Blizzard's new Super Stream

[Mivera]

Agreed. But I'm not making claims for a product I'm selling. That demands a higher standard.

Tim

According to the thought process around here the holy grail of computer sourced sound can be had from a cheap laptop. In that case as long as the sound matches it with the ultra clean supply and customized computer board, it will sound as good as it can get.

So as long as it functions as advertised, we have a winner. Don't forget about the 10 year Warranty. Does your laptop come with that?

I'll tell you what for 50% off we can install a noisy SMPS similar to what your laptop uses. We'll call it the ASR edition.

 

[Thomas savage]

According to the thought process around here the holy grail of computer sourced sound can be had from a cheap laptop. In that case as long as the sound matches it with the ultra clean supply and customized computer board, it will sound as good as it can get.

So as long as it functions as advertised, we have a winner. Don't forget about the 10 year Warranty. Does your laptop come with that?

I'll tell you what for 50% off we can install a noisy SMPS similar to what your laptop uses. We'll call it the ASR edition.

(Moderator action )
Holding the forum and its membership in contempt will not stand.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

According to the thought process around here the holy grail of computer sourced sound can be had from a cheap laptop. In that case as long as the sound matches it with the ultra clean supply and customized computer board, it will sound as good as it can get.

So as long as it functions as advertised, we have a winner. Don't forget about the 10 year Warranty. Does your laptop come with that?

I'll tell you what for 50% off we can install a noisy SMPS similar to what your laptop uses. We'll call it the ASR edition.

Wrong. You need to provide some evidence of the superiority of your solution to that cheap lap top, because that's what you've advertised and continue to imply with your statements about dedicated boards and power supplies.

 

[Geardaddy]

According to the thought process around here the holy grail of computer sourced sound can be had from a cheap laptop. In that case as long as the sound matches it with the ultra clean supply and customized computer board, it will sound as good as it can get.

So as long as it functions as advertised, we have a winner. Don't forget about the 10 year Warranty. Does your laptop come with that?

I'll tell you what for 50% off we can install a noisy SMPS similar to what your laptop uses. We'll call it the ASR edition.

Mike, while I agree with your sentiment, stop talking smack and cough up some measurements.

 

[Geardaddy]

(Moderator action )
Holding the forum and its membership in contempt will not stand.

Lighten up old chap. Liberty of expression is essential to all intellectual pursuits. Taking this forum or its membership too seriously runs counter to that.

 

[Geardaddy]

Wrong. You need to provide some evidence of the superiority of your solution to that cheap lap top, because that's what you've advertised and continue to imply with your statements about dedicated boards and power supplies.

Ponk, what "subjective" experiences do you have with digital sources? Is a laptop suitable?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Ponk, what "subjective" experiences do you have with digital sources? Is a laptop suitable?

A Windows machine and two Macs. One with a hard drive and one with SS drive. On the latter, I've played Apple lossless files from a HD plugged in via usb, I've played files directly from the SS MacBook drive without the HD attached. I've played it with the standard Apple power supply and played from battery only. I've connected usb directly to a DAC. I've connected directly via optical from the Mac to my active speakers with built-in DAC. I've connected wirelessly to an Apple TV, then optical from there to my active speakers. I've connected usb to a converter and sent out optical and coax to the speakers. I've done a bunch of the above, except for the wireless, with a couple of different headphone amps as well. It all sounds the same, as it should.

Maybe I'm lucky. Or deaf. Or maybe high end component merchants are finding non-existing problems in digital audio to sell solutions to. But I've never seen anyone produce any solid evidence of the superiority of dedicated audio computers with linear power supplies over using the laptop that's probably already in your house.

Tim

 

[amirm]

According to the thought process around here the holy grail of computer sourced sound can be had from a cheap laptop. In that case as long as the sound matches it with the ultra clean supply and customized computer board, it will sound as good as it can get.

So as long as it functions as advertised, we have a winner. Don't forget about the 10 year Warranty. Does your laptop come with that?

I'll tell you what for 50% off we can install a noisy SMPS similar to what your laptop uses. We'll call it the ASR edition.

Putting aside the confusion on your part on what we are about, if the laptop is such a low bar, then it should be a walk in the park to exceed its performance. So far, the digital tweaks that I have tested are incapable of doing so, and in some cases actually degrade performance relative to said laptop!

So it is clear, we very much like to have controlled listening tests. If you lack that, measurements are OK. What is not OK is claiming you hear something without either one of the foregoing. That kind of folklore is best shouted from mountaintop on other forums.

 

[Thomas savage]

Lighten up old chap. Liberty of expression is essential to all intellectual pursuits. Taking this forum or its membership too seriously runs counter to that.

I will pass that message on to the members who express their utter despair in private conversations with me regarding mikes conduct on the forum.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hello? Mike? Helllllloooooo?

No. I didn't think so.

Tim

 

[Geardaddy]

A Windows machine and two Macs. One with a hard drive and one with SS drive. On the latter, I've played Apple lossless files from a HD plugged in via usb, I've played files directly from the SS MacBook drive without the HD attached. I've played it with the standard Apple power supply and played from battery only. I've connected usb directly to a DAC. I've connected directly via optical from the Mac to my active speakers with built-in DAC. I've connected wirelessly to an Apple TV, then optical from there to my active speakers. I've connected usb to a converter and sent out optical and coax to the speakers. I've done a bunch of the above, except for the wireless, with a couple of different headphone amps as well. It all sounds the same, as it should.

Maybe I'm lucky. Or deaf. Or maybe high end component merchants are finding non-existing problems in digital audio to sell solutions to. But I've never seen anyone produce any solid evidence of the superiority of dedicated audio computers with linear power supplies over using the laptop that's probably already in your house.

Tim

The whole transport issue is an interesting one. What is optimal? I certainly have no clue. For better or for worse, I have always noted sonic changes with transport changes. This is certainly not something I wanted to experience in an already complex and bitchy equation. By way of history, I have been in the "streaming" game since the early 2000s with Sonos>>Squeezebox>>modded Apple airport express (Zardoz...now La Rosita)>>Spatial computing a la Clayton Shaw which used a Mac Mini (and all digital room correction and X-over controls); modified and tweaked Mac mini (using Amara and later PureMusic); a Macbook Air, an Auralic Aries, a NUC running Roon/HQP and most recently a Superstream from our friendly neighborhood, audio-sociopath Blizzard. Of all those, the unmodded Mini and laptop sounded the worst.

My secret hope is for a dac that has been engineered to be impervious to source. The Phison PD2 appears to be best I have owned in that department.

Backing out the lens a bit, one realizes the speaker/room part of the equation generates enormous distortion by comparison and is probably where most of our psychic energy should be directed.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The whole transport issue is an interesting one. What is optimal? I certainly have no clue. For better or for worse, I have always noted sonic changes with transport changes. This is certainly not something I wanted to experience in an already complex and bitchy equation. By way of history, I have been in the "streaming" game since the early 2000s with Sonos>>Squeezebox>>modded Apple airport express (Zardoz...now La Rosita)>>Spatial computing a la Clayton Shaw which used a Mac Mini (and all digital room correction and X-over controls); modified and tweaked Mac mini (using Amara and later PureMusic); a Macbook Air, an Auralic Aries, a NUC running Roon/HQP and most recently a Superstream from our friendly neighborhood, audio-sociopath Blizzard. Of all those, the unmodded Mini and laptop sounded the worst.

My secret hope is for a dac that has been engineered to be impervious to source. The Phison PD2 appears to be best I have owned in that department.

Backing out the lens a bit, one realizes the speaker/room part of the equation generates enormous distortion by comparison and is probably where most of our psychic energy should be directed.

Well, you hear what you hear. I can't argue with that. I don't hear it and I have yet to see anything verified by measurements or listening tests that tells me I'm missing something, so I'm glad I don't hear it. YMMV.

Tim

 

[Purité Audio]

Once I am back on my feet I will organise a proper unsighted comparison between my MacBook , which has been my reference for the past ten years and the SS, for me the SS works, it is really neat ,elegant and it allows me to suggest a solution to clients .
As GD states above and I agree the big gains are loudspeakers and rooms .
Keith

 

[ceedee]

The whole transport issue is an interesting one. What is optimal?

Transparency, I would say. You want a transport to faithfully transmit the data to the DAC, right?

If I had two digital transports (hardware or software) and they sounded different, I would think something is wrong with one or both of them.

For better or for worse, I have always noted sonic changes with transport changes.

This is a case in which I think you would find blind tests most useful. Maybe you will confirm that you can hear the differences, or perhaps you will find that you don't, and can stop wasting time and money on things that don't matter. It's a win-win!

This is certainly not something I wanted to experience in an already complex and bitchy equation.

When we talk about the many cognitive biases that humans suffer from, it isn't limited to what we want to happen. Yes, that can influence the outcome, but it's certainly not the only factor. We can also be influenced by the suggestion in the audiophile industry that if we don't hear these differences, something is wrong with our system or our ears.

But in a lot of anecdotal accounts, I think there probably are differences that are heard. Maybe there's a very small volume difference, or a difference in mastering when comparing resolution, etc. In other words, not eliminating all of the variables. What about getting up from the listening chair and making a change? Does your head return to exactly the same position? If it's an inch to the left or right, the frequency response will change – often drastically. If a listening test is uncontrolled, we have no way of knowing.

Proper listening tests combined with measurements (like what Amir posts here) help us keep the industry more honest. There are companies which prey on the audiophile's misunderstanding of how digital works. As consumers, we should require intellectual honesty of those who attempt to sell us solutions to unclear 'problems'. If they claim lower noise, we should be skeptical until the measurements show that.

 

[leobloom]

The whole transport issue is an interesting one. What is optimal? I certainly have no clue. For better or for worse, I have always noted sonic changes with transport changes. This is certainly not something I wanted to experience in an already complex and bitchy equation. By way of history, I have been in the "streaming" game since the early 2000s with Sonos>>Squeezebox>>modded Apple airport express (Zardoz...now La Rosita)>>Spatial computing a la Clayton Shaw which used a Mac Mini (and all digital room correction and X-over controls); modified and tweaked Mac mini (using Amara and later PureMusic); a Macbook Air, an Auralic Aries, a NUC running Roon/HQP and most recently a Superstream from our friendly neighborhood, audio-sociopath Blizzard. Of all those, the unmodded Mini and laptop sounded the worst.

My secret hope is for a dac that has been engineered to be impervious to source. The Phison PD2 appears to be best I have owned in that department.

Backing out the lens a bit, one realizes the speaker/room part of the equation generates enormous distortion by comparison and is probably where most of our psychic energy should be directed.

Bits are bits, how can they sound different with a different transport?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Bits are bits, how can they sound different with a different transport?

Theoretically if the power supply or activity of the computer generates noise, but it's easily measurable and somehow the guys selling solutions to these problems never have measurements.

Tim

 

[leobloom]

Theoretically if the power supply or activity of the computer generates noise, but it's easily measurable and somehow the guys selling solutions to these problems never have measurements.

Tim

Where are the blind listening tests?

 

[fas42]

Theoretically if the power supply or activity of the computer generates noise, but it's easily measurable and somehow the guys selling solutions to these problems never have measurements.

Tim

If it was easily measurable, or rather the effects were easily measurable, then manufacturers would be proudly stating it, all the time. I have never tried to measure this myself, and the fact the people with the expensive instruments have not yet come up with convincing explanations, linking numbers to subjective experiences, to me says not enough has been done, to date, to give people the right tools - something for the future to sort out ...

 

[ceedee]

the fact the people with the expensive instruments have not yet come up with convincing explanations, linking numbers to subjective experiences, to me says not enough has been done, to date, to give people the right tools

I agree with you if you mean controlled tests. But, to my knowledge, there are not controlled tests/studies that show the need for special computers to play our audio satisfactorily.

If you mean regular subjective anecdotal experiences, then I couldn't disagree more. Why waste time trying to "find the measurements" to explain something that can't be "observed" when the subject doesn't know the answer in advance?

The most likely explanation is that the problem doesn't exist in well-engineered gear, which fortunately is available to everyone at very low cost. It's better for these companies to never measure anything than it is to provide measurements that show their products do nothing! Heck, we know at least one company who provides a solution for the supposed "USB-noise-from-your-regular-computer" problem who admitted to not owning the measurement gear!

I think none of us would be so arrogant as to proclaim that we know everything that can be measured. Fortunately, all it takes is controlled testing to prove that we're missing something. I won't hold my breath, though.

 

[fas42]

I agree with you if you mean controlled tests. But, to my knowledge, there are not controlled tests/studies that show the need for special computers to play our audio satisfactorily.

If you mean regular subjective anecdotal experiences, then I couldn't disagree more. Why waste time trying to "find the measurements" to explain something that can't be "observed" when the subject doesn't know the answer in advance?

All tests need to be "controlled" in some manner, to be meaningful. Obviously the best method is for hard numbers to be available, to show that there is some measurable aspect to improvements, subjective or otherwise. "Special computers" are just another version of the need for all aspects of audio playback to be tightly optimised, for the best subjective results - it will always end up coming down to whether there are audible improvements or not.

Personally, all the listening tests which are based on the idea of one variation sounding "better" than another are nonsense - a pointless method of trying to identify what needs to be improved upon. I use "subjective" assessment, but I listen for flaws being present of not - it's a simple Yes/No decision on some aspect of the quality. When the equipment presents the sound with no discernible flaws then it is 'correct' - what I need is instrumentation that can measure that ...