INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile  (Read 61457 times)

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #50 on: March 07, 2011, 05:10:16 am »

Using a PC for audio is PCM audio.
PCM is samples (the bits) and sample rate, the timing.
Both must be right.
The bits are probably the easiest part. When configured right players like MC can deliver bit perfect output.
The timing is a more complex affair.
We need some expensive gear to measure small deviations in timing properly.
Home Theater and High Fidelity tested the jitter on the SPDIF out of a blue-ray player in stop mode and running.

Indeed running the system doubles the jitter.
However, 5 or 10 ps are very low values.
The periodic jitter (the spikes) is probably more relevant.
One thing is obvious, indeed the higher electrical activity as a result of the system running maps into a measurable difference in jitter at the SPDIF out.
How this translates to a "PC" is another question.


Thanks Vincent,
makes a lot of sense to me. Timing and EMI are the main issues than just 1's and 0's. Been playing around with computer PSU's, clock speeds, power fllters, and software activity to reduce this type of thing. so far doing well. but still far to go. I look forward to the day where we have specially designed PC transports for hi end Hi Fi.
Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

cncb

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3105
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #51 on: March 07, 2011, 10:43:27 am »

I don't have a great feel for what those numbers mean but it does appear that the scale is "picoseconds" and "nanoseconds".  If someone can hear differences on that scale then I think they should wear a cape and mask and have some kind of sidekick.

Also, please point me to the "EMI" setting in MC.
Logged
-Craig    MO 4Media remote and player:  Android/TV/Auto | iOS | Windows 10/UWP

Vincent Kars

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #52 on: March 07, 2011, 11:20:15 am »

Also, please point me to the "EMI" setting in MC.

Memory playback
Indeed no head movements during playback so reducing electrical activity.
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #53 on: March 07, 2011, 11:30:18 am »

Timing and EMI are the main issues than just 1's and 0's.]

EMI will only impact audio quality when using analog outputs (post-DAC).  Digital bitstreams on copper ARE certainly susceptible to EMI, like any electrical signal.  The difference is that digital signals sent over a serial digital bus (like USB, 1394, or SPDIF) cannot "degrade" gracefully when they encounter EMI.

People think of EMI as impacting digital audio using the context they've learned over years of dealing with analog audio (ground loops and whatnot), but they're not the same thing at all.  Any data coming over a digital bus will have a certain amount of redundancy built-in for error correction, so that if the bitstream becomes corrupted in route, the devices on the bus actually KNOW that it has been corrupted.  It can either recover the data using the error correcting parity bits (and then when it plays it is still bit-for-bit perfect) or it will lose the data completely.  At that point, either you'll hear a very audible "gap" in playback, or if there is enough time in the buffer (and the bus supports it) the "recipient" can request that the "sender" re-send the missing data.  EMI literally cannot "color" the music or anything like that over a digital bus.  It can corrupt it, but you'd absolutely KNOW that something was going on, because you'd get either nothing at all or horrible "screeching and static" noises.  Either the interference isn't enough to change the data, or the data stream becomes corrupted (more than the error correction can handle) and it fails.  Flipping even one "bit" from an EMI blast doesn't "color" the sound, it breaks it.

Timing is certainly something else, and that's why any DAC will buffer the input before sending it to output.  The buffer on the DAC allows it to "smooth out" the jitter and other latency problems on the input signal.  This latency can come from the sending device, or from the DAC itself (latency can be introduced by the DAC itself as it processes error correction).  As long as the latency doesn't exceed the buffer size of the DAC, the latency also should not have an audible impact (unless the DAC is very poorly designed).  If a buffer underrun occurs, again, the audio will actually just stop or "skip", not change in "quality".

Of course, computers are much more variable in the workload they have to process, so the jitter patterns are possibly substantially more complex than what you'd get off of a standalone component (though not always, I've seen standalone devices outrun their buffers plenty of times, especially when loading a particularly "complex" feature of some kind).  So, it is theoretically possible (though unlikely), that you could end up with audible problems due to jitter if there is so serious that it is constantly "on the edge" of causing a buffer underrun on the DAC.  If this is the case, you probably either have serious EMI problems or a very underpowered PC.  Audio is just not that "difficult" of a computational task for modern CPUs to handle.

Likewise, computers are absolutely NOT the only devices that suffer from jitter.  In fact, that BluRay player (or DVR, game console, DVD player, or even standalone CD player) you have really IS actually a computer inside.  If you tear the case open and look, you'll see that they use many of the exact same components as you'd find on your PC's motherboard.  There are only so many chip designs for things like DSPs and whatnot out there, and real custom silicon is incredibly expensive (we're talking Billions with a B just to get test spins of silicon designs which might not even work).  I'm sure there are a few audio devices that use FPGAs to do some processing, but those are still expensive and SLOW (and difficult to program effectively without a large team of highly-paid chip engineers).  I'd be willing to bet that actual custom silicon (where they contract TSMC or TI to build them a real chip) in the audio processing space is either completely non-existent or incredibly rare and reserved for things way out of all of our price ranges.  There just isn't a good reason to do it and the costs would price you out of even the audiophile market without economies of scale.  Even if they DID do it, I would be very skeptical that they could do it well.  Custom silicon design is an incredibly complex and expensive process to do correctly, and there are all sorts of things that can wrong.  Custom is absolutely NOT better.  Custom is generally LESS reliable.

Now, to be clear, that isn't to say that there isn't a difference between a high-quality DAC and a cheap consumer one!  Far from it.  It is just that the differences typically lie in features (amount of buffer, accuracy of timing clocks, etc) on the digital side, and on the ANALOG side (post-decode).  And, it is entirely possible that different DACs will react to "unexpected conditions" in unpredictable ways post-decode.  I can, at least, imagine that some very high levels of jitter and/or latency could conceivably cause problems with some specialized DACs that expect a pristine input signal (I'd call that poor design, but who knows).  It is also possible that some DACs might react differently on the analog side to types of connections on the input side (even though the bits are the same, it might process the SPDIF input differently than it does the USB input or HDMI input).  They probably shouldn't (the same digital bits coming in, once decoded, should route to the same exact system for output), but who knows.  I can imagine that DACs probably have complex logic to work around many of the "errors" that are common on crappier input devices (improperly formatted streams and whatnot).  This logic introduces complexity that could conceivably "color" the analog output side, I suppose (again, I'd blame the DAC though).

But, for a digital input bitstream sent over a digital serial bus, either the information gets there perfectly or it doesn't get there at all.  There is no in-between like there is with an analog signal.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #54 on: March 07, 2011, 04:21:43 pm »

[author=glynor link=topic=62784.msg421149#msg421149 date=1299519018]
Quote
EMI will only impact audio quality when using analog outputs (post-DAC)
.

I disagree. EMI affects digital stream as it has a clock. A clock is analogous in nature, there are plenty of articles regarding 'sample rate' of digital audio. Whether the clock is in the computer or dac, EMI from electrical components ESPECIALLY computer affects this directly or indirectly through powered components. Computers have many clocks running at once at different frequencies. the psu in a computer is swtich mode. not sure if you have read how dirty and noisy a switch mode power supply is?

Quote
Digital bitstreams on copper ARE certainly susceptible to EMI, like any electrical signal.  The difference is that digital signals sent over a serial digital bus (like USB, 1394, or SPDIF) cannot "degrade" gracefully when they encounter EMI.

USB have blocks of data sent analogously, 'timing' it is VERY susceptible from noise of EMI.

Quote
Timing is certainly something else, and that's why any DAC will buffer the input before sending it to output.  The buffer on the DAC allows it to "smooth out" the jitter and other latency problems on the input signal.  This latency can come from the sending device, or from the DAC itself (latency can be introduced by the DAC itself as it processes error correction).  As long as the latency doesn't exceed the buffer size of the DAC, the latency also should not have an audible impact (unless the DAC is very poorly designed).  If a buffer underrun occurs, again, the audio will actually just stop or "skip", not change in "quality".

The EMI from computers will reach the DAC, it's best to reduce computer activity to clean up the timing. power filters also work well, to some extent.

Quote
Of course, computers are much more variable in the workload they have to process, so the jitter patterns are possibly substantially more complex than what you'd get off of a standalone component (though not always, I've seen standalone devices outrun their buffers plenty of times, especially when loading a particularly "complex" feature of some kind).  So, it is theoretically possible (though unlikely), that you could end up with audible problems due to jitter if there is so serious that it is constantly "on the edge" of causing a buffer underrun on the DAC.  If this is the case, you probably either have serious EMI problems or a very underpowered PC.  Audio is just not that "difficult" of a computational task for modern CPUs to handle.

but computers are not made to be Audio transports either, the auido over USB is very much an afterthought. DAC makers now have improved GREATLY with Asynchronous mode USB, and not dreaded Adaptive. I guess people were ok with, and had no issues with Adaptive mode until Asynchronous popped up? I like to keep an open mind on this subject and glad DAC makers do to. It's what improves the audio over the computer for us. When people say, no way, digital will just work, is when we get stuck in ruts and no desire to improve it. USB audio is improving, due to the open minds of people who want more from it. Funny enough, with these kinds of discussions, audio from a computer is improving!!




Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

popper

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #55 on: March 07, 2011, 04:31:51 pm »

wasapi events is the mode i use for my external DAC. I use JRiver only because it has this driver.
 i Ive tried others software and drivers, the wasapi events is very close to aqvox and ploytec asio drivers (that are notre free).
i confirm the usb cable is relevant. I use, at the USB input of DAC a supply for produce the 5V to the input usb receiver circuit of the DAC  (this supply replace the 5V of USB cable delivered by the computer, i placed a filtered power chord Lavardin for this supply for better results).

The differences with this software/drivers and hardware settings are (with my installation but NOT ONLY with MY ears) very substantials. The problem is to choose...
Logged

Vincent Kars

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #56 on: March 07, 2011, 04:38:07 pm »

I guess people where ok about Isochronous until Asynchronous popped up?

AV over USB is done in Isochronous transfer mode.
Isochronous transfer can be done with three possible types of synchronization in the USB audio device, synchronous, adaptive and asynchronous.
Asynchronous mode is considered best in terms of jitter reduction compared with the 2 other modes.
As usual results depends very much on the quality of the implementation.
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/USB.html

Logged

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #57 on: March 07, 2011, 04:41:56 pm »

wasapi events is the mode i use for my external DAC. I use JRiver only because it has this driver.
 i Ive tried others software and drivers, the wasapi events is very close to aqvox and ploytec asio drivers (that are notre free).
i confirm the usb cable is relevant. I use, at the USB input of DAC a supply for produce the 5V to the input usb receiver circuit of the DAC  (this supply replace the 5V of USB cable delivered by the computer, i placed a filtered power chord Lavardin for this supply for better results).

The differences with this software/drivers and hardware settings are (with my installation but NOT ONLY with MY ears) very substantials. The problem is to choose...

I think the WASAPI event is a great development. I can see it working realy well in some DAC's. WASAPI orignal just has that bit of an edge in transparency to make me want to use it on the Ayre.
I'm very curious if the separate break in USB power supply will work well with my Ayre DAC. as the Ayre's USB controller is still powered by the computer, but the digital stream is isolated with optics. although Ayre have gone to great lengths to improve noise over the 5v, wonder if this will take it further.
Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

Vincent Kars

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #58 on: March 07, 2011, 05:09:39 pm »

I’m afraid you are mixing up the USB transfer modes and the synchronization.
All DACs use Isochronous transfer mode.
Most of them use adaptive mode but if we look at recent offerings asynchronous is becoming more popular.
The QB9 is a USB class 2 audio device using isochronous transfer mode with  asynchronous synchronization (DAC times the data out of the PC)

A bit more about transfer modes: http://www.beyondlogic.org/usbnutshell/usb4.shtml
Logged

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #59 on: March 07, 2011, 05:17:23 pm »

I’m afraid you are mixing up the USB transfer modes and the synchronization.
All DACs use Isochronous transfer mode.
Most of them use adaptive mode but if we look at recent offerings asynchronous is becoming more popular.
The QB9 is a USB class 2 audio device using isochronous transfer mode with  asynchronous synchronization (DAC times the data out of the PC)

A bit more about transfer modes: http://www.beyondlogic.org/usbnutshell/usb4.shtml

Ah yes, i see!, Adaptive or Asynchronous i should have said. not Asynchronous or Isochronous. Have fixed up the post, Thanks
Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

popper

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #60 on: March 07, 2011, 05:56:41 pm »

I think the WASAPI event is a great development. I can see it working realy well in some DAC's. WASAPI orignal just has that bit of an edge in transparency to make me want to use it on the Ayre.
I'm very curious if the separate break in USB power supply will work well with my Ayre DAC. as the Ayre's USB controller is still powered by the computer, but the digital stream is isolated with optics. although Ayre have gone to great lengths to improve noise over the 5v, wonder if this will take it further.
the 5V supply i use can be seen on aqvox site http://www.aqvox.de/usb-power_en.html, ive tried (and bought) their usb cable. ive added flirerd power chord for the supply , i've choosed a lavardin power chord http://www.lavardin.com/lavardin-cablesE.html.
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #61 on: March 07, 2011, 10:38:38 pm »

[author=glynor link=topic=62784.msg421149#msg421149 date=1299519018].
I disagree. EMI affects digital stream as it has a clock. A clock is analogous in nature, there are plenty of articles regarding 'sample rate' of digital audio. Whether the clock is in the computer or dac, EMI from electrical components ESPECIALLY computer affects this directly or indirectly through powered components. Computers have many clocks running at once at different frequencies. the psu in a computer is swtich mode. not sure if you have read how dirty and noisy a switch mode power supply is?

I think we have different understandings of what I meant by "impacting audio quality".  I suppose I should have used more precise language.  I meant that it cannot change the content of the audio stream.

I do agree that timing can be impacted, perhaps dramatically (but almost certainly not in most cases), by latency and jitter on the digital bus.  I specifically exempted timing.  But, because in the context of "home theater" audio playback there is no reason to require real-time playback, and timing issues for any digital bus can be handled by a buffer (assuming that the DAC can get or generate an accurate clock), I'm not sure it matters in this context.  Audio interfaces used for real-time recording and synthesis, pro audio gear, obviously can't use a substantial input buffer or rely upon an external clock, and for them, latency matters a great deal.  Also, latency is a big problem when you need to sync audio with a video track.  For basic music playback, though, you have plenty of opportunity to use a buffer size so substantial that timing variations on the bus should be completely mitigated.  The vast majority of the time, any failures caused by EMI interference on the bus are going to be so spectacular (like if you have a "broken" cable) that the audio stream will stop or stutter dramatically (and everyone in the room would know something is terribly wrong).

But either way... I do admit that I don't know a huge deal about high-end audiophile DAC design, so I could certainly be completely wrong.  So I'll grant you, it is possible (though unlikely) that timing issues on the bus could, maybe, have an audible impact.

However, I do know quite a bit about how data transmissions work over a digital bus.  If there are high-end DACs that depend upon the stream coming from the computer to handle timing without an adequate buffer and without a way to guarantee a clock accurate enough to exceed the human capacity to notice the variations, then I would call that a failing of the DAC design, not of the computer sending the data stream.  Maybe they exist, and maybe they're everywhere, but that doesn't seem that it should be an insurmountable challenge of engineering.  The impact of latency and EMI on CPU and GPU design is a much more difficult problem, but yet Nvidia and AMD put out new GPUs every 6-8 months that seem to be solving those same problems under much greater demands for precision.  If audio devices really are as sensitive to these latency issues as some manufacturers would have you believe, then it would seem to be either (a) an unbelievable engineering failure on the part of the device manufacturers, or (b) done on purpose.  And, even if it was true, I would also guess that the same exact issues would impact the vast majority of other audio consumer electronics devices manufactured today, because they all suffer from the same design problems (in fact, EM problems in the CE space are often magnified by smaller case designs and tighter thermal requirements).  So what is the point of reference?

That was generally the point of my previous missive.  EMI can impact timing, it cannot impact the data stream integrity in a way that doesn't cause spectacular and obvious failures.  I suspect that you can mitigate the timing issues, but I grant that this is a troublesome area.  But if the total latency is measured in values of less than 1ns?  I'm open minded, but skeptical.

In the end, I'll say this:  If the goal is to chase perfection for the sheer joy of perfection, then that's fine, it just does not appeal to me.  There is no true perfection in this world, and I'm really okay with that.  Perfection is boring.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #62 on: March 07, 2011, 11:13:32 pm »

I thought I was done, but I wasn't quite.  I'm gonna get philosophical, cause, you know... Why not?   ;D

I don't, personally, equate perfection in audio accuracy with "quality".  I don't even really fully understand the desire. The actual music you are listening to (with perhaps the exception of some drum and bass stuff made by engineers/physicists/crazy people) was almost certainly not made with the same tolerances in mind.  There really is no perfection.  Heck, many of the artists themselves can't even hear very well, and a good percentage of the best were stoned out of their minds when they made the music (including, and especially, those classical composers).  And no recording system yet invented by man really accurately captures what it is to be there to experience the moment live.  When we play back a recording, it is a convincing simulation of a moment which usually never actually really happened.

Music isn't about that for me.  It isn't about perfection.  The vocals for one of my favorite songs were recorded with an answering machine "because it was there".  One of my most powerful memories of music was listening to a U2 song played on the radio, filled with static, tuned by a terrible GE alarm clock radio.

Music is about the experience, and how it affects you, personally.

And, that's why I'd say "I don't get it, but more power to you."  If it really makes your experience better, who cares if it is psychosomatic or not?  So long as you have the money to buy the stuff (you aren't risking your future or hurting anyone else) then what does it matter and who am I to judge?
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #63 on: March 07, 2011, 11:32:23 pm »

I thought I was done, but I wasn't quite.  I'm gonna get philosophical, cause, you know... Why not?   ;D

I don't, personally, equate perfection in audio accuracy with "quality".  I don't even really fully understand the desire. The actual music you are listening to (with perhaps the exception of some drum and bass stuff made by engineers/physicists/crazy people) was almost certainly not made with the same tolerances in mind.  There really is no perfection.  Heck, many of the artists themselves can't even hear very well, and a good percentage of the best were stoned out of their minds when they made the music (including, and especially, those classical composers).  And no recording system yet invented by man really accurately captures what it is to be there to experience the moment live.  When we play back a recording, it is a convincing simulation of a moment which usually never actually really happened.

Music isn't about that for me.  It isn't about perfection.  The vocals for one of my favorite songs were recorded with an answering machine "because it was there".  One of my most powerful memories of music was listening to a U2 song played on the radio, filled with static, tuned by a terrible GE alarm clock radio.

Music is about the experience, and how it affects you, personally.

And, that's why I'd say "I don't get it, but more power to you."  If it really makes your experience better, who cares if it is psychosomatic or not?  So long as you have the money to buy the stuff (you aren't risking your future or hurting anyone else) then what does it matter and who am I to judge?

I completely agree with you here.
I love music, and i also love hi-fi and electronics  ;) rare occasions the 2 do not go hand in hand. some days it's all about the music, and enjoy listening even on, dare i say cheap ipod headphones walking around the city. I almost sure i am deliberately using the shittiest of headphones just so i get involved with the music than tweaking it to get it better.
Then i get home to the hi-fi. it sounds so surreal like i'm actually in the same room as the musicians, as mentioned before i love audio mastering so i think about how it sounds.. a lot. when the bug hits, I want more, is like a drug. if you spend quite a bit of time with very transparent equipment, you realise that nearly anything you do, can change the sound just a tiny bit, or very noticeable. It is an obsessive hobby. It's not for everyone!  ;D
Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

popper

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #64 on: March 08, 2011, 01:57:02 am »

ive choosed the wasapi events driver and made many adjustments in hardware stuffs, coerds ans supplies to optimize without change the driver mode.So today, cause of this discussion, ive tried the wasapi dtriver (not the event one), and the sound is really another one, more mixed, soft, sweet, confortable, bath of sound, the wasapi events is more precise, clear, physical, punchy, real presence of musicians and air around them, 3d effects etc... the 2 are convenients with the different minds i could have when i go to listen music.Intersesting...
Logged

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #65 on: March 08, 2011, 02:09:12 am »

ive choosed the wasapi events driver and made many adjustments in hardware stuffs, coerds ans supplies to optimize without change the driver mode.So today, cause of this discussion, ive tried the wasapi dtriver (not the event one), and the sound is really another one, more mixed, soft, sweet, confortable, bath of sound, the wasapi events is more precise, clear, physical, punchy, real presence of musicians and air around them, 3d effects etc... the 2 are convenients with the different minds i could have when i go to listen music.Intersesting...

Did you try it with the WASAPI buffer set at 1.99sec, and pre buffer to 20sec?
Yes i agree, the WASAPI original is softer, sweeter, golden, more analoge soundinging i would say and musical bit more depth. The event style, precise, little bleached, bit more bass presence. i guess my ears and system likes original wasapi. Am glad you heard what i heard  ;D!!!
Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

popper

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #66 on: March 08, 2011, 02:24:11 am »

not yet, i have to go now, ill try it
Logged

pcstockton

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #67 on: March 08, 2011, 04:16:24 pm »

I wanted to chime in with a recent experience.

I was listening to Pixies Trompe Le Monde and noticed some serious sibilance.  I had never noticed it before and scratched my head.  I skipped around through different albums and different artist and I heard it everywhere.

I approached the speaker with an ear at the tweeter, I panned the balance back and forth, etc...  It was coming through in both channels and was actually sort of "scratchy", almost distorted.

I paused the music and gave all contacts a "cleaning" by repeated insertion, I made sure my cable dressing (rat's nest) was reasonable, checked all connections etc....  When I went to check the toslink output of my Juli@ soundcard i found the culprit.  The Chord toslink cable was barely inserted.  As soon as I touched it, it fell out.

I snapped the puppy back in tightly, and resumed playback.  All was perfect again.

Many people seem to think that 0s, and 1s, either work or they dont, they are either there or they are not.  I thought the same in a way I suppose.  I figured if the cable either sent a signal or not.  If it had a poor connection I thought I would hear drop-outs even if quick and minute.  In this case the bad connection resulted in EASILY noticeable high frequency distortion or noise.  Anyone who heard it would have assumed it was FM radio or a blown tweeter or something.

All I am saying is that sometimes there is more going on than what meets the (usually uneducated) eye.  On top of that there are many conflicting experiences.  I cannot discern a difference in FLAC vs WAV.  I can though hear the difference in various digital cables.  I can pick a 320mp3 from lossless EVERY time (in my kit).  But I cannot hear any difference between KS and ASIO. 

I am sure there is someone out there with the exact opposite experience with their audio player set-up, DAC, room, ears etc...

The crux of the biscuit though, as some have said above, if it sounds better to you than it is.  To eschew anyone's honest experiences is pretty low.

-Patrick
Logged
HTPC (ASRock Mini PC 252B: i5 2520M Sandy Bridge/HD3000 - 2.5 GHz - 8GB RAM - 256GB Intel SSD - Win7 Home) > MF V-Link 192 > Wireworld Ultraviolet > Naim DAC > Naim NAC 102/NAPSC/HiCap (PSU) > Naim NAP 180 Amp > Naim NACA-5 Speaker Cables > Naim Ariva

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #68 on: March 08, 2011, 05:04:41 pm »

I wanted to chime in with a recent experience.

I was listening to Pixies Trompe Le Monde and noticed some serious sibilance.  I had never noticed it before and scratched my head.  I skipped around through different albums and different artist and I heard it everywhere.

I approached the speaker with an ear at the tweeter, I panned the balance back and forth, etc...  It was coming through in both channels and was actually sort of "scratchy", almost distorted.

I paused the music and gave all contacts a "cleaning" by repeated insertion, I made sure my cable dressing (rat's nest) was reasonable, checked all connections etc....  When I went to check the toslink output of my Juli@ soundcard i found the culprit.  The Chord toslink cable was barely inserted.  As soon as I touched it, it fell out.

I snapped the puppy back in tightly, and resumed playback.  All was perfect again.

Many people seem to think that 0s, and 1s, either work or they dont, they are either there or they are not.  I thought the same in a way I suppose.  I figured if the cable either sent a signal or not.  If it had a poor connection I thought I would hear drop-outs even if quick and minute.  In this case the bad connection resulted in EASILY noticeable high frequency distortion or noise.  Anyone who heard it would have assumed it was FM radio or a blown tweeter or something.

All I am saying is that sometimes there is more going on than what meets the (usually uneducated) eye.  On top of that there are many conflicting experiences.  I cannot discern a difference in FLAC vs WAV.  I can though hear the difference in various digital cables.  I can pick a 320mp3 from lossless EVERY time (in my kit).  But I cannot hear any difference between KS and ASIO.  

I am sure there is someone out there with the exact opposite experience with their audio player set-up, DAC, room, ears etc...

The crux of the biscuit though, as some have said above, if it sounds better to you than it is.  To eschew anyone's honest experiences is pretty low.

-Patrick

Thanks Patrick.
That's a perfect example. The 1's and 0's were there, but it sounds like the timing of these bit's was all a bit of a mess. sounds like what you heard was extreme jitter! the half unplugged cable with slight tiny vibration especially from a computer fan or speakers, and/or loss of focus of the light source from cable to the toslink input optic will definitely mess up the 44,100 or 48,000 (or whatever your output is) cycle per second timing.

Great album by the way...
Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

popper

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #69 on: March 09, 2011, 01:22:18 pm »

ive never heard a difference between wav and flac files.
Logged

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #70 on: March 09, 2011, 05:12:10 pm »

ive never heard a difference between wav and flac files.

some wont. for me, i could never go back.
reason i perceive it to be better, due to less CPU activity, which in turn less computer power, less electrical switching. WAV is a more direct PCM path. more direct path to the dac the better. Even stranger and more inconceivable, AIFF vs WAV. WAV sounds better to me, which really doesn't make sense as both are raw PCM. there are huge discussions on computeraudiophile website with many of us with similar results. these results weren't due to the fact of peer pressure, i found it out myself, then read the discussion which confirmed i wasn't hearing things.
This topic will really get on others nerves. :)
Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

pcstockton

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #71 on: March 09, 2011, 07:45:51 pm »


reason i perceive it to be better, due to less CPU activity, which in turn less computer power, less electrical switching.


Maybe it isn't your convictions, but the way you arrive at them, or try to describe them.

You just stated a "reason" for hearing something.  You might state a reason for the difference.  But your language says these things are why it sounds better to you.

One would have a VERY hard time not attributing self-fulfilling prophecy or placebo to statements like that.

I would simply stick with reporting your experiences rather than postulate about why.  You owe no one any explanation or justification.

In the end everyone will use their own ears.  It isn't like it is hard to take the pepsi challenge oneself.

You prefer WAV (many do)
I cant hear a difference so I use FLAC for ease of tagging and its ubiquity (many do)

Lastly, many of these comparisons are done with quick A-B tests, switching back and forth trying to find a difference somewhere.

The ONLY way you will hear anything ULTRA-subtle like an alleged difference between FLAC and WAV will take long listening sessions.  Listen with Cable A for a month.  Then switch to Cable B for a month.  This will give you much better (truer) results.

-P
Logged
HTPC (ASRock Mini PC 252B: i5 2520M Sandy Bridge/HD3000 - 2.5 GHz - 8GB RAM - 256GB Intel SSD - Win7 Home) > MF V-Link 192 > Wireworld Ultraviolet > Naim DAC > Naim NAC 102/NAPSC/HiCap (PSU) > Naim NAP 180 Amp > Naim NACA-5 Speaker Cables > Naim Ariva

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #72 on: March 09, 2011, 08:03:10 pm »

Maybe it isn't your convictions, but the way you arrive at them, or try to describe them.

You just stated a "reason" for hearing something.  You might state a reason for the difference.  But your language says these things are why it sounds better to you.

One would have a VERY hard time not attributing self-fulfilling prophecy or placebo to statements like that.

I would simply stick with reporting your experiences rather than postulate about why.  You owe no one any explanation or justification.

In the end everyone will use their own ears.  It isn't like it is hard to take the pepsi challenge oneself.

You prefer WAV (many do)
I cant hear a difference so I use FLAC for ease of tagging and its ubiquity (many do)

Lastly, many of these comparisons are done with quick A-B tests, switching back and forth trying to find a difference somewhere.

The ONLY way you will hear anything ULTRA-subtle like an alleged difference between FLAC and WAV will take long listening sessions.  Listen with Cable A for a month.  Then switch to Cable B for a month.  This will give you much better (truer) results.

-P


I do see your point and language used. i wanted to say I do find it better, and to describe what is happening as to why it would sound better. BUT, it sounds better to me, and if i use wrong language that way, people will get annyoed they didn't hear it too. See how this can get confusing.

As for quick A and B, i rarely do that, i do take time listening to if it sounds great, but with more obvious stuff it really does take a 30 second A and B. WAV vs Flac thing, took me just one song to know for sure.
Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

rick.ca

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3729
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #73 on: March 09, 2011, 08:09:34 pm »

Quote
This topic will really get on others nerves.

But perhaps not for the reasons you think. I have no issue with you claiming to hear some difference, or outlining the settings that might have some bearing on the cause (you have to at least describe what you know is different). What's annoying are the unfounded conclusions that one or more specific things are the direct cause of the difference you claim to hear. If you consistently hear "better" sound from WAV than FLAC then use WAV and be happy. There's no need to tell us WAV produces better sound when you have no real evidence of that. It's equally plausible you have some hardware issue that happens to manifest when playing FLAC. Or maybe the problem is triggered by playing WAV, but you perceive the result as "better."

Also annoying is the dismissal of constructive and informative contributions of others on the basis they must be triggered by some kind of nervous disorder. It's possible others just want to participate in what could be an interesting technical discussion—even if it has no clear resolution. The reasons for their interest likely have more to do with their own circumstance than yours. This is why I attempted to suggest providing some kind of reasoning (factual or theoretical) of cause and effect relationships would make the discussion more positive and useful. Looking back over this, I see glynor provided an excellent demonstration of what I'm talking about. You don't have to accept his conclusions to agree his contributions are enlightening and useful.
Logged

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #74 on: March 09, 2011, 08:16:35 pm »

But perhaps not for the reasons you think. I have no issue with you claiming to hear some difference, or outlining the settings that might have some bearing on the cause (you have to at least describe what you know is different). What's annoying are the unfounded conclusions that one or more specific things are the direct cause of the difference you claim to hear. If you consistently hear "better" sound from WAV than FLAC then use WAV and be happy. There's no need to tell us WAV produces better sound when you have no real evidence of that. It's equally plausible you have some hardware issue that happens to manifest when playing FLAC. Or maybe the problem is triggered by playing WAV, but you perceive the result as "better."

Also annoying is the dismissal of constructive and informative contributions of others on the basis they must be triggered by some kind of nervous disorder. It's possible others just want to participate in what could be an interesting technical discussion—even if it has no clear resolution. The reasons for their interest likely have more to do with their own circumstance than yours. This is why I attempted to suggest providing some kind of reasoning (factual or theoretical) of cause and effect relationships would make the discussion more positive and useful. Looking back over this, I see glynor provided an excellent demonstration of what I'm talking about. You don't have to accept his conclusions to agree his contributions are enlightening and useful.

see above, i did give my theories as to why.
why can't i say i prefer WAV. Someone said, they didn't hear a difference between FLAC and WAV, i answered to that 'i did' and gave theories as to why i did. this thread is about these discussions. i don't get your point, and don't get why you are annoyed. I can't show graphs, but Vincent kindly posted one up giving some idea that higher electrical activity can raise jitter.
I'm stating I hear a difference AND giving my reasons as to why. I feel i'm repeating myself.
Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

royviggo

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #75 on: March 11, 2011, 01:44:28 pm »

Thank you JazzDoc and Blaine78!
I've used WASAPI Event style since I ugraded to Arcam rDAC, but I haven't experimented with the output mode and buffer setting before I read this post. I think you're right, there is a (huge) difference between WASAPI and WASAPI Event style. I think WASAPI is better. The differences as I hear them are more space and air around singers and instruments, and more defined, natural sound with greater depth. With WASAPI Event the sound was more edgy and flat, but maybe more dynamic and punchy.

With WASAPI Event style I rated MC 3rd among my software players. First was XXHighEnd (0.9z-3 demo) and second Foobar2000, both with kernel streaming. Foobar was just a tad better than MC. But with WASAPI MC simply is the best sounding IMO ;D
MC is my number one player anyway, because of the features.

I tried FLAC against WAV, but I couldn't hear any difference. Can it be related to PC setup?
Logged

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #76 on: March 11, 2011, 04:06:19 pm »

Thank you JazzDoc and Blaine78!
I've used WASAPI Event style since I ugraded to Arcam rDAC, but I haven't experimented with the output mode and buffer setting before I read this post. I think you're right, there is a (huge) difference between WASAPI and WASAPI Event style. I think WASAPI is better. The differences as I hear them are more space and air around singers and instruments, and more defined, natural sound with greater depth. With WASAPI Event the sound was more edgy and flat, but maybe more dynamic and punchy.

With WASAPI Event style I rated MC 3rd among my software players. First was XXHighEnd (0.9z-3 demo) and second Foobar2000, both with kernel streaming. Foobar was just a tad better than MC. But with WASAPI MC simply is the best sounding IMO ;D
MC is my number one player anyway, because of the features.

I tried FLAC against WAV, but I couldn't hear any difference. Can it be related to PC setup?

yes exactly what i hear too! did you raise the buffer in wasapi setings to 1.99sec (or largest possible without it not working), and increase the pre-buffer to 20sec?
As for Wav vs Flac, if you don't hear a difference, i wouldn't worry about it. some do some don't, maybe you pc processes/decodes flac with no discernible difference.
Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

popper

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #77 on: March 16, 2011, 04:44:00 pm »

After some experiments i have to admit that i hear a real difference between flac and wav files, my hardware configuration have changed several months ago pecially cables) and to make new comparisons is instructive now...  i have many, many flacs files in sub folders of a unique folder. Somebody could have an advice for the method  for convert all flac files in wav (not subfolder one by one?)
Thank you
Logged

Alex B

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10121
  • The Cosmic Bird
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #78 on: March 16, 2011, 05:45:06 pm »

Logged
The Cosmic Bird - a triple merger of galaxies: http://eso.org/public/news/eso0755

rick.ca

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3729
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #79 on: March 16, 2011, 06:13:28 pm »

Quote
Audio Myths Workshop...

Just another attempt to cloud the issue with facts. ;D
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #80 on: March 16, 2011, 08:14:41 pm »

Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #81 on: March 16, 2011, 08:52:22 pm »

Audio Myths Workshop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Nice video, pretty much knew all that and agree with a some, but disagree with much. The narrator of this video is obviously of the school 'measurement equipment only' to get his facts which is flawed, because specs and measurements mean nothing if you don't like how it sounds? While others use their ears to get the sound they like. still doesn't prove anything, just another school of thought. The proof is what the individual person hears and gets out if it. I'm one of those people who are both blessed and cursed with golden ears.

I'll give you an example. I did a course in Audio engineering. In one of the studios i knew immediately something was wrong with the sound that was coming out of the speakers. I mentioned this to the teacher who has been in the field for a number of years. He told me nothing was wrong. i said the speakers are out of phase and it is really obvious to me. Everyone else in the class either didn't notice it or too scared to say anything. he said to me, no they are not, they are set up professionally and are balanced wired speakers, they can't be out of phase. he believed there was nothing wrong because he had faith in the fact 'balanced speakers can never be out of phase' and a 'pro' set them up. turns out they were out of phase according to another teacher and they were fixed.

Would also like to add, i'm not such a audiophile nut as to endorse the use and purchase of expensive cabling. Contrary to some beliefs, they do make a difference. the reason they do, is adding or subtracting capacitance and resistance and are the main reasons of hearing differences. Is more like flavors than transparency and i don't subscribe to the crazy prices for what are essentially filters.  BUT I believe in using good quality, not expensive copper cabling, I use $3 a meter Jaycar OFC copper and bought some nice quality copper (not brass) RCA plugs. it cost me $50 to make up a 50cm pair. My speaker cables are again good quality OFC $5 per meter.
My Power cables are the ones supplied with the equipment, generic.
The USB cable, unfortunately yes indeed made a great and noticeable difference that was genuine. I compared over and over again to the cheaper ones, the cheaper ones did sound scratchy with loss of definition with most instruments. i would have kept the cheaper ones in if they sounded as great and saved $100.

My point being, i'm not an over the top audiophile, and i'm not here to spread nonsense.  
Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

Frobozz

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
  • There is a small mailbox here.
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #82 on: March 16, 2011, 09:20:03 pm »

It would be interesting if MC had an ABX testing module.  Foobar has an ABX testing module.  But theirs is designed for comparing different audio files.  In MC we've got zones.  That opens up additional testing possibilities.  For example you could have one zone set with a DAC doing ASIO and another zone set with the same brand/model DAC doing WASAPI Event Style.  Then the ABX test could compare/test the two.  That would be neat, if it's even something that would be possible in MC.  It would also be a neat way to compare two different DACs.
Logged

rick.ca

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3729
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #83 on: March 17, 2011, 12:16:23 am »

Quote
It would be interesting if MC had an ABX testing module...

Especially if it only did double blind tests, the results of which could only be obtained by posting the data publicly here. 8)
Logged

Blaine78

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #84 on: March 17, 2011, 12:52:21 am »

Especially if it only did double blind tests, the results of which could only be obtained by posting the data publicly here. 8)

Blind tests would be good. then again it will be needed in controlled environment with a setup that is excellent and everybody listening to that same setup. If this is not the possible, the case is not conclusive and would only serve those listening to their own systems in that environment.
Logged
Windows 10 | Sony 55W805C TV | Metrum Acoustics Musette DAC | Luxman L-550AX | PMC Twenty.23

jmone

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 14463
  • I won! I won!
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #85 on: March 17, 2011, 01:27:29 am »

Great subject... and I liked the Audio Myths Workshop as it confirms that we each have different perceptions of what we think makes a difference.  For me I absolutely believe I can hear a difference between:
* Lossy 5.1 DD/DTS Vs TrueHD/DTS-MA tracks on blu-ray discs on my HTPC
* 128K MP3 Vs CD on my HTPC but NOT from a Portable Media Player with $2 Ear Phones

I also hear a difference (and prefer) the HD 24bit/96khz 5.1 mix Vs the same track from a CD source up-mixed by MC to 5.1.... but as pointed out from Matt/Jim this can easily be due to the additional effort that went into the mastering of this version rather than just an increase in Sample Rate and Bit Depth.  As a consumer I don't actually care why the HD version sounds better and as a result I now have a predisposition for HD Audio tracks regardless as I've not heard one that sounds "worse"!  That said, I believe in the law of diminishing returns, so while increases in Sample Rate and Bit Depth will make a measureable difference, the noticeable effect will continue to decrease exponentially (even if the cost to chase the diminishing return increase exponentially!).

Do I think I can hear a difference on my setup between exotic cables, interconnects, lossless formats, power conditioning etc....Nope, and since I tend to think many of them are expensive snake oil, I'll stick to this belief even though I've never ABX it to check it out.  For me the classic AB test I saw in store was a Monster Cable AB Box proving their product produced a better picture, and it did.... but the scam was it was switching between the $200 HDMI Monster Cable carring 1080p VS a Composite Cable carring 576i...really...
Logged
JRiver CEO Elect

popper

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #86 on: March 17, 2011, 03:28:43 am »

why suspecting things that everybody can experiment? all persons who listen to my installation constat differences when changing power cable or driver type of wasapi for example, the same kind of difference, but they taste and appreciate differently, sure, thisd is interesting. Why doubt of that, its not religious or conviction affair, nobody loose something, what interest is threatened? weird...
Logged

jmone

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 14463
  • I won! I won!
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #87 on: March 17, 2011, 04:01:56 am »

I guess I do see much of the audiophile debate as a religious argument.  I have no more chance of convincing you that the "AQVOX USB Low-Noise Power Supply" you purchased makes no discernible difference as you will convincing me that it does.  I'm sure you do hear a difference, and I'm equally sure I will not.  However, like all such debates I'm also happy to come over to your place, share a beer (or wine) and debate it's relative merits :).  After a few wines I may even be convinced (or not) but I'm sure it would be enjoyable either way!
Logged
JRiver CEO Elect

rick.ca

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3729
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #88 on: March 17, 2011, 04:29:15 am »

Blind tests would be good. then again it will be needed in controlled environment with a setup that is excellent and everybody listening to that same setup. If this is not the possible, the case is not conclusive and would only serve those listening to their own systems in that environment.

Having "everybody" participate in one test isn't what I had in mind. I imagine a system that allows you to pick the software or media-related variable you'd like to test, and then conducts a minimum of 10 trials with the same listener to get a significant result. That result would be reported here, so we would all know whether that listener really heard a difference or not. This, of course, wouldn't help decide who's got the better hardware, cables or ears—but that's not what this forum is for.
Logged

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 72439
  • Where did I put my teeth?
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #89 on: March 17, 2011, 07:01:55 am »

I guess I do see much of the audiophile debate as a religious argument.  I have no more chance of convincing you that the "AQVOX USB Low-Noise Power Supply" you purchased makes no discernible difference as you will convincing me that it does.  I'm sure you do hear a difference, and I'm equally sure I will not.  However, like all such debates I'm also happy to come over to your place, share a beer (or wine) and debate it's relative merits :).  After a few wines I may even be convinced (or not) but I'm sure it would be enjoyable either way!

Amen.  Nicely said.
Logged

popper

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #90 on: March 17, 2011, 08:16:23 am »

ok for wine, but im sure youll hear différerence before, you are not the first to doubt. I'm scientific teacher and ive long time refused to admit power supplies coud change sounds... you speak of the usb power, its the exception: i use 5m long cable, the 5V of PC is very "dirty", and this voltage supply the usb receiver circuit of the DAC, so its possible to understand that a filtered flat supply just for the usb receiver can influence something. For the others supply or the drivers wasapi, interconnect cables etc... the explanation is maybe interesting, the more interesting is the different sounds they give, no need to be a specialist to hear; i promise.
Im in france, Burgundy, leave me choose the wine, you are welcome....
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #91 on: March 17, 2011, 01:51:22 pm »

* Lossy 5.1 DD/DTS Vs TrueHD/DTS-MA tracks on blu-ray discs on my HTPC

Interestingly, I learned at NABShow this past year that this effect is often because they actually master the TrueHD track differently than the DD track for many big-budget movies.  Apparently the BluRay "consortium" is currently leaning on the studios pretty hard to do exactly this in order to create a public perception that BluRay is "needed" over DVD, because they still haven't seen the uptake of the new format that they expected (which was always a pipe-dream, but that's another story).

In many cases, both the video and the audio on a BluRay are mastered completely separately from the DVD edition, and intentionally changed to make them look and sound different on purpose.

The editor who was speaking at the lecture I attended actually said that in most of his films (which included ones you would have heard of), his preference was for the DD version.  They only remastered the TrueHD tracks to appease the studio, and he just let his audio engineer do it alone.  He said he chose to focus on the DD version of the audio because that would see much wider distribution, and the TrueHD track was only for a niche market.  In other words, he figured that if the studio was going to make him make two different versions for marketing reasons, he was going to make the TrueHD one the "bad one" because hardly anyone would hear it comparatively.  I'm sure most editors don't do this, but it was interesting to hear that they're being pushed to "differentiate" the BluRay versions artificially.

Back in the day, I read rumors that many of the same shenanigans were happening with the "high-def" CD formats they were trying to push at one time, but this was the first I'd heard confirmation from someone in the industry who would absolutely know.

So... If what this guy said was true outside of his experience, you absolutely should hear a difference, but because they are different on purpose, not necessarily because of the compression.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

jmone

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 14463
  • I won! I won!
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #92 on: March 17, 2011, 02:59:22 pm »

Hi Glynor, I have very much been pulled into that with the CD VS HD Audio tracks where they have been clearly mastered and the same could be true on movie tracks if you selected between say DD, PCM, and TrueHD wich are all independant tracks.  DTS-MA however is one track with a DTS Core so I "guess" it was a single mastering then coded accordingly and I clearly "perceive" a difference between these.  One "fact" I would put forward is the a 5.1 DD Track only has 640kbps to play with all up (so similar to a low bit rate MP3) while a decoded PCM stream (from any of the HD sources of LPCM, TrueHD, DTS-MA) is 5-6Mbps.

It could still all be in my head, and a good example is the drive in the HTPC community to ensure we get a "full" 24-Bit / 96KHz when such tracks have been encoded.  Now I'm note sure I can hear the difference between this and 16-Bit/48KHz but I certainly want to extract it as is without downmixing if I can!

Thanks
Nathan

Logged
JRiver CEO Elect

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #93 on: March 17, 2011, 03:55:04 pm »

He didn't go into DTS at all and no one asked, but you may be right in those cases (but who knows, really).  Shady business.

The goal is, of course, to get people to re-buy their DVD collections on BluRay.  Reselling the same content over and over and over is a huge part of Hollywood's business model.

PS.  I wish I could remember the guy's name.... I can't, and I don't remember which movies he cut, but I do remember that I'd seen 3-4 of the ones listed.  I went back a few minutes ago and looked through my Evernote notes for NABShow, but I didn't take any notes at that one (it was generally not an extremely technical talk, more conceptual).  Plus, my laptop was probably dead.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

jmone

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 14463
  • I won! I won!
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #94 on: March 17, 2011, 04:24:33 pm »

....Shady business.  The goal is, of course, to get people to re-buy their DVD collections on BluRay.  Reselling the same content over and over and over is a huge part of Hollywood's business model.

Yup I could not agree more (Lucus is one of the worst for this + the games they play with titles like LOTR just annoy everyone ... or lead to the three R's  ;) as people wait for the super final Extended Edition Directors Cut with added flavor version).  Thankfully I really bought very few VHS / DVD (would have only a couple of Dozen) so have very few double or tripple dips over the many '00s of Blu/Red.  I had decided early in the piece to hold off buying content due to the shift to HD (and given the law of diminishing returns I figure this will be as good as it gets for CE formats for some time, well unless 3D magically takes off - ha ha).

FYI - The growth of the use of DTS-HD is been staggering with over 50% of all Blu-ray discs every released now having DTS-HD http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php.  I really don't see many new releases with any other Audio Codec for the primary track (I wonder what deal they have done).  It's a pity really for the HTPC world as this is the one codec not currently decoded by freeware filters (the Arcost TMT filter can be made to work perfectly however). 

EDIT: More Blu-ray stats for those that care.  Of the discs released this year:
* Audio: 80% of Blu-ray Releases this year are DTS-HD (10% True-HD, 5% LPCM, 5% DD)
* Video: 94% AVC (x264), 6% VC-1, 0% MPEG2

Logged
JRiver CEO Elect

mojave

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3732
  • Requires "iTunes or better" so I installed JRiver
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #95 on: March 17, 2011, 04:44:17 pm »

FYI - The growth of the use of DTS-HD is been staggering with over 50% of all Blu-ray discs every released now having DTS-HD http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php.  I really don't see many new releases with any other Audio Codec for the primary track (I wonder what deal they have done).
It was mentioned in a thread at HomeTheaterShack back in November that DTS had signed a deal to have DTS-HD on all (or almost all) new releases going forward. In releases in 2011, TrueHD has only been on 17 titles (9.94%). This dropped to 7.35% for Feb and 5.26% (only 2 titles) for March.
Logged

popper

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #96 on: March 17, 2011, 05:08:43 pm »

audiophile considerations are less imprtant when looking images in same time of listening. If the sound is good in presence and frequency range its OK. The subject here is the 3dimensionnal feeling and timber precisions etc.. that can be perceived in "exclusive" listening act.
Logged

jmone

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 14463
  • I won! I won!
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #97 on: March 17, 2011, 05:42:43 pm »

Here is an article to Glynor's point http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM

Conclusions as follows
Quote
So Subtle
What impressed, or perhaps surprised, me most about these tests was how good the base codecs actually are. The difference between the original audio and the basic Dolby Digital and DTS is a lot subtler than you’d expect, given the extreme amount of compression (around 10:1, a similar ratio to that of 128 kbps MP3).

That said, I could definitely pick out the difference between the lesser (or perhaps it’s more accurate to say “better”) compressed versions and the higher compressed versions. The difference is mostly in the presence, or ambience. The lossless, Dolby Digital Plus, and DTS-HD High Resolution compressed tracks were just a little more open and airy. I hate to say it, but they just sounded more realistic and transparent. The 448 kbps Dolby Digital and standard DTS tracks were less so, a little more closed off. Between the 640 kbps Dolby Digital and the uncompressed, the difference was even less noticeable. Enough so that most people, even those trained to listen for it, probably won’t be able to hear the difference.

The core DTS call is a little harder, as there wasn’t the same blind system in place to A/B as precisely as at Dolby. Results were similar, though.So by all means go for the new codecs, as they definitely sound better than what was on DVD. Uncompressed PCM, on the other hand, is just a waste of space (though compatible with everything).

If you’ve been listening at home and are sure you can hear a difference on your favorite discs, be wary. There is absolutely no way to tell that compressed and uncompressed tracks on any disc have anything to do with each other. They could come from different masters, they could be mixed differently, or any number of other variables that makes an in-home test, unfortunately, impossible. That said, trust your ears, and go with the one that sounds best to you. –Geoffrey Morrison
Logged
JRiver CEO Elect

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #98 on: March 17, 2011, 10:51:06 pm »

It was mentioned in a thread at HomeTheaterShack back in November that DTS had signed a deal to have DTS-HD on all (or almost all) new releases going forward. In releases in 2011, TrueHD has only been on 17 titles (9.94%). This dropped to 7.35% for Feb and 5.26% (only 2 titles) for March.

I'm not surprised at all.  DTS had a massive presence on the floor at NABShow last year, and I heard that they did again at later shows.  Besides, I've always preferred DTS processing when expanding stereo.  Always much less harsh.

BTW, I know most people didn't interpret it this way, but to be blatantly clear, I wasn't saying that DD compression doesn't have an audible impact (it certainly does, it is fairly heavy compression using an old technique).  I was just making the point that what is "right" is entirely dependent on the sources involved.  Things aren't always as simple as they seem, and many times, the industry is actively trying to trick the consumer.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

popper

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Interesting post about MC settings on Computer Audiophile
« Reply #99 on: March 25, 2011, 01:23:39 pm »

after experiments, i have to admit the wav files sound  different, principally are more "soft" in my config. Ive changed the HP cables (crimson electronics), differences are more relevant.
ive began to convert some flac files to wav. It appears that wav files dont support tags.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up