More 'Audiophile' bullsh*t

[budgie smuggler]

Globs said:

budgie smuggler said:

Globs said:

budgie smuggler said:

For example your wave form above could become this if the timing error was in the right place:

This however has never been observed in CD transports - diyaudio IIRC did a big test of bit accuracy and I don't recall it ever happening.
I'm sure it's possible with ad hoc systems, but you'd need a jitter big enough to skip an entire bit/half bit which for even a cheap quartz crystal isn't going to happen.

The subtle timing of _when_ the value hits the DAC however will always be slightly out which is why a more stable clock will always improve sound.

Could you explain please, because I don't understand how.
The DAC is receiving a series of high and low voltages, either it reads the correct for that particular bit or not.

Yes, just look at the green line in the graph. That's the correct analogue shape that needs to leave the DAC/player/wire. Jitter moves those dots slightly to the left and right, so the green line will then become bent, or distorted.

Like sowing runner bean seeds without using a ruler - you get slightly uneven spacing. As each dot is defined by x (position in time) and y (digital value corresponding to a voltage) a change of either changes the sound.

I think you are talking about jitter WITHIN the DAC?

I was talking about the bitstream being extracted from the CD and passed digitally over wire to the DAC. I.e. with reference to cheap transports 'changing the sound'.

[PJ S]

Mr_Yogi said:

The whole point of red book audio is that it plays pretty well even if the CD is damaged that's to the real time error correction (I forget it's name).

Reed Solomon error correction

[PJ S]

RedLeicester said:

You missed a bit.

Not to worry, it was only the LSB.

[tank slapper]

Mr_Yogi said:

It's not as simple as that you need a method to check the data you receive is the same as what was sent you can't reply on the fact it's 1's and 0's even when programming simple file transfers. the fact ia that there are no protocols for transfering digital audio data. Also DACs are very sensitive to other components and need isolation.

That is a trivial problem. Parity has been used to error check data transmission right from the start, simply because it is recognised that on occasion the signal may be degraded enough to cause an error. Why do you need a protocal for transferring audio data specifically? It's just data, and there are hundreds of different ways to send it which would do the job. The whole point is that instead of trying to read the data stream at 44.1kHz and feed it into a DAC in real time (where read jitter can become a problem), you read it at a faster rate which allows repeated attempts and error correction and then transmit it to a buffer so that it can be dealt with accordingly. The only piece of equipment that needs to have a an accurate clock and run at 44.1kHz is the DAC, and getting a sufficiently accurate clock is also a trivial matter these days. DACs need isolation? No problem, use a fibre optic link to get the data into it, again something that has been around for ages.

There really is very little technical obstacle in processing and moving around a low bit-rate data stream such as that from an audio CD.

[Globs]

RedLeicester said:

Globs said:

TCP.

You missed a bit.

vs UDP, I thought the /IP bit unnecessary

[Globs]

budgie smuggler said:

I think you are talking about jitter WITHIN the DAC?

I was talking about the bitstream being extracted from the CD and passed digitally over wire to the DAC. I.e. with reference to cheap transports 'changing the sound'.

Well nothing else is going to change the sound

[Mr_Yogi]

tank slapper said:

That is a trivial problem. Parity has been used to error check data transmission right from the start, simply because it is recognised that on occasion the signal may be degraded enough to cause an error. Why do you need a protocal for transferring audio data specifically? It's just data, and there are hundreds of different ways to send it which would do the job. The whole point is that instead of trying to read the data stream at 44.1kHz and feed it into a DAC in real time (where read jitter can become a problem), you read it at a faster rate which allows repeated attempts and error correction and then transmit it to a buffer so that it can be dealt with accordingly. The only piece of equipment that needs to have a an accurate clock and run at 44.1kHz is the DAC, and getting a sufficiently accurate clock is also a trivial matter these days. DACs need isolation? No problem, use a fibre optic link to get the data into it, again something that has been around for ages.

There really is very little technical obstacle in processing and moving around a low bit-rate data stream such as that from an audio CD.

I'm not disputing that digital data transfer is now easily achieved and that systems and protocols exist, what I'm saying is that they don't exist for audio. You could build a CD transport with a network adapter and a chipset to get the data from the transport buffer to the NIC. Then engineer and build a DAC with a network port. But you would end up with 2 unique boxes that will only ever work with each other, and you've had the extra overhead of adding the network stuff when you could have just made a single box solution and negated any problems with jitter in the first instance and saved a whole heap of money.

The whole point of having a separate DAC is it allows flexibility, and for that to work you need a standard, such as SPDIF/ TOSLINK and the emerging Async USB, for companies to build products to so they can all work together.

None of the large Electronics companies are interested in producing a new standard as they are all getting out of the hi-fi market and the small companies can't afford and don't have the influence to create a new standard. As for the professional market they've had clock syncing for years and that appears to be working, I know TAG McLaren tried to incorporate a similar thing into home mrket (with good results), but it was a lone effort and disapeared once they left the scene. There has been an attempt to utilise firewire but that seems to be loosing favor to Async USB which could well be what you are asking for

[Globs]

Mr_Yogi said:

None of the large Electronics companies are interested in producing a new standard as they are all getting out of the hi-fi market and the small companies can't afford and don't have the influence to create a new standard.

I'm not sure what new standard is needed?

I'm also not sure why domestic kit is needed either, the pro audio market does digital cheaper and better than any domestic market could hope to, the computer market does digital transfer, storage etc far better so I just cant see a place.

I know Naim does the HDX, but instead of a dull overpriced PC in a black box I can get gleaming and cheaper computer kit and pro-audio processing that blow it out of the water on looks, performance, flexibility and possibly sound too. This music does travel through pro audio kit to reach us after all.

Domestic (hifi) makers should stick to speakers and amps IMO, the digital wheel has already been perfected.

[StuH]

PhilboSE said:

StuH said:

I've been into computer audio for several years now and like many was initially sceptical about how digital audio (those simple ones and zero's )can be susceptible to such a huge variety of factors before ending up as the analogue audio that we hear at the end of the chain. In my main system I run an Aurender S10 frontend - http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/426-aure... my office system is Mac/Amarra/Async USB/DAC, rest of teh house ZP90's - all sound VERY different despite playing the same bit-perfect digital tracks into an identical DAC. How is this so?

Edited by StuH on Tuesday 8th January 14:11

Different rooms, different acoustics, differences within the DACs themselves? I can fully accept that two identical DACs will transform the digital sample into an analogue signal with minute differences which some people will claim to be able to detect.

Same room, same DAC, same system, same audio track, same ears, direct a/b, level matched - DIFFERENT source component - very different audio........

[StuH]

Globs said:

....the digital wheel has already been perfected.

I seem to remember Philips telling me this in 1983

http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/ - These guys produce the best digital front-end I've ever heard in my system. They straddle the pro/semi-pro/high-end consumer market. I suspect they'd take issue with this comment. Perhaps you should contact them and tell them to stop wasting their time

[Globs]

custodian said:

StuH said:

I seem to remember Philips telling me this in 1983

http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/ - These guys produce the best digital front-end I've ever heard in my system. They straddle the pro/semi-pro/high-end consumer market. I suspect they'd take issue with this comment. Perhaps you should contact them and tell them to stop wasting their time

exactly!!!!

brochure said:

Vivaldi Transport

• Extracts revelatory levels of detail from both CD and SACD.

I'm sorry but this set the bullst detector off immediately and I'm having trouble turning it off, please bear with me which I find the earplugs and tongs.

[qube_TA]

Mr_Yogi said:

The whole point of having a separate DAC is it allows flexibility, and for that to work you need a standard, such as SPDIF/ TOSLINK and the emerging Async USB, for companies to build products to so they can all work together.

None of the large Electronics companies are interested in producing a new standard as they are all getting out of the hi-fi market and the small companies can't afford and don't have the influence to create a new standard.

What I don't understand is that if you're a musician you might buy something like one of these to plug into your computer: http://www.dv247.com/computer-hardware/focusrite-s... These will give you a high resolution DAC/ADC 24bit / 96KHz multichannel interface for recording/playing back your music. However they're perfectly good for playing any digital audio from your computer regardless of its format or source. I have a modest hi-fi; Marantz PM17 amp, CD63 CD, Linn Sondek, B&W 603 speakers. It sounds OK, it's getting old now, but it's fine, however my Mac, plugged into a similar interface as above with some active monitors connected via balanced outputs kicks the crap out of it for sound quality, clarity etc, yet it was a fraction of the cost, the audio interface costs pennies compared to a hi-fi DAC that wouldn't have anything like the flexibility or the low latency. If you buy an ultra expensive studio interface the cost would be down to the fact it can handle a large number of simultaneous audio I/O with very litle latency. The difference in price seems to be purely down to the fact that one is aimed at a musician and the other to an audiophile hi-fi person.
Incidentally the obsession with cables, sockets, epic power supplies, mains conditioners etc just doesn't exist in a studio where the music that we listen to is recorded. In the studio you'll spend money on making sure there are no reflections, earth loops, interference etc, the position of equipment, but you're never going to fret about buying a special silver plated mains cable or lead for a microphone or guitar. I'd be surprised if there's any studio equipment that has the same audiophile mentality as the super high-end Hi-Fi world. An audiophile strives for a pure signal path with minimal electronics for the signal to pass through, yet during recording of the album the signal goes through an incredible amount of electronics, connectors, cables, with bucketfuls of compressors, post-processing and dithering before a master is pressed onto a disc. I used to be into hi-fi a lot and spent a lot of money trying to get that perfect sound, but when I got into music production and sound engineering it became apparent that the obsessive regard for audio perfection doesn't exist in the studio so these tiny nuances of sound were lost early on in the recording process and an engineer mixed and compressed the audio to make it compatible with most systems and not the chap with the £50K+ ultra system. If you were able to buy media specifically mixed for such systems I'd imagine they'd sound fantastic but those are unlikely.

[Insanity Magnet]

StuH said:

I seem to remember Philips telling me this in 1983

http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/ - These guys produce the best digital front-end I've ever heard in my system. They straddle the pro/semi-pro/high-end consumer market. I suspect they'd take issue with this comment. Perhaps you should contact them and tell them to stop wasting their time

Errr... from some sources on the internets, the Transport comes in at a cool $40k, the DAC at $35K, Master Clock at $13.5K and the Upsampler at $20K.

That's $108K for a disc spinner (assuming you use all four boxes)

4 boxes to play an (SA)CD?

[StuH]

Globs said:

custodian said:

StuH said:

I seem to remember Philips telling me this in 1983

http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/ - These guys produce the best digital front-end I've ever heard in my system. They straddle the pro/semi-pro/high-end consumer market. I suspect they'd take issue with this comment. Perhaps you should contact them and tell them to stop wasting their time

exactly!!!!

brochure said:

Vivaldi Transport

• Extracts revelatory levels of detail from both CD and SACD.

I'm sorry but this set the bullst detector off immediately and I'm having trouble turning it off, please bear with me which I find the earplugs and tongs.

Lol - the high-end digital audio equivalent of Ferrari and you think you know better - only on the Internet..........

I think I'll draw my own conclusions on the credibility of your posts

[StuH]

Insanity Magnet said:

StuH said:

I seem to remember Philips telling me this in 1983

http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/ - These guys produce the best digital front-end I've ever heard in my system. They straddle the pro/semi-pro/high-end consumer market. I suspect they'd take issue with this comment. Perhaps you should contact them and tell them to stop wasting their time

Errr... from some sources on the internets, the Transport comes in at a cool $40k, the DAC at $35K, Master Clock at $13.5K and the Upsampler at $20K.

That's $108K for a disc spinner (assuming you use all four boxes)

4 boxes to play an (SA)CD?

Not cheap granted - but then as custodian will testify - its all about being able to differentiate price from value with the finer things in life.

[StuH]

qube_TA said:

Mr_Yogi said:

The whole point of having a separate DAC is it allows flexibility, and for that to work you need a standard, such as SPDIF/ TOSLINK and the emerging Async USB, for companies to build products to so they can all work together.

None of the large Electronics companies are interested in producing a new standard as they are all getting out of the hi-fi market and the small companies can't afford and don't have the influence to create a new standard.

What I don't understand is that if you're a musician you might buy something like one of these to plug into your computer: http://www.dv247.com/computer-hardware/focusrite-s... These will give you a high resolution DAC/ADC 24bit / 96KHz multichannel interface for recording/playing back your music. However they're perfectly good for playing any digital audio from your computer regardless of its format or source. I have a modest hi-fi; Marantz PM17 amp, CD63 CD, Linn Sondek, B&W 603 speakers. It sounds OK, it's getting old now, but it's fine, however my Mac, plugged into a similar interface as above with some active monitors connected via balanced outputs kicks the crap out of it for sound quality, clarity etc, yet it was a fraction of the cost, the audio interface costs pennies compared to a hi-fi DAC that wouldn't have anything like the flexibility or the low latency. If you buy an ultra expensive studio interface the cost would be down to the fact it can handle a large number of simultaneous audio I/O with very litle latency. The difference in price seems to be purely down to the fact that one is aimed at a musician and the other to an audiophile hi-fi person.
Incidentally the obsession with cables, sockets, epic power supplies, mains conditioners etc just doesn't exist in a studio where the music that we listen to is recorded. In the studio you'll spend money on making sure there are no reflections, earth loops, interference etc, the position of equipment, but you're never going to fret about buying a special silver plated mains cable or lead for a microphone or guitar. I'd be surprised if there's any studio equipment that has the same audiophile mentality as the super high-end Hi-Fi world. An audiophile strives for a pure signal path with minimal electronics for the signal to pass through, yet during recording of the album the signal goes through an incredible amount of electronics, connectors, cables, with bucketfuls of compressors, post-processing and dithering before a master is pressed onto a disc. I used to be into hi-fi a lot and spent a lot of money trying to get that perfect sound, but when I got into music production and sound engineering it became apparent that the obsessive regard for audio perfection doesn't exist in the studio so these tiny nuances of sound were lost early on in the recording process and an engineer mixed and compressed the audio to make it compatible with most systems and not the chap with the £50K+ ultra system. If you were able to buy media specifically mixed for such systems I'd imagine they'd sound fantastic but those are unlikely.

Interesting post and some valid points. I actually had a discussion with someone recently along very similar lines, particularly in regard to the obsession in HiFi for purity of signal path. I think the increasing availability of realtime EQ software will start to be used for 2 channel in the way it's now used for home cinema, allowing real-time room correction. I've already been very impressed with some of the electronic bass management systems. To my mind active room correction in the signal path has the possibility to improve SQ significantly over any benefits to be gained purely from keeping that path simple.

[Globs]

StuH said:

Globs said:

brochure said:

Vivaldi Transport

• Extracts revelatory levels of detail from both CD and SACD.

I'm sorry but this set the bullst detector off immediately and I'm having trouble turning it off, please bear with me which I find the earplugs and tongs.

Lol - the high-end digital audio equivalent of Ferrari and you think you know better - only on the Internet..........

I think I'll draw my own conclusions on the credibility of your posts

Excellent appeal to authority there!

So can you tell me where the extra detail is hidden in a 16bit CD?
In each word there is 16 bits:

b15 b14 b13 b12b b11 b10 b9 b8 b7 b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0

So where is the extra revelatory detail stored Stu? Please enlighten us with your high-end wisdom.

[TonyRPH]

custodian said:

This is really developing into the same old circular discussion.
<snip>
With this rambling post, I'm opting out of this particular cyclical discussion. Good luck in reaching a conclusion.

custodian - may I remind you of the flaming I received from you on page4 when I posted this?

One way or another - these discussions almost always end up going circular.

custodian said:

TonyRPH said:

May I just leave this here. (not audio related - but I think it conveys where this thread is headed!!)

Tony, thanks for yet another off topic post. Do you ever put your head above the parapet and post something relevant?

[budgie smuggler]

Globs said:

budgie smuggler said:

I think you are talking about jitter WITHIN the DAC?

I was talking about the bitstream being extracted from the CD and passed digitally over wire to the DAC. I.e. with reference to cheap transports 'changing the sound'.

Well nothing else is going to change the sound

Ah, agreed then. Crossed wires on that one.

[StuH]

Globs said:

Excellent appeal to authority there!

So can you tell me where the extra detail is hidden in a 16bit CD?
In each word there is 16 bits:

b15 b14 b13 b12b b11 b10 b9 b8 b7 b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0

So where is the extra revelatory detail stored Stu? Please enlighten us with your high-end wisdom.

Are you kidding me? Do you think it's quite that literal

If you think that you know more about digital reproduction than DcS then good luck to you. I make my own mind up based on posters contributions as to whether I see merit in their contribution, so like custodian I'll leave your insights for others to enjoy and withdraw myself from this particular discussion.