Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › This can't be right - my CD's digital end seems to affect sound quality more than expected
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

This can't be right - my CD's digital end seems to affect sound quality more than expected - Page 3

post #31 of 64

I don't think you understand. The differences you purport to be audible are far beyond the established range of audibility. I don't need to understand the inner workings of the human ear to know that 500ps of jitter is inaudible. I cannot "know" for sure, but as the only evidence to the contrary is anecdotes from people on the internet who also occasionally insist they can hear the difference between things such as fuses (not referring to yourself), I feel pretty safe in my conclusions.


Edited by Willakan - 8/31/11 at 11:19am
post #32 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

Hah, whatever you say boss.

To non-Gregorios, some food for thought. There are many products claiming to have low jitter, or to reduce jitter, including dac chips which all the manufacturers claim deal with jitter better than other dac chips. If so many people and so many companies are trying to tackle this obviously nonexistent issue as Gregorio's genius has shown, does it not mean there must be a massive conspiracy to make us believe in jitter?

Only Gregorio can save us from ourselves. And only Gregorio can finish Beethoven's unfinished symphonies.

"A good quality converter will have some form of phase locked loop arrangement which will generate its own clock which runs at the average of the input clock rate, thus eliminating the jitter element." 2005 - Jon Hodgson - DSP Expert.

It's not only Gregorio, it's world leaders and experts in the field like Bob Katz and Jon Hodgson as well as anyone else who has knowledge of the digital audio world. When you say "ourselves" who are you speaking for? You have it completely backwards, it's not you and the world against Gregorio, it's Gregorio and the world against you. The best argument you can muster against the evidence I've provided is personal insults and the theory that so many companies couldn't possibly be misleading you and trying to sell you an unnecessary product. Hello, what planet are you living on? Talk about a victim of marketing hype! Can't you see you're just digging a deeper and deeper hole and only making yourself look more and more stupid!

If you want to prove me wrong, flame or insult me, take my advice and find some weapon other than ignorance!

G
post #33 of 64

You don't see the videophiles running around claiming that their HDMI or BNC cable is shifting around a few photons in the "higher end" thereby creating a lack of "precision" do you? X D
In all seriousness though, the above poster is logistically sound in claiming that the majority of difference perceived is not due to a difference of sound entering our ears...

post #34 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willakan View Post

I don't think you understand. The differences you purport to be audible are far beyond the established range of audibility. I don't need to understand the inner workings of the human ear to know that 500ps of jitter is inaudible. I cannot "know" for sure, but as the only evidence to the contrary is anecdotes from people on the internet who also occasionally insist they can hear the difference between things such as fuses (not referring to yourself), I feel pretty safe in my conclusions.


The lowest amount of jitter detected was about 200nsec, can't remember where I read that, an AES paper I think. Most decent jitter reduction circuitry shouldn't have jitter anywhere near 500psec, a tenth of that would be reasonable. But even 500ps of jitter is still several hundred times lower than anyone has ever perceived in any tests.

G
Edited by gregorio - 8/31/11 at 12:08pm
post #35 of 64

A picosecond is three orders of magnitude smaller than a nanosecond. 

 

EDIT: Sorry, misread post - thought it implied picoseconds were larger than nanoseconds. 


Edited by Willakan - 9/1/11 at 3:53am
post #36 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willakan View Post

A picosecond is three orders of magnitude smaller than a nanosecond. 


500ps x 400 = 200ns. No?
post #37 of 64
I'm not even going to bother reading the last few responses to me. The xxhighend link I gave should've given anyone still conscious some food for thought on the jitter issue. But of course all I'll get are a bunch of responses about things being inaudible from people with absolutely no appreciation of how difficult it is to scientifically test the limits of human perception. One quote sticks in my mind when I think about how real research like what Peter did measuring at the dac output is never respected by those who toe the line, and never followed up in any way.

"He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.” Albert Einstein

And just for the record, if TrasselKalle only got the advice of the champions of official science, he would have absolutely no chance of ever resolving his question of why different transports sound different. Unless he decides to buy into the hilarious attempts at using placebo to explain everything under the sun that doesn't jive with ones personal bias.
post #38 of 64

He heard a difference in blind testing and it was repeatable. If measurements are needed to prove it to some, I think figuring out what and how to measure are more the issues than what was heard. Theorize all you like but his listening session went exactly as my experience would indicate other than perhaps I'd expect a bigger difference between his analog out and coax dig with that DAC.

post #39 of 64
That's it haloxt, keep quoting bogus rubbish (xxhighend) as science, no matter what real science and scientists have to say on the matter. Sorry but quoting a real scientist (Einstein) doesn't really count as supporting evidence unless what you quote is in some way related to your argument!

Another lie is that I have no appreciation of scientifically testing the limits of human hearing. More ignorant rubbish quoted as fact. I have been involved in quite a lot of scientific study of the limits of hearing as it happens. So how much more stupid and ignorant do you want to appear?

I would like to say that it's quite entertaining watching you humiliate yourself but in actual fact it isn't, it's just sad and embarrassing. Please haloxt, do yourself a favour and give it a rest.

G
Edited by gregorio - 8/31/11 at 5:40pm
post #40 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

And just for the record, if TrasselKalle only got the advice of the champions of official science, he would have absolutely no chance of ever resolving his question of why different transports sound different. Unless he decides to buy into the hilarious attempts at using placebo to explain everything under the sun that doesn't jive with ones personal bias.

 

For anything to do with high-end stereo I'm a skeptic at heart in regards to anything that I haven't yet noted a significant change from. I'm a strict listen-before-buying person, but if I notice something to be more of a difference than the skeptic in me expected, I'm open to explore if any plausible explanation actually makes a sonic difference to me. Thus, I'm thoroughly Swedish (i.e. neutral) in the discussion between you guys as I will make up my own mind based on what testing shows me.
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

He heard a difference in blind testing and it was repeatable. If measurements are needed to prove it to some, I think figuring out what and how to measure are more the issues than what was heard. Theorize all you like but his listening session went exactly as my experience would indicate other than perhaps I'd expect a bigger difference between his analog out and coax dig with that DAC.


True - I honestly don't think rigging a test bench would prove more to me, as it's so much more convenient for me to simply test some different options that could possibly (on some hypothetical or theoretical level) change the situation. From a pragmatic perspective, my wallet and skeptic mindset will easily best any desire for shiny boxes with highly limited or no impact. I have a gazillion other things I could do with my money if there isn't an actual difference in something I test. I'll trust my own ears for what works for me and what doesn't, and yeah... I'm also surprised that there wasn't more of a difference between analogue out and digital out from the CD. I guess the CD is still a pretty good overall product, although the trend nowadays is towards other solutions than what was put into my CD. Maybe the biggest difference today is that what was much more expensive when it was put into my CD some ten years ago now has similar components that make for a considerably more affordable DAC today? It's just not better, but it is cheaper...
post #41 of 64

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trasselkalle View Post

I'll trust my own ears for what works for me and what doesn't...

 

But your ears don't do the listening, your brain does! And if there is one thing- *pulled away from mic with cane*
 

 

post #42 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trasselkalle View Post

I'll trust my own ears for what works for me and what doesn't...

 

But your ears don't do the listening, your brain does! And if there is one thing- *pulled away from mic with cane*

 

To that I only agree. Good thing my brain isn't a mess then (or is it?).
 

 

post #43 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trasselkalle View Post

To that I only agree. Good thing my brain isn't a mess then (or is it?).

 


About time I said something constructive and apologise to the OP for the thread derailment.

Perception is important in this thread because when the OP says that the output from the TAG sounds better than the output from the computer CD, better may or may not mean more accurate depending on what the OP perceives or likes. For example, the "decreased low end presence" could be more accurate but the OP prefers the added bass. Without knowing which is truly more accurate it makes it difficult to pin down where the problem lies. To start with, there are two basic options, either the difference is placebo effect or one of the components is not behaving as it should. Assuming the latter, identifying which component is flawed is virtually impossible without making some measurements and comparing the outputs of the two units against the original digital data on the CD disk.

We have to consider that the design of virtually all electronic devices is compromised. To create a perfect unit is usually either not possible or not possible within a realistic price. Some manufacturers will compromise features or components in the unit as a whole and some will prioritise. For example, the TAG is quite high end, the manufacturers could have assumed that this CD player would therefore always be used as both a player and DAC and therefore concentrated their efforts in the DAC design rather than the digital output circuitry. This is just an example, the opposite maybe true or the unit may not be compromised in either of these two departments. Same with the computer CD, which I believe is actually a BluRay Player, which may or may not factor into the equation. Again, what compromises have been made in the BRP? Jitter being the culprit is a possibility but a remote one, as it would require one of OP's players outputting way more jitter than it should AND that the HDP,DAC has compromised or faulty jitter reduction circuitry.

I'm not sure if this contribution has been constructive, as maybe I've created more questions than answers?

G
post #44 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post

About time I said something constructive and apologise to the OP for the thread derailment.

Perception is important in this thread because when the OP says that the output from the TAG sounds better than the output from the computer CD, better may or may not mean more accurate depending on what the OP perceives or likes. For example, the "decreased low end presence" could be more accurate but the OP prefers the added bass. Without knowing which is truly more accurate it makes it difficult to pin down where the problem lies. To start with, there are two basic options, either the difference is placebo effect or one of the components is not behaving as it should. Assuming the latter, identifying which component is flawed is virtually impossible without making some measurements and comparing the outputs of the two units against the original digital data on the CD disk.

We have to consider that the design of virtually all electronic devices is compromised. To create a perfect unit is usually either not possible or not possible within a realistic price. Some manufacturers will compromise features or components in the unit as a whole and some will prioritise. For example, the TAG is quite high end, the manufacturers could have assumed that this CD player would therefore always be used as both a player and DAC and therefore concentrated their efforts in the DAC design rather than the digital output circuitry. This is just an example, the opposite maybe true or the unit may not be compromised in either of these two departments. Same with the computer CD, which I believe is actually a BluRay Player, which may or may not factor into the equation. Again, what compromises have been made in the BRP? Jitter being the culprit is a possibility but a remote one, as it would require one of OP's players outputting way more jitter than it should AND that the HDP,DAC has compromised or faulty jitter reduction circuitry.

I'm not sure if this contribution has been constructive, as maybe I've created more questions than answers?

G
 


Very constructive, indeed. Your point about perception is exactly where I'm coming from. Thank you Gregorio. (No worries from my account for the slight tangent. I work in an environment where people have heated discussions about many things, so it's business as usual for me. I can still make out and pick up on what all sides bring and which parts are relevant to me.)

 

With my TAG, I was always surprised that it offered such an impact on the low end compared with the other CD players I tested at the time I bought it (in a large price span on both sides of what the TAG went for). It could thus be that the TAG has some anomaly in the low end which happens to work well with my M3 speakers which has a rolled off lowest end (the M3si has a different low end so this is only valid for my M3). I've worked with high-end gear many years ago and heard what neutral (meaning measures very close to linear) all the way to 20Hz (and below) on a regular basis. Thus, I wouldn't call this a preference for 'added bass' although I suspect you didn't quite mean it that way. Just to be clear, I opted for my speakers (and the rest of the gear) knowing that resolution, mids and soundstage are very important factors for me to enjoy something over extended time. Having multiple sound rooms to slip into when it's slow in the shop or after closing is an incredible advantage to figuring out what makes you enjoy music the most. It was only when I left that industry I even wanted to buy something that had come to be my favorite stuff. In the specific case for me right now, I strongly suspect that both alternatives (the TAG and the computer bluray) have some funky and non-neutral stuff in the bottom end. As you surmise, I prefer the slightly stronger presence over the other (also not ideal) option. 

 

What you bring in your paragraph on compromises is extremely relevant, and I believe (meaning I don't know yet) it to be the root cause of my perceived differences. The digital out could absolutely be more of a compromise in relation to the analogue out as separate DACs were not very popular back when I picked up my TAG. They existed, certainly (in fact, the CD I replaced was a unit with separate DAC), but they were not commonplace - particularly as there were no other reasons to use a digital music media than to play CDs then (no, using the computer or some other digital source was not mainstream in the same sense it is today). I can't find it now, but I know that there was some fuzz as to the quality that went into the TAG DAC, so there may well be something to your point here. Regarding jitter, it could in my book be called whatever and also be caused by whatever, but before I have heard a difference (I'm busy this week and the next, so can't test more now) using a USB-to-SPDIF converter which is designed to help reduce jitter, I don't have an opinion there and will definitely give it fair (subjective) testing. I understand the theory behind why it theoretically is there, as well as why it may theoretically be reduced to such a degree that it should not be a negative factor. 

 

I'm a little surprised that nobody really has responded thoroughly to my own speculation in the OP that it is due to power supply in a computer being somewhat sketchy compared with the much better environment of a stand-alone unit. Or would this fall into the jitter category (actually, I know it would, but I was thinking this had a higher level of likelihood of affecting the signal)? 

 

Cheers.

 

Edit: As usual - random spelling fixed (at least I think so!)


Edited by Trasselkalle - 9/1/11 at 8:16am
post #45 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trasselkalle View Post

p>I'm a little surprised that nobody really has responded thoroughly to my own speculation in the OP that it is due to power supply in a computer being somewhat sketchy compared with the much better environment of a stand-alone unit. Or would this fall into the jitter category (actually, I know it would, but I was thinking this had a higher level of likelihood of affecting the signal)? 

Power supply is only really an issue for those few extreme audiophiles. The design of a unit has to be really seriously incompetent for the power supply to affect the digital audio data itself. It's entirely possible that a power supply could introduce some jitter but nothing which should be heard and certainly nothing that could be heard if the DAC's jitter reduction circuitry is functioning correctly. Top class jitter reduction circuitry probably costs around $30 and good enough, probably half that.

Those USB-SPDIF are obviously useful for format conversion but when it comes to jitter they are effectively curing a problem which doesn't exist. As jitter is removed by the DAC.

G
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › This can't be right - my CD's digital end seems to affect sound quality more than expected