INTERACT FORUM
More => Old Versions => Media Center 17 => Topic started by: TheLion on November 13, 2011, 08:40:28 am
-
Matt, don't get me wrong. I wholeheartly agree with all your arguments. But I am also convinced that bitperfect/identical sound streams can sound significantly different when being output. Putting a pro Firewire interface in async/sync mode is a prime example. The bitstream is identical. The only difference is "timing" - where the clocking is done and jitter/distortion in the time domain as consequence. As I said my audio interface is probably as good as it gets even in sync. mode (clocking by the Firewire interface, with Orpheus doing reclocking/jitter rejection) - and still the sound is perceivably different. This has been confirmed to me personally by Prism engineers. And there are hundreds of variables that can have a ever so slight impact on the time domain of a given bitstream in a computer system. Which all shouldn't matter at all when I put my audio interface into async. mode ;-)
I am an enthusiastic JRiver user ever since I tried it for its feature set. Especially ASIO support and an almost "perfect" video engine to boot. I will probably NEVER use anything else in my life. I certainly did not compare "audio quality" before choosing JRiver. For me it was the only choice given its strong database and all the other unique features.
That being said I "used" my girlfriend and we did a double blind test with JRiver (no DSP processing, just plain stereo, ASIO) and JPlay (both engine modes: River and Beach, Kernel streaming) for the last hour. Result: We are having a VERY hard time to say if there is a difference and which one we would prefer. We picked one over the other with no clear trend to speak of. In the end the difference seemed to be in our heads because our votes showed no statistical relevance.
-
We continued our double blind test between JPlay and JRiver (async. mode on the Orpheus). This time we played each song 3 times. The listener didn't know which option played when, and which two plays where with the same option. This procedure really shows placebo (like eg. when I say 2 and 3 where better than 1 and in fact 1 and 2 where the identical player and 3 the other one). In the end it showed that we certainly couldn't tell the two options apart - although we where guessing alot and the placebo effect was the only thing we proved! ;-)
On another matter - I was able to distinguish between sync. and async. mode of my audio interface doing the same double blind procedure each and every time (async being "fuller, warmer", and sync. "clearer, more aggressive").
-
Vincent Kars' website says that the only asynchronous firewire device (http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/Firewire.htm) is the Metric Halo (which he bases on a quote from Gordon Ranklin of Wavelength Audio). There is further discussion about this (and the Orpheus) at audioasylum.com (http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/9/96077.html) which says there is nothing on the Prism website or the Orpheus manual which indicates the asynch mode is referring to firewire. I just found this interesting. It could be the Orpheus does have an async firewire mode.
-
We continued our double blind test between JPlay and JRiver (async. mode on the Orpheus). This time we played each song 3 times. The listener didn't know which option played when, and which two plays where with the same option. This procedure really shows placebo (like eg. when I say 2 and 3 where better than 1 and in fact 1 and 2 where the identical player and 3 the other one). In the end it showed that we certainly couldn't tell the two options apart - although we where guessing alot and the placebo effect was the only thing we proved! ;-)
On another matter - I was able to distinguish between sync. and async. mode of my audio interface doing the same double blind procedure each and every time (async being "fuller, warmer", and sync. "clearer, more aggressive").
Did you listen to JPLAY in "Hibernation mode"? I can tell you that me ears notice a difference between JRiver and JPLAY in H.-mode each and every time, to the latters favor. The sound becomes more present, organic, whole, better resoluted, and free flowing. These are not merely "flavors" that mimics the apples vs. oranges argument, but indeed a more lifelike and "true" presentation. A consequence of H.-mode is the inability to access the (HT)PC during playback, and so to me this is a less than desirable solution. If JRiver could somehow approach the sonic benefits of H.-mode, without losing the very basic access to JRiver - well, that'd be something!
(EDIT: and JRiver certainly already is "something" - i.e. a truly high-end playback device with a wonderful sound (and picture) quality. I'm extremely happy with it as is - indeed now also the 2-channel sound quality of Blu-rays is through-the-roof amazing, after I've placed the Arcsoft dtsdecoder file in the right folder - so I don't have any complaints as such, apart from a few instability issues that pops up now and then in the wake of new builds. JPLAY's H.-mode does elevate the sonic bar just a bit, but it's a little bit I'd love to see JRiver attempt into achieving in some, or even full measure as well.)
If we do not agree on this, then why not let the MC team accommodate the "believers"(and trust me, to me this is not about believing, but plain and simply about hearing) who are not few, and who dedicate themselves to extremes to get the most out of their musical experience, if this is simply offered as an option(into simplicity)? If one day the headlines of news sites proclaimed "Scientific research concludes the human hearing cannot discern a difference in sound quality above 320 kbit/s playback," I'd not suddenly burst out of a delusional bubble in which I "believe" in the opposite, but rather it'd tell me that science is limiting itself into measuring the data at hand, and that this has the sad effect of possibly affecting everyone.
-
The title says it all. identical ≠ different
The sound becomes more present, organic, whole, better resoluted, and free flowing.
And this is how I know when to stop reading.
-
The title says it all. identical ≠ different
And this is how I know when to stop reading.
And you're all free to do so. You don't hear it, fine; I do.
What I could do without is you condescending approach towards my hearing abilities. If you can't discern a difference, that's just it. Why do you need to ridicule those who claim they can?
-
What I could do without is you condescending approach towards my hearing abilities. If you can't discern a difference, that's just it. Why do you need to ridicule those who claim they can?
I don't think it's meant to be condescending. You obviously hear something.
But it's also not surprising if others choose to believe differently than you do.
This is a science and engineering crowd here. They have to have proof.
-
"This is a science and engineering crowd here. They have to have proof."
The problem with believing their claims is that they rarely have any decent scientific data to support their claims. For a group that spends so much money, it is odd that none of them seem to have the instruments for measuring the differences they claim to hear. The human ear is complete garbage compared to calibrated instruments. If it is audible, there is absolutely no reason why it could not be confirmed. The gold de facto standard is a null test. Two signals 180 degrees out of phase will cancel each other if they are the same. In the case of jitter in firewire it is easy test. At the other end, reconstruct the signals and check them against each other. If nothing is left, there is no difference. This isn't science not knowing something, it is basic math.
So that is the engineering side of me. On the other there is the musician. I too have been on an endless quest to achieve the perfect tone with my guitar amps. I pore countless hours into trying to obtain something I picture in my mind. Some days it sounds so close. Then the next it doesn't sound good using the exact same setup. Science certainly hasn't helped me achieve that elusive sound I'm looking for, but I won't stop trying. That is something I respect about "audiophiles" and they should keep right on doing what they love. They see it as an art and strive to achieve "their perfection". In my case I use science and engineering to help me get what I want and they have chosen a different path. In the end we disagree, but we both are doing something we love to do. More power to ya.
-
And you're all free to do so. You don't hear it, fine; I do.
What I could do without is you condescending approach towards my hearing abilities. If you can't discern a difference, that's just it. Why do you need to ridicule those who claim they can?
It isn't whether you can hear a difference. It is that your choice of words to describe that difference are largely meaningless. Perhaps you should define your terms.
-
I don't think it's meant to be condescending. You obviously hear something.
But it's also not surprising if others choose to believe differently than you do.
This is a science and engineering crowd here. They have to have proof.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. Meaning, you have to put all the complex math into use, the actual use of which hits the ears and what's between them and then needs to be evaluated as sonic impressions. So, at the end of the day, what exactly is (part of) the proof here?
I'm glad there are science and engineering guys like you and others around, otherwise there'd be no JRiver or the likes. However, your ace playback device is targeting a significant portion of sound nerds, many of them picky purists, and while I understand and appreciate the scepticism from this community it also has a tendency to sometimes swing in the opposite direction of dialogue - bordering even hardheaded arrogance or know-it-better. Indeed many here rely heavily on numbers, but there are also quite a lot of us who trust our ears and have learned to use them as fine instruments. Surely you can't ignore that?
-
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. Meaning, you have to put all the complex math into use, the actual use of which hits the ears and what's between them and then needs to be evaluated as sonic impressions. So, at the end of the day, what exactly is (part of) the proof here?
I'm glad there are science and engineering guys like you and others around, otherwise there'd be no JRiver or the likes. However, your ace playback device is targeting a significant portion of sound nerds, many of them picky purists, and while I understand and appreciate the scepticism from this community it also has a tendency to sometimes swing in the opposite direction of dialogue - bordering even hardheaded arrogance or know-it-better. Indeed many here rely heavily on numbers, but there are also quite a lot of us who trust our ears and have learned to use them as fine instruments. Surely you can't ignore that?
It depends. When you say you've learned to use them as fine instruments what exactly do you mean?
-
It isn't whether you can hear a difference. It is that your choice of words to describe that difference are largely meaningless. Perhaps you should define your terms.
Hmm, I'd have believed my choice of terms were telling in themselves. But then again, I may take a lot of my descriptive terms for granted, also being that the "hifi community" I loosely engage with seems to sense what one means in this regard.
Conversely I've always liked having "non-hifi" friends come over and hear them describe, in their very own words, what it is they experience when hearing music over my setup. Often they excuse for not finding the proper "language" to come about their impressions, as they seem to believe I'd expect from them, but I end up encouraging them to go by their very gut feeling and name it whatever they want to; indeed this is a more or less secret admiration of mine, hearing them go about their impressions naively, if you will, as if to somehow be backtracked away from these worn out terms that may end up becoming too self-absorbed and, yes... meaningless. So, point taken.
Present: readily at hand, "it's right there"-feeling - in fact a more relaxed presentation, as one doesn't have to use subconscious energy to "extract" a natural musical presence.
Organic: as opposed to mecanic, stifled, sterile, thin-ish; exhibiting a natural varmth, fullness, and life, actually a very encompassing term.
Whole: as opposed to (maybe too obviously) fragmented, diffuse, detail-oriented/analytical; of-a-piece, lifelike sound, balanced - a holistic presentation, if you will.
Better resoluted: finer edges, smoother, better texture, cleaner, outlines more clearly heard, bigger insight.
Free flowing: very vital aspect as well - unhindered, liquid, ever-flowing, way of preparing or setting a lifelike presentation, emotionally engaging.
Don't know if the above sought explanation helps. Sorry if it's still diffuse...
-
Very cool. Thank you for taking the time to define those.
-
There has been a great deal of work on just how "bad" (good) human hearing is. The problem is sound comes in our ears, but the brain perceives this information. Like vision etc our brains are extortionately good at throwing away information and concentrating on only a part of it. This research isn't new, it's been around for decades. No matter how well you "train" your ear, your brain does not listen to everything coming in - ever. Like vision you focus on particular parts of the sensory information and throw away the rest.
It is also extremely biased. We've all seen optical illusions where our eyes see something that isn't there because our brain constantly adds information to speed up processing. For example we can read words with the inner letters mixed up with only the outside letters in the correct place. Why? Because the brain is very good at interpolation. This just scratches the surface of what is known about the brain. No matter how well you may think your ear is trained, you cannot overcome your own learned bias and basic functionality of your own brain. The underlying point is your brain is anything but impartial. The more you read on the subject, the more you realise relining on your own hearing is not practical.
I have been a musician for most of my life. I have refined my ear to a well honed tool and often can hear things other can't or don't detect until I tell them about it. At the same time I know how bad it is for A/B testing something so I rely on tools to help me "see" what my ear can't. I've heard many an audiophile become offended about their hearing being called into question. You shouldn't be. It is very likely you have indeed refined it much, much more than the average individual ever does. However you should be aware of your own limitations as achieving what you quest for can only come about by over coming them.
-
"This is a science and engineering crowd here. They have to have proof."
Otherwise known as the "dont have a resolving enough kit to discern these difference" crowd.
-
I find it interesting that there seems to be a dichotomy between audiophiles and videophiles. Videophiles get to use their eyes to make judgments and ask for features. If someone says they see the rainbow effect using a DLP projector, nobody asks for a measurement. If someones sees motion blur when using an LCD nobody asks for a measurement. Both of these are a physiological phenomenon involving color separation. Could there not be similar instances in audio?
If someone sees more ringing with the madVR chroma upscaling algorithm set to lanczos 8 taps vs SoftCubic softness: 80 still nobody asks for measurements. If one sees dropped frames using PAL material on a 60 hz projector, they can ask for a feature to fix the issue even if others don't notice the dropped frames or don't think it is an issue. Some can notice lipsync issues with just 5 ms of offset and others need 60 ms to notice an issue.
-
I find it interesting that there seems to be a dichotomy between audiophiles and videophiles. Videophiles get to use their eyes to make judgments and ask for features. If someone says they see the rainbow effect using a DLP projector, nobody asks for a measurement. If someones sees motion blur when using an LCD nobody asks for a measurement. Both of these are a physiological phenomenon involving color separation. Could there not be similar instances in audio? ...
It all comes down to real vs. perceived, which can easily be decided via experiment. In the case of DLP vs. LCD, you just show the guy a video clip 100 times, with the source being randomly DLP or LCD. Have them vote on which clips exhibit the DLP rainbow effect and tabulate it against which clips were actually DLP. Now you'll know if he actually saw a DLP rainbow effect or just "perceived" it.
Same with audio, have him hear 100 audio clips with the source switched randomly between one test source and another and tabulate the results.
-
It all comes down to real vs. perceived, which can easily be decided via experiment. In the case of DLP vs. LCD, you just show the guy a video clip 100 times, with the source being randomly DLP or LCD. Have them vote on which clips exhibit the DLP rainbow effect and tabulate it against which clips were actually DLP. Now you'll know if he actually saw a DLP rainbow effect or just "perceived" it.
Same with audio, have him hear 100 audio clips with the source switched randomly between one test source and another and tabulate the results.
I was just about to say this too! The problem is that some audiophiles and associated technology has been proven to be placebo, and therefore most claims are now considered to be crying wolf or "snake-oil". See the thread's original post for some testing that can be taken quite seriously.
-
Our eyes are relatively quite a bit better than our ears. In addition, the video technology is not as close to "transparency" as the audio technology. Of course each individual speaker system & room combination has its own clearly audible and measurable signature, but assuming that this signature is considered constant in a given test situation all other (reasonably high quality) audio hardware and various digital formats provide almost identical and transparent fidelity. You can't go the "analog TV/VHS" > SD > HD > 4K ... route with audio. It has been about as good as it gets for a long time.
For example, the recent boom of HD audio formats cannot be explained by performing unbiased blind listening tests. The tests that compare Red Book audio and HD formats tend to always fail. The specs of the Red Book format were carefully chosen to provide transparency and even some additional headroom. Our hearing has not magically improved in a few decades.
Quite likely the clearly visible difference between the SD and HD video formats has had an impact to this. It makes easy to believe that also HD audio sounds better.
Similarly a 30-year-old vintage high end amp may be measurably and audibly as perfect as any new high end amp. You can't say the same about video display devices.
-
you should come to my house and listen to my Naim DAC versus my old Beresford. Sorry but miles apart. Anyone can hear it.
-
Our eyes are relatively quite a bit better than our ears. In addition, the video technology is not as close to "transparency" as the audio technology. Of course each individual speaker system & room combination has its own clearly audible and measurable signature, but assuming that this signature is considered constant in a given test situation all other (reasonably high quality) audio hardware and various digital formats provide almost identical and transparent fidelity. You can't go the "analog TV/VHS" > SD > HD > 4K ... route with audio. It has been about as good as it gets for a long time.
Although i agree that audio technology is less bandwidth-intensive, and have been good enough longer (except for the glaring "fault" of only having two channels) I can't quite argue that are eyes are better, our hearing has enormous dynamic range, and covers a much much wider frequency area than the eyes. Our hearing is quite remarkable. Its difficult to pick any "winner" between the two senses.
-
Otherwise known as the "dont have a resolving enough kit to discern these difference" crowd.
I would rather call it the "i trust the differences found in professional labs with trained listeners more than anecdotal sighted listening tests in some ones home with a lot of uncontrolled variables"-crowd. I don't expect people to listen to what i personally say about hearing a difference or not, however they should listen when professional haring tests are done. (and I point to it)
-
Similarly a 30-year-old vintage high end amp may be measurably and audibly as perfect as any new high end amp. You can't say the same about video display devices.
What????????? Hmmmmm my buddy shoots movies with technology older than 30 years. They look absolutely stunning.
And how exactly to you measure my enjoyment of two different amps? Do you think all amps, preamps and DACs are going to sound identical?
-patrick
-
Powerful enough amps, and reasonably well designed amps/DACs seem to all give more or less the same percievable sound quality as far as the research i have seen indicates. (there are som "outlier" reports though). (not counting filtering, room-correction and things like that of course, just the amplifying/DA-converting part of the job). not sure how far back in time you can go before that is not true though.
-
sorry.
-
Seriously?? The research you've read indicates all hifi to be identical??? You are nuts.
Foul
-
He said nothing of the sort.
Note "powerful enough" and "reasonably well designed".
-
OK.... wait a sec. Are you saying that listening to an Coby DVD player > Fischer Receiver > Realistic Speakers will sound identical to the best hifi has to offer (choose your brand).
Human kind has truly lost its hearing threshold huh?
Wow. If that is the case I must divorce myself from this discussion.
Seriously?? The research you've read indicates all hifi to be identical??? You are nuts.
-patrick
Nobody mentioned speakers.IIRC there is also still an unclaimed prize that defies anyone to tell two amplifiers (with sufficient power) apart in blind testing. The quality of DACs will make a difference of course.
-
OK.... wait a sec. Are you saying that listening to an Coby DVD player > Fischer Receiver > Realistic Speakers will sound identical to the best hifi has to offer (choose your brand).
Human kind has truly lost its hearing threshold huh?
Wow. If that is the case I must divorce myself from this discussion.
Seriously?? The research you've read indicates all hifi to be identical??? You are nuts.
-patrick
When did this argument go from sound streams to sound reproduction?
If the sound stream is bitperfect/identical, it is identical, period.
A more intriguing argument would be that there are forces at work outside the realm of our knowledge that impacts how we interpret sounds (once they reach our ears). The problem you run into is that this force must be non-random if you continually interpret one identical sound stream as superior or inferior to another. A non-random force that can act upon sound or cognition would have at least been identified, if not fully understood by this point in time.
A much more plausible explanation (Occam's razor) would be the impact of incredibly strong, documented forces on human perception, namely the placebo effect and confirmation bias. On a physiological level, think about measurable variables (hearing fatigue) that have been shown to have non-random effects on sound perception.
Why discredit the known phenomena that can explain the differences you are hearing in favor of a voodoo answer?
-
He said nothing of the sort.
Note "powerful enough" and "reasonably well designed".
"reasonably well designed" means what?
-
When did this argument go from sound streams to sound reproduction?
I dont know.... I agree that identical streams are, well, identical (tautology).
Sound reproduction varies wildly.
Why discredit the known phenomena that can explain the differences you are hearing in favor of a voodoo answer?
I dont favor any voodoo at all. I simply allow for the circumstance that the science is beyond my understanding.
I personally cannot hear a difference between FLAC and WAV. And the science seems to support this.
But i wont discount those people who have found/heard/hallucinated otherwise.
I will try to find a reason for it rather than chalk it up to placebo or self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps the FLAC decoding injects noise into the mains. Maybe the extra processing injects RF into the loop. Who knows?
Simply because I dont know the science, or cant explain it away, doesn't entail they are wrong.
-Patrick
-
Perhaps the FLAC decoding injects noise into the mains. Maybe the extra processing injects RF into the loop. Who knows?
But we do know that isn't the case. Instruments far more precise than the human ear can discern no differences between identical sound streams. In fact, any perceptible (measurable) differences would likely be limited by the redbook standard; the effect of some unknown force, particle, or wave is obviously trivial.
Which leaves us with two explanations: a) an undiscovered phenomena or b) listener error. All odds are on listener error, statistically and otherwise.
-
the NUMBER ONE most important aspect of any good science is to be falsifiable.
I would say "a)" is far more likely in many situations.
Most people, myself included, dont just buy things for the sake of it, nor when we cant hear a discernible improvement. Trust me that I cannot afford to simply buy whatever I want for no reason.
I think we are talking about two things here, in three different threads.
1) Identical streams... are they identical? I would say yes, A=A.
2) Do various sources (DACs, TTs CDPS etc), preamps and amps produce different qualities of sound. Yes absolutely.
We might be in total agreement on all fronts.
-
When did this argument go from sound streams to sound reproduction?
See elvis above:
"Powerful enough amps, and reasonably well designed amps/DACs seem to all give more or less the same percievable sound quality as far as the research i have seen indicates. "
Unless I am misunderstanding, he is saying that a noisy Class D amplifier from a Jukebox will sound IDENTICAL to my Naim amp. Also, that the DAC in my Juli@ soundcard is equal to the task as my Naim DAC. I can probably A/B that over the phone to you to show you how wrong that is.... i MUST not be understanding.
-Patrick
-
I think that by "reasonably well designed amps" he might mean something other than "noisy Class D amplifier from a Jukebox".
-
Most non audio enthusiasts are expecting a startling change when an audio enthusiast say they 'hear a difference', but most audio enthusiasts (audiophile), when they 'hear a difference', usually mean subtle improvements (sometimes huge) to some or all aspects of the audio they hear. Most, if not all audio enthusiasts have quite sensitive hearing, and know what to listen to. example, it maybe the slightest air or space around each performers/instrument in a 3d space between 2 carefully setup speakers and system. Could also be the naturalness of cymbals, or vocal, harmonic colour, timbre, timing, punch, attack, slam, decay etc etc etc.
If you are not in tune, don't have the patients, don't have a decent setup, aren't sitting directly in the sweet spot between the speakers, you are missing out and of course you wont hear a difference. This is an audio enthusiasts hobby, and others should back away from these conversations if they have come to argue and ridicule, as they will never know what the person with this passion is hearing or talking about.
-
Otherwise known as the "dont have a resolving enough kit to discern these difference" crowd.
Is there any chance that you could demonstrate that you are right with knowledge, sound reasoning and valid experiments rather than simply dismissing your opponents based on your assumptions about their gear or their ears?
Bill
-
Who in this thread isn't an "audio enthusiast"?
-
Is there any chance that you could demonstrate that you are right with knowledge, sound reasoning and valid experiments rather than simply dismissing your opponents based on your assumptions about their gear or their ears?
Bill
How could I possibly convey to you what I hear?
-
Who in this thread isn't an "audio enthusiast"?
me for one
read that wrong... i am an audio enthusiast.
the post was for the non audiophiles here
-
How could I possibly convey to you what I hear?
You might start with some valid information. Proof by assertion doesn't cut it with me.
Bill
-
Proof by assertion doesn't cut it with me.
Thankfully I am not trying to convince you of ANYTHING other than to demo things for yourself.... or not.
-
Thankfully I am not trying to convince you of ANYTHING other than to demo things for yourself.... or not.
From your earlier post:
Quote from: gvanbrunt on Yesterday at 04:34:43 pm
"This is a science and engineering crowd here. They have to have proof."
In response, You said:
Otherwise known as the "dont have a resolving enough kit to discern these difference" crowd.
You made dismissive remarks about other people without real knowledge of them or their circumstances. Your remarks are quite sufficient for me to form a conclusion about you as a person.
Bill
-
You made dismissive remarks about other people without real knowledge of them or their circumstances. Your remarks are quite sufficient for me to form a conclusion about you as a person.
Where in there did I try to convince anyone of anything? It was obviously a [poor] attempt at humor. You can conclude anything you want about me from a few forum posts. I conclude that we would probably enjoy music over a beer and some great conversation if we met face-to-face.
I didnt mean any harm and certainly wasn't dismissing anyone from the discussion. I thought gvanbrunt was having fun/making a joke. There is obviously no "proof" with hifi and subjective self-reporting of experience. Anyway..... didnt mean to piss anyone off. I should just keep my discussions to feature wishes and smartlist help requests.
Bowing out as respectfully and apologetic as possible,
Patrick
-
oh and....... the original thread was split up at least three time and threads renamed by site admins. I have no clue what we are talking about now. I just read this threads title and i thought...... No they cant.
Confused and sorry,
p
-
Where in there did I try to convince anyone of anything? It was obviously a [poor] attempt at humor.
Humor doesn't always come across in a forum.Bowing out as respectfully and apologetic as possible,
Patrick
That's brave of you to say. Don't bow out. Just turn down the volume a little.
-
See elvis above:
"Powerful enough amps, and reasonably well designed amps/DACs seem to all give more or less the same percievable sound quality as far as the research i have seen indicates. "
Unless I am misunderstanding, he is saying that a noisy Class D amplifier from a Jukebox will sound IDENTICAL to my Naim amp. Also, that the DAC in my Juli@ soundcard is equal to the task as my Naim DAC. I can probably A/B that over the phone to you to show you how wrong that is.... i MUST not be understanding.
-Patrick
First of all, there is big differences in audi equipment, not all Hi-fi is equal, however there are areas where the difference at best is small (provided the design is not stupid), Amplifying, and DACs seems to be two of those fields. Loudspeakers and rooms are two examples with major differences. I don't know all DACs, but a cheap receiver DAC (like for instance in a cheap denon-receiver) have a performance that seems to be inaudibly different from for instance an expensive dedicated DAC. It is possible to design things horrible, and i don't know every amplifier or DAC int eh world, but it seems like withing reason, there is little to no difference.
-
I dont know.... I agree that identical streams are, well, identical (tautology).
Sound reproduction varies wildly.
I dont favor any voodoo at all. I simply allow for the circumstance that the science is beyond my understanding.
I personally cannot hear a difference between FLAC and WAV. And the science seems to support this.
But i wont discount those people who have found/heard/hallucinated otherwise.
I will try to find a reason for it rather than chalk it up to placebo or self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps the FLAC decoding injects noise into the mains. Maybe the extra processing injects RF into the loop. Who knows?
Simply because I dont know the science, or cant explain it away, doesn't entail they are wrong.
-Patrick
I personally can hear FLAC and WAV and science proved that good enough transport mechanism and DAC can make anyone notice the difference in one minute if hearing is OK. I have RME HDSP-32 with Antelop clock feeding Mytek DAC right now from computer. Try to study time domain, latency jitter in bitstream and clock along with its effects in quantization for more details. WAV's bitstream is more linear and has better continuity after quantization. But if hardware is limited to common standards in market like onboard/tv digital output, I hardly doubt non-adapted ears can perceive such difference.
Anyway, it's just my own experiences so you don't have to believe it. The world is far too big to concern such trivial matter like this.
-
I guess I've spent close to $400k on hi-fi over the past 15 years (yeah, yeah, go ahead and accuse me of pulling the "I spent more than you, my point must be more valid" card, if you must), building two very different systems - one stereo hi-fi (Mark Levinson Reference/Revel Speakers) and multichannel cinema (Meridian Digital). Both *very* accomplished engineering solutions to the same problem and both sound completely different...
But what excites me most is that over the past few years, and probably precisely because of the sort of polarised discussion we see here, is that the engineers have caught up with the golden ears with regards issues like jitter; they've investigated, understood and then presented increasingly effective solutions, and so now we can outperform the $25k CD player with a $200 streamer using async USB and ripped CDs. But to get there it took the golden ears to take a stand under fire, to hold their ground and argue their position. Ultimately, we all benefit with accessible and fantastic sounding kit.
Golden Ears, I salute you!! Keep up the good fight!
-
I personally can hear FLAC and WAV
I'm assuming that you verified that both of these signals nulled with each other to verify that they are the same before your A/B comparison? They are both lossless which means output would be exactly the same. If there is a difference it would be the ENCODER that is making the difference and not the format. It is possible that an encoder is not doing is job properly or was setup incorrectly to do a comparison.
Then after that you did an ABX test to make sure you were not reading things into your decision?
Anyway, it's just my own experiences so you don't have to believe it
If you did the above I would be shocked beyond belief actually. So would a great deal of the scientific community. If you can do that, you will have single handedly proved what no one else has: that golden ears do exist and science doesn't have all the details. I'm not the first (and won't be the last) to ask for the above, but it never seems to happen for some reason. Considering most of these golden ears can assemble 40k+ stereo systems but not $100 in parts to do proper testing that seems odd.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making fun of you, I truly would like to see someone prove these kinds of claims. When asked none of the golden ears ever seem to provide proof to their claims. The only cases I've ever seen is where they were proven wrong under proper scientific conditions. And by scientific I mean that variables (like mentioned above) are eliminated so as to prove the hypothesis. I personally have experience (Lyme Disease) with science (medical) not being up to date with what was being seen in the real world and was denied treatment for years. However, science is catching up but medicine is not (political reasons). In that case however, there is proof being racked up and it is scientific and undeniable. Would be interesting to see the same thing happen on the audiophile front.
that the engineers have caught up with the golden ears
Not exactly. Engineers have always been able to make DACs etc with low jitter etc except that until recently they were expensive to produce. At this point they can be produced very cheaply. Manufacturing has caught up with technology. All but the most cheaply made cards have specs that are well below being audible. If in doubt look up any studies that have been done on what humans can detect (there have been some on jitter). Then compare that to the specs. If you have something that contradicts what I have read point me towards it. I would be interested in reading it.
-
In that case however, there is proof being racked up and it is scientific and undeniable.
The best comment along those lines I've ever read was from Penn Jillette (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/145161036X) (of Penn & Teller). It was about religion versus science, so slightly different in scope (though "audiophile" in some circles is quite akin to a religion, where an idealized sonic perfection replaces god):
If every trace of any single religion died out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.
Not that exact nonsense indeed.
-
Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example -- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
;D
-
Not exactly. Engineers have always been able to make DACs etc with low jitter etc except that until recently they were expensive to produce. At this point they can be produced very cheaply. Manufacturing has caught up with technology. All but the most cheaply made cards have specs that are well below being audible.
That engineers have made DACs within their jitter tolerances is not in dispute. The issue is that the audio/phile community were saying from the start that something was wrong with digital sound and it took some time for engineers to work out that jitter was one of the problems. Nobody was talking about jitter when CD was released. It took some time for the issues to be understood. Had no issues been raised, the designs wouldn't still be the same 25 years after release. This isn't the case.
If in doubt look up any studies that have been done on what humans can detect (there have been some on jitter). Then compare that to the specs. If you have something that contradicts what I have read point me towards it. I would be interested in reading it.
Perhaps YOU could point us at the studies that support your assertion? Would save people time and we'd all be reading the same documents?
-
Perhaps YOU could point us at the studies that support your assertion? Would save people time and we'd all be reading the same documents?
See onus probandi.
-
WAV's bitstream is more linear and has better continuity after quantization.
WAV and FLAC's bitstreams should be identical. If they are not then there is an encoder or decoder bug and you should contact flac's author.
-
I just smile when I read this thread.
The opening post doesn't even state a question but this is turning into a heated debate and ramping up views and replies like there is no tomorrow.
::)
-
That engineers have made DACs within their jitter tolerances is not in dispute. The issue is that the audio/phile community were saying from the start that something was wrong with digital sound and it took some time for engineers to work out that jitter was one of the problems.
Yes I agree that many argued that they didn't sound as good as vinyl on their Nakamichi Dragons and there were many ignorant people that claimed since it was digital it was perfect and should sound better. Back then the science on the matter wasn't as well known but WAS available. There were several manufactures who produced VERY expensive CD players for the audiophile market that were based on that knowledge that ENGINEERS designed. How do you think they designed them, guess work?
There were plenty of marketing guys etc saying CD's were perfect etc, and plenty of people claiming they knew that you could not tell the difference from vinyl etc. However neither group used what was widely known in the scientific and engineering community. Engineers always knew what was needed but made trades offs based on price. This was not something the audiophile community made them aware of. Advances in manufacturing have made this cheaper and that is the reason for the change.
Perhaps YOU could point us at the studies that support your assertion?
Finding documentation to back up my claims is easy: pick up any recent book on the science and they will support my claims. Actually you can pick up some over 30 years old and they say the same thing. A quick google or a look on Amazon will find you plenty. The reason I asked for assertion on your points is because I've NEVER seen even one that supports your claims. Prove me wrong. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by it.
As for my original request why is it every time one of us "non believers" asks for an impartial ABX test an audiophile never steps up to the plate?
As I mentioned I have personal experience where experts were/are wrong and have based their ideas on flawed science (or none at all) and it was ordinary sick people that banded together that forced further study and broke new ground in how things actually work. In their case they provided statistical and empirical evidence that showed what they claimed was true. Science was able to use that to find out why. Many have benefited from what happened.
In this case, I'm asking for that statistical or empirical evidence in the form of an ABX test of WAV vs FLAC. If this can be heard, it can be proven. It isn't even hard to do. You pick a WAV and FLAC file that we here can verify null and then ABX to your hearts content. When you've had all the practice you can stand and still claim you can hear the difference I'll let a few experts know. I guarantee you they will flock to your location to see this in person as it turns everything they know on their head and would love to be the first to get a paper out on it.
Looking forward to being proven wrong...
-
I didn't like leaving the request to support my assertions go with a reply to Google it. So here is one article. There are older ones, but I thought it would be good to provide more recent research. I can provide more if you need them:
[6] Eric Benjamin and Benjamin Gannon - "Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality", AES, 1998
Since I have provided one, perhaps you can provide some data that shows that the average person (or even someone with golden ears) can perceive the difference in the jitter in a high end DAC and a newer Soundblaster card.
-
However neither group used what was widely known in the scientific and engineering community. Engineers always knew what was needed but made trades offs based on price. This was not something the audiophile community made them aware of.
Citations, please.
Finding documentation to back up my claims is easy: pick up any recent book on the science and they will support my claims. Actually you can pick up some over 30 years old and they say the same thing. A quick google or a look on Amazon will find you plenty.
As for my original request why is it every time one of us "non believers" asks for an impartial ABX test an audiophile never steps up to the plate?
Never? I'll do it [jitter testing, not WAV vs FLAC]? But even if I fail, it doesn't disprove the claims, it just proves that *I* cannot hear the difference (and I actually believe I can to certain levels of jitter).
-
I didn't like leaving the request to support my assertions go with a reply to Google it. So here is one article. There are older ones, but I thought it would be good to provide more recent research. I can provide more if you need them:
[6] Eric Benjamin and Benjamin Gannon - "Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality", AES, 1998
Thanks.
Since I have provided one, perhaps you can provide some data that shows that the average person (or even someone with golden ears) can perceive the difference in the jitter in a high end DAC and a newer Soundblaster card.
Has such a test even been documented?
-
In this case, I'm asking for that statistical or empirical evidence in the form of an ABX test of WAV vs FLAC. If this can be heard, it can be proven. It isn't even hard to do. You pick a WAV and FLAC file that we here can verify null and then ABX to your hearts content. When you've had all the practice you can stand and still claim you can hear the difference I'll let a few experts know. I guarantee you they will flock to your location to see this in person as it turns everything they know on their head and would love to be the first to get a paper out on it.
Looking forward to being proven wrong...
On this, we agree.
But certainly in the early iterations of the Squeezebox there were firmwares where the FLAC->WAV conversion did cause audible issues, but that was resolved as far as I know years ago. Sometimes when people claim there is an issue, there really is. And when we all agree that there shouldn't be, it warrants further investigation, as per your medical issue.
-
Another comment to make here:
Of course it MAY NOT be jitter causing issues. It may not be WAV vs FLAC. It could well be something else in the audio chain. It MAY BE that whatever word is used to explain the problem is a misnomer for the phenomenon and that it is being incorrectly used, perhaps through lack of understanding of the subject. As you pointed out, most audiophiles are not engineers and so may be misusing the word, grasping for something to help explain what they hear...
The point I'm remaking, is the one above. When there should be no audible differences, but enough people claim the opposite, it warrants investigation to see if there is a reason why...
-
I didn't like leaving the request to support my assertions go with a reply to Google it. So here is one article. There are older ones, but I thought it would be good to provide more recent research. I can provide more if you need them:
[6] Eric Benjamin and Benjamin Gannon - "Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality", AES, 1998
I cannot access this without paying for it, which I am not about to do...
Bob Katz, eminent Mastering Engineer, had this to say, in 2007, on the subject:
"I have participated in a number of blind (and double-blind) listening tests that clearly indicate that a CD which is pressed from a "jittery" source sounds worse than one made from a less jittery source. In one test, a CD plant pressed a number of test CDs, simply marked "A" or "B". No one outside of the plant knew which was "A" and which "B." All listeners preferred the pressing marked "A," as closer to the master, and sonically superior to "B." Not to prolong the suspense, disc "A" was glass mastered from PCM-1630, disc "B" from a CDR.
Full article, with interesting statements such as:
"The AES/EBU (and S/PDIF) interface carries an embedded clock signal. The designers of the interface did not anticipate (my emphasis) that it could cause a subtle amount of jitter due to the nature of the preamble in the AES/EBU signal. The result is a small amount of program-dependent jitter which often sounds like an intermodulation, a high-frequency edge added to the music."
http://www.digido.com/jitter.html
So it seems it's not just audiophiles talking about jitter and it's negative effects...
-
Another paper on jitter: http://www.nanophon.com/audio/jitter92.pdf
(http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Pictures/Jitter_tresh.gif)
-
I'm assuming that you verified that both of these signals nulled with each other to verify that they are the same before your A/B comparison? They are both lossless which means output would be exactly the same. If there is a difference it would be the ENCODER that is making the difference and not the format. It is possible that an encoder is not doing is job properly or was setup incorrectly to do a comparison.
I use dbpoweramp to convert FLAC to wav to play in J River so I believe it's quite reliable encoder.
WAV and FLAC's bitstreams should be identical. If they are not then there is an encoder or decoder bug and you should contact flac's author.
You can try comparing the same file between ASIO without memory playback to WASAPI (Event Style) with memory playback. They both are bit-perfect so the graph after quantization should be identical and you can hear no difference if your theory is true.
It seems that JPlay took step further demonstrating different memory access pattern (River/Beach) can cause different in sound. You can get JPlay 4.1 trial to test with J River and see if the claim is true or not. I don't think it'll take more than 15 minutes to download jplay to test with J River and see if there's any significant changes you can perceive or not. I'm not trying to promote jplay or anything but that existance itself can prove that bit-perfect doesn't mean you can always get the exact same thing. If you can or can't hear any difference between JPlay and default J River output engine, report in here.
-
I don’t think anybody in the known will argue that there are differences at bit level.
Numerous test has been done and all yield the same result: WAV and FLAC are identical at bit level.
The most convincing test imho has been done by Barry Diament, he recorded the SPDIF out when playing FLAC and WAV. This is exactly what is send to the DAC and of course, at bit level both are identical.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/first-test-and-some-food-audio-thought
As both FLAC and WAV are converted to “raw” PCM and PCM= sample + time step a possible explanation might be that there are differences due to the differences in amount of processing required. This will translate into different levels of RFI, EMI or ripples on the power rail. In turn this might disturb the clock driving the DA.
If this is true the difference is not due to the file format but due to the DA (the sound card) being very susceptible to its environment. As the sound quality fluctuates with system load, the card is obvious not up to its job. I call this a system error.
Both Gordon Rankin and a Linn engineer tried to measure this without success
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/WAV-FLAC.htm
Buffer management, smooth processing as Matt calls it on this forum, memory access patterns in JPlay might be another explanation. However this is in general used as an explanation why different media players with all DSP off still can sound different.
Can’t conjecture up something why this will make WAV and FLAC sound different.
Anyway, perceived differences between lossless uncompressed and lossless compressed formats remains a bit of a mystery.
-
You can try comparing the same file between ASIO without memory playback to WASAPI (Event Style) with memory playback. They both are bit-perfect so the graph after quantization should be identical and you can hear no difference if your theory is true.
That's output. That has nothing to do with flac v wav.
-
However neither group used what was widely known in the scientific and engineering community. Engineers always knew what was needed but made trades offs based on price. This was not something the audiophile community made them aware of.
Citations, please.
That is a little silly. The fact that jitter has been listed as spec on CD players since the 80's means they knew it was important. And since there were many DACs with low jitter etc they obviously knew how to make them. The fact that they were not cheap proves my point.
Of course it MAY NOT be jitter causing issues. It may not be WAV vs FLAC. It could well be something else in the audio chain. It MAY BE that whatever word is used to explain the problem is a misnomer for the phenomenon and that it is being incorrectly used, perhaps through lack of understanding of the subject. As you pointed out, most audiophiles are not engineers and so may be misusing the word, grasping for something to help explain what they hear...
Finally an "audiophile" with some sense of logic. I mean that with the most respect, it isn't often things are constructive in these kinds of conversations. As I pointed out, I would love to be proven wrong as that will increase knowledge and lead to better equipment for all of us. Things have to start somewhere. The start is proving you can hear a difference and that is done with an ABX test.
The reason for most of skepticism of audiophiles is that they can spend unreal amounts of money on equipment, yet never even verify themselves if the investment is worth it? Without an ABX test you cannot. Even worse, they then proceed to come up with wild explanations for their assertions and some magazine does testing on it etc. But never an ABX test to prove they can hear it in the first place. Why not? That is doing science in reverse and proves nothing.
Since I have provided one, perhaps you can provide some data that shows that the average person (or even someone with golden ears) can perceive the difference in the jitter in a high end DAC and a newer Soundblaster card.
Has such a test even been documented?
As far as I know, no it hasn't yet. I've seen many audiophiles claim they can and many others say it is not possible. The skeptics already have science and specs on their side saying it can't be done, so it's up to audiophiles to prove they can. I would love to see it put to an actual test. That would be a great starting point.
-
There is a intriguing post by C.R.Helmrich: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=73686&pid=649256&st=50&#entry649256
Indeed, tiny details are best remembered by our short time memory. That is why he uses loops of 2 sec.
Makes me wonder if ABX simply exceeds the capabilities of our short time memory and as a consequence yields to many false negatives.
-
That's output. That has nothing to do with flac v wav.
Sorry for the confusion. Back then someone claimed that both WAV and FLAC's bitstream are identical so I'm demonstrating ASIO and WASAPI which both have bit-perfect so bitstream will be identical too in the same principles. If the claim of identical bitstream will produce exact same sound, ASIO and WASAPI shall make no difference too like FLAC and WAV comparison due to logic followed by his claim.
The difference between flac and wav on output is flac has one more stage for uncompressing bitstream packet data making the process chain little longer than wav causing more induced jitter in bitstream. I know using jitter word in explanation sounds too skeptical and popular words to draw some cash from audiophiles but only possibility I can give for explanation now is "continuity of bitstream". You can try Fidelizer to test more and judge it yourself whether you can hear what I claim or not.
-
Sorry for the confusion. Back then someone claimed that both WAV and FLAC's bitstream are identical so I'm demonstrating ASIO and WASAPI which both have bit-perfect so bitstream will be identical too in the same principles. If the claim of identical bitstream will produce exact same sound, ASIO and WASAPI shall make no difference too like FLAC and WAV comparison due to logic followed by his claim.
The difference between flac and wav on output is flac has one more stage for uncompressing bitstream packet data making the process chain little longer than wav causing more induced jitter in bitstream. I know using jitter word in explanation sounds too skeptical and popular words to draw some cash from audiophiles but only possibility I can give for explanation now is "continuity of bitstream". You can try Fidelizer to test more and judge it yourself whether you can hear what I claim or not.
That makes more sense to me.
How you get things out to whatever DAC is more of an adventure than people generally think.
-
I used to take computer audio seriously enough to spend over $10k on research just to get the best SQ out from PC. But now I don't really care that much about it anymore. I'm just sharing my experiences during my crazy trips. What the real adventure is how good the song is produced. ;D
-
Makes me wonder if ABX simply exceeds the capabilities of our short time memory and as a consequence yields to many false negatives.
That wouldn't be a false negative. It would be proof that they can't tell the difference and that all that science on memory and hearing is correct. No matter how golden ones ears are, you can't get around the basic wiring of the brain. There are limitations in what we can remember, how much of a sound we can hear at once, and the fact that the brain automatically interpolates what it thinks should be there. And that isn't even touching on personal bias which is impossible to get past without double blind testing.
However ABX isn't about telling A apart from B. It's about which you prefer. If you prefer one over the other, after repeated testing the preference is clearly shown. That is unless they really can't tell the difference and there is no preference.
-
The best comment along those lines I've ever read was from Penn Jillette (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/145161036X) (of Penn & Teller). It was about religion versus science, so slightly different in scope (though "audiophile" in some circles is quite akin to a religion, where an idealized sonic perfection replaces god):
Not that exact nonsense indeed.
Fine quote.
I remember related observations by Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
The Amazing Randi has interesting observations about spoon-benders, paranormal behavior researchers and pseudo-science in general.
Here is my synthesis:
A paradigm shift is successful if after a few years, the field validates and incorporates the new ideas and moves on to other concerns. If the same ideas remain asserted but never proved and are not widely accepted, the paradigm shift has not succeeded. Randi notes that pseudo-science does not advance.
---
If marking the edges of CDs had really produced a difference, all those people who professed belief would still be marking their CDs or doing something else based on that finding.
Bill
-
The reason for most of skepticism of audiophiles is that they can spend unreal amounts of money on equipment, yet never even verify themselves if the investment is worth it? Without an ABX test you cannot.
The amount spent should not impact the impartiality of the observer if objectivity is the goal...
With regards testing, many of the desired results require lab equipment. It's unreasonable to expect the majority of interested parties to have access to such kit. Which leaves general testing. And the thing is, it's not always easy to ABX in any useful way, which is perhaps why people don't do it as much as they should. Memory is a terrible thing to rely on when testing, and tests usually involve playing tracks, pausing, connecting new bits of kit, playing the same track and then trying to make judgements. Almost a pointless exercise, IMO, because your (lack of) memory, even over these short terms causes problems.
When I test I try to set up parallel systems so that I can instantly switch between components being tested LIVE meaning that any differences are immediately obvious and don't rely on memory at all. I also never use full tracks; you simply cannot remember things you heard a minute ago in these situations. I use short samples, at most a few seconds long, containing single components of music that allow me to test specific aspects of replay. I then repeat these samples over and over and over until I'm utterly focussed on what I'm hearing and ONLY THEN do I switch to the parallel system - memory is not required - any differences are immediately apparent. And the results from samples tend to then scale up - that is, the best sounding samples lead to the best sounding music.
Clearly my sympathies lay with the audiophiles. My goal is the absolute best music reproduction I can create within my budget. Ideally that system is created using objectively tested kit, but where testing is unavailable I am open minded enough to listen to both sides of the commentary without automatically dismissing either and confident enough in my ability to listen objectively that, where possible, I then test things myself using my method above. If some bit of kit sounds better to me, even if objective data backing up my observations is unavailable, I will adopt it; it would seem silly not to...
Yes, of course, there is much nonsense out there; subjectivity often trumps objectivity. But to automatically dismiss audiophile commentary seems rather short sighted.
-
There is a intriguing post by C.R.Helmrich: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=73686&pid=649256&st=50&#entry649256
Indeed, tiny details are best remembered by our short time memory. That is why he uses loops of 2 sec.
Interesting. As above, I do exactly the same for that reason. I wasn't aware of anybody else testing in the same way! :D
-
I'm also having an unexpected audio difference between two outputs I'd expect to be identical - would appreciate any ideas...
I used to have my PC connected to the Denon 3310 via Optical output, and always had great sound. A few days ago I switched to an HDMI connection, and immediately noticed something lacking in my audio files. I 'proved' my point by doing a blind test with my wife who typically says 'it all sounds the same', and she specifically noticed the lack of low-end in the HDMI output.
As far as I can tell, all settings are the same. I was testing high bitrate MP3 files, using WASAPI event-style on both, and even the same 'device' setting on the amp (switching between optical and HDMI inputs). I know the sound driver differs (Realtek for optical, ATI for HDMI), but could that really make the difference? According to the amp, the bit-depth of the PCM stream is the same on both, and of course MC would decode the MP3 the same, so can there be something at the driver level degrading the HDMI sound?
-
I'm also having an unexpected audio difference between two outputs I'd expect to be identical - would appreciate any ideas...
I used to have my PC connected to the Denon 3310 via Optical output, and always had great sound. A few days ago I switched to an HDMI connection, and immediately noticed something lacking in my audio files. I 'proved' my point by doing a blind test with my wife who typically says 'it all sounds the same', and she specifically noticed the lack of low-end in the HDMI output.
...
According to the amp, the bit-depth of the PCM stream is the same on both, and of course MC would decode the MP3 the same, so can there be something at the driver level degrading the HDMI sound?
HDMI is notorious for high levels of jitter. Much higher than the usual for SPDIF or async mode USB. At such high levels, jitter probably produces quite audible differences.
Vincent may be able to provide links to test results.
Bill
-
Thanks for the quick reply! Are bitstreamed formats such as DD, DTS-HDMA etc more immune since the amp does the decoding of the original untouched stream?
-
No, the audio part of HMDI can be very high on jitter.
Using 2 different digital connections, the bits might be identical, the timing can (and will) differ.
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/Connect/HDMI_connect.htm
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17504717#post17504717
-
No, the audio part of HMDI can be very high on jitter.
Using 2 different digital connections, the bits might be identical, the timing can (and will) differ.
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/Connect/HDMI_connect.htm
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17504717#post17504717
None of the links answer his question, seeing that as the stream must be read, then decoded into audio by he receiver. As a brand new audio stream based on what earlier is a data stream, won't the jitter of the HDMI-interface be irrelevant?
-
The audio stream over HDMI is digital anyway, be it PCM, DD, DTS.
In all cases the conversion to analog is done by the receiver.
-
The audio stream over HDMI is digital anyway, be it PCM, DD, DTS.
In all cases the conversion to analog is done by the receiver.
Of course, but when you decode a format, won't you have to buffer the indata, decode it, to lpcm and then send it to the DAC? Won't this part of the chain remove any possible jitterproblems added by the hdmi-interface?
-
Of course, but when you decode a format, won't you have to buffer the indata, decode it, to lpcm and then send it to the DAC? Won't this part of the chain remove any possible jitterproblems added by the hdmi-interface?
The DAC (in the receiver in this case) will remove jitter if it is half way decent. That is what the clock signal is for. Also jitter does not produce a "lack of low end". That is not the cause.
However there are many different things "in between" the source (MC?) and the jacks. Drivers, filters etc. They all could have something to do with it. I would look there.
-
The DAC (in the receiver in this case) will remove jitter if it is half way decent. That is what the clock signal is for. Also jitter does not produce a "lack of low end". That is not the cause.
However there are many different things "in between" the source (MC?) and the jacks. Drivers, filters etc. They all could have something to do with it. I would look there.
So any well designed DAC buffers the dataflow and reclocks it for the conversion process? I am very interested in the details if you have them.
-
Sorry don't have the exact details, but yes buffering and reclocking\syncing is part of the job. There is plenty of information on the net though. Probably a ton right in the HDMI spec if you can dig it up somewhere.
-
So any well designed DAC buffers the dataflow and reclocks it for the conversion process? I am very interested in the details if you have them.
Here is some reading on a DAC I would call well designed. It has much value for understanding the processes in general.
http://www.naimaudio.com/userfiles/modules/attachment/naim_dac_august_2009.pdf