Motherboard OPAMP upgrade kit - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: gman4925
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 02:09:28 am
content: You can now get computer motherboards in which they have thoughtfully put a socket so you can change the audio op amp so you can "explore personal audio preferences using a range of nuanced OP-AMPs available on the market"http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4487#ovYou can pay $75 to get the upgrade kit with 2 x $3 opamps and a chip puller

author: Dave
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 02:17:56 am
content: I like how they have a list of "certified" opamps. Basically a list of pin-compatible opamps that support their supply voltage.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 02:47:33 am
content: Quote from: Dave on October 23, 2013, 02:17:56 amI wonder if they'll rebrand them so you don't know what they are?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 04:53:29 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on October 23, 2013, 04:46:27 amValves.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 06:10:01 am
content: I was going to post that... it's real:http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/aopenax4btube/

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 06:12:35 am
content: So now the overclockers will try to cool the tube with liquid nitrogen.

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 06:20:02 am
content: "nuanced" opamp, jfc, kill me...

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 08:03:21 am
content: Finally. Now all we need to do is replace those nasty switching DC DC converters for the processor with a bunch of linear regulators. And don't get me started on all of the nasty coming out of the horrible horrible switched mains PSU! Like a transformer and a bunch of 78xx (and a LOT of heatsinks) wouldn't do the job better!

author: andtfoot
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 08:53:33 am
content: Quote from: daqq on October 23, 2013, 08:03:21 amIt gets better.... from what I've read and what I can tell from photos, the opamp is powered by a DC-DC converter of its own (+5VDC --> +/-15VDC):www.ti.com/product/tps65130My initial impression is that the idea is codswallop.If changing the opamp actually helps and is significantly noticeable, it says to me they couldn't get the design right in the first place.I have a friend at work who reckons that he has read about controlled listening tests proving what the advertising says. I'm still waiting for the links.....

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 09:56:37 am
content: If we're going to bring tubes back, lets bring these ones back.http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/electrontubes.htmNot only do I want it to have tubes, I want it to be radioactive as well!

author: steve30
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 01:18:03 pm
content: Its cool to see the option of being able to change something.But I'd be interested to know if changing a single op-amp would make any realistic difference,Those valve motherboards look cool

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 01:37:37 pm
content: Fundamentally there reaches a point where all of the audio specifications become numbers, the point is argued amongst enthusiasts with some claiming to hear well past 0.00001% distortion and microvolt noise levels. Most good audio op-amps are so good that you simply will not hear any difference.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2013, 04:20:25 pm
content: Quote from: steve30 on October 23, 2013, 01:18:03 pmPossibly, but I think a single op-amp wouldn't make a huge difference.In the past I saw very perceptible noise in the output of on-board soundcards - only solved with a Soundblaster daughtercard which had better analog circuitry. This was very perceptible due to the fact this was connected to a moderately powered PA (20dB/ch of gain), thus it is not a matter if this is connected to a pair of desktop speakers.However, I do see a lot more problems on the inputs: typically Mic and Line In are absolutely horrendous in the mainstream and built-in sound adapters. In this case there is a slim change the op-amp alone would make a difference.All in all, I agree with wilfred's comments about commoditization of the motherboard marketplace. Hey, if you build a very decent product what is wrong in trying to create add-ons to increase profits? Don't T&M companies do the same?

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 01:54:34 am
content: Looking for replacement Volkswagen parts I found an *original* OEM voltage regulator as a part. A simple automotive grade 3 pin TO-220 linear regulator. Should cost $5 at most. The price?$36 US dollars!I hope no mechanic or petrolhead ever needs to get that replacement from that siteAlthough we do have to give our friends some credit here, they are using decent branded audio grade capacitors and even have a specialized headphone amplifier. Most motherboards have 10µF inline with the 16 ohm headphone jack at best, so no bass. The extra thick copper could be useful but not for the reasons they say. It would be useless as a heatsink since the CPU is mounted on a socket, but it would help reduce series resistance during those current peaks caps sometimes can't handle all by themselves, like when they start to dry out.Now you know!QuoteI'm gonna design a portable Cmoy headphone amp with the Analog Devices part to listen to some symphonic rock O0

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 03:36:27 am
content: Part of what I do is build guitar effects pedals. I can say with some certainty that all things being equal, different op-amps CAN sound different...and they can also NOT sound different. I haven't found there to be any formula like, "This one has better midrange" and stuff like that. I also haven't even consistently found that the same op-amps that sounded completely different in one situation will sound completely different in another situation. It's a matter of experimenting and seeing if you have a preference. Occasionally, one op-amp really will sound completely different, and I'm not talking about different to a guy with golden ears. I'm talking about different to my wife, who knows absolutely nothing about this stuff and doesn't even know what she's listening for, but sometimes she'll even hear it.That said, personally I think this is a stupid idea.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 03:57:36 am
content: Effects circuits are a whole different ball game. You're actually trying to distort the signal somewhat, so a "crappy" device is actually quite useful there, it adds the color of its crap to the signal. Germanium diodes and transistors, vacuum tubes, 200-year-old op amps, they all have their uses in analog effects. I've even gone so far as to experiment with intentionally abusing parts (like running a signal transistor above absolute max power for an hour or two, carefully controlled to keep the smoke in).But for high fidelity audio... there are precision op amps from the likes of Linear and AD that have such good noise performance and low offset voltage that they really ought to be performing as pretty much ideal op amps in an audio situation. Surely you can't tell those apart?

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 03:59:05 am
content: If anyone here can honestly tell the five opamps Gigabyte have chosen (or any of the others on their 'approved' list) apart in a line level, low gain application, I'll be impressed.

author: andtfoot
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 04:55:51 am
content: I guess if there is going to be any difference it would be due to its interactions with the surrounding circuit.For example the output impedance/resistance in the datasheets of the three opamps in the 'premium kit' are:LT1358 = 0R3AD827 = 15ROPA211 = 100RI wonder if one would get loaded down more than the other, or maybe form a filter with a cap/inductor somewhere on the output?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 05:04:42 am
content: Quote from: Lightages on October 23, 2013, 06:12:35 amAnd the tuube lights up BLUE!

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 06:09:51 am
content: Any music you listen to has been through countless mixing desks and audio equipment involving maybe 200+ opamps.This is utter BS, plain and simple.

author: peter.mitchell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 08:15:07 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 24, 2013, 05:04:42 amAfter the liquid nitrogen it will be a greeny yellow though.

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 11:29:58 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on October 24, 2013, 03:59:05 amSo would I, I'm pretty sure it's physically impossible. I wish I'd remembered the source so this is only hearsay, but I seem to remember reading that someone actually tested and the only "difference" people detected was when they were told which opamp (sometimes falsely) they were hearing.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 11:51:33 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on October 24, 2013, 03:57:36 amNah. Unless you're intentionally trying to overdrive the op-amp, and most don't, the op-amp is running in it's linear range. Hearing the differences really depends on the circuit it's sitting in. Sometimes it doesn't really matter much, and sometimes there are very noticeable differences. They all have different curves for things like output impedance vs frequency, for example, and that's either important or not depending what you're driving.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 12:12:04 pm
content: Quote from: madshaman on October 24, 2013, 06:09:51 amAfter seeing some designs, I'm sure it is not like that. You should see it. They use opamps like NE5532 to drive low impedance headphones, general purpose opamps (which oscillate or overshoot with capacitive load) to drive MOSFETs in class A, and all these crazy sh*t. I know that audiofools went too far with their snake oil caps, but the "doesn't matter you will not hear it, because specs say 0,0000000001% distortion" is not correct also.

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 12:40:55 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on October 24, 2013, 12:12:04 pmI'm working with the assumption that the audiofool's gear is using their opamps properly. If it's an audio-class opamp (even an older one like the awesome ne5532/4 you mentioned) and it's used properly, both the noise and THD will be completely imperceptible to the human ear.I *will* give that human beings are excellent at perceiving subtle differences in the frequency domain wrt both sight and sound (it's how you know stuff is outside your visual focal range and how you can tell if a sound is in front of you or behind you), but there are *hard limits* to this.I suppose if a given audiofool is a magician and can perceive the universe directly with their consciousness, these subtle differences would be detectable.I see your point though. Many guitarists will swap out the triodes in their [amp's] pre-amp for a different brand to achieve a "crunchier/bluesier" sound. They *think* it's the tube, but what's really happening is that the new triodes are effectively biased hotter than the old ones, the same effect could be achieved by changing the bias and keeping the original tubes.edit: fix up my dyslexia

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 05:58:33 pm
content: I have a little Beresford DAC here and I've changed the op-amps in it. The different op-amps do sound different! I'm sorry, but they do. I still prefer the sound of my Micromega CD player but changing the op-amps in the DAC does, or at least it can, change the sound.You might think I'm a snake-oil drinker but I'm not really. A few weeks ago a friend of mine brought out his new DAC to try in my system. He bought the DAC for £600 but the new price was double that so it was about a thousand-pounds more than the Beresford cost. I was very keen to hear it. I've heard a lot of high-end CD players but not an expensive DAC so I was looking forward to being impressed.We plugged his DAC in to warm up and played about eight tracks on the Beresford. Then we switched to his new DAC and played the same tracks again. I say the same tracks but actually, I gave up after about four. It sounded pretty much exactly the same! Maybe slightly slower, less toe-tapping, but really nothing you could be sure about. I told him flat out that I thought they sounded the same but he didn't concede it. He reckons it works better in his system, but as he's never tried the Beresford in his system I have no idea how he could possibly know that.Differences in digital audio do exist but in my opinion they are generally as lot smaller than in analogue and are very often not price related at all.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 06:23:38 pm
content: On a motherboard playing a lossy encoded format, with a best guess of 10% tossed because of it being below the preset thresholds, does the choice of opamp matter? Possibly with a CD player with 16 bit digital audio and low jitter and a good DAC yes, on a PC not even going to be noticed.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 06:33:28 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 24, 2013, 05:58:33 pmIf you use the term "toe tapping" in a comparison between two audio systems, you might be a snake oil drinking audiophile.

author: ciccio
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 07:26:53 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on October 23, 2013, 01:37:37 pmWell, some enthusiasts an some experts, as my grandfather used to say, speak for the only reason that there is a tongue in their mouth.My experience is that, in a well designed circuit, most op-amps (I refer to the ones suitable for the application, some very good op-amps like OP-07 are not) sound the same (noise performance is another story).The BIG difference is when you use them near their limits (like output swing approaching supply voltages), with non compressed input (live music, speech reinforcement). Here you HEAR the difference: different op-amps saturate in a different fashion, some with only an increase of distortion, some with more negative effects (try to hard clip a TL072 in a non inverting buffer, or a NJM4580 in a high pass filter: you will get a frequency doubler).To hear subtle differences, you must have a very low noise level, and most of the times you don not have this..Best regards

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 08:20:21 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on October 24, 2013, 06:33:28 pmYou don't think that some audio systems are more involving than others?

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 08:31:28 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on October 24, 2013, 06:23:38 pmAre you aware of any double blind study comparing uncompressed CD audio with decent quality MP3 files that showed a difference between these two? Because sites like HydrogenAudio have been doing it for years, and above a certain bitrate (which might be as low as 128 kbit/s for some codecs / types of music) people become unable to distinguish them (they don't perform better than picking at random). Even musicians, 'experiened listeners' and the few audiofools that take the test.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 08:32:51 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 24, 2013, 08:20:21 pmI think that how "involved" you are in a given piece of music depends 40% on how you feel at that moment, 29% on what you had for breakfast, 19% the price of ham in Belgium, 11% the arrangement of the planets, and 1% the choice of op-amps used in the audio system.If it was less toe-tapping the second time through, it's more likely because you just listened to the song already, rather than the audio system under test.I'm just reminded of an audiophile review I read a while back, where someone complemented a $50 picture of a frog because it made her audio system "pop" and that it made everything more toe tapping. I mean, seriously?

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 08:34:54 pm
content: Quote from: alm on October 24, 2013, 08:31:28 pmHow sure are you that double-blind listening tests work?

author: rexxar
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 08:44:44 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 24, 2013, 08:34:54 pmWhat do you mean? How could itnotwork?

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 08:53:51 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on October 24, 2013, 08:32:51 pmAh, you saidsystems.I agree that the differences between op-amps is probably very small, but in a revealing enough system youcanhear it. It's the same with CD players.I would go as far as to say that a lot of amplifiers sound quite similar too with major sonic differences often being down to how well they drive your chosen speakers. But they'renotall the same.But as far as systems are concerned then yes, some are 'toe-tapping' and some are boring. Big time.QuoteWell, I've been into Hi-Fi for thirty-years and I'm pretty honest and critical about what I hear. I've sold, or not bought, quite a few expensive items because similar performance could be had for much less money, I'm not a Hi-Fi snob who deludes himself. If I was I wouldn't have thought the really expensive DAC sounded the same as the cheap one.QuoteYeah, sounds like stupidity to me too but I don't see what it has to do with actual sound reproduction? Just because one guy feels better after a sugar pill does not mean that drugs which actually word do not exist.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 08:56:24 pm
content: Quote from: rexxar on October 24, 2013, 08:44:44 pmOk. Why is it claimed that sighted listening tests are flawed?

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 10:12:06 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on October 23, 2013, 06:10:01 amI remember reading reviews of that when it was released, i was too much of a abit junkie to try it

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 10:20:56 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 24, 2013, 08:56:24 pmBecause of fairly obvious and thoroughly demonstrated biases. If you have an affinity for Brand X, and are asked to compare Brand X to Brand Y, you will choose Brand X almost every time. It's psychological. You can't help it. Even if the one you are told is Brand X, is actually Brand Y, you will still choose what you thought was Brand x.Double blind testing is the gold standard for psychological testing, where neither the tester nor the testee are aware of which product/sample/whatever is which. That way all personal preference and bias is removed, except for the variable under test. That's the basis of a scientific experiment: removing all variables except the ones you want to test. And when it comes to studies that could involve human preference, such as psychological, sociological, medical, and product studies, the double blind test is the gold standard, as it is the best as narrowing down variables in those situations.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 11:21:09 pm
content: Double blind testing is very difficult to do with audio. Can you compare something you heard 10 seconds ago to something just now? Sure, maybe you can compare the odd thing but you'll neglect the rest.The true test is to use equipment to measure the difference: double blind tests in this instance are about as useful as getting people to compare the amplifier performance by how much it weighs or what it smells like. In the same way as double blind tests on wine often show that cheaper wine tastes both better and worse than more expensive wine, depending on who tastes it.But, when you present this idea to audiophiles, the result is anguish -- no, your oscilloscope cannot be used to check the output for distortion, because the human ear is more sensitive than high end test gear... bollocks. A good instrument could measure the difference.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 11:33:44 pm
content: The way to do double blind testing with audio gear is not to have the same people listen to the same thing twice on different setups; but to have two sufficiently large sample groups listen to one thing on one setup and rate it. Given large enough sample sizes, this will give a good indication of how "good" a particular sound system sounds.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 11:37:01 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on October 24, 2013, 11:33:44 pmThat doesn't really work though, because it's so hard to tell the difference between well-matched systems, most people forget the difference and will put a random choice down. Audio memory of the brain is poor, it works on details (speech, general sound) but can't remember slight nuances in sound quality.Perhaps one way to do a test would be to play a track and then slowly mix between two amplifiers set up to equal amplitude. If the user can judge when one amplifier is playing over another, then there is a difference, but it won't tell you if one is better than the other.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 24, 2013, 11:40:22 pm
content: A-B-X testing is common in audio. First you hear sample A, then sample B, and then X (which may be either A or B). Then the subject is asked whether sample X was sample A or sample B. Repeat this for multiple samples. This allows you to test whether people can distinguish A and B without cognitive biases playing a role or having to declare a best recording. I guess ideally you would also randomize the order of A and B to prevent people's memory from introducing a bias.

author: krivx
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 12:01:43 am
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on October 24, 2013, 11:51:33 amRunning op-amps outside their linear range is one of the most common applications in effects circuits. Op-amps with non-linear components (often diodes) in their feedback loops, over-driven inputs and deliberate slewing distortion can all be useful. You can definitely hear a difference in some cases. You can see it on a scope too.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 02:56:26 am
content: Quote from: krivx on October 25, 2013, 12:01:43 amWhen you put clipping diodes in the feedback loop, that doesn't usually drive the op-amp out of it's linear range. A typical op-amp clipping gives you hard clipping and generally sounds like crap though some effects do rely on opamp clipping. If that's what you want, you would generally run diodes after the pre-amp opamp and then you truly get hard, diode clipping because the output is clamped to the forward voltage of the diodes. The whole point of running diodes in the feedback loop is to get soft clipping and avoid hard clipping.That said, the typical feedback clipping circuit (i.e. TubeScreamer style overdrive) has an RC circuit in the feedback loop along with clipping diodes, an RC circuit in place of the traditional gain resistor to Vref, and an RC circuit after the opamp for a treble bleed (i.e. the "tone" control). Any change in opamp impedance will change the response of these RC circuits in a rather complicated and interactive way, even though the opamp is still operating well within it's linear range.Anyhow, I don't really mean to argue about this. I'm just trying to explain a bit better how they work and why different opamps can make the entire circuit sound different even though the opamp itself may essentially be operating at ridiculously low frequency and practically zero distortion of any kind. You have to consider the entire circuit, and that's the point.

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 05:40:48 am
content: I've noticed some comments about opamps sounding different when overdriven, well, that simply means you need to fire your sound engineer.Seriously, if you're going to overdrive your amplification, there is only *one* simple choice, use freaking vacuum tubes, vacuum tubes have the nicest response when driven to saturation (make sure to bias far away from cutoff), you'll emphasise the even harmonics and get a nice "warm" sound.Vacuum tubes also have much lower gain than an opamp so vacuum tube amps can't employ much negative feedback so they will be even *less* linear, yay! So you'll get additional harmonic distortion; double yay!So, throw out your opamps and get to work on those tube circuits. And no, I don't hate vacuum tubes in audio amps, I *love* them, for the only thing they're good for: guitar and bass amps.Maybe it's my mood this morning, but this thread is driving me ****ing nuts.If the circuit they're seated in is properly designed, the amp is being fed with proper levels, and the opamp has specs which exceed human perception, it make no ****ing difference at ALL what opamp is in there, period; none whatsoever.**** (profanity omitted)**** (profanity omitted)**** (profanity omitted)edit: fixed spelling/grammar, added more profanity and anger

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 06:54:43 am
content: I can't help it, I just can't...If anyone is interested, I'm selling toasters which use your choice of tungsten or molybdenum heating elements.The black body radiation emitted by these special rare elements contains special nuancing photons which flavour the toast in their own special way.Tungsten is most appropriate for rye bread, the tungsten photons add a subtle nutty flavour and do not cause premature infant death syndrome.Molybdenum is best used on multigrain bread, the molybdenum photons protect the health benefits of multigrain and the photons themselves contain no MSG.

author: johansen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 07:23:19 am
content: Quote from: madshaman on October 25, 2013, 06:54:43 ami feel you brother.furthermore: it is not hard to detect the difference between two different audio unknowns by changing only one channel of the unknown. but its not quantitative. most of the FFT plots and noise amplitude plots don't include phase, which is extremely important to the human ear. certain phase shifts are actually quite painful.but in any case..most of the usual adjectives will be met with "wtf you talking about bro?"

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 08:52:13 am
content: Quote from: johansen on October 25, 2013, 07:23:19 amLOL. I just love the way people continuously invent and pull facts from their arses in these audio threads. It is a psychoacoustic fact that our hearing is particularlyinsensitiveto phase. This fact has been established for about 2 million years already. Just one reference, immediately at hand:http://www.douglas-self.com/ampins/wwarchive/wwarchive.htm#phase

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 09:04:56 am
content: I have many of Douglas Self's books, very excellent, very practical, very intolerant of audiofoolery.He goes into detail of every aspect of psychoacoustics and does devote time to talking about stereo image and the human perception of phase.Human's aren't insensitive to phase, it's how we determine left-right direction, and is an integral part of hearing.What Self does point out is that the phase offset caused by filtering in audio equipment is largely undetectable by the human ear and he does describe at what point it becomes a problem.As for stereo image, subtle differences in the first pole of explicit or implicit filters (which is tied to the phase response) in each channel generally won't be enough to impact the perception of the stereo image.For those not using headphones, the room you're listening to your music in and your speaker enclosures are probably adding more phase shift and wacky filtering than your amp ever will.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 09:26:50 am
content: This is also interestinghttp://ethanwiner.com/believe.html

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 09:43:35 am
content: Quote from: madshaman on October 25, 2013, 09:04:56 amFrom the article I linked to:"Vander Pol made a limited investigation using a special circuit that allowed him to change the phase of the higher harmonics of a complex wave relative to the fundamental by any amount up to 360 degrees. He noticed that any phase shift within this limit introduced no effects detectable when listening to speech. Steinberg and Lane used an experimental technique that permitted much greater amounts of phase shift to be introduced into the reproducer system...... The "just detectable" amount of phase shift proved to be so large that it is more convenient and indeed more indicative of the mechanism to express the shift in milliseconds".I think that indicates that our hearing is insensitive to phase in the context of johansen's claimed limitation of "FFT plots and noise amplitude plots" that "don't include phase, which is extremely important to the human ear".

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 10:10:12 am
content: Quote from: almWell, that will give you information as to whether A&&B are discernablydifferentit won't tell you whether either is better.

author: TMM
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 10:38:00 am
content: Only one person in this thread has pointed out the reason why you swap opamps on soundcards - most opamps do distort appreciably when you drive a low impedance load. The datasheet figure of 0.000003% into a 2Kohm load is completely worthless when you are driving 32ohm headphones. Similarly the short circuit output current tells you nothing about the distortion performance as you approach that limit.[warning 35MB pdf]http://www.sg-acoustics.ch/analogue_audio/ic_opamps/pdf/opamp_distortion.pdfIt's still a wank that you would put a socket on a motherboard and advertise it as a 'gaming' feature though.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 02:43:08 pm
content: If the audio section is designed correctly in the first place, driving 32 ohm headphones would not be a problem. Adding a socket and making other op amps available for "upgrades" adds BOM costs and design and testing costs. It would have been cheaper to do a good design in the first place and tout the good design. This gimmick is just to make all the moders drool over being able to change parts on their motherboard.

author: krivx
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 03:15:52 pm
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on October 25, 2013, 02:56:26 amCheers for your input. I'm familiar with this, and pretty much agree with everything you've said. It's useful to discuss this as a lot of the interchange online about this stuff is from people who are guitarists first and may not have a technical background.The interesting thing I've found with clipping in feedback loops is how the op-amp will handle the transitions between the diodes being essentially out of the circuit (ie no clipping) and the diodes beginning to conduct. Depending on the opamp topology, the behaviour can change - many will just adjust the output into a saturated waveform ("correct" behaviour) but some will ring momentarily, some will even latch up for a short period. I honestly have no idea how much of that is audible.The other common cause for over-driven inputs or exceeded common-mode input ranges is just "bad" design. There are plenty of classic effects designs that use parts in odd ways that work just fine with a specific part over the original manufacturing period (ie it works and sounds good) but repeating the circuit with different parts can be a headache. There are a couple of common envelope filter designs that run outside the common-mode input range of most of the opamps used in varipus versions of the pedal. but things just work well enough anyway.

author: TMM
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 03:54:22 pm
content: Quote from: Lightages on October 25, 2013, 02:43:08 pmWell yeah they should have just put in the LM4562 and been done with it but they are laughing all the way to the bank with their 'upgrade kit'.You can't dismiss swapping opamps as always being a wank however. Headphones below 250ohm are non-existent in pro audio so it's probably not even a design consideration in those products. The headphone out usually just gets another NE553x or whatever they have used for all the line level stuff. It can be worthwhile changing it if you use consumer grade low impedance headphones.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 05:03:07 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on October 24, 2013, 10:20:56 pmThat's right, expectation bias. If you expect product X to be better you may well fool yourself into thinking it is better when in fact it isn't, that sort of thing. This is true, at least some of the time and for some people, and I doubt any of us are totally immune to being misled in this way. But does that mean that blind tests are automatically one-hundred percent trustworthy?It's normal or people to want to quantify things and have hard evidence to support their choices and positions and blind/ABX testing is often claimed to provide this. Words like 'scientific' and 'proof' regularly accompany blind test results. But do they 'prove' anything? I don't think so. I think there are a lot of problems with blind tests, or rathercertain kindsof blind test. I think some of them are good but many are worthless.Firstly, it's worth noting that blind tests do not provideanyfactual data. It's not like sticking a meter on a circuit. They are totally subjective tests, just like sighted tests, and it's disingenuous to suggest that because the listeners have been incorporated in some specific procedure that you have removed all possibility of human error. Sighted test are slammed because the conditions of the tests mean that the listener is likely to be biased towards hearing differences. Fair enough. Yet surely in the methodology of the blind test the listener could equally be misled into erroneously thinking there arenodifferences? If people can get it wrong in one way surely they are equally fallible the other? I have yet to see anyone who supports ABX testing admit this possibility, despite the fact it's pretty reasonable and logical. Some of the frankly barmy results of certain blind tests sure do suggest they're not as trustworthy as is claimed. But if they are sometimes wrong, why?Someone else has already mentioned one reason, our memory doesn't work that way. ABX tests by their nature pretty much dictate that short excerpts of music are repeated over and over, the typical length of sound clip is thirty-seconds? But are we good at dealing with that sort of situation? Consider this illustration:Let's say I set up a large TV screen and flashed a picture on to the screen for thirty seconds, say a street scene. An open market in a town square, lots of people milling around, maybe some birds passing in the clear blue sky, could be anything but you get the idea. Thirty seconds, screen goes blank.Next I flash up another image, also thirty seconds, and it's the same scene. Same birds, same grave-dodgers feeding them, yada yada, and I ask you what differences you've seen? You reply 'None. They were the same picture'.In the short time you had to look at the image you had just enough time to get the big picture. On the macro level they look identical but you did not have the time to see that there was different fruit on one of the stalls, the old guy on the bench had a hat on or any number of slight variations between the two images. One image could have been slightly sharper than the other but in thirty seconds, could you be sure of that?And here's the kicker. Let's say that in the second image youthinkyou spot a guy standing by a lamppost who was not in the first image. You cannot be sure that he wasn't in the first image or that you just didn't notice him!But before you get your head around that I've flashed the image up again, but is it the first one or the second one? I'm not telling you, and in your mind the images are now overlapped and blurred together. So are they the same or not? Well yes, on a macro level but beyond that, you can't be sure but too late, we move on to another picture and the whole confusing cycle starts again and before long you're loosing all perspective and probably the will to live!Is it not counter-intuitive to suggest thatlessexposure to the thing that you are trying to examine will give more accurate results? Say you had a real Mona Lisa and a fake one. Would the expert charged with identifying the genuine article want to look at them for thirty-seconds or slightly longer?!The way in which we listen to music in a focused, short test is not the way our minds would process the information during relaxed listening and I see no reason to assume it is automatically superior and less prone to error. Scans have shown that we actually use different parts of our brains depending whether we are trying to listen to music critically or just boogying along to it. I can recall instances were I've picked up nuances or details in music I thought I knew very well during relaxed casual listening, maybe even background listening. If the methodology of the short, blind test was correct then this would not happen, as all relevant information would be assimilated on the first listen or two. If it is possible to miss significant musical information on the first, second or tenth listen then surely it must be possible to miss slight tonal, resolution or dynamic differences on a thirty-second test!And what about that expectation bias? Have you ever been in a class, lecture or talk when the person speaking or teaching asks someone in the audience to answer a question? Have you ever known the answer and yet not put your hand up? Why didn't you answer?Because being passive is easier than being active. It requires no exposure to the risk that you will make a mistake and look foolish. No requirement to validate your opinion. By their nature, blind tests give only negative results for passive responses meaning that negative results are disproportionately more likely given the propensity for many people to be risk-averse.There are other reasons why blind tests might not be very accurate. Is the equipment used in the test of high enough resolution to convey the differences? I could go on for ages but this is a long post as it is! ;0) If you want to read on here is a famous example of the failure of blind testing explained by Robert Hartley in The Absolute Sound Issue 183:"Every few years, the results of some blind listening test are announced that purportedly “prove” an absurd conclusion. These tests, ironically, say more about the flaws inherent in blind listening tests than about the phenomena in question.The latest in this long history is a double-blind test that, the authors conclude, demonstrates that 44.1kHz/16-bit digital audio is indistinguishable from high-resolution digital. Note the word “indistinguishable.” The authors aren’t saying that high-res digital might sound a little different from Red Book CD but is no better. Or that high-res digital is only slightly better and not worth the additional cost. Rather, they reached the rather startling conclusion that CD-quality audio sounds exactly the same as 96kHz/24-bit PCM and DSD, the encoding scheme used in SACD. That is, under double-blind test conditions, 60 expert listeners over 554 trials couldn’t hear any differences between CD, SACD, and 96/24. The study was published in the September, 2007 Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.I contend that such tests are an indictment of blind listening tests in general because of the patently absurd conclusions to which they lead. A notable example is the blind listening test conducted by Stereo Review that concluded that a pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks, an output-transformerless tubed amplifier, and a $220 Pioneer receiver were all sonically identical. (“Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?” published in the January, 1987 issue.)Most such tests, including this new CD vs. high-res comparison, are performed not by disinterested experimenters on a quest for the truth but by partisan hacks on a mission to discredit audiophiles. But blind listening tests lead to the wrong conclusions even when the experimenters’ motives are pure. A good example is the listening tests conducted by Swedish Radio (analogous to the BBC) to decide whether one of the low-bit-rate codecs under consideration by the European Broadcast Union was good enough to replace FM broadcasting in Europe.Swedish Radio developed an elaborate listening methodology called “double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference.” A “subject” (listener) would hear three “objects” (musical presentations); presentation A was always the unprocessed signal, with the listener required to identify if presentation B or C had been processed through the codec.The test involved 60 “expert” listeners spanning 20,000 evaluations over a period of two years. Swedish Radio announced in 1991 that it had narrowed the field to two codecs, and that “both codecs have now reached a level of performance where they fulfill the EBU requirements for a distribution codec.” In other words, Swedish Radio said the codec was good enough to replace analog FM broadcasts in Europe. This decision was based on data gathered during the 20,000 “double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference” listening trials. (The listening-test methodology and statistical analysis are documented in detail in “Subjective Assessments on Low Bit-Rate Audio Codecs,” by C. Grewin and T. Rydén, published in the proceedings of the 10th International Audio Engineering Society Conference, “Images of Audio.”)After announcing its decision, Swedish Radio sent a tape of music processed by the selected codec to the late Bart Locanthi, an acknowledged expert in digital audio and chairman of an ad hoc committee formed to independently evaluate low-bit rate codecs. Using the same non-blind observational-listening techniques that audiophiles routinely use to evaluate sound quality, Locanthi instantly identified an artifact of the codec. After Locanthi informed Swedish Radio of the artifact (an idle tone at 1.5kHz), listeners at Swedish Radio also instantly heard the distortion. (Locanthi’s account of the episode is documented in an audio recording played at workshop on low-bit-rate codecs at the 91st AES convention.)How is it possible that a single listener, using non-blind observational listening techniques, was able to discover—in less than ten minutes—a distortion that escaped the scrutiny of 60 expert listeners, 20,000 trials conducted over a two-year period, and elaborate “double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference” methodology, and sophisticated statistical analysis?"

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 06:13:31 pm
content: Unfortunately, although I see where you're getting at with your visual analogy, we process audio and visual information very differently so I'm not sure how much you can extrapolate from your scenario.Where, I think, it has merit is pointing out that listening tests rely on memory which is imperfect - this is obviously recognised in tests which attempt to assign a score to a particular set-up and then compare scores.Where I think your argument breaks down totally is the conclusions that you draw from some of the test results. I think you need to open your mind to the possibility that double-blind listening tests fail to distinguish between 44.1kHz 16-bit PCM, 96kHz 24-bit PCM and SACD/DSDbecause there is, in fact, no difference- not because double-blind testing is broken.To be honest I wouldn't actually expect to hear a difference between those encoding schemes. We've had this "CD is crap because it doesn't capture ultrasonic frequencies that you can't hear but which somehow affect what you can hear" hogwash for ages and I don't buy it - 44.1kHz 16-bit PCM captures stuff I can't hear (and which most adults won't be able to hear) - 96kHz 24-bit PCM and SACD/DSD differ only in that they capturemore stuff you can't hear.Also concluding that blind testing is flawed based on the Swedish experience doesn't wash because although there was a codec problem it probably wasn't audible - at least until everyone was told it was there and could now hear it. Exactly why one person heard it I can't say - perhaps bias against the compressed version and then trying to find something to pin it on and getting lucky.As far as I can see it just confirms that unblinded listening tests aren't worth the effort that it takes to fart - not, BTW, because of the one person who found the problem but the considerably larger number who hadn't heard it until told it was there.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 06:26:53 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on October 25, 2013, 06:13:31 pmOr he simply had appropriately low noise floor equipment and suitably sensitive hearing. I can pick out the recording noise floor in a lot of studio albums with my (not particularly expensive, just well picked) kit, so I'd notice a 1.5kHz tone which shouldn't be there. I wouldn't, however, likely notice it on my radio, with my phone, or in most other normal setups.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 07:26:01 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on October 25, 2013, 06:13:31 pmHow do you know I haven't? To be honest I think that the differences between 44.1kHz 16-bit and higher sampling rates are sufficiently small as to be easily nullified by other differences in the replay system. I've tried MP3/compressed audio a few times and it always sounds worse than CD. But then a friend brought round some 96kHz 24-bit stuff on his laptop and, played from his laptop at least, it sounded wonky. The dynamic range was noticeably better but in other respects the sound was very coloured and disjointed. Digital music is funny and I don't think it's fully understood yet.QuoteSeems unlikely don't you think? That they used only poor equipment for the blind tests andnoneof the hundreds of participants had hearing as good as Bart Locanthi? You do however raise the point that unless you know what equipment was used in a test you cannot trust the results.But that's just one example. There have been loads of instances were blind tests 'prove' some ridiculous proposition. Blind tests have 'proved' that all CD players sound the same, all amplifiers sound the same, all speakers sound the same (if you use a graphic equaliser to flatten the response). Basically, if you believed all the blind tests you would just buy the cheapest Hi-Fi you could find as they all sound the same anyway and the differences I've heard over thirty-years of being into Hi-Fi have all been imagined.Years ago I demmed a Naim Nait2 against the Arcam amp I had at the time. I hadn't got on with the Arcam at all, found it very boring and uninvolving. In the shop I was struggling to hear much of an improvement over it though, superficially they sounded pretty similar. Then I realised that I could hear separate notes in the Jools Holland piano solo on one of my records, I had never heard them before. I was looking for justification to buy the Naim as I wanted it anyway, the lure of the badge. I had read the reviews and decided it was better before I even walked into the shop!Once installed in my system the Nait proved to be massively more enjoyable and musically candid than the Arcam. I loved it and used Naim amplifiers for twenty years. Yet in a short demonstration in the shop the differences between the Naim and Arcam seemed slight.The best environment to asses the performance of any piece of equipment, be it a Hi-Fi component, car or dog lead, is surely the one in which is is designed and destined to be typically used? That's why most good Hi-Fi dealers offer equipment loans or home dems? I certainly believe that it takes time to truly find out the capabilities and value of a piece of Hi-Fi equipment. Thirty seconds? Don't make me laugh!Incidentally, my son has superb hearing. He used to always complain about the noise from the little Sony CRT TV in the kitchen so eventually we took him to the doctors for a hearing test. They told us that his hearing is as good as it it possible for human hearing to be! As he plays drums, not for long! ;0)

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 10:22:14 pm
content: Quote from: MonkehOK but that doesn't invalidate my basic point - that there's a strong bias to hearing what you expect to hear which makes unblinded studies suspect at best.Quote from: Mr PigOK, well, I can't help but agree with that.Quote from: Mr PigI'm not sure that I'd go as far as saying that the cheapest hi-fi is as good as the most expensive but there's definitely a case of diminishing returns and a point where I would argue spending more money does not actually buy you better quality. I suspect that many hi-fi pundits would agree but then the issue becomes exactly where that cut-off lies.Of course it's complicated by the fact that, for individual pieces of equipment there is a non linear and non monotonically increasing relationship between price and quality so there is lots of legitimate room for debate about quality and value for money. BUT when we get into the territory of 1,000's of £s for gold plated mains leads (OK, I might be exaggeratingslightlythere) I have to say that it's all hogwash.The language used doesn't help either - I mean what the fuck does "more open" or "more dynamic" or any of the other vague terms used mean in any repeatable, verifiable or comparable way?I have an Audiolab 8000A and a pair of Ruark Talisman II's which I've had for 25 years - that combination doesn't get in the way of me enjoying the music and I'm extremely happy with them.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 10:31:02 pm
content: I've listened to a $5000 pair of headphones, specifically setup in a noise-proofed vendor booth with a custom amplifier tweaked particularly for those headphones.Those headphones sounded identical to the $2000 pair beside them. They sounded barely--justmarginally--distinguishable from the $1200 pair besidethem. But I honestly preferred the sound of the $1200 headphones to the $2000 and $5000.And you know what? All of them sounded better than my $36 JVC HA-RX700s. But not thousands, or even hundreds of dollars better. I'd be willing to spend $120 for that sound quality. But not $1200.How's that for a non-blind test?

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 10:36:09 pm
content: Pair of these and some form of amp:http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B001UE6I0GDoes the job, quite nicely too.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 10:59:54 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on October 25, 2013, 10:22:14 pmYes, diminishing returns hits hard in Hi-Fi but I would argue that often the 'Hi-End' stuff can actually soundworsethan more modest kit!QuoteYip, I agree. I've seen interconnects costing ten-thousand pounds! Thirteen-amp fuses costing sixty. That second one sprung to mind because last year I sorted out some Saturday work experience for my son in a local Hi-Fi shop. He came home one day with a sixty-pound mains fuse they'd lent him to try at home!QuoteThese terms can work just fine. If you get to know people, or groups, who use these terms in the same way you would it is possible to gain useful insight from other people's opinions. You have to know them though. I once got to know a guy through a forum who runs a Hi-End Hi-Fi shop and lives near me, about twenty-minutes away. His system was very expensive, around sixty-thounand pounds, but made up of the kind of stuff I typically don't like. He used the same terms I would use though, like fast and dynamic, and insisted I'd like it. I went round one Saturday and within thirty-seconds knew I didn't. It was among theworstHi-Fi systems I have ever heard. The point being that what I meant by those terms was not what he meant. In that respect you are right, they are not set-in-stone technical terms, but used in context they are helpful nonetheless.QuoteBeing happy with your system is the only thing that matters. We are all different in our tastes and sensitivities and we are the only people who's opinion matters. It's as good thing that Hi-Fi does not all sound the same, there is something for everyone.Virtually all of Ruark's speakers were good. I never liked the Audiolab athough I can see why it sold. It was very well built and reliable, powerful, detailed and smooth, good looking and with good features. A very good quality product. I found the sound very anaemic and undynamic though. Have you ever tried a Naim amp in your system? They would work well with the Ruarks. Virtually any would do. Best bang for buck would be maybe an old NAC-72 pre with an NAP-140 power but there are lots to choose from.Not trying to make dissatisfied ;0) but if you get the chance to try a decent Naim amp I'd recommend it.

author: johansen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 11:28:45 pm
content: Quote from: GK on October 25, 2013, 09:43:35 amyour computer has a fan right? listen to it for 10 seconds, then rotate your head 30 degrees. sounds different doesn't it?now from which ear does fan sound better, is it the one closer to it, or farther away?most peoples' brains ignore the audio that is delayed, and use this data to do a location calculation. its not hard to guess for instance, approximatly where someone is standing in a room when they speak to you.however, some of that information is picked up from the echo, so it gets lost in a recording studio.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2013, 11:52:44 pm
content: Quote from: johansen on October 25, 2013, 11:28:45 pmWhat does any of that have to do with the original argument over audible differences between different op-amps and (presumably) correlating what is heard with what is measured? Do you think phase is an issue when comparing audio amplification stages having bandwidths well in excess of 20kHz, or when pulling out a 10MHz GBWP op-amp and substituting for a 20MHz GBWP one?

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 12:05:52 am
content: I find these audiophool discussions rather hilarious. There are so many things that those folks are ignorant of. And no, none of the basic things have to do with anything about the playback setup.Musicians use a lot of effect units, for starters. Then look at the innards of a big mixing desk and ask yourself if some 20cm of cable in your local setup make any difference. Once you got that, try to divine what the actual audio engineer was mixing, and what he heard on his studio monitors. If after that anyone not involved in the whole process still wants to claim to know how it has to sound, i call them a liar. Oh, and lets not forget thatwo different persons have two different hearing abilities.This is not to say that the cheapest crap is OK. But everything has it's limits. And unless you use an external DAC, connected through balanced wiring to a studio amp, any talk about some OpAmp on a computer mainboard driving an unbalanced line is bordering on insanity.Greetings,Chris

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 03:43:34 am
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 25, 2013, 07:26:01 pmThe reality is that much of it likely was imagined. Only a fool would have enough self confidence to claim to have an infallible auditory memory. And please cite a few of these these studies conforming to blind testing protocols that were so wide and all-encompassing so as to include all known examples of CD players, amplifiers or speakers................ or have we just tripped over another old, empty and horsewhipped strawman argument...........

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 10:38:11 am
content: Quote from: GK on October 25, 2013, 11:52:44 pmMaybe nothing, he was just answering the point about phase? But it does raise an interesting point about the difference between what we can hear and what we can measure. I don't think that we can measure everything that we hear, or rather, the tests that claim to have done so invariably haven't. The directional information mentioned is one example. As we listen to music we are collecting and processing sound from all directions at the same time. Even a single ear gives you directional information, try it and see?How do you know that a microphone has recorded everything that a human can hear? Is it not possible that, outside of the obvious ranges of frequency, volume etc, there are other slight aural clues our ears and brains pick up that typical microphones miss?QuoteI agree with a lot of what you've said Chris but you're talking about two different things.Sure, losses in the studio can be big but, as they are starting with the raw sound, they can loose more yet still end up with acceptable signal quality. I say acceptable because of course not all consumer audio recordings are good. Often the losses caused by the processing you refer to does result in a garbage sounding product. But the point is that just because information is lost in the recoding processes doesn't mean it makes sense to loose even more during playback. There's nothing you can do about what's on the CD or record but at least trying to get as much of it off of there and out of your speakers is a good idea.I'm sure there are limits but I've been surprised by just how much stuff can be on a recording. I was in a Hi-Fi stand manufacturers house years ago and heard his very good system. I played a record I've had since my teens, Genesis - Trick Of The Tail. Love that record. It's been played on everything from my mother's music centre through all the various systems I've had over the years. It should be worn out and terrible but it sounded fantastic!The level of information was staggering. It was hard get your head round the fact that all of it coming off a pit of plastic. It really was like listening into the recording studio through an open window. It dawned on me that I could hear more than just the musicians in great realism but I could hear the size and acoustic of the room itself! You could tell that the room it was recoded in was probably wood-lined!! Or something similar anyway, it had that sort of warm acoustic. And that's not the best recording on earth. It's good, typical of seventies rock albums I'd say, but nothing special.For the record, CD doesn't seem to be the same. I've heard a lot of good CD players, including a £6'000 one in the system just mentioned, and there seems to be a brick wall beyond which CD quality can't go. I've never heard a CD system produce the realism, resolution and fluidity that vinyl is capable of.Even with CD though, there is vastly more information on the disk than most folk's music systems can put out into the air. Because of the relatively low quality of most domestic Hi-Fi small improvementsdomatter. Even with a good system the difference between so-so and great is often an accumulation of lots of small upgrades. Good quality studio gear is so much better than domestic Hi-Fi to begin with that small losses are far less critical.I totally agree with the idea that we cannot know exactly what the original performance actually sounded like. For me the goal is to make recordings sound lifelike, vibrant and as musically involving and rewarding as possible. Who knows whether the tonality of the singer we hear in our home is exactly the same as he or she sounded in the real world. All i care about is whether or not I like what I hear.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 10:52:40 am
content: Quote from: GK on October 26, 2013, 03:43:34 amBut I don't need it. When you upgrade Hi-Fi you usually have both the new kit and the old at the same time and can switch between them. I have had three or four turntables in the house at one time, I still have a pair or Wharfdale Diamonds in the kitchen, the very first proper speakers I bought, and right now there are four amplifiers and seven pairs of loudspeakers in the house. If you think it all sounds the same I envy you. Would've saved me a lot of money over the years ;0)QuoteI didn't claim that they were, quite the opposite. What I said is that the teststhemselvesclaim to prove that all amplifiers etc sound the same. I think that's nonsense but I've had these results quoted at me regularly. Some people beleive them, I don't.

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 11:31:19 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on October 25, 2013, 06:26:53 pmWhen my room is very silent, I can pick artifacts of 128kbps iTunes AAC in complex music, mostly well recorded complex music, like an orchestra or some kinds of progressive rock, so we are not talking about compressed pop or over distorted punk rock. I can pick the noise floor of some recordings as well (I was fascinated when I found this out) using headphones and that same silent room. I listen to 320kbps MP3 as I can't be bothered with CDs or FLAC. (I think I'm gonna be flamed for this).My equipment is very modest, just a standard stereo and Apple EarPods but at least the noise is very tangibly there. The sound quality may be bias but I'm not convinced. Perhaps Apple's encoder is crap.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 12:27:16 pm
content: I chose 320k MP3 as an encoding as at that rate it is above where I could definitely hear the difference between the original WAV file and the MP3 encode. 256k was the discernable rate, so chose the next one above so I would definitely could not detect the difference. that was with an old PC running win98, and a real Sound Blaster 16 in an ISA slot with a pair of copper shields added to either side of the card and bonded to the board as EMI shields.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 01:23:26 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 26, 2013, 10:52:40 amThis is just nonsense. What such test show is that equipment (particularly amplifiers) built to a certain objective standard can be difficult if not impossible to tell apart under strict double blind listening/testing protocols. Audiophools are uncomfortable with this fact for a number of reasons, so they propagate and maintain silly strawman arguments like the one you've just regurgitated.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 01:26:31 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 26, 2013, 10:38:11 amIf the audibility of phase in the context of "op-amp rolling" interests you, then, for a start, I suggest that you read that article I linked to and try to understand it.

author: andtfoot
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 01:38:40 pm
content: Quote from: TMM on October 25, 2013, 10:38:00 amAs far as I'm aware, the swappable opamp is only for a stereo line-out signal; there is actually a separate amp chip for the headphone socket (front of case port?). A quick search shows it's a DRV632:www.ti.com/product/drv632

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 01:41:10 pm
content: Here's a interesting video about data reduction and some of the distortions introduced by digital audio:This is a nice interview with Tony Andrews of Funktion One where he mentioned MP3 and digital audio:I know a guy who is a DJ in a Jazz club in Glasgow, he only plays Jazz and Soul so it's not what you'd typically associate with the term DJ. He won't play MP3 as he says it sounds terrible!

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 02:02:18 pm
content: Quote from: GK on October 26, 2013, 01:23:26 pmYes, I agree with that. The fact that these results contradict decades worth and thousands of hours of real world listening experience tells me that there has to be something wrong with the test.Here is an overview of the Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge, one of the best known test if this type in modern times:http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htmHere is another article commenting on ABX tests:http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue56/abx.htmQuoteIt doesn't really. As far as op-amps go, the only experience I have is of swapping them in a DAC I have here. They sound different in that. Not night and day but clearly different. Why, I don't know. Whether you can hear the difference in a PC, I don't know but if it was hooked up to your average set of PC speakers I would doubt it.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 02:06:04 pm
content: Can someone explain what they mean by phase? It must have a different meaning in this context. What does it mean to say that the human ear is/isn't sensitive to phase? Phase of WHAT? You mean telling the difference between reversing the + and - inputs on a speaker? Are we talking adding a time delay?

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 02:09:28 pm
content: That motherboard op amp swapping thing is nonsense. If you want high quality audio output from your PC use HDMI.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 02:30:49 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 26, 2013, 02:02:18 pmYour faith (and that of others) in "thousands of hours of listening tests" means little when it is demonstrated that your ability to discern supposedly major/obvious audible differences suddenly evaporates when you can no longer act on your biases and are left guessing.Even that "amplifier challenge" specifies some rudimentary objective standards for the devices to be tested/compared:"...........modern audio amplifier............The amplifiers in the test must be operated within their linear power capacity. Power capacity is defined as clipping or 2% THD 20Hz to 10kHz, whichever is less. This means that if one amplifier has more power (Watts) than the other, the amplifiers will be judged within the power range of the least powerful amplifierThe levels of both left and right channels will be adjusted to match to within .05 dB. Polarity of connections must be maintained so that the signal is not inverted. Left and Right cannot be reversed. Neither amplifier can exhibit excessive noise. Channel separation of the amps must be at least 30 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz. "So it isn't "proving" that "all amplifiers sound the same". I guess that so far no one has brought along a crappy enough amplifier.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 03:52:58 pm
content: Quote from: sync on October 26, 2013, 02:09:28 pmHDMI is digital. All you are doing is moving the digital to analogue conversion from one box to another. Which may or may not be better and probably still uses op-amps!Quote from: GK on October 26, 2013, 02:30:49 pmThe stuff about the potential problems with these blind test, you did read that yes? And I didn't say hours of tests, listening to music in your home is not a test, at least it shouldn't be!I'm just stating my opinion. If you want to trust in blind tests that's your business. You do know that some scientist allegedly once said that it was mathematically impossible for the bumblebee to fly? I assume you believe all those who claim to have seen bumblebees fly to be deluded or liars?I don't care. I'm happy with my choices and if you are too them we're all good. I think different Hi-Fi products can sound different and I'm pretty certain I've seen bees fly. You're free to think what you like on either subject.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 03:53:56 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 26, 2013, 03:52:58 pmThe point being to take it out of the incredibly hostile environment inside a PC.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 04:00:58 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on October 26, 2013, 03:53:56 pmAh, with you. I agree. Detractors would say that it doesn't matter where the DAC is but from what I've heard I agree with you that having it inside your PC doesn't seem to be the best idea.

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 05:00:47 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 26, 2013, 03:52:58 pmOf course it's digital. That's is the point. I move the DA conversion to a box where it belongs (amplifier). A PC is a EMI generator and not good for analog stuff inside.And HDMI is the best audio connection type available today for the consumer stuff. Just don't use analog connections any more. Reduce analog to a minimum.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 05:45:49 pm
content: Quote from: sync on October 26, 2013, 05:00:47 pmWhat makes HDMI better than anything else?Quote*snort*

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 06:11:15 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on October 26, 2013, 05:45:49 pmIt's digital and lossless. How better than lossless can a connection be?And HDMI is far better than the other digital connection S/PDIF.QuoteReally! If you want highest fidelity go digital. It's simply superior to analog circuits and connections.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 06:12:44 pm
content: Quote from: sync on October 26, 2013, 06:11:15 pmAnd, see, there you go making the same statement again without answering the question.QuoteIn some cases. In others, analog wins, not least for simplicity.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 08:23:31 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 26, 2013, 10:38:11 amWhat you really mean: You never heard a CD player that produced boatloads of random noise, scratches, rumbling and horrible freuquency response. Which is what vinyl actually produces. No need to refer to wooster lingo like "realism, resolution and fluidity".Quote from: Mr Pig on October 26, 2013, 10:38:11 amSo you basically want to post-edit the recordings you listen to, by introducing stuff that very likely wasn't there to begin with. That's fine, i have no problem with that. It just has nothing to do with repproducing a record in the best way possible, that is, with the least amount of noise and distortion added.Audiophools should stop pretending that they want the best possible way to reproduce something, but instead simply admit that all they want is to tweak stuff to make it sound the way they like, and not how it was intended to sound.Greetings,Chris

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 08:26:01 pm
content: Quote from: GK on October 26, 2013, 01:23:26 pmExactly. A good amplifier does not "sound anything" at all. It just takes input X and produces output Y, which in the best possible case differs only in signal amplitude. As soon as amplifier performance is described with all that bullshit-bingo words that are oh-so-common in the audiphool world, what with how they sound and stuff, then i would consider such an amp broken by design.Greetings,Chris

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 10:04:45 pm
content: Quote from: mamalala on October 26, 2013, 08:23:31 pmWell, whatever. I'm happy to have a good turntable. If you're happy with CD then cool.QuoteI'm not interested in what other people consider the best way. I want a Hi-Fi system I like, that's it.QuoteI'm not pretending anything. I want to tweak stuff to sound the way I like, just as you suggest. But for the fun, let's go along with your implication that it's a poor way to do things and "the least amount of noise and distortion added" is the best.Well it seems pretty obvious that reducing distortion and noise is the best thing to do and of course, up to a point you are right. Keeping the sound as clean and clear as you can is important. However, while the theory is solid, in practice there are necessary compromises which mean that if you pursue the zero distortion aim too ruthlessly you will destroy your music!For a start, fidelity to what?? Considering that you pretty much never know what the original source sounded like, how do you know that what you are producing at home is like it? All you can ever do is produce the sound that youthinkis realistic, the sound you like. What reference do you have to do otherwise? When you talk about tweaking the sound bear in mind that the recording engineer has already done that. They apply all sorts of EQ, effects, compression and level-mixing in the studio to create a sound thattheylike. The sound is unlike the original before it leaves the studio! So again, what is it you are trying to stay faithful to and how can you tell if you are?Secondly you've the baby/bathwater problem. Having a distortion-free system would be easy if every recording was distortion free but they are far from it. Lets take a simple example. You know how some recordings have spitty treble on the 'S' sounds in the vocals? They are called sibilant sounds and when they are distorted or emphasised it is commonly called sibilance. So you have this spitty treble on some recording and it is clearly a distortion and wrong. What can you do about it? Filter it out, either electrically or mechanically. Soften that area of the frequency response somehow. So you choose speakers or electronics which do not make those recordings sound so harsh. You have less distortion, a step forward.But hang on. What about the other sounds at the same frequencies? Say the shimmer of cymbals for instance? Or your other recording that sound just fine in that area? The Hi-Fi doesn't know which recording are better rolled off in the treble, it just rolls them all off. So you have a duller sound!There are all kinds of unwanted resonances and colourations present in Hi-Fi equipment and you have to be very careful about how you go about dealing with it as it is very easy to filter out valuable musical information at the same time. If you listen to a lot of the so-called Hi-End Hi-Fi equipment where excessive damping and filtration has been employed it typically has a very boring, flat and dull sound. Real life is not like that.And do you realise it would beimpossibleto reproduce a proximity to the original sound without adding colouration and no oneevertries?? Despite what they claim. How can that make sense?To reproduce only what is on the recording you would have to play your speakers in an anechoic room so that there were no reflections off the walls and furniture to colour the sound. If you've ever heard a speaker in an anechoic room they sound terrible! Utterly dead and lifeless. Why? Because not all of the original acoustic information from the recording venue was captured by the microphones and, even if it was, it cannot be recreated by two speakers. You would need dozens all around the room (which would introduce a boatload of other problems but let's not go there).So what can you do? You Design your loudspeakers to interact with the listening room to give an approximation of the sort of spacial sound present at the recording venue. Every domestic loudspeaker manufacturer in the world does this. Without room colouration you have an unrealistic sound. So, do you want colouration or not?Real music is not dull and boring. It is vibrant, energetic and exiting, and coloured! Recorded music should be like that too. Fun, interesting, moving, involving.Fun. Do you remember fun? ;0)

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 10:40:53 pm
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on October 26, 2013, 02:06:04 pmOur hearing isn't sensitive to the relative phase of the harmonic components that give a note its timbre.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 10:55:27 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 26, 2013, 03:52:58 pmThat's not a very convincing argument..... we have evidence that bumblebees can fly............

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 11:08:26 pm
content: Quote from: GK on October 26, 2013, 10:40:53 pmAre you talking about the distortion you get because of group delay...i.e. envelope distortion? If so, it is certainly audible above a threshold, and loudspeakers, crossovers, etc can certainly WELL exceed the audible delay. You can get something like 10ms of group delay going through the crossover for a sub. That's huge.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2013, 11:26:02 pm
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on October 26, 2013, 11:08:26 pmThe original context was audible differences between op-amps! Phase is an irrelevant quantity in the measure of amplifier distortion. Even if you cocked up an amplifier circuit design so badly that it exhibited a 1st order all pass characteristic, chances are that any audible differences between it and a non cocked up amplifier circuit would not be down to phase.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 12:55:08 am
content: Well, that's what I'm trying to figure out. What does phase in this context mean? If we're not talking about envelope distortion due to group delay differences, then of course it can't possibly matter because the only thing that absolute phase of the entire signal amounts to is a delay. If someone wants to make the argument that the laws of physics aren't symmetric with respect to time, I'm all earsNow, I can see how an audio signal might sound differently if you reverse the "phase" on the speakers, so that out is in and in is out. I suppose if there's an asymmetry in the signal coming in (say, a particular microphone squashes one side of the signal) and you play it through a speaker that is also asymmetrical, then certainly there's some threshold where the signal will eventually distort enough to be audible. Is that what we're talking about?

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 01:45:02 am
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on October 27, 2013, 12:55:08 amWell it is confusing, because in the context of amplifier distortion it doesn't mean anything at all!

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 02:31:19 am
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 26, 2013, 10:04:45 pmHere we have the essence of the audiophile neurosis - the anthropomorphically-skewed conception that his audio equipment, suitably arranged and sufficiently ill designed, can somehow magically fix inherent and fundamental limitations of the recording process - to accentuate the "emotion" conveyed by a performance, to make the reproduction more "vibrant, energetic and exiting" and other such nonsense. I have numerous technically substandard recordings. I have an audiophile remaster ofKind of Bluethat is a case in point. According to the jacket it was "remixed on an all-tube three-track machine, an old Presto......". From a technical standpoint, it's shit - noisy and some seriously audible distortion that the remastering on some crappy tube kit could have only made worse.Nothing I can do with my speakers and amplifiers can change that fact. However, ultimately, it doesn't detract all that much from the enjoyability of the recording. If you actually like the music, and have a half decent system to reproduce it, in all but the most extreme cases, you can listen past the imperfections in the recording. Other than a little tweaking to preference with the tone controls (another audiophool no-no!), which often makes a worthwhile difference, I am certainly not going to mix and match my equipment album to album, or introduce objectively sub-standard, distorting and coloring audiophile crap into my signal chain, as I know that that is a fools game that will never ultimately result in an all over satisfactory outcome.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 08:46:07 am
content: Quote from: sync on October 26, 2013, 06:11:15 pmActually, HDMI has far worse jitter performance than S/PDIF. This is a measurable quantity, and it can lead to distorted sound. Can you hear it? I don't know. But I stay on the safe side, and I don't use it. The best you can get is async USB for PC music and S/PDIF for the other.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 09:12:23 am
content: Quote from: GK on October 27, 2013, 02:31:19 amYou can't 'fix' faults, but you make them less noticeable.For many years I used a Linn Ittok tonearm on my turntable, considered a pretty good arm in its day. I now use a modified Rega RB300. I consider the Rega a better arm, but not because it is technically superior in every way. It isn't. You can point to areas were the Ittok was clearly better, the bass was deeper and tighter for one. With good recordings the Ittok was more exiting but it was unkind to poor ones. I'd say maybe twenty-percent of my records sounded fantastic, thirty to forty ok and the rest unlistenable.The reason the Rega is better is that it makes almost every record sound either good or at least playable. On the very best pressings I'd say it was a little behind the Ittok but it's worth the trade. Was the Ittok more 'accurate'? Was it just being honest and telling you what's on the record? I don't know and I don't care. I play music to enjoy the music. Music is a wonderful gift that can touch the soul in a way few other art forms can and that's why I love it. Yes, I configure my system to be vibrant, exiting and accentuate the emotion. I'm not making any apology for that.QuoteWe're not that different. I design my system to do exactly what you describe, listen 'past' the recording and into the music. I have rejected lots of 'upgrades' because, despite being technically better in some respects, they have harmed the cohesion of the music and your ability to get involved in it.I note the contradiction though. You are right, I haven't had an amplifier with tone controls for nearly thirty years, not in my main system, and I've never missed them. I've found that the best way to get as much information as possible through a Hi-Fi system is to keep it as simple as possible and simple systems usually sound the best. The more signal processing and filtering you do, in analogue anyway, and the more mechanical damping you apply the more the life is sucked out of the music. On the one hand you talk about not being able to magically fix recordings yet you champion your tone controls which exist to do just that! Make your mind up.QuoteI don't know what you are talking about? What 'audiophile crap' do I have in my signal chain? Where have I said I mix and match equipment from album to album? My system just plays whatever I put on it, that's what I want it to do.Youare the one who changes things from album to album trying to get them to sound better.Youare the one with unnecessary crap in your signal chain trying to fix recordings. You are the guy with the tone controls! ;0)

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 09:18:44 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on October 27, 2013, 08:46:07 amMy eldest son uses a Firestone Spitfire DAC to play music from his computer. When he first got it he played around using either the SPDIF or USB connections and found the SPDIF to sound better. You would think 'it's just numbers' so it shouldn't make any difference, but it can.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 10:29:02 am
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 27, 2013, 09:12:23 amYou cannot introduce major and permanent system changes (say badly designed speakers with pathological frequency response abnormalities - which is something along the lines of what you have suggested) to counter the aberrations/deficiencies in one crappy recording, that will then not make the reproduction chain suboptimal for other recordings. The whole original goal of "HiFi" is to build a system that,in the main, reproduces the recording accurately, be it a good recording or a bad one.QuoteAn amplifier or speaker does not have anthropomorphic properties. They cannot accentuate emotion. They are indifferent to emotion. In fact they're not even indifferent.QuoteQuote"As much information as possible"?? I've got a copy ofSketches of Spainthat appears to have been recorded with a serious bass cut. Perhaps the recording engineer just didn't like bass, or used some boom-box monitors for the recording process. With my system which is essentially flat down to 20Hz, the lack of bass makes the recording sound unnaturally "bright" in the treble. On the trackSolea, for example, the drum beat is barely if at all perceptible. However a quick tweak of the parametric tone control to boost the bass without "muddying the mids" gives a dramatically improved and much more pleasing overall tonal balance to the reproduction. Not only that but the drum beat inSoleaactually becomes audible. So there you have an example of greater "information" being conveyed due to the inclusion of tone controls.Tone controls, IMO, are mandatory in any serious system - primarily, from an objective standpoint, to correct for room deficiencies and secondarily, from a subjective standpoint, to correct for examples like the one I detailed above. There is no contradiction here for me to make my mind up over. A tone control isn't a permanent and unalterable fixture. It can be tweaked from album to album, track to track if required/desired and if I don't want to hear its effects I can simply flick the bypass switch. And the tone control doesn't magically/miraculous fix anything, such as altering a vocal performance lacking in either enthusiasm or emotion.QuoteI was talking in general. There is not shortage of crap in audiophile land purported to assist in the most realistic and accurate reproduction - from tube amplifiers that are more effects boxes than amplifiers and absurdly, or just poorly designed, but ridiculously expensive speakers. Then there are lots of stupid little things that do nothing but empty an audiophiles wallet.QuoteThe strict aversion to properly implemented tone controls is one of the most daft articles of faith in audiophile land.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 10:39:10 am
content: Quote from: GK on October 27, 2013, 10:29:02 amWhich becomes extremely ironic in case those folks then go on and claim how great vinyl is. One could think that they are ignorant about the process of producing a vinyl reecord. What with the massive alteration to the frequency response not only once, but twice (one before cutting the master, the second one during playback).Greetings,Chris

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 02:18:51 pm
content: Quote from: GK on October 27, 2013, 10:29:02 amI don't agree, not at all. You can build audio equipment to accentuate anything you like. Domestic speakers, night-club speakers and broadcast monitor speakers might all sound very different with each being well suited to its job.As an example, take two outwardly very similar speakers, the BBC LS3/5a and the Linn Kan. The BBC spent mind-boggling effort and time in developing the LS3/3a speaker for use as a near-field monitor, primarily in outside broadcast vans. To tame the fairly colourful little Kef drive unit and get something resembling a flat response (it was good in its day) they had to design a fairly complex crossover. Linn looked at the thing and decided they liked it but traded the flat response for emotional involvement by giving it a very simple crossover and a different tweeter. The box and bass driver were identical.The LS3/5a is sweet as a nut, lovely speaker, but the Kan communicates the drive and excitement of music like few other speaker at any price. Desperately coloured though! In the wrong set-up they sound quite dreadful. I defy anyone to listen to those two speakers and say you can't make a speaker accentuate emotion.QuoteI don't have any great objection to tone controls, it just so happens that the amplifiers that I have liked over the years haven't had them. If they work for you then fine. If I happened to try an amplifier that knocked my socks off and had tone controls their inclusion wouldn't stop me buying it.But I'm sorry, youarecontradicting yourself. Do you remember saying this?You:QuoteThen you admit using tone controls to tweak your music so that it is subjectively more enjoyable! There isn't any difference in principal between that and and other kind of tweak that makes the sound deviate from what is on the recording. Either it's ok to tweak the sound based on your subjective impression of it, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.QuoteNot disagreeing with you, but it sure looks a bit like a straw man to me? I don't have a tube amplifier, although my speakers were not cheap.QuoteFrankly' I'm amazed vinyl works at all! I find the physics of vinyl replay fascinating and baffling. I can't get my head around how there can be so much information on that disk and how it can be retrieved so beautifully. Beats me.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 02:29:50 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 27, 2013, 02:18:51 pmIf you say so. At this point I totally give up on that one.QuoteNo, I don't remember saying that. I think that you are quoting mamalala.QuoteI already explained why tone controls are an exception. And there is a F&^%ng big practical difference between using a tone control in preference to a warehouse of different speakers for listening room substitution having differing frequency responses.QuoteI SAID THAT I WAS TALKING IN GENERAL!!!!!!!!!

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 02:48:35 pm
content: Really getting into Audiophool territory here. Me, I just listen to music if I want. I prefer something better than a Strangled Chipmunk, but then again I have spent a few years when I was younger working in, on and around high power jet turbines, so I do know there is a definite dip in hearing response in my ears. Above a certain point ( and that is nowhere near what high end costs) there is a point of asymptotic returns, the curve is close to being logarithmic with price. You never approach the perfect response, no matter how much you pay.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 02:57:24 pm
content: Quote from: GK on October 27, 2013, 02:29:50 pmOh, sorry. My mistake.QuoteI don't know what you are talking about. Do you know anyone who actually does that?And why do you get to make tone controls an exception? Ok then, I make speaker choice and exception. Happy?QuoteWhat you are doing is trying to colour me as one of these audiophools you disapprove of. You don't know anything about me, what equipment I have or how it sounds. Which I'll admit I am beginning to like...

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 03:06:06 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on October 27, 2013, 02:48:35 pmNope, the good thing is that perfection doesn't exist. We are all different and as long as your music touches you then whether other people think your system is good, bad or chipmunk is irrelevant ;0) Would be sad if we all liked the same music and sound.As bonkers Icelandic musician Björk says, "I'm happy that other people make terrible pop music as it means I don't have to".

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 03:10:58 pm
content: I don't know, my dog thinks this is great fun.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 03:26:47 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 27, 2013, 03:06:06 pmI'm not.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 03:40:32 pm
content: Quote from: rolycat on October 27, 2013, 03:26:47 pm

author: TMM
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 06:45:43 pm
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on October 26, 2013, 02:06:04 pmSort of. Reversing the polarity of one speaker (180º phase shift) is actually audible because it messes with how we perceive the location of sounds:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_functionIf you reverse the polarity of all the speakers then it sounds no different to the original polarity.Human hearing is insensitive to phase shift when two sounds (in which you are measuring the phase shift) are incoherent. Sounds become incoherent when they are more than a critical bandwidth apart in frequency. This bandwidth is perhaps 1/3rd of an octave. It's related to how if two tones are close together they are heard as one tone being amplitude modulated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28acoustics%29) where as two tones separated by more than the critical bandwidth are heard as two discrete tones - therefore a change in phase of one of the tones becomes inaudible.If the sound engineer applies a 180º phase shift to only the lead vocals track in a recording, you probably wouldn't be able to hear it. On the other hand if there was a sharp 180degree phase anomaly from 1000hz to 1100hz, you might be able to hear it if you did a double blind test it with a version of the track that doesn't have it.The phase response of speakers and amplifiers usually changes gradually over the frequency range so the effects are inaudible. Phase effects caused by the listening environment (reflections, resonances) can be sharp enough that they are audible.To demonstrate the former, we can take a 1khz square wave and produce two more audio clips from it - one by applying a IIR highpass @ 1khz, and the other by an IIR lowpass @ 1khz. After mixing the resulting clips back together we have a waveform which is visually distorted because the IIR filters result in different phase shifts for each of the harmonics.It still sounds very much the same, though:http://www.mediafire.com/?yh7bbfed0jcwlehhttp://www.mediafire.com/?d6ttvm4xtvz3lx9

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 07:36:53 pm
content: Quote from: rolycat on October 27, 2013, 03:26:47 pm'Life Of Brian' fan? ;0)

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 08:47:17 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on October 27, 2013, 08:46:07 amCan you explain me how the HDMI jitter affects the sound? IFIAK the audio data is send in packets. You can't use the HDMI as DAC clock source as with S/PDIF.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 09:07:09 pm
content: Quote from: sync on October 27, 2013, 08:47:17 pmYes, the data is sent by packets, and buffered, and then from the video clock, they make the audio clock with a PLL. Video and audio clock is not exact dividend. In theory it could still be superior, but accoding to measurements, the actual implementations suck.http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/Connect/HDMI_connect.htmJitter does bad things with signals, I think every EE can agree on this. Can we hear it? I have no clue. But if I can avoid a potential problem, I will.

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 09:23:20 pm
content: Less that 10ns jitter.I very sure I can't hear that.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 10:48:42 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 27, 2013, 02:57:24 pmI can't reply appropriately this time because there is no "bashing head against wall" smilie.

author: baljemmett
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 11:04:03 pm
content: Quote from: GK on October 27, 2013, 10:48:42 pmSure there is, at least on this forum:. If you're a toolbar kinda of guy it's next to the dude with the afro and the shades, and if you type instead it's a vertical bar and a capital O. Mind you, c4757p's graphic is a worthy runner-up in the expression stakes.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 11:25:35 pm
content: Quote from: baljemmett on October 27, 2013, 11:04:03 pmOh, now how did I miss that one......... Now all that's needed is a BS flag raising smilie and we'd be fully equipped to debate any audiophile!

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 11:45:58 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 27, 2013, 02:18:51 pmGoes to show that my previous suspicion i wrote about in a reply to GK was probably more or less correct. "So much information"? I wouldn't consider noise any kind of useful information at all. Let me ask you: Do you have any idea what is involved in making a regular vinyl record? Well, let's start with a more sophisticated version of it, since it does not involve some more degrading steps: An acetate "vinyl" record. A one-off. This is how it goes:- You take a master record (usually a good tape recording, back in the days, nowdays it is usually a digital master)- Feed it through an equalizing network, where you have -20dB attenuation at tthe low end, and +20dB gain at the high end of the spectrum. And no, it's not linear- Carve the result into an acetate disc. Of course this involves mechanical work, with all the bad stuff that comes with it, mainly degradation if the carving tool, inaccuracies in the mechanics, inaccuracies in the acetate.- Once done, have yet another mechanical tool (stylus) pick it up and transform it into an electrical signal- That, of course, has it's own can of nasty worms, but once done, do another round of heavy filtering- This time you apply a gain of +20dB to the lower end, and an attenuation of -20dB to the high end of the spectrum.- Feed the result into whatever you have.OK, that is the "most direct" method of using a "vinyl" record. Not to mention that those acetate record can be played only a few times until are they audibly degraded. Now to the real fun of regular vinyl records. Instead of an acetate, the initial carving is done into a laquer layer. Then this is coated in silver. This is needed to make it electrically conductive, so that it can be electroplated with nickel or copper. That is the negative. From that you create several positives, again in a electroplating process. To make them last longer, chromium is applied. That is what is finally pressed against a PVC disc (the vinyl). Later methods directly carve into a stell plate to be used as a "master".I guess you can already see the many places that will degrade the sound quality there. The mechanical process of carving. Controlling the thicknesses of the several electroplating results (you _never_ get the same deposition layer everywhere), etc.Do you really insist on telling us something about "so much information" on a vinyl? If anything, you should be baffled that anything decently audible comes out of it at all. It is pure crap, compared to what we have available for more than two decades already. That "brickwall" you mentioned before about CD's is actually the point where you can no longer heas any improvement, since it is that good already. If noisy crap makes you happy, go for it. Just don't try to bullshit anyone about how good that lousy vinyl stuff is in your fantasy.Greetings,ChrisP.S.: Oh, and forgot to mention: compared to digital media, and heck, even half decent tape recordings, channel separation is virtually unknown on vinyl.Edit: Of course you have the frequency response filtering always, no matter what. Which also introduces even more distortion, since the record and playback filters pretty much never really match each other.

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2013, 11:56:32 pm
content: Quote from: mamalala on October 27, 2013, 11:45:58 pmThat's the most important part. The master is digital anyway. Everything after it is just degradation.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 12:07:40 am
content: Quote from: sync on October 27, 2013, 11:56:32 pmIndeed it is. (Edit: That is to say: Get the friggin CD or any other digital media, as that is very likely as close to the digital master as you will get. Then mix in some noise and crap, and there you have your "vinyl experience")Oh, what i forgot to mention. We humans already had a time where we used carving to carry information. That stuff with stone and clay tablets.Imagine we would have had some kind of "glyphophile" back then. Telling us how bad papyrus (later becomming paper) is, because that carving stuff carries so much more information, and is so much better. And imagine how they would have freaked out if we just skipped that paper stuff and went straight to digital data. You know, like plain text files and stuff. Not that fancy-schmancy "multimedia" sourcery."Hey, dude! With my QuackPro-WooStylus i can read those stone tablets much clearer! Look at all the nuances in the verbiage we can now read! Fantastic!"Haha ...Greetings,ChrisEdit: Re-Reading my post and noticed that it may look as if was criticing sync. That is not the case. The "you" i used was the general one, not the personal one. Sorry, for any fuzz that may arise

author: echen1024
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 02:50:25 am
content: It is also intolerable that the traces in the PCB are copper. They must be unobtainium and single directional. Don't forget about the plug to. That is the most important part.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 04:48:25 am
content: Or the gold plated mains plug, and the silver coated woven mains cable. All plugged into the 40 year old socket in the wall that has a loose connection on the neutral with a dodgy switch, and the mains fuse in the box is a old rusty nail.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 07:09:25 pm
content: Quote from: mamalala on October 27, 2013, 11:45:58 pmRather bleak outline but I know what you mean ;0) To be fair, it's usually rather more involved that that but still, it's amazing it works at all. You forgot to mention that over the years not all records have been equalized in the same way!What can I say, the things sound fantastic. Not perfect but still the best sound quality you can get in your house. Well, I can't say that. I've never tried those new hi-res digital files but better than CD that's for sure.I actually use CD most of the time though. At lower volumes it's absolutely fine, the sonic differences between CD and vinyl are pretty insignificant and the convenience of CD is great! Plus, CDs are much cheaper and easier to get that records these days.And not all CDs sound bad, some sound great, but it's not the norm. The format itself is not that bad but it's fallen victim to terrible production and mastering standards which has led to many CDs sounding truly horrible. Sure, there are lots of bad sounding LPs too but digital distortion is particularly nasty.I resisted buying a CD player for many years, I just couldn't get on with the sound, but eventually it became almost impossible to get new music on vinyl and I caved in. Like I say, at moderate volume CD is fine but crank it up and it typically sounds harsh and unnatural, or flat and boring, depending on who made the player. It's quite a fatiguing sound where as playing records loud just makes you want to play more records!You do need a good turntable though. Even a modest one, like a budget Rega or ProJect, will be nicer to listen to than CD but it's not until you've got a high-quality deck that records really start to bury CD in almost every way. Good turntables lift the music out of the grooves while minimising surface noise and no, I don't know how they do that! A good turntable on song is a wonderful thing.The good news is that vinyl is making a comeback! I was in a Glasgow record show a few weeks ago and found hundreds of new records on sale where a few years ago they had pretty much abandoned vinyl. I asked the guy in the shop how vinyl sales were going and he said "Great, we can't get enough of it!". Basically, kids brought up on MP3 are realising how good vinyl sounds and want in. A lot of the new albums are put out on vinyl now and, because it is now seen as a premium product, the production values seem to be high. A lot of the mainstream pressing plants shut and the folk left tended to be more passionate about vinyl, so when you look at new releases it's all 180g vinyl and really high-quality sleeves etc.One down-side is that they often seem to just use the CD master for the vinyl and you end up with an overly compressed record. Some new releases are great but the heydays of the seventies when just about every rock album sounded good are gone.But hey, I expect vinyl to outlive CD so I'm happy! :0) Streaming music is the way forward with people being able to choose the resolutions they like with no format-locked hardware to hold them back and the flexibility of file-based music is fantastic.Quote from: echen1024 on October 28, 2013, 02:50:25 amIf you guys are still trying to make fun of me you're wasting your time as I agree with you. I've never seen the logic in saying that a material must be better at a given job because it's more expensive. Why should a phono cartridge body made out of Umbongo wood, found only up the Amazon in a place known only to one tribe of pygmies, sound better than one made out of regular wood found just around the corner?! I once met a guy with a Hi-End Hi-Fi system that had a phono stage the size on a suitcase and awoodenremote control!! Why would you evenneeda remote control for a phono stage?? The whole system sounded crap by the way but that's another story.Here is something I posted on a Hi-Fi forum many years ago. For those that don't know, Amstrad (yes, Alan Sugar's mob) were a company who sold appalling sounding stereo systems in the UK during the eighties. Sure, lots of people did but Amstrad were unusual as they claimed theirs were Hi-Fi. These days, everyone does....Fuse DirectionThe importance of fuse direction cannot be overstated. Get it wrong and your music will collapse in an Amstradian cacophony of truly frightening proportions which will peel the wallpaper from the walls should you be unfortunate enough to have the volume up too loud at the time.The only safe way to test the direction of any new fuses you may purchase is to proceed as follows. First, clearly colour one end of the new fuse with purple felt pen for identification and fit it snugly into the plug in question. Insert the plug into the wall socket and power up the system taking great care to ensure that the volume is down, source is muted, CD player is stopped, record player is stationary and there is no other way that you could accidentally contaminate yourself with Amstrad-sound should your initial choice of orientation prove wrong.Next, prime the system so that it is ready to play. This is the most dangerous part of the procedure, please take care as accidents are seldom trivial. Making sure that the remote is resting buttons-up on a secure surface load the CD player, ensure that it is NOT playing, select 'CD' on the amp and turn the volume up to a reasonable setting. Resist the temptation to use the remote to set the volume if your amp is so equipped as only a few centimetres would separate you from potential disaster. Play safe and turn the knob by hand.Now retreat from the room and lock it where appropriate to keep out innocent family members.As it would be cruel to use anyone who even moderately appreciated music as a fuse guinea-pig you must enlist the help of someone who is immune to wrong fuse effect or 'pro-amstrad' as they are technically known. Such people may be found working in hairdressers, driving loud cars with their caps on backwards and queuing to watch Andrew Lloyd Webber productions. France is also full of them. In an emergency it is possible to use a mother-in-law but only if she is very old and you are sure that she has already written her will.Place 'willing assistant' in the test room, give instructions on how to activate CD player and leave.After a few minutes of noise from within the room it can safely be concluded that the test is over. For super safety switch off the mains power at the fuse box and enter the room.Close examination of the guinea pig will reveal whether your orientation of the fuse was correct or not. Should you find them smiling happily or should they ask you a banal question such as 'would you like a cup of tea dear?' or 'does it come in nice colours?' then you can be sure your new fuse is the wrong way round. If on the other hand you find them siting on a chair still listening to music which you and I know has already stopped it is almost certain that your new fuse is correctly installed and is reaping wonderful fruit from the barren depths of your CD collection.This is sound advice. With care there is no reason why you should not be able to install new fuses into your system safely with all the great benefits this brings.Mr Pig.

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 07:40:45 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 28, 2013, 07:09:25 pmHow much better than a CD can it be, when it's produced from a 16bit 48kHz master?

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 07:53:21 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 28, 2013, 07:09:25 pmThis is nonsense. In general the sound quality of vinyl recording is not superior to CD - it's not physically possible. You may subjectively prefer it, but that's a very different thing.QuoteTo be honest it should have stayed there.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 08:10:58 pm
content: Quote from: sync on October 28, 2013, 07:40:45 pmA lot of new vinyl releases do sound disappointing. You kinda get the worst of both worlds as it were but it's always been the same. I would say that maybe only twenty-percent of LPs produced back in the day, say between the late sixties and late eighties, sounded really good. Most were ok, pleasant enough, and maybe twenty-percent were shockingly poor. The producers of vinyl albums didn't need digital help to screw up their sound, they could figure that out just fine.By contrast I would say that most CD albums sound at least ok. Sure, there are some real stinkers out there, couldn't beleive how bad the sound quality on AC/DCs Black Ice was but then their concert sound is the same so at least they're consistent! ;0) The point is that CD, even at its best, isn't as good as vinyl at its best and even relatively poor-sounding vinyl on a good turntable is still enjoyable. Poor-sounding CD is just painful!

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 08:18:29 pm
content: Quote from: rolycat on October 28, 2013, 07:53:21 pmDang, you beat me to it. Was about to write the very same. People usually mistake "i like it that way" with "that's the best way".Greetings,Chris

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 08:29:37 pm
content: Music was mastered far better in the 70s and early 80s. By the time CDs came out, mastering engineers were already squashing the hell out of the signal and completely destroying the dynamics, clipping, etc. Well mastered CDs are just incredible. One that comes to mind is an early Yellow Jackets album. Awesome dynamics and clarity compared to most of today's mush. Great CDs blow away vinyl, IMHO.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 09:23:31 pm
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on October 28, 2013, 08:29:37 pmFully agree. The best medium does not help when a lousy sound engineer was at work.Greetings,Chris

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 09:42:42 pm
content: After lurking at this whole discussion for a while, I fully agree with the two above posts: I recall when we bought Rick Wakeman's Journey to the Centre of the Earth in CD and it paled in comparison to the vinyl my dad had bought years earlier - the re-mastering was done by an engineer that removed way too much stuff to make it sound "perfect". I don't think the media has anything to do with it, but the guy that worked on the masters was really clueless.In another place of this discussion about using tone controls, I recall my disbelief on how the low frequencies were really attenuated on Pink Floyd's Delicate Sound of Thunder... If there was a thunder sound at that record, it was really delicate (maybe it was on purpose?). I always cranked up the bass control of my stereo to find it minimally pleasing to my taste... Thus yes, I find tone controls useful but that is 100% subjective.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 11:45:24 pm
content: The problem with CD mixing was the loudness war: radio stations found in the mid-80s that playing music louder made they more "visible" to people listening, and songs that were louder got more attention. This feedback got back to record executives, who demanded that music be mixed at louder volume. This started a war where each station tried to be louder than the others; and songs were mastered at louder and louder volumes. And when that's translated to a CD codec... you end up with less dynamic range, due to the "peaks" being chopped off. This is what caused the perception that CDs were "flatter" or "less interesting" than vinyl, because the way the music was mixed caused lost information when translated to CD. In extreme cases the music could even end up muddy.However, the loudness wars are over, and many labels have realized that increasing volume during mixing decreases sound quality in most digital formats.More dynamic range isn't always better though. I can't listen to certain songs on my Police album, which is mixed at low volume with very good dynamic range, because when I turn up the volume to hear the lyrics, the cymbals end up enormously loud and give me a headache.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 11:50:17 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 28, 2013, 08:10:58 pm

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2013, 11:52:41 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on October 28, 2013, 11:45:24 pmI've found the NIGHT mode of my Yamaha AVR to work for this problem. It compresses the dynamic range, but in a way which manages to preserve the audio quality really well. It's designed for watching films late at night so you don't wake people up, but it also works with music.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 12:53:46 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on October 28, 2013, 11:50:17 pmConfirmation bias at its finest. Mr Pig has undoubtedly invested large sums of money and vast effort into his 'audiophile' equipment and vinyl discs; mere physics and rational argument don't stand a chance.

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 06:20:09 am
content: I don't mean to derogate, but this thread has made me very sad. It makes me feel like Greek golden age, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the information age were all for naught.I am the *biggest* proponent of exploring the inner subjective experience, the spirit, consciousness and relishing in the ineffable mystery of existence, none of which can be probed by the tools we have for exploring the shared objective experience. Subjective experience is just that, it belongs to and is only available to the experiencer, that's simply the definition of subjective experience and is a profound and personal mystery.BUT, why the hell ignore math and physics and thousands of years of painful study of the objective world. Science works; there are *no* currently accepted scientific theories which have been shown to be untrue (that is, falsified), not once.If math and physics say "A", then "A" is just true. It's not a debate, it's not a matter of opinion, it is FACT.It is fine to be amazed and filled with questions to find oneself in a world with order and rules, and even within physics and mathematics itself, if one truly understands what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is really saying, that it's a fundamental and unavoidable feature of our universe and is real, and if one truly understands what Gödel's Incompleteness theorems state, and can follow a proof of them from first principles (and these are *theorems*, not theories) one truly understands how bats**t insane the universe really is and how freaking limited reason is.So, why throw out we little we do have, that countless generations have fought so hard to wrest from the chaos?The domain of what math and science can tell us and what it can do for us is *sooooo* limited, but when we can apply it, it works, every time, flawlessly, and has *never* been contradicted (if any theory *is* falsified, it's abandoned, that's what scientific method is). So why ignore science and math, why pretend it doesn't apply when it's emotionally convenient.I am not sorry, I'm as much an artist, poet and musician as I am a scientist, mathematician and engineer, and I don't see ANY more advantage in an artist ignoring science and philosophy than I see for a scientist to ignore art and poetry.Science is real. Math is real. They are *not* matters of opinion. This isn't deep, it's how we define what math and science *are*.I do NOT relish a return to the freaking dark ages.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 08:22:11 am
content: Quote from: PhaedrusThat makes no sense - the loudness wars were real enough (at least in the US), yes it was achieved by reducing dynamic range so the average volume could be increased without clipping but why would the radio stations ask the studios for louder mixes?The aim was to get an edge over the competing radio stations so having the same compressed mix as everyone else would not gain anyone an edge. Also it can easily be accomplished by the radio station with fairly straightforward kit in the signal chain up to the transmitter - in fact there will have been compression of dynamic range anyway so as to ensure there was no overmodulation, mostly they just tweaked the settings.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 10:40:14 am
content: Since no one is contemplating the sound of op-amps anymore......... how about some expensive, audiophile-approved myrtle blocks then?http://www.ayre.com/acc_blocks.htm" You'll be captivated with the improved musicality these wood blocks provide.""I employ some of Ayre’s Myrtle Wood Blocks as component supports (they made a surprising difference—to my chagrin, having decided “intellectually” that they couldn’t).”– Wes Phillips, StereophileI don't think there was much of anything "intellectual" there in the first place. More like "Charles Hanson (head honcho at Ayre) bought me a really expensive lunch and gave me a foot massage".

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 10:49:03 am
content: OMG it gets even stupider:System Enhancement Dischttp://www.ayre.com/acc_cd.htm"The main tool is a five minute glide tone, that when played through your system at a moderately low listening volume, will improve its sound"EDIT:It even has a track of the brown noise! - but an "out of phase" version! Is that the version that makes the shit go back up your arse instead??And they got Wes Phillips spruiking that one too. That must have been a good foot massage.

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 11:16:58 am
content: Quote from: GK on October 27, 2013, 11:25:35 pmIs there an icon for blowing your brains out with a revolver? After reading this surprisingly popular thread (which I admit I'm also strangely drawn to) that icon would best express how I feel.Seriously, even if there are mutants who CAN hear subtleties like 0.0001% THD, even assuming they only wear perfectly ear isolating earphones, do they own earphones with drivers which can meet the kind of ridiculous specs audiophiles endlessly debate about? I'm positive no such thing exists..Maybe being stuck away from my bench for another month is turning me into a serious troll..In any case, this is how I feel at the moment:edit: 1) found decent icon 2) changed filename of icon

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 11:23:52 am
content: Quote from: madshaman on October 29, 2013, 11:16:58 amErrr, dude, just sit back and have a laugh. Some of this stuff is seriously funny if you look at it from a different perspective.

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 11:29:37 am
content: Quote from: GK on October 29, 2013, 11:23:52 amThanks, you're right :-)

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 12:10:11 pm
content: Quote"While we don't have conclusive proof of the mechanism involved, we suspect that it functions by demagnetizing residual fields that build up in your components over time."

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 12:43:47 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on October 29, 2013, 12:10:11 pmI don't have conclusive proof either, but I suspect a large amount of organic matter has built up in the author's colon over time, filling it.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 02:07:04 pm
content: Quote from: madshaman on October 29, 2013, 12:43:47 pmThe main tool is the one stupid enough to believe this claptrap.QuoteThey even have the cheek to officially name the thing the "IBE Disc", and explain that it stands for "Irrational But Effective".Which is true, I suppose. Its certainly irrational, and probably effective at emptying the wallets of the audiophools.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 06:30:03 pm
content: I have a use for those blocks.........They should burn nicely and make good coals.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 06:34:46 pm
content: How an audio accessory called the Clever Little Clock works (be sure to finish digestion/drinking of whatever you might be consuming.)http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina42.htmAvailable for the low price of just $99.-!http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 06:39:22 pm
content: That whole websitehasto be a piss-take.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 06:44:12 pm
content: I thought that. But Geoff Kait, the guy who runs the site, appears to be for real.Several of his products have been reviewed:http://www.soundstageav.com/onhifi/20060801.htmhttp://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue28/brutus.htmhttp://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/clock_nespa.htmAnd he does actually sell stuffhttp://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Machina-Dynamica/Falls-Church-Maryland-22042/Machina-Dynamica-False-claims-about-electronic-enhancement-products-Falls-Church-Maryland-286484http://www.stereophile.com/content/breakthrough-cd-technology-geoff-kait-manufacturers-showcase

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 06:46:15 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on October 29, 2013, 06:44:12 pm

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 06:47:10 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on October 29, 2013, 06:39:22 pmIt could be a Poe, yes. But then, i'm not really sure about that. There is just some much bat shit crazy stuff out there in the audiophool land, it could very well be a real thing.Greetings,ChrisEdit: Damn, just saw tom66's post. So it seems to be real. Folks, we all could be stinking rich, if we just had a tad more criminal energy to sell such stuff.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 07:10:00 pm
content: Go out to Geoff's site, MechanicaDynamica, if you really want to piss your pants.There are a lot of truly dumb people out there, and on the one hand I think Geoff is incredibly sleazy for stealing people's money, but on the other hand maybe it's best that people like this find ways to spend their time and money harmlessly instead of making trouble for the rest of us.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 07:58:52 pm
content: Quote from: madshaman on October 29, 2013, 06:20:09 amIsn't that a tautology? If they had been shown to be untrue they would not be currently accepted theories! But history is littered with abandoned theories and science, things which were trusted once but are known to be wrong today. Pioneers understand that knowledge is a shifting sand and continue to ask questions. The only thing certain about what man is certain of today is that it will be found short by some other man tomorrow.But, meanwhile, back at the ranch...If you want to apply your argument to vinyl verses CD, you can't. Because I agree with you. I agree that on paper CD surpasses vinyl in terms of technical performance. I also agree with Phaedrus that most of the poor performance of CD has historically been due to poor mastering or other poor technical implementation of the format.The point is that music is awhollysubjective experience. A format that sounds more natural and involving is better, perhaps in spite of its technical shortcomings or maybe because of them, but if it communicates music more effectively then it is better. I don't know anyone who has both a good turntable and a good CD player who thinks the CD player is better.Personally, I think that both vinyl and CD are imperfect. Whether it is down to the format or the production of the albums is irrelevant really, you have to deal with what you get. The difference is that analogue distortion is relatively easy for us to 'tune out' and ignore while digital distortion is harsh and unnatural to us.Quote from: Phaedrus on October 28, 2013, 11:45:24 pmWhich album is that? The production on the Police's albums, both vinyl and CD, is unusually good, they sound excellent. I've never been aware of the sort of issue you're describing. I've never heard either a CD or LP that I felt had too much dynamic range. I've got a lot of CDs with too little though :0(I wish the loudness warswereover but I'm still finding lots of chronically compressed CD albums unfortunately.Quote from: rolycat on October 29, 2013, 12:53:46 amIt would be nice if some of you guys stopped posting assumptions about me and what I think and beleive, it's frankly not very nice. I've already said that I don't agree with much of the 'audiophile' foolishness, like super-fuses, and I happen to have at least as many CDs as records. Probably a lot more, I haven't counted them. I am interested in the music. Yes, I have spent a lot of time and effort in getting my stereo to sound really good but it serves the music and not the other way around. I'm not one of these tubes who only plays records that sound good on my system, I play the music I like and don't care if it's on CD or vinyl. I've already said I listen to CD most of the time. Instead of throwing insults how about being constructive? You haven't done that in this thread yet. Go on, give it a try?

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 09:22:58 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 29, 2013, 07:58:52 pmThat my comments were not constructive is your opinion; much like your views on the superiority of vinyl over digital recordings.Others may disagree.You are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but coming to an engineering forum and framing them as statements of fact is not going to endear you to those who have a regard for objective reality.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 09:28:27 pm
content: Music is a subjective experience, fidelity is just what it says, true to the original. It is true that any recording is most likely altered beyond recognition of the original performance before it hits the master and the recording chain is full of signal distorting parts.If you want the most "accurate" sound you can get then stuffing the bandwidth and dynamic range through a vinyl groove is going to guarantee an even more distorted result. Is it the most offensive part of the chain? Not with the crap I have heard "engineers" mixing the past couple of decades.Some of the best recordings I have heard have been "direct to disc" where the performance was recorded directly to the master disc. The engineers were actually trying to record the most faithful sound they could not mix to some idiot's taste for boom boom compressed noise. I have also heard some very masterfully mixed and mastered CDs, the best sounding for accuracy in all.Music is none of this. Music is what connects to your feelings and mood. Whether it sounds "accurate" or not is almost always secondary.Audiophoolery is none of the above. It is the pursuit of the "perfect sound", the sound of money fixing what an equalizer and some careful placement of some reasonably well made equipment and speakers will provide. But if people want to blow $30,000 on 10 watt single ended 300B triode tube amps driving horn loaded single driver bamboo cones with $5k per meter gold plated mono crystal oxygen free copper wire with green led illuminated teflon insulation all suspended just the right distance from the table/floor on special rocks and it makes them happier, then what do I care? Sometimes I wish I was dishonest enough to make silly things like these to sell and make a fortune. I am not making up the system I have described. I have seen one. The person was thinking his system didn't sound quite right and was contemplating replacing the copper wires with pure silver versions. His total system at the time, if I remember correctly, cost him $55k back in the mid 80s. His wife told him she had enough of the insanity as they were driving a 20 year old beater car. He went out and purchased another whole system with all the latest voodoo for around $80k and she left him.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2013, 11:13:55 pm
content: Quote from: Lightages on October 29, 2013, 09:28:27 pmI have some live CDs that sound absolutely fantastic. Each year San Francisco radio station KFOG put out a collection called 'Live From The Archives' of music recorded for broadcast. The recordings are raw, imperfect and wonderful. They are among the best CDs I've heard. I think I have about ten of them and they are all great. Like you say, simple is usually the best.I reckon that often engineers like playing with toys and justifying their jobs. Would they be able to ask such high fees if they only used a few bits of equipment to make simple recordings?QuoteDoesn't it beg the question, how do you define accuracy when talking about a subjective art? If the end result sounds more lifelike and natural isn't that by defection, more accurate? If it sounds closer to the live sound?About twenty-five years ago I popped it to see an electronics engineer I knew at his workshop. His company designed and built PA equipment, amplifiers, speakers ect, mostly for nightclubs. He had a rats-nest of wires hooked up on the bench and I asked him what he was doing? He said he was working on a simple valve amplifier. On those days valve amplifiers were nowhere near as popular as they are today so I asked the obvious, what would you want to dothatfor?To paraphrase his reply he said "CD sounds f****** s*** because we don't have digital ears. I reckon if I can make a cheap valve amplifier it'll take the edge off CD and I can sell a s***load of them!"Nothing ever came of it but he recognised that it's all about getting the compromise right so that the end result is a better balance. Personalty, I tend not to like valve amps by the way, unless they've got 'Mashall' written on the front! ;0)QuoteI don't know what people keep going on about that? As far as I can see there is no one on this thread who thinks that way? It seems to me like it's the default defensive position you guys take when challenged with the idea that maybe in the world of audio, specifications aren't everything.Over the years I've heard quite a few very expensive Hi-Fi systems. Most of them do not come even close to justifying their price tags and a lot of them actively sound bad. From my experience, the kind of systems you're alluding to above sound the worst. It's hard to explain. It's as if they've filtered and clean and polished the sound until there isn't an ounce of life or excitement left. If you ever see a video of someone listening to a system like that you'll notice that they almost always close their eyes. There is a reason for that. The sound is so distant and obscure that you need all the concentration you can muster to pick up any of it at all!I want my music to sound like live music. Fill the room, be impossible to ignore and drag you dancing and singing into it. My system sounds like a really good PA! ;0)And specifications really aren't everything. The owner of one ultra-boring mega-system I heard was a great pains to tell me his system measured totally flat from 20 to 20 and he had the measuring kit in the room to back it up. He didn't have to, I beleive him, I just don't care. I don't take electronic test equipment to concerts and if you don't need it there, why do you need it at home?

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2013, 05:41:06 am
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 29, 2013, 11:13:55 pmPlease go to some Hi-Fi voodoo, audiophoolery, scam forum.

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2013, 09:18:32 am
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on October 29, 2013, 07:58:52 pmI'll bite. This is my point, if you had bothered to include my entire post you would see I address this. Yes, it is true that scientific theories are essentially *belief*, I know, shocking. However, it is a special kind of believe that one abandons when falsified.The current state of  scientific theories hasn't changed since the 1930s and boils down to two groups of theories: general relativity and QED/QCD/etc. that is, all the isomorphic expressions of modern quantum theory.There are also the Newtonian-Relativity based theories that, although not *entirely* correct wrt QED and general-relativity, still work; for example: Maxwell's equations (which in their basic form assume a Euclidean space) from which we derive Kirchhoff's circuit laws, are sufficient for analysing the behaviour of most low-frequency electronics. When engineers apply these latter theories, they are aware that they depart from the ideal theories and make adjustments for when the divergence causes noticeable effects (e.g. CRT designers sometimes must take into account Einstein's theories, and special relativity suffices here; no need even for general relativity afaik)There are *alternate* theories, many which are put forth by free energy crackpots (just my opinion they are crackpots) and audio fools (just my opinion they are fools). I could choose to believe these instead. The reason I do not is because these crackpot theories are falsified all the time, even worse, I don't know of *any* instance where the results of these crackpot-nutso-batshit-crazy ideas have been confirmed or reproduced.Another reason I believe in Physics (like so many other lost souls) is that I myself have reproduced the expected results of these theories, right before my eyes.Example:I have confirmed that objects with gravitational mass attract each other by hanging a stick from a string with two weights on the ends, allowing the system to come to equilibrium, introducing another weight near one of the weights on the string, allowing the system to reach equilibrium again then measuring the change in orientation of the stick, this allowed me to calculate the difference in rotational force applied by the string's tension with the newly introduced mass (which is equivalent to the gravitational force of one weight on the other). The results matched what is predicted by the gravitational theory I was attempting to verify and voila: I believe in the theory in so far as that when I apply it, I am confident I will get the results I expect (poor sucker that I am).Quote from: Mr Pig on October 29, 2013, 07:58:52 pmI do not follow the logic here.let me introduce some predicates:W : I want to apply my argument to vinyl versus CDC : I *can* apply my argument to vinyl versus CDA: You agree with meYou have made one logical statement, your conclusion:"If you want to apply your argument to vinyl verses CD, you can't. Because I agree with you." expressed in loosely formal logic becomes:A => W -> !Cunfortunately, there isn't any connection between any accepted (or even assumed) axioms and your conclusion so I can't determine (for myself) whether A => W -> !C is a theorem. Being able to do this is usually required in mathematics when one proposes a theorem, otherwise your peers tend not to believe you.It may shock you that your theorem isn't useful anyway because 'W' isn't true to begin with. I made no mention of vinyl vs CD, I'm not sure what you mean by "your argument", and I have no desire to apply this [yet unnamed] argument to this thing called "vinyl vs CD".You mentioned tautologies previously, so I'm assuming you're well versed in formal methods and wish to debate along these lines.Quote from: Mr PigI respectfully disagree, it is *not* simply the format which causes one to prefer vinyl over CD, I propose that there are myriad factors.There *are* factors which are subjective AND apply to the difference between vinyl and CD; some examples:- the emotional state affected by placing a record on a turntable and playing it- the emotional state affected by nostalgia- one's confirmation biasI agree with those.There *is* a factor which I believe (and you can say this is just my opinion if you like) is *not* subjective:let f(t) be the original musical signallet v(t) be the electrical signal sent to your amplifier after:- f(t) goes through a post production process where *many* things happen: compression is applied to reduce the dynamic range so that the groove spacing on the resulting record can be close enough to fit the whole song on the record, filtering is done to avoid undesirable mechanical effects in the record-player/record system that are really too involved to describe in detail here, additional processing is performed to avoid undesirable effects in the stereo field, again due to the way the record-player/record system works, various other processing is done (which again is waaaaay too difficult to explain the reasons for briefly)- the result of the above is sent as an electrical signal to a machine which cuts a groove in a disc coated with lacquer- the lacquer disc is coated with metal- the metal is separated from the disc to form a metal master (the result is the negative image of the lacquer disc)- the metal master is used to create a another metal disc (the above's negative image)- the above metal disc is used to create a stamp (the above's negative image and also the negative image of the final vinyl)- a big press uses the stamp to create vinyl records- the vinyl records are packaged and sold- you buy the vinyl record- you bring it home and play it on *your* turntable (the turntable/record system produces the electrical signal)let cd_ideal_digital(t) be the CDDA digital data resulting from:- f(t) is digitised into a high resolution format (vertical and time-wise) chosen such that no information is (theoretically) lost- the above digital signal goes through a post production process where *many* things happen: compression is applied to reduce the dynamic range so that both soft and loud sections have enough effective vertical resolution in the 16-bit range, maximisation/normalisation is applied to fill that 16-bit range and utilise it fully, plus all sorts of other digital signal processing. (and yes, I'm aware that some of these processes are sometimes performed in the analog domain)- the above digital signal is converted (theoretically losslessly) into CDDA audio and a glass master is produced- the glass master is used to create stampers which produce an audio CD which you purchase (there are many processes)- a sellable CD is stamped (containing the data in cd_ideal_digital(t))let cd_ideal_electric(t) be the ideal electrical signal reproduced from cd_ideal_digital(t) at the level that your CD player produceslet cd(t) be the electrical signal sent to your amplifier after:- your CD player  recovers the original digital data used to create the glass master without loss- your CD player generates an electrical signal from this digital data (which itself alters the signal)let f_prime(t) be the result of preprocessing f(t) with some unknown process.let cd_ideal_electric_prime(t) be the result of the process used to obtain cd_ideal_electric(t) from f(t) but with f_prime(t) substituted for f(t)let cd_ideal_digital_prime(t) be the digital representation of cd_ideal_electric_prime(t); (there should be no power in cd_ideal_electric_prime(t) at frequencies above the Nyquist frequency)let cd_prime(t) be the result of playing a CD on your player created from f_prime(t) by the same process used to produce cd_ideal_digital(t) from f(t)By *objectively* analysing the difference between cd_ideal_electric(t) and cd(t), and *objectively* analysing the difference between cd_ideal_electric(t) and v(t) we can derive a method to pre-process f(t) into f_prime(t) such that v(t) = cd_prime(t). This means that you could conceivably produce a CD that generates the exact same signal into your amplifier as a record played on your turntable.Therefore, apart from the *subjective* factors I mentioned earlier (emotion, nostalgia etc., basically everything that influences your perception apart from the signal itself), your musical experience is *not* a result of the format, but of the production process.I must state for clarity that the above statement does not include ridiculous scenarios of 5 second LPs with enormous groove spacing and dynamic range and special record players which could play such ridiculous records.If you would maintain that the range of signals produceable from *normal* records played on *normal* record players (and I include in this the most expensive turntables and records sold to consumers) is not a proper subset of those produceable by a decent CD player, I would demand hard proof of this and I would also demand proof that there exists a non-trivial example of real music where the differences are within the physical limits of the human body to perceive.Furthermore, I would happily accept such proof, you know why? I NEVER STATED THAT CDs ARE BETTER THAN VINYL. I was ranting on about something entirely different.I have nothing against vinyl and in fact own some vinyl myself. Vinyl *does* sound different, and I know *why* it sounds different: it's because the whole production process plus the record-player/record system effects the original musical signal. Also, some "White Label" material only enters my world through vinyl.I would *never*, in a scientic/engineering context claim one is *better* than the other, I would only claim that the properties of each can be fully analysed, characterised and understood by science and that any claims with regards to this issue which do not have a scientific explanation are *bullshit*.You obviously don't know me too well, that's understandable. I am a musician myself, I play multiple instruments, am a classically trained pianist (though not a very good one) produce electronic and accoustic music, do post-production audio work for friends and play in a band. I *do* have "high-end" audio gear in the form of high quality audio interfaces (chosen for their technical merits) and high quality near field monitors in my home music studio and have taken great lengths to ensure that when *I'm* working with music or audio production, I hear the signal fed to those monitors as uncoloured as possible.I am *more* than aware that music is a subjective experience and I really have to say, I'd rather hear Hendrix play Jelly 292 on a shitty single-driver portable radio than someone I hate played through the most expensive audiophile system on the planet.So please, I understand that someone [*else*] has insulted your audio setup and that I myself have poked fun at audio foolery, but hey, this is an engineering forum, what do you expect?The reason you're getting such a lengthy response with such a nasty tone is that, from my point of view, you refuted a point I wasn't even making, and I felt your tone was dismissive and condescending.If you're ever in the area I'd be happy to smoke you a big-ass j***t, show you my gear, let you play my guitars and keyboards and share my favourite music with you.Peace.edit: fixed quoting, removed duplicate line

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2013, 11:47:24 am
content: From Mr. Pig's first forum post:Quote from: Mr Pig on October 21, 2013, 10:40:11 pmFrom another post by Mr. Pig in another thread:Quote from: Mr Pig on October 27, 2013, 01:09:29 pmSo, which is it? Does he know virtually nothing, or is he an expert? I'm sad that no-one pointed out that missile guidance systems used to use wire-wrapped connections because they are *more* reliable and less prone to cracking due to vibration... but I digress.I won't even touch the 'Fuse Direction' thing.This is obviously some kind of troll and I forward the motion that this particular thread be locked and/or removed. I don't know about the rest of the posters here, but this whole thread has had dark tones, nasty banter and little accomplished. It doesn't seem positive at all and I accept as much blame as anyone.I hope others have acquired some amusement here, but for myself, the funny seems to have left the building...

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2013, 02:49:44 pm
content: Thathasto be the longest text post I've seen in the EEVBlog forums since I joined more than 2 years back.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2013, 05:44:51 pm
content: The pretentiousness and self-righteousness from several members in this thread is getting out of hand.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2013, 06:48:01 pm
content: Quote from: madshaman on October 30, 2013, 09:18:32 amI was in the middle of posting a reply to your posts but I've just seen how abusive you've been to someone and deleted the lot. There's no need for that and the guy did nothing to deserve it.And thanks for suggesting the thread be locked, who gave you a badge and a gun?

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2013, 10:58:10 pm
content: Need a popcorn munching smilie now.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2013, 11:20:39 pm
content: Audiophiles and faith seemingly fall into the same categories.Neither have any significant backing in science, it's the belief in it makes it possible.And my opinion is, if someone wants to waste their money on silver-plated copper oxygen free nonsense, then let them. It's their money.

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2013, 05:10:56 am
content: Quote from: GK on October 30, 2013, 10:58:10 pmQuote from: Phaedrus on October 30, 2013, 05:44:51 pmYes, I agree, and I find myself taking that stance too and it disgusts me with myself. I should have stayed away from this thread and been more mature.I'd like to excuse myself and say it was anti-malaria medication or the bizarre pressure of being in East Africa, but no, I jumped right on the bandwagon of everyone else in trying to show I'm superior.ivan747 was doing the same thing and it pissed me off. People will say things in forums that in real life would get them a punch in the face, and I've been no exception.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 01, 2013, 12:38:35 am
content: Quote from: madshaman on October 31, 2013, 05:10:56 amOr is it that people in forums say things that make you want to punch them in the face, and you try to do that virtually (i.e.: the forum), but fail? Mind you, very little of what is said in a forum would cause that in real life. More likely than not it is your low threhold that makes you _think_ it be that way, but in reality it isn't. Almost always the person yelling "need to punch you" is the one who never does it, because depp inside that persond knows to be wrong, but just can't admit to it.Greetings,Chris

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 01, 2013, 12:54:28 am
content: As far as "quality" that comes out of a PC mainboard is concerned, my opinion is that anything done on the mainboard is pretty much futile. There is just way too much noise all around, an no linear regulator (let alone a tube) can help you there. While i do not know everyting out there, i highly recommend you to listen some stuff from Monolake. Try it on original CD, then on 320 kps MP3, then 160, then the standard 128. There is an audible difference. But that is due to the sound he uses, and the way it is mixed. Above 160 it becomes very hard to discern, at 320 it is pretty much the same as the orignal CD. But then, putting that on vinyl will pretty much ruin it. No tone arm in the world is able to change that. The 128k MP3 wil pretty much be better than that.Changing a little OpAmp on a PC mainboard? Heck, if that makes any audible difference, then the basic design of that mainboard is shit to begin with.And regarding audio transmission in general. I had to deal with one of these audiophools in a club setting. Not going into details what i did to the main PA in the club. Suffice to say that i put a decent (well, >30 years old) audio transformer in the mixer, ran the output trough a pair of CAT5 cable, for 30+ meters, then fed it back into another transformer of the same type. And the guy did not believe that what he heard there was the same as in above floor. He thought i was cheating. Simple CAT5 cable. Simple audio transformers. And simple, but decent, studio amplifiers (Samson Servo-260). Balanced lines is all you need.Greetings,Chris

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2013, 10:51:36 am
content: I've read the whole thread, sad I know. lolI can't believe that anyone could say that double blind testing doesn't work. The idea that changing the op-amp on a motherboard makes a difference to the audio output is laughable and so is the idea that vinyl reproduces that sound more faithfully than CDs.It's no surprise the thread got nasty - any discussion with an audiophool invariably does. It's like talking about how science has proven various religious texts wrong.Perhaps discussing audiophoolery here should be banned? It's not relevant to electronics and only causes trouble.

author: madshaman
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2013, 11:48:55 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on November 01, 2013, 10:51:36 am+1

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2013, 12:29:58 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on November 01, 2013, 10:51:36 amAudiophoolery certainly doesn't have much to do with electronics, or indeed reality. But on a serious note, I don't believe any topic should be banned outright - before tempers flared this was a relevant and interesting thread.Just as with politics and religion, some fanatic can usually be relied upon to pop up to infuriate the unwary.It's particularly galling when he or she is convinced that they are actually a rationalist who is here to show the regulars the error of their ways, and not one of those wacky extremists at all.But these threads generally attract lots of interesting posts, and as long as the moderators keep things from getting too out of hand Dave's 'light touch' approach helps keep the forum vibrant and entertaining.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2013, 12:51:50 pm
content: I think it's reasonable to discuss audio designs, bipolar vs FET output stages, amplifier classes, op amp choice etc. These are all definitely "electronic" topics and there are a lot of parameters which can be measured and which do affect how the system sounds - frequency response, distortion(harmonic and non-harmonic), noise, phase (but probably not important in audio) and envelope responses spring to mind at least.It doesn't help that things sometimessoundbetter butmeasureworse which muddies the waters a bit (eg vinyl vs CD, valve vs semiconductor amps etc).Unfortunately the debate can drift off into bizarre claim territory all too easily which does need to be avoided.

author: TMM
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2013, 01:16:12 pm
content: So many opinions, so little test data.I did a test to investigate the effects of loading down the soundcards i have.The ADC is a Creative E-MU 0402 USB, HighZ input.Method:-Connect output of DUT to the ADC.-Play 60Hz sine wave test tone from DUT, adjust output level of DUT so it is 1.0Vrms-Set input gain on ADC to achieve around -15dBFS-Generate plot with ARTA-Attach 33ohm resistive load to output of DUT-Re-adjust input gain as required to maintain -15dBFS.-Generate plot with ARTAResultsHighZ - Motherboard audio (Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD3P-B3 IO panel green jack):33Ohm - Motherboard audio (Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD3P-B3 IO panel green jack) - output drops to 188mVrms:HighZ - Asus Xonar DX PCI-e:33Ohm - Asus Xonar DX PCI-e - output drops to 413mVrms:HighZ - Creative 0204 USB Headphone out:33Ohm - Creative 0204 USB Headphone out - output drops to 595mVrms:HighZ - Creative 0204 USB Line out:33Ohm - Creative 0204 USB Line out - output drops to 58mVrms... remains clean because of high output impedance:Draw your own conclusions :pPs: Just before anyone asks, the mains frequency here in Australia is 50Hz, not 60hz, so these results aren't affected by mains hum.

author: Mr Pig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2013, 05:15:24 pm
content: I wasn't going to bother adding any more to this thread but I'll at least say why I'm going to give it a miss.I haven't posted anything on any internet forums for maybe a couple of years because, after years of experience on many forums, I realised they're mostly not very nice places and bad for the soul. After asking for some advice on multimeters, thanks for the good advice on that by the way, I thought I'd try out a few other topics as well, while I was here.Sadly the bullying and abusive element that seem to feel so at home on the net are happily in residence here too. Any hope of reasonable debate is soon extinguished under the usual flurry of mindless copycat ganging up on the outsider.Usually, it's almost worth it, up to a point. Amidst the noise there are some people who have interesting opinions on the subject at hand, but in this case the ratio is poor. No one has eventriedto give reasonable answers to some of the weaknesses I've suggested may compromise some blind listening tests. Instead I've just been slated, slandered and painted as something I'm not. Systematic assassination of anyone not in the 'club'.Too bad, not to worry. If it makes you feel big behaving like that on the internet then good for you. In the real world I have luxury of being able to refrain from hanging around with people I think are d***heads so I'm happy to stick with that,reality. It's just plain nicer. A bit like vinyl records! ;0)Thanks again to the folk who advised me about the multimeter, cheers guys. And thanks to the folk who have at least tried to make the thread intelligent and reasonable. The rest of you, get a life tossers :0)Catch you later dudes.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2013, 07:02:52 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Pig on November 01, 2013, 05:15:24 pmIt was our pleasure.