Blizzard's new Super Stream

[Phelonious Ponk]

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 ...

Amir managed to measure the noise from the audiophile wall wart attached to that ethernet converter. He managed to measure the lack of it without the wall wart. But maybe there are mystery noises that can't be measured. Or maybe the noise is just not there and the guys selling these things are selling a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I think that may have happened before in high-end audio products.

Tim

 

[bibo01]

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 ...

I quote this, but my reply is for anyone involved.
We at Italian NextHardware.com have been measuring and discussing differences in media players. We have spent over 80 pages at doing that (I can give link if required) and, although the thread went astray, our experience and tests are not over.
Let me tell you what happened: one of our technician users was surprised to hear in his system differences between media players - Foobar, Daphile and WTF - all playing bit-perfect material.
After making sure that those differences actually existed through controlled blind testing with various people involved, we started to measure looking for differences. Testing protocols were applied and various people were involved to confirm results. All software players were playing on the same PC, captures were repeated at least three times under differences circumstances.
To make story short, Foobar (and its PC and OS) produced more jitter than WTF, which somehow influenced the DAC USB receiver, even though this was powered separately from PC and galvanic isolated (supposedly).
The following is a brief demonstration of results:
Foobar:

WTF:

Testing instruments was recently certified:

All this is to say that with the right gear, expertise and time in hand it is possible to measure transport differences, hardware and/or software, but that most of the times it has relevance to the place it was measured only.

PS: I must admit that without Blizzard/Mivera this thread has no sense anymore and its latest discussion can be taken elsewhere.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I think it is necessary to know more about the above measurements, system setup, etc. I am not clear on exactly what is being measured, but whatever it is, I do see a small difference which might be audible. However, you mention jitter differences, and this does not look like a typical jitter spectrum, as in a J-Test. Perhaps a link would further clarify what we are looking at, assuming it is in English. Or, perhaps you could provide more detail yourself.

 

[leobloom]

I think it is necessary to know more about the above measurements, system setup, etc. I am not clear on exactly what is being measured, but whatever it is, I do see a small difference which might be audible. However, you mention jitter differences, and this does not look like a typical jitter spectrum, as in a J-Test. Perhaps a link would further clarify what we are looking at, assuming it is in English. Or, perhaps you could provide more detail yourself.

All people need is any computer or laptop. Why use anything else?

 

[Geardaddy]

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.

What is transparency? Faithfully transmitting data? Every transport does that by definition otherwise there would be a void of silence without music. There is obviously more to it than 1 + 0s based on my "experience." Some hints as to why can be found here in an article written by someone with one of the finest pedigrees in the industry: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0509/

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!

I do plenty of blinded testing using my wife who has a) no bias that would tip the result. In fact, she has a negative bias. She dislikes the hobby and especially dislikes audiophiles. I made the mistake of taking her to Axpona in Atlanta back in 2011, and I never heard the end of it. By her estimation she saw lots of socially inept and slightly creepy philes slithering about....like they were displaced NAMBLA conference attendees.

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.

That is a tired cliche. Psychobabble is not a valid counterpoint IMO when the "science" and potential explanations that come from said science are not readily available.

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.

You don't say.

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.

While that may be true, what to measure and why are more intellectually interesting questions to ponder. As for more measurements, we are all still waiting. A "N" of one is useless science.

Duplicating this experiment in the digital domain only (different formats, transports, etc) would be interesting: http://www.stereophile.com/features/203/#TgDvFiYkD2K4Jqfw.97

 

[leobloom]

creepy philes slithering about....like they were displaced NAMBLA conference attendees.

Sounds accurate.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

All people need is any computer or laptop. Why use anything else?

??? Not looking to try to duplicate the measurements, just trying to understand them. What is the DAC and interconnection method? What is the test signal?

The darker green areas appear to be about the same but the lighter green line is slightly different between the two measurements. What does the lighter green line depict as opposed to the darker green area?

ETC. ETC. As it is, I have no idea what is being suggested. It is meaningless. I have searched the web and found nothing in the way of further explanation.

 

[ceedee]

What is transparency? Faithfully transmitting data?

Yes, that's what I mean by transparency. Ideally, nothing added or subtracted from the signal.

Every transport does that by definition otherwise there would be a void of silence without music.

I don't know what you mean by this. Obviously there are varying levels of noise, jitter, etc. that we can easily measure. Whether we can hear it or not, that's another matter.

That is a tired cliche. Psychobabble is not a valid counterpoint IMO when the "science" and potential explanations that come from said science are not readily available.

Biases and the fallibility of the brain are huge variables that audiophiles often want to leave out of the discussion. My epiphany came when mixing a recording I had made. I was EQ'ing a guitar and had finally found and removed that boomy bass note. After working on it for 10 minutes, I realized the effect had been bypassed the whole time. The EQ wasn't on and was certainly not causing any changes to the signal. That was quite a shock to me, but it's when I realized that I could never truly "trust my ears" without the proper controls. As unpleasant as that was, it did free me from the bondage of audiophile superstition. For the most part, anyway.

You may term it as "psychobabble," but there are a myriad of well-known psychological effects which often come into play, and could plausibly explain anecdotal reports when they conflict with known science. Drug trials have shown for decades that red placebos are more effective stimulants, and blue placebos are more effective sedatives. The cause for that is in the realm of psychology, and I find it fascinating how much is going on behind the scenes in our brains. If only we could control it at will! Of course, reliable and repeatable experiments may prove that a certain phenomenon is not psychological in nature and needs further investigation.

While that may be true, what to measure and why are more intellectually interesting questions to ponder.

I agree there are plenty of intellectually interesting questions still left to ponder!

 

[fas42]

I quote this, but my reply is for anyone involved.
We at Italian NextHardware.com have been measuring and discussing differences in media players. We have spent over 80 pages at doing that (I can give link if required) and, although the thread went astray, our experience and tests are not over.
Let me tell you what happened: one of our technician users was surprised to hear in his system differences between media players - Foobar, Daphile and WTF - all playing bit-perfect material.

bib001, that's a very impressive effort, thanks for putting up your post! Yes, I would be interested in the detail, if you could put up the precise link that would be good - my personal experience has also been that foobar has never delivered as good a quality as some other player, for the particular platform.

 

[leobloom]

bib001, that's a very impressive effort, thanks for putting up your post! Yes, I would be interested in the detail, if you could put up the precise link that would be good - my personal experience has also been that foobar has never delivered as good a quality as some other player, for the particular platform.

All bit perfect software should sound the same? Do you have any data that shows something different?

 

[fas42]

Biases and the fallibility of the brain are huge variables that audiophiles often want to leave out of the discussion. My epiphany came when mixing a recording I had made. I was EQ'ing a guitar and had finally found and removed that boomy bass note. After working on it for 10 minutes, I realized the effect had been bypassed the whole time. The EQ wasn't on and was certainly not causing any changes to the signal. That was quite a shock to me, but it's when I realized that I could never truly "trust my ears" without the proper controls. As unpleasant as that was, it did free me from the bondage of audiophile superstition. For the most part, anyway.

For me, the key is whether focus and effort is being used or not - if the brain is engaged, actively trying to "work it out" then all bets are off!! The more you try, the less likely are the results to be valid, IME. The technique I use is to "switch off", deliberately move my attention elsewhere, to something unrelated to the music - in the background, my brain is still digesting the sound, and if there is an issue then it stands out strongly - I'm hearing it "out of the corner of my ear" ...

 

[fas42]

All bit perfect software should sound the same? Do you any data that shows something different?

They should sound the same - but they don't ... why? IME, because the electrical activity occurring to produce the analogue output varies, and is sometimes enough to cause audible differences.

 

[bibo01]

I think it is necessary to know more about the above measurements, system setup, etc. I am not clear on exactly what is being measured, but whatever it is, I do see a small difference which might be audible. However, you mention jitter differences, and this does not look like a typical jitter spectrum, as in a J-Test. Perhaps a link would further clarify what we are looking at, assuming it is in English. Or, perhaps you could provide more detail yourself.

http://www.nexthardware.com/forum/p...play-misurazioni-e-confronti-con-players.html
This is the link to the discussion I mentioned. You can easily translate it with Chrome browser. Half way through measurements were repeated with single transport.

Sorry but I will not contribute further to the "hijacking" of this thread.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What is transparency? Faithfully transmitting data? Every transport does that by definition otherwise there would be a void of silence without music. There is obviously more to it than 1 + 0s based on my "experience." Some hints as to why can be found here in an article written by someone with one of the finest pedigrees in the industry: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0509/

Ah. One of the original sellers of absurdly expensive solution to imaginary digital problems. I remember this guy from the early days on Computer Audiophile.

Tim

 

[leobloom]

They should sound the same - but they don't ... why? IME, because the electrical activity occurring to produce the analogue output varies, and is sometimes enough to cause audible differences.

http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

 

[fas42]

http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

That's already been viewed - and he is totally correct in what he presents. What he is not measuring is whether the final analogue signal is audibly different ... which is not the same thing as securing a certain technical level of performance.

 

[fas42]

This may be of interest to some here ... I've just been looking at a new, for me, YouTube video of a Schubert classical piece, violin, cello, piano,

and this is right on the edge of being listenable to, on my laptop, even on 720p setting. If I don't make sure every setting that matters for SQ on my laptop is correct, this is quite unpleasant to listen to, very scratchy and irritating in quality. For me, this is now a highly valuable 'test', helping me differentiate different scenarios.

I would be curious as to how this clip comes across for others ...

 

[March Audio]

They should sound the same - but they don't ... why? IME, because the electrical activity occurring to produce the analogue output varies, and is sometimes enough to cause audible differences.

What on earth does that mean?

 

[fas42]

What on earth does that mean?

Exactly what it says. One starts with data stored on some medium, and ends up with an analogue signal being fed into a transducer, producing acoustic output - everything in between are electrical circuits, being activated in various ways. Some of that circuit activity may not be obvious, for example media player software code instructing the computer processor to behave in a certain pattern. This may be called "digital", but it's still analogue circuitry in its fundamental operation - if the full history of what occurs in all this circuitry is different for two methods of playing an audio file, then there is scope for a difference in the audible result.

 

[FrantzM]

What on earth does that mean?

Please don't ask. You could get an answer!