[Naguall]

Hi !
I´ve always thaugth speakers are the best way to go, when looking for Hi-fi.
I use to listen to streaming (Deezer and Radio Paradise, in flac) from my pc, with an old pair of Audio Engines A5+ (connected to a USB Sabre dac).
It sounds nice, but in fact I spected more...
So, some time ago I´ve put my hands on a Raspberry Pi 4B kit, and just in order to make it operational, I´ve plugged in a cheap pair of Edifiers R1100.
To my surprise it sounds clearer (I can hear more details, and the bass seems more deep) than in the A5+ !
The R Pi is stock, hardware and software, except that I´ve replaced the cpu fan by a passive cooler, and the power adapter by an original one (the power adapter that came with the kit kept showing an error and sometimes closing the screen).
I´m well aware of placebo effect in audio, so I´m asking if someone here has a similar experience with this tiny computer, or in other hand, my pc is crap ?

 

[gregorio]

I´m well aware of placebo effect in audio, so I´m asking if someone here has a similar experience with this tiny computer, or in other hand, my pc is crap ?

Computers (and DACs) just “compute” and spit out the results, so providing the computer has enough power to do the computations (which even old computers do) the result will be the same and any differences below or well below audibility. Transducers (speakers in this case) on the other hand are not “computing”, the results can be very significantly different between different transducers and typically well within audibility. As you changed both your computer and your speakers, I don’t understand why you’re assuming the perceived difference is due to the computer (or “placebo”) rather than to the speakers?

G

 

[Naguall]

Computers (and DACs) just “compute” and spit out the results, so providing the computer has enough power to do the computations (which even old computers do) the result will be the same and any differences below or well below audibility. Transducers (speakers in this case) on the other hand are not “computing”, the results can be very significantly different between different transducers and typically well within audibility. As you changed both your computer and your speakers, I don’t understand why you’re assuming the perceived difference is due to the computer (or “placebo”) rather than to the speakers?

G

You are right ! In fact, I forgot to mention the Edifiers sounded much "clearer" to me when connected to the RPi than to my PC (same "Sabre" USB dac). My guess is if the source, PC usb port, would be noiser than the Pi usb port, and if this "noise" would be audible...

 

[ThEvil0nE]

I haven't heard any Edifier speakers or know what their house sound is but A5s are dark sounding so that could be just that compared to a (maybe) brighter sound/tuning your Edifier.

 

[Naguall]

I haven't heard any Edifier speakers or know what their house sound is but A5s are dark sounding so that could be just that compared to a (maybe) brighter sound/tuning your Edifier.

My fault, I forgot to say I´ve also compared the Edifiers on the PC and on the Raspberry Pi 4.
Thank you, anyway !

 

[gregorio]

In fact, I forgot to mention the Edifiers sounded much "clearer" to me when connected to the RPi than to my PC (same "Sabre" USB dac).

That’s entirely possible, the Edifiers could actually be producing “clearer” sound. As the performance of speakers is largely defined by their positioning and the acoustics of the listening room, a poorer quality speaker could sound better than a higher quality speaker (clearer, more detailed, more accurate soundstage, better bass or whatever) due to their interaction with the room acoustics. It could also be “placebo”, EG. You might be listening slightly differently each time and therefore hearing slightly different details/clarity. An even more likely possibility is simply that the Edifiers are more sensitive and outputting more SPL than the Adam’s at the same power. A small increase in sound pressure level is not perceived as an increase in volume, it’s perceived as an improvement in sound quality (clearer, better bass, etc.). Another possibility is that the PC (Windows) or RPi is applying some processing that you’re unaware of, causing some small difference in level and therefore a perceived improvement in SQ even when just comparing with the same speakers (Edifiers).

My guess is if the source, PC usb port, would be noiser than the Pi usb port, and if this "noise" would be audible...

The whole point of the invention of digital audio was to be immune from noise, something that is impossible with analogue audio either theoretically or in practice. In other words, it really doesn’t matter how noisy the USB port/digital signal is, the very nature of digital audio eliminates it. This is not the case with analogue signals, where noise added to the signal is reproduced because it’s analogue (analogous to the sound waves that will be reproduced).

Every one of the possibilities mentioned above are more/far more likely than your DAC having a highly defective design (somehow not isolating its analogue section from USB noise to well below audibility).

G

 

[Naguall]

That’s entirely possible, the Edifiers could actually be producing “clearer” sound. As the performance of speakers is largely defined by their positioning and the acoustics of the listening room, a poorer quality speaker could sound better than a higher quality speaker (clearer, more detailed, more accurate soundstage, better bass or whatever) due to their interaction with the room acoustics. It could also be “placebo”, EG. You might be listening slightly differently each time and therefore hearing slightly different details/clarity. An even more likely possibility is simply that the Edifiers are more sensitive and outputting more SPL than the Adam’s at the same power. A small increase in sound pressure level is not perceived as an increase in volume, it’s perceived as an improvement in sound quality (clearer, better bass, etc.). Another possibility is that the PC (Windows) or RPi is applying some processing that you’re unaware of, causing some small difference in level and therefore a perceived improvement in SQ even when just comparing with the same speakers (Edifiers).

The whole point of the invention of digital audio was to be immune from noise, something that is impossible with analogue audio either theoretically or in practice. In other words, it really doesn’t matter how noisy the USB port/digital signal is, the very nature of digital audio eliminates it. This is not the case with analogue signals, where noise added to the signal is reproduced because it’s analogue (analogous to the sound waves that will be reproduced).

Every one of the possibilities mentioned above are more/far more likely than your DAC having a highly defective design (somehow not isolating its analogue section from USB noise to well below audibility).

G

Thank you, gregorio !
Although I use the PC and the RPi in nearfield listening, they are in rooms with very different acoustics, so may be this affects my perception in a way I didn´t notice. I think room interaction is something underestimated among "audiophiles"...

 

[gregorio]

Although I use the PC and the RPi in nearfield listening, they are in rooms with very different acoustics, so may be this affects my perception in a way I didn´t notice.

Pretty much without doubt it affects perception. Although nearfield listening typically reduces the effect of room acoustics, as you are physically closer to the speakers and therefore the balance between the “direct sound” and “reflected sound” is higher. Nevertheless, the effect of acoustics is so great (and variable from room to room) that even with this nearfield reduction the effect is still very significant. We generally tend to not consciously notice it too much, as of course we’re entirely accustomed to always hearing sound with the effects of acoustics, which is why entering a room/space with no acoustics (an anechoic chamber) can be such a bizarre experience first time around. However, we are in fact quite sensitive to even fairly small variations in acoustic effects and with training can consciously identify them.

I think room interaction is something underestimated among "audiophiles"...

Very much so! There is a very strange and very common phenomenon amongst many/most audiophiles, to drastically overestimate the effect of some things and drastically underestimate the effect of others. Room acoustics is a prime example of the latter; typically, room acoustics will cause frequency response variations in excess of 20dB in several/many frequency bands (albeit narrow bands) and even with nearfield listening those FR variations are likely to be in excess of 10dB. However, they’re often ignored or largely discounted by many audiophiles, while other differences of often only a fraction of dB are blown into “night and day” differences, even though in many cases they’re too small to even actually be audible. It’s a bit like being concerned over a scratch on the trunk of your car that’s pretty much invisible to the naked eye, while ignoring that the hood has been completely crushed by a truck! As strange as this phenomenon appears, it’s not at all surprising because of course there’s a great deal of marketing resources designed specifically to cause it (advertisements, information pages, engagement on social media, testimonials, shills, incentivised reviews, etc.). We see this almost continuously in the audiophile community for DACs, amps, audiophile cables, “de-crappifiers”, etc., but rarely if ever for acoustics/acoustic treatments. In the pro-audio world (commercial recording studios, etc.) we see the opposite, acoustics being an/the essential priority that’s never discounted, more money/resources spent on acoustics than on DACs and amps, and none at all spent on audiophile cables, “de-crappifiers“ and other audiophile marketing driven products.

G

 

[Naguall]

Pretty much without doubt it affects perception. Although nearfield listening typically reduces the effect of room acoustics, as you are physically closer to the speakers and therefore the balance between the “direct sound” and “reflected sound” is higher. Nevertheless, the effect of acoustics is so great (and variable from room to room) that even with this nearfield reduction the effect is still very significant. We generally tend to not consciously notice it too much, as of course we’re entirely accustomed to always hearing sound with the effects of acoustics, which is why entering a room/space with no acoustics (an anechoic chamber) can be such a bizarre experience first time around. However, we are in fact quite sensitive to even fairly small variations in acoustic effects and with training can consciously identify them.

Very much so! There is a very strange and very common phenomenon amongst many/most audiophiles, to drastically overestimate the effect of some things and drastically underestimate the effect of others. Room acoustics is a prime example of the latter; typically, room acoustics will cause frequency response variations in excess of 20dB in several/many frequency bands (albeit narrow bands) and even with nearfield listening those FR variations are likely to be in excess of 10dB. However, they’re often ignored or largely discounted by many audiophiles, while other differences of often only a fraction of dB are blown into “night and day” differences, even though in many cases they’re too small to even actually be audible. It’s a bit like being concerned over a scratch on the trunk of your car that’s pretty much invisible to the naked eye, while ignoring that the hood has been completely crushed by a truck! As strange as this phenomenon appears, it’s not at all surprising because of course there’s a great deal of marketing resources designed specifically to cause it (advertisements, information pages, engagement on social media, testimonials, shills, incentivised reviews, etc.). We see this almost continuously in the audiophile community for DACs, amps, audiophile cables, “de-crappifiers”, etc., but rarely if ever for acoustics/acoustic treatments. In the pro-audio world (commercial recording studios, etc.) we see the opposite, acoustics being an/the essential priority that’s never discounted, more money/resources spent on acoustics than on DACs and amps, and none at all spent on audiophile cables, “de-crappifiers“ and other audiophile marketing driven products.

G

That´s why headphones sound better, cost wise.
To me, at least.

 

[gregorio]

That´s why headphones sound better, cost wise.
To me, at least.

Yes, the big advantage of HPs, besides not bothering others, is that you avoid all the very difficult (or impossible) problems of room acoustics and of course HPs don’t have to accurately reproduce the levels of acoustic power required to fill a room with sound. Unfortunately though, that big advantage is also HPs biggest disadvantage, as not only do you avoid all the very difficult problems of room acoustics but also all the big positives of room acoustics. The presentation/soundstage with headphones is therefore very different from what was intended.

For some, that HP presentation may be preferable, especially as it costs less and maybe more practical. Personally I prefer speakers but still really enjoy a good set of cans.

G