Printable View
I wonder what Stan would find if he was to measure the input sensitivity or rise-time of the digital inputs when the circuit is running at these two voltages??????Quote:
Originally Posted by lovejoy
I doubt we'd have these troubles if what came out of the digital outs was a perfect squarewave shape.. I remember seeing the wave-form of some early players and they were awful - sloppy rise and tons of edgy ringing. No wonder early players had timing/jitter errors.....
I think Stans dac double buffers the input so jitter on individual bits would be effectively removed. I suspect the sound may be affected by a longer period drift (technically still jitter I think) of the clock on the sending device.
My PC had a high accuracy crystal controlling the SPDIF output which only worked at one frequency of 44.1 kHz. The mac on the other hand doesn't have this and can work at several different frequencies, derived from some master system clock presumably?
I would hypothesize that the higher voltage wasn't affecting the jitter on individual bits in the digital domain but was allowing for a higher slew rate on the analogue output op-amp, thus compensating for the sloppy SPDIF clock with a bit more oomph on the output. Or something like that:)
Hi all,
I know I am new here, but I do have to agree with lovejoy. My music is being streamed to a Squeezebox Classic and I listen With Sennheiser 650's through Stans 7520 dac and I do think it sounds better than it did with the old Leopard.
Hi Lupo - being new doesn't mean you have duff ears! It's good to hear that Lovejoy's early reports are finding corroboration from other members :)
I upgraded to Snow Leopard today, without so much as a hiccup, let alone a snag. Also downloaded Airfoil to evaluate - it seems to work without any dramas, so thanks for the tip.Quote:
Originally Posted by webby
The nice thing about Airfoil is that if you switch to 'system audio', it will stream anything thats on your computer, such as the BBC iplayer. Great for catching up on radio plays, specific programs etc. Of course it will stream Cog (to play FLAC), Spotify, etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuggie
Oh...and you can download Airfoil onto an ipod touch and pick up all the above.
Well it seems that lovejoy/Rich is not the only one 'fooling himself' with Snow Leopard, eh Chippy?
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=67905
That's not including all the good folks here too, of course, who've discovered the very same thing!
Remember what Einstein said - keep that mind open... ;)
Marco.
Yeah, I've been keeping track of the PFM thread - I think there's a similar one on the Naim forum also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
So many 'fools', so little time, eh? ;)
Marco.
Don't want to get drawn into an argument here Marco - it's not my thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
But as you mention it, 2 people (or 3 or 4 or 504) doesn't convince me that any perceived improvement actually exists... which is really what my previous posts are all about.
I just don't buy the "learn to trust your ears" argument at all, given that our ears are pretty lousy sensors in any absolute sense.
If people start saying they tried A and then B and then A again in some blind tests and they could reliably tell the difference and A is clearly superior, then I completely accept that. But the "I think it sounded a bit better" comments I find interesting, but not definitive and conclusive proof.
It's not that I am a natural skeptic about everything. I fully accept that all speakers sound different, and amplifiers and pre-amps and turntables and cd players and cassette decks. Even cables. But when people start saying that a stream of bits sounds different to another stream of bits (with the same jitter) it's such an extraordinary claim imho, that before I am to be convinced of it, I need extraordinary proof.
As you indicated in a previous post, maybe these are the wrong forums for me. As a matter of interest, you keep banging on about having an open mind. Is your mind open to the possibility that perhaps people are fooling themselves? Seriously, is that even a possibility for you?
Chippy,
Nope, not at all. My remarks were tongue-in-cheek.
Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, and you're most welcome here. As long as you always express yourself as considerately as you just did, you'll be fine :)
Marco.
We've go two essentially identical Intel iMacs (one 20" one 24", otherwise identical age and spec down to HD size and make/amount of RAM), both accessing the same network drive via similar lengths of the same network cable, router etc.
I could probably get around to undertaking some direct A/B testing by simply swapping the optical cable into the Beresford, once my copy of Snow Leopard turns up and assuming I can be arsed to hump the machines around a bit.
Would that be useful?
Interesting perhaps twelvebears, but a load of hassle for you and to be honest it's probably not worth it.
The fact that people claim to hear differences between OS versions causes me to lose no sleep at all. Heck they may even be right. Personally, I find it very difficult to believe, but that doesn't really matter: it's not me sitting down enjoying their hifis. So long as everyone is happy, I seen no problem continuing as we are.
In my reply to Marco, I said that I don't care whether 504 people claim to hear something. This in fact was a lie. Of course I am swayed by what people say, and although 1 swallow does not make a summer, if you see 500 of them, you would have to start to think about brushing down the barbeque!
Subjectivity + consensus = credibility. I agree that not every pair of ears can be trusted but this is a forum for trusted ears.
Pardon? As someone who happens to be formally qualified in the field of acoustics, I do know that the ears, combined with the brain, are the most excellent sensors in any sense, but we are all different from each other in the way the two work together. Musicians can have quite poor hearing by conventional audiometric criteria, but still perceive and resolve musical details to an extraordinary degree, but by objective criteria many are rather deaf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippy_boy
Do not underestimate how much psychoacoustics contribute to what we (as individuals) hear. It's not just a question of decibels and two-dimensional waves.
I think your last sentence *beautifully* argued in favour of what I just said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuggie
Oh Chippy, you silly billy. Come on...your tea is getting cold.
You can read it that way if you wish; however the true meaning is that there is much to be understood about how we hear things, and in the context of this thread (and God knows how many others splattered over the Internet), there is no Right, nor Wrong - we are all correct in our own minds and happy with our own perceptions. Is this a Subjectivist v Objectivist argument? Not really - who knows what objective means in the context of home audio? That's a subject for an entirely different thread!
But, who am I to tell anyone else that they are wrong, on the basis of how I hear things? Who are you to tell others that "trusting their own ears" is wrong? A good sprinkling of understanding and humility goes a long way, and AoS is mostly an understanding, open-minded and good natured place. Having crossed a line or two in the AoS sand, I am keenly aware of the need to keep it that way.
Back to the subject of this thread, if someone states that Snow Leopard results in better sound quality because of the new core audio programming, then I'm happy to listen for myself and make up my own mind, secure in the knowledge that no amount of measuring is ever going to explain any difference. If it makes me want to listen to streamed music from my Mac, then I'll know that it's better than the old Leopard OSX.
Excellent post, Shuggs. I could easily highlight all of it. However, the bit in bold is spot-on and shows that you really understand what AOS is all about; which to be fair, Chippy appears to be picking up fast! ;)Quote:
But, who am I to tell anyone else that they are wrong, on the basis of how I hear things? Who are you to tell others that "trusting their own ears" is wrong? A good sprinkling of understanding and humility goes a long way, and AoS is mostly an understanding, open-minded and good natured place.
It's interesting to note that some of our regulars have recently 'dipped their toes' into the waters of other forums, whilst in search of certain information, and sensed the aggression and 'niggle' amongst members which is part and parcel of the accepted 'vibe' - and then on returning here, appreciating the complete absence of such... This pleases me greatly as it's exactly what we set out to achieve.
Whatever this forum becomes in future, it will always remain a place where people (and their opinions) are treated with due respect and courtesy, and where the accent is on friendliness and people having fun during their journeys in audio.
Marco.
Shuggie, I accept none of your criticisms.
My opinion - and it is only that - is what it is and I have merely stated it. Nothing more, nothing less. For some reason there are those that seem to think this is some sort of personal assault.
I didn't tell anyone that "trusting there own ears is wrong". I merely stated that it's not a very reliable test in my opinion. Or am I not allowed an opinion?
I will say no more on this matter. I made a light hearted posting above to lighten the mood but some seem hell bent on dragging it down into a row again. I'm not going being drawn into it.
I don't read his post like that Marco. He is basically telling me to show some humility, and I resent that. I have posted nothing to warrant any rebuke or to be told about showing humility. I think he has a bit of a cheek if I am honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Chippy,
Well maybe that's because I know Shuggs quite well - and you don't. It's easier to interpret the intent behind someone's posts when you understand their way of thinking :)
I suspect that Shuggs was referring to your earlier quip about people "fooling themselves", and drew a similar inference with your mentioning of trusting ones ears. However, I think that particular aspect of the discussion has been dealt with quite sufficiently, so I suggest we now all get back to the original thread topic.
Marco.
Happily so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Chippy
I'm sorry if I have niggled or offended you - that was not my intention, rather to present a balanced viewpoint.
Regarding the original topic of this thread, I'm actually quite excited about giving streamed digital audio another try. I used a Squeezebox 3 for some time, and while it was not the ultimate in HiFi, it was very convenient, as long as the host PC was turned on. I particularly liked having Alien BBC on hand, for Listen Again etc. When I changed to a Mac, I found that Squeezecenter worked OK, but I could not get Alien BBC to work (actually I could not understand the installation instructions for the Mac), so I stopped using it. The iMac is virtually silent, though, and I tried streaming optical digital from that to my amp. It worked, but there was nothing about the sound that gripped me, and I went back to little silver and big black discs. So now, maybe, with Snow Leopard things will be different. I hope so!
Big of you to apologize, and I am sorry for perhaps over reacting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuggie
Glad we're all mates here really :-)
I hope you start getting the sound from your Mac that you desire.
I've just installed snow leopard and on first listen I don't think I can hear much difference in the sound quality. What hardware are you guys using?
Hi there,
Just thought I'd add my two cents. I haven't noticed any improvement in sound quality since I upgraded (fresh install, not an archive and install).
By the way, call me crazy, but I could've sworn Audio Midi Setup offered 32-bit output now, but it seems to have disappeared since I noticed it just after installing. It showed up on a MacBook Pro I was playing with in an Apple Store as well, and I drew a staff member's attention to it. Funny I can't find it now. Am I crazy or did someone else notice this?