Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wybe]

I'm also on the PS Audio forum and wonder why people at almost every release report differences in sonic quality. If you only convert from flac to wav, the audio data is untouched by JRiver, isn't it?

[Matt]

http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Bit-perfect_Audio

[Wybe]

Nice article, but this doesn't explain why people with the same source (audiofile) and the same hardware experience differences in sonic quality when they update JRiver from e.g. 18.0.212 to 18.0.213. You're saying that, unless you're using DSP settings, JRiver is not responsible for these sonic differences?

[Vincent Kars]

I'm also on the PS Audio forum and wonder why people at almost every release report differences in sonic quality.

Do they hear a differences or do they perceive a difference?

[Chris M.]

The sound quality of your DAC has a lot more to do with things than your software. A $50 DAC is going to sound like a $50 DAC no matter whether or not you have "bit-perfect" output. A $10,000 DCS DAC is going to sound better no matter if you use J River, FooBar, iTunes, etc.

[Matt]

Nice article, but this doesn't explain why people with the same source (audiofile) and the same hardware experience differences in sonic quality when they update JRiver from e.g. 18.0.212 to 18.0.213. You're saying that, unless you're using DSP settings, JRiver is not responsible for these sonic differences?

Yes.

It's worth remembering that we measure "sonic quality" using an incredibly complex analog machine (ourselves!).  In many cases, computers are the constant and we're the variable.

[mschneid]

The audioholics online emagazine just reviewed software including J River
http://www.audioholics.com/how-to-shop/best-audiophile-music-software

The author writes...

Author's Opinion on Bit Perfect Playback

    Finally the third camp, my camp, gets two paragraphs because it's my camp and I'm writing this. Let's all start by agreeing that audio is a real-time process. Even if an application loads data into memory for processing, everything before and the whole operation after is a real time operation. Real time processes in a computer take the form of a square wave, specifically a pulse width modulation. This pulse width modulation is an analog representation of what we conceptualize as a digital signal and is created by voltage in the power supply. This PWM signal has both amplitude characteristics and timing characteristics. The timing, or duty cycle, along with the amplitude determine the frequency response of that square wave. A computer is made up of billions of transistors, all switching very quickly to changes in logic (mathematical algorithms created by the operating system and software). Based on the input voltages, logic switches create a new version, a duplicate, of the square wave (either theoretically identical or altered). That new version of the square wave is also created from power in the power supply. Because audio is real time, there is no error correction that can be done to this square wave, any resulting wave form IS your music.

    Looking at the concept of bit-perfect, it's arguably impossible to have bit perfect playback in a real-time system because there are no bits. If the power supply introduces noise or there is jitter on the square wave this results in a square wave that is not identical to the original. Because the square wave is an analog signal it is still susceptible to noise and distortion. A square wave, however, reacts a little differently than its sine wave counterpart. Jitter is an alteration of the duty cycle, when that jitter hits the digital interface chips, a DAC for instance, that jitter is seen as an amplitude error and creates an alteration of the frequency response. Amplitude distortion itself is created by noise voltages that either add or subtract from the amplitude of the square wave. This introduces harmonic content into the square wave that shouldn't exist in the music. The square wave may still resemble a one or a zero, but it contains additional frequency content. So as far that bits are concerned, it's bit perfect, but with additional harmonic content that shouldn't be there.

Does this make ANY sense?

[dean70]

The audioholics online emagazine just reviewed software including J River
http://www.audioholics.com/how-to-shop/best-audiophile-music-software

The author writes...

Does this make ANY sense?

As I understand that this is getting closer to the matter. You might have bits (near square wave as 2 distinct voltage levels), but also have any noise riding on the power rails to contend with as well. It could end up in the audio band, or outside it...

[JimH]

All the stuff about what happens in a PC affecting the audio performance of a DAC is phony baloney.  They have two different clocks if the device is any good.  There are buffers.  There is no way that a PC's activity can affect the timing of audio on the playback device unless the audio device is really crappy, and most aren't.

I feel better now.

[6233638]

The audioholics online emagazine just reviewed software including J River
http://www.audioholics.com/how-to-shop/best-audiophile-music-software
The author writes...
Does this make ANY sense?

My short answer would be: I don't think the author has a proper understanding of how digital signalling works, but knows enough to be dangerous.
---

There seems to be a big error in what the author says; the argument seems to be that because the "square wave signal" could theoretically be altered because it is analog, it could change the sound.
The problem is that this doesn't matter as long as the change is not so drastic that it manages to flip a 1 to a 0 (basically not going to happen) or the signal is degraded so much that it fails. Neither of these are likely, and would manifest themselves as obvious pops and clicks in the audio.

Errors with digital transmission will nor impart an analog change on the sound - the errors are obvious.
Either the signal is still within the range of what the receiving device accepts as a 1 or a 0 (say ±10%) or the signal drops out.

And whether you believe that the "analog" portion of the digital signal can be affected to change the sound or not, that's not something your playback software has any control over.
If you do believe that it matters, buy cables that have been certified using eye pattern testing - most "high end" cables have not been.
Many of the digital cables that cost ridiculous amounts of money will be worse than a $2 monoprice cable due to them being DIY cables rather than properly manufactured and tested.

It's not an endorsement, but Monster cables are one of the few companies I know of which are doing eye pattern testing and rating their USB cables for example. They have USB2 cables certified to pass 800mbps and 1200mbps - both of which are well beyond the limits of USB2. (480mbps) You shouldn't need to spend more than $15-25 for something that is certified to exceed the spec by a factor of 1.5-2.5x. So if Monster can produce a cable which exceeds the spec that much, at that price (and just think what their markup is on a USB cable) there's no need to spend a lot of money on digital cables.

[crisnee]

People that say things such as "there is no way," or "it's obvious," fill me with doubt.

I would add to Matt's incredibly complex analog machine, the world within which that machine and the music playing machine operate.

[Vincent Kars]

Digital looks simple, ones, zeros, a clock and a buffer.
Practice is a bit more complex.
What if you see the tracking pulse of the USB on the analog out of your DAC?
Obvious something not in the bits or in the sample rate.

This I do think a nice read
Tells you all about the complexity of digital: http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Lib/Hitoshi%20Kondoh%20story.pdf

[Wybe]

The sound quality of your DAC has a lot more to do with things than your software. A $50 DAC is going to sound like a $50 DAC no matter whether or not you have "bit-perfect" output. A $10,000 DCS DAC is going to sound better no matter if you use J River, FooBar, iTunes, etc.

You're right, but you're missing my point. People report changes in sonic quality, when they only update the JRiver software. The other components of the chain remain the same. I'd like to know and understand this phenomenon considering the fact that, unless they use DSP settings, the audio is not touched by JRiver. So, it doesn't matter if you have a 50 euro DAC or a 2500 euro DAC, if you only change the software and you hear sonic differences, it means the updated JRiver software should be responsible for this change.

[6233638]

Digital looks simple, ones, zeros, a clock and a buffer.
Practice is a bit more complex.
What if you see the tracking pulse of the USB on the analog out of your DAC?
Obvious something not in the bits or in the sample rate.

This I do think a nice read
Tells you all about the complexity of digital: http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Lib/Hitoshi%20Kondoh%20story.pdf

I think this was an interesting read about DAC design, and shows that there's more to it than simply buying the cheapest DAC with the chip that you want in it. (e.g. these eBay ESS9018 DACs a lot of people seem to be buying now) Design and implementation is very important.

But most DACs today are asynchronous, which means that the data is clocked internally, so they are not very susceptible to signal jitter at all.
And it still comes down to picking the right DAC - your software player or cable should not have any impact on playback quality.

You're right, but you're missing my point. People report changes in sonic quality, when they only update the JRiver software. The other components of the chain remain the same. I'd like to know and understand this phenomenon considering the fact that, unless they use DSP settings, the audio is not touched by JRiver. So, it doesn't matter if you have a 50 euro DAC or a 2500 euro DAC, if you only change the software and you hear sonic differences, it means the updated JRiver software should be responsible for this change.

It is most likely not the software causing this change. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

[Vincent Kars]

Asynchronous is at protocol level. This indeed eliminates input jitter.
However, as long as e.g. PC and DAC have a galvanic connection, noise might creep in.
There is a nice post about this subject by John Swenson.
I won’t call it hard evidence but it might offer an explanation why media players could differ in sound quality even when sending the same bits.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/12/126193.html

[JimH]

However, as long as e.g. PC and DAC have a galvanic connection, noise might creep in.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/12/126193.html

That would be poor design on the part of the DAC maker and isn't related to the clock of the PC.

[DarkPenguin]

You're right, but you're missing my point. People report changes in sonic quality, when they only update the JRiver software. The other components of the chain remain the same. I'd like to know and understand this phenomenon considering the fact that, unless they use DSP settings, the audio is not touched by JRiver. So, it doesn't matter if you have a 50 euro DAC or a 2500 euro DAC, if you only change the software and you hear sonic differences, it means the updated JRiver software should be responsible for this change.

Unless they're properly ab'ing this stuff what they claim to "hear" is meaningless.

[rayooo]

You're right, but you're missing my point. People report changes in sonic quality, when they only update the JRiver software. The other components of the chain remain the same. I'd like to know and understand this phenomenon considering the fact that, unless they use DSP settings, the audio is not touched by JRiver. So, it doesn't matter if you have a 50 euro DAC or a 2500 euro DAC, if you only change the software and you hear sonic differences, it means the updated JRiver software should be responsible for this change.

Is there any chance whatsoever that any of these reports being made by people who are perceiving a difference are simply imagining a difference? or is this impossible?
Is there any chance whatsoever that any of these reports being made by people are due to a changed or accidentally incorrect setup? or is this impossible also?

I've seen this discussion a few hundred times now, it always ends the same.

It seems if 100 people claim no difference, and 10 people do,  the only "data" that anyone pays any attention to is the 10, the 100 are ignored.

I've installed JRiver versions back to 17, hundreds of installs, now at 19, at least 6 different motherboard platforms, CPUs from Atom to latest i7.
Other than platforms too slow to have smooth graphics, a few cases of improper setup, or, my own human imagination/perception/expectation bias, I've never detected any real difference.
I've been using Async USB since it was available. Several DACs. SPDIF prior.

I'm all for improving sound quality, I'll buy a new fuse, wire, screw, thumb tack or pack of gum if it improves the sound in some way, I'm happy to accept and believe subtle changes in a system causing detectable differences, but I'm also able to accept that other changes make no difference.

If I post something like this at some other forum, I'm automatically labeled as someone who can't hear, doesn't believe, won't believe, or just wants to stir the pot.

Anyway, just my 2cents worth on the matter.

[crisnee]

Hey Rayoo,

I hear you. your kind of input is generally ignored. I know, because I think somewhat like you seem to and my input is pretty much ignored. People either just go on with their technical explanations (pro or con whatever), or they condemn the pro or con via words like "it's impossible" or the like.

I think there are so many variables including unintended/unnoticed changes in the environment/listener that it becomes almost impossible to track down the causes for subtle perceived changes at times and possibly most of the time.

Not to mention that everything we humans think we know turns out to be only part of the story or a shortsighted story. Think quantum physics, observing changes the observed, listening changes the listened too?

But I suppose a lot of audio forums (not to mention audio businesses) would languish if we just accepted the fact that some days for no apparent reason (accent on apparent) our music playing systems sounded better or worse. Mine seems to, no matter what I do/buy, and I've had some of my most memorable listening moments while using pitifully poor equipment.

[kstuart]

There are two other aspects:

1 - People want an answer that is either "everything makes an audible difference" or "nothing makes an audible difference, except when something is broken".   So they see a stick for sale for $10,000 in an audio store, that is obviously a fraud, and then they assume that "all audiophiles are gullible fools that only think they hear differences".   Unfortunately, no one seems to want to take things on a case-by-case basis, instead they want an "ideology" to believe.

2 - Some of the differences discovered by audiophiles are very, very subtle, and unlikely to be discernible to people who are not professionals.  For example, the person who most vocally claims that resource use on a PC affects sound quality during real-time playback, is someone who is a CD mastering engineer.  You probably have one of his CDs in your collection, since he has been doing it since the first CDs were issued, and worked on many top selling albums.

His claim cannot be due to "bias" because a) he has no personal gain either way, and b) the effect actually makes his life more difficult, since it requires time and attention to mitigate.

So, the usual "psychological bias" argument that is reasonable when someone "likes" the new $10,000 cable that they bought, does not apply.   Instead, the effect is actually very small and very subtle, but when you spend 10 hours a day listening critically to sound quality, you find things that most people are never going to hear.

[flac.rules]

kstuart: there is no reason at all that a person who works with mastering isn't affected by placebo, as every other person in the world. You have no personal gain in buying an overly expensive cable either, why do some people like them better when they listen to it in the store?

[MrC]

Unfortunately, no one seems to want to take things on a case-by-case basis, instead they want an "ideology" to believe.

This self-contradiction made me chuckle.

[crisnee]

I can think of reasons why a cd mastering engineer or other audio expert might have a bias. For instance, He/she may need to believe that he can hear better (so to speak) than your average music listener.

On a tangentially related note, I find it interesting that many great musicians who care probably more than anyone about the sound and musicality of their works/performances don't care that much about the quality of their audio equipment, certainly as compared to so-called audiophiles. In other words a decent, not necessarily up to date mid-fi system does them just fine.

People who chuckle at other people's solecisms make me gag.

And yes Kstuart, ideology seems to be at work a lot of the time (no matter how you may have said it) and therefore keeps the discussion from becoming interesting.

[JimH]

Definition of solecism

Religion or Science?

[MrC]

I apologize for making anyone gag.

[JimH]

Chuckle.

[kstuart]

This self-contradiction made me chuckle.

If you think it is contradictory, you are missing the distinction between generalization on the basis of observation, versus generalization without observation.

My method is to observe.   I try to avoid accepting anything merely because someone has said so.  (Of course, sometimes I fail.)

My observation is that human beings accept things based on their perception of the reliability of the speaker.  At that point, they don't bother to observe whether the thing stated corresponds to reality.  In many cases, there is no practical way for them to do so.

This tendency was undoubtedly a good thing when people lived in small groups, and survival was at stake.  However, it is not a good thing in a world where there are 7 billion people, most of whom are connected by the Internet.

[JimH]

Don't trust anyone over 30.

[kstuart]

Getting back to the subject described in the title of the thread:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-2-are-bits-just-bits

[InflatableMouse]

I have trouble believing people whose part of the head below the nose is bigger than the part above it.

[kstuart]

I have trouble believing people whose part of the head below the nose is bigger than the part above it.

I think that is partially the angle from the cell-phone self-portrait...

[crisnee]

Definition of solecism

Religion or Science?

I was referring to bitching, not bitches.

And sure "it works" as R. D. says so ineloquently, but only within the limits set by limited creatures who think they rule.