the equipment* imposing itself on the experience / occasion. If we are at live music we get off on the experience / occasion, and that "get off" is emotional and physical stimulus, the intellect has little to do with it.
So it is my opinion that subjectivists get off on the experience of the music reproduction, where as objectivists have to find a way to intellectualise the experience and this is then directed to the equipment used and how it is performing instead of just enjoying (or not) and *knowing* how the equipment is performing.
As soon as the intellect is involved, and subjectivists have to use intellect to interface that musical experience with discussion of it, then fixed positions, ego based cul de sac sitting, and even the desire to join the latest FOTM kick in, and so do many other facets of human nature, and so does the potential for disagreement and conflict.
My dog spot 8 my HiFi.
He seems to prefer eating the British gear first.
Is he objective or subjective and Yes, he likes it best with HP sauce.
It sounds good or it doesn't,if it doesn't figure out why and fix it so that it dose.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
26-06-2011, 08:44
What frustrates me is the statement that there is no difference. With our newer understanding of science you would think that the objectivist who quote it so much would realise that *everything* is different even if we have to go to the molecular or sub atomic realm to find it. In reality the problem for us is not that there is no difference, it is that we can or cannot perceive it.
For me I never say there is no difference, I just say I cannot hear it, then it is incumbent on me to find a way to create equipment so that you can.
I still think the human ear and its associated energy paths are the most sensitive test equipment that exist. Not for mechanical scientific reasons but for our ability to relate the noise we call music to pleasure and mood changes.
Music is an astonishing art form capable of playing with you like you are one of the instruments playing it. From music that just makes you get up and move around (dance) to music that makes you lie down close your eyes and dream. What the hell has any of that got to do with blind tests and specs.
Richard, It seems to me that you are creating a false dichotomy, then assigning positive traits to one side and negative to the other. It from your world view:
An Objectivist will:
Regard CD and lossless or high bitrate digital sources as good enough
Be confidant that any properly implented DAC is as good as any other
Not worry about the source to dac cable as long as it allows error free communication
Not worry about DAC to amplifier connection as long as it behaves like a wire.
Assume that any amplifier that is flat from DC to 100kHz and has a output impedance of less than 0.2 ohm is good enough
Make sure that as much as possible is spent on the speakers and they are arranged in the best possible listening room to standard practices that has been well known in the industry for decades
Use speaker cable that can handle the max power requirement without adding frequency or power limits.
If possible add room treatment as long as its domestically possible.
If possible use active crossovers and or digital source to speaker connections
Having done all that, they will stop worrying about the source and just listen to music.
An Subjectivist will:
Worry endlessly about every item in the above list, continually listening to the last component they have changed, and worrying about the latest opinion on the internet or the magazines from someone they have promoted to "guru" status. Once in a while when the stars align, they will have a moment of musical nirvana, but that will be tinged with the understanding that the moment is only fleeting and will be gone next time they sit down to listen.
In between all the above, listen to music on their iPod on the tube going to work.
In reality, no one falls into either of those camps.
I agree with Nick and your summation reflects how I approach hifi and my music. :thumbsup:
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
26-06-2011, 10:53
Richard, It seems to me that you are creating a false dichotomy, then assigning positive traits to one side and negative to the other. It from your world view:
An Objectivist will:
Regard CD and lossless or high bitrate digital sources as good enough
Be confidant that any properly implented DAC is as good as any other
Not worry about the source to dac cable as long as it allows error free communication
Not worry about DAC to amplifier connection as long as it behaves like a wire.
Assume that any amplifier that is flat from DC to 100kHz and has a output impedance of less than 0.2 ohm is good enough
Make sure that as much as possible is spent on the speakers and they are arranged in the best possible listening room to standard practices that has been well known in the industry for decades
Use speaker cable that can handle the max power requirement without adding frequency or power limits.
If possible add room treatment as long as its domestically possible.
If possible use active crossovers and or digital source to speaker connections
Having done all that, they will stop worrying about the source and just listen to music.
An Subjectivist will:
Worry endlessly about every item in the above list, continually listening to the last component they have changed, and worrying about the latest opinion on the internet or the magazines from someone they have promoted to "guru" status. Once in a while when the stars align, they will have a moment of musical nirvana, but that will be tinged with the understanding that the moment is only fleeting and will be gone next time they sit down to listen.
In between all the above, listen to music on their iPod on the tube going to work.
In reality, no one falls into either of those camps.
Of course they do, it is just a question of degree. Everything in human perception is a line and you as an individual sit some where on it. In this case the two extremes on the line are subjectivist one end objectivist the other.
I have never met / spoken to a true objectivist who will use the musical process in his decision making. The music come after the decisions, with a subjectivist the music is the criteria for the decision. But most people are somewhere between the two extremes.
Back in the 60's and early 70's reviewers didn't even listen to the gear they reviewed, they just measured it and pronounced on that, so the best gear that was recommended had the best specs. They were normally failed technically trained designers. So the worst objectivists are often the people who are designing the gear you listen to, so it is in *their* interest to convert you to their point of view with books and lecturing, and some of you fall for it. Their problem is one of superiority, they have been to uni to study it, you are a normal mortal so how dare you contradict what they say! AND they have the test equipemnt to prove it :lolsign: it proves nothing apart from they are idiots.
As with the US expression in politics "it is the economy stupid" we should adopt "it is the music stupid".
What frustrates me is the statement that there is no difference. With our newer understanding of science you would think that the objectivist who quote it so much would realise that *everything* is different even if we have to go to the molecular or sub atomic realm to find it. In reality the problem for us is not that there is no difference, it is that we can or cannot perceive it.
For me I never say there is no difference, I just say I cannot hear it, then it is incumbent on me to find a way to create equipment so that you can.
I still think the human ear and its associated energy paths are the most sensitive test equipment that exist. Not for mechanical scientific reasons but for our ability to relate the noise we call music to pleasure and mood changes.
Music is an astonishing art form capable of playing with you like you are one of the instruments playing it. From music that just makes you get up and move around (dance) to music that makes you lie down close your eyes and dream. What the hell has any of that got to do with blind tests and specs.
I seems to me that there are two forms of objectivist. One is the troll type that you like to refer to, who (like many a subjectivist troll) has not bothered to actually find out how things work and just goes by gut feeling. They are the ones who claim 'it is just 1s and 0s', 'I can't hear a difference, so neither can you, you are just making it up'.
But there are other objectivists who have made an effort to try and find out what causes things. They are the ones who know how a digital signal is sent and how there is timing element to it and that causes jitter. They know it is possible to hear a difference in cables and are interested in how that is caused.
In your black and white world all you see is the first type of objectivist and you fail to recognise that there are more open minded objectivists.
Regarding differences, the first type of objectivist is the one who states there are no differences. The second type is more likely to say, there are differences, but so far measurements show it is highly unlikely or even impossible for those differences to be audible. Or there are differences, but that still needs to be linked to audibility, particularly when ascribing sound quality traits to the differences.
DR BH, because you have such a black and white view you will always be confused and puzzled and angry about others who do not have the same view as yourself.
{Condescending marks removed, designed to cause conflict -- Marco}
Of course they do, it is just a question of degree. Everything in human perception is a line and you as an individual sit some where on it. In this case the two extremes on the line are subjectivist one end objectivist the other.
I can only assume that either you don't understand the concept of indirect proofs, or (more likely) you assume that people will not have read (or have forgotten) your initial post.
A discussion with you Richard is like living in a strange A. E. van Vogt novel. Half way through the universe spins on its axis and right becomes wrong, black white, and you find yourself on the other side.
Alex was right. At least I have learned something today.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
26-06-2011, 11:35
The forum answer to all lost arguments is to turn the subject of the post from the subject to the poster, as with these last two posts - ad hominem.
What did you study at uni Richard?
What relevance does that have to the discussion, Alan?
Marco.
Sod measurements,let your ears do the work.
Alex was right. At least I have learned something today.
Which Alex are you talking about, Nick? Once I know that, I might understand what you're referring to..... :)
Marco.
The forum answer to all lost arguments is to turn the subject of the post from the subject to the poster, as with these last two posts - ad hominem.
eh I wasn't making an argument to loose so drop the cliched response.
So you think it unreasonable/unacceptable to ask your qualifications? Hardly an attack unless you are sensitive about it. I have Dip Acoustics (Environmental)from IoA. I make no claims based upon that in this thread.
Your post about the ears being best tools for measuring listening to music makes no sense and much of your posts dont. Sub/objective are concepts not realities (like HiFi kit) I commend a big dose of reality.
Re ad hom I followed your posts on your own forum - a bit PKB.
Subjectivism appears to mean so long you think it is true, it is OK to say it and to disagree with that is wrong.
Your post about the ears being best tools for measuring listening to music makes no sense and much of your posts dont. .
Logically:
We hear a difference between cables.
Science says there is nothing that it can measure that could be the reason.
Therefore Science is (at this present time) lacking the tools and the knowledge to accurately measure musical performance.
Therefore using the ears is, at the moment, the best methodology we have.
Alan,
I asked you a question in post #36, so please have the courtesy to answer it. Ignoring me is not an option.
Marco.
And the opposite argument:
We hear a difference in cables
Science says there is nothing it can measure that could be the reason
Therefore there is no difference in cables
Therefore those who say they hear a difference are either lying or deluded
Logically:
We hear a difference between cables.
Science says there is nothing that it can measure that could be the reason.
Therefore Science is (at this present time) lacking the tools and the knowledge to accurately measure musical performance.
Therefore using the ears is, at the moment, the best methodology we have.
That argument only works if you ignore a whole host of other reasons which can explain why we hear a difference in cables.
Good objectivists looks at those reasons as well, the subjectivist is closed minded to them.
You are also ignoring possible differences that have been studied such as here from St Andrews University on current dependent phase shifts in cables
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html
which whilst inconclusive accepts there may be something in it.
Your position is only achievable when you ignore a whole host of reasons and studies.
And the opposite argument:
We hear a difference in cables
Science says there is nothing it can measure that could be the reason
Therefore there is no difference in cables
Therefore those who say they hear a difference are either lying or deluded
;)
Yup, it cuts both ways!
Marco.
Guys,
I really don't want this turning into another tedious debate like the one I had to lock recently. Either turn it back round in reference to how we listen to music, as the OP outlined, or this thread is very shortly destined to go ta-ta.
Marco.
P.S Alan, I'm still waiting for an answer.....! :popcorn:
That argument only works if you ignore a whole host of other reasons which can explain why we hear a difference in cables.
Good objectivists looks at those reasons as well, the subjectivist is closed minded to them.
You are also ignoring possible differences that have been studied such as here from St Andrews University on current dependent phase shifts in cables
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html
which whilst inconclusive accepts there may be something in it.
Your position is only achievable when you ignore a whole host of reasons and studies.
This link is to a scientific study that suggests it may have found a heretofore undiscovered reason why cables can sound different. Maybe they are on to something - I am not closed minded in any way - I do not think cables sound differently due to magic - of course there is a rational explaination that science has not yet uncovered. Maybe one day the science and the musical experience can be directly corrollorated, we are not there yet.
What I am dismissing is the argument of 'delusion' to explain these differences. I'm totally close-minded to that approach.:)
What I am dismissing is the argument of 'delusion' to explain these differences. I'm totally close-minded to that approach.
Me too, because it's over-simplistic and dogmatic thinking in the extreme, not to mention highly insulting, when the accuser of such knows next to nothing about the listener concerned. And if I see any reference to that nonsense here, what's written will be removed and the member responsible banned.
Do I make myself clear??
Martin, please also see my previous post.
Marco.
.
Martin, please also see my previous post.
Marco.
Okay I hear ya:) - I gota go and clean up the kitchen anyway:(. Catch y'll on the flip side;)
No worries, dude. Now let's get the thread back on track!
Marco.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
26-06-2011, 12:58
The listening process to make decisions is completely devoid from the initial designing process to create a circuit. Once the *initial* process is out the way so the subjective takes over. This can mean a complete rejection of the circuit no matter how well it specs because basically it sounds crap, or judicious changing of components and the placement of components relative to each other if the circuit has promise. For me the process is more to do with getting as much out of the way of the signal path (and the voltage supply path) as possible within the parameter of it still working with an acceptable degree of reliability.
Similar to engine tuning. You can take the same engine and tweak to run continuously for 30 years and never go wrong, but be as boring as f*ck. Or you can tune it to only do 50 laps of a Grand Prix track before blowing up. Both are extremes and design is finding a balance for the job it has to do.
I get great enjoyment from hearing how good my music sounds, as well as the music itself.
If I get the changce and no one is around I have turned off/down radios and CDs people have on in the background at work as the sound quality is so poor I can't stand it.
flatpopely
26-06-2011, 18:01
Similar to engine tuning. You can take the same engine and tweak to run continuously for 30 years and never go wrong, but be as boring as f*ck. Or you can tune it to only do 50 laps of a Grand Prix track before blowing up. Both are extremes and design is finding a balance for the job it has to do.
BMW S54, tuned to hell good for 200K+ miles.
WOStantonCS100
26-06-2011, 19:12
When I was 7 yrs old I listened to music just to be enveloped in what it was and how it connected with me on a "spiritual" level. (I was still aware that my dad's stereo was way better sounding than my record player. Given the choice, I always opted for the hi-fi because the experience was all around more intense.)
When I was twelve years old I became a studying musician. I started analyzing music. This is something you have to do as a musician if you are to learn your part(s), provided no sheet music. There is also the need, in a ensemble situation, to know what the other performers are doing and how to interact with them. All too often there was a need to analyze, dissect and memorize a composition in a very short period of time. The ability to do all this is great and necessary for a musician. This is more a kin to a job or task. The problem is, for a time I forgot how to listen for "the experience". It became nearly impossible for me to listen to music without assessing the key centers, time signatures, etc. When the realization of this hit me, it almost made me depressed. I was losing something that was very dear to me.
Now, as I have pulled back from the "job" of making music, I'm having a much easier time of re-awakening that ability to just enjoy the music. I try to keep that same perspective with gear; balancing the knowledge that "better" gear will allow me to experience more of the music while keeping in mind that if I fixate on the gear and not the music, I'll be right back where I don't want to be.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
26-06-2011, 23:18
Good story!
My father was a Pianist and had his own semi pro dance band (apart from his a main job as as a section manager at Cox and Kings Pall Mall). So he tried to force me to learn the piano as his mother had done to him. Surprisingly I rebelled :lol:. But got into music by discovering I could sing after my voice broke. School choir Baritone / bass soloist, into amateur opera society, but dropped out of it by the time I left school (anyway I had started smoking by then).
Studied architecture at Uni until thrown out for not attending lecture and getting stoned instead :doh: learnt about audio by repairing my dads onstage gear and adapting it for a record deck (usual route through Wireless World and kits). To dropping out and doing the same things for bands, working freelance for whoever wanted me, some times for WEM - Watkins Electronic Music (along with someone who started a company called Name or was it Naim :eyebrows:), running early desks at concerts inc the first feedback desk at one of the famous free concerts. etc etc, someday I will put in the rest of the story.
Sex - drugs - and rock and roll.
Too much drugs, not enough sex, but plenty of rock and roll.
Good story!
My father was a Pianist and had his own semi pro dance band (apart from his a main job as as a section manager at Cox and Kings Pall Mall). So he tried to force me to learn the piano as his mother had done to him. Surprisingly I rebelled :lol:. But got into music by discovering I could sing after my voice broke. School choir Baritone / bass soloist, into amateur opera society, but dropped out of it by the time I left school (anyway I had started smoking by then).
Studied architecture at Uni until thrown out for not attending lecture and getting stoned instead :doh: learnt about audio by repairing my dads onstage gear and adapting it for a record deck (usual route through Wireless World and kits). To dropping out and doing the same things for bands, working freelance for whoever wanted me, some times for WEM - Watkins Electronic Music (along with someone who started a company called Name or was it Naim :eyebrows:), running early desks at concerts inc the first feedback desk at one of the famous free concerts. etc etc, someday I will put in the rest of the story.
Sex - drugs - and rock and roll.
Too much drugs, not enough sex, but plenty of rock and roll.
Richard
Thanks for answering my deleted question of earlier Sunday and giving a precis of where you are coming from, thats a good chap, very decent of you.
Alan - Richard has answered your question, deleted or not. I see nothing offensive in his reply. Was the sarcasm, if it is sarcasm, necessary?
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
27-06-2011, 09:22
So listening to the power and the presence of a PA is what motivated JV to design what he did, but initially it was only designed for PA - studio - Radio Staion monitor work (the company was financed initially by an order from Capital Radio when it opened). It only became a home system because of IT drawing Naim into the Hi-Fi market as they need amplification to back up their turntable and speakers.
I was different, I appreciated the power and presence of the early PA's compared with relying only on back line, but felt it needed to be more informative and accurate. I was working at the time for PA:CE who made the MM range of gear deliberately voiced for Punk with hard overtones and aggressive distortion. PA:CE Studio Equipment Ltd for which I was MD was formed and took on a factory in Peterborough, but as the Punk wave died so PA:CE got into financial trouble, so I bought my side away with heavy bank involvement and traded as Tresham Audio as that was the name of the road. Two years later (1982) and serious recession induced by Maggie Thatcher doing what Cameron is doing now, and the bank pulled the plug and the company was sold to Tannoy, who it seems were incapable of making the amps so that didn't last very long.
I started NVA from home just to concentrate on the domestic market and later moved it to a factory in Hatley St George, near Biggleswade.
Missed out my my hi-fi and DIY electronics retail experience, and the 5 years with Acoustic Research which I have talked about before. So now I don't need to be questioned about it :rolleyes:
So listening to the power and the presence of a PA is what motivated JV to design what he did, but initially it was only designed for PA - studio - Radio Staion monitor work (the company was financed initially by an order from Capital Radio when it opened). It only became a home system because of IT drawing Naim into the Hi-Fi market as they need amplification to back up their turntable and speakers.
This is interesting and perhaps lends insight into why Naim equipment sounds the way it does (or at least did).
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
27-06-2011, 11:22
This is interesting and perhaps lends insight into why Naim equipment sounds the way it does (or at least did).
JV was a highly talented individual, but not only as an audio designer. He virtually gave up on that in the late 80's (especially after his first experience with cancer). He put his talents into innovative work on yachts and bicycles. At that point the hired electronic engineers started to change things, but JV still insisted that ears were applied to design and family sound was adhered to. But as time has gone on and especially with his death on the re-occurance of the cancer things have changed.
Much that I disagree with the way Naim dominated the audio market their early amps set a standard for reproducing rock and pop in the home as they created a very good home PA system, reproducing the concert like sounds then becoming very prevalent, as that was the way the big groups like Pink Floyd were going.
A good PA sound is very much an "in yer face" full on experience and that is the way IMO Naim have built their reputation.
Alan - Richard has answered your question, deleted or not. I see nothing offensive in his reply. Was the sarcasm, if it is sarcasm, necessary?
No it was condescending in the extreme, and designed with no other purpose than to irritate and indulge in one-upmanship. Anyway, hopefully the week's holiday I've given Alan will allow him to partake in some introspection.
Studied architecture at Uni until thrown out for not attending lecture and getting stoned instead :doh:
Ha - my sort of dude... :respect:
I did that in sixth year in secondary school instead - and so completely missed the university experience! :eyebrows:
And I didn't regret it one bit, as after a period in retail sales, earning very good money at some big companies, I started my own art/picture framing business and earned even more money, and certainly more than I'd ever have done as a language translator, which is what I was going to study at uni.
I'm now happily married and semi-retired at 45 (in fact could retire tomorrow, if I wanted), own three properties outright with a combined value of just under £850,000, with no mortgage on them, not including savings in the bank, and have no debts. So it doesn't necessarily take having a 'fancy' education to succeed in life, eh Alan? ;)
Yes indeed, JV was a talented man - and much missed!
Marco.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
27-06-2011, 15:34
There are lots of different ways to cook a goose and why we should have got stuck in one way (no matter how good or not it was) is just plain bloody daft.
But most of the industry fell for it, including me buying a LP12 and selling my L0-7d which just might be the one Theo has just bought. All just because some over opinionated and loud mouthed people at shows used to make snearing comments because I wasn't using a Linn.
If this forum represents the industry as it now is instead of was then we are going the right way. We have valves with power, we have single ended valve freaks with horns, we have collectors of old 70's Jap gear, we have DIY-ers pushing the boundaries for what can be done, and of course we have new solid state-ers of all ilks including the class D'ers. We have people who have spent a fortune, we have others who have spent a pittance on ebay. And we still have the relics of the flat earth brainwash desperately trying to hold on to their control of the market place.
So does any of those have the right to declare they have the ultimate solution - no thank goodness.
So in reality there must be different ways of listening to music and priorities - cheap doesn't necessarily mean bad, but it may just mean it is good enough.
People think I moan about FOTM, but what I created the thread for was to see if we could establish parameters as to what was acceptable, as I suspect at least some of it is being orchestrated either for financial or ego based reasons. BUT equally some of it is positive and helpful and an important function of forums.
Anyway that is my POV and I am sticking with it.
griffo104
27-06-2011, 15:50
There are lots of different ways to cook a goose and why we should have got stuck in one way (no matter how good or not it was) is just plain bloody daft.
But most of the industry fell for it, including me buying a LP12 and selling my L0-7d which just might be the one Theo has just bought. All just because some over opinionated and loud mouthed people at shows used to make snearing comments because I wasn't using a Linn.
If this forum represents the industry as it now is instead of was then we are going the right way. We have valves with power, we have single ended valve freaks with horns, we have collectors of old 70's Jap gear, we have DIY-ers pushing the boundaries for what can be done, and of course we have new solid state-ers of all ilks including the class D'ers. We have people who have spent a fortune, we have others who have spent a pittance on ebay. And we still have the relics of the flat earth brainwash desperately trying to hold on to their control of the market place.
So does any of those have the right to declare they have the ultimate solution - no thank goodness.
So in reality there must be different ways of listening to music and priorities - cheap doesn't necessarily mean bad, but it may just mean it is good enough.
People think I moan about FOTM, but what I created the thread for was to see if we could establish parameters as to what was acceptable, as I suspect at least some of it is being orchestrated either for financial or ego based reasons. BUT equally some of it is positive and helpful and an important function of forums.
Anyway that is my POV and I am sticking with it.
there are other sides to the argument as well. If I hadn't got my LP12, admittedly after the flat earth, then would I have gotten in to vinyl ? Bearing in mind that vinyl was dead and CD was here for good when I got in to vinyl if it hadn't been for wanting to own an iconic piece of kit, and we don't always get a chance to, then I'd still be living in a digital musical world.
also wasn't the L07D considerably more expensive than the LP12 back in the day ? It was made with much more exotic material and a lot of modern thinking with regards to power supplies. Were the press and the hifi going public really that strongly opinoinated that you decided to get something you didn't like ?
I always find this very strange.
I've only ever bought kit I wanted, and screw the rest of the hifi fraterinity.
I will alwyas have a great affection for my old LP12 because it opened me to a world joy with vinyl - of course I sold it on and moved to what I think was abetter deck but it served it's purpose regardless of the flaws highlighted through the modern internet medium.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
27-06-2011, 16:00
there are other sides to the argument as well. If I hadn't got my LP12, admittedly after the flat earth, then would I have gotten in to vinyl ? Bearing in mind that vinyl was dead and CD was here for good when I got in to vinyl if it hadn't been for wanting to own an iconic piece of kit, and we don't always get a chance to, then I'd still be living in a digital musical world.
also wasn't the L07D considerably more expensive than the LP12 back in the day ? It was made with much more exotic material and a lot of modern thinking with regards to power supplies. Were the press and the hifi going public really that strongly opinoinated that you decided to get something you didn't like ?
I always find this very strange.
I've only ever bought kit I wanted, and screw the rest of the hifi fraterinity.
I will alwyas have a great affection for my old LP12 because it opened me to a world joy with vinyl - of course I sold it on and moved to what I think was abetter deck but it served it's purpose regardless of the flaws highlighted through the modern internet medium.
It is simple, I was losing credibility, and losing sales because of it. That is the way the industry was. Not any more. For example there were a couple of magazines notably The Flat Response / Hi-Fi Review who wouldn't give you a review (unless they wanted to pan you) if you didn't claim the LP12 was used in the design process and used one personally.
If you are happy with your LP12 then fine, it takes all sorts. There are loads second hand on ebay so they will be around for a long time.
griffo104
27-06-2011, 16:18
It is simple, I was losing credibility, and losing sales because of it. That is the way the industry was. Not any more. For example there were a couple of magazines notably The Flat Response / Hi-Fi Review who wouldn't give you a review (unless they wanted to pan you) if you didn't claim the LP12 was used in the design process and used one personally.
If you are happy with your LP12 then fine, it takes all sorts. There are loads second hand on ebay so they will be around for a long time.
I didn't mean anything disparaging by my comments, I am very interested in what was happening back then. I missed the Flat Earth and other magazines of that time. I also missed the LP12 heyday and it's impact on the hifi world. I'm just too young to fully appreciate it.
I simply see it as an iconic bit of kit that I was interested in finding out for myself what all the fuss was about. Personally, I have a great fondness for Michell decks.
Internet forums have changed the way we select our kit, opened up areas some of us have never been aware of.
I think you have made some very good points in this thread and in the FOTM one and I would actually agree with a lot of what you have said.
Last year I got the chance to listen to a Voyd deck. It was very nice but for the life of me I couldn't find much that it gave over and above my old Linn deck. When comparing it directly to a Michell Orbe SE I heard again why I swapped for the Michell deck - all the same flaws in the sound albeit to slightly varying degrees - and yet the LP12 is slagged off by many people now accepting the Voyd as FOTM in some corners.
I sometimes find it difficult to fully appreciate why some people make the decisions they do - nothing more than curiosity and me being very nosey.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
27-06-2011, 17:05
So how good is good!
We only know what we know, we have only heard what we have heard and even then was the synergy right for that product.
Also acoustic and listening room is enormously important as it represents a gross difference, you can hear through it though to establish how good something is. I suffer from an awkward acoustic as the listening room is relatively small and the only end suitable for speaker has a 7ft wide entry to the kitchen on the right (almost open plan). Now I am used to it, but people who come have to adjust and some refuse to and see the acoustic difference as the product. This has only happened a couple of times at bake-offs, and one by an ex reviewer who should have known better. BUT he was looking for excuse why his computer audio option sucked!
My music collection started off with vinyl, played primarily on my father's 1970s Sony sound centre (long and flat with a big lid covering the turntable, cassette slot and radio).
But it was primarily cassettes as I was in student accommodation and then a room for the first four years at work. I also travelled and moved a lot so had one of the first Walkmans. So boomboxes and the car radio/cassette were the orders of the day.
My first proper hifi was based around a Yamaha KX390 cassette player. I finally went CD with a Sony something, rapidly updated with an Arcam Alpha 7.
Now I stream and use itunes. The cassettes are long gone at car boot sales and the CDs are in the loft.
But I wonder, if I had been exposed more to vinyl, would I be still be happy with the sound of my present set up? It is definitely better than cassettes, but it is probably not as good as a really good turntable.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
28-06-2011, 10:12
Well we are in a situation where it seems people think the only thing that is important is DACs and any old lap top will do as transport.
Not so, the same as a DAC nowadays is very dependent on software choices, so is a transport, hardware choices in chipsets and powers supply are spouted on about DACs but apart from few mumblings about getting a better power supply made for a MAC mini then next to nothing about transports. So are transports the next bullshit for exploitation, well probably. I have a devoted transport designed for audio work and it is astonishing and I haven't played a record for two months, though I am sure I will come back to it. I am hooked at the moment by the quality you can find on Youtube if you look hard enough past all the compressed dross. A Tesco special 32 incher between the speakers for a couple of hundred quid and the video enhances the musical experience.
Check out the thread on Youtube specials in Musical Compositions and contribute some links.
Neil McCauley
28-06-2011, 10:17
...... For example there were a couple of magazines notably The Flat Response / Hi-Fi Review who wouldn't give you a review (unless they wanted to pan you) if you didn't claim the LP12 was used in the design process and used one personally.
My own experiences re this matter are, in this respect, identical to his. I used to supply full systems for review to the then 'Practical Hi-Fi & Audio' Magazine. I was very strongly urged that the submission of the Meridian 101B/107 combination driving the Gale 401a speakers "really should for your credibility, and ours" have the LP12 with Grace 707 & Supex SD900 as the source.
There was no interest whatsoever from them in me using my preferred Pink Triangle / Breuer-8 / VDH MC1 combo. It was pretty much take it or leave it.
griffo104
28-06-2011, 10:32
Well we are in a situation where it seems people think the only thing that is important is DACs and any old lap top will do as transport.
Not so, the same as a DAC nowadays is very dependent on software choices, so is a transport, hardware choices in chipsets and powers supply are spouted on about DACs but apart from few mumblings about getting a better power supply made for a MAC mini then next to nothing about transports. So are transports the next bullshit for exploitation, well probably. I have a devoted transport designed for audio work and it is astonishing and I haven't played a record for two months, though I am sure I will come back to it. I am hooked at the moment by the quality you can find on Youtube if you look hard enough past all the compressed dross. A Tesco special 32 incher between the speakers for a couple of hundred quid and the video enhances the musical experience.
Check out the thread on Youtube specials in Musical Compositions and contribute some links.
We had a recent dicussion regarding DACs and transports at a recent bake off.
I find this very interesting in that in audio we have super expensive transports to carry the signal and yet in the visual side of things a blu-ray player can get all 7 channels of uncompressed sound (or music if a concert disc) and stunning 1080p pictures from a transport/dac/video-dac in box that gives you change from £150 - and they have youtube and the bbc iplayer (in hi-def) as part of the package.
Why do you need an audio only transport ? there's only so much information you can read off an optical disc.
I do believe once it's off the disc and it's journey through the dac and clock and other bits such as those then these can change the sound as some of these are software driven and may not have the same interpretation or may wish to change the way the sound is handled.
But the transport ? I'm not so sure about.
barry-potter
28-06-2011, 11:15
Why do you need an audio only transport ? there's only so much information you can read off an optical disc.
I do believe once it's off the disc and it's journey through the dac and clock and other bits such as those then these can change the sound as some of these are software driven and may not have the same interpretation or may wish to change the way the sound is handled.
But the transport ? I'm not so sure about.
a lot of audio only transports don't have a disc as part of the system. some people think that using a disc introduces distortion whereas reading straight from hard drive after a quality rip is the best solution.
If you have got any pidgeons, look away now, here comes a cat!
In 1984 Ivor Teifenbrun took part in a series of blind tests of various claims that he made about the problems of digital over analogue. The tests included use of a LP-12.
He failed all of them. "....No evidence was provided by Tiefenbrun during this series of tests that indicates ability to identify reliably:
(a) the presence of an undriven transducer in the room,
(b) the presence of the Sony PCM-F1 digital processor in the audio chain, or
(c) the presence of the relay contacts of the A/B/X switchbox in the circuit."
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
28-06-2011, 11:41
If you have got any pidgeons, look away now, here comes a cat!
In 1984 Ivor Teifenbrun took part in a series of blind tests of various claims that he made about the problems of digital over analogue. The tests included use of a LP-12.
He failed all of them. "....No evidence was provided by Tiefenbrun during this series of tests that indicates ability to identify reliably:
(a) the presence of an undriven transducer in the room,
(b) the presence of the Sony PCM-F1 digital processor in the audio chain, or
(c) the presence of the relay contacts of the A/B/X switchbox in the circuit."
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
What a load of bollocks, on both side of this in this case. The circular argument comes around again.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
28-06-2011, 11:50
We had a recent dicussion regarding DACs and transports at a recent bake off.
I find this very interesting in that in audio we have super expensive transports to carry the signal and yet in the visual side of things a blu-ray player can get all 7 channels of uncompressed sound (or music if a concert disc) and stunning 1080p pictures from a transport/dac/video-dac in box that gives you change from £150 - and they have youtube and the bbc iplayer (in hi-def) as part of the package.
Why do you need an audio only transport ? there's only so much information you can read off an optical disc.
I do believe once it's off the disc and it's journey through the dac and clock and other bits such as those then these can change the sound as some of these are software driven and may not have the same interpretation or may wish to change the way the sound is handled.
But the transport ? I'm not so sure about.
Because I can hear it and so can others who own this transport. I don't have a Blueray player but Docfoster one of the owners does, and he is a rarely posting member here so he can comment. Anyway the thing has a Blueray / DVD / CD disc reader in it, but nothing comes direct from the disc reader it is all stored and compared at least three times with seperate takes and each bit is analysed separately and put in its place, it is all in the programming. But I know little about the process as it is not my bag. Jason (figlet108) - again a little posting member, who designed and builds it will have to explain it. Though there is a full thread on it at Subjectivist.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
28-06-2011, 11:54
a lot of audio only transports don't have a disc as part of the system. some people think that using a disc introduces distortion whereas reading straight from hard drive after a quality rip is the best solution.
Well again it depends on the programming, this thing has a disc reader and can act as a CD player. If you compare that with ripping (stupid expression) the disc it is chalk and cheese, and I just think it is some sort of magic that the rip outperforms the disc it took it from by such a factor that it makes it a joke.
If you have got any pidgeons, look away now, here comes a cat!
In 1984 Ivor Teifenbrun took part in a series of blind tests of various claims that he made about the problems of digital over analogue. The tests included use of a LP-12.
He failed all of them. "....No evidence was provided by Tiefenbrun during this series of tests that indicates ability to identify reliably:
(a) the presence of an undriven transducer in the room,
(b) the presence of the Sony PCM-F1 digital processor in the audio chain, or
(c) the presence of the relay contacts of the A/B/X switchbox in the circuit."
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm
Hi Ian,
Change the record, mate. You really need to give up the crusade you're on at the moment with trying to 'prove' the improvable to a completely unappreciative audience, in an attempt to 'educate' them, and change their minds in the process.
It's not going to happen here, so please respect that and give it a rest, because if you don't, I may have to give YOU a rest!
Ya gets me? Never mind the cat; I'm the Rottweiler that will eat it! ;)
I'm enjoying your contributions in other discussions, but it's time now to keep the cat in the bag and bow out of posting the sort of stuff above, as your 'opponents' and you will NEVER agree.
Marco.
Well again it depends on the programming, this thing has a disc reader and can act as a CD player. If you compare that with ripping (stupid expression) the disc it is chalk and cheese, and I just think it is some sort of magic that the rip outperforms the disc it took it from by such a factor that it makes it a joke.
It's a perplexing one Richard, I can rip a CD at n times speed, bit perfect, which if you use something like dBpoweramp one can actually match a check sum digit for each track with a DB of other rips of the same track/album...yet the same drive can not play the CD at normal speed perfectly :scratch:
I don't really understand why this is the case, must be something about how the disk is read for audio playback as opposed to ripping, which is more data retrieval...I'll give up guessing now ;)
alfie2902
28-06-2011, 12:16
Well again it depends on the programming, this thing has a disc reader and can act as a CD player. If you compare that with ripping (stupid expression) the disc it is chalk and cheese, and I just think it is some sort of magic that the rip outperforms the disc it took it from by such a factor that it makes it a joke.
The difference could be that no error correction is needed when reading the ripped file, where a played CD is having to deal with error correction on the fly.
I hear differences in transports & my belief is it's down to jitter! Mac Mini's digital output has been measured & shows very high jitter, Async USB is supposed to deal with this very well, & should as the Dac's clock is now in control.
But, I'm using a FOM 'Young' & am finding the best results come from an Audio Note CD Transport & just fractionaly behind is my Squeezebox Touch (Both using S/Pdif) then my Laptop (Async USB) is less preferable than the SBT. The differences are small but there to my ears! I find it odd that the SBT & Laptop sound slightly different as they use the same files! The Async USB should sound better due to the clocking duties, so I think it's the Laptop as transport that's letting things down, perhaps like the Mac Mini it may be adding Jitter.
alfie2902
28-06-2011, 12:26
It's a perplexing one Richard, I can rip a CD at n times speed, bit perfect, which if you use something like dBpoweramp one can actually match a check sum digit for each track with a DB of other rips of the same track/album...yet the same drive can not play the CD at normal speed perfectly :scratch:
I don't really understand why this is the case, must be something about how the disk is read for audio playback as opposed to ripping, which is more data retrieval...I'll give up guessing now ;)
It a time thing. The Rip can take as long as it likes to retrieve bit perfect info, dBpoweramp is considerably faser than EAC which can & does sometimes take as long to rip a CD as to play it! During that time it will check any problems upto 64 times to get a match.
A CD playing does not have the timeto deal with erors quite so well, it does do a very good job though in the time it has!
Because I can hear it and so can others who own this transport. I don't have a Blueray player but Docfoster one of the owners does, and he is a rarely posting member here so he can comment. Anyway the thing has a Blueray / DVD / CD disc reader in it, but nothing comes direct from the disc reader it is all stored and compared at least three times with seperate takes and each bit is analysed separately and put in its place, it is all in the programming. But I know little about the process as it is not my bag. Jason (figlet108) - again a little posting member, who designed and builds it will have to explain it. Though there is a full thread on it at Subjectivist.
Richard, this wouldn't be a cunningly disguised yet shameless plug for your new digital 'doo-dah', would it? ;)
Marco.
The difference could be that no error correction is needed when reading the ripped file, where a played CD is having to deal with error correction on the fly.
I hear differences in transports & my belief is it's down to jitter! Mac Mini's digital output has been measured & shows very high jitter, Async USB is supposed to deal with this very well, & should as the Dac's clock is now in control.
But, I'm using a FOM 'Young' & am finding the best results come from an Audio Note CD Transport & just fractionaly behind is my Squeezebox Touch (Both using S/Pdif) then my Laptop (Async USB) is less preferable than the SBT. The differences are small but there to my ears! I find it odd that the SBT & Laptop sound slightly different as they use the same files! The Async USB should sound better due to the clocking duties, so I think it's the Laptop as transport that's letting things down, perhaps like the Mac Mini it may be adding Jitter.
Indeed...my SB playing FLAC outperforms my CD transport via the same DAC, after I'd changed the psu that is, but that's another story ;)
It would appear to me that the construction of the SPDIF/PCM is critical, I use a soundcard on my PC to source a Beresford DAC in my study system. I've recently upgraded from an M-Audio 2496 to a M-Audio 192, and am playing FLAC at the same resolution as before...but it sounds more detailed. Is it improved connectivity, better components, both...I don't know :scratch:
I know audiocom do some digital stage upgrades for SBs so that might be my next upgrade path...:)
It a time thing. The Rip can take as long as it likes to retrieve bit perfect info, dBpoweramp is considerably faser than EAC which can & does sometimes take as long to rip a CD as to play it! During that time it will check any problems upto 64 times to get a match.
A CD playing does not have the timeto deal with erors quite so well, it does do a very good job though in the time it has!
I suppose you'd need a different type of asynchronous CD player, with it's own buffers to compete, a sort of Rip/Playback. Which I think Richard was alluding to in his post.
dBpoweramp and a good drive are essential if you have a lot of CDs to rip IMHO...If I'd stuck with EAC I'd still be doing it now :)
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
28-06-2011, 12:45
Richard, this wouldn't be a cunningly disguised yet shameless plug for your new digital 'doo-dah', would it? ;)
Marco.
Trying not to which is why I haven't mentioned the name of it. As I have said before in this I am the customer.
I wanted to get into computer audio so last year I advertised a bake-off at Subjectivist and asked members to bring down their solution. One solution was outstanding and P***** on the rest. Jason called it the Nexus and it was in a plastic box all in one with its own DAC, a one box solution, which I really liked. But it could take any other external DAC as well. Anyway chatting with Jason after the event he said he would build me one - great - but I said I thought I could input to improve it on the PSU and analogue side of the DAC. So somehow we decided to make ten of them and build them in NVA statement cases and I would provide them with a way to market. Jason works for IBM in a good job in Manchester, so he doesn't need this, he *wanted* to do it.
I ended up getting the 5th one made :( but it was worth the wait.
Now just so everyone understands - I helped Jason design the case - I helped Jason with PSU design - and I advised him on the DAC alterations (but the solution he has adopted is entirely his). I don't build this or buy the parts. I make *no money* when he sell one. It is his project, all I have done is provide him with a way to market for it - for free!!!!!! because I love it and it deserves it.
So in this case I am a customer, purely and simply. Of the members here I know of Theo and Docfoster have one.
There has been discussion on Jason getting involved with NVA if and when he leaves IBM, but nothing concrete has happened.
alfie2902
28-06-2011, 12:50
Do the M-Audio 2496 & M-Audio 192 uses the same audio drivers? ASIO? What Operating system do you use also?
As you say the improvements are probably down to better implementation of the digital I/O!
Cool, Richard. I get that, but just wanted to clear things up for everyone's benefit. I would still like to hear one myself, and of course will contact Jason in due course :)
Marco.
alfie2902
28-06-2011, 12:55
Cool, Richard. I get that, but just wanted to clear things up for everyone's benefit. I would still like to hear one myself, and of course will contact Jason in due course :)
Marco.
:eek: Marco! Going over to the dark side :lolsign:
Lol - I think I'm developing a rash, just thinking about it! :eek:
Marco.
What has become clear to me whilst using the TFS (other computer-based music systems are available) is how I currently use it. I have not got out of the habit of using vinyl as my primary "listening" source, and this is partly to do with the kerfuffle it is to play multiple discs (going through a lot of the Music Matters Blue Note 2x45rpm at the moment); it requires a level of attention not normally associated with CDs or downloads. I also tend to have the LP sleeve to hand, but I very rarely browse a CD booklet. For whatever reason, I "concentrate" more if I play records, with a few exceptions.
However, with the music file options, I skip between tracks quickly, sometimes play it on shuffle, watch a couple of videos, use it when we have a crowd round: I have tried to use it for "serious" listening, but IMHO, I don't get the same level of involvement, even with AIFF, WAV or FLAC files. Or maybe I just love the tactile experience of playing records. I can listen to either of the digital options from around the house whilst doing other things, but I tend to sit and immerse myself in the music when it's vinyl.
I can't blame the formats either: I think all my music making machinery is pretty damn good. For me, the hardware isn't the issue, it's how the software has been mastered that defines ultimate sound quality. Perhaps there is more care applied to the vinyl process (possibly mastered from higher res files?): I don't know the answer, but if I really want to spend quality time listening to music, it is always vinyl first. If I'm feeling lazy, or I need "good enough", it's the other formats. It's obviously an age thing...
Do the M-Audio 2496 & M-Audio 192 uses the same audio drivers? ASIO? What Operating system do you use also?
As you say the improvements are probably down to better implementation of the digital I/O!
Identical drivers...the O/S is XP SP3, I use winamp/directsound/M-Audio SPDIF, the M-Audio ASIO option is only useful if you are using the soundcard as a DAC, to get digital out you need to direct the output directly to the SPDIF option.
The fact that the RCA for SPDIF is actually on the card with the 192, and not on the breakout cable as with the 2496 is the main reason I got it. So that's certainly helping...
alfie2902
28-06-2011, 14:42
Identical drivers...the O/S is XP SP3, I use winamp/directsound/M-Audio SPDIF, the M-Audio ASIO option is only useful if you are using the soundcard as a DAC, to get digital out you need to direct the output directly to the SPDIF option.
The fact that the RCA for SPDIF is actually on the card with the 192, and not on the breakout cable as with the 2496 is the main reason I got it. So that's certainly helping...
I don't know the M-Audio cards that well, but are you sure you can't use the native ASIO drivers to output to S/Pdif? My E-Mu 0404 allows this!
http://forums.m-audio.com/showthread.php?6252-Can-M-Audio-Audiophile-192-s-pdif-output-24bit-192khz According to this thread your card should pass up to 24bit/192khz via ASIO to your Dac!
In XP using Directsound you will be passing the signal through K-Mixer!!
The ASIO drivers are there to bypass K-Mixer & send the signal straight to the soundcard to retain a 'Bit Perfect' file. In Foobar I set the driver to ASIO which outputs via toshlink to my Dac.
Saying that Directsound can playback bit perfect if you meet the following 4 conditions
1.The PCM/wave volume slider of the mixer (sndvol32.exe) must be set at its maximum. Some start-up applications modify the volume slider (e.g. hardware monitoring tools from Asus).
2.The player must be compiled for the same architecture that the OS was compiled for - e.g. 32 bit player on a 32 bit OS, 64 bit player on a 64 bit OS. This is the case for the vast majority of installations because the 64 bit version of Windows XP isn't very commonly used.
3.Applications other than the player mustn't play sounds, otherwise the two output streams will be potentially sample rate converted and mixed.
4.Applications which are using the soundcard for recording have to use the same sample rate as concurrently running applications which are playing sounds - the soundcard has only one clock generator and hence this limitation arises.
barry-potter
28-06-2011, 15:18
Well again it depends on the programming, this thing has a disc reader and can act as a CD player. If you compare that with ripping (stupid expression) the disc it is chalk and cheese, and I just think it is some sort of magic that the rip outperforms the disc it took it from by such a factor that it makes it a joke.
not only that, the way the hardware is utilised plays a big role too. there are a series of steps you can go through to maximise what you have. figlet would know all about this but i was surprised by the difference it makes. you trade off some things (that for a music transport you dont necessarily need like being able to have well defined graphics) for better sound
Hi Ian,
Change the record, mate. You really need to give up the crusade you're on at the moment with trying to 'prove' the improvable to a completely unappreciative audience, in an attempt to 'educate' them, and change their minds in the process.
It's not going to happen here, so please respect that and give it a rest, because if you don't, I may have to give YOU a rest!
Ya gets me? Never mind the cat; I'm the Rottweiler that will eat it! ;)
I'm enjoying your contributions in other discussions, but it's time now to keep the cat in the bag and bow out of posting the sort of stuff above, as your 'opponents' and you will NEVER agree.
Marco.
Sorry, it appeared relevant as it is about analogue and digital, invloved the LP-12 under discussion and it is very relevant to the way we listen as it shows we also listen with our eyes and our eyes affect what we hear.
Since there is little to no tolerance and a very closed minded approach to such, I will leave it at that.
a very closed minded approach
LOL - you and your closed mind stuff. As an aside, I nearly always listen with my eyes closed.
griffo104
28-06-2011, 16:29
If I were a teenager nowadays I'd go a completely different route than the one I did take.
For me I'd have a system created around a PS3, nice cheap Denon budget amp with an MM stage, decent budget deck, probably 2nd hand Techie and a nice pair of wharfdale diamonds which can be had new for very little cash.
I love the PS3. Is it 'proper' hifi, absolutely not, but it plays cds, allows you to rip them via atrac, mp3 or aac to the internal hardrive, allows videos to be streamed via Vidzone, music to be streamed via Qriocity. allows great videos to be watched via Lovefilm, iplayers aplenty and youtube. Hook this up to your decent little budget amp.
Hook up the Techie with a decent budget Goldring cart and you have a system that gives all sorts of option for music and also allows hidef films and a bit of games playing as well - all for under a grand on the old pocket even allows you to enjoy the old vinyl as well.
You simply get a little bit of everything - even if it doesn't allow full flac for it's rips (that I'm aware of).
You can diss the system for not being audiophile but for access to massive range of music, concerts disks and as Richard pointed out great vids on Youtube what more do you really need.
I think the days of cd players - transport, dacs, etc.. and the way us older folks view digital replay is changing and in doing so it opens a whole different world of how to get access, and most importantly, to enjoy music.
Sorry, it appeared relevant as it is about analogue and digital, invloved the LP-12 under discussion and it is very relevant to the way we listen as it shows we also listen with our eyes and our eyes affect what we hear.
In your 'objectivist' world, perhaps. But it "shows" precisely, to use a well-known Scottish idiom, 'hee-haw' to those of us who care not a jot about what a bunch of eggheads in white coats do in a lab {yawn}. Your 'proof' is therefore not our proof.
Since there is little to no tolerance and a very closed minded approach to such, I will leave it at that.
Not in the slightest. It is simply that I am pre-empting another pointless circular argument, the likes of which appears to give you a 'stiffy'! ;)
H'okay cokey?
Marco.
LOL - you and your closed mind stuff. As an aside, I nearly always listen with my eyes closed.
I nearly always listen just in my knickers.
Marco.
alfie2902
28-06-2011, 17:14
If I were a teenager nowadays I'd go a completely different route than the one I did take.
For me I'd have a system created around a PS3, nice cheap Denon budget amp with an MM stage, decent budget deck, probably 2nd hand Techie and a nice pair of wharfdale diamonds which can be had new for very little cash.
I love the PS3. Is it 'proper' hifi, absolutely not, but it plays cds, allows you to rip them via atrac, mp3 or aac to the internal hardrive, allows videos to be streamed via Vidzone, music to be streamed via Qriocity. allows great videos to be watched via Lovefilm, iplayers aplenty and youtube. Hook this up to your decent little budget amp.
Hook up the Techie with a decent budget Goldring cart and you have a system that gives all sorts of option for music and also allows hidef films and a bit of games playing as well - all for under a grand on the old pocket even allows you to enjoy the old vinyl as well.
You simply get a little bit of everything - even if it doesn't allow full flac for it's rips (that I'm aware of).
You can diss the system for not being audiophile but for access to massive range of music, concerts disks and as Richard pointed out great vids on Youtube what more do you really need.
I think the days of cd players - transport, dacs, etc.. and the way us older folks view digital replay is changing and in doing so it opens a whole different world of how to get access, and most importantly, to enjoy music.
Quite an interesting post!
I've set a couple of my kids up with systems that are based around PC's, laptops, PS3 & Xbox. They do most of their listening from Spotify & YouTube with a few ripped CD's of there own & can also play about 1500 ripped CD's of mine over the network!
Everything plugs into 2 Beresford 7520's then some cheap HiFi gear. My son's using a Pioneer A400 into a pair of little Tannoy Mercury m2 & has borrowed one of my Rel strata subs atm! :doh: He had a nice A&R Cambridge A60 but it keeps blowing it's fuses! He plays Dubstep rather loudly! I'm trying to talk him out of buying a pair of 15" or 12" Cerwin Vega's he saving up for atm :scratch: My Daughter uses an old Cambridge Audio A3 into a pair of Acoustic Energy Aegis 2's & also owns a CDP & a TT :eek: she's not many LP's but buys a few from carboots & gives them to me to clean. Again though it's mostly Spotify & YouTube she listens too!
I've weaned them away from iPod docks but with all the music & media online they don't seem to need to own the pysical media like me!
In your 'objectivist' world, perhaps. But it "shows" precisely, to use a well-known Scottish idiom, 'hee-haw' to those of us who care not a jot about what a bunch of eggheads in white coats do in a lab {yawn}. Your 'proof' is therefore not our proof.
Not in the slightest. It is simply that I am pre-empting another pointless circular argument, the likes of which appears to give you a 'stiffy'! ;)
H'okay cokey?
Marco.
"The dialogue exchanged must therefore be respectful and constructive." "Other than that, we would like to provide our members with a place where they feel that they can be themselves and express their views on hi-fi, music, and any other permitted subject, without peer pressure, one-upmanship, and a feeling of having to conform to some accepted ‘norm’. There are no cliques, hidden agendas, nor any preferential treatment given; and not only will our members themselves be treated with respect but also their opinions and observations, particularly those of people who may not have the same level of experience with hi-fi as others. With that in mind, the forum will be strictly but fairly moderated."
If you are to make any 'objectivist' comment an exception to your own words in the ethos, I wish you had made that clear with your first reply to me when I joined the forum, so neither of us would have wasted time, me posting here and you with your moderation.
Ian,
I'm not getting into a debate with you about this.
Objectivist comments are welcome on AoS, *provided* that when it reaches the point when it's blatantly obvious that the subjectivists receiving such comments 'aren't for turning', as it were, to coin an infamous phrase, that the 'objectivist' (I'm using inverted commas because I don't consider you a true objectivist), making those comments knows when to back off and let it lie.
Unfortunately you show little signs of having that skill, despite me, if you remember, defending you when you first joined. You are Ian, after all, a guest on a subjectivist forum, so please try to remember and respect that fact!
Therefore, the choice is that you either give up this 'crusade' and comment on other subjects, where your views are most welcome, or you go. Because I will not have this site littered with futile and circular objectivist/subjectivist debates, and the continual confrontation that goes with it.
The decision is yours.
Marco.
I don't know the M-Audio cards that well, but are you sure you can't use the native ASIO drivers to output to S/Pdif? My E-Mu 0404 allows this!
http://forums.m-audio.com/showthread.php?6252-Can-M-Audio-Audiophile-192-s-pdif-output-24bit-192khz According to this thread your card should pass up to 24bit/192khz via ASIO to your Dac!
In XP using Directsound you will be passing the signal through K-Mixer!!
The ASIO drivers are there to bypass K-Mixer & send the signal straight to the soundcard to retain a 'Bit Perfect' file. In Foobar I set the driver to ASIO which outputs via toshlink to my Dac.
Saying that Directsound can playback bit perfect if you meet the following 4 conditions
1.The PCM/wave volume slider of the mixer (sndvol32.exe) must be set at its maximum. Some start-up applications modify the volume slider (e.g. hardware monitoring tools from Asus).
2.The player must be compiled for the same architecture that the OS was compiled for - e.g. 32 bit player on a 32 bit OS, 64 bit player on a 64 bit OS. This is the case for the vast majority of installations because the 64 bit version of Windows XP isn't very commonly used.
3.Applications other than the player mustn't play sounds, otherwise the two output streams will be potentially sample rate converted and mixed.
4.Applications which are using the soundcard for recording have to use the same sample rate as concurrently running applications which are playing sounds - the soundcard has only one clock generator and hence this limitation arises.
ASIO isn't really relevant if 'directsound' can write directly to the soundcard's SPDIF channel, all volume controls are rendered inoperative, there is no resampling going on by anything other than SoX...the chain is;
NAS FLAC library (16/44.1), PC with XP SP3, winamp FFSoX input plugin (24/96 resample + replaygain/album processing), winamp player (24 bit allowed no volume control and no replay gain), Directsound output plugin (directly to M-Audio SPDIF driver/channel), RCA Coax to beresford TC-7510...etc.
DirectSound Status info;
Output format: 96000 Hz, 24 bits per sample, 2 channels
Active buffer size: 6000 ms (3456000 bytes)
Device: "02: M-Audio Delta AP192 S/PDIF"
Mixing: software, primary buffer: active (software)
Buffer playback cursor: 678912 bytes
[==========#=======================================]
Buffer write cursor: 600336 bytes
[=========#========================================]
Data buffered:
Total: 5985 ms (3447552 bytes)
Async buffer: 122 ms (70128 bytes)
Buffer locks done: 497
Underruns: 0
Time played: 0:43.178 (28318464 bytes)
Time written: 0:49.164 (24870912 bytes)
Total time played: 6d 12:25:44.816
Volume: 0.000000 dB / 0.000000 dB
The M-Audio Delta control panel confirms the above info...
alfie2902
29-06-2011, 13:16
ASIO isn't really relevant if 'directsound' can write directly to the soundcard's SPDIF channel, all volume controls are rendered inoperative, there is no resampling going on by anything other than SoX...the chain is;
NAS FLAC library (16/44.1), PC with XP SP3, winamp FFSoX input plugin (24/96 resample + replaygain/album processing), winamp player (24 bit allowed no volume control and no replay gain), Directsound output plugin (directly to M-Audio SPDIF driver/channel), RCA Coax to beresford TC-7510...etc.
DirectSound Status info;
Output format: 96000 Hz, 24 bits per sample, 2 channels
Active buffer size: 6000 ms (3456000 bytes)
Device: "02: M-Audio Delta AP192 S/PDIF"
Mixing: software, primary buffer: active (software)
Buffer playback cursor: 678912 bytes
[==========#=======================================]
Buffer write cursor: 600336 bytes
[=========#========================================]
Data buffered:
Total: 5985 ms (3447552 bytes)
Async buffer: 122 ms (70128 bytes)
Buffer locks done: 497
Underruns: 0
Time played: 0:43.178 (28318464 bytes)
Time written: 0:49.164 (24870912 bytes)
Total time played: 6d 12:25:44.816
Volume: 0.000000 dB / 0.000000 dB
The M-Audio Delta control panel confirms the above info...
Hi Will,
If you are meeting the 4 conditions as mentioned above you my well be getting bit perfect & have no problems.
ASIO is relevant though, as it will bypass XP K-mixer & negate the problems in K-Mixer! Directsound is a microsoft driver that uses K-mixer, if windows decides to do something else, run some other process that also uses K-mixer, resampling could occur (I'm not saying it will though!) The use of ASIO means this cannot happen ever.
I just wonder why you use a driver that could move bits when your card supports a better driver that does not move bits? Directsound could leave you at the mercy of XP K-mixer, ASIO will not, can not!
Also read the bottom paragraph of Vincents page here
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/Driver.htm
I just wonder why you use a driver that could move bits when your card supports a better driver that does not move bits? Directsound could leave you at the mercy of XP K-mixer, ASIO will not, can not!
Hi Alfie,
Just tried the ASIO output instead, and I can't hear any difference, I don't think the latest directsound driver goes via the K-Mixer particularly when directed to the SPDIF channel of my card.
However as I've got ASIO working with SPDIF out, and gapless at 24/96, I'll leave it for a while, less 'moving parts' I suppose. However no crossfade functionality, so we'll see how long before I revert.
By the way have you played around with SoX (FFSoX in winamp) at all, with a particular regard to upsampling and ReplayGain...I get some rather pleasing results going to 24/96 with the Beresford...:)
alfie2902
29-06-2011, 14:31
Hi Alfie,
Just tried the ASIO output instead, and I can't hear any difference, I don't think the latest directsound driver goes via the K-Mixer particularly when directed to the SPDIF channel of my card.
However as I've got ASIO working with SPDIF out, and gapless at 24/96, I'll leave it for a while, less 'moving parts' I suppose. However no crossfade functionality, so we'll see how long before I revert.
By the way have you played around with SoX (FFSoX in winamp) at all, with a particular regard to upsampling and ReplayGain...I get some rather pleasing results going to 24/96 with the Beresford...:)
Hi Will,
It might be worth sticking with the ASIO driver for a week or so then swapping back to see if you hear any difference! Even the latest Directsound driver sends the data to XP K-mixer, but perhaps the plug-in helps to defeat K-mixers failings I dunno. If there's no difference in sound quality then use whatever you prefer. At the back of my mind is that Directsound could resample & as ASIO will not it just adds piece of mind!
No, I've not played around with SoX. I downloaded a Foobar SoX plug-in sometime ago but have never got around to having a play with it. I normaly just keep all DSP switched off,but have played around with sound effects on the E-Mu PatchMix DSP.
Post your findings on any difference you find with the drivers that might be interesting.
Cheers, alfie.
Hi Will,
It might be worth sticking with the ASIO driver for a week or so then swapping back to see if you hear any difference! Even the latest Directsound driver sends the data to XP K-mixer, but perhaps the plug-in helps to defeat K-mixers failings I dunno. If there's no difference in sound quality then use whatever you prefer. At the back of my mind is that Directsound could resample & as ASIO will not it just adds piece of mind!
No, I've not played around with SoX. I downloaded a Foobar SoX plug-in sometime ago but have never got around to having a play with it. I normaly just keep all DSP switched off,but have played around with sound effects on the E-Mu PatchMix DSP.
Post your findings on any difference you find with the drivers that might be interesting.
Cheers, alfie.
I'm going to see how the ASIO output goes, as I said I can't tell the difference, and I have been giving it a very critical listen...as you say though peace of mind is a good thing. It's probably less cpu intensive.
At the moment it's playing 24/96 gapless and no dropouts, so happy days.
I agree about no DSPs, however with Winamp FFSoX is an input plugin so it's performing the transcoding, resampling, and applying replaygain before it hits the winamp player. Which is indeed a DSP activity I'll admit, however I can only say positive things about it. I use album ReplayGain all of the time, and allegedly (according to SoX), this is a better way to implement it rather than through winamp itself...I can't tell to be honest.
However when I upsample to 24/96 (on highest quality/priority) I do notice an improvement, whether this is because of my DAC or not I'm not sure, does a Beresford attempt to upsample to 24/96 itself? I didn't think so, but the top end is definitely more detailed or perhaps smoother.
I presume the Foobar version works in a similar way...
http://in-ffsox.sourceforge.net/
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
30-06-2011, 07:56
Reading this discussion of your expertise, which to me reads largely as gobble-de-gook. Makes me realise that when you don't know a subject then experts go right over your head. I hope I don't when I post on analogue subjects.
I suppose it is early days in the market for computer hi-fi, but I feel the geekdom surrounding it turns a lot of people off. Personally, it is not my subject, and I hate computers with a vengeance and resent how they have imposed themselves on my life. Well I want to minimise it, so I want plug in and use computers and plug in and play computer audio.
Ammonite Audio
30-06-2011, 08:23
Having done quite a bit of dabbling in computer audio, I'm still confused too! I will say that J River Media Center does a pretty good job of hiding all the computer geekery, with all the ASIO/WASAPI etc and other important options built-in, so that's why I prefer to use it. It's Windows only, but for some reason Windows PCs seem to produce consistently better sound than my iMac.
Reading this discussion of your expertise, which to me reads largely as gobble-de-gook. Makes me realise that when you don't know a subject then experts go right over your head. I hope I don't when I post on analogue subjects.
I suppose it is early days in the market for computer hi-fi, but I feel the geekdom surrounding it turns a lot of people off. Personally, it is not my subject, and I hate computers with a vengeance and resent how they have imposed themselves on my life. Well I want to minimise it, so I want plug in and use computers and plug in and play computer audio.
Hi Richard,
I suppose 'geekdom' could be applied to any aspect of us Hi-Fi bods enthusiasm, both digital or analogue. Most people just want a 'music centre' after all.
I've been in IT for a long time so I suppose it's become second nature to me, computers are just tools to be used. I appreciate that the whole subject can be a little daunting to others, particularly when we're down at 'driver' level discussions.
Until I joined AOS I was rather ignorant about the effects of power supplies etc., and most of the technical detail didn't make much sense to me, however I've managed to improve my systems sound quality by picking up on some useful tips etc.
A bit of cross pollination is a good thing.
It will be interesting to see how FILE based audio technology develops, on one hand the more generic use of computers (more for us geek types), on the other the more dedicated 'appliance' type technologies such as SquuezeBox, Sonos, or Linn DS.
I use SBs and also 'computers', all sharing the same FLAC library on my server, I'll leave the technical details out for now.
I can already play FLAC on my Android phone, and also run a Squeezebox client/player/controller on it too.
Then there's the 'cloud', hosting services are already happening for Mp3 playback (Amazon for example), FLAC will not be far off. So it won't require the technical complexity of setting up your own home server...this might open things up for a wider audience...;)
Reading this discussion of your expertise, which to me reads largely as gobble-de-gook....
I suppose it is early days in the market for computer hi-fi, but I feel the geekdom surrounding it turns a lot of people off. Personally, it is not my subject, and I hate computers with a vengeance and resent how they have imposed themselves on my life. Well I want to minimise it, so I want plug in and use computers and plug in and play computer audio.
Hear hear that man! They are a royal pain, and don't reward time & effort by working right! I know, shouldn't blame the tools....
This is the reason I bought a MAC solely for audio, they are easier to set up & use (IMO) than windows machines, but they are disappointingly far from plug & play.
I now also use a windows laptop in my office system, and it is a good deal harder to set up than a MAC. Both are frustratingly easy to fluff up so that the sound is compromised, and it can take ages working out what I did wrong....
If computer audio didn't sound so good to my ears I wouldn't bother with it, but I sold my last disc spinner a while ago. In the future, dedicated, pre-set server systems are the way forward IMO, with high quality audio as their sole purpose.
Hear hear that man! They are a royal pain, and don't reward time & effort by working right! I know, shouldn't blame the tools...
I guess it all depends on how much time and effort you are prepared to spend getting a computer working how you want it too? And a computer will only impose itself on your life if you let it, you can always turn them off ;)
Setting up a Windows 7 machine for file based audio is actually quite easy these days with Foobar2000 and WASAPI. The tricky stuff starts with Linux based operating systems. But I guess if you don't like computers any sort of configuration can be daunting.
However, I would rather set up a music server than a TT - that I would find very tricky :scratch:
However, I would rather set up a music server than a TT - that I would find very tricky :scratch:
Agreed Tim, one man's faff is another man's doddle...if that makes any form of sense ;)
Yup! that's a valid comparison for me as well.
I spent a while yesterday faffing with my W7 pro lappy playing FLACs through foobar & WASAPI and I'm still getting quiet pops & clicks with the buffer set to minimum.
The DAC is an HRT Music Streamer II, which is insanely good for it's modest price, but maybe it doesn't like WASAPI?
I actually was running foobar incorrectly configured for weeks - the preferences are not very intuative - and this might be the crux of my (mildly complaining) observation.
Yup! that's a valid comparison for me as well.
I spent a while yesterday faffing with my W7 pro lappy playing FLACs through foobar & WASAPI and I'm still getting quiet pops & clicks with the buffer set to minimum.
The DAC is an HRT Music Streamer II, which is insanely good for it's modest price, but maybe it doesn't like WASAPI?
I actually was running foobar incorrectly configured for weeks - the preferences are not very intuative - and this might be the crux of my (mildly complaining) observation.
Wouldn't you be better off with your buffers set higher Alan, unless of course latency is an issue for you (recording etc.), I whack mine as high as they'll go in order to avoid dropouts etc.
Mind you I'm using ASIO not WASAPI, so I may be talking out of my posterior.
I know Welder, another member who is into computer audio, was very keen on low latency, however I think we agreed to disagree on the matter. ;)
Latency could only ever be an issue for me if I knew what it was....:doh:
As for the buffer size, it simply won't play at all with WASAPI on anything but the smallest buffer size.
Not a problem with CD players you see...:scratch:
Alan, I found laptops to be very noisy as music players, the screen has an impact as does the the driver software for things like the mousepad or an external mouse. They are very convenient however as everything is in one box, but there's a wealth of things going on that can degrade the SQ unfortunately :(
I'm sure you're right Tim, but this is a definite glitch somewhere. I am sure greater minds than mine will solve it!
Perhaps I'll bin WASAPI & try ASIO.
BTW, what do I have to do to get automatic downsampling to 96khz when I try playing a 192khz file? At the present time, Foobar won't recognize the file.
Latency could only ever be an issue for me if I knew what it was....:doh:
As for the buffer size, it simply won't play at all with WASAPI on anything but the smallest buffer size.
Not a problem with CD players you see...:scratch:
Ah sorry...latency is a bit of a bugger for musicians on computers, if you use big buffers in the stream, (i.e. temporary data storage areas), they take a while to fill, hence there is a delay between playing a note and hearing it.
If you're just playing music the 'latency' or delay between pressing play and hearing the sound is no big deal, and using large buffers means that my music stream is protected from interruption from any other processes.
But I'm using ASIO and a PCI soundcard, so a different architecture...
This may be something about the HRT, is yours the one with the Asynchronous USB connection, if so it must have it's own buffer area to do this, so the advice I'm giving might be inappropriate.
Perhaps this was why Welder was keen on low latency as he had an HRT pro I think...:scratch:
I'm sure you're right Tim, but this is a definite glitch somewhere. I am sure greater minds than mine will solve it!
Perhaps I'll bin WASAPI & try ASIO.
BTW, what do I have to do to get automatic downsampling to 96khz when I try playing a 192khz file? At the present time, Foobar won't recognize the file.
There's a 'real time' resampler called SoX which is available for Foobar I believe, I use FFSoX in winamp to resample everything to 24/96 as an input plugin, it also does your replaygain processing too, if you use it that is...
Here's my FFSoX configuration screen from Winamp, I'm sure the Foobar version will have similar parameter options...
Edit; I know people will want to burn me at the stake for this but...Standard FLAC @ 16/44.1 sounds better when SoX has resampled it to 24/96, well on my Beresford anyway
:sofa:
Thanks Will, very interesting. I have left replay gain as is for the time being.
The HRT is Asynchronous, so that might be why buffering is an issue. Foobar works just fine with the HRT without WASAPI though.
Thanks Will, very interesting. I have left replay gain as is for the time being.
The HRT is Asynchronous, so that might be why buffering is an issue. Foobar works just fine with the HRT without WASAPI though.
I have to confess ignorance about WASAPI, I'd imagine that ASIO should work fine for you...
Thinking about it the buffering shouldn't be an issue, it's just internal buffer to external buffer, it should just isolate you from any interference...but that's just speculation ;)
Thanks again Will & co (see what I did there?:eyebrows:)
Apologies to all for steering this discussion even further off topic, I suppose this should have been in the digital room!:rolleyes:
alfie2902
30-06-2011, 16:43
WASAPI is Microsofts version of ASIO. It's an integral part of Windows 7 & Vista but does need to be set to exclusive mode, so no other application can use the sound card.
WASAPI is actually a lot easier to set-up than ASIO Will, you just drop the .dll file into the Foobar componant folder, then selct it as the Output device in Preferences - works very well and in my setup Win7 unfortunately sounds better than XP, so I had to buy another copy of Win7 Pro :(
In an ideal world a good file based audio music player would in theory just be one box with a motherboard and DAC combined, a high quality linear PSU and a Linux based O/S, that does nothing more than boot up, recognise the installed hardware and play audio via a bespoke music player application. With no displays, third party drivers or anything to interfere with the delivery of lossless data files. I suspect that is similar to the hardware that Richard as referred to? Less is definately more in this instance.
A well configured system based on that ethos would sound very fine indeed IMO :)
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
30-06-2011, 18:01
I suspect that is similar to the hardware that Richard as referred to? Less is definately more in this instance.
A well configured system based on that ethos would sound very fine indeed IMO :)
It is Win7 based, it can be used as a normal computer, in fact when I am allowed by the boss I use it instead of my laptop to post here. I uses firefox to download Youtube. Even though I have it connected to a 32inch Tesco cheapo special it is well away from it and according to Jason there is nothing noisy in the box, even has solid state memory, no fans, convection and heat trap cooled. It is absolutely silent.
It is Win7 based, it can be used as a normal computer, in fact when I am allowed by the boss I use it instead of my laptop to post here. I uses firefox to download Youtube. Even though I have it connected to a 32inch Tesco cheapo special it is well away from it and according to Jason there is nothing noisy in the box, even has solid state memory, no fans, convection and heat trap cooled. It is absolutely silent.
Sounds very similar to my lash-up, one small box with an Intel Atom based motherboard, that's passively cooled by a large heatsink and no fans. An SSD drive with only Windows7, Foobar2000, VLC, Radmin and Spotify installed. No other software at all, especially things like A/V, just a bare bones Win7 install with only the drivers needed to make it work and all the music is stored on a second hard drive, with NAS backup. It's powered by an outboard 'brick' style PSU, so it's also silent and the only thing attached to it is an Ethernet cable and DAC - no mouse, keyboard or monitor. I don't use it for anything other than playing music, but I can stream movies to it as well, as the motherboard has HDMI video output.
I'm very pleased with it :)
Ideally, that sounds precisely the way to do it chaps.
WASAPI is actually a lot easier to set-up than ASIO Will, you just drop the .dll file into the Foobar componant folder, then selct it as the Output device in Preferences
You've just described how to set up ASIO in winamp, well apart from the folder name...as in winamp it's plugins :)
I've been googling. :stalks:
It seems there are other documented cases of the HRT MS 2 not liking Foobar/WASAPI, but without any solutions. I might try WINAMP out of curiosity, as well as contacting HRT.
Before I ditch Foobar however, another question if I may: There are several place to adjust the output settings, and even more options to choose from (like 16 bit, 24 or 32 bit, and different sample rates). Is there an add-on to Foobar that automatically outputs bit-perfect and automatically sets sample and bit rates (and perhaps downsamples the highest bit-rates back down to 96khz where needed)?
My MAC system automatically outputs according to my preference (usually to match the original file) so I'm sure the windows system must do the same. It's just harder to see what it is doing.
I don't have a clue about winamps waspis arsewipes etc....
I don't use cd any more just a tt and squeeze box.
I found squeezebox a doodle to set set up and i'am a complete muppet around a comp.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
01-07-2011, 20:48
I don't have a clue about winamps waspis arsewipes etc....
I don't use cd any more just a tt and squeeze box.
I found squeezebox a doodle to set set up and i'am a complete muppet around a comp.
But is it better than your Turntable.
No but when i can't be arsed with the tt it is more than good enough for me.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
01-07-2011, 21:03
No but when i can't be arsed with the tt it is more than good enough for me.
Well that is my point, the Squeezebox is only giving you part of what you can achieve. Computer audio can outperform or at least equal your tt. But to get that you need to go to computer geek tweekdom and make your own, or get something like the thing I was talking about.
For the £70 it cost it is superb.
Ive tried a number of dacs and found the difference minimal that i just use it on it's own.
If it was the only source i had it is more than good enough.
Reid Malenfant
01-07-2011, 21:08
So you aren't trying to sell anything then ;) Or promote anything for that matter...
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
01-07-2011, 21:11
For the £70 it cost it is superb.
Ive tried a number of dacs and found the difference minimal that i just use it on it's own.
If it was the only source i had it is more than good enough.
That is the function of choice, it is good enough, and exceptional value. We are all faced with this choice in all aspects of audio. I am suggesting that there is a way to go further - *if you wish*.
That is the function of choice, it is good enough, and exceptional value. We are all faced with this choice in all aspects of audio. I am suggesting that there is a way to go further - *if you wish*.
But at what price?
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
01-07-2011, 21:29
But at what price?
A lot more, but that is the way of hi-fi. Or learn to be a geek and do it yourself as most of this thread discussion has been about.
But to get that you need to go to computer geek tweekdom and make your own, or get something like the thing I was talking about.
You do have a very unique way of describing things Richard.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
01-07-2011, 21:38
You do have a very unique way of describing things Richard.
Why thank you!
A lot more, but that is the way of hi-fi. Or learn to be a geek and do it yourself as most of this thread discussion has been about.
Think i'll stick with comp audio and save up for a new cartridge.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
01-07-2011, 22:17
Think i'll stick with comp audio and save up for a new cartridge.
We are talking about computer audio :scratch:
Ok more than happy with my sb3.
I'am sure like most sources if you throw a grand or more at it it will improve but i found that upto around £500 dacs the improvement to my ears was slight so don't use an external one anymore.
I still think the squeezebox is by far the best digital item in years.
I believe the older apple T.V. with optical out and 160 gig hard drive (mine converted to a sata 500 gig.) and modded to run cooler is a far better deal than any digital source when paired with a good stand alone DAC.
Apple lossless files sound as good as any CDP I've had including myModded Music Hall 25.2
Ok more than happy with my sb3.
I'am sure like most sources if you throw a grand or more at it it will improve but i found that upto around £500 dacs the improvement to my ears was slight so don't use an external one anymore.
I still think the squeezebox is by far the best digital item in years.
I have to agree about the SB, but IMHO the quality can be improved reasonably cheaply with something like a beresford for example, particularly if you use a decent coax connection...;)
Hi,
I am also an SBT user, and have embarked on a mission to digitise, clean-up and tag all of my LPs for which I don't already own a digital edition. This is a herculean task if you consider click removal/restoration, metadata input etc., and 1000+ LPs to work through, less some percentage of stuff that I can't be bothered to do.All of my material is recorded at 24bit/96Khz, processed and restored, and then downsampled to 24/48 after processing.
It is encouraging me to get out vinyl that would be otherwise unplayed, and although the period 1980-1990 is overpresesented, it is still interesting and enjoyable and there is much interesting, enjoyable and otherwise unavailable music there that I forgot that I owned.
This is definately changing the way I listen to music in that the disincentive to find that elusive record is gone as everthing is fully catalogued and searchable by artist, genre, year, track name etc.
The net result is that I am listening to a much broader range of music, more often, in any location in the house I would wish to. The sound quality of the digitised vinyl via the Touch and CA-840C DAC is very good. In most cases, previously marginal vinyl is definately better once it has been declicked and processed.
I am sure that I will be flamed by the analogue zealots for committing this heresy, but I do still have the LPs should I wish to savour them in their original format!.
I do think that using a remote NAS to provide a music repository and remote playback devices such as the Squeezebox Touch is the way forward, and at least I will be able to take my 'legacy' library with me into the future however the digital future takes shape. I think that in time a fully internet cloud-based service will provide a digital 'locker' for legacy digital media and high-res materials bought on-line. This could be accessed from anywhere over the Internet by any appropriate device, car, smart phones, home-based digital transports and so on. No technical reason for this not to happen now once the record industry pulls it's head out of the sand and sorts appropriate 'fair-use' terms.
I think that moving in this direction has shifted my attention from equipment and worrying overly about extracting the last scintilla of performance towards enjoying rediscovering music, and focussing on the the performance itself, not the sound of the performance. This is, to me, a good and healthy thing.
Regards,
Alex
The net result is that I am listening to a much broader range of music, more often, in any location in the house I would wish to.
No flames, Alex! It's just that this is what I can't do. I need to focus on the music and part of that is having it in my listening room where I am comfortable and free from distractions. The ritual of selecting a disc and playing it is integral. I really don't want music piped around the house :)
No flames, Alex! It's just that this is what I can't do. I need to focus on the music and part of that is having it in my listening room where I am comfortable and free from distractions. The ritual of selecting a disc and playing it is integral. I really don't want music piped around the house :)
I kind of sit somewhere in the middle and like Martin listening to music is something of a ritualistic experience, where I have to be in front of the system and relaxed, I wouldn't want it piped around the house. However, I have sold my CDP and gone over to file based audio, simply because the sound quality was superior and in my price bracket it made sense. But I still buy CD's and will continue to do so, as I have to 'own the music', not just a data file. The only music I would ever have around the house would come from a radio, but when the radio is on it's nearly always Radio 4 anyway.
No flames, Alex! It's just that this is what I can't do. I need to focus on the music and part of that is having it in my listening room where I am comfortable and free from distractions. The ritual of selecting a disc and playing it is integral. I really don't want music piped around the house :)
Martin, Fair enough - I still enjoy doing this when the occasion suits, but I also like listening to my music in my home office and in the kitchen and bathroom too. I was joking about being barbequed as a heretic for the unholy practice of digitizing vinyl for convenience ;)
I also enjoy handling vinyl, cleaning it and listening to a whole LP worth of music in a 'focused' way. I have too many records to always be able to find what I want to listen to, so sometimes randomized play jogs my memory and I can come back to listen at length. Having my music cataloged and indexed is a big advantage for me.
But I still buy CD's and will continue to do so, as I have to 'own the music', not just a data file.
Me too. I have never downloaded any music with DRM or sub-CD quality. It still amazes me that the majors think that a 256k MP3 (or worse!) should cost more than the equivalent material on CD without any of the associated costs of the distribution channel. I might change my view when more HiRes material becomes available that is sonically and musically worthwhile.
I kind of sit somewhere in the middle and like Martin listening to music is something of a ritualistic experience, where I have to be in front of the system and relaxed, I wouldn't want it piped around the house. However, I have sold my CDP and gone over to file based audio, simply because the sound quality was superior and in my price bracket it made sense. But I still buy CD's and will continue to do so, as I have to 'own the music', not just a data file. The only music I would ever have around the house would come from a radio, but when the radio is on it's nearly always Radio 4 anyway.
Don't knock it till you've tried it Tim...;)
For serious listening I will always use my main system (SB source), however it's great to have access to your music collection elsewhere in the house, and it's quite cheap to knock up some less expensive secondary systems, an SB a mini-t and some half decent speakers.
I like to listen to ambient stuff in the bedroom, it's nice to have something to listen to whilst cooking, or lounging on the patio, and also in my study whilst working.
That's one of the joys of a file based system everything is available everywhere, independently or synchronised, in full FLAC resolution :)
Oh and you can listen to the radio too if you want...:)
P.S. There is nothing on my library that hasn't come from a CD, Stalinist rules need to be applied otherwise you'll end up in a mess...
P.P.S. I still have my vinyl and a TT on my main system
Martin, Fair enough - I still enjoy doing this when the occasion suits, but I also like listening to my music in my home office and in the kitchen too. I was joking about being barbequed as a heretic
+1
They don't know what they're missing ;)
...the music, as opposed to the being barbecued bit that is...
Don't knock it till you've tried it Tim...;)
I'm not knocking it at all, it's just not something I would like - I have previously run cables around the place and had second and third systems, but I've gone to great lengths recently to de-clutter my life, as I just want one system and for me I like to sit and listen to music, I'm not a play-list or background music sort of guy. Living in a flat with open plan features means if I'm cooking I just turn it up a notch :)
worthingpagan
05-07-2011, 10:17
The only thing i'm allowed to turn up round here is the rent :rolleyes:
I'm not knocking it at all, it's just not something I would like - I have previously run cables around the place and had second and third systems, but I've gone to great lengths recently to de-clutter my life, as I just want one system and for me I like to sit and listen to music, I'm not a play-list or background music sort of guy. Living in a flat with open plan features means if I'm cooking I just turn it up a notch :)
...ah I see, I wasn't aware of the logistics ;)
Hi Will,
It might be worth sticking with the ASIO driver for a week or so then swapping back to see if you hear any difference! Even the latest Directsound driver sends the data to XP K-mixer, but perhaps the plug-in helps to defeat K-mixers failings I dunno. If there's no difference in sound quality then use whatever you prefer. At the back of my mind is that Directsound could resample & as ASIO will not it just adds piece of mind!
Post your findings on any difference you find with the drivers that might be interesting.
Cheers, alfie.
Hi Alfie,
After a week or so with ASIO (winamp plugin) I'm beginning to realise the benefits, and inerrant pitfalls of DirectSound.
My initial A/B testing revealed them to be identical, however at other times (after I've been messing around on line etc), the ASIO sounds better.
I think I now know why if one looks closely into when the K-Mixer is invoked. The first audio stream is fine, it's when a second is introduced, either a crossfade or another audio stream from the internet etc., from that point on it would appear that the K-Mixer is then involved until re-boot.
It may not necessarily be resampling it may just be hijacking a high order bit for volume control, hence me still seeing the appropriate resolution on the sound card display.
This would appear to explain it...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff537756.aspx
...but put simply if you want to guarantee bit perfect throughput, all of the time on XP, use ASIO
Cheers for the info...:cool:
...but put simply if you want to guarantee bit perfect throughput, all of the time on XP, use ASIO
+ 1 ;)
+ 1 ;)
...I got there in the end Tim, it's nice to find some documentation that backs up ones observations too...it was confusing the hell out of me for a while :)
P.S. Welder if you're reading this I know we had this discussion months ago, but my testing didn't take into account the 'degradation' due to a second audio stream...:cool:
alfie2902
06-07-2011, 14:03
Hi Alfie,
After a week or so with ASIO (winamp plugin) I'm beginning to realise the benefits, and inerrant pitfalls of DirectSound.
My initial A/B testing revealed them to be identical, however at other times (after I've been messing around on line etc), the ASIO sounds better.
I think I now know why if one looks closely into when the K-Mixer is invoked. The first audio stream is fine, it's when a second is introduced, either a crossfade or another audio stream from the internet etc., from that point on it would appear that the K-Mixer is then involved until re-boot.
It may not necessarily be resampling it may just be hijacking a high order bit for volume control, hence me still seeing the appropriate resolution on the sound card display.
This would appear to explain it...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff537756.aspx
...but put simply if you want to guarantee bit perfect throughput, all of the time on XP, use ASIO
Cheers for the info...:cool:
Hi Will,
Nice one mate!
It's a couple of years since I played around with different drivers in XP but I pretty much came up with the same conclusion! Bypass K-Mixer if you can!
I'm still trying to work out though why different media players sound different though! :scratch: If the files are bit perfect maybe they produce different timing errors (Jitter), I dunno.
Hey Will
Yes mate, I’m still reading; trying to carefully step over the rather virulent outbreak of twaticus norvegicus troll postings :doh:
(Really need to get some pest control in here. We have found a big ban hammer impregnated with dyslexia works well, even for the most literary trolls over at the games forums) :)
Anyway, have to respond to this.
Need to bear in mind that asio4all isn’t a true driver, it’s a wrap.
Yep, it does bypass the kmixer but a true asio driver can give subtle improvements over a wrap. Unfortunately they cost money.
The best option imo is to avoid the problem altogether. Some say Win7 in hog mode does the job but to my ears the benefits of having Linux USB drivers and no Win audio stack at all when using an asynchronous Dac via USB are noticeable if subtle.
I think a great deal is going to depend on how you have whatever computer you use to serve the files set up.
1) A stripped out dedicated computer with a reasonably powerful processor and 4gigs + of RAM
2) External Dac
3) Asynchronous USB data transfer.
4) asio wrap
5)asio driver
5) Independent linear USB power
6) Linux OS
Anyway, glad you do hear a difference albeit subtle :cool:
Hey Will
Yes mate, I’m still reading; trying to carefully step over the rather virulent outbreak of twaticus norvegicus troll postings :doh:
(Really need to get some pest control in here. We have found a big ban hammer impregnated with dyslexia works well, even for the most literary trolls over at the games forums) :)
Anyway, have to respond to this.
Need to bear in mind that asio4all isn’t a true driver, it’s a wrap.
Yep, it does bypass the kmixer but a true asio driver can give subtle improvements over a wrap. Unfortunately they cost money.
The best option imo is to avoid the problem altogether. Some say Win7 in hog mode does the job but to my ears the benefits of having Linux USB drivers and no Win audio stack at all when using an asynchronous Dac via USB are noticeable if subtle.
I think a great deal is going to depend on how you have whatever computer you use to serve the files set up.
1) A stripped out dedicated computer with a reasonably powerful processor and 4gigs + of RAM
2) External Dac
3) Asynchronous USB data transfer.
4) asio wrap
5)asio driver
5) Independent linear USB power
6) Linux OS
Anyway, glad you do hear a difference albeit subtle :cool:
...good to see you posting again John :)
I'm going directly to M-Audio 192's ASIO driver via the Japanese chap (can't remember the name) ASIO out .dll from winamp...
At boot up with only winamp and the first track I can't tell the difference between dirsectsound to the SPDIF, and ASIO to the ASIO driver, it's only after the system's been up for a while and I think I've kicked things into multi thread mode (my assumption) that I can, and it's a little more than subtle, it's quite noticeable ;)
You live and learn...:)
How's the linux stuff going?
...good to see you posting again John :)
+1 :)
Ditto, nice to see you again John and I have finally finished my version of a media player/music server. A stripped down Win7 machine which I know has a lot more scope as far as the operating system and software is concerned, but the main thing is it sounds great and I'm really pleased with it - so job done for the time being. I saved a bunch of money over buying something too, all thanks to you for politely telling me to "ffs build it yourself" :lol:
I'm not knocking it at all, it's just not something I would like - I have previously run cables around the place and had second and third systems, but I've gone to great lengths recently to de-clutter my life, as I just want one system and for me I like to sit and listen to music, I'm not a play-list or background music sort of guy. Living in a flat with open plan features means if I'm cooking I just turn it up a notch :)
I don't want the faff of cables everywhere to,so thinking of trying a boombox so i can carry all my music round the house and garden.
Not sure how good the sq is though.
I don't want the faff of cables everywhere to,so thinking of trying a boombox so i can carry all my music round the house and garden.
Not sure how good the sq is though.
I hope you don't mean the SB Boom...unless you want to buy mine that is ;)
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
07-07-2011, 13:08
Seeing as I started this thread I keep popping back to see if I can contribute, and each time I come away even more confused than before :scratch: :rolleyes:
IMHO modern psychology is a pseudo-science which starts from wholly wrong principles and then goes on to attempt to define and quantify human behaviour with group studies, blind tests and so on. Although it may be effective in determining what is the best colour box to sell breakfast cereal in it tells us nothing of any true importance about our own nature.
Couldn't agree more !
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.